Defensive Play

[Husker in WI]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I don't fully understand the intricacies myself. I just know the Husker defense took a wrong turn around 2011 and has been a liability ever since. My reasoning mostly comes from people who do understand the game. In-game announcers and post-game analysts who replay and diagram Husker defenders either caught out-of-position, or lining up with an unusual amount of cushion. Back in the Pelini days, announcers and opponents would say they could see the Husker D lined up to be exploited, and they were actually mystified why the Huskers refused to make adjustments. Some of that appears to have carried over through Riley and now Frost. Sometimes I see the oversized cushion myself before the play is made. Sometimes analysts and replays point it out for us. 

 

And if anyone has a plan to get more pressure on the quarterback, I haven't seen it. This includes very average quarterbacks playing behind unremarkable offensive lines. 

 

As far as in-game adjustments: I think our generally poor second ad third quarter performances speak for themselves. Other teams see our Plan A and make adjustments. At which point we don't have a Plan B. Adding insult to injury, our defensive players start playing like they've given up, and the open field tackling turns awful. 

 

Guess what I'm saying is that poor Nebraska defense looks really familiar at this point. Not sure why it spans four coaching staffs. 

 

Got it, I totally agree with you there. I just wonder how much of what we perceive as the issues - lack of adjustments, how we line up, etc - are symptoms of a bad defense instead of the cause. If we just made more tackles on Saturday I don't think the narrative is about any of those things, even if there are still times we line up with a cushion or in an 'exploitable' way.

[Jarhead In Red]

1 hour ago, Husker in WI said:

 

Almost like us fans don't fully understand the intricacies of different defenses. Curious specifically about your reasoning for the bolded. I think a lot of us have issues with how players are positioned, although I'm sure there are drawbacks to however we would do it. And it's hard to argue against easily exploited given our results. But I haven't seen a lot of cushion being given recently, and adjustments are made every game.

Ya, I'll admit I don't understand all the intricacies of Defense at high level football myself. I know some basics, and a few advanced concepts, but man, I can see how all the new Offensive systems and wrinkles really put stress on a DC to keep up. I guess that's why working 16 hour days has become the norm. But, on the flip side, that's why they get paid big money. I also rely on guys like Coach McBride or Jay Foreman to help analyze what they think is going on in some of these situations. When I have questions it is usually when I see us outnumbered to the play side of the formation, or where we have too few Defenders in the box to counter what the Offense is doing. In those cases where it appears we are outnumbered, it sure appears like we are fighting a losing battle before the ball is snapped. But, in those cases, I'm not sure if a player is lined up incorrectly, didn't hear a Defensive audible, or what exactly happened....

[Husker in WI]

And I guess to say it a different way, is our defense bad because we line up certain ways and give a lot of cushion in some scenarios, or do we just notice and complain about those things when it's just the defense is bad regardless? I was surprised on the rewatch how few of our issues last week were anything other than guys not getting off blocks and not making tackles.

 

I still think this is a vast improvement over Diaco, but giving up a lot of points consistently has been a hallmark of our defense for some time.

[TheSker]

8 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

I was surprised on the rewatch how few of our issues last week were anything other than guys not getting off blocks and not making tackles.

Agreed......lack of execution hurts any scheme.

[FrantzHardySwag]

5 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

And I guess to say it a different way, is our defense bad because we line up certain ways and give a lot of cushion in some scenarios, or do we just notice and complain about those things when it's just the defense is bad regardless? I was surprised on the rewatch how few of our issues last week were anything other than guys not getting off blocks and not making tackles.

 

I still think this is a vast improvement over Diaco, but giving up a lot of points consistently has been a hallmark of our defense for some time.

That’s what sucks about being a fan, we truly never know. Maybe the coaches are conveying everything the correct way , it’s repped out perfectly Tuesday - Thursday and the players are crapping the bed on game day. Maybe the scheme sucks and the players are doing exactly what the coaches are telling them. Maybe the scheme is sound but the coaches are struggling conveying and inputting it. 

