Redemption for "called out players"

R

rdwoodpecker

Four-Star Recruit
Tommy and the O-line being called out for some play since the Iowa game.

Tommy was given a game plan that was very near perfect for him. Running the ball with the occasional pass when the defense is trying to figure out how to stop the run.

O Line after Boyd Epley stated they needed to get much better. Played with a chip on their shoulders and stayed after blocks, the most aggressive I have seen them this year.

3rd quarter displayed the huskers were the more physical team on all fronts! Something to build for next year.

A consistent QB play from Tommy and a line that can give our backs some lanes to run through.

Good job BIG RED

 
I think the fact that we were much bigger on the line than UCLA played a big part in this game. We also were playing a team with the 88th ranked rush defense and were pretty thin on the d line. Langsdorf played to their weakness last night which was perfect, but he did try and get cute a few times in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Edit: they had a DT playing that was 220 pounds and our FB weighed more than him, and Jano steamrolled him a few times.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerInLostWages said:
I think the fact that we were much bigger on the line than UCLA played a big part in this game. We also were playing a team with the 88th ranked rush defense and were pretty thin on the d line. Langsdorf played to their weakness last night which was perfect, but he did try and get cute a few times in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Edit: they had a DT playing that was 220 pounds and our FB weighed more than him, and Jano steamrolled him a few times.
Click to expand...
The problem with the WCO and pro-style offenses is that the coaches generally want to tailor the game plan to the specific weaknesses of the defense. They allow the defense to dictate what they want to call on offense. There is nothing wrong with being able to do multiple things, but there are times when the offense has to have a strength that should be relied on. Most of us want that strength to be the running game, and have the offense run the ball until it's stopped for multiple times in a row.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
HuskerInLostWages said:
I think the fact that we were much bigger on the line than UCLA played a big part in this game. We also were playing a team with the 88th ranked rush defense and were pretty thin on the d line. Langsdorf played to their weakness last night which was perfect, but he did try and get cute a few times in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Edit: they had a DT playing that was 220 pounds and our FB weighed more than him, and Jano steamrolled him a few times.
Click to expand...
The problem with the WCO and pro-style offenses is that the coaches generally want to tailor the game plan to the specific weaknesses of the defense. They allow the defense to dictate what they want to call on offense. There is nothing wrong with being able to do multiple things, but there are times when the offense has to have a strength that should be relied on. Most of us want that strength to be the running game, and have the offense run the ball until it's stopped for multiple times in a row.
Click to expand...
I do recall the first thing Bill Callahan said when he came to Lincoln was "with our offense, we are going to take what we want!" Now, I do think it was largely true but the only time, really, that Callahan's version of the West Coast Offense (please note there are a number of different incarnations of the WCO which was truly the San Fran 49ers of Montana, Craig, Rathman, Taylor and Rice. This was the very best offense ever in the NFL in my view. Not as good as "the Osbone" but comparable in the way it was so unstoppable for a period of years.

I am not quite sure how I view Riley's version of the WCO. It is certainly not like Callahan's or Bill Walsh's. The bowl game was the best called game, offensively, of the year with only about three or four glaring error calls really. The use of formations, plays to set up plays, etc, was near superb. Almost 'Great!' really.

If we can get this kind of play calling and game management from the sidelines and QB, we will do well. A couple glaring issues continue with the calling of pass plays when we want the dam time clock ticking away. This risks losing the games as we all so painfully know. It is repetitive and NOT acceptable. Riley and Company must acknowledge the errors of their ways and break these very bad habits. Run the ball and burn up the clock when you really need it. Don't be tempted to throw that 85% completion percentage pass from recent practices as a way to buy a game killing first down. Burn clock up first.

 
I have asked a few times now, but I am still curious, havent found out. Does anyone know if the NU playbook uses the bill walsh nomenclature?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ColoradoHusk said:
HuskerInLostWages said:
I think the fact that we were much bigger on the line than UCLA played a big part in this game. We also were playing a team with the 88th ranked rush defense and were pretty thin on the d line. Langsdorf played to their weakness last night which was perfect, but he did try and get cute a few times in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Edit: they had a DT playing that was 220 pounds and our FB weighed more than him, and Jano steamrolled him a few times.
Click to expand...
The problem with the WCO and pro-style offenses is that the coaches generally want to tailor the game plan to the specific weaknesses of the defense. They allow the defense to dictate what they want to call on offense. There is nothing wrong with being able to do multiple things, but there are times when the offense has to have a strength that should be relied on. Most of us want that strength to be the running game, and have the offense run the ball until it's stopped for multiple times in a row.
Click to expand...
This is a succinct summation of my issue with the WCO "'mindset." It actually makes sense in the pros to do that, but in college, it puts you at a much higher risk of "down games" that result in baffling losses to far inferior teams.
Unfortunately, a few here will read that as us "fearing the forward pass."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I pray for what ever offense allows me to never hear the term "getting cute" again as it pertains to football.

There is nothing "cute" about football no matter what is happening on the field. Well.....unless you are my daughter and commenting on some mascots.

 
gobiggergoredder said:
I still have heartburn over people saying Gerry wasn't trying.

He made a lot of mistakes mid season, but the kid has heart.
Click to expand...
default_yeah.gif


 
cm husker said:
ColoradoHusk said:
HuskerInLostWages said:
I think the fact that we were much bigger on the line than UCLA played a big part in this game. We also were playing a team with the 88th ranked rush defense and were pretty thin on the d line. Langsdorf played to their weakness last night which was perfect, but he did try and get cute a few times in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Edit: they had a DT playing that was 220 pounds and our FB weighed more than him, and Jano steamrolled him a few times.
Click to expand...
The problem with the WCO and pro-style offenses is that the coaches generally want to tailor the game plan to the specific weaknesses of the defense. They allow the defense to dictate what they want to call on offense. There is nothing wrong with being able to do multiple things, but there are times when the offense has to have a strength that should be relied on. Most of us want that strength to be the running game, and have the offense run the ball until it's stopped for multiple times in a row.
Click to expand...
This is a succinct summation of my issue with the WCO "'mindset." It actually makes sense in the pros to do that, but in college, it puts you at a much higher risk of "down games" that result in baffling losses to far inferior teams.
Unfortunately, a few here will read that as us "fearing the forward pass."
Click to expand...
It's also another misreading of the WCO, which was specifically designed to avoid risks and down games, but I'm too tired to explain it again.

A running offense can "dictate" a running game, but only the weakest and/or stupidest defenses will fail to make the adjustment.

Of course good coaches tailor their offense to the weakness of each team. That's why so many teams went pass-happy against Nebraska, and more run heavy in other games.

It was just the opposite last year.

Great teams do a lot of things well. That's what makes them great.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top