McKewon: Carry on

Great article. It really touches on a lot of topics that have been discussed around here. I do think some of the assistants will be encouraged to find other jobs. I don't know how you can keep all of them after such a poor outing. Our secondary, special teams, and running backs need work.

 
agree, stability in assistants is good, if you are getting results...........he needs to make some adjustments, the Oregon State way isn't working here. not using Jano more often was just plain pig headed on MR part.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hunter94 said:
agree, stability in assistants is good, if you are getting results...........he needs to make some adjustments, the Oregon State way isn't working here. not using Jano more often was just plain pig headed on MR part.
Click to expand...
Jano is "just a curveball" in the system Langs wants in place and Langs is going no where, at least not of his own volition.

 
Hunter94 said:
agree, stability in assistants is good, if you are getting results...........he needs to make some adjustments, the Oregon State way isn't working here. not using Jano more often was just plain pig headed on MR part.
Click to expand...
If we are gonna have to lean on our FB to win games theres gonna be a lot of long seasons. Jano isnt some superhuman heisman winner. Could we have used him more? Yes. Should we lean on someone like him? No

 
C N Red said:
Hunter94 said:
agree, stability in assistants is good, if you are getting results...........he needs to make some adjustments, the Oregon State way isn't working here. not using Jano more often was just plain pig headed on MR part.
Click to expand...
If we are gonna have to lean on our FB to win games theres gonna be a lot of long seasons. Jano isnt some superhuman heisman winner. Could we have used him more? Yes. Should we lean on someone like him? No
Click to expand...
On 3rd and 1 against Iowa, he wasn't even used as a blocker.

after watching the games yesterday, I'm just still in shock we didn't run a QB sweep or off tackle with Jano and the RB gaining numbers at the point of attack. We have it in the playbook. It's very difficult to stop for less than a yard gain. But we won't run it. I don't get Langs thinking.

 
FTW said:
Great article. It really touches on a lot of topics that have been discussed around here. I do think some of the assistants will be encouraged to find other jobs. I don't know how you can keep all of them after such a poor outing. Our secondary, special teams, and running backs need work.
Click to expand...
That's not what he said....he basically said nothing will change unless they decide to leave on their own.

 
They also had a 3rd and 3 in Iowa territory where they apparently had already decided they were in 4 down territory,.....so they threw two incomplete low-percentage passes. Maybe they could look at that,.... and their entire running philosophy for the first 2/3 and last game of the season.

Maybe they could look at the QB depth chart and rationalize how that happened.

Maybe they could try to figure out why they played prevent defense for most of the season.........but could only prevent themselves from winning....or looking for the ball.

Some of these mind boggling things must be some kind administrative decisions made in advance for reasons that ordinary sports fans don't understand.

 
This is a great article and like FTW said, it touches on several topics we've discussed here. This article shows that the coaches are doing something, they are making changes and trying to get better.

 
...none, Riley said, hit the team harder than the collapse at Illinois. The third-and-7 play in which Nebraska, almost assured of victory if it had just burned more game clock with a running play, had some kind of disastrous mix-up that resulted in a bootleg pass from Armstrong.

Riley and offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf changed the name of the play after that game so there wouldn’t be any confusion, and even used it for a touchdown against Michigan State. The new name: quarterback sweep.
Click to expand...

Remember how much discussion we had on that play after the Illinois game? Odd that no one mentioned the same play--run correctly--after the Michigan State game. I guess there's nothing to discuss when things are executed correctly, huh?

 
I'm not sure there should be any AC changes, though I think wasting a AC spot on Read is a mistake, as he's not much of a recruiter. This was the transition year, there were expected bumps, some unexpected, but they deserve another year to show what they have with a team that should be completely bought in.

Next year they are on the clock.

 
NUance said:
...none, Riley said, hit the team harder than the collapse at Illinois. The third-and-7 play in which Nebraska, almost assured of victory if it had just burned more game clock with a running play, had some kind of disastrous mix-up that resulted in a bootleg pass from Armstrong.

Riley and offensive coordinator Danny Langsdorf changed the name of the play after that game so there wouldn’t be any confusion, and even used it for a touchdown against Michigan State. The new name: quarterback sweep.
Click to expand...

Remember how much discussion we had on that play after the Illinois game? Odd that no one mentioned the same play--run correctly--after the Michigan State game. I guess there's nothing to discuss when things are executed correctly, huh?
Click to expand...
This is a classic case of a "call plays that work" mentality. When the play works as designed no one says a thing, but let it get screwed up and by gawd the coaches need firing!
default_smile.png


 
FTW said:
Great article. It really touches on a lot of topics that have been discussed around here. I do think some of the assistants will be encouraged to find other jobs. I don't know how you can keep all of them after such a poor outing. Our secondary, special teams, and running backs need work.
Click to expand...
No assistant's will go anywhere unless they are offered a better job.

 
Back
Top