From a young OL scout team player

[bshirt]

Regarding the bolded section: Do you have a link for this?

Here's a LINK to a Statepaper article quoting Bo saying that. If you read the whole paragraph it's in, they're interpreting Bo's comment as leaning toward experience rather than stats.

I don't see in that link where he says he expects the defensive line to be better. I know that Bo said he expects the defense to be "five times better," but I've still yet to see him or Carl say that the defensive line will be better. (Unless of course I am missing something in the article you posted.) I'm not arguing that the defense as a whole might be better, I'm simply arguing that the DL will almost certainly regress.

I don't think that quote exists. The comment was about the defense as a whole.

I think we can make a safe argument that the D Line will regress. I'm not uncomfortable saying that. I think an argument can be made that the D Line will be better, and that's based on a lot of "what ifs" that we won't know the answer to until we play... Washington? K State? Hard to say.

I just know that I'm excited about the potential of a solid line of Allen, Stein/Moore, Crick and Meredith (Ankrah?). I don't see a D Line that I'm happy to face there if I'm an OC from Texas or Missouri, especially if our LB play improves even marginally, and our secondary even remains stagnant, neither of which I expect to happen.

To be quite honest with you all, I expect at least one opponent to flee the field in tears before ever taking a single snap next year, forfeiting the game. I really, really do.

Damn! What an outstanding post!!

To think we fired Frank/Bo to get Cally/Coz makes me shake like a leaf on a tree. But God is forgiving and gives us another chance.....YES!!

 

[Spooky Tooth]

Suh was clear that Crick is an exceptional player and will be the next Suh (his words, not mine). Bo and Carl have been been effusive about Crick and his upside. Now, I understand all three may be engaging in hyperbole, but maybe not......

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

im going to throw this out there, my dad and i got to pondering this situation...

Who's to say the league doesnt swallow Suh like it did Dorsey? Hype is hype, whether youre a big red fan or a front office guy calling the shots with your first pick.

Who's to say that Suh put those numbers up only because he had Crick beside him? There is no denying Suh is supremely gifted physically...but what if this entire defense contributed a lot more to his success than 'ESPN' would have you believe? One team ignored Crick and the other no-headliners this year, focusing on Suh, and paid dearly for it. Very telling. Crick faced a lot more double teams than you guys are giving credit for...remember, our D made hay because they could rush 4 against pass protection with success...thats 5 lineman plus a TE or RB most times vs 4 angry huskers. Suh's not the only one dealing with two guys so valiantly.

Crick is young...intangibles, blah blah blah...Suh was a senior this year, experienced, etc. One could argue that Crick shone just as bright on raw talent alone. Couple more years of Bo seasoning, its not unrealistic to think Crick could be better. Thats doubting Bo more than Crick to me, after seeing the difference he made in Suh's career.

I dont say these things to bolster Crick being all world, or Suh being a sham, or anything like that. I simply think its silly to write off either one based on this past year alone.

Interesting theory. The fact the D-Line put up the numbers they did by rushing only four was very telling. Crick will build on this experience and be sooo much better next season. Carl Pelini said he is as strong as a moose and has a great work ethic in the weight room. Wasn't he already lifter of the year? He has shown that he can handle the double teams already and I'm sure he'll be throwing around out matched O-Linemen in the same manner Suh did.

 

[EZ-E]

As to the Carlfrense comparison of losing Suh to Missouri losing Danial, Macklin and Coffman --- this comparison is well....

OK --- an offense losing its QB, their best Wr and an awesome TE --- all All-American-caliber players --- and a defense losing a DT (albeit a truly exceptional one) is just a comparison that cannot be made. Losing the three pinnacle players on the Offense (the QB and the two top weapons --- 3/11ths of the offense)) is light years a greater an impact on an offense than is losing a single player on D (1/11th of the defense/ 14th of the Dl and a DT). Sure a DT is an important position to a defense --- but pales compared to the importance of the QB on offense (and then add in the loss of two sensational players in addition).

