2-gapping preventing QB pressure?

[walksalone]

Don't you think the coaches knew that as well? I'm sure the gameplan going in was based on them going 4 or 5 wide and throwing it almost every down. We were in our dime defense with four d-linemen and a backer in the tackle box, that was all we had to stop the run, and when you have a defense spread out as much as they did, there are going to be open running lanes everywhere.

Also, they had the entire offseason to prepare for this game. This was probably their entire season, much like when Boise plays that one good BCS team at the beginning of the year. I am going to wait longer than one game to determine if the defense is a loss cause or not.

Maybe they did, but thats where you adapt, improvise and overcome. You don't just let it keep happening all the way through the first half. What happens when when there's a team who's offense we should be concerned about?

I'm not saying the defense is a lost cause, it needs to be able to become adaptable under game conditions.

 

[The King]

I hear you Walks. But a lot of the big runs in the first half were do to poor gap integrity by the tackles and just poor play by the linebackers. In the beginning VV in particular was just bum rushing up the field and wasn't paying attention to where the ball was. He seemed to settle down in the second half where we only gave up 46 rushing yards. There was only on 9 rushes but the average gain went down as well, still an unimpressive 5ypc though.

The QB runs were bad but I'm never really concerned about those unless you have someone like Miller, Denard, etc. You're going to give up big chunks to a mobile guy in the spread but we've proven in the past (Gabbert at Mizzou, Locker at Washington...) that we can live with that.

You are probably the most sane person in this thread right now.

VV actually did pretty well covering his gaps. He was taking up double teams like he was supposed to. The failures were at the LB level and occasionally Gregory thought we were running a different line set than we really were (Bo talked about him running a stunt, but he also would get in the way of other people when he did a stunt and wasn't supposed to, or get caught trying to bluff dropping into coverage.)

If you guys want to b!^@h about something, b!^@h about our linebackers. They were NO were to be found. Gerry got TORCHED also.

 

[walksalone]

I hear you Walks. But a lot of the big runs in the first half were do to poor gap integrity by the tackles and just poor play by the linebackers. In the beginning VV in particular was just bum rushing up the field and wasn't paying attention to where the ball was. He seemed to settle down in the second half where we only gave up 46 rushing yards. There was only on 9 rushes but the average gain went down as well, still an unimpressive 5ypc though.

The QB runs were bad but I'm never really concerned about those unless you have someone like Miller, Denard, etc. You're going to give up big chunks to a mobile guy in the spread but we've proven in the past (Gabbert at Mizzou, Locker at Washington...) that we can live with that.

But doesn't only having 4 guys at the initial point of attack hinder the ability to stop the run when they're being blocked by 5 guys? Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but just seems like that is the root of the problem...

 

[caveman99]

Make no mistake, we got a good push up front, but even with guys in his face he was able to complete passes into tight windows.

Maybe a dozen times out of, what, 78 plays? The vast majority of the time it was the same ol' patty-cake we've grown accustom to.

I've only rewatched the first half but we actually had pretty good pressure just rushing 4 guys. It was just a combination of things on different plays that let us down; either we played off coverage and he got the ball out quick, Smith moved around in the pocket well enough to buy time and get the pass off, or our rush was just uncoordinated and guys were hitting the same gap and running into each other. The newbies on the line pushed they're guys back almost all night, it's the salty old "veterans" that seemed to be struggling.

This is what I saw also, they were collapsing the pocket a lot but couldn't quite corral Smith when they got there. He was great at getting away and frankly I felt that Mo Seisay had a rough night at Dime, didn't look like he was checking the slot receiver very well and Smith hit that little receiver every time he snaked away from the Dpine. On other times it looked like the dline was undisciplined in maintaining their rush lanes and that allowed their RB to kill us on draws as well allow Smith to get through on that long run he had.

 

[caveman99]

I hear you Walks. But a lot of the big runs in the first half were do to poor gap integrity by the tackles and just poor play by the linebackers. In the beginning VV in particular was just bum rushing up the field and wasn't paying attention to where the ball was. He seemed to settle down in the second half where we only gave up 46 rushing yards. There was only on 9 rushes but the average gain went down as well, still an unimpressive 5ypc though.

The QB runs were bad but I'm never really concerned about those unless you have someone like Miller, Denard, etc. You're going to give up big chunks to a mobile guy in the spread but we've proven in the past (Gabbert at Mizzou, Locker at Washington...) that we can live with that.

