NU's stingiest DL's since Devaney

[Nexus]

I noticed a Rivals teaser saying that Husker legend, Rich Glover was in Orlando at practice imparting some knowledge to the team today. It prompted me to do some quick research on the history of our DL from a statistical perspective. To keep it short and sweet, I only recorded the TFL (tackles for loss) stat as a general indicator. Admittedly, this stat alone might seem too simplistic to properly judge, but my thought process was if 3/4th or 3/5th (since we ran some 5 man fronts in the early years) of our linemen are getting double-digit TFLs in a season, then it shows our ability to wreak havoc in an opponents backfield by committee. Obviously this doesn't take into account the various scheme changes, so keep that in mind too. Sometimes we'd have a stand-up OLB on the line in various situations, but I didn't include any TFL stats from our LBers here. These numbers reflect the DL guys only.

Having said that, I've recorded all the years where NU had at least 3 defensive linemen recording double-digit TFLs in a given season. Also it should be noted that TFLs weren't being recorded until 1969.

1970 = 3

1971 = 5 <---- This was a 5 man front defense. All 5 DL recorded double-digit TFLs.

1975 = 4

1980 = 3

1984 = 4

1986 = 4

1996 = 4

1997 = 3

2002 = 3

2005 = 3

2006 = 3

2008 = 3

2009 = 4

 

[VA Husker Fan]

94/95 not making the list pretty well shows that this stat really means nothing.

 

[Nexus]

94/95 not making the list pretty well shows that this stat really means nothing.

As I noted above, it's too simplistic. It doesn't take into account lots of situational variables. By the same token, the '70-'71 teams made the list. I was looking at it from a "by committee" perspective. Not an exact science I'm presenting here.

 

[JJ Husker]

TFL's are great and can help indicate the aggressiveness of DL's but in three andq four man fronts, a lot of the DL's responsibility is to gobble blocks and free LB's to make tackles. I don't think you can effectively rank stingy DL's without considering a whole host of other factors and stats. As pointed out, the absence of 94-95 teams would prove this stat means little on it's own. However, I am shocked neither of those units appeared in this list as it is widely acknowledged those were two of the best since the Devaney era.

 

[Nexus]

TFL's are great and can help indicate the aggressiveness of DL's but in three andq four man fronts, a lot of the DL's responsibility is to gobble blocks and free LB's to make tackles. I don't think you can effectively rank stingy DL's without considering a whole host of other factors and stats. As pointed out, the absence of 94-95 teams would prove this stat means little on it's own. However, I am shocked neither of those units appeared in this list as it is widely acknowledged those were two of the best since the Devaney era.

Agreed. It's not comprehensive by any means, nor was it an attempt to be.

Here's another DL stat to consider. QBH (quarterback hurries). Using the same standard from my first post where 3 or more DL recorded double-digit QBHs in a given season. FYI, QBHs weren't recorded until 1989. Also '97 & '98 didn't have a QBH category listed for some reason?

1989 = 4

1994 = 4

1999 = 4

2002 = 3

2009 = 3

2010 = 3

 

[Nexus]

While I don't have access to the amount of plays each defensive player recorded per game, it's worth mentioning, by my own personal memory of the 1995 season, our 2nd & 3rd stringers were getting more reps than usual. That could explain why that team didn't have 3 or 4 players in double-digit TFLs.

 

[MichiganDad3]

While I don't have access to the amount of plays each defensive player recorded per game, it's worth mentioning, by my own personal memory of the 1995 season, our 2nd & 3rd stringers were getting more reps than usual. That could explain why that team didn't have 3 or 4 players in double-digit TFLs.

I really miss the 2nd & 3rd stringers getting significant playing time. It gave you a pretty good idea of how good next year's team would be because you saw the players in action. Now we really have no idea how goo (or bad) NU will be next year.

 

[billdozer15]

94/95 Dlines not on the list = not good statistical analysis

 

[Nexus]

94/95 Dlines not on the list = not good statistical analysis

I think the issue most are having with this thread is the title itself. You have certain expectations when entering a thread like this and 94/95 are obvious choices. I understand that. I'll admit that I probably should've made a thread title that better reflects the point I was trying to make here. It's a case of my own lack of clarity getting lost in translation. In no way was I trying to undermine those DLs that didn't make the list. Maybe when I have some more time to kill, I'll bump this thread with a more in-depth analysis to further satisfy our collective curiosity on the matter.

 

[flatwaterfan]

94/95 Dlines not on the list = not good statistical analysis

I think the issue most are having with this thread is the title itself. You have certain expectations when entering a thread like this and 94/95 are obvious choices. I understand that. I'll admit that I probably should've made a thread title that better reflects the point I was trying to make here. It's a case of my own lack of clarity getting lost in translation. In no way was I trying to undermine those DLs that didn't make the list. Maybe when I have some more time to kill, I'll bump this thread with a more in-depth analysis to further satisfy our collective curiosity on the matter.

Actually, I think it's a good list and interesting. Thanks for posting it. 94/95 was a good line but we have had a lot of good defensive fronts and a lot of star power on the lines over the years. Mostly on the edges.

Glover, Dutton, Jacobsen, Harper in '71. Yikes. some star power there!