Radioactive Man Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 They kicked the 53 yard field goal because that's the right play to make if you are down by 1 and have a kicker who up to that point was 11 for 11 on the year And his longest was 44 yards. It's completely false to say they kicked it because they didn't think they could get 7 yards. It's 7 yards, not 1. Any reasonable coach with a decent kicker who had the leg (which once again, this guy obviously did) kicks the FG to win the game rather than goes for it on 4th and 7. Weren't you saying before how they were ripping us up on the final drive? They'd been getting decent chunks of yardage on that last drive, and to say they kicked it because they couldn't get 7 yards is mind boggling... I completely disagree. The guy hadn't missed all year and had the leg. The right play is to kick the FG when there's a minute left and you're down by 1. You can argue all you want that his longest was 44 but the coaches who see the guy kick every day in practice know what kind of leg he has. Just because he hadn't been put in the position to kick anything longer doesn't mean you go for it on 4th and 7 in that situation. Why? Because their staff knew he had the leg to make a 53 yarder...and they were right. Quote Link to comment
Radioactive Man Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 The way I see it, we made two bad plays: the 80 yard trap play run for a TD and the prevent defense miscue which allowed them to have a 53 yard FG. Otherwise, the defense pinned their ears back and played a sound game. The discussion should be about the turnovers, Rex, and if the defense can do this against Michigan. Not about what they "didn't do" today, because there wasn't a whole lot of it. yeah, and lucky was that fade route that kid caught, which was they'd been trying to hit all afternoon, and only got it once... Here's my question to you. On all those other fade routes, how many of them do you think the WR had a step on our corners? I'm genuinely curious if you thought they were blanketed all day or if what I saw, with at least 3 separate plays were the WR had a clear step on our corner but was missed, is off the mark. you're the arbiter of all things Husker football, you tell me... I saw two or three. Those aren't easy balls to throw, because of the timing necessary to make it work... Yes, I'm the arbiter of all things Husker football. Just like you're the self-appoint Internets police. We all have a role. And I did tell you. I saw at least 3 plays where it was the QB missing the WR and not blanket coverage by our corners. Again, that's the problem here. We have a defense that relies far too much on the other team missing their plays rather than going out and making their own. And when they get in a situation where a Franklin or Miller get hot, they get rolled for 60+. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 So in other words, our defense was playing good enough to force a 53 yard try. If they were gashing our defense and moving the ball on the final drive with easy as you insinuate, why didnt they move it another 20 yards closer? Because it was higher odds for them to make a 53 yard field goal, than gain 7 yards on a 4th down. Please, see the point that is being made here. Our defense made the stop. Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The way I see it, we made two bad plays: the 80 yard trap play run for a TD and the prevent defense miscue which allowed them to have a 53 yard FG. Otherwise, the defense pinned their ears back and played a sound game. The discussion should be about the turnovers, Rex, and if the defense can do this against Michigan. Not about what they "didn't do" today, because there wasn't a whole lot of it. yeah, and lucky was that fade route that kid caught, which was they'd been trying to hit all afternoon, and only got it once... Here's my question to you. On all those other fade routes, how many of them do you think the WR had a step on our corners? I'm genuinely curious if you thought they were blanketed all day or if what I saw, with at least 3 separate plays were the WR had a clear step on our corner but was missed, is off the mark. I don't think they had a step on our corners on everyone of those fade plays, save one. Our corners/safeties were in the right spots, had they over pursued , boom, comeback route. They played the ball right today, all day. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 They kicked the 53 yard field goal because that's the right play to make if you are down by 1 and have a kicker who up to that point was 11 for 11 on the year And his longest was 44 yards. It's completely false to say they kicked it because they didn't think they could get 7 yards. It's 7 yards, not 1. Any reasonable coach with a decent kicker who had the leg (which once again, this guy obviously did) kicks the FG to win the game rather than goes for it on 4th and 7. Weren't you saying before how they were ripping us up on the final drive? They'd been getting decent chunks of yardage on that last drive, and to say they kicked it because they couldn't get 7 yards is mind boggling... I completely disagree. The guy hadn't missed all year and had the leg. The right play is to kick the FG when there's a minute left and you're down by 1. You can argue all you want that his longest was 44 but the coaches who see the guy kick every day in practice know what kind of leg he has. Just because he hadn't been put in the position to kick anything longer doesn't mean you go for it on 4th and 7 in that situation. Why? Because their staff knew he had the leg to make a 53 yarder...and they were right. Mods, go ahead and ban me now... You obviously have very little reading comprehension or your heads so far up your ass that you can taste your own tonsils. Do you honestly believe any of what you're saying? Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The way I see it, we made two bad plays: the 80 yard trap play run for a TD and the prevent defense miscue which allowed them to have a 53 yard FG. Otherwise, the defense pinned their ears back and played a sound game. The discussion should be about the turnovers, Rex, and if the defense can do this against Michigan. Not about what they "didn't do" today, because there wasn't a whole lot of it. yeah, and lucky was that fade route that kid caught, which was they'd been trying to hit all afternoon, and only got it once... Here's my question to you. On all those other fade routes, how many of them do you think the WR had a step on our corners? I'm genuinely curious if you thought they were blanketed all day or if what I saw, with at least 3 separate plays were the WR had a clear step on our corner but was missed, is off the mark. you're the arbiter of all things Husker football, you tell me... I saw two or three. Those aren't easy balls to throw, because of the timing necessary to make it work... Yes, I'm the arbiter of all things Husker football. Just like you're the self-appoint Internets police. We all have a role. And I did tell you. I saw at least 3 plays where it was the QB missing the WR and not blanket coverage by our corners. Again, that's the problem here. We have a defense that relies far too much on the other team missing their plays rather than going out and making their own. And when they get in a situation where a Franklin or Miller get hot, they get rolled for 60+. UCLA scored 36 bro. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, I'm the arbiter of all things Husker football. Just like you're the self-appoint Internets police. We all have a role. And I did tell you. I saw at least 3 plays where it was the QB missing the WR and not blanket coverage by our corners. Again, that's the problem here. We have a defense that relies far too much on the other team missing their plays rather than going out and making their own. And when they get in a situation where a Franklin or Miller get hot, they get rolled for 60+. i'm not the internet police... I just know a f&%ktard when I see one Quote Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, I'm the arbiter of all things Husker football. Just like you're the self-appoint Internets police. We all have a role. And I did tell you. I saw at least 3 plays where it was the QB missing the WR and not blanket coverage by our corners. Again, that's the problem here. We have a defense that relies far too much on the other team missing their plays rather than going out and making their own. And when they get in a situation where a Franklin or Miller get hot, they get rolled for 60+. i'm not the internet police... I just know a f&%ktard when I see one Seven (7) day suspension. Folks, if anyone else would like a vacation, just continue with the personal attacks. Quote Link to comment
Radioactive Man Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 UCLA scored 36 bro. Okay, poorly worded. I shouldn't have said get rolled for 60+. I should have said rolled for 600+ yds. Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 UCLA scored 36 bro. Okay, poorly worded. I shouldn't have said get rolled for 60+. I should have said rolled for 600+ yds. Then you would have been correct. I think the claims about the defense, if you talk about their work for the entire season, are justified. But not this game. Could a better game plan and slightly more athletic players hurt us in the future? I don't know we can say that. Let's see how the Michigan game pans out, because we're going to run the same defensive scheme. Quote Link to comment
Chaddyboxer Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 There were times.though when I saw nebs dbs blanket the wrs..sjb was hot and cold. Had some food coverage at times, but got smoked on that Td pass. Needed to be more physical on that play. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 There were times.though when I saw nebs dbs blanket the wrs..sjb was hot and cold. Had some food coverage at times, but got smoked on that Td pass. Needed to be more physical on that play. Stanley seemed to lose a step on the move, maybe even a stumble. But his length still almost allowed him to get a hand on the ball. Grass seemed to cause some issues at time today. That really surprised me. Quote Link to comment
Radioactive Man Posted October 21, 2012 Author Share Posted October 21, 2012 UCLA scored 36 bro. Okay, poorly worded. I shouldn't have said get rolled for 60+. I should have said rolled for 600+ yds. Then you would have been correct. I think the claims about the defense, if you talk about their work for the entire season, are justified. But not this game. Could a better game plan and slightly more athletic players hurt us in the future? I don't know we can say that. Let's see how the Michigan game pans out, because we're going to run the same defensive scheme. What would be the game plan that would be better with the players we have? Several times this season, it seemed like the game plan was fine. Against both UCLA and OSU, the defense looked good in both games for the first 4-5 drives. And then it was back to missed tackles, poor coverage, and getting blown off of blocks. That's a problem with the players it seems, rather than the game plan. In both games, the game plan initially looked sound until the lack of athletes on the defense got exposed. Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 UCLA scored 36 bro. Okay, poorly worded. I shouldn't have said get rolled for 60+. I should have said rolled for 600+ yds. Then you would have been correct. I think the claims about the defense, if you talk about their work for the entire season, are justified. But not this game. Could a better game plan and slightly more athletic players hurt us in the future? I don't know we can say that. Let's see how the Michigan game pans out, because we're going to run the same defensive scheme. What would be the game plan that would be better with the players we have? Several times this season, it seemed like the game plan was fine. Against both UCLA and OSU, the defense looked good in both games for the first 4-5 drives. And then it was back to missed tackles, poor coverage, and getting blown off of blocks. That's a problem with the players it seems, rather than the game plan. In both games, the game plan initially looked sound until the lack of athletes on the defense got exposed. If I'm understanding right, the gameplan we had was modified from the one we ran earlier in the season (against Ohio State and UCLA). The secondary was the group doing the containing, giving our LBs the ability to make plays to stop the run and the QB. From what I saw today, it worked (for the most part) I can't say what playing a better talented team will do to the scheme we ran because this was the first time we've tried such a thing. Quote Link to comment
huskerhill Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Seriously, can you guys not see that radioactive is right? If you can't see past the fact that Nebraska forced 11 three and outs on 18 of their real drives and the only points Northwestern scored off of the 3 turnovers came while they were only 14 yards from the end zone well then you should all know that the jerk store called and they running out of you all..... 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.