What Did We Learn: Miami Edition

[Stumpy1]

That is a great quote and is true.

 

[Redux]

The whole Bo's Groceries bullsh#t needs to end.

Riley was brought in to do what? Coach better. A big part of that is making the players better than Bo could. That was always the gripe. We had athletecism but weren't there talent wise. A guy like Riley was supposed to come in and make these kids better players.

Yet 3 games in we are still droppong catchable passes and committing silly penalties.

Saying the players we have on hand suck is a cop out. We have a talented team. Maybe not Callahan recruit caliber, but certainly nothing to sneeze at.

 

[True2tRA]

Yeah, and that's true but I don't even discount "Bo's Groceries" entirely. We've got some guys on this defense that I really like as far as talent goes. What you're seeing though, is guys that have never been tested like this at this level and never been in a defense like this. Miami has some speed and athleticism that made some of those mis-steps and timing issues on the defense, really show up and look ugly. Kaaya is a smart QB too. He really took advantage of it.

 

[Savage Husker]

I don't mind the quote. But whether it's Bo's kids or not, attention to detail needs to be drilled down. The illegal formations, the late hits, the bonehead mental mistakes need to stop. Those wipe out drives and/or set up the other team for easier scoring opportunities. Two unsportsmanlike penalties in both losses, one took us from their 20 to their 35 and we couldn't score - BYU on Gerry INT. The other sets up a chip shot field goal to win in OT.

(Riley's not TO, I'm not trying to make that my point.) His '94 Miami halftime speech to keep his players disciplined was huge. When raging lunatics(I say that endearingly) like the Peter's brothers don't fall for Miami chippiness and let them get the 15 yard penalty helped fuel that win. Ours this season were really costly and selfish penalties.

 

[TheSker]

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.

Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I'm definitely sitting on your side of the fence on this one, True.

I think Shanle said it best:

Don't judge the meals Riley makes with Bo's groceries.

Now that's the way for a former player to call out the majority of the team in one swoop and send a message they are not talented..........

 

[Saunders]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Redux, I suppose it's a cakewalk to come in and try to implement two systems on offense and defense that are polar opposite from everything these kidsd have been exposed to since they've been at NU and have it go flawlessly? The players weren't recruited to the scheme Riley is attempting to run. It isn't as simple as just show up and force whatever square pegs happen to be laying around into your round holes.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair for Riley to just up and run the same system Beck ran last year because the personnel are used to it. Jim Harbaugh didn't just show up and start implementing a spread at Michigan because Brady Hoke did. Bielema didn't continue the spread offense at Arkansas. Callahan didn't run Solich's option when he showed up, and his offense struggled mightily going from option to WCO.

The only reason Bo did this when he took over was because he had no clue about offense and let Watson continue to handle things.

There are several areas that I simply disagree that we have the talent need compete right away. Namely, the two lines. It's a combination of insufficient talent (DE) and players still gelling.

Why is it fair to expect Riley to come in and immediately clear up players that have been committing penalties and making mistakes at this rate under Bo for years?

There's a transition period. It isn't going to go flawlessly, or even be smooth. I'd not hesitate to say Banker's defense is as starkly different from Bo's as is Riley's offense from Beck's.

 

[True2tRA]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.

I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

 

[Redux]

Redux, I suppose it's a cakewalk to come in and try to implement two systems on offense and defense that are polar opposite from everything these kidsd have been exposed to since they've been at NU and have it go flawlessly? The players weren't recruited to the scheme Riley is attempting to run. It isn't as simple as just show up and force whatever square pegs happen to be laying around into your round holes.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair for Riley to just up and run the same system Beck ran last year because the personnel are used to it. Jim Harbaugh didn't just show up and start implementing a spread at Michigan because Brady Hoke did. Bielema didn't continue the spread offense at Arkansas. Callahan didn't run Solich's option when he showed up, and his offense struggled mightily going from option to WCO.

The only reason Bo did this when he took over was because he had no clue about offense and let Watson continue to handle things.

There are several areas that I simply disagree that we have the talent need compete right away. Namely, the two lines. It's a combination of insufficient talent (DE) and players still gelling.

Why is it fair to expect Riley to come in and immediately clear up players that have been committing penalties and making mistakes at this rate under Bo for years?

There's a transition period. It isn't going to go flawlessly, or even be smooth. I'd not hesitate to say Banker's defense is as starkly different from Bo's as is Riley's offense from Beck's.

I'm not talking schematics, I'm talking fundamentals. The tackling has improved, I'll say that. The turnovers (fumbles) have as well.

But the silly penalties and the dropped passes I really expected to be improved. Need more time, I get that. Never said this was gonna be an over night fix.

I did however state my worry about the secondary becoming a liability since it was Bo's bread and butter. I got scolded for such a notion, yet yesterday was ouch.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Redux, I suppose it's a cakewalk to come in and try to implement two systems on offense and defense that are polar opposite from everything these kidsd have been exposed to since they've been at NU and have it go flawlessly? The players weren't recruited to the scheme Riley is attempting to run. It isn't as simple as just show up and force whatever square pegs happen to be laying around into your round holes.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair for Riley to just up and run the same system Beck ran last year because the personnel are used to it. Jim Harbaugh didn't just show up and start implementing a spread at Michigan because Brady Hoke did. Bielema didn't continue the spread offense at Arkansas. Callahan didn't run Solich's option when he showed up, and his offense struggled mightily going from option to WCO.

The only reason Bo did this when he took over was because he had no clue about offense and let Watson continue to handle things.

There are several areas that I simply disagree that we have the talent need compete right away. Namely, the two lines. It's a combination of insufficient talent (DE) and players still gelling.

Why is it fair to expect Riley to come in and immediately clear up players that have been committing penalties and making mistakes at this rate under Bo for years?

There's a transition period. It isn't going to go flawlessly, or even be smooth. I'd not hesitate to say Banker's defense is as starkly different from Bo's as is Riley's offense from Beck's.

I'm not talking schematics, I'm talking fundamentals. The tackling has improved, I'll say that. The turnovers (fumbles) have as well.

But the silly penalties and the dropped passes I really expected to be improved. Need more time, I get that. Never said this was gonna be an over night fix.

I did however state my worry about the secondary becoming a liability since it was Bo's bread and butter. I got scolded for such a notion, yet yesterday was ouch.

Honestly, some of the drops yesterday were just due to the WR getting smacked really good just as they caught the ball. Helmet on the ball type stuff. Hard to catch those. Doesn't change the fact that they need to be catches. They're extremely tough catches, but they gotta be made. As a receiver, if it hits you on the hands, you gotta catch it.

I'm fully expecting the penalties to get cleaned up here shortly. If they're not, I'll be sorely disappointed. I believe Riley means what he says when he says he'll fix them.

You're right. The secondary is a major concern. I don't know which to be worried about more. The coverage from the DBs or the lack of pass rush. They definitely compound each other, though.

 

[GBRedneck]

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.

Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I'm definitely sitting on your side of the fence on this one, True.

I think Shanle said it best:

Don't judge the meals Riley makes with Bo's groceries.

Is it ok if we judge Bob Devaney on the meals he made with Bill Jennings' groceries?

 

[GBRedneck]

I learned that Mike Riley is still a mediocre coach.

 

[Kernal]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.

I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

Yes!

 

[Saunders]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

 

[Landlord]

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.

That's interesting. Joe spent 5 years as a player here, 4 under Callahan, and 1 under Bo's first year. Then 3 as an intern, and 2 as a GA, or something like that.

Since Joe has always been a quarterback or involved with the quarterbacks, what do you think his experience/knowledge actually is? Do you think coaching the quarterbacks has given him more exposure than playing as a quarterback under a different coaching staff?