An analysis of OC Tim Beck.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Best part of this game was our last TD drive. We started at the Miami 40 after their multiple asshat personal foul penalties following Kalu's interception. Ameer had already run the ball 29 times that game. There was no mystery about who was getting the ball anymore. If there's a guy you need to stop, it's Ameer.

 

1st & 10, Miami 40 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 3 yards. Miami penalty, personal foul for 15 yards.

1st & 10, Miami 22 - Ameer rush up middle for 3 yards

2nd & 7, Miami 19 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 6 yards

3rd & 1, Miami 13 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

1st & Goal, Miami 9 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

2nd & Goal, Miami 5 - False start, Nebraska (-5 yards)

2nd & Goal, Miami 10 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN

 

 

It was really simple stuff. Hat on hat, grinding it out, finding out who's the better man. They knew (or should have known) Ameer was getting the ball. He got the ball. They just couldn't stop him.

 

Six rushes, average of five yards per rush, Touchdown. Game.

 

Miami was gassed. If you have the luxury of sticking with a between the tackles running game, this is the advantage. The fourth quarter is all yours.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I also don't think you can underestimate how helpful it is for Abdullah that the other option on the option play -- an Armstrong keeper -- is at least as lethal.

[Mavric]

 

Best part of this game was our last TD drive. We started at the Miami 40 after their multiple asshat personal foul penalties following Kalu's interception. Ameer had already run the ball 29 times that game. There was no mystery about who was getting the ball anymore. If there's a guy you need to stop, it's Ameer.

 

1st & 10, Miami 40 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 3 yards. Miami penalty, personal foul for 15 yards.

1st & 10, Miami 22 - Ameer rush up middle for 3 yards

2nd & 7, Miami 19 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 6 yards

3rd & 1, Miami 13 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

1st & Goal, Miami 9 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

2nd & Goal, Miami 5 - False start, Nebraska (-5 yards)

2nd & Goal, Miami 10 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN

 

 

It was really simple stuff. Hat on hat, grinding it out, finding out who's the better man. They knew (or should have known) Ameer was getting the ball. He got the ball. They just couldn't stop him.

 

Six rushes, average of five yards per rush, Touchdown. Game.

 

Miami was gassed. If you have the luxury of sticking with a between the tackles running game, this is the advantage. The fourth quarter is all yours.

 

 

Said this at halftime. "It is a 1994-esque running game going on. Run it down their throats. We should be able to wear them out in the second half."

 

Just what the Doctor (Tom) ordered.

[In the Deed the Glory]

I also don't think you can underestimate how helpful it is for Abdullah that the other option on the option play -- an Armstrong keeper -- is at least as lethal.

As lethal? Don't know a out that, but he is a tangible threat. This can do many of the same things as an intermediate passing game...

[walksalone]

I was ecstatic how he called this past game. I saw a FB, even two TE's (which almost gave me a coronary) which I didn't know if I was ever going to see again?

 

I just hope this isn't a one time deal, and this style of offense continues...

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

I also don't think you can underestimate how helpful it is for Abdullah that the other option on the option play -- an Armstrong keeper -- is at least as lethal.

As lethal? Don't know a out that, but he is a tangible threat. This can do many of the same things as an intermediate passing game...

 

 

Tommy Armstrong is averaging nearly 9 yards a carry, sixth best in the nation.

 

Ameer doesn't have the choice of deciding when he gets the ball, so Tommy can choose his spots. But the combo is very good for each other.

[NUinID]

 

I really have to give Beck credit. He really went away from his natural need to get too cute and try and pass when it wasn't needed. He always comes out in one series and throws 3 straight downs and he didn't do that on Saturday.

 

But did you notice those two crucial sequences when we got the ball on our own 5 after the interception, Beck ran it three straight times with Abdullah and we were forced to punt?

 

Then again at the Miami 5 yard line, he ran it three straight times with Abdullah and we were forced to kick a field goal?

 

Sometimes three straight passes is no different from three straight runs.

 

Passes aren't cute. They're awesome. And they only help the running game.

 

That is not what I meant by saying cute. I want a good passing game just like anyone else.

