Where was the creativity?

[Hammerhead]

But I think Taylor was right: SC's defense was not the best one we played this year. Maybe it was the fastest, but in no way was it the best.

Didn’t the South Carolina defense hold NU to a season low in yards and points while also recording a season high 6 sacks?

Which defense was better? Michigan?

Penn State or Michigan State. Possibly Ohio State. The fact that we scored only 13 points to me is because of all the mistakes that we made. The fumble by Abdullah inside the redzone, the interception by Taylor in field goal range, the missed field goal. That's 9 points right there that we should have had, probably 13 because on the drive where Abdullah fumbled, we were headed to the endzone. Add in all of the penalties by the O-Line in the 2nd half, and that is a team beating itself. In addition, if Taylor doesn't throw that INT right before halftime, the hail mary play likely never happens, and we head into the locker room up 16-9.

I'm just saying that we were running and throwing the ball right down their throats until we started beating ourselves.

Good point. Nebraska didn't need South Carolina's defense to come up with big plays for negative yardage, because with all those penalties, our offense gave them all the negative yardage they needed.

 

[TommyT1988]

Creativity? Really? Its football- line up- beat the man in front of you. If we cannot do that then we don't win. Its that simple.

 

[Stickney]

We had something like 6 or 7 guys play on offense this year who have never really played (guys like Moore, Bell, Turner, Abdullah, etc., are a few that come to mind).

I don't know, I'd say those guys didn't play enough (Turner, Green, Heard, Bell . . . .)

 

[Hoosker]

Creativity? Really? Its football- line up- beat the man in front of you. If we cannot do that then we don't win. Its that simple.

Yeah, screw it. Who needs creativity? Especially when you have just as much speed, strength, and overall athletic ability on our side of the ball as they do. :sarcasm

We should have just lined up in goal line the whole time. Screw creativity. Ask Oregon, Clemson, Auburn, Michigan, etc. Creativity is a big part of making big plays. It's not as black and white as the game used to be. Creativity has a lot to do with it.

My main grudge is that we never see the diamond formation, even though it seems that we always have success out of it. We also just seemed, that in the 2nd half, we never tried one of those crazy, unique, desperate play calls that is a risk/reward in terms of success. We played like we were down by 3 the whole time. Like we had punched in those scores in the first half instead of turning them over. I know you have to stick to your bread and butter and for us that's the option/running game with Rexy, but IMO, it felt like we didn't use everything in the toolbox to try and win. Just another disappointing part of the game, IMO.

 

[TommyT1988]

Creativity? Really? Its football- line up- beat the man in front of you. If we cannot do that then we don't win. Its that simple.

Yeah, screw it. Who needs creativity? Especially when you have just as much speed, strength, and overall athletic ability on our side of the ball as they do. :sarcasm

We should have just lined up in goal line the whole time. Screw creativity. Ask Oregon, Clemson, Auburn, Michigan, etc. Creativity is a big part of making big plays. It's not as black and white as the game used to be. Creativity has a lot to do with it.

My main grudge is that we never see the diamond formation, even though it seems that we always have success out of it. We also just seemed, that in the 2nd half, we never tried one of those crazy, unique, desperate play calls that is a risk/reward in terms of success. We played like we were down by 3 the whole time. Like we had punched in those scores in the first half instead of turning them over. I know you have to stick to your bread and butter and for us that's the option/running game with Rexy, but IMO, it felt like we didn't use everything in the toolbox to try and win. Just another disappointing part of the game, IMO.

lol.

Okay, Creativity. Its magical. South Carolina was better or as good in every position on the field- ESPECIALLY- the match ups on the offensive defensive lines. You can write as many paragraphs as you need and post 300 posts about coaches and play calling. But, until someone up front can block worth a sh#t, it doesn't matter which formation or play you run. That is just the play hard truth right now brutha.

Yes, if our OLINE blew people of the ball and got the slightest push/pass block and we were still getting blown out- then yes- you can come in here and question "play calling" "creativity" . It comes down the those front 5 blocking. They didn't. They cant. They havn't been able to all year. We were man handled. Done.

 

[sd'sker]

hyphenated worded rebuttal to creativity: smash-mouth. (not the band, the brand of football).

 

[Enhance]

We had something like 6 or 7 guys play on offense this year who have never really played (guys like Moore, Bell, Turner, Abdullah, etc., are a few that come to mind).

I don't know, I'd say those guys didn't play enough (Turner, Green, Heard, Bell . . . .)

Well there's definitely an argument to be made there, I think. I see two sides - one telling me they weren't ready to play, the other saying to give em more of a chance. Bell saw a lot of playing time this year though, and Turner almost had a great catch in the bowl game were it not for a pass interference call. The three backs are generally where people focus their attention. But, excluding the backs, we had a lot of young faces out there this year many of which were only 18 or 19 years old.

