Secondary play...

Teams that run more and pass less almost always have lower YPP. "Successful running" YPP is lower than "OK passing" YPP. One thing to consider. Obviously I haven't dug around the numbers.

 
zoogs said:
Teams that run more and pass less almost always have lower YPP. "Successful running" YPP is lower than "OK passing" YPP. One thing to consider. Obviously I haven't dug around the numbers.
Click to expand...
Which is an argument for stopping the pass first, is it not?

 
I thought the secondary did better with knock down passes in that game. Considering that the D played 84 snaps in the game. The last 6 games, I wonder about the officiating crew on some calls.

 
Mavric said:
zoogs said:
Teams that run more and pass less almost always have lower YPP. "Successful running" YPP is lower than "OK passing" YPP. One thing to consider. Obviously I haven't dug around the numbers.
Click to expand...
Which is an argument for stopping the pass first, is it not?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but it's an interesting thought. Conversely, it'd also be an argument for passing first.

Of course, mean is not the only measure of success. Passing is more volatile, and that affects the expected payoffs. There's greater risk, and TOP-freezing incompletions, etc.

Generally, I can certainly see the argument for stopping the run. The problem is if you yield numbers by design in the run game, you give an awful lot. Teams can grind it at will even with lackluster runners, and at least control clock and keep the chains moving. To stop it requires intent.

On the other hand, the offense still has to do something quite right to complete a pass. QB mechanics, accuracy, decision-making, WR hands ... all things inconsistent in college ball. Wes Lunt and Illinois managed only 14 points on this beleaguered secondary; could've been more, but passing operations stop themselves sometimes. As DBs get more acclimated, you'd expect competitiveness to improve -- and force more errors from offenses that aren't proficient at passing.

So, yeah, I'm kind of on board with this vision. You can see where they are going with it.

Of course, no defense simply leaves the run open. It's up to offenses to force the defense to focus run, and then hit over the top. I think that's what's being done to us right now. So I think the story goes beyond "DB play regression", which undoubtedly has occurred. I think it's also having to try harder than we'd like to avoid getting gashed by the run -- that's injuries, depth, experience, in the front 7.

saunders posted a very pertinent graphic, though, about some of our upcoming opponents. If those guys can deal a great amount of aerial damage, it'll be a red flag. At the end of the day, it's about this year and so, given what we have right now it's up to the coaches to put together something that can give us a shot at winning.

--

Appreciate the discussion, Mav -- these are nothing if not interesting
default_thumbsup.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Watching Michigan State's receivers....to go with the fact they have Connor Cook. We are going to need to put up 70, their passing game will destroy us

 
Yes, the pass defense hasn't been brilliant this year, and was brilliant last year. At this point it's simply: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe we need a new secondary coach, which would make it secondary coach #7593028 in 6 years.

 
Passing yards stats aren't pretty, but don't allow touchdowns, force a few turnovers, and continue stopping the run.

If the offense can cover your a$$, you've got good odds.

Stave got lucky and had a lot of "would be" interceptions dropped or that Wisconsin game would have been much different. Leidner may have gotten a lot of yards, but we forced Minnesota out of their comfort zone, and it paid off with a few interceptions.

We have a winning formula. We could still get better at executing it, but yards don't matter if they don't score, and if we force teams out of their comfort zone, turnovers will happen. It's gonna work out more and more the better these players get in these systems. Offense did a great job of making sure they took advantage of the opportunities they had.

 
zoogs said:
I think we need to lay some of these arguments to rest.

This was a shaky defense last year that regularly fell apart. If they had pass defense rankings that were high, it was a combination of a scheme more devoted to it, and teams exploiting other areas, and maybe a function too of the kinds of teams we played. Kaaya didn't have much trouble throwing.

The defense is one unit, not two. They were not good last year, and they are still shaky this year. As Riley says, you need tangible results to start building that confidence.

This year they've traded, schematically, the pass defense focus for a run defense focus. Whether that was wise or not, we'll see.

As Nebraska fans we always talk about how great it is if you can run the ball well and control the game. You'd think more of us would see this approach and say "OK, yeah. I can see how we'd rather take our chances and make teams beat us through the air. And I can see why they probably will do well until the talent level is upgraded."
Click to expand...
Do you think it's talent level or just the way they're taught to watch the receiver and try to knock the ball out at the last second? The huge cushion and blind coverage is a mystery to me....it's not how any of our corners who went to the pros played. Or maybe these corners are always getting beat and trying to play catchup?

 
Back
Top