Hail Mary Defense

I don't like the prevent defenses either. But, this problem was not the prevent defense. Its one last play with three defenders who did not play the ball or try to knock it down.

 
Gifford was a safety for most of his life, poor poor judgment. What's more irritating is that he was even on the field. You put your guys out there who will go get it. Should have been 5 dbs, also maybe Lane Hovey, westerkamp?

 
I know the gut-wrenching feeling - November 2, 2013 via Mr. Westerkamp. Win some (Hail Marys), lose some.

 
I'm thinking, if these coaches and players could redo that play, they might do it a little bit differently.

Maybe not?

One aspect of Coach Riley and this staff that I really thought was beneficial was the experience they bring to the table. So you know they've been in this situation before and have a good idea how to defend it. You would expect so anyways. So either the players didn't understand their roles, or something else went wrong.

Crazy thing was, this was another brilliant example of football being a game of inches. Between some penalties, and a few failed 3rd and short conversions, this is a different game. But even more so,on that final play you saw an example.

If Gifford keeps his feet driving forward and pushes the receiver away from the goal line instead if hugging his waist and pulling him into the end zone. Or if Nate Gerry doesn't leave the ground and instead hit the receiver from behind, the ball most likely doesn't cross the goal line.

I think the DB's in the endzone being spectators is the only thing I can look at and say there was a clear issue. I only say this because I've somewhat grown tired of seeing this on Nebraska's football teams. Too many guys standing and watching instead of seeking out contact and playing to the whistles. That'd be one thing I'd like to see Nebraska improve on.

Really though, we just found ourselves on the crap end of one of the most exciting plays in football. The team that loses on that play always has a lot of what ifs. Its tough to lose that way, period. I hope the guys bounce back and move on quickly. Learn from it, don't dwell on it.

 
For those of you trying to pin that final hail Mary on the coaches, I can guarantee a few things;

1- The coaches didn't instruct the defense to all get behind the receivers. At least some of them were supposed to be in front.

2- The coaches did not tell the players to let the guy catch the ball virtually uncontested.

3- They did not say, if a guy catches the ball, pull him into the endzone.

Sorry, this is not an example of poor coaching unless they totally neglected to practice for it even once. Poor execution by the players? Yes. A tough, fluke deal? Probably a little bit.

 
Have more than a single digit lead. go up by 2 scores with .01 second left and this is a non issue.

The elite teams, like the Huskers of the past would be up by 3-4 touchdowns in the 4th quarter. You leave nothing to chance.

 
For those of you trying to pin that final hail Mary on the coaches,
Click to expand...
A three man rush was a coaching decision. I called the NU loss when they rushed only three men on the first play of the drive. It literally gives a freshman quarterback a free pass, replaces what is said to be the best part of the defense (defensive line, with Collins, Gangwash, McMullen, and Valentine) with a weaker, less experienced mob of defensive backs in formations and coverages that aren't "natural" and practiced regularly, etc., etc.

I was at Firestone getting tires put on my 1965 Oldsmobile and drinking a free coffee in their waiting area and saw Doug Flutie pull of this same thing. I wondered why Miami let that short little guy get an unobstructed view and time to pull that off. I wonder it every time I still see it. So this isn't a Riley / Nebraska thing with me, it's a football thing.

"A three man never works for anybody...but it just might work for us!"

 
MichiganDad3 said:
This is a serious question to those who have coached defense. Why give the receivers enough time to run down the field a get position in the end zone, and give the QB plenty of time to make the throw. You guarantee the ball will make it to the end zone with 5 offense players there. It seems stupid to me. Rush at least 4, maybe 5, and make the QB get rid of the ball. You still have enough players to keep two safeties deep.
Click to expand...
Why hand out black shirts to a defense that hadn't done anything? How does that motivate the defense? Seems to me it is more like giving out participation ribbons and orange slices, but maybe that is MR's coaching style.

 
Frustrated said:
MichiganDad3 said:
This is a serious question to those who have coached defense. Why give the receivers enough time to run down the field a get position in the end zone, and give the QB plenty of time to make the throw. You guarantee the ball will make it to the end zone with 5 offense players there. It seems stupid to me. Rush at least 4, maybe 5, and make the QB get rid of the ball. You still have enough players to keep two safeties deep.
Click to expand...
Why hand out black shirts to a defense that hadn't done anything? How does that motivate the defense? Seems to me it is more like giving out participation ribbons and orange slices, but maybe that is MR's coaching style.
Click to expand...
Because the beginning tradition of Black Shirts was simply the starting defense. It didn't matter how awesome you were, just that you were the starter. It got skewed into seeming like defenders got their Black Shirts because of their fantastic play during the 90s, but that was not the original intent. That's why they were handed out.

 
Not exactly sure how you let a 6'5" guy stand on the goal line with all the defenders behind him, but hey, what do I know, right? Also was disappointed with the rush, or lack thereof. Man, it's almost like the players took the play off, but I also think they were pretty gassed by that point. Well, sh#t happens, time to move on, give BYU credit for making the play. Husker, overall, played a helluva 2nd half and I thought the coaches adjusted well at halftime. Too bad we came up short.

 
Why not keep five DBs back deep, goal line deep, to match up with each receiver, and then send six after the quarterback all-out? In a completely empty set, they've only got 5 to block 6 and I feel like it would be a very tall task to be able to give him 4 seconds of protection against that kind of pressure.

As far as what actually happened, BYU ran their play to perfection. They drew our guys back by sending their bunched receivers to the back of the end zone (I guarantee it was in at least some of their minds remembering that we beat NW on a Hail Mary because they allowed Jordan to get behind them), and had a delayed receiver cross field late to get in front of everyone. We didn't defend it well enough, but they executed it brilliantly.

 
Look, no matter which formation or play is called, if one of your players isn't doing anything, you're playing 10 on 11 and chances are the offense will make a catch. Watch the replay. Tell me what good your #24 is doing on the play? What is he doing? Did he defend anyone? Did he try?

 
There's no way to practice every Hail Mary scenario and there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the way NU planned to defend it. In 40 years of coaching Riley had never lost a game on a Hail Mary at the end.

It sucks, but in the end it was just bad luck. The same as when we stole that lost game away from Northwestern in 2013. That win was also purely luck.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top