What we learned today

[Judoka]

i also learned that bo hates half time interviews, especially when we are losing.

I think this was common knowledge before today.

 

[sd'sker]

i also learned that bo hates half time interviews, especially when we are losing.

I think this was common knowledge before today.

i new he was annoyed by them, but now i know he straight up hates them.

 

[HUSKERCR]

i also learned that bo hates half time interviews, especially when we are losing.

I think this was common knowledge before today.

It is now.........

 

[hskerprid]

I learned that someone needs to give Bo a kleenex before post game interviews. :thumbs

 

[RedDenver]

Watson caught Mizzou in some bad defensive schemes early, then was held to 7 points the rest of the game.

Hardly a "hell of a game" if you ask me.

Without our defense forced turnovers, we'd have lost by 3 TDs today.

Watson's had 3 years to develop Green. Look what it's produced.

Didn't you also want to mention Watson had the sun in his eyes as another lame excuse?

Do you have an ax to grind against Watson? He absolutely butchered the #1 run defense in the B12 last week. And that's with the starting QB on the bench for the 2nd half. How is setting the single-game rushing record NOT a "hell of a game"? Especially against that competition.

And without the 2 turnovers from us which led to 14 points, ISU only scores 10 points in regulation. I'm pretty sure we scored more than 10 even without the TO's.

And Watson has only had a year and a half with Martinez, and TM is looking better every game. I'm really impressed with his progress this season as both a passer and game manager.

Do you have any other lame straw man arguments you'd like to put forward?

LOL! Whether I have an axe to grind against Watson is irrelevant.

Like me asking if you have a thing for Watson. Irrelevant.

But I guess Ad Hominem is what you use when you have nothing else.

Apparently what you do have is some basic reading issues. I posted Watson took advantage early

of some bad Missouri defensive schemes, then was held to 7 points the next

3 quarters and 5 minutes of the game. Hardly great offensive playcalling most of the game.

Sound familar? If your forget again, I can repeat it.

You're wrong about scoring more than 10 points w/o the TOs.

Martinez is a natural talent. Watson has little or nothing to do with his speed

or reflexes. Based on his performance developing Green, I doubt Watson has developed

much if anything in the quality of the kid's play.

Fair enough on the "ax to grind" comment, I will not judge your motives. But I LOL when, right after critizing me for the Ad Hominem, you say "Apparently what you do have is some basic reading issues."

I saw what you posted and read it with understanding. But you're trying to discredit Watson's most successful part of the game and then blame him for the rest, as if the game was really only the last 3 quarters. Further, you didn't even address why you give Watson no credit for the 307 yards by Helu. You are correct that NU only scored 7 points the last 3 quarters and 5 minutes of the Mizzou game. But NU had 25:16 TOP in the final 3 quarters, including 13:11 in the 4th to salt the game away, Helu gained 164 of his 307 yards during that span, and NU's offense gained 192 yards. No turnovers against MU. And that is all still against the best run and scoring D in the conference with the 2nd string QB. Is none of that attributed to Watson?

You're right. Both ISU and NU scored 14 points off turnovers. We would have been tied at 10 a piece. Watson is still handicapped by having only the 3rd string QB on the road for the ISU game.

So you blame Watson for the lack of development of Green, but Martinez is only good because of his special talents. That's an argument that holds no water. I can just as easily say the reverse - Watson deserves all the credit for developing Martinez, but Green is simply untalented and couldn't be developed. Neither argument is backed by anything but our own biases.

 

[The Snork]

Whoever said this year's D would be better than last year's D was on crack.

 

[Hercules]

What I learned today:

Texas really, REALLY sucks!

 

[hskerprid]

What I learned today:

Texas really, REALLY sucks!

No kidding!! Now I have to wear purple on Monday <_<

 

[Hercules]

Whoever said this year's D would be better than last year's D was on crack.

Nah. They just didn't have a crystal ball to tell them that our 2 best linebackers would be hurt for most of the year.

Also, our defense scored 6 points today, and our offense gave ISU 10 points with turnovers. so...

 

[bhamHusker]

Burkhead is effective out of the wildcat when we don't have a legitimate run threat already lined up at the QB position (i.e. Martinez). When Martinez is playing, it's pointless because it doesn't give us much that we don't already have taking the snaps. That is why the wildcat has only gotten use lately.

