Question for this young buck (uninformed)
- Thread starter Jhollenbeck41
- Start date
To me our issues on D go in this order:
Talent: Outside of Lamar, who else is getting drafted out of the starters? I'd say no one is even close at this point.
Continuity: Our fans always want to fire everyone under the sun, but I believe that is half of our issue. These guys have been taught things from 3-4 coaches. Of course they are going to have bad habits..
Scheme - I'm not sure if the 3-4 is correct over the 4-3, but at this point I'd like to develop the first two in order to see how the scheme develops.
I'm not a fan of the 3-4, but I just think our linebacker play and fundamentals are lacking. Maybe its the D line in me speaking, but I see a ton of times where D ends are not containing and it hurts me every time.
It's also worth noting that the 4-3 Nebraska ran in the 90s was (as far as I know) a one-gapping scheme, meaning the DL were typically meant to be attacking up field into a particular gap rather than trying to hold the point and clog up/occupy blockers.
And Nebraska had some ******* animals at the DE spots in those years. Trev Alberts was a freak off the edge and won the Butkus Award, watch an old '93 game sometime and watch how fast he comes off the ball. It's crazy. He's two steps into the backfield before most guys are out of their stance. Coincidentally enough the Colts tried to make him a 3-4 OLB in the NFL and he never really flourished as a pro.
Grant Wistrom was a dominant 4-3 DE who went on to be a force in the NFL. So was Mike Rucker. Dwayne Harris and Donta Jones were very good in 94 and yet the other guys were so dominant that you basically forget the two of them.
Kyle Vanden Bosch was another good one, had a long NFL career. Carricker was probably the last very noteworthy DE for Nebraska, and opposite of Alberts he was converted to a 3-4 end in the NFL.
Pelini's 4-3 was a "two gap" scheme where the line wasn't often attacking straight upfield, players were responsible for defending the gap on either side of them. That was a lot of the discussion when Suh and Gerald McCoy were both up for the draft, they were regarded almost as equals but McCoy came from a one-gap scheme and Suh from a two-gap scheme.
I believe our current 3-4 is a reactive, two-gap setup along the line but I'm not sure. I'm almost positive Diaco's was but I haven't seen as much attention paid to the defense under Chinander, the talk is always about Scott's offense.
And Nebraska had some ******* animals at the DE spots in those years. Trev Alberts was a freak off the edge and won the Butkus Award, watch an old '93 game sometime and watch how fast he comes off the ball. It's crazy. He's two steps into the backfield before most guys are out of their stance. Coincidentally enough the Colts tried to make him a 3-4 OLB in the NFL and he never really flourished as a pro.
Grant Wistrom was a dominant 4-3 DE who went on to be a force in the NFL. So was Mike Rucker. Dwayne Harris and Donta Jones were very good in 94 and yet the other guys were so dominant that you basically forget the two of them.
Kyle Vanden Bosch was another good one, had a long NFL career. Carricker was probably the last very noteworthy DE for Nebraska, and opposite of Alberts he was converted to a 3-4 end in the NFL.
Pelini's 4-3 was a "two gap" scheme where the line wasn't often attacking straight upfield, players were responsible for defending the gap on either side of them. That was a lot of the discussion when Suh and Gerald McCoy were both up for the draft, they were regarded almost as equals but McCoy came from a one-gap scheme and Suh from a two-gap scheme.
I believe our current 3-4 is a reactive, two-gap setup along the line but I'm not sure. I'm almost positive Diaco's was but I haven't seen as much attention paid to the defense under Chinander, the talk is always about Scott's offense.
Can you provide a link to where this is actually stated. Giving up yards because of poor tackling, stripping the ball, etc. I understand the concept of an attacking D and believe me, the one we have is NOT one. We sit back and let everything come to and through us. Even the Pursue players knew what to expect. If you say, this is what Frost and Chin both said, show me.
you can look up the scheme info online in many places.. In fact, you can see this on the field. We are not sitting back and waiting for the play to come to us at all.. we are often over pursuing the ball, leaving big gaps on the cut back.. then you have the opponent running down field, and what do our guys do? the go for the strip, trying to punch the ball out.. all sorts of these kinds of things rather than actually tackling the guy. I'm dead serious, you can go look this stuff up and you will find out what most fans don't understand.. they just expect the defense to try to limit points, but it's a shootout type of scheme, and the focus is getting the ball back as fast as possible. Our defense has quite a few turnovers this year and giving our O more opportunities like how it is designed.. the problem is, our O sucks, so you either have to improve the offense, hold back the defense to a less aggressive scheme, or a little of both to get back into the win column. You can do your own research on this.
