RedDenver

I saw at least one Cover Zero man-to-man (no safeties over the top) that we got burned on. So he does do it occasionally.

+1000. They play a guaranteed 12 games per year. How can you not be up for the opener? Every team seems to have at least one game they come out flat. Hopefully we survived ours and it doesn't happen again. Is it usually the opener? And it happens to the Huskers more than once a year. I'm not saying it's correct or that we haven't had problems with it under Bo. I'm just saying that it's only one game, and that's pretty normal for college teams. If there's a second or third, then I'll start to be concerned.

If they play every game like they played against us, they will easily have nine wins. That's the trick to coaching, isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if they won 9. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they spent fall camp preparing for NU, and then pay for it the rest of the year. Depends a lot on if that loss inspired Wyoming or took the heart out of them.

Thanks for the summary. Are things bleak in Hattiesburg after the loss or are the fans still optimistic? I think it's going to take at least a year or 2 to recover from last season for you guys.

And don't forget firing McBride. His name was anathema in Nebraska about that time. Then he switched to the 4-3, got more speed on the field, and he's now the benchmark by which good defensive coordinators are judged. Yep. Trev Alberts and the media hype about the switch to the 4-3 might have saved McBride's job. Of course the offense finally started playing well against better teams around 1992 or 1993. When the defense isn't on the field the whole game, they tend to play better. You really need to go back and watch some of those games from that era. Most of the teams in the Big 8 sucked at that point. We really saw what we had in the bowl games. It's of little wonder why we lost 8 in a row. We were glaringly slow and bad on defense. The Florida schools proved that time and time again. I don't recall many grumblings over TO's offense, but I do remember people calling for McBride's job (head). Switching to the 4-3 had a lot less to do with our defensive improvement than the sheer recruiting changes we made on defensive players. The emphasis changed to basically one thing and one thing only: speed and lots of it. I'm not sure why you think I should go back and watch games - my recollection agrees with what you've said. We gave up 45 points in back-to-back games to end the 1990 season that put McBride on the really hot seat. And then the 22-0 loss to Miami to end the next year when we only managed 170 yards of total offense that started the grumblings over TO's offense. (And we only lost 7 in a row )

The problem was Martinez threw it to the wrong team. Like many others, I thought Burtch ran the wrong route, but after seeing what Rich Fisher and Taylor Martinez said about it, the INT is on Martinez. Well, TM might have had a bad pass, but the ball almost hit Burtch so it was definitely within arms reach. But Burtch wasn't looking so it went right passed him to a defender. Was that on the QB or the WR? I certainly can't tell; I'm not sure why you're so confident it was the QB.

And don't forget firing McBride. His name was anathema in Nebraska about that time. Then he switched to the 4-3, got more speed on the field, and he's now the benchmark by which good defensive coordinators are judged. Yep. Trev Alberts and the media hype about the switch to the 4-3 might have saved McBride's job. Of course the offense finally started playing well against better teams around 1992 or 1993. When the defense isn't on the field the whole game, they tend to play better.

+1000. They play a guaranteed 12 games per year. How can you not be up for the opener? Every team seems to have at least one game they come out flat. Hopefully we survived ours and it doesn't happen again.

Pelini and Beck both said they probably should have went downfield more......but Beck also answered this question with two last names.....Cross and Newby. I don't think many Husker fans will complain about an effective run game. Pelini and Beck basically confirmed that the O was too conservative. My question is: why are the coaches so conservative against these "cupcake" schools? Seems like we have this discussion after the first few games every year.

I agree completely with this. I've mentioned in several threads that the "vanilla" game plan and secretive coaching just drives me crazy. I'm not sure what all this "secretive" stuff is about. We came out in the second half and ran the ball very well. Beck stuck with that until the Martinez INT. We probably should have stuck with our ground game at that point, but I wouldn't call anything about our offense "secretive". It's widely known we have a lot of offensive weapons......and it's widely known we are quite capable of turning the ball over. It seems the game plans are very "vanilla". It's mostly speculation, but reason seems to point to saving things for future opponents, aka being "secretive". This game the O seemed to use basic run plays (many times over and over the same play) and didn't throw a pass more than 15 yards down field. Why?