 

[HUSKERCR]

Watson caught Mizzou in some bad defensive schemes early, then was held to 7 points the rest of the game.

Hardly a "hell of a game" if you ask me.

Without our defense forced turnovers, we'd have lost by 3 TDs today.

Watson's had 3 years to develop Green. Look what it's produced.

Didn't you also want to mention Watson had the sun in his eyes as another lame excuse?

Do you have an ax to grind against Watson? He absolutely butchered the #1 run defense in the B12 last week. And that's with the starting QB on the bench for the 2nd half. How is setting the single-game rushing record NOT a "hell of a game"? Especially against that competition.

And without the 2 turnovers from us which led to 14 points, ISU only scores 10 points in regulation. I'm pretty sure we scored more than 10 even without the TO's.

And Watson has only had a year and a half with Martinez, and TM is looking better every game. I'm really impressed with his progress this season as both a passer and game manager.

Do you have any other lame straw man arguments you'd like to put forward?

LOL! Whether I have an axe to grind against Watson is irrelevant.

Like me asking if you have a thing for Watson. Irrelevant.

But I guess Ad Hominem is what you use when you have nothing else.

Apparently what you do have is some basic reading issues. I posted Watson took advantage early

of some bad Missouri defensive schemes, then was held to 7 points the next

3 quarters and 5 minutes of the game. Hardly great offensive playcalling most of the game.

Sound familar? If your forget again, I can repeat it.

You're wrong about scoring more than 10 points w/o the TOs.

Martinez is a natural talent. Watson has little or nothing to do with his speed

or reflexes. Based on his performance developing Green, I doubt Watson has developed

much if anything in the quality of the kid's play.

Fair enough on the "ax to grind" comment, I will not judge your motives. But I LOL when, right after critizing me for the Ad Hominem, you say "Apparently what you do have is some basic reading issues."

I saw what you posted and read it with understanding. But you're trying to discredit Watson's most successful part of the game and then blame him for the rest, as if the game was really only the last 3 quarters. Further, you didn't even address why you give Watson no credit for the 307 yards by Helu. You are correct that NU only scored 7 points the last 3 quarters and 5 minutes of the Mizzou game. But NU had 25:16 TOP in the final 3 quarters, including 13:11 in the 4th to salt the game away, Helu gained 164 of his 307 yards during that span, and NU's offense gained 192 yards. No turnovers against MU. And that is all still against the best run and scoring D in the conference with the 2nd string QB.

You're right. Both ISU and NU scored 14 points off turnovers. We would have been tied at 10 a piece. Watson is still handicapped by having only the 3rd string QB on the road for the ISU game.

So you blame Watson for the lack of development of Green, but Martinez is only good because of his special talents. That's an argument that holds no water. I can just as easily say the reverse - Watson deserves all the credit for developing Martinez, but Green is simply untalented and couldn't be developed. Neither argument is backed by anything but our own biases.

We will agree to disagree.

My comment on your reading skills was an observation

based on your ignoring my previous post, not ad hominem.

If I'd said you were too dense to understand my post, that would be

ad hominem. That help clear things up?

If Green is untalented, then Watson should have rotated him to a new

position rather than continue to try to force a square peg into a

round hole. In any case Green has been in the system a lot longer than

Martinez. I doubt Watson has had much if any influence on Martinez

capabilities as a QB, but he should have on Green. The results are

disappointing to say the least. So I don't equate the two.

And I hold Watson responsible for what we saw today either way.

Just in case you didn't know, the primary purpose of a football offense is to

score points. Not avoid turnovers (although that's a plus), not to gain

yards (although that's also good), but to score points. Watson's offenses

don't score many points against good defenses, except as short term flukes

exploiting temporary defensive lapses like the first 10 min of the Missouri

game.

 

[RedDenver]

We will agree to disagree.

My comment on your reading skills was an observation

based on your ignoring my previous post, not ad hominem.

If I'd said you were too dense to understand my post, that would be

ad hominem. That help clear things up?

If Green is untalented, then Watson should have rotated him to a new

position rather than continue to try to force a square peg into a

round hole. In any case Green has been in the system a lot longer than

Martinez. I doubt Watson has had much if any influence on Martinez

capabilities as a QB, but he should have on Green. The results are

disappointing to say the least. So I don't equate the two.

And I hold Watson responsible for what we saw today either way.

