Rewatched Game- Defensive Thoughts

[TheSker]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

Sometimes Pelini's blitzes are ineffective. It's about talent.....Demorrio Williams for example had some memorable blitzes. That's why speed is crucial at the LB spot. We didn't have speed or talent there the past couple of seasons. That's recruiting, and yes it's on Bo. Charlie McBride went from hot seat to a legend because of on field talent.

 

[TheSker]

They were getting pushed around by friggin Wyo.

Based on Pelini's comments, I think we'll see them let Valentine loose a bit more now. With Valentine the unknowns were his in game conditioning and how he'd do at game speed once things went live. I think Pelini and Pap were pleased. Randle needs to step it up, but he may just not be physically able to and I'm certain Pelini and Pap will use a lot of depth at that position. It's still better than Stein and Meredith, neither of whom are natural DTs....both undersized to play DT. They got pushed around.

 

[HuskerShark]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

This is funny, pretty much admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh ok, well Big Red nearly had an epic, historic loss for the ages. Aaaand, we dropped 4 spots in the polls after this "illustrious" performance, you know, a win. Maybe you can spin that one, big guy..

The 3rd quarter and the first half of the 4th, we really took control of the game. Then for some unknown reason, Beck called a pass play in the red zone after running it and pounding the ball all the way down the field which got intercepted. From that point on, the game blew up.

So in other words, regarding your view on the 1st half and the 4th quarter, you're not wrong. It's just not worth having a total panic attack over like most people on the board are.

 

[NUinID]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

Is the main difference simply the safety?

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

The biggest difference between the 90's and now it the style of offense that everyone runs. The spread type offense is designed to slow down the attacking style of the 90's type defense. In the 90's most teams ran a lot of Miami formations or Pro formation. Hardly any were sitting at 4 wide as their basic set formation. Even Spurriors fun and gun had a very conventional look to it most of the time.

The spread principles is all about making space for runners and receivers to run. They want one on one match ups. That is why you see lots of short passing, lots of zone read. A spread team loves to play an attacking defense, it creates more space to run.

BP big problem, and IMO is a philosophical one is that he doesn't want to give up the big pass play. He loves bracket coverage. That creates gaps in the run defense. He needs to make a choice to bring more bodies into the box against a true spread team and give up a little of his pass coverage.

 

[HuskerFowler]

Addison, it's perfectly acceptable to take out outliers/anomalies as a separate way to analyze data. If a running back runs 25 times a game for 100 yards, but one of those runs was for 75 yards, that means the other 24 runs netted only 25 yards total (slightly over a yard per play). So yes, an "average" includes all the data, but if you really look at the data (in my scenario) you see that the running back really struggled save one play.

There's nothing wrong with that analysis as long as you don't discount other forms of data. Hell, even professional statistical analysts look at data without outliers or pure averages. True averages can be very misleading.

So in other words it's fine to be very optimistic by the fact that the final 6 or so minutes of ridiculous nonsense is covering up a decent body of work by the defense (or the whole team for that matter) the other 54 minutes of the game, yes?

I thought our body of work the 1st half was bad, regardless of 'pure' or 'impure' averages. I thought we were getting owned from the get go. The 3rd quarter was probably better, but I probably didnt notice cuz of the PTSD from the 1st half.. The interception in their redzone seemed to change the momentum greatly as we were sitting on a comfy lead and I actually cant recall the events leading to their 2 quick scores in the 4th, except they involved some long passes with some huge breakdowns in the 2ndary. The 4th qtr was kind of a blur to me.

This is funny, pretty much admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh ok, well Big Red nearly had an epic, historic loss for the ages. Aaaand, we dropped 4 spots in the polls after this "illustrious" performance, you know, a win. Maybe you can spin that one, big guy..

Dont have to spin anything, its blatantly obvious by your posting you have no idea whats going on, then you go on and admit it, yet spout off acting like you know something about football, when in reality, you looked at the score and the yards givin up and jumped to conclusions. Maybe before stating your opinion publicly you would, you know, actually watch how the game unfolded ONCE let alone two or three times, to see what really happened before you make stupid comments and make yourself look ignorant.

 

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

McKewon was on USC this afternoon, and he and Severe were saying that the D blitzed quite a bit, but the blitzes were uneffective.

Pretty good description of the bowl game too.

I've never seen Bo's blitz's to be effective, they always wiff or get picked up by the RB and what not.

Sometimes Pelini's blitzes are ineffective. It's about talent.....Demorrio Williams for example had some memorable blitzes. That's why speed is crucial at the LB spot. We didn't have speed or talent there the past couple of seasons. That's recruiting, and yes it's on Bo. Charlie McBride went from hot seat to a legend because of on field talent.

