brophog

Last I knew they had something like 10 scholarship players returning. I don't want Colorado to succeed, not just because of the Nebraska angle, but also because if they do have a decent season more schools will look to replicate this mass migration method of roster rebuild. It's very questionable how many schools could replicate the success due to Sander's somewhat unique brand ability to pull in recruits, but even a couple of years of this propagating could be harmful to the sport.

I'm just guessing here, but the difference may be in the fact we're not a year removed from a massive sexual assault scandal that made us the pariah of the football world.

At this point they seem to be taking everyone. Will be very interesting on signing day to see how they got all of those clowns into that tiny car.

I don't think anyone is debating that. The question is when do you take that measurement. The data on how coaches progress year by year hasn't really changed since Frost was hired and I remember us talking about it quite a bit back then so it's probably on this site somewhere. We hired a program builder who has shown he's willing to sacrifice the short term for long term gains. We don't really know what his ceiling is, and for all we know he may be a better builder than he is at sustaining.

What do you think the R stands for in RPO? The great thing about RPO plays in college, vs the NFL, is you can get linemen 3 yards down field, which with the way its called might as well be 10. You can still run power, lead, QB, damn near anything, really, and still be able to throw the ball. Your routes can also get further down field for the same reason. All of those screens and stuff you don't like are constraint plays to make running the ball easier. A skinny post to a TE on an RPO is a constraint play to make running the ball easier. Putting defenders in conflict means you have one less defender to block, one less defender that can fill. We can't sit here and talk about the offensive line not being good enough, year after year, and then have the solution be to run right at them. No, you get them good, and then you run right at them. Actually, you get good, you still use constraint plays, and then because your smart and choose not to have to block every defender imaginable your runs go from 3 yards to 10.

By my quick count, it’s 3 ranked wins in the last 10 years, none since 2016 vs Oregon. All this ranked talk is all well and good, but can we at least get back to beating the unranked teams before we discuss firing him?

These two numbers are too low. For instance, last year the top 4 RBs all averaged over 4 yards per carry. The rushing number I want to see is fewer QB carries. Not that I don't want a QB run component to an offense, but not as a substitute to your other options. We are a long, long ways from the days where 50% completion percentage on short and intermediate throws is in any way acceptable. Anywhere near 50% is a sign you have much bigger problems than just the QB. That number should be closer to 65% or better at those ranges and from the passing concepts we showed this spring I think that range is totally doable. This is the thing everyone needs to accept right now, and it doesn't matter if it is Year 1 or Year 10: This defense will give up big plays. It can be very high risk at times and sometimes as the DC you're simply going to guess wrong and they're going to have the perfect play, and that possibility increases when you start moving pieces around more like this defense will. My opinion on it, and there are certainly arguments against it, is we are in an era where even the best talent is going to be in a boat race a few times a year, especially within the two stacked conferences. Offenses have all of the advantages these days and I'd rather have a defense with the tools to fight back than lose a war of attrition. This defense is going to be a lot of fun, though. As to your numbers, turnovers have so much randomness involved that they're hard to project year on year. I do expect, though, to put opposing QBs in a position to make mistakes. I'm going to say the same thing I said when Frost was hired: He gets three years. In fact, if I had my way, no new head coach would get anything but a 3 year deal, but then again you'd have a hard time signing him to that deal, now wouldn't you. The data is really clear on this. If they haven't done anything past year 3, they almost certainly never will. Rhule followed a very similar pattern at Temple and Baylor. One win in conference in Year 1, ~.500 in Year 2, and 1 loss in Years 3/4. Most projections this year assume he's coming into a much better situation than those stops so they've jumped him up into that area of 5-7 wins. Personally, if he's the guy we think he is, I'd expect a pretty significant jump in Year 2.

If the spring is any indication, I think we will be happy with respect to these two things (gotta stop dropping so many passes, though). A big component of completion percentage is decision making and I was quite happy with that in the spring. He was comfortable, waited for things to develop but took his checkdowns and picked up what he could on the ground when it wasn't there. I'm not even remotely claiming this is the best defense he'll face all year, but in terms of aggressiveness and baiting bad decisions it'll rank right near the top. I think there is tremendous value in terms of mental reps to go against this defense every day. A lot of this will be determined by Satterfield's playcalling and Rhule's game management. One example from the spring was a 3rd and long where we ran a RB angle from the backfield with a TE on a shallow cross forming kinda a mesh concept. That particular play resulted in a first down, but even if it hadn't I'd much rather see then get the ball to a player that can run even if it is just to set up 4th down than I would dropping back and yolo bombing everything.

Good thing then that he cant lose to ranked teams in June. BTW, he has yet to lose more than 1 conference game a year in Years 3 and 4 of a program, despite only winning 1 conference game in his first year.

