Can the defense be better in 2010?

[ESPY]

I think we'll know where we're at without question after the Idaho game. Second game of the season, featuring an offense that moves the ball quite well and features a Nebraska native (Nate Enderle) eager to play in front of his home-state fans and four different wideouts who caught 30 or more passes in 2009. This figures to be a pretty stiff test for the Blackshirts, since Enderle hasn't thrown for less than 50% completions since 10/2008 when he was a redshirt Sophomore.

In the 16 games since his last sub-50% passing day, Enderle has thrown for 3,400 yards and 27 TDs vs. only 15 INTs. Now, that's only against a strength of schedule ranking 95th in the nation, so it's not cause for alarm, but it's a solid reason to pay attention to this guy.

If we hold Enderle under 50% and mostly out of the endzone we'll know we're in good shape for the Big 12.

Excellent points about that matchup with Idaho. I don't know why people think that's gonna be such a cakewalk for us b/c that team knows how to score. They're defense is weak, so I see us putting up 35+. But, we'll have our hands full with that passing game of theirs.

As far as the defense being better than last year, I say "NO" because that Suh-led D was one of the top 3 defenses in Nebraska history. One of the reasons that D was so incredible was how rarely they allowed opposing offenses to score TDs once they'd got inside our 30-yard line - we were the consumate "bend don't break" defense that imposed its will to the point of becoming arguably the nation's best redzone D. Slice it any way you want, I just don't see that happening again without a player like Suh.

IMO we're in for a rude awakening on D, in spite of the swagger & coaching. I know we don't expect to see this, but I think the offense is gonna need to save our butts in at least 3 or 4 games this season. On paper it would appear our D will be more susceptible to the big plays due to the lack of experience at safety, especially on plays when we blitz LBs or DBs (from nickel & dime packages). Sure, we look pretty solid across the board, but the loss of those 4 seniors is bound to hurt us a couple times. Just sayin...

I mostly agree with what you are saying but I don't know that I'd go as far as saying that we are in for a "rude awakening." I think the defense will drop off with the loss of Suh, Dillard, O'Hanlon, and Asante (in that order) but I fully expect Bo to field a Top 20 defense. Should be fun to watch. I will say one thing . . . if the defensive line produces numbers even close to last season . . . Bo, Carl, and company are without question the best defensive line coaches in college football.

A top 20 D is much more reasonable an expectation. That's pretty much what I meant by "rude awakening" - I was addressing those on this thread who think our D will actually match what we saw last year. IMO unlikely.

However, I don't think top 20 is anything to be ashamed of. Look at the championship teams of years past, and you'll find a top-20 D is the threshold....although those Ds have top 50 offenses too (and as well all know, our offense has a long way to go if they want to reach that tier).

 

[carlfense]

I think we'll know where we're at without question after the Idaho game. Second game of the season, featuring an offense that moves the ball quite well and features a Nebraska native (Nate Enderle) eager to play in front of his home-state fans and four different wideouts who caught 30 or more passes in 2009. This figures to be a pretty stiff test for the Blackshirts, since Enderle hasn't thrown for less than 50% completions since 10/2008 when he was a redshirt Sophomore.

In the 16 games since his last sub-50% passing day, Enderle has thrown for 3,400 yards and 27 TDs vs. only 15 INTs. Now, that's only against a strength of schedule ranking 95th in the nation, so it's not cause for alarm, but it's a solid reason to pay attention to this guy.

If we hold Enderle under 50% and mostly out of the endzone we'll know we're in good shape for the Big 12.

Excellent points about that matchup with Idaho. I don't know why people think that's gonna be such a cakewalk for us b/c that team knows how to score. They're defense is weak, so I see us putting up 35+. But, we'll have our hands full with that passing game of theirs.

As far as the defense being better than last year, I say "NO" because that Suh-led D was one of the top 3 defenses in Nebraska history. One of the reasons that D was so incredible was how rarely they allowed opposing offenses to score TDs once they'd got inside our 30-yard line - we were the consumate "bend don't break" defense that imposed its will to the point of becoming arguably the nation's best redzone D. Slice it any way you want, I just don't see that happening again without a player like Suh.

