Big Red Roundtable - Emergency Edition

by corn blight on Sep 24, 2007 11:19 PM CDT in Football

1) Assess the Huskers performance this season. What is going well, and what has surprised you?

Sam Keller and the receiving corps are doing well. Keller's hair looks good too. The offensive line has not been as dominate as I expected. We are currently seventh in the Big 12 in rushing offense, not where we need to be.

I'm sure I'm the same as everyone else that's paying attention and surprised at the poor play of our defensive line. We have three sacks, last in the Big 12. We're also dead last in defending against the run. Those two stats should tell us exactly how much we miss Jay Moore and Adam Carriker.

2) Let's not sugar coat things; the Blackshirts are struggling. What do you think the issue is, and what needs to be done to rectify things this season?

I love human nature, it always makes life interesting. The need to reduce a complex problem to something that will fit on a t-shirt or a bumper sticker is one of those odd things we like to do. It's the need to find the Easy button, sometimes just so we knows where it is.

The issue is that they are not having fun on defense. They are so not having fun that they don't want to be on the field and the quickest way to get off the field is to let the other team score in three or four plays each time they get the ball. Unfortunately that can lead to embarrassment which is worse than not having fun. This describes exactly what happened against Ball State. Late in the game the defense figured out that they should make a couple plays and save themselves from utter embarrassment so they did.

It's either that or there is too much analytical football.

The defensive players are too busy reading the offense before the snap that they're not ready when the play starts. When it does, they're still confused because they're not sure which guy is supposed to make the tackle. This is what we get when everyone is spending their time studying game film, playing computer simulations, and trying to learn what plays match up with what defense.

Worse than that is the probability that discipline breaks down if one or two players don't know, don't understand, or don't buy into the system you're selling. They end up trying to do their own thing and the defense breaks down because someone isn't where they're supposed to be.

This is not a difficult game. You run, you throw, you block, you tackle and if you do all these things well, you win. If you can't do the basics, getting all the schemes and play calling right doesn't matter.

People are talking up Bo Pelini. Bo this, Bo that. What made Bo's defense great was his mentality. He played a lot of zone, not such a complex defense and had his guys get to the ball. The defense reflected his personality - that of a man who would step in front of a charging bull, then get up and swear at it after it ran over him. The willingness to perform such an act is missing this season. Watching more game film won't help in that regard.

3) Kevin Cosgrove is the target of a lot of criticism over the play of the Blackshirts. How will this play out?

We're not bringing back Bo Pelini. We're not firing Kevin Cosgrove in the middle of the season. There is a better chance that the ghost of Tom Novak will return to give each player a piece of his heart. Stop beating yourselves over the head with this stuff.

If the defense continues to be this bad throughout the season, Kevin Cosgrove will take a job in the NFL. Buddy Wyatt will be promoted to defensive coordinator. The step to the NFL will not appear as a demotion, so Cosgrove will save face. Buddy Wyatt will get a promotion. Next year, we'll call them "Buddy's Blackshirts". We'll be happy again, win the Big 12 North and get the hell beat out of us by Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship game again. Is someone sure we're not all dead from the bird flu and this is hell? Why else would Oklahoma be winning all the time?

4) You went into this season with some expectations. Has the start to this season changed your mind? Where do you see the Huskers at the end of the season?

This is a child.

I still see them at the Big 12 Championship game being run over by an Oklahoma team on it's way to a national championship so that expectation hasn't changed much. It's not like the rest of the Big 12 besides Oklahoma has terrifying, awesome defenses waiting to tear Sam Keller's limbs from his body. Keep scoring and get better.

I thought I'd get through this season without the rest of my hair turning grey. Well screw that.

5) There was a loud chorus of boos last weekend at Memorial Stadium. Your reaction? Is it okay to boo the Huskers under any circumstance?

What's even weirder is that it happened during a morning game so you can bet that most of them booing fans were sober. First of all, it's sad to hear any booing whatsoever because it means we're sucking. No one likes it when we suck except our opponents and who the hell cares what they like.

Personally, I don't boo college players. They're not getting paid. They're students first, athletes later. They have a heavy workload, heavier than most students. They're fine young men who are learning how to be adults. They need our support. All of this is completely true while simultaneously being a complete load of crap.

These are not children. Are we clear on this?

It's a load of crap because these guys get treated like royalty when winning games, which is most of the time. Their college is free, and given today's college pricing, they're getting paid. Young women follow them around and I still resent that all these years later. (Not that it would have made any difference in my life, I'd just like to say that at some point women followed me around. Bastards.)

