Husker in WI

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

I know one QB was assigned to each team, but then Connor Cook was taken #2 overall. And a TE #5 overall? This is gonna be weird. https://twitter.com/xfl2020/status/1184111280556314624

Farmer had a quote last year, something like he thought he worked hard in high school. Then he got here and realized how much harder he had to work to be successful at this level. So I think some of it is probably that, thinking just a good effort is enough because it has been in their careers so far.

My bad, could've sworn he was listed at 6'2. 6'3 is still short, particularly for what this staff wants outside. The last recruiting class we had a bunch of 6'6-6'9 guys, and this year the tackles are 6'6+ too. Height isn't everything and maybe he could be a good tackle, but they're trying to get the body types they want in the positions they want.

Who's the last 6'2 tackle you remember? That might work in a downhill running scheme, but you need reach outside. He'd have DEs who could get their hands in on him before he can reach them, and when that happens I don't care how strong he is.

Is it actually done? We added another ad, removed the ability to see what the next unread topic is from within a thread, and changed my avatar icon thing to blue instead of green?

I am weighing the recent turnovers more heavily because the team has made progress since the first games. Obviously not as much as we'd like. The "few low hanging apples" happen to be the only apples because we're talking about 5 turnovers, or if you are only talking about fumbles we're down to 2. I've shifted my arguments because it went from "Martinez has the most turnovers" to "Martinez fumbles too much" to "I was speaking generally, you're missing the orchard for the apples. The "orchard" of fumbles in the past 4 games is literally 2 fumbles against Illinois. Not sure where else I'm supposed to focus. I will grant you against USA and Colorado Martinez was too fumble prone, I am and have been arguing he has fixed that for the most part. I'm going to be a little pedantic here: You cannot use an absolute (funnily enough the absolute you used "absolutely") if you're excluding specific cases. It is an absolute, by definition it encompasses all of the specific cases. "Absolutely nothing" does refer to every single individual fumble because it is an absolute, you've left no room to say "except for these ones." If you'd said "almost nothing to do with" I would have no issue with your argument, I would just disagree. But you can't argue an absolute and then claim it wasn't intended to refer to every case. I'm being pedantic sure, but words do matter.