When was the last time…

[gossamorharpy]

16 hours ago, brophog said:

 

I'm going to say something very controversial.

 

OL is overrated.

 

I'd only say that to this fanbase. It's not because it is a position group that is overrated, it is that I think some Nebraska fans honestly think bad offensive line play causes cancer.

 

The biggest component of the running game is box count and the biggest contributor to sacks is the QB. Not that the offensive line doesn't matter, they absolutely play their part and I'm poking fun at fans more than diminishing their contribution, but it is amazing how much better they seem to get with a good QB and a light box.

I wouldn't call your comment controversial, I'd say its completely off base and based off nothing lol. 

 

Box count, QB presence/decisions and line play all impact one another.  

 

that being said, to say OL is overrated is an insult to football in general and to what Nebraska has been and what it is trying to become.  You can look at many reasons as to why we've turned to utter crap the past 20 years- the biggest culprit, in my opinion, is the clear decline in o line talent and play.  We've had one too many years the past decade of not placing a single guy in the draft or even come close to draft consideration on the OL.  We've had seasons where not one, but multiple of our starters, rank towards the bottom or dead last in graded out line play.  This is inexcusable.

 

We can get mccord and all these qbs/transfers all we want, but until the days of our LT getting absolutely embarassed by the michigans of the world are over, we will never be a consistent player for a playoff spot.  I don't know how you can say the biggest component of the running game is box count- we as husker fans literally pump our chests whenever we can bragging about the glory days and how we used to tell opponents where we were going and they still couldnt stop it.  Up until Fickell was brought in, we knew damn well wiscy was running it and we still give up a ncaa record, in 3 quarters.  Sure, box count plays a role- I'd much rather run against 6-7 guys in the box vs 9-10.  But OL play remains either 2nd or 3rd biggest area for consistent success (ranking qb 1 and qb rush/DL as 2/3).  

[brophog]

10 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

Up until Fickell was brought in, we knew damn well wiscy was running it and we still give up a ncaa record, in 3 quarters

 

Against the head coach whose defenses were predicated on 2 high safeties.

 

8 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

I don't know how you can say the biggest component of the running game is box count

 

That's why I'm not responding to the rest of your comment. That idea is pretty foundational to understanding the post.

 

 

[gossamorharpy]

29 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

Against the head coach whose defenses were predicated on 2 high safeties.

 

 

That's why I'm not responding to the rest of your comment. That idea is pretty foundational to understanding the post.

 

 

Box count had nothing to do with us getting roasted by the play by play guy against michigan for pointing out how our OL chronically had their hips pointed sideways and ceding leverage because of our own crap play which basically allowed michigan DL to waltz right into our backfield play, after play, after play.  Said problem wont be fixed by having the world's best QB- if equally talented or more talented teams break down the pocket and are in the backfield more often than not, than the concept of box count doesn't even matter because they can get the pressure they need by rushing 4 and brining in a blitzer or 2. 

 

As I said, box count is important.  But more foundational than that is the play of your line.  If you think understanding box count can hide s#!t o line play, well, then i see no point in reading your comments either. 

 

Also, in the bold.  Nice try throwing some sass my way- u actually did respond to the rest of my comment given my wiscy example and you countered that first lol.  Toodles!

[Undone]

17 hours ago, brophog said:

Not that the offensive line doesn't matter, they absolutely play their part and I'm poking fun at fans more than diminishing their contribution, but it is amazing how much better they seem to get with a good QB and a light box.

 

And I worry we won't get the light boxes with all of the 12 man personnel stuff (and even some 22 man) that Satterfield seems to want to do.

 

Michigan is considered by our fan base as a "power team." They run tons and tons of 11 man with one tight end. So does Ohio State. Both teams are always threatening you with the passing game despite having the ability to ram it downfield with power running.

But it isn't just because their QB's are better than almost everybody else's in the conference. It's the scheme also, as you mention. Rhule said "we're not going to be a spread offense." That's fine - but you can still spread the field in 11 man. Satterfield will have to figure out how to do it.

