Husker in WI

That's fair, but then we really should wait to declare there's been no improvement shouldn't we? And I realize you're not the one who said there has been no improvement, but that's what I was arguing against.

2017 : 36.4 2018: 31.3 2019: 28.9

Yeah, fair enough. Reading probably too much between the lines in the pressers, seems like they've decided they don't like the extra risk of blitzing. But if the emphasis of this defense is turnovers and big plays, that does seem like a weird decision to make.

Literally 2 examples from posters in this thread, and it's not like this is a massive group of people. It happens, not infrequently. He's probably had multiple addresses here in Lincoln, and clerical errors happen. The bottom line is we don't know, and the rumored resolution would indicate even the city doesn't think it's a big deal.

I do think the lack of pressure is at some point on Chinander. The reason I'm not too up in arms about it yet is who else do we have? We've seen more Nelson, and teams know how to exploit him. I am surprised we don't see more Tannor. Beyond that, I don't find it hard to believe that is our best pass rush group and they're just not good enough. Frost mentioned in his post game if they see we're bringing heat and pick it up that puts the secondary in an even worse position, so I think the coaches have decided to go lower risk and not blitz as much. Gives up a lot of 3rd downs, but sometimes the coverage is good enough. And it doesn't give up the 60 yard TD because we were in man. I don't know if that's a Chinander defense call, or a Frost game management call. It does seem like the staff have decided against bringing extra guys, and that's fair to criticize. It's also possible if he did bring the house more we'd be complaining about the big plays when the blitz doesn't get home.

I could be wrong, but I think we're paying him to coach. I think the number of required media sessions is a little absurd - I like the info as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend that's what we're paying him for. It is an obligation that comes with the job, but if the real job is going well I don't care if he just stands there and says "no comment" to every single question.

I think 3 and a half years as a DC in his career is a little soon to assume he won't ever be a great DC. He's taken over atrocious defenses both places he's been a DC. UCF 2015 (pre-Chinander) allowed 37.7 ppg (118th), 464 ypg (116th) at 6.5 per play (115th), and only forced 1.1 turnovers per game (116th). By 2017 those numbers were 25.3 ppg (52nd), 427.9 ypg (94th), 5.7 ypp (70th), and 2.5 tpg (2nd). Nebraska 2017 was 36.4ppg (116th), 438.1 ypg (101st), 6.4 ypp (113th), and 1 tpg (116th). Currently 28.9 ppg (77th), 401 ypg (70th), 5.6 ypp (68th), 1.5 tpg (63rd). I'm not arguing that those current numbers are good enough, or that Chinander is for sure a great (or even good) DC. But there is measurable progress, and bringing in another DC won't be a quick fix. He deserves more time, especially considering the personnel challenges at LB which I think has been a major factor in most of our poor defensive performances. Bad run fits and no pass rush off the edge is pretty crippling for any DC.

I am interested (but also worried) to see how we try and handle Hopkins. He had some big catches on us last year, and we really haven't faced any good TEs this year. He's probably the best we'll play all year (at least as a receiver), and we really don't have the personnel for me to feel good about the matchup. But I still think we win. Plummer is very inconsistent, and they're running game is statistically worse than Northwestern's. Karlaftis will be a problem on their dline, but their other potential difference makers are out.

I know what you're talking about, but that was one play where the QB had about 10 seconds to throw. It's not like he had Barry in man, and if we had any pass rush at all he probably doesn't get open in time. I was also not a fan of the gameplan, especially considering Chins has to know our pass rush deficiencies. But it's not going to be the same plan this week, and last year I thought we handled Moore alright. Didn't do anything else well, but he had one big play that I remember.

Like hell we can.

Meh, it just reads like an angry fan blowing off steam. He's supposed to be a sportswriter - obviously he's a fan too, and that's fine. But if you want to publish your fan rants go write for bleacher report or some dump like that. I don't need another "I'm so tired of us losing" piece from someone who is supposed to put out actual stories.

He did play a little bit after that, so could be wrong. Thought one of the coaches said something along the lines of needing to be able to trust the RB to block his guy in response to that though. But in either case, I don't think RB was a problem at any other point during the game. I don't see a massively different outcome if we do have Mills playing more in the second half - we had our chances and didn't make plays.

So if it's not about transferring but it's in the attrition thread, what (not who) are we even talking about? Getting kicked off the team?

He blew his assignment on Vedral's fumble, so he was basically benched. I don't disagree, but the 3rd and 7 scramble to ice the game is exactly why Nelson at least isn't playing more. Not saying Davis definitely would've done it better, but Nelson crashed hard and gave up the edge without a fight. Too focused on making a play instead of knowing the situation and doing his job. He'll be good though - and no idea where Tannor is. Supposedly the "disrespect" comes from Frost complaining about the crossover schedule, and specifically mentioning Indiana as a team we should play more. You have to be either stupid or desperate to take that as an insult though - he was specifically complaining about how much we will get OSU/Michigan/PSU. He wasn't mentioning Indiana as easy wins, just easier games than what we've got.

Doing it back to back years with Gunnerson and Bollers would be nice too.

Before Indiana there was a post circulating, one of the computer rankings had us as the underdog on all 5 remaining. Purdue was essentially a push though, and they've looked bad since then. We're favored, it just looked like we might not be a few weeks ago.

Right, I agree with you. I just can see why a lot of people are frustrated when they hear about the best practices yet and then see bad performances anyway. I'm sure the coaches are even more frustrated, but whether they intend to or not they have been setting high expectations with the comments.

Ohio State is averaging more rushing yards per game than passing yards. You can argue they are passing to set up the run, but I don't know that they disprove the notion that you have to run the ball in the B1G. I do agree our terrible pass blocking is causing a lot of our problems, but I think you can argue it either way. If we could run better that would open up more passing opportunities, but we probably need to hit some passes so teams can't sell out on the runs. I think it's more the latter that we need to do, but if our running game was where we want it to be we could still churn out some yards against stacked boxes.

You don't have to say "best/cleanest practice since I've been here!" to avoid saying "We looked terrible." Not that hard to say "practice was good" instead. Again though, I don't think we look terrible in practice. I think this team hasn't figured out how to translate practice success into game success - good practices are just the first step.

Think it was Bootle on Monday. Which again, I'd rather hear it from a player. I think some of this was Frost pointing out you play like you practice. People latched onto that and now think he's lying when we have a bad game after some of the "best practices we've had." In reality you do need good practices, but there's more to it than that. I believe then when they say it, I just don't believe this team knows fully how to translate that to success against another team. Yet.

When they interview players after practice the players are still in pads a lot of times, so I assume they saw Wan'dale in street clothes then. I agree with you, but there were fans (some on this board) suggesting Martinez would be better for sitting, and even suggesting pulling him for series in the game. Not just because maybe Vedral would do something, but because they thought it would somehow make things click for Martinez.

It helps that at least in the run game, he's probably the closest we've got to Washington. So a lot of the things we'd been trying to do with Washington will now hopefully go to Rahmir - which would be a significant number, especially if Rahmir doesn't have to sub out because he's getting "banged up."

Maybe Wisconsin, but not any game we feel like we should win. He could have been the difference against Colorado, although the way we were imploding it might not have made a difference.

We didn't think we would 7 games into last year.

I agree, but in fairness to the angry fans no one is making the coaches use superlatives to describe practice. They could be saying less that they are, and people might expect less which isn't all bad. Nothing wrong with "it was a really good practice" instead of "best practice since we've been here."