2012 Pass Defense

[Guy Chamberlin]

Our defense was pretty bad last year, for the second year in a row.

 

It really hurt the team. For the second year in a row.

 

And that was a complete Cosgrovian meltdown in the Big 10 CG.

 

It's not what any of us expected or predicted for Bo Pelini's fifth year, given his defensive credentials.

 

This isn't controversial or Husker-bashing. It just is what it is.

 

I want the Huskers to play better defense, and think they will.

[Count 'Bility]

I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.

Most likely. There's a difference between being statistically elite, and actually being elite. Being statistically elite didn't help us a bit against a decent passing team like Georgia.

 

 

While we got torched with yards and touchdowns against Georgia, we also forced two interceptions and held him near 50% completions. Basically, with how I remember that game, we got beat by three NFL-caliber perfect, undefendable throws.

 

We talked about this at the tailgate. He threw his WRs open. Murray would have made a ton of money had he came out this year.

As a Chiefs fan watching that CapOne Bowl, I wouldve been plenty content using the first pick on him and to hell with Alex Smith.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Thought I'd add on to what I posted in this thread yesterday with a more in-depth look at the differences between the teams which beat Nebraska and the teams which Nebraska beat, in terms of how they approached and attacked NU's defense and how successful they were at carrying out their game plan.

 

Pass Attempts

 

To reiterate what I said yesterday, teams attempted about 2 fewer passes overall against Nebraska than they did against the rest of their opponents. However, that stat is tilted towards the philosophies adopted by the teams we beat than the teams that beat us (we were 10-4). So those numbers need to be broken down further. From an offensive philosophy standpoint, the teams which Nebraska beat were teams which passed the ball more (30 attempts per game as opposed to 26 attempts per game). Against Nebraska, those teams did only attempted one less pass than normal (30 pass attempts versus 29 pass attempts), whereas the 4 teams which beat us realized that they don't have to pass it and attempted 3.5 fewer passes than normal (26 pass attempts versus 22.5 pass attempts)

 

Pass Completions

 

Going into a game with a game plan is one thing, but how successful a team is at executing that game plan is ultimately what will dictate who wins and who losses. Overall, Nebraska's pass defense was very successful at preventing teams from completing passes, as teams averaged about 17 completions per game; but when they came up against NU's secondary, they averaged 13 completions per game. But again, because of the distribution of the teams we won and lost against (we were 10-4), this stat must be looked at further. Those who lost to Nebraska completed about 18 passes per game against their opponents, but could only complete 13 passes against NU's secondary. Those who beat Nebraska completed 1 fewer pass on average, but managed to complete 1 more pass against NU's secondary than the teams who lost to Nebraska (13 pass completions versus 14 pass completions).

 

Pass Yards per Completions

 

While there was no overall difference between NU's secondary and opposing teams' secondaries in terms of pass yards allowed per completion (12.43 yards per completion versus 12.47 yards per completion), there were some interesting results with regards to this statistic. First of all, teams who beat Nebraska averaged 1.6 yards mor per completion than teams who Nebraska beat (13.57 yards per completion versus 11.97 yards per completion). However, when up against Nebraska's secondary, those teams who beat NU excelled, averaging 3.56 more yards per completion whereas the teams who lost to NU regressed, averaging 1.37 fewer yards per completion. To compare the two, NU's secondary allowed 6.53 more yards per completion to teams we lost to than teams we defeated (17.13 yards per completion versus 10.6 yards per completion)

 

Completed Pass Touchdown Percentage

 

To clarify, this is how frequently a completed pass goes for a touchdown (the stat at the end of the day really matters). Once again, there was no overall difference between how successful teams were at converting completed passes into touchdowns against other teams and against Nebraska (8.51% versus 9.11%). The teams who Nebraska beat were absolute garbage at this statistic, only managing to convert 7.65% of their completed passes into touchdowns. When up against NU's secondary, they became even worse managing to convert just 5.49% of their completed passes into touchdowns. This was definitely helped by the fact that Nebraska didn't allow a passing touchdown in 4 games all of which were victories. Teams victorious against Nebraska during the season converted 10.66% of their completions into touchdowns. When up against NU's secondary, that statistic skyrocketed significantly up to 18.18%. Teams which beat Nebraska converted 12.69% more of their completed passes into touchdowns (18.18% versus 5.49%).

