Secondary play...

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.

 

However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.

 

This was my point.

 

They say they are looking at everything, including scheme. Where do any of you get that they are not willing to try and fix it. 408 always threw the players under the bus, not this staff.

 

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

 

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

 

 

You might have seen this already (I got the link from you) but according to Riley, they are trying different things. Everything from 19:30 is on good, but the relevant part starts at 23:35, talking about how, for the first time, they switched into a Cover-6 at one point to give some help.

 

http://www.huskers.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=4468493&db_oem_id=100

 

Good post.

 

I think it's a huge fallacy for anyone to sit and assume they haven't been trying different things. Just because they may not be obvious to us doesn't mean they aren't trying them. Sometimes I wonder if people are expecting the team to trot out in different jerseys or something to prove they're trying a different coverage.

[knapplc]

Or that those fixes will be instantaneous. I'm starting to get the impression that people are going to hold this staff's years of experience against them in much the same way (and for probably the same reasons) as the last staff's relative inexperience was held against them. Basically saying, "If this staff is so experienced, why can't they fix ________?"

 

Experience on a staff isn't a guarantee of success. It's just that, in general, it's better to have experienced coaches rather than rookie coaches.

 

The other side of the equation is, no matter how great the staff is (or isn't), the players have to learn. That may happen overnight or over the course of a season. Depends on the player, I suppose.

[Mavric]

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

 

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

This is presuming Banker's been able to install all 12 years of his experience into the players' heads in nine months. That may be a little bit of an ambitious presumption.

 

 

No it really doesn't. It's entirely possible that the scheme will "work" once the players are more familiar with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't working now. And it's Banker's job to find something that does. You would think he would have some other package available for an occasion that it would be needed. If our base package is geared to stop the run, shouldn't we have a secondary package available for when we are expecting the other team to pass most of the time - such as facing a team that throws a lot or if we are ahead later in the game? That would seem like a pretty basic adjustment that a DC with that much experience would know is needed. We either have not planned for any of that or have refused to use it.

[knapplc]

How long would it take, in theory, to install a new defense if it turns out this one simply doesn't work? A week? A month? An offseason? Doesn't seem like something you could do quickly, not with game-planning for a new opponent each week, and while dealing with injuries to starters.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

That these coaches have more experience than the last staff is a fact, not a line that we've been fed.

 

However, none of that experience means anything if they're not willing or able to fix what's not working.

 

This was my point.

 

They say they are looking at everything, including scheme. Where do any of you get that they are not willing to try and fix it. 408 always threw the players under the bus, not this staff.

 

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

 

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

 

 

You might have seen this already (I got the link from you) but according to Riley, they are trying different things. Everything from 19:30 is on good, but the relevant part starts at 23:35, talking about how, for the first time, they switched into a Cover-6 at one point to give some help.

 

http://www.huskers.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=4468493&db_oem_id=100

 

Good post.

 

I think it's a huge fallacy for anyone to sit and assume they haven't been trying different things. Just because they may not be obvious to us doesn't mean they aren't trying them. Sometimes I wonder if people are expecting the team to trot out in different jerseys or something to prove they're trying a different coverage.

 

 

I'm sure there have been subtle differences. We tried some line movement against Miami that we scrapped after a couple series because it was confusing us more than them. The infamous Vine of McMullen is a line stunt. The linebackers coverage changes a little bit based on if the back they are assigned to cover releases or stays in to block. But we run almost the exact same coverage with our DBs on basically every play. The only big change is whether one safety has a deep zone or an underneath "robber" zone coverage. If I have missed anything else I'd love for someone to point out where. I haven't re-watched the Southern Miss game yet but I've watched the rest pretty closely and I can't find anything else.

[wanderful]

 

 

I'm not saying they won't try. My question is why isn't there a backup plan already? We've tried nothing different through four games. So apparently the experience hasn't really gained them much.

 

We have a simple scheme that basically gives one look to opposing QBs. All they have to do is figure out which safety is going to play the zone coverage and they know pretty much what everyone else is going to do. Usually you can tell by alignment who is covering which receiver. And opponents can basically get whatever matchup they want with formation and motion. So it seems that Banker hasn't used his 12 years experience to develop any disguises or backup plans. What you see is what you get.

This is presuming Banker's been able to install all 12 years of his experience into the players' heads in nine months. That may be a little bit of an ambitious presumption.

 

 

No it really doesn't. It's entirely possible that the scheme will "work" once the players are more familiar with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it isn't working now. And it's Banker's job to find something that does. You would think he would have some other package available for an occasion that it would be needed. If our base package is geared to stop the run, shouldn't we have a secondary package available for when we are expecting the other team to pass most of the time - such as facing a team that throws a lot or if we are ahead later in the game? That would seem like a pretty basic adjustment that a DC with that much experience would know is needed. We either have not planned for any of that or have refused to use it.

 

 

You might have seen this already (I got the link from you) but according to Riley, they are trying different things. Everything from 19:30 is on good, but the relevant part starts at 23:35, talking about how, for the first time, they switched into a Cover-6 at one point to give some help.

http://www.huskers.c...3&db_oem_id=100

[Mavric]

How long would it take, in theory, to install a new defense if it turns out this one simply doesn't work? A week? A month? An offseason? Doesn't seem like something you could do quickly, not with game-planning for a new opponent each week, and while dealing with injuries to starters.

 

It's not a new defense. It's a new coverage. If you pay attention to other teams around the coverage, they often change coverages play-to-play based on any number of things including down-and-distance and what the score is.

[zoogs]

Every coach, every team, every year, they work on things going into the season and then things don't happen exactly as they're drawn up. Sometimes there's a clear alternative to try, oftentimes there aren't and so you put new work in to deal with the evolving season. That's football.

[wanderful]

 

How long would it take, in theory, to install a new defense if it turns out this one simply doesn't work? A week? A month? An offseason? Doesn't seem like something you could do quickly, not with game-planning for a new opponent each week, and while dealing with injuries to starters.

 

It's not a new defense. It's a new coverage. If you pay attention to other teams around the coverage, they often change coverages play-to-play based on any number of things including down-and-distance and what the score is.

 

 

Got ya.

 

I think installing an entirely new defense and expecting a team to be proficient at it before the next game is about as likely to be successful as would spending a week teaching someone an entirely new language and expecting them to be fluent in it. We have what we have at the moment, tweaks are clearly necessary, but putting in an entirely new defense mid-season (especially without a bye week) seems unrealistic to me. Especially since both coaches and players talked about how they simplified the scheme as much as possible to deal with personnel issues.

 

I understand your frustration, but I don't think swapping into an entirely new scheme (or forcing the players to learn TWO new schemes in pre-season, instead of just one) is a realistic answer.

[knapplc]

Are we talking about different coverage packages or whole new schemes?

[NUinID]

If you are looking for a fix in the secondary this year it may not be forthcoming. I think we need to be searching for better, serviceable is a good way to put it. Lets get the average given up down to about 300 per game for the next 8 games. That is serviceable.

[knapplc]

Are we really that broken? It seemed like quite a few of the plays we've given up were pinpoint passes, or as fixable as the DB turning his head as the ball arrives. South Alabama threw several rainbows that dropped in perfectly, low-percentage passes that hit. In fact, I'd like to see how often a team has thrown a pass longer than 25 yards against us that wasn't completed. It's typically a low-percentage play, but I'm thinking our opponents have completed more than that, maybe more than 75% of the time.

 

We've seen some bad corner play, sure, but we've also seen some really accurate passing, too. Unusually so.

 

 

Or am I way off base here?

[Mavric]

Are we really that broken? It seemed like quite a few of the plays we've given up were pinpoint passes, or as fixable as the DB turning his head as the ball arrives. South Alabama threw several rainbows that dropped in perfectly, low-percentage passes that hit. In fact, I'd like to see how often a team has thrown a pass longer than 25 yards against us that wasn't completed. It's typically a low-percentage play, but I'm thinking our opponents have completed more than that, maybe more than 75% of the time.

 

We've seen some bad corner play, sure, but we've also seen some really accurate passing, too. Unusually so.

 

 

Or am I way off base here?

 

Plenty of people have tried to say this but I think that's grasping at straws at this point. We've been through four games and at least six different quarterbacks and they've all done the same thing.

 

People also tried to down-play South Alabama's success by saying they had one really good receiver. He had 6 catches for 147 yards and a TD against us. He has 4 catches for 61 yards and a TD in his other three games COMBINED. And those games are against Gardner-Webb, San Diego State and North Carolina State.

 

I can't see how claiming all this is simply some bad luck is anything but refusing to see the obvious at this point. If we were giving up 25% fewer passing yards per game than we are, we'd still be #110 in the country.

[knapplc]

I'm not claiming anything. I'm wondering if it's possible. I've watched enough football to know it's not easy to complete passes of that length very often. It's a valid question.

[Mavric]

Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? I don't think so. Opponents may be completing more long passes against us but that's just as likely if not more to be because it's easier to complete those passes against us than it is other teams.

 

And the stat say it's not just the long passes.

- We are dead last in the country in passes of 10+ yards given up. We've given up 57, median is 31

- We are dead last in the country in passes of 20+ yards given up. Us - 24, median - 11

- We are #127 (out of 128) in the country in passes of 30+ yards given up. Us - 14, worst - 15, median - 5

- We are #118 in the country in passes of 40+ yards given up. Us - 6, worst - 11, median - 2

- We are #126 in the country in passes of 50+ yards given up. Us - 5, worst - 7, median - 1

- We have not given up a 60+ yard pass. Neither have 69 other teams.

 

So you could actually argue that we are (relatively) better against the longer pass than the shorter passes. But the point is that it is so astronomically against it just being a quirk at this point that's it basically excludes that possibility.