If we lose the bowl game, it won't be the defense's fault

knapplc said:
The only reason that offense was quick-scoring was because the defense was porous as a sieve.

I'll agree that the offense has problems and I'll agree that the line specifically could/should be better. But when we're talking "problems this team has," defense is the first and foremost problem, every time.

The absurdity of this thread title warranted a response. There's simply no way to make an assertion like this and not have it laughed off the table.
Click to expand...
Of course the defense is the one giving up the points. My conjecture is that from surface observations, the defense, more often than not this season, has been put in a bad position by the offense. And dissecting it further, the offensive line seems to be the biggest culprit, as I'm pretty sure most of our turnovers have been due to crazy pressure on TM (Ohio state seems like the best example). Gilbert in the first Wisco game and the Ohio State DE were schooling Sirles and hammering Taylor (happened against Idaho State once and last year plenty against South Carolina) which caused fumbles and interceptions in our own territory. We've put up great offensive stats but we still have had horrible average starting field position. With a defense as fragile as we have, I'm just saying we should work around this and not put them in such a terrible position for failure. I saw plenty of instances where Taylor got nailed and it wasn't his fault. I also realize the running backs also missed their fair share of blocks. In ideal world, our defense would be so stout, on par with 09, that no matter where they start out at, they stuff the opposing O. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and it would be wise to recognize our limitations and adjust accordingly. I understand that is much easier said than done.

Edit: Most of my criticisms are towards the O-lines pass blocking as that's where I think Taylor get's pressured into throwing INT's and gets sacked and fumbles. If we're top ten in the country in rushing with some relatively unheralded guys, I cannot take that credit away from them. The O-line's run blocking has been stellar. But when we are in obvious passing situations, the blitzes always seem to confuse us or the D-lineman flat out beat the husker O-line on their pass rush. I think we'll get some good running yards on UGA. I just fear what J. Jones and Ogletree will bring on a pass rush, and I legitimately think there is a concern that they hammer TM so much he gets injured.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sir Alexander Henery said:
knapplc said:
The only reason that offense was quick-scoring was because the defense was porous as a sieve.

I'll agree that the offense has problems and I'll agree that the line specifically could/should be better. But when we're talking "problems this team has," defense is the first and foremost problem, every time.

The absurdity of this thread title warranted a response. There's simply no way to make an assertion like this and not have it laughed off the table.
Click to expand...
Of course the defense is the one giving up the points. My conjecture is that from surface observations, the defense, more often than not this season, has been put in a bad position by the offense. And dissecting it further, the offensive line seems to be the biggest culprit, as I'm pretty sure most of our turnovers have been due to crazy pressure on TM (Ohio state seems like the best example). Gilbert in the first Wisco game and the Ohio State DE were schooling Sirles and hammering Taylor (happened against Idaho State also once) which caused fumbles and interceptions in our own territory. We've put up great offensive stats but we still have had horrible average starting field position. With a defense as fragile as we have, I'm just saying we should work around this and not put them in such a terrible position for failure. I saw plenty of instances where Taylor got nailed and it wasn't his fault. I also realize the running backs also missed their fair share of blocks. In ideal world, our defense would be so stout, on par with 09, that no matter where they start out at, they stuff the opposing O. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and it would be wise to recognize our limitations and adjust accordingly. I understand that is much easier said than done.
Click to expand...
If we score more than 30, which I don't see why that would be hard at all (No offense Bulldogs) its up to the defense to win the game. I don't see how that is hard to understand. If the opposing team has more points, especially by a decent amount, usually that plays towards a defensive issue, not an offensive line issue.

 
and if you read my OP, I have a significantly brighter outlook on the bowl game than most. I think we'll be neck and neck with Georgia all the way through the first half to third quarter (I see a very low scoring game through the 1st half-3Qtr). I highly doubt we come out looking as sloppy and unprepared against Wisconsin and I highly doubt Georgia busts out a bag of tricks like UW did December 1st.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
accountability said:
It's a perception spoke of by folks who do not fully understand the nuances and checks in a blocking scheme. I dont either. But I also know that probably 4 out of 5 times a guy comes through the line-or around the line-unblocked, it's because it's part of the scheme in one way or another, whether he's supposed to be read, or picked up/trapped by a back or pulling lineman, etc. It's one of those things it looks bad on the part of the oline when the second guy does NOT do his job.
You go back to the safety against UCLA. That defender was supposed to be unblocked but Taylor made the wrong read and kept the ball. The exact play was called earlier in the game, the defender chased the back, Taylor read it and scored on a 94 yard td run.
Click to expand...
I might infer from your summary then that from a scheme perspective (or maybe more accurately a game planning perspective), we have some issues. Because we got absolutely rocked on so many series by their blitzes in the CCG.

Also on a completely different note, I've found myself comparing our offense with Oregon's some this season. Not because they're "better," but just because their version of the zone read is also very effective. It seems like not only is their offensive line really stout, they also run their shotgun read more downhill than we do. Ours generally develops more laterally. My guess is that this is something Beck has done in response to a previously not-so-stout offensive line.

Goal-line said:
Evaluation of coaches is the job of the head coach. Making changes is the job of the head coach. The head coach is responsible. The head coach makes the decisions. Any redundancy here? Now, do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
Where to even begin with this post. This is an internet forum. It's the kind of discussions that take place on an internet forum. Your diatribe could be applied to probably 95% of the threads on this site.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Undone said:
accountability said:
It's a perception spoke of by folks who do not fully understand the nuances and checks in a blocking scheme. I dont either. But I also know that probably 4 out of 5 times a guy comes through the line-or around the line-unblocked, it's because it's part of the scheme in one way or another, whether he's supposed to be read, or picked up/trapped by a back or pulling lineman, etc. It's one of those things it looks bad on the part of the oline when the second guy does NOT do his job.
You go back to the safety against UCLA. That defender was supposed to be unblocked but Taylor made the wrong read and kept the ball. The exact play was called earlier in the game, the defender chased the back, Taylor read it and scored on a 94 yard td run.
Click to expand...
I might infer from your summary then that from a scheme perspective (or maybe more accurately a game planning perspective), we have some issues. Because we got absolutely rocked on so many series by their blitzes in the CCG.

