Jump to content
DefenderAO

Defensive Philosophy

Recommended Posts

There are a few tangential topics about it but wanted the board's thoughts directly here as I'm having difficulty piece-milling all comments so far.

 

It's clear the coaching staff values offensive possessions, field position, and turnovers.  All directly relate to a defense.  Why does Frost/Chin not focus on having a Suh-Like defense AND stress turnovers?  Chin's "bend" philosophy has a lot of flex to it, and it gives up tons of yards.  I'd hate to be in the NC or conference champ hunt and blame a loss on "we couldn't take the ball away."   It seems like a very risky philosophy vs the out-hustle, out-scheme, out-athlete, shut-you-down style that wins regardless of TO's.

 

Am I missing it?  Can't you crush teams with 3 and outs, maybe get a TO, and score 55?  The first presser that we complain about no turnovers, coming into the game undefeated, will be a little frustrating.

 

ETA - See OSU vs Oregon's NC game a few years ago.  Not exactly the same, but you get a powerful, disciplined O and feel pressured to take the ball to get a "stop," and it can turn out poorly.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Why does Frost/Chin not focus on having a Suh-Like defense AND stress turnovers? 

 

What is a Suh-like defense? Because it sounds like you’re arguing for better recruitment/development. Scheme isn’t what made that defense so dominant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need players.  I know this is a message board, but it’s really that simple.  Need more explosive and fast athletes across the board.  Defensive depth is also why special teams have been a struggle.

  • Plus1 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

There are a few tangential topics about it but wanted the board's thoughts directly here as I'm having difficulty piece-milling all comments so far.

 

It's clear the coaching staff values offensive possessions, field position, and turnovers.  All directly relate to a defense.  Why does Frost/Chin not focus on having a Suh-Like defense AND stress turnovers?  Chin's "bend" philosophy has a lot of flex to it, and it gives up tons of yards.  I'd hate to be in the NC or conference champ hunt and blame a loss on "we couldn't take the ball away."   It seems like a very risky philosophy vs the out-hustle, out-scheme, out-athlete, shut-you-down style that wins regardless of TO's.

 

Am I missing it?  Can't you crush teams with 3 and outs, maybe get a TO, and score 55?  The first presser that we complain about no turnovers, coming into the game undefeated, will be a little frustrating.

 

ETA - See OSU vs Oregon's NC game a few years ago.  Not exactly the same, but you get a powerful, disciplined O and feel pressured to take the ball to get a "stop," and it can turn out poorly.

So a few things. Even since Suhs time here the game has changed significantly. The rules and the way they are enforced heavily favor the offense now. Then you have the uptempo style Frost wants to play on O which has your Defense on the field more with less rest. Also I don’t think Chins defense is a bend defense. It’s an aggressive defense that seeks turnovers but will give up some big plays. I think that will become more apparent when he has the athletes he needs to run it correctly. 

  • Plus1 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe their philosophy includes keeping the other team from getting 1st downs.  I seem to recall Chin mentioning a stat about getting TFL's and how that made it difficult for the offense to convert on 3rd down.  That seems strange given how many 3rd and longs our opponents converted this season.  I'm not sure their emphasis on turnovers this season is that they rely on them as much as we've been so terrible in previous years they needed to improve.  They do talk about turnovers a lot though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Scott was a safety in the NFL, if you think he doesn’t value defense I think you  would be mistaken.  I think it’s more of philosophy of, take with the game will give you.  As mentioned above, currently the rules heavily favor the offense.  Good news, Scott runs one of the best offense of scheme’s in the country,  and as such can recruit premiere athletes that want to come play in it.  Defense, no matter the scheme, just isn’t a sexy sell to anybody,  and as such I think these coaches just understand they will probably not ever get all of the best defense of players signed on.  I guarantee if you offered them a Suh, Amukamara, and Lavonte for next years team, they would not say no.  They just know they can be in the driver seat on offense, so they’re going to focus there for now.   Nobody is conceding to having a crappy defense, they are just being realistic with in the confines of Nebraska football as it currently stands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do get what the OP is saying to a degree. There has been teams throughout history that have scored 45-50 points a game and also had a great defense. 

