Defensive Scheme

[beanman]

One thing that disturbs me a bit was a previous article that talked about our players learning level '1' base defense vs being able to progress to level's 2 and 3. Some of those guys are redshirt Jr's and Sr's. You would think they would be know what they were doing by the time they were Jr's and Sr and would be at the top level.... So is that a coaching issue or is it too complicated/responsibility specific.

Some kids are just football smart and get it right away and others just never do. They may be smart kids, but they can not pick up the Xs & Os In HS, they compete with a few good players and now in college, they are all good and several are great.

As far as defense, we have not had a great safety since Brown. Like offense, you need great QB on defense. This means high football IQ.

:blink:

Bullocks, Bullocks, O'Hanlon, Asante, Gomes, Hagg?

you know somebody is going to bring up the VAtech game now...

Huh. I didn't realize all those guys were safeties. I'll give you the Bullocks brothers as borderline great. The other safeties? Not so much. Gomes probably could have been a good safety, not sure about Hagg. Defining those guys as safeties is a bit of a stretch just for the sake of proving your point. The Bullocks brothers were part of a Pelini D that attacked and was the aggressor, which forced a lot of bad decisions from the opposing QBs. We've gotten away from that big time. Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, as 2003's D had a couple embarrassing games as well. But not nearly as bad as what we've seen that past few years.

 

[Mavric]

Huh. I didn't realize all those guys were safeties. I'll give you the Bullocks brothers as borderline great. The other safeties? Not so much. Gomes probably could have been a good safety, not sure about Hagg. Defining those guys as safeties is a bit of a stretch just for the sake of proving your point. The Bullocks brothers were part of a Pelini D that attacked and was the aggressor, which forced a lot of bad decisions from the opposing QBs. We've gotten away from that big time. Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, as 2003's D had a couple embarrassing games as well. But not nearly as bad as what we've seen that past few years.

If you don't think Gomes and Haag were both really good, perhaps you need to rewatch some games.

 

[beanman]

Huh. I didn't realize all those guys were safeties. I'll give you the Bullocks brothers as borderline great. The other safeties? Not so much. Gomes probably could have been a good safety, not sure about Hagg. Defining those guys as safeties is a bit of a stretch just for the sake of proving your point. The Bullocks brothers were part of a Pelini D that attacked and was the aggressor, which forced a lot of bad decisions from the opposing QBs. We've gotten away from that big time. Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, as 2003's D had a couple embarrassing games as well. But not nearly as bad as what we've seen that past few years.

If you don't think Gomes and Haag were both really good, perhaps you need to rewatch some games.

You can't read very well. I stated calling them safeties is a stretch. Last I checked, that wasn't their position. Yes they were good.

 

[zoogs]

I gotta ask mainly because Bo doesn't seem like the kind of guy who is super flexible about his 'system', but how different was what we ran really in 2003?

 

[beanman]

I gotta ask mainly because Bo doesn't seem like the kind of guy who is super flexible about his 'system', but how different was what we ran really in 2003?

Similar, but we blitzed more, mostly from the LB spot from my recollection. Our D-line was all-around much more talented than what we have had since Suh left, but they were allowed to go after the QB more. We got a lot more pressure off the edge than we do now. Our ends got up the field more back then. I never thought I'd see the day where I'd rather have Bernard Thomas than what we've got now, but he's sounding pretty good right about now. Hopefully Ankrah comes up with a good year this year.

 

[Mavric]

Huh. I didn't realize all those guys were safeties. I'll give you the Bullocks brothers as borderline great. The other safeties? Not so much. Gomes probably could have been a good safety, not sure about Hagg. Defining those guys as safeties is a bit of a stretch just for the sake of proving your point. The Bullocks brothers were part of a Pelini D that attacked and was the aggressor, which forced a lot of bad decisions from the opposing QBs. We've gotten away from that big time. Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, as 2003's D had a couple embarrassing games as well. But not nearly as bad as what we've seen that past few years.

If you don't think Gomes and Haag were both really good, perhaps you need to rewatch some games.

You can't read very well. I stated calling them safeties is a stretch. Last I checked, that wasn't their position. Yes they were good.

I guess I got lost. First you were talking about positions. Then you were talking about how good people were. Then you apparently switched back to talking about positions sooner than I thought.

 

[SouthLincoln Husker]

One thing that disturbs me a bit was a previous article that talked about our players learning level '1' base defense vs being able to progress to level's 2 and 3. Some of those guys are redshirt Jr's and Sr's. You would think they would be know what they were doing by the time they were Jr's and Sr and would be at the top level.... So is that a coaching issue or is it too complicated/responsibility specific.

Some kids are just football smart and get it right away and others just never do. They may be smart kids, but they can not pick up the Xs & Os In HS, they compete with a few good players and now in college, they are all good and several are great.

As far as defense, we have not had a great safety since Brown. Like offense, you need great QB on defense. This means high football IQ.

:blink:

Bullocks, Bullocks, O'Hanlon, Asante, Gomes, Hagg?

Gomes & Hagg were nickle backs and please O'Hanlon had the IQ with lack of ability and Asante had ability, but no IQ. Sorry, that I forgot the Bullocks. People do not realize how important of position this is. The problem lies in finding a good athlete who has the IQ to read the offense.

 

[EZ-E]

One thing that disturbs me a bit was a previous article that talked about our players learning level '1' base defense vs being able to progress to level's 2 and 3. Some of those guys are redshirt Jr's and Sr's. You would think they would be know what they were doing by the time they were Jr's and Sr and would be at the top level.... So is that a coaching issue or is it too complicated/responsibility specific.

Some kids are just football smart and get it right away and others just never do. They may be smart kids, but they can not pick up the Xs & Os In HS, they compete with a few good players and now in college, they are all good and several are great.

As far as defense, we have not had a great safety since Brown. Like offense, you need great QB on defense. This means high football IQ.

:blink:

Bullocks, Bullocks, O'Hanlon, Asante, Gomes, Hagg?

Gomes & Hagg were nickle backs and please O'Hanlon had the IQ with lack of ability and Asante had ability, but no IQ. Sorry, that I forgot the Bullocks. People do not realize how important of position this is. The problem lies in finding a good athlete who has the IQ to read the offense.

O'Hanlon is easily the best safety of the Pelini era. I'd take him back any day

 

[SouthLincoln Husker]

One thing that disturbs me a bit was a previous article that talked about our players learning level '1' base defense vs being able to progress to level's 2 and 3. Some of those guys are redshirt Jr's and Sr's. You would think they would be know what they were doing by the time they were Jr's and Sr and would be at the top level.... So is that a coaching issue or is it too complicated/responsibility specific.

Some kids are just football smart and get it right away and others just never do. They may be smart kids, but they can not pick up the Xs & Os In HS, they compete with a few good players and now in college, they are all good and several are great.

As far as defense, we have not had a great safety since Brown. Like offense, you need great QB on defense. This means high football IQ.

:blink:

Bullocks, Bullocks, O'Hanlon, Asante, Gomes, Hagg?

Gomes & Hagg were nickle backs and please O'Hanlon had the IQ with lack of ability and Asante had ability, but no IQ. Sorry, that I forgot the Bullocks. People do not realize how important of position this is. The problem lies in finding a good athlete who has the IQ to read the offense.

O'Hanlon is easily the best safety of the Pelini era. I'd take him back any day

Not! He was slow and could not tackle. He had the IQ but not enough athletic ability to be consistent.

 

[EZ-E]

Post-OU his senior year he was our best safety. He wasn't Damian Stafford athletic but he wasn't Brett Maher either. Who was a better safety than him???

 

[HuskerShark]

Post-OU his senior year he was our best safety. He wasn't Damian Stafford athletic but he wasn't Brett Maher either. Who was a better safety than him???

I would say Asante, but I can understand if you say O'Hanlon. I don't get the knock on O'Hanlon's athletic ability. He was really fast actually. Way more athletic than Austin Cassidy last year (not that that says a whole lot...).

 

[Count 'Bility]

you know somebody is going to bring up the VAtech game now...

That'd be pretty unfair. We miss the hell out of Matty, have ever since he left. O'Hanlon and Hagg were totally underrated during their time here, and left big voids.

O'Hanlon was worthless until the OU game. He had a great last half of his Sr. season, but to say anything else is untrue. He was a big problem for most of his career here.

That's a bit of a stretch to say that. He was pretty off and on but I wouldn't say he was a problem.

Well. I guess it's easy to concede that the Mike Brown secondaries of 97-99 NEVER gave up a long pass.

 

[Warrior10]

As for a defensive scheme, how about we try not sucking as a start? Last year was every bit of an embarassment that 2007 was. It was just an easier schedule than 2007 was or it would have been a lot worse.

Oh thank god. This guy has found a way to solve all of our problems...who knew it could be as simple as that....

Not sure this is even needed...but :sarcasm

 

[The Dude]

you know somebody is going to bring up the VAtech game now...

That'd be pretty unfair. We miss the hell out of Matty, have ever since he left. O'Hanlon and Hagg were totally underrated during their time here, and left big voids.

O'Hanlon was worthless until the OU game. He had a great last half of his Sr. season, but to say anything else is untrue. He was a big problem for most of his career here.

Aside from the VA Tech thing, what are some other examples of O'Hanlon being a big problem?

 

[Count 'Bility]

you know somebody is going to bring up the VAtech game now...

That'd be pretty unfair. We miss the hell out of Matty, have ever since he left. O'Hanlon and Hagg were totally underrated during their time here, and left big voids.

O'Hanlon was worthless until the OU game. He had a great last half of his Sr. season, but to say anything else is untrue. He was a big problem for most of his career here.

Aside from the VA Tech thing, what are some other examples of O'Hanlon being a big problem?

Cant you read. He was worthless. We might as well have been playing with 10 guys.