Huskers to run base 4-3 defense Saturday

[HuskerShark]

I haven't seen a lot of discussion about this topic, but I have to be honest, it has me a little concerned. Maybe I'm being a little hard on Sean Fisher, but I would rather see him standing on the sideline cheering on his better, faster, more agressive teammates as they make plays.

I just read the OWH article saying that Cooper and Evans probably won't be playing much this Saturday. I really hope that we change that quickly if the game starts out less than stellar on defense. Size is great, but when you have two of the most steady defensive players on the team being sidelined, it's a little alarming to me.

I really hope that even if they don't have Ciante playing Nickel that they have him on the field playing CB because the guy has earned it.

Then with the LB spot, I think that Cooper is more than able to shed blocks and be physical at the point of attack. I'd much rather see him on the field playing a conventional LB role than having Sean Fisher out there.

I hope Fish proves me wrong and has an amazing game, but if he doesn't do well, expect me to be screaming for Cooper to get into the game.

 

[zoogs]

It sounds a little like a gameplan that isn't worried about the Wisconsin passing game.

 

[ADS]

Sounds like they want their most experienced LB's on the field.

 

[Stumpy1]

So Whaley and Fisher are gonna be in or is Santos gonna take Whaleys place?

It wouldn't bother me seeing Whaley at Sam and Santos at Will with Compton in the middle.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I'm sure we will run a 4-3 base against a 2 tight-I formation. Will it still be a 4-3 bases against 4 wides on 3rd and 13? You know we can substitute and change our defense throughout the game according to what we face, right? We dont have to finish the game with what we started in and with.

 

[Undone]

I'm worried about this to say the least.

Quality linebacker play could mean the difference between losing only one more game and losing 2 - 3 more. Not worried about their passing game? That's fine. As long as we blitz.

No blitz = huge problems. See: UCLA.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

We'll see what happens come Saturday night.

 

[Husker Richard]

So Whaley and Fisher are gonna be in or is Santos gonna take Whaleys place?

It wouldn't bother me seeing Whaley at Sam and Santos at Will with Compton in the middle.

THIS. No disrespect to the kid, but Fisher is probably our worst LB that gets playing time.

 

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

We need to just leave Ciante on the field and test out our nickel package at all times. I think he would be able to carry the weight of going against some bigger guys. Our base is horrendous.

 

[C N Red]

Ya, i'd play a little more nickel and use Ciante as a hybrid walk up LB. He is still a lil suspect in coverage at times but the dude is really good against the run.

 

[knapplc]

What they're saying we'll see and what we will see are not necessarily the same thing. Bo isn't exactly a fountain of information at the best of times.

 

[RedDenver]

What they're saying we'll see and what we will see are not necessarily the same thing. Bo isn't exactly a fountain of information at the best of times.

QFT. People shouldn't get worked up over what the media is reporting might happen come game time.

 

[The Dude]

If we have our base defense out there, will it really hurt Cooper's playing time? I thought he was our WLB nowadays.

Shouldn't he be out there regardless?

 

[zoogs]

I'm worried about this to say the least.

Quality linebacker play could mean the difference between losing only one more game and losing 2 - 3 more. Not worried about their passing game? That's fine. As long as we blitz.

No blitz = huge problems. See: UCLA.

How did not blitzing cause our problems against UCLA? Blitzing would have involved removing even more guys from coverage and sending them at a QB sitting back in the 'gun who was going to take the snap and swing it out to his man in the flat, just like he did on their final touchdown when we blitzed the house.
UCLA destroyed us over and over not because their QB had all day to throw, but because when he got the ball to a playmaker, there were vast expanses of green space and few NU defenders in sight. Blitzing would have exacerbated that.

What would have helped? I don't know. Better push up front. More discipline in assignments and not getting beat by the pre-snap alignment changes. Just plain tackling when we got to a ballcarrier (this alone wipes out 50+ yards on one play...)

But back to the topic of this week's game, UCLA and Wisconsin are not remotely similar teams on offense, are they? UCLA spread the field and shifted all their guys around. They made use of the short passing attack for all it was worth. Wisconsin is a line 'em up and run at you team. Their passing game is reeling right now. I can see why we would open with 3 linebackers, and the three with experience, too.

Ciante may have made some good plays in coverage and on tackles, but Wisky may be a different ball game for him. I don't know if he takes on fullbacks or tight ends with the same effectiveness. Nickel corners, even the ones that tackle, don't usually fair well here. On the other hand, fullbacks and linebackers are not going to destroy those LBs like UCLA did. So we get experience, while mitigating weakness in perhaps athleticism.

Unless Wisconsin empties their backfield, spread's em 5 wide, and sends their RBs across the middle of the field from the slot...

 

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Dont be surprised to see them funnel the backs out of the backfield and get them in the flats like UCLA did though. For some reason we have the hardest time identifying when they release. How are wiskys receivers this year? Do they have anyone that we should be substantially worried about geting beat over the top? IMO, we may have to rely on our corners to show up big in some 1v1 quite a bit this game. I expect Wisconsin to extend a drive at least twice when Sunshine sh#ts his pants when we send the house and throws up a prayer, then our corner fails to turn his head. Seems to happen quite a bit.