Uncle Milt on Rotate-gate

Let me first state that I believe Milt was a great coach and don't want any misunderstanding of where I am coming from but I recall very well the coaches stating the interest in getting meaningful game snaps for the backups and their backups. We had offensive lines that were 3 deep and good. Now, if Milt is saying that the current coaches don't have the luxury of being able to put in the seconds and thirds and expecting 'winning' football from them, that may well be true. During a large part of Milt's tenure, we 'reloaded' and didn't rebuild the O line. Offensive linemen were recruited and then put into the system and it was very common for guys to redshirt and then wait their turn as starters during their freshmen and sophomore seasons as the upper classmen who had likewise paid their dues and worked their way through the 'pipeline' system had done before them.

But, they reached a point where the depth during the mid/late nineties was incredibly strong. Nebraska's second string O line was better than the starters on most teams we played. Often, we could have played our third string line and expected to win the game nonetheless. This allowed for free substitutions and WE DID so, often giving the seconds a series or two in the middle of the second quarter. Of course, we normally had a substantial lead and 'knew' we had the game in control. Riley and Pelini and Callahan and Frank all had very few games where this was true after about 1999. The decade of dominance ended abruptly in 2000 really. While there have been some big wins since 2000, there are not that many and far too many games where the winner was not decided before the middle or late 4th quarter. This does not afford the 'luxury' of playing the backups. This in turn means each year you are gong to spend much of the first half of the season getting 'experience' and developing team chemistry and unity and confidence, etc. This is why some of us feel that in the 'rebuilding' years, you must look to the future with your mind open. While nobody wants to lose, you need to seriously consider sacrifice of a some wins now for the future of the program. The win now and let the future take care of itself approach almost never works in my opinion.

You want to win but to win championships you must have a full blown 'program' and not just a team. The interests of each and every team member, coach and other staff members MUST be subject to the overall interests in building the program to championship level. Players who are unwilling to sacrifice their personal wishes to those of the greater good of the team and program are to be avoided really. Players who leave or refuse to support the team because they think they should be starter as freshmen notwithstanding there are better players above them on the chart become part of the problem and not the solution. And conversely, upper classmen don't get to start because of age seniority and must be the better player. Choices for who plays with 'even' Senior vs sophomore) are made based on the future and not just the current season,.

It seems to me that there has been far too much pressure placed on each of the coahces (Frank, Bill, Bo and Mike) to win right out of the starting gate, expecting miracles really. Solich was given the best chance and opportunity to take over and win at the highest levels from the beginning as he was given the BEST job in the country in a program that was maybe in the best condtion ever. He failed to keep things rolling along and stumbled badly. The depth and capacity to 'reload' was lost and we began to rebuild. Callahan thought he could do it in a couple years but his ego exceeded his capacity obviously. Be gave it a heck of try with Tom's supervision and guidance no doubt. He didn't get it done. Now, Riley is given his shot. He wasn't fired or burned at the stake after this first season (a disaster at 6-7 no doubt) so perhaps there is some realization that we have to rebuild the 'program' from the ground up. That means we don't worry as much about winning now because we are focused on the long term growth and development of the 'program' over the immediate teams issues. Unfortunately, in my view, we should have played far more youth than we did so that by this fall, we are not starting anyone (offense, defense, special teams) that has not 'lettered' with significant playing time when the game is still yet to decided. Whether we substitute one or two guys or by whole unit, we need to play our seconds and thirds some to get the acclimated to the challenges and speed of the game and to experience live and 3D living color what it takes to play winning Big Ten football.

 
Bottom line is that we were not in enough big wins/losses that we could give the backups playtime and the coaches weren't comfortable with the number 6 and 7 guys to run the complete offense. Happens all the time in the college game and pro game.

 
So now we are upset that the guys playing are the ones that fit the coach's system not the one we want them to run.

Makes perfect sense.
Well, the coaches' system led the nation in interceptions, was a big part of having a 6-7 record and was admitted by the coaches that they probably should have been doing things differently during the year.

So ..... yeah.
You are really reaching on this one...
Stumpy, before people jump down your throat, I think you should specify why you disagree.
Mavric is now trying to turn an argument about how many oline players should rotated that has somehow shifted to an argument about which players were truly the best 5 last year into an argument about whether the offensive system is the right fit. This trail of weird tangents is pretty funny to watch.
That is the heart of the argument. It seems pretty obvious that most of the reason why certain players played over others - both on the offensive line and in the backfield - was because they were better pass blockers. Several players have said that themselves. It's pretty obvious that the coaches favored players who were better pass blockers.