 

But, when the game is on the line and the running game is really working as it was against Miami, there is no reason to pass just to be passing the ball. Beck wants to throw the ball, but if you can win the game without doing it a lot than I have no problem with that.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I got it.

 

Just seems like a lot of folks here perceive passing as a weakness or last resort rather than a healthy and even fun part of the game.

 

Doesn't appear to me that Beck passes the ball just to pass the ball. Our passing helps win games, too. Some accuse Beck of "flinging it all over the place" but we're in the Top 20 for Passing Efficiency, so that doesn't seem fair.

 

I think most coaches would love to just shove the ball down the other teams throat, and that was especially fun against Miami. Chances are it won't work so well against other teams (as it didn't against McNeese State) so I hope we don't freak out when the passing ratio goes up a few ticks. Doesn't necessarily mean Beck's abandoning the running game, just keeping the defenses honest.

[EmeraldIngot]

 

 

You brought up some good points, and if you read carefully, your points support my analysis. Beck has been taking advantage of what's been given. When opponents load the box, though, a long bomb is not always going to work, and against a heavy blitz, standing in the pocket and waiting for deep routes to develop will lead to sacks. This is why I emphasized the use of quick routes, especially by TEs and RBs out of the backfield, to defeat a heavy blitz. If you read carefully, I praised a lot of what Tim Beck was doing. I didn't agree with all of it and I offered tweaks to an already good system to make it better.

After the Miami game, I really feel that Beck is maturing as an OC, and he will be a good one. Nebraska football is and should always be based on the run game. But when the opponent sells out to stop it, that's when we need to have a complete passing game as well. That includes the short routes. Beck already does well with his long routes, no doubt about it, but the short routes can be just as effective as a supplement to the deep routes on the same play. If you send a TE on an out route or an angle route or a slant or whatever kind of short route, and you send the two outside receivers on streaks and the slot on a post, and Abdullah on a wheel out of the backfield, you can do a lot. If the safeties play the deep routes, or focus on the streaks, you might be able to slip one into the post route, but only if the slot has beaten his man. Those TD passes to Westy and Bell that have gone for touchdowns used this simple read. But let's say all the deep routes are covered. This puts the LBs in a bad spot, because they'll have to cover both the TE and the RB, and with three WRs on the field, the D will have had to be in a Nickel package at the very least. That means one on one against a TE, a match up that we can exploit for good yardage, or a one on one against Abdullah, which I would take any given play on any given Saturday. And that is assuming they didn't blitz one or both of their LBs, which would leave one or both of those short routes wide open, and open quickly enough that Armstrong could get the ball out well before he gets sacked. If you exploit the short routes, they'll either roll their coverage down to cover them, which will leave the deep routes wide open, or they will stop stacking the box, which will let Abdullah run wild. Those short passes added to what we already do well, would make our offense much more versatile, and a much bigger threat than it already is.

 

I think we have seen the barest glimmer of these tweaks, but I guarantee you that we will need them to beat MSU.

 

 

You're suggesting that we make the TE's, RB's, and even FB's to be primary receivers. A concept that I LOVE. I dislike the idea of the traditional screen, so I would throw that out the window (although, Ameer made a huge play on a screen vs McNeese St). However, a play that takes safeties and CB's away from the LB-RB match up is a concept that I have always loved. The wheel route out of the backfield something good, but you aren't guaranteed that match up every time depending on what the coverage is. For example: that play doesn't work with the way that MSU plays their very complicated cover 4 scheme. It can be exploited if someone makes the wrong read while in coverage, but any route would work then.

 

I am in love with plays drawn up that "clear" the area around the LB-RB match up. One place I would look, is how Miami did it to us. Granted, our LB was just plainly out of position, but Miami made Duke Johnson the primary receiver on a few plays. It didn't work every time, but it was very noticeable when it did work.

 

We scored those two TE touchdowns against Fresno because the TE was the primary receiver (along with the slot receiver running a wheel route) in which Tommy had to make a coverage read. Tommy made the right read when the LB moved towards the wheel route. That play, is a perfect example of what a lot of us would like to see.