[gossamorharpy]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

And I worry we won't get the light boxes with all of the 12 man personnel stuff (and even some 22 man) that Satterfield seems to want to do.

 

Michigan is considered by our fan base as a "power team." They run tons and tons of 11 man with one tight end. So does Ohio State. Both teams are always threatening you with the passing game despite having the ability to ram it downfield with power running.

But it isn't just because their QB's are better than almost everybody else's in the conference. It's the scheme also, as you mention.

Rhule and Satt from day 1 have said they want to be power run but also throw it down field.  I actually hope we get stacked boxes because it opens them up to get torn up in the passing game and one of our strengths in the next few years should be our TEs in fidone and nelson). 

 

Ideally we're running 11/12 and their team has no idea if we're running or passing (unless its an obvi pass or run down).  Box count is overrated and the previous poster saying its the most important/OL play is overrated is laughable.  specially in today's game of football where often a team comes out in a formation, checks the opponent, looks at the sideline and then audibles/adjust.  Letting box count dictate success and how we play screams football from 20 years ago.  

 

[brophog]

3 minutes ago, Undone said:

And I worry we won't get the light boxes with all of the 12 man personnel stuff (and even some 22 man) that Satterfield seems to want to do.

 

I still think what I thought before the season.....I don't think he wants to do as much of that as he did, but they had to do what they could just to hope to move the ball. When you look at a guy like Carter Nelson, you're almost wasting his talent as an inline TE. He's ideal split out. At SC, you'd see Satterfield play a lot of multiple TE sets at times but he'd put them all over the field. So, I think you can still generate good box counts with how he'd ultimately like to do things if he had the personnel to do it.

 

7 minutes ago, Undone said:

Michigan is considered by our fan base as a "power team."

 

The quotes are appropriate there, for sure. They're only a power team relative to what the general college football landscape is. Their passing game has a lot of Air Raid concepts, for instance.

[Undone]

2 minutes ago, brophog said:

The quotes are appropriate there, for sure. They're only a power team relative to what the general college football landscape is. Their passing game has a lot of Air Raid concepts, for instance.

 

Yes, and they're mainly doing it out of 11 man.

 

I think you're right that the 12 man stuff diminishes as the team starts executing better (whether that occurs through more time in the system or with better players or because of whatever).

As @floridacorn mentioned a few days ago, it could be pretty tough to keep guys like Coleman if by the end of next season our receivers are splitting 135 receiving yards across like 12 catches per game. But I know everyone will say that Satterfield will open up the floodgates at some point in time. We'll see.

[The Dude]

There was a lot more buzz when Frost was hired imo.

 

There will be a bit of a spike if Raiola commits, but nothing compared to Frost.

 

Already hearing McCord is out, assuming that means Fleming is out too?

 

There's an old saying about counting your chickens or some such.

[brophog]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

I think you're right that the 12 man stuff diminishes as the team starts executing better (whether that occurs through more time in the system or with better players or because of whatever).

 

Notice in Rhule's interviews this season how non-committal the answers were about the future of the offense. By coaching standards he's a pretty straight shooter, but not on that question. It just backs up the idea that they weren't necessarily doing what they wanted to be doing but what they had to do given the extraordinary situation they were in.

 

The McCord news today is disappointing. There are varying opinions on just how good he really is, but this program right now has a tremendous bottleneck that is the QB position and he's certainly good enough to have helped resolve that. There isn't a player on this roster that same thing can be said about and it's a very tall order for *any* true frosh QB to do that on Game 1. I feel like any talk of scheme is pretty academic until that QB question gets solved.

[Cornfed]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

There was a lot more buzz when Frost was hired imo.

 

There will be a bit of a spike if Raiola commits, but nothing compared to Frost.

 

Already hearing McCord is out, assuming that means Fleming is out too?

 

There's an old saying about counting your chickens or some such.

For sure... hiring of frost definitely takes the cake. It feels (felt TBD) a bit different though in the caliber of players we are (were) getting attention from.