The other side of the coin...

[Hilltop]

Nebraska didn't look amazing but if you take away a couple of fluke plays, we looked a lot like some other teams out there getting a lot of praise.  Ohio State basically lost for 3 quarters to Indiana for example (not sure Indiana could beat ArkSt??).  Wisconsin tied with Utah State through 2 quarters, Northwestern had to come from behind in the 4th to beat Nevada, #19 south Florida lost the 1st half to Stony Brook, etc.  Many other teams struggled early...  If our 4th quarter went differently, we would be just another strong team that took a while to "pull away" from the team we should beat.  Maybe I'm just eternally a positive fan but I'm not as negative on this game as the majority of people posting over the last couple days.  I see some positive signs and still have some hope.  I think the ArkSt QB may end up being the 2nd best QB we go against all year.

 

No denying that our defense has to improve- I just feel we should give them the chance especially since we have so many brand new parts getting broken in.  

 

GBR  

[Cdog923]

Something that is being lost: the D really only gave up 27 points. 24 if the rules had been properly applied in the first half. 

[ColoradoHusk]

I don't know what fluke plays you are commenting about which made the game close, other than the recovered onside kick.  On that, it looked like NU hadn't practiced that at all prior to the try.

 

I think the thing that is most concerning is that this was a game that NU should have controlled from the very beginning, yet Arkansas State was right there at the end, with a chance to tie or even win it (with a 2 point conversion).  NU had numerous opportunities to put the game away on offense or run additional clock or

 

Yes, this was like a number of early season games in recent years, but as fans, we should want the team to be better than the teams in recent years.  That's why the result of this game is concerning to fans.

[StPaulHusker]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I don't know what fluke plays you are commenting about which made the game close, other than the recovered onside kick.  On that, it looked like NU hadn't practiced that at all prior to the try.

 

I think the thing that is most concerning is that this was a game that NU should have controlled from the very beginning, yet Arkansas State was right there at the end, with a chance to tie or even win it (with a 2 point conversion).  NU had numerous opportunities to put the game away on offense or run additional clock or

 

Yes, this was like a number of early season games in recent years, but as fans, we should want the team to be better than the teams in recent years.  That's why the result of this game is concerning to fans.

The ball bounced over a guy that stands 5'-9" so I guess they should have put someone taller in front

 

The PR TD was flukey since he fumbled the snap which changed what the players were doing.  Instead of pursuing the carrier, they started to pursue a fumble and got out of their lane.

 

The safety wasn't a fluke.  That call is on Langsdorf.  Everyone knows you should run the QB up behind the center to try to get a yard or 2 before calling a run play where your RB is 6 yards deep in your own end zone.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, StPaulHusker said:

The ball bounced over a guy that stands 5'-9" so I guess they should have put someone taller in front

 

The PR TD was flukey since he fumbled the snap which changed what the players were doing.  Instead of pursuing the carrier, they started to pursue a fumble and got out of their lane.

 

The safety wasn't a fluke.  That call is on Langsdorf.  Everyone knows you should run the QB up behind the center to try to get a yard or 2 before calling a run play where your RB is 6 yards deep in your own end zone.

That punt return wasn't a fluke TD.  That was poor special teams play.

[StPaulHusker]

Just now, ColoradoHusk said:

That punt return wasn't a fluke TD.  That was poor special teams play.

I think it can be both

 

[hskrpwr13]

Ultimately, the problem wasn't the end result (the win and the extrapolated points against if all things are equal). The problem was the general scheme. Essentially, paraphrasing Diaco, the scheme was to play passive defense figuring the ASU offense would screw up enough times, in conjunction with our offense being more successful, by comparison. The fact that ASU had a chance to tie the game at the end indicates how low of a percentage of success this type of scheme provides. To me, this scheme is worse than Bo's scheme that was essentially to defend the pass and not really worry about the opponents running game because the opponents OC won't have the patience to stick with it in today's pass-first mentality (paraphrasing of course). Passive defense won't result in wins against better teams. It puts too much pressure on our offense, requiring it to be close to perfect. 

 

I'll never consider giving up 500 yards as "good" defense. The fact that the team won is besides the point.

[VectorVictor]

29 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

The safety wasn't a fluke.  That call is on Langsdorf.  Everyone knows you should run the QB up behind the center to try to get a yard or 2 before calling a run play where your RB is 6 yards deep in your own end zone.

 

I don't believe Tim Beck knew that. 

[Undone]

Our offense itself only mustered 36 points against a Sun Belt team. I wasn't happy with that and expected much more efficiency from our offensive side of the ball.

A part of me is not quite as worried about what happened on defense in the sense that we were playing a 'Mike Leach at Texas Tech Air Raid' style of offense that we really are not going to face from our must-win conference opponents (referring mainly to Wisconsin and Iowa). If your corners are 15 yards off of the LOS, that's what's going to happen against that kind of offense. I'm assuming Diaco is trying to craft a defense that plays well in conference play and I'm willing to wait until we're several games in to B1G play before I despair there.

But I expected much more on offense.

[Cdog923]

1 hour ago, StPaulHusker said:

The ball bounced over a guy that stands 5'-9" so I guess they should have put someone taller in front

 

The PR TD was flukey since he fumbled the snap which changed what the players were doing.  Instead of pursuing the carrier, they started to pursue a fumble and got out of their lane.

 

The safety wasn't a fluke.  That call is on Langsdorf.  Everyone knows you should run the QB up behind the center to try to get a yard or 2 before calling a run play where your RB is 6 yards deep in your own end zone.

I think I yelled loud enough that Zorinksy heard me when I saw that Reimers was standing behind DPE on the hands team. 

 

I thought they should have ran PA on the safety play. That, or bring Cody Green into the game. 

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

That punt return wasn't a fluke TD.  That was poor special teams play.

 

I'm actually chalking that up to being a bit fluky.  Yeah, you'd like to think it wouldn't happen.  But the combination of a long punt - 54 yards or something like that - with the fumble changes all the lane coverages.  As soon as the ball hits the turf everyone forgets what they're supposed to be doing and goes for the ball.  It happens.