[BIG ERN]

8 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

And I guess to say it a different way, is our defense bad because we line up certain ways and give a lot of cushion in some scenarios, or do we just notice and complain about those things when it's just the defense is bad regardless? I was surprised on the rewatch how few of our issues last week were anything other than guys not getting off blocks and not making tackles.

 

I still think this is a vast improvement over Diaco, but giving up a lot of points consistently has been a hallmark of our defense for some time.

I try and learn from the best minds of football on the offensive side to know more about defense. Two of my favorites in regards to that are Urban Meyer and Chris Petersen. Both of them will tell you rule #1 to a successful offense is exploiting the numbers. Urban does his a tad different and draws a straight line from the center down the field towards the defense. He tries anything possible to have an extra blocker or play maker on either side. I mentioned this last year with plenty of screenshots when we played WI and how we aligned was just a failure from the jump and would require very good players to try and overcome the numbers battle. I've seen no difference or adjustemnts thus far under Chin. Of course once we get better players in we will be better, but I have seen nothing to show we can ever be a great defense under him. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm not sure what this proves, but here is 20 years of Nebraska's national rank among scoring defenses. 

(scoring defense isn't the perfect measure, but it's pretty indicative)

 

1999 #4       (Frank Solich)

2000 #20     (Frank Solich) 

2001 #10     (Frank Solich)

2002 #45     (Frank Solich)

2003 #2        (Frank Solich)

2004 #72     (Bill Callahan)  

2005 #25     (Bill Callahan)

2006  #24    (Bill Callahan)

2007  #115  (Bill Callahan)

2008   #81    (Bo Pelini)

2009  #1       (Bo Pelini)  

2010  #9       (Bo Pelini)

2011 #42     (Bo Pelini)

2012  #58     (Bo Pelini)

2013  #51     (Bo Pelini)

2014  #60     (Bo Pelini)

2015  #76     (Mike Riley)

2016  #34     (Mike Riley)

2017  #117    (Mike Riley)

2018  #88      (Scott Frost)

[Husker in WI]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I'm not sure what this proves, but here is 20 years of Nebraska's national rank among scoring defenses. 

(scoring defense isn't the perfect measure, but it's pretty indicative)

 

1999 #4       (Frank Solich)

2000 #20     (Frank Solich) 

2001 #10     (Frank Solich)

2002 #45     (Frank Solich)

2003 #2        (Frank Solich)

2004 #72     (Frank Solich)  

2005 #25     (Bill Callahan)

2006  #24    (Bill Callahan)

2007  #115  (Bill Callahan)

2008   #81    (Bo Pelini)

2009  #1       (Bo Pelini)  

2010  #9       (Bo Pelini)

2011 #42     (Bo Pelini)

2012  #58     (Bo Pelini)

2013  #51     (Bo Pelini)

2014  #60     (Bo Pelini)

2015  #76     (Mike Riley)

2016  #34     (Mike Riley)

2017  #117    (Mike Riley)

2018  #88      (Scott Frost)

 

It's kind of funny (but mostly sad) that we ran Banker out of town after our best scoring D since 09/10. I've said before though, I'm a little bit thankful - Riley might not have gotten fired after '17 if the defense was decent, and Frost wasn't going to get easier t opull away from UCF.

[TheSker]

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I'm not sure what this proves, but here is 20 years of Nebraska's national rank among scoring defenses. 

(scoring defense isn't the perfect measure, but it's pretty indicative)

 

1999 #4       (Frank Solich)

2000 #20     (Frank Solich) 

2001 #10     (Frank Solich)

2002 #45     (Frank Solich)

2003 #2        (Frank Solich)

2004 #72     (Frank Solich)  

2005 #25     (Bill Callahan)

2006  #24    (Bill Callahan)

2007  #115  (Bill Callahan)

2008   #81    (Bo Pelini)

2009  #1       (Bo Pelini)  

2010  #9       (Bo Pelini)

2011 #42     (Bo Pelini)

2012  #58     (Bo Pelini)

2013  #51     (Bo Pelini)

2014  #60     (Bo Pelini)

2015  #76     (Mike Riley)

2016  #34     (Mike Riley)

2017  #117    (Mike Riley)

2018  #88      (Scott Frost)

No biggie.....but '04 wasn't Solich.

