Still want to keep Diaco?

[southernoregonhusker]

1 hour ago, Isle of View said:

That's just wrong.  The OLBs were completely out of position to stop Wisconsin the entire second half.  That's coaching.

 

 

That's low football IQ and lack of speed.

1 hour ago, Isle of View said:

Nebraska #29, Wisconsin #37

 

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Riley has more raw talent on the roster than Chryst.  Look what they've done with it.

Obviously that doesn't mean a thing in the real world.  What did you eyes tell you?  Maybe, maybe one or two of our starters start on their team.  Maybe.  

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, southernoregonhusker said:

That's low football IQ and lack of speed.

Obviously that doesn't mean a thing in the real world.  What did you eyes tell you?  Maybe, maybe one or two of our starters start on their team.  Maybe.  

 

Maybe their players look so much better than ours because their coaches put them in a better position to succeed.

 

Their QB is no better than ours.

Their WRs are not better than ours.

Their RB is probably about as good as ours - slight improvement at best.

 

They just use them a lot more productively.

[Hayseed]

1 hour ago, Isle of View said:

Nebraska #29, Wisconsin #37

 

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Riley has more raw talent on the roster than Chryst.  Look what they've done with it.

Another thing, you're comparing defenses here,....I know ours wasn't good, but did you think theirs was great? The mismatch was their offensive line against our D line and LB's....not pretty.

[southernoregonhusker]

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

Maybe their players look so much better than ours because their coaches put them in a better position to succeed.

 

Their QB is no better than ours.

Their WRs are not better than ours.

Their RB is probably about as good as ours - slight improvement at best.

 

They just use them a lot more productively.

Our QB is better than theirs.  Our receivers aren't even good.  I don't know why people think they are.  Their RBs are WAY better than ours and one is a true freshman.  

 

Their playbook isn't much different than ours.  One big difference is they can block and we can't.  But the offense isn't where our talent deficiency shows most.  It's with the linebackers.  A 3-4 defense can't work without good linebackers and our inside linebackers are slow, can't tackle and got caught in the wash play after play last night.  

[Mavric]

3 minutes ago, southernoregonhusker said:

Their playbook isn't much different than ours.  One big difference is they can block and we can't.  But the offense isn't where our talent deficiency shows most.  It's with the linebackers.  A 3-4 defense can't work without good linebackers and our inside linebackers are slow, can't tackle and got caught in the wash play after play last night.  

 

Their playbook isn't much different than ours.

 

How they USE their playbook is COMPLETELY different.

 

They threw half as much as we did.  They ran twice as much as we did.  And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

[Nebhawk]

1 hour ago, Isle of View said:

Nebraska #29, Wisconsin #37

 

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

Riley has more raw talent on the roster than Chryst.  Look what they've done with it.

What been recruited: Does not = whats on the field in production.  Why is this such a misconception with this sport?  Football recruiting is a big gamble.  I think that there is a level in recruiting that just doesn't matter.  I have read, and threaded this before, but around TOP 15 teams and after are just numbers and guesses.  It shows doesn't it?  I mean, KSU has had classes in the 50's for years, and manage to win 9 games a season for the most part.  Wisky is in the mid to last 30's each year............wins the west most of the time........?

Edited October 8, 2017 by Nebhawk

[In the Deed the Glory]

All of these numbers for recruiting means that in high school our players were better at high school football, but they have not developed throughout college to be good college football players.

[marko polo]

54 minutes ago, Mavric said:

Wisconsin rushing performances this year:

 

Utah State - 234 yards, 5.2 ypc

Florida Atlantic - 357 yards, 6.6 ypc

BYU - 235 yards, 4.8 ypc

Northwestern - 109 yards, 2.9 ypc

Nebraska - 353 yards, 7.2 ypc

very very telling I said from the get go the O line  and defense were marginal but as usual I was berated

[Nebhawk]

36 minutes ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

All of these numbers for recruiting means that in high school our players were better at high school football, but they have not developed throughout college to be good college football players.

Yes, but not all Hs players play against the same kind of talent either.  I will take 100 football players from Texas over those from California.  Texas plays HS football at maybe the toughest level per class.  Ohio would be maybe the next toughest state where they play HS football.  Florida then after that.  So its hard to gauge from state to the next on just what type of player, a player actually is, isn't it?

 

Any way, recruiting is a tool for advertising on espn and other sites.  These recruiting sites make money off of people who can't stand waiting for signing day and other things.  I also think that this gives those who don't play by the rules to contact a kid and offer "the house" for them to attend.  Its status quo.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Nebhawk said:

Yes, but not all Hs players play against the same kind of talent either.  I will take 100 football players from Texas over those from California.  Texas plays HS football at maybe the toughest level per class.  Ohio would be maybe the next toughest state where they play HS football.  Florida then after that.  So its hard to gauge from state to the next on just what type of player, a player actually is, isn't it?

 

Any way, recruiting is a tool for advertising on espn and other sites.  These recruiting sites make money off of people who can't stand waiting for signing day and other things.  I also think that this gives those who don't play by the rules to contact a kid and offer "the house" for them to attend.  Its status quo.

California doesn't have tough high school football? Interesting..

[Nebhawk]

For the record, I think the verdict is out on Diaco.  I don't know if we can judge him off this season.  I would like to see him in about 3 year with better players, and players recruited to play in this defense.  Maybe even with Frost and his system.  Don't see that happening, but I don't know if we can judge him yet.

[Nebhawk]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

California doesn't have tough high school football? Interesting..

Matter of opinion.  Yes  I dont think that California football is as tough as Texas plays.  Not saying they are not good, just have always preferred Texas HS players over alot of others.

[gobiggergoredder]

I thought the D Line got owned the entire game.  It looked different in the second half because:

- Wisky changed what they were doing.

-Gifford and Weber got tired and couldn't cover the field anymore.

-Secondary tackling got worse throughout the game.

[Hayseed]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

No.

 

His defense is only good against bad teams and teams that play conservative.

 

Wisconsin has a good offense but they are very one-dimensional and really have no play-makers in the passing game.  They are #84 in the country in passing.  We knew they would run.  They did run.  We couldn't stop it.  They averaged nearly eight yards per carry even though we knew what they were going to do.  They barely threw it and when they did they did it poorly.

 

And that's before you bring in what was happening against Arkansas State and Oregon (while they were actually trying).

 

The only reason it's looked better the previous three games is because we were playing teams that averaged about #100 in the country in offense.

After reading this I'm really bummed about our chances against Ohio State now, but I'm still rooting for the win.

[BartonHusker]

As I mentioned in another thread, I will not hammer on Diaco that much because he is coaching personnel that does not fit his 3-4 defense overall.   Sure there are some pieces that fit the puzzle but there are many others that would normally not be recruited for a 3-4 defense.   Not to mention this is his first year implementing this defense here. Tough to look great when players are still in the learning phase.  Wisconsin has been running the 3-4 since the Andersen days.  Regardless if this is their third defensive coordinator, the personnel is meant for that defense.