Should we believe Chinander? Is that enough?

[KleinTxHusker]

Nebraska made this switch before. The George Darlington DBs of the 80s and 90s played the receiver and not the ball. Watch highlights (or, more accurately, "lowlights") of the 80s and early 90s bowl games against Florida State and Miami and you'll see play after play where the opposing QB heaves it up and a fast WR goes up and makes a play ... over top of an Nebraska defender who never even turned around. When they shifted to the attacking 4-3 defense in the spring of '92, they also shifted to a lot more man-to-man coverage on the edges with CBs in bump & run, and those guys were taught to play the ball. Barron Miles was one of the first CBs to play this way, but everyone after him was expected to do the same. There is a tradeoff, though, in that it does open the team up to some big plays when they do get burned, but they were betting on more pressure from an aggressive pass rush combined with faster LBs and Safeties to cover in space would mean that there would be more jumpballs, and the CBs would win some of those. Go back and watch that '96 Fiesta Bowl and look at how many times the CBs got burned by Florida receivers. You don't remember that so much because they also made a lot of picks. That is a combination of defensive scheme, coaching technique, player athleticism, and lots and lots of reps.

What I remember from that era, and I think the Florida game in particular (it may have been FSU or Miami) is we did get beat a time or two in the game. However, our DBs were able to at least prevent a TD; and the next two or three plays included sacks and incompletions, they had to either settle for FGs or were even put out of range. Yeah, you have a real good defense and you give up a few big plays but hold them short, you will tend to limit them to FG attempts.

 

[huskernut]

I'm not sure what question is being asked in the OP. Clearly Chin wants turnovers. I think his point was if you are knocking the ball down you're very close, so pick it instead. Makes sense to me as a way to affect players' mentality, even if it isn't quite as simple as that.

A separate point: Mentality is important to turnovers, but similarly to penalties, so is speed, overall talent, and general execution. If you're behind your man you may recover just enough to knock a ball down but not to pick it, if you're making a TD saving solo tackle 10 yards downfield from where they guy should have been stopped, you may just want to get him down rather than try to strip it, or if you're on your butt because you were blocked you're not stripping the ball or even as likely to recover one that is stripped.

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

I'm not sure what question is being asked in the OP.

I wasn't asking any particular question. If you read through a lot of the popular threads, there are several threads and many, many more comments within even more threads about people questioning Chinander, his defensive philosophy, tempo vs ball-control offense, etc. Mixed in with all of that is a whole lot of nostalgia for the 90s, which is understandable, but I've noticed how nobody seems to make much mention of that period from about '84 to '91 when Nebraska consistently had a top 10 (often top 5) team, but really and truly wasn't able to match up with the top team(s) in the country. This one extremely long post was my attempt to address all of it.

By the way, I pretty much agree with all that you said.

 

[MartyHuskerFan]

I'm not sure what question is being asked in the OP. Clearly Chin wants turnovers. I think his point was if you are knocking the ball down you're very close, so pick it instead. Makes sense to me as a way to affect players' mentality, even if it isn't quite as simple as that.

A separate point: Mentality is important to turnovers, but similarly to penalties, so is speed, overall talent, and general execution. If you're behind your man you may recover just enough to knock a ball down but not to pick it, if you're making a TD saving solo tackle 10 yards downfield from where they guy should have been stopped, you may just want to get him down rather than try to strip it, or if you're on your butt because you were blocked you're not stripping the ball or even as likely to recover one that is stripped.

I like where this thread is going. Getting some deep/thorough thinkers involved. Thanks guys.

So I am hearing that among other things, its about being aggressive and getting into a position where you can make an attempt to strip or pick the ball. I was thinking back to time in the past where the husker run defense gets burned bad because they over pursue the play. I know that is a negative reference, and I am not suggesting that they should do that same bad thing. What I am wondering, is that the mentality we want them to get to? Do we want them thinking they need to get into a good position so they can try to strip the ball, knowing that they left a lane exposed and they have to trust their team mate will fill in behind them? Is that the kind of risk they maybe have been conditioned to not take? I am sure there is a much more eloquent way to ask this question, but please bear with me.

