Post Game UCLA Tweets

[TheSker]

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

What do you mean? Our coaches are not asking that dlineman to lose that one on one battle and allow himself to get hooked.

At some point the players do have to put forth the effort to fight through some things. That's a one on one matchup and that guy got destroyed.

Every defensive player isn't going to win every battle. The scheme has to work even when some players get beat.

Then I should have been able to play DT in college if I just found the right scheme. I weigh 210.

 

[alwayshusking]

I think there's a case to made that the scheme is flawed, especially when playing mobile QBs, there isn't enough heart/desire, and there are talent deficiencies.

I don't see guys being put into positions to succeed on defense. I think that takes away a lot of the heart/desire.

Getting the ball run down your throat is a morale killer. We used to do it to teams and Bo's defense is vulnerable to the run by design. Just another reason most great defensive coaches design defenses that take away the run first.

 

[MichiganDad3]

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

What do you mean? Our coaches are not asking that dlineman to lose that one on one battle and allow himself to get hooked.

At some point the players do have to put forth the effort to fight through some things. That's a one on one matchup and that guy got destroyed.

Every defensive player isn't going to win every battle. The scheme has to work even when some players get beat.

Then I should have been able to play DT in college if I just found the right scheme. I weigh 210.

Nope, you should win some of the battles, and hopefully more than half at an elite program like Nebraska. If every player wins 90% of the battles, then at least one player will lose a battle on 31% of the plays. The scheme must allow some players to lose individual battles.

 

[True2tRA]

I'm not discounting the lack of fire. I was there. We look like a flat sad team. I didn't see one guy rallying anyone else. Not one guy trying to bring the attitude up while UCLA players were doing some sort of dance laughing and yelling nonsense at us before every kickoff after they scored. Not one guy in either side of the ball looked very animated or excited so I get that.

But I'm a point the thumb kind of guy.

We are asking a lot of these players in this scheme. No blitz is killing us. Not even the deception, the appearance of a blitz is killing us. We want to rush the same four guys against their five and expect them to get pressure. Your a$$ would get tired out there, don't think these kids don't. Former players who want to talk about scheme didn't play in this bullsh#t. They didn't have to play for twenty seconds every time the ball was snapped. Usually an offensive possession is shorter than that. But we give teams so much time. We are on the field play after play, third down conversion after conversion, just to have our offense go three and out. Then instead of lighting a fire under your defense, bringing some blitzes, you back off. Playing safe so it doesn't tart much worse.

Point the thumb Bo. A scheme in which if one guy makes a mistake the entire thing is busted wide open, that's a problem. We have too many guys on islands. The defensive line gets no help. The coverage is stranded. I understand that to mix things up you will be put in these scenarios but Bo has it backwards. We should be blitzing them and then stunning them when we drop into a safe four man rush soft man coverage. Instead, we play soft man, four man rush all game long and surprise surprise the 3 times we blitz all game it works spectacularly.

 

[TheSker]

Former players who want to talk about scheme didn't play in this bullsh#t.

Good point. I'm pretty sure you can send Jay Foreman a message to let him know.

 

[Hercules]

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

What do you mean? Our coaches are not asking that dlineman to lose that one on one battle and allow himself to get hooked.

At some point the players do have to put forth the effort to fight through some things. That's a one on one matchup and that guy got destroyed.

Every defensive player isn't going to win every battle. The scheme has to work even when some players get beat.

No scheme is going to work 100% when the players get beat.

I do think that there are things they could adjust. If you have two defensive lineman pushed into the same gap, and the offensive play is built to take advantage of that, you're going to get beat on that play. But I would think you could change the coverage scheme or the safety assignments so that the secondary can react and get downhill faster to keep that run a 10 yard gain instead of 60.

 

[MichiganDad3]

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

I think there are probably some arguments against the current scheme as far as reducing the amount of man coverage we use. It was amazing when Gomes, Amukumara, Dennard and Hagg were flying around, and could blanket everyone on the field. But I don't think we have the personnel in the secondary right now to blanket everybody in man coverage, and I'm guessing that using more zone would be more effective in stopping the big play, and in stopping the run game.

However, when it comes to playing the run in those pictures Foreman and Benning posted? That has nothing to do with scheme, because you're not going to find a scheme that makes up for the defensive line making mistakes or getting worked.

First of all, maybe Gomes and company were more effective because opposing coaches have watched film and figure out how to beat Bo's scheme. Second, maybe the DL appears to get bat because they are coached to play pattycake instead of rush like wild men.

Or maybe part of the reason Gomes and company were more effective is because they were more talented.....thus their entrance into the NFL. Check out our NFL draft history since 1990. If you need help, I have a year by year breakdown.

Got it. All we need is NFL caliber players at every position and the problem is solved.

 

[zoogs]

Uh, yes.

