Chinander on Sharp & Benning

[husker98]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

Nothing against Neal but I haven't been really high on him.  Hope I'm wrong.

 

I thought I remembered him having a strong spring game? Or was it just a lucky spring game and I missed the bad plays?

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, husker98 said:

I thought I remembered him having a strong spring game? Or was it just a lucky spring game and I missed the bad plays?

 

I think he did have a pretty good spring game.  But I think he's still down on the depth chart.

[Wunderkind]

I think the DL has a lot of potential; could be one of our strongest groups. But they need to live up to that potential especially with the concerns about our secondary.

[brophog]

4 hours ago, Toe said:

 

I do think we've got a reasonably good crew up front. I don't think the team's talent level has really fallen off. Well, it has compared to the mid-90s, but it's about the same as it was in the Bo era. It's like we're a team made up of nothing but promising freshmen: talented, but really under-coached.

 

I'll be happy if this line plays to the level of Bo's better lines, he had most of the time what I believe to be better talent up front than we currently do. We haven't had a system here in a very long time that turned those guys loose, it'll be fun to see who emerges. We may have a very different opinion of theses guys by the end of the year.

[Making Chimichangas]

In listening to Chinander, he said something to the effect that effort covers up some deficiencies.  That's why I know this staff will be winners, they won't accept mediocre play or effort.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Save this post so we don't have to debate grading defensive performance in season.

 

Chinander ranks defensive success based on TFL, TO, sacks, and limiting explosive plays. He does not care about total yards and is accepting of errors. Also, Frost will tell Chinander to pull starters in the end of games to promote development and depth, sacrificing defensive stats.

[Making Chimichangas]

4 hours ago, Thanks_Tom RR said:

Save this post so we don't have to debate grading defensive performance in season.

 

Chinander ranks defensive success based on TFL, TO, sacks, and limiting explosive plays. He does not care about total yards and is accepting of errors. Also, Frost will tell Chinander to pull starters in the end of games to promote development and depth, sacrificing defensive stats.

 

Correct.  So what's the over/under (date wise) on when someone forgets Chinander said this, and rails because we gave up "too many" yards and/or points; thereby necessitating finding a new DC or defensive staff?  I'm kidding...mostly.  But you know it'll probably happen.

 

[brophog]

6 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Correct.  So what's the over/under (date wise) on when someone forgets Chinander said this, and rails because we gave up "too many" yards and/or points; thereby necessitating finding a new DC or defensive staff?  I'm kidding...mostly.  But you know it'll probably happen.

 

 

Chinander makes a great point on why those things matter, but let's not pretend things like yards and points don't matter. Turnovers are great, and turnover margin is easily the number one correlation to victory and I applaud anyone trying to focus on turnovers....but defensive turnovers are statistically very random. Turnover margin is best controlled on the offensive side of the ball. One note on sacks, since Chinander mentioned their value in stopping drives: the value in sacks is not so much in the lost yardage, but in the very high defensive fumble recovery rate. Not getting sacked, and getting sacks, is one way to improve ones odds in regards to turnover margins.

 

Yards, specifically yards per play, are a stat that a team has much better control over. Focusing on things one has control over is the key to consistency. This doesn't run counter to what Chinander spoke about, limiting yards per play is often about limiting big plays. Defensive coordinators will run the gamut of risk to stop big plays, but no defensive coordinator wants to see them. Big plays win games. It doesn't matter where a defensive coordinator's philosophy fits on the scale of aggressive to conservative, bottom line is offenses that have to drive further, in more plays, have more chances of self imposed errors to stall that drive.

[husker_fan_from_sweden]

On 6/29/2018 at 3:18 PM, Toe said:

A year ago I was saying to people "Don't expect Freedom and the other D-linemen to make as many plays in a system like Diaco's - they're mostly there to eat up blocks, while the OLBs are the ones that get to be the big attack dogs bringing pressure."

 

Turns out I was wrong: the OLBs were never allowed to attack, either.

 

I still wonder what we would've seen out of Parella's crew if he'd been working under a better DC. Supposedly he wanted to be much more aggressive than Diaco would permit (same with D. Williams).