 

Anyway, great ideas. I love this thread! I wish we did more talking about actual football on here like this. I often get a little sick of just "Tommy doesn't throw no good..." comments repeated times 12 with 4 people that agree and 9 people that disagree.

Thank you for this post. It certainly is nice to be able to discuss the nuts and bolts of football strategy with people who really know their stuff.

 

I don't necessarily want AA out of the backfield to be the primary reciever, but a check down pressure release option. But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

 

I'm more of an offensive mind, I kind of understand some of the schemes and coverages and the overall strategy of defense, which is a must to be able to plan against it, but planning a defense and whatnot is not my strong suit. I had always thought that MSU played mostly some cover 2 and an occasional coverage rotation into cover 3, but only rarely a cover 4. I know they like to play an odd combination of one and two gap techniques on the d-line. I can also see a number of parallels between Bo's defense and MSUs defense, which is why our offense usually does so well against it... but I don't always 'get it' when trying to figure out a defense's goals...

 

If you are good at defense, I would encourage you to start an analysis thread like this one, only with the Husker defense... and maybe an analysis of MSU's d...

[ericj207]

 

Best part of this game was our last TD drive. We started at the Miami 40 after their multiple asshat personal foul penalties following Kalu's interception. Ameer had already run the ball 29 times that game. There was no mystery about who was getting the ball anymore. If there's a guy you need to stop, it's Ameer.

 

1st & 10, Miami 40 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 3 yards. Miami penalty, personal foul for 15 yards.

1st & 10, Miami 22 - Ameer rush up middle for 3 yards

2nd & 7, Miami 19 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 6 yards

3rd & 1, Miami 13 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

1st & Goal, Miami 9 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

2nd & Goal, Miami 5 - False start, Nebraska (-5 yards)

2nd & Goal, Miami 10 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN

 

 

It was really simple stuff. Hat on hat, grinding it out, finding out who's the better man. They knew (or should have known) Ameer was getting the ball. He got the ball. They just couldn't stop him.

 

Six rushes, average of five yards per rush, Touchdown. Game.

 

Miami was gassed. If you have the luxury of sticking with a between the tackles running game, this is the advantage. The fourth quarter is all yours.

 

Miami was gasses. However, they were gassed because we pounded them in the mouth for three quarters before that. This is the reason you have to stick to your gameplan for the entirety of a game (assuming you are having some success). I am not saying run the ball 70 times a game and throwing 5. You have to keep the defense honest, but we were beating their front 7, so why change until they force you to?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

Best part of this game was our last TD drive. We started at the Miami 40 after their multiple asshat personal foul penalties following Kalu's interception. Ameer had already run the ball 29 times that game. There was no mystery about who was getting the ball anymore. If there's a guy you need to stop, it's Ameer.

 

1st & 10, Miami 40 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 3 yards. Miami penalty, personal foul for 15 yards.

1st & 10, Miami 22 - Ameer rush up middle for 3 yards

2nd & 7, Miami 19 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 6 yards

3rd & 1, Miami 13 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

1st & Goal, Miami 9 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 4 yards

2nd & Goal, Miami 5 - False start, Nebraska (-5 yards)

2nd & Goal, Miami 10 - Ameer rush over right tackle for 10 yards, TOUCHDOWN

 

 

It was really simple stuff. Hat on hat, grinding it out, finding out who's the better man. They knew (or should have known) Ameer was getting the ball. He got the ball. They just couldn't stop him.

 

Six rushes, average of five yards per rush, Touchdown. Game.

 

Miami was gassed. If you have the luxury of sticking with a between the tackles running game, this is the advantage. The fourth quarter is all yours.

 

Miami was gasses. However, they were gassed because we pounded them in the mouth for three quarters before that. This is the reason you have to stick to your gameplan for the entirety of a game (assuming you are having some success). I am not saying run the ball 70 times a game and throwing 5. You have to keep the defense honest, but we were beating their front 7, so why change until they force you to?

 

 

No argument there.

 

The key is your parenthetical "assuming you are having some success." Minus the breakaway touchdown against Fresno State, Ameer had only 108 yards on 35 carries the previous two games. Offensive line didn't appear to have enough punch against McNeese State. If we can pound it we will pound it, but knowing that every DC we have to face has access to game films, I'm guessing it won't be as easy as it was against Miami.

 

As someone pointed out, the Tommy Armstrong 9 yard keeper essentially replaces the short passing game.

 

It's nice to have the weapons we have.

[In the Deed the Glory]

 

 

You brought up some good points, and if you read carefully, your points support my analysis. Beck has been taking advantage of what's been given. When opponents load the box, though, a long bomb is not always going to work, and against a heavy blitz, standing in the pocket and waiting for deep routes to develop will lead to sacks. This is why I emphasized the use of quick routes, especially by TEs and RBs out of the backfield, to defeat a heavy blitz. If you read carefully, I praised a lot of what Tim Beck was doing. I didn't agree with all of it and I offered tweaks to an already good system to make it better.

After the Miami game, I really feel that Beck is maturing as an OC, and he will be a good one. Nebraska football is and should always be based on the run game. But when the opponent sells out to stop it, that's when we need to have a complete passing game as well. That includes the short routes. Beck already does well with his long routes, no doubt about it, but the short routes can be just as effective as a supplement to the deep routes on the same play. If you send a TE on an out route or an angle route or a slant or whatever kind of short route, and you send the two outside receivers on streaks and the slot on a post, and Abdullah on a wheel out of the backfield, you can do a lot. If the safeties play the deep routes, or focus on the streaks, you might be able to slip one into the post route, but only if the slot has beaten his man. Those TD passes to Westy and Bell that have gone for touchdowns used this simple read. But let's say all the deep routes are covered. This puts the LBs in a bad spot, because they'll have to cover both the TE and the RB, and with three WRs on the field, the D will have had to be in a Nickel package at the very least. That means one on one against a TE, a match up that we can exploit for good yardage, or a one on one against Abdullah, which I would take any given play on any given Saturday. And that is assuming they didn't blitz one or both of their LBs, which would leave one or both of those short routes wide open, and open quickly enough that Armstrong could get the ball out well before he gets sacked. If you exploit the short routes, they'll either roll their coverage down to cover them, which will leave the deep routes wide open, or they will stop stacking the box, which will let Abdullah run wild. Those short passes added to what we already do well, would make our offense much more versatile, and a much bigger threat than it already is.

 

I think we have seen the barest glimmer of these tweaks, but I guarantee you that we will need them to beat MSU.

 

 

You're suggesting that we make the TE's, RB's, and even FB's to be primary receivers. A concept that I LOVE. I dislike the idea of the traditional screen, so I would throw that out the window (although, Ameer made a huge play on a screen vs McNeese St). However, a play that takes safeties and CB's away from the LB-RB match up is a concept that I have always loved. The wheel route out of the backfield something good, but you aren't guaranteed that match up every time depending on what the coverage is. For example: that play doesn't work with the way that MSU plays their very complicated cover 4 scheme. It can be exploited if someone makes the wrong read while in coverage, but any route would work then.

 

I am in love with plays drawn up that "clear" the area around the LB-RB match up. One place I would look, is how Miami did it to us. Granted, our LB was just plainly out of position, but Miami made Duke Johnson the primary receiver on a few plays. It didn't work every time, but it was very noticeable when it did work.

 

We scored those two TE touchdowns against Fresno because the TE was the primary receiver (along with the slot receiver running a wheel route) in which Tommy had to make a coverage read. Tommy made the right read when the LB moved towards the wheel route. That play, is a perfect example of what a lot of us would like to see.

 

Anyway, great ideas. I love this thread! I wish we did more talking about actual football on here like this. I often get a little sick of just "Tommy doesn't throw no good..." comments repeated times 12 with 4 people that agree and 9 people that disagree.

Thank you for this post. It certainly is nice to be able to discuss the nuts and bolts of football strategy with people who really know their stuff.

