Vanilla Spring Game Defense

MattyIce said:
Husker2019 said:
MountainMan said:
I couldn't imagine being angry at the defense as my primary takeaway from this spring game.
Click to expand...
pretty wild, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't get it. The defense has had multiple instances this spring where they were reported to have the better day of practice, and the starters (aka the red team) gave up one touchdown and at max 16 possible points if field goals were attempted as well. Add that with what Diaco had said prior to the scrimmage and it just seems like people are just looking for an excuse to freak out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one is freaking out. Other than you guys who insist on taking everything to the extreme.

This was talked about leading into the game. I have read at least three articles from media guys talking about it or referencing it. Just because it is brought up to be talked about does not mean it was anyone's "primary takeaway." It is simply something that happened that many others are talking about. I have no idea why you think it should not be talked about here. Even Benning referenced it on at least a couple occasions during the broadcast. Riley talked about it in his post-game presser (in the OP).

I've posted in probably 50 other threads today. This was nowhere near my "primary takeaway." It was something that happened that I thought would be interesting to discuss.

I already said it's not necessarily a bad decision. Can we cease with the sensationalism and just talk about football?

I mean ... I know we can't but dang that would be nice for a change.

default_rant.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the course of the season, it's probably a really small thing. For the Oregon game who knows, it could take UO a couple series to figure out how, and maybe more importantly, who to attack. Could be the difference in what I expect to be a tough game.

Save some wrinkles, the cat will be out of the bag by conference play.

 
Well, the way the D lined up in the 4-2-5, I was able to pick out a couple of different fronts and LB alignments that would transition quite well to a true 3-4. For example, most of the game, K. Davis lined up in a 1 technique (just like a nose tackle but shaded to the field side most of the time) and the guys on either side of him (who would be the DEs in the 3-4 front) were lined up over the tackles but shaded in the same direction as the NT. The 4th D-lineman was lined up basically in a 4 point stance a little inside where he would be if he was an OLB in the 3-4. The "extra" DB was lined up opposite in essentially the other OLB position.

In other words, they were running the principles of a 3-4 but 'disguised' as a 4-2-5. Considering the 4-2-5 can essentially be a nickel package for a base 3-4, I'm not suprised.

My real gripe is how little pass rush we saw until late in the game, and only against the 3s and 4s on the o-line. Though whether this is an indication of a lack of pass rushing capability of our D-line or a statement of how much improved our O-line is I can't tell. We'll know come fall.

 
I'm not worried at all about what the defense ran today. Thought the 1's looked solid two weeks ago against our offense in the first scrimmage. I'm more worried about WR's, RBs, and OL.

 
EmeraldIngot said:
Well, the way the D lined up in the 4-2-5, I was able to pick out a couple of different fronts and LB alignments that would transition quite well to a true 3-4. For example, most of the game, K. Davis lined up in a 1 technique (just like a nose tackle but shaded to the field side most of the time) and the guys on either side of him (who would be the DEs in the 3-4 front) were lined up over the tackles but shaded in the same direction as the NT. The 4th D-lineman was lined up basically in a 4 point stance a little inside where he would be if he was an OLB in the 3-4. The "extra" DB was lined up opposite in essentially the other OLB position.

In other words, they were running the principles of a 3-4 but 'disguised' as a 4-2-5. Considering the 4-2-5 can essentially be a nickel package for a base 3-4, I'm not suprised.

My real gripe is how little pass rush we saw until late in the game, and only against the 3s and 4s on the o-line. Though whether this is an indication of a lack of pass rushing capability of our D-line or a statement of how much improved our O-line is I can't tell. We'll know come fall.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. It's only been the media guys calling it a 4-2-5. I think it was actually just one variation of Diaco's 3-4 where (mostly) the Boundary OLB had his hand down. And the Field OLB was usually lined up wide where you'd usually expect a Nickel back because of the formations our offense was running. Not a huge change.

I don't think it was all that much different from our regular defense.

 
There's a difference between playing base 3-4 to give them work, and showing the whole playbook.

I like Bob, loved the hire. I've made that known. But coaches are extremely paranoid, sometimes to a fault.

Some of you guys can't take a single observation that's not 100% koolaid filled glowing praise of the staff without getting all uppity and construing it as an attack. It's kinda embarrassing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still believe that if you are an elite team, you can show whatever the heck you want for opponents to tape and study film, it all comes down to going out there and smacking someone around. With that said, we're not an elite team yet and with a brand new scheme to this team I understand the decision to tuck it away for 5 months. Heck, they probably won't even bust it out much against Arky St if they don't have to.

 
^

Great post Saunders and Mavric. That is the nature of Huskerboard for some. If you simply state an a opinion that isn't full of the big red kool aid and differs from what they feel that they for certain know is true it's almost like you've said something mean about their mother.

Here's my message to all of those people. Grow. A. Pair.

My question is so if the defense was hid from 'being caught on tape for anyone to see' then was that our 'vanilla' offense that we saw yesterday?????

I almost feel as if Riley didn't want to look foolish by throwing the starters out there in our 'new' defense only to have them look like they don't have a handle on things yet. That's just my feeling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top