 

[Pops]

I like where this thread is going. Getting some deep/thorough thinkers involved. Thanks guys.

So I am hearing that among other things, its about being aggressive and getting into a position where you can make an attempt to strip or pick the ball. I was thinking back to time in the past where the husker run defense gets burned bad because they over pursue the play. I know that is a negative reference, and I am not suggesting that they should do that same bad thing. What I am wondering, is that the mentality we want them to get to? Do we want them thinking they need to get into a good position so they can try to strip the ball, knowing that they left a lane exposed and they have to trust their team mate will fill in behind them? Is that the kind of risk they maybe have been conditioned to not take? I am sure there is a much more eloquent way to ask this question, but please bear with me.

isn't def football about angles and deception. making the QB believe a lane is open, the D-bal LBer's making the qb believe a lane is open when the right angle closes it quickly? the pass rush forcing the qb to hurry throws? Seems NU is still playing off the receivers and allowing them them to run their routes more freely. I think the nasty has to be in being more physical. high risk, high reward?

hell i dont know

 

[CrabHusker]

isn't def football about angles and deception. making the QB believe a lane is open, the D-bal LBer's making the qb believe a lane is open when the right angle closes it quickly? the pass rush forcing the qb to hurry throws? Seems NU is still playing off the receivers and allowing them them to run their routes more freely. I think the nasty has to be in being more physical. high risk, high reward?

hell i dont know

To me it's about taking things away or giving the appearance that I'm going to take something away. The kids making wrong reads, taking bad angles, etc. will get better IMO. The guys who aren't physically gifted enough to play in this defense will also sort itself out...both in time. I do think Chinander has dialed back some of the 'high risk' aspect of his defense to keep from allowing big plays and I'm not sure how I feel about that. If he's trying to help the offense out by keeping it from having to climb out of a bigger hole, I get it, but what if being aggressive works to end opponent drives and create turnovers? Either he's convinced the kids aren't there just yet or he's overthinking things. Hell, we're 0-5, let it all hang out. Should be dangerous as hell down the stretch. What's left to lose?

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

I wasn't asking any particular question. If you read through a lot of the popular threads, there are several threads and many, many more comments within even more threads about people questioning Chinander, his defensive philosophy, tempo vs ball-control offense, etc. Mixed in with all of that is a whole lot of nostalgia for the 90s, which is understandable, but I've noticed how nobody seems to make much mention of that period from about '84 to '91 when Nebraska consistently had a top 10 (often top 5) team, but really and truly wasn't able to match up with the top team(s) in the country. This one extremely long post was my attempt to address all of it.

By the way, I pretty much agree with all that you said.

It was as much that our QB's weren't as talented as it was the defense.

 

[Pops]

To me it's about taking things away or giving the appearance that I'm going to take something away. The kids making wrong reads, taking bad angles, etc. will get better IMO. The guys who aren't physically gifted enough to play in this defense will also sort itself out...both in time. I do think Chinander has dialed back some of the 'high risk' aspect of his defense to keep from allowing big plays and I'm not sure how I feel about that. If he's trying to help the offense out by keeping it from having to climb out of a bigger hole, I get it, but what if being aggressive works to end opponent drives and create turnovers? Either he's convinced the kids aren't there just yet or he's overthinking things. Hell, we're 0-5, let it all hang out. Should be dangerous as hell down the stretch. What's left to lose?

Agree. What is to lose? Begin the journey into next year and beyond. let the nasty begin. Seems all are nervous of making the mistakes.

 

[MartyHuskerFan]

Agree. What is to lose? Begin the journey into next year and beyond. let the nasty begin. Seems all are nervous of making the mistakes.

The only thing these boys should be nervous about is getting benched for not taking risks.

 

[WackerBacker]

IIRC, we had the Brown twins playing at both Safety positions in 2003... They were worth a pick or two a game IIRC.

YRI. The Bullocks (Josh and Daniel) were the twins who played in '03. You're confusing them with the unrelated and late 90s tandem of Mike (S) and Ralph (CB) Brown. In 2003, the Bullocks twins combined for 12 interceptions, so just under 1 pick/game.

 

[KleinTxHusker]

YRI. The Bullocks (Josh and Daniel) were the twins who played in '03. You're confusing them with the unrelated and late 90s tandem of Mike (S) and Ralph (CB) Brown. In 2003, the Bullocks twins combined for 12 interceptions, so just under 1 pick/game.

Thanks for the correction and confirmation. We also had Carricker & Demarrio Williams on that team and a lot of the other position players were pretty good. Those four names are better than any players on our current defense.

I do think that getting turnovers is more than just luck. Luck does play into it, but we are doing awful; it isn't all due to a lack of luck or bad luck.

 

[HuskerWeatherman]

My concern ... if you're relying on turnovers to have a successful defense, then it may not be the ideal approach in the Big Ten. Sure, any and all turnovers gained are fantastic. But if it's the gambling style needed to make a defense work, will it work in the Big Ten?

Big Ten offenses have a tendency to turn the ball over less than most. Currently, six Big Ten teams are ranked in the top 25 for fewest turnovers allowed.

Only two rank near the bottom (102-129 -- generally the bottom 25, but there are ties). Minnesota and Rutgers. And we don't play Rutgers.

Regardless, I do think we need a serious talent upgrade to see a significant uptick in creating turnovers. I recall how incredible the 2003 team was at creating turnovers (Bo was defensive coordinator). Obviously, that team had much more talent on the defensive side of the ball (Fabian Washington, Super Demorrio, the Bullocks brothers, Ryon Bingham, Barrett Ruud, etc) than we do now.

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

My concern ... if you're relying on turnovers to have a successful defense, then it may not be the ideal approach in the Big Ten. Sure, any and all turnovers gained are fantastic. But if it's the gambling style needed to make a defense work, will it work in the Big Ten?

I don't think that Chinander or anyone on the staff would say that they want to be "relying on turnovers to have a successful defense," but it's definitely a point of emphasis. When I mention more risk and more reward, I don't mean crazy gambling chances; I mean CBs in full press coverage, aggressively trying to take away the strengths of opposing receivers and hoping that a ball gets thrown in his direction to go make a pick. Like Fischer and Chinander said, knocking a ball down is a safe play, but they want interceptions. If a CB uses good technique and is in good position, going for the interception but not getting one will still result in a pass being knocked down.

As far as the ball-hawking tackles, they're still teaching simple, fundamental tackling, but they're including a poke at the ball when the RB or WR is running and a strip of the ball when it's a QB being sacked. Those things shouldn't result in any more negatives.

As much as anything, it's a mentality of being aggressive and looking to score while on defense versus a passive, bend-but-don't-break mentality. If you watch the UCF defense in the Peach Bowl, they're getting their butts handed to them in the 3rd quarter, but they continued with some aggressive blitz calls, and eventually they got two picks late in the game, including a pick-6. The UCF defense did not have to return that pick for a TD to win the game because their offense was very effective, but notice how--after that pick-6--the defense suddenly wasn't tired anymore? A good S&C program will take you a long way, but it was that aggressive edge at the end of the game--when they should have been more gassed than they were in the 3rd quarter--that gave them their legs and their breath back.

The blitz packages are probably the most risky part of Chinander's defense, but he's an incredibly high-IQ guy who takes good chances with high rewards. Sometimes, a blitz that doesn't work is still enough to steer the opposing offense's play-calling away from stuff you don't want to see against your defense, and that's the type of response that the Nebraska coaches want to eventually dictate. McBride did the exact same sort of planning and calculations and gambling in the 90s, and we loved him for it because it worked on the big stage when it mattered.

 

[HuskerWeatherman]

I don't think that Chinander or anyone on the staff would say that they want to be "relying on turnovers to have a successful defense," but it's definitely a point of emphasis. When I mention more risk and more reward, I don't mean crazy gambling chances; I mean CBs in full press coverage, aggressively trying to take away the strengths of opposing receivers and hoping that a ball gets thrown in his direction to go make a pick. Like Fischer and Chinander said, knocking a ball down is a safe play, but they want interceptions. If a CB uses good technique and is in good position, going for the interception but not getting one will still result in a pass being knocked down.

