"Joe" from Know It All Football

[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?

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.

I don't believe for a second that Riley didn't WANT to get a 1st down. You always want that.

I just think that losing 3 games the way we have, because our defense couldn't hold them off for one more minute, Riley should have honestly considered that.

I didn't see any indication the ball carriers were supposed to go outside. On 3rd down, I'm fine with Cross being the carrier as long as you give him a couple strong blockers to the long side of the field. Chew up as much time and yardage as possible. To me it looked like we were content trying 3 runs up the gut that Wisconsin had sniffed out every time.

 

[74Hunter]

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.

It would still be questionable. Why would you use your no.3, or no.4, or no. 5, hell nobody including the coaches know, RB who has a history of fumbling concerns and has barely had any carries the past couple of games?

Makes no sense.

 

[Redux]

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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

 

[NUinID]

What three plays would you have called?

1. Newby or Ozigbo to the outside

2. Jannovich or Cross up the middle

3. If only a couple of yards needed yet, Jannovich up 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.

The first play they ran was fine, they picked up 3 yards.

The second play I would have gone with some sort of outside QB run, preferably out of a formation with Jano in a tight slot formation, which they do a lot.

If he picks up say 5 yards I would come back with another run probably another qb run some type of QB Iso out of the shotgun. If it is longer I would run a waggle type pass to Jano out in the flat like they ran for big yardage against S. Miss.

 

[StPaulHusker]

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.

Considering we were WINNING THE GAME at the time, I think the inference that he wanted to win the game is there.

 

[gdubs4nu]

If you have players that don't execute the play call correctly, how in the eff is that the coaches fault and equate to him not wanting to win? That is just more insane logic I always hear from delusional Husker fans that refuse to believe that players can lose a game when the coaching staff is the easy target.

Stop whining. They lost because their play wasn't what it needed to be. They didn't have more guys line up opposite them than we did. It was a fair fight and Nebraska lost. The play calls were fine, but the play execution was piss poor. Deal with it and move on.

 

[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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

To be honest, I don't think he even realized at the time that a 1st down would seal the win. I'm not sure he realized it yet when he did the presser. Watch it. It's pretty sad.

 

[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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

To be honest, I don't think he even realized at the time that a 1st down would seal the win. I'm not sure he realized it yet when he did the presser. Watch it. It's pretty sad.

While I think some of their game management skills have been questionable at best, there is no way he didn't realize a 1st down would seal it.

You seriously do need to effin stop

Link?

Look either he realized it, and winning wasn't all that important, or he didn't realize it. Not sure which option is worse.

 

[Redux]

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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

To be honest, I don't think he even realized at the time that a 1st down would seal the win. I'm not sure he realized it yet when he did the presser. Watch it. It's pretty sad.

While I think some of their game management skills have been questionable at best, there is no way he didn't realize a 1st down would seal it.

You seriously do need to effin stop

Link?
Look either he realized it, and winning wasn't all that important, or he didn't realize it. Not sure which option is worse.

Link? You are seriously requesting a link to prove he was trying to get a 1st down after you throw out the idea that he implied he wasn't trying to get a 1st down by his freaking body language!!!

Are you seriously kidding me right now?

 

[NUance]

How do people not understand the difference between needing a first down to seal the deal and simply needing to burn some time off the clock?

More importantly, how do highly paid D1 football coaches not understand the difference?

Yeah, but running time off the clock and trying for a first down aren't mutually exclusive, are they? I mean, if you only want to run time off the clock you'd have Tommy roll out and play keep away for a few seconds before going down in bounds. To try for a first down while keeping the clock running (or forcing a timeout) you'd call some sort of running play.

 

[gdubs4nu]

people only believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence you put in front of their face

 

[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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

To be honest, I don't think he even realized at the time that a 1st down would seal the win. I'm not sure he realized it yet when he did the presser. Watch it. It's pretty sad.

While I think some of their game management skills have been questionable at best, there is no way he didn't realize a 1st down would seal it.

You seriously do need to effin stop

Link?
Look either he realized it, and winning wasn't all that important, or he didn't realize it. Not sure which option is worse.

Link? You are seriously requesting a link to prove he was trying to get a 1st down after you throw out the idea that he implied he wasn't trying to get a 1st down by his freaking body language!!!

Are you seriously kidding me right now?

So you don't think winning is all that important to him. OK, you convinced me.

 

[RunRedRun]

If you have players that don't execute the play call correctly, how in the eff is that the coaches fault and equate to him not wanting to win? That is just more insane logic I always hear from delusional Husker fans that refuse to believe that players can lose a game when the coaching staff is the easy target.

Stop whining. They lost because their play wasn't what it needed to be. They didn't have more guys line up opposite them than we did. It was a fair fight and Nebraska lost. The play calls were fine, but the play execution was piss poor. Deal with it and move on.

Well here is logic at work. It doesn't matter what play was called? So under your theory a coach would be a genius to throw a hail mary EVERY play, if it doesn't work, its the players fault for not executing..?? NICE!

 

[Redux]

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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

To be honest, I don't think he even realized at the time that a 1st down would seal the win. I'm not sure he realized it yet when he did the presser. Watch it. It's pretty sad.

While I think some of their game management skills have been questionable at best, there is no way he didn't realize a 1st down would seal it.

You seriously do need to effin stop

Link?
Look either he realized it, and winning wasn't all that important, or he didn't realize it. Not sure which option is worse.

Link? You are seriously requesting a link to prove he was trying to get a 1st down after you throw out the idea that he implied he wasn't trying to get a 1st down by his freaking body language!!!

Are you seriously kidding me right now?

So you don't think winning is all that important to him. OK, you convinced me.

If you are so blinded to honestly think he wasn't trying to win that game, seriously find a new sport to gollow. Unfrigginbelievable.

 

[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.

So by NOT saying he wanted a first down he was admitting he wanted the defense to win the game?

You say some smart things, then you completely ruin it by saying nonsense like this.

To be honest, I don't think he even realized at the time that a 1st down would seal the win. I'm not sure he realized it yet when he did the presser. Watch it. It's pretty sad.

While I think some of their game management skills have been questionable at best, there is no way he didn't realize a 1st down would seal it.

You seriously do need to effin stop

Link?
Look either he realized it, and winning wasn't all that important, or he didn't realize it. Not sure which option is worse.

Link? You are seriously requesting a link to prove he was trying to get a 1st down after you throw out the idea that he implied he wasn't trying to get a 1st down by his freaking body language!!!

Are you seriously kidding me right now?

So you don't think winning is all that important to him. OK, you convinced me.

If you are so blinded to honestly think he wasn't trying to win that game, seriously find a new sport to gollow. Unfrigginbelievable.

So now you don't think he realized that a first down would seal the win??? Make up your mind.