Defensive Play

[Undone]

Just now, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Miller came to NU in 2016 so he was Riley. Did you mean Honas?

 

Sorry about that! Thank you. No, I was just plain wrong. 

 

Depending on who starts, it could be JoJo | Miller | Barry | Tannor - so I was completely wrong there and @TheSker was right.

[Undone]

3 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I guess I don't find it hard to understand why this year's Wisconsin defensive players perform better than this year's Husker players.

 

Go ahead and say it out loud.

[Nebfanatic]

21 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

That statement is false. Alex Davis & Mo Barry are listed as starters and both committed in 2015. So, it's 50/50 (with the other two being Miller & Tannor, of course recruited by Frost).

 

Still interested in hearing you (or anyone else) answer the question, at a minimum just to entertain the question itself: How many years is the minimum number of years under Chinander's coaching staff to no longer use the excuse that "_________ just needs more time in Chinander's system?"

I included Honas who plays quite a bit but so does Domann so I guess it evens out, but still there should be more than 3 backers(one a converted safety) on the roster from the previous staff flat out that number is unaccetable. 

 

I answered your question, I guess in number of years that would be 3 to fully stock the roster with Frost recruits in year #5. 

[Nebfanatic]

3 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Go ahead and say it out loud.

They are being put through an established system that systematically produces all conference caliber players?? It takes a few years to develop these types of systems is that crazy??

[WyoHusker56]

6 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Sorry about that! Thank you. No, I was just plain wrong. 

 

Depending on who starts, it could be JoJo | Miller | Barry | Tannor - so I was completely wrong there and @TheSker was right.

 

Admitting you're wrong on a message board kudos sir kudos, haha.

[Undone]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

I answered your question, I guess in number of years that would be 3 to fully stock the roster with Frost recruits in year #5. 

 

Ok, thanks. There's one data point for the poll then.   

[TheSker]

9 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Genuinely asking: Are high school recruiting rankings then to be completely, 100% thrown out in this conversation? 

 

In other words, should we completely throw out the data I looked up on Wisconsin's starting linebackers? Because if we did that...what criteria are we even talking about when we say that Wisconsin "plays above their recruiting ranking?" What do we attribute their good play to? Not to good coaching?

Then what would it boil down to? Whatever's in the water in Madison? Tell me if the point I'm driving at is clear to you, please - regardless if you despise my premise or not.

I will also say this.  As frustrated as some of the fans might be, I would guarantee it doesn't match the frustration of Frost, Ruud and Chinander.

 

Frost watched film on the Minnesota game relentlessly.

[TheSker]

8 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Go ahead and say it out loud.

A system, and one that doesn't have the names Riley or Banker.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Undone said:

 

Ok, thanks. There's one data point for the poll then.   

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Alvarez

 

Look under the head coaching career tab. Wisconsin hasn't always had great linebackers, and it took Barry Alvarez until his 4th season to put together a run. But they have had consistency in Madison for a long long time as far as a system, and that makes a difference. This is what people mean when they say Wisconsin stole Nebraskas identidy. We had a system in place for developing talent for years and years and that is what got us where we were. That is something we need to get back to.

[Undone]

15 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Wisconsin hasn't always had great linebackers, and it took Barry Alvarez until his 4th season to put together a run. But they have had consistency in Madison for a long long time as far as a system, and that makes a difference.

 

I can't and wouldn't disagree with any of that. But I am singling out the logic that @TheSker used on the last page when he said:

 

Quote

"UCF had better talent walking in than Nebraska, and Griffin would certainly be part of that."

I then looked Shaqueem up, and he scored as a very low 3* (.80) coming out of high school. Now obviously those recruiting websites aren't the end-all, be-all. But we have to admit - those same sites are used as a reference point to say that "Wisconsin plays above their recruiting rankings."

 

Do we think that UCF's defensive staff prior to Frost coming in - a staff that lead a team to go 0-12 - was coaching that defense well? No, of course not. So, there's no parallel there between your Wisconsin argument and UCF's situation, either.

