Nebraska's depth is as good or better than almost every team in the conference.
I'd argue that our lack of depth at QB and DE cost us games this season.
I won't speak for Bowfin, but you completely missed the point of my post, which was relevant as a response to your original post.And this is my point exactly. There was a HUGE uproar when we ran this play against Illinois and Tommy improvised, and botched, a short pass. We had a five page thread in which people castigated the coaches and talked about the sheer incompetence of calling this play. It was an iceberg! But the coaches didn't listen to the collective fan wisdom about that iceberg play. They went over the play in practice, and even went so far as to rename the play in an effort to prevent another miscue. So we pull it out again against a stout Michigan State defense. This time we run it correctly and Tommy takes it to the house. And some fans (e.g., you two) still call this play an iceberg—saying the TD against Sparty doesn't cancel out the first time we ran it.
So I guess what you're saying is that if we run a play and it doesn't work we should just tear that page out of the playbook. So we don't ever hit that iceberg again!
If the players would have bought in before Michigan St, we likely would have won 10. It was a transition year ya know.
I can go with you on the QB and DE. However, even though at the beginning of the year it appeared we were thin at LB, players stepped up and proved we weren't really thin at LB.
Oh, perhaps I misunderstood your statement that: "it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand." It sounds to me like you're saying that it was a "questionable play call" against Illinois because it was executed poorly and didn't work. But then the same play was a good call against Michigan State when it did work. (Or are you going to argue that Illinois has a better defense than Michigan State?) So if I completely missed the point of your post then what did you mean by "it doesn't absolve is overall questionable play calling with the talent at hand"? It must have been an egregious misunderstanding on my part, given your double facepalm response.I won't speak for Bowfin, but you completely missed the point of my post, which was relevant as a response to your original post.And this is my point exactly. There was a HUGE uproar when we ran this play against Illinois and Tommy improvised, and botched, a short pass. We had a five page thread in which people castigated the coaches and talked about the sheer incompetence of calling this play. It was an iceberg! But the coaches didn't listen to the collective fan wisdom about that iceberg play. They went over the play in practice, and even went so far as to rename the play in an effort to prevent another miscue. So we pull it out again against a stout Michigan State defense. This time we run it correctly and Tommy takes it to the house. And some fans (e.g., you two) still call this play an iceberg—saying the TD against Sparty doesn't cancel out the first time we ran it.
So I guess what you're saying is that if we run a play and it doesn't work we should just tear that page out of the playbook. So we don't ever hit that iceberg again!:facepalm:
Any games you want so long as they fit a finely tailored argument.
I don't think there are depth issues. At least no more than what any other team outside of maybe 5 or 6 face.
Yet, the LB's were pretty darn good because Bray did a great job. Our secondary was abused by nearly every team we played, and Banker didn't adjust like he said he would. Also, a better commitment to the run game (and not throwing it 40 times a game) would have helped our QB situation.