UCLA Game worries

[Bruleif]

As a Bruin fan, my take is that the game will be close and will be decided by turnovers.

 

I am somewhat surprised by the predictions I see here that Nebraska will clobber the Bruins. I don't see that. The game was close last year and while Nebraska will be better (according to most posters here) I think the Bruins will also be improved, despite the loss of Franklin and Fauria. Plus I think that in college football the homefield advantage is overrated. The Bruins have won away games in the last decade at Tennessee, Texas and Alabama, normally pretty tough places to win.

[AFhusker]

I don't understand people saying they think UCLA will score 40-50 on our D this year. They only scored 36 last year and it was at their place with a better team. They lost Franklin and don't have a great replacement for him. They lost Fauria who had 2 TD's and was a matchup nightmare in the game last year. Devin Lucien had a few big plays (3 rec, 70 yards) but nothing major. Shaq Evans did nothing thanks to Josh Mitchell. They basically have the same receivers back and we have the same corners so I'm not too concerned there. I just think for them to put up that many points this year our D will have to be a lot worse than it was last year and I just don't think that is possible. Our coaches have a lot more film to look at now so they should be better prepared. Our D (esp. LB's) should be faster, so that disadvantage should be minimized. You can point to our D line being a weakness but I don't remember it being all that great last year (Rome/Stein, combined 2 tckls) so that seems like a bit of a wash. I still think UCLA will put up some points but I guess I'm not as worried as some people.

 

That game was nowhere as close as the score indicated. If UCLA didn't sh#t thier pants in the red zone so much, they would have had over 50 with the school record of yards given up by our crappy defense last year.

[Redux]

The 2010 Texas game was the result of everyone telling the team they would beat Texas. The trend of dropping a game we shouldn't at home ended last year. UCLA needs to be wetting themselves when they take the field in Lincoln. I suggest a little gem from the Miami playbook. Remember when they played Texas played Miami in 1991? When the Longhorns took the field Miami was standing there like a wall mocking them as they rushed in. To beat UCLA and extend our home win streak we need to not be over confident, we need to overly motivated. Take the game away from them before we even kickoff. Get in their heads the week before the game. Coach Bo I hope you read this: Don't be afraid to run it up. We are a fan base built on sportsmanship but I don't remember Dr. Tom pulling the dogs off because he felt bad for the other team. There was literally no stopping us back then. We need that mentality again. To do so we cant settle for a 27-16 win over a Wyoming. We need to establish our dominance this year right out the gate. A couple of 45-0 blowouts should get the ball rolling.

[Mavric]

I don't understand people saying they think UCLA will score 40-50 on our D this year. They only scored 36 last year and it was at their place with a better team. They lost Franklin and don't have a great replacement for him. They lost Fauria who had 2 TD's and was a matchup nightmare in the game last year. Devin Lucien had a few big plays (3 rec, 70 yards) but nothing major. Shaq Evans did nothing thanks to Josh Mitchell. They basically have the same receivers back and we have the same corners so I'm not too concerned there. I just think for them to put up that many points this year our D will have to be a lot worse than it was last year and I just don't think that is possible. Our coaches have a lot more film to look at now so they should be better prepared. Our D (esp. LB's) should be faster, so that disadvantage should be minimized. You can point to our D line being a weakness but I don't remember it being all that great last year (Rome/Stein, combined 2 tckls) so that seems like a bit of a wash. I still think UCLA will put up some points but I guess I'm not as worried as some people.

 

That game was nowhere as close as the score indicated. If UCLA didn't sh#t thier pants in the red zone so much, they would have had over 50 with the school record of yards given up by our crappy defense last year.

Funny how the other team always gets the excuses but not ours...

[knapplc]

They're secondary is replacing both cornerbacks and 2 safeties.

 

Their linebackers have one good one and 2 average ones. Their dline is average.

 

Their wide receivers have one good receiver and the others are all average.

 

They lose their all conference punter.

 

They lose their starting 1700 yard running back

 

They lose their monster Tight End

 

They lose their kickoff kicker (he was the punter)

 

They lose their Right Guard who started 45 games (he graduated)

 

So...why the hell is everyone scared? Their defense has HUGE losses and their offense has key cogs missing. I'm not even the least bit worried.

 

"Scared" is a straw man. "Has watched Bo's teams and knows what to expect" is more accurate. We've had five years of Bo. Have lost to a mediocre team - sometimes blown out by them - every single year. Against mobile QBs Bo's teams have struggled every year, again often being blown out by them.

 

These points in Nebraska's favor make no sense.

 

They lost a guy with 46 starts on their offensive line = trouble for them. We lost guys from the D Line with 27 and 41 starts, but this doesn't equal trouble for Nebraska?

 

They lost their all-conference punter = problems for them. We lost our punter/place kicker but that's not a problem for us.

 

They lost their monster TE = trouble for them. We lost two of the best TEs we've had in the last 15 years and that's not a problem for us.

 

They have one good WR and the rest are average. We have one statistically good WR and the rest are statistically average, but that's an advantage for us.

 

They have one good linebacker and two average ones. We have zero proven linebackers, and only one with any real game experience, but that's an advantage for us.

 

The biggest thing they lose is Franklin, and that's probably an advantage for us. But the guys they have taking over (Thigpen & James) are both four-star recruits. RB is one of the easiest positions to replace on a football team.

 

 

Nebraska offense = better than last year...return almost ALL of their offense.

Nebraska defense = how could it be worse than last year? The secondary should be one of the best in the nation as it was last year.

Nebraska Special Teams = our punter should be great...our placekicker has a few starts and has a great leg

 

 

UCLA Offense = not as good as it was...they lost a 1700 RB who scored 13 TD's and a 46 reception clutch tight end who scored 12 TD's. Let's not forget Franklin had over 2000 yards of offense if you count his receptions. When you lost that much on your Offensive production and have a 46 start guard gone...there's going to be some issues.

 

UCLA Defense = not as good in pass protection as it was, probably just as good in run defense. The logic here is...if they are just as good on run defense as they were last year, Nebraska will still move the ball quite well. If they're worse in pass protection, Nebraska will pass all over them.

 

UCLA Special Teams = new freshman punter (#3 in the nation recruited) and new placekicker to be determined

 

Again, you have to use the same logic for each team. UCLA's offense won't be as good as last year because they lost pieces, but our defense will be better because we lost pieces. That doesn't make sense, and it's simple homerism.

 

I'm not against drinking the kool-aid. I just don't want the overreaction to our potential to clash headlong into the overreaction to our shortcomings if/when this team loses.

[knapplc]

Seriously though, you guys should be worried. If roles were reversed and we lost our most productive offensive rusher and top receiver and had to replace the entire secondary...I'd be worried. If you somehow find a way to get effective people in there and they prove themselves against good competition, I'll be worried. Until that happens, this game doesn't worry me at all.

 

We have to replace our entire LB corps, most of our defensive line, two of our best TEs in a decade and Rex Burkhead.

 

We need to somehow find a way to get effective people in these positions (although Ameer has proven more than capable at RB) and we have to see if they can prove themselves against good competition. Until our guys do that, I'm going to be worried.

[Bruleif]

Please. I've been to many different college football venues, including Nebraska's. I can tell you from experience that the Nebraska home field is no more intimidating the the home fields for Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and Ohio State, just to name a few I have been to.

 

I've also been to all of the PAC-12 venues and no stadium that I have been to has better acoustics for the home team than Washington's stadium.

[Mavric]

Seriously though, you guys should be worried. If roles were reversed and we lost our most productive offensive rusher and top receiver and had to replace the entire secondary...I'd be worried. If you somehow find a way to get effective people in there and they prove themselves against good competition, I'll be worried. Until that happens, this game doesn't worry me at all.

 

We have to replace our entire LB corps, most of our defensive line, two of our best TEs in a decade and Rex Burkhead.

 

We need to somehow find a way to get effective people in these positions (although Ameer has proven more than capable at RB) and we have to see if they can prove themselves against good competition. Until our guys do that, I'm going to be worried.

True. But the offensive players they lost had 300+ yards of offense against us last year. The ones we lost had 48.

 

We could go on like this all day...

[True2tRA]

Please. I've been to many different college football venues, including Nebraska's. I can tell you from experience that the Nebraska home field is no more intimidating the the home fields for Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and Ohio State, just to name a few I have been to.

 

I've also been to all of the PAC-12 venues and no stadium that I have been to has better acoustics for the home team than Washington's stadium.

I won't argue with you Brulief. I been in Memorial Stadium for some snoozers. Our crowd can be a bit sedated sometimes, not sure why, but probably no different than any other stadium in the country right? I mean, I haven't been to any others, so I don't know. By what I've seen on T.V. I'd say VT and Wisconsin look like two of the most kickass crowds to be in. Looks like a lot of fun.

 

Either way, as sedated as we can be, I've seen some of the loudest and craziest moments in college football happen in Memorial Stadium, and when things are going right, there's no stopping the Big Red Machine or the crowd that roots for them. Watch out, cuz' if we get rolling on UCLA, your asses won't know what hit ya til' it's over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the record though, I think it's gonna be a good game and count me as one that thinks this thing will be close. ^^^just a little sh#t talking. I'm AMPED! GBR!!!!!

