What did we learn-Game 2 Oregon

[khaake]

What I learned in week 2:

1. Bend but don't break doesn't work as well against talent.

2. Tanner Lee is not the second coming of Christ - he did not not have a good day decision-making-wise. My jets are sufficiently cooled.

3. Our WRs had a hard time getting separation against their DBs - didn't have much of a deep threat. YOLO balls don't work well against speed.

4. Our running game was ok, but Oregon is likely not a good run-D.

5. Our O-line seemed to wear down in the 4th. Oregon appeared to get stronger towards end of game.

6. Our pass rush is non-existent.

7. Despite having the wheels come off in the 2nd quarter, the team did not give up. The comeback was good to see, and the D deserves some credit for that. In the end and despite the trauma of the first half, we were in a position where we could have won the game.

 

[Red Five]

9 hours ago, Mavric said:

Not exactly surprising but other teams run the 3-4 as well.  And we've faced the 6th most pass attempts in the country.

 

 

 

This is baffling to me.  I always thought one of the beauties of the 3-4 was on passing downs the OL didn't know which of the 4 LBs was rushing.  We have taken that element away.  We either only rush 3 or put Gifford in a 3 point stance.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

45 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

This is baffling to me.  I always thought one of the beauties of the 3-4 was on passing downs the OL didn't know which of the 4 LBs was rushing.  We have taken that element away.  We either only rush 3 or put Gifford in a 3 point stance.

Gifford for some reason gets in a 4 point stance and then comes off the ball slower than the rest of the line 

[ColoradoHusk]

14 minutes ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

Gifford for some reason gets in a 4 point stance and then comes off the ball slower than the rest of the line 

Benning commented about our d-linemen getting in a 4-point stance after the Arkansas State game.  He said that he didn't like that stance because it doesn't allow the linemen to explode from their stance and it limits any swim or rip moves that the d-linemen can do.

 

Now, Diaco could want the d-linemen to just absorb the blocks and occupy the offensive linemen to keep the LB's free to make plays.  But, it sure doesn't allow for the d-linemen to make plays.

[Mavric]

Quote

For the game, the Huskers had nine drives that lasted fewer than two minutes, and 14 that lasted fewer than three minutes. NU put four touchdowns on the board in those 14 drives, too.

 

But recall my stat from a few weeks ago: Seven of Mike Riley’s last nine teams ranked in the top four of the Big Ten or Pac-12 in average time of possession. The two teams that didn’t — 2010 and 2011 Oregon State — were a combined 8-19. Regardless of whether other teams use time of possession to their advantage, Riley’s good teams have.

 

Right now, the Huskers are seventh in the Big Ten. Just two games, yes, but remember: Arkansas State and Oregon really don’t care about time of possession, and both played NU to a virtual draw there.

 

OWH

 

[Mavric]

Just now, ColoradoHusk said:

Benning commented about our d-linemen getting in a 4-point stance after the Arkansas State game.  He said that he didn't like that stance because it doesn't allow the linemen to explode from their stance and it limits any swim or rip moves that the d-linemen can do.

 

Now, Diaco could want the d-linemen to just absorb the blocks and occupy the offensive linemen to keep the LB's free to make plays.  But, it sure doesn't allow for the d-linemen to make plays.

 

For whatever reason, our DLinemen don't do much exploding at all.  Doesn't matter what stance they're in.

[Mavric]

Apparently we don't stop the run very well either.

 

Quote

4.35: Yards per carry allowed by NU’s defense, which ranks 89th nationally and 11th in the Big Ten. Expect that number to dial downward as the season progresses; under 3.5 yards per carry would be ideal. One sack in two games is not ideal, nor does it help this stat.

 

And about stopping those big plays.....

 

Quote

 Six: Plays of 30 yards or more allowed by NU’s defense. That ranks last in the Big Ten. Last season, NU ranked ninth, followed by 13th in 2015, ninth in 2014, ninth in 2013, last in 2012 and ninth in 2011. See a theme?

 

OWH

[BigRedBuster]

Mav,

 

Thanks for actual discussion points...instead of nothing but "gloom, despair and agony on me."

 

Question.  I'm bad and diagnosing these things.

 

But, did we play any more nickel and dime packages in the second half than in the first?

