2008 vs 2009

[MUTigerFan]

Thanks for the research, statistically we're alot better on pass D, but I think we are still giving up too many rushing yards. A few too many runs of 10+ yards probably has the overall numbers up. I think we're still the best overall defense in the north, maybe even in the B12(OU giving up less than 5 ppg).

Not to be contentious or anything, but you can't compare seasons with different opponents. VT was common to both seasons, but the rest of the 2009 OOC opponents were weak sisters. Last year you played a 9 win Western Mich. Face it... the Sun Belt isn't competitive.

????

Okay, well four games into last year's season...western michigan wasn't a 9 win team were they?

Do you have some esp ability that allows to you foresee the records of every team? Do you know for a fact that Arkansas St. or FAU won't reach nine wins.

Your argument is just as flawed as this one might be.

No... the point was that they were a decent team. If Ark. St or FAU win that many, it will be against Sun Belt teams. Overall, the MAC is a tougher conference.

 

[caveman99]

Thanks for the research, statistically we're alot better on pass D, but I think we are still giving up too many rushing yards. A few too many runs of 10+ yards probably has the overall numbers up. I think we're still the best overall defense in the north, maybe even in the B12(OU giving up less than 5 ppg).

Not to be contentious or anything, but you can't compare seasons with different opponents. VT was common to both seasons, but the rest of the 2009 OOC opponents were weak sisters. Last year you played a 9 win Western Mich. Face it... the Sun Belt isn't competitive.

????

Okay, well four games into last year's season...western michigan wasn't a 9 win team were they?

Do you have some esp ability that allows to you foresee the records of every team? Do you know for a fact that Arkansas St. or FAU won't reach nine wins.

Your argument is just as flawed as this one might be.

No... the point was that they were a decent team. If Ark. St or FAU win that many, it will be against Sun Belt teams. Overall, the MAC is a tougher conference.

Pretty sure FAU beat a MAC team in their bowl game last year, just saying......

--edit--

Just checked and I was right. FAU beat Central Michigan 24-21

 

[captain obvious]

If we go through the year and a DL ends up being our leading tackler, I think it will be a good indicator that our D isn't anywhere close to where the coaches want it. The LB's as young and inexperienced as they may be really need their play to improve if we're going to hang with the pass happy spread offenses in the Big 12.

If our passing defensive statistics are poor, then you should come to the conclusion that we need more production out of the back 6 or 7 guys. In that case, you could argue that having a defensive lineman leading the team in tackles is further evidence of that. Considering the overall team statistics so far, though, I think it's encouraging that we have a productive defensive line, and a dominant member of that line who is leading in 3 statistical categories.

Looking at tackling totals, I think the only type of statistic that is always inherently bad is when your safety is the leading tackler.

 

[Overland Park Husker]

Thanks for the research, statistically we're alot better on pass D, but I think we are still giving up too many rushing yards. A few too many runs of 10+ yards probably has the overall numbers up. I think we're still the best overall defense in the north, maybe even in the B12(OU giving up less than 5 ppg).

Not to be contentious or anything, but you can't compare seasons with different opponents. VT was common to both seasons, but the rest of the 2009 OOC opponents were weak sisters. Last year you played a 9 win Western Mich. Face it... the Sun Belt isn't competitive.

????

Okay, well four games into last year's season...western michigan wasn't a 9 win team were they?

Do you have some esp ability that allows to you foresee the records of every team? Do you know for a fact that Arkansas St. or FAU won't reach nine wins.

Your argument is just as flawed as this one might be.

No... the point was that they were a decent team. If Ark. St or FAU win that many, it will be against Sun Belt teams. Overall, the MAC is a tougher conference.

Pretty sure FAU beat a MAC team in their bowl game last year, just saying......

--edit--

Just checked and I was right. FAU beat Central Michigan 24-21

Both divisions suck and I'm pretty sure any North team could go undefeated in those conferences. Well, except Colorado cause they suck and already lost to Toledo. :bluffs

 

[junior4949]

If we go through the year and a DL ends up being our leading tackler, I think it will be a good indicator that our D isn't anywhere close to where the coaches want it. The LB's as young and inexperienced as they may be really need their play to improve if we're going to hang with the pass happy spread offenses in the Big 12.

If our passing defensive statistics are poor, then you should come to the conclusion that we need more production out of the back 6 or 7 guys. In that case, you could argue that having a defensive lineman leading the team in tackles is further evidence of that. Considering the overall team statistics so far, though, I think it's encouraging that we have a productive defensive line, and a dominant member of that line who is leading in 3 statistical categories.

