• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Chatelain: With Scott Frost's new system, a culture war is coming to the Big Ten

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3561
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 3561

Guest
Chatelain posted an article that basically implies with the Frost spread offense comes a questionable defense. He uses UCF and Oregon as examples.

In those seven years, Oregon went 4-3 against Stanford. That’s the kind of back-and-forth fight we should anticipate in the Big Ten West once Frost gets up and running in Lincoln. But don’t ignore the risk of his up-tempo offensive system, which exposes the Blackshirts.

With the high powered spread offense, I don't think the defense necessarily has to be bad. Urban Meyer's system seems similar to Frosts and usually his defenses, whether Ohio St or Florida, are pretty good. Ohio St is currently in the top ten for both defense and offense. Clemson also runs a variant of the spread and has a top ten defense.

So I reject Chatelain's thesis that a spread offense guarantees a bad defense. There's examples of teams who run spread offenses and have great defense. You just have to have the right guys in place. Whether or not Chinander can do that in Lincoln remains to be seen though.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/footba...cle_3bcd9c0c-d9ef-11e7-a687-6f766d309127.html
 




There's a difference between a bad defense and a serviceable defense. Dirk once again jumps the shark and assumes that a Top 5 offense necessitates a poor defense.

Take 2009, for example, which was the inverse situation. Suh's a Heisman finalist and we're breaking spines of quarterbacks across the country. Our offense wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. It was serviceable. We put enough points on the board to win a lot of games and control our own fate.

If we field an elite offense we may not necessarily require a Top 5 defense as well. But even a Top 30-40 defense with an elite offense will win a lot of games.

-edit-

I also don't believe that we will be putting up 70ppg, a la Oregon's basketball on grass style. That won't work in the Big Ten.

Take a look at typical B1G game scores vs Pac, SEC, XII, or ACC. I'd wager the Big Ten and SEC are the more low scoring conferences (ie, better defense), so even scoring in the 40-50ppg range may be enough to win a LOT of games even with a semi-good defense. Short of OSU and PSU, I don't see many B1G teams throwing 50 points on the board each week.
 
Last edited:
Didn't read his article, but my thought would be you need an 'opportunistic' defense more so than a great defense. You can give up yards and some points, but if you can hold them to FG's instead of TD's or even get some turnovers in the red zone, you don't need at least stat wise a top 10 defense. Just need to get critical stops/turnovers at the right time.
 




I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with this article. I think that is the million dollar question regarding Scott. Can he put together a defense capable of stopping teams that are going to get "multiple" offensive opportunities. I think so, but not understanding the big picture is not a reason to rip on Dirk. In the Memphis game UCF only punted twice. Think about that.....only twice. The first one came with 6.51 in the fourth quarter nursing a 7 point lead. That's right......your first punt and you are ahead by 7. The second one came with 2;35 left and it was a tied game. The problem is they kicked it away 9 times that game after scoring so they gave the ball to Memphis 11 times on kicks.

Offenses that score that fast will have the defense on the field a lot. Scott will have to find a defense that can prevent teams in the Big from grinding out the clock. Can he? Of course. But as Dirk pointed out high power offenses typically have poorer defenses statistically because you give the ball back so much.
 
There's a difference between a bad defense and a serviceable defense. Dirk once again jumps the shark and assumes that a Top 5 offense necessitates a poor defense.

Take 2009, for example, which was the inverse situation. Suh's a Heisman finalist and we're breaking spines of quarterbacks across the country. Our offense wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either. It was serviceable. We put enough points on the board to win a lot of games and control our own fate.

If we field an elite offense we may not necessarily require a Top 5 defense as well. But even a Top 30-40 defense with an elite offense will win a lot of games.

-edit-

I also don't believe that we will be putting up 70ppg, a la Oregon's basketball on grass style. That won't work in the Big Ten.

Take a look at typical B1G game scores vs Pac, SEC, XII, or ACC. I'd wager the Big Ten and SEC are the more low scoring conferences (ie, better defense), so even scoring in the 40-50ppg range may be enough to win a LOT of games even with a semi-good defense. Short of OSU and PSU, I don't see many B1G teams throwing 50 points on the board each week.
the 2009 offense was servicable... When it didn't have 9 turnovers against Iowa st and only put up a hundred yards vs Texas...
 



My point is that I don't think there's anything inherent in the spread offense that makes the defense bad. Perhaps constant up tempo does... I'm not a huge fan of that. I think you can be opportunistic with tempo, but the constant fast pace isn't something I like.
 
Dirk making crap up before HCSF has even coached the spring game, lol.

What a tool.

It's not that a spread offense means the defense is bad, but that the defense is on the field fir longer periods of time since the offense scores so quickly. The defense gets worn down due to having to go right back out after a quick score. Defensive depth is all important and injuries also take their toll.
 

dirk-please.jpg
 

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top