Keep the improved defensive recruiting in mind

[zoogs]

I think the important point is that Tom Osborne was able to have the benefit of numbers, and he also signed some pretty good recruiting classes along the way (how could he not? he's Tom Osborne.) Back then recruiting wasn't as hyped and neither were rankings.

 

Right now our biggest problems in recruiting - year round effort and numbers. There's just very little excuse for either. We may have various things working against us, but that shouldn't stop a coaching staff from getting after it calendar-round. And our yearly small classes are taking a serious toll on the overall talent level, IMO. Misses are to be expected, but when every class is small, those misses are really felt.

[kchusker_chris]

...going back farther...

 

83' was a top 10 class according to Lemming, (produced 2 all-americans)

84' was in the top 15. 16 of 17 letter including all-american Neil Smith

85' was a spectacular class with 3 top 100 recruits and the class was widely considered a top 5 along with Penn State. Taylor/Thomas end up as All-Americans.

86' included Roger's son who was a top 35 player. when was the last time we had one of those?

87' almost had Nebraska again in the top 10 according to Emfinger, landing the #1 QB in the nation (mickey joseph). One thing to point out about this class is 19 of 22 signees earned letter. Osborne didn't miss much.

88' was ranked 10th. 20 of 26 earn letters.

89' finished 7th/11th. Trev Alberts/Will Shields are all-americans 18 of 23 letter.

I won't disagree that Osborne had some good classes, but he had quite a few more luxary's that coaches today don't have. Schollarship limits & partial qualifiers are two really big ones. Nebraksa was also on the leading edge of strengh & conditioning, which most have caught up. TV has really pushed college football to another level. There are more teams getting national coverage then there was 20 years ago, so telling a recruit that if he goes to Boise St he wont be on TV, but if he walks on at NU & works hard he could play for a team that gets national coverage.

 

Comparing a recruiting class or a coach 20 years ago to a class or coach today is apples to oranges.

Not saying those didn't contribute. but he rarely took more than 22-25. If the roster is correctly managed we should still be able to take 22 a season. And I was primarily just responding to the guy that said Osborne didn't have highly ranked classes. He had top 5 classes periodically - and consistently had top 20 classes, and signed a slew of top 100 talent....which is what we're after w/ Pelini. In 91 he even went out and drastically changed his approach. Jack Pierce came in and the started to concentrate on the top 80 players. The "difference makers". Pelini hasn't really had one yet. In 5 years he has not landed a true difference maker.

[Blackshirt96]

Knowing the calls & reads is very important in his scheme. A missed read in this scheme can lead to big gains. That is why you will normaly see players who understand the scheme over players with natural talent. The key is to have your most talented players understand it & have the next in line learning it.

The problem with this is, the slow, nonathletic guys who supposedly "know the calls and reads" seem completely lost half the time.

 

I'd rather have superior athletes who are also lost half the time.

To say that the defense was lost lost half of the time is probably pretty far off. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there was not times where the players were lost. College Football is just as much mental as it is physical. Throwing a young player into the lions den is not always a good idea. Osborne's teams rarly played a underclassman. Most of the defensive & offensive lineman were brought in kinda small & not ready to play. They would disapear for a couple seasons only to reapear larger & ready to go. High school football get these kids a lot more physically ready then they did back in those days & you will see more underclassman playing these days, but they are not all mentally ready to go. As far as skilled postions go NU plays a lot of their younger talent. ie Bell, Turner, Abdullah, Heard, Cross, Janovich, Burkhead & Martinez all played as FR/RS FR. I'm sure there are others but those are the ones off the top of my head.

they weren't "lost" - the knew exactly where they were going: to the end zone 2 steps behind a Wisconsin rusher.

I will say in 3 games they looked lost, but I don't know how that would be half of the time. Look at where the defense still ranks. Also remember how much time they were on the field this season & how many times the offense turned over the ball & put them in really bad spots.

[kchusker_chris]

I will say in 3 games they looked lost, but I don't know how that would be half of the time. Look at where the defense still ranks. Also remember how much time they were on the field this season & how many times the offense turned over the ball & put them in really bad spots.

that's what i don't get. in 07' this defense was downright pathetic all season. they were outcoached, and didn't have the talent or development or whatever. this season, while we lack talent to an extent...it can't be that bad or we wouldn't have had 8 or 9 solid games. The scheme can't be the entire fault or we wouldn't have played the way we did against Wisconsin 1.0, Michigan, etc. It's certainly no coincidence that the Ohio State, Northwestern, and Wisconsin games were our worst turnover margin games of the season. No one can argue that it didn't contribute to the score. But dang...that 1st half of UCLA, the Ohio State game, and Wisconsin just puzzle the heck out of me. Those were epically bad, extended periods of defense. By themselves, they were even worse than any period of the Cosgrove era. Record setting bad. I guess I can see why Bo doesn't really have an answer for what went wrong - certainly not immediately after the game.