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 minutes ago, TheSker said:

No biggie.....but '04 wasn't Solich.

 

Indeed not. Now corrected. 

[84HuskerLaw]

The numbers would be more indicative if the scoring was adjusted to take out the non-defended scores (such as all the pick 6s that we had in those really awful Callahan and Riley seasons particularly.   Half a dozen TDs were given up by the offense but are being held against the defense presumably), if memory serves me correctly.  I don't recall how many TDs opponents got last year when the defense was not on the field but we had too many unfortunate kicking game and offensive miscues that gave opponents short fields, etc.

 

It seems like there are always some qualifiers that can skew almost any football stats that may tend to mitigate (or not) the interpretation of the raw numbers.  For example, many times there is a great deal of weight or emphasis placed on the third down conversion rate with teams either not being able to get off the field because of  not stopping successful third plays and or offenses being unable to convert their third downs into first downs.   The problem is that third down success is VERY much impacted by what happens on first and second downs.   Most teams do better on third and shorts vs third and longs.   The problem is that the analysis then needs to focus on what happened on first and second down just as much as what happened on third.  Teams with good per play gains on first downs tend to be more likely to get first and tens on second and or third down.   

 

Passing completions need to be broken down by location of the receiver at the time of the catch, for example.  It is presumably much easier to complete short (easy) throws such as screens and side line outs, compared to those slants and intermediate balls over the middle, etc.

  

Comparing punters by simple numberical average of the kick can be really misleading if one or two are partially blocked and or are against a strong head wind.   You need to throw out the highs and lows (the outliers) and have a reasonable number to get a more fair measure / comparison.

 

Defenses have better numbers (total yards yielded, points allowed, etc) when the offense tends to hold the ball forlarger portions of the game in time of possession, etc.   Almost any defense will give up fewer yards and points if they have to defend fewer plays.  The same applies if the defense is given a longer field to defend.  These things are pretty obvious but I think often are overlooked or simply don't get reflected in the stats.  

 

Sometimes, I think, the eye test is just about as good a measure of the quality of a team as any number crunching computer analysis.

Ironically, when our offense is quite effective at moving the ball between the 20 yard lines but struggles to score in red zone opportunities, we are essentially using up game clock time and actually aiding the opponent.   Often teams want to use up time and grind out long, methodical drives for TDs.  Those are will breakers and successful seasons are filled with those.   Big plays are nice but the key is to score.   Chunk plays between the 20s actually are less helpful than 4 yards per snap runs and 4 first downs frankly, if you are not going to score at the end of the possession.

 

I am just trying to point out that statistics are useful but are not the ONLY indicator of what is really going or or who may be 'winning' the game in the end.  The '83 Huskers 'Scoring Explosion' was perhaps the most efficient (points per snap) ever and often scored in less than 2 minutes from 80 yards out.  But because we scored so quickly, our opponents were given several more possession per game and ultimately the defense faced more snaps and gave up more points etc.  That defense was much maligned for being 'bad' but it was not altogether accurate as the stats were not necessarily true measures in my view.

    

[Guy Chamberlin]

32 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

The numbers would be more indicative if the scoring was adjusted to take out the non-defended scores (such as all the pick 6s that we had in those really awful Callahan and Riley seasons particularly.   Half a dozen TDs were given up by the offense but are being held against the defense presumably), if memory serves me correctly.  I don't recall how many TDs opponents got last year when the defense was not on the field but we had too many unfortunate kicking game and offensive miscues that gave opponents short fields, etc.

 

It seems like there are always some qualifiers that can skew almost any football stats that may tend to mitigate (or not) the interpretation of the raw numbers.  For example, many times there is a great deal of weight or emphasis placed on the third down conversion rate with teams either not being able to get off the field because of  not stopping successful third plays and or offenses being unable to convert their third downs into first downs.   The problem is that third down success is VERY much impacted by what happens on first and second downs.   Most teams do better on third and shorts vs third and longs.   The problem is that the analysis then needs to focus on what happened on first and second down just as much as what happened on third.  Teams with good per play gains on first downs tend to be more likely to get first and tens on second and or third down.   