 

[Nellanaesp]

Creativity? Really? Its football- line up- beat the man in front of you. If we cannot do that then we don't win. Its that simple.

Yeah, screw it. Who needs creativity? Especially when you have just as much speed, strength, and overall athletic ability on our side of the ball as they do. :sarcasm

We should have just lined up in goal line the whole time. Screw creativity. Ask Oregon, Clemson, Auburn, Michigan, etc. Creativity is a big part of making big plays. It's not as black and white as the game used to be. Creativity has a lot to do with it.

My main grudge is that we never see the diamond formation, even though it seems that we always have success out of it. We also just seemed, that in the 2nd half, we never tried one of those crazy, unique, desperate play calls that is a risk/reward in terms of success. We played like we were down by 3 the whole time. Like we had punched in those scores in the first half instead of turning them over. I know you have to stick to your bread and butter and for us that's the option/running game with Rexy, but IMO, it felt like we didn't use everything in the toolbox to try and win. Just another disappointing part of the game, IMO.

lol.

Okay, Creativity. Its magical. South Carolina was better or as good in every position on the field- ESPECIALLY- the match ups on the offensive defensive lines. You can write as many paragraphs as you need and post 300 posts about coaches and play calling. But, until someone up front can block worth a sh#t, it doesn't matter which formation or play you run. That is just the play hard truth right now brutha.

Yes, if our OLINE blew people of the ball and got the slightest push/pass block and we were still getting blown out- then yes- you can come in here and question "play calling" "creativity" . It comes down the those front 5 blocking. They didn't. They cant. They havn't been able to all year. We were man handled. Done.

I get what you're saying there about the o-line not getting good run blocking in the second half, but that's where coaching comes into play. If something's not working, try something else for god's sake! They should have watched the Arkansas-SC game.. they beat up South Carolina's pass D all day with quick, short passes and screens. That's how you beat an overly agressive defensive line like South Carolina's. I saw a few screen plays here and there, but not many short passes or dump offs to the backs. The bottom line is that it's the coaches' responsibility to figure something out when something else doesn't work.

Look at South Carolina's season for instance. The team came into the year with expecations of playing for the SEC Championship Game, with a 3,000 yard passer, 1,000 yard rusher, and 1,000 yard receiver. Garcia came in and stunk it up with the passing game, throwing twice as many interceptions as touchdowns in the first 5 or so games. He was eventually kicked off the team, but that's besides the point. Marcus Lattimore went down in the second half of the season. There goes the running game. So what did Spurrier do the rest of the year? Adjusted. He ran the quarterback more, passed only to keep the defenses honest, and won a lot of low-scoring slug fests. It was not at all like previously-coached Spurrier teams.

Like I said, it's all about coaching. Nebraska lacks a lot in that department, and I honestly don't see any better results than the past 4 years in the future with Pelini at the helm. JMO.

 

[Enhance]

Nebraska was actually doing a really good job taking it to South Carolina in the first half. Nebraska's offensive line was winning early and often. Save those two turnovers, Nebraska might have 14 extra points heading into the half.

And yeah, it is coaching. We can't all have a Steve Spurrier as our coach. Pelini is in his early 40's and has made mistakes. It is what it is.

 

[Nellanaesp]

Nebraska was actually doing a really good job taking it to South Carolina in the first half. Nebraska's offensive line was winning early and often. Save those two turnovers, Nebraska might have 14 extra points heading into the half.

And yeah, it is coaching. We can't all have a Steve Spurrier as our coach. Pelini is in his early 40's and has made mistakes. It is what it is.

I'm not saying everyone can, but I honestly think Nebraska can do better than Pelini.

 

[HuskerShark]

Nebraska was actually doing a really good job taking it to South Carolina in the first half. Nebraska's offensive line was winning early and often. Save those two turnovers, Nebraska might have 14 extra points heading into the half.

And yeah, it is coaching. We can't all have a Steve Spurrier as our coach. Pelini is in his early 40's and has made mistakes. It is what it is.

I'm not saying everyone can, but I honestly think Nebraska can do better than Pelini.

I don't know what to say to that... I really like what Bo brings to the table, and I will continue to support him. All it is going to take is a few more athletes on the field, and I think we are right there in the national championship conversation. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why we play the game.

 

[Nellanaesp]

Nebraska was actually doing a really good job taking it to South Carolina in the first half. Nebraska's offensive line was winning early and often. Save those two turnovers, Nebraska might have 14 extra points heading into the half.

And yeah, it is coaching. We can't all have a Steve Spurrier as our coach. Pelini is in his early 40's and has made mistakes. It is what it is.

I'm not saying everyone can, but I honestly think Nebraska can do better than Pelini.

I don't know what to say to that... I really like what Bo brings to the table, and I will continue to support him. All it is going to take is a few more athletes on the field, and I think we are right there in the national championship conversation. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why we play the game.

