Still want to keep Diaco?

Folks--if you're gonna bag on the defense and get it right, you've got to rip Langsdorf and Riley a new one for completely tanking the offense in the second half. This simple stat that the OWH called out alone explains many (not all) of our defensive woes that second half:

Stat of the game: 8:22 — Possession time Nebraska had after halftime, which led to only four drives. NU was out-possessed 36:41-23:19 overall.
Click to expand...


Maybe instead of an offense that puts up 35 passing attempts (and only makes 18 of them) to 26 rushing attempts, the ratio could be flipped to give your defense an opportunity to catch their breath and succeed, especially in the second half. 

This defense only gave up 10 points in the first half to a salty Wisky team--let's not overlook this, as some of you are prone to do. The breakdowns and failures on defense came in the second half when our offense failed miserably, and the only score that we got was courtesy of the defense. You can't look at the defensive performance and judge in a vacuum--it's part of a whole team effort, and when one half of your team flops around like a dead fish and is coached by one of the most inept OCs to sully Nebraska's halls, it's kinda hard to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of a defense that is still in the first half of a season playing a new scheme.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was frustrating watching Wisconsin run for 8 yards a carry and score 3 TDs to end the game but I put almost the entire blame on the offense for the game and this season.

There are times when the offense is clicking beautifully and it’s actually really fun to watch. You can just picture some of these big time recruits putting up video game numbers in this system. But it doesn’t happen enough.

We put up 17 on NIU and 7 of those points came off the bobbled punt return that only required us moving the ball two yards to score. We put up 17 on Wisconsin, but 7 were from a pick-6 and another 7 were from an 80 yard strike that almost looks and feels fluky in retrospect. That’s just not good enough no matter how good Wisconsin’s defense is. I came into the season ready to be disappointed, but more and more optimistic as the season progressed, with the defense. I expected better OLine play, better QB play, and an explosive and dominating offense and we don’t have anything resembling that.

 
Basically what happened on Saturday night from a defensive perspective was that their OC figured out how to swing their tight end out around the edge to seal off our outside linebacker. I believe that strength & conditioning started to play a role from there and we were basically out-muscled and gassed after their drive that put them up 24-17.

Diaco could have called for constant blitzes after they went on that drive to go up 24-17. But that's not his philosophy; for better or worse, he's a self-proclaimed "bend but don't break" guy.

After they did it again to go up 31 - 17, he definitely should have called for almost constant blitzing. But he didn't and our corners were no help and they just kept running that counter where the tight end would curl out, seal our OLB, and it was over. 

So, I was disappointed in Diaco's inability to adjust. The 3-4 can be very good against interior running. But they out-coached us  and we didn't adjust to the outside running they did from the end of the 3rd quarter on and it was over. Our guys were a bit gassed and just didn't fight off blocks, either. They were better than us in every facet from the end of the 3rd on out but I still think a fair bit of it was on Diaco.

Then again...just think about how we didn't score a single point on offense in the second half. So technically, what difference did it make?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What we seem to be seeing is a guy that is very similar to Bo in how he treats the "bend but don't break" philosophy, scheme-wise. 

There is a reason that Iowa hardly ever gets blown out by Wisconsin - They don't have this defensive philosophy. And Wisconsin isn't built to beat you over the top throwing the ball anyway.

Bo didn't ever adjust out of his "Peso Defense" that was crafted for beating the spread offenses of the Big 12 south. And Diaco's defense really isn't much different. I technically don't think we've seen enough of Diaco's stuff to comment on getting rid of him one way or the other, I think it's way too early for that. The question is whether he can swallow his pride and blitz more often. We've actually seen him blitz a fair amount, but just not enough in the second half on Saturday night when it really mattered more than any other point in the season.

So I just don't know. I like Diaco's charisma and passion for the game and so that's an asset. But Wisconsin just smashes you in the mouth when you present them with a "bend but don't break" scheme.

 
Undone said:
Basically what happened on Saturday night from a defensive perspective was that their OC figured out how to swing their tight end out around the edge to seal off our outside linebacker. I believe that strength & conditioning started to play a role from there and we were basically out-muscled and gassed after their drive that put them up 24-17.

Diaco could have called for constant blitzes after they went on that drive to go up 24-17. But that's not his philosophy; for better or worse, he's a self-proclaimed "bend but don't break" guy.

After they did it again to go up 31 - 17, he definitely should have called for almost constant blitzing. But he didn't and our corners were no help and they just kept running that counter where the tight end would curl out, seal our OLB, and it was over. 

So, I was disappointed in Diaco's inability to adjust. The 3-4 can be very good against interior running. But they out-coached us  and we didn't adjust to the outside running they did from the end of the 3rd quarter on and it was over. Our guys were a bit gassed and just didn't fight off blocks, either. They were better than us in every facet from the end of the 3rd on out but I still think a fair bit of it was on Diaco.

Then again...just think about how we didn't score a single point on offense in the second half. So technically, what difference did it make?
Click to expand...


This is a fair criticism, and I suggested before that Diaco should have used a TO during the first of those long, 90s Nebraska-esque drives in an effort to get the kids calmed down, on the same page, and to try and stop momentum. That was a failure on his part to address this right away IMO. 

