Illinois

[True2tRA]

Bo-Bots! Love it.

Bo's made it .....

http://espn.go.com/c...-10-miley-cyrus

 

It's from 10 days ago.........

 

Yes, ten days ago. That's like......a lifetime.

[Hooked on Huskers]

will be televised nationally on ESPNU

 

[The King]

So 9 points Nd 400 yards would be an unacceptable game for you??

 

This is why Bo says yards don't matter. Points do.

Yeah, doesn't matter, but yet those yards matter, because whenever they are put on us we lose. Seems like a logical point /sarcasm

 

Yards always freaking matter, because an offense needs to produce them to score.

 

9 points and 400 yards would be unacceptable, depending on who it is against. tOSU, no not unacceptable, rather I would be happier than a whore involved in a gang bang. 9 points, 400 yards against someone like Kent St, it would be unacceptable.

 

For f#*k sakes, our defense has a TON of issues. We don't wrap up, we hit high on bigger RB's and we completely miss tackles. When we contain, we somehow have a DE come inside and allow a whole on the edge for the QB to hit and make a large gain. We barely bring pressure to the QB (with the exception of Gregory), and we miss more tackles in the backfield than we do on getting the sack. Our secondary isn't being as physical as they use to be. SJB seems to be the only one.

 

The positive thing, all these issues can be fixed. How? Coaching. Starts and ends there. The pressure part, play calling. Everything else goes right back to practice. If a kid continues to miss tackles and can't get the simple concept to wrap up, hit low, then they shouldn't be on the field. We learn to tackle, we save most of our yards after contact. As I said, it can be fixed, but will it, is the real question. Same issues, different season. Even more sad when its happening to much lesser competition.

 

Whenever we give up yards we lose? Really? You should probably re-check that statement. If we give up 600 yards, yes that is a concern, and I do agree it is a concern.

 

But, since you said the first quarter against a REALLY good UCLA offense was "OKAY for the first quarter of that game. Sure, we only gave up 3 points, but we gave up almost 100 yards. NOT good." Is complete bullsh#t. We dominated them in the first quarter. COMPLETE DEFENSIVE DOMINATION. They couldn't do anything and you thought that was "NOT good." I.E. we were on pace for 400 yards and 12 points given up, but that is "NOT good."

That is why that claim is ridiculous. I don't care (and Bo doesn't care) if we give up 400 yards to UCLA if we only surrender 12 points.

Clearly, giving up 600 yards and 40 points is a lot different, but you literally picked the best defensive quarter

this team has played (and actually looked to be on their way to HANDLING UCLA) and said it was NOT good.

Funny how we put such an emphasis on yards as fans, but the top defensive coaches say for the most part that you'll give up yards, because its the nature of college football now (no huddle, spread, up-tempo). It's about not giving up points.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I just thought it was funny you thought being on pace to holding UCLA to a 400 yard and 12 point game was NOT good. Which is psychotic.

[Redmusky]

will be televised nationally on ESPNU

 

Well that settles it, we lay an egg on Saturday.

[Saunders]

Washington is looking to be the real deal. Illinois played them well. If that doesn't lend you some concern you haven't been paying attention to the last few years. The Bo-bots that use the excuses "Well, if we take out those three bad quarters, the 600 yards of offense against us and the fumbles in the red zone, we've played solid ball" are mind-less fools.

You do realize that Illinois did exactly that, (and was helped by huge mistakes by washington) therefor you're contradicting yourself?

[jmfb]

Wow, what they did to Lane Kiffin was classless. Fire someone the right way. Who wants to go work for an AD like that? Decides in the 3rd quarter and then leaves him at the airport curb.

Amen

Totally unprofessional, classless

Has this guy EVER fired anyone before- that's in Management 101 books

[The Dude]

Washington is looking to be the real deal.

[MichiganDad3]

So 9 points Nd 400 yards would be an unacceptable game for you??

 

This is why Bo says yards don't matter. Points do.

Yeah, doesn't matter, but yet those yards matter, because whenever they are put on us we lose. Seems like a logical point /sarcasm

 

Yards always freaking matter, because an offense needs to produce them to score.

 

9 points and 400 yards would be unacceptable, depending on who it is against. tOSU, no not unacceptable, rather I would be happier than a whore involved in a gang bang. 9 points, 400 yards against someone like Kent St, it would be unacceptable.

 

For f#*k sakes, our defense has a TON of issues. We don't wrap up, we hit high on bigger RB's and we completely miss tackles. When we contain, we somehow have a DE come inside and allow a whole on the edge for the QB to hit and make a large gain. We barely bring pressure to the QB (with the exception of Gregory), and we miss more tackles in the backfield than we do on getting the sack. Our secondary isn't being as physical as they use to be. SJB seems to be the only one.