Just in case you didn't know, the purpose of a football offense is to

score points. Not avoid turnovers (although that's a plus), not to gain

yards (although that's also good), but to score points. Watson's offenses

don't score many points against good defenses, except as short term flukes

exploiting temporary defensive lapses like the first 10 min of the Missouri

game.

I guess we will disagree.

I have read and responded to all your points while you have responded to only a few of mine, so your condescending tone that I can't read or understand your points appears hypocritical. Does that help clear things up?

Green has been at NU for one spring more than Martinez. That's it - a few months. Reread your comments and understand why I consider them biased at best.

Your sarcasm aside (I think we all know that offenses want to score points), that's not the only purpose. For instance, if you hold a 24 point lead already, running out the clock and not turning over the ball become more important. And maybe continuing to try scoring points with the starting QB injured might actually not be the best strategy for winning the game. That is if winning the game is the ultimate goal instead of just scoring points on offense. I think, and I hope others reading this do as well, that you're trying to craft an argument against Watson not based on the actual facts, but instead on your own previous belief. You are still trying to convince us that Watson had a bad game against what was the best defense in the league (arguably), despite the facts that NU put up 31 points and didn't play with the starting QB for half the game.

EDIT: I forgot to address your point about moving Green to another position. Maybe Green would be better at another position, but nobody knows if that's even true. Plus, that presupposes that another player exists to be the 3rd string QB or that the team won't need to play the 3rd string QB. Todays game should adequately address that the 3rd string QB will play because he already has. That leaves only whether another player capable of replacing Green exists. There's no clear answer, but IMO the fact that Green stayed in today's game and the staff didn't bring in Washington provides a lot of evidence.

 

[HUSKERCR]

We will agree to disagree.

My comment on your reading skills was an observation

based on your ignoring my previous post, not ad hominem.

If I'd said you were too dense to understand my post, that would be

ad hominem. That help clear things up?

If Green is untalented, then Watson should have rotated him to a new

position rather than continue to try to force a square peg into a

round hole. In any case Green has been in the system a lot longer than

Martinez. I doubt Watson has had much if any influence on Martinez

capabilities as a QB, but he should have on Green. The results are

disappointing to say the least. So I don't equate the two.

And I hold Watson responsible for what we saw today either way.

Just in case you didn't know, the purpose of a football offense is to

score points. Not avoid turnovers (although that's a plus), not to gain

yards (although that's also good), but to score points. Watson's offenses

don't score many points against good defenses, except as short term flukes

exploiting temporary defensive lapses like the first 10 min of the Missouri

game.

I guess we will disagree.

I have read and responded to all your points while you have responded to only a few of mine, so your condescending tone that I can't read or understand your points appears hypocritical. Does that help clear things up?

Green has been at NU for one spring more than Martinez. That's it - a few months. Reread your comments and understand why I consider them biased at best.

Your sarcasm aside (I think we all know that offenses want to score points), that's not the only purpose. For instance, if you hold a 24 point lead already, running out the clock and not turning over the ball become more important. And maybe continuing to try scoring points with the starting QB injured might actually not be the best strategy for winning the game. That is if winning the game is the ultimate goal instead of just scoring points on offense. I think, and I hope others reading this do as well, that you're trying to craft an argument against Watson not based on the actual facts, but instead on your own previous belief. You are still trying to convince us that Watson had a bad game against what was the best defense in the league (arguably), despite the facts that NU put up 31 points and didn't play with the starting QB for half the game.

You have no clue what my beliefs are.

We don't know each other (thankfully).

Bias is in the eyes of the beholder apparently.

I haven't responded to all of your points because I

consider most of them irrational and not worth the effort.

And it's not sarcasm, I mean everything I say.

This exchange no longer serves a useful purpose.

You even have to re-use my lines because you can't come up with

any of your own.

You're boring me.

Good night.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Not sure what thread to put it in. I think the fake was a good call. And the WR looked open if the throw had been out in front.

Of course ND got nailed by it by MSU earlier and at the time we thought it was a terrible playcall, but further analysis suggested it was correct. Espec if the other team is not watching for it, we weren't.

 

[irafreak]

Back and forth.... :snacks:

Watson is not the best o coordinator and certainly not the worst. I love him sometimes and hate him others. As far as green's development...well different approaches work for different people/minds. I am terrible at text book learning but combine it with hands on and I excel. Perhaps watson's coaching style isn't working for green. I thought Joe Ganz did well.