I would only fire Banker IF...

[marko polo]

As to why he should be fired, quite simply his defenses have been bad.

 

Last year, we were #92 in the country in yards allowed per play.

 

This year we are a more respectable #46. But we've had the benefit of playing a lot of bad offenses. We played the #124, #105, #97(t), #113, #71, #97(t), #100, #73 and #94 offenses in yards per play.

 

Below is a comparison of how many yards per play we allowed for the year compared to what our opponents averaged for the same year. Not a perfect metric but it adjusts for several variables such as strength of offenses faced and pace of play. As you can see, last year's defense was within a stone's throw of the 2007 unit for the worst in the last 14 years (as far back as I could find stats). This year's seems better because of the bad offenses we faced but is really right in the ballpark with the vaunted Callahan defenses. The yards per play we allowed were all but identical to the rest of the defenses our opponents faced meaning we were barley above average.

 

YEAR - YPP - OYPP - DIFF

2003 - 4.3 - 5.15 -(0.85)

 

2004 - 5.0 - 4.91 - 0.09

2005 - 4.6 - 4.85 -(0.25)

2006 - 5.2 - 5.38 -(0.18)

2007 - 6.0 - 5.53 - 0.47

 

2008 - 5.4 - 5.41 -(0.01)

2009 - 3.9 - 5.21 -(1.31)

2010 - 4.5 - 5.29 -(0.79)

2011 - 5.2 - 5.51 -(0.31)

2012 - 5.3 - 5.48 -(0.18)

2013 - 4.9 - 5.36 -(0.46)

2014 - 5.2 - 5.53 -(0.33)

 

2015 - 5.7 - 5.28 - 0.42

2016 - 5.2 - 5.30 -(0.10)

 

We were also poor in allowing 20+ yard runs (#83 in the country) and Red Zone defense (scoring % - #80).

This^

[BoNeyard]

Banker did fine this year IMO. The Ohio State game was completely unacceptable, but oh well. The Iowa gam i dont think was a coaching X's and O's problem, but a pure lack of heart problem from the defense.

 

In the mid 2000's Banker's defenses were pretty good at a under talented Oregon State program. He lost a lot on the D-line this year. I think Banker is very deserving of another year, and actually firing him doesnt make much sense at this point. I feel our defense improved greatly from last year to this year, and he even lost a lot of talent along the way.

[Jason Sitoke]

Banker did fine this year IMO. The Ohio State game was completely unacceptable, but oh well. The Iowa gam i dont think was a coaching X's and O's problem, but a pure lack of heart problem from the defense.

 

In the mid 2000's Banker's defenses were pretty good at a under talented Oregon State program. He lost a lot on the D-line this year. I think Banker is very deserving of another year, and actually firing him doesnt make much sense at this point. I feel our defense improved greatly from last year to this year, and he even lost a lot of talent along the way.

I can agree it might not be time to fire him. However, I do not believe it is unfair to ask 'can we upgrade'? If the answer is no, then keep him for now.

 

I believe Banker to be an average coaching talent with a relatively tapped out ceiling. Just my opinion. I think Nebraska requires some above average coordinators to get where the fans want them to be.

[VectorVictor]

I'm willing to overlook the Ohio State game mainly because a) of the hole our offense put the team in from the beginning, b) the uncertainty and worry about TA, and c) that Langdorf did the defense zero favors the whole game with his s***acular playcalling.

 

But Iowa...yeah, that was one of two games this year (the other being the Oregon game by virtue of hindsight and seeing how that team panned out) where our defense looked unprepared and out-hustled by inferior talent. And this is something Banker can take back and learn from.

 

Problem is, I'm more concerned with Langsdorf and his inability to look at the big picture when calling a game on the offensive side of things (e.g. that his playcalling needs to not only move the ball, but help a struggling defense out--see tOSU) or his willingness to learn and expand--it seemed that he begrudgingly moved towards more rushing calls only after people lambasted him. And if Riley's talk about going after dual-threat QBs in the future is legitimate, then Langsdorf has already shown that he's not the best suited in playcalling for those types of QBs.

 

Frankly, if we're seriously going to talk upgrading coordinators, I'd rather we discuss potential replacements for Langsdorf over Banker. The latter coach, save for the Iowa game, really has shown improvement IMO since last year.

[BoNeyard]

 

Banker did fine this year IMO. The Ohio State game was completely unacceptable, but oh well. The Iowa gam i dont think was a coaching X's and O's problem, but a pure lack of heart problem from the defense.