But doesn't only having 4 guys at the initial point of attack hinder the ability to stop the run when they're being blocked by 5 guys? Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but just seems like that is the root of the problem...

Which is why Bo started bring a S into the box in the 2nd half and it was working well for a bit allowing them to grow the lead to 31-14. The combination of poor plays and play calling after that on top of WYO making an adjustment to counter the S in the box was just the right recipe for the near disaster.

 

[ZRod]

I hear you Walks. But a lot of the big runs in the first half were do to poor gap integrity by the tackles and just poor play by the linebackers. In the beginning VV in particular was just bum rushing up the field and wasn't paying attention to where the ball was. He seemed to settle down in the second half where we only gave up 46 rushing yards. There was only on 9 rushes but the average gain went down as well, still an unimpressive 5ypc though.

The QB runs were bad but I'm never really concerned about those unless you have someone like Miller, Denard, etc. You're going to give up big chunks to a mobile guy in the spread but we've proven in the past (Gabbert at Mizzou, Locker at Washington...) that we can live with that.

But doesn't only having 4 guys at the initial point of attack hinder the ability to stop the run when they're being blocked by 5 guys? Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but just seems like that is the root of the problem...

I think you over simplified it. Stopping the run is really the linebacker's responsibility. In reality the linemen are essentially there to eat space and keep guys of the linebackers. If they can get off the block and make a tackle perfect, but the backers are supposed to fit to the gaps left open and make the play. Which is why when you have a tackle rush up field past the ball you're in deep doo doo. Now you have a huge hole and a free blocker. Obviously there's more going on than we are going to know, but that's the basics of what they're doing.

 

[Maxconvert]

Which is why when you have a tackle rush up field past the ball you're in deep doo doo. Now you have a huge hole and a free blocker.

A trap play! that was a previous NU favorite

 

[ZRod]

Which is why when you have a tackle rush up field past the ball you're in deep doo doo. Now you have a huge hole and a free blocker.

A trap play! that was a previous NU favorite

Yeah, that's basically what's happening haha! I hope we bust the trap out again this year, I think we ran it a couple times. Once against USM I believe.

 

[Hunter94]

Hi all, one of my first posts on the board...been struggling with how bad our D is playin again. I ain't an expert D-coaching mind, but from my understanding of a 2-gapping scheme, the D-linemen have to maintain discipline against two gaps, then after that's done, rush the passer. I think most 2-gapping teams actually run a 3-4 front with big-bodied lineman who don't have the pressure of trying to get to the QB, with fast aggressive pass-rushing QBs. The problem with Bo's scheme is that it's probably really really hard to control both your gaps and then have the strength to throw off your one (or two) blocking OLs, who have latched on to you good during the time it took you to maintain run gap control and figure out that it wasn't a running play....The teams that run a 1-gapping 4-3 scheme have the luxury of having their front D-lineman run like a charging stallion to whatever is in that gap whether it's a RB or QB. My guess is that's why we see talented, athletic D-line recruits come to NU and turn into slow nonfactors----like Avery Moss, Jason Ankrah, Cam Meredith last year, Tobi Okayumi (sp?), Walker Ashburn, etc. Seems to me that this kinda system only works when Bo gets a once in a generation kind of talent in the D-line like Suh or Glenn Dorsey. Also, Bo's scheme seems to feature LBs the most, but our LBs are hardly the strength of this defense!! What are ur thooughts?

my thoughts are Bo is committed to this scheme......not good. I mean if he knows it only works with a couple studs and he doesn't have them, why run it?.....square peg, round hole theory=NFG.

 

[Husker from Kansas]

I'll tell all of you what the biggest factor in the game was, Wyoming flat out wanted the game more, plain and simple. They felt disrespected that nobody gave them a chance in hell, while Nebraska on the other hand, was already looking forward to playing UCLA in two weeks. I said it before and I'll say it again, games like these are good for teams occasionally because it humbles them and gets them focused on the grind ahead. Also dont forget we were up 31-14 at one point, then the inexperience of the defense coupled with the timid play calling on the offensive side of the ball is what kept NU from driving the final nail and ended up letting Wyoming back into the game. Was it disappointing? Hell yea it was! Was it how the rest of the season will go? I highly doubt it

 

[Hunter94]

I'll tell all of you what the biggest factor in the game was, Wyoming flat out wanted the game more, plain and simple. They felt disrespected that nobody gave them a chance in hell, while Nebraska on the other hand, was already looking forward to playing UCLA in two weeks. I said it before and I'll say it again, games like these are good for teams occasionally because it humbles them and gets them focused on the grind ahead. Also dont forget we were up 31-14 at one point, then the inexperience of the defense coupled with the timid play calling on the offensive side of the ball is what kept NU from driving the final nail and ended up letting Wyoming back into the game. Was it disappointing? Hell yea it was! Was it how the rest of the season will go? I highly doubt it

well, if that is our excuse for poor play, the coaches suck...its a coaching thing...should never happen.