[True2tRA]

 

LET'S GO! GBR!!!!!!!

[Count 'Bility]

Our linebackers are much faster and more athletic this year than last. That's obvious. It's common sense. Everyone knows this, and we havent even seen them play yet. That alone will turn those 10-15 yard gains UCLA was getting a year ago into 3-7 yard gains this year, if that. That compiles into a huge difference throughout the game. 2nd and 2 turns into 2nd and 7. 3rd and 1 turns into 3rd and 6, and so on. UCLA really exposed our lack of athleticism at the 2nd level of our D last year, as well as Wisconsin II. That is where the biggest and most glaring improvement of our defense will be. I know the kool-aids flowin strong, but as the season approaches, I get this feeling the UCLA is running into a buzzsaw. I'm really leaning heavily on the addition by subtraction theory on defense.

[beanman]

Please. I've been to many different college football venues, including Nebraska's. I can tell you from experience that the Nebraska home field is no more intimidating the the home fields for Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and Ohio State, just to name a few I have been to.

 

I've also been to all of the PAC-12 venues and no stadium that I have been to has better acoustics for the home team than Washington's stadium.

I won't argue with you Brulief. I been in Memorial Stadium for some snoozers. Our crowd can be a bit sedated sometimes, not sure why, but probably no different than any other stadium in the country right? I mean, I haven't been to any others, so I don't know. By what I've seen on T.V. I'd say VT and Wisconsin look like two of the most kickass crowds to be in. Looks like a lot of fun.

 

Either way, as sedated as we can be, I've seen some of the loudest and craziest moments in college football happen in Memorial Stadium, and when things are going right, there's no stopping the Big Red Machine or the crowd that roots for them. Watch out, cuz' if we get rolling on UCLA, your asses won't know what hit ya til' it's over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the record though, I think it's gonna be a good game and count me as one that thinks this thing will be close. ^^^just a little sh#t talking. I'm AMPED! GBR!!!!!

 

Old people who like to listen to the game on their headphones while they're at the game?

[knapplc]

Our linebackers are much faster and more athletic this year than last. That's obvious. It's common sense. Everyone knows this, and we havent even seen them play yet.

 

For real? Read those sentences again and tell me how that makes any sense at all.

 

These guys may be more athletic, but simple athleticism doesn't make tackles. You have to understand the game and be in position to make those tackles first, and we have zero reason to believe that Zaire Anderson and/or the other starter at LB can do this.

 

I was as impressed as anyone with Anderson's destruction of the "Compete" Drill at the Spring Game. He looked like a monster, a man among boys. But until we see him do that on the field for a season we have no idea if that's just practice heroics.

[Count 'Bility]

Our linebackers are much faster and more athletic this year than last. That's obvious. It's common sense. Everyone knows this, and we havent even seen them play yet.

 

For real? Read those sentences again and tell me how that makes any sense at all.

 

These guys may be more athletic, but simple athleticism doesn't make tackles. You have to understand the game and be in position to make those tackles first, and we have zero reason to believe that Zaire Anderson and/or the other starter at LB can do this.

 

I was as impressed as anyone with Anderson's destruction of the "Compete" Drill at the Spring Game. He looked like a monster, a man among boys. But until we see him do that on the field for a season we have no idea if that's just practice heroics.

I can see it just from watching their high school highlights during recruiting. I know it high school, but their speed and athleticism is what it is. I thought that the guys we have coming in are/were better athletes at that point than what we put on the field a year ago. I think it's something everyone understands. Now, if only the defensive playcalling is built to free these guys up and use that additional athleticism and not freeze the hell out of them, we should be in for a very pleasant surprise.

 

We saw several times a year ago guys like Compton and Whaley getting burned around the corners by qb runs and swing passes and sweeps and the ball carriers picking up 15 yards before a safety or corner could bring them down. Guys like Anderson, Aflava, and Rose are faster-much faster-than those linebackers from a year ago. This is obvious to me. I thought they were much faster just based on their high school film.

 

Just my thoughts.

[The King]

They're secondary is replacing both cornerbacks and 2 safeties.

 

Their linebackers have one good one and 2 average ones. Their dline is average.

 

Their wide receivers have one good receiver and the others are all average.

 

They lose their all conference punter.

