Uncle Milt on Rotate-gate

[Enhance]

I agree, Enhance, and generally, I have not gone after Cav's decisions this past season. My bigger concern is that he stated that his policy is to not substitute, regardless of the abilities of a back up. He has said that and compared his approach to the NFL which truly does not rotate.

So while I won't second guess his decisions about who should start, I do have doubts about that sort of policy.

I would simply say too that it's ok to second guess some of these decisions. Like him or not, Cav has a very thin resume in terms of running successful OLs and being part of successful offenses. Not that there's nothing there, but more like he's still in "prove it" territory.

I can agree with most of that, too, particularly the 'prove it' part. I think it's always fair to question a coaching decision.

I think what I would advocate for is people being more open to his approach, whether they completely agree with it or not. We've been having this discussion around here for a long time dating back to last year, and as of right now, there's little reason to suggest his method is ineffective. Much of the angst towards it comes from people who have philosophical differences.

I also think there are some fans out there who don't know any better. They hear the words "depth" and "rotation" and believe them to be generally positive concepts, and though they are, some people appear to be operating under the impression that there is only one way to go about achieving them. I think that's naive, personally. So, do we all want to continue having the same conversation or give Cav time to do it his way? If it works, great, and if it doesn't, we all know what would happen eventually.

 

[Mavric]

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.

Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system.

This is your answer. There was no talk that a different system should be run until ITDTG brought it up. ITDTG didn't point out that the conversation had shifted, he was the one who shifted it. C N Red and I were only talking about why the backups weren't playing. I responded to him but neither CN nor I shifted the conversion. That was brought up by ITDTG - who wasn't trying to participate in the conversation, only belittle other member's posts.

And now you've completely shifted it to arguing about it.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The revisionist history in this is remarkable. Well done.

 

[Bowfin]

^Boliever

So anybody who didn't like a 6-7 regular season is a Boliever?

Okay, got it!

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

The revisionist history in this is remarkable. Well done.

The irony of your statement is it could perfectly describe either position in the debate, depending on your perspective.

From the statements Uncle Milt and past OL guys have made plus the research posted by CN and HB members, I think we can conclude that Milt played back ups, freely subbing as necessary even in meaning minutes as oppose to true rotations. Now, I think it is time for some froyo.

 

[caveman99]

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.

Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system.

This is your answer. There was no talk that a different system should be run until ITDTG brought it up. ITDTG didn't point out that the conversation had shifted, he was the one who shifted it. C N Red and I were only talking about why the backups weren't playing. I responded to him but neither CN nor I shifted the conversion. That was brought up by ITDTG - who wasn't trying to participate in the conversation, only belittle other member's posts.

And now you've completely shifted it to arguing about it.

Actually ITDTG simply commented on the shift in argument, he didn't bring up the discussion of system issues. Colorado Husk did that the post prior with this quote, "i understand needing to do "all aspects of the job", but this is where Riley's/Langsdorf's/Cav's focus on the pass game gets in the way of a successful run game."
Regarding your last sentence, I will take 50% of the credit for prolonging our particular conversation, but you surely deserve the other half.

 

[Bowfin]

so milt is a liar and our current coaches suck because we substituted a couple players for a couple plays against miami in 1995?

Just rewatched the whole game and #51 played a lot, certainly more than a few plays. However, this isn't going to be settled on just what happened during one game. We need to watch about a half dozen games against good teams in Nebraska's glory days.

I'll report back.

Nice try at damage control, though with the spin and all...

 

[Mavric]

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.

Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system.

This is your answer. There was no talk that a different system should be run until ITDTG brought it up. ITDTG didn't point out that the conversation had shifted, he was the one who shifted it. C N Red and I were only talking about why the backups weren't playing. I responded to him but neither CN nor I shifted the conversion. That was brought up by ITDTG - who wasn't trying to participate in the conversation, only belittle other member's posts.

And now you've completely shifted it to arguing about it.

Actually ITDTG simply commented on the shift in argument, he didn't bring up the discussion of system issues. Colorado Husk did that the post prior with this quote, "i understand needing to do "all aspects of the job", but this is where Riley's/Langsdorf's/Cav's focus on the pass game gets in the way of a successful run game."
Regarding your last sentence, I will take 50% of the credit for prolonging our particular conversation, but you surely deserve the other half.

Unless your position is that the current system has the total exclusion of the running game, "the system" would include both running and passing. Saying we could use a successful run game is not the same thing as saying we need to be running a different system.

Even Riley has said that repeatedly.