IMO we're in for a rude awakening on D, in spite of the swagger & coaching. I know we don't expect to see this, but I think the offense is gonna need to save our butts in at least 3 or 4 games this season. On paper it would appear our D will be more susceptible to the big plays due to the lack of experience at safety, especially on plays when we blitz LBs or DBs (from nickel & dime packages). Sure, we look pretty solid across the board, but the loss of those 4 seniors is bound to hurt us a couple times. Just sayin...

I mostly agree with what you are saying but I don't know that I'd go as far as saying that we are in for a "rude awakening." I think the defense will drop off with the loss of Suh, Dillard, O'Hanlon, and Asante (in that order) but I fully expect Bo to field a Top 20 defense. Should be fun to watch. I will say one thing . . . if the defensive line produces numbers even close to last season . . . Bo, Carl, and company are without question the best defensive line coaches in college football.

A top 20 D is much more reasonable an expectation. That's pretty much what I meant by "rude awakening" - I was addressing those on this thread who think our D will actually match what we saw last year. IMO unlikely.

However, I don't think top 20 is anything to be ashamed of. Look at the championship teams of years past, and you'll find a top-20 D is the threshold....although those Ds have top 50 offenses too (and as well all know, our offense has a long way to go if they want to reach that tier).

Ah. We're in agreement then. I took rude awakening to mean a BIG drop . . . like down to Top 50 . . . which sadly is still a huge improvement over 2007. Wow. How far we've come.

 

[CornKing]

I understand we won't have Big Suh but, I think people are seriously over looking Crick and who ever else. Excellence breeds excellence. If you think that Crick and boys didn't pick up every little bit of info. they could get off Suh your crazy. I look for some drop off in sacks because not just anyone can do what he did but, I wouldn't count our D-line out. I still foresee us running in a 4 front most of the time. As for safety I agree the biggest dropoff you will see will be in the first 3-4 games. I remember the beginning of last year we weren't real solid again the passing game either. Overall I think we will be better on D This year the talent is more spread out.

 

[carlfense]

I understand we won't have Big Suh but, I think people are seriously over looking Crick and who ever else. Excellence breeds excellence. If you think that Crick and boys didn't pick up every little bit of info. they could get off Suh your crazy. I look for some drop off in sacks because not just anyone can do what he did but, I wouldn't count our D-line out. I still foresee us running in a 4 front most of the time. As for safety I agree the biggest dropoff you will see will be in the first 3-4 games. I remember the beginning of last year we weren't real solid again the passing game either. Overall I think we will be better on D This year the talent is more spread out.

I've heard this argument so many times from so many different fan bases: "we lost our stars but now they can't just focus on one guy - so we'll be better!" I can't think of a SINGLE instance where it was true. Do you know of a case where it has been true? I'd love to check it out if you do.

Is it possible that there will be no dropoff? Sure. Is it likely? Doubtful.

It's springtime . . . when the koolaid flows like wine and the women flock like the salmon of Capistrano.

 

[knapplc]

Let's not forget about Jake Locker from Washington. He could do pretty well against us. To me, that is a HUGE wildcard game.

This is true, but we come to that hurdle after Idaho, which is why I focused on Enderle.

 

[schuhbdoo]

Let's not forget about Jake Locker from Washington. He could do pretty well against us. To me, that is a HUGE wildcard game.

I am confident Bo will have his D ready for Jake Locker. He is very good but remember, Colt McCoy didn't forget how to play football when this D shut him down. He had 44 wins under his belt in 4 years. Bo's D took the Heisman right out of his hands.

Bo's D shut down Arizona and their QB is really good too. Their offense has playmakers too.

This to me is a huge test, if we dominate on the road, it will give me hope that we are for real and truly back on track.

ESPN should be able to hype this one pretty well, top 3 D against Heisman hopeful!!! If gameday isn't there, then there should be a story on the day of the game that day on gameday.

 

[ESPY]

I understand we won't have Big Suh but, I think people are seriously over looking Crick and who ever else. Excellence breeds excellence. If you think that Crick and boys didn't pick up every little bit of info. they could get off Suh your crazy. I look for some drop off in sacks because not just anyone can do what he did but, I wouldn't count our D-line out. I still foresee us running in a 4 front most of the time. As for safety I agree the biggest dropoff you will see will be in the first 3-4 games. I remember the beginning of last year we weren't real solid again the passing game either. Overall I think we will be better on D This year the talent is more spread out.

