Mavric

I'm sure there are some things going on that we don't notice. But I'm talking about big-picture scheme. Our DBs - and especially our safeties - would be doing something completely different in coverage if we were running any type of zone look. When all of our DBs (save one safety, usually)- and often our LBs - are locking on to one receiver and following them wherever they go on a pass route, we are obviously running a man-to-man scheme.

If the safeties were running a zone look, they would only cover whatever player came into their area. When a player left their area, they'd pass them off to the next defender. Corners may have similar coverage responsibilities on both man and zone looks because their "zone" would often include the outside receiver running deep. But it is most obvious with our Nickel and Dime defenders. They rarely have Safety help over the top. They have to cover man-to-man wherever they go. If you have any sort of zone scheme, your "inside" DBs would have help over the top so they can be more aggressive on the shorter routes.

Thus, it's pretty easy to tell what coverage we are running most of the time. I honestly haven't seen any coverage in any game that looked like overall zone coverage (except for the Hail Mary). We usually have one Safety playing zone - and some LBs depending on what their guy does - but the rest of our DB are all locked up man-to-man. This is not hard to tell from watching the replays.

Still not Bando, VV or K Williams. Bando and VV were at practice but just doing some light work, no drills.

 

 

My other observations I think are fairly accurate. NU did adjust and shut down BYU fairly well in the second half. They did do better defending Miami's passing game.

I'm not trying to pick on you but I've seen several people talk about the adjustments in the second half against BYU. What - specifically - did you or anyone else see as an adjustment?

 

My guess is "we made adjustments" basically means "we didn't give up as many points/yards." BYU was 18/26 (69%) for 240 yards in the first half and 10/20 (50%) for 139 yards in the second half (a lot obviously being on the last play) so the stats were definitely better. But that doesn't mean we did much different. Perhaps we made a few more plays or perhaps they didn't run the same kind of plays.

 

That's an honest question. I didn't really notice anything that we did differently but perhaps someone did. However, considering what I saw during the first half of the BYU game is almost exactly what I've seen in the three games since, either we really didn't make any adjustments or for some reason we went away from the adjustments that worked.

 

 

OK, they didn't make any adjustments, they just played better. Does that make you feel better? The adjustments I saw had more to do with pass rush and how they were doing it as apposed to anything in the secondary. The pressure was better.

 

I don't know if we did or not. That's why I asked the question. I've heard people talk about adjustments but I've yet to see anyone actually say what they were.

It doesn't make me feel better. I just wonder if people like to make themselves feel better by saying we must have made adjustments.

I believe it's 106/132 (80.3%) for 1,390 yards, 17 TDs and 2 INTs in five games. Not sure what his rushing stats were for the last game but he had 30 carries for 228 yards and 5 TDs in the first four.

My other observations I think are fairly accurate. NU did adjust and shut down BYU fairly well in the second half. They did do better defending Miami's passing game.

I'm not trying to pick on you but I've seen several people talk about the adjustments in the second half against BYU. What - specifically - did you or anyone else see as an adjustment?

My guess is "we made adjustments" basically means "we didn't give up as many points/yards." BYU was 18/26 (69%) for 240 yards in the first half and 10/20 (50%) for 139 yards in the second half (a lot obviously being on the last play) so the stats were definitely better. But that doesn't mean we did much different. Perhaps we made a few more plays or perhaps they didn't run the same kind of plays.

That's an honest question. I didn't really notice anything that we did differently but perhaps someone did. However, considering what I saw during the first half of the BYU game is almost exactly what I've seen in the three games since, either we really didn't make any adjustments or for some reason we went away from the adjustments that worked.

That's good research, Mav. The only questions I would have to follow up are, are we giving QBs more time in the pocket than in years past, or compared to other D1A teams, etc?

 

Maybe I'm just being Pollyannaish, but I refuse to believe that Daniel Davie & crew just got awful over the offseason. And they're in position on a lot of the completions, it seems (meaning, I haven't watched the games to double-check). There have been busted coverages in every game, but there have been several plays where the DB was on the receiver and just didn't make a play. No scheme teaches that, but again, I just can't believe that our guys suddenly suck.

 

One other thing I noted, and this is a bit of an aside in the instant conversation, but we're not covering the back out of the backfield. Several times against Southern Miss their QB missed their back, likely because he'd been hitting deep passes and didn't look over there. At least once in the second half, there wasn't a defender within 20 yards of their back. That's a LB issue, and the linebacker position is what it is this year. But teams are going to take advantage of that.

I agree that it would be interesting to know how much time opposing QBs are getting. I've never seen any stats on that.

Particularly in the Miami game, I don't think much can be attributed to Kaaya having extra time to throw. There were a few plays but for the most part he was getting the ball out of his hands pretty quickly. On one of the plays where Davie was beaten, Dedrick Young was unblocked on a blitz and couldn't get to Kaaya in time. And we got some better pressure against Miami than many gave us credit for. Not a lot of sacks but Kaaya was having to move around and couldn't hold the ball for long. Things that don't show up in the stats.

