Jarhead In Red

1. Adrian Martinez doesn't have to be Heisman material to be effective at QB. If he can avoid turnovers and be fairly efficient, our Offense has a chance to do some good things. 2. It was good having Mills back to give us a more physical run threat, especially on inside zone stuff. 3. WIlliams is a dumbass at times, but our DBs can hang in man coverage against some decent wide receivers 4. Yes, it is possible for our opponents to get called for holding... 5. Winning is sure is better than losing.......

Another question is, what about Volleyball? Do they play Volleyball in the Spring also? I haven't heard of many ideas concerning NCAA volleyball yet. At some schools, it might not be much of an issue if volleyball doesn't happen, but I'd say it's safe to say it matters a little to the Big10 and especially here at NU....

Agreed. And I would think that JD would be jacked about the signing of Omar Manning, because (if Manning is as advertised) the Offense will now have multiple threats and will force a defense to account for the entire field. I would think that will only help JD as he gets more room to operate....

Duplicate post

So you had wood, and Frost was interested..... Sounds like quite the encounter!

If the plan is to potentially play 70-80 snaps because of "synergy" with the Offense, then that would also seem to put a premium on quality depth on Defense. Chins will have to plan to regularly rotate, especially in the DL, so he will need to stock the roster with competitive backups. I'm sure the walk-on program will help supplement in this area, because you can probably get some quality snaps out of some walk-on upperclassmen on Defense, without needing scholarships.....

Ya, with a team/program that is learning how to win, any win is vitally important, no matter the opponent. It is a starting point to build from, helping to establish confidence in themselves and in the process the staff is using to prepare them. Baby steps first, and then worry about beating more formidable opponents later...

I couldn't help but think of the Bobby Newcome situation when I heard this.... It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Luke played pretty well, IMO, for such short notice of a WR switch. He had a couple nice catches, and we know he has the speed to do some damage....

Ya, you might be right. Frost credited the Offensive staff in his postgame presser, saying that they came up with a plan that was well suited to Mills. And, pass pro was decent quite often, with the exception of yielding a couple sacks on a 3 man pressure. I'm real interested to see how the Offense performs this week, and if they can maintain the same success vs Maryland, hopefully while scoring more points than last week.....

One thing I noticed, after re-watching the game, I thought Hixson played well overall. He got beat a few times on inside moves, but he was firing off the ball pretty well, won several one on one matchups, was able to move his guy out, and moved pretty well overall. A nice comeback for a guy that got shoved into his own QB earlier in the season.....hopefully the Whisky game was a stepping stone for better things for all of the OL....

Ya, I'll admit I don't understand all the intricacies of Defense at high level football myself. I know some basics, and a few advanced concepts, but man, I can see how all the new Offensive systems and wrinkles really put stress on a DC to keep up. I guess that's why working 16 hour days has become the norm. But, on the flip side, that's why they get paid big money. I also rely on guys like Coach McBride or Jay Foreman to help analyze what they think is going on in some of these situations. When I have questions it is usually when I see us outnumbered to the play side of the formation, or where we have too few Defenders in the box to counter what the Offense is doing. In those cases where it appears we are outnumbered, it sure appears like we are fighting a losing battle before the ball is snapped. But, in those cases, I'm not sure if a player is lined up incorrectly, didn't hear a Defensive audible, or what exactly happened....

Agreed. Ty used leverage well, and he had sufficient strength to stand Biadasz straight up , not yielding much of anything. Imagine his potential after another year or two in the weight room....

We see this throughout much of the Wisconsin game. Whisky is able to block our NT one on one pretty much all day, which leaves 2 Guards climbing on our LBs to neutralize them. It's really evident on the drive right before halftime and the 2nd and 3rd drives of the 3rd qtr. It makes for a tough day playing LB, and it allows Wisconsin to reestablish the LOS 3-4 yards downfield, making it even tougher to limit a great RB like Taylor....

You are correct, Husker in WI, about the Minnesota game. Here is a quote, and the article is linked below: "When Nebraska offensive line coach Greg Austin pulled left guard Trent Hixson from the game at Minnesota, he had a short, powerful message for the Omaha Skutt graduate. “I’ll never give up on you, bro, but I need more,” Austin said Wednesday." https://www.omaha.com/sports/college/huskers/teams/football/nu-assistant-greg-austin-told-trent-hixson-i-need-more/article_60982852-e069-5f2c-b298-0e12d3425e3c.html The article also notes that Hixson rebounded and had a good game vs Indiana. I'm not sure how he has graded out since, but hopefully he is able to steadily improve as the season winds down.

Good point, and I agree. Farniok's weakness is footwork on edge pressure, but I think he will do well as a Guard. He is being a great "team guy" by playing out of position because it's what it is needed. Sliding him inside will give us an experience OL guy at Guard, and hopefully the skill sets of Benhart, Banks, etc will be a better fit for OT and we will see the OL take some leaps forward. There appears to be a lot of potential in the 2019 class of OL guys......

Agreed. As I have been re-watching the OL play in the Wisconsin game, Jurgens stands out. IMO he is moving well, doing a good job with combo blocks, and climbing to the 2nd level in a hurry. I was pleasantly surprised with the OL, that we were able to win quite a few one on one battles and were moving the Whisky DL out quite often. Hopefully a forecast of things to come....

Ya, after I posted that I realized I should have been more specific, because I know our WRs have had trouble getting separation and blowing the lid off the Defense this season. For this season, I was referring to the seam routes, which is one of the things that have been open this year, and the underneath routes to the TEs. We have seen many times where these routes have been open, and chunks/points have been there, but we can't get the ball there, just like the few plays that AM missed in the Purdue game. Last year, I think we saw more of what the Offense can do when we had a little better WR group, and a QB hitting on all cylinders. That being said, I'm a fan of Frost's idea of merging of the Power concepts from old NU with the current Offense.....