I've heard this argument so many times from so many different fan bases: "we lost our stars but now they can't just focus on one guy - so we'll be better!" I can't think of a SINGLE instance where it was true. Do you know of a case where it has been true? I'd love to check it out if you do.

Is it possible that there will be no dropoff? Sure. Is it likely? Doubtful.

It's springtime . . . when the koolaid flows like wine and the women flock like the salmon of Capistrano.

You only got +1 from me because of that Dumb & Dumber reference. Now, do you wanna hear the most annoying sound in the world?

 

[CornKing]

I understand we won't have Big Suh but, I think people are seriously over looking Crick and who ever else. Excellence breeds excellence. If you think that Crick and boys didn't pick up every little bit of info. they could get off Suh your crazy. I look for some drop off in sacks because not just anyone can do what he did but, I wouldn't count our D-line out. I still foresee us running in a 4 front most of the time. As for safety I agree the biggest dropoff you will see will be in the first 3-4 games. I remember the beginning of last year we weren't real solid again the passing game either. Overall I think we will be better on D This year the talent is more spread out.

I've heard this argument so many times from so many different fan bases: "we lost our stars but now they can't just focus on one guy - so we'll be better!" I can't think of a SINGLE instance where it was true. Do you know of a case where it has been true? I'd love to check it out if you do.

Is it possible that there will be no dropoff? Sure. Is it likely? Doubtful.

It's springtime . . . when the koolaid flows like wine and the women flock like the salmon of Capistrano.

Still looking for the link but just saw an article a while back about teams that have done better after losing Heisman winners. Why is it you think there will be so much drop off? Our likely starters all have plenty of game time. That means last year we still had good D even when Suh did step off the field. He and the other seniors we lost were great but not the whole team. So sit down and have a glass with me. :koolaid2:

edit: 1st link I'll keep going 2010 compared to 94

 

[carlfense]

Still looking for the link but just saw an article a while back about teams that have done better after losing Heisman winners. Why is it you think there will be so much drop off? Our likely starters all have plenty of game time. That means last year we still had good D even when Suh did step off the field. He and the other seniors we lost were great but not the whole team. So sit down and have a glass with me. :koolaid2:

edit: 1st link I'll keep going 2010 compared to 94

That link didn't work but here's a working version: http://bigrednetwork.com/archives/2010/03/how_2010_resembles_1994.html

The reason I don't think this season is particularly like 1994 is that the 2009 Nebraska team was one of the most one sided teams I have ever seen. The defense was amazing . . . one of the best I have ever seen play college football. The offense was atrocious . . . one of the worst I have ever seen at Nebraska. (granted, Bo did shut down the offense and go into bunker mode.) The 1994 and 1995 Nebraska teams were relatively balanced in that both the offense and the defense were well above average. In my opinion, the offense in 1995 was dominant enough that it took some of the pressure off of the defense. Can the 2010 Nebraska offense improve and take some pressure off the defense? Certainly. I hope that's the case.

Anyways, here is my breakdown.

2010 cornerbacks > 2009 cornerbacks. Same players back but with more depth and experience. (+1)

2010 safeties < or = 2009 safeties. Have to replace both starting safeties. There is talent on the roster but it hasn't proven anything yet. I'd venture a guess that by the end of the season the 2010 safeties will be roughly as good as the 2009 safeties . . . but it will take some time to develop that consistency. (wash)

2010 linebackers < 2009 linebackers. I'm basing this entirely on the loss of Dillard because he was often the only linebacker on the field. Dillard was absolutely clutch. He made sideline to sideline plays against the run and even broke up some deep balls to receivers. Dillard was the best linebacker on the roster and it wasn't particularly close. Compton, Fisher, and May showed flashes of potential over the last few seasons but have not been overly impressive. Throw in the unproven wildcards of David and Martin who look the part but haven't played the position yet. There is potential to be good here . . . but it's unproven. (-1)

2010 defensive ends = 2009 defensive ends. We lose Barry Turner but Pierre Allen is back along with a host of other contributors. I think between some combination of Meredith (if he stays at DE) and Ankrah there won't be any dropoff here. (wash)

