HuskerFowler
All-Conference
Secondary Questions? Bo is back coaching the secondary....question answered.
Secondary Questions
- Thread starter bhunt7
- Start date
I guess you'll have to point me to which teams slowed them down:knapplc said:
Denard Robinson:
vs. NU - 11/18, 180 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 23 rush, 83 yds (3.6 ypc), 2 TD - 263 total yds, 4 TDs
vs. Notre Dame: 11/24, 338 yds, 4 TD, 3 INT; 16 rush, 108 yds (6.8 ypc), 1 TD - 446 total yds, 5 TDs
vs. Mich St.: 9/24, 123 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT; 18 rush, 42 yds (2.3 ypc), 1 TD - 165 total yds, 2 TDs
vs. Iowa: 17/37, 194 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 12 car, 55 yds (4.6 ypc) - 249 total yds, 2 TDs
vs. Ohio St. - 14/17, 167 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT; 26 rush, 170 yds (6.5 ypc), 2 TD - 337 total yards, 5 TDs
So Michigan St. (#5 in the country in yards allowed and arch-rival) had him bottled up, Iowa was about the same and ND and Ohio St. were much worse. I suppose you can throw VaTech in as a team that bottled him up but it's a lot easier to have everyone on the same page when you have a month to prepare.
Braxton Miller:
vs. NU (3 quarters) - 5/8, 95 yds, 1 TD; 10 rush, 91 yds (9.1 ypc) - 186 total yds, 1 TD
vs. Mich St. - 5/10, 56 yds, 1 INT; 9 rush, -27 yds (-3.0 ypc) - 29 total yds
vs. Wisconsin - 7/12, 89 yds, 1 TD; 19 rush, 99 yds (5.2 ypc), 2 TD - 188 total yds, 3 TD
vs. Penn St. - 7/17, 83 yds, 1 TD; 18 rush, 105 yds (5.8 ypc), 1 TD - 188 total yds, 2 TD
vs. Michigan - 14/25, 235 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT; 16 rush, 100 yds (6.3 ypc), 1 TD - 335 total yds, 3 TD
So, again, Mich St. had his number, Wisc & Penn St. were comparable and he torched Michigan. You can argue that he compiled his stats against us in only 3 quarters but he only completed one pass and had 3 rushes for 12 yards playing all but 5 plays of the third quarter so we were doing better in the second half and our offense was actually holding the ball which is a large part of why both these QBs were able to put up the stats they did against us.
I don't argue that I wish we could do some things differently but I think is misleading when people talk like we're the only team that has problems with mobile QBs. They hurt a lot of people and, as shown above, they hurt a lot of teams worse than us.
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
Sometimes I think we're the same person. I've been thinking about spoofing this thread for days.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Heisman Trophy Winner
I wonder why Bo feels so stubborn in his insistence to not blitz. Even in 2009 and 2010 when we had amzing D's, Bo seemed to avoid blitzing. Not that he needed to. When you have the luxury of a manchild lining up at DT every week or a totally loaded secondary, it can cover up a lot of inadequacies elsewhere.
Last year, we should've been better than we were, but some injuries prevented that. Baker wasn't himself all year, and it took a while for Fonzie to get rolling. You'd think he would've gone in the other direction (blitzing LB's even if they weren't the most athletic) in order to cover inadequacies or the youth of the defense, but he didn't. He stubbornly stuck to his scheme and it cost us at times, like the Michigan game and the OSU game, before Miller got hurt.
I understand a willingness to stick to the scheme, and I realize we didn't have the most able blitzers last year aside from Vonte. But at a certain point, if the secondary isn't getting it due to inexperience, and the DL is producing NO pressure on their own, I don't understand why you don't start to blitz at some point. Super D in 2004 featured plenty of blitzing, even if it featured a terror of the edge, Demorrio. Stick Lavonte on the outside or have him curl right before the snap if you want a fast guy outside-- his quickness is elite.
It isn't that hard. I know I'm playing armchair DC here, but I guarantee even if you send some of the slower guys like Compton or Whaley, if you blitz two LB's off the edge outside and create what is in essence a 6 man line, you'd get inside Robinson or whoever else's head. Especially if you disguise what you're doing well enough and mix up your blitz calls. You can't do it to the point that they recognize it and know where the big gaps will be so they can dump the ball off right away, but enough that it works to your advantage. I agree 100% with the guys who say it'd screw up their timing and force a bad pass or a tuck and sack.
I just don't know why Bo so obstinately refuses to blitz, but if any of you have any ideas I'd love to hear them. Even with LB's who aren't well suited to blitz (and we will have more coming up thru the ranks who should alleviate us of that problem soon), if you bring different looks and enough guys, you're going to get there more often than not. I'd rather get burnt on a blitz and give up a big play every once in a while than watch them nickel and dime our struggling coverage defense all the way down the field little by little. Blitzing is just more exciting as well-- everyone loves a good sack.
And yeah, I know this post just rehashes a bunch of stuff we already know.
Last year, we should've been better than we were, but some injuries prevented that. Baker wasn't himself all year, and it took a while for Fonzie to get rolling. You'd think he would've gone in the other direction (blitzing LB's even if they weren't the most athletic) in order to cover inadequacies or the youth of the defense, but he didn't. He stubbornly stuck to his scheme and it cost us at times, like the Michigan game and the OSU game, before Miller got hurt.
