Special teams.....

Comish

Comish

All-Conference
Some of this has no doubt made an appearance in other threads, but just to focus on one topic.............

Color me completely flummoxed on our special teams.

It's ONE thing to simply (to reiterate Bo's favorite term) fail to execute.

It's completely another to discern our philosophy ...?

Harkening back to the days of Callahan and Santino Pacinco (sp?)..........where Wild Bill was content to simply secure the punt and not risk a turnover (even though multiple times the Statue had plenty of room to catch and advance.) I assume this is our philosophy with putting our best hands (Westy) back there. (although even that strategy seems fraught currently).

What about attacking the punter? To my dismay, I read a few weeks ago where a coach admitted we weren't trying to block kicks because of the risk of roughing. REALLY ?? We don't think the risk/reward ratio of blocking/tipping/hurrying a punter is too much? How about we get aggressive and teach the technique and rules? Then, we waste multiple guys who half-heartedly rush and then stop and stand before getting too near the punter? If that is punt-safe to protect vs the fake, maybe we need to translate that to field goal safe as well. At the very least, use some bodies to disrupt the gunners going downfield. Totally baffling to be that passive and ADVERTISE it.

I understand some of our SP deficiencies are related to injuries, but surely a roster the size of a Div 1 squad has a few more options than simply giving in.

Kick returns? Nothing working there. Chart how often our returns fail to achieve even the 25 yr. line.

Bottom line. T.O. use to tout how SP was 1/3 of the game. It looks like we are abdicating !/3 of the game by a combination of lack of execution, stale formations, or (worst of all)....tepid expectations and a bewildering passivity toward being aggressive in all phases.

Totally inexcusable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure what I can add to this. This staff has simply given up trying to get any benefit from ST. And this disinterested, do the safe thing approach has translated to it being a huge negative factor. It's almost as if they've got their hands full with offense and defense issues and simply never find or make the time to work on ST in practice. I don't have any idea if that is true, but that's sure what it looks like on Saturdays. It's quite pathetic and should be viewed as unacceptable.

There are some things that fall more on player execution and experience and then there are other things that have to be placed directly at the coaches feet. Our abysmal special teams play is one that is directly attributable to coaching. I can already hear the whines that "but the coaches can't catch the punts for them". That is a cop out. The coaches have got to make sure they have the correct personnel and that they work on it until it is not a liability. ST has been a significant liability for Nebraska.

 
I'd hate to be a "it's the coaches fault!!!" guy, but the PR scheme is not working. I know it is focused towards having a good return, but the alignments and blocking assignments just plain aren't working. Also, the fact that we have never shown to rush the punter is allowing the punter to hold the ball for just a few split seconds longer. This not only allows their guys to get further down field, but also allows for the punter to focus on getting a better technique. So his hang time is probably at his best when playing us.

I am not a coach, nor do I know what is best. But I can tell you from what I see, we simply allow the punter to do his job to perfection. I understand the concept of how we play our PR, and theoretically it would work. It allows for more blockers and also plays well against any potential fakes. But we need to "attack" more. Atleast a little bit. The way we play it now, the returnman is constantly needing to fair catch it or risk losing yards due to just the allowance of the punter to play unrushed (which apparently "unrushed" is not a word... haha!).

Is it the returnman? I honestly don't think so. I think anyone back there would be nervous considering how consistently close an opposing player is after every PR.

Just my two cents. I don't know if there are any other issues on ST's. Obviously, our punter could be better at times, but considering he was a WR until recently, I am not extremely concerned. It's just we lose so much on the PR's specifically in the field position game.

 
The punt return rarely works because it's almost always 10 of theirs against 7 of ours.

We lazily rush 3 or 4 guys who have absolutely no intention of getting to the kicker. They contain in case of a fake but that's about it. The ball gets kicked, and those 3-4 'rushers' don't even bother trying to block the oppositions guys in any way. It's hard to tell from the TV but guessing by how many opposing team players are practically tripping over Westy as he is fielding the punt, it doesn't appear the gunners are getting blocked either. It's as if the only play the punt return team has is to try and catch the ball.

Isn't there someone on the team that can field punts besides a starting receiver? If I'm a 3rd or 4th db/safety that never sees the field I'd begging to field punts.

 
I'm almost certain anymore that our punt return philosophy is nothing more than the Callahan/Panico days. Let's just get possession of the ball so our offense can get out there. And man are opposing teams ever so starting to expose it.

 
From today's Lincoln paper quoting Ross Ells, the special teams coach "We've got a shot to get our offense the ball back. We're concerned about roughing the kicker. Are we willing to take that risk? Not right now....with the fakes and making sure we're not getting penalties, lets make sure we get the offense the ball back"

That quote maybe the most disturbing admission I've read yet about our philosophy. It is in sync with the " lets NOT blitz on 3rd and 19" theory we witnessed last Saturday...i.e....passivity rather than attacking.

Wow!

More than the turnovers, more than "failed execution, more than faulty schemes, more than game management,...............That ATTITUDE bothers me the most about this season.

 
Well, they certainly are "special".

I find it fairly disturbing that this topic hasn't generated a bunch more discussion in three days. This leads me to a couple assumptions. 1- The usual coach defenders/pumpers realize this ST area is directly attributable to coaching, so they have decided to avoid it. And B) It is so brutally obvious to everyone else that even the fans have given up acknowledging the liability it is.

 
I have no idea if what we are doing on punt returns is unusual or has a sound basis that a lot of other teams also do, but it looks weird as hell and the results seem frightening.

I don't think I can even armchair question ST strategy but it's hard to not jump on the Ross Els, why you do this! train.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be nice if Westerkamp could at least get enough blocking so he isn't surrounded by a sea of hostile jerseys when he attempts a catch.

If we aren't going to go after a block and we don't want to set up a return, then why not put two guys back so the ball doesn't get by and roll for another 15 yards.

 
By the way, when Enunwa caught the ball deep in the end zone and got only to the 14 yard line against Northwestern...I give him props for trying to make a play. Those were desperate times, and they called for desperate measures.

 
When MSU ran the fake they did, we got outcoached BY A MILE.

Of all the fakes you can run, you turn your hands guy free to run up the middle?

You know why? Because they saw it on tape time after time that WE DO NOT SEND ANY PRESSURE off the edge to force any action if a bobbled snap, fake, potential block, hurried kick affect, etc.

They knew we simply sit back and expect the kick. So why not just run it up the middle?

It wasnt so surprising to me that

1) they faked it

2) they faked it the way they did

3) got it

Why do teams rugby punt? The punter waits a count, takes 3-4 steps to one side while his coverage descends, and punts a low line drive bouncing around inside the 10.

If we sent even ONE man to force action (not even block it, same as FG) we eliminate the time one has to kick or punt.

Simply outcoached on that front. And teams are/will exploit it.

Football is agame of inches and comes down to a few plays or a series almost every week against quality opponents. We are losing those inches and series consistently.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comish said:
From today's Lincoln paper quoting Ross Ells, the special teams coach "We've got a shot to get our offense the ball back. We're concerned about roughing the kicker. Are we willing to take that risk? Not right now....with the fakes and making sure we're not getting penalties, lets make sure we get the offense the ball back"

That quote maybe the most disturbing admission I've read yet about our philosophy. It is in sync with the " lets NOT blitz on 3rd and 19" theory we witnessed last Saturday...i.e....passivity rather than attacking.

Wow!

More than the turnovers, more than "failed execution, more than faulty schemes, more than game management,...............That ATTITUDE bothers me the most about this season.
Click to expand...
well, we can let Ells go now..........anyone can coach this way...f'ing waste!

 
Bowfin said:
It would be nice if Westerkamp could at least get enough blocking so he isn't surrounded by a sea of hostile jerseys when he attempts a catch.

If we aren't going to go after a block and we don't want to set up a return, then why not put two guys back so the ball doesn't get by and roll for another 15 yards.
Click to expand...
I think the call from the sideline is to fair catch. Not since #87 Nate Swift took one to the house against Va Tech has anyone rebelled against the fair catch orders. Players can play. Coaches just don't trust.

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