[Saint Boseph]

I forgot who said it but I agree DT Is an extreme position of need, as evidenced by Saturday. Needless to say I am monitoring the 3 Juco DT's situation fervently. If we get 1 I'll feel better, 2 I'll feel great, 3 and I'll feel like I hit the lotto. Throw in Valentine and we got some talented hogmollies. Muschamp was hot on Vince Valentine and I felt good when Bo beat him out for him. I think Rome has hit his ceiling and will be just an unspectacular, yet solid player a la Cameron Meredith. Jury's still out on aaron curry and Kevin Williams due to small sample size of performance this year.

 

LB I'm considerably less concerned about. With Rose, Banderas, Love, Newby, Santos, Thomas Brown, and Afalava I think we addressed that need, and i am guessing at least 2-3 of them will pan out. Most if not all of them are significant upgrades in the athleticism from our starting 3 of fish Compton and Whaley and based on their measurables and film, they look much more equipped to adequately cover speedy slot receivers/backs (I won't be able to get the image of Compton hopelessly trailing UCLA's RB on those crossing routes). I'll reserve judgment on Brown because coaches tend to over exaggerate plays made in practice. Afalava was my favorite high school film to watch out of that class on the defensive side of the ball. Dude's a missile in the Terrell Farley/Demorrio Williams mold

[Blackshirt96]

...going back farther...

 

83' was a top 10 class according to Lemming, (produced 2 all-americans)

84' was in the top 15. 16 of 17 letter including all-american Neil Smith

85' was a spectacular class with 3 top 100 recruits and the class was widely considered a top 5 along with Penn State. Taylor/Thomas end up as All-Americans.

86' included Roger's son who was a top 35 player. when was the last time we had one of those?

87' almost had Nebraska again in the top 10 according to Emfinger, landing the #1 QB in the nation (mickey joseph). One thing to point out about this class is 19 of 22 signees earned letter. Osborne didn't miss much.

88' was ranked 10th. 20 of 26 earn letters.

89' finished 7th/11th. Trev Alberts/Will Shields are all-americans 18 of 23 letter.

I won't disagree that Osborne had some good classes, but he had quite a few more luxary's that coaches today don't have. Schollarship limits & partial qualifiers are two really big ones. Nebraksa was also on the leading edge of strengh & conditioning, which most have caught up. TV has really pushed college football to another level. There are more teams getting national coverage then there was 20 years ago, so telling a recruit that if he goes to Boise St he wont be on TV, but if he walks on at NU & works hard he could play for a team that gets national coverage.

 

Comparing a recruiting class or a coach 20 years ago to a class or coach today is apples to oranges.

Not saying those didn't contribute. but he rarely took more than 22-25. If the roster is correctly managed we should still be able to take 22 a season. And I was primarily just responding to the guy that said Osborne didn't have highly ranked classes. He had top 5 classes periodically - and consistently had top 20 classes, and signed a slew of top 100 talent....which is what we're after w/ Pelini. In 91 he even went out and drastically changed his approach. Jack Pierce came in and the started to concentrate on the top 80 players. The "difference makers". Pelini hasn't really had one yet. In 5 years he has not landed a true difference maker.

I agree with you as far as classes go & that Pelini needs to be on the trail all year around. As far as Pelini not landing a difference maker by year 5 most fans who were around for Osborne's first five recruiting classes would say the same at the end of 5 years. Pelini may have some difference makers in his last years or this years class on defense. On offense I would disagee. Burkhead & Bell are difference makers in my opinion & there are others that could be added. Aaron Green was a 5* he plucked out of Texas, but ended up being behind Abdullah & heard, so he transfered. Armstrong & Turner were solid recruits & we have Stanton as a verbal. I really think Pelini came in not quite prepared in recruiting & has quickly realized how important it is. His last couple of classes seem to be much improved & with some other recruiting things they have done makes me think he got the message.

[kchusker_chris]

Went through the bottom 50 or so programs, noting the teams that had given up 400+ in a game. Not many considering we gave up another 139 more than that and most of these involve Air Force, Army, Navy and Temple.

 

Eastern Michigan - 413 versus Army

Army - 534 against Temple

Wyoming - 400 against San Diego St.

Texas State - 407 against Navy

Indiana - 564 against Wisconsin

Colorado - 438 against Arizona

New Mexico State - 446 against Texas State

Boston college - 516 against Army

Nevada - 461 against Air Force

Colorado State - 459 against Air Force

Temple - 407 against Army

Air Force - 409 against New Mexico

Idaho - 408 against Louisiana Tech

Central Michigan - 407 against Northern Ill.

