McKewon Monday Rewind: Husker defense has a ways to go
- Thread starter zoogs
- Start date
It's hard to say what the exact record would be due mostly to turnovers and their random nature.
Assuming we improved a yard per play in this hypothetical scenario we'd be at 5 yards per play allowed, about 40th in the country. For reference that's slightly worse than Illinois and about what we saw from Nebraska a few years ago. Certainly not a great defense by any means, but within the realm of plausibility for our scenario.
With our offensive production, though, that would put us at +1.2 yards per play this year. That sort of differential would have us somewhere between 0-1 losses given our schedule, again depending on things like turnovers, red zone production, etc. As many have no doubt guessed, it'd make us approximately Iowa.
Enhance
Administrator
I dove into this a couple of months ago, either early season or before the season started. He had some very talented groups while at OSU. I just did a quick glance and in 03-04, OSU was #13 in total defense. A website I found here http://www.prostarcoaching.net/mbanker.html claims he had a Top 10 unit at some point there.
The flip side to this, however, is he had some very up and down times. I'm speaking mostly from memory here so my numbers may be a bit off (apologies) - but, he would have stretches of 2-3 seasons where the team wouldn't be that good. Then, every 3rd or 4th year, they'd shoot back up to being a Top 25-ish unit. And that 03-04 defense were none of his players.
You can look at this several ways - positively, it shows he can coach a great defense. Glass half empty approach - he's inconsistent and one of his best defenses wasn't even with his own players.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
Riley and Banker inherited a bad defense that is now playing even worse. Sort of. Hard to run against our front line, unlike last year. Easy to pass against our secondary, unlike last year when teams preferred to run at will.
And it looks easier to pass against our secondary when that tough-against-the-run front line can't get penetration on drop back passers, and an already challenged secondary has to maintain coverage for a full five seconds while the opposing quarterback stands flat-footed, considering his options. That's the same situation where even slow-footed quarterbacks take off running for 25 untouched yards.
There are a lot of defensive schemes, but at some point they all come down to man-to-man match-ups. Over the past several years, we've had a few big dogs, but not enough. You can have an all-American DL at one end, an alll-American CB on one side, and all an offense has to do is target the weak link. We don't have enough big dogs and we have too many weak links. Since this has been a problem going on five years, I'm thinking recruiting might have a hand in this, regardless of the DC who came in.
Also, it wasn't just the big games where Pelini's Nebraska defense got the yips. There were major breakdowns against the Wyomings, Fresno States and McNeese States of the world, and the unranked Iowa States, Northwesterns and Minnesotas, too. This has been a persistent problem.
We talk too much about Nebraska's run/pass ratio, when the real legacy we need to get back to is offensive and defensive lineman who make it easier for everyone behind them.
And it looks easier to pass against our secondary when that tough-against-the-run front line can't get penetration on drop back passers, and an already challenged secondary has to maintain coverage for a full five seconds while the opposing quarterback stands flat-footed, considering his options. That's the same situation where even slow-footed quarterbacks take off running for 25 untouched yards.
There are a lot of defensive schemes, but at some point they all come down to man-to-man match-ups. Over the past several years, we've had a few big dogs, but not enough. You can have an all-American DL at one end, an alll-American CB on one side, and all an offense has to do is target the weak link. We don't have enough big dogs and we have too many weak links. Since this has been a problem going on five years, I'm thinking recruiting might have a hand in this, regardless of the DC who came in.
Also, it wasn't just the big games where Pelini's Nebraska defense got the yips. There were major breakdowns against the Wyomings, Fresno States and McNeese States of the world, and the unranked Iowa States, Northwesterns and Minnesotas, too. This has been a persistent problem.
We talk too much about Nebraska's run/pass ratio, when the real legacy we need to get back to is offensive and defensive lineman who make it easier for everyone behind them.
Dansker
New member
Against MSU, we showed quarters coverage and then would adjust to Cover 2 on the fly which is something we haven't really seen. This is something Stanford does a lot against Oregon except they're in a 3-4 base and we go with 4-3. We would switch from man-to-man to zone before the snap and this caught MSU off guard. With quarters coverage you can stop the run, the bubble pass, and 4 verticals and other deep concepts and you bring 9 men into the box while you do it. If you have enough speed, you can shut down the short passing game. You can adjust to a Cover 2, Cover 3, or even Cover 4. That's the thing with Quarters is it adds flexibility to your defense.
You have to have very good talent to perfect it even though the scheme can be ran with inferior talent on D and it can put that talent in perfect position to stop an offense, you still have to win the one on one battles. The Quarters coverage is now being ran in a lot of high schools across the country so as long as we recruit players familiar with the scheme, the transition to Nebraska will be easier. I would have liked to see more creativity from the quarters coverage look such as doing it from a 3-4, 4-2-5, or even a 3-3 stack. It's a very aggressive defensive scheme and you have to have the ability to disguise your blitzes and we don't do that. The scheme allows a player to play with confidence and you gain that from having consistent success and knowing your assignment.
