Carl Pelini & Shawn Watson

[74Hunter]

If you wanna go with that, though. He was OC at CU for 5 years, and they had a winning record 3 of those seasons. In 2001, maybe you'll recall them whipping Nebraska 62-36.

Every time I see or hear that quote, I want to eat a kitten for desert. That was ONE FREAKING GAME in his career, and it was against a team that was in decline. If you look at his time as OC at CU, his offenses were mediocre at best.

While I don't think that he is great by any stretch, I think that the texa$$ game was one of his better called games, the players just didn't execute. I would agree that it seems to take him half of a season to figure out what he our offense does well and to game plan around that. Also, Watson will never make the fan base happy, half of the people b!^@h because he is too stubborn, half b!^@h because he tries to do too much and gets cutsie. Half b!^@h because he is trying to be multiple, half b!^@h because he is doing the same thing over and over again.

Sometimes things are not always as they appear. I don't neccessarily think that he does the best to take what the other team gives us, or plans to our strenghts. I do feel that the jury is still out on his effectiveness as OC.

 

[junior4949]

innovative playcaller? not.

he just runs the flavor of the month. innovative is doing something different within your scheme that makes the other team, no matter how well prepared, left scratching their heads a little.

watson is neither inventive or innovative

Er - see Texas game for a prime example of head scratching? New routes, new formations, all within our scheme, but new looks that Texas was unprepared for. They were a good team then and had not mailed in their season at all, yet.

Now we have to decide whether we want our OC to be doing this sort of thing - exploiting various weaknesses, such as the power game on Missouri, the passing attack on OSU, the zone read on KSU - or if we should just do the same thing, over and over, and have an "identity" that happens to be so good nobody can stop it anyway.

I couldn't disagree more. The passes seemed more like desperation reactions to the fact that our zone-read wasn't working than the product of a pre-mediated game plan. I guess we'll never know for sure, but let me put this thought into your head: We tend to blame Burkhead, Kinnie, and Paul for all those dropped balls and claim that it was a lack of execution---not play calling---that doomed us. But which is more likely? That our players all miraculously failed to execute pass plays they'd been drilling all week? Or that the players failed to execute pass plays with which they were largely unfamiliar, having not run them regularly in practice leading up to the game?

I think it's clear that Watson figured we'd run all over Texas, and then hastily inserted some pass plays when he found that his run game was getting stuffed. If Watson comes in prepared to run and pass out of jumbo sets and the I-formation, we win that game.

Are you flipping kidding me? Desperation reactions? Our receivers were wide friggin open. I'm sure Texas practiced it all week that way where they wouldn't have a defender within ten yards of our receiver because they just knew we didn't have anyone on the team that had hands made of anything but stone. Let's get one thing straight. Our receivers executed the routes perfectly. This is why they were so wide open. There wasn't one pass that they dropped that I don't feel very confident in that I could catch it, and I haven't "practiced" in over a decade. If we hadn't been practicing those plays, the ball would never have been placed as perfectly as it was. The timing would have been off and everything. Your argument is very leaky as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to go back and watch some questionable play calling, I can name several games from the past. Even the great TO had a few games where I was scratching my head. Watson's definitely had some games where his play calling was questionable, but the Texas game wasn't it. IMO, blaming Watson for the Texas loss makes about as much sense as blaming our defense for the Iowa State loss last year.

 

[suh_fan93]

Look at the long list of teams that we've beat this year excluding UCLA and Oklahoma that have all beaten Texas. It was so much more than just the dropped passes. The game plan was predictable. Period. It's not the first time he's called a game like this and you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be the last time. None of those teams who beat Texas this year had an 'aeriel attack' of any kind but you didn't see them come out and pass on 3rd down only for the majority of the game and blantantly run over and over again while the Texas D loaded the box.

Watson lost to Texas and his team could only score a single touchdown and field goal while the K-State's and Iowa State's and Baylor's of the conference put 30 or more on them with lesser talent.

You be the judge.

 

[zoogs]

Last year, Bo had to pull the chain on complete incompetence, EVERY team has injuries. Look at Bradford (freaking returning Heisman) at OU, he got hurt and Landry had 26 TDS and 3200yds. THAT'S innovation.

