Trend or Not

[MichiganDad3]

NU's run defense has degraded every year since 2009, ans so has scoring defense. Is this a trend? In 2010 mobile QBs were Bo's nemesis. Now some teams run at will on NU. Have opposing OCs figured out how to beat Bo's defenses. My opinion is that Bo puts more emphasis on stopping the pass than the run and other teams have figured this out. Unless NU changes schemes or is loaded with NFL caliber interior lineman opposing teams will continue to exploit the weakness in the scheme, run the ball and control the clock. Below are some stats I pulled. These are national ranks.

 

 

Scoring, Total Yards, Rushing Yards, Passing Efficiency

2012 - 56, 22, 96, 2

2011 - 39, 36, 66, 25

2010 - 8, 10, 52, 5

2009 - 2, 9, 11, 3

[Animal_Mother]

You could say that the drop off is directly correlated to the drop off in talent. There were plenty of times this year and last where players were in position to make a play but didn't. I think scheme changes might mitigate some of that, but in the end I think the solution is better recruiting. Easier said than done, but that is one of the first stops on the way to becoming nationally recognized again.

[lo country]

You could say that the drop off is directly correlated to the drop off in talent. There were plenty of times this year and last where players were in position to make a play but didn't. I think scheme changes might mitigate some of that, but in the end I think the solution is better recruiting. Easier said than done, but that is one of the first stops on the way to becoming nationally recognized again.

Looking at those numbers, I see one GLARING stat not shown. It is this:

SUH

Crick

Prince

Haag

Gomes

David

Dennard

 

Looking at the 2009 and 2010 stats and then the D talent that we lost says a lot. I bag on this staffs schemes, but looking at the stats, so long as we have 1st round NFL talent it works pretty well. My issue is that the staff doesn't change to account for talent or in our case lack of. Even in 2011 with David, not having any real talent at the DL really hurt us as did missing Fonzie for like 90% of the year.

 

IMO, the scheme does work, but you need some serious talent, at all 3 levels to make it work very well. As the talent level and depth (DL, LB and Secondary) drop off, so do our statistics. More alarming is the Offenses we faced in the Big XII, 2009 and 2010 were much more high scoring than what we have faced in the B1G.

 

It does show a trend though. A negative one IMO unless we get some serious talent at all 3 levels.

[308_Husker]

The scheme isn't the problem. You can even look at the Wisconsin game and see that on pretty much every scoring run that they had, a Husker was in position to make the play, but didn't. Pelini can put the guys in the right spots. He can't make the plays for them.

[Count 'Bility]

The drop off could also be pointed to the fact that in 2009 we played teams that threw it all over the yard. In 2010, those teams tried to run it a little more becuase our pass D was too stingy. Starting in '11, we played teams that wanted to run a lot more.

 

Now, these numbers are not excuseable. Yes, something has to change. But I'm not attesting the current struggles to the thought that it's degressing. It may have been this bad all along but was hidden by the fact that we simply did not face run-oriented teams in the Big 12.

 

Dont forget Suh in 2009. Even when teams tried to run, he was cogging everything up anyway. I would personally like to see change in scheme to a more disruptive style of d-line play, but I'm not the coach and dont know sh#t, so I guess we'll see what happens.

[MichiganDad3]

I agree that talent drop off is a problem, but do you think it is possible to have a top 20 scoring defense with the current talent if the scheme is changed? I do, but I think a top 20 scoring defense is not possible with the current scheme and current talent. This scheme needs elite talent to function properly.

[HuskerShark]

NU's run defense has degraded every year since 2009, ans so has scoring defense. Is this a trend? In 2010 mobile QBs were Bo's nemesis. Now some teams run at will on NU. Have opposing OCs figured out how to beat Bo's defenses. My opinion is that Bo puts more emphasis on stopping the pass than the run and other teams have figured this out. Unless NU changes schemes or is loaded with NFL caliber interior lineman opposing teams will continue to exploit the weakness in the scheme, run the ball and control the clock. Below are some stats I pulled. These are national ranks.

 

 

Scoring, Total Yards, Rushing Yards, Passing Efficiency

2012 - 56, 22, 96, 2

2011 - 39, 36, 66, 25

2010 - 8, 10, 52, 5

2009 - 2, 9, 11, 3

 

2009 - Suh was one of the best D-Linemen ever to play the game.

2010 - Lost Suh but still had Crick and a couple other good players.

2011 - Lost Crick midway through the season, and switched from a pass-heavy offensive conference to a run-based conference.

2012 - Absolutely ineffective DL play and lack of athleticism at LB. The loss of Lavonte David has hurt our run support A LOT.

[Count 'Bility]

In 2010, was also had an NFL secondary, literally, across the board. Their lockdown ability went a long way in freeing up the linebacker(s) (since we played mostly a glorified dime) and d-line into some nice schemes that allowed them to be successful without Suh. In 2011, Bo's system was severely exposed. Average to poor secondary play, average to poor LB play outside of LaVonte, and a Dline that was pretty much shredded to nothing with injuries. I personally, yes, would like to see more of a one-gapper disruptive style of dline play, but I also understand that it's not Bo's m.o. and that he and his guys may not be necessarily comfortable teaching such a thing. But he may have to make necassary adjustments if he cannot start to get the elite talent required for his style.

[JJ Husker]

It is obvious that the loss of some talented players contributes heavily to corresponding drop in production. However, it is a flawed scheme when you constantly have players in position to make a play and they fail to do so. The goal for the coaching staff should be to stop the other team in anyway possible, not to have bodies in position and then say they failed to execute. I'm not excusing the players but the coach has to be aware of their limitations and adjust to whatever will get the job done.