 

They lose their starting 1700 yard running back

 

They lose their monster Tight End

 

They lose their kickoff kicker (he was the punter)

 

They lose their Right Guard who started 45 games (he graduated)

 

So...why the hell is everyone scared? Their defense has HUGE losses and their offense has key cogs missing. I'm not even the least bit worried.

 

"Scared" is a straw man. "Has watched Bo's teams and knows what to expect" is more accurate. We've had five years of Bo. Have lost to a mediocre team - sometimes blown out by them - every single year. Against mobile QBs Bo's teams have struggled every year, again often being blown out by them.

 

These points in Nebraska's favor make no sense.

 

They lost a guy with 46 starts on their offensive line = trouble for them. We lost guys from the D Line with 27 and 41 starts, but this doesn't equal trouble for Nebraska?

 

They lost their all-conference punter = problems for them. We lost our punter/place kicker but that's not a problem for us.

 

They lost their monster TE = trouble for them. We lost two of the best TEs we've had in the last 15 years and that's not a problem for us.

 

They have one good WR and the rest are average. We have one statistically good WR and the rest are statistically average, but that's an advantage for us.

 

They have one good linebacker and two average ones. We have zero proven linebackers, and only one with any real game experience, but that's an advantage for us.

 

The biggest thing they lose is Franklin, and that's probably an advantage for us. But the guys they have taking over (Thigpen & James) are both four-star recruits. RB is one of the easiest positions to replace on a football team.

 

 

Nebraska offense = better than last year...return almost ALL of their offense.

Nebraska defense = how could it be worse than last year? The secondary should be one of the best in the nation as it was last year.

Nebraska Special Teams = our punter should be great...our placekicker has a few starts and has a great leg

 

 

UCLA Offense = not as good as it was...they lost a 1700 RB who scored 13 TD's and a 46 reception clutch tight end who scored 12 TD's. Let's not forget Franklin had over 2000 yards of offense if you count his receptions. When you lost that much on your Offensive production and have a 46 start guard gone...there's going to be some issues.

 

UCLA Defense = not as good in pass protection as it was, probably just as good in run defense. The logic here is...if they are just as good on run defense as they were last year, Nebraska will still move the ball quite well. If they're worse in pass protection, Nebraska will pass all over them.

 

UCLA Special Teams = new freshman punter (#3 in the nation recruited) and new placekicker to be determined

 

Again, you have to use the same logic for each team. UCLA's offense won't be as good as last year because they lost pieces, but our defense will be better because we lost pieces. That doesn't make sense, and it's simple homerism.

 

I'm not against drinking the kool-aid. I just don't want the overreaction to our potential to clash headlong into the overreaction to our shortcomings if/when this team loses.

 

I'll try to go point by point with what I can assume is why he was giving us the edge in these categories.

 

It is hard for our D-Line to be worse than it was last year and at the very least, we will actually have depth at the position - which changes a lot. Less likely to be fatigued, more subs, fresher players - most big plays happen due to breakdowns (which is usually caused by fatigue) or just plain human error.

 

I'm not really sure on this one - my best guess is because Pat Smith (if he wins the job) has kicked in games before he has experience, but thats all I got here.

 

I do not believe our two TE's came nearly as close to the production as Fauria did. It looks like Fauria had more yards, more receptions, and certainly more touchdowns than both of them combined (he had 12 touchdowns, to our two TEs 4 TD's). Fauria was a flat out weapon that Hundley relied upon. I can't say the same for Cotton or Kyler.

 

I tend to agree here that we "technically" have statistically average WR's, but thats because the ball gets spread out a lot and we are a run first team. I think there is reason people see us having the best WR core in the B1G - and thats because Kenny Bell, Quincy Enunwa, and Jamal Turner are far from average. They return their leading receiver and fifth leading receiver. It's hard not to see drop off from them (especially replacing the 12 Tds in Fauria - who was a nightmare to matchup with.)

 

Ah, here is where it gets interesting. They obviously will have the best linebacker on the field in Anthony Barr. I'm not even sure we don't lineup in Dime or Nickel all day long in this game - taking off an inexperienced LB for a more experienced player in the secondary - where we are arguably deepest position wise, on the team. Even so, running to the edges this year will be a lot more difficult against these linebackers than last years linebackers.

 

As I've said before, we may not have experience, but we have speed. Experience doesn't matter if you know whats going on and you don't have the athleticism to make the play. Thats just my best guess as to what that gentleman was referring to, but I do have a similar belief that we stomp the poop out of them. Fauria and Franklin being gone is huge and having linebackers that can hopefully wrap up and take down Hundley is big also. Hundley isn't overly fast, he is more of a high powered SUV. Tough to bring down.