Carl Pelini not going to hit panic button

[Nexus]

 

 

Carl Pelini on occasion reads and listens to media reports and commentary. He hears the words "porous" and "scorched" attached to Nebraska's defense and doesn't know whether to laugh or slam his grease board.

 

"How can you get 'scorched' for three points?" the Husker defensive coordinator says in reference to analysis he's heard since NU's 17-3 triumph Saturday over South Dakota State.

 

This discussion is sort of silly on some levels, in that sixth-ranked Nebraska (4-0) isn't exactly allowing yards by the bushel. In fact, the Huskers have allowed 20 fewer yards per game this season (265.0) than they surrendered through the first four games in 2009. We all know how well last year's defense turned out.

 

Even so, folks are concerned right now about opponents' ability to run the ball against Nebraska, especially in a straight-ahead, or "downhill," manner. The Huskers rank 56th nationally in rushing defense, allowing 138.8 yards per game. Through four games last season, against comparable competition, Big Red ranked 39th (115.8).

 

Concern stems in part from Daniel Thomas, the rugged, 6-foot-2, 230-pound Kansas State tailback. Nebraska's next game is Oct. 7 at K-State.

 

The Huskers are allowing 3.6 yards per rush, compared with 3.1 at this time last season. So, yes, they have work to do, but the coaching staff isn't exactly in panic mode, nor should it be.

 

"Some of it's youthful mistakes with a few new starters," Pelini says. "If I felt like we were just getting knocked off the ball, I'd be nervous. But I know that they're fixable mistakes."

 

Pelini is extremely confident in this year's defense, in part because he's extremely confident in Nebraska's defensive philosophy. And that philosophy is crucial to understand for anyone gnashing teeth over opponents' yards-per-carry average.

 

Listening to Pelini describe Nebraska's defensive philosophy helps make sense of South Dakota State running back Kyle Minett's comments Saturday night. Minett, a 5-foot-10, 215-pound senior, dented the Huskers for 112 yards on 28 carries. He noted NU's linebackers, other than 6-2, 240-pound Eric Martin, weren't very big.

 

Minett also correctly noted Big Red typically doesn't overload the box with defenders.

 

Says Pelini: "You can load the box with nine guys, but you're going to give up big play after big play, right? You know that."

 

Nebraska prides itself on the low number of big plays (gains that cover 20 yards or more) it allows. The Huskers are surrendering 2.25 such plays per game this season after allowing 2.71 last season.

 

"There's some tradeoff," Pelini says. "You have to concede that teams are going to run for three or four yards sometimes, knowing that you forced them to do that all the way down the field. You're going to be able to offset that with your pressure, with movement. Or we have the ability to load the box up if we want to.

 

"But the bottom line is, we're not going to allow people to have quick strikes against us. We're going to force them to execute all the way down the field. It's a defensive philosophy. Plus, as we become more experienced, we get better defending the run the way we defend it, without panicking and saying, 'We have to load everyone in the box to stop the run.'"

 

Which is why Pelini scratches his head when media, including myself, ask questions about opponents picking up three or four yards on running plays.

 

"It's ridiculous," he says.

 

The youthful mistakes Pelini refers to are partly the result of replacing two veteran safeties and enduring preseason injuries to starting linebackers Sean Fisher and Will Compton. Let's face it, it would be unfair to ask Martin and Lavonte David to understand Nebraska's defense and how to make adjustments on the fly with the relative ease that Fisher and Compton did.

 

"Although both linebackers (David and Martin) have been very productive and effective at times, they're green," Pelini says. "Every game they're presented with situations -- plays, formations versus certain defenses -- that they haven't encountered before.

 

"That's why the mistakes don't concern me. Yes, there are mistakes. There have been some issues there (at linebacker) and at the safety position. But you know what, it's OK because it's a matter of seasoning these guys, and they're going to be just fine."

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

[Ziebol]

Defense should be ready for Thomas by next Thursday. If not it's going to be a long game.

[Hunter94]

we'll see how this philosophy works, but many teams successfully load the box against good runners and take them out of the game......at least part of the time. a long demoralizing drive is not good, wears down the defense, but obviously giving up big plays is not a viable strategy either, seems we need to mix up defenses at least part of the time?? the longer you let a team pound on your defense, the higher the likelihood the offense will spring a big play on a tiring defense....damned if you do and damned if you don't...so far we have gotten away with it this way.

[Husker_x]

I love Carl. He's always a great interview.

 

Nebraska's D hasn't been scorched for anything this season. Our worst day––where we gave up 21 points––one of those drives started at our 8 thanks to a turnover, and another score came off a broken pass coverage. Only one score was the product of a drive.

 

I think the concern (not panic) comes when you extrapolate talent. If crappy team A is able to rush for X amount of yards, it stands to reason that decent team B could rush for Y amount of yards. Football doesn't really work in that linear way, but you can see what people are nervous about. At the end of the day it's not about yards. Everyone knows that. You just hope that the yards given up don't turn into points, because that's what happens when the other team runs out of field to march down. They'll end up in the endzone sooner or later.

