Jump to content


Getting a good read on the defense


tmfr15

Recommended Posts


First, Bo's defense is too complicated. He isn't getting athletes on the field.

 

Then, Bo goes vanilla and puts freaks on the field and is being too simple and "phoning it in."

 

Dude can't win either way.

And that "vanilla" defense includes blitzing almost half the time and introducing a 3-3 look and zone blitzing that I don't recall being much a part of prior defenses.

Link to comment

First, Bo's defense is too complicated. He isn't getting athletes on the field.

 

Then, Bo goes vanilla and puts freaks on the field and is being too simple and "phoning it in."

 

Dude can't win either way.

Those two criticisms aren't necessarily coming from the same people. And of course different people are going to have different opinions.

 

I believe you're trying to point out hypocrisy where there is none.

Link to comment

Guys we can spend time freaking out about how bad we played but I am really excited about this Defense. We are FAST!!! We had hands on their quarterback multiple times. Our DE's have way more speed off the ends and our DB's played pretty well. Our biggest issue was the run up the middle and a lot of that had to do with how simple the defense was and how the coaches couldn't make adjustments cause they didn't give the kids enough to work with going in. But all of this is fixable. I really think that we will see a big jump this week and another big jump before UCLA.

 

We are going to be making some mistakes for the first half of the season for sure but I really think that we'll be pretty dang good by the 2nd half of the season. There's a lot to be excited about... we really do have a lot of talent and speed. As soon as these young kids get some reps and game experience and really have more time with the defense they are going to be studs.

 

This is what worries me. We have a ton of talent, but is it going to go to waste due to the inability to make changes on the fly? Now, if this gets fixed and there are visible improvements during Southern Miss, then you're going to have people jumping on the "I knew we'd be ok" bandwagon in a hurry.

 

I don't want this speed we have on the defensive side of the ball to go to waste. I want people to be afraid of the Blackshirts again.

Link to comment

Guys we can spend time freaking out about how bad we played but I am really excited about this Defense. We are FAST!!! We had hands on their quarterback multiple times. Our DE's have way more speed off the ends and our DB's played pretty well. Our biggest issue was the run up the middle and a lot of that had to do with how simple the defense was and how the coaches couldn't make adjustments cause they didn't give the kids enough to work with going in. But all of this is fixable. I really think that we will see a big jump this week and another big jump before UCLA.

 

We are going to be making some mistakes for the first half of the season for sure but I really think that we'll be pretty dang good by the 2nd half of the season. There's a lot to be excited about... we really do have a lot of talent and speed. As soon as these young kids get some reps and game experience and really have more time with the defense they are going to be studs.

 

This is what worries me. We have a ton of talent, but is it going to go to waste due to the inability to make changes on the fly? Now, if this gets fixed and there are visible improvements during Southern Miss, then you're going to have people jumping on the "I knew we'd be ok" bandwagon in a hurry.

 

I don't want this speed we have on the defensive side of the ball to go to waste. I want people to be afraid of the Blackshirts again.

You should listen to Damon Benning's take on the coaches making adjustments: http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=111&c=991&f=1810441

 

Basically, some of the guys weren't understanding the adjustments while others were. IMO, this is something we've just got to live with if we're going to play a bunch of young players.

Link to comment

But now that he has his own staff, the dysfunction just continues.

A team doesn't win 9 or more games each year of a coaching tenure if things are seriously dysfunctional.

 

I respectfully disagree. It's possible that the dysfunction only shows up at certain times, such as when they're matched up against a superior staff and challenged to make adjustments on the fly. That's when the dysfunctional nature of this staff becomes apparent. And it's a recurring theme during the blowouts. It was also on full display on Saturday.

 

So are you the same Tfree from over at Huskerpedia? Isn't there enough hate going on over there from GFOA, Big D, Pops, and Bilsker? That you have to bring it over here.

My thoughts exactly^.

 

I'm not "hating," but simply expressing my opinion. Some think Pelini is doing a great job in all respects. I respectfully disagree. I think he's doing a good job in some aspects of his job and a terrible job in others. And I think that's reflected by the fact that we win 9-10 games a season but also lose four, with an average of two blowouts.

 

When we play top teams, we struggle. Part of that is that we have failed to recruit and develop quality talent and depth at some key positions. Part is that the scheme doesn't seem to work, possibly because good coaches have figured it out and part is because Pelini and his staff seem to routinely be outcoached in big games against quality coaches.

Link to comment

Wow. This thread could be about a huge number of non-con games from almost every year I've been a Husker fan. Teams, no matter how good, have bad games. Usually the first game opponent is lousy so we don't notice...

 

Just went and checked some random games from the late 70s through the 80s and early 90s (ignoring the NC seasons). The only games that I saw that were close season-opening, non-conference games were against top 25 opponents. A #1 Alabama that won 20-3 was probably the worst. I didn't see any (and I didn't check them all, but I wasn't being selective, either) apparent struggles with non-ranked non-conference opponents. What's the opposite of rose-colored glasses? Smog-colored? Looking back with smog-colored glasses to make the present seem less bad? That seems like it should be a thing.

Link to comment

Wow. This thread could be about a huge number of non-con games from almost every year I've been a Husker fan. Teams, no matter how good, have bad games. Usually the first game opponent is lousy so we don't notice...

 

Just went and checked some random games from the late 70s through the 80s and early 90s (ignoring the NC seasons). The only games that I saw that were close season-opening, non-conference games were against top 25 opponents. A #1 Alabama that won 20-3 was probably the worst. I didn't see any (and I didn't check them all, but I wasn't being selective, either) apparent struggles with non-ranked non-conference opponents. What's the opposite of rose-colored glasses? Smog-colored? Looking back with smog-colored glasses to make the present seem less bad? That seems like it should be a thing.

Well, I was talking about the discussions not the final score. That was sort of my point. These "OMG!!! WE SUCK!!!" discussions happen almost every season. But we usually win by a comfortable margin, so fans tend not to remember the game looking back. In fact this same scenario happened the last time we played Wyoming in Lincoln.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...