 

The positive thing, all these issues can be fixed. How? Coaching. Starts and ends there. The pressure part, play calling. Everything else goes right back to practice. If a kid continues to miss tackles and can't get the simple concept to wrap up, hit low, then they shouldn't be on the field. We learn to tackle, we save most of our yards after contact. As I said, it can be fixed, but will it, is the real question. Same issues, different season. Even more sad when its happening to much lesser competition.

 

Whenever we give up yards we lose? Really? You should probably re-check that statement. If we give up 600 yards, yes that is a concern, and I do agree it is a concern.

 

But, since you said the first quarter against a REALLY good UCLA offense was "OKAY for the first quarter of that game. Sure, we only gave up 3 points, but we gave up almost 100 yards. NOT good." Is complete bullsh#t. We dominated them in the first quarter. COMPLETE DEFENSIVE DOMINATION. They couldn't do anything and you thought that was "NOT good." I.E. we were on pace for 400 yards and 12 points given up, but that is "NOT good."

That is why that claim is ridiculous. I don't care (and Bo doesn't care) if we give up 400 yards to UCLA if we only surrender 12 points.

Clearly, giving up 600 yards and 40 points is a lot different, but you literally picked the best defensive quarter

this team has played (and actually looked to be on their way to HANDLING UCLA) and said it was NOT good.

 

 

Funny how we put such an emphasis on yards as fans, but the top defensive coaches say for the most part that you'll give up yards, because its the nature of college football now (no huddle, spread, up-tempo). It's about not giving up points.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I just thought it was funny you thought being on pace to holding UCLA to a 400 yard and 12 point game was NOT good. Which is psychotic.

 

I think that is his point. You can't give up 100 yards per quarter and not expect to give up points. Every now and then you may only give up 3 points in a quarter, but it is just a matter of time before the points come in bunches when you are giving up that many yards.

[Hooked on Huskers]

"@937JakeSorensen: RT @BShawn17 Wow, #SDSU coach John Stiegelmeier says that #NDSU is much more physical on defense that Nebraska... Yeah, the Cornhuskers..."

If true, then.....

 

- bulletin board material and big banner for the practice field

- swap Huskers and visitor locker rooms and closed fancy lounge. Huskerboardand lounge are too cushy for me.

 

BTW, I just watched Junction Boys movie.

[HuskerNationNick]

Whenever we give up yards we lose? Really? You should probably re-check that statement. If we give up 600 yards, yes that is a concern, and I do agree it is a concern.

 

But, since you said the first quarter against a REALLY good UCLA offense was "OKAY for the first quarter of that game. Sure, we only gave up 3 points, but we gave up almost 100 yards. NOT good." Is complete bullsh#t. We dominated them in the first quarter. COMPLETE DEFENSIVE DOMINATION. They couldn't do anything and you thought that was "NOT good." I.E. we were on pace for 400 yards and 12 points given up, but that is "NOT good."

That is why that claim is ridiculous. I don't care (and Bo doesn't care) if we give up 400 yards to UCLA if we only surrender 12 points.

Clearly, giving up 600 yards and 40 points is a lot different, but you literally picked the best defensive quarter

this team has played (and actually looked to be on their way to HANDLING UCLA) and said it was NOT good.

 

 

Funny how we put such an emphasis on yards as fans, but the top defensive coaches say for the most part that you'll give up yards, because its the nature of college football now (no huddle, spread, up-tempo). It's about not giving up points.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I just thought it was funny you thought being on pace to holding UCLA to a 400 yard and 12 point game was NOT good. Which is psychotic.

 

I think that is his point. You can't give up 100 yards per quarter and not expect to give up points. Every now and then you may only give up 3 points in a quarter, but it is just a matter of time before the points come in bunches when you are giving up that many yards.

Thank you, at least someone here reads between the lines. Just because we gave up 100 yards, but held them to 3 points means very little. This isn't going to happen often, unless this team can relearn the basics of football, tackling.

 

I am not claiming we didn't play the best football defensively that first quarter, but lets not act like the offense didn't help. They had a drive that was 7.5 minutes long. I am sorry I am not pleased with this defense, or what it has done. Sure you can take some plays in that first quarter, but there was also a drive that UCLA was hustling down the field. Had SJB not jumped a pass and got an INT, you could have easily seen 7 points. We can compare apples to oranges all we want, but defensively, we aren't close to where we should, or want to be. I am just astonished how you can be like "OMG, we had such a great quarter", but what about the other 3? I judge a defense off a whole game, not just a quarter.

[True2tRA]

Whenever we give up yards we lose? Really? You should probably re-check that statement. If we give up 600 yards, yes that is a concern, and I do agree it is a concern.

 

But, since you said the first quarter against a REALLY good UCLA offense was "OKAY for the first quarter of that game. Sure, we only gave up 3 points, but we gave up almost 100 yards. NOT good." Is complete bullsh#t. We dominated them in the first quarter. COMPLETE DEFENSIVE DOMINATION. They couldn't do anything and you thought that was "NOT good." I.E. we were on pace for 400 yards and 12 points given up, but that is "NOT good."

