Northwestern: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (and the Beautiful!)

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

The Good:

1. For the most part, Denard's passing (ducks and horrors aside).  He was more accurate than not, and given how NW was selling out to stop his running, it was essential that he get something going in the air.  For the most part, he did...especially in the second half.

2. Devin Gardner.  He wasn't in all that much, but I thought he was impressive when he was.  It's good to know we have him to fall back on.  

3. Second half adjustments on defense.  How good is Mattison at identifying what's wrong early on and correcting it?  I think he's got to be one of the best; it almost reminds me of what Chip Kelly does when Oregon struggles early on offense.  Maybe that's getting ahead of things, but 28-0 in the second half against a potent offense like Northwestern's is mighty impressive.  

4. Second half adjustments on offense.  Okay, here it's not so much a schematic thing as an execution thing.  We were sloppy in the first half, and coldly efficient in the second.  Sure some things didn't work, but we always had something else to fall back on when they didn't.  

5. The D-line and Demens.  Interior running was a non-factor, and Persa had a nightmare of a day when he wasn't getting rid of the ball within 3 seconds.  

6. The way our team actively creates turnovers.  At this point, it's clear that our guys are coached to do this, and they do it with regularity.  

7. Roy Roundtree.  He made some excellent catches, and showed that he's still the man.  

7b. Junior Hemingway.  Some huge catches.  

The Bad:

1. The first half.  We were lucky to only be down 10 pts, and looked sloppy, confused and unprepared for a road game.  

2. Interior running.  Sure, we got some plays in, and that Denard scramble on the broken play was sick, but by the 3rd quarter we couldn't get anything going through the middle...and this against an undersized, non-elite front 7.  

3. Defending perimeter running and passing.  This was a serious problem, especially early on.  Guess we adjusted to it well, though, as it was less of a concern later on.  But it was worrying, and option teams like Nebraska could make us pay if we don't improve on this.  

The Ugly:

1. Denard's 3 interceptions.  These were really terrible, and a continuing problem for him.  We're lucky that they didn't hurt more than they did, but unless he can fix this problem, they'll cost us a game eventually.  

The Beautiful:

1. We're 6-0 for the first time since 2006.  

 

The Man Down T…

October 9th, 2011 at 2:07 AM ^

It's just like it should be.  After 6 games:

 

1.  We're undefeated

2.  In first place

3.  Bowl eligible

4.  Looking forward to pasting little brother for all those times they acted up the last 3 years..

5.  Looking forward to OSU

 

Just like the old days!!!  

 

 

SirLaurenceFukMSU

October 9th, 2011 at 6:03 AM ^

is f'n beautiful! How many games did we give up that many in a 3rd or 4th quarter alone last year? 

2nd half adjustments by Mattison and Hoke have been amazing. I am falling in love with this defense. Every guy out there is making a play. I think we have already forced more turnovers than we did all last year, along with 3 and outs. Blake Countess is playing like he has been out there for two or three years, and Jordan Kovacs is making all the big plays when we need them. 

While the 3 int's were atrocious, I figured Denard would have a high INT count this year while he learns this new system. I do feel that somewhere along the line this year, one of those is going to cost us a game. I can definitely see the progression from the ND game though. Borges figured it out early enough that heavy doses of drop back Denard just isn't going to help this team, so kudos to him for making that adjustment. 

Outside of EMU and Minny, our wins over ND, WMU, and even to a lesser degree, SDSU, can only help us every week they win. 

6-0. Bowl eligible. 

Little brother is in for a rude awakening. 

 

victors2000

October 9th, 2011 at 8:03 AM ^

I'm tempted to place 'Defensive adjustments' under 'Beautiful'; at halftime I thought we'd have a long row to hoe to catch up to the Wildcats, that offense is hard to stop and it was looking like it would be a barnburner ala 2000, but by the end of the third quarter not only had we caught up, we were up and driving for another score.

Time of possession'; we had the ball a whopping 15 (you might as well say 16) minutes longer than the Wildcats did. Combined with over 100 yards more total offense and you have a killer combination.

Third down efficiency- Denard looks more composed out there, well at least he did in the second half. Perhaps being 'away' gave him some jitters in the first half but he settled down quite nicely. 

Under 'ugly', I would add the running game sans Denard; I don't know it it's the O-line or the backs but without Denard, it gets anemic. I felt Shaw had a quiet, productive game for the carries he had.

jmblue

October 9th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^

One more for the "Ugly" category: having literally no view of the jumbotron in the visitors' section.  All we had to go on was the tiny scoreboard in the south endzone, which frequently wasn't updated in time. 

On the good side, we took the stadium over.  Fantastic atmosphere.  On multiple occasions, it took the NU marching band to drown out the Michigan fans' chants.