How UT/SDSU defended Nebraska

[junior4949]

I'm OK with giving Muschamp his props because I think he is one of the best D coordinators out there. However, I'm not willing to give Mack much props here. According to Bo, the zone read was there but Martinez was making the wrong reads. This is where I give Muschamp his props. He figured out a way to confuse the freshman, and he was pretty successful at it most of the time. I truelly believe Muschamp was trying to make Martinez beat them with his arm. If half of those dropped passes would have been caught, Muschamps boys would have been beaten. I also give Davis some props here. Who would have thought that Texas would outrush us? Who would have thought Gilbert would cause so much damage with his legs. I'm a little concerned how our DLine played.

[Hercules]

I'm OK with giving Muschamp his props because I think he is one of the best D coordinators out there. However, I'm not willing to give Mack much props here. According to Bo, the zone read was there but Martinez was making the wrong reads. This is where I give Muschamp his props. He figured out a way to confuse the freshman, and he was pretty successful at it most of the time. I truelly believe Muschamp was trying to make Martinez beat them with his arm. If half of those dropped passes would have been caught, Muschamps boys would have been beaten. I also give Davis some props here. Who would have thought that Texas would outrush us? Who would have thought Gilbert would cause so much damage with his legs. I'm a little concerned how our DLine played.

 

I'm not an expert at all, so anyone who knows better feel free to correct me. But looking back at each offensive series in the game, there were only a couple times where Martinez looked like he made the wrong read to me. I just watched for the player they left unblocked, be it a lineman or a linebacker, and how that player reacted, and then whether Martinez made the right decision or not. Even when Martinez did make the right decision in the zone read, it didn't matter because the rest of Texas' defense was crashing down on the ballcarrier.

[ESPY]

The D-line of UT was a LOT faster than anyone we’ve seen yet. There’s no way the timing of our read option could work against that defense. But we knew that going into the game. We just didn’t do enough to adjust for the extra speed of the Whorns.

 

This is true. However, to me it appeared that we knew about their speed (after all, Pelini did talk about it all week). Even with that speed on the d-line, Martinez on several plays showed the speed to get past them or get around them, when he scrambled. The reason they shut down the zone read was because of the extra help from the linebackers and safeties.

 

I have to think Watson anticipated this is what would happen, but wanted to test the waters early on in the game and make sure he knew how Texas would play us. Starting around our 3rd or 4th series, we finally made the adjustment that needed to be made, which was play action on 1st and 2nd down, and we had guys running wide open down field. We missed a throw or two, but the drops absolutely killed us. Texas didn't have to adjust their scheme because we never really made them pay in the passing game.

 

If we make those catches, UT, at one point or another would have to back off of the run game, and play us more like they played Lee in the second half, and that opens up more holes for Martinez.

 

Anyways, I don't think there was anything wrong with the read option scheme we brought in. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with the gameplan, though I'd say that Watson should've anticipated from the get-go how Texas would play us, and start the game off by throwing on 1st and 2nd down. Maybe he wanted to get Taylor comfortable first by staying conservative, but I think it'd have been smarter to play aggressive and get Texas to stop creeping up to stop the run. Of course, we probably would've just dropped the ball.

Great points throughout this thread. But this one tops 'em all IMO. Texas dared us to beat them with the passing game. And while there were a couple poor passes, the majority of them were right where they needed to be should've been caught, and that undoubtedly would've changed the game for our offense because, like you said, Texas D would've had to adjust what they were doing, which would've opened it up more for our run game.

 

That being said, we should've done a heck of lot more passing than we did. We may not be comfortable with Martinez' arm yet, but there were holes all over the Horns' coverage. And if they're daring us to beat that coverage, then we gotta do it. I don't care that we were dropping balls left and right - we needed to keep going through the air and our play-calling just didn't answer the call to do so.

 

Obviously that turns the focus to Watson (again), and while there are several other threads about him already, I think this much must be said about his approach/game plan in this thread - it just didn't cut it. There was no Plan B against a defense that requires you to have a Plan C, D, E and so on. No doubt we knew Plan A (zone read), but even that should've been different against Texas D. Now, I still think Watson can do the job, but he missed the mark big time in this one.

[Hercules]

The D-line of UT was a LOT faster than anyone we’ve seen yet. There’s no way the timing of our read option could work against that defense. But we knew that going into the game. We just didn’t do enough to adjust for the extra speed of the Whorns.

 

This is true. However, to me it appeared that we knew about their speed (after all, Pelini did talk about it all week). Even with that speed on the d-line, Martinez on several plays showed the speed to get past them or get around them, when he scrambled. The reason they shut down the zone read was because of the extra help from the linebackers and safeties.