 

 

[Mavric]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Mav,

 

Thanks for actual discussion points...instead of nothing but "gloom, despair and agony on me."

 

Question.  I'm bad and diagnosing these things.

 

But, did we play any more nickel and dime packages in the second half than in the first?

 

I haven't gotten to the second half yet.  Hopefully tonight.

 

Watching the game live, I thought maybe we did.  But now I'm wondering if I was just assuming that because I saw Reed in the game when he was actually just in there in place of an injured Kalu.

[BigRedBuster]

Well, the reason I ask is that I was looking at the stats this morning.  

 

First half, Oregon ran 45 plays (20 rushing, 25 passing).

 

Second half, Oregon ran 32 plays (24 rushing, 8 passing).

 

Now, I don't buy the..."they went conservative" mantra.  That's not how Oregon has been and it's not how they were in the first game when they put up 77 points.  We also were clearly taking over the momentum as the third quarter went on.  The best way to stop that momentum is for them to keep racking up points.  They would have LOVED to put up 80 points on Nebraska this weekend.

I believe Oregon was still running their offense the way they wanted to run it to put points on the board.

So, the question is, why the change.  I am guessing it's because we changed how we were defending the pass.  As you have pointed out, in the first half, we were making the passing game overly easy for them and they exploited that very very well.

[Mavric]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Well, the reason I ask is that I was looking at the stats this morning.  

 

First half, Oregon ran 45 plays (20 rushing, 25 passing).

 

Second half, Oregon ran 32 plays (24 rushing, 8 passing).

 

Now, I don't buy the..."they went conservative" mantra.  That's not how Oregon has been and it's not how they were in the first game when they put up 77 points.  We also were clearly taking over the momentum as the third quarter went on.  The best way to stop that momentum is for them to keep racking up points.  They would have LOVED to put up 80 points on Nebraska this weekend.

I believe Oregon was still running their offense the way they wanted to run it to put points on the board.

So, the question is, why the change.  I am guessing it's because we changed how we were defending the pass.  As you have pointed out, in the first half, we were making the passing game overly easy for them and they exploited that very very well.

 

You might not buy it, but the change from 55% called pass plays to 25% called pass plays should tell you that their play-calling changed drastically.

[Red Five]

9 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I haven't gotten to the second half yet.  Hopefully tonight.

 

Watching the game live, I thought maybe we did.  But now I'm wondering if I was just assuming that because I saw Reed in the game when he was actually just in there in place of an injured Kalu.

 

From watching live, I didn't notice much change.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Mavric said:

 

You might not buy it, but the change from 55% called pass plays to 25% called pass plays should tell you that their play-calling changed drastically.

I acknowledged that their play calling changed drastically.  What I'm questioning is "why".  

 

What I'm not buying is the mantra of..."Oregon was so far ahead they stopped pressing and just protected the lead.".  That's not what they have done for years and it's not what the new staff did in the first game.

 

I'm guessing it had to do with how we changed our pass defense. 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I acknowledged that their play calling changed drastically.  What I'm questioning is "why".  

 

What I'm not buying is the mantra of..."Oregon was so far ahead they stopped pressing and just protected the lead.".  That's not what they have done for years and it's not what the new staff did in the first game.

 

I'm guessing it had to do with how we changed our pass defense. 

Oregon's QB did throw a bad INT in the middle of the 3rd quarter.  Maybe they didn't want to see that again, so Oregon went ultra-conservative.

[Mavric]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I acknowledged that their play calling changed drastically.  What I'm questioning is "why".  

 

What I'm not buying is the mantra of..."Oregon was so far ahead they stopped pressing and just protected the lead.".  That's not what they have done for years and it's not what the new staff did in the first game.

 

I'm guessing it had to do with how we changed our pass defense. 

 

I mean .... I guess I hope they considered us a bit more of a threat to come back from a big deficit than Southern Utah.  So I'm not sure that really carries much weight.

 

Royce Freeman had 11 carries in the first half.  He carried it on four of their first five plays in the second half.  I would say they thought they had a good enough rushing attack - with one of the better back in the nation - that they could still get some yards running the ball and no take as many chances throwing it.  And then after they threw the interception they decided to mainly stick to running it and throwing safe passes instead of pushing it down the field like they did in the first half.