84HuskerLaw
New member
Several points to weigh:Right, it's one of those things where a bad call can look good and vice versa depending on the players. To be honest, I've heard very few critiques with any specifics other than the goal line at Purdue, and a general "obviously they're bad playcalls because we didn't score." "Too many screens" as well, but watching that compilation of all of them there really weren't that many. I don't think we can draw a complete conclusion on Frost's playcalling based on one year.
1. Play calling does include the overall scheme / type of offense and formations etc to some critics. Some feel that it is much more than simply run vs pass stats and there are many types of each category. Some runs work better than others depending on circumstances.
2. Blocking techniques and power formations vs run from passing sets and vice versa.
3. Down and distance when runs vs passes are called and defensive alignments / strengths & weaknesses relatively between teams etc.
4. Overall, play calling is often more “art and feel” (intuitive) than random or even science.
I dont think we have nearly enough data (just two short seasons) under tough circumstances with talent, systemic changes etc.
The offense has moved the ball fairly well at times stat
wise but inconsistent too often. Red zone scoring and point production was subpar but field position has been subpar which usually negatively impacts offensive success.
Frost needs more time before we should blame playcalling unduely.