 

I have to think Watson anticipated this is what would happen, but wanted to test the waters early on in the game and make sure he knew how Texas would play us. Starting around our 3rd or 4th series, we finally made the adjustment that needed to be made, which was play action on 1st and 2nd down, and we had guys running wide open down field. We missed a throw or two, but the drops absolutely killed us. Texas didn't have to adjust their scheme because we never really made them pay in the passing game.

 

If we make those catches, UT, at one point or another would have to back off of the run game, and play us more like they played Lee in the second half, and that opens up more holes for Martinez.

 

Anyways, I don't think there was anything wrong with the read option scheme we brought in. I'm not sure there was anything wrong with the gameplan, though I'd say that Watson should've anticipated from the get-go how Texas would play us, and start the game off by throwing on 1st and 2nd down. Maybe he wanted to get Taylor comfortable first by staying conservative, but I think it'd have been smarter to play aggressive and get Texas to stop creeping up to stop the run. Of course, we probably would've just dropped the ball.

Great points throughout this thread. But this one tops 'em all IMO. Texas dared us to beat them with the passing game. And while there were a couple poor passes, the majority of them were right where they needed to be should've been caught, and that undoubtedly would've changed the game for our offense because, like you said, Texas D would've had to adjust what they were doing, which would've opened it up more for our run game.

 

That being said, we should've done a heck of lot more passing than we did. We may not be comfortable with Martinez' arm yet, but there were holes all over the Horns' coverage. And if they're daring us to beat that coverage, then we gotta do it. I don't care that we were dropping balls left and right - we needed to keep going through the air and our play-calling just didn't answer the call to do so.

 

Obviously that turns the focus to Watson (again), and while there are several other threads about him already, I think this much must be said about his approach/game plan in this thread - it just didn't cut it. There was no Plan B against a defense that requires you to have a Plan C, D, E and so on. No doubt we knew Plan A (zone read), but even that should've been different against Texas D. Now, I still think Watson can do the job, but he missed the mark big time in this one.

 

No doubt about playcalling. If we don't start the game against Oklahoma State by throwing a lot on 1st and 2nd down, I'll be shocked.

[huskerscott]

I said this in the Watson supporters a month ago.... funny it went virtually ignored.

 

Posted 14 September 2010 - 02:22 PM

 

Addison Mode, on 14 September 2010 - 12:34 PM, said:

 

Man it just seems like they can get out of rhythm in a hurry and never rebound. I think his previous offensive style couldnt get the job done, and he took the approach "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" (change to spread).

 

What I do like is when the offense is rolling, its beautiful. I'm big on the forward pass. I think that's going to be all the difference if we are successful this season or not. If they can show consistency with the passing game as a threat (and not that awful lateral stuff - sideline to sideline) the run game will be even more difficult to key on and stop. We'll score BILLIONS of points.

 

At the end of the day, I hope SW gets it right. I really do.

 

 

Bingo took the words right out of my mouth.........

 

 

For us to be successful this year, to get where we all want to go, we have to be able to pass the ball downfield. I like Tmart in all he brings a totally different dynmatic to the game that we havent had for about 10 years or so. Until he is able to throw the ball downfield with consistency, im not really sold on him or type of offense we are running. I think by conference play defense teams like Texas are gonna be able to figure out how to stop this offense. Seems like the zone read is money everytime its run. But the weakside backers and safety have nevered stayed home on this play. In conference play teams are gonna be disciplined on playing their assignments, thus being able to stop that play.

[95huskers]

one word: DISCIPLINE

[Jason Sitoke]

I'm OK with giving Muschamp his props because I think he is one of the best D coordinators out there. However, I'm not willing to give Mack much props here. According to Bo, the zone read was there but Martinez was making the wrong reads. This is where I give Muschamp his props. He figured out a way to confuse the freshman, and he was pretty successful at it most of the time. I truelly believe Muschamp was trying to make Martinez beat them with his arm. If half of those dropped passes would have been caught, Muschamps boys would have been beaten. I also give Davis some props here. Who would have thought that Texas would outrush us? Who would have thought Gilbert would cause so much damage with his legs. I'm a little concerned how our DLine played.

 

I'm not an expert at all, so anyone who knows better feel free to correct me. But looking back at each offensive series in the game, there were only a couple times where Martinez looked like he made the wrong read to me. I just watched for the player they left unblocked, be it a lineman or a linebacker, and how that player reacted, and then whether Martinez made the right decision or not. Even when Martinez did make the right decision in the zone read, it didn't matter because the rest of Texas' defense was crashing down on the ballcarrier.