 

Passing completions need to be broken down by location of the receiver at the time of the catch, for example.  It is presumably much easier to complete short (easy) throws such as screens and side line outs, compared to those slants and intermediate balls over the middle, etc.

  

Comparing punters by simple numberical average of the kick can be really misleading if one or two are partially blocked and or are against a strong head wind.   You need to throw out the highs and lows (the outliers) and have a reasonable number to get a more fair measure / comparison.

 

Defenses have better numbers (total yards yielded, points allowed, etc) when the offense tends to hold the ball forlarger portions of the game in time of possession, etc.   Almost any defense will give up fewer yards and points if they have to defend fewer plays.  The same applies if the defense is given a longer field to defend.  These things are pretty obvious but I think often are overlooked or simply don't get reflected in the stats.  

 

Sometimes, I think, the eye test is just about as good a measure of the quality of a team as any number crunching computer analysis.

Ironically, when our offense is quite effective at moving the ball between the 20 yard lines but struggles to score in red zone opportunities, we are essentially using up game clock time and actually aiding the opponent.   Often teams want to use up time and grind out long, methodical drives for TDs.  Those are will breakers and successful seasons are filled with those.   Big plays are nice but the key is to score.   Chunk plays between the 20s actually are less helpful than 4 yards per snap runs and 4 first downs frankly, if you are not going to score at the end of the possession.

 

I am just trying to point out that statistics are useful but are not the ONLY indicator of what is really going or or who may be 'winning' the game in the end.  The '83 Huskers 'Scoring Explosion' was perhaps the most efficient (points per snap) ever and often scored in less than 2 minutes from 80 yards out.  But because we scored so quickly, our opponents were given several more possession per game and ultimately the defense faced more snaps and gave up more points etc.  That defense was much maligned for being 'bad' but it was not altogether accurate as the stats were not necessarily true measures in my view.

    

 

 

That's why I prefaced with "scoring defense isn't the perfect measure, but it's pretty indicative."

 

Which says roughly the same thing with 650 fewer words. 

 

 

[Hayseed]

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I don't fully understand the intricacies myself. I just know the Husker defense took a wrong turn around 2011 and has been a liability ever since. My reasoning mostly comes from people who do understand the game. In-game announcers and post-game analysts who replay and diagram Husker defenders either caught out-of-position, or lining up with an unusual amount of cushion. Back in the Pelini days, announcers and opponents would say they could see the Husker D lined up to be exploited, and they were actually mystified why the Huskers refused to make adjustments. Some of that appears to have carried over through Riley and now Frost. Sometimes I see the oversized cushion myself before the play is made. Sometimes analysts and replays point it out for us. 

 

And if anyone has a plan to get more pressure on the quarterback, I haven't seen it. This includes very average quarterbacks playing behind unremarkable offensive lines. 

 

As far as in-game adjustments: I think our generally poor second ad third quarter performances speak for themselves. Other teams see our Plan A and make adjustments. At which point we don't have a Plan B. Adding insult to injury, our defensive players start playing like they've given up, and the open field tackling turns awful. 

 

Guess what I'm saying is that poor Nebraska defense looks really familiar at this point. Not sure why it spans four coaching staffs. 

Shazam!

I don’t get why we suck so pathetically bad either and I’m no longer just pointing at a lack of Pro Bowlers to cover a clueless looking staff.

[lo country]

I still miss Marvin Sanders....Knock the receiver down, out ofn bounds or off their route....Dude could coach some DB's.....

[Danimal]

17 minutes ago, lo country said:

I still miss Marvin Sanders....Knock the receiver down, out ofn bounds or off their route....Dude could coach some DB's.....

 

He would need to ramp-up his recruiting some but I'd be fine if he got a third stint here. He couldn't keep it in his pants but he developed the crap out of our secondary.