Defense Preparing to 'Spend a Lot of Time on the Field'

cheekygeek said:
You are making a big assumption that the additional plays are spread over 4 hours. If your defensive conditioning is not up to par, the difference is more likely to be weighted in the 4th quarter, when what might have been a couple of "3 and outs" instead become two 10 play scoring drives.
Click to expand...


Speaking of assumptions.....

Do you have any data on that or are you just assuming?  It's possible it would be weighted more.  Or it's possible that the offense went more three-and-out early on so the defense was on the field more but once the offense got going they held onto the ball more later in the game so the number of plays is skewed the other way.  

Either way, more substituting on defense can likely more than make up for the difference, whenever it might show up.

 
Mavric said:
Speaking of assumptions.....

Do you have any data on that or are you just assuming? 
Click to expand...


Yeah, I guess I am assuming that your longer minute guys' conditioning is going to be more evident in the 4th quarter than the 1st quarter. I'm further assuming that a starting defensive tackle is going to be fresher on his 1st snaps than he is on his 60th or 70th snap. I'd love to see the research that refutes that assumption though (let alone the common sense).

I remember seeing Miami's Warren Sapp expending energy knee-pumping it after he made a stop (or a sack, I don't recall) early in the game and I remember him (between plays) with his hands on his hips just trying to catch his breath in that final drive of the 4th quarter, when Schlesinger scored his 2nd TD of the game (1995 Orange Bowl). 

Conditioning isn't just a comparing the end of the game to the beginning on an individual level. It also has to do with the guy your lineman is going up against, for instance. If a lineman's performance drops 10% from the first quarter to the 4th quarter, but the guy across the line from him drops 15% you are going to win more battles at the end of the game than you did in the beginning. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cheekygeek said:
Yeah, I guess I am assuming that your longer minute guys' conditioning is going to be more evident in the 4th quarter than the 1st quarter. I'm further assuming that a starting defensive tackle is going to be fresher on his 1st snaps than he is on his 60th or 70th snap. I'd love to see the research that refutes that assumption though (let alone the common sense).

I remember seeing Miami's Warren Sapp expending energy knee-pumping it after he made a stop (or a sack, I don't recall) early in the game and I remember him (between plays) with his hands on his hips just trying to catch his breath in that final drive of the 4th quarter, when Schlesinger scored his 2nd TD of the game (1995 Orange Bowl). 

Conditioning isn't just a comparing the end of the game to the beginning on an individual level. It also has to do with the guy your lineman is going up against, for instance. If a lineman's performance drops 10% from the first quarter to the 4th quarter, but the guy across the line from him drops 15% you are going to win more battles at the end of the game than you did in the beginning. 
Click to expand...


Convenient that you left off the part of my post that commented on your first assertion and moved on to a different assertion.

 
The important factor is not the total number of snaps an opposing offense runs but the number of snaps played by your defenders.  If you are substituting regularly, no one individual defender will have to endure 80 or more snaps.   The key is to use about 25 or 30 or more and keep the snap count down for all the defensive guys.  An offense that runs 85 snaps will tire as well.   Think about the number of yards run by secondary players and receivers, etc. if they are running 50 pass routes a game or defending that many in addition to playing the run in between.

The key is to get 3 & outs on defense and get several first downs on drives offensively.   Turnovers do help dramaticaly, especially in the opponent's end of the field.   Stopping a drive by recovering a fumble or getting an INT deep in your own terriotry sometimes is not all that helpful if your offense has to punt from its own endzone.  You need to win the field position battle consistantly to keep the pressure and fatigue, etc. from wearing down your own team.  These are rather obvious but returning punts (as opposed to letting the ball roll or fair catching) is critical and avoiding sacks and your own turnovers in your own end of the field are major factors.  These were chronic failures on our teams in recent years in my view.

If your offense scores fast and frequently, in two or three minute drives, then your defense will face a long afternoon and a bunch of snaps.  Of course, the end result is to have more points than the opponent.  I prefer to hold opponents under 20 points.  This translates in to wins statistically I am sure.  Great defense is played with aggression and speed and substitutions both for down and distance and energy conservation reasons.  I hope our coaches play lots of players, especially younger ones.  Experience is critical to building a strong program of 10 win seasons.     Special teams determine so much in field position and even can determine outcomes much more than many realize.  I believe Frost's offense is intended to prevent the defense from making substitutions and wearing the out.   A change in substitution rules could have a dramatic negative effect on the hurry up offense as well.  Hopefully we run it well and don't have to deal with such a possibility.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
When we have the scoring explosion in 83  or the 95 offense which scored from everywhere on the field and quickly, our defense wasn't sitting there making excuses that they needed to go back not the field again.
Click to expand...
Probably 5 years back some local radio station in Lincoln was playing some Husker game from the 80's.  I forget the game but it was a big one, probably a bowl game.  Anyway it was really striking to me how those radio announcers from the 80s kept talking about Osborne's strategy of running as many plays as possible to wear down the defense.  It may not have been no-huddle, but according to the announcers it was definitely up-tempo.  At least for it's day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the number of plays that the D will probably play, the “traditional” defensive stats of points allowed, yards, etc. won’t be as applicable with Chinander’s D. I think the stats like turnovers created, sacks, yards per play, or points per possession will be a provide a better evaluation of defensive efficiency.

I think NU will also be involved in some offensive shootouts which will drive older NU fans crazy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ulty said:
I trust our coaches, but this honestly makes me nervous. We have all seen what happens when defenses get worn down. If the offense is as effective as UCF's was, then it will work out just fine, and the strength and conditioning staff should have the defense physically able to handle the new demands. But on the other hand, we may not see the Blackshirts of old (at least statistically). Hard to keep an opposing offense crushed under your heel when they have 80 opportunities.
Click to expand...


that's a two way street and i'll take the team that practices on those streets

 
Mavric said:
Convenient that you left off the part of my post that commented on your first assertion and moved on to a different assertion.
Click to expand...


No clue what you are on about. My 2nd post is a continuation of my first... that conditioning (or lack thereof) is going to be more evident late in games (or later in a player’s play count) not, as you asserted, of little difference spread across a 4 hour game. If it made little difference, why would the staff be preparing them (mentally & physically) for a greater number of plays?

Your point about it not mattering because of substitution of players is also dependent upon the substitute being as capable a player as the one who left the game. The reality appears to be that this year there is concern about quality of depth on several of the units.

Not sure why you are arguing instead of just admitting that those were not your most well-thought out posts. I certainly wouldn’t think less of you. Quite the opposite.

 
If you look at all the times NU made a heroic stand against teams like OU it is not at all uncommon to see at least two and sometimes three  quarters where the opponent scores no touchdowns at all. 

 
cheekygeek said:
No clue what you are on about. My 2nd post is a continuation of my first... that conditioning (or lack thereof) is going to be more evident late in games (or later in a player’s play count) not, as you asserted, of little difference spread across a 4 hour game. If it made little difference, why would the staff be preparing them (mentally & physically) for a greater number of plays?

Your point about it not mattering because of substitution of players is also dependent upon the substitute being as capable a player as the one who left the game. The reality appears to be that this year there is concern about quality of depth on several of the units.

Not sure why you are arguing instead of just admitting that those were not your most well-thought out posts. I certainly wouldn’t think less of you. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


You never referenced conditioning in your first post.  Only that the plays could be more grouped together at the end.  That's not necessarily the case.  If the plays were more grouped at the end of a game it would make more of a difference than if they were grouped at the beginning of the game.  But we don't really know if there is any pattern to that or if they would be generally spread throughout the game.

Obviously conditioning is a factor.  I never said it wasn't.  I simply said I don't think a few extra plays is as big of a deal as some make it out to be.  Everyone would rather face fewer plays on defense.  But I'm not sure there is any evidence that defenses that face 90 plays per game see their performance drop of significantly faster than a defense that faces 76 plays per game.  Their per game stats are probably worse because the more plays you face the more yards and points you give up.  But I'm not sure their per-play stats are much worse from the 1st quarter to the 4th quarter based on how many total plays they've faced.

 
The Dude said:
Probably 5 years back some local radio station in Lincoln was playing some Husker game from the 80's.  I forget the game but it was a big one, probably a bowl game.  Anyway it was really striking to me how those radio announcers from the 80s kept talking about Osborne's strategy of running as many plays as possible to wear down the defense.  It may not have been no-huddle, but according to the announcers it was definitely up-tempo.  At least for it's day.
Click to expand...
When my dad was coaching for the cornhuskers during the 87 sugar bowl (I was 11) I remember asking him why the offense huddled so close to the line of scrimmage during practice one day (their huddle was at 6). He said “they can’t hear us anyway and Osborne likes to get to line as quickly as possible. Every second counts.” 

When the machine is oiled, the parts know their job, and the cylinders are humming...just get up and snap it. 

I think we’ll be just fine on defense. Our offense will score. Line up, snap the ball, execute, repeat....

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