Jump to content
knapplc

The Blackshirts

Recommended Posts

The following is a copypasta from a post I made in early August, 2013. The story continues below.

 

 


 

The biggest problem I have with Bo's method is there's no consistency. The criteria for earning them doesn't seem set in stone, and it appears he uses them as a motivational tool. Unfortunately, it often doesn't motivate anything.

Look at how the team has earned them, and what happened after they earned them, through Bo's tenure.

2008

Earned: Blackshirts were handed out after the 10th game, a victory over Kansas where we gave up 35 points and 422 yards. A fair portion of those points/yards came in garbage time, as Nebraska led 31-21 in the fourth quarter before both teams' defenses coasted and each scored twice more.

Next Game: A victory over Kansas State where we gave up 28 points and 247 yards. The Huskers won their last three games after receiving the Blackshirts.


2009

Earned: Blackshirts were handed out after the 6th game, a loss at home to Texas Tech where we gave up 31 points but only 259 yards. This was the game where the Tech QB (I forget his name) threw up half a dozen prayers and his WRs made circus catches. Tremendously lucky game for Tech.

Next Game: A loss at home to Iowa State where we gave up 9 points and 239 yards. This was the infamous 8-turnover game where everyone fumbled and Lee threw costly picks. The Huskers won six of their last seven games after receiving the Blackshirts, the lone loss coming against Texas in the Big XII CCG, the infamous 00:01 game.


2010

Earned: Blackshirts were handed out after the 4th game, a victory over South Dakota State where we gave up 3 points and 236 yards. This was a very ugly game, you'll recall, where the Jackrabbits had several concerning drives. Error-filled on the part of the offense, though.

Next Game: A victory over Kansas State where we gave up 13 points and 315 yards on Bill Snyder's birthday. A parting gift as we left the Big XII for Eric the Red's favorite team. :D The Huskers went 5-4 to finish the season and lost three of their last four. The defense gave up an average of 18 points per loss, but the offense was terrible.


2011

Earned: Blackshirts were handed out after the 8th game, a victory over Michigan State where we gave up 3 points and 187 yards. Nobody can say the defense didn't earn their Blackshirts after this game as they stifled a decent Sparty offense, holding the Big 10's best WR, BJ Cunningham, without a catch.

Next Game: A loss to Northwestern where we gave up 28 points and 468 yards to a team that finished the season 6-7. We couldn't stop a simple crossing pattern all game long and appeared disinterested on defense. Nebraska went 2-2 to end the season, including losses to Michigan and South Carolina where we gave up 45 and 30 points.


2012

Earned: Blackshirts were handed out after the 8th game, a victory over Michigan where we gave up 9 points and 188 yards. The cynic will say that Denard Robinson only played half the game and his replacement, Ron Bellomy, was inept, but Robinson had only rushed for 46 yards (10 carries) and passed for 55 yards (6 of 11) prior to his injury.

Next Game: A win at Michigan State where we gave up 34 points and 361 yards in a very hostile environment. The defense played well enough that game, but they allowed Sparty to move the ball with ease. Nebraska finished the season 3-2, giving up 70 and 45 points in back-to-back season-ending losses to Wisconsin and Georgia.

 

Over Bo's tenure, without the Blackshirts we're 27-9 (.750 winning percentage) and we give up an average of 20.4 points per game.

With the Blackshirts we're 21-11 (.656) and we give up an average of 22.2 points per game.

The one caveat to these stats is that the easier non-conference schedule is included in the "without Blackshirts" schedule, skewing the numbers slightly in favor of "without."




This is the problem as I see it - there doesn't appear to be any motivation the team derives from earning their Blackshirts. They don't appear to improve, they don't have any great swagger, and they don't appear to carry the pride of earning those Blackshirts onto the field. Of our six worst losses in the past two years (2011: Wisconsin, Michigan; 2012: UCLA, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Georgia), three have come with the Blackshirts and three without.

There is no discernible difference between the defense's play with or without the Blackshirts. There is no discernible merit to "making them earn it," judging either by wins/losses or points/yards allowed.


It's a distraction. It becomes a story line where no story needs to exist. It becomes one more thing an already-struggling unit has to think about.


