Husker in WI

Maybe include the plays where neither happens because his guy is covered.

I will never understand the persistent Jackson hate. I'm not even sure I'd put Taylor-Britt above him, he probably flashes better but hasn't been super consistent. Jackson isn't perfect, but he's been really good all year.

Dang, not favored in any of them? Although beat Indiana and I bet both Purdue and Maryland flip, their a push without the home field at the moment. The home field bump seems fair until we beat someone other than Illinois on the road though.

The problem I have with this argument is we have no idea if any coach could have back to back 10 win years with the team Frost inherited. The hypothetical doesn't work for me - I believe for Frost to win 10 games, Riley's recruiting/retention/development would have had to have been better. In that case obviously people wouldn't bring it up, but that's because it wouldn't have been an issue if it was better. But it was bad, which is why (among other reasons) we didn't win 10 games.

Could always wear them multiple times if we have a good defensive performance, but I expect it'll just be Indiana this year. A little extra hype, which the team shouldn't (but might) need. Indiana isn't a joke, and hopefully being a home underdog is motivation as well.

Didn't see anything on the past few pages and I can't be bothered to dig through more - if only there were more posts per page. Anyone have a sense on what our ILB board is like? Is it Tisdol > Bryant-Strother > Curtis > Williams?

I could see Minnesota imploding - Maryland, Penn State, @Iowa, @Northwestern, Wisconsin to finish out the year. Not too hard to find 3 losses there, especially if Wisconsin is playing them for the West title. Could also see them ride their momentum to a 3-2 record and a potential division title, they're obviously not bad. I think we made them look better than they are though. They finally believe they can beat Wisconsin which is big for them - I don't know that we do.

True, I think that's a lot of it. But there are definitely guys not playing without that consideration, like McQuitty and Jones at WR. Rotating lineman as well - Frost mentioned wanting to be able to rotate, but it takes somebody getting completely embarrassed or injured to see the 2s. Not saying there aren't reasons for that, but I know fans want to see other guys. Gotta assume the coaches know more than us though, and maybe they just aren't ready.

I was thinking about this, and earlier in the year Frost did admit the coaches weren't practicing what they preached there. but I think that was mostly regarding the playcalls. But I do think there are more reasons to not play a guy than being afraid of him failing. I completely agree we should be giving more guys opportunities, I just don't know that we can say the reason the staff isn't is because they're afraid of failure. There's a difference between giving a guy his shot and playing a guy who just isn't ready to be a contributor.

I think the plan was always to have Jaimes at LT, I don't think he's going anywhere. He played RT as a freshman because that's where the opening was. He's a tackle, and while this year he's been inconsistent he's usually fine. I know there was talk about Gaylord being the RT and Farniok moving inside but I don't buy it. Gaylord wasn't starting in practice according to the people there iirc. And if the only reason Farniok was starting over Benhart was to play it safe because he thought the line would be ok, Frost would've made the switch midseason when it clearly wasn't ok.

You're right, so Allen probably is just supposed to go straight ahead. A more experienced ball carrier might have made this work, but if Miller gets his block it's a moot point. Kind of why I just would've gone for it though - they know to expect a fake, and you're asking a TE to run and LBs to block. Let the backs run and the linemen/tight ends block - not that they did that particularly well.

For sure. You want a playcall I was pissed at, that fake punt was straight out of coaching 101. We were down, needed a spark, 4th and short between the 40s. Everything about the situation screamed fake, so you might as well line up and go for it instead. Frost said he thinks Minnesota might have seen it coming - that's an understatement, everyone in the stands saw it coming. And even with that, if Allen went left there was a huge lane - I don't know if the blockers were wrong or if he was, but it still could've worked.

Yeah, that's fair. Like I said it's definitely a playcall that is open to criticism, even though I don't have a huge problem with it. It was 3rd and 6 and I'm sure he was planning on going for it on 4th. So that's another one I don't really have an issue with, but I understand some will. If you don't have a 3rd and 6 playcall you're very confident in I'm fine with getting a few and setting up a 4th and 2.

Stoll has this guy dead to rights: Runs right by him instead. This guy shouldn't be there if Stoll blocks him: Hixson does get to #18, so if that guy is blocked it's Washington 1 on 1 with #25, which is great. Although looking again, #25 makes a mockery of Woodyard's block attempt (probably why he hasn't been on the field), so maybe #6 is supposed to be the one guy for Washington to beat. And there is a ton of room in the middle. But to your point, screens have not been good all year. Maybe Frost was thinking Minnesota wouldn't expect it because of that, but seeing the ones in the game it is a call that leaves room for criticism. I just don't know if the 4th down call is a drive blown by bad playcalling. We're in 4th and 2 because of bad blocking on 1st down, a receiver tripping on 2nd, and a a lack of power from Washington on 3rd. Those are also factors in the failed drive.

