man to man

[lo country]

Didn't Damon Benning say the problem with running man under all the time is 7 players basically turn away from the ball once it's snapped?

 

I don't see how playing more zone could possibly hurt. Given our last 3 defensive performances, and how Bo's pet scheme has been thoroughly exposed, I don't see why it should be a controversial topic.

 

I'm with you, Eric The Red.

He also said that by "bracketing" which is the base of Bo's system allows the LB's to be run off and the middle of the field to always be open. Also said that when the safeties (one) comes up and leaves the other teams will audible into pass as we are saying "we are playing the run". We have the talent, per reports, but the scheme needs to change. 4 guys rushing 5-6 is always a losing proposition.

[The Dude]

Didn't Damon Benning say the problem with running man under all the time is 7 players basically turn away from the ball once it's snapped?

 

I don't see how playing more zone could possibly hurt. Given our last 3 defensive performances, and how Bo's pet scheme has been thoroughly exposed, I don't see why it should be a controversial topic.

 

I'm with you, Eric The Red.

He also said that by "bracketing" which is the base of Bo's system allows the LB's to be run off and the middle of the field to always be open. Also said that when the safeties (one) comes up and leaves the other teams will audible into pass as we are saying "we are playing the run". We have the talent, per reports, but the scheme needs to change. 4 guys rushing 5-6 is always a losing proposition.

Depends on your definition of "rushing". There was still a lot of patty-cake going on. Other than that, totally agree.

[lo country]

Didn't Damon Benning say the problem with running man under all the time is 7 players basically turn away from the ball once it's snapped?

 

I don't see how playing more zone could possibly hurt. Given our last 3 defensive performances, and how Bo's pet scheme has been thoroughly exposed, I don't see why it should be a controversial topic.

 

I'm with you, Eric The Red.

He also said that by "bracketing" which is the base of Bo's system allows the LB's to be run off and the middle of the field to always be open. Also said that when the safeties (one) comes up and leaves the other teams will audible into pass as we are saying "we are playing the run". We have the talent, per reports, but the scheme needs to change. 4 guys rushing 5-6 is always a losing proposition.

Depends on your definition of "rushing". There was still a lot of patty-cake going on. Other than that, totally agree.

 

HAHA! I should have said 4 guys trying to "contain" 5-6. I agree with your description more.

[The Red & White Knight]

I think the problem with this defense/scheme is also that if there is some sort of a momentous impact, the confidence level plummets.

What's more, with everyone running around trying to man or find their person to key on, it makes the defense very reactive and non-aggressive. It becomes 'taking what the offense gives you', which is backwards at best.

Maybe the front four will generate pressure more so on their own over time, but, there has to be a sense of aggression, and I don't really remember what that looks like. I'm sure this was designed to be more vanilla of an effort - even on both sides of the ball - but still...

It will be nice to see the defense show up against talent.

[True2tRA]

That Wyoming coach knew a thing or two about our man coverage. Not sure what our defense was showing them but all game long they were sprinting that HB to the left or right straight out of the backfield. They were using that motion to see our coverage scheme. On TV you couldn't see how well our defense was disguising it, but that motion was clearly being used effectively.

[The Red & White Knight]

I don't remember the last time I feel like I can say the Huskers 'outcoached' someone. It's probably not that far, but, the distance in yards from the last few games is blinding I suppose.

 

I feel a bit like NU has become a team with a HUGE target on its back because of the big losses, such that everyone thinks they have a chance to 'embarass' them, if they scheme it right.

[Hayseed]

That is the conundrum, this defense does work (at least gets wins) against teams with immobile quarterbacks. But it also has failed spectacularly against good mobile quarterbacks and with teams that actually have the ability to game plan against it.

 

Defense is easy with LSU talent or with a guy named Suh on your team. However, it requires some thought and planning when that is not the case. We don't seem to be showing any willingness to adjust or get more aggressive with teams who have figured out how to exploit our scheme. Why didn't we blitz? How can we expect to maintain coverage for ten freakin seconds every down?

 

I think the D linemen we have could've gotten after Smith, especially with some blitz help, but their assignment was obviously to try to keep him in the pocket and wait to see if our DB's could play out of their minds. 600+ yards three times now. It will happen more if something doesn't change.

 

When you don't creatively blitz it wears on your D-linemen as well who must get frustrated fighting the entire game with lousy results. It appears that either we held back so as not to show our hand to the big teams or the coach feels we're not ready to do anything fancy without causing a bunch of coverage busts.

[suigeneris]

That is the conundrum, this defense does work (at least gets wins) against teams with immobile quarterbacks. But it also has failed spectacularly against good mobile quarterbacks and with teams that actually have the ability to game plan against it.

 

Defense is easy with LSU talent or with a guy named Suh on your team. However, it requires some thought and planning when that is not the case. We don't seem to be showing any willingness to adjust or get more aggressive with teams who have figured out how to exploit our scheme. Why didn't we blitz? How can we expect to maintain coverage for ten freakin seconds every down?

 

I think the D linemen we have could've gotten after Smith, especially with some blitz help, but their assignment was obviously to try to keep him in the pocket and wait to see if our DB's could play out of their minds. 600+ yards three times now. It will happen more if something doesn't change.

 

That's what I don't understand. If our defensive line's job is to assist the opponent's offensive line in forming a pocket, what's our end game? Is it to wait for the quarterback to throw it and hope he misses? That is too big a burden for any secondary.