The Blackshirts

[NUpolo8]

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

 

[knapplc]

On a tangent if anybody cares to comment, do we think the bend don't break style attributes to the luster maybe coming off the tradition a little bit. Now don't spin what I'm saying, we are tough and we play well, we do a nice job and this season, especially those front four, has been fun to watch. We aren't quite the killers we used to be though IMO. Maybe the changes in the game and the rules protecting the offensive players have factored as well.

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

 

[kchusker_chris]

As much as I wish, I don't think so. The article you linked was from 2012. For him to be playing this year, he would have had to have been granted that medical hardship, I believe.

Medical comes in the 6th year. He would have used a redshirt for that 2012 season. Played 2010, 2011, redshirt, 2013, 2014. I don't think you can use a medical hardship if you have a redshirt available correct? It's requested "after" you've used all your eligibility.

 

[True2tRA]

On a tangent if anybody cares to comment, do we think the bend don't break style attributes to the luster maybe coming off the tradition a little bit. Now don't spin what I'm saying, we are tough and we play well, we do a nice job and this season, especially those front four, has been fun to watch. We aren't quite the killers we used to be though IMO. Maybe the changes in the game and the rules protecting the offensive players have factored as well.

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

Same here. It's a philosophy based on percentages. Whether the odds are greater they make a mistake or you make one. It's kind of safe, but has shown to be effective. I have always loved the high risk - high reward type of defense. McBride style, but I'm also a fan of winning. Bo's defense works when he has the dogs to run it, especially up front. I'll take the way we played last Saturday anytime.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

Exactly, you cannot win unless your name is Kiffin, Kelly, or McBride. The way I see it is that Bo is honoring the tradition by making it something you earn by performance during the season, not simply by making the pre-season cut as a starter. Listening to the reactions of the players that earn their Blackshirts makes it apparent to me that this tradition lives strong in the locker room. The only place where it has been called haphazard or waning is in the newspapers and from the mouths of older fans. The tradition lives strong with the team, and the brand remains a power with the fans and media. No need to question it, imho.

 

[QMany]

As much as I wish, I don't think so. The article you linked was from 2012. For him to be playing this year, he would have had to have been granted that medical hardship, I believe.

Medical comes in the 6th year. He would have used a redshirt for that 2012 season. Played 2010, 2011, redshirt, 2013, 2014. I don't think you can use a medical hardship if you have a redshirt available correct? It's requested "after" you've used all your eligibility.

I'm not positive of the particulars. Since he participated in 2012, I don't think he used his "traditional redshirt." He would have been out of eligibility after last year unless he applied for the hardship.

2012 (Medical Hardship)

Anderson played in three games in 2012 before suffering a knee injury, and received a medical hardship. Anderson had four tackles before his injury.

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205371656

 

[StPaulHusker]

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

 

[zoogs]

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

I don't think bend-and-don't break is a fair characterization. It gets into the whole "manly aggression / effete passivity" argument that, while extremely popular, really doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the battles are fought.

Most offenses are going to look at how a defense lines up to figure out where it's weak pre-snap. That's what a lot of the motion is for, for example, to get the defense to tip their hand.

A good defense won't take this tactic lying down and make it easy for the offense to find the chinks in their armor. The more you can make it harder for an offense to say "Well, OK, I see your defense and I'll just do this", the better.

Really, every time a defense lines up they're dictating something to the offense. Whether that's stacking the box and daring a team to throw deep, or keeping everyone back and forcing teams to work the short field, or less "all in" gambits. In the past Bo's defenses have basically said "try to run, because you won't make a living passing" and that's dictating, too. Then teams pick up yardage running because it's considered by plan as the lesser of two evils, and then it becomes viewed as "bend but don't break" reactionary defense.

 

[NUpolo8]

I wonder if any other Nebraska coach had treated the blackshirts like this what the reaction would have been.

Exactly, you cannot win unless your name is Kiffin, Kelly, or McBride. The way I see it is that Bo is honoring the tradition by making it something you earn by performance during the season, not simply by making the pre-season cut as a starter. Listening to the reactions of the players that earn their Blackshirts makes it apparent to me that this tradition lives strong in the locker room. The only place where it has been called haphazard or waning is in the newspapers and from the mouths of older fans. The tradition lives strong with the team, and the brand remains a power with the fans and media. No need to question it, imho.

That was more my point. The simplest thing to do was to keep handing them out before the season started from the beginning.

 

[NUpolo8]

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

 

[True2tRA]

There are quite a few former players who I believe we're pretty concerned with how this tradition was being handled. Like I said, this means a lot to a lot of people. It's just something that should never go away. It's a Nebraska pride thing. I would hope that's a pride that doesn't vanish. The people who hold the biggest share of pride in thing isn't the fans, the media, maybe not even coaches, but current and especially former players are the ones who sould have some ownership or control of this. Especially if it's become seen as any sort of sideshow or nuisance to any current coach.

Getting really creative, aside from the Blackshirts Room in the stadium and maybe a Blackshirt pride or initiation with former players educating new players on the tradition, maybe a Blackshirt Council. Five or so former players with a finger on the pulse of things that can decide how this tradition is handled. Wo gets em, when they get em. Who knows? It would definitely bring a little more excitement surrounding the Blackshirts. A motivator too if some former players are holding the keys to whether you live up to the standard or not.

 

[knapplc]

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

I want him back if he's turned into a choirboy. His talent is undeniable. His off-field transgressions are shameful, and if there aren't sureties he's reformed, we don't need him in many, many ways.

If he so much as jaywalks after his past issues, he's a liability and needs to go.

I wonder how many people here would have embraced Fonzie Dennard's if he'd have had another year of eligibility after punching that cop.

 

[True2tRA]

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

I don't think bend-and-don't break is a fair characterization. It gets into the whole "manly aggression / effete passivity" argument that, while extremely popular, really doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the battles are fought.Most offenses are going to look at how a defense lines up to figure out where it's weak pre-snap. That's what a lot of the motion is for, for example, to get the defense to tip their hand.A good defense won't take this tactic lying down and make it easy for the offense to find the chinks in their armor. The more you can make it harder for an offense to say "Well, OK, I see your defense and I'll just do this", the better.Really, every time a defense lines up they're dictating something to the offense. Whether that's stacking the box and daring a team to throw deep, or keeping everyone back and forcing teams to work the short field, or less "all in" gambits. In the past Bo's defenses have basically said "try to run, because you won't make a living passing" and that's dictating, too. Then teams pick up yardage running because it's considered by plan as the lesser of two evils, and then it becomes viewed as "bend but don't break" reactionary defense.

I've always heard these coaches use read and react quite a bit when discussing this defense. The two gap scheme falls into this bend don't break read and react style, no?

I'm not saying its a bad defense, and no matter if anyone tried I refuse to get into a conversation about this defenses shortcoming because right now, they're excellent. I'm just saying, in some of the attacking defenses I enjoy watching, there is a little less read and a little less react. More like seek and destroy.

I know, I know. Probably over simplifying a very complicating thing. Really regardless of the defensive style it's going to be complicating.

 

[NUpolo8]

How certain are we that Moss comes back?

I don't know if you can put a % on it but the fact that he remained in Lincoln has to mean something, doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm just surprised people here want him back.

I want him back if he's turned into a choirboy. His talent is undeniable. His off-field transgressions are shameful, and if there aren't sureties he's reformed, we don't need him in many, many ways.

If he so much as jaywalks after his past issues, he's a liability and needs to go.

I wonder how many people here would have embraced Fonzie Dennard's if he'd have had another year of eligibility after punching that cop.

We are on the same page here. I don't much cotton to the "we win the right way" claptrap when it comes to building this team and if he's learned, he can come back.

However, one has to pause that he was caught in Sandoz almost to the day where he was out of Dutch with the law

 

[knapplc]

I do not like the bend-don't-break philosophy. I'm a fan of defense dictating to the offense, not reacting to the offense. More often than not it works, though. Especially if our offense doesn't give the opponent a short field with turnovers.

I don't think bend-and-don't break is a fair characterization. It gets into the whole "manly aggression / effete passivity" argument that, while extremely popular, really doesn't paint an accurate picture of how the battles are fought.

Most offenses are going to look at how a defense lines up to figure out where it's weak pre-snap. That's what a lot of the motion is for, for example, to get the defense to tip their hand.

A good defense won't take this tactic lying down and make it easy for the offense to find the chinks in their armor. The more you can make it harder for an offense to say "Well, OK, I see your defense and I'll just do this", the better.

Really, every time a defense lines up they're dictating something to the offense. Whether that's stacking the box and daring a team to throw deep, or keeping everyone back and forcing teams to work the short field, or less "all in" gambits. In the past Bo's defenses have basically said "try to run, because you won't make a living passing" and that's dictating, too. Then teams pick up yardage running because it's considered by plan as the lesser of two evils, and then it becomes viewed as "bend but don't break" reactionary defense.

Definitely there's a bit of bloodlust to my preferred method of defense, but I don't know of this "effete" argument. At least, I don't think it's unmanly, or whatever term we could use, to play defense the way we do.

Bo's defense is a chess match. He's put his pieces out there in such a way that (when it works, when people are healthy, etc) if you're going to score on him, you're going to do it with great difficulty. The teams that move the ball on this defense are typically very creative, very talented or very lucky, or various combinations of the three. Occasionally the untalented score on this scheme, but that's more often a result of poor effort on Nebraska's part rather than a scheme issue.

My preference of defense is that the defense dictates, it is not dictated to. I like to see high turnovers, aggressive pursuit of the ball, attacking the ball-carrier rather than trying to build a net around him, going after the quarterback rather than hemming him in. The reason I like that is two-fold: I like the aggression (football is an inherently aggressive sport), but attacking also shortens the time the ball-carrier has to make decisions. Cut the QB's time in half, he can't survey the whole field. Attack the RB, it cuts down his time to make cuts/moves. It's a question of practicality as much as aggression.