What Did We Learn?.....Purdue

Hayseed said:
Yeah, I wish more people would do that.

I would say the players “gave great effort” on Saturday, but you wouldn’t know it from reading the comments here.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% with you. The vitriol and anger associated with a losing Husker football program can be, at times, pretty pathetic. It's not exclusive to us, of course. Every fan base of a traditional power can get like this.

That said, people just want to see the team do well. I don't think anyone can look at yesterday's game and say that was good football. It was a win but it was bad football. I believe those two things can be inclusive of one another.

 
Hayseed said:
Yeah, I wish more people would do that.

I would say the players “gave great effort” on Saturday, but you wouldn’t know it from reading the comments here.
Click to expand...


I guess I don't see anyone saying anything different about the players.

99% of the frustration is directed elsewhere.

 
Enhance said:
I'm 100% with you. The vitriol and anger associated with a losing Husker football program can be, at times, pretty pathetic. It's not exclusive to us, of course. Every fan base of a traditional power can get like this.

That said, people just want to see the team do well. I don't think anyone can look at yesterday's game and say that was good football. It was a win but it was bad football. I believe those two things can be inclusive of one another.
Click to expand...
I said a few weeks ago around the Rutgers game I said that what bothered me the most was win or lose, we are putting a bad product out there. A passive, bend don’t break D and an offense with seemingly no identity. It’s horrible to watch and on top of the schematic issues, the kids look poorly coached. Wins like Purdue and Rutgers and Arky St aren’t really enjoyable because you watched your team play down to the level of teams who talent wise are several notches below. The wins and losses feel like an afterthought to me now. I just want to see a team that is getting after it and aggressive. 

 
In a similar situation (down 5), Detroit just went for the TD on 4th down from the 7.  There were 2 mins left and they had 3 TOs left.

It is totally the correct call.

 
37.8: Nebraska’s pass attempts per game this season. That’s on pace for second all time behind the 2007 team, which averaged 40 pass attempts. As I wrote just before the season: The more Lee has to pass, the more likely it is NU is behind. Indiana and Northwestern — both averaging fewer yards per carry than Nebraska — lead the Big Ten in pass attempts.
Click to expand...


OWH

I wonder where that thread is where people were arguing that having a "better" passing QB would lead to fewer passing attempts......

 
Don't set up any returns to guard against a fake.  That should work out swimmingly.

Seven: Fair catches by punt returner De’Mornay Pierson-El, who was repeatedly surrounded by Purdue defenders as he caught the ball. Nebraska didn’t even try to set up returns; it was content to possess the ball and go on offense. I’d say it reminded me of the 2013 season, when NU’s punt return game was fairly disastrous. But Pierson-El didn’t fumble.
Click to expand...


OWH

 
It is baffling how many times in the last 2.5 years we've been completely unable/unwilling to run the ball against bad run defenses.

Purdue ranks 12th in the Big Ten in run defense. Nebraska ran for 8 yards in the first half. If the NU rushing attack isn’t broken, it’s severely damaged.
Click to expand...


OWH

 
Mavric said:
OWH

I wonder where that thread is where people were arguing that having a "better" passing QB would lead to fewer passing attempts......
Click to expand...


Hey, that's me.

The theory was based on a having a better passing quarterback. As in higher completion % and fewer interceptions than Tommy Armstrong. Also, based on Riley saying he wanted Nebraska to run the ball more often and more effectively. Also based on the fact that better passing QBs create more efficient running games on plenty of other teams. It's not exactly a maverick theory. Passing numbers tend to spike when teams play from behind. I don't recall a single rout that simply needed a heavier dose of Devine Ozigbo. 

I also had a theory that a better defense would lead to fewer points by opponents, and that's not happening either. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Hey, that's me.

The theory was based on a having a better passing quarterback. As in higher completion % and fewer interceptions than Tommy Armstrong. Also, based on Riley saying he wanted Nebraska to run the ball more often and more effectively. Also based on the fact that better passing QBs create more efficient running games on plenty of other teams. It's not exactly a maverick theory. Passing numbers tend to spike when teams play from behind. I don't recall a single rout that simply needed a heavier dose of Devine Ozigbo. 

I also had a theory that a better defense would lead to fewer points by opponents, and that's not happening either. 
Click to expand...


All that sounds well and good. But you continue to put too much stock in what Riley says, especially since he's not the one calling the plays.  Watching what Langs was actually doing with his scheme/play calling is much more informative.

You are mistaking the difference between "more efficient" and "more running plays."

We've only really been blown out in two games.  So I don't think being behind is near as much of the reason as simplay having an ineffective rushing attack.

 
On the NU playing from behind department, the Huskers have 1 TD and 16 total points in the last 3 first halfs.  That TD was the 70 yard TD pass to Morgan against Wisconsin.  The Blackshirts then gave up a 75 yard TD run the first play from scrimmage after that TD.

 
It's fascinating to compare this offense to the one TA operated and see some disappointing similarities. I too had some visions of grandeur associated with having a better passing QB and what that would mean for the overall offense. I was incredibly skeptical it would lead to fewer pass attempts, though. Langs proved he had almost no problem asking an ineffective passer in TA throw all over the field when the team was down or the rushing game was struggling.

It's not all on Lee and Langs though, of course. Nebraska's offensive line just isn't good or, at the very least, consistent. Losing Bryant after the first two games was salt on the wound.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
On the NU playing from behind department, the Huskers have 1 TD and 16 total points in the last 3 first halfs.  That TD was the 70 yard TD pass to Morgan against Wisconsin.  The Blackshirts then gave up a 75 yard TD run the first play from scrimmage after that TD.
Click to expand...


Yes, we've definitely played from behind A LOT.  We don't really show up ready to play.  We've been out-scored 80-41 in the first quarter and 81-51 in the second quarter.

But we've rarely been so far behind that we "have" to pass.  I'd only put Oregon and Ohio State in that category.

 
Mavric said:
Yes, we've definitely played from behind A LOT.  We don't really show up ready to play.  We've been out-scored 80-41 in the first quarter and 81-51 in the second quarter.

But we've rarely been so far behind that we "have" to pass.  I'd only put Oregon and Ohio State in that category.
Click to expand...
I agree that the passing numbers are more of the will of Langsdorf and his "giving up on the run" as soon as the D shows any resistance.

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