That's my reasoning for getting rid of Bo's method. Just give them the Blackshirts after Fall Camp and let them get down to the business of playing the game.

 


 

 

 

That was the preseason discussion held last year in August. In 2013, for the first time ever, Bo handed out the Blackshirts before the first game, the way it had always been done. They've been handed out already this year, so we can add two more years' results to the discussion:

2013

Earned: For the first time in his tenure, Bo handed out the Blackshirts before the season started. Thad Randle, David Santos, Jason Ankrah, Ciante Evans, Josh Mitchell, Stanley-Jean Baptiste and Corey Cooper all wore Blackshirts to practice three days before the Wyoming game to start the season.

 

Next Game: A breathless last-second win which featured the offense stagnating in the fourth quarter and the defense - the Blackshirts - surrendering 13 unanswered points in the last six minutes of the game, eking out a three-point win against a Wyoming team that would finish 5-7 and fire their head coach. The Blackshirts allowed 602 yards and 34 points to Wyoming, then followed that up with 504 yards and 41 points to UCLA and 465 yards and 20 points to D1AA South Dakota State in two of their next three games.

 

 

2014

Earned: Bo went back to his old ways, not handing out the Blackshirts until mid-way through the season this year. The Blackshirts came out after the Northwestern game in Evanston, a game which featured some good halftime adjustments and an absolutely stifling effort by the defense in the second half. Northwestern gained just 28 yards in the second half, allowing the Nebraska offense to reel off 24 unanswered points to put the game away.

 

Since that game Nebraska has played Rutgers and Purdue, who are a combined 8-10 on the season. The Blackshirts allowed Rutgers two second-half touchdowns after leading 35-10, otherwise marring what was a pretty decent game. Purdue was held to 14 points total, 21 points below their average of their previous three games - one of which included 31 points against Michigan State.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So where does that leave us? Frankly, nowhere. It's a pretty mixed bag, even including this year's results. There hasn't been a let-down game for the Blackshirts this year, and this is from a unit lacking several expected key contributors. So that's great.

 

But putting that into the context of the previous six years' results still leaves us in some pretty muddied waters. There appears to be no direct benefit of handling the Blackshirt tradition the way it's being handled today. In fact, it almost seems as if the Blackshirts mean nothing anymore. For the first time in the Bo Pelini Era, four, five, six games into the season almost nobody was asking, "When will the Blackshirts be handed out?"

 

Maybe the tradition is dead. Maybe it couldn't survive the haphazard way in which it's been handled these past several years. It's an abstract thing now, less tangible and less accessible to the fans.

 

-------------------------------

 

In a season where the offense is hot-and-cold, the Blackshirts have been - shockingly - the rock upon which this team is founded. It wasn't supposed to be like this. The star-laden offense was supposed to have to outscore opponents while the defense, minus several expected starters (LeRoy Anderson, Michael Rose-Ivey, Charles Jackson, Avery Moss), found its footing. Instead it's the offense that has been regressing, while the defense has risen to the occasion.

 

The 2014 defense is Bo's third-best scoring defense through nine games, averaging 19.6 points per game, behind only 2009's Suh & Co. Demolition, Inc. (10.3 PPG), and the 2010 LaVonte David Tackles Everything Show (19.1PPG).

 

It's hard to deny the fun factor of watching this defense in action. They seem to be getting stronger as the season wears on, a hallmark of Pelini defenses. Randy Gregory has terrorized quarterbacks and provided good pursuit downfield (and at least one devastating block on an INT return). When Gregory is unable to get through his triple-team, Maliek Collins has very rudely made his presence known, as Miami's Duke Johnson and several other unfortunates can attest to. The secondary is holding opposing offenses to a 46.9% completion percentage (they're 3rd in the nation at Pass Efficiency Defense), and they're tied at #16 in the country for Interceptions, thanks in large part to Nate "Defense Rex" Gerry.

 

 

 

And next year... holy buckets. Next year the Blackshirts could be downright terrifying.

 

Presume we lose Randy Gregory. A projected top-ten pick, he's not staying. We lose Zaire Anderson, Josh Mitchell, Corey Cooper and Trevor Roach. Big-time contributors, all of them.

 

We get Avery Moss back. We get LeRoy Alexander back. We get Charles Jackson back. We get Michael Rose-Ivey back.

 

We return Maliek Collins, Vincent Valentine and Greg McMullen on the line. We return Josh Banderas and David Santos at LB. We return Daniel Davie, Jonathon Rose, Nate Gerry, Josh Kalu and Byerson Cockrell in the secondary.

 

This isn't a wait-'til-next-year ramble. This is a boast. As good as this defense is this year, next year they could be even better.

 

And that should be a hell of a lot of fun, no matter when the Blackshirts are handed out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By gum, you're right! I had forgotten about Anderson getting a Medical Redshirt - or, at least trying for one. Getting him back next year would be amazing.

 

LINK

 

The 5-foot-11, 220-pound Anderson has played in all three games — the first two on special teams — but Pelini is hopeful the junior linebacker can receive a medical redshirt season.

 

“We’re investigating," Pelini said. "We think so.”

 

Anderson would seem to have a favorable case.

 

According to the NCAA bylaw pertaining to medical redshirts, "the athlete must not have participated in more than three athletic contests or 30% of the team's contests, whichever is greater."

 

 

We played 14 games in 2012, so under 30%. He played in three games in 2012, but two were only on special teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Anderson able to possibly get a med-redshirt from last year? I can't remember what was decided with that...

He got his medical hardship for his knee injury in 2012. At least that is what Huskers.com says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, I was wondering if anybody had compiled a list of "game after" performances regarding Blackshirts.

 

Bo is a great coach and he'll field great defenses when he has the guys to do it. But I think it's evident by now that the Blackshirt tradition isn't really his thing and nothing will change that, no matter the timing of handing them out or anything else. I'm not big on tradition for tradition's sake , so that's OK as long as whatever Bo does, is working.

 

I think it can be argued that having to pay lip service this way actually ends up hurting the team by being a distraction. For sure, as a fan, I'm a little disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Isn't Anderson able to possibly get a med-redshirt from last year? I can't remember what was decided with that...

He got his medical hardship for his knee injury in 2012. At least that is what Huskers.com says.

 

Is the reason he's playing this year because he was awarded that medical hardship for 2012?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Isn't Anderson able to possibly get a med-redshirt from last year? I can't remember what was decided with that...

He got his medical hardship for his knee injury in 2012. At least that is what Huskers.com says.

Is the reason he's playing this year because he was awarded that medical hardship for 2012?

Yes, I believe so. He played two full years of JUCO ball and was part of the 2012 class. He got his medical hardship after playing in only three games in 2012. He played in 2013, and now 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

You have a choice of exactly how many coaches since the start of the Blackshirt tradition? You act like there have been a hundred other coaches that treated the tradition the way you'd like. So your question is what would the reaction be if Osborne, Solich, or Callahan treated it like Bo? Cause the size of the field seems small.

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

Please enlighten me as to what you think it would have been. Cause I'm not sure that the tradition came with a definitive set of rules as to how each coach should handle it without question. I actually have no problem with coaches bringing their own touches to a program. it's the program they are in charge of. Once again this falls under the broad brush of things that wouldn't be a big deal if we had a couple conference titles under our belt with Bo.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Isn't Anderson able to possibly get a med-redshirt from last year? I can't remember what was decided with that...

He got his medical hardship for his knee injury in 2012. At least that is what Huskers.com says.

Is the reason he's playing this year because he was awarded that medical hardship for 2012?

Yes, I believe so. He played two full years of JUCO ball and was part of the 2012 class. He got his medical hardship after playing in only three games in 2012. He played in 2013, and now 2014.

 

So he isn't back next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

You have a choice of exactly how many coaches since the start of the Blackshirt tradition? You act like there have been a hundred other coaches that treated the tradition the way you'd like. So your question is what would the reaction be if Osborne, Solich, or Callahan treated it like Bo? Cause the size of the field seems small.

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

Please enlighten me as to what you think it would have been. Cause I'm not sure that the tradition came with a definitive set of rules as to how each coach should handle it without question. I actually have no problem with coaches bringing their own touches to a program. it's the program they are in charge of. Once again this falls under the broad brush of things that wouldn't be a big deal if we had a couple conference titles under our belt with Bo.

 

 

 

What if we didn't turn this into another bicker-about-Bo thread. Every conceivable part of this team could be turned back on the Head Coach. Let's take a thread off from making this about Bo again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Isn't Anderson able to possibly get a med-redshirt from last year? I can't remember what was decided with that...

He got his medical hardship for his knee injury in 2012. At least that is what Huskers.com says.

Is the reason he's playing this year because he was awarded that medical hardship for 2012?

Yes, I believe so. He played two full years of JUCO ball and was part of the 2012 class. He got his medical hardship after playing in only three games in 2012. He played in 2013, and now 2014.

So he isn't back next year?

As much as I wish, I don't think so. The article you linked was from 2012. For him to be playing this year, he would have had to have been granted that medical hardship, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like it still matters to the players. The coaches I don't think care so much. I'm just glad we still do it. It's just a lesser known than it used to be. We recruit kids here who know nothing about it. I even heard a story about Kalu or some young player on the current roster who didn't even know what it was when he got it.

 

I would just say that we need to keep educating them. It means a lot to a lot of people. Former players, coaches whomever should come in and educate these newcomers about the Blackshirts. I like the Heisman room at the stadium, I wish we had a Blackshirts Room. They have pictures and awards all over the place for these guys in the stadium so these kids on the roster that do care, show the new guys that stuff and keep the tradition alive.

 

On a tangent if anybody cares to comment, do we think the bend don't break style attributes to the luster maybe coming off the tradition a little bit. Now don't spin what I'm saying, we are tough and we play well, we do a nice job and this season, especially those front four, has been fun to watch. We aren't quite the killers we used to be though IMO. Maybe the changes in the game and the rules protecting the offensive players have factored as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a tangent if anybody cares to comment, do we think the bend don't break style attributes to the luster maybe coming off the tradition a little bit. Now don't spin what I'm saying, we are tough and we play well, we do a nice job and this season, especially those front four, has been fun to watch. We aren't quite the killers we used to be though IMO. Maybe the changes in the game and the rules protecting the offensive players have factored as well.

 

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I wish, I don't think so. The article you linked was from 2012. For him to be playing this year, he would have had to have been granted that medical hardship, I believe.

Medical comes in the 6th year. He would have used a redshirt for that 2012 season. Played 2010, 2011, redshirt, 2013, 2014. I don't think you can use a medical hardship if you have a redshirt available correct? It's requested "after" you've used all your eligibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On a tangent if anybody cares to comment, do we think the bend don't break style attributes to the luster maybe coming off the tradition a little bit. Now don't spin what I'm saying, we are tough and we play well, we do a nice job and this season, especially those front four, has been fun to watch. We aren't quite the killers we used to be though IMO. Maybe the changes in the game and the rules protecting the offensive players have factored as well.

 

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

Same here. It's a philosophy based on percentages. Whether the odds are greater they make a mistake or you make one. It's kind of safe, but has shown to be effective. I have always loved the high risk - high reward type of defense. McBride style, but I'm also a fan of winning. Bo's defense works when he has the dogs to run it, especially up front. I'll take the way we played last Saturday anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

Exactly, you cannot win unless your name is Kiffin, Kelly, or McBride. The way I see it is that Bo is honoring the tradition by making it something you earn by performance during the season, not simply by making the pre-season cut as a starter. Listening to the reactions of the players that earn their Blackshirts makes it apparent to me that this tradition lives strong in the locker room. The only place where it has been called haphazard or waning is in the newspapers and from the mouths of older fans. The tradition lives strong with the team, and the brand remains a power with the fans and media. No need to question it, imho.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As much as I wish, I don't think so. The article you linked was from 2012. For him to be playing this year, he would have had to have been granted that medical hardship, I believe.

Medical comes in the 6th year. He would have used a redshirt for that 2012 season. Played 2010, 2011, redshirt, 2013, 2014. I don't think you can use a medical hardship if you have a redshirt available correct? It's requested "after" you've used all your eligibility.

I'm not positive of the particulars. Since he participated in 2012, I don't think he used his "traditional redshirt." He would have been out of eligibility after last year unless he applied for the hardship.

 

2012 (Medical Hardship)

Anderson played in three games in 2012 before suffering a knee injury, and received a medical hardship. Anderson had four tackles before his injury.

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205371656

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

I don't think bend-and-don't break is a fair characterization. It gets into the whole "manly aggression / effete passivity" argument that, while extremely popular, really doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the battles are fought.

 

Most offenses are going to look at how a defense lines up to figure out where it's weak pre-snap. That's what a lot of the motion is for, for example, to get the defense to tip their hand.

 

A good defense won't take this tactic lying down and make it easy for the offense to find the chinks in their armor. The more you can make it harder for an offense to say "Well, OK, I see your defense and I'll just do this", the better.

 

Really, every time a defense lines up they're dictating something to the offense. Whether that's stacking the box and daring a team to throw deep, or keeping everyone back and forcing teams to work the short field, or less "all in" gambits. In the past Bo's defenses have basically said "try to run, because you won't make a living passing" and that's dictating, too. Then teams pick up yardage running because it's considered by plan as the lesser of two evils, and then it becomes viewed as "bend but don't break" reactionary defense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

 

Exactly, you cannot win unless your name is Kiffin, Kelly, or McBride. The way I see it is that Bo is honoring the tradition by making it something you earn by performance during the season, not simply by making the pre-season cut as a starter. Listening to the reactions of the players that earn their Blackshirts makes it apparent to me that this tradition lives strong in the locker room. The only place where it has been called haphazard or waning is in the newspapers and from the mouths of older fans. The tradition lives strong with the team, and the brand remains a power with the fans and media. No need to question it, imho.

That was more my point. The simplest thing to do was to keep handing them out before the season started from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

 

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are quite a few former players who I believe we're pretty concerned with how this tradition was being handled. Like I said, this means a lot to a lot of people. It's just something that should never go away. It's a Nebraska pride thing. I would hope that's a pride that doesn't vanish. The people who hold the biggest share of pride in thing isn't the fans, the media, maybe not even coaches, but current and especially former players are the ones who sould have some ownership or control of this. Especially if it's become seen as any sort of sideshow or nuisance to any current coach.

 

Getting really creative, aside from the Blackshirts Room in the stadium and maybe a Blackshirt pride or initiation with former players educating new players on the tradition, maybe a Blackshirt Council. Five or so former players with a finger on the pulse of things that can decide how this tradition is handled. Wo gets em, when they get em. Who knows? It would definitely bring a little more excitement surrounding the Blackshirts. A motivator too if some former players are holding the keys to whether you live up to the standard or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

 

 

I want him back if he's turned into a choirboy. His talent is undeniable. His off-field transgressions are shameful, and if there aren't sureties he's reformed, we don't need him in many, many ways.

 

If he so much as jaywalks after his past issues, he's a liability and needs to go.

 

 

I wonder how many people here would have embraced Fonzie Dennard's if he'd have had another year of eligibility after punching that cop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

I don't think bend-and-don't break is a fair characterization. It gets into the whole "manly aggression / effete passivity" argument that, while extremely popular, really doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the battles are fought.Most offenses are going to look at how a defense lines up to figure out where it's weak pre-snap. That's what a lot of the motion is for, for example, to get the defense to tip their hand.A good defense won't take this tactic lying down and make it easy for the offense to find the chinks in their armor. The more you can make it harder for an offense to say "Well, OK, I see your defense and I'll just do this", the better.Really, every time a defense lines up they're dictating something to the offense. Whether that's stacking the box and daring a team to throw deep, or keeping everyone back and forcing teams to work the short field, or less "all in" gambits. In the past Bo's defenses have basically said "try to run, because you won't make a living passing" and that's dictating, too. Then teams pick up yardage running because it's considered by plan as the lesser of two evils, and then it becomes viewed as "bend but don't break" reactionary defense.

I've always heard these coaches use read and react quite a bit when discussing this defense. The two gap scheme falls into this bend don't break read and react style, no?

 

I'm not saying its a bad defense, and no matter if anyone tried I refuse to get into a conversation about this defenses shortcoming because right now, they're excellent. I'm just saying, in some of the attacking defenses I enjoy watching, there is a little less read and a little less react. More like seek and destroy.

 

I know, I know. Probably over simplifying a very complicating thing. Really regardless of the defensive style it's going to be complicating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

 

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

I want him back if he's turned into a choirboy. His talent is undeniable. His off-field transgressions are shameful, and if there aren't sureties he's reformed, we don't need him in many, many ways.

 

If he so much as jaywalks after his past issues, he's a liability and needs to go.

 

 

I wonder how many people here would have embraced Fonzie Dennard's if he'd have had another year of eligibility after punching that cop.

We are on the same page here. I don't much cotton to the "we win the right way" claptrap when it comes to building this team and if he's learned, he can come back.

 

However, one has to pause that he was caught in Sandoz almost to the day where he was out of Dutch with the law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

I don't think bend-and-don't break is a fair characterization. It gets into the whole "manly aggression / effete passivity" argument that, while extremely popular, really doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the battles are fought.

 

Most offenses are going to look at how a defense lines up to figure out where it's weak pre-snap. That's what a lot of the motion is for, for example, to get the defense to tip their hand.

 

A good defense won't take this tactic lying down and make it easy for the offense to find the chinks in their armor. The more you can make it harder for an offense to say "Well, OK, I see your defense and I'll just do this", the better.

 

Really, every time a defense lines up they're dictating something to the offense. Whether that's stacking the box and daring a team to throw deep, or keeping everyone back and forcing teams to work the short field, or less "all in" gambits. In the past Bo's defenses have basically said "try to run, because you won't make a living passing" and that's dictating, too. Then teams pick up yardage running because it's considered by plan as the lesser of two evils, and then it becomes viewed as "bend but don't break" reactionary defense.

 

 

Definitely there's a bit of bloodlust to my preferred method of defense, but I don't know of this "effete" argument. At least, I don't think it's unmanly, or whatever term we could use, to play defense the way we do.

 

Bo's defense is a chess match. He's put his pieces out there in such a way that (when it works, when people are healthy, etc) if you're going to score on him, you're going to do it with great difficulty. The teams that move the ball on this defense are typically very creative, very talented or very lucky, or various combinations of the three. Occasionally the untalented score on this scheme, but that's more often a result of poor effort on Nebraska's part rather than a scheme issue.

 

My preference of defense is that the defense dictates, it is not dictated to. I like to see high turnovers, aggressive pursuit of the ball, attacking the ball-carrier rather than trying to build a net around him, going after the quarterback rather than hemming him in. The reason I like that is two-fold: I like the aggression (football is an inherently aggressive sport), but attacking also shortens the time the ball-carrier has to make decisions. Cut the QB's time in half, he can't survey the whole field. Attack the RB, it cuts down his time to make cuts/moves. It's a question of practicality as much as aggression.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

 

 

I want him back if he's turned into a choirboy. His talent is undeniable. His off-field transgressions are shameful, and if there aren't sureties he's reformed, we don't need him in many, many ways.

 

If he so much as jaywalks after his past issues, he's a liability and needs to go.

 

 

I wonder how many people here would have embraced Fonzie Dennard's if he'd have had another year of eligibility after punching that cop.

 

Sure he can come back if he tows the line. Physical assault is another matter, though. I don't think you deserve second chances with physical assault. But everyone is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

 

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

I want him back if he's turned into a choirboy. His talent is undeniable. His off-field transgressions are shameful, and if there aren't sureties he's reformed, we don't need him in many, many ways.

 

If he so much as jaywalks after his past issues, he's a liability and needs to go.

 

 

I wonder how many people here would have embraced Fonzie Dennard's if he'd have had another year of eligibility after punching that cop.

Sure he can come back if he tows the line. Physical assault is another matter, though. I don't think you deserve second chances with physical assault. But everyone is different.

I'm of the opinion sexual assault is worse, but that's neither here nor there. I'd be ok with both coming back in hypothetical situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where things get dicey. He was charged with public indecency. Not sexual assault. But in some eyes, what he did is about the same. Difficult to know what the right way is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×