 

95-97 huskers scores fast and often and managed great D also

 

usc and Texas in 2000s accomplished both

 

bama doing both now

 

just saying it’s been done before why not strive for both? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Huskers93-97 said:

just saying it’s been done before why not strive for both? 

 

 

They haven't said they aren't, and I find it unlikely they are going to keep giving up this amount of yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

They haven't said they aren't, and I find it unlikely they are going to keep giving up this amount of yards.

I think many fans have formed that conclusion because of what the coaches have emphasized which is more discussion about maybe giving up some yards and pushing for turnovers. Instead of talking about just disciplined sound assignments and getting a 3 and out. I think a 3 and out accomplishes the same thing as a pick. Gets your offense back on the field. 

 

Plus in my mind a disciplined solid D seems more reliable than counting on turnovers 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

 

What is a Suh-like defense? Because it sounds like you’re arguing for better recruitment/development. Scheme isn’t what made that defense so dominant.

 

Recruiting philosophy and different points of emphasis than I hear from Chin.  I listen to every presser and he stresses getting the ball back for the O.  I like the philosophy but almost appears an over-dependence on that area of D.  Maybe his approach is assumptive that yes, he's getting talent upgrades and knows better schemes than Tre Neal vs Jumbo packages will work better longer term.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think many fans have formed that conclusion because of what the coaches have emphasized which is more discussion about maybe giving up some yards and pushing for turnovers. Instead of talking about just disciplined sound assignments and getting a 3 and out. I think a 3 and out accomplishes the same thing as a pick. Gets your offense back on the field. 

 

And part of conclusions are empiricism; Chin had good athletes at UCF but a lot of yards and a couple close games that Frost's offense and ST won.  

 

I'm reserving judgement until more athletes get here, but I'm stating things I've seen from UCF and pressers.

 

And as mentioned, watching Bama vs LSU showed me it can be done in this day.  Granted, it's the unicorn Bama, but they dominate defensively and then score in every way possible (this year).  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

 

Recruiting philosophy and different points of emphasis than I hear from Chin.  I listen to every presser and he stresses getting the ball back for the O.  I like the philosophy but almost appears an over-dependence on that area of D.  Maybe his approach is assumptive that yes, he's getting talent upgrades and knows better schemes than Tre Neal vs Jumbo packages will work better longer term.

I get your point. I agree. It seems the emphasis is reliant on a turnover. A solid disciplined D seems more reliable than hoping for turnovers. I would rather have our O paired with Michigan state D. That’s a national title combo 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because they’ve been here the sum total of one year, don’t have the talent they need on that side of the ball yet and there only so many things they can magically transform in such a short period of time.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord people they dont even have the personnel to run their defense yet. They are recruiting their first full class right now. They have been starting two converted safeties at olb in a 3-4 Defense.

 

They're not choosing to be bad at defense they just dont have the personnel. If they get the talent and body types they need to run a 3-4 its not like chin is going to instruct the defense to keep giving up points. I'm pretty sure if they consistently force turn overs and make tfls then the points and yards will go down as well.

 

Its year 1 with below average talent learning a new defense just because there's an red N on the helmet doesn't mean they are automatically going to be good.

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LumberJackSker said:

Good lord people they dont even have the personnel to run their defense yet. They are recruiting their first full class right now. They have been starting two converted safeties at olb in a 3-4 Defense.

 

They're not choosing to be bad at defense they just dont have the personnel. If they get the talent and body types they need to run a 3-4 its not like chin is going to instruct the defense to keep giving up points. I'm pretty sure if they consistently force turn overs and make tfls then the points and yards will go down as well.

 

Its year 1 with below average talent learning a new defense just because there's an red N on the helmet doesn't mean they are automatically going to be good.

To add, outside of Mo, we are really lacking at LB.  We don't have a true starting NT for a 3-4.  No average + edge rusher etc.....A great O and sh!tty D don't have to go hand in hand......We can have an explosive up tempo O and a shut down D.  Watching the games, many times our D has made mistakes in the execution of said scheme.  ie missed tackle, over pursues, bite on fakes etc....The bright side is no denying we have improved as the season has progressed.  We are recruiting talent and looking at the Juco route for contributors....Not to say I'm sold on Chin, but it's year one.......I like what Frost has done so far.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I think many fans have formed that conclusion because of what the coaches have emphasized which is more discussion about maybe giving up some yards and pushing for turnovers. Instead of talking about just disciplined sound assignments and getting a 3 and out. I think a 3 and out accomplishes the same thing as a pick. Gets your offense back on the field. 