This whole thing about them being children, as Mike Gundy would put it, is a load of crap too. They're not little boys. They're old enough to join the service and die defending their country. They're not far from starting professional careers where their bosses will fire them if they perform poorly. At what point would you like to stop the coddling?

Husker season ticket holders are required to put up a chunk of money for 'priority seating' which pays for all of the goodies the players get, including their free education. For that fans expect to see a good product put on the field. Besides that, who's to say that the booing didn't kick off the concept that the Husker defense should kick it in high gear? I recall those same Husker fans cheering like hell when the defense made some big plays.

Bottom line - you gotta take the bad with the good. If you can't, maybe you should go back to playing pick-up soccer with other guys that won't keep score.

Other Husker Bloggers Are Part of the Big 12 Roundtable

See their responses here:

Midwest Coast Bias
Husker Faithful
Husker Mike's Blasphemy
Husker Guy
Big Red Network

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

First of all....

just because someone says that NU would be better off if Pelini had stayed doesn't mean they think he is coming back, will come back, or that they even want him back, they are simply stating their opinion. Its the same as when they state that NU would be better off if Solich had not been fired. I was not a Solich fan and in no way do I want him to come back but I do believe that NU would be better off today if he and the last staff he had were still at NU. I also believe that NU would be better off if Pederson would have hired Gill as interim coach and then as head coach. I have more to say on this subject but I have to go to work now. I dont think I could perform my job like the current NU staff and get a raise.

by taflorom on Sep 25, 2007 7:48 AM CDT 0 recs

VERY COOL ARTICLE!

I like your angle that the D stepped it up at the end to avoid embarrasment, which would have been worse than 'not having fun'! Besides, chics don't follow embarassed FB stars around as much.

Going in, and after the NV game, I had high hopes for this team. The NV blowout looked great and I felt confident about possibly running the table and upsetting SC along the way--and maybe beating OU in the CC game(screw TX!). Well, especially after the last two absolute crap games(D, that is) all my hopes have been shot to hell and my life is on a downward spiral--and FAST! Each game will be a nailbiter from here on out--MAYBE we top ISU by 20 or so, but that's it, the 'honeymoon's' finito!
As of today, MO, KSU, KU look like favorites vs NE, and I don't even need to mention the southern foes. This could easily turn into a 6-6 affair or worse.
The D must step up, start downing some 'Full Throttles', something, anything. Right now NE looks like the BYU of the Big XII: WCO and no D!

As far as previous coaches, I rarely go there, but I've come to the conclusion that Frankie could have had a good regime especially once he got BO P(the rapper, right?) on the jiggy. What's his name at OC, Barney Cotton, was not a great choice though, IMO. When your best rb recruit is D. Horne, that just doesn't cut it either. But I think with BO P and a better OC, recruiting would have improved.

As far as booing, I have no prob with it in extreme situations, which is what the last two weeks have been. I think it's mainly directed at the coaching staff anyway. But if players want to go to the League, they better get used to some booing--especially when it's justified.

ze OUT!

'za blang thang

by Ze Robertinho on Sep 25, 2007 1:12 PM CDT 0 recs

I agree with you....

on Cotton. The year he was at NU I thought that we just didn't have the players to run the offense like he wanted but then he went to ISU and did pretty much nothing there either. He did so well before coming to NU that I had high hopes for him. To be honest with you I thought Turner should have been given the OC job and we should have went after Tommie to be the qb coach. Can you imagine having the two greatest option qbs ever, coaching qbs on how to run the option? Wow that boggels the mind. Oh well I guess as Jon keeps telling me I should just get over it and support the AD and his shitty coaches because this is as good as it will ever get again at NU. Never mind the fact that if everyone had just been supportive of Frank and his staff we wouldn't be where we are today.

by taflorom on Sep 25, 2007 7:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

you should give

up on the option.

It's dead.

As a door-nail.

Dead.

Go Big Red!

by corn blight on Sep 25, 2007 8:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

Figure it out...

someday will ya", its not about the option, its about if you believe the Huskers would be better off with different coaches and coaches of the last group to coach here. And just because you say the option is dead doesn't make it so. WVU seems to be doing pretty dam good with it. Alot of top 10 teams still run some option. LSU and OU still run it, Florida mixes it in with their spread offense, and everyone else in the top 10 still use some option in their offense. Who runs a straight WCO? What exactly is a WCO? USC might be classified as one and really Florida would probably be also but who else? I would say that LSU,OU,Texas, Cal,Ohio ST. and Rutgers would be more run first then use the play action pass type offenses. While Wisconsin is a power running team who throws a little. So it seems that maybe the WCO is the one that is dieing out and should be abolished. I would guess that less then 5 of the top 25 would be considered true WCO. More would be run first, use play action pass type offenses. Isn't that what Cotton wanted to start doing here? He was doing that at New Mexico or NM State before he came here and was doing very well with it there. I really believe that Joe Daily would have been a great fit at QB in Cottons system. He did very well when they rolled him out or he threw the quick slant and we know he could run if he had to. He was not a drop back passer and was not recruited as one but was forced to be one, and all the qbs that Cally brought in couldn't unseat him that first year. Should have told us something right there.