Also on a completely different note, I've found myself comparing our offense with Oregon's some this season. Not because they're "better," but just because their version of the zone read is also very effective. It seems like not only is their offensive line really stout, they also run their shotgun read more downhill than we do. Ours generally develops more laterally. My guess is that this is something Beck has done in response to a previously not-so-stout offensive line.

Goal-line said:
Evaluation of coaches is the job of the head coach. Making changes is the job of the head coach. The head coach is responsible. The head coach makes the decisions. Any redundancy here? Now, do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
Where to even begin with this post. This is an internet forum. It's the kind of discussions that take place on an internet forum. Your diatribe could be applied to probably 95% of the threads on this site.
Click to expand...
Not arguing with our point here, just making a comment that a lot of times, a play that is thought to be a zone read is actually a designed qb run/or rb sweep or power/trap.

I know what you mean by oregon's downhill style and I've wondered this myself. During the read action, their qb and rb are heading north and south, while our's are heading in a more lateral direction.

 
After the three losses we have had this year, the statement in the title is a pretty dang bold statement that goes against anything we have seen this year.

 
I don't think the O-Line or D-Line or Special Teams, or any other part of this team should be saddled with the whole blame for our struggles. It seems to be a problem with big game scenarios and that is what is frustrating for Husker fans. This team picks the worst times to play its worst ball. Leading up the UCLA game, the narative was playing out favorably for Nebraska. The Big 10 had a bad day that day. It was an opportunity to "take the next step toward national prominance" and Nebraska played poorly, particularly on defense. Then we came back, we got a win over Wisconsin, and were feeling good. We had a chance to put our stamp on the league as front runners, and got crushed by Ohio State. Then we battled back, valiantly, won six in a row. We were going good and still feeling all the good vibes from TO's big day in the Minnesota game. Out of no where, BOOOM, another disappointment. My thought is that we can nit pick and go after Barney or Bo or certain players, but its the circumstances of these losses and the manner of losing, not the fact that we lost, that causes us to fish around frantically for an explanation.

 
Undone said:
accountability said:
It's a perception spoke of by folks who do not fully understand the nuances and checks in a blocking scheme. I dont either. But I also know that probably 4 out of 5 times a guy comes through the line-or around the line-unblocked, it's because it's part of the scheme in one way or another, whether he's supposed to be read, or picked up/trapped by a back or pulling lineman, etc. It's one of those things it looks bad on the part of the oline when the second guy does NOT do his job.
You go back to the safety against UCLA. That defender was supposed to be unblocked but Taylor made the wrong read and kept the ball. The exact play was called earlier in the game, the defender chased the back, Taylor read it and scored on a 94 yard td run.
Click to expand...
I might infer from your summary then that from a scheme perspective (or maybe more accurately a game planning perspective), we have some issues. Because we got absolutely rocked on so many series by their blitzes in the CCG.

Also on a completely different note, I've found myself comparing our offense with Oregon's some this season. Not because they're "better," but just because their version of the zone read is also very effective. It seems like not only is their offensive line really stout, they also run their shotgun read more downhill than we do. Ours generally develops more laterally. My guess is that this is something Beck has done in response to a previously not-so-stout offensive line.

Goal-line said:
Evaluation of coaches is the job of the head coach. Making changes is the job of the head coach. The head coach is responsible. The head coach makes the decisions. Any redundancy here? Now, do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
Where to even begin with this post. This is an internet forum. It's the kind of discussions that take place on an internet forum. Your diatribe could be applied to probably 95% of the threads on this site.
Click to expand...
And..................................? It is the coaches responsibility to make sure the defense is what it is supposed to be! "And you guys thought I could not coach against the run?" What the hell is that? The Defense did not show up at the Championship game. What make yous think it will be present when we go to Florida? Some slight of hand magic?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
walksalone said:
We lose this game and...
armageddon.jpg
Click to expand...
I don't know about others but I do not expect to win this game and don't foresee a huge meltdown based on simply losing the game. Now, if we play like we did in the CCG, then Katy bar the doors. If we play reasonably well (meaning better than most of the season) and keep it respectable, that should be enough to keep it relatively sane around here. IMO Georgia is one of the top 3 teams in the country. By all accounts they should win.

 
Overall I worry more about what the Defense will do than the offense, they have been far to unpredictable this year. I guess we will see after the game who we can thank for our win. I won't contemplate blame till the game if played.

 
I caught a few minutes of the Jack Arute show this morning. They were talking about the CC game how that was not anything normal. I guy called and said he was the father of one of the defensive kids (yea sure). He said the team has not quit on Bo, but on Taylor.

I have not seen that. Did anyone else hear the whole snippet on this. I would like to know why it came up, how it started.

 
skersfan said:
I caught a few minutes of the Jack Arute show this morning. They were talking about the CC game how that was not anything normal. I guy called and said he was the father of one of the defensive kids (yea sure). He said the team has not quit on Bo, but on Taylor.

I have not seen that. Did anyone else hear the whole snippet on this. I would like to know why it came up, how it started.
Click to expand...
There's a statement beyond comprehension. A quarterback who Vegas released odds on today winning the 2013 Heisman (10/1), but the team doesn't believe in him. OK. Whatever.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top