Except they are making the point against the wrong argument. A conservative game plan probably was a good idea. However, there is "conservative" and then there is what we saw last night. Heck, compared to last night's game plan, Rush Limbaugh looks like Ted Kennedy.
I went back and looked at last night's drive chart and it confirmed my suspicions. Nebraska didn't attempt a pass on 1st down until the end of the 3rd quarter. It took until the 16th "1st and 10" to even attempt a pass. Guess what happened when Nebraska finally unhandcuffed the offense? It's only touchdown of the game.
I don't have a problem with a heavy run-orientation to start the game. Keeping the ball away from USC's offense makes sense. But even in a run-oriented offense, you still need to throw the ball occasionally. And by occasionally, I don't mean on 3rd and long either.
More than half of Zac Taylor's pass attempts came on third down, and usually it was third and long. Mix in a few passes on first down earlier in the game, and Nebraska gets a few more first downs and keeps the ball away from USC a lot longer. The one-dimensional Husker offense of last night was easy for a talented team like USC to defend, and game Nebraska almost no shot at winning the game unless the Blackshirts go +3 on turnovers. And even then, it might have been tough.
Some kool-aid drinkers even acknowledge this, by saying if we could just stay within reason into the 4th quarter, we still would have a shot to win this game. In other words, a "rope-a-dope". The problem with that strategy is that it's frequently difficult to magically "turn it on"...especially "turn it on" against a team like USC. Even Zac Taylor and Nate Swift talked about how the offense never got into a rhythm, never got untracked.
Vanilla isn't necessarily a bad flavor of ice cream, but plain-label off-brand vanilla almost always is bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment