Great defense without great talent

[BigRedBuster]

So, will we finally break through in 2014? And if so, how/why? Will we have a defensive team with great talent like 2009 and 2010, or will Bo and Pap find a way to make a great defense out of talent that is merely good?

I don't think so. One reason is that Bo doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with defensive stats during our non-conf warm-up games at the beginning of the season. Look at this past year. Wyoming racked up 600 yards and 35 points. South Dakota State had 465 yards and 20 points. (We did pin Southern Miss' ears back--but UCLA, our one decent non-conf game ran up and down the field on us.) To have a good statistical year we would need to hold these non-conf teams to about half this production. Instead, I think Bo is more concerned about playing a bland defense in our first couple of non-conf games that doesn't give anything away on film to the later B1G teams we play. Just look back at how much more aggressive we were at going for the QB in our last couple of games vs. our first four games. At least that's my theory. (Or maybe we had so many new starters that we didn't play as aggressive at the beginning of the year?? It could be that.)

 

 

I'm sure Bo would have loved to come out and shut down every offense to under 200 total yards all year. However, he didn't have that luxury this year because he really didn't know what he had in some players until they got into the heat of battle all together. when you have a front seven that has very little to no playing time together, it takes time. They were scrambling the first half of the year on defense and I personally think they did a dang good job with what they were trying to do with such young players.

 

After about half way through the season, they started realizing who the playmakers can be at various positions and we saw improvement.

[jaws]

 

 

I hope you were kidding with that statement. You can't just use one example and come to a conclusion.

 

AJ Green was the #2 WR coming out of HS (5*) behind Julio Jones. Great, but that doesn't tell me that all 5* guys will succeed.

 

You recruit the best for whatever system you are running and hope they pan out. Usually you are taking less of a risk athletically on 5* guys than 3* guys.

 

 

 

So you want me to go out and do all this work to prove you wrong? Forget that man. I gave you one example to get you started...you pick-up that torch and find it out for yourself since stars are so important to you.

 

Ummmm, I'm not the one that made the claim in the first place, I was just responding to huskerinacaveman. If you want to win at the highest level, you need great athletes and great coaching. It can be a crap shoot ranking these HS recruits because they are just kids. If it was the other way around, you would only be going after 2 and 3* kids.

[Landlord]

I don't think so. One reason is that Bo doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with defensive stats during our non-conf warm-up games at the beginning of the season.

 

 

Is it that he's not concerned, or that we just weren't good yet?

 

 

In 2009 we gave up 3 points, 9 points, 15 points and 0 points, along with 358 yards, 274 yards, 278 yards and 222 yards. Was he concerned then?

[NUance]

So, will we finally break through in 2014? And if so, how/why? Will we have a defensive team with great talent like 2009 and 2010, or will Bo and Pap find a way to make a great defense out of talent that is merely good?

I don't think so. One reason is that Bo doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with defensive stats during our non-conf warm-up games at the beginning of the season. Look at this past year. Wyoming racked up 600 yards and 35 points. South Dakota State had 465 yards and 20 points. (We did pin Southern Miss' ears back--but UCLA, our one decent non-conf game ran up and down the field on us.) To have a good statistical year we would need to hold these non-conf teams to about half this production. Instead, I think Bo is more concerned about playing a bland defense in our first couple of non-conf games that doesn't give anything away on film to the later B1G teams we play. Just look back at how much more aggressive we were at going for the QB in our last couple of games vs. our first four games. At least that's my theory. (Or maybe we had so many new starters that we didn't play as aggressive at the beginning of the year?? It could be that.)

 

 

I'm sure Bo would have loved to come out and shut down every offense to under 200 total yards all year. However, he didn't have that luxury this year because he really didn't know what he had in some players until they got into the heat of battle all together. when you have a front seven that has very little to no playing time together, it takes time. They were scrambling the first half of the year on defense and I personally think they did a dang good job with what they were trying to do with such young players.

 

After about half way through the season, they started realizing who the playmakers can be at various positions and we saw improvement.

