The Foreman Report - Wyoming

[Saunders]

Backside screen (does Beck know what a screen pass is?) would have been open. The tight end on a seam route would have been open.

Pelini said we should have went down field more. I think Husker Mike might disagree about our use of the screen pass. This is from his blog....."While the offense put up decent numbers, there certainly was the potential to do a heck of a lot more. Some of that apparently was by design; for some reason, Tim Beck called an awful lot of screen passes."

Bubble screens on the edge to WR's, not a traditional screen to the I-Back.

[Hunter94]

The point of any motion is to see how the defense reacts, does the defender run with motion (man) or do they shift (zone). What that does is let the opponent know how they can attack the defense and it seemed Nebraska hadn't adjusted since last season.

You gotta think that we're saving our adjustments for UCLA and conf play. I'm guessing we thought we could beat Wyo without showing everything the Blackshirts can do. Let's hope that's the case.

 

OTOH, Booger Daniel said the exact same thing in 2008 when Mizzou beat us in Lincoln. I remember him saying he couldn't believe how predictable we were--that they knew what was coming on nearly every play based on our initial set and reaction to motion.

 

 

OMG.how many times did I hear this crap last season...we were holding back, we didn't want to show our best stuff.....bullsh#t, that was our best stuff and it sucked!

[ZRod]

We had no line stunts on defense.

Actually that's not true. They were pretty basic but they were there, just tackles crossing and such. We also had Gregory in stand up a lot and had Ankrah lined up inside as well.

[MichiganDad3]

You gotta think that we're saving our adjustments for UCLA and conf play. I'm guessing we thought we could beat Wyo without showing everything the Blackshirts can do. Let's hope that's the case.

Pap talked about the in game adjustment issues. You should look up what he said.

Or you can save us all the headache of trying to find which the post-game interview, statement, tweet or whatever you are referring to and just tell us (or share the link).

John Papuchis.......

"The hardest thing when you have new guys isn't that you feel like they're going to make mistakes on things you practice," Papuchis said.

"It's making adjustments and handling them. It's an opening game, and anything (Wyoming) put in in the offseason, we're totally unaware of. A critical element is to make fast adjustments. We made the corrections. Getting them translated was a bit of a struggle."

 

 

Read more here: http://www.thenewstr...l#storylink=cpy

[/left]

 

The hardest thing when you have a new, inexperienced DC is that he puts a dreadful defenses on the field.

[Stumpy1]

We ran no misdirection. We ran very few play-action plays. We had no line stunts on defense. We played our base packages in both offense and defense the majority of the game.

 

Wyoming was selling out to stop the run, and pursued to the ball aggressively. We could easily have screwed with them by running some misdirection. A reverse would likely have gone the distance against them, with either Kenny or Jamal as the reverse man. Backside screen (does Beck know what a screen pass is?) would have been open. The tight end on a seam route would have been open. I don't think we targeted the TE more than once all night, did we?

 

Wyoming looked like they knew what we were running all night because we ran straight into the teeth of their defense. On those two late 4th quarter drives where we just needed to kill the clock, or score, look how many plays we ran between the tackles.

How many times in the 3rd and 4th quarters could we have done a play action and probably scored. I believe at the start of the 4th, Wyoming had all 11 guys within 4 yards of the LOS and we ran the ball. It was like that on a lot of occasions.

[NUance]

The point of any motion is to see how the defense reacts, does the defender run with motion (man) or do they shift (zone). What that does is let the opponent know how they can attack the defense and it seemed Nebraska hadn't adjusted since last season.

You gotta think that we're saving our adjustments for UCLA and conf play. I'm guessing we thought we could beat Wyo without showing everything the Blackshirts can do. Let's hope that's the case.

 

OTOH, Booger Daniel said the exact same thing in 2008 when Mizzou beat us in Lincoln. I remember him saying he couldn't believe how predictable we were--that they knew what was coming on nearly every play based on our initial set and reaction to motion.

 

 

OMG.how many times did I hear this crap last season...we were holding back, we didn't want to show our best stuff.....bullsh#t, that was our best stuff and it sucked!

I did not know any of our three easy non-conf games were that close last year. You must be one of those people who aren't happy unless we beat Southern Miss by 50 points. Instead of 29.

[Army_Allen]

Yeah I was irritated with our performance too but I'm not spewing off how this is our best stuff or anything of the like...

[NUinID]

Playing vanilla until you have to do something else is not anything new. TO made playing vanilla into an art form. I think you can look at few things that are true about this game.

 

1. Nebraska is young very young on defense in the front 7 and played a lot of guys and there was a lot of breakdowns.

 

2. Nebraska played a very vanilla game both on O and D and didn't show too much.

 

3. Smith played a great game.

 

4. The Wyoming coach had a great game plan.

 

5. Wyoming may be a little better than we give them credit for, if you look at their record at the end of the year and they have 7-9 wins then I would say this is true.

 

Either way I don't think you can take too much from this game about the way the rest of the season will play out. Just like you wouldn't know too much if they had won 50-10

[knapplc]

5. Wyoming may be a little better than we give them credit for, if you look at their record at the end of the year and they have 7-9 wins then I would say this is true.

 

If they play every game like they played against us, they will easily have nine wins.

[RedDenver]

5. Wyoming may be a little better than we give them credit for, if you look at their record at the end of the year and they have 7-9 wins then I would say this is true.

 

If they play every game like they played against us, they will easily have nine wins.

That's the trick to coaching, isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if they won 9. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they spent fall camp preparing for NU, and then pay for it the rest of the year. Depends a lot on if that loss inspired Wyoming or took the heart out of them.

[Landlord]

5. Wyoming may be a little better than we give them credit for, if you look at their record at the end of the year and they have 7-9 wins then I would say this is true.

 

If they play every game like they played against us, they will easily have nine wins.

That's the trick to coaching, isn't it? I wouldn't be surprised if they won 9. But I also wouldn't be surprised if they spent fall camp preparing for NU, and then pay for it the rest of the year. Depends a lot on if that loss inspired Wyoming or took the heart out of them.

 

 

I doubt this is true. While they were surely geeked up to play us, what would the point have been? They know they aren't going to win a national championship or go to a BCS bowl - their realistic goal is a conference championship and they all know it. They wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket for a meaningless out-of-conference game against a marquee opponent.