 

Rushing Attempts per Game

 

Now we're going to attack another area which people seemed to think has had an effect on our passing defense, our rushing defense, which was perceived as terrible throughout the year. Teams attempted roughly the same number of rushes against Nebraska as they did the rest of their opponents (39.57 attempts per game versus 40.43 attempts per game). However, those who beat Nebraska ran the ball 8 times more per game than those who lost to Nebraska (45.63 attempts per game versus 37.75 attempts per game). Teams who beat Nebraska were more inclined to run, and while those teams who lost to Nebraska didn't run the ball more than they normally did, these teams ran the ball 5 times more per game against NU than against the rest of their schedule (43.25 attempts per game versus 48 attempts per game).

 

Rushing Yards per Carry

 

Nebraska allowed just .10 yards per carry more than their opponents' seasonal averages (4.35 yards per carry versus 4.45 yards per carry). Teams who beat Nebraska were more successful at running the ball overall than teams that were defeated by Nebraska (4.95 yards per carry versus 4.11 yards per carry). Against Nebraska, teams who eventually lost saw a drop of .77 yards per carry from 4.11 yards per carry to 3.34 yards per carry. Against Nebraska, teams who eventually won saw an increase of 2.28 yards per carry from 4.95 yards per carry to 7.23 yards per carry. When up against Nebraska's run defense, teams that won had twice the amount of yards per carry than teams that lost (7.23 yards per carry versus 3.34 yards per carry).

 

Rushes to Touchdowns Percentage

 

Like its passing counterpart, rushes to touchdowns is the frequency of how often a team, when they run it, score a touchdown. Overall, Nebraska allowed teams to convert just .28% less rushes into touchdowns than the rest of their opponents' opponents. Teams which beat Nebraska were better at converting rushing attempts into touchdowns (5.96% versus 4.09%). Teams which lost to Nebraska saw a decrease in that conversion rate from 4.09% to 2.96%. However, teams which beat Nebraska saw an increase in this conversion rate from 5.96% to 7.78%.

 

Conclusions

 

Nebraska's defense in 2012 wasn't up to the caliber of defenses which have been fielded in the past, even as recent as in Pelini's tenure (2009 and 2010). However, it wasn't as bad as a lot of fans made it out to be. Losses tend to stick in the mind and memory more so than wins, so while it is understandable, it is wrong. Nebraska's defense in 2012 was good more times than it was bad, as the 10 teams we beat were held under their normal pass yards per completion, pass to touchdown percentage, rushing yards per carry, and rush attempts to touchdown percentage statistics. That being said, when a leak started in Nebraska's defense, the whole dam burst in a matter of seconds; teams who were victorious against Nebraska saw a dramatic increase in pass yards per completion, pass to touchdown percentage, rush yards per carry, and rush to touchdown percentage. Furthermore, it appears that the teams who were successful against Nebraska picked up on the fact that the way to attack Nebraska is through the running game, not the passing game. These teams had nearly 5 more rushes per game against NU as well as nearly 4 less passes per game against NU.

[Landlord]

Thought I'd add on to what I posted in this thread yesterday with a more in-depth look at the differences between the teams which beat Nebraska and the teams which Nebraska beat, in terms of how they approached and attacked NU's defense and how successful they were at carrying out their game plan.