I would say this about DB recruiting in this defense: you almost can't take too many because they could end up playing so many different positions. Somewhat to a lesser extent at WR but I think even amongst the guys Rhule has signed/recruited there are those that will play either TE or RB at some point. Some of the offensive guys will swap sides and vice versa. I think at the end of the day these staffs highlighted athletes and believe its easier to beef up a fast prep player than it is to speed up a big prep player. Nail on the head and I think we got a guy whose track record speaks highly of that. Can he sustain a program, I don't know he's never stayed anywhere long enough. Big difference between winning with that 3/4 year old starter and winning after replacing him. I certainly have my questions of him, but on some of these things that he's talked about a lot, you can go back to Temple and see he did similar things with similar traditions and so forth.

I'd agree with those top 3. The top 2 are probably less debateable than Kemp, but if this offense starts like I'm imagining it, where we see a lot of quick game, play action, RPOs and other ways to limit the liability up front, then Kemp could be a huge early factor. He's good on screens, gadget plays, and quick breaking routes. You can also move him around a bit. Just the kinda guy a QB can have a lot of confidence in. I think that's the mantra early this year for the offense is to find ways to move the ball, score points, and build confidence.

Rhule doesn't see it that way. He's not here to win year one, he's here to build a program. At his previous stops, he didn't have/get what he wanted out of the upperclassmen so he played the young guys. Took his lumps on the scoreboard for it, too. He believed that was the path to becoming a better team and it's hard to argue the results. Not only did they win more every year at each stop, but they were a measurably better team every year. Everyone says their goal is winning, but that's not your real goal because no one can tell you how to win. They can tell you how to block and tackle better, how to throw fewer interceptions and more touchdowns, or how to better manage the game. They can't tell you how to win because winning is a byproduct. Your real goal is to do all of those things better and that is what leads to scoring more points than the other team, and that's how we define winning. Rhule says he doesn't feel he has to go the ultra young route he did in previous stops, and I think most of us would agree the situations are very different, but history suggests he'll take those early sacrifices if he believes they result in long term gains. I would say even the benefits of winning are exaggerated in Nebraska's special case. Most teams that have had the record Nebraska has had the past 6 years are struggling in areas like attendance, fundraising, and recruiting.

Those cutups are great examples of why I'm so excited for this defense. First example, Cover 1 Blitz. Looks like you send 6, but a defensive lineman drops out. Back stays in and does a good job because otherwise it's 5 on 4 due to the unbalanced blitz. As is, nowhere to throw. Second clip looks very similar presnap to the first. Appears to be Cover 1, everyone manned up on the outside. Big bubble signals blitz and the offensive line sets up that way. Instead they drop 8 and are able to get home with only 3. Watch though, the areas of the field that are baits if you did think this was a Cover 1 blitz, like it was in the example above. It appears it's single high shaded to the top side. It appears towards the bottom that you can hit a big play with a Corner, Post, maybe a Deep Dig (which the number 3 receiver on the top side actually runs and gets bracketed). The offense doesn't like it, but on this play a sack isn't that bad of a result. The third clip is a really good example of how they protect the Rover in coverage. One way to attack Cover 1 is to send one or more alerts down the field, forcing him deep and then attack the middle of the field underneath him. But as we've seen above, they can bring/drop any of those 6 box defenders at any time. On the top inside receiver they have a LB and S bracketing and another LB drops to that hole in the middle. Pay special attention to the bottom Safety. White uses a lot of off man coverage, and this is a great example of this. Pause the video a few seconds in and see his position. If they throw underneath, that pass is jumped all day. He's still able to drift back and bracket the outside receiver. Look at how much help that Rover ends up having. Bracket to the top, deep hole defender in the middle, and essentially bracket on the bottom. Despite having all of that help, It still results in a sack despite only rushing 4 defenders vs 6 blockers.

The reason you saw more fullbacks in the NFL last year, and a general stronger emphasis on the running game, is the vastly increased usage of 2 high Safety looks across the league the past two years. You can simply do a lot more out of 2 high, especially with all of the Cover 4 / Cover 6 and other split field defenses now popular in the league. The downside of such defenses is risking a lighter box against things like 2 back or 2 tight sort of sets. The NFL is simply responding the same way college teams did, only as usual about 5-10 years later. This is why I like White’s variant of 3-3-5 scheme. Most of these teams that operate out of base Nickel have 2 high with a smaller nickel back, and that just invites teams to go to these heavier sets. With White’s defense, you don’t know pre-snap what shell he’s going to be in and with a Rover instead of a smaller Nickel DB, he’s got on the field answers for more situations.

We’ve brought in recruits. We’ve brought in highly ranked skill position recruits. I’ll be impressed when we start seeing those players leave because of graduation and entering the NFL draft.

I assume you mean the Rover? That would depend on a lot of things. In a 2 man under, the 2 high safeties would likely be the 2 Cover Safeties and then the Rover would have some sort of underneath responsibility, perhaps the Tight End. In a Cover 1, the Rover is usually more of a free Safety. A big advantage of this defense is White can go into any coverage shell and not give much away. It also gives him a great deal of flexibility in terms of matchups. We can talk generalities about how White did things at Syracuse or even further up this coaching tree, but specifics will come down to personnel this year and playing to people's strengths and covering for their weaknesses.