2010 defensive tackles << 2009 defensive tackles. Don't crucify me for this and keep in mind that I'd love to be wrong. HOWEVER . . . Suh was probably the best defensive linemen I have ever seen play college football. He was consistently double teamed and STILL led the team in tackles. That's incredible. Teams literally formed their gameplans to neutralize Suh and he was still absolutely dominant. I think Crick has the potential to be good, but it would be absolutely incredible if he was "Suh good." Crick will probably be double teamed on most plays and I'm not sure he can absorb the double teams and STILL make the plays like Suh did. Yes . . . Crick will occupy two blockers and therefore open things up for the other DT . . . but Suh could occupy two blockers and STILL make the tackle. That's unbelievable. We have a lot of depth at the position with Crick, Steinkuhler, Moore, Randle, etc. but there will only be two on the field at a time. I don't see any combination of the above (Crick & Moore, Crick & Steinkuhler, Crick & Randle) that will exceed the production of Crick & Suh. Just my opinion. (-2, at least)

So to tie it all together I expect an equal or slightly improved secondary and defensive ends . . . and a slight dropoff at linebacker and a big dropoff at defensive tackle. Therefore with my rudimentary point system (that I just invented) I'd put it at about a -2 overall. Note that I totally just pulled this out of my nether region and it has no statistical basis . . . or basis in fact at all. Just my opinion.

 

[ADS]

Still looking for the link but just saw an article a while back about teams that have done better after losing Heisman winners. Why is it you think there will be so much drop off? Our likely starters all have plenty of game time. That means last year we still had good D even when Suh did step off the field. He and the other seniors we lost were great but not the whole team. So sit down and have a glass with me. :koolaid2:

edit: 1st link I'll keep going 2010 compared to 94

That link didn't work but here's a working version: http://bigrednetwork.com/archives/2010/03/how_2010_resembles_1994.html

The reason I don't think this season is particularly like 1994 is that the 2009 Nebraska team was one of the most one sided teams I have ever seen. The defense was amazing . . . one of the best I have ever seen play college football. The offense was atrocious . . . one of the worst I have ever seen at Nebraska. (granted, Bo did shut down the offense and go into bunker mode.) The 1994 and 1995 Nebraska teams were relatively balanced in that both the offense and the defense were well above average. In my opinion, the offense in 1995 was dominant enough that it took some of the pressure off of the defense. Can the 2010 Nebraska offense improve and take some pressure off the defense? Certainly. I hope that's the case.

Anyways, here is my breakdown.

2010 cornerbacks > 2009 cornerbacks. Same players back but with more depth and experience. (+1)

2010 safeties < or = 2009 safeties. Have to replace both starting safeties. There is talent on the roster but it hasn't proven anything yet. I'd venture a guess that by the end of the season the 2010 safeties will be roughly as good as the 2009 safeties . . . but it will take some time to develop that consistency. (wash)

2010 linebackers < 2009 linebackers. I'm basing this entirely on the loss of Dillard because he was often the only linebacker on the field. Dillard was absolutely clutch. He made sideline to sideline plays against the run and even broke up some deep balls to receivers. Dillard was the best linebacker on the roster and it wasn't particularly close. Compton, Fisher, and May showed flashes of potential over the last few seasons but have not been overly impressive. Throw in the unproven wildcards of David and Martin who look the part but haven't played the position yet. There is potential to be good here . . . but it's unproven. (-1)

2010 defensive ends = 2009 defensive ends. We lose Barry Turner but Pierre Allen is back along with a host of other contributors. I think between some combination of Meredith (if he stays at DE) and Ankrah there won't be any dropoff here. (wash)

2010 defensive tackles << 2009 defensive tackles. Don't crucify me for this and keep in mind that I'd love to be wrong. HOWEVER . . . Suh was probably the best defensive linemen I have ever seen play college football. He was consistently double teamed and STILL led the team in tackles. That's incredible. Teams literally formed their gameplans to neutralize Suh and he was still absolutely dominant. I think Crick has the potential to be good, but it would be absolutely incredible if he was "Suh good." Crick will probably be double teamed on most plays and I'm not sure he can absorb the double teams and STILL make the plays like Suh did. Yes . . . Crick will occupy two blockers and therefore open things up for the other DT . . . but Suh could occupy two blockers and STILL make the tackle. That's unbelievable. We have a lot of depth at the position with Crick, Steinkuhler, Moore, Randle, etc. but there will only be two on the field at a time. I don't see any combination of the above (Crick & Moore, Crick & Steinkuhler, Crick & Randle) that will exceed the production of Crick & Suh. Just my opinion. (-2, at least)

