Good Luck Shawn Watson on that New Job!!

[JTrain]

Conference rankings are more relevant than national rankings because the conference is two-thirds of your schedule and most likely four-fifths (or more) of your non-creampuff schedule. If you're conference was defense heavy, you could finish 40th nationally in offense but 2nd in your conference and be fine. If you're conference was offense heavy, you could... well, you get the idea.

If you split the conference in thirds, the front four would be the good offenses/defenses, the middle four the average offenses/defenses and the bottom four the poor offenses/defenses.

The teams that are consistently elite (frequent top ten finishes, BCS bowl appearances, part of the national title picture, etc.) are able to finish in the top third of the conference in both offense and defense in most seasons. Bo and Carl have our defense to the point where it should be there almost every season. Now for the offense...

 

[Huskerfan1985]

Here's another concern I have for this offense. Quarterback growth and development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last QB to start 2 full seasons was Zac Taylor. How long ago was that? Watson has been here long enough to recruit and develop the kind of players he needs to run his system, whatever that is. Why is it that this year his best option was a RS Freshman. What does that say about the development of Lee and Green. You can argue that we wanted to run the zone read, but after Kansas State, how effective was the zone read? it has been an insignificant (or ineffective) part of our offense, so Taylor must be the best passer on the team then right? Otherwise, Lee or Green would be starting because Watson's incredibly difficult offense that's hard to learn but appently easily defended would be impossible for a RS Freshman to understand.

With all the transfer rumors and what not, it's possible someone new starts at QB next year as well. I'm okay with taking our lumps and going through young QB mistakes if it means eventually having an experienced, well developed qb down the road. But, Watson's track record doesn't let me believe that this is possible. With all the talk of Bubba Starling, Turner, or Carnes, what makes you think we wont have a brand new offense made to suit one of them next year? I'm just really frustrated with this offense and lack of leadership.

 

[knapplc]

You cannot deny the fact that the defense was on the field with a chance to close out both the VT and Texas games and failed to do the job.

Actually I have posted that in hindsight the Martinez decision worked out, but I still don't think it was the right one given the people behind him. What I am talking about in this thread is specifically AFTER Taylor was hurt, After Taylor was hurt here are the numbers

42 Carries, 56 Yards ,1.33 YPC, 0 TD, 4 Fumbles

37 Completions, 67 Attempts, 417 Yards, 0 TD, 3 INT, 55.2% Comp %, 78.5 Passer Rating

After injury to Taylor

Martinez, 3 starts, 1-2 offense and averages 15.3 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 25.6 PPG went -10 ppg down the stretch

Green, 2 starts, 2-0 and offense averages 38 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 29.8 PPG, so Cody led offenses went +8 PPG down the stretch

As far as Bo being happy with the staff? He's said it many times in interviews, and he hasn't fired anyone right? Is there evidence that he isn't happy with the staff?

And you cannot deny the fact that our offense scored fewer points against Texas than Kansas, Baylor, Texas A&M, Colorado, Oklahoma S and Louisiana Monroe. Nor can you deny the fact that our offense scored less against VA Tech than Duke, Georgia Tech and North Carolina.

So what you're saying is that the defense should never, ever, ever make a mistake because if they do the loss is on them, while the offense is free to bumble about worse than Louisiana Monroe vs. Texas and/or Duke vs. VA Tech, and they get zero blame? You'll pardon me if that sounds a little preposterous. Actually, it's a LOT preposterous.

Again, the Martinez decision was right on no matter who was behind him, because as the stats show, Martinez is/was a better QB than Lee or Green.

What do the numbers after Martinez got hurt have to do with anything, other than to show that after he was hurt Green led the offense better? Hell, *I* could just about have led the offense better than Taylor as hobbled as he was. Maybe you should look at the numbers from a healthy Taylor vs. a healthy Green, because healthy Taylor scored more than +8 vs teams to start this season.

 

[HuskerNMO]

Here's another concern I have for this offense. Quarterback growth and development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last QB to start 2 full seasons was Zac Taylor. How long ago was that? Watson has been here long enough to recruit and develop the kind of players he needs to run his system, whatever that is. Why is it that this year his best option was a RS Freshman. What does that say about the development of Lee and Green. You can argue that we wanted to run the zone read, but after Kansas State, how effective was the zone read? it has been an insignificant (or ineffective) part of our offense, so Taylor must be the best passer on the team then right? Otherwise, Lee or Green would be starting because Watson's incredibly difficult offense that's hard to learn but appently easily defended would be impossible for a RS Freshman to understand.

With all the transfer rumors and what not, it's possible someone new starts at QB next year as well. I'm okay with taking our lumps and going through young QB mistakes if it means eventually having an experienced, well developed qb down the road. But, Watson's track record doesn't let me believe that this is possible. With all the talk of Bubba Starling, Turner, or Carnes, what makes you think we wont have a brand new offense made to suit one of them next year? I'm just really frustrated with this offense and lack of leadership.

