Defensive Scheme

[Count 'Bility]

OK, so clearly I'm wrong here. I've got this notion in my head that the defense changed, and I think I'm alone in this thought in this thread.

So everyone help me wrap my head around why this defense is so different. Is it purely personnel?

Ndamukong Suh.

Suh made the whole D better. He didnt demand a double team, he required it. Every play. That created one on one matchups for Crick, Turner, and Allen. That allowed Dillard and that 2nd linebacker to roam free. Then on top of all of that, Suh would usually bust through the double team, or get off the ball before the DT could get there, causing even more havoc. meanwhile, while the front 5-6 are taking care of business upfront, the secondary is in complete lockdown mode because they dont have to worry about the run.

It's amazing how one guy like Suh can change and improve and entire defensive unit of 10 other players.

 

[Count 'Bility]

What the hell do you know about their work ethic? Please elaborate.

By the way, pandas suck. And they are a legitimate waste of endangered species resources.

Example A: Three years ago, I was playing basketball with a buddy outside our dorm. One of the Guys on the defensive line was walking by and watching us while eating a family sized bag of Cheetos. Yoshi Hardrick, who was in the area, spotted him and yelled out "Hey man, fo' real??" The player's response: "Every Friday, man".

Example B: A story from a different buddy of mine. A few weeks ago he was in the Rec center and overheard the same player on the phone. Of course he couldn't tell what the discussion was, but the exact quote he overheard was "Yeah, man, just trying to lose weight and get in shape". Three years later, this is still his first football priority. Part of me wants to say that's partly to blame on our S&C regimen, but weekly family-sized bags of Cheetos certainly can't be helping.

And I am going to assume you are joking about pandas. I'm not exactly sure how anyone can dislike them, and the thought of it makes me a sad panda.

Yeah, I'm joking about the pandas. Theyre frickin adorable.

Thanks for the insight.

It's not in no way whatsoever an issue with our S&C thought. Any subjective observation would make this clear. This is an issue with individuals not pulling their weight-if true.

 

[KJ.]

What the hell do you know about their work ethic? Please elaborate.

By the way, pandas suck. And they are a legitimate waste of endangered species resources.

Example A: Three years ago, I was playing basketball with a buddy outside our dorm. One of the Guys on the defensive line was walking by and watching us while eating a family sized bag of Cheetos. Yoshi Hardrick, who was in the area, spotted him and yelled out "Hey man, fo' real??" The player's response: "Every Friday, man".

Example B: A story from a different buddy of mine. A few weeks ago he was in the Rec center and overheard the same player on the phone. Of course he couldn't tell what the discussion was, but the exact quote he overheard was "Yeah, man, just trying to lose weight and get in shape". Three years later, this is still his first football priority. Part of me wants to say that's partly to blame on our S&C regimen, but weekly family-sized bags of Cheetos certainly can't be helping.

And I am going to assume you are joking about pandas. I'm not exactly sure how anyone can dislike them, and the thought of it makes me a sad panda.

Yeah, I'm joking about the pandas. Theyre frickin adorable.

Thanks for the insight.

It's not in no way whatsoever an issue with our S&C thought. Any subjective observation would make this clear. This is an issue with individuals not pulling their weight-if true.

I would argue that it is an issue of individuals pulling too much weight.

 

[True2tRA]

All of your comments are correct I believe. The scheme was different when we had Suh. The scheme was more effective when we had Lavonte David. The scheme proved ineffective the last few years because we had neither. Personnel was a HUGE PROBLEM. I always had a hard time dealing with the fact that as much as the team struggled with the scheme, and it's clear lack of playmakers on the defensive side, Pelini seemed as if he was almost trying to "play it safe". We didn't attack with the D Line. We didn't attack with the LB'er. We felt so insecure at those positions, it seemed we just tried to play it safe and hope the opposing offense made a mistake. That's a problem. A defense should attack, that's my belief.

Would McBride's scheme work. Absolutely. If we had the talent at LB'er we used to have. Guys that would make tackles in the open field. Guys that could read, react, and chase down opponents before the play went bigger than it ever should have. You could send those rush DE's upfield. You could let the DT's put their heads down and bullrush. The talent was there behind them. The fundamentals were strong, and the athleticism was stronger. When Bo used that more aggressive philosophy with his defensive line, guys like Ndamukong Suh made it look highly effective, but we also had a bit more talent at LB'er. Let's face it though, not much ever got filtered to the LB'ers because Suh was once in a lifetime.

Then switch the scenario, all of a sudden, we are attacking with the defensive line, but clearly missing Suh. Suddenly Lavonte David becomes the tackle maching, breaks the school record, and seems like he's covering the entire field.

Last season, we had neither. We are hurting for some guys to step up at both positions. Pelini's scheme is failing, but largely because I believe he has dialed the aggressiveness back a bit largely due to the lack of athleticism. Which really makes you wonder how the hell this season is going to play out? Zaire Anderson is "that guy". He is the eraser. But the other LB'er positions will also be faster. So that could instantly erase some of the shortcomings of the defensive line. But what if we have both?

Am I making sense?

 

[The Dude]

No.

 

[knapplc]

I don't know how much sense you're making, True, but I read that in your voice and that's a little weird.

 

[mnhusker]

We weren't running the same defense in 2009. Have people forgotten so quickly that Suh was allowed to penetrate and wreak havoc back there? When's the last time we saw a D Lineman do that on a regular basis? A bit with Crick, a bit with Eric Martin, but otherwise the scheme notably changed to a simple containment setup with a slowly collapsing pocket. Bo decided to hold the QB in the pocket and let his (more talented) secondary cover the receivers.

You can't compare what we did the last two years with 2009. There is no Suh on this team, nor is there a Crick. We had nothing remotely comparable to that in this program the last two years, so saying "it worked in 2009" means nothing.

I disagree with this. I distinctly remember Bo saying a number of times how incredible it was that Suh kept leading the team in tackles, because the scheme was set up in a way to where he wasn't supposed to. He was just that other-worldly. I don't know the X's and O's side of things very well, but I think what we ran conceptually was by and large the same idea, just turned more conservative.

I recall the same thing.

 

[HuskerShark]

OK, so clearly I'm wrong here. I've got this notion in my head that the defense changed, and I think I'm alone in this thought in this thread.

So everyone help me wrap my head around why this defense is so different. Is it purely personnel?

yes. Go back and watch that Suh video you posted. He's still staying in front of the blocker until he gets to the ball carrier. At that point, he shed the guy by throwing him to the side and just makes the tackle. Same scheme. Animal of a football player.

 

[True2tRA]

I don't know how much sense you're making, True, but I read that in your voice and that's a little weird.

Damn you Governor! Damn You!

 

[EZ-E]

If I'm not mistaken we stunted with Suh a lot more. Sorry guys! Wanna say more but I'm on my phone!!!

 

[Count 'Bility]

We definitely did some more creative things with Suh, and even without him in '10. We had the lockdown secondary that allowed us to do so. But the overall dline philosophy was a 2 gap contain. Suh was so damn strong and athletic that he made it appear as if he was being overly aggresive when it was that he was just do damn good at doing his job. We were also playing very pass heavy teams as opposed to more balanced offenses.

It appears we are all pretty much agreeing on the same thing. There's just so many ways it gets there. Lots of different variables.

 

[Mavric]

We ran the same scheme with Suh. He was just able to come off his read and actually make a play once he saw it - even if he was double teamed. It also helped that he could be in pass rush mode about 80% of the time in the pass happy Big XII.

Plus, we had really good DBs who gave him an extra count or two to get there.

 

[MichiganDad3]

Giving up 70 to a 5 loss team was the most disappointing defensive performance I have ever watched (I have been a fan since 1968). With all the high powered offenses NU has had over the years I only recall a couple 70 point games. The 2012 defense was one of the worst in NU's history, and should not be tolerated. If a scheme requires all american players to work, then it should be changed. There is no reason NU should ever be ranked in the bottom half on defense or offense.

BTW, does anyone know what scheme Rutgers runs? Rutgers was ranked 4th in scoring defense last year, and I have to believe NU has better talent than Rutgers.

 

[JJ Husker]

I'm not as good at the x's and o's and understanding schemes and assignments as a lot of you guys but I haven't noticed any significant scheme changes since Pelini has been HC. What I have noticed is that his system seems to work pretty well when there are some above average athletes on the field (Suh, David...). However the last two years have shown it's not a very good scheme if you play timid or if you don't have beast DL and/or LBs. I like Bo but they gotta either recruit the type of guys that make it work or they need to change the scheme to something the personnel can execute. Hell, I'd look like a defensive genius with a Suh on the field. I really want to see our DL attack more. It seems, even with the lesser talent of the last two years, that when they cut em loose and blitzed, better things happened for us. I for one am ready to scrap this 2 gap BS and turn some guys lose to raise havoc. Possibly because I'm a fan and not a CFB coach......

 

[Enhance]

Giving up 70 to a 5 loss team was the most disappointing defensive performance I have ever watched (I have been a fan since 1968). With all the high powered offenses NU has had over the years I only recall a couple 70 point games. The 2012 defense was one of the worst in NU's history, and should not be tolerated. If a scheme requires all american players to work, then it should be changed. There is no reason NU should ever be ranked in the bottom half on defense or offense.

The more I've thought about it the last few months, the more I agree with the bolded. The last time we had dominant defenses was when we had a dominant athletes. As those dominant athletes have left, our defense has become progressively worse where it matters most (the front seven).

Just look who we sent to the NFL in 2009 and the prospects (specifically, lack thereof) in 2012. It's bad. And while the NFL is not the be all end all to determining how good a team or player is, it's still something worth analyzing.

There has to be a balance between coaching and talent. I don't think the coaching has gotten worse, but I do think the talent we had through 2011-2012 did get worse. Pelini has a big job this summer to find out what he's got on this team and what he can do to make them as successful as possible. I don't think the scheme we've been running has worked with the players we've had the last couple of years, and if we aren't going to get the talent to do it, then we need to make schematic changes.