Yeah that was ugly, but if it works nobody is questioning it. Not sure how that was supposed to go, seems like Stoll and Jaimes were blocking it like a middle screen but Washington drifted out wide. Or it was supposed to be wide, in which case Stoll just can't let the S/LB waltz past him. And Washington has to catch it, but it wasn't going anywhere if he did. Not knowing much about the defense and what they expect out of certain looks, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out they hadn't run this since fall camp and that's why it was a mess, it's a bad play call. But honestly if Stoll blocks the guy he ran right past or Washington stays inside, it's there. What would you have run instead?

Which play(s) do you have issues with, out of curiosity? And he would agree with you on the QB runs - I think it was his postgame presser where he mentioned our most reliable runs are QB runs, and he's never had to run the QB like he's had to this year.

Technically Frost was a Safety at a higher level than he was a QB - maybe he can help out the safeties. But I agree, consistency in the system and what you're being taught goes a long way. I think it's hard to coach over-pursuit out of guys, we'll see more of the kind of coaches Chinander and Ruud are with this next wave. I don't think playing the position automatically makes you a good coach, but it can't hurt. On the NW LB coach - here's his resume (NW Roster)

Rewatch was brutal, the 40 minute version is on youtube for now. We had 14 plays on their side of the 50 on our first 2 drives. Just stupid things - illegal substitution, a bad block in the back on a huge play. I think by the time Hixson got steamrolled in the second quarter the DT was just living in his head, he was schooling him from the second drive on. Early on we were moving the ball fairly well, but then we'd shoot ourselves in the foot with sacks and penalties. There is no reason to score less than 24 or so on that defense. And then once we lost Wan'Dale it was over, nobody else was stepping up.

Or drops and having no protection aren't counted against him in their grades. It didn't matter who the qb was last week, nobody else on offense did anything.

Haven't found the source in my initial digging, but I'm pretty sure we shut him down for the year. Which is a shame because the plan was to have him ready late in the year. And I think Mills' vision has improved, but definitely still not a strength. Totally agree on Rahmir though, he's played like 12 offensive snaps, it's crazy.

I guarantee we have several guys doing this. It's also not quite that simple - maybe our best run plays against Illinois aren't our best against Northwestern. Also funny you mention never running a screen again - plenty of fans are screaming that we need more screens because defenses are being super aggressive. I think your point is why we haven't run more, we've sucked at them. One last week looked decent though. I agree we need a few plays we can rely on, and the coaches have mentioned that as well. I think we as fans tend to oversimplify the changes that need to happen, and assume the coaches aren't working on it. There are absolutely playcalls I question, but without as many drops and penalties I think we wouldn't have many issues with it.

Seems implied on Miles Jones and Will Farniok too. And it's pretty harsh for any rFr. - some guys are more ready to contribute early than others. We don't have to assume the depth chart is the way it is because Alston is bad, could be Nelson is just better. I'm pretty sure Miles Jones is beat up, and by most accounts Jurgens is just a freak so I wouldn't say Farniok is missing opportunities to contribute.

Ha, I was intentionally vague because I'm not sure. I guess heading into the 3rd season, because that's 3 spring camps, 3 fall camps, and 2 full years to develop guys and recruit over those who don't cut it. I don't expect to be a top 10 defense next year, but I expect to force teams to run more than 3-4 different run plays to beat us. And for the turnovers to not entirely dry up in conference play. I also don't think we'll ever really have a talent v. scheme v. coaching v. execution answer for the problems, it's a mix. And we can use recruiting rankings to show you don't need highly rated guys, but just saying player X was a low rated gem doesn't mean our similarly rated player Y is. Right now we don't have highly rated players or a scheme that has been taught long term, or the time to have developed these guys. I think all of those matter, and if you have enough of one piece you can compensate for lacking in the others.

I'd say UCF just turned around fast than anyone expected, for a lot of reasons. And those expectations for timelines shouldn't have come with the staff. I'd say 3 years, and I think I would've said the same if I were a UCF fan when this staff was hired. The fact that they beat the expectations once doesn't mean they figured it out and can fix a different team faster.

Got it, think I misunderstood what you were arguing anyway. Yeah, I don't think talent is the reason we gave up 300 rushing yards to Minnesota. You can argue execution vs. coaching, and at some point execution is on the coaches. I'm still giving them a little bit of a pass because I think Barry and Honas are who they are, and Miller still looks like he's learning LB. I assume they are trying to coach the over-pursuit out of them, I'm just not holding my breath it'll happen after a year and a half of it. If it continues to be a problem with the next round of LBs, I'll have some coaching concerns.