2012 Pass Defense

Great info in here. I was pretty happy with our secondary but like someone mentioned earlier, they never looked for the ball! This not only led to many blown opportunities for turnovers but also allowed tons of big plays in the air for opposing teams. Every time our opponent threw it deep my heart sank because I knew there was a very good chance that it would be completed. I'd be curious to see the stats on this.

 
HuskerNationNick said:
Mr. Accountability said:
Bo admitted in the post game that that blitz was a mistake. He also said he was at the point where he was trying to force the issue and possible get a turnover in an obvious pass situation.
That's what I thought. Had we have had Stein in that game, or someone who could get a good push, it would have been a great idea, but as we all know, that isn't even close to what happened.
Didn't help that our blitzes were often of the " everybody at the LOS showing blitz" variety. Maybe we'd back-out of the blitz but there was no surprise that we were coming. Hopefully with more athletic LB's we can conceal things more and use their speed to get to the qb.

Our pass D also wasn't helped that game by the refs ignoring missing blatant pick-plays.

Hope Gregory and McMullen can provide some pass-rushing presence.

 
Point about the pick plays - we use a lot of them too.

As Coach K (Duke Coach K) would say, DON'T LET YOURSELF GET PICKED!!!!

 
Point about the pick plays - we use a lot of them too.

As Coach K (Duke Coach K) would say, DON'T LET YOURSELF GET PICKED!!!!

I said BLATANT picks. Subtle I understand getting away with, I remember one we ran with Marlowe in it that was almost art. UGA got away with some WTH just ran down and took the guy out stuff that really should've drawn a flag.

 
Combining this information with the pass attempts result tells us that teams didn't play Nebraska any differently than they played other opponents. They respected Nebraska's run defense, and didn't give enough respect to Nebraska's pass defense, much to their own downfall.
This is true. I thought several opposing coaches stuck with their regular gameplan rather than adjusting to exploit the Husker's weaknesses. I'm not sure they actually "respected" Nebraska's 90th ranked rushing defense too much. They were just determined to run a balanced offense. There was some mystifying coaching by our opponents last year.

But the better coaches and teams seemed perfectly willing to keep hitting the same gaping holes that the Husker defense kept giving them. The passes they completed were often killers, regardless of the modest completion percentage.

The Big 10 wasn't a stellar passing conference last year, and our non-con schedule didn't exactly test us.

I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.

Completion percentage isn't the only measure of a secondary. My problem was the poor anticipation and tackling when plays broke through the D-line, which happened a bit too often.

 
I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.
Most likely. There's a difference between being statistically elite, and actually being elite. Being statistically elite didn't help us a bit against a decent passing team like Georgia.
Why this is true, name one Big XII team other than K-State who had a run game like Georgia, we had to respect Georgia's run game or else Gurly would have ran all over us. The Big 12 would have played right into our wheelhouse, It is more of a passing conference than the BIG, would we have won it? probably not, but we wouldnt have gotten shredded

 
I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.
Most likely. There's a difference between being statistically elite, and actually being elite. Being statistically elite didn't help us a bit against a decent passing team like Georgia.

While we got torched with yards and touchdowns against Georgia, we also forced two interceptions and held him near 50% completions. Basically, with how I remember that game, we got beat by three NFL-caliber perfect, undefendable throws.

 
I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.
Most likely. There's a difference between being statistically elite, and actually being elite. Being statistically elite didn't help us a bit against a decent passing team like Georgia.

While we got torched with yards and touchdowns against Georgia, we also forced two interceptions and held him near 50% completions. Basically, with how I remember that game, we got beat by three NFL-caliber perfect, undefendable throws.
Exactly. There were two throws I remember where Murray just placed it where only his receiver could catch it. That's not our lack of execution, it's his passing ability and that we can't control. If a player is going to have a great day throwing the ball, there's not much a defense can do to stop him (i.e. Manziel vs Alabama).