The average new coach tends to improve by about 2 games or so between seasons 1 and 2. When you look at the year 1 tape of those that exceed that average you see plays where players were in the right spot, but they missed the tackle or they had a receiver open on a passing concept but they just needed to hold a block a bit longer. If the recipe is there, but you just need to refine it, then that’s a really good sign of future success. For me, year 1 is about setting up year 2. Very rarely in a rebuilding situation does a coach come in and shock the world in year 1. Year 2 is usually the big year, sometimes not until year 3, but practically never after year 3.

I think some of that is also the last defense was really centered around a big nose tackle and as such was a pretty indispensable position. This defense, although also prominently using 3 down lineman, is more focused on flexibility. More fronts, more twists and stunts and more penetration. To be honest, if this list was named "Whose the biggest casualty of the scheme change" then Nash is probably very near the top of that list.

This is a quote from the above blog that I wanted to expand upon. The big similarity that jumps out to me is how the "Peso" in that defense was really more of an undersized linebacker but you had still 2 high safeties over the top. In White's scheme that guy is the Rover and he's also more of a box type player than a Cover Safety. One big thing to put into context that makes Pelini's defense very different from White's is he always wanted to be in a 2 high safety look. As we've seen in the NFL the past 2 seasons, that makes you more susceptible to the run which is why you saw some 2 gap principles in his fronts to "gain a man". As SSO points out, that works when you got the talent. White is going to "gain a man" by bringing more looks and more pressure. One of the things you'll notice as a core principle in White's defense is how that Rover gives him tremendous flexibility in his pre-snap looks. He's often a 7th box defender, allowing the 2 cover safeties to play 2 high but he can just as easily be a single Free Safety allowing a man blitz.

To be honest, I don't know if anyone has really figured out the secret to identifying those players on a consistent basis both in college recruiting and in the NFL draft (or any other sport, for that matter). I think most of the time you just hope you've set a good enough example, both as a coach and with your players, that the new guys coming in sort of fall in line. Even then, it's not uncommon to see at the college level one or two really pronounced group of leaders graduate and you find yourself wanting there. I do like a lot of these guys in this respect, though. Kaelin, as one example, is just great. With Raiola committing elsewhere he just jumps at this opportunity with both feet and hasn't stopped since he committed. Does he become a 3 or 4 year starter, or a starter at all? Who knows this far out. If you're in a tight game late in the season and you need your backup to come in, you hope for a guy that seizes that opportunity the way he has his recruitment.

Too high or too low? For me, its hard to rate most of the players on the defense in this particular list because the scheme is so versatile both by personnel and alignment and there is potential to have a ludicrous amount of rotation at multiple spots. Until someone breaks through, it's hard for me to say most positions have someone indispensable, and even then it is such a flexible scheme that you may be able to shift things to compensate. I'm really big on Tony White's scheme and I thought they did a good job both in prep and transfer recruiting to add pieces.

I think it is more to do with the offensive line being a position group that needs a lot of reps but will have very little to no rotation. As we've seen so often, you lose one guy and it becomes musical chairs trying to put together the next best group of five. One change becomes two or three. Once this thing gets a few years down the road and you get to the point you feel really good about 10-12 guys, your left tackle going out just means you bring in the backup left tackle. Right now, the left tackle goes out and then the right tackle moves over then the right guard kicks out to tackle and no one is able to really get any good at one spot.

Too true. On the other extreme are the tapes where a guy is always having to fight through contact. One of the things that improves greatly as you move up through the ranks is team pursuit. You do have to be your own blocker a fair amount at the lower ranks.

He’s having a heckuva summer. Love these guys that dive in and just enjoy the moment because you only get this time of your life once and it goes by so quick.

I'm not one of them. I definitely think we will look to establish the tight end position because there's some good numbers there, but two tight end sets in the modern game are more often not two inline tight ends. You're looking for an h-back or slot guy that you can get in a mismatch and then pairing him with an inline type. There could be some versatility in this group to do those sorts of things, but we will see how that develops. Two inline tight ends brings so many defenders in the box and if they feel they can match up man on the outside they can get a serious numbers advantage. With the state of the offensive line and receivers believed to not be great in this first year, that sounds like a recipe for disaster, regardless of the running back. Rhule and Satterfield will probably throw a bunch of things at the wall this first year, especially if things start off slow, but Rhule's teams still have common philosophies over the years even if the specifics change year to year. One of those is what I'm going to call 'common sense football' in regards to personnel. Short yardage: jumbo, 3rd and long: 4 wide, that sort of thing. In that sense, yes we could see some two tight inline sets situationally. If I had to describe what I expect this year in terms of offensive style it would be limiting the liability that is the offensive line. Rhule knows how important that group is, and while he may talk them up, he also knows Rome isn't built in a day.