I will agree whole heartedly with this, we need better production out of the QB position, our QB's (Taylor and Cody) combined to put the ball on the turf 22 times out of 386 plays they were in (QB runs or passes) which amounts to 5.7% of the plays that the ball was in their hand. That is awful, and probably a by product of not having a dedicated QB coach.

 

[ESPY]

Just looking at the ranking here, but....Before the season started, if you told me we'd end up with the 10th best defense and the 35th best offense in the nation at year's end, I would say we're right on track.

The thing we have the most trouble with at this point is closing out the big games. We know the defense is stout when it comes to crunchtime in those big games. The offense, on the other hand, had a terrible time this season when either tied or behind after halftime of big games.

From a high-level vantage point, most folks would consider that to be fairly reasonable considering our starting QB was an injuired redshirt frosh who's still learning on the job and getting valuable experience in crunchtime.

I won't get into the nuts and bolts of this mess since everyone and their grandma is doing that on this board. But, on the surface it appears we're moving in the right direction, especially if it's experience in crunchtime that is our biggest problem at this point. Being a clutch QB in crunchtime of big games takes time.

 

[HuskerNMO]

You cannot deny the fact that the defense was on the field with a chance to close out both the VT and Texas games and failed to do the job.

Actually I have posted that in hindsight the Martinez decision worked out, but I still don't think it was the right one given the people behind him. What I am talking about in this thread is specifically AFTER Taylor was hurt, After Taylor was hurt here are the numbers

42 Carries, 56 Yards ,1.33 YPC, 0 TD, 4 Fumbles

37 Completions, 67 Attempts, 417 Yards, 0 TD, 3 INT, 55.2% Comp %, 78.5 Passer Rating

After injury to Taylor

Martinez, 3 starts, 1-2 offense and averages 15.3 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 25.6 PPG went -10 ppg down the stretch

Green, 2 starts, 2-0 and offense averages 38 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 29.8 PPG, so Cody led offenses went +8 PPG down the stretch

As far as Bo being happy with the staff? He's said it many times in interviews, and he hasn't fired anyone right? Is there evidence that he isn't happy with the staff?

And you cannot deny the fact that our offense scored fewer points against Texas than Kansas, Baylor, Texas A&M, Colorado, Oklahoma S and Louisiana Monroe. Nor can you deny the fact that our offense scored less against VA Tech than Duke, Georgia Tech and North Carolina.

So what you're saying is that the defense should never, ever, ever make a mistake because if they do the loss is on them, while the offense is free to bumble about worse than Louisiana Monroe vs. Texas and/or Duke vs. VA Tech, and they get zero blame? You'll pardon me if that sounds a little preposterous. Actually, it's a LOT preposterous.

Again, the Martinez decision was right on no matter who was behind him, because as the stats show, Martinez is/was a better QB than Lee or Green.

What do the numbers after Martinez got hurt have to do with anything, other than to show that after he was hurt Green led the offense better? Hell, *I* could just about have led the offense better than Taylor as hobbled as he was. Maybe you should look at the numbers from a healthy Taylor vs. a healthy Green, because healthy Taylor scored more than +8 vs teams to start this season.

Not saying that, but a program that is building itself based on defense with a defensive guru should be able to slam the door on teams when needed. Sometimes the offense needs to pickup the defense, and sometimes the defense needs to pickup the offense. In year one, the offense pulled the sled, year 2 the D pulled the sled, year 3 it was a little more balanced but still in the D's favor.

The numbers after Taylor got hurt are to show that he shouldn't have started against KU, A&M or OU. We did better without Taylor down the stretch than Cody, right? It's not unreasonable to say we would have had a better chance to beat A&M and OU with Cody, right?

And here's some perspective, in TO's first 8 years as a head coach against OU we averaged 12 points against OU, and never scored more than 17 against them. It took him until his 9th year to drop 37 on them. In fact the majority of TO's career, outside of the years we had Gill and Frazier we really struggled to score in big games. Does Watson have room to grow? Of course, but before Taylor got hurt we had a pretty darn explosive offense, and we did well when Cody started this year. Every poor offensive showing with the exception of the Texas game can be blamed on the starting of a gimpy QB that was very ineffective.

 

[Igetbored216]

Nebraska had the lead, the defense had a chance to stop them, win the game and couldn't do it.
It's the same principle if you're winning 1-0 in baseball and the closer gives up a two run home run, who lost the game? The closer, sure, the offense could have scored more, but the closer had a chance to win and couldn't do it.

Nebraska was only down by three after the defense stopped the Oklahoma offense once again.

Nebraska's offense had a chance to tie the game or win the game with a TD. As usual, the offense failed to score any points and the game was over.

Seriously, your excuses are ridiculous. You are basically saying that the defense has no room to make mistakes because the offense sucks. I mean, that's basically the story for the last two years. If the defense makes one small mistake and the other team gets points, the game is basically over because our offense is too inept to score. Last year, this was chalked up due to injuries on the o-line and the QB. This year it's because the QBs are injured. Next year what will it be? Maybe the move to the Big 10? Or maybe some more injuries? Who knows, but I'm sure Watson will come up with something.

 

[HuskerNMO]

Nebraska had the lead, the defense had a chance to stop them, win the game and couldn't do it.
It's the same principle if you're winning 1-0 in baseball and the closer gives up a two run home run, who lost the game? The closer, sure, the offense could have scored more, but the closer had a chance to win and couldn't do it.

Nebraska was only down by three after the defense stopped the Oklahoma offense once again.

Nebraska's offense had a chance to tie the game or win the game with a TD. As usual, the offense failed to score any points and the game was over.

Seriously, your excuses are ridiculous. You are basically saying that the defense has no room to make mistakes because the offense sucks. I mean, that's basically the story for the last two years. If the defense makes one small mistake and the other team gets points, the game is basically over because our offense is too inept to score. Last year, this was chalked up due to injuries on the o-line and the QB. This year it's because the QBs are injured. Next year what will it be? Maybe the move to the Big 10? Or maybe some more injuries? Who knows, but I'm sure Watson will come up with something.

Show me where I am discussing the OU game and that analogy, please.

Talking about specific games last year, the offense had 21 seconds after Virginia Tech went ahead last year, and the clock ran out with the Texas field goal. If the defense has the game in hand if they prevent a score on the last drive then they lost the game, just like the offense lost the OU game and any game that they had a chance to go score at the end and win. Just like the defense won the game against OU last year when they picked off Jones at the 6 with 27 seconds left, just like when Zac Lee threw a pick that ended the ISU game last year with 1:37 left the offense lost it, just like VT in 08 when we fumbled the ball when we would have had a shot at a hail mary to end the game the offense lost it, just like in 08 when Alex hit the 57 yarder, the special teams won it, just like the Gator Bowl when the D stopped Clemson with 1:30 left when they were driving to take the lead.

If a unit has a chance to win the game, and doesn't sieze that opportunity, then they lost the game.

 

[Malth]

If a unit has a chance to win the game, and doesn't sieze that opportunity, then they lost the game.

This is so overly simplistic it's not even funny.

 

[knapplc]

If a unit has a chance to win the game, and doesn't sieze that opportunity, then they lost the game.

The last unit on the field in a close game is responsible for the win/loss? And nothing that happened in the previous 55 minutes matters? That is absolute nonsense.

 

[zoogs]

Throw those 2007 stats out Knapp, good as they are. Watson was OC, but that was Bill Callahan's show so he can only take some credit there.

If the implication here is that we will not happy until we have a Pelini equivalent on offense, we could be waiting a long, long time...honestly, I thought most fans had the attitude when Pelini was hired, that with a top notch defense and just a solid enough offense with a stout running game, it would be enough to contend for championships. There's no reason an offense that leapt about 50 spots in yardage ranking in one year as they make the transition shouldn't show a bit of promise in this regard. No doubt there are issues, though.

Nebraska was only down by three after the defense stopped the Oklahoma offense once again.

Nebraska's offense had a chance to tie the game or win the game with a TD. As usual, the offense failed to score any points and the game was over.

No, they are talking about VT '09 and Texas '09 up there. If you want to get down to it, jliehr's 1-0 baseball game with a closer that gives up 2 runs is spot on. Though the Texas '09 was defense/special teams combined, as Adi did no favors by giving them great field position, but after that it was the horse collar that really blew it for us. VT '09, all the defense had to do was not let Virginia Tech get 90 something yards in their last-minute comeback drive, and score a TD, which they needed.

If you want to talk about games where it is the other way around with the offense, then you have games like ISU '09 where the offense should have gotten us a game-winning drive at the end, but didn't, and this CCG with OU, where the offense had TWO great chances to tie up the game, but floundered both of them. Or the Texas Tech game in '08, which ended up being 37-31 or something like that, where the offense had a damn good chance to win in overtime after the TT kicker missed the extra point on their OT score, but Ganz blew it by throwing a pick. As well as the offense carried the team that entire game while the defense could not stop anything, they still blew it at the end and that goes on the offense. Would not be fair to say "Man, if the defense just had a pulse, we would have won that". While true, the offense still blew it.

But enough with the blaming one unit over the other here. All five of these examples go down as team losses in my book.

 

[HuskerNMO]

If a unit has a chance to win the game, and doesn't sieze that opportunity, then they lost the game.

The last unit on the field in a close game is responsible for the win/loss? And nothing that happened in the previous 55 minutes matters? That is absolute nonsense.

Again, i'll go back to my baseball analogy. If a team is leading 1-0 going into the bottom of the 9th, and the closer gives up 2 runs to end the game, who gets the loss?

Here's Bo Pelini's own words from the VT game last year

“In the end, we didn’t make the play,” Pelini said. “I don’t measure on yards or how we play. You’ve got to win the football game.”

 

And from last years title game

 

You know, you've got to -- you know, our formula was to hang in there and have a chance to win it. We had a chance to win it at the end, and we didn't get it done.

​