Chinander by the numbers

Chinander isn't going anywhere for at least a couple years so anyone asking for his replacement is...well....being premature.

That doesn't mean some schemes and decisions aren't appropriate to discuss.

My biggest question, in a broad sense, on the year is.....why did we see such an aggressive defense in the CU game and then it seemed like it disappeared for most of the rest of the year?  After the CU game, I was excited about the defense.....only to watch them struggle and not be aggressive the rest of the year.

 
StPaulHusker said:
Chinander improved the defense in some specific areas of the game.  So it wasn't totally a non-improvement.  For me, I expected a bit of a jump in total defense from last year considering how abysmal it was.  It finished exactly the same.  I figured that he could find a way to reduce yards a bit more.  Didn't really happen.  

I don't know if Chinander is the right DC or not.  But it's certainly too early to make the determination.  
Click to expand...


In 2017, Nebraska's defense ranked 110th in S&P+.

In 2018, Nebraska's defense ranked 62nd in S&P+.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not saying he's a genius, but it's way too early to make any real judgement.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Chinander isn't going anywhere for at least a couple years so anyone asking for his replacement is...well....being premature.

That doesn't mean some schemes and decisions aren't appropriate to discuss.

My biggest question, in a broad sense, on the year is.....why did we see such an aggressive defense in the CU game and then it seemed like it disappeared for most of the rest of the year?  After the CU game, I was excited about the defense.....only to watch them struggle and not be aggressive the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
Thats a good point about the CU game. I was excited after that game as well. The CU game matched up with what they said all year leading up to the season. That we would attack- get pressure etc. Then after that it seemed like the Bob Diaco style.

 
Saunders said:
In 2017, Nebraska's defense ranked 110th in S&P+.

In 2018, Nebraska's defense ranked 62nd in S&P+.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not saying he's a genius, but it's way too early to make any real judgement.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you read what I said.  I said TOTAL DEFENSE.  

 
I felt like the defense just looked better as the year went on. They played with passion but at the end of the day, I just dont think we had the guys we need to have any chance.

While I was disappointed at first that Chander's defense really didnt look good compared to Diaco, I think things started to improve. I am all for giving him 3 years to get his guys and get people in the right place.

Really hope we can get a true Anchor in the middle and then some pass rushers on the sides.

Was actually shocked at how much better Mo Barry was than I thought he would be.

Bootle had some good moments.

That all being said, if we run a faster offense, our defense will always be asked to be on the field a lot and so I just want Chinander to make them the best he can but it wont be blackshirts of old.

I also am in the camp that Diaco was never given a chance and 3/4 was a huge mistake with the guys we had. 

 
Minnesota_husker said:
That all being said, if we run a faster offense, our defense will always be asked to be on the field a lot
Click to expand...
I'm not a believer in this.

If this really is the problem, the defense would be dominant at the beginning of games and then wear down and give up yards and points late in the second half.  The Iowa game is a prime example that this isn't necessarily the case.  The defense actually got better as the game went on.  If the defense is getting 3 and outs, a quick offense wouldn't be that big of a deal.

The issue is that offenses our defenses go against are totally different than "blackshirts of old".  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was going to start a new thread for this topic, but I'll just post it here instead.

How many offensive points do you believe should generally be "enough to win a game?" I know there'll be some smart a**es that roll in with "more than the other team." But really, how many points are enough?

For me the number is probably and reasonably 35.

If we had gotten to that number more consistently, we probably would have gone 8-4. It's interesting to me that we put up 28 points on offense in three different losses. Against Purdue and Wisconsin, in my opinion our defense sucked and there aren't any excuses for how bad it sucked. In the second half of the season, our defense reasonably did a good job with the roster issues that we all know that we have. We had a lot of games where the 2nd & 3rd quarter were just really stale on offense; add one more touchdown there and we could have possibly gone 8-4.

 
Undone said:
I was going to start a new thread for this topic, but I'll just post it here instead.

How many offensive points do you believe should generally be "enough to win a game?" I know there'll be some smart a**es that roll in with "more than the other team." But really, how many points are enough?

For me the number is probably and reasonably 35.

If we had gotten to that number more consistently, we probably would have gone 8-4. It's interesting to me that we put up 28 points on offense in three different losses. Against Purdue and Wisconsin, in my opinion our defense sucked and there aren't any excuses for how bad it sucked. In the second half of the season, our defense reasonably did a good job with the roster issues that we all know that we have. We had a lot of games where the 2nd & 3rd quarter were just really stale on offense; add one more touchdown there and we could have possibly gone 8-4.
Click to expand...
Very appropriate question.

In general (obviously not counting defensive points from the other side) I always thought that if a defense holds the team to <20 points, the offense should win the game.  Now, that needs to be more like <30.  

If a defense holds a team to less than 30 points and the team loses, in general, the offense should be scoring more points.  If the offense scores 35 points and loses, there's a chance the defense should have held them to fewer points.  