Chin's defense scheme was discussed ad nauseam in 2017 on this board. There were links to articles or discussions at that time. In this scheme, the stats everyone is all excited about are not relevant to the scheme being run.
These are the stats that are important: PPG allowed, Turnovers won, 3rd down defense. The reason Chins is in no danger this year is that his defense is improving PPG allowed and TOs won. If he gets marginally better at 3rd down defense to help drop PPG allowed to the mid-20s, he will be running about the same stats as 2017 UCF.
The reason everything is pear shaped and failing is the offense. It is nowhere near the UCF numbers and is almost identical in PPG to the 2017 Riley offense.
I am not trying to apology for Chin's defense. I really dislike it immensely, but I won't pick it apart by using stats it isn't judged on.
These are the stats that are important: PPG allowed, Turnovers won, 3rd down defense. The reason Chins is in no danger this year is that his defense is improving PPG allowed and TOs won. If he gets marginally better at 3rd down defense to help drop PPG allowed to the mid-20s, he will be running about the same stats as 2017 UCF.
The reason everything is pear shaped and failing is the offense. It is nowhere near the UCF numbers and is almost identical in PPG to the 2017 Riley offense.
I am not trying to apology for Chin's defense. I really dislike it immensely, but I won't pick it apart by using stats it isn't judged on.
In other words, you have nothing.
I understand "scheme", apparently you do not. A scheme does not produce poor tackling and over pursuit.A scheme puts players in the position to make plays. You teach, or least every coach I have been around and every team I have ever been around teaches you to how to pursue and square up on a WR or RB, not reach and arm tackle. I watch the games and replay plays over and over and there simply is not the stripping you are talking about.There is some but not tot he extent you seem to make it. How many fumbles has this magical stripping produced? It is called poor tackling technique.
What you are saying is this IS the D that Chins and Frost want, giving up yards, letting WR's and RB's run down the field while we have guys out of position to make the hit? That is what you are saying - with ZERO evidence then we are in more trouble than everyone thinks.
I'm not going to do the work for you. I know exactly what I am talking about in regard to this.
Also, don't put words in my mouth.. it's not about making a hit or not. They are trying to create TURNOVERS. at every level, they are trying to get the ball back to the offense as quickly as possible, and that is done through turnovers.
When the opposing team is running the ball and you see our guys trying to strip the ball or jar it loose, rather than actually tackling the guy, that is what is meant by an aggressive defense. The defense is also swarming to the ball. They do not sit at home and play it safe and guard positions/space.. this is why we also get gashed on cutback lanes and some say we are out of position... it's by design, it's the aggressive nature of what they want them to play, and as a result, we will get burned a few times for some points.
You hear them say this all the time.. no fear of failure.. this is what they are teaching those defensive guys.. to play with their hair on fire sort to speak.. cause big disruptions, and turnovers, regardless if we get scored on.
It's completely the opposite of a conservative normal defense.
I also said this last year that fans are going to FREAK out when they see what this defense looks like.
If the offense was working like it was supposed to, it wouldn't be a big deal, as we would be scoring 50+, and winning all these games.
Since the offense is not capable of that, then they have to adjust the defense to be a lot less aggressive if we plan to hold opponents to less than 30 points a game.
This is on the coaching staff to make that adjustment.
All you need to know is in 1992 T.O had lost 8 straight bowl games...only won 36% of his bowl games, and 50% of his games against the top 25. The best "fans" wanted him fired and some guy from UCLA or Colorado hired. They wanted his DC strung up. Sounds familiar. Through the late 80s he rarely played teams in the top 25, and when he did he lost. We lost nearly every big game starting in 1985 to 1992...it changed dramatically that night in Miami in the earliest of 1994...even with a loss.
sounds a little weird for me to say it this way but it does sound familiar......In Frost I trust
50 up until the early 90s, which was run due mainly to the option of Oklahoma, and mostly run based offenses. 5 man front, 2 linebackers. We got killed by good pro style offenses in the late 80s and early 90s in this defense (Miami, FSU, Washington).
4-3 Went to this exclusively after the 1992 season, when TO asked Bowden for his D coaches to come up to Lincoln and have a pow wow with our D staff. How ironic we almost got them at the end of the 1993 season.
The last I checked the NFL was about 50/50 between the 4-3 and the 3-4.
