[Husker] A breakdown of the NU vs MU debacle

[Scott R Lawson]

Agreed. The offensive line is simply not strong enough at the point of attack to accomplish these things with any regularity. I'm not sure if that is due to the pass oriented mentality of the Callahan staff or what, but it is pretty obvious they are being handled up front.

Scott in NY



-----Original Message-----
From: husker-bounces at tssi.com [mailto:husker-bounces at tssi.com] On Behalf Of jon johnston
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:59 PM
To: Skylar Dodds
Cc: husker at tssi.com
Subject: Re: [Husker] A breakdown of the NU vs MU debacle

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




_______________________________________________
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.)