So... when Missouri fans were talking an improved offense after losing their three best players --- a QB among them --- that WAS irrational. Losing Suh on our defense is big... certainly. His impact on the DL is huge --- but not as huge as the Missou trio's impact on their offense.

Finally, the composite differential between the replacements and the exiting three at Missouri (coupled to their position impact on the unit) is greater than that for replacing Suh with Steinkuhler.

Uh huh. And so the downplaying of what Suh accomplished begins. Suh took over games from the DEFENSIVE TACKLE position. Think about that for a second . . . he dominated games from a position where it's generally thought to be impossible to dominate games from. Suh almost single handedly won us games against MU and the near miss against Texas. (Without him, we're not even close to winning against UT.) You're right . . . losing a Heisman trophy finalist DT shouldn't have much impact at all... :facepalm:

Facepalm all that you want but Suh down played himself. If you look at some of the clips from the Texas game Crick is the one getting double teamed. So you can say that without Crick Suh doesnt make those plays and we dont win the Texas game either.

 

[melscott62]

im going to throw this out there, my dad and i got to pondering this situation...

Who's to say the league doesnt swallow Suh like it did Dorsey? Hype is hype, whether youre a big red fan or a front office guy calling the shots with your first pick.

Who's to say that Suh put those numbers up only because he had Crick beside him? There is no denying Suh is supremely gifted physically...but what if this entire defense contributed a lot more to his success than 'ESPN' would have you believe? One team ignored Crick and the other no-headliners this year, focusing on Suh, and paid dearly for it. Very telling. Crick faced a lot more double teams than you guys are giving credit for...remember, our D made hay because they could rush 4 against pass protection with success...thats 5 lineman plus a TE or RB most times vs 4 angry huskers. Suh's not the only one dealing with two guys so valiantly.

Crick is young...intangibles, blah blah blah...Suh was a senior this year, experienced, etc. One could argue that Crick shone just as bright on raw talent alone. Couple more years of Bo seasoning, its not unrealistic to think Crick could be better. Thats doubting Bo more than Crick to me, after seeing the difference he made in Suh's career.

I dont say these things to bolster Crick being all world, or Suh being a sham, or anything like that. I simply think its silly to write off either one based on this past year alone.

dorsey really hasnt been that bad. if you have watched chiefs games, he has been pretty good against the run and does get some pressure agaist the pass as well. keep in mind A) he's out of position, B) he didnt have a ton of sacks in college, C) his team is TERRIBLE, and D) not even the great d-tackle came right into the NFL and dominated. if dorsey can get on a decent team that runs a 4-3 he will end up being pretty good.

 

[carlfense]

Facepalm all that you want but Suh down played himself. If you look at some of the clips from the Texas game Crick is the one getting double teamed. So you can say that without Crick Suh doesnt make those plays and we dont win the Texas game either.

I'd venture a guess that I've watched the Texas game a few more times than you have. Why don't you go back and watch how many times Suh is double teamed versus how many times Crick is double teamed. (The only times Crick was double teamed was when they were running to his side of the line. Suh was doubled on practically every passing down, and most running downs.) Your argument is certainly deserving of a facepalm.

 

[EZ-E]

Facepalm all that you want but Suh down played himself. If you look at some of the clips from the Texas game Crick is the one getting double teamed. So you can say that without Crick Suh doesnt make those plays and we dont win the Texas game either.

I'd venture a guess that I've watched the Texas game a few more times than you have. Why don't you go back and watch how many times Suh is double teamed versus how many times Crick is double teamed. (The only times Crick was double teamed was when they were running to his side of the line. Suh was doubled on practically every passing down, and most running downs.) Your argument is certainly deserving of a facepalm.

Carlfense. You are one touchy poster arn't you? haha. Relax. I've watched it too and Crick gets doubled his share as well.

Reguardless of who got doubled more Crick proved this year that he can shed a block and make a play just as well as anyone. So he will be getting doubled next year. Which leaves others open to make plays.