I definitely agree with your second paragraph. Most of the time we are there to make the tackle right after they catch the ball. We're not that far off but at the same time it's hard to do much better. You'd like to knock some of the passes away but you have to do that without making contact so it's not as easy as some make it out to be. To me, it's more of a problem with the odds. We are basically playing man-to-man all over the field. Even if three or four guys have pretty good coverage, it only takes one guy getting beat to give up the play. It's I don't think it's very likely that we're going to have that many guys trying to cover anywhere the receiver goes on the field without someone getting beat. That's just asking too much of too many guys on almost every play.

 

Are we really that broken? It seemed like quite a few of the plays we've given up were pinpoint passes, or as fixable as the DB turning his head as the ball arrives. South Alabama threw several rainbows that dropped in perfectly, low-percentage passes that hit. In fact, I'd like to see how often a team has thrown a pass longer than 25 yards against us that wasn't completed. It's typically a low-percentage play, but I'm thinking our opponents have completed more than that, maybe more than 75% of the time.

 

We've seen some bad corner play, sure, but we've also seen some really accurate passing, too. Unusually so.

 

 

Or am I way off base here?

 

Yes and no, it has been poor coverage and accurate passing. It really hasn't been all game either. After the first quarter NU did a much better job against Miami. For the first three quarters they shut down S. Miss pretty well. In the second half against BYU other than 2 big passes they did basically nothing. The S. Alabama game was good passes dropped in on fairly decent coverage.

 

It really just needs to be evened out. The LB play in the S. Miss game hurt in the 4th quarter more than anything. Newby leaves the game. Weber stays in but tweeks his ankle. So the true freshman slides into the middle and misses on a few plays.

 

It really is a matter of putting four full quarters of football. Lunt is a good QB, but I am not sure they can match the talent at WR that S. Miss had with the couple of injuries that they have. They just need to play better for the whole game.

 

This all assumes that we're also facing an even distribution of the types of plays and attempts in all quarters. I don't believe that is the case.

If you remove all the 40+ yard passes given up, that would reduce the yardage by approximately 320 total. (Approximately because I just used 55 yards as a proxy for the 50+ yard plays and 45 for the one play between 40 and 50 yards. Didn't go find the exact numbers.) That would reduce our per game average to 299.5 which would be #114 in the country.

If you remove all the 30+ yard passes given up, it would be approximately 425 fewer yards for an average of 273 yards per game which would make us #103 in the country.

The deep balls have been getting most of the publicity but they aren't really that much of the problem.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? I don't think so. Opponents may be completing more long passes against us but that's just as likely if not more to be because it's easier to complete those passes against us than it is other teams.

And the stat say it's not just the long passes.

- We are dead last in the country in passes of 10+ yards given up. We've given up 57, median is 31

- We are dead last in the country in passes of 20+ yards given up. Us - 24, median - 11

- We are #127 (out of 128) in the country in passes of 30+ yards given up. Us - 14, worst - 15, median - 5

- We are #118 in the country in passes of 40+ yards given up. Us - 6, worst - 11, median - 2

- We are #126 in the country in passes of 50+ yards given up. Us - 5, worst - 7, median - 1

- We have not given up a 60+ yard pass. Neither have 69 other teams.

So you could actually argue that we are (relatively) better against the longer pass than the shorter passes. But the point is that it is so astronomically against it just being a quirk at this point that's it basically excludes that possibility.

Are we really that broken? It seemed like quite a few of the plays we've given up were pinpoint passes, or as fixable as the DB turning his head as the ball arrives. South Alabama threw several rainbows that dropped in perfectly, low-percentage passes that hit. In fact, I'd like to see how often a team has thrown a pass longer than 25 yards against us that wasn't completed. It's typically a low-percentage play, but I'm thinking our opponents have completed more than that, maybe more than 75% of the time.

 

We've seen some bad corner play, sure, but we've also seen some really accurate passing, too. Unusually so.

 

 

Or am I way off base here?

Plenty of people have tried to say this but I think that's grasping at straws at this point. We've been through four games and at least six different quarterbacks and they've all done the same thing.

People also tried to down-play South Alabama's success by saying they had one really good receiver. He had 6 catches for 147 yards and a TD against us. He has 4 catches for 61 yards and a TD in his other three games COMBINED. And those games are against Gardner-Webb, San Diego State and North Carolina State.

I can't see how claiming all this is simply some bad luck is anything but refusing to see the obvious at this point. If we were giving up 25% fewer passing yards per game than we are, we'd still be #110 in the country.

Here's what I mean. This is our last possession - right before the missed FG. Newby has three carries in six plays. You can definitely see a different mind-set in his running.

Like I said, that's probably too far the other way. But if he can do a better job of mixing in some lower-the-shoulder runs with the speed that he has, I think it will work well.

Maveric, what is your opinion of "Professor Aaron Semm"'s comments about our running backs dancing too much and not getting north-south? Both of you agree that the line play has been much better than advertised.

Definitely agree on that. Too many times trying to find a big play instead of just getting an extra 3-4 yards and trying again next time.