 

[Enhance]

I'm not buying that it's because Wyoming wanted it more, we were looking ahead, etc.

Nebraska has given up more than a mile of total offense in the last three games they played combined. Whether it's scheme, coaching or a combo of both, there is something seriously off with this defense and it's not just a fluke. It's a continuous problem that, imho, doesn't have much of a counter-argument at this point. Wyoming, Wisconsin 2012, tOSU 2012, UCLA 2012, Wisconsin 2011... just awful performances.

And arguably the biggest problem, which hasn't been resolved in years, is being able to stop the run. We just don't do it, and it's particularly painful when it's between the tackles. I consider myself one of the more reserved, 'let's give the coaches a chance to fix the problem' kind of poster. But Wyoming was not as good as they appeared to be at times last night.

 

[lo country]

Which other college teams run the 2-gap as often as we do?

Bama.

And their DC is one of the best in the biz and getting paid over 1 million to do it. Clemson pay Venables over 1million. I am seeing a theme here............

Yes. The theme is pay someone and that makes them good!????????

No. Bama and Clemson (to name just 2) went after proven coordinators and too date it is showing success. We, on the other hand, promoted from within, two guys, with little (being gracious) to no experience. We are seeing the results. Beck made some bone headed calls Sat. If Bo calls the D (like some suspect) then why do we have Paps?

IMO, when we give up 600 yrds per game in our last 3, that is an issue. When opponents seem to use similar games plans to beat us, that is a problem. When Bo owns 4 of the 10 worst D performances, that is an issue.

Bama played 11 Fresh last year. OSU and UM played 16.

I am tired of the excuses, youth, new conference, over looking opponents, Smith made awesome plays and is a Hypesman contender etc...... We make too many teams look like world beaters. I still haven't forgotten getting mauled by Wisky and their 3rd string QB.

I know we had a DE as a DT because of injuries, but who develops the depth and recruits to the needs (present and future) of the team.

We have some serious issues. Wyoming a team ranked 90th in rushing last year hung 602 yrds on us. This same team ran 78 plays and was only in 3rd down 8 times. 8 times.............

 

[MichiganDad3]

I'll tell all of you what the biggest factor in the game was, Wyoming flat out wanted the game more, plain and simple. They felt disrespected that nobody gave them a chance in hell, while Nebraska on the other hand, was already looking forward to playing UCLA in two weeks. I said it before and I'll say it again, games like these are good for teams occasionally because it humbles them and gets them focused on the grind ahead. Also dont forget we were up 31-14 at one point, then the inexperience of the defense coupled with the timid play calling on the offensive side of the ball is what kept NU from driving the final nail and ended up letting Wyoming back into the game. Was it disappointing? Hell yea it was! Was it how the rest of the season will go? I highly doubt it

well, if that is our excuse for poor play, the coaches suck...its a coaching thing...should never happen.

Is this the 3rd game in a row where the other team wanted it more than the Huskers?

 

[MichiganDad3]

I'm not buying that it's because Wyoming wanted it more, we were looking ahead, etc.

Nebraska has given up more than a mile of total offense in the last three games they played combined. Whether it's scheme, coaching or a combo of both, there is something seriously off with this defense and it's not just a fluke. It's a continuous problem that, imho, doesn't have much of a counter-argument at this point. Wyoming, Wisconsin 2012, tOSU 2012, UCLA 2012, Wisconsin 2011... just awful performances.

And arguably the biggest problem, which hasn't been resolved in years, is being able to stop the run. We just don't do it, and it's particularly painful when it's between the tackles. I consider myself one of the more reserved, 'let's give the coaches a chance to fix the problem' kind of poster. But Wyoming was not as good as they appeared to be at times last night.

Completely agree. The D needs a new scheme with the number one priority of stopping the run.