"Joe" from Know It All Football

[GBRedneck]

Doesn't this offense have any "creative" run plays other than run into the middle of the line where all the defenders are waiting? Zone read, counter, fake the sweep run up the middle, something. And why was Imani Cross the one running it? I don't know. This staff and their play calling/personnel decisions have just been baffling.

Riley said in the press conference that he just wanted them to use their timeouts. That's all he was concerned with.

Winning was apparently not one of his goals.

Football is a unique game. There is an 11 man unit called the offense. Then there's an entirely different 11 man unit called the defense.

Apparently Riley's goal was to leave Wisconsin with no timeouts and let his defense do their job.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin's defense did their job, ours didn't, and the Wisconsin kicker made a very miss-able kick under the ultimate pressure.

Wisconsin rose up, and our team was not able to.

If you've watched Nebraska v. Wisconsin in the last few years, this game coming down to a last second kick is really not the norm, It'd be easy to draw some positives from this game if you chose to look for them.

Most of you just see that we lost and say "we suck". Seems like an 'emo' response, or so I've heard.

I sense a little butthurt, but I'll ignore it.

As to the bolded, you proved my point. He had several different goals, but "Win" wasn't one of them.

If it was, he would do everything he could to try to win.

For example, try to get a first down, since in that situation, 1st down = win. He didn't try. He admitted as much in his presser.

I get that you want to defend the Husker HC. But you should pick your battles more wisely. The endgame coaching in the last two games has been indefensible.

I think you can fairly defend the end game coaching against BYU and Miami. But the endgame coaching against Illinois and Wiscy was bad, Bad, BAD. Don't waste time defending the indefensible.

 

[Redux]

True, I appreciate you getting all defensive. I like your passion.

Now, tell me, on our last 3 offensive plays how many yards did we gain and how much time did we kill by running head first at the defensive line that had 3 time outs?

So because they gobbled up our ball carrier on the outside a couple other times in the game, that justifies running it up the middle 3 times? I guess if you want it to? All I know is that running to the outside would theoretically bleed more time, even if it's only a second or two, before the ball carrier gets tackled down.

read what he wrote with each play. had what should have happened actually happened, more than the 12 seconds that came off the clock would have come off the clock. the second down play was especially irksome because cross was ankle tackled by a guy that was sipping gatorade when the ball was snapped.

Thats the thing, people may actually respond to his decent posts with actual conversation IF he hadn't spent the last week pissing on every thread he could.

Where the hell did I do that?
For me to be accused of pissing on threads last week is hilarious. I've barely even posted here this last week. This is nearly hilarious to me if it wasn't so blatantly opposite of the truth. There's half a dozen other people pissing on every other thread around here, I go nearly a week without hardly saying a word here, and now get accused of being the guy pissing on every thread he could.

Dude, Redux you can literally go ---- yourself.

Wasn't talking about you, thought he was referring to GBRedneck. I read the wrong quoted portion.

 

[GBRedneck]

What three plays would you have called?

1. Newby or Ozigbo to the outside

2. Jannovich up the middle

3. If only a couple of yard needed yet, Jannovich ip the middle, if 5 or more needed Newby or Ozigbo to the outside

It's not like they didn't have time to think about it, Wiscy called a timeout after every play.

For one of the three, I would have called the bootleg run they tried to run the week before, but with better communication so everyone was on the same page and knew it would not be a pass.

/now I wait for someone to call me a hypocrite . . . smh

 

[GBRedneck]

True, I appreciate you getting all defensive. I like your passion.

Now, tell me, on our last 3 offensive plays how many yards did we gain and how much time did we kill by running head first at the defensive line that had 3 time outs?

So because they gobbled up our ball carrier on the outside a couple other times in the game, that justifies running it up the middle 3 times? I guess if you want it to? All I know is that running to the outside would theoretically bleed more time, even if it's only a second or two, before the ball carrier gets tackled down.

read what he wrote with each play. had what should have happened actually happened, more than the 12 seconds that came off the clock would have come off the clock. the second down play was especially irksome because cross was ankle tackled by a guy that was sipping gatorade when the ball was snapped.

Thats the thing, people may actually respond to his decent posts with actual conversation IF he hadn't spent the last week pissing on every thread he could.