 

I don't necessarily want AA out of the backfield to be the primary reciever, but a check down pressure release option. But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

 

I'm more of an offensive mind, I kind of understand some of the schemes and coverages and the overall strategy of defense, which is a must to be able to plan against it, but planning a defense and whatnot is not my strong suit. I had always thought that MSU played mostly some cover 2 and an occasional coverage rotation into cover 3, but only rarely a cover 4. I know they like to play an odd combination of one and two gap techniques on the d-line. I can also see a number of parallels between Bo's defense and MSUs defense, which is why our offense usually does so well against it... but I don't always 'get it' when trying to figure out a defense's goals...

 

If you are good at defense, I would encourage you to start an analysis thread like this one, only with the Husker defense... and maybe an analysis of MSU's d...

 

 

I would love for somebody to break this down as to the reasons why MSU uses this DL technique. I have seen snaps where they were two gap with their ends and gap responsibility with the tackles. I have seen several different combinations. I have seen that this allows more freedom from their SS in pass coverage as it allows another LB to play flat and middle.

 

It is really cool what Narduzzi is doing. Bo's defense was very innovative against the spread pass game but has holes against spread option. Narduzzi has kind of taken those basic ideas and expanded them to be able to cover everything depending on line responsibilities. They must recruit football IQ first on DL before all other measurables/intangibles.

[EmeraldIngot]

 

 

 

 

You brought up some good points, and if you read carefully, your points support my analysis. Beck has been taking advantage of what's been given. When opponents load the box, though, a long bomb is not always going to work, and against a heavy blitz, standing in the pocket and waiting for deep routes to develop will lead to sacks. This is why I emphasized the use of quick routes, especially by TEs and RBs out of the backfield, to defeat a heavy blitz. If you read carefully, I praised a lot of what Tim Beck was doing. I didn't agree with all of it and I offered tweaks to an already good system to make it better.

After the Miami game, I really feel that Beck is maturing as an OC, and he will be a good one. Nebraska football is and should always be based on the run game. But when the opponent sells out to stop it, that's when we need to have a complete passing game as well. That includes the short routes. Beck already does well with his long routes, no doubt about it, but the short routes can be just as effective as a supplement to the deep routes on the same play. If you send a TE on an out route or an angle route or a slant or whatever kind of short route, and you send the two outside receivers on streaks and the slot on a post, and Abdullah on a wheel out of the backfield, you can do a lot. If the safeties play the deep routes, or focus on the streaks, you might be able to slip one into the post route, but only if the slot has beaten his man. Those TD passes to Westy and Bell that have gone for touchdowns used this simple read. But let's say all the deep routes are covered. This puts the LBs in a bad spot, because they'll have to cover both the TE and the RB, and with three WRs on the field, the D will have had to be in a Nickel package at the very least. That means one on one against a TE, a match up that we can exploit for good yardage, or a one on one against Abdullah, which I would take any given play on any given Saturday. And that is assuming they didn't blitz one or both of their LBs, which would leave one or both of those short routes wide open, and open quickly enough that Armstrong could get the ball out well before he gets sacked. If you exploit the short routes, they'll either roll their coverage down to cover them, which will leave the deep routes wide open, or they will stop stacking the box, which will let Abdullah run wild. Those short passes added to what we already do well, would make our offense much more versatile, and a much bigger threat than it already is.

 

I think we have seen the barest glimmer of these tweaks, but I guarantee you that we will need them to beat MSU.

 

 

You're suggesting that we make the TE's, RB's, and even FB's to be primary receivers. A concept that I LOVE. I dislike the idea of the traditional screen, so I would throw that out the window (although, Ameer made a huge play on a screen vs McNeese St). However, a play that takes safeties and CB's away from the LB-RB match up is a concept that I have always loved. The wheel route out of the backfield something good, but you aren't guaranteed that match up every time depending on what the coverage is. For example: that play doesn't work with the way that MSU plays their very complicated cover 4 scheme. It can be exploited if someone makes the wrong read while in coverage, but any route would work then.

 

I am in love with plays drawn up that "clear" the area around the LB-RB match up. One place I would look, is how Miami did it to us. Granted, our LB was just plainly out of position, but Miami made Duke Johnson the primary receiver on a few plays. It didn't work every time, but it was very noticeable when it did work.

