McKewon: Trying to bridge the gap on defense

[walksalone]

the Huskers are actively looking at different solutions.

 

 

One is more blitzes. Nebraska has plenty of those — Pelini has never lacked for creativity — and has used them to complement his preferred run defense.

 

I'm a little confused by this...

 

Most of the time they only send 4 guys, and haven't been very aggresive with their blitzes if at all this year. Is this going to change against Illinois, or is it going to be the same thing we've seen for the past two years....

[Mavric]

the Huskers are actively looking at different solutions.

 

 

One is more blitzes. Nebraska has plenty of those — Pelini has never lacked for creativity — and has used them to complement his preferred run defense.

 

I'm a little confused by this...

 

Most of the time they only send 4 guys, and haven't been very aggresive with their blitzes if at all this year. Is this going to change against Illinois, or is it going to be the same thing we've seen for the past two years....

Go rewatch the Wyoming game. And, I believe, a good part of the S. Miss game. We brought some sort of blitz or stunt about half the time against Wyoming.

[Foppa]

the Huskers are actively looking at different solutions.

 

 

One is more blitzes. Nebraska has plenty of those — Pelini has never lacked for creativity — and has used them to complement his preferred run defense.

 

I'm a little confused by this...

 

Most of the time they only send 4 guys, and haven't been very aggresive with their blitzes if at all this year. Is this going to change against Illinois, or is it going to be the same thing we've seen for the past two years....

 

Hopefully they stop looking like the emoticon I'm posting...

[lo country]

We just flat out can't put ourselves in a numbers disadvantage. We have one guy on our DL that demands a double team each play. We don't have two.

 

If I were Bo, I'd simply put my safeties closer to the LOS and force a college QB to beat our secondary. On obvious passing downs, sure play two-high, but damn, we can't rely on 5 guys up front to beat six anymore. Especially when the offense can easily option one DE off with the zone read.

I believe it was the MSU DC who said that their key for their D was if they are blocking with 5, we try to send 6. Mathematics. It is simple. we can't continue to rush 4 (closer to 2) and expect to be able to get pressure.

[Mavric]

I believe it was the MSU DC who said that their key for their D was if they are blocking with 5, we try to send 6. Mathematics. It is simple. we can't continue to rush 4 (closer to 2) and expect to be able to get pressure.

Agreed on the first part.

 

As to the second, we've actually gotten decent pressure this year - sometimes rushing more than four but not always. Definitely better than last year (not that that's saying a lot). Our main problem has been defending the zone read. For whatever reason (scheme, missed assignments, who knows) we often have one LB trying to defend both running options. They are too slow to get there and end up defending no one. And the worst has been Wyoming and SDSU, even though I don't think their QBs ever pulled the ball.

[lo country]

I didn't like in Bo's pressed today how he kind of assumed that outside voices want him to "simplify" by just keeping the defense in "one" look. He says he threw more and more at the guys to challenge them. Clearly at times it was too much. Again, too complicated.

 

Come on Bo. This is the kind of extremes I'm talking about. Nobody with an ounce of logic is saying to trim your defense down to "one" thing. But you don't throw the whole book at them either. I'm beginning to think there is no middle ground with you Bo. It seems that way in almost all circumstances with you, and not just your football team.

 

Please Bo, for the sake of your team, you have got to start learning. You build upon things. The key is you have to start somewhere. You take a concept, you establish an understanding amongst your team. You practice it, you repeat it over and over. This creates a level of comfort with the scenario. Comfort in the system creates confidence. With a young team this is vital. When ou see your team has grasped it, you build another level. PROGRESS.

 

You might only argue that he has not had time to start over. That he has only realized these problems 4 games into,this season and he hasn't had time to right them. Well excuse me, but this word FIX has been thrown around for a lot longer Han just this year. Also, if you didn't recognize in spring and fall that your guys were struggling within the scheme, well then you're not the guru you and your supporters claim you are.

 

In 2008 when he first got here people asked him to do the same thing half way through the season and dumb down the defense. He refused to do so, and what resulted was one of the best defenses I've ever seen. So who knows what's going to happen...