 

[carlfense]

Facepalm all that you want but Suh down played himself. If you look at some of the clips from the Texas game Crick is the one getting double teamed. So you can say that without Crick Suh doesnt make those plays and we dont win the Texas game either.

I'd venture a guess that I've watched the Texas game a few more times than you have. Why don't you go back and watch how many times Suh is double teamed versus how many times Crick is double teamed. (The only times Crick was double teamed was when they were running to his side of the line. Suh was doubled on practically every passing down, and most running downs.) Your argument is certainly deserving of a facepalm.

Carlfense. You are one touchy poster arn't you? haha. Relax. I've watched it too and Crick gets doubled his share as well.

Reguardless of who got doubled more Crick proved this year that he can shed a block and make a play just as well as anyone. So he will be getting doubled next year. Which leaves others open to make plays.

Sorry about that. Sickness and Trial Ad are getting the best of me. I don't mean to be so cranky.

The difference I see is that Suh was doubled AND he still made more plays than anyone else on the line. I agree that Crick will be absorbing more double teams this year. The question as I see it is whether Crick can be as productive as Suh was while being consistently double teamed. I certainly hope that he can . . . but if he does it will be simply astonishing. I think our defensive coaches are great teachers but if they can plug in a player to replace the best Blackshirt in Nebraska history they will be in the conversation with coaching legends.

 

[caveman99]

Facepalm all that you want but Suh down played himself. If you look at some of the clips from the Texas game Crick is the one getting double teamed. So you can say that without Crick Suh doesnt make those plays and we dont win the Texas game either.

I'd venture a guess that I've watched the Texas game a few more times than you have. Why don't you go back and watch how many times Suh is double teamed versus how many times Crick is double teamed. (The only times Crick was double teamed was when they were running to his side of the line. Suh was doubled on practically every passing down, and most running downs.) Your argument is certainly deserving of a facepalm.

Carlfense. You are one touchy poster arn't you? haha. Relax. I've watched it too and Crick gets doubled his share as well.

Reguardless of who got doubled more Crick proved this year that he can shed a block and make a play just as well as anyone. So he will be getting doubled next year. Which leaves others open to make plays.

Sorry about that. Sickness and Trial Ad are getting the best of me. I don't mean to be so cranky.

The difference I see is that Suh was doubled AND he still made more plays than anyone else on the line. I agree that Crick will be absorbing more double teams this year. The question as I see it is whether Crick can be as productive as Suh was while being consistently double teamed. I certainly hope that he can . . . but if he does it will be simply astonishing. I think our defensive coaches are great teachers but if they can plug in a player to replace the best Blackshirt in Nebraska history they will be in the conversation with coaching legends.

That is the key, can Crick approximate Suh? Second Key is can the DE's increase their level of production?

 

[ESPY]

I think people are understating the fact that Suh had certain intangibles clearly setting him apart as the best DT in Blackshirt history. Coming into the 2009, he put it on his shoulders to make a lasting mark on this program, & he had the will-power and drive to accomplish just that. Suh proved time & again he could handle the pressure of being "the man" on this team. He was the opponent's target in every game. He knew that, and he was still able to focus his energy & abilities to perform at the highest level and make those opponents look silly in his wake. Suh was supremely confident, and he exuded that confidence to the rest of the D. Never mind his strength, quickness & technique, Suh was a leader through & through because of the intangibles of his character.

The big question then must center upon Crick's intangibles. We know he is strong, quick, smart & taught by the best, just as Suh was. But, does he have what it takes to be "the man" week in & week out? Can he carry the entire team on his shoulders in the same way Suh did? Does he have those intangibles? Obviously we don't know those answers yet because Crick has played second fiddle to Suh so far in his career. He has not yet needed to be the leader or the dominating force on the D-line.

Seeing as 2010 will be his 1st chance to do so, I'm anxious to see how he'll measure up to Suh & other great DTs in Nebraska history. He's got potential; there's not doubt about that. But, does he have what it takes to be the driving force we all want to see?