ADVERTISEMENT

Langsdorf and Cav to be in booth

It also shows they are confident that the players now know the offense much better than last year. No need for Langs to babysit them after each possession
 
It also puts Langsdorf in a place of strength to be able to really view the defensive alignment and find areas to take advantage of. I happen to think some of the plays employed by Nebraska last year were so much more thought out than under the previous staff that I think this will only get better with him upstairs and with the players having a year under their belts.

I think this is going to be a strong year for the Huskers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ncaalover12
It also puts Langsdorf in a place of strength to be able to really view the defensive alignment and find areas to take advantage of. I happen to think some of the plays employed by Nebraska last year were so much more thought out than under the previous staff that I think this will only get better with him upstairs and with the players having a year under their belts.

I think this is going to be a strong year for the Huskers.
I think this staff and team are hungry to prove something. Barring injuries I see a big year too
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuskerO
It also puts Langsdorf in a place of strength to be able to really view the defensive alignment and find areas to take advantage of. I happen to think some of the plays employed by Nebraska last year were so much more thought out than under the previous staff that I think this will only get better with him upstairs and with the players having a year under their belts.

I think this is going to be a strong year for the Huskers.

As long as he doesn't call a fade pattern on 4th down from the 15-yard line instead of kicking a field goal, I don't care where he is. Still one of the most mind-boggling moments in Husker history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExxHusker
As long as he doesn't call a fade pattern on 4th down from the 15-yard line instead of kicking a field goal, I don't care where he is. Still one of the most mind-boggling moments in Husker history.
You know that wasn't the call, right? Carter was wide open in the flat. The right call at the right time and TA decided to try and be a Superhero.
 
The right call was a field goal. Period. It puts us at 28 - 20, with what, 7 minutes left?

Love how you state your opinion as a fact. Well he said period so he must be right. Iowa had just run a run blitz off the edge and Langsdorf was confident they were going to do it again. He had the prefect call to expose them for it.

CU2xEknU8AA-ZV0_zps4al2p6di.jpg
 
Playing for the tie is the right call? That is even with the assumption the 2 point conversion is successful. That is Typically a 44% proposition.

Tommy Armstrong completing a pass is 55% probability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBRhuskers
One thing about TO. He could close out a win. Simple common sense. Something sorely lacking last year.
 
Offensive minds on the sidelines for the first 4 games are going to be bare with KW out too. But I do like the move of Langsdorf up in the booth this year.
 
Playing for the tie is the right call? That is even with the assumption the 2 point conversion is successful. That is Typically a 44% proposition.

Tommy Armstrong completing a pass is 55% probability.

Laughing Yes, especially when he's thrown 4 INTs during the game. We were down by 11 with 7 minutes left. Kicking the field goal from that distance is nearly 100%. We're within 8 points, and as it ended up, had 2 more series to score those 8 points.

It was one of the dumbest calls I've ever seen an OC make. And I mean horrifically stupid.
 
Playing for the tie is the right call? That is even with the assumption the 2 point conversion is successful. That is Typically a 44% proposition.

Tommy Armstrong completing a pass is 55% probability.

maybe in general

But in crunch time with the game on the line the probability of TA doing something really stupid is > 80%
like throwing a fade route up for grabs on 4th and one with the game on line while your TE is wide open in the flat
 
Love how you state your opinion as a fact. Well he said period so he must be right. Iowa had just run a run blitz off the edge and Langsdorf was confident they were going to do it again. He had the prefect call to expose them for it.

CU2xEknU8AA-ZV0_zps4al2p6di.jpg

My opinion on this one is fact. Nearly every coach in America would have kicked the field goal...unless of course they were somehow related to Langsdorf...in which case that lineage would have probably made the f**ked up call that our OC or head coach made.
 
Forced to agree. Any way you slice it, NU needed 2 scores to tie or lead. There was no need to go for it at all.

And...when points are already at a premium, you take the easy points. Let's say we do score a TD that series. Riley is forced to make the decision of either going for 1 or 2 with 6+ minutes left. The way Tommy was playing, you do everything you can to get in the position to steal the win.

When we've scored 17 points in 3 1/2 quarters, you take what you can get, and hope to get the opportunity to be in the position to get the 2-point conversation to send it into OT.
 
Brown was 2 of 3 from 30-39 yards or 66.7%. Not quite near 100%

And Armstrong completed 55% on the day, even with the 4 picks

Getting to 8 or getting to 4, you are still down and need a TD to win.



Laughing Yes, especially when he's thrown 4 INTs during the game. We were down by 11 with 7 minutes left. Kicking the field goal from that distance is nearly 100%. We're within 8 points, and as it ended up, had 2 more series to score those 8 points.