Not after that 5-pick, 3-10 loss to Nebraska it wasn't. Where was their performance against top teams?

well, first of all, you didn't see Stoops pull the plug on the ENTIRE offense did you? I mean, there were OU fans saying that thier 5 pick performance only scoring 1 FG was like our ISU turd earlier that year.

Secondly, that wasn't just a "top team' defensively...it was the Number 1 defense in country, with an unstoppable man in the middle wrecking havoc.

Third, my point in using that example was that, despite a game or two, OU didn't just fold the tents and crap down their leg offensively the rest of the year after a rash of injuries. They found a way to move the ball and score points.

Admit it. We DO NOT know what we are going to get offensively week to week. We could score 5 TDs on plays over 52 yds and blow someone out, or we could grind to a halt, not being able to string 10-12 play drives out. That is the identity i'm talking about. Our identity is to hit home runs, and if we're not, no matter who the opponent is our offensive lays eggs.

They found a way to score points, but we "folded the tents" and made things simple and found a way to win. The Iowa State game had a lot of turnovers, but a lot of yards as well. We had our way with their defense, minus the part where we didn't want to gift them the ball 8 times.

The fact that we don't know how we are going to be week to week right now is really tied to the fact that we have tied the offensive ship to a redshirt freshamn quarterback who started the year insanely streaky, and has grown out of that a bit. Of course, now he is pretty hurt. Did I like that? Nope. Not at all. I really believed we should have built it off of last year, around a steady handed senior. But Bo (and Watson, and TO, and all the fans, by the way) were really enamored with the home-run ability of Taylor. I can't say it hasn't turned out well, either.

But Taylor is exactly why we are home-run one play, can't move the ball the next quarter.

The Texas game, it wasn't the zone read that wasn't working so much as it was Martinez that wasn't working (hence the reason he eventually was pulled). He got really flustered as the game went on and the chips were down. We made adjustments of course, but you can't just say "Screw everything we planned for, let's go with this other complex game plan that Taylor has no chance of executing either." If you are going to abandon a game plan, the only way to go is to simplify things drastically and take out stuff - not introduce whatever exotic plays people can dream up in Madden. But the game plan was solid in any case, because the wrinkles we added in threw off Texas a lot, and should have led to several scores.

I know people will say "those wrinkles should have been the entire offense." Please. It's the same principle as the playaction only works because you run, run, run first. A fake punt or field goal or XP has one chance in a game, maybe even a season, of working. Football games are chess matches between OC and DC, instead of static simulations where there are certain things guaranteed to work, and a team that finds out what that is can just exploit that for the rest of the game. You go in there with a gameplan that plays on percentages, giving you the best chance to win. But if the opponent is countering your moves, you have to have adjustments, which we did have. Again, adjustments are things like tweaking the OL blocking scheme, simplifying the read process for Taylor, etc - NOT morphing into a completely new, fancy, dreamed up identity.

 

[junior4949]

Look at the long list of teams that we've beat this year excluding UCLA and Oklahoma that have all beaten Texas. It was so much more than just the dropped passes. The game plan was predictable. Period. It's not the first time he's called a game like this and you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be the last time. None of those teams who beat Texas this year had an 'aeriel attack' of any kind but you didn't see them come out and pass on 3rd down only for the majority of the game and blantantly run over and over again while the Texas D loaded the box.

Watson lost to Texas and his team could only score a single touchdown and field goal while the K-State's and Iowa State's and Baylor's of the conference put 30 or more on them with lesser talent.

You be the judge.

If our offensive game plan was so "predictable", Muschamp should be fired immediately because his defenders were nowhere to be found on those dropped touchdowns.

 

[suh_fan93]

Look at the long list of teams that we've beat this year excluding UCLA and Oklahoma that have all beaten Texas. It was so much more than just the dropped passes. The game plan was predictable. Period. It's not the first time he's called a game like this and you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be the last time. None of those teams who beat Texas this year had an 'aeriel attack' of any kind but you didn't see them come out and pass on 3rd down only for the majority of the game and blantantly run over and over again while the Texas D loaded the box.

Watson lost to Texas and his team could only score a single touchdown and field goal while the K-State's and Iowa State's and Baylor's of the conference put 30 or more on them with lesser talent.

You be the judge.

If our offensive game plan was so "predictable", Muschamp should be fired immediately because his defenders were nowhere to be found on those dropped touchdowns.

And if you think the game should have boiled down to a few touchdown passes I don't think you've been watching Texas this year.

 

[zoogs]

Simple. Texas doesn't suck; they've mailed it in. At that time, they hadn't quit. Their DC remains one of the elite minds in college football, and pretty talented as well, especially in the secondary. Their offense was always questionable with Gilbert, who started slow and never picked it up. How in the world did he have a good game on our D? I guess you could ask Bo and Carl.

And if you think the game should have boiled down to a few touchdown passes I don't think you've been watching Texas this year.

That was a matchup of Top 17 teams and both teams played like it. I guarantee you our offense was not predictable, and we threw Texas off quite a bit.

 

[suh_fan93]

Simple. Texas doesn't suck; they've mailed it in. At that time, they didn't suck, either. Their DC remains one of the elite minds in college football, and pretty talented as well, especially in the secondary. Their offense was always questionable with Gilbert, who started slow and never picked it up. How in the world did he have a good game on our D? I guess you could ask Bo and Carl.

And if you think the game should have boiled down to a few touchdown passes I don't think you've been watching Texas this year.

That was a matchup of Top 17 teams and both teams played like it. I guarantee you our offense was not predictable, and we threw Texas off quite a bit.

Texas doesn't suck this year???? People will continue to somehow, someway validate Sean Watson. I will not be one of those people. Anything beyond this is beating a dead horse.

 

[junior4949]

I'm pretty sure you won't find a fan around that wouldn't take a 14 point win against Texas. While a few TD's may not make much difference to you, it's the difference between us being #8 and #1-3. It's all well and good to throw the OC under the bus but we give the DC a pass for this spectacular performance: Austen Arnaud passed for 203 yards and three touchdowns on 21-of-32 completions, while running for 63 yards and a score?

 

[zoogs]

There's a difference between being a lifeless team that has given up on the year, and sucking.

Regardless, if we had built up momentum early, I do think that game could have quickly gone out of hand, in our favor. As it stands, we didn't, and the team did not respond well to adversity. Nebraska has come a long way as a team, in that aspect, since then.

 

[suh_fan93]

I'm pretty sure you won't find a fan around that wouldn't take a 14 point win against Texas. While a few TD's may not make much difference to you, it's the difference between us being #8 and #1-3. It's all well and good to throw the OC under the bus but we give the DC a pass for this spectacular performance: Austen Arnaud passed for 203 yards and three touchdowns on 21-of-32 completions, while running for 63 yards and a score?

My point was that the Texas game shouldn't have come down to a few dropped touchdown passes to begin with. Again you don't feel the need to blame the OC and you hold your views as to why he is good, etc, etc. I have seen reason to have a problem with Watson well before the season started. Furthermore bringing up Austen Arnaud's passing performance for has nothing to do with Nebraska's only being able to score 10 offensive points. How many yards did Kansas State's quarterback pass for? Note: K-State was 1 point shy of putting 40 on Texas. You like Watson as an offensive coordinator. I don't.

 

[zoogs]

I don't think you realize how thankful you should be that we have Watson, though. His role in Taylor's development as a quarterback has been pretty extraordinary. We are making hay with a guy growing into his role as a quarterback, that really has no business doing so.

You like Watson as an offensive coordinator. I don't.

I agree that this is what it comes down to.

 

[suh_fan93]

I don't think you realize how thankful you should be that we have Watson, though. His role in Taylor's development as a quarterback has been pretty extraordinary. We are making hay with a guy growing into his role as a quarterback, that really has no business doing so.

You like Watson as an offensive coordinator. I don't.

I agree that this is what it comes down to.

I hate that the Sean Watson subject is such a touchy one for me at least. Really I do.

I respect your opinion's as always. I think some of us (I'm including myself) will always find something to whine about but the Watson subject for me at least just seems to be a touchy one sometimes. For all I know he may not even be here next year.

 

[I am I]

Yeah, the way we 'found a way to win' last year was to take the ball outta watsons hand and let our defense win games for us by playing field position and great special teams

 

[skersfan]

Well I always heard it was because Lee sucked so bad. Silly me, I am smart enough to know, that I have no ability to grade a offensive coordinator or defensive coordinator. But my thinking is if TO said he stays, there is pretty good reason for it. I for one do not think TO is stupid, but obviously some do.