However, it really looked to me like someone really got after Newby about this some time in the late third or early fourth quarter of the Southern Miss game. He seemed to go to the other end of the spectrum - just lower his shoulder and try to run over anyone in the way. Totally different from the first 3.5 games. It was a little overboard but I'm hopeful that someone got their point across and we'll see less dancing this weekend.

How long would it take, in theory, to install a new defense if it turns out this one simply doesn't work? A week? A month? An offseason? Doesn't seem like something you could do quickly, not with game-planning for a new opponent each week, and while dealing with injuries to starters.

It's not a new defense. It's a new coverage. If you pay attention to other teams around the coverage, they often change coverages play-to-play based on any number of things including down-and-distance and what the score is.

 

 

 

 

 

That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.

 

However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.

 

This was my point.

 

They say they are looking at everything, including scheme. Where do any of you get that they are not willing to try and fix it. 408 always threw the players under the bus, not this staff.

 

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

 

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

 

 

You might have seen this already (I got the link from you) but according to Riley, they are trying different things. Everything from 19:30 is on good, but the relevant part starts at 23:35, talking about how, for the first time, they switched into a Cover-6 at one point to give some help.

 

http://www.huskers.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=4468493&db_oem_id=100

 

Good post.

 

I think it's a huge fallacy for anyone to sit and assume they haven't been trying different things. Just because they may not be obvious to us doesn't mean they aren't trying them. Sometimes I wonder if people are expecting the team to trot out in different jerseys or something to prove they're trying a different coverage.

 

I'm sure there have been subtle differences. We tried some line movement against Miami that we scrapped after a couple series because it was confusing us more than them. The infamous Vine of McMullen is a line stunt. The linebackers coverage changes a little bit based on if the back they are assigned to cover releases or stays in to block. But we run almost the exact same coverage with our DBs on basically every play. The only big change is whether one safety has a deep zone or an underneath "robber" zone coverage. If I have missed anything else I'd love for someone to point out where. I haven't re-watched the Southern Miss game yet but I've watched the rest pretty closely and I can't find anything else.

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

 

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

This is presuming Banker's been able to install all 12 years of his experience into the players' heads in nine months. That may be a little bit of an ambitious presumption.

 

No it really doesn't. It's entirely possible that the scheme will "work" once the players are more familiar with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't working now. And it's Banker's job to find something that does. You would think he would have some other package available for an occasion that it would be needed. If our base package is geared to stop the run, shouldn't we have a secondary package available for when we are expecting the other team to pass most of the time - such as facing a team that throws a lot or if we are ahead later in the game? That would seem like a pretty basic adjustment that a DC with that much experience would know is needed. We either have not planned for any of that or have refused to use it.

I don't think that it's a bad play. I don't even mind running it some. But you need to be selective with it. I think we run too much straight zone against seven guys in the box. With no misdirection and not much (if any) of a numbers advantage, your odds are just not great. And particularly on outside zone plays, the line isn't necessarily trying to open a specific hole. They're blocking a direction and letting the RB find where the hole opens up. But if there are seven or eight guys in the box, the defense can fill a lot of gaps.

It's kind of the down side of going with more heavy sets - two TEs, TE/HB or TE/FB. It bunches up your formation and lets the defense play with more guys in the box.

That would be Michigan (#2 - 204 ypg), Ohio State (#7 - 253), Northwestern (#11 - 266), Penn State (#15 - 282), Wisconsin (#17 - 292), Iowa (#20 - 295), Illinois (#24 - 306) and Minnesota (#29 - 313).

Nebraska is currently averaging 520 yards per game on offense. So it's a good, old fashioned "something's got to give" set of games. Starting this weekend.

 

 

That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.

 

However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.

 

This was my point.

 

They say they are looking at everything, including scheme. Where do any of you get that they are not willing to try and fix it. 408 always threw the players under the bus, not this staff.

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.

 

However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.

This was my point.

This actually seemed like it was pretty fast to me but apparently it will be six weeks tomorrow.

Not that we couldn't always be better but the offense was still pretty good without him. You never know what a couple plays here and there could do.

It'll be great to have him back. Probably a pretty limited role this week then turn him loose next week.

 

Until it's done, just more coach speak. We've been fed these types of lines for years now, lets actually get it done coach.

 

Unfortunately I have to agree. And apparently all the lines about "these coaches have experience", "we have three DCs on staff" and "this staff will make adjustments" are all just hope that people were clinging to.

There are only three options at this point:

- The coaches don't have any other plan to try anything different than what they've run in the first four games

- They are too stubborn to try anything else, insistent that their plan will work if it's executed properly (that sounds familiar)

- Sticking with their system is more important in the long run that winning some games

 

They will move the ball on us and they will score points. Illinois has done a great job coming together when Beckman got fired.

 

I think an x factor will be DPE, as soon as he comes in motion for that jet sweep, they will have to respect it. Could open up some big plays to the opposite side of the field for another burner like Reilly or a run for Tommy

Don't expect DPE to do much in this game other than a cameo appearance every once in a while.

 

Yep. Maybe a couple plays here and there to get his feet wet. At the most.