The Dude Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I think we have some very talented/athletic Freshman LBs sitting on the bench. Afalava, Anderson, Rose, Brown. We had a really good year recruiting LBs. Hopefully, if these guys can tackle, we burn some redshirts this week. Has Valentine even played yet? I'd actually be okay with having slow defensive lineman, as long as they had size and strength. Meredith, Rome, and Randle look the part, but they're weak and slow. Maybe they're not even that weak in the weight room, but that's how they play. Don't even get me started on Steinkuhler. Other than the name on his jersey, still not sure what the coaching staff sees in that guy. I'm fine with most of the secondary. Quote Link to comment
roundegotrip Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Our secondary is talented, but other than Compton there aren't any playmakers anywhere up front. They really got exposed against an athletic offense last night. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I think we are and have -- but it will take some time for that talent to come up through the ranks and mature to a point where they are quality contributors. Quote Link to comment
GBRrodney Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Our secondary is talented, but other than Compton there aren't any playmakers anywhere up front. They really got exposed against an athletic offense last night. You are correct sir. Mora and his coaching staff just taught everyone on our schedule how to best beat us. I would add without athletic LBs any mismatches we have on the DL are wasted with the 2 gap technique. Minnesota just circled our game on their schedule. Quote Link to comment
Peoriahusker Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I think we are and have -- but it will take some time for that talent to come up through the ranks and mature to a point where they are quality contributors. And how many times are we going to say that? It seems every year the same old story. "The young guys will make a difference when they are ready." The young guys aren't making a difference and haven't made a difference for some time. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 yeah, I know, but I think we have to recognize that's the situation we are currently in. It was not the case in 2010 (short of starting a freshman at quarterback), when we had that very solid group of veterans heading the team. However, 2011 was a transitional year at a number of positions - mainly in the secondary. 2012 is now a transitional year for mainly the LBs. The question is going to be, will that secondary 'arrive' and define themselves this year? I think to a large extent the answer is promising so far. However, we don't have those athletic new linebackers up in the ranks yet. And the DL is an area where we have fully failed to transition well, IMO. They are going to have to go through some reinventing. Quote Link to comment
Peoriahusker Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 yeah, I know, but I think we have to recognize that's the situation we are currently in. It was not the case in 2010 (short of starting a freshman at quarterback), when we had that very solid group of veterans heading the team. However, 2011 was a transitional year at a number of positions - mainly in the secondary. 2012 is now a transitional year for mainly the LBs. The question is going to be, will that secondary 'arrive' and define themselves this year? I think to a large extent the answer is promising so far. However, we don't have those athletic new linebackers up in the ranks yet. And the DL is an area where we have fully failed to transition well, IMO. They are going to have to go through some reinventing. I'm just saying, I'm really tired of the reinventing process ...but I get your point. Quote Link to comment
lo country Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Remember after the Capital One Bowl and Raymond's "look at them now look at us comments"........................ Just saying. Quote Link to comment
BIG ERN Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 This game wasn't surprising to me. Our D line was atrocious coming into this season, just lack of talent all around the defensive side of the ball. We can all be homers before, but as I said all along Meredith and Steinkuhler aren't that good, and to me never have been...Just cause your daddy played for us doesn't mean you should have ever played DT. He would have been twice as good at OT since day 1. Again, why don't we ever run a screen play?? They blitzed the outsides all game long, Tim Beck was worthless in the second half. BUT I think this could be the best thing for us. We obviously aren't good enough to play for a NC. Our goal was/is to win the Big 10 and finish where we played last night, and I truly feel we can still do that. Quote Link to comment
Treand3 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Remember after the Capital One Bowl and Raymond's "look at them now look at us comments"........................ Just saying. I was in agreement with what he was saying. However, he shouldn't put on paper for the world to see. Our front 7 is holding us back from taking the next step big time. Quote Link to comment
Hayseed Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Remember after the Capital One Bowl and Raymond's "look at them now look at us comments"........................ Just saying. I was in agreement with what he was saying. However, he shouldn't put on paper for the world to see. Our front 7 is holding us back from taking the next step big time. By Husker standards our "back 4" are 3rd stringers. They look like the Kansas State backfield of the 70's. Quote Link to comment
TripleOption Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 NU has talent, but Bo insists on playing slow LBs. The defense has stunk since the peso was abandoned. I completely agree with this comment. We abandoned the Peso to play against the power of Big10, but we sacrificed the speed and pursuit of those Peso defenses. If we had gotten something in return, toughness in the trenches perhaps?, it might have been worth it, but as is, it was a big step backwards. Bring back the Peso! Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Maybe somebody watching more closely can answer me this, but how often were we in Nickel formations last night? Dime? I get the feeling it was quite a lot. How is that really different from the Peso, apart from not having Eric Hagg? Quote Link to comment
TripleOption Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 In fairness, I'm certainly not clear on if there really is a meaningful difference between nickel and peso looks, barring Hagg. An alignment shift perhaps? Bring back Hagg! (I kid, I kid.) Quote Link to comment
roundegotrip Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Maybe somebody watching more closely can answer me this, but how often were we in Nickel formations last night? Dime? I get the feeling it was quite a lot. How is that really different from the Peso, apart from not having Eric Hagg? I'm not sure how much was nickel and how much was dime, but we had extra DBs on the field most of the night. 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.