Gamethread: UNLV @ Badgers

[MickeyDavis]

That certainly makes sense given how lost the defense looked at times. Plus I don't think our defense is going to be all that good, prepared or not.

[El Duderino]

Yeah, some of the games against spread, our strategy doesn't look too bad. I was at the game last time we were at Northwestern, and we got **** shredded because we applied zero pressure. I think I counted 5 blitzes. One play we got burned for an open 25 yard pass, but then we got fumble, INT, sack, incompletion or something like that. It was mind boggling why we didn't pull more blitzes out for that game (and games like that).

One thing that drives me crazy is when the defense of a team i cheer for plays mostly a conservative low blitz type of bend don't break defense, yet they still are giving up a lot of big plays. I end up yelling at the TV that if you're going to get gashed a ton for big plays, at least blitz then in hope of getting pressure.

When i look at the main reasons why that the SEC has largely dominated college football over the last decade or so besides low academic standards, IMO it's the talent they get on the DL and at CB to a lesser extent. Those upper tier schools in the SEC often play similar conservative defensive schemes like Wisconsin has tended to do, but those SEC schools consistently can bring in high quality defensive lineman who can get to the QB and often bring in really good corners.

Watching that LSU/Oregon game the other day, it was that LSU defensive talent which they consistently can recruit which separates them and other elite SEC programs from nearly all Big Ten schools each year. Put that Oregon offense on the field against the Badgers defense, i shudder to think what would happen given all the speed Oregon has on offense. Granted, our offense would have bulldozed right through that small Oregon defense, but i think we'd seen some sort of 41-38 type of game instead of what happened n the LSU matchup.

[El Duderino]

That certainly makes sense given how lost the defense looked at times. Plus I don't think our defense is going to be all that good, prepared or not.

Plus, the defensive staff had a chance to adjust at halftime and as the game went along, but the UNLV offense just kept gashing the Badgers defense for sizable runs and long 7-13ish play drives. I could see plenty of those Badgers defensive guys sucking wind as they regularly couldn't get stops to end drives quickly.

I'm still trying to understand why the coaching staff chose to move Borland to inside linebacker? Has anyone read an article detailing why the staff made this decision?

I don't ask this because i think Borland will struggle at inside backer based on the UNLV game. He hadn't played a game in a long time and is learning a new position. As the season goes along, i'm confident that Borland will play well there. I just wonder because it seems like with Borland inside all the time, it will limit his chances to make big plays, especially against the pass where in his freshman year Borland gave tackles fits coming off the edge. Mix in that this year's defense for now at least doesn't look to have a stud pass rusher like a Burke, Saleh, Schofield, Watt, etc, it makes the move of Borland inside even more perplexing to me. I've read multiple articles talking about how Borland is adjusting to playing inside instead, but none saying why the switch was made?

[Badgerlander]

Wisconsin No. 8 in new AP poll.

[MickeyDavis]

Borland was very good on the outside, gets hurt, and they move him inside. The only thing I can think of is that the staff feels they have adequate replacement(s) outside and are very very weak inside. It still makes no sense to me.

[Allanon23]

Taylor looked fine on the inside when he played there, I really don't understand the Borland move.

[Allanon23]

We're #9 in the coaches poll, just a few points behind #8