 

Kansas State will tell us something serious about our rush D.

[NUance]

I love Carl. He's always a great interview.

 

Nebraska's D hasn't been scorched for anything this season. Our worst day––where we gave up 21 points––one of those drives started at our 8 thanks to a turnover, and another score came off a broken pass coverage. Only one score was the product of a drive.

 

I think the concern (not panic) comes when you extrapolate talent. If crappy team A is able to rush for X amount of yards, it stands to reason that decent team B could rush for Y amount of yards. Football doesn't really work in that linear way, but you can see what people are nervous about. At the end of the day it's not about yards. Everyone knows that. You just hope that the yards given up don't turn into points, because that's what happens when the other team runs out of field to march down. They'll end up in the endzone sooner or later.

 

Kansas State will tell us something serious about our rush D.

That, and just because we’ve lined our DTs straight up to cover two gaps so far doesn’t mean we are going to keep playing that simplistic technique through out B12 sched. We’re gonna see a lot more stunting on the line, and blitzing DBs from here on out. No more vanilla D going forward.

 

And yes, we'll know more after K. State. And after Tejas we'll know pretty much what we got this year.

[Billyball]

What could Carl say? "I am in a panic, the sky is falling"? Regardless the sdsu game was some cause for concern. All this crap about we were playing so vanilla and as soon as we play a good team we will unleash the real defense is silly. There has to be some real concern about the DL and the Lbs. Suh clogged the line period. To neutralize him took away 2-3 offensive players..and he still often made the play. We had Dillard who could play the run and could then have light fast guys to disrupt the lanes. They knew their coverage wold not have to last long because of pressure at the Los.

 

Our DL showed they are not dominant, at least against a weak team. So against stronger teams we will likely have to use more people to do the same job up front as four did last year. If we face a team with good balance, it could be trouble, especially if the offense is low scoring and our D has little margin for error. Just like OU and UT, we have some problems this year and in none of the three is it because they are hiding their best efforts. The team that gets their holes fixed will win the conference. We'll know in thee weeks if we are likely that team.

[Husker Z]

Anyone thinking this D is going to roll over and be a Cosgrovian type D is flat out !

 

Thomas might get 150 yards or so, but that won't turn into more than 14-17 points and we will put up 30+ on them, easy.

 

The D will do nothing but get better as David, Whaley and Martin get more comfortable, which about now is when that should start happening a bit more all the time. Then, get Compton back to QB the D and make sure those guys are lined up right and ready to simply attack without thinking and I have a feeling this D is going to be as nasty as last year's.

 

 

I'm done with the doom and gloom from last week, I'm ready to roll the cats next thursday and make a statement on ESPN that we ARE in fact back and we ARE the team to beat in the conference and ready to make some noise nationally!

[RazzinGTO]

"But the bottom line is, we're not going to allow people to have quick strikes against us. We're going to force them to execute all the way down the field. It's a defensive philosophy. Plus, as we become more experienced, we get better defending the run the way we defend it, without panicking and saying, 'We have to load everyone in the box to stop the run.'"

LINK

 

 

Couple thoughts on this. I think what our D is doing is the best thing. Interesting stat - In the three great games DT has had for KSU he has broke off runs of 44, 45, and 23. All above that 20yd mark that they preach about. In the game against UCF DT only had 76 yds on 22 carries. I don't know if UCF stacked the box or not, but its a pretty telling sign that if we can hold him to carries less then 20 yds, we have a good chance in holding him in check.

 

Did anyone watch the UCF game? What did they do to keep him in check?

[Bradr]

The philosophy is sound, and demoralizing is what happens when a defender does not understand/execute the scheme.

 

Let them get 3 or 4 yards per carry. Thats fine. Much better than one or two 25+ yard plays. If the opponent is only getting 4 or 3 yards, (and assuming they start on the 20) they need to do that 20-25 times to drive into the endzone. That's 20-25 plays for our D to get a sack, int, fumble, tackle-for-loss, or the opposing team to commit a penalty. In that case, a couple of 3 or 4 yard plays doesn't amount for much, and our offense gets the ball back.

 

But giving up a couple big plays that results in a sudden touchdown. Now thats demoralizing.

[RazzinGTO]

 

I'm done with the doom and gloom from last week, I'm ready to roll the cats next thursday and make a statement on ESPN that we ARE in fact back and we ARE the team to beat in the conference and ready to make some noise nationally!

 

+1

[billdozer15]

The philosophy is sound, and demoralizing is what happens when a defender does not understand/execute the scheme.

