Where's the pressure?

[Foppa]

Bo's defensive short comings in the past partciularly in 2009 were masked by talent and a guy named by Suh, the next year the secondary takes over and you still have a good defense because teams can't pass successfully on you a majority of the time, then you get to last year where you only have one guy that is great with a bunch of average joe's and you see the result. Nebraska did not have a good defense last year, the numbers and personnel show that, Bo has to be able to change his defense when need by and allow more players to see that field that he wouldn't. He keeps great athletes on the bench and won't let them go out and learn by playing, he puts out guys that aren't as athletic but know his system and last year he figured out that doesn't work, athletes are needed to make a defense successful.

 

 

this is a tricky situation. i remember coaches always saying they didn't 'like' but could tolerate physical or hustle errors.

but the mental mistakes and not knowing that week's scheme and packages would get you benched after 1 play sometimes. if you don't know what your doing out there and are even a half foot out of position at this high of a level...it can cost you points and yardage almost every play.

 

but damn, watching a slow db or a soft d-lineman just plain getting beat is tough on fans, as all we see is that play on TV over and over.

coaches however watch excruciating amounts of film and i'm sure it's more difficult to watch a kid with a ton of talent be out of position play after play after play, which is what we as FANS don't see, and we are left wondering how Cassidy is playing in front of Smith.

 

My buddy and I had an ongoing joke about Lavonte David. "Only 16 tackles today for Lavonte? Well, looks like he'll be running extra in practice, and riding the pine next week." It seemed like initially he was always getting his butt chewed for being out of position, but Bo essentially couldn't do a damn thing about it because the guy was so fast and talented and a magnet to the ball, that he was impervious to the 'dog house.' Obviously more exception than the rule, and until NU gets 11 David-types on the field every play, it'll still leave us wondering at some of the decisions that are made after so many fundamental errors that lead to points for the wrong team.

[RedDenver]

The problem is, we don't even try to make it appear as though we are blitzing. McBride could make it look like we were going to send all 11 defenders after the Quarterback, but after the ball was snapped, we would back into a 3 or 4 man rush. As big of a defensive guru as you all think Bo is, Bo doesn't have anything on McBride. McBride's concepts and schemes blow Pelini out of the water. Deception is a huge part of the game. Anything you can do to get into the heads of the opposing QB and offensive line. The other thing McBride had was trust in his players. McBride would trust his players to do their jobs. If a guy got beat on a play, McBride would stick them right back in the same situation and trust them not to make the same mistake again. He allowed the players to learn through experience. GAME TIME EXPERIENCE. Pelini tries too hard to account for weak spots on the team instead of just allowing them to play. To me it only makes things worse. When a guy makes a mistake on Bo's defense, you can bet your ass he's coming off the field immediately so Bo can yell at him and jam his finger into the kid's chest. Why not instead allow the young man to face that challenge, take it head on and learn from it. It's a glaring problem in Bo's philosophy in my opinion. I hope he continues to learn from the mistakes he's making.

How quickly fans forget (or perhaps weren't around for) the 80's. Fans were pretty much calling for McBride's head from 86-91. Let's not forget that McBride got his 4-3 look from FSU and Mickey Andrews. Not to take anything away from McBride, but it's not like he created that scheme out of thin air. And almost any defensive scheme would have looked good with the talent we had in the 90's. IMO all of the defenses from 93-99 were more talented than any defense we've had since.

[EZ-E]

Don't have the time or motivation to read the whole thread. My take: I could care less how much or how little pressure we get on the QB as long as our defense doesn't give up yards or points.

[Foppa]

How profound.

[dvdcrr]

I remember very well the defensive fronts of the 90's and how they got pressure from the edges and then up the middle later in the games. The Peter's brothers were strong and well conditioned. The defensive ends were extremely explosive and strong. The offensive teams now are better coached than they used to be largely and that would not be quite as effective now. They are much better now at checking to other plays to offset that pressure and catch you out of position. The defensive front with Suh and company was the best defensive front we have had at Nebraska I have seen. They could crunch a line up the middle, from the edges it didn't matter. And they did it with continual double teams. It was just man on man stay in your gap ass kicking. They could and did score crucial points. Its something to have a line than can control a game, it's something else to have a line that you can almost count on providing a touchdown per game. Coverage was excellent too something both those defenses had in common. If the quarterback doesn't have anywhere to go with the ball they hold it just a little longer and that helps the line. Bo flat knows defense.