Actually, you're the one trying to shift the argument. We weren't discussing is the offensive system is the right fit. We were discussing which players fit the system. There's a difference.
I haven't shifted anything, the argument was about 1) why the staff doesn't rotate more on the o-line and now 2) which 5 should have been playing and why certain players were playing over others. Somehow the 2nd was the immediate go to once Milt blew up the argument on 1. Your the one that made a statement about the offensive system being the wrong system due to the high number on INTs and that the coaches know they need to modify it going forward.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are seriously people contending that Milt doesn't remember what really happened, or is purposely lying about it to give the new staff cover? So old Uncle Milt is either addle-pated or downright deceitful, huh?
default_facepalm.gif


 
There are seriously people contending that Milt doesn't remember what really happened, or is purposely lying about it to give the new staff cover? So old Uncle Milt is either addle-pated or downright deceitful, huh?
default_facepalm.gif
If Milt says they didn't rotate during the '95 Orange Bowl, he's factually wrong.

I don't understand why it's so uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that.

 
But go watch the 1995 Orange Bowl against Miami, he tells you. "We didn't sub in that baby. We played those five guys the whole length of that ballgame." If it's a tight game, when it comes to your top group, "you better leave their butts in there."
Wiegert played every snap. Wilks played every snap. Stai played every snap. Zatechka was out one series in the first half and one play in the second. Graham was out 1 series in the first half. 1 in the second. They actually changed the line in that they flipped Stai and Wilks so that Stai was on Sapp's side frequently with a double team from the center. Never less than 4 starters in at the same time. No points scored when a non-starter was in. Not exactly like they were rolling 'em in and out at will, but only three linemen actually played every snap.

"I remember in '97, we went through almost that entire year with six players, and luckily didn't get anyone hurt or banged up," said Tenopir, sharp as can be in naming off his former players. "Matt Hoskinson was our swing guy. And then later in the year, Adam Julch came along, I rolled him in there a little bit."
"I've watched enough of his practices to know that he has the best five in there. There was quite a measurable difference between ones and twos," Tenopir said of last year. "Fortunately, he has a chance right now to have seven or eight or nine players to be ready to play this fall. But I'm not saying he's going to do that, because I'd do the same thing he did. If the game was in doubt, I'd play my best five."
The point he appears to be making is that he didn't feel there were people to rotate in last year from what he observed. I guess I will have to go with what Milt is saying on this, even though I would like to see a "second line" get a series here and there. Maybe we will see that if scores allow. Don't know.

 
So now we are upset that the guys playing are the ones that fit the coach's system not the one we want them to run.

Makes perfect sense.
This. Is. Beautiful.
Well, as Mav pointed out, the system was less than successful. We decided to throw the ball with a QB that doesn't fit his strengths, and the coaches have the audacity to complain about a lack of consistency in the running game as a reason they didn't go to it as often during the season.

They were supposed to run a system that fit the teams strengths early into their tenure, mold what they wanted to do based off what we have. Some evidence suggests they were pounding square pegs into round holes.

 
obviously milt is a liar and our players are square pegs. got it. thanks to the people who have properly adjusted tin foil hats for letting me know the truth.

 
There are seriously people contending that Milt doesn't remember what really happened, or is purposely lying about it to give the new staff cover? So old Uncle Milt is either addle-pated or downright deceitful, huh?
default_facepalm.gif
If Milt says they didn't rotate during the '95 Orange Bowl, he's factually wrong. I don't understand why it's so uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that.
I don't think anyone is uncomfortable to acknowledge he was ever so slightly mistaken about a minor detail as much as splitting hairs is just a waste of time.
It does nothing to address the bigger picture in any meaningful way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are seriously people contending that Milt doesn't remember what really happened, or is purposely lying about it to give the new staff cover? So old Uncle Milt is either addle-pated or downright deceitful, huh?
default_facepalm.gif
If Milt says they didn't rotate during the '95 Orange Bowl, he's factually wrong. I don't understand why it's so uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that.
I don't think anyone is uncomfortable to acknowledge he was ever so slightly mistaken about a minor detail as much as splitting hairs is just a waste of time.It does nothing to address the bigger picture in any meaningful way.
When did you get so eloquent and start posting meaningful paragraphs?
 
Back
Top