Game of telephone.... what i'm hearing

[Frank The Tank]

Isn't that only under more recent staffs using the DEs differently, though?

Define recent. We were saying it under Pelini before and after Randy Gregory.

 

[ShortSideOption]

We don't have the LB play, skill or depth to play a quality 3 4

Who is at fault for that though?

 

[ShortSideOption]

We said the same thing about pass rushing DE's when NU had a base 4-3.

Exactly. We actually had people saying we shouldn’t run a 4-3 under Pelini because we can’t get enough quality DL to run that, then quoted the good LBs we were pulling in and how well we could do the 3-4. We had an NFL GM say our roster was better suited for a 3-4. We’ve inked 9 four star LBs the last 4 recruting classes. Now we can’t get enough good LBs. That’s not based on facts, it’s based on 3 straight losing seasons.

Remember the war cry from our fan base and even recruiting specialists that we have a bunch of DL “better suited for the 4-3” then two of our guys got drafted to 3-4 teams and made the active roster for the NFL team?

What it actually is, is that we have ran 4 different defensive schemes in 6 seasons. It’s not a scheme issue, it’s a continuity issue. Wanting to change it again is absurd IMO. Let this staff coach and recruit to it.

 

[Huskerthom]

You're attacking a straw-man that doesn't exist. Please, show me where anybody on staff said that they would be satisfied with a "mediocre defense." The only way that compromises were to be made regarding defenses was understanding that opponents having more possessions would almost necessarily mean more plays, more yards, etc., so we would need to rethink which defensive statistics would matter most. Nobody on staff ever said that the defense could be mediocre.

Back to the point of why I posted, did you notice that you went from saying that our schemes didn't work to admitting that they are working for OSU? Now that we agree on that, we can discuss whatever you like.

This is it. The ONLY thing Chinander said was he does not worry about total yards. He only worries about points. That seems reasonable for the reasons you mentioned. He also said he worried about yds/play. If you are giving up 350 yds on 81 plays and they only score 8 points. That is a great day from a score and ypp perspective. Not going to get you to being a top 5 defense though. That was the actual numbers last year from NIU If we can do that against a Wiscy or PSU we will be jumping for joy.

 

[Huskerthom]

Exactly. We actually had people saying we shouldn’t run a 4-3 under Pelini because we can’t get enough quality DL to run that, then quoted the good LBs we were pulling in and how well we could do the 3-4. We had an NFL GM say our roster was better suited for a 3-4. We’ve inked 9 four star LBs the last 4 recruting classes. Now we can’t get enough good LBs. That’s not based on facts, it’s based on 3 straight losing seasons.

Remember the war cry from our fan base and even recruiting specialists that we have a bunch of DL “better suited for the 4-3” then two of our guys got drafted to 3-4 teams and made the active roster for the NFL team?

What it actually is, is that we have ran 4 different defensive schemes in 6 seasons. It’s not a scheme issue, it’s a continuity issue. Wanting to change it again is absurd IMO. Let this staff coach and recruit to it.

So Much this!!!

 

[HuskerNash]

This is it. The ONLY thing Chinander said was he does not worry about total yards. He only worries about points. That seems reasonable for the reasons you mentioned. He also said he worried about yds/play. If you are giving up 350 yds on 81 plays and they only score 8 points. That is a great day from a score and ypp perspective. Not going to get you to being a top 5 defense though. That was the actual numbers last year from NIU If we can do that against a Wiscy or PSU we will be jumping for joy.

I agree with what you are saying but doing that against NIU should be expected. Now lets do it against some B1G competition.

 

[Huskerthom]

I agree with what you are saying but doing that against NIU should be expected. Now lets do it against some B1G competition.

I guess you do not read that last sentence of any posts.

 

[The_CornTorch]

Exactly. We actually had people saying we shouldn’t run a 4-3 under Pelini because we can’t get enough quality DL to run that, then quoted the good LBs we were pulling in and how well we could do the 3-4. We had an NFL GM say our roster was better suited for a 3-4. We’ve inked 9 four star LBs the last 4 recruting classes. Now we can’t get enough good LBs. That’s not based on facts, it’s based on 3 straight losing seasons.

Remember the war cry from our fan base and even recruiting specialists that we have a bunch of DL “better suited for the 4-3” then two of our guys got drafted to 3-4 teams and made the active roster for the NFL team?

What it actually is, is that we have ran 4 different defensive schemes in 6 seasons. It’s not a scheme issue, it’s a continuity issue. Wanting to change it again is absurd IMO. Let this staff coach and recruit to it.

Totally agree on the lack of continuity being an issue. Now that we’re three seasons in on the same coaches and scheme (adios, Bermuda Triangle of DB coaches!), are we going to start seeing some ROI?

 

[ShortSideOption]

Totally agree on the lack of continuity being an issue. Now that we’re three seasons in on the same coaches and scheme (adios, Bermuda Triangle of DB coaches!), are we going to start seeing some ROI?

I think we will see better LB and DB play. Our DL is really inexperienced so need a great coaching job by Tuioti. Little worried on what we will be able to tell in the first four games though. A lot of jumping to conclusions I imagine.

 

[HuskerNash]

I guess you do not read that last sentence of any posts.

I read your entire post and expounded on it. We have yet to consistently hold B1G offenses to that type of game and if we did I think we would all feel better somewhat better about the direction of the defense. I only agree somewhat because if you are consistently giving up 81 plays per game you are not doing a very good job of getting off the field and the chances of consistently giving up only 350 yards and 8 points puts you in fantasyland. When we get consistency on our offense and get closer to those numbers you might have a valid point. We are nowhere near that out of either unit.

 

[Hugoniot]

I think we will see better LB and DB play. Our DL is really inexperienced so need a great coaching job by Tuioti. Little worried on what we will be able to tell in the first four games though. A lot of jumping to conclusions I imagine.

Somewhat off topic and probably discussed when Tuioti was hired, but how would you compare Tuioti to Parella in this case? Advantages disadvantages?

 

[ShortSideOption]

Somewhat off topic and probably discussed when Tuioti was hired, but how would you compare Tuioti to Parella in this case? Advantages disadvantages?

Personally, I think Parella is a better coach and Tuioti the better recruiter. But if you look at who Parella reeled in compared to Tuioti, it’s tough to argue that’s the case. I’m really hoping some of these silents are factual for our DL otherwise we need to be looking for a new DL coach. We cant go to mid-October every year with zero line commits.

 

[Drozz]

This is it. The ONLY thing Chinander said was he does not worry about total yards. He only worries about points. That seems reasonable for the reasons you mentioned. He also said he worried about yds/play. If you are giving up 350 yds on 81 plays and they only score 8 points. That is a great day from a score and ypp perspective. Not going to get you to being a top 5 defense though. That was the actual numbers last year from NIU If we can do that against a Wiscy or PSU we will be jumping for joy.

They actually brought this up yesterday on one of the NFL games I was flipping thru. That defensive yardage just isn't a good measure anymore for total defensive efficiency, due to the way offenses have evolved. If you give up a bunch of yards and tighten up to just allow a field goal or punt from your own 40-50 yard line, then that should be considered a win. Totally agree.

 

[Hu5k3r]

The Persians at Thermopylae--- An ancient Greek history lesson the first thing in the morning. Wow! I can't wait to see our guys play and see their "want to" against the opponent. Let's go with an upset, something like the the battle of marathon or the battle of Canne---I had to look these up. I want the Huskers to show solid preparation, tackling, and no fear. GBR

Battle of Midway - just to bring it in a little closer. and GO NAVY!

 

[Hville]

I still think I would almost use this year as a training ground for the younger players and get them in as many games as possible so the coaches can see what the team will look like NEXT year. That’s what I’d be most interested in doing. Since any team can make a bowl game, if they happen at all, that will be available so don’t have to worry about getting to a certain Win total. I just would want this year to be mostly about the future.

Unfortunately I will have to disagree. I understand what you are saying about win total not mattering for bowl purposes but this is a VERY important year for recruiting. Alot of people forgave SF for the first year but Nebraska took a big hit image wise for both SF and the program in year 2. We cannot afford to play for the future. They have to have the best people playing as often as possible until we are ahead by the large margins that other top teams win by.