What did we learn UCLA edition
- Thread starter Cornbred
- Start date
Husker in WI
New member
Singleton has played better the last two weeks after a truly terrible game against Indiana, but he definitely has doesn't wrap up consistently. And then I think it's Gifford later who comes flying in and just throws a shoulder into the back, knocking off the other defenders and handing UCLA a 2nd and 15 conversion on a toss play.
Again outside of Indiana the defense has done a solid job of not letting things spiral, but they do get frustrated too easily and start trying to hit stick or dominate the guy across instead of focusing on their job and getting it done.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
I flew back for this game, and flew my kid in, too, so we could have adult drinks at my old college haunts and take in a Nebraska football game together.
I've watched this team for 60 years, and that may have been the single worst performance I've witnessed. And just as it was getting really depressing, it also started getting kinda funny. The folks around us in the North End Zone know their football and pretty soon we're all turning to each other and saying "what is this? why are they doing that? what are they thinking? why is a UCLA penalty our best play?" And next to us was a UCLA father and son who stayed pretty quiet and even apologized for winning. They're used to being the team that sabotages any chance of victory.
I always assume you get a better view of the gameplay watching TV than live at the game. But one advantage to live end zone seats is that you get to watch plays unfold vertically. There we several plays where Raiola took the snap and there was immediately a big cheer from us folks in the North End Zone because we saw a receiver break into the wide open and anticipated a big gain for the taking. And we kept watching as Raiola held the ball until the receiver was covered, at which point he forced the pass, checked down to an equally covered receiver, or ran about helplessly. The other thing you see watching plays unfold vertically is when the scrambling Raiola has a huge lane to pick up some yards rushing. There were multiple times when Raiola made that decision, but chose to run straight into defenders, instead of that big space where they weren't.
I haven't had the heart to read all the commentary here, but I'm betting it covers all the f#&%ed up decisions made by everyone in the coaching staff. I hereby stop defending or making excuses for anyone, including Dylan, and laugh at anyone who still thinks the problem with Nebraska football is the high expectation fans put on coaches and players. We sometimes forget that football is ultimately an entertainment product, and that was just a hard watch, made bearable by the funny if long-suffering fans surrounding us.
FAC at The Zoo Bar was outstanding. Can't believe that well drinks are only $4.
I've watched this team for 60 years, and that may have been the single worst performance I've witnessed. And just as it was getting really depressing, it also started getting kinda funny. The folks around us in the North End Zone know their football and pretty soon we're all turning to each other and saying "what is this? why are they doing that? what are they thinking? why is a UCLA penalty our best play?" And next to us was a UCLA father and son who stayed pretty quiet and even apologized for winning. They're used to being the team that sabotages any chance of victory.
I always assume you get a better view of the gameplay watching TV than live at the game. But one advantage to live end zone seats is that you get to watch plays unfold vertically. There we several plays where Raiola took the snap and there was immediately a big cheer from us folks in the North End Zone because we saw a receiver break into the wide open and anticipated a big gain for the taking. And we kept watching as Raiola held the ball until the receiver was covered, at which point he forced the pass, checked down to an equally covered receiver, or ran about helplessly. The other thing you see watching plays unfold vertically is when the scrambling Raiola has a huge lane to pick up some yards rushing. There were multiple times when Raiola made that decision, but chose to run straight into defenders, instead of that big space where they weren't.
I haven't had the heart to read all the commentary here, but I'm betting it covers all the f#&%ed up decisions made by everyone in the coaching staff. I hereby stop defending or making excuses for anyone, including Dylan, and laugh at anyone who still thinks the problem with Nebraska football is the high expectation fans put on coaches and players. We sometimes forget that football is ultimately an entertainment product, and that was just a hard watch, made bearable by the funny if long-suffering fans surrounding us.
FAC at The Zoo Bar was outstanding. Can't believe that well drinks are only $4.
Savage Husker
New member
No one posting about the coaches is avoiding the performance of the players - it’s not an either or. For all the examples you provided, who’s job is it to coach the kids up or pull them? For 60 years you are failing to accept who is ultimately responsible for the team.
DR gets laid out, timeout on the field for injured player, attempts to return to the field a play later and then immediately collapses…was that to fake an injury timeout or because they are incompetent? Either way, it shows ineptitude of coaching.
With the hiring of Holgerson, this aged well. Gosh, all of those fans calling out coaching are so ignorant and have no clue about football, right?
And no, Holgerson isn’t the answer to salvage the season, unless he is elevating expectations and shifting a change of culture.
Hilltop
New member
I'm not sure you followed the message. He wasn't defending the coaches but rather stating that the fan base is not the problem with Nebraska.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
Yes. The product on the field is the responsibility of everyone who puts the product on the field. That game was wrong on so many levels.
As a fan I've simply run out of fingers to point.