 

Pass Attempts

 

To reiterate what I said yesterday, teams attempted about 2 fewer passes overall against Nebraska than they did against the rest of their opponents. However, that stat is tilted towards the philosophies adopted by the teams we beat than the teams that beat us (we were 10-4). So those numbers need to be broken down further. From an offensive philosophy standpoint, the teams which Nebraska beat were teams which passed the ball more (30 attempts per game as opposed to 26 attempts per game). Against Nebraska, those teams did only attempted one less pass than normal (30 pass attempts versus 29 pass attempts), whereas the 4 teams which beat us realized that they don't have to pass it and attempted 3.5 fewer passes than normal (26 pass attempts versus 22.5 pass attempts)

 

Pass Completions

 

Going into a game with a game plan is one thing, but how successful a team is at executing that game plan is ultimately what will dictate who wins and who losses. Overall, Nebraska's pass defense was very successful at preventing teams from completing passes, as teams averaged about 17 completions per game; but when they came up against NU's secondary, they averaged 13 completions per game. But again, because of the distribution of the teams we won and lost against (we were 10-4), this stat must be looked at further. Those who lost to Nebraska completed about 18 passes per game against their opponents, but could only complete 13 passes against NU's secondary. Those who beat Nebraska completed 1 fewer pass on average, but managed to complete 1 more pass against NU's secondary than the teams who lost to Nebraska (13 pass completions versus 14 pass completions).

 

Pass Yards per Completions

 

While there was no overall difference between NU's secondary and opposing teams' secondaries in terms of pass yards allowed per completion (12.43 yards per completion versus 12.47 yards per completion), there were some interesting results with regards to this statistic. First of all, teams who beat Nebraska averaged 1.6 yards mor per completion than teams who Nebraska beat (13.57 yards per completion versus 11.97 yards per completion). However, when up against Nebraska's secondary, those teams who beat NU excelled, averaging 3.56 more yards per completion whereas the teams who lost to NU regressed, averaging 1.37 fewer yards per completion. To compare the two, NU's secondary allowed 6.53 more yards per completion to teams we lost to than teams we defeated (17.13 yards per completion versus 10.6 yards per completion)

 

Completed Pass Touchdown Percentage

 

To clarify, this is how frequently a completed pass goes for a touchdown (the stat at the end of the day really matters). Once again, there was no overall difference between how successful teams were at converting completed passes into touchdowns against other teams and against Nebraska (8.51% versus 9.11%). The teams who Nebraska beat were absolute garbage at this statistic, only managing to convert 7.65% of their completed passes into touchdowns. When up against NU's secondary, they became even worse managing to convert just 5.49% of their completed passes into touchdowns. This was definitely helped by the fact that Nebraska didn't allow a passing touchdown in 4 games all of which were victories. Teams victorious against Nebraska during the season converted 10.66% of their completions into touchdowns. When up against NU's secondary, that statistic skyrocketed significantly up to 18.18%. Teams which beat Nebraska converted 12.69% more of their completed passes into touchdowns (18.18% versus 5.49%).

 

Rushing Attempts per Game

 

Now we're going to attack another area which people seemed to think has had an effect on our passing defense, our rushing defense, which was perceived as terrible throughout the year. Teams attempted roughly the same number of rushes against Nebraska as they did the rest of their opponents (39.57 attempts per game versus 40.43 attempts per game). However, those who beat Nebraska ran the ball 8 times more per game than those who lost to Nebraska (45.63 attempts per game versus 37.75 attempts per game). Teams who beat Nebraska were more inclined to run, and while those teams who lost to Nebraska didn't run the ball more than they normally did, these teams ran the ball 5 times more per game against NU than against the rest of their schedule (43.25 attempts per game versus 48 attempts per game).

 

Rushing Yards per Carry

 

Nebraska allowed just .10 yards per carry more than their opponents' seasonal averages (4.35 yards per carry versus 4.45 yards per carry). Teams who beat Nebraska were more successful at running the ball overall than teams that were defeated by Nebraska (4.95 yards per carry versus 4.11 yards per carry). Against Nebraska, teams who eventually lost saw a drop of .77 yards per carry from 4.11 yards per carry to 3.34 yards per carry. Against Nebraska, teams who eventually won saw an increase of 2.28 yards per carry from 4.95 yards per carry to 7.23 yards per carry. When up against Nebraska's run defense, teams that won had twice the amount of yards per carry than teams that lost (7.23 yards per carry versus 3.34 yards per carry).

