***The Nebraska Defense - Blackshirts 2021***

BigRedBuster said:
You can have an elite pass rusher and if the QB is getting it out quick enough, he's not going to do squat.  This is where the DBs have to come into play.  They have to cover in a way that allows your pass rusher to get to the QB.  

I remember in the Fordham game, we were playing a lot of soft coverage.  The QB was able to get the ball out on a lot of quick routes like slants and they moved the ball.  At half time, we started playing a lot tighter coverage and we basically shut down their offense.  I think they only gained like 40 yards after half.  I'm not sure if the one sack came after half or before.  

I'm very surprised we never got to the QB in the Buffalo game.  The amount of pressures we got on him is encouraging.  I haven't rewatched it to see if they were getting the ball out quick or not.  But, you would think we would get to him at some point over 50 passes.
Click to expand...
I still sometimes wonder if the 3 front D is the right D for us in the Big 10.  We are asking the LB to do a lot while the front 3 have to clog up the middle basically.  The LB have to cover TE, RBs, run containment, and blitz.  A lot of 'stuff' if you don't have top notch 4-5 star players back there.    Seems to me a 4 front D would utilize 2 big DT to clog up the middle and the DE can provide rush and outside containment.  The LB would be free to zero in on inside run containment, covering TE and the occasional blitz -  or we bring the corner in on the blitz package.   But I'm not a defensive coach but I did play outside LB in small town SD football!! :P (and I got to blitz a lot which made it real fun when I could blind side a QB- which happened pretty often). 

 
TGHusker said:
I still sometimes wonder if the 3 front D is the right D for us in the Big 10.  We are asking the LB to do a lot while the front 3 have to clog up the middle basically.  The LB have to cover TE, RBs, run containment, and blitz.  A lot of 'stuff' if you don't have top notch 4-5 star players back there.    Seems to me a 4 front D would utilize 2 big DT to clog up the middle and the DE can provide rush and outside containment.  The LB would be free to zero in on inside run containment, covering TE and the occasional blitz -  or we bring the corner in on the blitz package.   But I'm not a defensive coach but I did play outside LB in small town SD football!! :P (and I got to blitz a lot which made it real fun when I could blind side a QB- which happened pretty often). 
Click to expand...
I don't have stats to prove this, but I think we have played a lot fo 4 man fronts this year.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I don't have stats to prove this, but I think we have played a lot fo 4 man fronts this year.
Click to expand...
That could be - I haven't paid enough attention to the D line.  

So if that is the case, is it paying off in your opinion?  Outside of Ill, we still don't have a lot of sacks and 3rd down stops are still a problem.  Granted, Buffalo's type of passing game doesn't lend itself to many sacks.  I guess the OU game will be the true test.  

 
TGHusker said:
That could be - I haven't paid enough attention to the D line.  

So if that is the case, is it paying off in your opinion?  Outside of Ill, we still don't have a lot of sacks and 3rd down stops are still a problem.  Granted, Buffalo's type of passing game doesn't lend itself to many sacks.  I guess the OU game will be the true test.  
Click to expand...
Whatever they are doing is working against the run.  Seems like they are making adjustments in their coverages to account for what the other team is doing.  Oh, those darn adjustments we supposedly don't make.  We made that adjustment against Fordham and it shut them down.  I haven't rewatched the Buffalo game close enough to know what they did specifically in that game.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Whatever they are doing is working against the run.  Seems like they are making adjustments in their coverages to account for what the other team is doing.  Oh, those darn adjustments we supposedly don't make.  We made that adjustment against Fordham and it shut them down.  I haven't rewatched the Buffalo game close enough to know what they did specifically in that game.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does seem that the D has become the strength of the team.  IF we can get the O to perform better than a lot of the negativity, including my own  :facepalm: , will go away.  It would be spectacular if it happened this week against OU, but I have my doubts (darn that negative vibe within). 

 
TGHusker said:
That could be - I haven't paid enough attention to the D line.  

So if that is the case, is it paying off in your opinion?  Outside of Ill, we still don't have a lot of sacks and 3rd down stops are still a problem.  Granted, Buffalo's type of passing game doesn't lend itself to many sacks.  I guess the OU game will be the true test.  
Click to expand...
I believe this is an example of them playing a 4 man front.  Nelson would be basically the 3rd LB on this side of the line.


 
BigRedBuster said:
I believe this is an example of them playing a 4 man front.  Nelson would be basically the 3rd LB on this side of the line.
Click to expand...
I see that now.  Perhaps wt the upgrade at the LB spot, we are able to change up the D for different situations.  Too bad Honas isn't available to make this an even stronger D.    Is he out all season?

 
BigRedBuster said:
Have a question about Sacks.

In the first half of Illinois, we had three sacks.  Since then, we have only had one against Fordham.  Why?  What changed?

We have had only one sack since Tannor was flagged for roughing the passer.  

I know Fordham called a lot of quick passes.  I don't remember if Buffalo did the same thing.  Between Fordham and Buffalo, they passed the ball 80 times and we only have one sack.

Yes, the easy answer is, "We don't have an elite pass rusher."  But, did someone get injured at half time of Illinois I'm not remembering?  

Thoughts?
Click to expand...




Partly offensive scheme of our opponents, I thin, but one thing to think about...

this has been a yearly trend for Chinander's defenses. 2018 we had 6 sacks against Colorado, 2019 we had 4 against Southern Alabama, 2020 we had 3 against Ohio State. 

 
the only time they get sacks is when the QB holds onto it too long.  The defensive front is pretty slow by all accounts.  Tannor is probably the fastest but it seems like he can't get his brain to move his legs as fast as they should.  They also don't have any pass rush moves.  Unless they just overpower the guy in front of them they don't get home.  it's frustrating.  Also had to get sacks when there are quick passes.  only way to stop that is play tight man which they don't really do.  

 
Lorewarn said:
Partly offensive scheme of our opponents, I thin, but one thing to think about...

this has been a yearly trend for Chinander's defenses. 2018 we had 6 sacks against Colorado, 2019 we had 4 against Southern Alabama, 2020 we had 3 against Ohio State. 
Click to expand...
That’s kind of why I asked my question. It seems like a frustrating trend. 
 

At least they are getting pressures. 

 
We’re one elite pass rusher away and run stopper away from becoming a dangerous defense otherwise we are beatable inside the tackles and underneath and throws to the outside. Maybe they’re coached not to give up the big play over the top.
 

Seems like most big plays we give up on defense are communication errors or fundamental issues (tackling, over pursuing.) A couple blitzes at Rattler were complete whiffs by the defense leaving a receiver open. Those blitzes gotta get there fast. However, I love their aggression and the way we fly to the football. I think that will continue to improve each week.

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