DC

[BIG ERN]

Everyone wants Nebraska to be successful so if Chin stays (which he will) I hope he gets us better, but lets not get gassed up on beating down a garbage Maryland team. We have only played 4 offenses in the top 50 in scoring this season. Here's how to gain some trust....hold Iowa to under 17 points Friday. They are 102nd in scoring this year. 

[Huskr25]

1 hour ago, huskered17 said:

The offense looks good if they can finish the drives, or get some kind points on the board. Not really worried about where they are headed. What I watched against a very good Wis D, was impressive. 

The defense is still maybe a couple years away. Maryland used everybody, but the waterboy at QB. Yeah it was nice to see the backups get playing time, but it was Maryland. 

Chin need's a couple of more recruiting classes, unless next year is as bad as this year. I hope he can turn it around. It would be nice to keep a staff around that really seems to be growing together.

 

GBR!!!

 

Agree with you that we need a few more recruiting classes to fit his scheme just a little better. We are well on our way. 

 

I wouldn't say this year was bad though regarding the defense. Chins has improved our defense quite a bit, from Diaco's final year, to last year, and then last year to this year has been steady improvement based on numbers. I'm actually quite pleased with the improvement. Wouldn't matter who we have as a defensive coordinator, a borderline top 30-40 defense is what we will always have with Frost's offense. 

 

Those that want to see Blackshirts of the past and a top 10 defense will be sorely disappointed, even once this thing gets rolling.  

[alexhortdog95]

2 hours ago, Huskr25 said:

 I'm actually quite pleased with the improvement. Wouldn't matter who we have as a defensive coordinator, a borderline top 30-40 defense is what we will always have with Frost's offense. 

 

Those that want to see Blackshirts of the past and a top 10 defense will be sorely disappointed, even once this thing gets rolling.  

 

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2019-team-defense.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2019-standings.html

 

The better the defense, the better your team fares.  One thing about this statistic is that it doesn't lie, and you can't argue with the fact that if you have a top notch defense, the more likely you are to be ranked.

 

For this argument, I pulled the total team defense rankings for teams whose defense was in the top 80.  I stopped there because Nebraska's defense is ranked 66th in the country right now.

 

In any case, here's the results of my analysis:

 

1. If you are in the top 20 defensively, the more likely you are to be in the top 10.  There are 15 teams with top 20 defenses that are currently ranked, 5 teams with defenses ranked 21-40, 4 teams with defenses ranked 41-60, and 1 team with a defense 61-80.

 

2. If you are in the top 20 defensively, the more likely you are to have at least 9 wins.  Wins and losses begin plummet greatly based on your defensive ranking.  The average wins/loss record in the top 20 defenses is 9-2.  This goes down to around 7-3 for defenses ranked 21-40, 6-4 for defenses ranked 41-60, and 5-5 for defenses ranked 61-80.

 

Point being - being satisfied with at top 60 defense makes you average.  Being satisfied with a top 30 -40 defense makes you just above average, respectable in some seasons.  Being satisfied with a top 20 defense puts you in the hunt for conference and national championships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One last thing - Notice that in the top 20 defenses, there isn't a single team that is below .500...

 

[FrankWheeler]

3 minutes ago, alexhortdog95 said:

.

 

 

Now do offense!

[alexhortdog95]

Just now, FrankWheeler said:

 

Now do offense!

 

Gimme a few, you got it.

[Husker in WI]

1 minute ago, alexhortdog95 said:

Point being - being satisfied with at top 60 defense makes you average.  Being satisfied with a top 30 -40 defense makes you just above average, respectable in some seasons.

LSU is 42nd, and Oklahoma is 55th. "Respectable in some seasons" is a little bit of an understatement. But anyway, I don't think anyone is talking about being satisfied with the 66th ranked defense. Top 20 should definitely be the goal, but 30-40 is probably more realistic.

[Huskr25]

10 minutes ago, alexhortdog95 said:

 

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2019-team-defense.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2019-standings.html

 

The better the defense, the better your team fares.  One thing about this statistic is that it doesn't lie, and you can't argue with the fact that if you have a top notch defense, the more likely you are to be ranked.

