Why is Nebraska *This* Terrible

[Mavric]

Lots of good stats and video here.

 

Quote

Nebraska wasn’t supposed to be good in 2018.

 

Scott Frost knew his two-year transformation of UCF from winless to unbeaten represented an unusually fast rebuild. Taking Nebraska from 4-8 to good was always going to take more than one year.

 

But Nebraska is significantly worse than people and computers expected.

 

The preseason record projection by S&P+ was 5-7. Even tossing out a Week 1 rainout against Akron, Nebraska’s tracking to fall well short, with three wins now a reasonable target.

 

Why is the team so bad? Let’s get into it.

 

1. The run defense gets a lot of strikeouts ... until it gives up a grand slam.
2. The defense can’t get off the field, despite forcing lots of third-and-longs.
3. The offense also gets into third-and-longs and is also terrible in them.
4. The running game is ahead of what Frost had in his first year at UCF, but Nebraska’s backs and blockers have a long way to go.
5. Nebraska’s field position is overwhelmingly bad.
6. And they’ve made dumb mistakes, as lots of teams might when just getting started under a new staff.
7. Underpinning all that, Nebraska lacks QB depth.

These things are fixable. They’re just not all fixable in a year.

 

SB Nation

[Undone]

10 minutes ago, Mavric said:

1. The run defense gets a lot of strikeouts ... until it gives up a grand slam.
2. The defense can’t get off the field, despite forcing lots of third-and-longs.
3. The offense also gets into third-and-longs and is also terrible in them.

 

Those three things are actually probably fixable right now with slight tweaks to both scheme and defensive play calling. Run defense was my number one concern for Frost and his staff. 

[WyoHusker56]

Just finished reading this article and I agree a lot of these are fixable, but watching the clips is just depressing. Our oline looks like they are lost or don't give two craps on most of the plays. It's just sad.

[Mavric]

Just now, Undone said:

Those three things are actually probably fixable right now with slight tweaks to both scheme and defensive play calling. Run defense was my number one concern for Frost and his staff. 

 

I would think so, especially 1 & 2.  Our defense is making a lot of good plays.  But they're also giving up too many big plays.  Some of that comes with playing an aggressive style.  But I think just getting more used to how everything works will make a noticeable difference as well.  I think several of the big plays we've given up in the running game were fairly obvious mis-alignments or confusion on assignments.

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, Mavric said:

 

I would think so, especially 1 & 2.  Our defense is making a lot of good plays.  But they're also giving up too many big plays.  Some of that comes with playing an aggressive style.  But I think just getting more used to how everything works will make a noticeable difference as well.  I think several of the big plays we've given up in the running game were fairly obvious mis-alignments or confusion on assignments.

Even in my drunken state in Q1 against Michigan, I saw a severe misalignment of our defense right before Michigan's 44-yard TD run.  Michigan was on the left hash, and we had so many defenders on the wide side of the field.  I thought Michigan would do an easy swing pass to the short side of the field, but it was a simple hand-off and he went untouched for the TD.

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Even in my drunken state in Q1 against Michigan, I saw a severe misalignment of our defense right before Michigan's 44-yard TD run.  Michigan was on the left hash, and we had so many defenders on the wide side of the field.  I thought Michigan would do an easy swing pass to the short side of the field, but it was a simple hand-off and he went untouched for the TD.

As we passed the flask of Jack...I also noticed that.

[Undone]

31 minutes ago, Mavric said:

But I think just getting more used to how everything works will make a noticeable difference as well.  I think several of the big plays we've given up in the running game were fairly obvious mis-alignments or confusion on assignments.

 

I agree with that.

 

All I want to see over the course of this season is a willingness to change scheme if it just isn't working or if the players aren't executing that scheme (but could maybe better execute a different scheme). For example, on Michigan's first two drives where they had big runs, the split back look they were lined up in out of the shotgun was probably designed to go to either back. If we whiff on the blitz on a play like that where our linebackers are not being told to play in a "run fit," we're just going to get embarrassed over and over. As I've said several times now, I cringe thinking about the Wisconsin game if adjustments don't happen by then.

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Even in my drunken state in Q1 against Michigan, I saw a severe misalignment of our defense right before Michigan's 44-yard TD run.  Michigan was on the left hash, and we had so many defenders on the wide side of the field.  I thought Michigan would do an easy swing pass to the short side of the field, but it was a simple hand-off and he went untouched for the TD.