 
If you actually look at the numbers, the narrative that the offenses the last 5-10 years are just too good that you should adjust your expectation of how many points you allow because its not the days of old anymore is a just flat out wrong. 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-points-per-game?date=2018-11-30

Just check out the attached link. It shows you the points allowed leaders on defense. It only goes back to 2003. But the good defenses in college football allow the same points per game today that they did 15 years ago. If you look at pretty much every year between 2003 and today the top 10-20 is pretty steady every year. Top 10 ranges from 11 points to 17 points allowed. The top 11-20 ranges from 17-20 points allowed per game. There is 2-3 years in the Oregon Hay Day they show top 20 defensive years- so it is possible.

So maybe the point is the top 20 defenses in the country year in and year out are still good today just like they were 15 years ago. We are just not a good defense. So instead of saying college football offenses are so good you cant have a good defense anymore, lets just say what it is. WE are not a good defense anymore. Its not college footballs fault- or up tempo offenses fault. We are just not good lately.

 
Good posts by both of you.

As I've said in other posts over the past few weeks, I was in the camp of people that was really hard on Chinander during games 1-6 but have since changed my stance after seeing the defense steadily improve over the second half of the season.

The improvement was slow and undramatic, but it was enough. If that same rate of improvement flows over to next season and our offense is able to muster up an average of seven more points per game, I believe we're definitely going to put up 8 wins next year.

To boil down my argument, one season isn't enough to judge Chinander and his position coaches, but if I'm forced to judge based on this one year I actually like what I see. Add even just a realistically decent amount of average talent increase on the defensive side of the ball and our program is dominating the West because of how good Frost obviously is at putting an offense together.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I'm not a believer in this.

If this really is the problem, the defense would be dominant at the beginning of games and then wear down and give up yards and points late in the second half.  The Iowa game is a prime example that this isn't necessarily the case.  The defense actually got better as the game went on.  If the defense is getting 3 and outs, a quick offense wouldn't be that big of a deal.

The issue is that offenses our defenses go against are totally different than "blackshirts of old".  
Click to expand...
Faster offense means your defense is on the field more. 

Our offense currently isnt super fast. They put up points, but I assume in the next year or so, they will speed things up far more.

Defense will simply have less time to rest and so yes, I think that will make life harder on them. Ideally they get a 3 and out but if the offense scores in 2 min, they are back out there. More chances to potentially get beat.

Compared to Iowa who runs 7 minute drives. Didnt help their defense against Nebraska but gave them more rest time.

 
Minnesota_husker said:
Our offense currently isnt super fast. They put up points, but I assume in the next year or so, they will speed things up far more.

Defense will simply have less time to rest and so yes, I think that will make life harder on them. Ideally they get a 3 and out but if the offense scores in 2 min, they are back out there. More chances to potentially get beat.

Compared to Iowa who runs 7 minute drives. Didnt help their defense against Nebraska but gave them more rest time.
Click to expand...
In theory this is where defensive depth comes into play to help the situation greatly. No offense to our guys...but we did have depth on the defensive line...it just wasn't talented depth. At the linebacker spot, we didn't have as much depth, especially when Honas got hurt. And had basically no depth at corner to speak of.

These are all reasons in my opinion to be hopeful about the future, because with even just a small bump in defensive talent over the past 5-8 seasons' averages - along with the old skool 'Tom Osborne' formula of getting scout team and underclassmen players competing for starting spots combined with good strengh & conditioning - the depth problem can be fixed in just one more season.

The more I analyze the full span of the season, the more positive I am about Chinander and the defensive position coaches. Now it's time to just try to beat our previous averages for defensive recruiting, and this thing really takes off. I'm convinced of that. But obviously, the recruiting part is no "lock" and is much easier said than done. February will be very, very interesting.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
If you actually look at the numbers, the narrative that the offenses the last 5-10 years are just too good that you should adjust your expectation of how many points you allow because its not the days of old anymore is a just flat out wrong. 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-points-per-game?date=2018-11-30

Just check out the attached link. It shows you the points allowed leaders on defense. It only goes back to 2003. But the good defenses in college football allow the same points per game today that they did 15 years ago. If you look at pretty much every year between 2003 and today the top 10-20 is pretty steady every year. Top 10 ranges from 11 points to 17 points allowed. The top 11-20 ranges from 17-20 points allowed per game. There is 2-3 years in the Oregon Hay Day they show top 20 defensive years- so it is possible.

So maybe the point is the top 20 defenses in the country year in and year out are still good today just like they were 15 years ago. We are just not a good defense. So instead of saying college football offenses are so good you cant have a good defense anymore, lets just say what it is. WE are not a good defense anymore. Its not college footballs fault- or up tempo offenses fault. We are just not good lately.
Click to expand...
This is partially true. Good defenses can still stop teams, however, scoring has been going up year over year in CFB. And an elite defense can still get whipped with the way offenses are now (see: Michigan).

There's a graph I saw the other day (I'll try to find it) that showed the a average scoring per game from the 60's to now, and the trend is definitely rising. Until I can find it, here's another article: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-scoring-average-increases-to-highest-ever-in-2016-season/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Chinander is suspect at this time 

2. We don't have good players at the moment, let's be honest. Maybe 2 guys where you are like yeah, he's good. 

I'm not going to write him off year one where we improved by 5 points, which is a decent improvement since our offense went up 5 points. I have pointed out some errors in which I see that don't have much to do with talent, just head scratching alignment. I will wait another year or two before I tell him to hit the road. 

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