 

For this argument, I pulled the total team defense rankings for teams whose defense was in the top 80.  I stopped there because Nebraska's defense is ranked 66th in the country right now.

 

In any case, here's the results of my analysis:

 

1. If you are in the top 20 defensively, the more likely you are to be in the top 10.  There are 15 teams with top 20 defenses that are currently ranked, 5 teams with defenses ranked 21-40, 4 teams with defenses ranked 41-60, and 1 team with a defense 61-80.

 

2. If you are in the top 20 defensively, the more likely you are to have at least 9 wins.  Wins and losses begin plummet greatly based on your defensive ranking.  The average wins/loss record in the top 20 defenses is 9-2.  This goes down to around 7-3 for defenses ranked 21-40, 6-4 for defenses ranked 41-60, and 5-5 for defenses ranked 61-80.

 

Point being - being satisfied with at top 60 defense makes you average.  Being satisfied with a top 30 -40 defense makes you just above average, respectable in some seasons.  Being satisfied with a top 20 defense puts you in the hunt for conference and national championships.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One last thing - Notice that in the top 20 defenses, there isn't a single team that is below .500...

 

 

Good research but you're twisting stats to back up your argument. 

 

You're basing all success based on total defense without looking at a bunch of other variables (offense, turnovers, points scored, offense, talent, etc.) 

 

Look up statistics on Time of Possession and total defense and see how they correlate - that's where Chin and Frosts' whole argument is based on. Also look up statistics on Frost's time at Oregon. With Frost calling the offense, they were like 63-2 when they scored over 30 points, hence the reason to base the success of our defense off of points scored and not total defense. Avg of 30 points scored against would be about a top 30-40 total defense. So yes, this is obviously successful. When a team ranks in the bottom half of T.O.P. they will have a average to below-average defense according to stats the majority of the time because the defense is on the field more. 

 

With Frost's offense, we will never be in the top half of teams in T.O.P. (history tells us this), couple this with the fact that this defensive scheme is not a bend-but-don't break style. It is very aggressive. It's aggressive because that leads to more turnovers to give the ball back to the offense. More aggression means more chunk plays that will be given up but that's OK given our offense. History shows these schemes are VERY successful together which is why it's unbelievable that people want to have staff changes and break up the schemes that go hand-in-hand. 

 

Frost and Chins have a chemistry that rivals any other Offensive play caller and defensive coordinator in the game today. Just because its taking longer to implement these schemes COHESIVELY does not mean we need to dismiss the history that's been built with Frost and his coaching. 

 

 

 

[Archy1221]

13 minutes ago, Huskr25 said:

 

Good research but you're twisting stats to back up your argument. 

 

You're basing all success based on total defense without looking at a bunch of other variables (offense, turnovers, points scored, offense, talent, etc.) 

 

Look up statistics on Time of Possession and total defense and see how they correlate - that's where Chin and Frosts' whole argument is based on. Also look up statistics on Frost's time at Oregon. With Frost calling the offense, they were like 63-2 when they scored over 30 points, hence the reason to base the success of our defense off of points scored and not total defense. Avg of 30 points scored against would be about a top 30-40 total defense. So yes, this is obviously successful. When a team ranks in the bottom half of T.O.P. they will have a average to below-average defense according to stats the majority of the time because the defense is on the field more. 

 

With Frost's offense, we will never be in the top half of teams in T.O.P. (history tells us this), couple this with the fact that this defensive scheme is not a bend-but-don't break style. It is very aggressive. It's aggressive because that leads to more turnovers to give the ball back to the offense. More aggression means more chunk plays that will be given up but that's OK given our offense. History shows these schemes are VERY successful together which is why it's unbelievable that people want to have staff changes and break up the schemes that go hand-in-hand. 

 

Frost and Chins have a chemistry that rivals any other Offensive play caller and defensive coordinator in the game today. Just because its taking longer to implement these schemes COHESIVELY does not mean we need to dismiss the history that's been built with Frost and his coaching. 

 

 

 

I’ve never fully understood this argument.  Two ways to control time of possession is to have an offense that either grinds long possessions or has multiple first down scoring possessions. The second way to control time of possession is to get 3 and out defensive stops or only 1 first down defensive stops. 

