Defense gassed?

Did anyone else catch the sideline reporter when he said the the NU defense looked more gassed than any D he'd ever seen after a first drive?

 

I did notice that. Was thinking it was maybe a bit of hyperbole. But I think they were trying to express that our D was really spent after wisky’s opening 8+ minute drive.

 

Completely agree. They really didn't look to bad til late in the game.

 

We are still pretty thin in the front 7. That run game of Wiscy's takes it out of folks when they sustain drives like they do. Yes, our guys were gassed, but no more than other teams with our talent/depth trying to stop that damned run.

 

We can't the physicality of these teams yet. Need more nasty on defense!!!

 

Yep more nasty and more bodies

 

And more grammar, too.

 

Possession Time........... CU 30:15 NU 29:45
Possession Time.......... Troy 27:06 NU 32:54
Possession Time.......... NU 24:31 MU 35:29
Possession Time.......... PU 36:16 NU 23:44
Possession Time........... NU 24:27 WI 35:33

A bad trend.

 

Ouch

That L part has been a bad trend too.

Martinez 400 offensive yards, Spielman 200 receiving yards = good.

 

I think the TOP is somehow linked to the Ls.

 

Strongly correlated, I’d say.

Good teams can overcome penalties. We can’t. They’ve been drive killers for us.

 

I'm starting to wonder if the D position coaches actually develop players or need raw recruiting to fix problems. When guys like Karlos Davis gets driven five yards by a double team - because he repeatedly uses the wrong technique each time against a double team - it goes beyond the player. I've been in coaching long enough to understand that you simply cannot allow repetitive failure. If Davis would either make a pile right away, neutralizing both blockers, the ball carrier won't have a lane. Or he could slit the blockers with good technique and eat the ball carrier at the LOS. The one thing we cannot afford to have him do is exactly what he does over and over.

Better to take a page from the Patriots where you can dominate with a bunch of solid no name players. These less costly players may be considerably less salary, but perform at 90% of the star player commanding 10 times the salary for insignificantly better performance. Technique makes these kind of players prime targets for the Patriots general manager. Tom Brady can somehow find ways to get the ball to no name receivers and to win games.

Because our technique at the LOS is lacking, I find it difficult to believe the coaches actually develop. Same goes with tackling. We are half way into the season making preseason tackling errors.

 

So, what do you do with a guy who you ARE coaching up but he keeps making the same mistakes? Put in a less experienced player who's going to make the same mistakes because he hasn't had a the necessary reps? I sometimes think our guys just don't have football smarts. Doesn't mean they're dumb; they just do well in pajamas but lose it when in the heat of battle.

 

Bill thanks you for the props.

 

Replacing failure - no matter the talent potential being removed - has a way of getting the message across to change or lose your job. I know what it's like in high school being shoved into a varsity game because we needed to churn time and the guy in front of me was too soft on running downs. So, yeah, coach put my 180 pound sophomore ass out there to replace a 230 pound guy. But when it came to brute drive blocking, that was sort of my cup of tea. Both of us beat out the senior that wasn't using technique. On the next drive he was back in because he knew the plays and I really didn't. My sophomore year was pretty much my first real year of learning football. It made sense to have the big junior that knew the playbook in for most of the plays. But in specific circumstances, put the inexperienced guy in. And in every instance that mattered, sit the guy not doing his job.