What Did We Learn: Miami Edition

[True2tRA]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

 

[zoogs]

We should all be able to agree that we'll need to see better things out of the defense as the season goes on. Hopefully we can all agree also that BYU and Miami were a couple of stiff tests. Not that flunking the test is a good sign

 

[True2tRA]

As far as the "why can't we have both" comment Saunders. How many teams are usually good at both? Serious question.

Just looking at the stats now and here's what I get:

Boston College

North Carolina State

Kent State

Duke

Michigan (sh#t that's scary)

Those are the only teams ranked top 25 in both run and pass defense? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So does this have anything to do with the competition level? What's the story? Where are all the top 25 teams in the country on that list?

 

[Husker67]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

With all due respect, and I do mean that, being 21st against the run is a bit misleading when teams are scorching the D for 357 yards per game in the air. That's second to last in the NCAA.

 

[True2tRA]

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.

That's interesting. Joe spent 5 years as a player here, 4 under Callahan, and 1 under Bo's first year. Then 3 as an intern, and 2 as a GA, or something like that.

Since Joe has always been a quarterback or involved with the quarterbacks, what do you think his experience/knowledge actually is? Do you think coaching the quarterbacks has given him more exposure than playing as a quarterback under a different coaching staff?

So....? Who else's defenses would he have any familiarity with as a coach, if not Bo's?

I'm completely not following what you're getting at?

 

[True2tRA]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

With all due respect, and I do mean that, being 21st against the run is a bit misleading when teams are scorching the D for 357 yards per game in the air. That's second to last in the NCAA.

Apologies. Getting carried away.

No doubt the pass defense is struggling. I was simply saying that we actually are being pretty effective in stopping the run, which was really a direct response to Saunders point. The facts are there. We just need to do a bit better against the pass, no doubt.

 

[GBRedneck]

We are currently at #19 in Rush Defense (Tot Yds) but we are at #34 for Rushing Defense (Yds/Att). Wee are #126 in Pass Defense (Tot Yds) and #38 in Pass Defense (Yds/Comp).

So teams are simply taking advantage of our mediocre pass defense more than our mediocre run defense. If you look at yards per attempt, we're mid 30s for both run and pass.

We are #104 in Total Defense. #80 in Scoring Defense.

 

[Husker67]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

With all due respect, and I do mean that, being 21st against the run is a bit misleading when teams are scorching the D for 357 yards per game in the air. That's second to last in the NCAA.

Apologies. Getting carried away.

No doubt the pass defense is struggling. I was simply saying that we actually are being pretty effective in stopping the run, which was really a direct response to Saunders point. The facts are there. We just need to do a bit better against the pass, no doubt.

No doubt, defensive backs look better when a QB has to throw when he is not ready or throwing with hands in his face, etc.

I do think the better teams in the B1G will make the Huskers pay with their passing. Illinois, Purdue, NW, etc, not so much. I think Connor Cook and Joel Stave might make their play action game work,because I think those teams will get their run game working. Kaaya couldn't have looked more comfortable for the most part yesterday.

 

[Saunders]

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.

That's interesting. Joe spent 5 years as a player here, 4 under Callahan, and 1 under Bo's first year. Then 3 as an intern, and 2 as a GA, or something like that.

Since Joe has always been a quarterback or involved with the quarterbacks, what do you think his experience/knowledge actually is? Do you think coaching the quarterbacks has given him more exposure than playing as a quarterback under a different coaching staff?

So....? Who else's defenses would he have any familiarity with as a coach, if not Bo's?

I'm completely not following what you're getting at?

He would have familiarity with most the defenses we've played against since he's been here because as a QB (and QB coach), he's gotta figure them out?

 

[Mavric]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

We have played teams that have barely tried to run the ball. We have faced the 12th fewest rushing attempts in the country.

 

[Saunders]

As far as the "why can't we have both" comment Saunders. How many teams are usually good at both? Serious question.

Just looking at the stats now and here's what I get:

Boston College

North Carolina State

Kent State

Duke

Michigan (sh#t that's scary)

Those are the only teams ranked top 25 in both run and pass defense? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So does this have anything to do with the competition level? What's the story? Where are all the top 25 teams in the country on that list?

I'm not even saying top 25. Top 40 would suffice. We're keeping teams to (about) their average in rushing, and getting torched through the air.

 

[GBRedneck]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

We have played teams that have barely tried to run the ball. We have faced the 12th fewest rushing attempts in the country.

We're #34 in Rush Defense (Yds/Att).