Where the hell did I do that?

For me to be accused of pissing on threads last week is hilarious. I've barely even posted here this last week. This is nearly hilarious to me if it wasn't so blatantly opposite of the truth. There's half a dozen other people pissing on every other thread around here, I go nearly a week without hardly saying a word here, and now get accused of being the guy pissing on every thread he could.

Dude, Redux you can literally go ---- yourself.

Wait, do you really know him well enough to know that's possible? Damn! That's impressive. I wish I could that, I'd probably never leave the house.

 

[The Dude]

There is no perfect sequence of plays that guarantees a first down. The point is they didn't even try for a first down. Or if they did, they employed an extremely bizzare strategy. Running straight ahead with our least elusive I-back, and a fullback.

 

[RunRedRun]

Doesn't this offense have any "creative" run plays other than run into the middle of the line where all the defenders are waiting? Zone read, counter, fake the sweep run up the middle, something. And why was Imani Cross the one running it? I don't know. This staff and their play calling/personnel decisions have just been baffling.

Riley said in the press conference that he just wanted them to use their timeouts. That's all he was concerned with.
Winning was apparently not one of his goals.

Football is a unique game. There is an 11 man unit called the offense. Then there's an entirely different 11 man unit called the defense.
Apparently Riley's goal was to leave Wisconsin with no timeouts and let his defense do their job.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin's defense did their job, ours didn't, and the Wisconsin kicker made a very miss-able kick under the ultimate pressure.

Wisconsin rose up, and our team was not able to.

If you've watched Nebraska v. Wisconsin in the last few years, this game coming down to a last second kick is really not the norm, It'd be easy to draw some positives from this game if you chose to look for them.

Most of you just see that we lost and say "we suck". Seems like an 'emo' response, or so I've heard.

Funny how most sports analysis don't have the same version as you! why would you "leave it" to the defense in the 4th quarter knowing they have been on the field 84 plays when all you need is a first down to seal the game? Makes no sense, but who am I, oh yes! since I disagree, I must be 13!

 

[StPaulHusker]

What would have been the opinions of everyone here if TA hands off to Cross, he bounces to the outside to get the first down and then while being tackled, he fumbles?

Just curious who would blame Riley and Langsdorf for not playing a different RB.

 

[True2tRA]

Doesn't this offense have any "creative" run plays other than run into the middle of the line where all the defenders are waiting? Zone read, counter, fake the sweep run up the middle, something. And why was Imani Cross the one running it? I don't know. This staff and their play calling/personnel decisions have just been baffling.

Riley said in the press conference that he just wanted them to use their timeouts. That's all he was concerned with.

Winning was apparently not one of his goals.

Football is a unique game. There is an 11 man unit called the offense. Then there's an entirely different 11 man unit called the defense.

Apparently Riley's goal was to leave Wisconsin with no timeouts and let his defense do their job.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin's defense did their job, ours didn't, and the Wisconsin kicker made a very miss-able kick under the ultimate pressure.

Wisconsin rose up, and our team was not able to.

If you've watched Nebraska v. Wisconsin in the last few years, this game coming down to a last second kick is really not the norm, It'd be easy to draw some positives from this game if you chose to look for them.

Most of you just see that we lost and say "we suck". Seems like an 'emo' response, or so I've heard.

I sense a little butthurt, but I'll ignore it.

As to the bolded, you proved my point. He had several different goals, but "Win" wasn't one of them.

If it was, he would do everything he could to try to win.

For example, try to get a first down, since in that situation, 1st down = win. He didn't try. He admitted as much in his presser.

I get that you want to defend the Husker HC. But you should pick your battles more wisely. The endgame coaching in the last two games has been indefensible.

I think you can fairly defend the end game coaching against BYU and Miami. But the endgame coaching against Illinois and Wiscy was bad, Bad, BAD. Don't waste time defending the indefensible.

Bull crap.

I need a link to that bolded part, because without proof of that one, I don't believe you for a second.

Redux complains about the play calls, then lists three plays that almost match exactly what Langsdorf did? Aside from the fact that it was Cross who should've bounced the ball to the outside on 1st down. On second down it looks like Cross cut it back the entirely wrong direction. 3rd down they went with Janovich up the gut. Jano just broke a 50 yard TD up the middle on the series before.