 

Rushes to Touchdowns Percentage

 

Like its passing counterpart, rushes to touchdowns is the frequency of how often a team, when they run it, score a touchdown. Overall, Nebraska allowed teams to convert just .28% less rushes into touchdowns than the rest of their opponents' opponents. Teams which beat Nebraska were better at converting rushing attempts into touchdowns (5.96% versus 4.09%). Teams which lost to Nebraska saw a decrease in that conversion rate from 4.09% to 2.96%. However, teams which beat Nebraska saw an increase in this conversion rate from 5.96% to 7.78%.

 

Conclusions

 

Nebraska's defense in 2012 wasn't up to the caliber of defenses which have been fielded in the past, even as recent as in Pelini's tenure (2009 and 2010). However, it wasn't as bad as a lot of fans made it out to be. Losses tend to stick in the mind and memory more so than wins, so while it is understandable, it is wrong. Nebraska's defense in 2012 was good more times than it was bad, as the 10 teams we beat were held under their normal pass yards per completion, pass to touchdown percentage, rushing yards per carry, and rush attempts to touchdown percentage statistics. That being said, when a leak started in Nebraska's defense, the whole dam burst in a matter of seconds; teams who were victorious against Nebraska saw a dramatic increase in pass yards per completion, pass to touchdown percentage, rush yards per carry, and rush to touchdown percentage. Furthermore, it appears that the teams who were successful against Nebraska picked up on the fact that the way to attack Nebraska is through the running game, not the passing game. These teams had nearly 5 more rushes per game against NU as well as nearly 4 less passes per game against NU.

 

 

 

Excellent breakdown, and nice summary.

 

 

Basically, 1. we weren't elite, we weren't even really good, but we were above average. 2. our rushing defense affected our passing defense some, but the amount was relatively minute.

[EZ-E]

Thought I'd add on to what I posted in this thread yesterday with a more in-depth look at the differences between the teams which beat Nebraska and the teams which Nebraska beat, in terms of how they approached and attacked NU's defense and how successful they were at carrying out their game plan.

 

Pass Attempts

 

To reiterate what I said yesterday, teams attempted about 2 fewer passes overall against Nebraska than they did against the rest of their opponents. However, that stat is tilted towards the philosophies adopted by the teams we beat than the teams that beat us (we were 10-4). So those numbers need to be broken down further. From an offensive philosophy standpoint, the teams which Nebraska beat were teams which passed the ball more (30 attempts per game as opposed to 26 attempts per game). Against Nebraska, those teams did only attempted one less pass than normal (30 pass attempts versus 29 pass attempts), whereas the 4 teams which beat us realized that they don't have to pass it and attempted 3.5 fewer passes than normal (26 pass attempts versus 22.5 pass attempts)

 

Pass Completions

 

Going into a game with a game plan is one thing, but how successful a team is at executing that game plan is ultimately what will dictate who wins and who losses. Overall, Nebraska's pass defense was very successful at preventing teams from completing passes, as teams averaged about 17 completions per game; but when they came up against NU's secondary, they averaged 13 completions per game. But again, because of the distribution of the teams we won and lost against (we were 10-4), this stat must be looked at further. Those who lost to Nebraska completed about 18 passes per game against their opponents, but could only complete 13 passes against NU's secondary. Those who beat Nebraska completed 1 fewer pass on average, but managed to complete 1 more pass against NU's secondary than the teams who lost to Nebraska (13 pass completions versus 14 pass completions).