 
I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.
Most likely. There's a difference between being statistically elite, and actually being elite. Being statistically elite didn't help us a bit against a decent passing team like Georgia.
If memory serves me correctly, almost half of the B1G passing defenses ended up ranked in the top 30. I'm too lazy to go back and look up the data as this has been debated several times before. The passing D was by far and away the bright spot on last year's D. However, the passing D numbers were skewed a bit as a result of the competition. In a run heavy conference, it's obvious where we need to get better on D. Bo inherited good/great DL when he was hired, but he hasn't really found viable replacements. Bo didn't inherit much at LB. Hopefully, he's addressed this.

On one hand I understand the argument as to why some believe our defense will be worse than last year when one takes into account how many starters from last year are no longer here. However, my gut tells me that it just can't be as bad as it was last year. I never realized just how slow some were on our defense until the combine when Stafford ran the 40.

 
I agree that those Murray passes in the Georgia game were maddeningly perfect, and Darrelle Revis would have been hard pressed to stop them.

Georgia also dropped a wide-open pass in the end zone that would have made it 52 - 31, making that game feel more like another blowout than the well-contested game we're inclined to remember.

This was a rebuilding year in the Big 10, with the only great team being banned from the conference championship.

Top to bottom, I think the Big 12 had more dangerous offenses. Kansas may have been the only patsy. I'm not sure we prevail over West Virginia, Baylor or even Iowa State. We had enough trouble with Iowa, after all. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas State were better than the UCLA team that lit us up. And I think we made Hundely look good. I wouldn't say he's anywere near a great qb yet.

All that being said, I think ANY improvement on defense this year puts us in the mix.

 
I think the Big 12 would have shredded us last year.
Most likely. There's a difference between being statistically elite, and actually being elite. Being statistically elite didn't help us a bit against a decent passing team like Georgia.

While we got torched with yards and touchdowns against Georgia, we also forced two interceptions and held him near 50% completions. Basically, with how I remember that game, we got beat by three NFL-caliber perfect, undefendable throws.
We talked about this at the tailgate. He threw his WRs open. Murray would have made a ton of money had he came out this year.

 
I agree that those Murray passes in the Georgia game were maddeningly perfect, and Darrelle Revis would have been hard pressed to stop them.

Georgia also dropped a wide-open pass in the end zone that would have made it 52 - 31, making that game feel more like another blowout than the well-contested game we're inclined to remember.

This was a rebuilding year in the Big 10, with the only great team being banned from the conference championship.

Top to bottom, I think the Big 12 had more dangerous offenses. Kansas may have been the only patsy. I'm not sure we prevail over West Virginia, Baylor or even Iowa State. We had enough trouble with Iowa, after all. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas State were better than the UCLA team that lit us up. And I think we made Hundely look good. I wouldn't say he's anywere near a great qb yet.

All that being said, I think ANY improvement on defense this year puts us in the mix.
Your going to compare West Virginia, Baylor and Iowa St to the Iowa game? Had the weather not been negative with the 30mph winds, it would have opened up our playbook. Your not giving Iowa's run defense enough credit at all. They have a very decent rush defense, especially when they know its coming. When their rush defense gets weak when they are being forced to protect against the passing game, something they didn't have to worry about, and quite frankly, something we didn't either.

We play any of those games in the same weather we had with Iowa, our team could get a W out of each of them. We would have shut down WV, who is a pass heavy team. We would have had issues with Baylor, but their rush defense was more horrid than ours, so I think we win. OU and OSU were not as good as they have been the past 3 years, defensively and offensively. Iowa State had no freaking offense, and had a decent defense who kept them in 80% of their games.

Now you mention the UCLA game. Yes they exploited us, and showed where we lacked a lot of, but had we have had another rematch, the game wouldn't have been the same outcome. We lost by one score, while turning the ball over multiple times, in our own territory.

