why was the ucla game the breaking point for so many?

[RockyMountainOySker]

I've continued to support Pelini after each blow out loss, but like many others this game was the turning point for me as well. My first point below is really the main reason, the others are just secondary.

- Getting completely out coached while having a significant lead. I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant job of being out coached before. Pelini has consistently shown an inability to make adjustments while Mora took UCLA and turned a 180. All Pelini did was wave his binder at officials as the wheels fell off. Watching this made me finally realize Nebraska will never win a championship with Pelini in charge. I think this was obvious multiple times before, but the game this past week was the last straw.

- I also don't understand why Pelini believes an injured Martinez is so much better than Kellogg or Armstrong. It's obvious Taylor is completely ineffective if he can't run. Bo tied his legacy to Martinez for better or worse 4 years ago. I don't understand why he is so stubborn on playing a kid who is not only hurt but a terrible game manager.

- Lastly, Bo's comments to the media following the game (every game for that matter) leave me thinking he doesn't actually think this loss (or any) are his fault at all. I understand he said "i take full responsibility" but that's a hollow comment. He never says anything of real substance. Not I should have done this or change this, etc. Hiding the fact that Martinez is hurt. Why? What advantage does that give him or the team or Taylor?

If Bo was actually a good coach putting a quality product on the field, his 2-year old private conversation rant would mean little to any of us.

Right now feels eerily similar to 2003.

 

[clone]

There was an odd dynamic to the UCLA game. Many folks expected UCLA to win. Most didn't expect NU to be up 21-3 on them.

When you go to the locker room ahead at the half, your game plan is working. Why would you make big adjustments? You wouldn't... maybe you'd lean toward "protect the lead" strategy, but you wouldn't chamge much.

On the inverse, when you are down, on the road like UCLA... you'd make lots of changes, on both sides of the ball. What do you have to lose?

UCLA is the better team.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Because we'd been buying into the fact that it was a talent issue and not a scheme issue. UCLA, and the games before it proved that is not correct. We have the talent, we don't have the scheme. UCLA was a further continuation of the status quo we've experienced for almost 18 months now spanning parts of 3 seasons. There's a lot of variability in talent across those 20 or so games, there's only 1 constant and that's coaching. It's proven what we were all hoping wasn't true. It will likely be further proven against Illinios, Northwestern, Michigan and another game or two. This D has reached a Cosgrovian level, and the offense has deteriorated as well.

 

[Enhance]

- Getting completely out coached while having a significant lead. I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant job of being out coached before. Pelini has consistently shown an inability to make adjustments while Mora took UCLA and turned a 180. All Pelini did was wave his binder at officials as the wheels fell off. Watching this made me finally realize Nebraska will never win a championship with Pelini in charge. I think this was obvious multiple times before, but the game this past week was the last straw.

My take on this reason, specifically. I fully believe the coaching staff attempts to make adjustments with this team, but somewhere between the sidelines/locker room and the field, there's a disconnect.

I gave this example previously - step back to the South Carolina game. Alshon Jeffrey got behind our safeties on a hail mary play and scored a touchdown. In the break just before the play, our coaches said they specifically told our players what to do, and where to be, to avoid giving up the big play (especially to Jeffrey). We all know what happened next - Jeffrey slipped passed the defense with ease and scored a deep touchdown. Our coaches told the players exactly what to do, and they just flat-out didn't do it. It wasn't a lack of athleticism, it wasn't some great play by Jeffrey - it was the Huskers failing to translate an adjustment onto the field.

Mistakes are going to happen, but this is my take on game time adjustments. I think they're being made, but for whatever reason, they don't make their way onto the football field.

 

[robsker]

Because we'd been buying into the fact that it was a talent issue and not a scheme issue. UCLA, and the games before it proved that is not correct. We have the talent, we don't have the scheme. UCLA was a further continuation of the status quo we've experienced for almost 18 months now spanning parts of 3 seasons. There's a lot of variability in talent across those 20 or so games, there's only 1 constant and that's coaching. It's proven what we were all hoping wasn't true. It will likely be further proven against Illinios, Northwestern, Michigan and another game or two. This D has reached a Cosgrovian level, and the offense has deteriorated as well.

Many people here recognized that coaching quality was a problem... long, long before the UCLA game. Some saw this 2... even 3 years ago. That said, I think Enhance is right... many posters were not in agreement with the premise that there was a coaching quality problem --- and I'm guessing here (and my not be correct) --- but I think many denied the coaching flaws out of desire for it not to be true --- they denied the coaching problems for as long as they could. After UCLA... many could no longer deny the coaching quality problems.

On ESPNU this morning they spoke for 3 minutes or so about obvious scheme issues and the one commentator --- whose name I am not sure of... but who was in no way trying to did NU --- simply said he was baffled by the NU play calling on both sides of the ball and said... "hey there are serious issues there."

