Husker in WI

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.

That was in response to why Tannor was setting the edge - who else do we have to do that? Alex Davis sure, I think that's actually who it is in the screenshot. But everyone else at OLB is about as small as Tannor. I guess Garrett Nelson is bigger and getting some playing time, but our other OLBs with the size they want aren't ready yet.

I think that's just a limitation of personnel, and I don't think it causes a problem on this play. Actually doesn't even look like Tannor is in on this play. And telling them to stand their ground feels like it's easier said than done - what about the alignment you suggested changes their weight disadvantage? In the end it's on the coaches, sure. But I have a hard time believing they're being coached to miss their fits. If it's lack of preparation that's on the coaches, but I don't think that's what is happening. And it feels like you're just calling a scheme you disagree with "bad coaching." Which may be true, but it's subjective.

Would they have helped? Feels like a lot (not all) of the big runs were cutbacks to the middle, where the CBs aren't making the play anyway. I don't think their TE got completely lost with no defender within 30 yards because we were respecting the pass. I don't really have a problem with your outside guys locking up 1 on 1 and playing 9 v 9 in the middle - we start telling them to aggressively attack the run and Minny probably runs for 200 and throws for 250. They were a wide open drop away from throwing for ~180 just on those 13 attempts.

I mean, Corcoran is a borderline 5*. Benhart was a 4*, Prochazka is probably a high 4*. There's progress being made there - I don't think we sign five 4* and up guys the next two years like they did but 3-4 seems like a lock. I agree last year they would've signed more higher rated kids if they could have. The problem isn't that we're signing guys like this, it's that right now we have to use too many of them. I'm sure you can find a really good line with some lower rated players. Wisconsin's RT was a 3* .86. Their All-American center was a 3* .84. But their other guys were 4*s, and they consistently pull 4* talent and supplement with guys who outperform their rankings. Right now our line would only be good if everyone was significantly outperforming their ranking. Funnily enough there are some parallels between Wisconsin's center (Biadasz) and Jurgens. Neither were considered olineman by the recruiting services, and they had similar size at 6'3 ~260.

Also the best high school lineman are going to mostly play tackle. It's the harder position to find guys for, and in high school you can get away with tackles who don't have the size to play tackle in college. Doesn't mean they can't be great guards.

Yeah, I don't think they're talking about starting Fritzche-Piper-Jurgens-Lynn-Benhart or anything. But there are opportunities to play, and I think if they significantly outperform the starter they're willing to possibly burn redhsirts. But more depth for sure. I get that Henrich has been dinged up and we're limited by the travel roster, but would've loved to see some guys get an opportunity at LB. Couldn't have been worse. Heck we burned Reimer's redshirt and the coaches rave about his instincts and nose for the ball. Barry/Miller/Honas all seem to lack those traits.

That would be man coverage. Ideally at some point they recognize it's a run, but with an RPO/play action heavy team they have to be a little cautious. In most defenses they are only cleanup guys anyway, if they need to be the ones to make a tackle someone else is doing a bad job.

Maybe. But this time last year Wilson was the savior of our online. Hixson is being replaced unless he steps it up, and I haven't heard anything from anyone else claiming Jurgens is struggling with anything outside of snaps. Farniok's issues are talked about a lot, but Indiana's dline is not good. The line has been bad, but I don't think it's hopeless.

You mean the guy who: 1) is a Wisconsin alumni 2) inherited a consistently top 5 defense with the rest of the staff remaining in place 3) is in his 3rd year as a DC Leonhard has done well, but he got dropped in an incredible situation and wouldn't leave Wisconsin unless it's for a head coaching job.

Stunting is not at all a good idea against zone runs, and secondary blitzes against RPOs are high risk as well. I think he played it as aggressively as he could given the offensive scheme. I am far from sold on Chinander, but I didn't see anything that made me think he got outsmarted. In the end the defensive performance is on him, but from what I can tell this isn't as much on him as it could be.

I don't know if I buy that. We pretty much loaded the box once we were getting gashed, what part of our scheme would you call "playing scared?"

There were definitely a few where we didn't set the edge, but more where the ILBs/Ss ran right by their gaps.

Both? Although I don't get the sense they didn't know their run fits, so I'd put it more on the players.

We're not quite a mess. We're not good, but there is coaching stability for the foreseeable future. Even if there is assistant turnover, we'll do whatever it takes to keep Fisher imo.

Probably, but it's major college football. Those expectations exist elsewhere. Whose the we here? Fans wanting the I formation as our offense don't control what actually happens, and the new staff doesn't seem to be too old school. Sure, but there's not a big enough market. Never gonna happen. Mostly academics, but to be honest the top recruits are not looking much beyond football. Football and the related things (weight room, training table, etc) are what they are looking for, and Lincoln is fine. There are good looking girls everywhere, and few places where being on the team is as big a deal as it is here. Never going to be a contributing factor to a recruits decision.

Or guys have been so focused on the gameplan and scheme that the basic things have slipped. That happens - this is not the first coaching staff to bring out the "focusing on the fundamentals" talk when things aren't going well. And I'm not saying it's wrong or an excuse, it happens. Particularly with a young team, and one that is probably excited to be working with the entire playbook this year and could be taking the fundamentals for granted at times.

Frost backtracked some of his "pushed around" comments today, and put more of the blame on LBs/Safeties missing run fits. Which matches what some posters were saying.

I think they're good, but a bad fit as 3-4 ends. Particularly against the run - they can sometimes shed and make the play, but there's a reason you don't have a ton of 6'2 ends in a 3-4. I would think with their weight they would hold up a little better, but they don't have a lot enough length to stand up offensive lineman.

I don't think your posts were intentionally inconsistent, more just me reading into them too much - and I disagree anyway. I don't doubt you meant fumbles when you said turnovers, and no one else seems to have been bothered by the "absolutely nothing to do with" comments so clearly I'm being a little too picky there. But you said turnovers initially, so that's what I responded to initially. I get your position and think it's valid, my contentions are 1) "made poor decisions" is subjective. I agree Martinez has made poor decisions at times, I don't necessarily see Vedral making better ones. We can pick specific plays to back up our positions all we want, it's subjective. 2) In the past 4 games he's played Martinez has one fumble that was his fault. I understand the fact is over the course of the season Martinez has the most turnovers. I think the recent games should be weighed heavier, you don't have to agree on that. 3) 1.5 games is a very small sample size for Vedral. We disagree, which is fine! The only actual fact in there is Martinez leading the FBS in turnovers though. Which admittedly does support your view more than mine if we don't believe Martinez has made ball security adjustments.

Until this last week, I had some trust we'd have a scheme to slow them down a little. But Minnesota did nothing creative and still steamrolled us. Not sure if it's scheme or the players, but in the end it doesn't matter - gotta have both, and I don't know that we have either.

Well by the end they wont be 8-10.. They will likely be 15-20. or 60.

It's possible, but 2 of the 6'5 guys measured that at the combine so probably roughly accurate. Tyron Smith also has freakishly long arms, like you mentioned. Donald Penn looks like he actually might even be 6'4, and Kelvin Beachum had a few good years and he actually was 6'2. Some guys can do it, but I don't expect to see a "short" tackle here anytime soon. Cam's definitely an athlete, I'm just assuming the coaches don't like the measurables outside. But I like the thought of Corcoran/Jurgens/Benhart anchoring a line.

EDIT: Mavric got it first, and actually got the tweet to show up. Pierson-El to St. Louis https://twitter.com/DontPunt_15/status/1184119663447478273