Why does it always have to be that we want or think we can get a certain coach back or that we want a certain type of offense here? Why cant it just be that we dont like these coaches and think that A: we are not any better off now then we were 4 years ago and that B: we would be better off if Pedeson had just left things alone or if he had to fire Frank that we would be better off if he had hired Gill or Pelini? Maybe its just that simple, did you ever think of that? And also just for the record you can be a Callahan hater without being a Solich lover!!!!!! You can even hate both coaches if you want. I get so sick of people telling me that all I want is Solich back just because I hate Bill. If thats the best defense you got for me then save it.

by taflorom on Sep 25, 2007 10:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

Wow...

that was a lot of steam for me to let off. Thanks. I feel a little better now. Must be that I quit smoking 65 days ago and needed to do that before I killed someone.

by taflorom on Sep 25, 2007 10:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

Current coaches

I like Callahan and the WCO, it's alot of fun to watch, just as a well oiled triple option attack.
The players and staff seem to all back COZ very strongly, so I'm just going with that. Our D line is pretty weak so far and I think that's where the probs lie.

Anyway, the triple option requires superior athletes across the board to be effective because about every defender has to be accounted for for it to work--just like any run based attack. All this spread/spread option stuff has 'evened' the playing field because you don't need a dominant line since your distributing the ball all over the place downfield, quickly, and trying to create skill players in space or one on one mismatches. It's just more of a finesse game, not a mano y mano affair. A giant PAIN IN THE A$$, in other words! The WCO is similar though can incorporate a power run game also.

TTech runs a spread attack-- almost all passing. WV and OR run the spread option which is only different in that you do have a MILD option thing between the QB and one RB that is an option to throwing a quick pass. It's a be-otch to defend since you're basically trying to sidestep all that lineplay. So linemen are running all over the place , covering interior and perimeter zones or trying to run down the QB as he drops back or takes off running. LBs are spread out all over, plus have to try and cover plays up the gut/off tackle.

What we see now as the spread option is NOT the NE or OU option attacks of old. They're a lighter version of option, again, with a short pass as one of the options.

The big strength of the Spread/Spread Option/WCO Os is that you can move the ball quickly down the field, throw up alot of points in a hurry and thus come back from even large deficits. TTech being the prime e.g. of that(came back from 31 down to MN last year)!

'za blang thang

by Ze Robertinho on Sep 26, 2007 1:13 AM CDT up 0 recs

AS for Callahan

He's on record as of yesterday as saying it's just all about scoring points for him. He doesn't care if it's by the run or pass--whatever works, dude!

'za blang thang

by Ze Robertinho on Sep 26, 2007 1:16 AM CDT up 0 recs

As for TTech, WV, and OR

If those teams ever start putting a dominate D on the field, they will consistently be top 10 teams--just like LSU and FL.

'za blang thang

by Ze Robertinho on Sep 26, 2007 1:23 AM CDT up 0 recs

Hey if...

the option is dead then how come you have West Virginia ranked #4?

by taflorom on Sep 25, 2007 10:09 PM CDT up 0 recs

distinctions

Taflorom, I think you're confusing the power-I option Nebraska ran for two decades with the zone-read option a team like WV runs now (and UT ran when Vince Young was there). Nebraska's option attack was predicated on getting two running threats (a QB and an IB) to the corner faster than two defensive players could get there. If one player (usually an OLB) got there, he had to commit giving the QB the option of pitching the ball or keeping it depending on what the defensive player had covered. This offensive system died out long before Nebraska gave up on it. Linebackers and safeties just got too fast. It's impractical to expect your QB and a RB to consistently get to the corner faster than two defensive players. That's why no one in I-A other than Navy runs this version of the option anymore (and even they run more of an old Oklahoma-style attack that utilizes the fullback up the gut as a third option for the QB running down the line).