It is almost the complete opposite of 2009. Our O was pathetic. Bo had, IIRC, made the O go completely into a shell. No mistakes, no TO's, play smart, simplify, let the D do the heavy lifting. It worked. It now might be time for Bo to tell Paps (or himself) simplify, no mistakes, just keep them from scoring every possession, let the O do its thing. Put the guys in a simplified, hat on hat, see ball get ball mentality. Like TA said to the D after SDSU took the lead, "Don't worry, we got this".

 

Lean on the strength of the team right now, get Beck to dial it down to slow it down. Eat the clock, let the D rest, get coached during the game etc.......

 

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

 

Bo's end goal is not to "just stop the other team from scoring every possession." And you're also leaving out the fact that our offense can be awfully Jekyll and Hyde at times. It's not like we're Texas A&M and can literally score every single possession against any defense in the nation...

 

I agree that the scheme needs to change though. Just read what EZ said a couple posts up. Defending the run is a numbers game - one that we consistently lose, which is why we suck at defending the run.

I should have said at least stop them on one possession. I agree about our O. My earlier post talked about how smooth the O was against SDSU. Beck called plays in a way that helped the D. Too many times (last) year the D was gassed and Beck goes all Oregon and scores in like 3 secs. The O needs to help the D when it can.

 

Unless we can find another safety (CJax?) we only have Coop to really play back there. Again, two weeks before Illinois, any chance Gerry moves to safety to gives us speed and size. Our DB's, what I thought would be our strength, have gotten the short end of the stick thus far. I know it is the DL fault as they get no pressure, but are they good enough to go man with no safety help in order to get the pressure? IMO, it wouldn't hurt to try. Teams see they can eat us alive in the run game. Bring the heat, stop the run and FINALLY force teams to adjust to us.

[Nebula]

I wonder how Sam gets along with the rest of the Herald staff (primarily Lee and Holy hell look at the size of my front teeth guy, whatever his name is.) I bet there's a degree of iciness. Sam doesn't EVER come off churlish or intentionally antagonistic. He just consistently churns out incredibly informative articles. I bet lee friggin hates the guy.

 

Anybody feel like the staff has absolutely no idea how to trigger some kind of growth or progress? I know we are really young, and we swung and missed on a bunch of guys...and man, if you're starting or giving substantial playing time to true freshmen on the line (either line) you've got about a 90% chance of having some thin borders. Peat and Rome flaming out really, really hurt. Both highly touted guys, both heavily sought after...there is SUCH a difference in physical growth between the ages of 18 and 23 that occur. Those are the man strength years, and these kids are still growing. Except for Ankrah and Randle, who are exceedingly mediocre and permanently wounded, respectively.

 

Just not good. The LBs...I dunno. They have some athletes. Young, again, but faster and grade out higher on the eye test than guys like Whaley and some of the other rather pedestrian guys we've trotted out the last few years. (No offense.) But I don't see anyone emerging from that pool of youth and having double digit tackle/turnover producing Saturdays yet.

 

I'm thinking back to when Lavonte was emerging and starting to reveal himself as the special player he was for us and is on Sundays currently. David would have these ridiculous, almost stupidly inflated stat lines: 20 tackles, FF, fumble recovery.

 

Every time, Pelini would almost castrate the guy afterwards. "David, actually, made a TON of mistakes out there."

 

At the time, my dad and I would just kinda laugh about it. Now I'm thinking, the most prolific guy on the field for our defense compiled 20 tackles and he had a terrible game? What does that actually mean?

 

Maybe nothing. Maybe it's a green coach flaring the arrogance of youth and staunchly believing his plan, followed EXACTLY, could yield circus tent numbers, 34 tackles, 4 picks, and a hot blonde at halftime.

 

Now though, when we've literally entered Cosgrove era timidity (I'll see your approaching and raise you an arrival, knapp,) those post game comments are on my mind for some reason. It's kind of...nonsensical and idiotic in a way, isn't it? If the guy making a litany of plays is playing the wrong way...is the defense conceived soundly?

 

I just don't know. Maybe you murder people if you have Suh or that LSU tackle whose name eludes me at the moment...and if not, you have what is in all honesty an embarrassingly confused and dazed collection of guys who are not even set 1 out of every 3 snaps. If you can't even get your guys set and ready to play...if they stand with their hands up in the universal "wha?" gesture...that's a product of inadequate coaching. These guys aren't prepared. They don't even know what they're supposed to do a third of the time. I don't know what process that entails, but it sounds like one involving some kind of permanent state of static impotence.