The current narrative in this thread is that Chinander gets a pass this year and deserves several more years before it can be fairly stated that his system and coaching doesn't work well/develop players well. I disagree with that, and I think that he and his staff are largely responsible if we're getting trampled over in the run game in conference play next year again. 

 

I don't think he's on the hot seat. I don't think he should be fired even after next season. But I personally just don't think our linebackers are a well-coached unit this season, by and large.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Undone said:

The current narrative in this thread is that Chinander gets a pass this year and deserves several more years before it can be fairly stated that his system and coaching doesn't work well/develop players well. I disagree with that, and I think that he and his staff are largely responsible if we're getting trampled over in the run game in conference play next year again. 

Its not really a narrative. This staff will get time to put their system into place whether the fans are calling for heads or not. So we can sit here all day and talk about how long Chin gets a pass for but the fact of the matter is Frost was given a 7 year contract for a reason and he has said from the beginning he wanted to make sure he and his staff were given enough room time wise to do this thing right because it was a mess from their perspective. 

 

I don't know about the UCF roster when Frost took over. Obviously they had far less talent recruiting wise than we do, but was it at least a full and balanced roster? Or were there many holes due to attrition? I don't care to look it up but this roster was deficient not just due to recruiting rank but kids transferring or never coming after signing on the dotted line. On top of that the ones that were here developed an I don't care attitide. Those issues take multiple recruiting classes to fix imo. I agree next year we should see improvement but again, patience is needed.

[Undone]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I agree next year we should see improvement but again, patience is needed.

 

Totally agree. And I want to clarify that a few posts up I said that:

 

1. Chinander's seat is not hot.

2. Chinander deserves due time to put in the system that he wants to put in.

 

But on the other side of that coin, I think there are some potential troubling clues that he may need to adjust a bit in the way he prepares & coaches his front seven to defend the power run in this conference. I don't think that comment is unfair or stupidly unsupportive of Frost & his efforts.

[TheSker]

20 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I can't and wouldn't disagree with any of that. But I am singling out the logic that @TheSker used on the last page when he said:

 

I then looked Shaqueem up, and he scored as a very low 3* (.80) coming out of high school. Now obviously those recruiting websites aren't the end-all, be-all. But we have to admit - those same sites are used as a reference point to say that "Wisconsin plays above their recruiting rankings."

 

Do we think that UCF's defensive staff prior to Frost coming in - a staff that lead a team to go 0-12 - was coaching that defense well? No, of course not. So, there's no parallel there between your Wisconsin argument and UCF's situation, either.

The current narrative in this thread is that Chinander gets a pass this year and deserves several more years before it can be fairly stated that his system and coaching doesn't work well/develop players well. I disagree with that, and I think that he and his staff are largely responsible if we're getting trampled over in the run game in conference play next year again. 

 

I don't think he's on the hot seat. I don't think he should be fired even after next season. But I personally just don't think our linebackers are a well-coached unit this season, by and large.

My point, or logic, or excuse, or whatever word you want to use is UCF had 1/2 dozen players selected to the NFL draft over a two year period.

 

Nebraska doesn't and won't.

[Nebfanatic]

8 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Totally agree. And I want to clarify that a few posts up I said that:

 

1. Chinander's seat is not hot.

2. Chinander deserves due time to put in the system that he wants to put in.

 

But on the other side of that coin, I think there are some potential troubling clues that he may need to adjust a bit in the way he prepares & coaches his front seven to defend the power run in this conference. I don't think that comment is unfair or stupidly unsupportive of Frost & his efforts.

Its not unfair. I see what you are saying and obviously at some point we need to get better. I think we already are better than a year ago though and next year we will see more improvement. I also really think the defense would be greatly aided by our offense performing like a typical Scott Frost offense does. 

[Undone]

2 minutes ago, TheSker said:

My point, or logic, or excuse, or whatever word you want to use is UCF had 1/2 dozen players selected to the NFL draft over a two year period.

 

Nebraska doesn't and won't.

 

I concede that you make a good point here. Yes, 4 of those 6 are defensive players, in fact. 

 

We could then go down the route of "so was that just raw talent, Chinander's tutelage, or both?" But, let's not.