 

Plus in my mind a disciplined solid D seems more reliable than counting on turnovers 

I think many fans haven't heard what the coaches have actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lo country said:

To add, outside of Mo, we are really lacking at LB.  We don't have a true starting NT for a 3-4.  No average + edge rusher etc.....A great O and sh!tty D don't have to go hand in hand......We can have an explosive up tempo O and a shut down D.  Watching the games, many times our D has made mistakes in the execution of said scheme.  ie missed tackle, over pursues, bite on fakes etc....The bright side is no denying we have improved as the season has progressed.  We are recruiting talent and looking at the Juco route for contributors....Not to say I'm sold on Chin, but it's year one.......I like what Frost has done so far.

I'm also not 100% sold on chin either but I'm not sure what people really think he can do with the players he has to work with. A few of these guys are on their 3rd dc in 3 years as well which doesnt help.

 

But just looking at the talent of the three levels of the defense where are the elite players?

Dline- no true nt yet maybe Daniels develops into one eventually but he's only a rs freshman. Davis twins in Stille are good and have their moments but aren't all conference guys.

Linebackers- no true olb Tannor is probably 30 pounds away from being an every down player there. Ilb outside of barry have been bad. 

Dbs- bootle has been getting a lot of flags lately but #21 is getting better. The safeties cant tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I get your point. I agree. It seems the emphasis is reliant on a turnover. A solid disciplined D seems more reliable than hoping for turnovers. I would rather have our O paired with Michigan state D. That’s a national title combo 

Where in the world do you get that Frost and Chinander don't want a solid, disciplined defense?

 

Seriously......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Where in the world do you get that Frost and Chinander don't want a solid, disciplined defense?

 

Seriously......

 

This thread wasn't really about this year's defensive efficacy.  I've listened to every press conference, and turnovers have been the principal talking point on D.  Mistakes, field position, alluding to lack of talent have shown up too...but watching UCF and hearing Chin, my concern is the future lauding of a 54 yard catch, strip-fumble (great?) and a 54 yard 1st-and-goal (ouch) is a post game presser focus on the difference for a future week 6 W vs a future week 8 L.

 

Chin stated similar things at UCF - get HCSF the ball.  My question is at what cost this emphasis will have in the future.  And NO, I'm not down on Chin.  Simply curious.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DefenderAO said:

 

This thread wasn't really about this year's defensive efficacy.  I've listened to every press conference, and turnovers have been the principal talking point on D.  Mistakes, field position, alluding to lack of talent have shown up too...but watching UCF and hearing Chin, my concern is the future lauding of a 54 yard catch, strip-fumble (great?) and a 54 yard 1st-and-goal (ouch) is a post game presser focus on the difference for a future week 6 W vs a future week 8 L.

 

Chin stated similar things at UCF - get HCSF the ball.  My question is at what cost this emphasis will have in the future.  And NO, I'm not down on Chin.  Simply curious.

He was at ucf for 2 years he's in his first year at Nebraska. Maybe he hasn't been at a school long enough to get a defense full of his guys so he's emphasizing things he can control like stripping the ball intercepting a pass of a tip has a lot to do with effort. Those are things they can accomplish now.

 

When you dont have a front seven capable of getting consistent pressure or stopping the run and a secondary with issues there is only so much you can do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, LumberJackSker said:

He was at ucf for 2 years he's in his first year at Nebraska. Maybe he hasn't been at a school long enough to get a defense full of his guys so he's emphasizing things he can control like stripping the ball intercepting a pass of a tip has a lot to do with effort. Those are things they can accomplish now.

 

 

Another reason I won't judge him yet and I keep stating it over and over. It's quite possible Chinander will become a much better defensive coordinator. He hasn't even had half a team of his guys yet and he's been a coordinator for all of 2.8 seasons now.