 

We scored those two TE touchdowns against Fresno because the TE was the primary receiver (along with the slot receiver running a wheel route) in which Tommy had to make a coverage read. Tommy made the right read when the LB moved towards the wheel route. That play, is a perfect example of what a lot of us would like to see.

 

Anyway, great ideas. I love this thread! I wish we did more talking about actual football on here like this. I often get a little sick of just "Tommy doesn't throw no good..." comments repeated times 12 with 4 people that agree and 9 people that disagree.

Thank you for this post. It certainly is nice to be able to discuss the nuts and bolts of football strategy with people who really know their stuff.

 

I don't necessarily want AA out of the backfield to be the primary reciever, but a check down pressure release option. But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

 

I'm more of an offensive mind, I kind of understand some of the schemes and coverages and the overall strategy of defense, which is a must to be able to plan against it, but planning a defense and whatnot is not my strong suit. I had always thought that MSU played mostly some cover 2 and an occasional coverage rotation into cover 3, but only rarely a cover 4. I know they like to play an odd combination of one and two gap techniques on the d-line. I can also see a number of parallels between Bo's defense and MSUs defense, which is why our offense usually does so well against it... but I don't always 'get it' when trying to figure out a defense's goals...

 

If you are good at defense, I would encourage you to start an analysis thread like this one, only with the Husker defense... and maybe an analysis of MSU's d...

I would love for somebody to break this down as to the reasons why MSU uses this DL technique. I have seen snaps where they were two gap with their ends and gap responsibility with the tackles. I have seen several different combinations. I have seen that this allows more freedom from their SS in pass coverage as it allows another LB to play flat and middle.

 

It is really cool what Narduzzi is doing. Bo's defense was very innovative against the spread pass game but has holes against spread option. Narduzzi has kind of taken those basic ideas and expanded them to be able to cover everything depending on line responsibilities. They must recruit football IQ first on DL before all other measurables/intangibles.

You're probably right about football IQ. The best that I can figure out is that one gap assignments work better with LBs who play contain, as it allows the d-line the freedom to penetrate into the backfield and disrupt whatever is going on. Obviously, this is better against both power running offenses who use assignment blocking, and against the pass. A two gap assignment, which I've seen a lot of people on this board deride as "d-line playing patty-cake" is actually a much more difficult assignment, because not only do you have to try and push back an o-lineman, but to read what's happening in the backfield and react to whatever was going on. This technique is better against zone blocking schemes, and with supremely talented d-linemen, can also be effective against the pass. During his time here, Suh actually used a lot of two gap. That one particular play where he pushed an o-lineman into a quarterback to get a sack is an extreme example...

 

Anyway, MSU, to the best of my knowledge, likes to put the strong side DE and both DTs into two gap, and rush the weak side DE (Shallique Calhoun in recent years in this case) around the edge to get QB pressure while everyone else drops into a stifling coverage. This combo can be used on nearly every play, and Narduzzi is really good at combining this base play with zone blitzes. Since Gregory joined the team last year, we have been doing something very similar, though in our case, we have had Gregory swing out wide as if pass rushing, then slip into a two gap against the OT to decide whether to play contain against the outside run, crash against the inside run, or charge down the QB. This, combined with his size and speed, is why Gregory is a guaranteed first round pick. If you watch our d-line when we "play patty-cake", more often than naught Valentine, Collins, and McMullen will push a little into the backfield, and then peek around whoever is blocking them to read the backfield. This is why we stuff the run so much, because our d-line is basically playing contain at first before making a read and committing to an action. MSU does much of the same thing on D. With the d-line playing contain, it allows the LBs to play coverage first before having to crash down to support the run. It truly does work very well, and can be run regardless of what coverage is behind it, or what kind of blitz packages you dial up with it.

 

Unfortunately, aside from the knowledge of coverage schemes, both man and zone, and some blitz packages, with both man and zone coverage behind it, is about the entire extent of my knowledge of Defense...