 

Pass Yards per Completions

 

While there was no overall difference between NU's secondary and opposing teams' secondaries in terms of pass yards allowed per completion (12.43 yards per completion versus 12.47 yards per completion), there were some interesting results with regards to this statistic. First of all, teams who beat Nebraska averaged 1.6 yards mor per completion than teams who Nebraska beat (13.57 yards per completion versus 11.97 yards per completion). However, when up against Nebraska's secondary, those teams who beat NU excelled, averaging 3.56 more yards per completion whereas the teams who lost to NU regressed, averaging 1.37 fewer yards per completion. To compare the two, NU's secondary allowed 6.53 more yards per completion to teams we lost to than teams we defeated (17.13 yards per completion versus 10.6 yards per completion)

 

Completed Pass Touchdown Percentage

 

To clarify, this is how frequently a completed pass goes for a touchdown (the stat at the end of the day really matters). Once again, there was no overall difference between how successful teams were at converting completed passes into touchdowns against other teams and against Nebraska (8.51% versus 9.11%). The teams who Nebraska beat were absolute garbage at this statistic, only managing to convert 7.65% of their completed passes into touchdowns. When up against NU's secondary, they became even worse managing to convert just 5.49% of their completed passes into touchdowns. This was definitely helped by the fact that Nebraska didn't allow a passing touchdown in 4 games all of which were victories. Teams victorious against Nebraska during the season converted 10.66% of their completions into touchdowns. When up against NU's secondary, that statistic skyrocketed significantly up to 18.18%. Teams which beat Nebraska converted 12.69% more of their completed passes into touchdowns (18.18% versus 5.49%).

 

Rushing Attempts per Game

 

Now we're going to attack another area which people seemed to think has had an effect on our passing defense, our rushing defense, which was perceived as terrible throughout the year. Teams attempted roughly the same number of rushes against Nebraska as they did the rest of their opponents (39.57 attempts per game versus 40.43 attempts per game). However, those who beat Nebraska ran the ball 8 times more per game than those who lost to Nebraska (45.63 attempts per game versus 37.75 attempts per game). Teams who beat Nebraska were more inclined to run, and while those teams who lost to Nebraska didn't run the ball more than they normally did, these teams ran the ball 5 times more per game against NU than against the rest of their schedule (43.25 attempts per game versus 48 attempts per game).

 

Rushing Yards per Carry

 

Nebraska allowed just .10 yards per carry more than their opponents' seasonal averages (4.35 yards per carry versus 4.45 yards per carry). Teams who beat Nebraska were more successful at running the ball overall than teams that were defeated by Nebraska (4.95 yards per carry versus 4.11 yards per carry). Against Nebraska, teams who eventually lost saw a drop of .77 yards per carry from 4.11 yards per carry to 3.34 yards per carry. Against Nebraska, teams who eventually won saw an increase of 2.28 yards per carry from 4.95 yards per carry to 7.23 yards per carry. When up against Nebraska's run defense, teams that won had twice the amount of yards per carry than teams that lost (7.23 yards per carry versus 3.34 yards per carry).

 

Rushes to Touchdowns Percentage

 

Like its passing counterpart, rushes to touchdowns is the frequency of how often a team, when they run it, score a touchdown. Overall, Nebraska allowed teams to convert just .28% less rushes into touchdowns than the rest of their opponents' opponents. Teams which beat Nebraska were better at converting rushing attempts into touchdowns (5.96% versus 4.09%). Teams which lost to Nebraska saw a decrease in that conversion rate from 4.09% to 2.96%. However, teams which beat Nebraska saw an increase in this conversion rate from 5.96% to 7.78%.

 

Conclusions

 

Nebraska's defense in 2012 wasn't up to the caliber of defenses which have been fielded in the past, even as recent as in Pelini's tenure (2009 and 2010). However, it wasn't as bad as a lot of fans made it out to be. Losses tend to stick in the mind and memory more so than wins, so while it is understandable, it is wrong. Nebraska's defense in 2012 was good more times than it was bad, as the 10 teams we beat were held under their normal pass yards per completion, pass to touchdown percentage, rushing yards per carry, and rush attempts to touchdown percentage statistics. That being said, when a leak started in Nebraska's defense, the whole dam burst in a matter of seconds; teams who were victorious against Nebraska saw a dramatic increase in pass yards per completion, pass to touchdown percentage, rush yards per carry, and rush to touchdown percentage. Furthermore, it appears that the teams who were successful against Nebraska picked up on the fact that the way to attack Nebraska is through the running game, not the passing game. These teams had nearly 5 more rushes per game against NU as well as nearly 4 less passes per game against NU.

