Diaco's Best Defense in Country!

FTW said:
It's simple you just can't comprehend anything that has more than 1 sentence or a punchline. I don't like our defense. I haven't since Bob arrived. I've said since game 1 our biggest weakness is DL. 

Allpreseason we heard stories about how good they were going to be. They suck, that's the best way to put it. It's just like the offense. Why change something that wasn't broken to begin with? Fired Solich and made wholesale changes on offense. Here we are 10 years later making wholesale changes on the other side of the ball when the 4-3 has proven to be successful in Lincoln. Bob's not going to get the time to continue his mediocre "winning strategy" of a defense. If Frost is named the HC or someone else for that matter, odds are the 34 will be gone, too. Already teams have steamrolled Bob's no crease defense. It's no where near as versatile as a 43 defense which won us many conference titles and 3 NC's in the past 30+ years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Click to expand...
Actually if it's up to Frost and he brings his DC, we'll likely run the 3-4.

 
brophog said:
Maybe. Tough to say that specifically. But I can say, that was a poor 9 win team, actually not much better than the previous 6 win team, when you look at the kinds of stats I've posted recently. Nebraska posted negative differentials in pass pct, rushing ypc, and yards per play. That's unusual for a 9 win team. 
Click to expand...
When he couldn't run vs Iowa, or when Immobile Ryker was qb1 vs Tennessee we got SMOKED

 
FTW said:
I'd take Erik Chinander's aggressive attacking multiple scheme over Diaco's passive scheme every day of the week. People seem to forget, we rattled off 3 natty's with an attacking aggressive 4-3 defense that took risks. 
Click to expand...
agree - when I envisioned the3-4 I thought it would be attacking.  A D has to be attacking to disrupt speed. The good offenses are filled wt speed and we have to disrupt it wt aggressiveness and not giving space to that speed.  That only increases the advantage that speedy teams have.

 
FTW said:
Erik Chinander? He runs a multiple D, it is primarily a 4-3 scheme.
Click to expand...
I disagree that he runs primarily 4-3. In the games I've watched this year it seems they've been in the 3-4 a lot more. For example, against Maryland, the first 2 series (10 plays) they ran the 3-4 9 of the 10. The 1 other was a long 3rd down where they had 2 guys down and 4 standing. I don't care enough to go back and watch anymore to prove this point though. 

One could argue he runs a multiple D, but I think that is true with most depending on down/distance. 

However, I do believe their are schematic differences between his 3-4 and Diaco's.

 
Warrior10 said:
I disagree that he runs primarily 4-3. In the games I've watched this year it seems they've been in the 3-4 a lot more. For example, against Maryland, the first 2 series (10 plays) they ran the 3-4 9 of the 10. The 1 other was a long 3rd down where they had 2 guys down and 4 standing. I don't care enough to go back and watch anymore to prove this point though. 

One could argue he runs a multiple D, but I think that is true with most depending on down/distance. 

However, I do believe their are schematic differences between his 3-4 and Diaco's.
Click to expand...


We agree to disagree then while I've seen them run 3-4 I've seen more 4-3. They're multiple on D and mix it up.

 
FTW said:
We agree to disagree then while I've seen them run 3-4 I've seen more 4-3. They're multiple on D and mix it up.
Click to expand...
You've peaked my interest because I am a big fan of his 3-4. What games did you see a lot of 4-3 in so I can compare?

I just watched the 1st drive vs Memphis and they ran 3-4 7 of the 8 plays. The other was goal-line D at the 2. 

 
What Diaco said is somewhat true.

Put Suh at DT and David at LB....Taylor spends most of the night grazing.

Question: What is the chance of this staff getting guys like that?

Judging from what I’ve seen so far....pretty slim.

 
Hayseed said:
What Diaco said is somewhat true.

Put Suh at DT and David at LB....Taylor spends most of the night grazing.

Question: What is the chance of this staff getting guys like that?

Judging from what I’ve seen so far....pretty slim.
Click to expand...


That's the issue I have with the 3-4. In a 4-3 all you really need is two good DT's in a 3-4 you need 3 really outstanding DL altogether and if one goes down, you're screwed unless you've got depth. A Suh, Crick, Valentine, these guys are rare finds, I agree. It's even harder to get these guys in the conference we play in. I can level with Diaco and probably say he just doesn't have his guys. It's his first year. But still, that doesn't excuse three blowout losses. The Oregon game felt similar to 2015 Purdue. We were down 42-16 to the Boilermakers at one point in that game and fought back.

I feel the same way I do about Diaco that I did about Banker in 2015. It's not going to work in the long run, IMO. The guy will land on his feet somewhere, maybe Bama?

 
FTW said:
That's the issue I have with the 3-4. In a 4-3 all you really need is two good DT's in a 3-4 you need 3 really outstanding DL altogether and if one goes down, you're screwed unless you've got depth.
Click to expand...


You dont "need" anything more in a 3-4 front than a 4-3 front as both can be played even or odd, 1 or 2 gap. The word "the" before 3-4 implies a singularity that doesn't actually exist. Both can be played with a huge assortment of techniques to fit the needs of the defense.

Most defenses are moving to some form of hybrid anyhow, particularly because most offenses are 3 or 4 receiver sets now. That's why describing entire defenses by front is outdated. 

 
brophog said:
You dont "need" anything more in a 3-4 front than a 4-3 front as both can be played even or odd, 1 or 2 gap. The word "the" before 3-4 implies a singularity that doesn't actually exist. Both can be played with a huge assortment of techniques to fit the needs of the defense.

Most defenses are moving to some form of hybrid anyhow, particularly because most offenses are 3 or 4 receiver sets now. That's why describing entire defenses by front is outdated. 
Click to expand...


You make some valid points but I still think a 4 man front adds more versatility to your defense. With 3, you've got more responsibility and if there's a talent gap, then you're going to have problems as seen so far this season.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top