The Great Big Thread of Shawn Watson Angst

[Hunter94]

i agree and the fact that the offensive staff is a mis-mash of characters is Watson's fault......he can't take charge of serving popcorn after the game, just makes excuses, it is never his fault, kids don't execute, you sure as hell don't here Bo saying that crap.......just once Wats....."yeah, i called a crappy game and didn't keep using what worked in the first half......my fault"....yeah, fat chance, cold day in hell, more like Callahan......"i was good in all facets of the game".....i will say it again, we are screwed if we keep Wats!!!!!!!

 

[Malth]

i agree and the fact that the offensive staff is a mis-mash of characters is Watson's fault......he can't take charge of serving popcorn after the game, just makes excuses, it is never his fault, kids don't execute, you sure as hell don't here Bo saying that crap.......just once Wats....."yeah, i called a crappy game and didn't keep using what worked in the first half......my fault"....yeah, fat chance, cold day in hell, more like Callahan......"i was good in all facets of the game".....i will say it again, we are screwed if we keep Wats!!!!!!!

No, he's admitted to f'ing up.

 

[zoogs]

i agree and the fact that the offensive staff is a mis-mash of characters is Watson's fault

Not when you think about who is responsible for those guys being there. Gilmore, I think, you can maybe put on Watson but that is rather speculative of me, so I'll qualify it. If Watson still has faith in Gilmore and is asking him to stay, then that faith is a big problem/liability on us right now. Whoever among those in charge still has faith in some guys, or in some methods, that's a liability right now.

Watson did not assemble this staff, Bo, I think, did. And Watson is never going to have the power to fire anyone on it as that rests on Bo, and therefore so do any changes that need to be made to the staff's composition...

i agree and the fact that the offensive staff is a mis-mash of characters is Watson's fault......he can't take charge of serving popcorn after the game, just makes excuses, it is never his fault, kids don't execute, you sure as hell don't here Bo saying that crap.......just once Wats....."yeah, i called a crappy game and didn't keep using what worked in the first half......my fault"....yeah, fat chance, cold day in hell, more like Callahan......"i was good in all facets of the game".....i will say it again, we are screwed if we keep Wats!!!!!!!

No, he's admitted to f'ing up.

And so has Bill Callahan, but people are never going to let reality get in the way of perception on this one. There are certainly fair put-downs you could make, so it's best if people stick with those.

just makes excuses, it is never his fault, kids don't execute, you sure as hell don't here Bo saying that crap......

You actually hear Bo say "We just need to execute better" ALL the time, so some kind of divine perception of Pelini is ruling reality here, but it's not a bad thing to say that in honesty. He's just saying the same stuff he is preaching to his team, it's about fundamentals and execution and if we don't do that, we are going to lose games. It's both what most coach says and it's the truth. I'll say this, though, that Watson got outfoxed by Venables.

 

[huskerfan333157]

Playcalling may be an issue but it isnt THE issue. Watson's offenses have ALWAYS been inconsisten, there is NO disputing that. As long as our offenses are inconsistent we will NEVER win a national championship. Every team that has won a national title have had 3 things going for them. 1. A good defense that forces turnovers. 2. A connsistent offense. 3. They do not commit many pentalies, have a low turnover rate and do not shoot themselves in the foot allt he time. Watson has some games where he calls a great gameplan, dont get me wrong, but he never does it consistently enough to be taken seriously. Why does our offense continually make stupid pentalies, continually misses assignments on the oline and drops balls? This is what Colorado warned us about and we never saw it, we chose to ignore it. I think Watson is a very intelligent person when it comes to football but im not sure he has the "teacher" aspect that is needed as an person thats controlling the whole offense. Wr's have always dropped balls, qbs have always stared down one wr and our offensive line always continually gets beat and has stupid penalties. Ive seen many missed assigments. I sometimes think he is "too smart" for his own good in playcalling which sometimes results in bad playcalling (if that makes any sense, i.e. getting too ahead of himself). Once again, our offense seems to lack mental toughness and always makes boneheaded plays. As ive said before, it happens one year it may be just the players when it continually happens then you need to look at the coaching staff.

 

[zoogs]

Now, for a different and more critical take on Watson, and Bo's involvement in the offense. In all fairness.

The myth that Bo forced Watson to run an offense he didnt want to run is still alive I see. Go back and read some quotes from after the Washington and Okie State games and see what Watson has to say about that. He was pretty proud of himself for building this offense. As he said at the time it is something he has been working on since before Bo even got here. You could see some of it at the end of the 2007 season. This is Watsons baby. He rightfully took pride in this offense when it was going well.

When it was going well I complimented him for putting together something that I didnt think could be put together. I also questioned whether we would be able to find quarterbacks that had both the skill set to run the zone read and a west coast passing attack. I am still skeptical that we can find that guy.

The question about Watson's offense is and will always be whether it is asking too much from a qb. With a normal spread game like Oregon there are far fewer reads, far fewer plays, everything is simplified and players rely on execution to move the offense. The WCO is very complicated, especially for the qb. It is something that pro style quarterbacks with cement shoes can excel at. It is asking a lot for an althetic quarterback in his first year to master it. Anyone remember moaning about the WCO when Callahan was here because even he said it is something that takes 3 years for an NFL quarterback to master? Imagine that plus a running game that requires immediate reads from the qb and the skill to run the ball himself. That is not even taking into account how hard it is to get good young recievers on the field because they dont know the offense. Mo Purify ring a bell?