Yeah, that might just be it. We'll find out this season if he plays all bland again without any pressure on the QB. OTOH, it makes more sense to pressure a newb QB like Mason of Georgia than Brett Smith of Wyoming or Brett Hundley of UCLA.

[NUance]

I don't think so. One reason is that Bo doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with defensive stats during our non-conf warm-up games at the beginning of the season.

 

 

Is it that he's not concerned, or that we just weren't good yet?

 

 

In 2009 we gave up 3 points, 9 points, 15 points and 0 points, along with 358 yards, 274 yards, 278 yards and 222 yards. Was he concerned then?

I dunno. It's just a theory. As for 2009 just look at Suh. He had 3 sacks in the first four games (UA plus A). Then Suh had 8 sacks in the last four games. Seems like Bo cut him loose towards the end there. (Colt McCoy would agree.)

[True2tRA]

I think the whole recruiting thing is a crap shoot.

 

There isn't any real way to know how good someone is going to be.

 

There is definitely a method to it, but I would say that lesser known recruits become better players more often then high caliper players pan out.

 

I absolutely disagree with this. Now, your recruiting websites and star rankings might be a bit skewed sometimes. They hit and miss regularly, but it's far from a crap shoot. Also, let's not just act like recruiters base who they go after based upon these damn websites and what these so called experts say. Some of these people know their sh#t, some don't know sh#t. Everybody is looking for something different. Each player is evaluated differently. But I'm here to tell ya, there are guys that have it down to a science. They know the strengths to look for, they know the weakness they can make strengths. They know where a guy needs to be strong. They know the bone structure, the build, the speed and strenght, and they know the guys who have the potential to have all of these things. There's a science to it and there are some guys out there scouting talent right now, that hardly ever miss. If they do miss, it's usually due to an injury of some sort.

 

That's the other aspect of this. Recruiting a kid out of hi school who is rated five stars is one thing. But if he tears his shoulder up, or rips apart a knee in his first month of practice and you never really hear the guys name again, does that mean he was a bust? Does that mean the recruiter was wrong? Nah. It just means this damn fine athlete unfortunately suffered an injury which, in the game of football, happens to be very common.

 

I don't think it's even remotely a crapshoot as you stated.

[Chaddyboxer]

I know the Georgia offense was dessimated with injuries this year as we were, but their oline was still in good shape. Their injuries was primarily skilled guys. With that said, our Dline dominated their oline all afternoon. Including Thad Randle, whom I very happy for to get to go out playing the best game of his career. I'm very encouraged on the direction of the defense right now.

I'll say it again, Thad played out of his mind. Re-watching that game.......

They ended up double-teaming him plenty of times because he was handling his man and getting in the backfield. He made some excellent plays in the run game as well. A completely different Thad rose up during that game.

[Count 'Bility]

I think the whole recruiting thing is a crap shoot.

 

There isn't any real way to know how good someone is going to be.

 

There is definitely a method to it, but I would say that lesser known recruits become better players more often then high caliper players pan out.

 

I absolutely disagree with this. Now, your recruiting websites and star rankings might be a bit skewed sometimes. They hit and miss regularly, but it's far from a crap shoot. Also, let's not just act like recruiters base who they go after based upon these damn websites and what these so called experts say. Some of these people know their sh#t, some don't know sh#t. Everybody is looking for something different. Each player is evaluated differently. But I'm here to tell ya, there are guys that have it down to a science. They know the strengths to look for, they know the weakness they can make strengths. They know where a guy needs to be strong. They know the bone structure, the build, the speed and strenght, and they know the guys who have the potential to have all of these things. There's a science to it and there are some guys out there scouting talent right now, that hardly ever miss. If they do miss, it's usually due to an injury of some sort.

 

That's the other aspect of this. Recruiting a kid out of hi school who is rated five stars is one thing. But if he tears his shoulder up, or rips apart a knee in his first month of practice and you never really hear the guys name again, does that mean he was a bust? Does that mean the recruiter was wrong? Nah. It just means this damn fine athlete unfortunately suffered an injury which, in the game of football, happens to be very common.