 

I haven't re-watched the game, but your analysis looks like what I was seeing as well. When 2 or 3 Longhorns are in the backfield on every play, that usually means they're bringing more than you can block. When you see wide open receivers downfield, that usually means they've committed their safeties to stopping the run.

 

I'm not saying that we needed to throw for 300 yards to win, but I have a feeling if we hit some of those big passing plays, we would have started to see some other things open up. Even a great rushing offense (which we are not until we prove we can do it against a defense) needs to be somewhat deceptive in it's approach or throw the ball a bit to make the safeties back off. NU couldn't do that, and this is what happens.

[Lonestar_Husker]

Do we know for sure this is the offense that Watson wants to run? Or is this Bo's affection for an offense that he has had trouble defending in the past? What if Watson wants a more varied attack with a more skilled Lee and Bo wants a safer zone read attack with a faster more athletic Martinez? There are a lot of questions that probably won't get answered. At least not to the fanbase.

 

I think Taylor played good enough to win this game. He missed badly to a few open receivers, but he made enough good throws to loosen up UT defense. I think Zac played good enough to win. The defense looked to go to a more basic set, not looking to stop just the run when he was in there and lo and behold, we get some 2nd and 3s, 3rd and 1s, something manageable. Again, he made enough good throws to win in his short time in the game.

 

Bottom line, to me anyway, is if NU could have just caught a few of those passes down by the goal line, the outcome would have been different. Domino effect. If we show a least a general ability to perform a few fundamentals(catching the ball... wrap up!, already) UT has to adjust their defensive gameplan and well....I'm sure everyone knows the rest.

 

I said this in the Watson supporters a month ago.... funny it went virtually ignored.

 

Posted 14 September 2010 - 02:22 PM

 

Addison Mode, on 14 September 2010 - 12:34 PM, said:

 

Man it just seems like they can get out of rhythm in a hurry and never rebound. I think his previous offensive style couldnt get the job done, and he took the approach "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" (change to spread).

 

What I do like is when the offense is rolling, its beautiful. I'm big on the forward pass. I think that's going to be all the difference if we are successful this season or not. If they can show consistency with the passing game as a threat (and not that awful lateral stuff - sideline to sideline) the run game will be even more difficult to key on and stop. We'll score BILLIONS of points.

 

At the end of the day, I hope SW gets it right. I really do.

 

 

Bingo took the words right out of my mouth.........

 

 

For us to be successful this year, to get where we all want to go, we have to be able to pass the ball downfield. I like Tmart in all he brings a totally different dynmatic to the game that we havent had for about 10 years or so. Until he is able to throw the ball downfield with consistency, im not really sold on him or type of offense we are running. I think by conference play defense teams like Texas are gonna be able to figure out how to stop this offense. Seems like the zone read is money everytime its run. But the weakside backers and safety have nevered stayed home on this play. In conference play teams are gonna be disciplined on playing their assignments, thus being able to stop that play.

[knapplc]

The only part of our team that didn't play good enough to win was our WR corps. That's the simple bottom line.

[ESPY]

Do we know for sure this is the offense that Watson wants to run? Or is this Bo's affection for an offense that he has had trouble defending in the past? What if Watson wants a more varied attack with a more skilled Lee and Bo wants a safer zone read attack with a faster more athletic Martinez? There are a lot of questions that probably won't get answered. At least not to the fanbase.

 

I think Taylor played good enough to win this game. He missed badly to a few open receivers, but he made enough good throws to loosen up UT defense. I think Zac played good enough to win. The defense looked to go to a more basic set, not looking to stop just the run when he was in there and lo and behold, we get some 2nd and 3s, 3rd and 1s, something manageable. Again, he made enough good throws to win in his short time in the game.

 

Bottom line, to me anyway, is if NU could have just caught a few of those passes down by the goal line, the outcome would have been different. Domino effect. If we show a least a general ability to perform a few fundamentals(catching the ball... wrap up!, already) UT has to adjust their defensive gameplan and well....I'm sure everyone knows the rest.

 

I said this in the Watson supporters a month ago.... funny it went virtually ignored.

 

Posted 14 September 2010 - 02:22 PM

 

Addison Mode, on 14 September 2010 - 12:34 PM, said:

 

Man it just seems like they can get out of rhythm in a hurry and never rebound. I think his previous offensive style couldnt get the job done, and he took the approach "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" (change to spread).

 

What I do like is when the offense is rolling, its beautiful. I'm big on the forward pass. I think that's going to be all the difference if we are successful this season or not. If they can show consistency with the passing game as a threat (and not that awful lateral stuff - sideline to sideline) the run game will be even more difficult to key on and stop. We'll score BILLIONS of points.

 

At the end of the day, I hope SW gets it right. I really do.

 

 

Bingo took the words right out of my mouth.........

