Blackshirts selling out against run

Regardless our pass defense has to improve immensely. Yes, stopping the run in the Big Ten should be the primary consideration but not if the result is the abysmal, worst in country, pass D we have seen. We can't keep allowing opposing QB's to have their best game of the year against us, much like RB's had record setting days against Bo's pattycake D. As NUance's post shows, a team doesn't have to be that gawd awful bad against the pass to also be good at stopping the run. We can, should, and have to do much better. Possibly the answer is different personnel and more time within the new system but I also suspect the system may need some tweaks.

 
zoogs said:
GBRedneck said:
Sargon said:
NU is 41st in points given up per play. That's not bad IMO considering the new D, coaches and the starting lineups.

1 Mich, 4 Wisc, 8 Iowa, 10 tOSU, 21 NW, 31 Pitt, 35 MSU, 40 Minn.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-points-per-play
Click to expand...
9th in the Big 10 isn't bad?
Click to expand...
In the last three games it's 4th in the B1G and 22nd in the nation.
Click to expand...
Against the #87, #72 and #107 offenses in that same statistic.

 
BigRedBuster said:
soup said:
Saw somewhere that Liedner was only 10-23 in the second half last week. So there were adjustments made, and if you have QBs chucking up 40+ times a game at under a 50% completion ratio. The odds are going to eventually go into your favor. Especially once we start to get some depth back to our front 7, so they can start "teeing" off on the QB.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. I think our key to making this stop is doing what we did against Minnesota. We need to get interceptions. I you have teams pass for 40+ times with a 50% completion percentage but they have a decent yards per attempt, they are going to keep doing it. NOW, if you make them pay a few times a game with an interception, they will start rethinking that theory.
Click to expand...
If defenses could plan for interceptions you wouldn't see so many defensive coordinators fired. Turnovers are largely luck; but it's much easier to not give up the ball than it is to "force" a turnover. Defensive turnovers have an enormous amount of variability from one set to the next (example being year to year). Banker referred to this as them coming in "bunches".

That said, when one hits you in the hands, it's best to seize the opportunity.

 
brophog said:
BigRedBuster said:
soup said:
Saw somewhere that Liedner was only 10-23 in the second half last week. So there were adjustments made, and if you have QBs chucking up 40+ times a game at under a 50% completion ratio. The odds are going to eventually go into your favor. Especially once we start to get some depth back to our front 7, so they can start "teeing" off on the QB.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. I think our key to making this stop is doing what we did against Minnesota. We need to get interceptions. I you have teams pass for 40+ times with a 50% completion percentage but they have a decent yards per attempt, they are going to keep doing it. NOW, if you make them pay a few times a game with an interception, they will start rethinking that theory.
Click to expand...
If defenses could plan for interceptions you wouldn't see so many defensive coordinators fired. Turnovers are largely luck; but it's much easier to not give up the ball than it is to "force" a turnover. Defensive turnovers have an enormous amount of variability from one set to the next (example being year to year). Banker referred to this as them coming in "bunches".

That said, when one hits you in the hands, it's best to seize the opportunity.
Click to expand...
My point was that we needed to be getting more than we were getting before the Minny game. Yes, there is some luck to it. But, a decent defense should be at least getting some.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top