Dave Feit: No Robbery in East Lansing

Almost all the things that cost Nebraska a win against Michigan State were in the Huskers' control

Dear Lord.

No, Nebraska was not robbed of a win.

There were dozens of things – many of which we will discuss – that kept the Huskers from winning. Almost all of them were completely in Nebraska’s control. Things like completing less than 44% of their throws, using a “designated fair catcher” for six of seven punt return opportunities, and failing to get a takeaway against one of the most turnover-prone teams without an “N” on their helmet are sure-fire ways to lose, no matter what the refs do.

No, Nebraska was not robbed of a win. But, in the battles we go through life, we ask for a chance that’s fair. Nebraska WAS robbed of an opportunity. The opportunity to sink or swim on their own merits. If basic things – spotting the ball, clock operation, replay review – were done competently, NU would have had a chance. A chance to equal all our strife.

I don’t think NU wins – or even ties – the game. There was too little time left (largely due to Nebraska’s lack of urgency with the ball trailing by 10 points), and NU’s passing game was struggling with basics like protection, accuracy and catching.

But I don’t think it is too much to ask for a fair opportunity to settle it on the field. A chance to do or dare.

The richest conference in college football – one that earns over a billion dollars every year – should be able to afford to have the best officials working their games. Hell, I’d settle for mediocre refs if they could at least be consistent week over week. Hold back a couple million dollars in TV revenue from each school and use it to pay the best & brightest.

The definition of a catch should be the same no matter what crew is working. Player safety issues like facemasks and targeting should be called consistently. Simple things like spotting the ball correctly should be automatic. The existing replay system – as imperfect as it is – should be utilized in critical moments.

And if we win, let be by the code. With faith and honor held high. It’s no fun to win on a technicality. The bragging rights that make college sports great evaporate when fans have to acknowledge “yeah, you kinda got screwed there.”

And if we lose, let us stand by the road and cheer as the winners go by. No half-baked conspiracy theories or tall tales of ref bias.

So, where does all this leave a Nebraska team that remains one game shy of bowl eligibility? A quick look at the schedule shows NU will face winning teams from here on out, so the hill is steeper. Even though it didn’t show on Saturday, I still believe that day by day, this team is getting better and better.

They’re clearly not yet a team that can’t be beat (won’t be beat), but one bad game does not derail the progress that has been made.

Things I believe

The replay system let Nebraska down. Missed calls – like Heinrich Haarberg’s facemask being yanked, or a Spartan defender crashing into Malachi Coleman – happen every game. Do you really believe that Nebraska played – for the first time since the 2005 opener against Maine – a penalty-free game? Of course not.

But college football has an instant replay system for a number of reasons: verifying scoring plays, accurately spot the ball, and determining if fumbles occurred, to name a few.

Unfortunately, replay only works a) if it is used, and b) if the people using it have a proper understanding of the rules.

There are two things I believe about Michigan State’s fourth quarter touchdown reception: 1) the replay official should not be operating under a different definition of “what is a catch” than other officials. Look: I don’t think Dean Blandino is the be-all and end-all of officiating reviews, but when he takes one look and says “that’s incomplete,” it’s fair to question what the replay official saw. We’re not debating if the color teal is predominantly blue or green. There are definitive criteria that should be used. 2) If the call on the field was “incomplete” it would not have been overturned.

For me, the bigger failure of the replay system occurred on the final drive. Ideally, replay would have stopped the game to verify if Coleman’s catch went past the line to gain (it did), thereby giving NU a first down and keeping time on the clock. This cost NU about 11 seconds.

Finally, there was the “fumble” (as ruled on the field) that cost the Huskers 18 yards and the majority their remaining time. Live, I thought Haarberg’s pass had been batted down by a Spartan, so I was confused when Bryce Benhart was lying on top of the ball and the clock was running.

Surely, replay could have buzzed down to say “Hold up! Let’s make sure we get this right.” Yes, things were moving really, really fast,* but their primary job to stop the game when necessary to make sure things are done accurately.

*Benhart recovered the “fumble” with 13 seconds left. The final play was snapped with two seconds left, ending the window for video review. I’m truly impressed that the Huskers had the presence of mind to line up and get another play off so quickly.

The cruel irony is if the clock runs out, replay would have had more time to make the correct call. By my estimation, NU would have had 2nd & 10 from their 46 with about 18 seconds left.

The offense cannot afford to get behind schedule. Nebraska ran 29 plays on first down. Five times, the Huskers were credited with enough yards for a first down.*

*That awkward phrasing is used to account for the Coleman catch on the final drive that should have been a first down but was erroneously marked as a 9-yard gain.

