Diaco's Best Defense in Country!

[Dansker]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

My question has never changed.

 

Well, I'm not going to keep repeating myself, lol. You don't get it, that's OK, moving on now.

[Warrior10]

16 hours ago, FTW said:

 

It's simple you just can't comprehend anything that has more than 1 sentence or a punchline. I don't like our defense. I haven't since Bob arrived. I've said since game 1 our biggest weakness is DL. 

 

Allpreseason we heard stories about how good they were going to be. They suck, that's the best way to put it. It's just like the offense. Why change something that wasn't broken to begin with? Fired Solich and made wholesale changes on offense. Here we are 10 years later making wholesale changes on the other side of the ball when the 4-3 has proven to be successful in Lincoln. Bob's not going to get the time to continue his mediocre "winning strategy" of a defense. If Frost is named the HC or someone else for that matter, odds are the 34 will be gone, too. Already teams have steamrolled Bob's no crease defense. It's no where near as versatile as a 43 defense which won us many conference titles and 3 NC's in the past 30+ years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Actually if it's up to Frost and he brings his DC, we'll likely run the 3-4.

[Dansker]

27 minutes ago, Warrior10 said:

Actually if it's up to Frost and he brings his DC, we'll likely run the 3-4.

 

Erik Chinander? He runs a multiple D, it is primarily a 4-3 scheme.

[Roll Skers]

14 hours ago, brophog said:

 

Maybe. Tough to say that specifically. But I can say, that was a poor 9 win team, actually not much better than the previous 6 win team, when you look at the kinds of stats I've posted recently. Nebraska posted negative differentials in pass pct, rushing ypc, and yards per play. That's unusual for a 9 win team. 

When he couldn't run vs Iowa, or when Immobile Ryker was qb1 vs Tennessee we got SMOKED

[TGHusker]

On 10/24/2017 at 10:32 PM, FTW said:

 

I'd take Erik Chinander's aggressive attacking multiple scheme over Diaco's passive scheme every day of the week. People seem to forget, we rattled off 3 natty's with an attacking aggressive 4-3 defense that took risks. 

agree - when I envisioned the3-4 I thought it would be attacking.  A D has to be attacking to disrupt speed. The good offenses are filled wt speed and we have to disrupt it wt aggressiveness and not giving space to that speed.  That only increases the advantage that speedy teams have.

[Warrior10]

24 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

Erik Chinander? He runs a multiple D, it is primarily a 4-3 scheme.

I disagree that he runs primarily 4-3. In the games I've watched this year it seems they've been in the 3-4 a lot more. For example, against Maryland, the first 2 series (10 plays) they ran the 3-4 9 of the 10. The 1 other was a long 3rd down where they had 2 guys down and 4 standing. I don't care enough to go back and watch anymore to prove this point though. 

 

One could argue he runs a multiple D, but I think that is true with most depending on down/distance. 

 

However, I do believe their are schematic differences between his 3-4 and Diaco's.

 

 

[Dansker]

4 hours ago, Warrior10 said:

I disagree that he runs primarily 4-3. In the games I've watched this year it seems they've been in the 3-4 a lot more. For example, against Maryland, the first 2 series (10 plays) they ran the 3-4 9 of the 10. The 1 other was a long 3rd down where they had 2 guys down and 4 standing. I don't care enough to go back and watch anymore to prove this point though. 

 

One could argue he runs a multiple D, but I think that is true with most depending on down/distance. 

 

However, I do believe their are schematic differences between his 3-4 and Diaco's.

 

 

 

We agree to disagree then while I've seen them run 3-4 I've seen more 4-3. They're multiple on D and mix it up.

[Red Five]

15 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

We agree to disagree then while I've seen them run 3-4 I've seen more 4-3. They're multiple on D and mix it up.

Glancing at some highlights, they seem to be in a 3-4 way more than a 4-3

 

 

 

[Warrior10]

26 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

We agree to disagree then while I've seen them run 3-4 I've seen more 4-3. They're multiple on D and mix it up.

You've peaked my interest because I am a big fan of his 3-4. What games did you see a lot of 4-3 in so I can compare?

 

I just watched the 1st drive vs Memphis and they ran 3-4 7 of the 8 plays. The other was goal-line D at the 2. 

[brophog]

33 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

We agree to disagree then while I've seen them run 3-4 I've seen more 4-3. They're multiple on D and mix it up.

 

Most are trending that way.

[Hayseed]

What Diaco said is somewhat true.

Put Suh at DT and David at LB....Taylor spends most of the night grazing.

Question: What is the chance of this staff getting guys like that?

Judging from what I’ve seen so far....pretty slim.

[Dansker]

6 minutes ago, Hayseed said:

What Diaco said is somewhat true.

Put Suh at DT and David at LB....Taylor spends most of the night grazing.

Question: What is the chance of this staff getting guys like that?

Judging from what I’ve seen so far....pretty slim.

 

That's the issue I have with the 3-4. In a 4-3 all you really need is two good DT's in a 3-4 you need 3 really outstanding DL altogether and if one goes down, you're screwed unless you've got depth. A Suh, Crick, Valentine, these guys are rare finds, I agree. It's even harder to get these guys in the conference we play in. I can level with Diaco and probably say he just doesn't have his guys. It's his first year. But still, that doesn't excuse three blowout losses. The Oregon game felt similar to 2015 Purdue. We were down 42-16 to the Boilermakers at one point in that game and fought back.

 

I feel the same way I do about Diaco that I did about Banker in 2015. It's not going to work in the long run, IMO. The guy will land on his feet somewhere, maybe Bama?

[Warrior10]

FTW can I get an answer on what games to watch to see a majority 4-3?

[brophog]

55 minutes ago, FTW said:

That's the issue I have with the 3-4. In a 4-3 all you really need is two good DT's in a 3-4 you need 3 really outstanding DL altogether and if one goes down, you're screwed unless you've got depth.

 

You dont "need" anything more in a 3-4 front than a 4-3 front as both can be played even or odd, 1 or 2 gap. The word "the" before 3-4 implies a singularity that doesn't actually exist. Both can be played with a huge assortment of techniques to fit the needs of the defense.

 

Most defenses are moving to some form of hybrid anyhow, particularly because most offenses are 3 or 4 receiver sets now. That's why describing entire defenses by front is outdated. 

 

 

[Dansker]

7 hours ago, brophog said:

 

You dont "need" anything more in a 3-4 front than a 4-3 front as both can be played even or odd, 1 or 2 gap. The word "the" before 3-4 implies a singularity that doesn't actually exist. Both can be played with a huge assortment of techniques to fit the needs of the defense.

 

Most defenses are moving to some form of hybrid anyhow, particularly because most offenses are 3 or 4 receiver sets now. That's why describing entire defenses by front is outdated. 

 

 

 

You make some valid points but I still think a 4 man front adds more versatility to your defense. With 3, you've got more responsibility and if there's a talent gap, then you're going to have problems as seen so far this season.