What do you want in a Defense?

Scratchtown

Scratchtown

New member
I did some comparison between Oregon's Defense and Nebraska's Defense in the Bo Pelini Era (08-14)

I think it's interesting to talk about philosophy on defense because Oregon doesn't necessarily play great defense in terms of scoring, and yardage but they are great at creating TO's. So here are the numbers...

2008: (NU 9-4 / ORE 10-3)

Scoring Defense - 83rd / 78th

Yards Per Game - 66th / 80th

Passing Defense - 90th / 107th

Rushing Defense - 29th / 24th

Turnover's Created - 17 / 36 (Oregon +19)

2009: (NU 10-4 / ORE 10-3) *PAC12 Champs

Scoring Defense - 1st / 51st

Yards Per Game - 7th / 34th

Passing Defense - 18th / 44th

Rushing Defense - 9th /40th

Turnover's Created - 28 / 25 (Neb +3)

2010: (NU 10-4 / ORE 12-1) *PAC12 Champs/Natty Game Loss vs Auburn

Scoring Defense - 9th / 12th

Yards Per Game - 11th / 34th

Passing Defense - 5th / 56th

Rushing Defense - 63rd / 27th

Turnover's Created - 23 / 37 (Oregon +14)

2011: (NU 9-4 / ORE 12-2) *PAC12 Champs/Rose Bowl win vs Wisconsin

Scoring Defense - 42nd / 52nd

Yards Per Game - 37th / 67th

Passing Defense - 18th / 88th

Rushing Defense - 64th / 54th

Turnover's Created - 18 / 29 (Oregon +11)

2012: (NU 10-4 / ORE 12-1) *Fiesta Bowl Win vs KState

Scoring Defense - 58th / 25th

Yards Per Game - 35th / 44th

Passing Defense - 4th / 57th

Rushing Defense - 93rd / 46th

Turnover's Created - 23 / 40 (Oregon +17)

2013: (NU 9-4 / ORE 11-2)

Scoring Defense - 50th / 13th

Yards Per Game - 40th / 37th

Passing Defense - 33rd / 21st

Rushing Defense - 54th / 67th

Turnover's Created - 18 / 29 (Oregon +11)

2014: (NU 9-4 / ORE 13-2) *PAC12 Champs/Rose Bowl Win vs FSU/Natty Game Loss vs OSU

Scoring Defense - 49th / 29th

Yards Per Game - 48th / 83rd

Passing Defense - 27th / 103rd

Rushing Defense - 80th / 50th

Turnover's Created - 23 / 34 (Oregon +11)

I picked Oregon because it's easier for me because I like both schools, and I know that Oregon is the perfect example of a "ball hawking" defense.

I guess, my question is, which kind of defense would you rather have? One like 2009 Nebraska that was like an immovable mountain, or a defense like 2012 Oregon that took the ball away 40 times. 40 more opportunities to score.

 
Generate Turnovers.

Play good on 3rd down.

Done't give up 408 yards to one guy in 2 quarters.

You know, the little things.

As for your question:

Coach Power'T said:
I guess, my question is, which kind of defense would you rather have? One like 2009 Nebraska that was like an immovable mountain, or a defense like 2012 Oregon that took the ball away 40 times. 40 more opportunities to score.
Click to expand...
No question, 2009 Nebraska. Oregon needs a prolific offense to offset that defense. With a defense like '09, you only need an average offense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
saunders45 said:
No question, 2009 Nebraska. Oregon needs a prolific offense to offset that defense. With a defense like '09, you only need an average offense.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree, but schematically, what a lot of people express wanting in a defense on this board is actually quite a bit different than our 2009 D.

I've been watching through some of those old games (thanks to your uploads, saunders), and we forget that they actually gave up drives often enough, but eventually would stall out. They were a 'suffocating' defense, but I wouldn't characterize them as an aggressive defense. Bo's defensive scheme was very much bend without breaking instead of imposing our will.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
saunders45 said:
No question, 2009 Nebraska. Oregon needs a prolific offense to offset that defense. With a defense like '09, you only need an average offense.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree, but schematically, what a lot of people express wanting in a defense on this board is actually quite a bit different than our 2009 D.

I've been watching through some of those old games (thanks to your uploads, saunders), and we forget that they actually gave up drives often enough, but eventually would stall out. They were a 'suffocating' defense, but I wouldn't characterize them as an aggressive defense. Bo's defensive scheme was very much bend without breaking instead of imposing our will.
Click to expand...
True. From what I've gleaned over the summer via a few different podcasts, is that we also 1-gapped alot more back then, and started to the hybrid 2-gap/1-gap D when we moved to the B1G.

 
I guess the best of both worlds would be the ideal defense. The 2009 defense that would create turnovers would be a bear to deal with as an opposing offense. I'm certainly tired, like the majority of all Husker fans, of giving up HUGE yards to Wisconsin when they aren't doing anything special. Getting some push on the D-line would be nice to help disrupt the play in the backfield.

 
A D built to stop the run and DB's capable of getting TO's. IMO, a D built to stop the run can also put good pressure on a QB, force errant throws, make him gun shy and get sacks or TFL on the backs. I'd give up the occasional big play for the ability to actually hold RB's to less than 408 yards in like 2.5 quarters of play.

 
saunders45 said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
saunders45 said:
No question, 2009 Nebraska. Oregon needs a prolific offense to offset that defense. With a defense like '09, you only need an average offense.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree, but schematically, what a lot of people express wanting in a defense on this board is actually quite a bit different than our 2009 D.

I've been watching through some of those old games (thanks to your uploads, saunders), and we forget that they actually gave up drives often enough, but eventually would stall out. They were a 'suffocating' defense, but I wouldn't characterize them as an aggressive defense. Bo's defensive scheme was very much bend without breaking instead of imposing our will.
Click to expand...
True. From what I've gleaned over the summer via a few different podcasts, is that we also 1-gapped alot more back then, and started to the hybrid 2-gap/1-gap D when we moved to the B1G.
Click to expand...
Which makes ZERO sense to me considering the type of football we would see. Why in the world would you play a 2 gap defense against teams that run straight downhill at you. Leaves you no reaction time. Spread teams that run Zone at you and wait for the holes to open are much more of an offense to 2 gap against. A team like Wisconsin, or Iowa, or (insert Big 10 school here) you got to get into gaps and get into the gaps NOW!

Even Ohio State, depending who was playing at QB, if you watch the National Championship game again, Oregon brought pressure a lot to disrupt Cardale Jones, he wasn't comfortable at all...when Oregon quit bringing pressure is when OSU started moving the ball down field because their levels routes deep had time to develop.

So I'm not saying I want Oregon's Defense, I just want a defense that is going to attack from multiple angles and makes "disruption plays"

Caught an article of Oregon's defensive coordinator Don Pellum and he used that word, and I kind of liked it.

The key factors defensively are points and what we call 'disruption.' What disruption is it comes in a variety of forms because every game is different and every opponent is different. But you want to get some takeaways, you need some sacks because you need to disrupt the rhythm of the offense and sacks and tackles for loss can disrupt their rhythm. Anytime you can get some deflections down the field and some knockdowns at the line of scrimmage, I think all those things as the game goes on affect the offense. Those are the things we really talk about a lot. Obviously, the other two key factors for us is playing with great leverage and great tackling.
Click to expand...

As long as the Defense is gang tackling with hustle, wrapping up, causing "disruption". I'm good. Even if it gets torched with a big play a time or two. This is NU, the feared blackshirt tradition needs to be ramped up once again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top