[Hayseed]

"Along with his deep passing attack, he needs to include the TEs and RBs in short out routes, middle slants, crossing routes, and wheel routes as check downs on every deep pass play. This will stretch the defense vertically and horizontally, forcing them to defend the whole field every play. Further more, he has shown almost a complete absence of screens, curls, and other quick passing attacks, especially in the face of a blitzing opponent. Against McNeece State, one or two deep routes combined with two to four quick routes could have gotten our athletes into open space against few defenders to make big gains against their heavy blitzes. Hell, two slants across the middle when they brought their LBs (which they did often) could have broken their D. This problem has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with scheme. The upside is that it can be quickly remedied."

Great thread. I agree with this and suspect Tim will be calling these kinds of outlet passes when they stack the line. We have plenty of guys who excel in the open field....Abdullah, Newby, Bell, Pierson-El.....and the TE's have hardly been thrown to. We don't have to throw 20 yards sideways to do this either. Beck isn't stupid, he wants to open it up if possible but he doesn't want to take unnecessary, possibly game-changing risks either.

[In the Deed the Glory]

 

 

 

 

You brought up some good points, and if you read carefully, your points support my analysis. Beck has been taking advantage of what's been given. When opponents load the box, though, a long bomb is not always going to work, and against a heavy blitz, standing in the pocket and waiting for deep routes to develop will lead to sacks. This is why I emphasized the use of quick routes, especially by TEs and RBs out of the backfield, to defeat a heavy blitz. If you read carefully, I praised a lot of what Tim Beck was doing. I didn't agree with all of it and I offered tweaks to an already good system to make it better.

After the Miami game, I really feel that Beck is maturing as an OC, and he will be a good one. Nebraska football is and should always be based on the run game. But when the opponent sells out to stop it, that's when we need to have a complete passing game as well. That includes the short routes. Beck already does well with his long routes, no doubt about it, but the short routes can be just as effective as a supplement to the deep routes on the same play. If you send a TE on an out route or an angle route or a slant or whatever kind of short route, and you send the two outside receivers on streaks and the slot on a post, and Abdullah on a wheel out of the backfield, you can do a lot. If the safeties play the deep routes, or focus on the streaks, you might be able to slip one into the post route, but only if the slot has beaten his man. Those TD passes to Westy and Bell that have gone for touchdowns used this simple read. But let's say all the deep routes are covered. This puts the LBs in a bad spot, because they'll have to cover both the TE and the RB, and with three WRs on the field, the D will have had to be in a Nickel package at the very least. That means one on one against a TE, a match up that we can exploit for good yardage, or a one on one against Abdullah, which I would take any given play on any given Saturday. And that is assuming they didn't blitz one or both of their LBs, which would leave one or both of those short routes wide open, and open quickly enough that Armstrong could get the ball out well before he gets sacked. If you exploit the short routes, they'll either roll their coverage down to cover them, which will leave the deep routes wide open, or they will stop stacking the box, which will let Abdullah run wild. Those short passes added to what we already do well, would make our offense much more versatile, and a much bigger threat than it already is.

 

I think we have seen the barest glimmer of these tweaks, but I guarantee you that we will need them to beat MSU.

 

 

You're suggesting that we make the TE's, RB's, and even FB's to be primary receivers. A concept that I LOVE. I dislike the idea of the traditional screen, so I would throw that out the window (although, Ameer made a huge play on a screen vs McNeese St). However, a play that takes safeties and CB's away from the LB-RB match up is a concept that I have always loved. The wheel route out of the backfield something good, but you aren't guaranteed that match up every time depending on what the coverage is. For example: that play doesn't work with the way that MSU plays their very complicated cover 4 scheme. It can be exploited if someone makes the wrong read while in coverage, but any route would work then.

 

I am in love with plays drawn up that "clear" the area around the LB-RB match up. One place I would look, is how Miami did it to us. Granted, our LB was just plainly out of position, but Miami made Duke Johnson the primary receiver on a few plays. It didn't work every time, but it was very noticeable when it did work.

 

We scored those two TE touchdowns against Fresno because the TE was the primary receiver (along with the slot receiver running a wheel route) in which Tommy had to make a coverage read. Tommy made the right read when the LB moved towards the wheel route. That play, is a perfect example of what a lot of us would like to see.