 

Ugh.

[DrunkOffPunch]

I'm thinking back to when Lavonte was emerging and starting to reveal himself as the special player he was for us and is on Sundays currently. David would have these ridiculous, almost stupidly inflated stat lines: 20 tackles, FF, fumble recovery.

 

Every time, Pelini would almost castrate the guy afterwards. "David, actually, made a TON of mistakes out there."

 

At the time, my dad and I would just kinda laugh about it. Now I'm thinking, the most prolific guy on the field for our defense compiled 20 tackles and he had a terrible game? What does that actually mean?

 

Maybe nothing. Maybe it's a green coach flaring the arrogance of youth and staunchly believing his plan, followed EXACTLY, could yield circus tent numbers, 34 tackles, 4 picks, and a hot blonde at halftime.

 

I wouldn't read too much into that personally. More of an indirect motivational speech. David didn't seem like the kind of guy to fold under criticism, more of the type that hears it and does everything he can to fix these little 'mistakes' and get better. There's more than one way to motivate someone other than praise. Looking back at David's short career, it seems to me like it worked.

[Nebula]

I wouldn't read too much into that personally. More of an indirect motivational speech. David didn't seem like the kind of guy to fold under criticism, more of the type that hears it and does everything he can to fix these little 'mistakes' and get better. There's more than one way to motivate someone other than praise. Looking back at David's short career, it seems to me like it worked.

 

I hear where you're coming from man, which is why we used to just laugh it off. Really, that was just a stream of consciousness rumination: Reflecting on the whole tenure. Thinking about this scheme, whatever gap * X it may be.

 

I have this nettlesome pessimistic suspicion that we simply had playmaking studs at all three tiers, and our vicious destruction of opposing offenses merely a consequence of Suh scoffing at double teams while three guys lined up beside him feasted off the chaos he generated. That's not genius X and O stuff. That's an all time college DT right next to another current NFL player who often gleefully blazed past a single team while that Storm of Suh caused mass wreckage and frustration next to him...and then, whatever panicked or rushed pitch or flare to a safety valve that managed to squeak out of a wide eyed QBs hand was cleaned up by Hagg or Gomes or Prince or Dennard...or O'Hanlon. (Sic?) Remember that first or second series for Arizona in that bowl game, when Matt came flying up and just beat up a WR or RB trying to move upfield after a little screen? That was sound tackling. Our safeties haven't done that since Courtney Osborne got whatever career altering injury he incurred. (Something happened. PJ Smith or Harvey Jackson ain't hitting Gabbert like that. Just not happening.

 

This scheme, what we're doing now, is '09 offense painful to watch. I have consistently stuck by this staff for six years, and I'm not gathering pitchforks over here. I will say though...something's gotta give.

 

I am patient. Past posts of mine will illuminate that. But this guy better figure out a way to make this defense at least an average unit. Average is not an extravagant request. And the disheartening thing is that we're a long way from that. We are absolutely awful right now. Like bottom league bad. And "process" and "execution" isn't enough for me at this point...sorry. This is not a backwater school with kids playing two ways. There is enough speed and athleticism to hold opponents to 400 yards and 28 points. Yes. That is how low the bar is right now.

 

And 28 points seems too low. 400 yards? That's only gets you 2/3 of the way to Laramie.

 

Sorry guys...really longwinded, I know. Just been kind of bottling it up and trying like hell to not worry about Wyoming, focus on the 1st half against UCLA (when they arguably did as much to stop themselves on offense as we did on D.) Arguably because it's unfair to discount what the defense did manage to achieve: Look like a unit capable of getting a pretty decent offense off the field with some regularity. That's our high point. And that included a dropped snap by a punter, two short field scores for us...and some misses for plays that were there for the Bruins.

[DrunkOffPunch]

I wouldn't read too much into that personally. More of an indirect motivational speech. David didn't seem like the kind of guy to fold under criticism, more of the type that hears it and does everything he can to fix these little 'mistakes' and get better. There's more than one way to motivate someone other than praise. Looking back at David's short career, it seems to me like it worked.