You call it a rebuilding year, I see us facing some of the best B1G running backs and QB's. Kain Colter, Dennard Robinson, Monte Ball, Leveon Bell, Venric Mark and Carlos Hyde. I think the defenses last year were much weaker than usual, but offenses were exactly what they have always been, except for Iowa and Michigan State. I don't see defenses getting any better next year either. tOSU, Michigan St and Michigan all had average defenses, while losing their key players in the draft.

I don't think your giving this team enough credit. With all due respect, I don't think your giving this team any credit for their accomplishments. If our rush defense and pass defense was sooooo horrid, we should have lost every game this year, especially with leading the nation in turnovers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do some people just WANT us to be bad? I'm trying to uncover the motivations behind some of these posts that are full of double standards.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Sometimes hindsight is 20/20, sometimes it turns into revisionist history. I am of the opinion that a few bad performances unjustifiably changed the perception of just how "awful" our defense was.

I've heard a lot of arguments about why our pass defense was ranked so high (we were #1 nationally in pass efficiency defense and pass completion percentage defense before the Georgia game, and finished at #9 and #1 respectively).

The biggest and quickest argument is that teams were so good at running against us that they didn't have to pass it, therefore their numbers weren't good. Two problems with this. First, we aren't measuring volume; we're measuring efficiency. Even if a team passed 10 times against us compared to 25 as their average, they completed a much lower percentage of those 10 passes and were much less efficient doing so (which actually would go contrary to the idea that it was because of our porous run defense, which would assume that we were always expecting run, thus opening up the passing game for greater success. Number two, it's just not true. Below are the passing numbers of most all of the teams we faced (I took the numbers of the quarterback that played most or all of the game), compared to their averages per game on the season.

UCLA

Vs. Nebraska - 21/33 (63.7%) for 305 yards, 4 TD, 0 INT ----- Season Average - 23/34 (66.6%) for 267.5 yards, 2 TD, .78 INT - Threw an average amount of times at an average completion percentage

Arkansas State

Vs. Nebraska - 16/30 (53.3%) for 138 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT ----- Season Average - 21/31 (67.7%) for 257 yards, 1.8 TD, .3 INT - Well below season averages across the board, but threw for same number of attempts

Wisconsin

Vs. Nebraska - 12/23 (52.1%) for 214 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT ----- Season Average - 12/20 (58.8%) for 184 yards, 1 TD, .5 INT - Pretty average stuff here, right on par with his season numbers (Stave)

Ohio State

Vs. Nebraska - 7/14 (50%) for 127 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT ----- Season Average - 12/21 (58.3%) for 170 yards, 1.25 TD, .5 INT - These numbers are closer than I thought, although this game is one that is actually telling as to their success on the ground.

Northwestern

Vs. Nebraska - 16/37 (43.2%) for 121 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT ----- Season Average - 17/28 (63.3%) for 168 yards, 1 TD, .5 INT - Notably higher number of attempts with notably lower success

Michigan State

Vs. Nebraska - 9/27 (33.3%) for 123 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT ----- Season Average - 18/34 (52.5%) for 200 yards, 1 TD, .7 INT - Threw it a little less, but significant drop-off in efficiency

Penn State

Vs. Nebraska - 18/37 (48.6%) for 240 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT ----- Season Average - 22.5/37 (60.5%) for 272.5 yards, 2 TD, .4 INT - Threw the same amount of times, far less production. This being a quarterback that signed a three year deal with the Raiders. Us and Wisconsin the only two teams to hold him under 50% on the year.

Minnesota

Vs. Nebraska - 8/23 (34.7%) for 59 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT ----- Season Average - 11/21 (49.3%) for 125 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT - Same song different verse. Threw for more attempts than average.

Iowa

Vs. Nebraska - 11/24 (45.8%) for 82 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT ----- Season Average - 17/32 (57.3%) for 187 yards, .6 TD, .7 INT - Threw less times but keep in mind the 25 mph winds.

So, you tell me if our pass defense was actually good or not, and if they actually "benefitted" from our run defense being so bad that teams didn't have to pass. The numbers seem pretty clear to me.
Good stuff, Landlord. +1

 
Back
Top