 

Couldn't disagree more...The edges were a huge weakness with that front. Take Suh out of the equation and that defensive front would have stunk.

But thats part of the thing. You don't take Suh out of the equation. I don't recall any team being able to take advantage of the c gap on that line, remember something like 10.3 points a game average all year there simply wasn't a problem with the edges. I saw that line embarrass blue chip athletes from UT so bad that they were embarrassed to pull their head out of the turf and go back to the huddle. I am not taking anything away from the defensive line in 94, 95. In fact if you go back and look at the games you see a very similar level of hustle and activity with the front seven in both decades. I would also add that watching Rich Glover set the wishbone on edge was also great.

[EZ-E]

How profound.

 

 

[I am I]

That actually is pretty profound. So simple, yet profound.

 

We can talk all we want about schemes and mcbride and philosophy...but all that matters to us really is that we don't give up points or yards.

[True2tRA]

The problem is, we don't even try to make it appear as though we are blitzing. McBride could make it look like we were going to send all 11 defenders after the Quarterback, but after the ball was snapped, we would back into a 3 or 4 man rush. As big of a defensive guru as you all think Bo is, Bo doesn't have anything on McBride. McBride's concepts and schemes blow Pelini out of the water. Deception is a huge part of the game. Anything you can do to get into the heads of the opposing QB and offensive line. The other thing McBride had was trust in his players. McBride would trust his players to do their jobs. If a guy got beat on a play, McBride would stick them right back in the same situation and trust them not to make the same mistake again. He allowed the players to learn through experience. GAME TIME EXPERIENCE. Pelini tries too hard to account for weak spots on the team instead of just allowing them to play. To me it only makes things worse. When a guy makes a mistake on Bo's defense, you can bet your ass he's coming off the field immediately so Bo can yell at him and jam his finger into the kid's chest. Why not instead allow the young man to face that challenge, take it head on and learn from it. It's a glaring problem in Bo's philosophy in my opinion. I hope he continues to learn from the mistakes he's making.

How quickly fans forget (or perhaps weren't around for) the 80's. Fans were pretty much calling for McBride's head from 86-91. Let's not forget that McBride got his 4-3 look from FSU and Mickey Andrews. Not to take anything away from McBride, but it's not like he created that scheme out of thin air. And almost any defensive scheme would have looked good with the talent we had in the 90's. IMO all of the defenses from 93-99 were more talented than any defense we've had since.

i knew a comment about talent was coming the instant I mentioned how dominant McBride was. It's amazing to me how easily some of you Huskerboard members simply seem to overlook great coaching. As if any coach can excel with great talent, or vice versa, as if great coaches don't develop players into great talents. This is college football!? These kids are 18 years old when they get to the University. Some of them younger. For someone to think that these kids aren't still learning and being coached up every single day of their college career is just absurd. These guys are fresh out of high school! Just because they have 5 star ratings attached to their names (which most of Nebraska's talent was not your typical 5 star recruit) it does not immediately translate to dominance. I don't care what any of you say, you won't convince me of that. Great coaches create great programs, which in turn helps to recruit great players. Those players are still high school kids, and still learning. We had physicality, mentality, and strength that was unmatched. Our conditioning, the ability to go for 4 quarters when other teams couldn't. All these things are attributed to coaching. You really want to try to convince me that an 18 or 19 year old has that kind of dedication and commitment that we had back then without a great coach teaching them and motivating them in all the right ways? McBride developed talent, but more importantly he utilized the players in the position that maximized their potential. Maximizing potential is HUGE! It's all up to the coach.

[jsneb83]

Don't have the time or motivation to read the whole thread. My take: I could care less how much or how little pressure we get on the QB as long as our defense doesn't give up yards or points.