 

I hear where you're coming from man, which is why we used to just laugh it off. Really, that was just a stream of consciousness rumination: Reflecting on the whole tenure. Thinking about this scheme, whatever gap * X it may be.

 

I have this nettlesome pessimistic suspicion that we simply had playmaking studs at all three tiers, and our vicious destruction of opposing offenses merely a consequence of Suh scoffing at double teams while three guys lined up beside him feasted off the chaos he generated. That's not genius X and O stuff. That's an all time college DT right next to another current NFL player who often gleefully blazed past a single team while that Storm of Suh caused mass wreckage and frustration next to him...and then, whatever panicked or rushed pitch or flare to a safety valve that managed to squeak out of a wide eyed QBs hand was cleaned up by Hagg or Gomes or Prince or Dennard...or O'Hanlon. (Sic?) Remember that first or second series for Arizona in that bowl game, when Matt came flying up and just beat up a WR or RB trying to move upfield after a little screen? That was sound tackling. Our safeties haven't done that since Courtney Osborne got whatever career altering injury he incurred. (Something happened. PJ Smith or Harvey Jackson ain't hitting Gabbert like that. Just not happening.

 

This scheme, what we're doing now, is '09 offense painful to watch. I have consistently stuck by this staff for six years, and I'm not gathering pitchforks over here. I will say though...something's gotta give.

 

I am patient. Past posts of mine will illuminate that. But this guy better figure out a way to make this defense at least an average unit. Average is not an extravagant request. And the disheartening thing is that we're a long way from that. We are absolutely awful right now. Like bottom league bad. And "process" and "execution" isn't enough for me at this point...sorry. This is not a backwater school with kids playing two ways. There is enough speed and athleticism to hold opponents to 400 yards and 28 points. Yes. That is how low the bar is right now.

 

And 28 points seems too low. 400 yards? That's only gets you 2/3 of the way to Laramie.

 

Sorry guys...really longwinded, I know. Just been kind of bottling it up and trying like hell to not worry about Wyoming, focus on the 1st half against UCLA (when they arguably did as much to stop themselves on offense as we did on D.) Arguably because it's unfair to discount what the defense did manage to achieve: Look like a unit capable of getting a pretty decent offense off the field with some regularity. That's our high point. And that included a dropped snap by a punter, two short field scores for us...and some misses for plays that were there for the Bruins.

Well said. I actually said something along the same lines as you about the safeties in a thread. It sometimes can be a real roller coaster watching this D. I mean, like you said, against an explosive UCLA O in the first quarter we really had them on the ropes. There's highs and lows. You see a guy like SJB read a QB and make a pick by jumping a route so you ask yourself why can't everybody do this?

 

That's what I don't get at times, but I'll be the first to say I'm optimistic enough that when I see something like that I believe others can do it too. We at times have seen some amazing college football players on Pelini's D. Guys like David and and Hagg who made little mistakes and were complete ball hawks. You can look at the 09/10 defenses and say well Pelini didn't recruit them, but then again most of them(besides Suh and a couple others) didn't really play that much under Callahan. That's why I believe Pelini can repeat those results.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, more or less just saying I'm an optimist. One thing to take away from the 09 D was their aggressive nature, which is made a bit easier when we were getting constant pressure with 4 guys, but the aggressive nature on this D does need to pick up, and I'm not talking about play calling. Like you said, our safeties were more aggressive, and if I am thinking correctly since our safeties are usually playing a 2 deep zone their eyes should be towards the QB. Guys like O'Hanlon were great at reading run/screen/whatever short play the offense threw at them, and we need that now.

 

OT- Was Osborne really hurt? I always wondered why we never played after taking the starting spot when he was a Freshman/Sophmore. Really liked him as a player.

[The Dude]

As to the second, we've actually gotten decent pressure this year

Between the 20s?

[ADS]

the Huskers are actively looking at different solutions.

 

 

One is more blitzes. Nebraska has plenty of those — Pelini has never lacked for creativity — and has used them to complement his preferred run defense.

 

I'm a little confused by this...

 

Most of the time they only send 4 guys, and haven't been very aggresive with their blitzes if at all this year. Is this going to change against Illinois, or is it going to be the same thing we've seen for the past two years....

