From a young OL scout team player

[robsker]

As to the Carlfrense comparison of losing Suh to Missouri losing Danial, Macklin and Coffman --- this comparison is well....

OK --- an offense losing its QB, their best Wr and an awesome TE --- all All-American-caliber players --- and a defense losing a DT (albeit a truly exceptional one) is just a comparison that cannot be made. Losing the three pinnacle players on the Offense (the QB and the two top weapons --- 3/11ths of the offense)) is light years a greater an impact on an offense than is losing a single player on D (1/11th of the defense/ 14th of the Dl and a DT). Sure a DT is an important position to a defense --- but pales compared to the importance of the QB on offense (and then add in the loss of two sensational players in addition).

So... when Missouri fans were talking an improved offense after losing their three best players --- a QB among them --- that WAS irrational. Losing Suh on our defense is big... certainly. His impact on the DL is huge --- but not as huge as the Missou trio's impact on their offense.

Finally, the composite differential between the replacements and the exiting three at Missouri (coupled to their position impact on the unit) is greater than that for replacing Suh with Steinkuhler.

Uh huh. And so the downplaying of what Suh accomplished begins. Suh took over games from the DEFENSIVE TACKLE position. Think about that for a second . . . he dominated games from a position where it's generally thought to be impossible to dominate games from. Suh almost single handedly won us games against MU and the near miss against Texas. (Without him, we're not even close to winning against UT.) You're right . . . losing a Heisman trophy finalist DT shouldn't have much impact at all... :facepalm:

In no way have I downplayed Suh as a contributor. Actually he was, as you say, remarkable --- especially as a DL. Nearly, and perhaps it can be be defensibly argued, literally without precedent --- for a DT. All kudos to the man. But....

The QB position is far more intrinsically important to an offense than is a DT to a defense. NO ONE could argue that point otherwise. Add in the WR and TE and take a composite of the impact of losing stellar people at three positions and in no way can the loss of a DT be equated (no matter how good that DT was). An example --- If we had a high performing QB this past season then we beat VT, Iowa State and Texas. Period. We did not have such a player. Or... another way of looking at it is this... if I could have Suh back next year and not have Coffman, Macklin and Danial or I could give up Suh and take Coffman, Macklin and Danial ---- well as awesome a player as Suh was, I would take, in a heartbeat, an excellent QB, TE & WR over any single DT --- no matter how awesome the DT was.

Losing Suh is bad. Sure. No disparaging him at all. He was better as a DT than was Danial as a QB or Macklin as a WR or Coffman as a TE --- by a wide margin. He was better at his position this past year than any other player at any other position. And the DT is an important position --- very important. But it is not as important to the D as the QB is to the O.

Who is arguing about intrinsic value? I'm talking about actual value to the defensive line. Here we were arguing about the impact of the loss of Suh to Nebraska's defensive line. I think that the comparative loss of Missouri's QB/WR/TE and the resulting loss of passing game productivity is a valid and useful comparison. I'm not talking about how the loss of Suh impacts the entire defense (which will, however, be significant). I'm simply talking about how his departure will impact the '10 defensive line.

Spin it into an argument of the intrinsic value of a quarterback to an entire offense versus the intrinsic value of a defensive tackle to a defense if you would like; but that is just shifting the discussion. The point being discussed is whether the defensive line will be better without Suh. I say it will not. Additionally, no one has come forward with the quote that you said you've seen multiple times where Pelini allegedly has stated that he expects an improved defensive line next year.

Wow. This is more fun than actually working.

The focus of our debate has not changed. I have stated several time that 3 reasonable scenarios regarding the DL next year are probable --- a slight drop-off, a comparable level of performance, or a modest improvement. I stated that all are likely, that I'd not be surprised if any of the scenarios were manifest and that the modest improvement is perhaps most likely (though not wildly so). I built that argument on Allan and Crick improving, Meredith being an improvement over Turner and better depth --- and that all those improvements will likely counterbalance the drop-off in going from Suh to Steinkuhler. I also stated that the unknown (though optimistic) performance level of Steinkuhler is the likely determiner of which scenario plays out. i also asserted that Steinkuhler is likely to be really, really good (albeit not Suh good).

You, if I understood you correctly, stated that an expectation for an improved defensive line is irrational. You equated such a prediction to the Missouri fans expecting an improved offense after losing All-American caliber people at QB, TE, and WR. My retort was that the two situations (predicting a better post-QB,TE, WR improvement at Missouri and a post-Suh improvement at NU) are wildly different. Losing a QB, a WR, and a TE is far greater a loss than losing a DT --- no matter how good the DT was. Thus, I pointed out that your basis (or, at least your exampel) for showing the irrationality of my assertion (that we can improve at the DL even with losing Suh) was flawed.

As to the quote --- again, I am at work and cannot take time to find it. Someone else earlier referred to it... did they not? Anyway, i recall hearing (not reading, actually --- though maybe I read it as well --- albeit could have been from another poster as a "quote of a quote") Bo say that he expects that there will be no drop-off based upon the returning experience at the other positions in the DL. Bo certainly expects a better defense and --- I suppose I could be mistaken and mis-interpreted what he said) I think he also expects an improvement (or, at least, no drop off).

In any event such a prediction (of improvement) may not come to pass --- but it is certainly rational and may come to fruition.

 

[knapplc]

The wild card is Meredith. In 2009 Meredith had roughly 30% of the production that Turner did, yet he played much fewer than 30% of the Defensive Plays. I can't find the number of plays each defensive player had, but I feel pretty confident in making that statement. Question is will Meredith's production heavily outweigh Turner's production now that he will see 5 times the amount of playing time he had in 2009? If so, that will help make up a big portion of the production lost from Suh leaving.

That's pretty much what I said a couple of posts ago. I very much agree with that assessment. My love and respect for Barry Turner and his comeback from injury aside, Meredith outplayed him statistically last year.

The upgrade from Turner to Meredith, or Ankrah if he wins the spot, will be significant. I already think Meredith's raw skills are better than post-injury Turner's. If Ankrah is better than that, look the heck out.

Regarding the stats from 2008 and 2009, Tuner's injury in 2008 and Allen's subsequent thrust into the starting gig would easily account for the statistical lag. Allen just wasn't ready to start in 2008. He filled in admirably, but not explosively. Turner's return in 2009 was great to see, but he clearly wasn't the same player. His step was gone, and (projecting here) his confidence kept him from performing to the best of his abilities. He still had a fine year - just not the kind of complete havoc I thought he'd have. I think Meredith/Ankrah will have that kind of year next year.

Now, if Allen can progress from this year that's great, but he's going to have to keep on his toes. Meredith, as we've discussed, is ready for a starting gig. Ankrah is a beast waiting to be unleashed. Allen needs to keep progressing or he could find himself backing up Meredith or Ankrah. No matter what, this is a pretty good D Line coming back, even without Suh.

 

[junior4949]

As to Suh's importance versus those of Missouri, how many defensive players are nominated for the Heisman. When was the last time a defensive tackle was nominated? I don't recall any of the 3 from Mizzou being nominated.

 

[carlfense]

Wow. This is more fun than actually working.

The focus of our debate has not changed. I have stated several time that 3 reasonable scenarios regarding the DL next year are probable --- a slight drop-off, a comparable level of performance, or a modest improvement. I stated that all are likely, that I'd not be surprised if any of the scenarios were manifest and that the modest improvement is perhaps most likely (though not wildly so). I built that argument on Allan and Crick improving, Meredith being an improvement over Turner and better depth --- and that all those improvements will likely counterbalance the drop-off in going from Suh to Steinkuhler. I also stated that the unknown (though optimistic) performance level of Steinkuhler is the likely determiner of which scenario plays out. i also asserted that Steinkuhler is likely to be really, really good (albeit not Suh good).

You, if I understood you correctly, stated that an expectation for an improved defensive line is irrational. You equated such a prediction to the Missouri fans expecting an improved offense after losing All-American caliber people at QB, TE, and WR. My retort was that the two situations (predicting a better post-QB,TE, WR improvement at Missouri and a post-Suh improvement at NU) are wildly different. Losing a QB, a WR, and a TE is far greater a loss than losing a DT --- no matter how good the DT was. Thus, I pointed out that your basis (or, at least your exampel) for showing the irrationality of my assertion (that we can improve at the DL even with losing Suh) was flawed.

As to the quote --- again, I am at work and cannot take time to find it. Someone else earlier referred to it... did they not? Anyway, i recall hearing (not reading, actually --- though maybe I read it as well --- albeit could have been from another poster as a "quote of a quote") Bo say that he expects that there will be no drop-off based upon the returning experience at the other positions in the DL. Bo certainly expects a better defense and --- I suppose I could be mistaken and mis-interpreted what he said) I think he also expects an improvement (or, at least, no drop off).

In any event such a prediction (of improvement) may not come to pass --- but it is certainly rational and may come to fruition.

As far as I can tell the Pelini quote you are talking about does not exist.

Anyways. I don't think either of us are budging on our predictions. We'll see what the results are when the season is over. Only 11.5 months until we find out who is correct! :snacks:

 

[robsker]

Wow. This is more fun than actually working.

The focus of our debate has not changed. I have stated several time that 3 reasonable scenarios regarding the DL next year are probable --- a slight drop-off, a comparable level of performance, or a modest improvement. I stated that all are likely, that I'd not be surprised if any of the scenarios were manifest and that the modest improvement is perhaps most likely (though not wildly so). I built that argument on Allan and Crick improving, Meredith being an improvement over Turner and better depth --- and that all those improvements will likely counterbalance the drop-off in going from Suh to Steinkuhler. I also stated that the unknown (though optimistic) performance level of Steinkuhler is the likely determiner of which scenario plays out. i also asserted that Steinkuhler is likely to be really, really good (albeit not Suh good).

You, if I understood you correctly, stated that an expectation for an improved defensive line is irrational. You equated such a prediction to the Missouri fans expecting an improved offense after losing All-American caliber people at QB, TE, and WR. My retort was that the two situations (predicting a better post-QB,TE, WR improvement at Missouri and a post-Suh improvement at NU) are wildly different. Losing a QB, a WR, and a TE is far greater a loss than losing a DT --- no matter how good the DT was. Thus, I pointed out that your basis (or, at least your exampel) for showing the irrationality of my assertion (that we can improve at the DL even with losing Suh) was flawed.

As to the quote --- again, I am at work and cannot take time to find it. Someone else earlier referred to it... did they not? Anyway, i recall hearing (not reading, actually --- though maybe I read it as well --- albeit could have been from another poster as a "quote of a quote") Bo say that he expects that there will be no drop-off based upon the returning experience at the other positions in the DL. Bo certainly expects a better defense and --- I suppose I could be mistaken and mis-interpreted what he said) I think he also expects an improvement (or, at least, no drop off).

In any event such a prediction (of improvement) may not come to pass --- but it is certainly rational and may come to fruition.

As far as I can tell the Pelini quote you are talking about does not exist.

Anyways. I don't think either of us are budging on our predictions. We'll see what the results are when the season is over. Only 11.5 months until we find out who is correct! :snacks:

I hope it is me --- and , as a Husker fan, I am sure you do too.

No matter what, NU's DL will be wicked good. That too I think we can agree upon.

GBR.

 

[RedDenver]

The wild card is Meredith. In 2009 Meredith had roughly 30% of the production that Turner did, yet he played much fewer than 30% of the Defensive Plays. I can't find the number of plays each defensive player had, but I feel pretty confident in making that statement. Question is will Meredith's production heavily outweigh Turner's production now that he will see 5 times the amount of playing time he had in 2009? If so, that will help make up a big portion of the production lost from Suh leaving.

That's pretty much what I said a couple of posts ago. I very much agree with that assessment. My love and respect for Barry Turner and his comeback from injury aside, Meredith outplayed him statistically last year.

The upgrade from Turner to Meredith, or Ankrah if he wins the spot, will be significant. I already think Meredith's raw skills are better than post-injury Turner's. If Ankrah is better than that, look the heck out.

Regarding the stats from 2008 and 2009, Tuner's injury in 2008 and Allen's subsequent thrust into the starting gig would easily account for the statistical lag. Allen just wasn't ready to start in 2008. He filled in admirably, but not explosively. Turner's return in 2009 was great to see, but he clearly wasn't the same player. His step was gone, and (projecting here) his confidence kept him from performing to the best of his abilities. He still had a fine year - just not the kind of complete havoc I thought he'd have. I think Meredith/Ankrah will have that kind of year next year.

Now, if Allen can progress from this year that's great, but he's going to have to keep on his toes. Meredith, as we've discussed, is ready for a starting gig. Ankrah is a beast waiting to be unleashed. Allen needs to keep progressing or he could find himself backing up Meredith or Ankrah. No matter what, this is a pretty good D Line coming back, even without Suh.

I guess I'm not sold on Meredith automagically being a better player next fall than a 3-year starter in Turner. In fact Barry Turner had a very impressive FR season coming off the bench that he came no where close to equally as a starter the following year. Meredith may very well be the next coming of Grant Wistrom, but I'm just not convinced he's even going to equal what Turner did in 2009.

And I did watch Turner this past season and he got better with every game, as you'd expect from a player coming off a major injury. Go back and watch the last few games, especially against Texas and Arizona, and Turner was very impressive. He was mostly overshadowed by Suh and never got much pub for it.

I certainly hope Meredith and Ankrah turn out as you suggest, but the evidence isn't compelling enough for me just yet. I think both will be fine DE's but maybe not until the end of 2010 or even 2011.