The Offensive scheme seems to be creating plenty of space for our players to operate, but the execution is so inconsistent that it's hard to determine how effective the Offense can truly be. We have seen multiple times where we have wide open receivers, but we either don't give the QB enough time to find them, or the QB misses them. We have left a lot of yards/points on the table by not being able to take advantage of what the Offense has created....

So, does that mean Farniok is grading high, or does it mean that the grades for the rest of the OL have fallen to unimaginable depths over the last month? All kidding aside, we all know Farniok is playing out of position, in that his strengths don't suit the demands of OT in Frost's Offense, so it's hard to get on the guy too much when he does struggle on the edge. He is being a team guy and doing what he is asked, even though he knows it probably won't paint him in a good light. And, I like the fact he is a stand up guy and doesn't make excuses....

Frost was a little more specific last night in the press conference when pressed about improvement from last year, considering our record at this point. He believes the team is better equipped, compared to last year, to slug it out with Wisconsin and Iowa because of improved strength. He also admitted it's hard to see improvement in some areas because some other areas have been a step back....

Ya, Hagg seemed like a perfect fit for the Peso position. Bo's Peso package, along with his match up zone coverages by the DBs, were pretty effective vs Spread Offenses. It didn't translate so well to the BIG10 though.......

Ya, it looks like we are playing a 7 man box, and if you dog the LB into one of the A gaps (in this case backside), you would think there should be someone to fill hard and fast in the playside A/B/C gaps on a short yardage/goal line situation. Maybe someone (The Safety?) lined up wrong or blew an assignment, but it looks like the Defense isn't set up very well to defend the weak side of the formation, which is exactly where the play went. I think you are right though, if the Safety doesn't stay deep and comes up hard on run support, then there is good chance he stuffs the runner and we aren't having this conversation. I would be curious as to what exactly Chins called on this play, and if we are lined up correctly......

Good point about the DL. They did a decent job of holding their ground, and I gotta think a LB should be fitting in the playside A/B gap to stop the play. Thanks for taking the time to do the analysis.

What's REALLY odd is your apparent lack of reading comprehension, your habit of falsely quoting people, and your smart-a$$ little quips anytime anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe that our young HC might have made a mistake. Let's look at your claims point by point: a) You claim the coach did it wrong and it's ridiculous that you don't just line up and run the RB 4 times. Read my post. First of all, I never said to run the RB. And, I never once said it was "ridiculous". I suggested, looking at in-game evidence of positive results, that IMO the QB run would have been a better choice. Here is the quote: "I like the idea of running your 225 QB from the normal spread formation, giving him some possible angles and some room to work, and even using 200+ lb Mills as a possible lead blocker." b) You claim you want Frost to remain aggressive. I never once mentioned "aggressive" in any of my posts in this thread. So, you are either being outright dishonest or really confused. c) You claim doing the conservative thing (running the ball with the RB with a full back) is the aggressive decision. Again, I never once used the words "conservative" or "aggressive"' to describe the situation. And, once again, I never said "run the ball with the RB with a fullback", I suggested using the QB run, so here is another outright fabrication. Again, here is the quote: "I like the idea of running your 225 QB from the normal spread formation, giving him some possible angles and some room to work, and even using 200+ lb Mills as a possible lead blocker." d) You claim I'm acting like I know everything and Frost should call me because I have all the answers. You’re the one who responded with the condescending “You obviously must have missed the number of times in the last few games we ran the ball needing a couple yards and got stuffed." , suggesting how wrong I was. So, it sure seems you are claiming that you know better, and I am the one who is "obviously missing" things. c) You go back to claiming you know better than Frost because your idea worked 2 out of 3 times while quoting me saying "You can't just do that all the time." Frost has forgotten more about football than I will ever know, but that doesn't mean he doesn't screw up. He has admitted screwing up in his play calling earlier in the year vs Colorado and Illinois. If you actually take time to read what I wrote, I offered an opinion that another option may have been preferable, and it happens to be the same play that he used with success twice later in the game. That is all I suggested. You took issue with my post, and you offered "You can't just do that all the time." as a reason. If it works all the time on a given opponent, then you most certainly can do it all the time. Tom Osborne built a dynasty based on this very principle of "Do it until they stop it." And, for the record, the QB run actually worked 2 out of 2 times it was dialed up, so not sure what the "2 out of 3 times" is referring to.... d) Your stats show your idea doesn't work all the time. Not sure what "stats" you are referring to that "show your idea doesn't work all the time". The stat I quoted was that the QB run was tried twice and it worked twice in goal line situations, so not sure what in the world you are talking about. As a side note, have you seem how many times we have botched the execution of pass plays in the last few games? We have had trouble executing both phases of our Offense at times, so I fail to see why your point is a ringing endorsement for running a shovel pass on the 3 yard line. I want to have thoughtful discussions on the Husker football program, and this board has a lot of that going on. But you seem to have a habit of overreacting when anyone criticizes Frost or the staff, you seem to like to misrepresent what people say, and it's obvious you like to fabricate lies to try and prove your point. If that's all you can come up with, please block me or ignore me, because I have no desire to engage in ridiculous debates based on lies and misrepresentations.....

I'm saying it worked 2 out of 3 times, so there is some real world data to back up that it's a sound strategy. Your reasoning is: "You can't just always do that in that situation." Hmmmmmm.....