Name a shutdown defense that isn't stock full of sheer talent, and does their magic merely by clever scheme wizardry.

Look at what A&M did to even 'Bama.

 

[gbr93]

I'm not discounting the lack of fire. I was there. We look like a flat sad team. I didn't see one guy rallying anyone else. Not one guy trying to bring the attitude up while UCLA players were doing some sort of dance laughing and yelling nonsense at us before every kickoff after they scored. Not one guy in either side of the ball looked very animated or excited so I get that.

But I'm a point the thumb kind of guy.

We are asking a lot of these players in this scheme. No blitz is killing us. Not even the deception, the appearance of a blitz is killing us. We want to rush the same four guys against their five and expect them to get pressure. Your a$$ would get tired out there, don't think these kids don't. Former players who want to talk about scheme didn't play in this bullsh#t. They didn't have to play for twenty seconds every time the ball was snapped. Usually an offensive possession is shorter than that. But we give teams so much time. We are on the field play after play, third down conversion after conversion, just to have our offense go three and out. Then instead of lighting a fire under your defense, bringing some blitzes, you back off. Playing safe so it doesn't tart much worse.

Point the thumb Bo. A scheme in which if one guy makes a mistake the entire thing is busted wide open, that's a problem. We have too many guys on islands. The defensive line gets no help. The coverage is stranded. I understand that to mix things up you will be put in these scenarios but Bo has it backwards. We should be blitzing them and then stunning them when we drop into a safe four man rush soft man coverage. Instead, we play soft man, four man rush all game long and surprise surprise the 3 times we blitz all game it works spectacularly.

Did you stay up late enough to watch any of the Asu-Wisc game? Asu literally blitzed every single play. Obviously I don't think we need to go that extreme. But you could see that every single time Stave dropped to pass, instead of looking to see who was open, he was trying to find the blitzer. This really could be beneficial if we found a happy medium.

 

[husker_99]

Uh, yes.

Name a shutdown defense that isn't stock full of sheer talent, and does their magic merely by clever scheme wizardry.

Look at what A&M did to even 'Bama.

A&M also has a coach that can recruit because when he was at Houston he had to find the diamonds in the rough. He can also make adjustments.

 

[TheSker]

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

I think there are probably some arguments against the current scheme as far as reducing the amount of man coverage we use. It was amazing when Gomes, Amukumara, Dennard and Hagg were flying around, and could blanket everyone on the field. But I don't think we have the personnel in the secondary right now to blanket everybody in man coverage, and I'm guessing that using more zone would be more effective in stopping the big play, and in stopping the run game.

However, when it comes to playing the run in those pictures Foreman and Benning posted? That has nothing to do with scheme, because you're not going to find a scheme that makes up for the defensive line making mistakes or getting worked.

First of all, maybe Gomes and company were more effective because opposing coaches have watched film and figure out how to beat Bo's scheme. Second, maybe the DL appears to get bat because they are coached to play pattycake instead of rush like wild men.

Or maybe part of the reason Gomes and company were more effective is because they were more talented.....thus their entrance into the NFL. Check out our NFL draft history since 1990. If you need help, I have a year by year breakdown.

Got it. All we need is NFL caliber players at every position and the problem is solved.

That would be true. Our DL in '95 included both Peter bros, Wistrom and Tomich......all NFL talent.

 

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Samuel McKewon ‏@swmckewonOWH

Nebraska's pass rush scheme. pic.twitter.com/km7ENB7pFB

Just a sad way to play football. No aggressiveness.

on a passing down! help the secondary out and make the qb play under some pressure. force him to get rid of it quickly, instead of having all day to find a receiver that will inevitably get open.

We didn't do it last year either

 

[MichiganDad3]

No doubt it is true. Didn't every player except Farely (who may have been the best defensive player that year) get drafted or even make an NFL team? It is just not a strategy that can be counted on.

 

[TheSker]

No doubt it is true. Didn't every player except Farely (who may have been the best defensive play) get drafted or even make an NFL team? It is just not a strategy that can be counted on.

I believe your memory serves correct......and one of the reasons I want Pelini to stay is because I think recruiting has greatly improved. We still have some positions of need though.

 

[Count 'Bility]

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

What do you mean? Our coaches are not asking that dlineman to lose that one on one battle and allow himself to get hooked.

At some point the players do have to put forth the effort to fight through some things. That's a one on one matchup and that guy got destroyed.

Every defensive player isn't going to win every battle. The scheme has to work even when some players get beat.

If defensive schemes consistently worked even when some players got beat, there would never be a point scored in the game of football ever ever again, unless a safety here and there of course.

This was not my point. It was more in regards to True suggesting that the coaches taught the DL to get beat, even though I do know that's not really what he meant.

I'm just in pretty stiff defense of my theory that our problems throughout the entire team have a hell of a lot more to do with mentality than it does schemes and talent.