 

Very good stuff here. I'd echo what LandLord said. We were above average on defense based on these numbers.

[The Dude]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

[EZ-E]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

 

Exactly, and the numbers can back them up. Now there's still some tests to run, specifically a comparison between conferences.

[EZ-E]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

 

Exactly, and the numbers can back them up. Now there's still some tests to run, specifically a comparison between conferences.

 

A good one would be the comparison between the Big 12 and the Big 10. Reason being is these boys were recruited to play in that conference. Take the average number of passes per game thrown by Big 12 teams vs The Big Ten. The next would be The amount of rushing attempts per game by teams in the Big 12 and Big 10.

 

You'll find it to be Big 12 teams pass around 65 or 70% of the time. (Rough estimate)

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

 

Exactly, and the numbers can back them up. Now there's still some tests to run, specifically a comparison between conferences.

 

A good one would be the comparison between the Big 12 and the Big 10. Reason being is these boys were recruited to play in that conference. Take the average number of passes per game thrown by Big 12 teams vs The Big Ten. The next would be The amount of rushing attempts per game by teams in the Big 12 and Big 10.

 

You'll find it to be Big 12 teams pass around 65 or 70% of the time. (Rough estimate)

 

Definitely, these past couple of factorial analyses are just the tip of the iceberg in an attempt to resolve this question. I'll take a look at Big Ten vs Big XII vs SEC offenses tomorrow.

[Count 'Bility]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

 

Exactly, and the numbers can back them up. Now there's still some tests to run, specifically a comparison between conferences.

 

A good one would be the comparison between the Big 12 and the Big 10. Reason being is these boys were recruited to play in that conference. Take the average number of passes per game thrown by Big 12 teams vs The Big Ten. The next would be The amount of rushing attempts per game by teams in the Big 12 and Big 10.

 

You'll find it to be Big 12 teams pass around 65 or 70% of the time. (Rough estimate)

I keep trying to hammer this point home and people just dont get it. They dont understand Bo's style of matchup type defense and how much film study it requires in order to gain a good knowledge of your opponents' tendancies and concepts in the pass game. In 2010, we had a veteran secondary that was not only skilled, but they had the conference opponents completely scoped out. Same in 2009. But in 2011, we changed conferences. So week in, week out, for 2 years now, we have secondary guys that are basically starting from scratch, while trying to scrap everything they learned in 2009 and '10 as freshman and sophmores of opponents they'll never play again. Put the same stress on the coaches.

 

Maybe if the styles were similar, it wouldnt have been such a tough move, but theyre not. And it has hurt. Those that say this defense wouldve been scorched in the Big 12 are just flat out wrong. This personnel was recruited to play int he Big 12. They were developed physically and mentally for 2 years to play in the Big 12. Add another 2 years worth of that physical and mental development for the Big 12 style, and I bet the 2011 and 2012 defenses wouldve been just fine, if not great.

 

Not to mention, Bo is known as an innovator and specialist in the pass defense department. He was at home in the sling-it-around Big 12. He could set the down 4 loose, and set up the back 7 in nickels and dimes on an exlusive basis and allow them to full out match routes and focus on receivers. That doesnt happen in the Big 10. While there's still spread concepts, it's a much more balanced attack, and it's taking time to adjust-both for the coaches and personell.

 

I still dont understand why this is so difficult to understand, but it's a concept that seems to escape everyone I talk it with. It's simple common sense in my eyes.

[EZ-E]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

 

Exactly, and the numbers can back them up. Now there's still some tests to run, specifically a comparison between conferences.