You can really punish an offense with this defensive scheme, you don't need superior talent to be successful with it but it does help. You do have to have very good technique. A lot of high schools that were .500 around the country have turned the corner running a Quarters coverage scheme. At times against MSU, we forced Cook to throw the ball at tight angles and his intended target either had a corner right on him or he had a safety flying full speed at him it's just we got beat on numerous occasions because Cook is a very good QB but when you saw our pass defense make clutch plays, they were executing the scheme correctly and winning the battles. MSU also runs a similar scheme with their defense but our OL and our RB's were winning the battles. It's tough to say if our problems on defense are because of Banker (jury is out based on his record) or talent, or players not buying in. The buck always stops with the coach who is teaching it.
You have to have very good talent to perfect it even though the scheme can be ran with inferior talent on D and it can put that talent in perfect position to stop an offense, you still have to win the one on one battles. The Quarters coverage is now being ran in a lot of high schools across the country so as long as we recruit players familiar with the scheme, the transition to Nebraska will be easier. I would have liked to see more creativity from the quarters coverage look such as doing it from a 3-4, 4-2-5, or even a 3-3 stack. It's a very aggressive defensive scheme and you have to have the ability to disguise your blitzes and we don't do that. The scheme allows a player to play with confidence and you gain that from having consistent success and knowing your assignment.
You can really punish an offense with this defensive scheme, you don't need superior talent to be successful with it but it does help. You do have to have very good technique. A lot of high schools that were .500 around the country have turned the corner running a Quarters coverage scheme. At times against MSU, we forced Cook to throw the ball at tight angles and his intended target either had a corner right on him or he had a safety flying full speed at him it's just we got beat on numerous occasions because Cook is a very good QB but when you saw our pass defense make clutch plays, they were executing the scheme correctly and winning the battles. MSU also runs a similar scheme with their defense but our OL and our RB's were winning the battles. It's tough to say if our problems on defense are because of Banker (jury is out based on his record) or talent, or players not buying in. The buck always stops with the coach who is teaching it.
Mavric
Yoda
And when we completely dominated Northwestern in TOP, they still put up the most points they've scored against an FBS team this year.
beorach
New member
This was what spoke to me the most (not that I didn't enjoy the article):
"The office politics surrounding a football team: Last week felt like a renewed debate about old grudges. You sometimes wonder if having the last word in this debate means more to some than the overall health of the program."
What always stuck out to me with respect to Bo's defenses, statistically, was how the pass defense was always extraordinary. I'll take a look at the 2006 Beaver defense for s/g here presently.
p.s. - The Beavers had their best season under Riley in 2006. That season's Beavers gave up:
19 rushing TD's (average) but just 3.47 yards per rush and 110.1 rushing yards per game (both well below average for the last two numbers);
54.19 passing % (well below average), 13.44 yards per completion (far above average), 17 passing TD's (average), and 223.71 passing yards per game (well above average);
5.35 total yards per play (average), 38 total TD's (average), and 333.86 total yards per game (average again).
That team did have some great turnover margin numbers, though. 16 fumbles gained, 17 interceptions gained, and 33 total turnovers gained that season were all positive outliers (greater than the average plus one standard deviation, considering all the Division 1 teams' games against all teams they played that season, even from lower divisions).
If anyone wants to look at more, here's the link to use for that year (and you just switch the year to look elsewhere):
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2006&div=4&site=org
"The office politics surrounding a football team: Last week felt like a renewed debate about old grudges. You sometimes wonder if having the last word in this debate means more to some than the overall health of the program."
What always stuck out to me with respect to Bo's defenses, statistically, was how the pass defense was always extraordinary. I'll take a look at the 2006 Beaver defense for s/g here presently.
p.s. - The Beavers had their best season under Riley in 2006. That season's Beavers gave up:
19 rushing TD's (average) but just 3.47 yards per rush and 110.1 rushing yards per game (both well below average for the last two numbers);
54.19 passing % (well below average), 13.44 yards per completion (far above average), 17 passing TD's (average), and 223.71 passing yards per game (well above average);
5.35 total yards per play (average), 38 total TD's (average), and 333.86 total yards per game (average again).
That team did have some great turnover margin numbers, though. 16 fumbles gained, 17 interceptions gained, and 33 total turnovers gained that season were all positive outliers (greater than the average plus one standard deviation, considering all the Division 1 teams' games against all teams they played that season, even from lower divisions).
If anyone wants to look at more, here's the link to use for that year (and you just switch the year to look elsewhere):
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2006&div=4&site=org
Last edited by a moderator: