Mavric
-
Posts
103,643 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
465
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Mavric
-
-
Maveric, what is your opinion of "Professor Aaron Semm"'s comments about our running backs dancing too much and not getting north-south? Both of you agree that the line play has been much better than advertised.
Definitely agree on that. Too many times trying to find a big play instead of just getting an extra 3-4 yards and trying again next time.
However, it really looked to me like someone really got after Newby about this some time in the late third or early fourth quarter of the Southern Miss game. He seemed to go to the other end of the spectrum - just lower his shoulder and try to run over anyone in the way. Totally different from the first 3.5 games. It was a little overboard but I'm hopeful that someone got their point across and we'll see less dancing this weekend.
-
How long would it take, in theory, to install a new defense if it turns out this one simply doesn't work? A week? A month? An offseason? Doesn't seem like something you could do quickly, not with game-planning for a new opponent each week, and while dealing with injuries to starters.
It's not a new defense. It's a new coverage. If you pay attention to other teams around the coverage, they often change coverages play-to-play based on any number of things including down-and-distance and what the score is.
-
That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.
However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.
This was my point.
They say they are looking at everything, including scheme. Where do any of you get that they are not willing to try and fix it. 408 always threw the players under the bus, not this staff.
I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.
We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.
You might have seen this already (I got the link from you) but according to Riley, they are trying different things. Everything from 19:30 is on good, but the relevant part starts at 23:35, talking about how, for the first time, they switched into a Cover-6 at one point to give some help.
http://www.huskers.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=4468493&db_oem_id=100
Good post.
I think it's a huge fallacy for anyone to sit and assume they haven't been trying different things. Just because they may not be obvious to us doesn't mean they aren't trying them. Sometimes I wonder if people are expecting the team to trot out in different jerseys or something to prove they're trying a different coverage.
I'm sure there have been subtle differences. We tried some line movement against Miami that we scrapped after a couple series because it was confusing us more than them. The infamous Vine of McMullen is a line stunt. The linebackers coverage changes a little bit based on if the back they are assigned to cover releases or stays in to block. But we run almost the exact same coverage with our DBs on basically every play. The only big change is whether one safety has a deep zone or an underneath "robber" zone coverage. If I have missed anything else I'd love for someone to point out where. I haven't re-watched the Southern Miss game yet but I've watched the rest pretty closely and I can't find anything else.
-
I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.
We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.
This is presuming Banker's been able to install all 12 years of his experience into the players' heads in nine months. That may be a little bit of an ambitious presumption.
No it really doesn't. It's entirely possible that the scheme will "work" once the players are more familiar with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't working now. And it's Banker's job to find something that does. You would think he would have some other package available for an occasion that it would be needed. If our base package is geared to stop the run, shouldn't we have a secondary package available for when we are expecting the other team to pass most of the time - such as facing a team that throws a lot or if we are ahead later in the game? That would seem like a pretty basic adjustment that a DC with that much experience would know is needed. We either have not planned for any of that or have refused to use it.
-
1
-
-
I don't think that it's a bad play. I don't even mind running it some. But you need to be selective with it. I think we run too much straight zone against seven guys in the box. With no misdirection and not much (if any) of a numbers advantage, your odds are just not great. And particularly on outside zone plays, the line isn't necessarily trying to open a specific hole. They're blocking a direction and letting the RB find where the hole opens up. But if there are seven or eight guys in the box, the defense can fill a lot of gaps.
It's kind of the down side of going with more heavy sets - two TEs, TE/HB or TE/FB. It bunches up your formation and lets the defense play with more guys in the box.
-
That would be Michigan (#2 - 204 ypg), Ohio State (#7 - 253), Northwestern (#11 - 266), Penn State (#15 - 282), Wisconsin (#17 - 292), Iowa (#20 - 295), Illinois (#24 - 306) and Minnesota (#29 - 313).
Nebraska is currently averaging 520 yards per game on offense. So it's a good, old fashioned "something's got to give" set of games. Starting this weekend.
-
That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.
However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.
This was my point.
They say they are looking at everything, including scheme. Where do any of you get that they are not willing to try and fix it. 408 always threw the players under the bus, not this staff.
I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.
We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.
-
That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.
However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.
This was my point.
-
This actually seemed like it was pretty fast to me but apparently it will be six weeks tomorrow.
Not that we couldn't always be better but the offense was still pretty good without him. You never know what a couple plays here and there could do.
It'll be great to have him back. Probably a pretty limited role this week then turn him loose next week.
-
-
Until it's done, just more coach speak. We've been fed these types of lines for years now, lets actually get it done coach.