On the 24 first-down plays where NU did not gain a first down (including the previously mentioned Coleman catch), the Huskers gained an average of 0.83 yards* per play.

*Instead of an incomplete pass on the second-to-last play of the game, Nebraska was hit with an 18-yard loss. Removing that bad call bumps the average up to 1.58 yards. Man, the ineptitude of the officials is really gumming up the point I’m trying to make.

Long story short: Nebraska turned the majority of their “1st & 10” plays into “2nd & 8.”

With the offense consistently behind the sticks and a passing game that struggled mightily (12-28, with two interceptions, seven sacks, and several drops), it should not surprise you that Nebraska’s offense needed an average of 8.7 yards on their 15 third-down attempts.

It’s too simplistic to see seven incomplete passes on first down and say “run the dadgum ball.” NU hasn’t proven it can run consistently against 8- or 9-man fronts, plus NU has good speed in the young WR corps. Nebraska needs some balance in their offense.

But maybe find some easier throws that can gain positive yards. Speaking of which….

Nebraska needs to follow Spencer Tillman’s advice. In the third quarter, Tillman, the FOX Sports analyst, laid out a good goal for Nebraska offense in the rest of the season:

“(They’ve) got to be opportunistic, and not just minimalist.”

Through a combination of injuries, inexperience, and wanting to complement their defense, “minimalist” is a great definition for Nebraska’s offensive identity.

32

Gallery

32 Images

Ideally, they’re going to run it, watch the clock tick down in the huddle, run it again, and try to convert third down. They’re willing to punt and trust their defense.

But Tillman – and I suspect a lot of the offense’s critics – want Nebraska to be opportunistic as well. The quote was said after Haarberg did not see Jaylen Lloyd running wide open on a crossing route. If Haarberg sees and hits him, the Huskers probably pick up 20 yards. Instead, Nebraska punted after losing four yards on three plays.

When the defense is playing so well (and the passing game struggling), I don’t need the Huskers to get aggressive on offense. But offensive coordinator Marcus Satterfield’s schemes are getting guys open. NU just has to take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

Things I don’t know

Why did Nebraska punt on punt return? The award for the nation’s best return specialist is named after Nebraska’s own Johnny “The Jet” Rodgers. But in the 21st century, Nebraska punt returners are more likely to win an award named after fair catch aficionado Santino Panico.

After a midweek practice, special teams coordinator Ed Foley said, “I don’t like what we’re doing on punt returning.” This led me to believe that Nebraska was interested in improving its dismal performance (8 returns for a total of 20 yards) coming into the MSU game. Nope.

Instead, the plan was to employ the less-than-100% Billy Kemp as what the TV crew described as a “designated fair catcher.” Kemp fair-caught five punts, two inside the 10-yard line. On one fair catch, Kemp was at least 15 yards away from the nearest Spartan. For reference, Kemp has a total of 19 punt return yards on the season.

The way the TV crew talked about Kemp (“He’s banged up. That’s all he can do.”) tells me Rhule had signed off on this plan before the Friday production meeting.

But when the offense is clearly struggling to gain yards, why concede the field position battle? With a limited Kemp out there, Michigan State didn’t have to worry about outkicking their coverage. Punter Ryan Eckley could launch bombs (a 48.3-yard average on 7 punts) as long as he beat the moderate pressure NU sent.

With 2:32 left in the game – and NU trailing by three – freshman Ethan Nation was sent out to return a kick. If the coaches trusted him to make his first career return in that situation, why didn’t they trust him the rest of the game?

How should we characterize the defense’s performance? I’m torn on what to make of the Blackshirts’ performance. Did they have an off day? Or were they good enough to get the victory?

My initial thought was the defense did not play very well.

Michigan State scored 20 points – the third-highest total of the season. The defense did not get a turnover against a very turnover-prone team. On the four scoring drives, the defense seemed to get pushed around more than usual. No defender really stood out from the pack.

But a second watch of the game and a deep dive into the stats tells a different story.

The Spartans were held to just 63 rushing yards (2.0 yards per carry). Almost 20% of their 232 passing yards came on a trick play. Michigan State converted only 3 of 14 third downs. The Spartans were three and out on seven of their 13 drives. After a questionable touchdown in the fourth quarter, the defense gave up 23 total yards on 12 plays and gave the offense multiple opportunities to tie or win the game.

While this game may not have been played to the high standard set by Tony White’s Blackshirts, they did their part. It’s not fair to expect them to carry the weight for the other two phases of the game.

