Holy $#@& Phil Steele

[Mierin]

Please read this carefully: I don't care how good Wisconsin's defense is or why they are or aren't good. This is because Wisconsin's defense doesn't play Wisconsin's offense, therefore no parallels can be drawn to what they do on defense to stop Wisconsin's offense.

It sounds ridiculous to actually type that out but there it is.

I think you’re getting befuddled because he used Wisconsin as an example while you’re talking about their offense.

It’s not relevant that the example he used was Wisconsin. He could have used Michigan State.

He’s saying we might he able to stop Wisconsin’s offense with the players we have with good coaching. Because Michigan State’s defense has been able to play well without a ton of talent (as has Wisconsin’s).

Parallels absolutely can be drawn because there are other teams that run the ball and there are teams that stop Wisconsin better than us. Those teams don’t all have “the horses,” as you put it. 

 

[brophog]

Taking out those negative 43 yards, they only ran for 252 yards. Let's not split hairs here - PSU "shut down" Wisconsin's run game and played excellent defense overall; that's how you beat Wisconsin. 

Teams rushing for over 200 yards have an astronomical winning percentage at both the college and professional level. If you think 252 yards is any way remotely a “shut down” then we have absolutely nothing to discuss.

 

[Undone]

I think you’re getting befuddled because he used Wisconsin as an example while you’re talking about their offense.

It’s not relevant that the example he used was Wisconsin. He could have used Michigan State.

He’s saying we might he able to stop Wisconsin’s offense with the players we have with good coaching. Because Michigan State’s defense has been able to play well without a ton of talent (as has Wisconsin’s).

I am not befuddled, Moiraine.

This is the argument: Nobody in the Big 10 has an offensive line and offensive paradigm like Wisconsin's. Furthermore, us beating them is critical to winning our division. Therefore, drawing parallels to some subjective level of defensive output-to-talent ratio for Wisconsin's defense is irrelevant.

If you think I'm crazy or am misunderstanding something, let's just drop the tangent because it honestly doesn't matter. In my opinion our defense was an embarrassment to the standard of Husker football last year and if it doesn't drastically improve we will not even catch a whiff of a West division title. I realize that there are many others on the forum that disagree with that and believe we'll have a "2017 UCF season" where superior offense just tramples our conference opponents, but I just happen to think that's inaccurate.

 

[Undone]

Teams rushing for over 200 yards have an astronomical winning percentage at both the college and professional level. If you think 252 yards is any way remotely a “shut down” then we have absolutely nothing to discuss.

Then have this concession, Bro Frog - I was wrong and you are right, and I should have instead picked the 2017 Big 10 title game between Wisconsin/OSU. Agreed, and again, I am wrong.

Where I am not wrong, however, is that Wisconsin steamrolled us in the run game last season. And I didn't have a chance to respond to this yet, @Nebfanatic, but I think this statement was wrong:
 

Hell, we almost beat them last year after getting in a hole.

Losing by more than two scores (41-24) isn't "almost beating them."

 

[Mierin]

I am not befuddled, Moiraine.

This is the argument: Nobody in the Big 10 has an offensive line and offensive paradigm like Wisconsin's. Furthermore, us beating them is critical to winning our division. Therefore, drawing parallels to some subjective level of defensive output-to-talent ratio for Wisconsin's defense is irrelevant.

If you think I'm crazy or am misunderstanding something, let's just drop the tangent because it honestly doesn't matter. In my opinion our defense was an embarrassment to the standard of Husker football last year and if it doesn't drastically improve we will not even catch a whiff of a West division title. I realize that there are many others on the forum that disagree with that and believe we'll have a "2017 UCF season" where superior offense just tramples our conference opponents, but I just happen to think that's inaccurate.

If you’re not befuddled then stop saying what he said had “absolutely nothing” to do with your point. You seem to understand what he was getting at, and obviously it does have something to do with your point. 

You just think Wisconsin’s offense is on this pedestal and is an unstoppable juggernaut therefore there is no point in comparing what they’ve done defensively because they don’t have to face themselves, as if what other teams’ offenses have done against them is irrelevant because those other teams’ offenses are so inferior to their own. 