 

Let them get 3 or 4 yards per carry. Thats fine. Much better than one or two 25+ yard plays. If the opponent is only getting 4 or 3 yards, (and assuming they start on the 20) they need to do that 20-25 times to drive into the endzone. That's 20-25 plays for our D to get a sack, int, fumble, tackle-for-loss, or the opposing team to commit a penalty. In that case, a couple of 3 or 4 yard plays doesn't amount for much, and our offense gets the ball back.

 

But giving up a couple big plays that results in a sudden touchdown. Now thats demoralizing.

Agreed. The whole goal of his defense is to frustrate the offense. If the O gets bored/frustrated they will do something stupid and then we've got them right where we want.

 

If the opposing offense get two 3-4 yd plays in a row then collects a holding or a false start they are back into a 3 and long, then we can dial up a blitz. I have notice on alot of 3 and long/mediums Bo sends extra guys not allowing recievers a chance to even get far enough to make the 1st down if they even have time to catch it. Bo's defensive philosophy is a good one, even if it means giving up a few yards on the ground.

[Husker Z]

"But the bottom line is, we're not going to allow people to have quick strikes against us. We're going to force them to execute all the way down the field. It's a defensive philosophy. Plus, as we become more experienced, we get better defending the run the way we defend it, without panicking and saying, 'We have to load everyone in the box to stop the run.'"

LINK

 

 

Couple thoughts on this. I think what our D is doing is the best thing. Interesting stat - In the three great games DT has had for KSU he has broke off runs of 44, 45, and 23. All above that 20yd mark that they preach about. In the game against UCF DT only had 76 yds on 22 carries. I don't know if UCF stacked the box or not, but its a pretty telling sign that if we can hold him to carries less then 20 yds, we have a good chance in holding him in check.

 

Did anyone watch the UCF game? What did they do to keep him in check?

 

UCF has a similar D to ours, it's smaller, yet FAST. They continuously held their ground with the front 4 and basically dared them to run outside. When they did, DT couldn't get the corner on them, he's just not a strong back doing that. Coffman CANNOT beat anyone through the air, flat out. We may not "stack the box" like they say, but I have a feeling we'll do what we've been best at in the past, clog the middle, spread out the runs and bring pressure off the edge in passing downs.

 

KSU will have no answer next Thursday, offensively or defensively, they are flat out out-manned at every position, they just are. It will take a collapse by the Skers to lose this game.

[RedDenver]

What could Carl say? "I am in a panic, the sky is falling"? Regardless the sdsu game was some cause for concern. All this crap about we were playing so vanilla and as soon as we play a good team we will unleash the real defense is silly. There has to be some real concern about the DL and the Lbs. Suh clogged the line period. To neutralize him took away 2-3 offensive players..and he still often made the play. We had Dillard who could play the run and could then have light fast guys to disrupt the lanes. They knew their coverage wold not have to last long because of pressure at the Los.

 

Our DL showed they are not dominant, at least against a weak team. So against stronger teams we will likely have to use more people to do the same job up front as four did last year. If we face a team with good balance, it could be trouble, especially if the offense is low scoring and our D has little margin for error. Just like OU and UT, we have some problems this year and in none of the three is it because they are hiding their best efforts. The team that gets their holes fixed will win the conference. We'll know in thee weeks if we are likely that team.

You mean like what happened last season? 3 out of 4 non-conference foes rushed for over 100 yards. Speculation at that time was similar to this year thinking the run D was soft. And yet only 2 teams ran for over 100 yards on us during conference play - KSU and CU. You're making a reasonable argument that our performance against weaker teams is a good predictor for how we'll fare against stronger teams, but that logic has been shown to be faulty every weekend of every year of college football. Teams play up and down each week, teams get better and worse over the season, and game plans vary based on opponent. Like you say, we'll learn more in the next few weeks.

[tman]

Maybe we shouldn't press the panic button on defense. Should we for offense? Against SDSU when we had to and our backs were against the wall, our defense rose up to the challenge and stopped SDSU from scoring. They were able to up their level of play. You can't say the same for the offensive side of the ball. Our offense showed that if someone game plans to take out that zone read, we have no answer for it. For all intents and purposes we were in a dog fight with the game very much on the line in the waning minutes of the 4th quarter and all our offense had to show for it were punts and picks and to put the win back on our defense. This is a red flag for 2009 repeat.

[RedDenver]

Maybe we shouldn't press the panic button on defense. Should we for offense? Against SDSU when we had to and our backs were against the wall, our defense rose up to the challenge and stopped SDSU from scoring. They were able to up their level of play. You can't say the same for the offensive side of the ball. Our offense showed that if someone game plans to take out that zone read, we have no answer for it. For all intents and purposes we were in a dog fight with the game very much on the line in the waning minutes of the 4th quarter and all our offense had to show for it were punts and picks and to put the win back on our defense. This is a red flag for 2009 repeat.

That's an excellent question. Our offense looked fine through non-conference play last season except for the VT game. This season we looked fine except for the SDSU game. The B12 games last year really exposed our offense, so I'm taking more of a wait-and-see approach this year.