Looking at tackling totals, I think the only type of statistic that is always inherently bad is when your safety is the leading tackler.

Watch the last VT offensive play of the game. Why did Taylor get that TD pass? It was because we got no rush and he had like 8 seconds back there to pick our secondary apart. This is one of the biggest reasons the 2007 defense looked so inept. The DL got no rush on at all, and QB's had all day to pick the back 6 or 7 apart.

 

[MUTigerFan]

Watch the last VT offensive play of the game. Why did Taylor get that TD pass? It was because we got no rush and he had like 8 seconds back there to pick our secondary apart. This is one of the biggest reasons the 2007 defense looked so inept. The DL got no rush on at all, and QB's had all day to pick the back 6 or 7 apart.

I think that may have more a case of not over pursuing and giving Taylor a chance to run it in. That close in, you rely on the DB's and LB's to cover receivers.

 

[junior4949]

Not for 8 seconds you don't.

 

[knapplc]

Not for 8 seconds you don't.

Then your issue is with the coaching, not the ability of the players. They were told to contain, and they did. You can see Suh and Crick standing there with nobody between them and Taylor, with their hands raised, not going after him. That's scheme, not ability.

 

[junior4949]

What I'm saying is that defensively we're not going to like the results if we give QB's 8 seconds per passing play to pick apart our LB's and secondary. We can't expect them to cover for that long.

 

[Apathy]

No... the point was that they were a decent team. If Ark. St or FAU win that many, it will be against Sun Belt teams. Overall, the MAC is a tougher conference.

Now are you just saying that the MAC is better because Nevada almost beat Mizzou and to make Mizzou look better? I agree that some of the MAC teams are better than some of the Sun Belt teams.

 

[knapplc]

What I'm saying is that defensively we're not going to like the results if we give QB's 8 seconds per passing play to pick apart our LB's and secondary. We can't expect them to cover for that long.

That is very true. I'm sure if they had that play, and the 87-yard play to do over again, they'd assign at least one guy to attack Taylor rather than have everyone work on contain.

 

[Bradr]

What I'm saying is that defensively we're not going to like the results if we give QB's 8 seconds per passing play to pick apart our LB's and secondary. We can't expect them to cover for that long.

I think I will go with the statistics that say a dangerous running quarterback (that is 10/25 at the time) needs to be contained in the pocket more than be rushed with the chance of a sack. The call was sound, even if the results were not,

 

[husker B-rent]

yes but as has been mentioned...in a contain D you arent trying to rush the passer, you are merely using your Dline to "contain" him and hoping that your dbacks can match up in coverage with their WRs and TEs. basically you rush no one and put your back seven into coverage as opposed to a blitz or when you are trying to get a pass rush...you then do not put all of your dbacks into coverage..

does that make sense?

 

[captain obvious]

If we go through the year and a DL ends up being our leading tackler, I think it will be a good indicator that our D isn't anywhere close to where the coaches want it. The LB's as young and inexperienced as they may be really need their play to improve if we're going to hang with the pass happy spread offenses in the Big 12.

If our passing defensive statistics are poor, then you should come to the conclusion that we need more production out of the back 6 or 7 guys. In that case, you could argue that having a defensive lineman leading the team in tackles is further evidence of that. Considering the overall team statistics so far, though, I think it's encouraging that we have a productive defensive line, and a dominant member of that line who is leading in 3 statistical categories.

Looking at tackling totals, I think the only type of statistic that is always inherently bad is when your safety is the leading tackler.

Watch the last VT offensive play of the game. Why did Taylor get that TD pass? It was because we got no rush and he had like 8 seconds back there to pick our secondary apart. This is one of the biggest reasons the 2007 defense looked so inept. The DL got no rush on at all, and QB's had all day to pick the back 6 or 7 apart.

On a typical play, I don't think this is the case.

Also, as knapp said, that's probably what the coaches told them to do. I think this defensive line has the ability to overpower most opponents they will face this year. They have thus far, and the stats reflect that.

 

[junior4949]

I can understand not having the DE's rush keeping containment. However, I don't understand why the middle didn't rush. Even if you gave Jamal Lord 8 seconds back there, he's going to burn you. We went after them when they were on the 3, and we got a sack. Why put the brakes on the very next play? If you give any halfway capable QB 8 seconds to throw, more times than not they're going to burn you.