 

In the mid 2000's Banker's defenses were pretty good at a under talented Oregon State program. He lost a lot on the D-line this year. I think Banker is very deserving of another year, and actually firing him doesnt make much sense at this point. I feel our defense improved greatly from last year to this year, and he even lost a lot of talent along the way.

I can agree it might not be time to fire him. However, I do not believe it is unfair to ask 'can we upgrade'? If the answer is no, then keep him for now.

 

I believe Banker to be an average coaching talent with a relatively tapped out ceiling. Just my opinion. I think Nebraska requires some above average coordinators to get where the fans want them to be.

 

Over Banker's career he has had not much talent on his side. At Oregon State he was dealing with 11 starters, but zero depth. Some of those 11 starters were talented, but not all. He certainly has the talent or at least more talent at Nebraska then he did at OSU and he will have the depth next season. Guy lost a lot of talent after his first year, and he made improvements.

 

I am with you, if there isn't any better we stick with him and I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Red_Payne]

I agree; However, I don't want to see him let go unless a MAJOR upgrade can be attained, not just a suitable or slightly better replacement can be found (which I don't think Riley can find, atm). Scrapping a D-scheme for a new one again would hurt the defensive development/growth; and it isn't worth the re-vamped growing pains unless the new coordinator is proven to be able to come up with a strong defensive gameplan, is able to recruit for that scheme (as that will be a huge proponent at a program without top level recruits within the vicinity), and can successfully implement that scheme within a "relatively" short period of time.

 

I have NO CLUE who fits that bill, and the potential level of interest of those that do.

Ideas?

[BigRedBuster]

Another factor here is he would need replaced if recruiting fell off on that side of the ball.

Right now, our best recruit is an LB and we are in on some good players on that side.

[Mavric]

Sorry, I realize we got off on a TA tangent in a Banker thread.

 

Moved that series of posts here.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I would like to hear intelligible conversation as to what's so wrong with Banker at this point. Lot of uneducation generalizations based on nothing. You do realize that Banker is the DEFensive coordinator, right?

That's because people grasp at straws when things go wrong. A lot of what happened on Friday was on the players, both in effort and technique.

 

 

 

I'm not fully understanding the Banker hate either. 10 games this year, our defense played pretty decent. We had two blow outs.

 

Taking the Iowa game. In the 10 games that weren't blow outs, we played pretty decent against teams with the same type of talent Iowa has. Iowa wasn't running some type of trick plays we had never seen before. But...it was like the players were out of sync and out of position on the big plays.

 

That game was lost basically on three big plays in the first half by Iowa. They weren't anything special and they were plays we defended well in other games. So....this tells me the scheme is not a problem in stopping these plays. AND...the players obviously knew how to defend them because we have seen them do it before.

 

I'm failing to see how this is evidence that the coordinator should be fired.

 

So who do we say is mostly responsible for allowing Melvin Gordon to run for 408 yards? The defense was pretty good in the rest of the games that year.

 

Very good point.

 

I guess my point would be that by that time, Bo had been here 7 years. Banker has been here only two. Admittedly...that's a weak argument.

 

I'm not a defensive genius but here is my view of the two games.

 

When Gordon was running for 408, I saw a team that was being beat because of scheme. The players weren't anywhere close to in position to make the plays over and over and over again. The same players over and over and over again. Adjustments weren't made and instead of coaching and finding a solution, the coach was melting down on the sidelines taking up the assistant's time listening to his rants instead of allowing them to do their jobs.

 

Against Iowa this year, as I pointed out earlier, it boiled down to three plays. Three plays killed us and broke our backs and made up half of their entire offensive production. The mistakes I saw on the tape, were situations where the scheme put the players in a position to make a play, they just flat out didn't. The first long TD was Banderas over running the play and the safety may have slightly been out of position. The second long TD reception was the safety out of position to be able to cover that route. Does some of that blame go to Banker? Sure. I don't totally absolve him of any blame.

 

Another thing.

 

Iowa = three plays of 200 yards. Team gained 408 in entire game.

 

Wisconsin = ONE player gains 408 while entire team gains 627.

 

Just looking at those two stats makes me look at the situations differently.

 

 

PS....I find it interesting that the stat "408" is in both games.

 

PSS....and...as I've stated, if Riley announces this afternoon that Banker is being replaced, I'm not going to shed a tear or get upset. He knows what is going on behind the scenes and I'm just saying as a fan, I haven't seen anything yet that would say he absolutely HAS to be replaced.

[Mavric]

As to why he should be fired, quite simply his defenses have been bad.

 

Last year, we were #92 in the country in yards allowed per play.

