Gerry eager for another shot at Bruins

NUance

NUance

New member
Gerry eager for another shot at Bruins

13 hours ago • By BRIAN ROSENTHAL | LINCOLN JOURNAL STAR

If Nate Gerry is fortunate enough to find himself in the grill of UCLA quarterback Josh Rosen, expect the Nebraska safety to have a few one-liners ready to roll off his tongue. That has nothing to do with Rosen personally, but everything to do with the fact he’s a true freshman — that, and Gerry’s keen memory of playing UCLA two years ago.

Gerry, then a true freshman himself, was making his first career start — as a 205-pound linebacker — in Nebraska’s 41-21 loss at Memorial Stadium. Gerry said he’s never been more nervous in a game, and some veteran Bruins didn’t help matters.
LINK
Click to expand...
Let's hope he gets everyone else that fired up for the game. Time to kick the Bruins to the curb!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought this was interesting.

“I don’t know if it was adjustment or what, but it just didn’t flow for him. It didn’t click,” Banker said. “He was resistant, I felt, in, ‘Hey, this is the responsibility in this coverage,’ and he held on so much to the habits that he had within that bracket coverage. He was always a zone-type of defender and always had help underneath. Just grasping the fact that, ‘You’re a man guy in these situations, so go ahead and do it.’
Click to expand...
“It’s tough when you come into it only knowing one certain thing and that’s kind of the thing you think is the only way," Gerry said. "It’s tough to kind of adjust, and I think that as the year went on, a bunch of guys adjusted real well.”
Click to expand...
I interpret this as he (and other players) were still trying to play Bo's defense at times for a couple of reasons. First, that is what they were used to and second, they believed in Bo's defense. I would call that not buying in to Banker's D. I'm not trying to spin this to make excuses for the coaching staff and the lousy pass defense we saw. I did think it was curious how they could have a worse pass defense then any that Banker had at Oregon St.- assuming that we had more talent then the Beavers. I figured the answer was probably in the players' head which is why I take interest in these kind of comments. The straw I'm grasping for is that from these statements, coupled with the fact that the pass defense did improve in the last few games, there may be hope for next season. Since this disaster of a season is almost over and to avoid enraging the Riley haters I'll henceforth refer to the reason for hope as "the players are now familiar with the defensive scheme" rather than "now that the players are buying in". Banker may not be the answer and maybe he should be fired (eventually) but I wouldn't say that from what I saw this season.

 
4skers89 said:
I thought this was interesting.

“I don’t know if it was adjustment or what, but it just didn’t flow for him. It didn’t click,” Banker said. “He was resistant, I felt, in, ‘Hey, this is the responsibility in this coverage,’ and he held on so much to the habits that he had within that bracket coverage. He was always a zone-type of defender and always had help underneath. Just grasping the fact that, ‘You’re a man guy in these situations, so go ahead and do it.’
Click to expand...
“It’s tough when you come into it only knowing one certain thing and that’s kind of the thing you think is the only way," Gerry said. "It’s tough to kind of adjust, and I think that as the year went on, a bunch of guys adjusted real well.”
Click to expand...
I interpret this as he (and other players) were still trying to play Bo's defense at times for a couple of reasons. First, that is what they were used to and second, they believed in Bo's defense. I would call that not buying in to Banker's D. I'm not trying to spin this to make excuses for the coaching staff and the lousy pass defense we saw. I did think it was curious how they could have a worse pass defense then any that Banker had at Oregon St.- assuming that we had more talent then the Beavers. I figured the answer was probably in the players' head which is why I take interest in these kind of comments. The straw I'm grasping for is that from these statements, coupled with the fact that the pass defense did improve in the last few games, there may be hope for next season. Since this disaster of a season is almost over and to avoid enraging the Riley haters I'll henceforth refer to the reason for hope as "the players are now familiar with the defensive scheme" rather than "now that the players are buying in". Banker may not be the answer and maybe he should be fired (eventually) but I wouldn't say that from what I saw this season.
Click to expand...
I think when they started slipping down the FBS statistical standings (pass D), Nate and others, reverted back to what they knew. This left holes/gaps in coverage. Much the same way that certain guys were accused of free lancing against Wisky in the B1G. They tried to mesh the old with the new and it didn't work. Goes hand in hand with Nates own statement that after Purdue "we looked each other in the eye and had to buy in" (paraphrase). It showed in the last few games down the stretch. I still firmly believe had Nate not been ejected, we beat Iowa.

 
I don't know how most of us feel about Bo's schemes vs Banker's schemes. But for better or for worse we have new coaches now, and of course, there's an adjustment period that comes with that.

What I liked about the pass defense was they seem to play with a good amount of confidence, even after taking a lot of heat and getting beat a bunch. Late in the year we're still seeing guys compete and fly to the ball. Otherwise, I'd be pretty mad about DBs coach Stewart. But right now, I'm happy to see what he can get in store for us next season, with a year under everybody's belts.

 
Back
Top