So you do care how much pressure we get.

[zoogs]

Don't have the time or motivation to read the whole thread. My take: I could care less how much or how little pressure we get on the QB as long as our defense doesn't give up yards or points.

So you do care how much pressure we get.

 

except it's said sarcastically, which is meant to imply that he couldn't, in reality, care less. In the same way, when somebody says "I love how people think blah blah blah", you would understand that they do not, in reality, love this. Au contraire!....okay, I'm done

[jsneb83]

Don't have the time or motivation to read the whole thread. My take: I could care less how much or how little pressure we get on the QB as long as our defense doesn't give up yards or points.

So you do care how much pressure we get.

 

except it's said sarcastically, which is meant to imply that he couldn't, in reality, care less. In the same way, when somebody says "I love how people think blah blah blah", you would understand that they do not, in reality, love this. Au contraire!....okay, I'm done

but what if it wasn't said sarcastically and he actually thinks that. Some people do, you know.

[RedDenver]

The problem is, we don't even try to make it appear as though we are blitzing. McBride could make it look like we were going to send all 11 defenders after the Quarterback, but after the ball was snapped, we would back into a 3 or 4 man rush. As big of a defensive guru as you all think Bo is, Bo doesn't have anything on McBride. McBride's concepts and schemes blow Pelini out of the water. Deception is a huge part of the game. Anything you can do to get into the heads of the opposing QB and offensive line. The other thing McBride had was trust in his players. McBride would trust his players to do their jobs. If a guy got beat on a play, McBride would stick them right back in the same situation and trust them not to make the same mistake again. He allowed the players to learn through experience. GAME TIME EXPERIENCE. Pelini tries too hard to account for weak spots on the team instead of just allowing them to play. To me it only makes things worse. When a guy makes a mistake on Bo's defense, you can bet your ass he's coming off the field immediately so Bo can yell at him and jam his finger into the kid's chest. Why not instead allow the young man to face that challenge, take it head on and learn from it. It's a glaring problem in Bo's philosophy in my opinion. I hope he continues to learn from the mistakes he's making.

How quickly fans forget (or perhaps weren't around for) the 80's. Fans were pretty much calling for McBride's head from 86-91. Let's not forget that McBride got his 4-3 look from FSU and Mickey Andrews. Not to take anything away from McBride, but it's not like he created that scheme out of thin air. And almost any defensive scheme would have looked good with the talent we had in the 90's. IMO all of the defenses from 93-99 were more talented than any defense we've had since.

i knew a comment about talent was coming the instant I mentioned how dominant McBride was. It's amazing to me how easily some of you Huskerboard members simply seem to overlook great coaching. As if any coach can excel with great talent, or vice versa, as if great coaches don't develop players into great talents. This is college football!? These kids are 18 years old when they get to the University. Some of them younger. For someone to think that these kids aren't still learning and being coached up every single day of their college career is just absurd. These guys are fresh out of high school! Just because they have 5 star ratings attached to their names (which most of Nebraska's talent was not your typical 5 star recruit) it does not immediately translate to dominance. I don't care what any of you say, you won't convince me of that. Great coaches create great programs, which in turn helps to recruit great players. Those players are still high school kids, and still learning. We had physicality, mentality, and strength that was unmatched. Our conditioning, the ability to go for 4 quarters when other teams couldn't. All these things are attributed to coaching. You really want to try to convince me that an 18 or 19 year old has that kind of dedication and commitment that we had back then without a great coach teaching them and motivating them in all the right ways? McBride developed talent, but more importantly he utilized the players in the position that maximized their potential. Maximizing potential is HUGE! It's all up to the coach.