 

This year we are a more respectable #46. But we've had the benefit of playing a lot of bad offenses. We played the #124, #105, #97(t), #113, #71, #97(t), #100, #73 and #94 offenses in yards per play.

 

I'm not saying we should have been a playoff contender this year, but this gives you a little idea where we're at and why I think yards per play is a good stat to look at.

 

[Mavric]

 

 

 

I would like to hear intelligible conversation as to what's so wrong with Banker at this point. Lot of uneducation generalizations based on nothing. You do realize that Banker is the DEFensive coordinator, right?

That's because people grasp at straws when things go wrong. A lot of what happened on Friday was on the players, both in effort and technique.

 

 

 

I'm not fully understanding the Banker hate either. 10 games this year, our defense played pretty decent. We had two blow outs.

 

Taking the Iowa game. In the 10 games that weren't blow outs, we played pretty decent against teams with the same type of talent Iowa has. Iowa wasn't running some type of trick plays we had never seen before. But...it was like the players were out of sync and out of position on the big plays.

 

That game was lost basically on three big plays in the first half by Iowa. They weren't anything special and they were plays we defended well in other games. So....this tells me the scheme is not a problem in stopping these plays. AND...the players obviously knew how to defend them because we have seen them do it before.

 

I'm failing to see how this is evidence that the coordinator should be fired.

 

So who do we say is mostly responsible for allowing Melvin Gordon to run for 408 yards? The defense was pretty good in the rest of the games that year.

 

Very good point.

 

I guess my point would be that by that time, Bo had been here 7 years. Banker has been here only two. Admittedly...that's a weak argument.

 

I'm not a defensive genius but here is my view of the two games.

 

When Gordon was running for 408, I saw a team that was being beat because of scheme. The players weren't anywhere close to in position to make the plays over and over and over again. The same players over and over and over again. Adjustments weren't made and instead of coaching and finding a solution, the coach was melting down on the sidelines taking up the assistant's time listening to his rants instead of allowing them to do their jobs.

 

Against Iowa this year, as I pointed out earlier, it boiled down to three plays. Three plays killed us and broke our backs and made up half of their entire offensive production. The mistakes I saw on the tape, were situations where the scheme put the players in a position to make a play, they just flat out didn't. The first long TD was Banderas over running the play and the safety may have slightly been out of position. The second long TD reception was the safety out of position to be able to cover that route. Does some of that blame go to Banker? Sure. I don't totally absolve him of any blame.

 

Another thing.

 

Iowa = three plays of 200 yards. Team gained 408 in entire game.

 

Wisconsin = ONE player gains 408 while entire team gains 627.

 

Just looking at those two stats makes me look at the situations differently.

 

 

PS....I find it interesting that the stat "408" is in both games.

 

PSS....and...as I've stated, if Riley announces this afternoon that Banker is being replaced, I'm not going to shed a tear or get upset. He knows what is going on behind the scenes and I'm just saying as a fan, I haven't seen anything yet that would say he absolutely HAS to be replaced.

 

 

I figured the year 7 vs. year 2 would be the main defense. And it's not to be totally discounted. But I don't particularly care about that. Either you're getting the job done or you're not.

 

The other side of comparing those two coins is the relative strength of the offenses faced. Wisconsin was the #4 rushing offense in the country that year. Iowa is the #119 offense this year. So that's not exactly comparing apples to apples either. And I don't think Wadley is Gordon. Gordon ran for 196 in an NFL game recently (261 yards from scrimmage that game). That's not to discount the horrific defense against him. But I don't think we've been facing that type of offense lately.

 

I just think the "it's one game" argument doesn't hold much water.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

As to why he should be fired, quite simply his defenses have been bad.

 

Last year, we were #92 in the country in yards allowed per play.

 

This year we are a more respectable #46. But we've had the benefit of playing a lot of bad offenses. We played the #124, #105, #97(t), #113, #71, #97(t), #100, #73 and #94 offenses in yards per play.

 

I'm not saying we should have been a playoff contender this year, but this gives you a little idea where we're at and why I think yards per play is a good stat to look at.

 

 

I think yards per play is a good stat to look at, because it takes away the impact a team's offense can have on the defense. Riley and Langsdorf prefer to have a slower paced offense partly to help the defense. I understand the strategy, but it also masks the true effectiveness of the defense.

 

For example, Nebraska and Penn State allow the same points per game (22.8 PPG) and nearly the same yards per game (350.6 for NU, 346.8 for PSU). Where Penn State's defense is vastly superior to NU is yards per play (4.81 vs. 5.40). That is nearly a 2 yard difference every 3 plays. That is pretty significant in allowing first downs and big plays from the opponent.