Offense or defense

[Hans Gruber]

This is not related to the seemingly-imminent hiring of Scott Frost, but just me being curious about the pulse around here. Would you prefer Nebraska to be better on offense or defense? This isn't taking into account specific offensive styles (like a West Coast, Triple Option or Air Raid Offense) or defensive styles (bend-but-don't-break 4-3 or an attacking 3-4).

 

If you select offense, it doesn't necessarily mean your defense would be bad (or vice versa). It just means you would be more known for offense and consistently better on offense than defense.

 

So, while not taking particular styles into mind, which would you prefer?

[JoeHuskers!]

Defense 100%.

[Landlord]

If it was just Nebraska, by itself, in a vacuum, I'd say defense. However, since we're in the B1G and the majority of the schools in our conference and even more importantly in our division do not have very lethal or explosive offenses, we don't need as great of a defense to be good on that side of the ball, and I'd prefer to have the best offense in the west or in the B1G.

 

The same way that we were competing for championships in '09-'10 in the Big XII by going against the norm of the rest of the teams in the conference, I'd like to do the same.

[HIHusker]

After this last season I had to go with Defense.  With Frost in the mail offense is going to be just fine...let's just worry about the D.

[brophog]

If you don't have both, you're not winning a title in today's game. If you're "known" for one or the other it's usually because the opposite one isn't good enough. Do I associate the 90s teams with one or the other? No, I associate them with winning. Do I associate the 08 or 09 team with one or the other? Yes, because the opposite side wasn't good enough.

 

When I look at how good teams are and make posts on here, I post yard per play differentials and scoring margins....that's the real game, how much better you are than your opponent. Every postgame there is some comment about how one side of the ball was better, as if the offense has some magical point total to get to in order to have "done its job". It's job is to win the game. That may mean scoring in the 50s some days, that's college football for you now. Sometimes you can't move the ball, dropping passes, turning the ball over, defense may have to defend some short fields. Life's tough, get a helmet. It's a team game.

 

[URSS]

It’s an old saying- win games with an offense but win championships with a defense.  

 

You need both but a high high scoring duel is not the way to go all the way.  

[Nebfanatic]

I'd love to have a great defense, but I have to agree with @Landlord. Piggybacking off of what he said, in today's game even the best defenses can get torched. Look at the last 2 NCGs. You have to have a high powered offense because you never know when a team will have your D figured out. It's a team game and you need a strong unit in all 3 phases of the game, but offense is slowly becoming important than defense 

[JJ Husker]

Not gonna choose only one, neither has been acceptable. If we can't be better in both areas then we will soon need to be looking for the next coach again.

 

Now if it's just a general which would you prefer, unrelated to the past 20 years of NU football, I would pick having a better defense.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Comfortably Numb

[knapplc]

Defense & it's not even close.

 

Screw the offense. The offense's job is to score, preferably quickly, and get their butts off the field so I can watch what I paid to see:  Blackshirts attacking and crushing the opponent.

 

I want to see safeties blitzing in and squashing the play. I want to see linebackers stuffing the run - disrupting the handoff, preferably.  I want to see corners lighting up a receiver that has the temerity to come across the field.  I want to see defensive ends meeting at the quarterback. 

 

I want to see mayhem, I want to see chaos, I want to see an opponent disrupted, disoriented & dispirited by the Blackshirts. 

 

That is what I pay to see.  That, to me, is good football. Offense does not provide that.

[famoustitles]

[ADS]

Can just winning be an option?  Don’t really if one is better than the other as long as the score board reflects a husk win.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Football Guy Bob

[Mavric]

Don't see "Yes" as an option ......  

[ColoradoHusk]

I don't know why you have to choose between offense or defense.  I think a team needs to be able to win games with their offense or defense.  There are even going to be years where the strength of the team could switch between offense and defense.

[Mavric]

If you're wanting to compete at the highest level, you have to have a good defense.  "Defense wins championships" and all.

 

But if your offense is bad, your margin for error in each game is almost nothing.  See the 2009 Huskers.

If you have a top-notch offense, you can win a lot of games with an average defense.  And the reverse is probably true as well.  But from our current situation - trying to go from a well-below average team to a noticeably-above-average team - I think having a good offense will get us there faster.  You're a lot less likely to lose to poor teams with a good offense, IMO.  

 

Plus it's generally more entertaining to watch a good offense and at least feel like you're accomplishing something.  So I'd go for that for now and work the rest out as we go.

[brophog]

20 minutes ago, Mavric said:

But from our current situation - trying to go from a well-below average team to a noticeably-above-average team - I think having a good offense will get us there faster.  You're a lot less likely to lose to poor teams with a good offense, IMO.  

 

 

Generally speaking, when a new coach comes in and has immediate progress it's more because of gains on defense. Even UCF, easily known today more for their offense, saw the immediate gains on the defense. 

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/ucf-knights/knights-notepad/os-sp-ucf-football-news-0806-story.html