Pics are a general diagram of the formations.
You need distinctly different guys at both the Line and Linebacker levels between a 4-3 and a 3-4 IMO.
Great breakdown. Also worth noting the peso (nickel or 4-2-5) essentially became Bo’s base defense in his last years in the big 12
For all of you who think the 3-4 isn't a good defense or can't work for Nebraska, watch NU vs Wisconsin next week.
Watch how Wisconsin runs their 3-4 and then watch our bland, super predictable version of the 3-4.
Watch how Wisconsin runs their 3-4 and then watch our bland, super predictable version of the 3-4.
Actually, Nebraska’s 1986 team won the 1987 Sugar Bowl, so teams from 1987 thru 1993 had lost 7 in a row with the 94 team ending that drought.
Good point in the Peso. Was good for the Big 12. Not so good for the Big 10 IMHO.
Something most fans seem to not realize is we essentially run Bo's Peso defense half of the time this year. We run a 4-2-5 with Alex Davis at DEnd and JoJo plays Eric Hagg's Peso (hybrid Linebacker/Nickel) position.
Agreed. I wonder if that is because the defensive staff basically feels they don’t have experienced LBs on the roster that can do what they want them to do?
Getting a three and out turns the ball over as well. There is so much crap in what you write, I can't believe you actually believe it or anyone with an ounce of FB IQ would as well. I read multiple articles on Chins philosophy for the D. The only fact you state is the desire to create turnovers.
1. They have a fast O and he wants a fast D, coming from all directions, fast to the ball - so what does that look like?
2. Press all the time, play close to the line of scrimmage. But Why?
3. To get more guys on the football. This is what creates the turnovers. It was stated if players don't run to the ball, they don't play.
4. Put lots of pressure on the QB - with so many players at the LOS, you can bring a blitz from anywhere
5. Tackling is a key, using good technique in "getting the opposing player to the ground" not grabbing at the ball like you say.
6. He did emphasize that a bend but not break D does not fit with the overall speed game of the Frost O so he feels he needs the same kind of D to compliment it. He doesn't get there by
Absolutely NO coach would teach what you are saying, leaving cut back lanes, that is just a failure in the application. . Oh yea, I can hear it now, a coach saying, yes we understand we will give up a few extra yards by not really tackling and just grabbing at the ball but that is acceptable because we will eventually get some turnovers. ummm, no. He emphasized tackling several times. You did say swarming to the ball, that is true, he wants that, more guys on the ball. That's as close as you get to being accurate.
This D is not unusual. When you press and don't get to the pressure he wants, your guys are hung out to dry. Being aggressive doesn't mean not tackling, giving up big plays constantly, getting blown off the ball and giving up chunks of yardage.
you are contradicting yourself here.. you said earlier "We sit back and let everything come to and through us." and now you are saying "if players don't run to the ball, they don't play."
I don't really get what your point is anymore, but I do know we are not sitting back and waiting.. they are running to the ball, which indeed leaves cutback lanes open.
Have you ever seen the reverse play, and when it doesn't work, they praise the weak side linebacker for 'staying home' so that play doesn't work? This is not what we are doing. Like you said more recently, we are attacking the ball aggressively, and because of that, there will be times when we get burned. So it's by design.
You can categorize things however you want to, and I'm not really interested in arguing with you about it, but there are a lot of uneducated husker fans that are placing a huge amount of blame on the defense and Chins, and they don't deserve it, because realistically, they are playing fairly well for the scheme they are being asked to play in.
And for the people that like to blame different coaches recruiting, most of our starting defense is Mike Rileys' guys, and they are the ones holding up their end of the deal.
Anyway, let me ask you this.. if your offense is broken, should you continue to run a super aggressive scheme? or do you dial it back a bit to try to win some games? Sure, you also want to fix the offense, but how easy is it to do that? I'm not sure I want to spot the other team 30 points.
I'm not a fan of this defense, but I understand how it is supposed to fit with the offense, and this scheme totally makes sense when you are in a shootout.
We are probably setup now for a couple more blowouts, but if you want to spot those teams 30pts, more power to you.
Scott has to ask himself how he gan get some checkboxes in the win column, and changing to a defense that doesn't automatically give up 30, might be a good start.
To be honest, I'm not sure they have even been taught how to play a normal defense, so maybe it's harder than it seems, to have the players change what they are doing, but this is part of the problem with this overall scheme. If the offense doesn't work or has trouble, you are kind of screwed.