Also, the turnovers don't seem to be a random thing. Nebraska has gotten better and better at it throughout the season, and some of the fumbles were really good plays by the defender. IIRC we've had at least 3 fumbles in the past few games that were tackle, punch the ball out, and recover it. They weren't just unlucky fumbles by the opposing offense. One of our guys made a great play on each of them. I also don't think Lamar Jackson makes that interception in the end zone in the first half of the season. And the same thing happened at UCF. Turnovers are also a much bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out. They can demoralize a team.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DefenderAO said:

 

Chin stated similar things at UCF - get HCSF the ball.  My question is at what cost this emphasis will have in the future.  

Why do you assume there is a ‘cost’ associated with this? UCF was 2nd in the country last year at forcing turnovers. That’s not an anomaly and I don’t think that came as a detriment to yards or points allowed on defense.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

Why do you assume there is a ‘cost’ associated with this? UCF was 2nd in the country last year at forcing turnovers. That’s not an anomaly and I don’t think that came as a detriment to yards or points allowed on defense.

 

Every sport preaches protect the ball.  I'm not wanting majority chips pushed into the table on a philosophy of punching the ball.

 

Let me reiterate, I'm not hating.  I'm looking at the future with hope and hedging against possible holes.

  • Plus1 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chin's defense doesn't currently work because we get no pressure on the QB.  This is a critical missing piece.  Pressured QB's lead to INT's or stripping the ball from the QB.  We are trying to strip the ball...but unfortunately it's after a 10 yard gain.  I see a lot of holes on defense that we have to fill in recruiting.  The defense with its emphasis on playmaking actually sounds fun to play in so hopefully it draws some big time defensive recruits.  Pola-Gates and T. Robinson would really get the momentum going for the Blackshirts.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to have a Suh-like defense is to have a Suh-like player. Suggesting that the coaches aren't striving for a better defense is just silly.

 

Also: the OP's avatar looks like a duck wearing headphones. Now you won't be able to un-see it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Another reason I won't judge him yet and I keep stating it over and over. It's quite possible Chinander will become a much better defensive coordinator. He hasn't even had half a team of his guys yet and he's been a coordinator for all of 2.8 seasons now.

Also, the turnovers don't seem to be a random thing. Nebraska has gotten better and better at it throughout the season, and some of the fumbles were really good plays by the defender. IIRC we've had at least 3 fumbles in the past few games that were tackle, punch the ball out, and recover it. They weren't just unlucky fumbles by the opposing offense. One of our guys made a great play on each of them. I also don't think Lamar Jackson makes that interception in the end zone in the first half of the season. And the same thing happened at UCF. Turnovers are also a much bigger momentum swing than a 3 and out. They can demoralize a team.

I dont think myself or the OP are saying fire chinander or even that he wont be a good DC once we get better players. We are stating that in many of his interviews the general theme is all about try to take the ball away. Thats not bad- it just seems sometimes like the only emphasis. Observations are not bad.

 

They make millions to coach football- I am sure they know what they are doing. We dont have access to all of what they say and what is going on in their head and their scheme. All we have to base this from is a once a week interview.

  • Plus1 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we'll be able to dominate the West division in the near future without a strong defense.  So there is that.  And if we are dominating the West we shouldn't take that for granted.

 

Having a stout defense will only really matter if we ever expect to compete at the level of Alabama or Clemson.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just give the guy some time. I think we are going to have a nasty defense sooner rather than later. Sacks, TFLs and turnovers. These are all things we haven't beem great at in over a decade.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huskers93-97 said:

They make millions to coach football- I am sure they know what they are doing. 

Recent experience with other coaching staffs make me unsure about this.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the concern. In an alternate possession game, shouldn't the #1 priority of a defense be getting the possession back to it's offense?

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm not sure I understand the concern. In an alternate possession game, shouldn't the #1 priority of a defense be getting the possession back to it's offense?

#2 priority might be where on the field they give it back.  I think that point has already been brought up. Would we be ok having a weak defense that allows a team to drive the field as long as we can force a fumble on our 10 yard line? Doesn’t sound like a recipe for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 4skers89 said:

#2 priority might be where on the field they give it back.  I think that point has already been brought up. Would we be ok having a weak defense that allows a team to drive the field as long as we can force a fumble on our 10 yard line? Doesn’t sound like a recipe for success.

