[Husker] Bowl and Year

[Nick Chevance]

Long, long post ahead.  Proceed with caution.  But this is like
therapy for me.  I gotta see what actually happened so I can get on
with the rest of my life.  I apologize ahead of time.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Martin, Douglas W. <MartinDW at stlukes.org> wrote:
> I took my two oldest boys to Orlando and we had a good time.

Wish I could have done the same, Doug.  Even the miserable game would
have been tolerable if I could have spent a couple of days at Disney
or Universal.

> It seems to me that in looking closer to our team that there are some things that are separating us from a good team and a great team.

I have to agree.  There's something about this team that I can't
figure out.  But its games like this one that seems to make the
disfunction obvious.

> I made a comment early after the first game (and haven't posted anything since) that we would need to accept the fact that our defensive ends are what they are.  I must be spoiled (and probably am) thinking they all need to be Wistroms or Vanden Bosches, but we must upgrade this position with recruiting to get A) speed and B) ability to disengage from blockers.  The bowl game really illustrated this.

Here I gotta disagree.  I think our D-line played pretty well, and the
ends were asked to do a lot.  Not only did they have to put pressure
on the QB but also keep contain on the ends.  That's not impossible to
do, but its difficult.  SC has a couple of very good ends - not really
big (tall but not massive) but they have a long reaches and that helps
them getting up field against an offensive tackle.  But they also have
several blitz packages - but in the fourth, when they knew we were
throwing, the ends just teed off.

> I did not think the interior line played that bad, really.  We did not get any pressure to the quarterback, but they did for the most part control the middle of the field.
>
> I was disappointed at the lack of blitz packages.  I was waiting for the corner blitz and never saw it.  I suppose that having #1 on the field until he got ejected had something to do with that.  Having said that, when we did send everybody on the one play we got burned badly.  Did this have something to do with Papuchis instead of Carl?  who knows.  I did see a lot of talk between Pap and Bo during the game.....of course Pap is learning as well.

We did get some pressure early, but it was a lot to ask of this line
that's been hurt since before we lost Crick.  But what you saw was
Bo's scheme - rush 4 and cover everyone else like a blanket - which
worked well until about the 4th quarter (by the way, we did the same
thing against just about everyone we played this year - we're not a
blitzing team, for the most part).  By then they were tired out and
the offense couldn't stay on the field.  Yes, I'd love to see another
Wistrom or Vanden Bosch at end, a Suh or Crick at tackle, but I think
the scheme works with the personnel we have as long as everything else
works.  It doesn't and it didn't.

> I am still not sold on Compton.  I like Lavonte David, but even though he is an All American (and I do give him a lot of credit.....see comment about defensive ends above.....he makes up for their deficiencies a ton) he does make poor reads sometimes (got burned on the TD pass on back out of the backfiled) and he does have this knack for rushing the quarterback and missing the tackle which I dont quite understand.

I think you're being a bit hard on Compton.  I think he played very
well all year, and he's the type of linebacker Nebraska needs in the
B1G, a strong mobile guy who can lay a lick.  David is just a freak -
there's probably no one else in college football with his skill set.
And that pass out of the backfield was a pick play where the fullback
was sent to block David so he couldn't get outside to the back.  Its
just a play that worked well for SC, not really David's fault.  And as
far a rushing a mobile quarterback, the only advice I have is to try
it and see how hard that is.  When we did sack the QB (four times), it
took at least two if not more to corral him and knock him down.

> Our offense is, however, the big issue.  Folks we have not scored more than 25 points in the last six games.  Northwestern gave us a meaningless TD at the end so it is really 24.
>
> Inconsistency will kill you.