It was one of the dumbest calls I've ever seen an OC make. And I mean horrifically stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz
My opinion on this one is fact. Nearly every coach in America would have kicked the field goal...unless of course they were somehow related to Langsdorf...in which case that lineage would have probably made the f**ked up call that our OC or head coach made.
It's your opinion and it's far from fact. We had to get a TD and we were already all the way down field, with a good call on. Nothing wrong with the decision. Period
 
I think both of them going to the booth shows how much the offense has progressed since last year, as someone else has pointed out. Have to think Langsdorf would rather be in the booth anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOHusker11
Brown was 2 of 3 from 30-39 yards or 66.7%. Not quite near 100%

And Armstrong completed 55% on the day, even with the 4 picks

Getting to 8 or getting to 4, you are still down and need a TD to win.

Good Lord, talk about a stretch. And...he had hit what, at least 10 in a row, and had hit 8 in a row from 40+ yards.

I don't care what percentage Tommy had thrown for. He was playing like garbage. Expecting him to score 2 TDs in the last 7 minutes of the game would have been nothing less than a prayer.
 
It's your opinion and it's far from fact. We had to get a TD and we were already all the way down field, with a good call on. Nothing wrong with the decision. Period

Sorry, but you're wrong. Period. We've seen this same scenario play out hundreds of times on Saturdays and Sundays, and coaches almost always take the easy points first, and not try to score a TD plus a 2-point conversation with half a quarter left. Especially when their offense is struggling to score.
 
Belichick goes for it three times on 4th down against the Broncos, with a SB berth on the line. The first time was with 6 or so minutes left in the game, and I don't recall Denver doing too much offensively, the other two times were pretty much a forced necessity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: headcard
Riley should call a fake punt, after the opponent calls a timeout and during that timeout removes their PR team then takes the field with their defense.

I vividly remember screaming "what the hell are they doing!!!" in a hushed restarurant when Blo made that call
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBRhuskers
I think the motivation for this move was clearly Riley's concern for TAs safety. He wanted to put Langsdorf as far away from TA as possible and thus keep TA out of harms way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBRhuskers
Good Lord, talk about a stretch. And...he had hit what, at least 10 in a row, and had hit 8 in a row from 40+ yards.

I don't care what percentage Tommy had thrown for. He was playing like garbage. Expecting him to score 2 TDs in the last 7 minutes of the game would have been nothing less than a prayer.

Too funny. Armstrong was 2 for 2 on that drive and hadn't yet thrown the 4th pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBRhuskers
Sorry, but you're wrong. Period. We've seen this same scenario play out hundreds of times on Saturdays and Sundays, and coaches almost always take the easy points first, and not try to score a TD plus a 2-point conversation with half a quarter left. Especially when their offense is struggling to score.
Nope, you can state it as fact and say everyone else would kick it, but you are simply wrong. We needed a TD at some point and we were down the field with a chance to get it, nothing wrong with the call. Maybe you can find another way to pound your chest and be the smartest guy in the room, but you are wrong on this one, period.
 
As long as he doesn't call a fade pattern on 4th down from the 15-yard line instead of kicking a field goal, I don't care where he is. Still one of the most mind-boggling moments in Husker history.


Jesus....I must've tried to forget that...what game was that???

Disregard...I see it now.
 
Too funny. Armstrong was 2 for 2 on that drive and hadn't yet thrown the 4th pick.

Too funny is right...that you haven't noticed this same scenario playing out hundreds and hundreds of times in your lifetime, with coaches choosing the same route as I've stated, almost every time.
 
Nope, you can state it as fact and say everyone else would kick it, but you are simply wrong. We needed a TD at some point and we were down the field with a chance to get it, nothing wrong with the call. Maybe you can find another way to pound your chest and be the smartest guy in the room, but you are wrong on this one, period.

You haven't paid attention to other games. If you don't get the 3 points that series, you've essentially eliminated your chances to win the game. Even thought it's a distant 2nd choice, I could even understand running the ball, but a pass play just made no sense.
 
Last edited:
The New York Times article linked above is a great read. I think there will come a time in the not so distant future when coaches start employing actual data in their decisions rather than their "gut instinct". It's similar to the trend we're seeing in professional baseball with sabermetrics. I don't know if anyone has seen the mini-documentary on HBO about the high school coach that almost always goes for it on 4th down and onside kicks nearly every time, but that's another interesting point of view that has been backed by sports science. I sorta cringe at football becoming this type of game, but eventually a coach at a major university with nothing to lose is going to put this gameplan into action and it's going to become mainstream.



So I think the coaches made the right call in the Iowa game and hope they make the same decision next time (with maybe a different play call and better execution).
 
  • Like
Reactions: nebcountry
How did this thread get hijacked so easily?

I don't know what to think about langs and Cav in the booth, but I sure didn't need to read this garbage...

Just a brief review of the nuances of our offense during one of last year's games. Winking
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT