macroboy Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I'm surprised it has taken this long for the whole "check with me" concept to make it's way over to the defensive side of the ball. I'm surprised at how good of a poster you are. Keep up the good work. Say what? Come on guys!! Can we say "sexist?" I know you mean well, just try not to sound so.....what's the word???? Oh yeah........chauvinistic.......Sorry Jen.......we are but mere men, please forgive us! Did the guy with the sexist pictures of a girl in all of his posts just lecture others on being sexist? I'm just surprised it took this long for those comments. Wow Jen, you talk football good for girl Me have minor arousal! Quote Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 guys, i'm for any defense that will control, contain and stop a spread. ***SNIP*** Generally, fathers with shotguns seem to have no problem in that regard... Quote Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 guys, i'm for any defense that will control, contain and stop a spread. ***SNIP*** Generally, fathers with shotguns seem to have no problem in that regard... Quote Link to comment
In the Deed the Glory Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Not gonna lie, but this is getting frustrating. “It’s going to be great for us,” said defensive end Pierre Allen. “They’re probably not going to know that we can do it, too.” Are you freaking kidding me? They're not going to know you're going to have a system that you blab to the papers about? Is it going to be like our brilliant new defensive gameplan against Missouri, or how we talked about how we were going to throw a lot of quick slants against OU? Maybe I'm missing something Yes you are... Pierre Allen said, and I quote, "They’re probably not going to know that we can do it" Which is completely different from, as you said, "They're not going to know you're going to have a system that you blab to the papers about?" One = knowing while the other = doing and they are completely different constructs. See the difference? Not sure what you are getting at. I'm aware that knowing and doing are two different words. Still. Is Allen not saying, at least implicitly, that "we'll be able to do it but they probably won't know that we will be able to"? I mean there's much talk about this being a surprise tactic. I don't see how the element of surprise is preserved here: “I have yet to see a defensive team do it, so we might be one of the first. It could be surprising,” Lawrence said. West said he’s excited to debut the strategy on unsuspecting no-huddle opponents. “At any given time, we’ve got to look over to the sidelines and know the signal,” Allen said. “We could switch up to something completely different, so you’ve got to be focused.” As another poster said, maybe they are not giving away too much that an offense could prepare for anyway. But it just seems kind of like "hey everyone! guess what! we just came up with this brand new strategy where defenders do such-and-such!! can't wait to surprise you all with it!!" Maybe it's not that bad. It won't help opposing offenses any more than knowing that said offenses will look to the sidelines and get a check call would help an opposing defense. I wouldn't call this revolutionary but it is fantastic, it allows a team with a less than motivated (Dillard) or very green MLB make good defensive calls. Much like a young QB needs the help, so does the MLB. Having said that I now think I remember the SS in Pelini's scheme made the calls?? Something mentioned before about it being the hardest spot on the defense, I believe?? Quote Link to comment
HuskerBCS Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I honestly don't see this working well. Like someone else said, teams that run the no huddle offense do not change formations when they look to the sidelines...all they do is run a different play out of the same formation most of the time. So we could get caught changing our defensive play and give up big plays real easy. Also, what exactly are we gonna check to? Switch from man to man to a cover 2? Blitz a linebacker or safety? Stunt the linemen? How would any of this counter act what they are switching to, especially when we don't even know what they are switching to. I can see it now.....Oklahoma lines up in shotgun and we are in a base defense....they look over to the sideline and switch to a play with their wr running a deep fly route...we check to a defense which blitzes the corner who would have been covering their wr. Oklahoma goes 80yds for a TD. Why cant we just line up and play solid defense and stop trying to trick people. Its like Callahan and all of his trick plays on offense...give me a break. Quote Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 guys, i'm for any defense that will control, contain and stop a spread. ***SNIP*** Generally, fathers with shotguns seem to have no problem in that regard... That's a keeper......... Quote Link to comment
MCAT800 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Remember the last time Mike Ekeler came out in the paper and made a bold prediction on how well a certain defensive game strategy was going to work?? Plus the mental and communication break downs the secondary had in base "D" and their going to be changing on the fly before the snap, this could be ugly..... Just put people in the right place and execute, no sense in reinventing the wheel. But hell I am a fireman and they are the football coaches so my 2 cents don't really matter. Quote Link to comment
hack Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 guys, i'm for any defense that will control, contain and stop a spread. ***SNIP*** Generally, fathers with shotguns seem to have no problem in that regard... well played, sir. well played. Quote Link to comment
Travis9 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think we have to put complete trust in our coaches. they certainly know football better than we do. Anything that can be done to help defense the spread is good by me, since the NCAA isn't going to do anything. IMO the spread works so well because there are unfair advantages across the board for the offense. 1. The lineman can get to the line then stand up. 2. the QB gets under center then backs out and looks 3. skill positions get set and then unset etc. Some simple rule changes were needed to even the playing field for the defenses. 1. Once a player gets set, only one can go in motion. if more than one get out of their set position then it is a penalty 2. if the QB gets under center he has to stay. 3. if a QB gives a head nod at the line of scrimmage or anything that simulates a snap it is a penalty so do the same when the QB from shotgun position picks his leg up to simulate the snap. 4. once you go to the line of scrimmage treat it like a huddle so that no substitutions can be made. I am all for genious on offense and defense, but the rules of the game need to keep up. the principal is to outthink the other coaches. IMO the spread simply gives a lot of unfair advantages to the offense Quote Link to comment
UGAHusker Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 QUOTE(hskerprid @ Mar 29 2009, 12:31 PM) QUOTE(HuskerJen @ Mar 29 2009, 01:19 PM) QUOTE(newenglandhusker @ Mar 28 2009, 10:03 PM) QUOTE(HuskerJen @ Mar 28 2009, 09:58 PM) I'm surprised it has taken this long for the whole "check with me" concept to make it's way over to the defensive side of the ball. I'm surprised at how good of a poster you are. Keep up the good work. Say what? Come on guys!! Can we say "sexist?" I know you mean well, just try not to sound so.....what's the word???? Oh yeah........chauvinistic.......Sorry Jen.......we are but mere men, please forgive us! Did the guy with the sexist pictures of a girl in all of his posts just lecture others on being sexist? I'm just surprised it took this long for those comments. Wow Jen, you talk football good for girl Me have minor arousal! To those who are getting a kick out of a woman talking football with the guys and would like to explore further, I suggest a more appropriate venue: adultfriendfinder.com/ Unfortunately, I don't think "Nebraska football fan" is one of the search options. Quote Link to comment
Micheal Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 this "Check with me" defense sounds like something that could be successful if done right, only thing im worried about is timing, once the offensive checks not a lot of time to check to the sideline for defensive coverages Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I dunno...the way I see this whole thing, the offense still has somewhat of an advantage. They will be able to call the play and get it off possibly before the defense can react to the offenses shifts. I have a feeling that this may take some time to perfect once the season starts, and may have some of us fans scratching our heads when they get caught now and then with their pants down and look a little lost. With that being said, if anyone can pull this off, it is Bo...but I also wouldn't be surprised if this changes a bit as we get into next season. The offense always has the advantage. It doesn't matter whether they run the no huddle or they huddle up. The offense should know exactly what play they will run, what the snap count is, and who the friggin ball is even going to be snapped to. The D is just out there reacting to what the offense does trying to stop it. Quote Link to comment
Cy the Cyclone Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Dear Bo: Though the "Check with Me" defense sounds very high-tech and new age and should have all the ESPN cover girls...uh...anchors swooning, I suggest you read over the following which I refer to as "The Cy the Cyclone Defense" 1. Offense lines up and hikes ball 2. Defense knocks everyone on the offensive team down One of those guys should be the guy with the ball, thus ending the play. If not... 3. Find ball and jump on it. I presented the same Defensive playbook to Chizek last year but he chose to go with the "Make pathetic attempt at arm tackle and then make theatric dive 10 feet beind ballcarrier to look good on TV" defense instead... Quote Link to comment
huskerpilot Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 this has potential. but also could cause some headaches if we aren't very very fast with the D calls. Quote Link to comment
HuskerJen Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I honestly don't see this working well. Like someone else said, teams that run the no huddle offense do not change formations when they look to the sidelines...all they do is run a different play out of the same formation most of the time. So we could get caught changing our defensive play and give up big plays real easy. Also, what exactly are we gonna check to? Switch from man to man to a cover 2? Blitz a linebacker or safety? Stunt the linemen? How would any of this counter act what they are switching to, especially when we don't even know what they are switching to. I can see it now.....Oklahoma lines up in shotgun and we are in a base defense....they look over to the sideline and switch to a play with their wr running a deep fly route...we check to a defense which blitzes the corner who would have been covering their wr. Oklahoma goes 80yds for a TD. Why cant we just line up and play solid defense and stop trying to trick people. Its like Callahan and all of his trick plays on offense...give me a break. Okay let's look at this from the other perspective... Oklahoma lines up in a shotgun trips right set and the Huskers are in a base nickel cover two look and the call is to drop into an intermediate zone. OU checks, then the Huskers check. After the check NU dials up a CB blitz on the weak side, the OU OL doesn't pick it up and Prince Amukamara comes off the edge hitting Sam Bradford so hard he fumbles which is promptly picked up by Suh who rumbles into the endzone for a TD. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.