Could Huskers Be Better Without Suh?

N

Nexus

All-American
The best isn't always good enough. Sometimes, teams are better without their best.
Peyton Manning was the Heisman runner-up as Tennessee's quarterback in 1997. He was so good, in fact, he was the first player taken in the NFL draft the following spring.

With Manning leading the way the Volunteers enjoyed a stellar 11-2 season in '97. But the next year, without Manning, the Vols won the national championship.

Notre Dame fans can relate. During his Heisman-winning campaign of 1987, Tim Brown led Notre Dame to a solid 8-4 showing. The next season, the Irish won the national title.

Miami won a national championship in 1987, the year after Vinny Testaverde won the Heisman.

A team obviously can get better despite losing its best player. But can an offensive or defensive unit actually improve without its most dominant member? That's a question of particular interest in the Midwest and one to be tackled in this week's mailbag.

Got a question? Click here to send it to Olin's Mailbag

Better off?

 

Coach Bo Pelini said Nebraska's defense could be better this season than last season. Is that possible without Ndamukong Suh?

Thom in Hastings, Neb.

Since many coaches are insufferable sand-baggers, I love that Pelini will go out on a limb and make bold statements like that. At the Big 12 championship game in December, he said Nebraska could be "five times better" next season. That's going waaaaay out on a limb, considering the Huskers posted 10 victories in '09.

A powerful defense was the main reason Nebraska had 10 wins. And the main reason Nebraska's defense was so powerful was Suh, who was among the Huskers' leaders in almost every defensive statistical category.

What statistics don't show is how Suh's dominance may have affected his teammates' performance. For example, Jarred Crick, the tackle opposite Suh, had a strong year, with 73 tackles and 9.5 sacks. Nobody is doubting that Crick is an excellent player with a bright future in the NFL, but did playing alongside Suh boost Crick's play? Maybe, maybe not. But it's a legitimate question.

It's reasonable to assume that opponents' preoccupation with Suh enabled other players to come free on a pass rush. And nothing helps the secondary more than a strong pass rush.

Last season, the Huskers led the Big 12 in pass defense. Not coincidentally, they produced 44 sacks. If the pass rush isn't as strong without Suh, more holes may open in the secondary, especially with Nebraska having to replace both starting safeties.

Still, seven starters return from a defense that allowed fewer points than any other team in the nation last season, so the Huskers figure to be stingy again.

But better than last season? I have to admit I have my doubts. Suh was the best defensive player in the nation last season. The idea of losing him and three other starters and improving just doesn't add up.

Pelini knows his team and his talent better than anyone. If he says Nebraska's defense can be even better, you have to think he knows something we don't.

LINK
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nexus said:
The best isn't always good enough. Sometimes, teams are better without their best.
Peyton Manning was the Heisman runner-up as Tennessee's quarterback in 1997. He was so good, in fact, he was the first player taken in the NFL draft the following spring.

With Manning leading the way the Volunteers enjoyed a stellar 11-2 season in '97. But the next year, without Manning, the Vols won the national championship.

Notre Dame fans can relate. During his Heisman-winning campaign of 1987, Tim Brown led Notre Dame to a solid 8-4 showing. The next season, the Irish won the national title.

Miami won a national championship in 1987, the year after Vinny Testaverde won the Heisman.

A team obviously can get better despite losing its best player. But can an offensive or defensive unit actually improve without its most dominant member? That's a question of particular interest in the Midwest and one to be tackled in this week's mailbag.

Got a question? Click here to send it to Olin's Mailbag

Better off?

 

Coach Bo Pelini said Nebraska's defense could be better this season than last season. Is that possible without Ndamukong Suh?

Thom in Hastings, Neb.

Since many coaches are insufferable sand-baggers, I love that Pelini will go out on a limb and make bold statements like that. At the Big 12 championship game in December, he said Nebraska could be "five times better" next season. That's going waaaaay out on a limb, considering the Huskers posted 10 victories in '09.

A powerful defense was the main reason Nebraska had 10 wins. And the main reason Nebraska's defense was so powerful was Suh, who was among the Huskers' leaders in almost every defensive statistical category.

