brophog

There are so many, the first time I read that I actually asked myself where is the "Participation Ribbon Bowl". Even after the second time reading it, and understanding the sentence, I still feel compelled to google it.

This week should be a win; Illinois is terrible in every way a football team can be terrible. Just takes 3 more wins after that. Not that improbable.

If anything, it's message boards suggesting they can play (or at least can't be worse) and the coaches saying they aren't suitable replacements at this time.

Morgan is big, Tre is an upgrade at least (I think ), but in terms of linemen....I'm not convinced yet that the replacements shouldn't have been the starters. I'd need to be convinced that getting players back is what will fix things, based on what I've seen.

Quite possibly. The problem as I see it, is that likely doesn't solve a lot.

I'll try to answer this best I can, this will be longer than it needs to be, but I think putting it down in one post will save time later. First, base defense designations of a common front like that are meaningless in today's game because the concept of a base defense is kinda fading away. That designation made sense when teams passed the ball more on specific downs, and therefore used specific personnel in specific situations. In today's game, you may never leave nickel or dime personnel for the entire game, and teams are just as likely to use 3 or 4 WR on first down as they are third down. Regardless of defense, you're likely to see 4 rushers and 7 in coverage because of min/max basic defensive theory principles. This has meant that some descriptors we've always used, like FS/SS are no longer relevant. OLB/DE is a messy concept entirely these days. In general usage its often better to just describe them as edge players. Specific teams will use specific terms like Cat, Dog, Monkey, Squirrel, whatever. When I refer to scheme, it is front agnostic, for the most part. Scheme should be described as the general rules and philosophies describing a specific defense. Things like Strength Declaration, Handling Motion/Shifts, Gap Philosophy, Coverage Philosophy, etc. To answer the question: Yes and No. If you're switching to Pelini's defense, regardless of what you're switching from, it's probably less complicated to switch. Pelini's defense is a pretty quick install, doesn't take long. In general, I wouldn't ever make a coaching decision based on this particular question. Football is football. The biggest initial hurdle is vocabulary because everyone uses different words and one guys word is another thing in another guys defense. After that, its mostly tweaking things to accommodate for philosophy and that's done very quickly if the players already know the basic ideas.

From what I've seen of both, I think that's a fair statement.

As I've explained before, it isn't this big challenge. These definitions that get thrown out, on both sides of the ball, are limiting. Offenses and defenses aren't as static as they make it appear. What Diaco has shown, especially the last two weeks, is certainly not that limited. He ran a lot of different fronts and coverages against Rutgers.

Good point. The other problem with this is the one man side isn't usually in your progression. 87 was over there a lot, and the only time I recall him being targeted was on like a 5 yard in that was called back on the ineligible man penalty.

Not really. Tom Brady could run that offense. In fact, a lot of what the Patriots do is not that dissimilar. The number one thing both offenses want out of the QB is quick and decisive decision making.

Deleted due to redundancy.

We have a lot of room for improvement, I agree on that.

UCF is a slight favorite, and maybe they should be even more of one. The scary thing is, while their offense has been quite productive, it's also made a fair number of execution mistakes...it's not near its ceiling, IMO. Meanwhile, Memphis gives up way too many yards and can't get off the field on third down. This is a big test for Memphis, but they're becoming accustomed to those, aren't they.

I think we're miles away. The passing game is just broken at this point, and when you break down the tape you see our run blocking is still atrocious at times, especially on zone plays. The 4th game isn't much different than the 1st....the backs are breaking tackles and making others look good. Even then, there aren't the big plays in the running game, and many attempts are lucky to make it back to the LOS. That's with the easy part of the schedule being finished on Friday. The screen game isn't even worth mentioning, the passing game is horrible, and the running game is probably best described as adequate. There are no star players. I'm afraid the prognosis for the immediate future is pretty far from bring near prolific.

Nebraska covers the spread

What few screens we have seen then have been handled more aggressively.

Yeah, with the costs rising as fast as they have, it's impossible to be what it once was.

They do have a QB that can move a bit, but the point is they create opportunities for any QB that we currently are not.

Watching the UCF-Maryland game and there is a great example of situational coaching in a scenario that comes up a lot, but is sometimes not handled that well. Late first quarter. Second and 10 from the Maryland 41. UCF takes a shot down field, doesn't get it. 3rd and 10, the play is 4 button hooks. Easy completion, right before the sticks at the left hash mark. 4th and 1, running play wide to the right out of 10 personnel, 2x2 set. 1st down. The second down play isn't that interesting but after that incompletion it's immediately obvious this is potential 4 down territory. 7 yard buttons are easy plays to make, perhaps you even break a tackle for the first down. Easy reads for the QB, tough to defend. The 4th down call is great. Just hand off to a fast back, tell him to run to the sideline. Even a marginal block gets you to the corner. It's safe, it's easy, there's little risk of failure. You're not trying to overpower anyone or risking a drop, just run to daylight. When you get to the opponents 40, you really should change your thinking, IMO. This is a good example on how this part of the field can be your ally.

If you used the word 'evidence', then we're in agreement. The word 'proof' is used wrongly way too often. It sets a standard that often can't be met. "Scientifically proven", for instance, can't even exist due to the nature of science . If I say something is proven to work, I'm not saying the same thing as it works more than 50% of the time. To use that phrase implies at or near 100%. Im not going to post anymore, I've made the point. I dont think it's fair to any hire to use the "proven" as a qualification because it sets an unfair expectation. Anyone we hire for the job of selecting a new head coach may not hit a home run. It may be prudent to expect that contingency.

Tanner has a number of issues that are limiting him. I've stated that I think the biggest two right now are his lack of awareness and dead feet. That's not a good thing when you have hundreds of pounds of angry people after you. While these are not the only things, just the furthest from where they need to be, I also feel the plays themselves are putting him into scenarios where it exacerbates his issues. One thing to watch for is to pause the tape when he hits the bottom of his drop. What are his options? Roll the tape again. Are the routes opening such that he has a good progression? Finally, are the backs and TEs that may have blocking assignments releasing such that they provide good targets as relief valves. I don't have the time to do the screen caps like you do, but maybe this is something to highlight one of these weeks. I realize TV viewing angles will make this harder and less clear than looking at line play.

You asked for a "proven" guy. I provided the definition of that. We can all list eventual successes and failures, but to get past anecdotal status, in either direction, goes back to the definition I provided.

I've had the same complaints about past Husker OC's as QB Coach. It is standard in college athletics because you only have so many coaching spots and because of the importance of the QB to the offense. I also think OCs are just more comfortable having that direct connection with their most important piece. I'd just rather it not be this way. You see a number of QBs across the country use part of their offseason to train with private QB coaches. This isn't just a Nebraska thing. It seems there is a serious hole in this area of the game.

I'm watching the UCF-Maryland game.....Tanner could do much better in this offense. It has several things Nebraska's lacks: Spacing Timing Options to pass to.

The question debated is when do you decide this? In the old days, almost universally it was 5 years. The money, the business side of things, wasn't what it now, though. A 5 year cushion is not something you really see at a mid major these days, much less a school like this. What should we be waiting to see? In Year 3, without any unexpected losses to the NFL (a common concern), our play calling and substitution patterns are being affected by lack of depth at receiver. Does this improve in year 4, 5? This is the sort of program building question that has to be asked.