It sounds like a better recipe than letting them kick a FG.

 

The question isn't whether the coaches want a dominant defense - of course they'd prefer that - but what their philosophy is. Getting the ball back to the offense is a better priority than limiting yards in an alternate possession game.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a handful of players on offense that are considered NFL level talent. Can that be said for anyone on the defense at this point?

 

There’s your answer. 

 

Need more time to recruit/develop. Right now our defense’s best chance at getting stops is via turnovers or big plays so hence the emphasis on that.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Husker03 said:

 Scott was a safety in the NFL, if you think he doesn’t value defense I think you  would be mistaken.  I think it’s more of philosophy of, take with the game will give you.  As mentioned above, currently the rules heavily favor the offense.  Good news, Scott runs one of the best offense of scheme’s in the country,  and as such can recruit premiere athletes that want to come play in it.  Defense, no matter the scheme, just isn’t a sexy sell to anybody,  and as such I think these coaches just understand they will probably not ever get all of the best defense of players signed on.  I guarantee if you offered them a Suh, Amukamara, and Lavonte for next years team, they would not say no.  They just know they can be in the driver seat on offense, so they’re going to focus there for now.   Nobody is conceding to having a crappy defense, they are just being realistic with in the confines of Nebraska football as it currently stands. 

Also Frost in his early assistant coaching years was a DC. I am thinking Northern Iowa, but I am not sure. I would like to think an attacking defense would have more appeal to recruits versus one that is not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It sounds like a better recipe than letting them kick a FG.

 

The question isn't whether the coaches want a dominant defense - of course they'd prefer that - but what their philosophy is. Getting the ball back to the offense is a better priority than limiting yards in an alternate possession game.

 

Great points in this thread. I think talent does need to be addressed as many state.

 

I have seen defenses ride players for 25 yards trying to punch a ball out instead of tackling. It’s clear that a coach on that team preached turnovers. And I don’t want the future recipe to keeping up with the Huskers as “just don’t turn it over”. This is obviously simplified hyperbole but am curious how defensive points of emphasis translate to future success against the likes of Clemson and Bama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DefenderAO said:

 

Great points in this thread. I think talent does need to be addressed as many state.

 

I have seen defenses ride players for 25 yards trying to punch a ball out instead of tackling. It’s clear that a coach on that team preached turnovers. And I don’t want the future recipe to keeping up with the Huskers as “just don’t turn it over”. This is obviously simplified hyperbole but am curious how defensive points of emphasis translate to future success against the likes of Clemson and Bama

Yeah, I think talent is much more important on defense than offense, and we need a lot more talent on defense than what we have.

 

I don't recall a single time a Husker has been trying to punch out a ball while being carried for 25 yards. Maybe you have an example, but I think that's more hyperbole than actual concern.

 

Nebraska won't make a bowl game, so trying to imagine the Huskers competing with Clemson or Alabama is wild speculation on any of our parts. You can look at our performance against tOSU to get some idea though it's a small sample size. I think the better way to approach defensive philosophy is to try and compare our defense to teams with similar talent. I don't know of a site that breaks down roster talent between offense and defense, just the recruiting sites that do it for each class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Need players.

Yep.

 

I think it's fair to say Nebraska isn't anywhere near their ceiling with this current group of players. If you could take this group of guys, rewind four years, put them in this scheme, and deliver a four year dose of Duval's S&C, you'd have a very different looking group right now.

 

Since that's impossible, we have to rely on raw talent coming in and developing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Yep.

 

I think it's fair to say Nebraska isn't anywhere near their ceiling with this current group of players. If you could take this group of guys, rewind four years, put them in this scheme, and deliver a four year dose of Duval's S&C, you'd have a very different looking group right now.

 

Since that's impossible, we have to rely on raw talent coming in and developing.

 

Yeah, even what an off season did for Ziggy is unreal.  2-4 years if it and you transform people.  Now recruit higher baseline athletes and we're watching football after January

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 9:51 AM, HuskerDoo said:

Why do they keep losing with this elite defense? Bad refs?

Who keeps losing? MSU? Iowa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×