What is going on with Nebraska’s running back rotation? In the first quarter, Emmett Johnson runs for 11 yards and first down. On the very next play Johnson leaves and Anthony Grant runs for 16 yards. Then Johnson comes back in, and only gets one touch out of the next six plays on the drive.

In the second quarter, Johnson gets 11 yards on a 3rd & 10 handoff to the short side of the field (a play call that surely made Tom Osborne smile). Johnson stayed in for the next play (a 3-yard gain), but then leaves for Joshua Fleeks, who runs for 8.

One more example from the opening drive of the third quarter: Grant rushes for 3, then 11 on the next play. Exit Grant, enter Johnson who runs for 11. Johnson out, Grant back in.

I haven’t taken the time to look for other examples of this in previous games, but it feels like a thing that happens fairly regularly: one back gets a nice gain and immediately heads for the bench. The backup makes a nice gain, and then he’s out.

Clearly, there’s a reason for it (Conditioning? Play calls? Satterfield and E.J. Barthel viewing the backs as interchangeable equals?). And it appears – at least in these examples – to be working. But it strikes me as strange.

I always laugh at the cliched “feed me” gesture where a player looks like he’s eating a bowl a soup, but maybe let a guy have another bite before he comes out.

Also – when two different backs get you 10 yards on consecutive runs, the third play should probably be another run. But that’s a different question for a different day.

Huskerigami Update

A “Huskerigami” is a final score combination (win or lose) that has never happened in the 130+ year history of Nebraska football.

Final score: 20-17

Is that a Huskerigami? No. It has happened four times before. The first time was a loss at UCLA on September 9, 1972, Nebraska’s first loss in 33 games. Mark Harmon (yes, the “NCIS” star) threw for a touchdown and ran for another. The most recent 20-17 game was a win a Wake Forest on September 8, 2007.

5 things I loved

1. Linebacker corps. There really wasn’t a singular standout performer on the defense, but the linebacker corps arguably had the best day. They racked up a ton of tackles, sniffed out plays, and accounted for most of the Nebraska’s tackles for loss.
2. Emmett Johnson. He runs hard, gets what he can without dancing, and protects the ball. I’d like to see what he can do with 18-23 carries and a few screen pass attempts.
3. Thomas Fidone. I really like what Fidone brings to the offense. He can use his speed to get open. He can use his length to bring in passes that are out of the strike zone. And he clearly has a connection with Haarberg. I’d love to see him get a 100-yard receiving day before the year is over.
4. Marques Buford, Jr. The standout defender played in his first game since a nasty knee injury in last year’s Wisconsin game. He didn’t have a huge impact (two solo tackles), but I’m thrilled to see him back on the field. His presence will be a big boost for the final stretch run.
5. Malachi Coleman. Coleman only had two catches for 39 yards, but he used his speed and size to get open. Coleman traded his Lincoln East Spartan backpack for several Michigan State Spartans draped across his back. It is easy to see his growth as a college receiver and be excited for his future.

Honorable mention: Malcom Hartzog, Nash Hutmacher, Nate Block-ircher, Cameron Lenhardt, James Williams, Heinrich Haarberg’s legs, Phalen Sanford’s physical pass breakup, Matt Rhule telling everybody to “chill the ___ out”.

5 areas for improvement

1. Pass blocking. Nebraska’s passing game was atrocious on Saturday. While there are several reasons for this (keep reading), the play of the offensive line is the biggest factor. Haarberg was sacked seven times. The two critical fumbles – one lost and the other at the end of the game – were caused by Spartans who had collapsed the pocket.
2. Pass throwing. Haarberg was 12 of 28 passing (43%) with two interceptions. A third interception was negated by a defensive holding penalty. A potential fourth pick went off a defender’s hands in double coverage as a different receiver ran wide open. Throws were either high, behind receivers, both high & behind, or perfectly placed. Increased vision and accuracy will benefit Haarberg’s career as a quarterback.
3. Punting and Punt Return. We interrupt this dissection of Nebraska’s pathetic passing offense to discuss the failures in the punt return game (see above) and Brian Buschini’s inconsistent punting (35.4-yard average on five kicks with a long – 45 – that was less than the average of Michigan State’s punter).
4. Pass catching. I counted at least three more drops – all on passes that hit the receivers in their hands.
5. Tim Brando and Spencer Tillman. The broadcast veterans are a great booth for a random late night Mountain West game where I don’t notice (or care) if they pronounce all of the names correctly or if the game action gets in the way of them telling stories. But when it is a team I care about, say the names correctly (I counted at least five different mispronunciations), have some situational awareness, and save story time for dead-ball moments.