suh_fan93
New member
You lamented that the screen pass to Robinson 'only' went for 21 yards. I responded to that comment. Pretty simple really.
Remington speaks.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Offensive" issues
- Thread starter 10_point_buck
- Start date
You lamented that the screen pass to Robinson 'only' went for 21 yards. I responded to that comment. Pretty simple really.
Remington speaks.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
If your point is that this perfectly executed short screen by our third string quarterback and same offensive line should have been executed earlier and more often --- especially because it's an effective weapon against aggressive defensive lines -- I agree.
Undone
New member
Undone
New member
I lamented that it took eight games for us to run a screen pass that went for 21 yards. We've ran that play and failed miserably at it almost too many times to count before that play this season.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
We've run a lot more screens that go all the way to the sideline, take longer to develop, and allow the defense to be there waiting for the tackle, often behind the line of scrimmage.
This one was better.
Toe
New member
lo country
Mods
Honestly, if I never saw us try another screen I'd be happy. Like you, until last night I never saw one work as designed....I watched SMU/Memphis last night. Those 2 teams know how to play the screen game....and get quick passes to speedsters in space...
haha
Couldn't watch the game had KS state HS vb tourn yesterday, but I did catch the shutout on the goal line. was that 1st and goal and we threw 3 incomplete passes and had to settle for a field goal?
To me, the first litmus test for my offense is easy. Can you line up in the red zone and pound the ball in. I despise passing in the red zone. I'm sure there are some stats that say I'm stupid , but to me that's where you line up and men prove themselves decisively. You set the tone with little left to the imagination. To me, Purdue wouldn't be the team we shouldn't be able to do that. IF you CANT line up in Rhino or whatever your team calls it and own the moment, go get a new hobby.
Last edited by a moderator:
lo country
Mods
I'll own that. I have made multiple comments about the B1G being much more physical than the AAC. But both of those teams would hang 50 on NU. No doubt in my mind. That's also why I say I like Frost's scheme, but not in it's entirety. I'd like some Husker Power to go with the speed. When you can't get the chunk plays, you've gpt tp be able to get the tough yards. Yesterday we started with the ball on their side 4 times and got 3 points...Chunk plays are great, but you've got to move the chains. Both those teams can do that as well.....Not to mention great play calling by both teams...
As to the eye ball test, both those teams have significantly better football players than NU does. not more stars, but better players.
As I mentioned in another thread showing our current B1G rankings, the O has done enough to go bowling, but the D is abysmal.....If the D could be average this year, we go bowling. In spite of an offense that has regressed.
Absolutely those teams have better football players than Nebraska.
We easily left 21 points minimum off the board yesterday......from wide open tight end to a screwed up shovel pass.
I mean we'd take a shovel pass to Wan'dale in the red zone all day every day as a play call.
Frost's scheme could have lit up the scoreboard......including yesterday.
But execution......
Decoy73
New member
lo country
Mods
But not on paper. (and I agree) Why have we repeatedly, year after year continued to underperform with the kids we get.....Cally, Bo, Riley and now Frost. I guess you can even argue Frank...
Kids like Wan'dale look as advertised. Others, the jury is out. But the kids we have in year 2 under Frost are not playing near as well as UCF in year 2 (although the years prior to Frost had good records save 2016).
Like Urbs said, look under the hood. Why can't we "get it right" after multiple changes and same results.