 

Get more three and outs, don’t rely on a bend for 35 yards and don’t break defensive. Be stout and get the ball back to your offense from the beginning. 

[alexhortdog95]

1 hour ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Now do offense!

 

Keep in mind the following:

 

I agree with @Huskr25's argument to an extent.  There's another thread that I was on that I made the exact same argument that rankings of stats don't matter when you play situational football (i.e., starting field possession, turnovers, etc, etc). 

 

The reason why I brought the stats up in this particular argument is that it seems to be a popular talking point on retaining a certain staff member (i.e., look at the stats of years past versus this year).

 

As I've stated, the only stat that counts is SCOREBOARD. 

 

I added another column for a team's offensive ranking.  Note some interesting trend changes:

• No change in the top 20 of offense, but there are less ranked teams in the top 20 of offense.
• Wins slightly go down a bit, but they're still 9-2 with a top 20 offense as well.
• There's a team with a sub .500 record in the top 20 of offensive rankings (ergo, the situation of we're behind chuck the ball)
• More teams are ranked with a top 21-40 offense than a top 21-40 Defense.
• A good defense is more likely to get you ranked (see Iowa and Cincy) than a top ranked offense (again, situational)

A good example of not using stats to worry about the outcome of a sporting contest was the Wilder/Ortiz II fight last Saturday.

All the judges had Ortiz up on every scorecard up until the 7th round, and then Wilder used the eraser and it was over.

 

Plus, the dude came to the ring looking like a Power Ranger:

 

 

So, if you want to use stats to gauge performance, that's fine.  Just know, they can be used for and against you as well.  Like I said before, the only stat that matters are wins and losses.

 

Stats as requested:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Huskr25]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ve never fully understood this argument.  Two ways to control time of possession is to have an offense that either grinds long possessions or has multiple first down scoring possessions. The second way to control time of possession is to get 3 and out defensive stops or only 1 first down defensive stops. 

 

Get more three and outs, don’t rely on a bend for 35 yards and don’t break defensive. Be stout and get the ball back to your offense from the beginning. 

 

Frost's offense is not a grind-it-out offense, so that won't happen. Although, I see him putting in more power plays so maybe he wants to have some of those aspects for the B1G which is a good idea. 

 

To your 2nd point, even with multiple first downs, this offense still isn't based on long, possession drives. Notice that whenever we want to play possession, we just sit at the line of scrimmage looking at the sideline until time winds down. When we're going at the speed he wants with the scheme down, we will more often than not be quick. This puts a lot of pressure on the defense after a couple quarters. Again, couple this with an aggressive defensive scheme we will get turnovers at the expense of yards being given up which limits the 3 and outs. 

 

Look, I know what you're saying and what you're argument is, but what I'm saying is that Frost wants an aggressive defensive scheme like Chin's and they have the chemistry for their schemes to play off each other. He won't fire Chins. Only way Chins leaves is if he takes a head coaching job which I don't see happening any time soon.

 

Embrace the schemes and trust in Frost. You'll soon see how effective they are together. We're getting glimpses of it every now and then. 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Huskr25 said:

 

Frost's offense is not a grind-it-out offense, so that won't happen. Although, I see him putting in more power plays so maybe he wants to have some of those aspects for the B1G which is a good idea. 

 

To your 2nd point, even with multiple first downs, this offense still isn't based on long, possession drives. Notice that whenever we want to play possession, we just sit at the line of scrimmage looking at the sideline until time winds down. When we're going at the speed he wants with the scheme down, we will more often than not be quick. This puts a lot of pressure on the defense after a couple quarters. Again, couple this with an aggressive defensive scheme we will get turnovers at the expense of yards being given up which limits the 3 and outs. 

 

Look, I know what you're saying and what you're argument is, but what I'm saying is that Frost wants an aggressive defensive scheme like Chin's and they have the chemistry for their schemes to play off each other. He won't fire Chins. Only way Chins leaves is if he takes a head coaching job which I don't see happening any time soon.

 

Embrace the schemes and trust in Frost. You'll soon see how effective they are together. We're getting glimpses of it every now and then. 

I think we’re on the same page here but not quite sure.  