 

[Cob Mob]

I've heard Bo say several times that the D overall is going to be "way" better than the D was this year. "Ten times better" or something like that. I don't understand that (dang fractions...). It's hard to believe.

I think the fans have taken that and somehow decided it's about Crick being better than Suh. I don't think that's in the equation at all. You simply don't replace Suh.

But I'm betting the base D line scheme is going to change. This year our D line was kind of weird. Allen and Turner didn't really do a lot of getting to the qb, they just man'd up on an O linemen and bulled their way forward slowly. They were not your traditional blitz yer guts out speed rush end types. But they were pretty strong, played smart with the rest of the line, and boxed the qb in. I guess just a contain type of scheme, while our crazy insane DT Suh, and our pretty dang good DT Crick plowed forward and usually drove everything back if the qb didn't ditch the ball the O was severely disrupted. Combine that with a pretty good coverage scheme and we get what we saw this year. Our run defense was very good with basically 4 DT's up front.

I'm thinking 2010 we're going to see a more traditional D front with the two bull DT's piling things up center and Allen and the three new DE's (who are supposed to be dang speedy) are going to blitz off the end and provide pressure like you normally see a D line performing. With DE's getting the lion's share of the sacks and TFL's.

That's how I'm reading it anyhow.

 

[blessed2bahusker]

These comparisons aren't really what should be getting looked at. Crick can't be compared to Crick, he has to be compared to Suh because that is the role he needs to fill next season. The big questions are can Crick fill the role of Suh and still be nearly as productive as Crick was this year? If he does that then it will only be a slight drop off statistically from Suh, bottom line can Crick still produce being doubled more than 50% of the time? The second big question is can Baker or Moore step into Crick's spot and get similar COMBINED production as Crick got next to Suh in 2009? Bottom line, are they ready to step up and make teams pay for doubling Crick the same way Crick made teams pay for doubling Suh in 2009. Those are the big quesitons. Allen should be better, I would hope that his numbers are a bit better than in 2008. I think Meredith is as good as Turner and will be just as good statistically if not better next season.

You nailed it. The real question is can Crick/Baker > Suh/Crick. Count me in the doubtful group.

(However, I do agree that Meredith will be a good one.)

Baker has gotten some love, but Carl has made it clear that Baker needs to work his a$$ off this off season to make a similar jump that Crick made last off season. Carl even talked about how he had a conversation with Baker about what Crick's work ethic and how Baker needs to emulate Jared to get himself to the next level. Baker has the potential, and showed pretty good play at the end of the season IMO, now he needs to fully tap into that potential.

From all accounts Baker's work ethic will never be a problem. I remember a couple players saying that nobody outworked Ty, and I have also heard players and coaches say that Baker has the exact same work ethic of Ty. I think it is just in their DNA. I think the Steinkuhler family is just internally driven, but I love to hear this about Carl and Baker's conversation though because it shows the coaches never stop pushing these guys to become the absolute best they can be.

Because of this I think that this years D line has the the potential to be better than 09. I don't think that you can just look at the D tackles though. No one is going to replace Suh's production alone, but I think that we really could see better stats across the board for the D line. What has me really excited is the 2011 D-line. We will have every single player except for Allen returning (assuming no one leaving early) and with young guys like Meredith, Ankrah, Williams, Randle and all the red shirt guys we could be freakishly dominant, more so than 09. Talk about continuity.

On a side note I think that blue collar attitude that all of our D lineman have taken on the last few years under Pelini has been contagious. Just think how huge it is that all of these young guys have had a chance to watch Suh push with everything he had to be the best he could be and get the kind of love he has gotten. I'm sure there are a ton of guys on this team that want to be that next Suh and are willing to pay the price. Exciting times ahead gentleman. GO BIG RED!

 

[Husker In Oklahoma]

It reminds me of the "Zac Lee will make everyone forget about Joe Ganz" talk that I fought all last year . . . except this one is even more implausible.

Which would beg the question, how much would NU have struggled if everything was exactly the same as this year, but Ganz is the starter?

 

[knapplc]

I guess I'm not sold on Meredith automagically being a better player next fall than a 3-year starter in Turner. In fact Barry Turner had a very impressive FR season coming off the bench that he came no where close to equally as a starter the following year. Meredith may very well be the next coming of Grant Wistrom, but I'm just not convinced he's even going to equal what Turner did in 2009.
And I did watch Turner this past season and he got better with every game, as you'd expect from a player coming off a major injury. Go back and watch the last few games, especially against Texas and Arizona, and Turner was very impressive. He was mostly overshadowed by Suh and never got much pub for it.

I certainly hope Meredith and Ankrah turn out as you suggest, but the evidence isn't compelling enough for me just yet. I think both will be fine DE's but maybe not until the end of 2010 or even 2011.

I really see where you're coming from. I'm not typically the kind of guy who gets sold on potential. I'm not a big follower of recruiting because of that. I guess I'm going against my natural instincts with Meredith and Ankrah, and that's potentially disastrous.

 

[caveman99]

I've heard Bo say several times that the D overall is going to be "way" better than the D was this year. "Ten times better" or something like that. I don't understand that (dang fractions...). It's hard to believe.

I think the fans have taken that and somehow decided it's about Crick being better than Suh. I don't think that's in the equation at all. You simply don't replace Suh.

But I'm betting the base D line scheme is going to change. This year our D line was kind of weird. Allen and Turner didn't really do a lot of getting to the qb, they just man'd up on an O linemen and bulled their way forward slowly. They were not your traditional blitz yer guts out speed rush end types. But they were pretty strong, played smart with the rest of the line, and boxed the qb in. I guess just a contain type of scheme, while our crazy insane DT Suh, and our pretty dang good DT Crick plowed forward and usually drove everything back if the qb didn't ditch the ball the O was severely disrupted. Combine that with a pretty good coverage scheme and we get what we saw this year. Our run defense was very good with basically 4 DT's up front.

I'm thinking 2010 we're going to see a more traditional D front with the two bull DT's piling things up center and Allen and the three new DE's (who are supposed to be dang speedy) are going to blitz off the end and provide pressure like you normally see a D line performing. With DE's getting the lion's share of the sacks and TFL's.

That's how I'm reading it anyhow.

I don't think you see the playing style change significantly, the current scheme requires all of the D-Line to contain the O-line at the LOS first and foremost instead of letting the O-Linemen get out front to block. This is why you saw Suh sit back so much and read the play. This allows the coaches to play that match zone coverage we saw so much. After the O-Line is contained, the D-Line reads the action and moves to make the play. How many times did you see Suh and Co be seemingly blocked then shed the block to make a play? They are taught to do this as this is part of what the Pelinis do to kill the Spread O, I don't see this changing much in the near future. We may see the DE's get better stats as those players get better at making the plays after contain is achieved, this is where Suh and Crick excelled.

 

[caveman99]

--double--

 

[carlfense]

Which would beg the question, how much would NU have struggled if everything was exactly the same as this year, but Ganz is the starter?

I don't think there is any way to guess. The OL play would still have been completely inconsistent and the receivers would still be prone to bouts of the dropsies. I'd imagine that our QB play would have been significantly improved but that might not mean too much if the line doesn't block and the receivers don't catch.

caveman99 -

Good points on the the way Carl and Bo coach the DL. I think the delayed rush was key in defeating MU and shutting down VT's offense. The spread is heavily dependent on defenders breaking through and leaving gaps. Denying them that opportunity must be frustrating for offensive coordinators.

robsker -

I certainly do hope you are correct. I'd be ecstatic with improved DL play.

 

[dawhuskerkc]

Caveman provided the base line which are the stats;

->Totals: 41 TKLs, 6 TFLs, 1.5 Sacks

-->Overall Totals: 301 TKLs, 73 TFLs, 33.5 Sacks

The question is answered by the production of the entire DL against these stats. Because we do not know the who of next years players are at this time, whoever they are; to be a better DL, they must beat these numbers....and with consideration for when any negatives like penalties give away the performance.

The question will be solved against the numbers Caveman provided.....

the variables are if the schemes change, or they get far fewer plays because of takeaways, or offense keeping the ball longer, the performance might go down, but could still be construed as better.

Scoring defense might also be a weighted part of the equation...which could be analyzed by giving the 4 DL credit for 36% of the 11 player total performance.

 

[carlfense]

***snip***

Overall Totals: 301 TKLs, 73 TFLs, 33.5 Sacks

***snip***

Those are very, very, impressive numbers for a DL. For comparison's sake, these are the numbers for Alabama, Texas, and Florida defensive lines. (note that these don't include these schools' bowl game statistics and I think the NU numbers include the bowl game.)

Alabama:

98 Tkl, 23.5 TFL, 9.5 Sk, 20 QBH, 5 PBU, 0 Int, 1 FF, 3 Blk

Florida

112 Tkl, 33 TFL, 14 Sk, 48 QBH, 5 PBU, 0 Int, 1 FF, 0 Blk

Texas

116 Tkl, 25.5 TFL, 15.5 Sk, 10 QBH, 7 PBU, 0 Int, 2 FF, 0 Blk

Think the '09 DL was any good?