Langsdorf Job security?
- Thread starter husker2612
- Start date
- Status
Dude says he ignores me, yet reads and responds to everything i post, trying to get my attention. At first i thought he was trolling me to get a nasty response outta me so i would get banned. I told him it wouldnt work, and hes still trolling me. Hes stalking me, its getting real creepy! I wish he would just ignore my posts, its not normal....
nothing like musical chair assistant coaches to build a great program, that exactly how Dr. Tom did it.
Tommy didn't leave his #1 option all night, seems he was spooked by the wisky defense, especially with his early picks and their aggressive play. He doesn't trust his oline, won't sit in a pocket, seems to pick a guy and throws it regardless of coverages, and against wisky most throws were off his back foot, as if he was expecting to get hit. That being said I think he was only sacked once, and he had time to step up and make good throws. Tommy has little confidence in his offense as a whole. If that game was played again I think Tommy has 4 picks, he threw into double coverage so many times, and a couple times the ball was batted at the line.
Idk, I would rather have a JUCO with some potential starting rather than a couple of walk-ons but that's just me. I think our strength and conditioning staff is doing a great job getting these guys into B1G shape, and I know all of the stories about the walk-on program and what it means to the team. But seriously...how did it get down to a few starting on the line? Craziness.
I wouldn't disagree with a lot of what you said but defenses seem to have a good idea that we tend to run the ball right up the gut on first down no matter what formation, shifting, etc. is happening before the play is run. I just wish we would mix it up a bit and try to keep defenses guessing more. It seems like when we do mix it up, good things happen.
Easy answer. Busts by the previous staff in recruiting and injuries led to our situation. The transfer of a probable starter to CSU I'll lay at Bo's feet also. IMO his transfer was an attitude issue. That said, I would rather have a walk on that has had a couple of years in our system and weight room than a JUCO that comes in still needed a season to learn the system and build strength. I would guess that a large percentage of our walk on O linemen would end up being a 3 star or better if they were to go to a JUCO first. We don't just take any warm body off the street for our walk on program.
You're pretty much spot on here. We were at the game and had great seats on the 40. TA would lock on and not deviate at all. There were 9-10 guys in the box all night on 1st & 2nd down. We were talking with some Wisc fans and we all noticed 1 safety sitting back. They were basically saying "Go ahead, pass". Tommy didn't make great reads. Seems like he is regressing as the year goes on.
Agree 100%. People disregard the progress Tommy has made. Do they remember how horrible he was two years ago and even parts of last year? He's come a long way from where he was, but the bottom line is he's still Tommy, and now, for a number of reasons I'm sure, we expect a player other than Tommy to step onto the field? And when we get Tommy on Saturdays (shocker), fans are suddenly surprised and pissed and blame him for all sorts of crap. He's a fierce competitor and a fighter. He's going to lay it on the line every Saturday for the Huskers. He makes some great plays with his legs. He struggles with progression and check-downs, and his fundamentals throwing the ball are not very good, exacerbating his accuracy issues. At some point, we have to realize and be okay with what we're going to get from him and not feel the need to slaughter the kid on messages boards every time he performs below our expectations for him. I want to win, but I'm also not unreasonable. The coaches are doing their best to develop him, but some of us need to realize that expectations for his development are unrealistic and leave it at that.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Lol. You are great entertainment.
1. Never said I ignore you, point out where I did
2. Calling out an uneducated "expert" like yourself, and proving them wrong again and again is not "trolling" (no matter how many times you play the victim card and cry because you continue to get put in your place, will not make it true)
3. It really makes me smile knowing you and your one friend on this thread are 2 of the most uneducated people on the board when it comes to football x's and o's.
4. Now it's your turn to cry, make outlandish claims, play the victim card, and not stand behind your moronic statements used to expose you for what you really are
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Welcome to the board "new" poster. You seem pretty cool.
The title of this thread is beyond stupid. Still can't believe it.
I've done my homework on DL. I'm confident he's doing a good job with what he has to work with. I could care less about halftime interviews or various parts of the game I think or don't think should be included in their game plan. He has proven his ability to adjust and build good game plans (if our players would execute). He also knows he's not able to do everything he wants to do with the crew he has to work with, namely, the QB. You display your ignorance when you make statements about coaches, and their game plans and what they should or should not have done. Coaches aren't perfect, that's for sure. But you also have no clue what goes on in the meetings and planning sessions, let alone practice. So to start talking about how good or bad a guy is based on a halftime interview, you sort of discredit yourself off the bat.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Break down how running screens with an o-line that can barely move, against a d with very smart backers (with a qb that has trouble with touch throws at times) was a great plan. It has been broke down here multiple times why it was likely a disaster waiting to happen. But by all means, keep chirping the uneducated marching orders.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I did not say that. I made a point about screens. We ran one. Not a few like you claim.
The idea that Langsdorf's job is in trouble is beyond ridiculous. He isn't even remotely close to any hot seat. His seat is stone cold and should be.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Because it was a backside screen that dpe lagged up way more than normal to allow that single blocker that was able enough to almost get a block to help him. It also worked because it was specifically designed not to attack the line coming right at Tommy. That way he was not expected to throw over the oncoming rush.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Yeah no kidding. Now he doesn't like certain run plays, and all of the sudden wants more passing! Makes sense!
And how many more did we try? Got it.
How many times did we try running straight up the middle? Got it.
That drop back pass was working great, oh wait......
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Actually it worked pretty decent early on. But by all means, they should have ran outside where the tackles and tight ends were getting abused.
Yea, the outside runs were worthless......just like that screen with our oline that cant execute it......
You tell me, and also tell me if Tommy checked out of any.
Last edited:
What's so funny about that poster.
He complains we didn't run it on 3rd and 3, while pointing out Wisconsin did on 3rd and long. But, the screen play he's gushing over was on 3rd and long & went for a 1st down.
You literally can't make this stuff up.
Run the ball! No, not that run. Yes, a screen! Wait, that's a pass play. But it worked, I'll harp on that.
Run the ball!
No, screen game!
Wait, that's a pass, run the ball!!
Inside run awesome, oh wait, bad call, run the reverse because "their linemen are over pursuing".
Happy Gilmore style.
Am I the only one that noticed on first down we ran the exact same run play on 95% of our plays. Think we got more than 2 yrd maybe 1 or 2 times. That was my main concern, as an OC at this level telegraphing our plays this much makes is very easy for a D.
Does your mom know your on here? If you have nothing meaningful to contribute move along.
- Status