[Count 'Bility]

It is obvious that the loss of some talented players contributes heavily to corresponding drop in production. However, it is a flawed scheme when you constantly have players in position to make a play and they fail to do so. The goal for the coaching staff should be to stop the other team in anyway possible, not to have bodies in position and then say they failed to execute. I'm not excusing the players but the coach has to be aware of their limitations and adjust to whatever will get the job done.

After re-watching the CCG a couple times, I think we do have a talent issue again. I thought this after the Ohio St game. Then my mind was changed by our D having some pretty repectable performances and the red blinders went on again. Against Wisconsing, we had the guys in position on every single big play they had, except for the throwback pass to the qb. Tackles were just not made. Sometimes numerous attempts were missed. Now, we can pin that back on coaching, but it also goes back to the coaches saying that this stuff appears to be taken care of in practice, but it keeps popping up in games. Yes, I am in the "at some point, the players have to make a play" crowd. We had a guy if not 2 in a position to make a play for a minimal gain on all of them jet sweeps. Bad angles and poor tackling technique.

[VectorVictor]

Yes, I am in the "at some point, the players have to make a play" crowd. We had a guy if not 2 in a position to make a play for a minimal gain on all of them jet sweeps. Bad angles and poor tackling technique.

 

And this goes back to coaching fundamentals, more than anything else.

 

I recall seeing an ESPN "Outside the Lines" piece on the rise in football injuries and concussions, and one of the things that was repeated over and over again were the lack of fundamentals being taught at the high school level. There were various root causes for this, most of which lie outside of the fault of the player themselves, but the observation was that kids going into college, and even the NFL, don't have all of their fundamentals down as they used to.

 

Granted, I don't know if this was just some curmudgeonly, "get off my lawn" type of piece, or there's some legitimacy to it. I have thought, though, that if the piece is legit, that maybe our coaches are assuming a base level of competence in the players' fundamentals that isn't there?...which leads to bad angles, poor technique, and bad showings in games against talented opponents.

[onlyHskrfaninIL]

Yes, I am in the "at some point, the players have to make a play" crowd. We had a guy if not 2 in a position to make a play for a minimal gain on all of them jet sweeps. Bad angles and poor tackling technique.

 

And this goes back to coaching fundamentals, more than anything else.

 

I recall seeing an ESPN "Outside the Lines" piece on the rise in football injuries and concussions, and one of the things that was repeated over and over again were the lack of fundamentals being taught at the high school level. There were various root causes for this, most of which lie outside of the fault of the player themselves, but the observation was that kids going into college, and even the NFL, don't have all of their fundamentals down as they used to.

 

Granted, I don't know if this was just some curmudgeonly, "get off my lawn" type of piece, or there's some legitimacy to it. I have thought, though, that if the piece is legit, that maybe our coaches are assuming a base level of competence in the players' fundamentals that isn't there?...which leads to bad angles, poor technique, and bad showings in games against talented opponents.

It's real hard to play fundamentally sound when you are too slow to get into proper position. I'm looking at you Stafford.

[Count 'Bility]

Yes, I am in the "at some point, the players have to make a play" crowd. We had a guy if not 2 in a position to make a play for a minimal gain on all of them jet sweeps. Bad angles and poor tackling technique.

 

And this goes back to coaching fundamentals, more than anything else.

 

I recall seeing an ESPN "Outside the Lines" piece on the rise in football injuries and concussions, and one of the things that was repeated over and over again were the lack of fundamentals being taught at the high school level. There were various root causes for this, most of which lie outside of the fault of the player themselves, but the observation was that kids going into college, and even the NFL, don't have all of their fundamentals down as they used to.

 

Granted, I don't know if this was just some curmudgeonly, "get off my lawn" type of piece, or there's some legitimacy to it. I have thought, though, that if the piece is legit, that maybe our coaches are assuming a base level of competence in the players' fundamentals that isn't there?...which leads to bad angles, poor technique, and bad showings in games against talented opponents.

I'm wondering if the insane amount of x's and o's that goes into gameplanning has anything to do with it. They only get so much time with the players as it is. Also, the fear of injuries as well?

[Stumpy1]

It is obvious that the loss of some talented players contributes heavily to corresponding drop in production. However, it is a flawed scheme when you constantly have players in position to make a play and they fail to do so. The goal for the coaching staff should be to stop the other team in anyway possible, not to have bodies in position and then say they failed to execute. I'm not excusing the players but the coach has to be aware of their limitations and adjust to whatever will get the job done.

How is this scheme...Isn't a scheme something that is made to put players in the position to make plays? If so, the scheme worked just not the players.

 

I think is is a talent issue and that is going to be changing in the coming years with the classes we have brought in.

[HuskerNationNick]

It is obvious that the loss of some talented players contributes heavily to corresponding drop in production. However, it is a flawed scheme when you constantly have players in position to make a play and they fail to do so. The goal for the coaching staff should be to stop the other team in anyway possible, not to have bodies in position and then say they failed to execute. I'm not excusing the players but the coach has to be aware of their limitations and adjust to whatever will get the job done.

How is this scheme...Isn't a scheme something that is made to put players in the position to make plays? If so, the scheme worked just not the players.

 

I think is is a talent issue and that is going to be changing in the coming years with the classes we have brought in.

 

We have kids now that can change it. We were hit hard before the season, and at the beginning on injuries for the defense. 2013 will tell if its a lack of coaching, or a lack of talent.