 

[Mavric]

I learned that this is really odd:

 

[Saunders]

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority.

Sure, but the way our secondary is positioned on a lot of those passing plays, Joel Stave will have just as much success as Kayaa or Hill often enough. It'd be different if it was like 2012 Georgia where our secondary played really well and just got beat on near undefendable balls, but with things as they currently are, mediocre QB's will be able to have similar success as great ones with the cushion available to receivers.

That crafting your Defense to theoretically stop the run doesn't really matter if every team throws for over 300 yards a game.

To be fair, Kaaya and Taysom Hill are two of the better QB's we see all season. In the Big Ten schedule, stopping the run is usually the priority. Had we been able to stop the run in conference the last five years, we'd probably have one or two conference titles. Illinois and MSU have QB's capable of passing on us, especially Cook at MSU, but aside from that we don't have any pure throwers on the schedule.
Now, theoretically stopping the run is right. It's what we want to do and we are devoting our resources to becoming the team that does just that. Three games into the season it appears the players we have on the roster are not all capable of playing this way, and the ones that are capable do not have a full understanding of the importance of taking the proper angles and positioning themselves.

Is that surprising? It shouldn't be. Three games in, I don't expect it all to be there yet. Honestly still, if we could just be a little more effective with our front four, it would work miracles for us. The fact that we lack a presence at DE, and that Maliek Collins has not been the impact player we felt he would be, has made the growing pains only that much tougher.

I agree. On top of that, Banker can't scheme a run first defense against a pass first offense and think we're going to shut down mobile/effective passing teams. If someone can teach me the philosophy on our game plan yesterday, please do so, because it doesn't make sense to me.

The gameplan was to have the LB's cover slot WR's with no safety help, telegraph blitzes, and ensure that we had no safety to help on the deep bailout throws on those blitzes, and it killed us.

Some of the coverages are a bit baffling. I agree that you can't expect a LB'er to cover those receivers all the time, but some of the time, that is how it's drawn up. What you're discounting is that when those LB'ers are in coverage, it's usually not supposed to be for very long. It's usually in pressure situations and the QB isn't supposed to have all day to throw the ball. We are giving opposing QB's way too much time, IMO.
Telegraphing blitzes is another thing we are doing.

Like I said guys, all the things you Saunders and LOMS are mentioning are mostly execution things, so what I can't understand is why 3 games into the season, people are expecting stellar execution of a new scheme, when we clearly don't have the horses to run some of this stuff.

I went for a run this afternoon (it's brutally hot down here) and was listening to the bottom line podcast with Severe and Ganz. The TLDR version is Joe said that our coverages are way too basic, and we don't mix them up. He said QB's know exactly what we're doing pre snap because our pre snap line up gives it away, and they just throw to the guy who will have the best matchup.

Coming from a guy like Ganz, whose majority of his experience and knowledge comes in a system like Bo Pelini's, where the coverages were far too complicated, and more focus was placed on the coaches being the wizards, less emphasis on the talents of the players winning one v. one matchups, I'm not surprised at all that would be his take on things.
I thought we've turned the page on what we want here? People need to figure it out cause' the conversation is getting old already.

Do we want to stop the run and compete for the Big Ten Conference (considering the run game is what this Conference is usually prolific for), or do we want some exotic pass defense schemes that we can add more QB's to the "Pelini QB Graveyard" all while Melvin Gordon makes the Blackshirts his b!^@h?

Which is it?

why not both? They aren't mutually exclusive, and yet some people keep acting like they are. And here's the kicker. We aren't stopping the run either...

We aren't?

We are 21st in the country in run defense. League average Rushing yards per game allowed is 174 yards per game. We are allowing 94 yards per game. So almost half the Big Ten average. You haven't watched Nebraska the last few years if you don't call that stopping the run.

We have played teams that have barely tried to run the ball. We have faced the 12th fewest rushing attempts in the country.

Actually, it's 5th fewest. Waiting for the FB Study hall updates to see the adjusted rushing stats.

 

[TheSker]

As far as the "why can't we have both" comment Saunders. How many teams are usually good at both? Serious question.

Just looking at the stats now and here's what I get:

Boston College

North Carolina State

Kent State

Duke

Michigan (sh#t that's scary)

Those are the only teams ranked top 25 in both run and pass defense? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So does this have anything to do with the competition level? What's the story? Where are all the top 25 teams in the country on that list?

Michigan being on that list is scary......Dienhart took notice of their rushing game and defense.

http://btn.com/2015/09/20/big-ten-power-rankings-iowa-northwestern-jump-up-in-latest-list/