Coaching problems at NU cannot any longer be denied rationally. So that may be in large part why the UCLA game elicited such a response. The loss was not unexpected... but the epically bad coaching on display was a problem that many wished they did not have to contend with.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

- Getting completely out coached while having a significant lead. I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant job of being out coached before. Pelini has consistently shown an inability to make adjustments while Mora took UCLA and turned a 180. All Pelini did was wave his binder at officials as the wheels fell off. Watching this made me finally realize Nebraska will never win a championship with Pelini in charge. I think this was obvious multiple times before, but the game this past week was the last straw.

My take on this reason, specifically. I fully believe the coaching staff attempts to make adjustments with this team, but somewhere between the sidelines/locker room and the field, there's a disconnect.

I gave this example previously - step back to the South Carolina game. Alshon Jeffrey got behind our safeties on a hail mary play and scored a touchdown. In the break just before the play, our coaches said they specifically told our players what to do, and where to be, to avoid giving up the big play (especially to Jeffrey). We all know what happened next - Jeffrey slipped passed the defense with ease and scored a deep touchdown. Our coaches told the players exactly what to do, and they just flat-out didn't do it. It wasn't a lack of athleticism, it wasn't some great play by Jeffrey - it was the Huskers failing to translate an adjustment onto the field.

Mistakes are going to happen, but this is my take on game time adjustments. I think they're being made, but for whatever reason, they don't make their way onto the football field.

Solid point and I remember the coaches saying what to do in that moment of the South Carolina game. What that doesn't answer is why adjustments work at every other coach and school in the country? Nebraska players are dumber than UCLA's, Wyoming's, or any of the SEC programs. I'm not talking halftime adjustments either. As we are repeatedly gashed for huge yards through the air, why doesn't Pelini decide to put pressure on Hundley? It worked in the first and second quarter. Why not start blitzing or allow Gregory/Moss to get the heck upfield. Giving him 9 seconds to throw every time obviously wasn't working.

 

[Enhance]

Solid point and I remember the coaches saying what to do in that moment of the South Carolina game. What that doesn't answer is why adjustments work at every other coach and school in the country? Nebraska players are dumber than UCLA's, Wyoming's, or any of the SEC programs. I'm not talking halftime adjustments either. As we are repeatedly gashed for huge yards through the air, why doesn't Pelini decide to put pressure on Hundley? It worked in the first and second quarter. Why not start blitzing or allow Gregory/Moss to get the heck upfield. Giving him 9 seconds to throw every time obviously wasn't working.

And the bolded is the million dollar question. I too sit and speculate about what schematic changes they could make to address their on the field issues, but the more I think about it, the more I start to believe it doesn't really matter. In a way, I think my reasoning hits the problem head on - it seems that no matter what they tell the players to do, there's something preventing them from doing it. And if adversity hits, their ability to climb out of the mud isn't very high.

At this point, I think we can all agree the inexperience has something to do with it, but the overall problems aren't recent problems. They've been prevalent really since about 2011, but Nebraska played other games early in Pelini's career that were snowball type games, too. The only other logical explanation is coaching. Somewhere in this program there's a coaching discrepancy, whether that's in what the program is trying to do or the coordinators/assistants relaying those messages.

It could also very well be a cultural issue. We here talk of "soft" practices, despite the coaches/players professing physicality. Is physicality and the drive to succeed as strong as it needs to be in the program's culture? One would think, yet it doesn't translate.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

Solid point and I remember the coaches saying what to do in that moment of the South Carolina game. What that doesn't answer is why adjustments work at every other coach and school in the country? Nebraska players are dumber than UCLA's, Wyoming's, or any of the SEC programs. I'm not talking halftime adjustments either. As we are repeatedly gashed for huge yards through the air, why doesn't Pelini decide to put pressure on Hundley? It worked in the first and second quarter. Why not start blitzing or allow Gregory/Moss to get the heck upfield. Giving him 9 seconds to throw every time obviously wasn't working.

The only other logical explanation is coaching. Somewhere in this program there's a coaching discrepancy, whether that's in what the program is trying to do or the coordinators/assistants relaying those messages.

It could also very well be a cultural issue. We here talk of "soft" practices, despite the coaches/players professing physicality. Is physicality and the drive to succeed as strong as it needs to be in the program's culture? One would think, yet it doesn't translate.

Exactly. Lots of questions that have no answers. In the end, something has to change and I'm not sure what. Hopefully Bo does...though my confidence at that is at a 6 year low. I do believe Bo is and always will be a better VP than CEO.

I don't think we accomplished much but somehow this little conversation this morning helped talk me off the edge. GBR!

 

[Enhance]

Solid point and I remember the coaches saying what to do in that moment of the South Carolina game. What that doesn't answer is why adjustments work at every other coach and school in the country? Nebraska players are dumber than UCLA's, Wyoming's, or any of the SEC programs. I'm not talking halftime adjustments either. As we are repeatedly gashed for huge yards through the air, why doesn't Pelini decide to put pressure on Hundley? It worked in the first and second quarter. Why not start blitzing or allow Gregory/Moss to get the heck upfield. Giving him 9 seconds to throw every time obviously wasn't working.

The only other logical explanation is coaching. Somewhere in this program there's a coaching discrepancy, whether that's in what the program is trying to do or the coordinators/assistants relaying those messages.

It could also very well be a cultural issue. We here talk of "soft" practices, despite the coaches/players professing physicality. Is physicality and the drive to succeed as strong as it needs to be in the program's culture? One would think, yet it doesn't translate.

Exactly. Lots of questions that have no answers. In the end, something has to change and I'm not sure what. Hopefully Bo does...though my confidence at that is at a 6 year low. I do believe Bo is and always will be a better VP than CEO.

I don't think we accomplished much but somehow this little conversation this morning helped talk me off the edge. GBR!

 

[kchusker_chris]

Remember when our offense used to dictate the opposing teams defense. When we forced the opposing team to adjust to what we were doing? Now it's the exact opposite. We go on the "we take what the defense gives us" theory. We never used to take what the defense gave us, we executed our offense and to hell w/ the defense. It wasn't a chess match, it was a boxing match and we were going to punch faster and harder than you. Miss those days.

Beck even said as much this week ,something along the lines of "we were trying to put them in positions defensively they didn't want to be in" - well that put us in positions offensively we didn't want to be in too. We need to play our best offense, and force it down their throats. We did that a couple series. Then quit

 

[zoogs]

Remember when our offense used to dictate the opposing teams defense. When we forced the opposing team to adjust to what we were doing? Now it's the exact opposite. We go on the "we take what the defense gives us" theory. We never used to take what the defense gave us, we executed our offense and to hell w/ the defense. It wasn't a chess match, it was a boxing match and we were going to punch faster and harder than you. Miss those days.

That's ridiculous, I hate that argument and I railed against it enough times in 2010. It's the same hackneyed armchair OC stuff that is used as generic 'complain against the OC' fare....that, and 'Halftime adjustments.' Drives me nuts!

Of course you take what the defense gives you. A perfect defense does not exist. It isn't possible, to cover every possibility of where the offense might go, at any time. Any time a defense is lined up, they have weaknesses. The job of the offense, of the QB really, is to identify those at the line of scrimmage, and use that to our advantage. Why do you think defenses try so hard to disguise their coverages, hide where the blitz is coming from, and so on? If they're figured out, they're beaten.

And the playcaller's job is to keep the defense on their heels. No question, Beck failed to do that on Saturday. Though I argue a lot of it is dependent on how plays turn out. Hard to make the defense respect the _____, when _____ isn't getting established.

It is completely, completely insane to decide what part of the field to attack and how, irrespective of what the defense is doing.

 

[Bowfin]

Hard to make the defense respect the _____, when _____ isn't getting established

I don't mind so much if we don't establish the run, but don't you think we should at least introduce it to the defense before abandoning it?

 

[kchusker_chris]

Remember when our offense used to dictate the opposing teams defense. When we forced the opposing team to adjust to what we were doing? Now it's the exact opposite. We go on the "we take what the defense gives us" theory. We never used to take what the defense gave us, we executed our offense and to hell w/ the defense. It wasn't a chess match, it was a boxing match and we were going to punch faster and harder than you. Miss those days.

That's ridiculous, I hate that argument and I railed against it enough times in 2010. It's the same hackneyed armchair OC stuff that is used as generic 'complain against the OC' fare....that, and 'Halftime adjustments.' Drives me nuts!

Of course you take what the defense gives you. A perfect defense does not exist. It isn't possible, to cover every possibility of where the offense might go, at any time. Any time a defense is lined up, they have weaknesses. The job of the offense, of the QB really, is to identify those at the line of scrimmage, and use that to our advantage. Why do you think defenses try so hard to disguise their coverages, hide where the blitz is coming from, and so on? If they're figured out, they're beaten.

And the playcaller's job is to keep the defense on their heels. No question, Beck failed to do that on Saturday. Though I argue a lot of it is dependent on how plays turn out. Hard to make the defense respect the _____, when _____ isn't getting established.

It is completely, completely insane to decide what part of the field to attack and how, irrespective of what the defense is doing.

ah yes...the Shawn Watson argument returns....

 

[Count 'Bility]

I still dont think it's a scheme issue fully. It's obvious to me it's pscyhological one. Now, Bo alluded to it yesterday that maybe the scheme is causing the kids to not have enough fun and whatnot, and that may lead back directly to it. But this team has an issue with mentality and when things go wrong. I really think this whole recording incident backs this program into a corner and becomes the catalyst we needed.

 

[zoogs]

It's the same principle, really. All these arguments against OCs are the same, regurgitated stuff, and never that valid. I'm waiting for the "I can't believe he didn't call that play more."

Every single offense seeks to attack where the defense isn't. If you don't think the intricate attack Tom Osborne ran didn't do that, I think you would be mistaken. Yeah, it leaned on being way better than every other team and the power game that it could establish with ease, but there's a reason we had all these options and playactions: to keep the defense on their heels and hit them in places they aren't ready to defend.

I don't understand why in the world anybody would want to play right into the teeth of a defense's strengths. Maybe you'd be satisfied by how much more masculine that offense is. Probably wouldn't like the results, though.