Week 4 Husker Report Card: Virginia Tech

by Husker Mike on Sep 28, 2008 3:50 PM CDT in Football Comment 10 comments

OK, admit it. We all knew that Nebraska had a lot of issues, but deep down, we really hoped that the 2008 version of the Huskers would break free of the shackles of mediocrity and transform themselves back into relevence in a prime-time broadcast.

Well, back to reality. Nebraska lost 35-30 to Virginia Tech, though the Huskers did have their chances. Bo Pelini says the Huskers made way too many mistakes yesterday to a good team. The pessimist looks at last night's statistics, and worries what a high powered offense could do to the Big Red. The optimist looks at the mistakes that were made, and wonders what this team could do if those mistakes are corrected.

So let's grade last night's performance:

Offensive Line: C In those rare occasions that they were asked to run block, they opened up some small holes and gave the backs two to three yards to work with. But there were some issues with pass protection in the first half.

Running Backs: Incomplete The I-backs combined for 19 rushes. Only two in the second quarter. I had hoped that type of playcalling left Lincoln last year.

Quarterback: C- From the end zone, you could see that interception coming as soon as Joe Ganz threw the pass. While Ganz didn't lose the game, he need help to win, and the play calls in the Virginia Tech game required Ganz to win it himself.

Wide Receiver: B+ Nate Swift might go into the Nebraska record books as one of the most underappreciated wide receivers to ever wear a Husker uniform. Without Swift, Nebraska never even sniffs a comeback last night. However, he needs some help from somebody other than Todd Peterson.

Defensive Line: C+ Early on, they got some pressure on Tyrod Taylor. But as the game went on, the Hokies started to find some running room.

Linebackers: B- Cody Glenn was all over the place yesterday, leading the team in tackles. Phillip Dillard was right behind him.

Secondary: D Way too many blown coverages yesterday. Fortunately, Tyrod Taylor didn't take advantage of that. Problem is that Chase Daniel will.

Coaching: D- Only 19 carries for the I-backs yesterday. Very little downfield passing. An unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the head coach. One difference this year is that this staff will treat this game as a learning experience for both coaches and players.

Overall: D+ The Hokies made the plays yesterday, and the Huskers didn't.

Elsewhere in College Football:

USC: F Just because it didn't look like you had much resistance on your road to Miami doesn't mean that you could stop and take a break. With your remaining schedule, it's going to be difficult to play your way back into contention.

Alabama: A+ Except possibly the Sooners, nobody's been more dominant.

Kansas State: D+ Wildcat fans are a little concerned about their defense after giving up 37 to the Ragin' Cajuns.

Colorado: D- Who'da thunk that the Seminoles could score 39 points on a 1-A opponent?

Service Academies: B+ Navy knocked off top 25 Wake Forest, but Army couldn't quite knock off the New Baylor.

Poll

Rate the Huskers against Virginia Tech

A Outstanding performance

3 votes

B If not for a few bad bounces, the Huskers would have won this game.

18 votes

C Some good, some bad. It's a learning process.

100 votes

D A whole bunch of things to work on this week.

89 votes

F Smells like 2007 around these parts

18 votes

228 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

running game

I’m not sure what it is with our running game. I don’t know why it isn’t happening. I don’t know how to get it back.

But I think it’s strange that fans – here, HP, DXP, BRN, Shatel – are on Shawn Watson for only getting the I-Back’s 19 carries. At the same time, people will say Lucky should sit and our O-Line is awful. If our O-Line and most experienced running back aren’t playing well, why put more responsibility on them producing? Why lean on them more? What would trying to run the ball more accomplish?

I think we’ll need to run the ball to win in the Big XII, but I don’t think we should beat our heads against a wall. As I saw it, Watson called quite a few run plays in the first couple possessions. They didn’t work, so he went to some short-passing routes and the few deep balls to the TEs. That seemed to work. And I, for one, support whatever works. Last night (and in three of our first four games) that hasn’t been the ground attack.

