Rewatched Game- Defensive Thoughts

[admo]

Yes. In the first half, MLB Santos was pretty much out on an island. We played nickel & dime mostly with 2-high safeties. In the second half we brought one of the safeties up into the box to help against the run. Not every play though. WYO then adjusted by running when they saw Jackson stay back, and passed when he move up into the box. The corners played soft press. Also when Smith broke his long run in the second quarter, there was absolutely no one in the middle of the field. Same thing for the RB in 1st quarter. In the third quarter we got a big break when they snapped the ball over Smith's head. The inside screen was there with the left half of the field empty. He didn't have enough time to recover and make the throw. That cost them 7 points if not 3.

So, our DTs and DEs are basically useless against the run, reading between the lines..

 

LOL no, not useless against the run. The question asked was for 'thoughts on why they were gaining like 8-9 yards a pop in the ground game'. Just answered what I saw on those type of runs. The second level struggled. Formation and Strategy played a part. Throw in limited and/or inexperience, a mobile QB that was also an accurate passer, and they struggled. Until we brought a safety up from the third level in the third quarter, I saw the second level struggle throughout the first half. It was as clear as the middle of the field to see that, more often than not. Unfortunately. Against more talented teams -UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan - the chances that we might play from behind with that same 1st half strategy will probably increase.

[HuskerFowler]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

 

This is funny, pretty much admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.

[StPaulHusker]

So I was pretty much off the grid the last few days so if it has been said and/or repeated to death, I apologize. Just wanted to finally get my 2 cents in. I think with as many new faces that were on defense starting the game and ultimately playing in the game, I chalk Wyoming up to a barometer of where the younger players are for readiness and ability. It was really a growing pain. There might be even more in games down the road. A lot of the defensive players that were on the field last played a game in HS where they were the best player on the field. Now they have seen what the bigger game is like and things will hopefully settle down for them.

[Hunter94]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

 

This is funny, pretty much admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I will help him...the strength of our defense, our secondary, took a sh#t!

[BigRedBuster]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

 

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

 

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

 

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

 

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

 

Is the main difference simply the safety?

 

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

[Hunter94]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

 

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

 

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

 

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

 

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

 

Is the main difference simply the safety?

 

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

 

 

you would increase the chance of a lot of big plays...Bo likes the bend, don't break D.

[knapplc]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

 

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

 

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

 

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

 

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

 

Is the main difference simply the safety?

 

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

 

 

you would increase the chance of a lot of big plays...Bo likes the bend, don't break D.

 

While the big-play chances do increase, Bo is wrong for two reasons. One, because his defense as it stands gives up big plays/yardage/points, and has done so for three years. Two, because if you never (or very rarely) put a hit on the opposing QB, they become comfortable in the game and their accuracy doesn't suffer.

 

Brett Smith looked like gangbusters out there Saturday, but he's not better than Danny Weurffel, and we pounded that kid into the turf. We had fast and aggressive LBs that were allowed to mercilessly pursue the quarterback, put hits on him all game, and in general take the fight out of him. There are very few QBs who can take three quarters of constant pounding and still have an excellent 4th quarter like Smith.

 

That's why I'm on about Zaire Anderson in other posts/threads. He looks like some of our old LBs, he has shown that kind of aggression, and he should have a chance to put that on display.

[admo]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

 

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

 

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

 

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

 

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

 

Is the main difference simply the safety?

 

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

Steroids.

[admo]

Of course I am only kidding ;-)

[Hunter94]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

 

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

 

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

 

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

 

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

 

Is the main difference simply the safety?

 

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

 

 

you would increase the chance of a lot of big plays...Bo likes the bend, don't break D.

 

While the big-play chances do increase, Bo is wrong for two reasons. One, because his defense as it stands gives up big plays/yardage/points, and has done so for three years. Two, because if you never (or very rarely) put a hit on the opposing QB, they become comfortable in the game and their accuracy doesn't suffer.