But the kids getting gassed after that first series? C'mon, that's just as much (if not more) on Dorf and Riley for failing on the offensive side of things as it is Diaco.

 
Ask me again after this week. Ohio State has the team that'll more than likely expose this scheme.

The offense did NO favors to the defense after the pick 6. If I had to pick a coordinator I was more upset with after Wisconsin, it's Langsdorf, not Diaco.

 
FWIW, I think Diaco's scheme could work fairly well in the B1G. But it won't succeed on an island by itself. It requires an offense that contributes and does it's share and it requires a whole different chemistry and psychology throughout the team. So, yeah, Diaco might be okay in the absence of Riley and Langsdorf and Cavanaugh. But, to answer the OP, I don't want to keep or get rid of Diaco...I want the new HC to do as he sees fit. Don't want the new guy having built in excuses right out of the gate.

 
VectorVictor said:
But the kids getting gassed after that first series? C'mon, that's just as much (if not more) on Dorf and Riley for failing on the offensive side of things as it is Diaco.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Just terrible execution against a very good defense by our offense in that second half. Our receivers weren't getting open and our line wasn't giving Lee as much time as they should have. 

I haven't seen nearly enough from Diaco to say whether or not he should "be gone" at the end of the season. But what I do now is that we now have quite a bit of history on how a "bend but don't break" defensive scheme matches up against Wisconsin's power run offense; it doesn't match up well. We tried it in a 4-3, we've now tried it in a 3-4, and it hasn't looked well.

Oddly, Banker actually held Wisconsin to comparatively fewer points in the first two tries he had against Wisconsin. Banker was usually pretty good against the run (aside from last year's Iowa game, for some reason).

 
A lot of coaches like the 3-4 these days but I think the 4-3 allows more versatility which is what Dr. Rob believes as well.

I'd prefer having an aggressive 4-3 defense over the 3-4. We don't have the DL to be dominant with the 3-4. We need to recruit heavily on the lines on both sides of the ball. I think if Riley goes, Diaco is gone too. But, I'd like to see him take over as interim, which is probably not going to happen because I don't think Dave Rimington would fire him mid-season even though I think it's warranted if we lose big to OSU. If we lose to OSU as bad as I think we will (52-13, 56-24) then Bob's stock lowers and he's no longer a catch for anyone outside the state of Nebraska and his fate is sealed.

 
El Diaco said:
FWIW, I think Diaco's scheme could work fairly well in the B1G. But it won't succeed on an island by itself. It requires an offense that contributes and does it's share and it requires a whole different chemistry and psychology throughout the team. So, yeah, Diaco might be okay in the absence of Riley and Langsdorf and Cavanaugh. But, to answer the OP, I don't want to keep or get rid of Diaco...I want the new HC to do as he sees fit. Don't want the new guy having built in excuses right out of the gate.
Click to expand...


I think if Diaco is open to working with the new coach and is willing to mix in more blitzing and tighter coverage from time to time, he should be given a chance to stay. Also, don't forget our DL coach is a Nebraska alum, and they're one of the best parts about this defense so far. 

 
Without a doubt yes.

1. It's his first year of installation, he is acquiring the players to make the scheme work.

2. Langsdorf/the offense did no favors to our defense with time of possession and making stupid decisions.

3. When at it's best, his defense is phenomenal.

4. Wisconsin is an offensive running juggernaut that has steamrolled other teams this year. There were a lot of times where we did stop them. However, once they were gassed and thrown under the bus by our offense it became evident the contrast of what Nebraska once was, is Wisconsin now.

Diaco has earned his keep and was a huge upgrade over Bumblin' Banker. However unlikely we keep all of them, I hope the next coach retains the Williams brothers, Bray, Parella, Booker, and Diaco.

Cavanaugh and Langsdorf have shown they are in over their heads.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Im unsure if Diaco is running a softer coverage/2-gap scheme because of the talent on-hand, or because he believe in that system...

At ND; it seemed like his D was more aggressive.

I think 2-gap + soft coverage could work good in big-12 and possibly Pac-12 (not against SC and Stanford, though).

I'm skeptical towards whether it can work in the B1G. Iowa, Wisc, Mich St. all allow their D-lineman to shoot gaps and cause disruption at the LOS. This seems to work, and allows them to compete with the likes of OSU and Mich, year in and year out.

We've been running 2-gap, and try to get our LBs shoot the proper gap, only to have a pulling guard seal the gap, LB or S over-pursue or miss tackle, or simply run into the DL; leading to us giving up 200+ rushing yards to the bigger programs in the B1G every year.

If this truly is Diaco's system; then, no, I don't want him retained.

 
I go into butt clinch mode when i see three down, basically on their heels and dropping eight. It only works with dominant down lineman. We arent there yet. 

I saw terrible technique saturday and have for the past few. This is basic. Our DE’s were getting pushed back 3-4 yds on double team. LB’s cant scrape, over. Basic!! Missed tackles!! Basic!! Our db’s cant cover their mouth when they cough. What do they practice all week? 

 
Back
Top