Should we believe Chinander? Is that enough?

[MartyHuskerFan]

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.

You make a good point that risk taking may not be the right formula for the B1G. I do think relying on turnovers is a big part of Chinander's strategy. I also think they hope to revolutionize the B1G. They would rather force teams to try and figure out how to deal with them.

I opened this thread to discuss what is really means to aggressively cause turnovers and how to go about doing it. Chinander talked last week about guys not taking that next step and ripping the ball out of going for the pick. I wondered if it had something to do with not being aggressive enough a split second prior to the actual point of contact. