What did we learn? Purdue

Nebhawk said:
Mathis is not what he was billed as.  Some of that is scheme and some of that is him.  I watch him alot, and he is usually standing and watching.  Once he fails at getting too the QB, he just stops.  Not a big fan.  Like I said, could be some to do with scheme. 

Our blitz packages all take the wrong angles and or just are too slow at getting there.  Is that athletes or is that just scheme?
Click to expand...
How much of this is different conferences? 

 
Wistrom Disciple said:
Mav… did Charlie Jones start the game and play all four quarters? Thanks.

It’s not moving the goalposts. You’re playing a stretched hypothetical game of “ifs”. 

You clearly are reading what you want to see and ignoring the main point of the post. More snaps= more collisions = greater chance of injury. 
Click to expand...


I'm just reading what you wrote.  But every time you're shown to be wrong you just change your argument and then try to make it sound like that's what you've been saying all along.  All you're doing is repeating your talking points in a different form. 

I'm not giving you any hypotheticals.  I'm pointing out what actually happened.  You're the one trying to use the hypothetical that our defense would be better if we weren't missing a couple of players.

First your argument was our defense was too tired because of all the plays they faced.  I pointed out that they were bad right from the start.  Now you've changed to the ultra-generic "more plays means more chance of injury."  Yes, when you get to that generic of a statement, you are right.  But we were bad right from Purdue's first possession.  That has nothing to do with conditioning.  But you're stuck on your point so you just keep adjusting it until it's nothing like what you originally said.

Same thing with injuries.  You tried to say that our defense was hurt by being short some guys.  I pointed out that Purdue had injuries as well.  You ignored some of them and insisted I was wrong about another.  When I showed you the evidence you shifted your argument to try to make it look like you were still right, even after being shown to be wrong.  And you still ignored the other examples I gave of other Purdue players that didn't play.

So you're just stuck on repeating your talking points and aren't open to any evidence to the contrary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Genuinely, enjoyed last night's game...progress is being made.

One thing defensively I would like to see is masking of what we are running defensively. We are either 4/5+ at LOS and playing man..or 3 on LOS and playing zone. Stack the LOS and drop 3 or 4 into a zone...play 3 at LOS and bring a guy or 2 from the side/middle and man up, etc

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Go Furself said:
It was frustrating to watch Nebraska's defense play unphysical, soft (i.e. far off the line of scrimmage) coverage and consistently only rush three or four. Purdue's QB is immobile and their WR's are undersized and pose no deep threat so get after the QB by blitzing and play physical against the WR's (i.e. press/jam/lock up/bump/etc.) at the line of scrimmage to knock them off their timing on short routes. If you know their QB is immobile and wants to throw from a clean pocket then make the pocket uncomfortable by blitzing and putting pressure on him. If you know they are throwing short routes you don't have to cover for very long so play physical against their WR's at the line of scrimmage, cutoff or step in front of some of those short routes and look for a pick or pass breakup early in the play knowing their QB is under pressure from the blitz.

Purdue ran 101 offensive plays (54 passes and 47 rushes) and never got called for holding.
Click to expand...
Exactly 

 
Savage Husker said:
How much of this is different conferences? 
Click to expand...
Although we like to think the Big 10 is by far more superior in football to the Big 12, I don't see much difference in the two honestly.  Seriously, would you consider Ohio St more like Big 10 football or Big 12?  This narrative drives me crazy all the time.  SEC is the best conference, and I would say all the rest have some quality teams at the top and have crappy teams in the bottom.  This season, for sure, I would really give the nod to Big 12 in having more good teams top to bottom.  I think Ohio St is the better team in both but in all reality, I don't see this conference thing as being Big 10 superior to anyone right now.  SEC is still the king, and I don't like that either, but its real.

 
What I will say, is that with Frost it seemed like we were in one score games but the guys seemed like they were giving maybe 90% always seemed like they were capable of more, maybe intensity wasn't there. 

Now it seems they are giving it their all and it just isn't good enough. Don't know if that makes me feel better or worse.

 
UniversalMartin said:
One thing I learned...it is evident that our guys are receiving more coaching in the last 3-4 weeks then we have seen in the last 7+ years.

Also, sidenote can our DB's (namely Newsome) stop celebrating when the QB clearly misses a WR or a WR drops a wide open pass, as if they (he) made it happen.
Click to expand...
THIS ^^^

 
Mavric said:
I'm just reading what you wrote.  But every time you're shown to be wrong you just change your argument and then try to make it sound like that's what you've been saying all along.  All you're doing is repeating your talking points in a different form. 

I'm not giving you any hypotheticals.  I'm pointing out what actually happened.  You're the one trying to use the hypothetical that our defense would be better if we weren't missing a couple of players.

First your argument was our defense was too tired because of all the plays they faced.  I pointed out that they were bad right from the start.  Now you've changed to the ultra-generic "more plays means more chance of injury."  Yes, when you get to that generic of a statement, you are right.  But we were bad right from Purdue's first possession.  That has nothing to do with conditioning.  But you're stuck on your point so you just keep adjusting it until it's nothing like what you originally said.

Same thing with injuries.  You tried to say that our defense was hurt by being short some guys.  I pointed out that Purdue had injuries as well.  You ignored some of them and insisted I was wrong about another.  When I showed you the evidence you shifted your argument to try to make it look like you were still right, even after being shown to be wrong.  And you still ignored the other examples I gave of other Purdue players that didn't play.

So you're just stuck on repeating your talking points and aren't open to any evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Mav, I was wrong to say he wasn’t hurt. HOWEVER, he was not injured and played the entire game save for a couple plays late in the game. “Would Purdue have been better or worse if Jones wasn’t hobbled?” was your note, suggesting that him at 100% makes Purdue better… sure, but at this point in the season very few players are 100% healthy. 
 

I realized today that this is kind of your thing, nitpick parts of arguments to get a rise out of people. Good job!

My original post was that our defense constantly faces dozens of more plays than our peers. This is leading to additional injuries of our best players and causing us to utilize 3-5th string players at the end of games. Purdue being out the top two runningbacks likely hurts them. Our defense without our two starting linebackers hurts us. It’s a tit-for-tat deal. I seem to repeat the argument because you’ve said nothing to refute the original post that unless our defense gets off the field more, we will continue to see backups of backups at the end of games. 

 
Defense still has much work to do to compete with better competition. Offensive line remains a real weakness.
 

Going to have to get the running game rolling better if we hope to be competitive in upcoming contests. 
 

E5D285E9-6278-4C52-86E1-0FA37DFC391E.jpeg 

Pictured above is a moment captured last night during the second quarter in central Nebraska. Even while things aren’t going as well as we want, there’s beautiful things to enjoy. 
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are several reasons why this game was such a mind-f***: On the one hand, we put up more points than any other team had put up on Purdue's defense so far this year. Penn State scored 35 on them.

Then on the other hand, they scored more points on us than they had put up against any other Power 5 opponent this season. But...O'Connell is a senior that is a legit late first round draft pick.

The bottom line is that when your defense gives up 608 yards you're basically guaranteed to lose the game. I guess we just ran out of good luck on D after Indiana & Rutgers.

 
Back
Top