But "they weren't trying to get a first down?" That's just emo talking right there.

I haven't tried to defend the Illinois loss. I've said multiple times, that one I won't defend. Horrible playcalling and gameplan by Langsdorf.

The other losses are just football. Close games come down to who makes the play and who doesn't. Nebraska hasn't. It stinks. There's good things going on out there as well.

I hope this Minnesota game is over before the fourth quarter.

 

[Redux]

I want to set the record straight here:

-The person pissing people off in most threads, is GBRedneck not True2tra

-I disagree with True that Riley wanted to leave the game in the defenses hands. Why the hell would he want to do that.

-The play calls were pedestrian. The bootleg flub against Illinois was a tad more creative but was moscommunicated badly. There has to be a middle ground where the team can execute and gain yards. If not, what the hell is the point?

 

[Redux]

What would have been the opinions of everyone here if TA hands off to Cross, he bounces to the outside to get the first down and then while being tackled, he fumbles?

Just curious who would blame Riley and Langsdorf for not playing a different RB.

Nah, I would be peeved at Cross and disappointed.

 

[True2tRA]

Doesn't this offense have any "creative" run plays other than run into the middle of the line where all the defenders are waiting? Zone read, counter, fake the sweep run up the middle, something. And why was Imani Cross the one running it? I don't know. This staff and their play calling/personnel decisions have just been baffling.

Riley said in the press conference that he just wanted them to use their timeouts. That's all he was concerned with.
Winning was apparently not one of his goals.

Football is a unique game. There is an 11 man unit called the offense. Then there's an entirely different 11 man unit called the defense.
Apparently Riley's goal was to leave Wisconsin with no timeouts and let his defense do their job.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin's defense did their job, ours didn't, and the Wisconsin kicker made a very miss-able kick under the ultimate pressure.

Wisconsin rose up, and our team was not able to.

If you've watched Nebraska v. Wisconsin in the last few years, this game coming down to a last second kick is really not the norm, It'd be easy to draw some positives from this game if you chose to look for them.

Most of you just see that we lost and say "we suck". Seems like an 'emo' response, or so I've heard.

Funny how most sports analysis don't have the same version as you! why would you "leave it" to the defense in the 4th quarter knowing they have been on the field 84 plays when all you need is a first down to seal the game? Makes no sense, but who am I, oh yes! since I disagree, I must be 13!

13 year old that plays Madden.....don't forget that part.

Who gets mad at being accused of playing Madden? I wish to hell I was 13 again and could sit around playing Madden all day, good times, no stress, life was much easier then......

Which sports analysts have a different version? Links please?

Wisconsin had three timeouts, you wanted to make them use them. We do all this bitching around here about how we NEVER run the ball blah blah blah, so Langsdorf puts the rock in the RB hands, tells the linemen to block their asses off, and in three running plays we can't pick up 10 yards, and suddenly it back to blaming Langsdorf because he RAN THE f'ing BALL.

It's stupidity.

Ya'll have a great one.

 

[True2tRA]

I want to set the record straight here:

-The person pissing people off in most threads, is GBRedneck not True2tra

-I disagree with True that Riley wanted to leave the game in the defenses hands. Why the hell would he want to do that.

-The play calls were pedestrian. The bootleg flub against Illinois was a tad more creative but was moscommunicated badly. There has to be a middle ground where the team can execute and gain yards. If not, what the hell is the point?

I didn't say that. If it came across that way, that wasn't what I intended.

Riley wanted to get a first down obviously, but the goal was to make Wisconsin use their timeouts. I'm sure they figured their players could pick up 10 yards on three running plays. They didn't. Credit to Wisconsin defense for that as well.

What I'm saying is that there's no way the Head Coach thought we need to get creative with the playcalling because if we don't get this first down, we're f'd! He trusted the defense in that if the offense did have to punt the ball away, he didn't expect that his defense would let Wisconsin go straight down the field and get into field goal range. Unfortunately, they did.

 

[GBRedneck]

Doesn't this offense have any "creative" run plays other than run into the middle of the line where all the defenders are waiting? Zone read, counter, fake the sweep run up the middle, something. And why was Imani Cross the one running it? I don't know. This staff and their play calling/personnel decisions have just been baffling.