I understand a willingness to stick to the scheme, and I realize we didn't have the most able blitzers last year aside from Vonte. But at a certain point, if the secondary isn't getting it due to inexperience, and the DL is producing NO pressure on their own, I don't understand why you don't start to blitz at some point. Super D in 2004 featured plenty of blitzing, even if it featured a terror of the edge, Demorrio. Stick Lavonte on the outside or have him curl right before the snap if you want a fast guy outside-- his quickness is elite.
It isn't that hard. I know I'm playing armchair DC here, but I guarantee even if you send some of the slower guys like Compton or Whaley, if you blitz two LB's off the edge outside and create what is in essence a 6 man line, you'd get inside Robinson or whoever else's head. Especially if you disguise what you're doing well enough and mix up your blitz calls. You can't do it to the point that they recognize it and know where the big gaps will be so they can dump the ball off right away, but enough that it works to your advantage. I agree 100% with the guys who say it'd screw up their timing and force a bad pass or a tuck and sack.
I just don't know why Bo so obstinately refuses to blitz, but if any of you have any ideas I'd love to hear them. Even with LB's who aren't well suited to blitz (and we will have more coming up thru the ranks who should alleviate us of that problem soon), if you bring different looks and enough guys, you're going to get there more often than not. I'd rather get burnt on a blitz and give up a big play every once in a while than watch them nickel and dime our struggling coverage defense all the way down the field little by little. Blitzing is just more exciting as well-- everyone loves a good sack.
And yeah, I know this post just rehashes a bunch of stuff we already know.
bshirt
Banned
That's still a good question that drives many of us nuts. :dunno For those who think blitzing is over-rated, I give the following three counter examples....
1. T. Farley
2. J. Williams
3. SuperD
If you watched those three play at all I can't possibly imagine a guy thinking blitzing is over-rated. What "really" drives me & others nuts is that #3 was with Bo as the DC (2003). Why, Bo? Please, please return.....
n.e.husker
Starter
He will bring more pressure when he feels the D can handle that. I dont think they were ready for a diverse playbook last year.
I think it really boils down to Bo creating a defensive scheme and recruited players to stop the run and gun that was the Big XII. IIRC, SUH had mentioned after the 2008 season that Bo had found a way to do that. I think the results the following 2 yrs speak to the ability of Bo to design a D that shuts down the threat. He "invented" the Peso as a way to get Haag on the field.
Year one with the B1G, I really think he was trying to design a D to stop the different teams week in and week out. He was also doing this without Crick and Fonzie. Not to mention the loss of Haag, Prince, Gomes etc......... He was also dealing with a new DC, new DB coach and an incredible amount of inexperience in the defensive backfield not to mention a revolving door on the DL and LB's in attempt to find something that would work.
Bo's D, at least in the Big XII was predicated on every guy being at the right spot at the right time. Ie if a LB took the wrong lane, the whole D was exposed. With such an inexperienced D last year, Bo (IMO) probably felt the best D was a conservative no stunt, no blitz D. The past few years we benefitted from some studs now playing Sundays. Unsure who we have in the defensive side that are locks right now.
I agree with the post above about Farley, Williams and Super D. Look back at what Super D did in 2003. Led in sacks, TFL, fumbles etc and was second in tackles to previous career tackler B. Ruud. Not too shabby.
This might be the year. A DB coach who appears to bring the good of Sanders and Raymond, a DLine coach who seems to have done very well with (a biased opinion) less talent, a DC (although new) who has been with Bo for 5 years etc.... We return some good, but limited experience across the board and have some kids that were recruited specifically for this type of league. I also think that Bo came to realize that a "smaller" quicker LB, unlike the bigger guys most teams fielded can be just as good ie David. I really look for Bo to get the athletes on the field much more than he did last year. For all the hits the kid took (myself included) there are no more brainiacs on the field like Cassidy. We have young guys in the system where now I think that the "knowledge" across the board will be pretty even. Now you go with athletes............ We seem to have quite a few.
Year one with the B1G, I really think he was trying to design a D to stop the different teams week in and week out. He was also doing this without Crick and Fonzie. Not to mention the loss of Haag, Prince, Gomes etc......... He was also dealing with a new DC, new DB coach and an incredible amount of inexperience in the defensive backfield not to mention a revolving door on the DL and LB's in attempt to find something that would work.
Bo's D, at least in the Big XII was predicated on every guy being at the right spot at the right time. Ie if a LB took the wrong lane, the whole D was exposed. With such an inexperienced D last year, Bo (IMO) probably felt the best D was a conservative no stunt, no blitz D. The past few years we benefitted from some studs now playing Sundays. Unsure who we have in the defensive side that are locks right now.
I agree with the post above about Farley, Williams and Super D. Look back at what Super D did in 2003. Led in sacks, TFL, fumbles etc and was second in tackles to previous career tackler B. Ruud. Not too shabby.
This might be the year. A DB coach who appears to bring the good of Sanders and Raymond, a DLine coach who seems to have done very well with (a biased opinion) less talent, a DC (although new) who has been with Bo for 5 years etc.... We return some good, but limited experience across the board and have some kids that were recruited specifically for this type of league. I also think that Bo came to realize that a "smaller" quicker LB, unlike the bigger guys most teams fielded can be just as good ie David. I really look for Bo to get the athletes on the field much more than he did last year. For all the hits the kid took (myself included) there are no more brainiacs on the field like Cassidy. We have young guys in the system where now I think that the "knowledge" across the board will be pretty even. Now you go with athletes............ We seem to have quite a few.
Mierin
Assistant Coach