 

Brett Smith looked like gangbusters out there Saturday, but he's not better than Danny Weurffel, and we pounded that kid into the turf. We had fast and aggressive LBs that were allowed to mercilessly pursue the quarterback, put hits on him all game, and in general take the fight out of him. There are very few QBs who can take three quarters of constant pounding and still have an excellent 4th quarter like Smith.

 

That's why I'm on about Zaire Anderson in other posts/threads. He looks like some of our old LBs, he has shown that kind of aggression, and he should have a chance to put that on display.

 

 

I understand completely...at the very least, we should mix it up on D....

[ADS]

Steroids?

 

[BigRedBuster]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

 

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

 

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

 

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

 

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

 

Is the main difference simply the safety?

 

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

 

 

you would increase the chance of a lot of big plays...Bo likes the bend, don't break D.

 

While the big-play chances do increase, Bo is wrong for two reasons. One, because his defense as it stands gives up big plays/yardage/points, and has done so for three years. Two, because if you never (or very rarely) put a hit on the opposing QB, they become comfortable in the game and their accuracy doesn't suffer.

 

Brett Smith looked like gangbusters out there Saturday, but he's not better than Danny Weurffel, and we pounded that kid into the turf. We had fast and aggressive LBs that were allowed to mercilessly pursue the quarterback, put hits on him all game, and in general take the fight out of him. There are very few QBs who can take three quarters of constant pounding and still have an excellent 4th quarter like Smith.

 

That's why I'm on about Zaire Anderson in other posts/threads. He looks like some of our old LBs, he has shown that kind of aggression, and he should have a chance to put that on display.

 

 

How much has new rules protecting the QB changed how Bo looks at this? After all, the one time we had a player get to the QB and put a good hit on him we got a penalty for 15 yards. This year, it is possible that player gets thrown out of the game.

 

I agree with you. That is what we need. I'm trying to figure out why Bo wouldn't do that. He is one hell of a lot better coach than we are.

[HuskerShark]

I'm also getting tired of the stubbornness with the 2-high safety look. I'd trade Harvey Jackson out for Zaire any day and put him in the box to either blitz or play shallow zone coverage.

 

I love our matchup zone defense most of the time, but if our DBs aren't on the same page at all times, it hurts us big time. If Smith would have thrown to the right receiver on SJB's INT, it would have been a wide open TD.

 

I think the athletes we have on this defense are going to be great for us. A bunch of them showed flashes of being great play-makers already. My gripe is with the scheme. First, the 2-high safeties. And even more than that at times, the 2-gap pressure that our DL is forced to run. You have to get pressure up the middle and contain on the outside. This paddy-cake crap just makes me sick.

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Yes. In the first half, MLB Santos was pretty much out on an island. We played nickel & dime mostly with 2-high safeties. In the second half we brought one of the safeties up into the box to help against the run. Not every play though. WYO then adjusted by running when they saw Jackson stay back, and passed when he move up into the box. The corners played soft press. Also when Smith broke his long run in the second quarter, there was absolutely no one in the middle of the field. Same thing for the RB in 1st quarter. In the third quarter we got a big break when they snapped the ball over Smith's head. The inside screen was there with the left half of the field empty. He didn't have enough time to recover and make the throw. That cost them 7 points if not 3.

So, our DTs and DEs are basically useless against the run, reading between the lines..

 

LOL no, not useless against the run. The question asked was for 'thoughts on why they were gaining like 8-9 yards a pop in the ground game'. Just answered what I saw on those type of runs. The second level struggled. Formation and Strategy played a part. Throw in limited and/or inexperience, a mobile QB that was also an accurate passer, and they struggled. Until we brought a safety up from the third level in the third quarter, I saw the second level struggle throughout the first half. It was as clear as the middle of the field to see that, more often than not. Unfortunately. Against more talented teams -UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan - the chances that we might play from behind with that same 1st half strategy will probably increase.

Nice analysis, now I'm really scared...

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

 

This is funny, pretty much admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh ok, well Big Red nearly had an epic, historic loss for the ages. Aaaand, we dropped 4 spots in the polls after this "illustrious" performance, you know, a win. Maybe you can spin that one, big guy..