Yea, LD comes to mind.

 

[admo]

We had 2 safeties and 3 corners out there. In addition to that, one safety was filling in at outside linebacker. Math tells me that is 6 defensive backs. Which leaves a 4 man DLine with a MLB to support against the run with safety help. I do not understand that strategy. With that much coverage, WYO still threw for nearly 400 yards and picking apart for 200 rushing yards in addition. Mo Seisay played a lot next to Santos. He is a 200lb DB playing outside LB for pass coverage and speed. Gerry came in as a 210lb safety and recently moved from safety to LB role because of his coverage ability and tackling. Call them hybrids. I call them safeties. Coach's emphasis is a lot on pass coverage as we all know. Maybe because his roots go back to him playing safety in the secondary. Or his success against the pass happy Big 12 with few mobile QBs and weaker run game priorities. I will be honest. I don't know the answer. At least use 2 real linebackers out there with adequate coverage ability but physically better run stoppers to go help the D-Line. That way you have some bigger guys to form a wall that's hard to run against, including a scrambling QB, and be still capable to cover well enough with 5 DBs. I'm opposed to the one MLB and one hybrid theory. It's basically three safeties out there and six DBs to slow the run, keep receivers in front, and contain long enough that hopefully the QB won't find a running lane. Kind of been that way for awhile. Although I prefer a solid 4-3-4, I'm not coach. I just can only chime in and hope everything works out.

 

[BigRedBuster]

We had 2 safeties and 3 corners out there. In addition to that, one safety was filling in at outside linebacker. Math tells me that is 6 defensive backs. Which leaves a 4 man DLine with a MLB to support against the run with safety help. I do not understand that strategy. With that much coverage, WYO still threw for nearly 400 yards and picking apart for 200 rushing yards in addition. Mo Seisay played a lot next to Santos. He is a 200lb DB playing outside LB for pass coverage and speed. Gerry came in as a 210lb safety and recently moved from safety to LB role because of his coverage ability and tackling. Call them hybrids. I call them safeties. Coach's emphasis is a lot on pass coverage as we all know. Maybe because his roots go back to him playing safety in the secondary. Or his success against the pass happy Big 12 with few mobile QBs and weaker run game priorities. I will be honest. I don't know the answer. At least use 2 real linebackers out there with adequate coverage ability but physically better run stoppers to go help the D-Line. That way you have some bigger guys to form a wall that's hard to run against, including a scrambling QB, and be still capable to cover well enough with 5 DBs. I'm opposed to the one MLB and one hybrid theory. It's basically three safeties out there and six DBs to slow the run, keep receivers in front, and contain long enough that hopefully the QB won't find a running lane. Kind of been that way for awhile. Although I prefer a solid 4-3-4, I'm not coach. I just can only chime in and hope everything works out.

When we are going against 4 and 5 wide, I am fine with 6 DBs. But, I'm surprised we don't (most of the time) keep one of them up for run coverage or pass rushing. You can disguise which one is staying up.

 

[The Dude]

They were getting pushed around by friggin Wyo.

Based on Pelini's comments, I think we'll see them let Valentine loose a bit more now. With Valentine the unknowns were his in game conditioning and how he'd do at game speed once things went live. I think Pelini and Pap were pleased. Randle needs to step it up, but he may just not be physically able to and I'm certain Pelini and Pap will use a lot of depth at that position. It's still better than Stein and Meredith, neither of whom are natural DTs....both undersized to play DT. They got pushed around.

I was impressed with Valentine's conditioning (and effort) too, considering all the concerning stuff we heard about it over the offseason.

 

[BOurNe sUpremacy]

Dont have to spin anything, its blatantly obvious by your posting you have no idea whats going on, then you go on and admit it, yet spout off acting like you know something about football, when in reality, you looked at the score and the yards givin up and jumped to conclusions. Maybe before stating your opinion publicly you would, you know, actually watch how the game unfolded ONCE let alone two or three times, to see what really happened before you make stupid comments and make yourself look ignorant.

Yea, you remind me of that guy in red I sparred a few weeks back.

Cmon, you dont have to Einstein or even half awake watching that game to know the defense sucked. "Oh, we had 2 'good' qtrs of D' but then blew up again in the 4th. That's Pelini's M.O. But hey, you keep tellin' yourself, keep spinnin' it, keep rewatching the game and adjusting the stats you make yourself feel good about it. I hope UCLA goes easy on us and keeps it under 70--for your sake.

 

[admo]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

Is the main difference simply the safety?

