"deficiencies"?I'm not an expert when it comes to the 2-gap, but I'm not a fan of it. With the personnel we've had the last few years (first Suh, then Prince/Gomes/Hagg) you could've run any scheme you wanted and it would've worked.
Now that our talent and experience is depleted (injuries aren't helping either), I think we're seeing the deficiencies of the 2-gap system and it's frightening. Soft against the run, no pass rush and big gains through the air as a result.
So basically it's like having no defense at all?I'm not an expert when it comes to the 2-gap, but I'm not a fan of it. With the personnel we've had the last few years (first Suh, then Prince/Gomes/Hagg) you could've run any scheme you wanted and it would've worked.
Now that our talent and experience is depleted (injuries aren't helping either), I think we're seeing the deficiencies of the 2-gap system and it's frightening. Soft against the run, no pass rush and big gains through the air as a result.
Excellent post! The D line accounts for so much of the entire D's responsibilities and can take away a ton of what an opposing O wants to do. The d line in a sense puts the entire unit "on its back" but does it in a more sophisticated way. Right now we just don't have the athletes to run it properly. It's a proven system given the athleticism being there.The actual 2 gap defense is very effective IF you have the stud D linemen to run it, which we don't. I love the concept of it and is effective in keeping linebackers more freed up to rome. However, based on the effectiveness I've seen from the D line a 1 gap may be what we need to try, I dunno. There are some variations that can be run with a combo of both based on strength calls etc. Unfortunately those can be very difficult to learn and remember which MAY also be a problem we're having. I know some of the linebackers are struggling to learn the defensive schemes and in particular that's why one of them has been moved several times between backer and D end. He's not the only one that's struggled with the schemes. Don't get me wrong, the schemes the Pelinis have put together are very good, I'm just not sure we have the players to run them mentally or physically. But, like I said, I don't know all their schemes so it's hard to point at just one thing or a player or two and decide the problem. The problem with a 4-3 1 gap defense is that the normal alignment we see nowadays with 1 TE presents 7 gaps. You have 7 players to fill those gaps and 1 missed assignment and the play is busted or if players aren't disciplined and try to cover someone elses gap. Good offensive coordinators will find the weak players and scheme to either attack them or overload them so other defenders will have to help them therefore evacuating their gap. It starts in the middle and we just simply lack stud D line right now and that makes the difference.
Yes he's always run it and its a great system when you face pass heavy teams like those in the SEC and B12. It works very well against run in this years set up teams if you have 3 good LB and we don't. We have 1 and 1/2 good LBs.
Wouldn't most D's be pretty damn good if you had stud D-linemen or 3 good LB's? There's some pretty good defenses (and offenses for that matter) out there that don't have near the talent Nebraska does. Nebraska is young and the D is complex, so it will take time. But on the other hand, maybe the coaches need to simplify it a little and just let the guys play.The actual 2 gap defense is very effective IF you have the stud D linemen to run it, which we don't. I love the concept of it and is effective in keeping linebackers more freed up to rome. However, based on the effectiveness I've seen from the D line a 1 gap may be what we need to try, I dunno. There are some variations that can be run with a combo of both based on strength calls etc. Unfortunately those can be very difficult to learn and remember which MAY also be a problem we're having. I know some of the linebackers are struggling to learn the defensive schemes and in particular that's why one of them has been moved several times between backer and D end. He's not the only one that's struggled with the schemes. Don't get me wrong, the schemes the Pelinis have put together are very good, I'm just not sure we have the players to run them mentally or physically. But, like I said, I don't know all their schemes so it's hard to point at just one thing or a player or two and decide the problem. The problem with a 4-3 1 gap defense is that the normal alignment we see nowadays with 1 TE presents 7 gaps. You have 7 players to fill those gaps and 1 missed assignment and the play is busted or if players aren't disciplined and try to cover someone elses gap. Good offensive coordinators will find the weak players and scheme to either attack them or overload them so other defenders will have to help them therefore evacuating their gap. It starts in the middle and we just simply lack stud D line right now and that makes the difference.
Early 90's we ran a 50 defense and sometime around 92-93 we made the switch to a 4-3 type defense I believe, can't remember the exact year. Sometimes they played a 1 gap and sometimes a 2 gap depending on the situation. We just don't have the players we had in the 90's! To answer someone elses question, yes, most defenses work if you have stud d line and lb's. That's what I'm getting at. We just don't have the talent everyone thinks we do. Stars beside a name don't equate to talent. And like it or not, even if they have the physical talent, they don't have the mentality. Times have changed.I agree I am not a big fan of the 2-gap unless you have the people for it which I don't think we do. I want to see the D-Line dominate like in the 90's so what did they run?
I think bec. it's clear as crystal that we simply don't have talent on the DL. There's no doubt about it and that's across the board - DT to DE.... slow, can't shed blocks and don't have good instincts.For all the pre-season calls for Barney Cotton's head regarding the o-line, in comparison I am a bit surprised the D-Line hasn't gotten more criticism because they have performed far more poorly.
But, I must say, Baker Steinkuhler played his best game, possibly ever, on Saturday.