Unfortunately I have to agree. And apparently all the lines about "these coaches have experience", "we have three DCs on staff" and "this staff will make adjustments" are all just hope that people were clinging to.
There are only three options at this point:
- The coaches don't have any other plan to try anything different than what they've run in the first four games
- They are too stubborn to try anything else, insistent that their plan will work if it's executed properly (that sounds familiar)
- Sticking with their system is more important in the long run that winning some games
-
They will move the ball on us and they will score points. Illinois has done a great job coming together when Beckman got fired.
I think an x factor will be DPE, as soon as he comes in motion for that jet sweep, they will have to respect it. Could open up some big plays to the opposite side of the field for another burner like Reilly or a run for Tommy
Don't expect DPE to do much in this game other than a cameo appearance every once in a while.
Yep. Maybe a couple plays here and there to get his feet wet. At the most.
-
Not much of a Dirk fan but I think he hits the nail on the head here:
This is getting down to crunch time for Banker. The Huskers are dead-last in the country in passing yards allowed per game (379.5) by a wide margin. The third-to-last team is New Mexico State at 343.0. The Huskers are dead-last in pass plays allowed of 20-plus yards (24).
It’s like watching Charlie McBride’s 80s and 90s secondaries face Miami and Florida State. Only this is every week....The optimist looks at the Big Ten schedule and says, “Hey, I don’t see many good quarterbacks. We’ll be fine.” The realist recognizes that it doesn’t take a good quarterback to make the Husker secondary look atrocious.-
1
-
-
Said again that he is looking to visit for the Wisconsin game.
Now he says Nebraska has been recruiting him the most. Kind of odd that two weeks ago we didn't make a list of four in that area but hopefully we're in better shape that it sounded like.
-
-
-
I don't disagree. But then being thin at DE is basically self-imposed going forward.
Woah, pump the brakes there.
You deal with what you have. If you *inherit* players who probably belong at a different position, you have to move them. Sure, maybe the need is so pressing you sacrifice long term for short term, or vice versa, but that's a pretty difficult balancing act.
And it all comes back to what you start with. Better or for worse, there's no getting around that.
To some extent, yes. But I'm confused why we are moving so many guys to DT which started out as the one of the deepest positions on the team. We started out with Collins, VV, Williams and Maurice. Now we've moved Stoltenberg and Price there and are talking about moving McMullen there as well. I really doubt we have need for 7 DTs this year. I don't mind Stoltenberg at DT long-term but I don't think it would hurt him to stay at DE one more year, especially if we have depth issues there. He needs another year to bulk up before being ready to be a force at DT anyway.
And I think people are basing too much criticism of McMullen on one video that they're ignoring the context of the play call in that video. He played quite a bit as a redshirt freshman two years ago. He was our second-leading tackler among DLinemen last year (Gregory had 54, McMullen had 47) including four sacks. He's only two tackles behind Freedom on the year. He is still easily our second-best DE this year. Perhaps Gangwish will prove to be a little better but there is nothing to base that on at this point. And even if he does, why move your third DE to where he won't be better than the fifth DT?
I'm talking about depth, not necessarily impact. McMullen is a servicable to solid DE, especially if when we get to teams that run the ball more. He would not do us any good at DT.
-
Stoltenberg's future is at DT. It made sense to move him there in the spring.
Who else have they moved out of DE?Guess this isn't a mystery to the coaches either.
If we are so thin at DE why do we keep moving guys out of that position?
It would make sense to try McMullen somewhere else as he hasn't been contributing much at the DE position. Maybe he'll do some good inside where we also have guys struggling to get to the QB. I don't think we have any depth to speak of at DL or DE, probably been quite the challenge.
Stoltenberg
Banker said the Southern Miss game was McMullen's best game so far.
I don't disagree. But then being thin at DE is basically self-imposed going forward.
-
Guess this isn't a mystery to the coaches either.
If we are so thin at DE why do we keep moving guys out of that position?
Who else have they moved out of DE?
It would make sense to try McMullen somewhere else as he hasn't been contributing much at the DE position. Maybe he'll do some good inside where we also have guys struggling to get to the QB. I don't think we have any depth to speak of at DL or DE, probably been quite the challenge.
Stoltenberg
Banker said the Southern Miss game was McMullen's best game so far.
-
-
Guess this isn't a mystery to the coaches either.
If we are so thin at DE why do we keep moving guys out of that position?
-
-
-
Line Play - Miami
in Husker Football
Posted
Here's what I mean. This is our last possession - right before the missed FG. Newby has three carries in six plays. You can definitely see a different mind-set in his running.
Like I said, that's probably too far the other way. But if he can do a better job of mixing in some lower-the-shoulder runs with the speed that he has, I think it will work well.