Been reading, hearing on the radio, etc., the narrative that the only reason we were in the game Saturday at the end was because of Oregon "taking their foot off the gas."
My question to anyone of this mindset is this:
If you were up 42-14 and had Royce Freeman in your backfield, would you not try to run the ball and shorten the game with that big of a lead? If Oregon would have "kept their foot on the gas" they may have kept scoring, or maybe we adjust anyway and they don't. Assuming the second half would have progressed exactly as the first in that scenario is just that, an assumption. What if Oregon keeps passing but we adjust and make stops anyway? What if Oregon had decided against using their running back (who everyone agrees is an NFL talent), giving Nebraska that much more time to come back, and we pull it off? Then Taggart is vilified for being an idiot and not using his stud RB to salt the game away.
My point is this... Oregon knew that if they could score once, maybe 2 more times (Heck even a field goal), they likely put the game out of reach. You can't take things out of context either and assert that it was just because of a bad penalty, a weird defensive play call by Oregon, or anything else. My thought is that you have to look at the big picture. They wanted to put the game away, and they couldn't do it.
Yes, it was a complete embarrassment to fall that far behind in the first place. I was there with my head down on the table in disbelief too. With that said, making the claim that the only reason that Nebraska had the ball with 2 minutes left and a chance to tie or take the lead was because of Oregon "taking their foot off the gas" is a half-truth at best, and therefore no truth at all.
I am hopeful for more growth from our beloved Huskers this Saturday. Go Big Red.
My question to anyone of this mindset is this:
If you were up 42-14 and had Royce Freeman in your backfield, would you not try to run the ball and shorten the game with that big of a lead? If Oregon would have "kept their foot on the gas" they may have kept scoring, or maybe we adjust anyway and they don't. Assuming the second half would have progressed exactly as the first in that scenario is just that, an assumption. What if Oregon keeps passing but we adjust and make stops anyway? What if Oregon had decided against using their running back (who everyone agrees is an NFL talent), giving Nebraska that much more time to come back, and we pull it off? Then Taggart is vilified for being an idiot and not using his stud RB to salt the game away.
My point is this... Oregon knew that if they could score once, maybe 2 more times (Heck even a field goal), they likely put the game out of reach. You can't take things out of context either and assert that it was just because of a bad penalty, a weird defensive play call by Oregon, or anything else. My thought is that you have to look at the big picture. They wanted to put the game away, and they couldn't do it.
Yes, it was a complete embarrassment to fall that far behind in the first place. I was there with my head down on the table in disbelief too. With that said, making the claim that the only reason that Nebraska had the ball with 2 minutes left and a chance to tie or take the lead was because of Oregon "taking their foot off the gas" is a half-truth at best, and therefore no truth at all.
I am hopeful for more growth from our beloved Huskers this Saturday. Go Big Red.
