[Husker] NC State/Rutgers, Callahan and Daniel

[Nick Chevance]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:52 AM, j j <jjj112665 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> We're not talking about next season or who we are replacing. I said that I would like another shot at Missouri today. I think we would >kick their butts. I dont care about when the schedule says we played them I am strictly talking about today. If Mizzou had not played >Northwestern two days ago and we were lining up against them today at noon who would win. Thats what I am talking about. They >have went backwards by leaps and bounds and we have moved forward by leaps and bounds. I sure dont think it would end up 52-17 >do you?

I personally think this argument seems to miss the essential reason
why we lost to Missouri.  Yes, at the time we played them they were
hot, and we were still learning how to play.  But the reason I doubt
we could beat Missouri easily today is still based on what it takes to
beat that spread offense.  The Mizzou-Northwestern game was a showcase
for that, primarily because the two teams pretty much run the same
offense, so the defenses have seen all of these plays before.  And the
Oregon-OSU Cowboys game last night was just another example.  What it
takes to blow up the spread is a good push up front from the front
four and a linebacking corps that is quick enough to keep up with that
first step.  It helps if you have a defensive backfield that can
cover.  What happened to us this year was a less than great
linebacking group, and a front four who didn't learn how to get that
initial push until late in the season (compare the push in the Mizzou
game vs. the Kansas game).  And when your line doesn't push the QB to
move his feet, the linebackers need to add to that push, taking away
some of the needed coverage.  If your linebackers are not really up to
that initial move by the back and tight end, then the corners and
safeties have to provide more underneath coverage.  And if the backers
are worrying about both deep and short, then somebody's going to get
open.

I was watching the Oregon linebackers last night and while they didn't
look particularly nasty, they played that short coverage and came up
to stop the run.  It was all done in that 5 yards zone beyond the line
of scrimmage.  Pretty much stopped or slowed the Cowboy running game,
forcing them to throw more than they wanted to.  It helps to get that
push up the middle and beat the quarterback up during the game; he
tends to be slower by the end of the game.  Besides Oregon, look at
what Kansas did to Mizzou.  Anybody think their linebackers were leaps
and bounds better against us?  Were they even much of a factor against
us?  But they did to Mizzou much the same as Oregon did last night to
the Cowboys.

But also look at the scores.  Nobody stopped anybody completely.  The
defenses limited the damages but nobody got shut out.  There were
times when all those teams looked unbeatable, and others when they
looked inept.  I'd argue that if Oregon didn't have a bowling ball for
a QB and they weren't willing to use him as a rusher, things may have
turned out different.

My argument is that we're still a year or more away from building the
linebacking corps we need to really control the spread.  Cody Glenn
has all the speed he needs, and certainly more than enough heart.  But
he lacks the experience, and he was run out of position many times.
And the defensive line pretty much had to overcome 4 years of coaching
that instead of pushing the offensive line backwards and getting to
the QB, seemed more concerned with controlling the line of scrimmage
and limiting damage.  That works against more conventional offenses,
but not with the spread - the line gaps alone make that nearly
impossible.  And finally, I think our defensive backfield would
benefit from a little more speed at corner, but generally playing
better position football.  The Texas Tech game is a great example of
what happens when your backfield is worried about both long and
crossing patterns - guys get out of position quickly.

Finally, I don't think we're leaps and bounds better than we were, but
we are playing better as a unit.  I don't think Mizzou is leaps and
bounds worse, but they have lost a step or two, probably because of
two demoralizing losses to Kansas and Oklahoma.  And then they have
been facing better defenses than ours.  So, if we were to play again
this year, I see the game as closer, but I'm not so sure I'd go out on
a thin limb and predict a win.  Thankfully, we'll never know.  Next
year we won't face Chase and Chase, and probably not Macklin, so
Mizzou will be a different ball club.  Here's to next year in
Columbia.

Nick
-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Anatole France