 

I don't think it's even remotely a crapshoot as you stated.

Dont forget roster management aspect. That dictates a lot of what you look for as well.

[jaws]

 

 

I hope you were kidding with that statement. You can't just use one example and come to a conclusion.

 

AJ Green was the #2 WR coming out of HS (5*) behind Julio Jones. Great, but that doesn't tell me that all 5* guys will succeed.

 

You recruit the best for whatever system you are running and hope they pan out. Usually you are taking less of a risk athletically on 5* guys than 3* guys.

 

 

 

So you want me to go out and do all this work to prove you wrong? Forget that man. I gave you one example to get you started...you pick-up that torch and find it out for yourself since stars are so important to you.

 

Ummmm, I'm not the one that made the claim in the first place, I was just responding to huskerinacaveman. If you want to win at the highest level, you need great athletes and great coaching. It can be a crap shoot ranking these HS recruits because they are just kids. If it was the other way around, you would only be going after 2 and 3* kids.

 

 

http://www.huskerboa...ars-dont-matter

 

That's my old thread on the star rating system. It explains everything I think about star rankings. Once you're done, read this in depth statistical analysis of the star ranking system here: https://sites.google...-matter-sort-of which concludes that Nebraska is an anomaly which has consistently had better production from lower ranked recruits....and it isn't even close how much more.

 

These are old posts of course...but you'll understand why I think that the star system is complete crap. Hope that's enough proof for you.

 

I will save that reading for another time but I will say the rankings are not 100% accurate and I have see that with OSU. For example A.J. Hawk was a 3 star guy and he did great things at OSU. I was originally asking for evidence of such a claim.

 

I will stand by my claim that you will have a better overall team if you can recruit great athletes that fit your system. However, there will be misses, for example Curtis Grant at OSU was the #1 LB in 2011 (I use OSU as an example because that is who I follow).

[Hunter94]

It has been hashed and rehashed on here dozens of times that the first few recruiting classes for Bo were not good especially on the defensive side of the ball. More specifically the D line.

 

That has improved drastically and those recruits came into this year extremely young with no experience. We saw drastic improvement as the year went on. That will carry over into next year even more when we add some of the JUCO players we have recruited.

 

Also, if you wait a couple months, this will be discussed again.

 

define drastic?.....somewhat improved, drastic?......not even close. and shame on Bo for being a defensive minded coach and not recruiting big name defensive players.....that's on him.

[Hunter94]

I think the whole recruiting thing is a crap shoot.

 

There isn't any real way to know how good someone is going to be.

 

There is definitely a method to it, but I would say that lesser known recruits become better players more often then high caliper players pan out.

 

I absolutely disagree with this. Now, your recruiting websites and star rankings might be a bit skewed sometimes. They hit and miss regularly, but it's far from a crap shoot. Also, let's not just act like recruiters base who they go after based upon these damn websites and what these so called experts say. Some of these people know their sh#t, some don't know sh#t. Everybody is looking for something different. Each player is evaluated differently. But I'm here to tell ya, there are guys that have it down to a science. They know the strengths to look for, they know the weakness they can make strengths. They know where a guy needs to be strong. They know the bone structure, the build, the speed and strenght, and they know the guys who have the potential to have all of these things. There's a science to it and there are some guys out there scouting talent right now, that hardly ever miss. If they do miss, it's usually due to an injury of some sort.

 

That's the other aspect of this. Recruiting a kid out of hi school who is rated five stars is one thing. But if he tears his shoulder up, or rips apart a knee in his first month of practice and you never really hear the guys name again, does that mean he was a bust? Does that mean the recruiter was wrong? Nah. It just means this damn fine athlete unfortunately suffered an injury which, in the game of football, happens to be very common.

 

I don't think it's even remotely a crapshoot as you stated.