 

I was regrettably sober and noticed this the entire game. Not so much the left or right side alignment, but that at the moment the Michigan player got the ball, I could already see wide open spaces on the corners that guaranteed at least six yards untouched. 

 

I shouted "the corners are wide open!" but no one listened to me.

 

The Michigan D on the other hand, strung out any play attempting to go wide, and many were run out behind the line of scrimmage.

 

You could say it was speed and personnel, but the gaps were there before the ball was ever snapped. It felt like every Husker blowout over the last 10 years that way.

[Undone]

8 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I shouted "the corners are wide open!" but no one listened to me.

 

The Michigan D on the other hand, strung out any play attempting to go wide, and many were run out behind the line of scrimmage.

 

You could say it was speed and personnel, but the gaps were there before the ball was ever snapped. It felt like every Husker blowout over the last 10 years that way.

 

I am listening to your shouting pleas, Guy. LOL.

 

Just one small thought - it isn't just speed and personnel, it's also having your linebackers playing in a run fit scheme more often than not on 1st & 2nd down.

 

Blitzing is of course high risk/high reward. I'd rather have that than Diaco's pussified version of football...but whether it's actually going to work without it resulting in us getting out-schemed in this conference is in my mind very much up in the air.

Again...it was my number one concern for this staff coming into this season.

[Nebfanatic]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Even in my drunken state in Q1 against Michigan, I saw a severe misalignment of our defense right before Michigan's 44-yard TD run.  Michigan was on the left hash, and we had so many defenders on the wide side of the field.  I thought Michigan would do an easy swing pass to the short side of the field, but it was a simple hand-off and he went untouched for the TD.

Michigan ran an offbalance look that gave us trouble all day. We would shift too many guys over strong side and they just went weak where there were less players

[Huskers93-97]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

 

I agree with that.

 

All I want to see over the course of this season is a willingness to change scheme if it just isn't working or if the players aren't executing that scheme (but could maybe better execute a different scheme). For example, on Michigan's first two drives where they had big runs, the split back look they were lined up in out of the shotgun was probably designed to go to either back. If we whiff on the blitz on a play like that where our linebackers are not being told to play in a "run fit," we're just going to get embarrassed over and over. As I've said several times now, I cringe thinking about the Wisconsin game if adjustments don't happen by then.

Yes. I think there are many teams out there who play an aggressive scheme but have a controlled aggressive. I get the whole no fear of failure mantra they are pushing. 

But lets be aggressive but not soo fearless that you play reckless.

[huskerfan333157]

3 hours ago, Undone said:

 

I agree with that.

 

All I want to see over the course of this season is a willingness to change scheme if it just isn't working or if the players aren't executing that scheme (but could maybe better execute a different scheme). For example, on Michigan's first two drives where they had big runs, the split back look they were lined up in out of the shotgun was probably designed to go to either back. If we whiff on the blitz on a play like that where our linebackers are not being told to play in a "run fit," we're just going to get embarrassed over and over. As I've said several times now, I cringe thinking about the Wisconsin game if adjustments don't happen by then.

You seriously can't change scheme in mid season, any coach or football guru will tell you that.  Also, how do you expect them to learn frosts scheme when they're running another? They're humans not robots.  

[NebraskaShellback]

This is Thursday, get over it. 

[Jeepy]

That quote and those points from SB Nation, in the OP, say it all.  Especially the 2 and 3.

 

I feared for the defense back when I looked at UCF's horrible stats on defense, even as they went undefeated.   In the Big 10 you won't go undefeated while at or near the bottom of the conference in defense stats.

[Undone]

43 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

You seriously can't change scheme in mid season, any coach or football guru will tell you that.  Also, how do you expect them to learn frosts scheme when they're running another? They're humans not robots.  

 

For sure. I'm not talking about something major like moving from the 3-4 to a 4-3. I'm talking about things that fall within current concepts, like blitz packages, amount of blitzing, etc.

 

Not enough football has been played to really get a handle on what Chinander is doing in its entirety or whether it does/doesn't work in the Big 10. And there's also a bit of a lack of athletic ability on the part of multiple guys in the starting 11 on defense. It's obviously extremely early.