 

Anyway, great ideas. I love this thread! I wish we did more talking about actual football on here like this. I often get a little sick of just "Tommy doesn't throw no good..." comments repeated times 12 with 4 people that agree and 9 people that disagree.

Thank you for this post. It certainly is nice to be able to discuss the nuts and bolts of football strategy with people who really know their stuff.

 

I don't necessarily want AA out of the backfield to be the primary reciever, but a check down pressure release option. But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

 

I'm more of an offensive mind, I kind of understand some of the schemes and coverages and the overall strategy of defense, which is a must to be able to plan against it, but planning a defense and whatnot is not my strong suit. I had always thought that MSU played mostly some cover 2 and an occasional coverage rotation into cover 3, but only rarely a cover 4. I know they like to play an odd combination of one and two gap techniques on the d-line. I can also see a number of parallels between Bo's defense and MSUs defense, which is why our offense usually does so well against it... but I don't always 'get it' when trying to figure out a defense's goals...

 

If you are good at defense, I would encourage you to start an analysis thread like this one, only with the Husker defense... and maybe an analysis of MSU's d...

I would love for somebody to break this down as to the reasons why MSU uses this DL technique. I have seen snaps where they were two gap with their ends and gap responsibility with the tackles. I have seen several different combinations. I have seen that this allows more freedom from their SS in pass coverage as it allows another LB to play flat and middle.

 

It is really cool what Narduzzi is doing. Bo's defense was very innovative against the spread pass game but has holes against spread option. Narduzzi has kind of taken those basic ideas and expanded them to be able to cover everything depending on line responsibilities. They must recruit football IQ first on DL before all other measurables/intangibles.

You're probably right about football IQ. The best that I can figure out is that one gap assignments work better with LBs who play contain, as it allows the d-line the freedom to penetrate into the backfield and disrupt whatever is going on. Obviously, this is better against both power running offenses who use assignment blocking, and against the pass. A two gap assignment, which I've seen a lot of people on this board deride as "d-line playing patty-cake" is actually a much more difficult assignment, because not only do you have to try and push back an o-lineman, but to read what's happening in the backfield and react to whatever was going on. This technique is better against zone blocking schemes, and with supremely talented d-linemen, can also be effective against the pass. During his time here, Suh actually used a lot of two gap. That one particular play where he pushed an o-lineman into a quarterback to get a sack is an extreme example...

 

Anyway, MSU, to the best of my knowledge, likes to put the strong side DE and both DTs into two gap, and rush the weak side DE (Shallique Calhoun in recent years in this case) around the edge to get QB pressure while everyone else drops into a stifling coverage. This combo can be used on nearly every play, and Narduzzi is really good at combining this base play with zone blitzes. Since Gregory joined the team last year, we have been doing something very similar, though in our case, we have had Gregory swing out wide as if pass rushing, then slip into a two gap against the OT to decide whether to play contain against the outside run, crash against the inside run, or charge down the QB. This, combined with his size and speed, is why Gregory is a guaranteed first round pick. If you watch our d-line when we "play patty-cake", more often than naught Valentine, Collins, and McMullen will push a little into the backfield, and then peek around whoever is blocking them to read the backfield. This is why we stuff the run so much, because our d-line is basically playing contain at first before making a read and committing to an action. MSU does much of the same thing on D. With the d-line playing contain, it allows the LBs to play coverage first before having to crash down to support the run. It truly does work very well, and can be run regardless of what coverage is behind it, or what kind of blitz packages you dial up with it.

 

Unfortunately, aside from the knowledge of coverage schemes, both man and zone, and some blitz packages, with both man and zone coverage behind it, is about the entire extent of my knowledge of Defense...

 

 

As far as what each type of gap responsibilities are, I understand that well. Thank you for the awesome analysis of how that effects the back 7. I haven't watched a lot of MSU, but today I noticed they do a lot of the same things as us. Man with 2-deep safety zone stuff which is their "quarters" d, moving guys around, even some "spinner", zone blitz, corner blitz off with a LB/S covering that spot, DE dropping. Eerily similar.

 

Maybe this is why we have so much success offensively against them. We have a "guru" of similar defense at work helping game plan for them.