 

Im all in on Frost and his offensive scheme/philosophy.  Quick strike or long drives, I don’t really care.  I just want points.  If he gets more and more top tier talent, the offense will be the least of our worries. 

 

My my main point was our offensive output by scoring fast/often should have no bearing on our scoring defense when the first team is in. I don’t care how quick we score, the best outcome on defense is a three and out, and in my mind you get three and outs by being aggressive and getting negative yardage plays out of the other team.  Now whether that happens because they recruit players like Ohio State has on D line this year where they can generate pressure with 4, or our D has to scheme pressure doesn’t make a difference to me.  

 

Pressure creates a hurried offense which creates negative yardage plays/ offensive penalties which creates 3 and outs and turnovers.  I hate when our defense plays a simple base defense, corners off the ball 8 yards on a third and 7 and we give up first downs cause there is no front pressure and the receivers get off the ball free and clear. 

[Archy1221]

Inevitably, what the two charts in this thread show is that in order to be a top Top 10 team, you need either an elite offense or an elite defense.   You can get by if one is elite and the other is top 30ish 

[Huskr25]

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I think we’re on the same page here but not quite sure.  

 

Im all in on Frost and his offensive scheme/philosophy.  Quick strike or long drives, I don’t really care.  I just want points.  If he gets more and more top tier talent, the offense will be the least of our worries. 

 

My my main point was our offensive output by scoring fast/often should have no bearing on our scoring defense when the first team is in. I don’t care how quick we score, the best outcome on defense is a three and out, and in my mind you get three and outs by being aggressive and getting negative yardage plays out of the other team.  Now whether that happens because they recruit players like Ohio State has on D line this year where they can generate pressure with 4, or our D has to scheme pressure doesn’t make a difference to me.  

 

Pressure creates a hurried offense which creates negative yardage plays/ offensive penalties which creates 3 and outs and turnovers.  I hate when our defense plays a simple base defense, corners off the ball 8 yards on a third and 7 and we give up first downs cause there is no front pressure and the receivers get off the ball free and clear. 

 

Ah ok yeah were mostly on the same page haha. I just dont agree that we can have a top 10 defense with a Frost offense. I legitimately think we should be happy with a top 30 defense. I feel like if that happens were having a special season. 

 

Either way I can see your point and even argue for your main point, but just dont feel as strongly about it as you do. 

 

Your last paragraph I agree 100%. I know Chins has a uber aggressive defense but we have not seen it the last 2 years. Our D line isnt good enough (especially against wisconsin!) To only rush 3 or 4. Need exotic blitz like at UCF - but we dont see them) In fact, Frosts offense looks different too. 

 

I wonder why that is?

[BigPeterJ]

13 hours ago, Huskr25 said:

 

Frost's offense is not a grind-it-out offense, so that won't happen. Although, I see him putting in more power plays so maybe he wants to have some of those aspects for the B1G which is a good idea. 

 

To your 2nd point, even with multiple first downs, this offense still isn't based on long, possession drives. Notice that whenever we want to play possession, we just sit at the line of scrimmage looking at the sideline until time winds down. When we're going at the speed he wants with the scheme down, we will more often than not be quick. This puts a lot of pressure on the defense after a couple quarters. Again, couple this with an aggressive defensive scheme we will get turnovers at the expense of yards being given up which limits the 3 and outs. 

 

Look, I know what you're saying and what you're argument is, but what I'm saying is that Frost wants an aggressive defensive scheme like Chin's and they have the chemistry for their schemes to play off each other. He won't fire Chins. Only way Chins leaves is if he takes a head coaching job which I don't see happening any time soon.

 

Embrace the schemes and trust in Frost. You'll soon see how effective they are together. We're getting glimpses of it every now and then. 

I think our defense has been pretty good this year, other than the LB spots.  I believe that is just a result of poor talent at LB...but maybe some of it is scheme?  LBs are playmakers in this defense, and unfortunstely we just dont have good playmakers their except for JoJo.  Hopefully some of our young guys develop well.

[mnhusker]

I hope to see the DC put a plan that can at least make this not even top 100 offense look like a not even to 100 offense.  Given that they well have to defend more plays due to the quick offense then I assume they will look great till late in the game and hopefully longer.