[Husker] A breakdown of the NU vs MU debacle

[jon johnston]

Nice stuff, but I disagree with him on his offensive line stuff. He's  
being too nice. We don't come off the ball quickly, we don't drive,  
and we don't finish blocks on a consistent basis.

I didn't get a chance to look at the game again, but we weren't 90%  
solid. Again, no drive, little push, no running game.

Jon Johnston
http://www.cornnation.com

On Oct 6, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Skylar Dodds wrote:

> Here’s a pretty good breakdown I read online (on a message board).   
> I got permission from the author to post it here for you all to read.
>
> Keep in mind 2 things:
>
> 1) He admits he’s not a football genius, but I think it’s still  
> pretty darn good
> 2) It’s very long ☺
>
> *******************************************************************************************
>
> I don't pretend to be an X and Os type, but I have TIVO and I have  
> been to a Holiday Inn.
>
> DEFENSE
>
> The game plan appears to have been to run a 3-1-7, with a free  
> running DE (Allen or Sievers) showing all sorts of looks and lining  
> up wherever to rush. Usually, the push was in the middle. Dillard  
> was the lone LB most of the night.
>
> Thorell was following Coffman all night, and our safeties were  
> responsible for picking up the slot receivers, including Maclin. The  
> safteies typically played the slot very soft -- 7 or 8 yds from  
> scrimmage -- but for most of the night (save the 3rd play from  
> scrimmage) this didn't hurt us. Not sure why.
>
> There were only 2 plays that really hurt us, and they kept running  
> them over and over: (1) the midrange 12 yd TE out routes that  
> Coffman and the other TE kept running on 3rd down and (2) the read  
> option to Washington.
>
> The beauty of the Mizzou offense is that with us putting those 7  
> guys in coverage we were forced to leave Dillard pretty much alone  
> to fill every gap. Otherwise we were relying on Potter to get off  
> the blocks -- which he did, MANY times -- or the safeties to come up  
> in run support.
>
> Of course the safeties have a lot to worry about with Maclin leaving  
> from the slot, and so they are not going to be quick to the gaps. If  
> Dillard can't get to the gap, you are going to have a 4-6 yd run  
> EVERY time you run that play, waiting for the safeties get there or  
> the DL get off their blocks. Which is pretty much what happened over  
> and over again.
>
> The other terrible thing is that if somebody misses a tackle, that  
> 4-6 yd run is suddenly 12, because the spread makes small spaces  
> into huge ones, as everyone knows.
>
> I really don't know how you approach this differently. Perhaps one  
> could really jam Maclin at the line on every play. Take the guy down  
> if you must and eliminate him as a threat. Not sure if this is  
> practical or even legal, but that would have helped. If Maclin is  
> not a threat, or even delayed as a threat for 2 seconds longer than  
> he was last night, the safeties can play the game very differently.
>
> After watching the defense, I now see what rKay and others have been  
> noticing about our safety play. Our safeties are not playing at the  
> level necessary to deal with this sort of opponent. Don't know if it  
> is talent or coaching, or just maturity of understanding the  
> defense. It could be any of these things. But there were ways in  
> which our safeties were generally two steps behind the rest of the  
> defense. With a Mike Brown or Reggie Smith at safety the game could  
> have been very different, I would venture to say.
>
> For the first half and for much of the second half, really, I was  
> surprised to see that our DL, Dillard, and corners were very much in  
> the game at the level we needed them. The breakdowns were really  
> located almost exclusively in the safeties and Thorell's mismatch  
> with Coffman.
>
> The rest of the success of the MO offense -- I would attribute the  
> rest to the high quality of their play. Operating the system they  
> run at their level of quality forces game planning like leaving  
> Dillard to run down the read option, and that is putting an enormous  
> pressure on playmaking for 4 quarters, even a guy with Dillard's  
> talent.
>
> OFFENSE:
>
> Running game: Mizzou was lining up with 7 or 8 in the box on most  
> 1st and 2nd downs, and this made the running game difficult, of  
> course. The blocking was solid with the first line defenders about  
> 90% of the time, but we had virtually NO blocks put on LBs.
>
> It appeared as though most of the time we were double teaming guys  
> at the point of attack, but we never got to the second level. As a  
> result, when you have decent LBs and safeties, which Mizzou has,  
> they were just filling the gaps and making the tackles. We got past  
> the front line most of the time for 2 yds, but that was it.
>
> When we had breakdowns in the first level OL on running plays, it  
> was primarily with Smith, Burkes, and Hickman. Smith got beat a  