Pot meet kettle.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

The problem is, we don't even try to make it appear as though we are blitzing. McBride could make it look like we were going to send all 11 defenders after the Quarterback, but after the ball was snapped, we would back into a 3 or 4 man rush. As big of a defensive guru as you all think Bo is, Bo doesn't have anything on McBride. McBride's concepts and schemes blow Pelini out of the water. Deception is a huge part of the game. Anything you can do to get into the heads of the opposing QB and offensive line. The other thing McBride had was trust in his players. McBride would trust his players to do their jobs. If a guy got beat on a play, McBride would stick them right back in the same situation and trust them not to make the same mistake again. He allowed the players to learn through experience. GAME TIME EXPERIENCE. Pelini tries too hard to account for weak spots on the team instead of just allowing them to play. To me it only makes things worse. When a guy makes a mistake on Bo's defense, you can bet your ass he's coming off the field immediately so Bo can yell at him and jam his finger into the kid's chest. Why not instead allow the young man to face that challenge, take it head on and learn from it. It's a glaring problem in Bo's philosophy in my opinion. I hope he continues to learn from the mistakes he's making.

How quickly fans forget (or perhaps weren't around for) the 80's. Fans were pretty much calling for McBride's head from 86-91. Let's not forget that McBride got his 4-3 look from FSU and Mickey Andrews. Not to take anything away from McBride, but it's not like he created that scheme out of thin air. And almost any defensive scheme would have looked good with the talent we had in the 90's. IMO all of the defenses from 93-99 were more talented than any defense we've had since.

Suhs '09 defense with the aid of great offenses from the 90s would have been on par with those defenses you speak of!!! With those offenses controlling the clock and ending most drives with points, Suhs defenses would have been even more dominant! You aren't taking into consideration certain factors that made those defenses so great! I'll put the '09 defense which I believe was the top scoring defense that year and with an anemic offense right there with any of the championship defenses of the 90s!

[RedDenver]

The problem is, we don't even try to make it appear as though we are blitzing. McBride could make it look like we were going to send all 11 defenders after the Quarterback, but after the ball was snapped, we would back into a 3 or 4 man rush. As big of a defensive guru as you all think Bo is, Bo doesn't have anything on McBride. McBride's concepts and schemes blow Pelini out of the water. Deception is a huge part of the game. Anything you can do to get into the heads of the opposing QB and offensive line. The other thing McBride had was trust in his players. McBride would trust his players to do their jobs. If a guy got beat on a play, McBride would stick them right back in the same situation and trust them not to make the same mistake again. He allowed the players to learn through experience. GAME TIME EXPERIENCE. Pelini tries too hard to account for weak spots on the team instead of just allowing them to play. To me it only makes things worse. When a guy makes a mistake on Bo's defense, you can bet your ass he's coming off the field immediately so Bo can yell at him and jam his finger into the kid's chest. Why not instead allow the young man to face that challenge, take it head on and learn from it. It's a glaring problem in Bo's philosophy in my opinion. I hope he continues to learn from the mistakes he's making.

How quickly fans forget (or perhaps weren't around for) the 80's. Fans were pretty much calling for McBride's head from 86-91. Let's not forget that McBride got his 4-3 look from FSU and Mickey Andrews. Not to take anything away from McBride, but it's not like he created that scheme out of thin air. And almost any defensive scheme would have looked good with the talent we had in the 90's. IMO all of the defenses from 93-99 were more talented than any defense we've had since.

Suhs '09 defense with the aid of great offenses from the 90s would have been on par with those defenses you speak of!!! With those offenses controlling the clock and ending most drives with points, Suhs defenses would have been even more dominant! You aren't taking into consideration certain factors that made those defenses so great! I'll put the '09 defense which I believe was the top scoring defense that year and with an anemic offense right there with any of the championship defenses of the 90s!

I didn't say 09 wasn't a good defense. In fact I think they were so good in part due to excellent coaching and scheming. But I still think they had less overall talent than 93-99. My main point was to disagree that Pelini needed to follow McBride's scheme to do well. People forget that at one time even McBride was widely criticized for his defenses.

[kchusker_chris]

I didn't say 09 wasn't a good defense. In fact I think they were so good in part due to excellent coaching and scheming. But I still think they had less overall talent than 93-99. My main point was to disagree that Pelini needed to follow McBride's scheme to do well. People forget that at one time even McBride was widely criticized for his defenses.

Not on this board - it's brought up almost as many times as TO not winning a championship for like 10 years is.