That is why that claim is ridiculous. I don't care (and Bo doesn't care) if we give up 400 yards to UCLA if we only surrender 12 points.

Clearly, giving up 600 yards and 40 points is a lot different, but you literally picked the best defensive quarter

this team has played (and actually looked to be on their way to HANDLING UCLA) and said it was NOT good.

 

 

Funny how we put such an emphasis on yards as fans, but the top defensive coaches say for the most part that you'll give up yards, because its the nature of college football now (no huddle, spread, up-tempo). It's about not giving up points.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I just thought it was funny you thought being on pace to holding UCLA to a 400 yard and 12 point game was NOT good. Which is psychotic.

 

I think that is his point. You can't give up 100 yards per quarter and not expect to give up points. Every now and then you may only give up 3 points in a quarter, but it is just a matter of time before the points come in bunches when you are giving up that many yards.

Thank you, at least someone here reads between the lines. Just because we gave up 100 yards, but held them to 3 points means very little. This isn't going to happen often, unless this team can relearn the basics of football, tackling.

 

I am not claiming we didn't play the best football defensively that first quarter, but lets not act like the offense didn't help. They had a drive that was 7.5 minutes long. I am sorry I am not pleased with this defense, or what it has done. Sure you can take some plays in that first quarter, but there was also a drive that UCLA was hustling down the field. Had SJB not jumped a pass and got an INT, you could have easily seen 7 points. We can compare apples to oranges all we want, but defensively, we aren't close to where we should, or want to be. I am just astonished how you can be like "OMG, we had such a great quarter", but what about the other 3? I judge a defense off a whole game, not just a quarter.

 

Exactly! I won this exact same argument with BBB12 earlier. It's a four quarter game last I knew. Of course I'm not nearly as smart as the rest of you guys........

[NUance]

comparison (to) the Missouri Tigers.

 

OVERALL: Big Plays = 37 (11.9%), 865 yards (54.6%)

NEBRASKA: Big Plays = 53 (18.4%), 1145 yards (61.7%)

Yeah, this is a HUGE problem. I mean, we're giving up nearly one-and-one-half times as many big plays as Mizzou. ugh.

[memyselfandillini]

FWIW - Illinois is ranked #11th in the Big Ten when it comes to defending against the pass.

 

Maybe that was the stats prior to the fourth game, but Illinois has moved up to 10th in the Big Ten in pass yards allowed per game. Just ahead of Nebraska. And in fact Illinois is slightly ahead of Nebraska in most defensive categories except Nebraska has wayyyyyy more ints. Nebraska is slightly better than Illinois offensively but both are pretty good with Illinois employing a passing attack predominantly and Nebraska running much more on offense.

 

On paper, if you take out the name and history of the programs, these teams are fairly evenly matched with quite a few similarities. Obviously they don't play the game on paper though so Saturday should be illuminating.

[Husker Bob]

FWIW - Illinois is ranked #11th in the Big Ten when it comes to defending against the pass.

 

Maybe that was the stats prior to the fourth game, but Illinois has moved up to 10th in the Big Ten in pass yards allowed per game. Just ahead of Nebraska. And in fact Illinois is slightly ahead of Nebraska in most defensive categories except Nebraska has wayyyyyy more ints. Nebraska is slightly better than Illinois offensively but both are pretty good with Illinois employing a passing attack predominantly and Nebraska running much more on offense.

 

On paper, if you take out the name and history of the programs, these teams are fairly evenly matched with quite a few similarities. Obviously they don't play the game on paper though so Saturday should be illuminating.

 

I agree, it is pretty even. Comparing our losses, I would say that UCLA and Washington are about the 3rd/4th best teams in the Pac-12. The Huskers biggest advantages are turnover margin and that the game is at home.

[VectorVictor]

FWIW - Illinois is ranked #11th in the Big Ten when it comes to defending against the pass.

 

Maybe that was the stats prior to the fourth game, but Illinois has moved up to 10th in the Big Ten in pass yards allowed per game. Just ahead of Nebraska. And in fact Illinois is slightly ahead of Nebraska in most defensive categories except Nebraska has wayyyyyy more ints. Nebraska is slightly better than Illinois offensively but both are pretty good with Illinois employing a passing attack predominantly and Nebraska running much more on offense.

 

On paper, if you take out the name and history of the programs, these teams are fairly evenly matched with quite a few similarities. Obviously they don't play the game on paper though so Saturday should be illuminating.

 

I agree, it is pretty even. Comparing our losses, I would say that UCLA and Washington are about the 3rd/4th best teams in the Pac-12. The Huskers biggest advantages are turnover margin and that the game is at home.

 

I thought our chief weapon was surprise.