Still want to keep Diaco?

[4skers89]

19 minutes ago, BartonHusker said:

As I mentioned in another thread, I will not hammer on Diaco that much because he is coaching personnel that does not fit his 3-4 defense overall.   Sure there are some pieces that fit the puzzle but there are many others that would normally not be recruited for a 3-4 defense.   Not to mention this is his first year implementing this defense here. Tough to look great when players are still in the learning phase.  Wisconsin has been running the 3-4 since the Andersen days.  Regardless if this is their third defensive coordinator, the personnel is meant for that defense. 

I don't put a lot of stock in the excuse of not having the right players.  Wisconsin went to a 3-4 in 2013 and their defense improved immediately.  https://www.landof10.com/wisconsin/freedom-intensity-ignite-wisconsins-3-4-defense-national-powerhouse  Coaching matters.

[Nebhawk]

OK

1 hour ago, 4skers89 said:

I don't put a lot of stock in the excuse of not having the right players.  Wisconsin went to a 3-4 in 2013 and their defense improved immediately.  https://www.landof10.com/wisconsin/freedom-intensity-ignite-wisconsins-3-4-defense-national-powerhouse  Coaching matters.

Ok, then we have a talent and coaching dilemma?  This is what I am saying all the time.  Its not just a coaching issue and not just a talent issue.  Its a very much a problem with both not adding up.  Our talent is not good enough and our coaching is not good enough.  It all falls back to having the right personel in all phases.  If we had the right staff, who would bring in the right players at least we would have a chance to compete!

[Nebhawk]

Its also ironic that in the first year of the B1G we competed with Big 12 recruited talent?  See the irony there?

[In the Deed the Glory]

1 minute ago, Nebhawk said:

Its also ironic that in the first year of the B1G we competed with Big 12 recruited talent?  See the irony there?

 

And in the second year we were in the championship game.

[4skers89]

1 minute ago, Nebhawk said:

OK

Ok, then we have a talent and coaching dilemma?  This is what I am saying all the time.  Its not just a coaching issue and not just a talent issue.  Its a very much a problem with both not adding up.  Our talent is not good enough and our coaching is not good enough.  It all falls back to having the right personel in all phases.  If we had the right staff, who would bring in the right players at least we would have a chance to compete!

I'm not sure the talent argument works unless somehow you could show that Wisconsin talent went up from 2012 to 2013.  I don't know if our defense has statistically improved or declined from last year but I don't think our talent level has changed significantly.  If it goes down then coaching is probably an issue since as Wisconsin has shown, it's possible to change schemes and get better.  I was addressing Barton's notion that having the right players for a scheme is so important.  I don't think it is.

[Hayseed]

3 hours ago, Nebhawk said:

What been recruited: Does not = whats on the field in production.  Why is this such a misconception with this sport?  Football recruiting is a big gamble.  I think that there is a level in recruiting that just doesn't matter.  I have read, and threaded this before, but around TOP 15 teams and after are just numbers and guesses.  It shows doesn't it?  I mean, KSU has had classes in the 50's for years, and manage to win 9 games a season for the most part.  Wisky is in the mid to last 30's each year............wins the west most of the time........?

It's such a joke that the ranking doesn't even take into consideration if you've filled your positions.....just a bunch of random stars.

[Nebhawk]

What is our recruiting foot print now?  California or bust?  I don't have an issue with California, but are we getting B1G ready talent from there?  We always hit Texas hard and got really  good talent.  Not saying that its got to be Texas, but are we even going there anymore?  

 

I guess I don't understand where we are going for talent.

[Vitalis Jackson]

21 hours ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

 

I don't know, I think we were pretty angry at Japan in WW2.  You can get off your damn high horse whenever you see fit, fella.  Nobody here is impressed by you.  Love how you bark orders, then talk down to people.  Lucky you didn't choke on that silver spoon when you were little, bub.

 

Well, you sure told me a thing or two. Sorry for my contrary opinions and positive outlook.

[Hayseed]

23 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

After NU tied the game at 17 on the pick 6, Diaco's D allowed Wisconsin to have back to back drives of 93 and 80 yards. 18 of the 20 plays were on the ground. That's not good. 

As far as this thread goes, it doesn't matter if we want to keep Diaco or not. Stating the obvious that our guys got worn down and rolled by a tougher team doesn't change the fact that he's our DC for the rest of the year and our record is now 0-0. It also doesn't alter that the players will be our players the rest of the year.

I see huge improvement from the first game ,but it's no secret that there's a bunch of work left to do. I enjoyed this game up until the rolling; hopefully we can see an entire game of the good part sometime soon.

[Danimal]

23 hours ago, Decked said:

Offense having those short drives didn't exactly help. We're completely gassed.

 

True, our mediocre offense got shut-down in the second-half and that certainly helped Wiscy's offense wear-out our D. 

 

In general I think the Diaco love has gone a little overboard but he's done a fair job with what he has to work with. We should have been really beating the bushes in the JUCO ranks to fortify this defense and didn't do it. Now we are thin and we got exposed against a very physical team. 

[Notre Dame Joe]

6 hours ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

 

Diaco's defense did pretty well at Notre Dame and UConn...well...

the comments are as familiar as 4 yrs ago.   Diaco just won't stack the box or call press coverage if your endzone is still far away.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

14 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

the comments are as familiar as 4 yrs ago.   Diaco just won't stack the box or call press coverage if your endzone is still far away.

He did once on 3rd and short and we got burned for 17 yards 

[B.B. Hemingway]

OP...... Yes.

[Isle of View]

15 hours ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

All of these numbers for recruiting means that in high school our players were better at high school football, but they have not developed throughout college to be good college football players.

Exactly.  They're getting crappy coaching.

[VectorVictor]

Folks--if you're gonna bag on the defense and get it right, you've got to rip Langsdorf and Riley a new one for completely tanking the offense in the second half. This simple stat that the OWH called out alone explains many (not all) of our defensive woes that second half:

 

Quote

Stat of the game: 8:22 — Possession time Nebraska had after halftime, which led to only four drives. NU was out-possessed 36:41-23:19 overall.

 

Maybe instead of an offense that puts up 35 passing attempts (and only makes 18 of them) to 26 rushing attempts, the ratio could be flipped to give your defense an opportunity to catch their breath and succeed, especially in the second half. 

 

This defense only gave up 10 points in the first half to a salty Wisky team--let's not overlook this, as some of you are prone to do. The breakdowns and failures on defense came in the second half when our offense failed miserably, and the only score that we got was courtesy of the defense. You can't look at the defensive performance and judge in a vacuum--it's part of a whole team effort, and when one half of your team flops around like a dead fish and is coached by one of the most inept OCs to sully Nebraska's halls, it's kinda hard to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of a defense that is still in the first half of a season playing a new scheme.