What statistics don't show is how Suh's dominance may have affected his teammates' performance. For example, Jarred Crick, the tackle opposite Suh, had a strong year, with 73 tackles and 9.5 sacks. Nobody is doubting that Crick is an excellent player with a bright future in the NFL, but did playing alongside Suh boost Crick's play? Maybe, maybe not. But it's a legitimate question.

It's reasonable to assume that opponents' preoccupation with Suh enabled other players to come free on a pass rush. And nothing helps the secondary more than a strong pass rush.

Last season, the Huskers led the Big 12 in pass defense. Not coincidentally, they produced 44 sacks. If the pass rush isn't as strong without Suh, more holes may open in the secondary, especially with Nebraska having to replace both starting safeties.

Still, seven starters return from a defense that allowed fewer points than any other team in the nation last season, so the Huskers figure to be stingy again.

But better than last season? I have to admit I have my doubts. Suh was the best defensive player in the nation last season. The idea of losing him and three other starters and improving just doesn't add up.

Pelini knows his team and his talent better than anyone. If he says Nebraska's defense can be even better, you have to think he knows something we don't.

LINK
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
losing a guy like Suh does not make you better. i am not saying there are not some guys coming up that aren't capable, but a player like Suh doesn't come along very often...having said that, he will be missed.

 
Strictly defensively, I'd be happy with the same production.

If you count the whole team, our offense has to be better healthy and with depth on the OL. As a team, I have no doubt that we'll be better. We may need to score more to win though.

 
Schoeny said:
Strictly defensively, I'd be happy with the same production.

If you count the whole team, our offense has to be better healthy and with depth on the OL. As a team, I have no doubt that we'll be better. We may need to score more to win though.
Click to expand...
I think we'd all be happy if the Blackshirts sport the #1 scoring D again this season. If not, you're crazy. I have no doubts the offense will improve drastically this season, so I'd be happy with a top 20 D b/c that's the breakoff point for BCS contenders.

One thing I noticed - Manning, Brown & Testeverde were all offensive players (duh). Losing a key defensive player is different than losing a key offensive player. Case in point - Charles Woodson, who actually beat out Manning for the Heisman in '97. Woodson's primary role was DB & he led his team to a share of the national title (and yes, we would've beaten the crap out of that team). He went pro after that season & Michigan went 10-3 as a good team that couldn't win the games that mattered most. Just sayin...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The DL won't be as good. However, I'm hopeful the LB position and DB position will be better which could very well mean a better more well rounded defense.

 
It's almost impossible trying to imagine improving on a scoring defense that ranked third in the decade at 10.4 points. Now maybe if the defense can stay somewhat close to that (like 15 points or less) and the offensive line can come together and we can find a decent quarterback, we could certainly be better as a team.

 
Obviously you don't lose a player like this and NOT feel it, to some degree, but look back to 93-94. We lost another all-time great player in Trev Alberts, but ended up with another great defense and a National Championship in 94.

I think that losing Suh, along with the others "up the defensive middle" will hurt. The defense really seemed to come together once Dillard was put into the starting lineup, and Asante and O'Hanlan were solid to spectacular most of the season. But such goes the business of college football, hopefully we will be able to reload.

 
You can't be better than #1 scoring defense in the nation. But it's a moot point - you don't have to have the best defense to win, you have to have a very, very good one and a good enough offense. It doesn't matter if our D is #1 again. It's almost sure to be among the top defenses in the nation either way, and if we can fix the problems on our offense, that will be the difference maker.

 
In all reality, we don't need a high profile offense. I believe Alabama's offense ranked #42 this past season. We need a very stout D which I'm guessing we'll have. Our offense just needs to be efficient. It needs to control the clock and not turn the ball over.

 
JTrain said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Our entire team will be better, our offense will be better, our defense will be better. I'm pretty positive.
Click to expand...
Friendly wager? :lol: I'll put a couple thousand on our defense not breaking (less than) 10.43 ppg.
Click to expand...

However, I would say our TOTAL defense could be better than it was this year. Our offense being better will cause the defense to be on the field less, giving opposing teams less time to move the ball and a defense that is more rested at the same time.

 
junior4949 said:
In all reality, we don't need a high profile offense. I believe Alabama's offense ranked #42 this past season. We need a very stout D which I'm guessing we'll have. Our offense just needs to be efficient. It needs to control the clock and not turn the ball over.
Click to expand...
Well, more than six or so 1st downs a game from our offense might help too.

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