So to tie it all together I expect an equal or slightly improved secondary and defensive ends . . . and a slight dropoff at linebacker and a big dropoff at defensive tackle. Therefore with my rudimentary point system (that I just invented) I'd put it at about a -2 overall. Note that I totally just pulled this out of my nether region and it has no statistical basis . . . or basis in fact at all. Just my opinion.

+1, I would agree with all of that, I'm hoping with a little more time in the weight room, agility training and anoth year with ekeler that compton, martin, fisher, may, david (big wildcard) can do exactly what we should expect from a Pelini style linebacker ie: Ali Highsmith, Demarrio Williams, TJ Holowell, Barrett Ruud.

 

[GMoose]

Yeah the LB is a BIG ??? for next year. I'd like to see Compton beef up a bit and take over the Phil Dill role. With the Big12 likely moving back toward the run a little bit, we're simply going to need to have LBs on the field more. I'm pretty confident that they'll being playing up to standards soon though, Compton will be 2 full years in this fall. If we can get better-than-expected play from LBs, (be it in a 4-3, nickel, or dime) the D could be just as good if not better.

 

[NUance]

That link didn't work but here's a working version: http://bigrednetwork.com/archives/2010/03/how_2010_resembles_1994.html

The reason I don't think this season is particularly like 1994 is that the 2009 Nebraska team was one of the most one sided teams I have ever seen. The defense was amazing . . . one of the best I have ever seen play college football. The offense was atrocious . . . one of the worst I have ever seen at Nebraska. (granted, Bo did shut down the offense and go into bunker mode.) The 1994 and 1995 Nebraska teams were relatively balanced in that both the offense and the defense were well above average. In my opinion, the offense in 1995 was dominant enough that it took some of the pressure off of the defense. Can the 2010 Nebraska offense improve and take some pressure off the defense? Certainly. I hope that's the case.

Anyways, here is my breakdown.

2010 cornerbacks > 2009 cornerbacks. Same players back but with more depth and experience. (+1)

2010 safeties < or = 2009 safeties. Have to replace both starting safeties. There is talent on the roster but it hasn't proven anything yet. I'd venture a guess that by the end of the season the 2010 safeties will be roughly as good as the 2009 safeties . . . but it will take some time to develop that consistency. (wash)

2010 linebackers < 2009 linebackers. I'm basing this entirely on the loss of Dillard because he was often the only linebacker on the field. Dillard was absolutely clutch. He made sideline to sideline plays against the run and even broke up some deep balls to receivers. Dillard was the best linebacker on the roster and it wasn't particularly close. Compton, Fisher, and May showed flashes of potential over the last few seasons but have not been overly impressive. Throw in the unproven wildcards of David and Martin who look the part but haven't played the position yet. There is potential to be good here . . . but it's unproven. (-1)

2010 defensive ends = 2009 defensive ends. We lose Barry Turner but Pierre Allen is back along with a host of other contributors. I think between some combination of Meredith (if he stays at DE) and Ankrah there won't be any dropoff here. (wash)

2010 defensive tackles << 2009 defensive tackles. Don't crucify me for this and keep in mind that I'd love to be wrong. HOWEVER . . . Suh was probably the best defensive linemen I have ever seen play college football. He was consistently double teamed and STILL led the team in tackles. That's incredible. Teams literally formed their gameplans to neutralize Suh and he was still absolutely dominant. I think Crick has the potential to be good, but it would be absolutely incredible if he was "Suh good." Crick will probably be double teamed on most plays and I'm not sure he can absorb the double teams and STILL make the plays like Suh did. Yes . . . Crick will occupy two blockers and therefore open things up for the other DT . . . but Suh could occupy two blockers and STILL make the tackle. That's unbelievable. We have a lot of depth at the position with Crick, Steinkuhler, Moore, Randle, etc. but there will only be two on the field at a time. I don't see any combination of the above (Crick & Moore, Crick & Steinkuhler, Crick & Randle) that will exceed the production of Crick & Suh. Just my opinion. (-2, at least)

So to tie it all together I expect an equal or slightly improved secondary and defensive ends . . . and a slight dropoff at linebacker and a big dropoff at defensive tackle. Therefore with my rudimentary point system (that I just invented) I'd put it at about a -2 overall. Note that I totally just pulled this out of my nether region and it has no statistical basis . . . or basis in fact at all. Just my opinion.