Yes it will and it did.  We scored (and I think rather easily) twice
in the first quarter.  Our third drive was stymied by a 5 yard sack on
first down and ended in a punt - and this team has had a hugely
difficult time getting out of long down situations.  Our fourth drive
was 9 plays, 51 yards, 3 first downs, only 4 second down attempts and
only 1 third down attempt, but a fumble on the 7 yard line.  Our next
drive was more difficult - 11 plays, 45 yards, 3 first downs, but 3
second down attempts, 3 third down attempts, a converted 4th down, and
ended with a loss of 5 yards on second down, and an interception on
3rd and long (and I swear the receiver turned the wrong way).  That
was the first half.  I don't think I'm being too rose-colored glasses
to say that we were likely to score a TD on that 4th drive - Abdullah
had the first down.  Without the interception on the next drive, we
have a make-able FG from 45 or so.  Even with the hail mary at the end
of the half, we could have been up 20-13 at that point, maybe more.
And the Huskers had one (off-sides) penalty in the half.  One.

The second half started well.  That first drive went 9 plays, 52
yards, 3 first downs, and a first and goal at the 8. Then (shudder) a
loss of 8 yards on a goofed up play, a loss of 5 from a motion
penalty, and a missed 35 yard field goal.  And this just summed up
what I saw all year.  Its just like they can't deal with success at
times, and they implode.  The next series was truly the final nail in
the coffin - 6 plays, 4 total yards, 4 penalties for 25 yards, and a
less than great punt for 34 yards.  The next series was 3 plays, -12
yards (yes, negative total yards on the drive), two runs for -12
yards, and another penalty for 5 yards.  SC goes on offense first in
the 4th quarter and scores, but not after we allowed them a first down
on 3rd and 18.  Our first drive of the 4th quarter had an ominous
beginning - first play from scrimmage, a dropped pass, followed by a
motion penalty - but we gained 16 yards back, but then threw an
incomplete and got sacked for -14.  SC comes back for another score,
but they have to convert 2 4th downs to get there (a personal foul on
the Huskers put them at the 3 after the second converted 4th down).
Our next series is short - 3 sacks in a row for -15 yards (only good
thing was SC declining a Husker holding call on second down).  End of
game.

Sound familiar?  I thought so.  Again, the lack of offense puts
pressure on the defense, and they're not good enough to stop a good
team like SC the whole game.


> It seems to me now watching very closely the cohesiveness is not there.  I think this is a Martinez thing.  He is not a rah rah guy.  I am not suggesting you have to be, but he doesn't seem to be able to get everyone "in it" all the time.  This is a thing that is hard to explain and hard to put your finger on, but the offense rarely seems like they are acting as a team.  The backs act as a unit, the receivers act as a unit, the line acts as a unit but the three components do not.
>
> Anyway, we need to find some good guys to take over for Marcel Jones and Hardrick.  The poor kid Moore got manhandled when they put him in the game.  Choi for the most part is still learning and it shows.  IF we don't do this, then next year will be another carbon copy of this year.

Again, I gotta disagree.  I think a lot of the problems were put on
Martinez last year for not being the team guy.  I think that's not the
issue this year.  I've not heard much of anything at all about his
inability to rally the troops this year.  Most other players have
talked about Martinez as the team guy this year, more involved and not
the loner on the sidelines.  I can agree that the offense lacks
cohesion - there's just no excuse for that many penalties - 9 for 53
yards in the second half.  Really no excuse for the motion penalties
at this point in the season.  But the play calling was a bit suspect
in the second half, and this teams really thrives on pushing the ball
downfield.  When they lose big yards on a down, or get a penalty, it
seems to sit hard on them and they lose focus.  And I agree that I'd
like to see what kind of line we'll have this next year.  I'm not
encouraged, but Moore and Choi look promising.

> Anyway, had a great time.....see you all next season.

Thank you, Doug.

>
> Thank you for your prayers for my fraternity brother and fellow lister, Rod Krogh who continues to recover and is doing well after a serious auto accident.
>
> Doug Martin, MD


Nick
-- 
“You can lead a horse to prune juice, but you can't make him drink it.
Nor would you want to.”
Space Ghost