 

I do think we've got a reasonably good crew up front. I don't think the team's talent level has really fallen off. Well, it has compared to the mid-90s, but it's about the same as it was in the Bo era. It's like we're a team made up of nothing but promising freshmen: talented, but really under-coached.

I get sick of seeing John Parella get a bad wrap for that colossal failure of a defensive scheme the last two years.

We might never see what he can do with his unit in a great scheme. He unfortunately went down with the ship . 

[84HuskerLaw]

8 hours ago, husker_fan_from_sweden said:

I get sick of seeing John Parella get a bad wrap for that colossal failure of a defensive scheme the last two years.

We might never see what he can do with his unit in a great scheme. He unfortunately went down with the ship . 

Perhaps we'll see what Parella can do this fall with his guys out there in a different scheme.   His guys were not effective last season but if Diaco had them standing their ground and not attacking, then it's not fair to blame John P for lack of productivity in terms of tackles, sacks, etc.   

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Perhaps we'll see what Parella can do this fall with his guys out there in a different scheme.   His guys were not effective last season but if Diaco had them standing their ground and not attacking, then it's not fair to blame John P for lack of productivity in terms of tackles, sacks, etc.   

But Parrella won’t be coaching the NU D-like this year. 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

14 hours ago, brophog said:

One note on sacks, since Chinander mentioned their value in stopping drives: the value in sacks is not so much in the lost yardage, but in the very high defensive fumble recovery rate. Not getting sacked, and getting sacks, is one way to improve ones odds in regards to turnover margins.

I can't get on board with the idea that strip sacks resulting in TO, and not loss of yardage and down, is the reason sacks stop drives. I got these data from the 2017 NFL season because it was easiest to find. The average sack yielded 6.2 yards lost (not to mention the loss of a down). In 2017, the average Drive Success Rate (DSR; which measures the percentage of down series that result in a first down or touchdown) was at 68.2%; however, with a single sack (not strip sack resulting in a TO), it dropped the DSR average to 16.01%. This is a HUGE difference in if a drive is sustained or not. Sacks drastically change the mentality of the offense and defense during a drive. An offense facing 2-&-16 vs 1-&-10 or 3-&-7 instead of 2-&-1 limits the playbook, and that fact makes it easier for the defense to anticipate plays and scheme against them.

 

Here are my references:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

http://settingedge.com/sackskilldrives

https://www.lockedon49ers.com/sf-49ers/jimmy-garoppolo-effect-49ers-2017-points-per-drive-stat-breakdown/

[brophog]

37 minutes ago, Thanks_Tom RR said:

I can't get on board with the idea that strip sacks resulting in TO, and not loss of yardage and down, is the reason sacks stop drives. I got these data from the 2017 NFL season because it was easiest to find. The average sack yielded 6.2 yards lost (not to mention the loss of down). In 2017, the average Drive Success Rate (DSR; which measures the percentage of down series that result in a first down or touchdown) was at 68.2%; however, with a single sack (not strip sack resulting in a TO), it dropped the DSR average to 16.01%. This is a HUGE difference in if a drive is sustained or not. Sacks drastically change the mentality of the offense and defense during a drive. An offense facing 2-&-16 vs 1-&-10 or 3-&-7 instead of 2-&-1 limits the playbook, and that fact makes it easier for the defense to anticipate plays and scheme against them.

 

Here are my references:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

http://settingedge.com/sackskilldrives

https://www.lockedon49ers.com/sf-49ers/jimmy-garoppolo-effect-49ers-2017-points-per-drive-stat-breakdown/

 

Excellent Work! 

 

Let's start sacking some people.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

2 hours ago, brophog said:

 

Excellent Work! 

 

Let's start sacking some people.

For some perspective, I also found that 18% of sacks result in fumbles, and 47% of them are not recovered. So, 8.5% or about 1 of 12 of sacks result in TO. There are 2.3 sacks per game, so you might get a fumble sack resulting in a TO in 1 of every 6 games. #SundayStats

[teachercd]

The thing wish sacks is...you don't even need to get to the QB to "make a play", once you are known for getting a lot of sacks and/or bringing pressure, the playbook tends to change for the offense.  Just like last year, teams really didn't throw deep all that much on the Skers because they didn't need to do that...they could hit 10 yard passes all day long.