Hilltop
New member
I hear you. I have seen enough flashes of good stuff this year to remain optimistic but I don't blame those who have reached their limit. The downward trend is frustrating.
Savage Husker
New member
my apologies @Guy Chamberlin. I re-read the statement and tucked in there was a comment I missed that tied it together.
Undone
New member
We started off the Indiana game with Barney making a braindead move on special teams that has us starting on our own 2 yard line. But we got a first down somehow. I'll start with the plays on that 1st & 10 from our 12. We're down 7-0:
We miraculously hold them on defense on their next posession. We take over on our 35 yard line:
I highlighted first downs to make them stand out. Obviously the second drive was a good one so there's nothing to complain about in the slightest, but I think it paints a clear picture of what the staff wanted to do: they wanted to be in 11 man personnel from the shotgun and they had zero intention of trying to establish a power run game by using lead blockers.
That's not like, some kind of cardinal sin or anything. Just pointing it out. The offensive philosophy & scheme started to change around the mid point this year, IMO.
I'll do the UCLA first couple of drives next, hopefully.
- 1st & 10: Shotgun, basically 11 man personnel. Lame duck flat pass to Fidone, we gain a yard.
- 2nd & 9: Shotgun, sideline throw to Banks, Raiola sails it over his hands out of bounds.
- 3rd & 9: Shotgun, four receivers wide (which is a great look on 3rd & long obviously). We allow pressure to get in and Raiola sails it in the general direction of a guy for an incompletion.
We miraculously hold them on defense on their next posession. We take over on our 35 yard line:
- 1st & 10: 11 man personnel, Raiola shoulder pumps and tries to get Neyor on a 'go' route on the sideline. They get flagged for pass interference.
- 1st & 10 on the 50 yard line: 11 man personnel, no play action, we're again trying to just air it out. Raiola avoids pressure and steps up to find Fidone underneath for 5 yards.
- 2nd & 5: Interesting formation; Barney, Banks, & Fidone are bunched up against the strong side tightend, we're again in shotgun. Dowdell empties out of the backfield laterally on the snap. We throw it out side to him, he makes a good move and gets 4 yards.
- 3rd & 1 from their 41: 11 man personnel in the shotgun again. Inside handoff to Dowdell, he picks up the first and actually gets like 9 yards.
- 1st & 10 from their 32: 11 man personnel in the shotgun, inside zone handoff to Dowdell, stuff for barely a yard.
- 2nd & 9: 11 man personnel in the gun, Rahmir runs a wheel route. Raiola hesitates, spins around, skips the ball off the turf on a pass.
- 3rd & 9: 11 man personnel from the gun, Lloyd runs a quick slant and Raiola hits him on the numbers for 10 yards! Where has this play been!
- 1st & 10 from their 21: 11 man personnel again from the shotgun, inside zone handoff to Rahmir that gets 1 yard.
- 2nd & 9: 11 man in the gun but with Haarberg, runs option left, keeps it for 8 yards.
- 3rd & 1: 11 man from the shotgun (WTF!), inside handoff to Dowdell, stuffed for no gain.
- 4th & 1 from their 12 yard line: Jumbo set out of the 'I,' Dowdell would have crossed the line to gain and gotten the first, but fumbles.
I highlighted first downs to make them stand out. Obviously the second drive was a good one so there's nothing to complain about in the slightest, but I think it paints a clear picture of what the staff wanted to do: they wanted to be in 11 man personnel from the shotgun and they had zero intention of trying to establish a power run game by using lead blockers.
That's not like, some kind of cardinal sin or anything. Just pointing it out. The offensive philosophy & scheme started to change around the mid point this year, IMO.
I'll do the UCLA first couple of drives next, hopefully.
Husker in WI
New member
It is interesting, wondering how much is trying to take advantage of how defenses are playing us rather than a philosophy shift. Their front 7 can play aggressively against the run while the safeties sit back, because they can also stop the normal things teams do to punish that. Those little bubbles and arrows should be good for 5-6 a pop in the looks we're getting - teams are blitzing the nickel a ton because we can't block the other DBs anyway. Trying to throw to loosen them up is reasonable, but it hasn't worked.
The most interesting thing about the Indiana game specifically is postgame Rhule talked about wanting to be in heavy sets and slow the game down. As you pointed out, going 11 personnel on 5 straight first downs (after starting with heavy personnel, but on our own goal line) was an incredibly quick hook if that truly was the gameplan. It's possible Satt is just stubbornly sticking with these because everything says they should be working, so maybe they'll eventually click. But it's incredibly frustrating to watch. How does this:
Turn into this:
Like that is a play with answers for almost anything the defense does, and we just can't block a DB. Which, to the point of many fans, Satt should have learned by now and maybe tried to find another weakness to exploit. But this is a core part of our offense because it should be really hard to come out of this with a negative play, hard to rip that out entirely. Maybe necessary though.