Riley said in the press conference that he just wanted them to use their timeouts. That's all he was concerned with.

Winning was apparently not one of his goals.

Football is a unique game. There is an 11 man unit called the offense. Then there's an entirely different 11 man unit called the defense.

Apparently Riley's goal was to leave Wisconsin with no timeouts and let his defense do their job.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin's defense did their job, ours didn't, and the Wisconsin kicker made a very miss-able kick under the ultimate pressure.

Wisconsin rose up, and our team was not able to.

If you've watched Nebraska v. Wisconsin in the last few years, this game coming down to a last second kick is really not the norm, It'd be easy to draw some positives from this game if you chose to look for them.

Most of you just see that we lost and say "we suck". Seems like an 'emo' response, or so I've heard.

I sense a little butthurt, but I'll ignore it.

As to the bolded, you proved my point. He had several different goals, but "Win" wasn't one of them.

If it was, he would do everything he could to try to win.

For example, try to get a first down, since in that situation, 1st down = win. He didn't try. He admitted as much in his presser.

I get that you want to defend the Husker HC. But you should pick your battles more wisely. The endgame coaching in the last two games has been indefensible.

I think you can fairly defend the end game coaching against BYU and Miami. But the endgame coaching against Illinois and Wiscy was bad, Bad, BAD. Don't waste time defending the indefensible.

Bull crap.

I need a link to that bolded part, because without proof of that one, I don't believe you for a second.

Redux complains about the play calls, then lists three plays that almost match exactly what Langsdorf did? Aside from the fact that it was Cross who should've bounced the ball to the outside on 1st down. On second down it looks like Cross cut it back the entirely wrong direction. 3rd down they went with Janovich up the gut. Jano just broke a 50 yard TD up the middle on the series before.

But "they weren't trying to get a first down?" That's just emo talking right there.

I haven't tried to defend the Illinois loss. I've said multiple times, that one I won't defend. Horrible playcalling and gameplan by Langsdorf.

The other losses are just football. Close games come down to who makes the play and who doesn't. Nebraska hasn't. It stinks. There's good things going on out there as well.

I hope this Minnesota game is over before the fourth quarter.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But it's more flattery if you imitate correctly. TIA

There are threads about the presser. You can watch it for your self in one of those. I'm not going to watch it again, but I'll paraphrase as best as I remember, although you really need to watch it because I can't convey Riley's body language.

He was asked, "Did you consider a pass play in the last series?" Riley quickly and firmly said, "No. We wanted to make them use their timeouts."

He didn't say,"No, we wanted to keep the clock running and still try for the first down." He didn't say "We knew we needed a first down to seal it, but we didn't want to take a chance at stopping the clock for them." His entire goal was "Burn their timeouts." But you really need to watch it. The body language says a lot.

 

[GBRedneck]

I want to set the record straight here:

-The person pissing people off in most threads, is GBRedneck not True2tra

-I disagree with True that Riley wanted to leave the game in the defenses hands. Why the hell would he want to do that.

-The play calls were pedestrian. The bootleg flub against Illinois was a tad more creative but was moscommunicated badly. There has to be a middle ground where the team can execute and gain yards. If not, what the hell is the point?

I didn't say that. If it came across that way, that wasn't what I intended.

Riley wanted to get a first down obviously, but the goal was to make Wisconsin use their timeouts. I'm sure they figured their players could pick up 10 yards on three running plays. They didn't. Credit to Wisconsin defense for that as well.

What I'm saying is that there's no way the Head Coach thought we need to get creative with the playcalling because if we don't get this first down, we're f'd! He trusted the defense in that if the offense did have to punt the ball away, he didn't expect that his defense would let Wisconsin go straight down the field and get into field goal range. Unfortunately, they did.

Maybe before the 1st down snap he thought he could get a first down running three plays up the gut. You can't tell me he thought he could convert on 3rd and 7 with another run up the gut.

 

[desertshox]

I hope this Minnesota game is over before the fourth quarter.

with the way this season is going, it probably will be and whoever is losing will make a furious comeback to leave us with nebraska up by 2 with a minute left and minnesota with the ball.