 

 

For us to be successful this year, to get where we all want to go, we have to be able to pass the ball downfield. I like Tmart in all he brings a totally different dynmatic to the game that we havent had for about 10 years or so. Until he is able to throw the ball downfield with consistency, im not really sold on him or type of offense we are running. I think by conference play defense teams like Texas are gonna be able to figure out how to stop this offense. Seems like the zone read is money everytime its run. But the weakside backers and safety have nevered stayed home on this play. In conference play teams are gonna be disciplined on playing their assignments, thus being able to stop that play.

Our current offense is the result of the long term planning of Watson AND Pelini. When Bo first came on board, he and Watson saw where league opponents were weakest defensively, and this zone read offense is what they decided to go with.

 

Honestly I still like this offense a lot. When I see our offense, I see us potentially becoming the next high-flying act known as the Oregon Ducks. Obviously their offense is doing something right, and it's only a matter of time before our passing game looks like thirs. Like many have said already, our discussions would be totally different right now if those drops woulda been catches instead. The fault of this loss falls on the butterfingers of Paul, Rex and Kinnie (and Helu's fumble).

[Hercules]

The only part of our team that didn't play good enough to win was our WR corps. That's the simple bottom line.

 

The WRs had an absolutely horrible day. Not only the drops, but I didn't realize how many blocks they missed. Very sloppy, just being slow off the ball and lack of focus most of the time.

[shyndy]

Something else I thought about when thinking about the zone read as far as leaving the end or tackle unblocked and what happened against Texas is this: What would have you thought if a team kept trying to run a play where nobody tried to block Suh last year?

 

I know the idea is sort of like that of the traps of yore. You are trying to take a player (often more than one because of backers biting) out with the read (with the traps you take them out by letting them get upfield and trap blocking them). But isn't leaving someone like Acho unblocked sorta like if someone was running a play with Suh unblocked?

[Hercules]

Something else I thought about when thinking about the zone read as far as leaving the end or tackle unblocked and what happened against Texas is this: What would have you thought if a team kept trying to run a play where nobody tried to block Suh last year?

 

I know the idea is sort of like that of the traps of yore. You are trying to take a player (often more than one because of backers biting) out with the read (with the traps you take them out by letting them get upfield and trap blocking them). But isn't leaving someone like Acho unblocked sorta like if someone was running a play with Suh unblocked?

 

If you leave Acho unblocked, you give him a choice: QB or RB. You have to read Acho's decision and react. Then, if you're not fast enough to get past Acho either way, you shouldn't call the play. But Nebraska is fast enough, but Texas brought down the safeties and linebackers, and we couldn't block them all, and we couldn't outrun them all.

 

The zone read game is schematically sound, even against fast defenses. But you have to execute, and if they sell out to stop the run, you have to throw and catch the ball.

 

Again, I'm no expert, but leaving a guy like Suh or Acho unblocked might actually be a good strategy. I mean, if you're going up against Suh, the ONLY way you're going to block him is if you use 2 guys. So why not make him the read target, block the other guys you can actually block one on one, and then outrun him. Seems like that might be smarter than trying to block him, which as we all know, is futile.

[bshirt]

Several excellent posts, Hercules. Thank you sir!

[shyndy]

Something else I thought about when thinking about the zone read as far as leaving the end or tackle unblocked and what happened against Texas is this: What would have you thought if a team kept trying to run a play where nobody tried to block Suh last year?

 

I know the idea is sort of like that of the traps of yore. You are trying to take a player (often more than one because of backers biting) out with the read (with the traps you take them out by letting them get upfield and trap blocking them). But isn't leaving someone like Acho unblocked sorta like if someone was running a play with Suh unblocked?

 

If you leave Acho unblocked, you give him a choice: QB or RB. You have to read Acho's decision and react. Then, if you're not fast enough to get past Acho either way, you shouldn't call the play. But Nebraska is fast enough, but Texas brought down the safeties and linebackers, and we couldn't block them all, and we couldn't outrun them all.

 

The zone read game is schematically sound, even against fast defenses. But you have to execute, and if they sell out to stop the run, you have to throw and catch the ball.

 

Again, I'm no expert, but leaving a guy like Suh or Acho unblocked might actually be a good strategy. I mean, if you're going up against Suh, the ONLY way you're going to block him is if you use 2 guys. So why not make him the read target, block the other guys you can actually block one on one, and then outrun him. Seems like that might be smarter than trying to block him, which as we all know, is futile.

its just that those guys are just so talented that even if you make them make a choice they often help close down the space in the other direction

 

i spose the real issue is that if you dont block that guy, you gotta get the others, and we weren't getting out on the backer or safety or whatever.