• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

What I expect going forward

If the cerebral part of the game is losing out to junior high defenses as you put it then we are in worse shape than I thought.
You're not quoting me accurately. I said that the Colorado coaches were getting too much credit for defensive adjustments when the things that were working are commonly taught, used, and countered at the jr. high level, but that's not the same as saying that it's a "junior high defense." The most athletic teams tend to run the least complicated schemes because they want to keep it simple so that their talented athletes can just make plays and win due to greater talent. The most complicated defenses tend to be run by defensive coaches who are attacking an offense (instead of reacting) due to some talent deficiencies. Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin will generally run very simple, solid defensive schemes that stress fundamentals and putting athletes in position to make plays; teams like Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, and Illinois are much more likely to come out swinging, trying to create turnovers and negative plays against opponents that have better talent and/or more depth. What Colorado did can be effective at any level, but it wasn't anything novel or creative.

I realize if a QB thinks a WR should stop or go or slant of whatever, and they don't, they aren't on the same page. But for 4 guys out on routes, 1 of them should be open with high level players.
It's a myth that it's possible for a QB to "see the whole field." Try it for yourself sometime by walking onto the field in Lincoln and try to see from sideline to sideline while standing in the middle of the field. You can't. When commentators and coaches talk about a QB "seeing the field well," what they almost always mean is that he's good at recognizing the coverage and progressing quickly through his reads. If a QB reads the coverage and expects man-to-man to his left with deep safety help to his right, he'll probably look off the safety by looking to his right, briefly, then looking back to the left to see which WR breaks open, depending on the routes that they run. If a Safety rotates over, there might end up being nobody open because he misread the coverage. This isn't some rare thing. It happens almost once per offensive series on average, and it happened probably every other play for Goff for the Rams in the Super Bowl because the Patriots were incredibly creative in how they rotated their coverage and hid their defense pre-snap. Martinez staring at a WR is a sure sign of a QB who is expecting a WR to break open, but he probably doesn't. He might still throw it to him if he can make a pass that it unlikely to be intercepted ... or he might get sacked if he takes too long, and the O-line is getting beat up front.

And how does this affect our speed? Frost promoted fast fast fast...yet we are really just slow in getting to the line, stressing the defense with quick play call, quick passes, high percentage stuff. Not seeing any of that. None.
There are different kinds of speed, and Frost would like to use them all. What you seem to be referring to is "playing with tempo," or going into a hurry-up/no-huddle offense. Frost generally doesn't do that until after the offense has earned a first down, otherwise it can be overwhelming for the defense to not get a break at all if it's a 3-and-out. Frost especially likes to go faster between plays when there is a defensive mismatch on the field as going fast doesn't allow the defense to substitute.

Another type of speed that Frost emphasizes is what you saw from Maurice Washington yesterday: individual player speed. Nebraska isn't yet at Clemson/Alabama/Ohio State levels of team speed, but we have guys like Maurice Washington, Wan'Dale Robinson, et al., who are as quick as anybody in the country.
 

HuskerJ

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
You're not quoting me accurately. I said that the Colorado coaches were getting too much credit for defensive adjustments when the things that were working are commonly taught, used, and countered at the jr. high level, but that's not the same as saying that it's a "junior high defense." The most athletic teams tend to run the least complicated schemes because they want to keep it simple so that their talented athletes can just make plays and win due to greater talent. The most complicated defenses tend to be run by defensive coaches who are attacking an offense (instead of reacting) due to some talent deficiencies. Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin will generally run very simple, solid defensive schemes that stress fundamentals and putting athletes in position to make plays; teams like Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, and Illinois are much more likely to come out swinging, trying to create turnovers and negative plays against opponents that have better talent and/or more depth. What Colorado did can be effective at any level, but it wasn't anything novel or creative.



It's a myth that it's possible for a QB to "see the whole field." Try it for yourself sometime by walking onto the field in Lincoln and try to see from sideline to sideline while standing in the middle of the field. You can't. When commentators and coaches talk about a QB "seeing the field well," what they almost always mean is that he's good at recognizing the coverage and progressing quickly through his reads. If a QB reads the coverage and expects man-to-man to his left with deep safety help to his right, he'll probably look off the safety by looking to his right, briefly, then looking back to the left to see which WR breaks open, depending on the routes that they run. If a Safety rotates over, there might end up being nobody open because he misread the coverage. This isn't some rare thing. It happens almost once per offensive series on average, and it happened probably every other play for Goff for the Rams in the Super Bowl because the Patriots were incredibly creative in how they rotated their coverage and hid their defense pre-snap. Martinez staring at a WR is a sure sign of a QB who is expecting a WR to break open, but he probably doesn't. He might still throw it to him if he can make a pass that it unlikely to be intercepted ... or he might get sacked if he takes too long, and the O-line is getting beat up front.



There are different kinds of speed, and Frost would like to use them all. What you seem to be referring to is "playing with tempo," or going into a hurry-up/no-huddle offense. Frost generally doesn't do that until after the offense has earned a first down, otherwise it can be overwhelming for the defense to not get a break at all if it's a 3-and-out. Frost especially likes to go faster between plays when there is a defensive mismatch on the field as going fast doesn't allow the defense to substitute.

Another type of speed that Frost emphasizes is what you saw from Maurice Washington yesterday: individual player speed. Nebraska isn't yet at Clemson/Alabama/Ohio State levels of team speed, but we have guys like Maurice Washington, Wan'Dale Robinson, et al., who are as quick as anybody in the country.
Great points and thanks for the further detail. Really enjoy all your write ups. The only downside was the first paragraph with what apparently means Colorado had, according to your assessment: "The most athletic teams tend to run the least complicated schemes because they want to keep it simple so that their talented athletes can just make plays and win due to greater talent. Ouch.
 
The only downside was the first paragraph with what apparently means Colorado had, according to your assessment: "The most athletic teams tend to run the least complicated schemes because they want to keep it simple so that their talented athletes can just make plays and win due to greater talent. Ouch.
It's definitely fair to say that they had some talent advantages versus our O-line, and they had one really good CB and a couple pretty good LBs, but we did a better job in the first half of using our advantages to attack their disadvantages, and they did a better job of that in the 2nd half. Any defense that blitzes a lot (which is a gamble) should get more sacks, disrupted passes, tackles-for-loss, etc., but they will also almost always give up more big plays to the offense when they guess wrong. We didn't make them pay enough for when they did blitz or shift in the 2nd half, but part of what Colorado did that confused Nebraska was that they did the opposite: they were mostly LESS aggressive, dropping 8 to cover passes, for example.

If we played Colorado again, we'd likely beat them by 3-5 TDs.
 
Last edited:
It's definitely fair to say that they had some talent advantages versus our O-line, and they had one really good CB and a couple pretty good LBs, but we did a better job in the first half of using our advantages to attack their disadvantages, and they did a better job of that in the 2nd half. Any defense that blitzes a lot (which is a gamble) should get more sacks, disrupted passes, tackles-for-loss, etc., but they will also almost always give up more big plays to the offense when they guess wrong. We didn't make them pay enough for when they did blitz or shift in the 2nd half, but part of what Colorado did that confused Nebraska was that they did the opposite: they were mostly LESS aggressive, dropping 8 to cover passes, for example.

If we played Colorado again, we'd likely beat them by 3-5 TDs.
@Boji Husker, I'm curious which part of what I said provoked the "Wow" response?
 

Boji Husker

Junior Varsity
@Boji Husker, I'm curious which part of what I said provoked the "Wow" response?
That if NU played them again would beat them by 3-5 Tds. Nothing I saw Sat would make me think that, what with special team flaws and inconsistent Off. Montez is a much better QB than NIUs as are CUs receivers, IMO, and there are still too many busts in the secondary that CU would more likely than not have exploited again like they did last week. Not saying NU wouldnt win but that 3-5 seems a bit much when they didnt look that much improved from the week before.
 