Yeah the LB is a BIG ??? for next year. I'd like to see Compton beef up a bit and take over the Phil Dill role. With the Big12 likely moving back toward the run a little bit, we're simply going to need to have LBs on the field more. I'm pretty confident that they'll being playing up to standards soon though, Compton will be 2 full years in this fall. If we can get better-than-expected play from LBs, (be it in a 4-3, nickel, or dime) the D could be just as good if not better.

Yeah, hard to say how the LBs will pan out. Might be better this year than last. I agree about Dillard. Other than P-Dilly, our LB play last year was not a strong point. But this year Compton and Fisher have another year under their belt—-in the weightroom and with the playbook. And like Carlfense said above, Eric Martin and Lavonte David are wildcards. I’d be surprised to see them get much PT. But you never can tell.

On the other hand, we might not have three LBs on the field as much this year…

 

[irieboy8]

i think our d will be more mature and function more as a cohesive group... we have some new guys coming in and what not and some spots still we dont know what might happen (though bo seems to know.. but i feel we will have a similar d as last years with perhaps a well rounded approach... we'll dominate in all areas but might lack the outstanding effort we had in some spots last year... our d will be easily top 3 in the country again if not # 1

as for idaho i know they have been getting a lot of press over here in hawaii (WAC school) about how the program is turning around and isnt the bottom feeder they had been for many years.. some could argue their bowl game was one of the best.....

but i think they are still small potatoes (no pun indended) in certain areas and i'm sure the will be struggling under the prssure.... they might get their act together but by that time it will be too late....

the Nebraska QB will try to do too much and i predict will make a lot of mistakes resulting in many points for Nebraska...

as for washington i'll be at that game so i'll let you all know how it went!

chhhheeeee heeeeee

 

[zoogs]

The big deal for me is the safeties, followed by the DL. In 2007, we thought we'd have little drop off in the DL, because though we lost Carriker, Moore, Dagunduro and Cryer, we had Turner, Potter, Steinkuhler and Suh all waiting in the wings. Well, that didn't turn out so well for us that year as the entire DL struggled. So I hesitate when I see projections like "Cameron Meredith will fill in nicely for Barry Turner." Maybe. And maybe he will exceed. But all we know now is that there are two ? on the DL, one of them huge. The DL was a big part of our success last year, and it figures to take a sizeable step backwards. We'll have to be able to compensate for that.

It doesn't help that we lose easily our best linebacker in Dillard. Whether we'll be able to have guys fill in for him - we don't know yet.

The worst part of it is that we lose our safeties. O'Hanlon made mistakes last year (VT) but came along well...it's like we forgot that this smart, tough, talented and athletic kid was making mistakes left and right. Even if his replacements are athletic and talented, we should expect to see a lot more miscues out of the safety crew than we saw towards the end of last year.

So while we may be improved, it's also reasonable to expect that we will take a step back. At the level we were playing at last year, it'd be hard not to.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

The big deal for me is the safeties, followed by the DL. In 2007, we thought we'd have little drop off in the DL, because though we lost Carriker, Moore, Dagunduro and Cryer, we had Turner, Potter, Steinkuhler and Suh all waiting in the wings. Well, that didn't turn out so well for us that year as the entire DL struggled. So I hesitate when I see projections like "Cameron Meredith will fill in nicely for Barry Turner." Maybe. And maybe he will exceed. But all we know now is that there are two ? on the DL, one of them huge. The DL was a big part of our success last year, and it figures to take a sizeable step backwards. We'll have to be able to compensate for that.

All vary valid points but your missing the fact that at the time Bo Pelini was in Baton Rouge winning championships. IMO, the linebacker position is a much bigger question mark than the Dline. Safeties definitely need to show themselves but depth looks good.