 

A good one would be the comparison between the Big 12 and the Big 10. Reason being is these boys were recruited to play in that conference. Take the average number of passes per game thrown by Big 12 teams vs The Big Ten. The next would be The amount of rushing attempts per game by teams in the Big 12 and Big 10.

 

You'll find it to be Big 12 teams pass around 65 or 70% of the time. (Rough estimate)

I keep trying to hammer this point home and people just dont get it. They dont understand Bo's style of matchup type defense and how much film study it requires in order to gain a good knowledge of your opponents' tendancies and concepts in the pass game. In 2010, we had a veteran secondary that was not only skilled, but they had the conference opponents completely scoped out. Same in 2009. But in 2011, we changed conferences. So week in, week out, for 2 years now, we have secondary guys that are basically starting from scratch, while trying to scrap everything they learned in 2009 and '10 as freshman and sophmores of opponents they'll never play again. Put the same stress on the coaches.

 

Maybe if the styles were similar, it wouldnt have been such a tough move, but theyre not. And it has hurt. Those that say this defense wouldve been scorched in the Big 12 are just flat out wrong. This personnel was recruited to play int he Big 12. They were developed physically and mentally for 2 years to play in the Big 12. Add another 2 years worth of that physical and mental development for the Big 12 style, and I bet the 2011 and 2012 defenses wouldve been just fine, if not great.

 

Not to mention, Bo is known as an innovator and specialist in the pass defense department. He was at home in the sling-it-around Big 12. He could set the down 4 loose, and set up the back 7 in nickels and dimes on an exlusive basis and allow them to full out match routes and focus on receivers. That doesnt happen in the Big 10. While there's still spread concepts, it's a much more balanced attack, and it's taking time to adjust-both for the coaches and personell.

 

I still dont understand why this is so difficult to understand, but it's a concept that seems to escape everyone I talk it with. It's simple common sense in my eyes.

 

+10000000000000

 

We recruited different in the Big 12 as well. We loaded up on DBs and didnt need as many linebackers. The switch of leagues showed us that we hadn't recruited the linebacker position very well outside of a couple. Mainly because we didnt need to.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

+10000000000000

 

We recruited different in the Big 12 as well. We loaded up on DBs and didnt need as many linebackers. The switch of leagues showed us that we hadn't recruited the linebacker position very well outside of a couple. Mainly because we didnt need to.

Even that, the type of Dlineman was different as well. Remember how effective Meredith was? Then all a sudden we needed him to gain twenty pounds and that renedered him all but useless. Eric Martin wouldve been a tremendous DE in the Big 12 being set free every play like the front 4 was at the time.

[EZ-E]

 

 

+10000000000000

 

We recruited different in the Big 12 as well. We loaded up on DBs and didnt need as many linebackers. The switch of leagues showed us that we hadn't recruited the linebacker position very well outside of a couple. Mainly because we didnt need to.

Even that, the type of Dlineman was different as well. Remember how effective Meredith was? Then all a sudden we needed him to gain twenty pounds and that renedered him all but useless. Eric Martin wouldve been a tremendous DE in the Big 12 being set free every play like the front 4 was at the time.

 

In 10 I thought Meredith was a kid that would get drafted. He benefited greatly from good coaching in HS at Mater Dei High.

 

A kid that was really hurt by the switch was Corey Cooper. That kid is/was a Peso Back.

 

We could go on and on. Biggest disappointment for me was seeing how Will Compton was really exposed as not being very athletic in our last two games. There were plays you expect your 5th year senior to make that he didn't. It all had to do with he wasn't the athlete we need at MLB.

[The Dude]

Nothing like a nice long offseason to make us forget some of the most pathetic defensive performances in school history.

 

Individually sure, however the entire body of work isn't as bad as people are trying to make it out to be. Up to expectations? No. But we weren't Cosgrovian throughout the entire season.

We also didn't have to face all the top ten offenses we had to face with that '07 defense. So obviously there's going to be a much greater chance to be better, statistically. But what's the practical application? We still got our teeth kicked in by any offense with a pulse. All this spin isn't going to help us win championships.