The fundamental question to be asked before we even talk about playcalling, player develompent, depth chart issues etc is whether this is the kind of offense that will ever be effective. As you said, maybe it is too multiple. Maybe we have to make a decision to either move forward with a spread attack, back to the WCO or something different from both of those.

Food for thought and interesting to think about. I think these are fair criticisms, though it does also downplay Bo's involvement. At the same time, I doubt Watson had to be dragged kicking and screaming to run this offense either. As a minor point, I disagree about young receivers getting onto the field. In an offense that puts a lot on the QB, is it nearly as complicated for the RBs and WRs? I think our WR coach and his coaching, and PT decisions, have a lot more to do with that than a scheme that is hard on young WRs.

 

[holvy83]

The boys on USC were just interviewing Mitch Sherman from the OWH and they brought up something that I think most eloquently and effectively sums up Wats' big problem: When asked why he got away from using the Wildcat Saturday night when it was clearly effective, Wats responded that he "didn't want to get too one-dimensional."

This is the man's fundamental problem. We all understand you want to look like an offensive genius, Shawn. We know you want to drop points like the Washington game (part 1) or the K-State game on teams every time our team takes the field. We understand your infatuation with "multiplicity." However, when you put up as BLATANTLY TERRIBLE results against good defenses as you have, don't you think maybe you should stop trying to get cute and out-think your opponents, and DO WHAT WORKS? If you don't understand this concept after this long in the business... give up. You're a blockhead. Anyone who can't understand that if something works and you don't continue to go to it while everything else you try fails, you are an absolute moron and should not be wearing a whistle, on a sideline, in a press box, or anywhere else.

Also, I'd just like to point out, Rex may have fumbled once running the Wildcat, but that could've been put more on Caputo with a bad snap than anybody, and I guarantee you running that formation the rest of the night wouldn't have netted us the four fumbles Taylor alone did. Another of Wats' flaws: He continues to let this team fumble. When we're leading the nation in fumbles... by far. Unacceptable.

So, why, Watson backers, when is it ever acceptable to choose the principle of being multiple as an offense, as opposed to doing what works? If you can answer this, I'll go away. I'm just curious.

I know I'm not Bo or Dr. Tom or anyone else relevant in the decision making process about whether our offensive staff stays or goes. But seriously: Wats, Barney, Gilmore need to hit the road for this offense to start off on the long, winding road to recovery.

According to the Watson supporters, you must name his replacement and have that name pass inspection before your argument has any validity.

:bs: whatever Knapp... sorry if I don't share the constant man crushing going on about Scott Frost for OC on this board :lol:

 

[knapplc]

:bs: whatever Knapp... sorry if I don't share the constant man crushing going on about Scott Frost for OC on this board :lol:

I'll let you in on a secret - I don't share the constant man crushing going on about Scott Frost for OC, either. Don't tell anybody, though. Just between us. :cheers

 

[holvy83]

:bs: whatever Knapp... sorry if I don't share the constant man crushing going on about Scott Frost for OC on this board :lol:

I'll let you in on a secret - I don't share the constant man crushing going on about Scott Frost for OC, either. Don't tell anybody, though. Just between us. :cheers

Having nothing against the guy, but just not on board for him to replace Wats. :cheers to you also this morning, coffee was flowing early this morning! :thumbs

 

[kchusker_chris]

...I think Zoogies is coming around - 50,000 more words and he'll be there. The way I see it, Bo kept Wats 3 years ago to maintain some structure and continuity from the old regime. I don't think anyone can argue that. The offense was certainly not our main problem at that point, and emphasis needed to be placed on improving the defense. This has always been a more of a 5-10 year plan for Bo, than a 3 year plan. At this point defense has been fixed, and you saw Carl take a greater role in the coordination of that this year.

This means that it's time for Bo to get the offense in shape. I think he'd hoped to maintain an effective, and more importantly "reliable" offense, but that hasn't happened. After 3 years we are seeing that Callahan had far more influence on the offense (the line in particular) than we gave him credit for.

Now, 3 years later we are seeing Bo DOES have a vision for this offense. We all knew that, but the pieces (athletes) weren't in place yet. His vision however is from a defensive perspective. He asks himself "what is difficult to defend" - and answered himself with "a mobile quarterback that is still affective in the pass game". He's got a coordinator with a west-coast offensive mentality. Is that person best suited to initate that vision? Bo was willing to give it a chance. He gave Wats the benefit of the doubt, they merged their visions and together came up with something they call "multiple" - which in reality just means "confusing". It was suposed to be difficult to defend, what Wats found out is it's even more difficult to execute.

That leaves them with a choice IMO. Which side of the "multiple" offense do we chop off? Bo's, or Watson's? I'm going with the offense that is physical and reliable. They may not put up 50 points a game, but you can count on them for 24 each week. They limit the defenses ability to swing momentum, and score late when they've worn a defense down, rather than early when they get lucky on a defensive breakdown.

Keeping Watson in an offense like that is like asking a french chef to all of a sudden get behind the grill and fire up some steaks. Throw a filet mignon in there every once in a while, but keep that limande farci saumon off the damn menu. Won't happen. You'll end up with some sauce made with artichoke hearts, mushrooms, truffles, champagne and a touch of cream screwing up a perfectly good t-bone. As we found out, what we got was Watson screwing up a perfectly good t-rex offense. Either change the menu, or get rid of the chef. This isn't a French restaraunt anymore, so the chef needs to go.