The zone-read option WV uses puts the quarterback in the shotgun and allows him to hand the ball off to a RB running downhill or to keep the ball and either run for the corner or follow his leading RB. The QB still has to read the d-line before making the decision to keep the ball or hand it off, but the decision is much quicker and easier. It depends on which direction the DE moves at the snap rather than who a LB commits to in open space while the play is in motion. The result is a more consistent running attack based on effective zone-blocking rather than leading blockers running in space.

The third attack you mention, the spread option, is run by Florida, Oregon, Ball State and (to a lesser extent) by LSU. The spread option is a hybrid of the WCO and the spread offense of a Mike Leach or Hal Mumme. It depends on a quarterback who can both run with power and throw on the run (think Alex Smith or Tim Tebow). Both QB and RB serve as running threats, meaning any snap can include play action. Receivers' routes are similar to those in the WCO - they are designed to be short throws that maximize yards after the catch. Much like the other two systems, the spread option depends on the QB reading where defensive players commit then exploiting mismatches either on the ground or through the air. In the WCO these mismatches are exposed pre-snap, usually by shifts that allow the QB to read the coverage. In the spread option, the misdirection in the backfield creates the mismatches by making defensive players commit.

In short, these are three separate systems. The option elements in today's game share little with what NU did in the 90's other than a name.

As to your other point - namely, are we better off than four years ago - I have to plead apathy. I'm genuinely sick of this discussion. Assume you're right and NU football would be better off today if someone from the previous coaching regime were head coach. What does that mean for today? You being right isn't going to change the fact that this is our current coaching staff. It isn't going to invalidate Steve Pederson or Bill Callahan's contract extensions. Would a 2007 Husker team led by Frank Solich or Turner Gill or Bo Pelini win more games than the current squad? I don't know and neither do you. So why even say it? Who really cares? It has nothing to do with the current staff or this year's team. If BC or some member of his staff (cough... Coz... cough) aren't meeting expectations, they'll be gone too and someone else will be given a shot. If you believe that should be the move, make your case without appealing to what may or may not have happened had things four years ago transpired otherwise. The past is dead. Let it rot in peace.

And of course you could hate both Frank and Cally, but you gotta love somebody. Who ya gonna love?

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

by Ignignokt on Sep 26, 2007 2:16 AM CDT up 0 recs

Perhaps...

I didn't make it clear enough so I will try again. IT IS NOT ABOUT THE OPTION OR SOLICH OR PELINI. For me it is about thinking this staff is not very good. It is Pederson saying that we would be better off and we are not. Why say anything? Well why were people saying anything when Solich was the coach? They weren't happy with him and I am not happy with the current staff. I guess much like you are sick of the coversation I am sick of hearing "this is how it is a just deal with it". If my comments invalidate or validate anything is beyond the point, and your comments do not do validate or invalidate anything either.

So why do I not like this staff? Well we continually hear about 4 and 5 star players coming hear but we dont see them develop at all, they never seem to get any better after they get here. Isn't that what the coaches are supposed to do, make them better? If its not then whos job is it, because its not getting done.

by taflorom on Sep 26, 2007 7:49 AM CDT up 0 recs

well

[Hey if] the option is dead then how come you have West Virginia ranked #4?

I was just trying to correct this (in my opinion) erroneous comparison. West Virginia is good and the option is dead. Both are true.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE OPTION OR SOLICH OR PELINI.... It is Pederson saying that we would be better off and we are not.

We are not better off than... what? Than if no one had been fired? Neither you nor I know how a Solich or Gill or Pelini coached team would perform. We may be better off now. We may not. We can't know that. That's why I find this conversation nauseating - it assumes an alternate history has played out in some parallel universe and we can compare that one to our own and thereby uncover our deficiencies. Things have happened as they have happened. Something Steve Pederson said four years ago cannot today be judged as "right" or "wrong" - it's just what he said. Again, that's in the past and thus has NO bearing on the future of Husker football.

Your point about developing players is relevant. But I would point to Todd Petersen - he's developed into a legitimate offensive weapon despite having no buzz coming out of GICC. Mo Purify has certainly developed the raw talent he had when he arrived. Zack Bowman (a 5* recruit coming out of JuCo) did not have lock-down corner skills when he arrived, he had to develop them. Did Zac Taylor have what it took to be Big 12 Player of the Year when he stepped on campus or did he develop those skills? I think you're taking a few examples of guys not living up to the hype (Leon Jackson, Jordan Picou, Chris Brooks) and trying to make that an indictment of the whole coaching staff. I think that's a pretty unfair assessment.

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

by Ignignokt on Sep 26, 2007 9:34 AM CDT up 0 recs

Your right...