 

[Mavric]

Anyway, back to the actual topic. As per usual, this is being blown entirely out of proportion on both sides. Milt's comments that they "didn't rotate" is very unlikely to be true in the strictest sense. It seems likely - and evidence has been presented - that they did rotate to some extent. Probably not a lot, but some.

And those saying they'd like to see some rotation are not saying we should make changes every possession. But have 2-3 backups who can come in and get a series here and there would provide a little rest for the starters, experience for the backups and help provide cover for injuries later in the season.

I think we probably rotated OLinemen more than we needed to under the previous staff but I think we could definitely rotate more than we did last year without losing anything. There's a reason that every other position (except QB) gets rotated frequently. Football is a tiring game. OLinemen are not somehow immune from getting tired. If RBs, WRs, DLs and LBs can all rotate to some extent without losing chemistry, I don't know why the same can't be said for the OL. Even if every starter (except probably C) got one possession off per half, that would allow some rest and some valuable game experience. Not all at the same time, just sub one guy on about the third possession, a different guy on the fourth, etc. You always have four starters on the field and getting a couple guys some experience for down the road, whenever that might be.

As we saw last year, we're unlikely to make it through the season without having to change starters for some reason. We replaced one starter because he wasn't playing as well as hoped and had to replace another due to injury. If the chemistry of the line is really that hard to get to come together, we should have been struggling down the stretch. Instead, we were at least as good and probably better. I just don't think the reasoning given really holds up.

 

[Mavric]

Forgot to include that I don't think Milt was lying, but that doesn't mean he was correct either. It's been 20 years and Milt isn't exactly a spring chicken let alone had some health problems. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that it seems to him that they basically played the entire game - which they did - and it really isn't "that important" that there was actually a sub in the game here and there.

He's trying to be supportive of the new staff and a new friend. Not try to be deceitful or start a controversy.

It's just how things go with Husker Football.

 

[Bowfin]

I think what I would advocate for is people being more open to his approach, whether they completely agree with it or not.

As it has been said before (including me), a 6-7 record fosters a lot of "shoulda, coulda, woulda" conjectures and theories. Everybody watching someone NOT catching a fish will offer all sorts of helpful advice, but nobody second guesses a guy pulling them in right and left. I don't see any of this going away until Riley and Cavanaugh can hoist a full stringer, and that is fair.

 

[Bowfin]

Well, that should pretty much shut the ignorants up on this one.

I think that we all ignorant on this one until we check to see if his recollections are accurate. It has already been established that Bill Humphrey played a considerable amount of snaps in the Orange Bowl (going off of play count, not drive count) and Chris Dishman was in there as well.

But thanks for offering your opinion beforehand, based on...whatever...

 

[MichiganDad3]

so milt is a liar and our current coaches suck because we substituted a couple players for a couple plays against miami in 1995?

Just rewatched the whole game and #51 played a lot, certainly more than a few plays. However, this isn't going to be settled on just what happened during one game. We need to watch about a half dozen games against good teams in Nebraska's glory days.

I'll report back.

Nice try at damage control, though with the spin and all...

I agree with this. One of the main benefits of rotating players in college is to give them experience and on the job training. When playing for a MNC (1995 Orange Bowl), I can understand not trying to get the youngsters experience. I wonder what will happen at QB this year. If O'brien redshirts, then there is no benefit of getting Fyfe reps; he is not starting after the 2016 season. Should Fyfe be #2 on the depth chart, but Bush gets the reps in blowouts?

 

[Count 'Bility]

The revisionist history in this is remarkable. Well done.

The irony of your statement is it could perfectly describe either position in the debate, depending on your perspective.

From the statements Uncle Milt and past OL guys have made plus the research posted by CN and HB members, I think we can conclude that Milt played back ups, freely subbing as necessary even in meaning minutes as oppose to true rotations. Now, I think it is time for some froyo.

Yeah man. That was exaclty my point. Goalposts have been moved to the extreme both ways to support both sides, while the truth literally lies right in the middle. But like a lot of things in the world, god forbid anyone sits back and thinks about that at all. And it wouldnt mean theyd be admitting any wrong, but they wouldnt be fully right. Apparently that's not satisfying anymore.

 

[Elf]

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.

Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system.

This is your answer. There was no talk that a different system should be run until ITDTG brought it up. ITDTG didn't point out that the conversation had shifted, he was the one who shifted it. C N Red and I were only talking about why the backups weren't playing. I responded to him but neither CN nor I shifted the conversion. That was brought up by ITDTG - who wasn't trying to participate in the conversation, only belittle other member's posts.

And now you've completely shifted it to arguing about it.

I agree that he simply pointed out how you and others shifted the conversation. I'm only saying this to point out that he isn't the only one to notice.