Defense Preparing to 'Spend a Lot of Time on the Field'

[Mavric]

Quote

So when Nebraska defensive players were asked Tuesday about weathering 90 plays from the opposing offense, well, just know that no recent college football team faces that on a weekly basis. The highest per-game average over the last five years was the 2016 South Florida team, which faced 82.8 plays per game.

 

That said, NU’s defense this year could face more plays per game than, well, ever.

 

“The offense will move fast,” defensive tackle Mick Stoltenberg said. “We’ll spend a lot of time on the field.”

 

Surely more than it did under previous coach Mike Riley. The Huskers faced an average of 68.8, 65.8 and 68 plays per game in 2017, 2016 and 2015 under Riley. Nebraska used a huddle — and burned play clock — helped reduce the amount of time, and thus plays, the opposing offense was on the field. In 2017, as bad as the defense was, it increasingly gave up bigger and bigger plays as the season wore on, reducing the amount of total plays NU faced. Minnesota ran just 61 plays. Iowa ran just 67.

 

Even at the end of the Bo Pelini era, when the Huskers were running a no-huddle, up-tempo offense, the Husker defense faced 71.5 plays per game in 2014 and 71.2 in 2013.

 

In new coach Scott Frost’s last year at Central Florida, the Knights’ defense faced 74.5 plays per game. And that was down from 77.5 in 2016. At Oregon, where Frost’s offenses perhaps moved even faster, the Ducks’ defense faced 80.5 plays per game in 2015, 77.9 in 2014 and 80.2 in 2013.

 

But nothing was quite as fierce as UCF’s final six games of 2017. The Knights faced 83.7 plays per game. That’s way up there.

 

OWH

[Ulty]

I trust our coaches, but this honestly makes me nervous. We have all seen what happens when defenses get worn down. If the offense is as effective as UCF's was, then it will work out just fine, and the strength and conditioning staff should have the defense physically able to handle the new demands. But on the other hand, we may not see the Blackshirts of old (at least statistically). Hard to keep an opposing offense crushed under your heel when they have 80 opportunities.

[cheekygeek]

I've been thinking about this a lot also. Obviously, it would be better to go into a game thinking/preparing for 90 plays and only having to face 76 (for example) so I think it is good to set the expectations/bar higher. But I fear that more plays means more opportunities for injury, which definitely works against your units that lack depth. This is going to be the bug-a-boo of this first season. Not that the system is bad, or that nuances need to be learned, but that we just don't have the quality depth at all places where we will need it as the season wears on.

 

However, Quality Depth will change as more of Frost's type of talent is recruited (and walks-on) to Nebraska in coming years. It is for this reason, I believe, that Frost reminds us that it is "a process". There is no doubt in my mind that he believes that his system is one that brings more stress on an opposing defense than it does his own. For this to come true, drives must end in POINTS, and if NOT points, then sufficient time off of the clock to give your defense a breather.

 

With those thoughts in mind, I thought that this breakdown of UCF's offensive possessions was a highly informative read, and hopefully a road map to where the Cornhusker offense is going. http://www.blackandgoldbanneret.com/ucf-offense-2017-by-possession/

 

[BIG ERN]

This number largely depends on who we are playing as well. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa for example won't be running up-tempo and I can't see that number over 80 for those teams when we play them. 

[brophog]

53 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

I trust our coaches, but this honestly makes me nervous. We have all seen what happens when defenses get worn down. If the offense is as effective as UCF's was, then it will work out just fine, and the strength and conditioning staff should have the defense physically able to handle the new demands. 

 

 

Here's the good news. There are basically three scenarios where your defense will face a lot of plays.

 

Your offense is really, really good

Your offense is really, really bad

Your defense just can't get off the field. 

 

The third is on your defense. They have a job to do.

The second is not very likely this year, in most people's opinion.

 

[HuskerInLostWages]

In response to injures and such, I think we're a bit snake bitten in this aspect.  It's already been proven that our previous coaches let our players slack off and took no responsibility, Frosts coaches don't do that.  We will be in better shape and the bodies of our players have changed a lot over the off season.  Will this help with the former injury situation, I believe so, but some injuries will obviously occur, I just think we might finally see less injuries this year because we aren't as soft.

 

Just my opinion that I hope is at least somewhat right in the end.