As far as the ball-hawking tackles, they're still teaching simple, fundamental tackling, but they're including a poke at the ball when the RB or WR is running and a strip of the ball when it's a QB being sacked. Those things shouldn't result in any more negatives.

As much as anything, it's a mentality of being aggressive and looking to score while on defense versus a passive, bend-but-don't-break mentality. If you watch the UCF defense in the Peach Bowl, they're getting their butts handed to them in the 3rd quarter, but they continued with some aggressive blitz calls, and eventually they got two picks late in the game, including a pick-6. The UCF defense did not have to return that pick for a TD to win the game because their offense was very effective, but notice how--after that pick-6--the defense suddenly wasn't tired anymore? A good S&C program will take you a long way, but it was that aggressive edge at the end of the game--when they should have been more gassed than they were in the 3rd quarter--that gave them their legs and their breath back.

The blitz packages are probably the most risky part of Chinander's defense, but he's an incredibly high-IQ guy who takes good chances with high rewards. Sometimes, a blitz that doesn't work is still enough to steer the opposing offense's play-calling away from stuff you don't want to see against your defense, and that's the type of response that the Nebraska coaches want to eventually dictate. McBride did the exact same sort of planning and calculations and gambling in the 90s, and we loved him for it because it worked on the big stage when it mattered.

I do enjoy reading your analysis. Obviously, from a fan's perspective, we'd all love to see a fast, aggressive, athletic defense.

It should be pointed out, however, UCF's defensive stats were mediocre to poor last season. With exception to the fact they created turnovers.

2017 UCF: 93rd nationally in total defense. 53rd in scoring defense. I'm thinking their ability to create turnovers is a primary reason for the difference between total and scoring defense.

As has been mentioned here previously, UCF's defensive stats are significantly better this season -- 2018.

2018 UCF: 49th in total defense, 20th in scoring defense. And that's minus arguably their best defensive player last season, Griffin. And of course, minus Chinander.

Honestly, I always prefer an absolutely dominating defensive line to the point that you never have to blitz. That's something we obviously don't have now.

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

I do enjoy reading your analysis. Obviously, from a fan's perspective, we'd all love to see a fast, aggressive, athletic defense.

It should be pointed out, however, UCF's defensive stats were mediocre to poor last season. With exception to the fact they created turnovers.

2017 UCF: 93rd nationally in total defense. 53rd in scoring defense. I'm thinking their ability to create turnovers is a primary reason for the difference between total and scoring defense.

As has been mentioned here previously, UCF's defensive stats are significantly better this season -- 2018.

2018 UCF: 49th in total defense, 20th in scoring defense. And that's minus arguably their best defensive player last season, Griffin. And of course, minus Chinander.

Honestly, I always prefer an absolutely dominating defensive line to the point that you never have to blitz. That's something we obviously don't have now.

When you look at those rankings, keep in mind how those stats are compiled. The fact that UCF scored quickly and often meant that the defense saw more opposing possessions and more plays than a more traditional team, such as Nebraska. On top of that, teams like Memphis ran a similar fast-paced offense, and they played them twice. If you compare the stats of a team's defense from, say, Wisconsin, versus those of UCF, UCF's defense will have faced opposing offenses a significantly larger number of plays.

There seems to be a lot of people around here who think that Frost is uninvolved with the defense, and that Chinander doesn't know what he's doing. I saw absolutely no evidence of that, and I don't think that you're going to find any from anyone else either. When they coached together at UNI, Chinander was coaching offense, and Frost was coaching defense, and both already had a high degree of respect for one another. There is no daylight between how Frost and Chinander view defense OR offense. If Frost doesn't like how Chinander is doing something, it would be handled over a conversation at each other's homes, and/or a discussion while watching some film. Frost isn't walled off somewhere, unaware of what the defensive coaches are teaching and why. They have a very open staff discussion about anything and everything, and they're not sniping at each other.

When Chinander leaves Nebraska, it will be because he takes a job as an NFL defensive coordinator. Right now, he's coaching guys who aren't built for his defense.