Oklahoma - 458 against WV

Purdue - 467 against Wisconsin

Neebraska - 539 against Wisconsin

 

Not exactly the type of teams I want us mentioned with. Only 4 teams gave up more than 500+ yards rushing in a game this season (I didn't go through all of them, they stopped pretty well occurring once i got out of the 80's on rush defense ranking). 2 of them were at the hands of Wisconsin, with a 3rd sitting at 467. How were we so unprepared?

 

Nebraska now has the distinction of being 1 of...probably 4 out of 1500 games all season to allow 500+. That's nice.

[ILikeNUAlot]

Did anyone actually think at the beginning of the year that we had an awesome defense just waiting to be unleashed? No. But we hoped. But it is just not the case. No stars on defense was the theme of many articles about these players. An average front 7, bad tacklers at Safety and apparently good talent at CB - however we never faced a stiff pass attack.

 

God bless!. We made it to 10-3. With luck and a ball bouncing our way we could close out 11-3. 5 years from now when you look back on this record only - not the scores of the games, IMO.

[Blackshirt96]

I will say in 3 games they looked lost, but I don't know how that would be half of the time. Look at where the defense still ranks. Also remember how much time they were on the field this season & how many times the offense turned over the ball & put them in really bad spots.

that's what i don't get. in 07' this defense was downright pathetic all season. they were outcoached, and didn't have the talent or development or whatever. this season, while we lack talent to an extent...it can't be that bad or we wouldn't have had 8 or 9 solid games. The scheme can't be the entire fault or we wouldn't have played the way we did against Wisconsin 1.0, Michigan, etc. It's certainly no coincidence that the Ohio State, Northwestern, and Wisconsin games were our worst turnover margin games of the season. No one can argue that it didn't contribute to the score. But dang...that 1st half of UCLA, the Ohio State game, and Wisconsin just puzzle the heck out of me. Those were epically bad, extended periods of defense. By themselves, they were even worse than any period of the Cosgrove era. Record setting bad. I guess I can see why Bo doesn't really have an answer for what went wrong - certainly not immediately after the game.

It is a little baffling, but I think UCLA exposed a hole in the defense with all the shifting & how it confused the defense. The defense did a good job against tOSU in the first half, but Meyer adjusted & the defense didn't adjust & got burned. In the final Wisconsin game i think it was a mixture of a couple of things. Bad preperation on the coaches, a good game plan from Wisconsin & injuries all along the line. By the time they got to half time the game was out of hand & defense was worn down. I also think Steinkuhler was a bigger loss then most expected & the defense looked like they were cheating to the middle to help out & got burned to the outside. It also didn't help that they took really bad angles on the ball carrier & didn't wrap up the ball carrier.

[The Dude]

I will say in 3 games they looked lost, but I don't know how that would be half of the time.

They looked lost half the time in most of the games we won, too. Aside from the Michigan and Minnesota, all of our conference games played out about the same. Our offense would come out flat, and perhaps turn the ball over a couple times. Our defense would be completely baffled, and we'd go into halftime trailing by a couple scores. Then at halftime we'd apparently start game preparation for that week lol.

 

They must have left the game film at home when they traveled to L.A., Columbus, and Indy.

[Blackshirt96]

Went through the bottom 50 or so programs, noting the teams that had given up 400+ in a game. Not many considering we gave up another 139 more than that and most of these involve Air Force, Army, Navy and Temple. Eastern Michigan - 413 versus Army Army - 534 against Temple Wyoming - 400 against San Diego St. Texas State - 407 against Navy Indiana - 564 against Wisconsin Colorado - 438 against Arizona New Mexico State - 446 against Texas State Boston college - 516 against Army Nevada - 461 against Air Force Colorado State - 459 against Air Force Temple - 407 against Army Air Force - 409 against New Mexico Idaho - 408 against Louisiana Tech Central Michigan - 407 against Northern Ill. Oklahoma - 458 against WV Purdue - 467 against Wisconsin Neebraska - 539 against Wisconsin Not exactly the type of teams I want us mentioned with. Only 4 teams gave up more than 500+ yards rushing in a game this season (I didn't go through all of them, they stopped pretty well occurring once i got out of the 80's on rush defense ranking). 2 of them were at the hands of Wisconsin, with a 3rd sitting at 467. How were we so unprepared? Nebraska now has the distinction of being 1 of...probably 4 out of 1500 games all season to allow 500+. That's nice.

Defensive break downs happen & even more with todays offense's. Just ask Stoops & Oklahoma. They gave up 750yds to WV.

[kchusker_chris]

Defensive break downs happen & even more with todays offense's. Just ask Stoops & Oklahoma. They gave up 750yds to WV.