[ScottyIce]

1 hour ago, Ulty said:

I trust our coaches, but this honestly makes me nervous. We have all seen what happens when defenses get worn down. If the offense is as effective as UCF's was, then it will work out just fine, and the strength and conditioning staff should have the defense physically able to handle the new demands. But on the other hand, we may not see the Blackshirts of old (at least statistically). Hard to keep an opposing offense crushed under your heel when they have 80 opportunities.

Defenses can score points too brotha. #playmakers

[Scratchtown]

This is also why we focus on creating turnovers. A takeaway immediately gets you off the field. 

 

You need a break? Create a turnover and hopefully your teammates take care of the ball and pick up a couple first downs on offense. 

[brophog]

11 minutes ago, Scratchtown said:

You need a break? Create a turnover and hopefully your teammates take care of the ball and pick up a couple first downs on offense. 

 

Or just score a TD on one play. With all of the commercials surrounding the TD/XP/Kickoff it can be almost 10 minutes of real time between the time the defense leaves the field, change possession, run a play, go through the above, then get back on the field.

[RedSavage]

If we’re talking about injuries, I think we see a massive drop this season compared to what we’ve become accustomed to.  Even with more plays being run.  UCF had ZERO soft tissue injuries last year.  That’s basically unheard of.  Maybe that was sheer luck but I’m betting there was one person in particular that had a lot to do with it...

[Mavric]

2 hours ago, Scratchtown said:

This is also why we focus on creating turnovers. A takeaway immediately gets you off the field. 

 

You need a break? Create a turnover and hopefully your teammates take care of the ball and pick up a couple first downs on offense. 

 

Agree with this.

 

Also, I'm not really sure it makes as much difference as people like to make it out to be.  @cheekygeek mentioned the difference between 90 and 76.  That's 14 plays.  But that's spread over nearly four hours.  So 3.5 plays per hour or about one extra play every 17 minutes.  

 

I also think that's a huge reason why they are working to play as many guys on defense as they can.  If you're playing 20 guys on defense instead of 15, that more than makes up for the increased number of plays faced.

[ColoradoHusk]

Not sure if I have seen this mentioned, but I expect the offense to do well enough to give the defense some leads, and playing defense with the lead is a lot easier than playing defense without the lead.  Yes, the D is probably playing more snaps, but it's "easier" to play defense against the pass than it is against the run (or a balanced offense).

 

The Denver Broncos won a Super Bowl in the 2015 season by getting early leads and letting their pass rush and secondary take over the game.  In 2017, the Broncos offense was a mess and didn't get very many leads, which then made the defense a lot worse.

[Huskers93-97]

43 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Not sure if I have seen this mentioned, but I expect the offense to do well enough to give the defense some leads, and playing defense with the lead is a lot easier than playing defense without the lead.  Yes, the D is probably playing more snaps, but it's "easier" to play defense against the pass than it is against the run (or a balanced offense).

 

The Denver Broncos won a Super Bowl in the 2015 season by getting early leads and letting their pass rush and secondary take over the game.  In 2017, the Broncos offense was a mess and didn't get very many leads, which then made the defense a lot worse.

Yes. I think if we can get out early on teams it makes them predictable and we can go for sacks and picks since we know what they are going to do on offense

[cheekygeek]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

Also, I'm not really sure it makes as much difference as people like to make it out to be.  @cheekygeek mentioned the difference between 90 and 76.  That's 14 plays.  But that's spread over nearly four hours. 

 

This is why statistics are like bikinis: What they show you is revealing but what they hide is VITAL.

You are making a big assumption that the additional plays are spread over 4 hours. If your defensive conditioning is not up to par, the difference is more likely to be weighted in the 4th quarter, when what might have been a couple of "3 and outs" instead become two 10 play scoring drives.

[BigRedBuster]

I know this is always a concern when you run an up tempo offense.

 

However, IF the offense is doing it's job and still needs to go 50-80 yards to score....and actually does so..... usually the defense has a little time to rest.

 

Also....there is no reason why you can't still have a dominating defense that creates their own turnovers or 3 and outs.

 

When we have the scoring explosion in 83  or the 95 offense which scored from everywhere on the field and quickly, our defense wasn't sitting there making excuses that they needed to go back not the field again.