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

The biggest difference between the 90's and now it the style of offense that everyone runs. The spread type offense is designed to slow down the attacking style of the 90's type defense. In the 90's most teams ran a lot of Miami formations or Pro formation. Hardly any were sitting at 4 wide as their basic set formation. Even Spurriors fun and gun had a very conventional look to it most of the time.

The spread principles is all about making space for runners and receivers to run. They want one on one match ups. That is why you see lots of short passing, lots of zone read. A spread team loves to play an attacking defense, it creates more space to run.

BP big problem, and IMO is a philosophical one is that he doesn't want to give up the big pass play. He loves bracket coverage. That creates gaps in the run defense. He needs to make a choice to bring more bodies into the box against a true spread team and give up a little of his pass coverage.

Yes! +1 loved it!

 

[TheSker]

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

I think there's one significant difference and we'll see if Pelini is going down the right road now. It's talent level. Take the DL for example from that mid 90's crew. Peter bros, Tomich, Wistrom each made it to the next level. Crick and Suh did the same for Pelini......and Pelini might have even looked better that season with more productive DEs. Xs and Os are important....Jimmys and Joes are more important.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

I think there's one significant difference and we'll see if Pelini is going down the right road now. It's talent level. Take the DL for example from that mid 90's crew. Peter bros, Tomich, Wistrom each made it to the next level. Crick and Suh did the same for Pelini......and Pelini might have even looked better that season with more productive DEs. Xs and Os are important....Jimmys and Joes are more important.

Obviously you have to have the talent to run any scheme. However, what I'm talking about isn't a talent issue. It's one defensive mentality or scheme compared to another one.

 

[HuskerFowler]

Dont have to spin anything, its blatantly obvious by your posting you have no idea whats going on, then you go on and admit it, yet spout off acting like you know something about football, when in reality, you looked at the score and the yards givin up and jumped to conclusions. Maybe before stating your opinion publicly you would, you know, actually watch how the game unfolded ONCE let alone two or three times, to see what really happened before you make stupid comments and make yourself look ignorant.

Yea, you remind me of that guy in red I sparred a few weeks back.

Cmon, you dont have to Einstein or even half awake watching that game to know the defense sucked. "Oh, we had 2 'good' qtrs of D' but then blew up again in the 4th. That's Pelini's M.O. But hey, you keep tellin' yourself, keep spinnin' it, keep rewatching the game and adjusting the stats you make yourself feel good about it. I hope UCLA goes easy on us and keeps it under 70--for your sake.

Your a little chinese guy? Well that makes sense, they typically have never watched much football.

 

[BigRedBuster]

OK....I was going to start a new thread about this but people don't tend to like new threads. This is the next best place for it.

I'm not posting this to bash Bo's defenses nor to roll in memories of the 90s. I want to know more about the differences.

The 90s defenses attacked QBs. We basically ran a 4-3 defense. I know at least in the bowl game against Florida, we faced formations with 3...4 and even 5 wide receivers. This would tend to lead Bo's defenses to be in nickel and dime sets which (as we have seen) leads to open running lanes because we have so many players focused on covering WRs.

So.....how did the 90s defenses get unbelievable pressure on the QB AND stop the run while still covering WRs? Bo's defenses are struggling to be able to do that.

I, very seldom, remember not having a 7 man front back then. So, if you had 5 wide, was each of them put in man coverage with no safety over the top? Even if you do that, that only leaves 6 in the box. (4 down linemen and 2 LBs.)

Is the main difference simply the safety?

If that's the case, I thought our DBs were the experience and strength of our defense coming into the season. Wouldn't it be a smart move to put them on an island and bring one more person into the box and make sure the QB knows the front 6-7 players very personally?

The biggest difference between the 90's and now it the style of offense that everyone runs. The spread type offense is designed to slow down the attacking style of the 90's type defense. In the 90's most teams ran a lot of Miami formations or Pro formation. Hardly any were sitting at 4 wide as their basic set formation. Even Spurriors fun and gun had a very conventional look to it most of the time.

The spread principles is all about making space for runners and receivers to run. They want one on one match ups. That is why you see lots of short passing, lots of zone read. A spread team loves to play an attacking defense, it creates more space to run.

BP big problem, and IMO is a philosophical one is that he doesn't want to give up the big pass play. He loves bracket coverage. That creates gaps in the run defense. He needs to make a choice to bring more bodies into the box against a true spread team and give up a little of his pass coverage.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that means you don't have DBs on an island and they have help over the top covering WRs. Well...if you have 5 wide with 6 DBs, aren't most of your DBs on an island anyway?