 

+1

[JTrain]

So, will we finally break through in 2014? And if so, how/why? Will we have a defensive team with great talent like 2009 and 2010, or will Bo and Pap find a way to make a great defense out of talent that is merely good?

I don't think so. One reason is that Bo doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with defensive stats during our non-conf warm-up games at the beginning of the season. Look at this past year. Wyoming racked up 600 yards and 35 points. South Dakota State had 465 yards and 20 points. (We did pin Southern Miss' ears back--but UCLA, our one decent non-conf game ran up and down the field on us.) To have a good statistical year we would need to hold these non-conf teams to about half this production. Instead, I think Bo is more concerned about playing a bland defense in our first couple of non-conf games that doesn't give anything away on film to the later B1G teams we play. Just look back at how much more aggressive we were at going for the QB in our last couple of games vs. our first four games. At least that's my theory. (Or maybe we had so many new starters that we didn't play as aggressive at the beginning of the year?? It could be that.)

 

If we have a good, well-coached defense it will show up in the stats, even with three bland strategical games. See '09 and '10. There is a difference between holding back some advanced strategy and letting a team like Wyoming stay in the game until the last couple minutes.

 

Also, bland doesn't necessarily mean no blitzes. You could send six every time in a way that was strategically very mundane and yet still dominate lesser opponents. The Southern Miss performance (which you hinted at) already disproves your theory, in my opinion.

[JTrain]

Teams in grean I find it very hard to say that they had GREAT defenses. now they may have been decent stat wise due to their schedules and who they play. You put them up againt top teams and their Def doesnt look so great.

 

Well, I took out all the non-BCS AQ teams to somewhat level the playing field. Sure, there will always be schedule strength discrepancies when comparing stats, but at least we have reasonable competition with these teams. 2011 Illinois, for example, played ASU, Ohio St., Penn St., Michigan, Wisconsin and UCLA. Not too shabby. Vandy played a brutal schedule the year they made top 20 Total Defense. Also, I don't think our schedules the past two years have been anything impressive.

 

But this is nitpicking. The main point is that Nebraska has been a ways out of the top 20 in both major statistical categories. I think we all want to be there, regardless of our schedule or anyone else's.

[BigRedBuster]

It has been hashed and rehashed on here dozens of times that the first few recruiting classes for Bo were not good especially on the defensive side of the ball. More specifically the D line.

 

That has improved drastically and those recruits came into this year extremely young with no experience. We saw drastic improvement as the year went on. That will carry over into next year even more when we add some of the JUCO players we have recruited.

 

Also, if you wait a couple months, this will be discussed again.

 

define drastic?.....somewhat improved, drastic?......not even close. and shame on Bo for being a defensive minded coach and not recruiting big name defensive players.....that's on him.

 

Watch the games early in the year against teams like Wyoming, USD and UCLA and then watch the game against Georgia. HUGE difference.

 

As for the bolded part. Fine.....this has been stated probably 1,459,781,258,369,154,267,146,555.32 times. How many more times does it need to be said? Who isn't blaming him for this? Who says it's someone else's fault?

 

So what??? We are where we are and the talent is improving and we are getting more and more depth at critical positions in the front 7. So.....what good does it do to hash and rehash his mistakes in recruiting the first two-three years here? Does it change anything? Don't you think that Bo knows his mistakes too? I would think so since the problem has been improving.

[JTrain]

That's my old thread on the star rating system. It explains everything I think about star rankings. Once you're done, read this in depth statistical analysis of the star ranking system here: https://sites.google...-matter-sort-of which concludes that Nebraska is an anomaly which has consistently had better production from lower ranked recruits....and it isn't even close how much more.

 

Did you actually read the entire post you linked? It says nothing of the sort. It is only analyzing one year of on-the-field results (2011) so there's no way it can conclude anything about Nebraska consistently doing anything. It shows that, pre-bowl (blowout loss to South Carolina), Nebraska's 9-3 record was very good considering SOS (although he doesn't say where he got his SOS numbers... Sagarin had Nebraska at 26th) and Nebraska's mid-30s average recruiting rankings.