I'm impressed with Nebraska's debut in the Big 10, and I think they'll continue to win 9 to 10 games a season. I'd give Bo one more year to figure things out. College football isn't what it used to be, even 10 years ago, and it's getting harder and harder to get a team that is a dominant as the ones Nebraska used to have.

 

[Stickney]

We had something like 6 or 7 guys play on offense this year who have never really played (guys like Moore, Bell, Turner, Abdullah, etc., are a few that come to mind).

I don't know, I'd say those guys didn't play enough (Turner, Green, Heard, Bell . . . .)

Well there's definitely an argument to be made there, I think. I see two sides - one telling me they weren't ready to play, the other saying to give em more of a chance.

Agreed -- you just can't burn all 3 RB redshirts and then NOT use them as the season progresses. Lord knows Burkhead, superman status aside, could use a breather or 3 a game.

Bell was excellent. Why Turner couldn't make the field is baffling (he was the leading receiver for the team at one point, after Wisky?).

I would probably say that the Doghouse rumors regarding Turner and Moore were warranted, and that setting standards and maintaining discipline are solid goals. The problem with that is that I think we can all agree Bo's NU teams have been anything but disciplined & mistake free, so whatever they are trying doesn't translate onto the field.

 

[Joe_5700]

Nebraska was actually doing a really good job taking it to South Carolina in the first half. Nebraska's offensive line was winning early and often. Save those two turnovers, Nebraska might have 14 extra points heading into the half.

And yeah, it is coaching. We can't all have a Steve Spurrier as our coach. Pelini is in his early 40's and has made mistakes. It is what it is.

I'm not saying everyone can, but I honestly think Nebraska can do better than Pelini.

I don't know what to say to that... I really like what Bo brings to the table, and I will continue to support him. All it is going to take is a few more athletes on the field, and I think we are right there in the national championship conversation. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why we play the game.

I'm impressed with Nebraska's debut in the Big 10, and I think they'll continue to win 9 to 10 games a season. I'd give Bo one more year to figure things out. College football isn't what it used to be, even 10 years ago, and it's getting harder and harder to get a team that is a dominant as the ones Nebraska used to have.

Well which is it? In your previous post you thought that Nebraska could do better than Pelini and now you are impressed... I predict better seasons for Nebraska but also a few tough ones as well ( 7 or 8 wins caused by key injuries etc.).

 

[Hoosker]

Creativity? Really? Its football- line up- beat the man in front of you. If we cannot do that then we don't win. Its that simple.

Yeah, screw it. Who needs creativity? Especially when you have just as much speed, strength, and overall athletic ability on our side of the ball as they do. :sarcasm

We should have just lined up in goal line the whole time. Screw creativity. Ask Oregon, Clemson, Auburn, Michigan, etc. Creativity is a big part of making big plays. It's not as black and white as the game used to be. Creativity has a lot to do with it.

My main grudge is that we never see the diamond formation, even though it seems that we always have success out of it. We also just seemed, that in the 2nd half, we never tried one of those crazy, unique, desperate play calls that is a risk/reward in terms of success. We played like we were down by 3 the whole time. Like we had punched in those scores in the first half instead of turning them over. I know you have to stick to your bread and butter and for us that's the option/running game with Rexy, but IMO, it felt like we didn't use everything in the toolbox to try and win. Just another disappointing part of the game, IMO.

lol.

Okay, Creativity. Its magical. South Carolina was better or as good in every position on the field- ESPECIALLY- the match ups on the offensive defensive lines. You can write as many paragraphs as you need and post 300 posts about coaches and play calling. But, until someone up front can block worth a sh#t, it doesn't matter which formation or play you run. That is just the play hard truth right now brutha.

Yes, if our OLINE blew people of the ball and got the slightest push/pass block and we were still getting blown out- then yes- you can come in here and question "play calling" "creativity" . It comes down the those front 5 blocking. They didn't. They cant. They havn't been able to all year. We were man handled. Done.

Yep, so if something isn't working, it makes total sense that you should just accept the fact they they are better on both lines and take our lumps... Good call.

Maybe if we had used Kenny Bell on a reverse (see the Minnesota game) or throw in some diamond formation (see the Ohio St. game) we could have gotten back in the game with a big play or two. I'm not saying that you need to be flashy all the time, but sometimes when you lose that edge offensively and you can't seem to move the ball because of sheer physical dominance or lack of discipline (penalties, turnovers), you need a SPARK! If you could have sprinkled in some trickery and some plays to catch the SC defense off guard, we could possibly get some big gains and, more importantly, give us some MOMENTUM! Sometimes, all you need is momentum.

I think if we had some big gains here and there, not only would our linemen have played better, but the team in general. You see it all the time in college football. It's a game of momentum and swings. IMO, we didn't use everything we had. We didn't play like our season came down to 2 quarters. We didn't play like we tried everything we had to win. That's all I'm saying.