the easy schedule we have had these last years and will have this year masks the reality of the quality of the team. NU has been winning 9 games a season for a while --- where 4-5 wins come against teams that 90% of the major conference programs would go undefeated against. That is, more than 1/2 the NU wins are against absolute fish... teams that anyone of quality would beat. Teams like Wyoming of this year. Against decent teams, NU over the Pelini era is playing about .500 football. When NU plays good teams, NU loses 80% of the time... and often NU gets obliterated by such teams. Those who trumpet the "9 win thing" seem (at least as I interpret their posts) to think that that is fine. But is it really? Is 1/2 our wins against fish... and then playing .500 against decent teams and getting ripped by good teams really fine? My point is that the 9-win thing is largely a function of a great deal of games against weak teams. Look more closely at the quality teams NU has played and the record is very much not fine. NU has just been fortunate to play schedules where the competition is not that great (really the B1G has only 1-2 good teams a year here recently and only another 2 or so that are even decent... the rest are less than decent). All is not fine. Being .500 against decent teams makes NU well.... merely decent. Given the history of NU football, being merely decent --- even if it is consistently decent and no less --- is not enough. No... things are not fine. Isn't that exactly what the old Big 8 was? It was Oklahoma and one other team most years, so TO played at least 5 cupcakes within the conference. Look back at how bad KSU (before Snyder was the worst team in Div 1A), CU (before McCartney), ISU, KU, OSU were. Parity has steadily made those cupcakes better and distributed the talent a little more evenly, so Bo has it harder to reach 9 games as far as opponent quality, IMO. We do play more games now making it easier to win 9, so that seems to about balance it out.

Did he play? I don't remember him either, but I also don't follow the OL very closely unless they're playing particularly well or poorly.

I agree completely with this. I've mentioned in several threads that the "vanilla" game plan and secretive coaching just drives me crazy.

It's like 1990 all over again. Except then it was TO's offense under heavy scrutiny. Same suggested solution as well: TO needed to hire an experienced OC. I don't know what the current solution is, but I get deja vu listening to the arguments.

Is this coaching or players? I've always seen Bo emphasize effort. Maybe the attitude doesn't marry with the words. When the coaches loaf it and have a "vanilla" game plan, that seems to translate to the players who seem less interested out there. (I really hate the "save something for future opponents" school of coaching.)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks guys.

Do you have anything to back that up other than popular opinion? Were we physically equal or superior to 2009 Texas? How about Oklahoma in 2009 or 2010? The D has been below average the last couple years, but it's shown poorly against both strong and weak opponents. If my memory serves me I think the answer to all three of those games is: Suh. I agree with you that it's played poorly against most everyone. It's my opinion that we get exposed when facing equal or greater talent. But then why did we do well in 2010? Defenses always look better with better players. That was true of McBride's defenses as well. But that's true regardless of scheme.

What are the bolded parts? They certainly didn't go 13 of 126 passing.

I don't know about us blitzing more. Yea we could blitz more but not a whole lot. My comments are more directed toward not even allowing the front four to get after it. Ok, that's similar in philosophy - turning guys loose to attack vs reading and keeping the play in front of you. Pelini has said many times that he'd prefer to make the offense earn it's yards and usually it's hard to not make a mistake in a long drive. Basically, preventing the big play. Attacking defenses try to force mistakes but tend to give up more big plays as a result. High risk, high reward. If one was obviously better than the other, we wouldn't we discussing it. I think a mix is the right approach, depending on personnel and opponent. But that requires the dreaded "multiple" defense. This type of approach on defense works when we're a physically superior team but falls apart against equal or stronger opponents. It's getting worse as more and more teams learn how to exploit the system. Do you have anything to back that up other than popular opinion? Were we physically equal or superior to 2009 Texas? How about Oklahoma in 2009 or 2010? The D has been below average the last couple years, but it's shown poorly against both strong and weak opponents.

Alex Henery against Okie State comes to mind. But I agree we don't do it much. After the game, Alex revealed it wasn't a called fake. He just took off when no one from Okie State was facing him (he had been coached to do that, so it wasn't completely on his own).

Bo's first year we faked a FG against KU for a first down. Later that year ran a similar fake that CU took back for a TD that almost cost us the game. I can't remember any since then though.

Too bad I can only +1 this. There's times to be secretive: like the spinner package we'd prepared for Mizzou in 2010. But you need to run your scheme every game and every practice the way you want the players to play it. I find myself wondering if "hiding" our best stuff has been holding us back the last couple years. The kids don't get the feel of the calls in game action until they're facing a tough opponent the coaches are "hiding" the calls from. Sure, you might surprise the other team, but we may be surprising our safeties as well when the front 7 doesn't do what they expect. P.S. Good stuff, Fowler. I'm looking forward to you posting your takes every week.

Rewatching the game, I couldn't believe how many times we should have had that guy for a sack - and then he makes a perfect pass while on the move. NU wins easily if Smith doesn't go all Dark Side on us.

If NU had MSU's defense last year we would have been ranked in the top 5. Probably.

I don't know about us blitzing more. Yea we could blitz more but not a whole lot. My comments are more directed toward not even allowing the front four to get after it. Ok, that's similar in philosophy - turning guys loose to attack vs reading and keeping the play in front of you. Pelini has said many times that he'd prefer to make the offense earn it's yards and usually it's hard to not make a mistake in a long drive. Basically, preventing the big play. Attacking defenses try to force mistakes but tend to give up more big plays as a result. High risk, high reward. If one was obviously better than the other, we wouldn't we discussing it. I think a mix is the right approach, depending on personnel and opponent. But that requires the dreaded "multiple" defense.