Well, MSU has had good defenses over the past 10 years with not awesome talent and they sometimes have to play Wisconsin, so are we allowed to use them as an example or no?

 

[brophog]

Obviously our defense has to get better, but I really think the Frost formula is perfect for defeating Wisconsin even if the defense isn't shutting them down.

If they run the ball as well as they did last year, you’re not shutting them down. What you have to do is situationally take them out of their running game. In the Penn St game, rush opportunities were diminished due to sacks, penalties and turnovers.

The flipside to the Nebraska-Wisconsin matchup is making their LBs cover our backs and slot receivers.

 

[Undone]

In the Penn St game, rush opportunities were diminished due to sacks, penalties and turnovers.

I feel validated.

 

[Saunders]

 

[Landlord]

Please read this carefully: I don't care how good Wisconsin's defense is or why they are or aren't good. This is because Wisconsin's defense doesn't play Wisconsin's offense, therefore no parallels can be drawn to what they do on defense to stop Wisconsin's offense.

It sounds ridiculous to actually type that out but there it is.

Your inability to understand what's being said is amazing :lol:

I am not befuddled, Moiraine.

Oh no you definitely are.

 

[Undone]

Well, MSU has had good defenses over the past 10 years with not awesome talent and they sometimes have to play Wisconsin, so are we allowed to use them as an example or no?

No, you wouldn't be allowed to do that, and here's why:

Here are Michigan State's past five years of average recruiting rankings going back from 2018 (I just went offense/defense combined total because I don't have time to try to break it out). All stats are just based off of 247 Sports' numbers:

2018 --> #31

2017 --> #36

2016 --> #17

2015 --> #23

2014 --> #26

Average across those five years: 26.6

And here's are Wisconsin's:

2018 --> #44

2017 --> #39

2016 --> #35

2015 --> #41

2014 --> #32

Average across those five years: 

38.2

 

[Undone]

Your inability to understand what's being said is amazing :lol:

Oh no you definitely are.

I'm just trying to give us one exciting off-season day around here.   

I am not misunderstanding the point. Really what I'm driving it is hearing people say these words:

By the logic of Wisconsin having a good run defense despite having inferior recruiting, we had pitiful defensive coaching last year because our defensive recruiting  on the roster currently roughly rivals Wisconsin's.

Sorry - edited multiple times due to typos.

 

[Nebfanatic]

If they run the ball as well as they did last year, you’re not shutting them down. What you have to do is situationally take them out of their running game. In the Penn St game, rush opportunities were diminished due to sacks, penalties and turnovers.

The flipside to the Nebraska-Wisconsin matchup is making their LBs cover our backs and slot receivers.

Bingo and I believe that is the gameplan in most games for us moving forward. Chinanders defense works best when creating sacks and turnovers, while the offense capitalizes on these mistakes to create a gap which in turn puts pressure on the opposing offense to take more risks and pass more making it easier to create sacks and turnovers. This works well against run reliant offenses that aren't used to scoring in bunches if you can get the momentum going.

 

[Undone]

Chinanders defense works best when creating sacks and turnovers, while the offense capitalizes on these mistakes to create a gap which in turn puts pressure on the opposing offense to take more risks and pass more making it easier to create sacks and turnovers.

This would certainly describe the goal of every team that sets foot on the turf on Saturdays, regardless of what scheme/philosophy they have.

 

[Husker in WI]

 Chinanders defense works best when creating sacks and turnovers, while the offense capitalizes on these mistakes to create a gap which in turn puts pressure on the opposing offense to take more risks and pass more making it easier to create sacks and turnovers. This works well against run reliant offenses that aren't used to scoring in bunches if you can get the momentum going.

This would certainly describe the goal of every team that sets foot on the turf on Saturdays, regardless of what scheme/philosophy they have.

Except a Diaco-led defense. Their goal was to let you score, but make it take a little bit longer than it could have.

 

[K9Buck]

I think there is a good chance for NU and tOSU to meet twice this year, although Phil is picking Michigan from the east.  I think Michigan's offense is decent and their defense is overrated. Harbaugh hasn't been able to beat tOSU or win a big game.  He's 1-3 in bowls, 2-2 against MSU, and 0-4 against tOSU.