UCLA Game worries

[knapplc]

That's great, and it's comforting to think that way, but everything I'm reading here is pure speculation. I can't tell you our defense is going to stink any more than anyone can tell me they're going to be good, or even better than last year.

That's the uncertainty that makes these predictions so baffling to me. There's just no reason to believe that we'll be better. Bo's five-year track record says he doesn't do well in games against mobile QBs.

People are calling this a revenge game and citing it as a reason for a win - but we've played several teams twice during Bo's tenure that disproves this theory: VA Tech, Washington, Oklahoma, Texas, Northwestern last year. Granted, we beat Northwestern, but just barely, and that hardly coincides with the predictions of two-score wins we're seeing here.

EDIT - forgot 2010 Iowa State.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Our linebackers are much faster and more athletic this year than last. That's obvious. It's common sense. Everyone knows this, and we havent even seen them play yet.

For real? Read those sentences again and tell me how that makes any sense at all.

These guys may be more athletic, but simple athleticism doesn't make tackles. You have to understand the game and be in position to make those tackles first, and we have zero reason to believe that Zaire Anderson and/or the other starter at LB can do this.

I was as impressed as anyone with Anderson's destruction of the "Compete" Drill at the Spring Game. He looked like a monster, a man among boys. But until we see him do that on the field for a season we have no idea if that's just practice heroics.

I can see it just from watching their high school highlights during recruiting. I know it high school, but their speed and athleticism is what it is. I thought that the guys we have coming in are/were better athletes at that point than what we put on the field a year ago. I think it's something everyone understands. Now, if only the defensive playcalling is built to free these guys up and use that additional athleticism and not freeze the hell out of them, we should be in for a very pleasant surprise.

We saw several times a year ago guys like Compton and Whaley getting burned around the corners by qb runs and swing passes and sweeps and the ball carriers picking up 15 yards before a safety or corner could bring them down. Guys like Anderson, Aflava, and Rose are faster-much faster-than those linebackers from a year ago. This is obvious to me. I thought they were much faster just based on their high school film.

Just my thoughts.

Knapp, I think I completely missed the point you were getting at in your comment.

I understand that they still have to understand the plays and make the tackles. i know that. I was just speaking from an athleticism standpoint though. Watching some games from last year, it was just clearly obvious that guys like Compton, Whaley, and Smith (god bless 'em, they played their a$$ off for us) just didnt have the necessary speed. They were just flat out getting out ran. Plays that shoulda been 3-5 yard gains were going around the corner for 15. if these new guys can make the tackles, then yes, we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Landlord]

That's great, and it's comforting to think that way, but everything I'm reading here is pure speculation. I can't tell you our defense is going to stink any more than anyone can tell me they're going to be good, or even better than last year.

That's the uncertainty that makes these predictions so baffling to me. There's just no reason to believe that we'll be better. Bo's five-year track record says he doesn't do well in games against mobile QBs.

People are calling this a revenge game and citing it as a reason for a win - but we've played several teams twice during Bo's tenure that disproves this theory: VA Tech, Washington, Oklahoma, Texas, Northwestern last year. Granted, we beat Northwestern, but just barely, and that hardly coincides with the predictions of two-score wins we're seeing here.

EDIT - forgot 2010 Iowa State.

If we're going to make a distinction with Northwestern (don't forget we completely shut their offense down), we also need to make distinctions with shutting down Tyrod Taylor and losing on a last-second heave, losing to Washington in an unmotivated bowl game but stomping them again the next year, and I'll also throw in we held Denard Robinson well enough in check until he got hurt.

For me the two things that factor in more than anything are a year of game film and home field advantage. If both teams are where they were last year or both improve around the same, those put the edge decidedly in our favor imo.

 

[knapplc]

if these new guys can make the tackles, then yes, we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

That's the crux of my concern. There's reason to be optimistic, but just being athletic (or an athletic freak like Anderson appears to be) won't get it done for us.

Another thing is just getting up to game speed. Talking to former players about coming in as a new starter, they all say it takes half a season or more for things to slow down. That scares the hell out of me when you think we're putting in a new DE, new DT (or two) two new linebackers and new starters in the secondary.

Guys we came to rely on like Dejon Gomes didn't even start until midway through the season, and he had game experience from JUCO. We need a couple of guys to have Lavonte David-esque learning curves this year.

It's sobering.

 

[knapplc]

That's great, and it's comforting to think that way, but everything I'm reading here is pure speculation. I can't tell you our defense is going to stink any more than anyone can tell me they're going to be good, or even better than last year.

That's the uncertainty that makes these predictions so baffling to me. There's just no reason to believe that we'll be better. Bo's five-year track record says he doesn't do well in games against mobile QBs.

People are calling this a revenge game and citing it as a reason for a win - but we've played several teams twice during Bo's tenure that disproves this theory: VA Tech, Washington, Oklahoma, Texas, Northwestern last year. Granted, we beat Northwestern, but just barely, and that hardly coincides with the predictions of two-score wins we're seeing here.

EDIT - forgot 2010 Iowa State.

If we're going to make a distinction with Northwestern (don't forget we completely shut their offense down), we also need to make distinctions with shutting down Tyrod Taylor and losing on a last-second heave, losing to Washington in an unmotivated bowl game but stomping them again the next year, and I'll also throw in we held Denard Robinson well enough in check until he got hurt.

For me the two things that factor in more than anything are a year of game film and home field advantage. If both teams are where they were last year or both improve around the same, those put the edge decidedly in our favor imo.

Fair enough. But we lost most of the games I listed, and not one of them turned into a double-digit victory like the predictions we're seeing here.

We certainly can win this game, but there's just no reason to think we're going to trounce this team.

 

[Blackshirts007]

Our linebackers are much faster and more athletic this year than last. That's obvious. It's common sense. Everyone knows this, and we havent even seen them play yet.

For real? Read those sentences again and tell me how that makes any sense at all.

These guys may be more athletic, but simple athleticism doesn't make tackles. You have to understand the game and be in position to make those tackles first, and we have zero reason to believe that Zaire Anderson and/or the other starter at LB can do this.

I was as impressed as anyone with Anderson's destruction of the "Compete" Drill at the Spring Game. He looked like a monster, a man among boys. But until we see him do that on the field for a season we have no idea if that's just practice heroics.

Well when we have Bo saying he should have had the best players on the field and should have played freshman/pull redshirts then that should be all we need to know those guys would have been more productive.

 

[HuskerShark]

To hell with everyone's concerns about UCLA. I say we roll 'em. Something like 41-20.

 

[The King]

if these new guys can make the tackles, then yes, we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

That's the crux of my concern. There's reason to be optimistic, but just being athletic (or an athletic freak like Anderson appears to be) won't get it done for us.

Another thing is just getting up to game speed. Talking to former players about coming in as a new starter, they all say it takes half a season or more for things to slow down. That scares the hell out of me when you think we're putting in a new DE, new DT (or two) two new linebackers and new starters in the secondary.

Guys we came to rely on like Dejon Gomes didn't even start until midway through the season, and he had game experience from JUCO. We need a couple of guys to have Lavonte David-esque learning curves this year.

It's sobering.

I know I've harped on this a lot - but I think the full on, good on good scrimmages during practice, will really help bring them up to speed and get adjusted to the speed of college football. Our offense has some serious speed on it and they are going up against them full go. Adjusting to the speed of college football shouldn't be too hard when you're going up against one of the fastest offenses in the nation on a daily basis. The atmosphere and lights are different, but the speed will be about the same or even slower than what you are used to seeing in practice. It will also take some effort to be worse than some of our players last year. Half the time we knew they were running to the edge - but just too slow to get there.

Also, the sheer amount of reps in our practices the last 2 years has really helped others get involved in practice. I think most teams get their backups around 5 reps in practice.. we get ours at least 20 in whatever we do. Our practices are run at a high tempo, just like Oregon's practices are.

I fully get your point though and hope that the changes in practice truly helps these guys succeed on gameday. I have faith that it will.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Knapp, we're on the same page I think. I'm just seeing a hell of a lot more to be confident about than what we shoulda been a year ago.

 

[Mavric]

Much is made over the mobile QB problem - and not without merit - but even then I think part of it is people remembering the negatives when we lose. Not that it isn't valid, but they don't seem to remember when we've had success against mobile QBs in wins. There haven't been as many of those but it's not like all you have to do is roll out a mobile QB and the Huskers can't stop you. We couldn't stop Wisconsin or Georgia in the last two games last year and they had about the least mobile QBs you'll find. And I know there are more things a mobile QB can do for you than just accumulate rushing yardage but there really aren't stats for that and that's where they can really hurt you versus a guy who buys a little more time to throw so I'll focus on rushing yards.

Just from the last two years:

Price (Washington) - 6 carries for 10 yards

Smith (Wyoming) - 3 carries for 2 yards (and he's better than a lot of BCS-conference starters)

Wilson (Wisconsin, 2011) - 6 carries for 32 yards but 21 were on one play so 5 for 11 yards other than that

Gray (Minnesota, 2011) - 17 carries for 67 yards and a TD is pretty good but 30 of those were on one play so 16 carries for 37 yards other than that isn't much

Robinson (Michigan, 2011) - 23 carries, 83 yards - even in a game they won handily he had more quantity than quality (3.6 ypc)

Hundley (UCLA) - 12 carries for 53 yards - similar to Wilson and Gray in that 20 came on one carry so 11 carries for 33 other than that

Robinson (Michigan, 2012) - 10 carries for 46 yards before injury - not bad but not exactly hurting us

We've lost eight games in the last two years. Three of them definitely did not have "mobile" QBs (SCar, Wiscy 2012 and Georgia), three had mobile QBs that we contained fairly well running the ball (Wiscy 2011, Michigan 2011, UCLA) and really only two where the QB running the ball was a major problem (NW 2011 and tOSU 2012). Compare that to how some mobile QBs really gashed our good defense of 2010 (Gilbert-Texas, Locker-Washignton) and our not-as-good defense of 2008 (Taylor-VT) and I think - while still a problem - it's more just something that is easy to keep saying rather than really looking at it.

And I still maintain that the reason mobile QBs are all the rage is because everyone has trouble stopping them so, while we wish we were better, we're no worse than most other teams.

 

[Mavric]

if these new guys can make the tackles, then yes, we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

That's the crux of my concern. There's reason to be optimistic, but just being athletic (or an athletic freak like Anderson appears to be) won't get it done for us.

Another thing is just getting up to game speed. Talking to former players about coming in as a new starter, they all say it takes half a season or more for things to slow down. That scares the hell out of me when you think we're putting in a new DE, new DT (or two) two new linebackers and new starters in the secondary.

Guys we came to rely on like Dejon Gomes didn't even start until midway through the season, and he had game experience from JUCO. We need a couple of guys to have Lavonte David-esque learning curves this year.

It's sobering.

I know I've harped on this a lot - but I think the full on, good on good scrimmages during practice, will really help bring them up to speed and get adjusted to the speed of college football. Our offense has some serious speed on it and they are going up against them full go. Adjusting to the speed of college football shouldn't be too hard when you're going up against one of the fastest offenses in the nation on a daily basis. The atmosphere and lights are different, but the speed will be about the same or even slower than what you are used to seeing in practice. It will also take some effort to be worse than some of our players last year. Half the time we knew they were running to the edge - but just too slow to get there.

Also, the sheer amount of reps in our practices the last 2 years has really helped others get involved in practice. I think most teams get their backups around 5 reps in practice.. we get ours at least 20 in whatever we do. Our practices are run at a high tempo, just like Oregon's practices are.

I fully get your point though and hope that the changes in practice truly helps these guys succeed on gameday. I have faith that it will.

This.

We finally went back to rotating groups in practice last year instead of just one offense against one defense. This has to help the younger guys be more ready to play when they get their chance on Saturdays.

 

[skersfan]

I think it is 50/50 on this game with the talking heads. Most point to our pathetic defense as being the main concern. Some feel just because you have speed, you are better. I am not sure how that goes, talent has to be valued. Can they play the game at this level? No one here has the slightest clue.

If you go by well they are monsters on high school film, which maybe true, why did we end up with them. Why not Bama, LSU or a host of other programs that are known for recruiting that level of athlete? Are they that good because we say so or have others said they are that good.

This is not going to be an easy game. UCLA is considered an up and coming program, by most in the college football world. Nebraska is not in the conversation other than within the state lines of Nebraska. Experience means a lot on the field. Speed may help that lacking part, but we are not playing the little sisters of the poor in UCLA. They have talent, a very confident QB and a very good head coach it appears.

I think it will be strap it on and hold on. It is going to be a good game, we have the home field advantage, and for me that is not about the crowd noise, it is the fact that UCLA will be playing an important game at 9am. By the end of that game, we will know if the young inexperienced defense will be what some are saying they are, not until then. The rest is all talk, nothing proven, until it is it means absolutely nothing.

 

[knapplc]

Seriously though, you guys should be worried. If roles were reversed and we lost our most productive offensive rusher and top receiver and had to replace the entire secondary...I'd be worried. If you somehow find a way to get effective people in there and they prove themselves against good competition, I'll be worried. Until that happens, this game doesn't worry me at all.

We have to replace our entire LB corps, most of our defensive line, two of our best TEs in a decade and Rex Burkhead.

We need to somehow find a way to get effective people in these positions (although Ameer has proven more than capable at RB) and we have to see if they can prove themselves against good competition. Until our guys do that, I'm going to be worried.

Yes and that's the best thing in the world. Last year our linebackers AND dline sucked. I doubt we can get worse...seriously.

It can get worse. Inexperience can be a tremendous handicap. We can't count our inexperience as an asset.

 

[HuskerShark]

Just the obvious upgrade in talent alone in our LB corps, as well as our DL, should result in an improvement on D. I'll hold my excitement for the most part, but I really feel like the ceiling for our current group of defenders is WAY higher than it was with the guys a year ago. Enough of slow LBs, undersized DTs who get knocked back 5 yards at the will of the opposing OL, and Safeties that are slow and don't wrap up. I like what I see at every level of the defense (speaking of pure potential) and now it just comes down to how well those young guys continue to develop and grow as football players.

 

[HuskerShark]

Damn I feel like a Bo Pelini interview...