You are a god when it comes to football and know everything. When you speak it is so. So now I will leave you all to your mediocrity. Have fun continuing to make excuses for why this staff should be coaching at NU.

by taflorom on Sep 26, 2007 10:17 PM CDT up 0 recs

that seems unnecessary

I never claimed to know everything. I never said you know nothing. This isn't personal. Don't make it so.

Here's my philosophy of Husker football: 1) Play with passion. 2) Win nine games a year. 3) Compete for the conference title. Pretty simple. Is that mediocrity? It worked for Dr. Tom for two decades, so it's good enough for me. I'm not making excuses. I just feel that as long as those goals are within reach, we shouldn't complain.

Does me setting out these goals make them the be-all and end-all of Husker football? No. No more than saying we are not better off than if Frank hadn't been fired makes that so. These are value judgments and opinions. The difference is I don't care to re-hash the past (either in what Steve Pedersen did or said). You believe we are stuck in mediocrity. I don't. Perhaps we have different expectations. I'm pretty clear about mine, what are yours?

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

by Ignignokt on Sep 26, 2007 11:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

Iggy,I look forward to more of your posts,

It's hard these days to find fans that seem level headed about NE fb. Especially this last few weeks the blog 'termites' have been swarming outta the wood work to chew away at SP, BC, KC, and everything in sight. Personally I think Calli is a great coach and he and most of the players(it seems) fully endorse COZ. Yeah the D needs to improve, but they've got a number of new faces on the field and don't have any chemistry yet. It's kinda painful to have to wait for them to pull it together, but I think they have the players to do it. Keller and the O give NE a fighting chance.

SP is a good AD and doing the best he can to provide resources for the team. I think the bashing if him is just ridiculous.

BTW, McBride has some nice audio comments on Huskers.com/York column, this week.....

'za blang thang

by Ze Robertinho on Sep 27, 2007 8:54 AM CDT up 0 recs

well, unfortunately

We're stuck in that mode where everyone wants things black and white when they're really shades of grey.

Me, I'm pragmatic. I'm not sold on Callahan and Cosgrove, but at the same time, Callahan isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so I have a hard time getting all freaky about it.

Go Big Red!

by corn blight on Sep 27, 2007 11:56 AM CDT up 0 recs

i appreciate that...

but I'm not above calling for heads. In a recent diary I made it pretty clear that I think Coz has to go after this season. The players may support him, but he's just not getting the job done, in my opinion. The Blackshirts should be a strength, not a liability. We need a D-Coordinator that can make sure of that.

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

by Ignignokt on Sep 27, 2007 12:11 PM CDT up 0 recs

i love

this description of why the option is dead as an offense. it's right on.

Thank you.

Go Big Red!

by corn blight on Sep 26, 2007 12:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

i might...

if I could read all of it. Half of his post is cut off and I have a good idea of what he is saying but do not want to put words into his mouth.

by taflorom on Sep 26, 2007 10:08 PM CDT up 0 recs

"The option doesn't work" was simply wrong...

...when they first said it in the 80's. It was wrong when they said it in the 90's. Want proof? I'll show you three Sears Trophies. That's irrefutable proof of how wrong it was back then.

Is it wrong today? Well, I don't know, since we don't run it anymore. I will say that football has changed to favor the forward pass in the rules, so you can argue that it makes sense to have more of a passing attack in college football today.

But we've moved on, for better or worse. So yes, the option doesn't work at Nebraska anymore.

by Husker Mike on Sep 26, 2007 10:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

no, it was dead then too

They said the option was dead in the 80s and 90s 'cause it was. When Nebraska was winning national titles, fewer teams had "option" packages than have them now - pretty much us and Air Force. The fact that we were able to win with an outdated offensive system, to my mind, makes those accomplishments more, not less, outstanding. I mean, imagine USC deciding to run the wish-bone for the rest of this season and riding it all the way to the title game. It would rightly be hailed as one of the greatest performances in college football history. The same is true of NU's run in the 90's.

But I agree that we've moved on and won't be seeing that kind of option game anytime soon (in Lincoln or anywhere else).

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

by Ignignokt on Sep 26, 2007 11:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

ONE PLAY

Sure, the option could work today if you have superior athletes. Heck, USC nearly had their playbook cut back to ONE PLAY vs Big Red, they didn't need much.

But in general, most teams will have defenders to match any O in speed and athletism and just stack the box. The option is not a come from behind O either.

It would, however be refreshing to see a return of the high octane options of TO or Switzer.

'za blang thang

by Ze Robertinho on Sep 27, 2007 6:57 AM CDT up 0 recs