Last edited:

wheat

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
That if NU played them again would beat them by 3-5 Tds. Nothing I saw Sat would make me think that, what with special team flaws and inconsistent Off. Montez is a much better QB than NIUs as are CUs receivers, IMO, and there are still too many busts in the secondary that CU would more likely than not have exploited again like they did last week. Not saying NU wouldnt win but that 3-5 seems a bit much when they didnt look that much improved from the week before.
I tend to agree with MABC. I think some of the glaring errors overshadow the progress that was made. The special teams issues amount to place kicking. Hopefully McCallum is adequate and Pickering returns soon. It did feel like McCallum got the ball up better than Armstrong, which will help with the blocked kicks. I think we saw significant steps forward Saturday. First and foremost, we didn't have the long stretches of poor play that caused the South Alabama game to be too close given the talent disparity and turned what should have been an easy win in Boulder to a loss. The OL has to get better. I think the rest of the pieces are in place to be pretty good.

NIU didn't get blown away by Utah, who I think is a pretty good team. The NU defense held NIU to fewer yards per carry (2.3 vs 2.7) and fewer yards per play (4.3 vs 5.4) than Utah while the Husker offense averaged 2.3 yards more per play against NIU than Utah. The big plays are a part of that, but big plays count in the stats, too. I think Northern Illinois would beat Colorado and might do it comfortably. Their defense is much better than CU's. I firmly believe that if NU played CU 10 times, the Huskers would win nine of them. I think the first half of the game in Boulder is the more accurate measure of the two teams and the second half was the aberration.
 
Last edited:

HuskerJ

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
It's definitely fair to say that they had some talent advantages versus our O-line, and they had one really good CB and a couple pretty good LBs, but we did a better job in the first half of using our advantages to attack their disadvantages, and they did a better job of that in the 2nd half. Any defense that blitzes a lot (which is a gamble) should get more sacks, disrupted passes, tackles-for-loss, etc., but they will also almost always give up more big plays to the offense when they guess wrong. We didn't make them pay enough for when they did blitz or shift in the 2nd half, but part of what Colorado did that confused Nebraska was that they did the opposite: they were mostly LESS aggressive, dropping 8 to cover passes, for example.

If we played Colorado again, we'd likely beat them by 3-5 TDs.
Curious about your claim. If Colorado was out athleting is with the concepts and schemes you’ve outlined, how in 1 week do we all of a sudden change drastically that outcome? Offense? Defense? Improved athleticism against them dropping 8. Kind of lost me there. Not saying you’re wrong.
 
Curious about your claim. If Colorado was out athleting is with the concepts and schemes you’ve outlined, how in 1 week do we all of a sudden change drastically that outcome? Offense? Defense? Improved athleticism against them dropping 8. Kind of lost me there. Not saying you’re wrong.
Colorado had/has some decent players. Shenault is NFL star caliber, and Montez is an excellent college QB. Their RBs were good. On defense they had a very good CB, and 2 decent LBs. Their lines were pedestrian. Our first half against them should have been the norm. We just didn't show up in the 2nd half. It happens a lot with immature teams, even when talented. We grew up a lot after that game, and it showed in the Northern Illinois game. I agree with what @wheat said above about NIU having a better defense. Our offense made the better defense look bad.

Guys, Colorado just isn't that good, and we lost to them. That doesn't mean that we're worse than Colorado, who just lost to Air Force. It means that we played a monumentally shite-filled 2nd half, and we would be very unlikely to do so again.
 
Last edited:

LarstheRed

Travel Squad
5 Year Member
Colorado had/has some decent players. Shenault is NFL star caliber, and Montez is an excellent college QB. Their RBs were good. On defense they had a very good CB, and 2 decent LBs. Their lines were pedestrian. Our first half against them should have been the norm. We just didn't show up in the 2nd half. It happens a lot with immature teams, even when talented. We grew up a lot after that game, and it showed in the Northern Illinois game. I agree with @wheat said above that NIU having a better defense. Our offense made the better defense look bad.

Guys, Colorado just isn't that good, and we lost to them. That doesn't mean that we're worse than Colorado, who just lost to Air Force. It means that we played a monumentally shite-filled 2nd half, and we would be very unlikely to do so again.
Thank you for ‘dumbing down’ some of what should be obvious. It’s great having a board that can not only share more elevated ideas, but also keep some of the ‘slow blinkers’ informed...and yes, I include myself in that slow blinking category.
 
Top