Go rewatch the Wyoming game. And, I believe, a good part of the S. Miss game. We brought some sort of blitz or stunt about half the time against Wyoming.

We started blitzing SDSU after the first quarter as well.

[StPaulHusker]

More blitzing? What a concept to have when you have actual fast players on your defense.

[jmfb]

 

 

When has our O looked the most fluid this year? IMO, SDSU. Granted it was a FCS school, BUT it flowed from one play to the next. No penalties, no "too many guys in the backfield" etc..... The O played in a way to support the D. Sustained drives to eat the clock, give the D a breather and allow them to be coached "in game". According to Beck it was a pared down O. Instead of practicing 15 things 5 times, Beck says they practiced 5 things 15 times. After UCLA Beck even said I watched film and realized I called things we only ran 3 times all week.

 

Simple doesn't mean easy. It doesn't mean worse. Try it Bo. It worked with the O.

<img class="UMSRatingIcon" id="ums_img_tooltip" />

But hey too many guys in the backfield was against great competition

Since SDSU was just a FBS school, that doesnt count

It's a LOT harder to align properly and get into a good stance against better competition

NOTE- the NU guys I know who played in the 90s said that Osborne had 100s of plays in his playbook

BUT that on specific game weeks, they would practice just 12-18 plays for MOST of practice. Those plays were plays TO felt very confident would work against that weeks Opp

This is why our Speed Option looks so awful- one of the reasons anyways

[Chaddyboxer]

I wonder how Sam gets along with the rest of the Herald staff (primarily Lee and Holy hell look at the size of my front teeth guy, whatever his name is.) I bet there's a degree of iciness. Sam doesn't EVER come off churlish or intentionally antagonistic. He just consistently churns out incredibly informative articles. I bet lee friggin hates the guy.

 

Anybody feel like the staff has absolutely no idea how to trigger some kind of growth or progress? I know we are really young, and we swung and missed on a bunch of guys...and man, if you're starting or giving substantial playing time to true freshmen on the line (either line) you've got about a 90% chance of having some thin borders. Peat and Rome flaming out really, really hurt. Both highly touted guys, both heavily sought after...there is SUCH a difference in physical growth between the ages of 18 and 23 that occur. Those are the man strength years, and these kids are still growing. Except for Ankrah and Randle, who are exceedingly mediocre and permanently wounded, respectively.

 

Just not good. The LBs...I dunno. They have some athletes. Young, again, but faster and grade out higher on the eye test than guys like Whaley and some of the other rather pedestrian guys we've trotted out the last few years. (No offense.) But I don't see anyone emerging from that pool of youth and having double digit tackle/turnover producing Saturdays yet.

 

I'm thinking back to when Lavonte was emerging and starting to reveal himself as the special player he was for us and is on Sundays currently. David would have these ridiculous, almost stupidly inflated stat lines: 20 tackles, FF, fumble recovery.

 

Every time, Pelini would almost castrate the guy afterwards. "David, actually, made a TON of mistakes out there."

 

At the time, my dad and I would just kinda laugh about it. Now I'm thinking, the most prolific guy on the field for our defense compiled 20 tackles and he had a terrible game? What does that actually mean?

 

Maybe nothing. Maybe it's a green coach flaring the arrogance of youth and staunchly believing his plan, followed EXACTLY, could yield circus tent numbers, 34 tackles, 4 picks, and a hot blonde at halftime.

 

Now though, when we've literally entered Cosgrove era timidity (I'll see your approaching and raise you an arrival, knapp,) those post game comments are on my mind for some reason. It's kind of...nonsensical and idiotic in a way, isn't it? If the guy making a litany of plays is playing the wrong way...is the defense conceived soundly?

 

I just don't know. Maybe you murder people if you have Suh or that LSU tackle whose name eludes me at the moment...and if not, you have what is in all honesty an embarrassingly confused and dazed collection of guys who are not even set 1 out of every 3 snaps. If you can't even get your guys set and ready to play...if they stand with their hands up in the universal "wha?" gesture...that's a product of inadequate coaching. These guys aren't prepared. They don't even know what they're supposed to do a third of the time. I don't know what process that entails, but it sounds like one involving some kind of permanent state of static impotence.

 

Ugh.

This is some good stuff Nebula. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?