I'd say 4 out of 1500 isn't very often, and only 17 out of 1500 when you give us a 140+ yard window.

[Saint Boseph]

What I typically saw was guys there but they just took the wrong angle. They had a trick play that was some sort of end around. They had two guys out there, the ball carrier and one blocker. We had three guys out there, and they all missed because they took the wrong angle. Either we underestimated Wisconsin's speed or our guys are just overly confident in their own speed. Whatever the reason, we for the most part took horrible angles all game long.

 

This indeed was my observation Saturday and seems like the most plausible culprit for the defensive performance on Saturday. You learn pursuit angles in high school ball (i did my very first year of HS ball) and anyone with a reasonable amount of football intellect should understand this quickly, you go to where the ball carrier will be and not where he is at the moment. Depth of Your angle depends on your judgment of his speed relative to yours.

 

Before you Bo-bashers jump at the chance to say that's a product of bad coaching, I will say that Bo gets paid a handsome fee to teach them the more advanced points of the game. PJ Smith and Sean Fisher (two of the most blatant offenders Saturday) should have repped thousands of plays by the time they got to college that their sense of relative speed should be well calibrated to the point that it is instinct. Bo can't waste his time spending valuable practice hours teaching these kids basic fundamentals they should have learned in HS. This is high level football, it should be assumed that one would already come to NU or any D1,D2, or D3 school with this basic skill set. That's why Harvard professors teaching linear algebra dont spend time teaching students arithmetic. By the time students get to that level it is assumed they have that basic skill. It's just that our scout team doesn't have the same speed as Wisconsin's and UCLA's running backs to expose these inadequacies in practice, thus it gets exposed in game time. That is part of the reason Bo's answer is always lack of execution. They make the play in practice, which masks their deficiencies,and come game time it gets exposed. Bo is absolutely right, it's always lack of execution. Do or do not, there is no try

[NUinID]

I will say in 3 games they looked lost, but I don't know how that would be half of the time. Look at where the defense still ranks. Also remember how much time they were on the field this season & how many times the offense turned over the ball & put them in really bad spots.

that's what i don't get. in 07' this defense was downright pathetic all season. they were outcoached, and didn't have the talent or development or whatever. this season, while we lack talent to an extent...it can't be that bad or we wouldn't have had 8 or 9 solid games. The scheme can't be the entire fault or we wouldn't have played the way we did against Wisconsin 1.0, Michigan, etc. It's certainly no coincidence that the Ohio State, Northwestern, and Wisconsin games were our worst turnover margin games of the season. No one can argue that it didn't contribute to the score. But dang...that 1st half of UCLA, the Ohio State game, and Wisconsin just puzzle the heck out of me. Those were epically bad, extended periods of defense. By themselves, they were even worse than any period of the Cosgrove era. Record setting bad. I guess I can see why Bo doesn't really have an answer for what went wrong - certainly not immediately after the game.

 

In the UCLA and Wisky 2 games we got out schemed. UCLA exploited the RB in motion being picked up by an LB. This play was not expected and defensed wrong. In Wisky 2 the jet sweep was exploited. The reason for the poor angles was becuase the safeties have contain on jet sweep along with about 5 other responsibilites, they had too many things to think about and were late getting there all the time so it was a poor angle combine that with poor tackling in UCLA and Wisky 2. NU was pinching the DE to compensate for a light DT in Wisky 2 so they didn't help out on Jet sweep. Normally they would widen and come mor up field in a 7 tech to help disrupt the jet sweep.

 

OSU was some bad technique but also a lot of great playing by Miller.

 

Also against Wisky in the CCG Nebraska just looked tired, Mentally and Physically. Sam McKeon made the same comment on 1620. After the long grind of 6 close wins the team wasn't physically and mentally ready to play. Combine that with no Steiny and a very hungry Wisconsin and we have disaster.

[Blackshirt96]

I will say in 3 games they looked lost, but I don't know how that would be half of the time.

They looked lost half the time in most of the games we won, too. Aside from the Michigan and Minnesota, all of our conference games played out about the same. Our offense would come out flat, and perhaps turn the ball over a couple times. Our defense would be completely baffled, and we'd go into halftime trailing by a couple scores. Then at halftime we'd apparently start game preparation for that week lol. They must have left the game film at home when they traveled to L.A., Columbus, and Indy.

They gave up 7 to Iowa, 23 to Penn St, 24 to Michigan St, 28 to Northwestern & 27 to Wisconsin(1). For defense many people thought was going to be very low at the begining over the year they played pretty well over the course of the year. Add in the obsene amount of turnovers & I think they played quite well for what i was expecting at the begining of the year. In the first Wisconsin game the offense basically gave up 14 of the 27. The offense turned the ball over 4 times & recovered 2 of there own fumbles.