> number of times, it seemed like it was every play there for a while.  
> But to be fair, Burkes also got beat a few times by the same DE.
>
> Our pass blocking was good fundamentally, but delayed blitzes were  
> almost never picked up by the OL, and if Helu was in the game, Joe  
> had to run for his life. Helu missed at least 4 blitz pick ups that  
> he clearly should have had, including one on the devastating sack to  
> end our scoring hopes late in the first half.
>
> Our WR play was good, but it did appear fairly obvious to this  
> novice that Mizzou's coverage (was that Cover 2?, not sure, but I  
> think so) was more than adequate to deal with them, so long as our  
> TE was tied up in pass blocking. We usually lined up 2 wideouts,  
> Swift and Peterson or Holt, and rarely anyone in the slot. There was  
> almost no motion all night.
>
> To me at least, it looked very manageable for the defense  
> conceptually, though I thought the WCO was supposed to create  
> confusion. Mizzou never appeared to be confused by anything, and  
> they rarely went away from the defense they lined up in.
>
> There were a lot of critics of Ganz after the game, but I have to  
> say that if it were not for Ganz's sandlot game and the WRs somehow  
> getting open -- almost always leaving their routes when Joe cut  
> loose -- we would have virtually no yards. 2 yd carries don't get  
> you anywhere, whether you are Marlon or Helu or Q.
>
> I think the book on the game is correct, in that the obvious problem  
> on offense was the OL. They blocked the first level well, but there  
> was almost no second level blocking. At times it did not even appear  
> that we were attempting to block the second level. Our blocks at the  
> point of attack would be pretty good, but on the other side of the  
> ball we would have OL either running loose with no one to block, or  
> on the play too late, chasing the LBs to the hole. As a result the  
> LBs ran free and made tackles, just like they are supposed to.
>
> Made me wonder if zone blocking deemphasizes assignment blocking,  
> and therefore undermines second level blocking. That is what  
> appeared to be the case. But again, I don't know enough about zone  
> blocking to make that accusation, and so forgive me for slander if  
> that observation is unfair.
>
> In any case, we have to downfield block LBs, and if we don't we  
> simply won't have a running game. Maybe Helu can make an LB miss 1  
> out of 3 times Marlon can't, and that is good, but that isn't a real  
> downhill running game that we are all used to around here. Our line  
> needs better coaching on this, or the coaches need better players --  
> one or the other -- or we are simply not going to have a run game in  
> a league where a real running game could make all the difference.
>
> OTHER
>
> Obviously the penalties were ridiculous.
>
> Something has happened to Kitchener; his 38 yd average before last  
> night was nothing exciting to begin with, and he is now showing the  
> inability to really boom one when we need it. His two memorable  
> shanks now in important spots are exactly what put you on the bench  
> as a punter, which of course is where he ended up. Too bad. A couple  
> years ago I thought he could be a great punter.
>
> I really thought Potter and Suh were champions all night. Potter  
> fought off double teams all night and forced plays inside or just  
> made the tackle. Suh was doubleteamed virtually every play and was  
> in on most of the running plays.
>
> The other guy that stood out for me on D was West. Both the corners,  
> really. Other guys may know more than me, but I thought Hagg did not  
> play well, and neither did O'Hanlon or Thorell. To be fair, the  
> latter two had enormous challenges on their hands. I did not think  
> the Pierre Allen-Demorrio experiment worked, but again, maybe it did  
> and I didn't see it.
>
> Finally, if my claim about the game being very different if we had a  
> Mike Brown or Reggie Smith at safety is true, then that should  
> encourage us. Being one or 2 players away from our defense really  
> competing with the number 4 team in the country -- and what is  
> probably the first or second best offense in the country -- that is  
> really not that big of a hill to climb on defense.
>
> The bigger challenge might be the 2nd level blocking issues on O.  
> These appear to be more fundamental to the system than personnel  
> related.
>
> My .02.
>
> *****************************************************************************************************************************
>
> Again, not my words, but I thought he did a good job of summing it up.
>
> --
> Skylar
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
> Note:  Please DO NOT REPLY to any messages purporting to come from  
> the Husker List via BSafe Online spam killer.  These are coming from  
> a list subscriber who has this package installed, not from the  
> Husker List.  (This package apparently does not understand how  
> mailing lists work.)

jon johnston
jon.johnston at gmail.com