If we’ve got to toss it like Leach’s boys to win, then that’s what we should do.

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Sep 28, 2008 4:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

nice segue

for what I was going to say.

I’m a little disappointed in our line because they’re not very physical and that shows up in the inability to establish a running game.

You point it out yourself – we need to establish a running game to win the big 12. I don’t see us winning many shoot out games, but if we could control the clock on offense, I’d be happier with our prospects.

Lucky… I don’t think he should sit, but he certainly has been outshone by Helu on the ground. That’s disappointing, and I like to think I’m about the biggest Lucky supporter around.

Do you really think we can win throwing the ball all over, because I don’t….?

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!

by corn blight on Sep 28, 2008 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was Jim Leavitt...

I once heard say the key to winning football is:

1) Offensively, do what you do best.
2) Defensively, stop what the other team does best.

If what we do best is put Joe in the gun and spread four or five wide, chucking the ball all over the park, then I think that gives us the best chance to win. Now, Watson and Co. don’t think that’s what we do best. I’m not sure I do either. I’m just presenting an alternative view: if we try to establish the run and can’t (like last night) we’ll have to rely on other things (like Joe Ganz’s right arm).

I guess I just don’t think Watson is necessarily to blame for going away from the running game last night. If it isn’t working, it makes no sense to keep pushing it. Now Barney and the O-Line, that’s another story altogether.

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Sep 28, 2008 8:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that we must do what we do best. The basic premise of this offense is to take what the defense is giving us. Against VA Tech, they were going to let us pass. Its pretty clear why…Ganz is average and our receivers are weak. We have some nice Division II receivers (Swift and Peterson) but they do not put fear in any defense. Our best players are Helu and Lucky, so take them away and let Ganz give it a shot. Even when Tech put in 5 dbs, we stuck with passing.

I know, I know…Swift returned a punt! Here’s a question…would Swift start at LSU, Texas, or Oklahoma?

by Champ24 on Sep 29, 2008 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Swift

I’ll say that yes he would be a starter on those teams.

Swift isn’t going to stretch a defense, but he is a guy that makes plays. Throw him the ball, he catches it, need a first down, he gets it. Need to get back in the game and he’ll give you that punt return.

He’s just one of those guys that plays football. He’ll make a NFL roster and play more than Purify, mark my words on that.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!

by corn blight on Sep 29, 2008 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I think one reason it doesn’t work the way most of us want to is that these linemen were not recruited here to run the ball. The last 4 years we recruited linemen who could pass block because that is what the staff wanted to do, throw the ball. If you want to run it successfully you have to get linemen who can run block. Give this staff a little time to get their players and we will see what happens. I dont see us lineing up and running against anybody we will need to spread it out and go from there.

by taflorom on Sep 29, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lucky is playing out of position

He’s simply not a running back. I have a little more on this in mind, but I’d like to start lining him up wide at receiver occasionally. He’s a talented player, but running him at I-back is a classic square peg/round hole problem. It doesn’t play to his strengths.

by Husker Mike on Sep 28, 2008 8:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Lucky gets a raw deal

He may or may not be our best running back, but he’s definitely a running back. Many said the same things about him last year and were calling for Castille to be the “feature back.” Marlon did alright. Receivers lined up out of position don’t have thousand yard rushing seasons. They just don’t.

I think the idea that Lucky should line up at WR is a little off, too. Lucky is so good catching the ball out of the backfield because he’s usually “covered” by a middle linebacker. Put a corner or safety on him and there’s no guessing what could happen. More importantly, dude’s been at the position for 4+ years. It’s a bit late to switch.

That being said, I’d like to see Watson and Co. get a little more creative with how they use the running back personnel. It’s shameful that we can’t get Helu and Lucky on the field at the same time. Why can’t we have a two-back shotgun set with Helu and Lucky flanking Joe? That would give us all kinds of options.

Can you hear this, Denver, or shall I turn it up for you?

by Ignignokt on Sep 28, 2008 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs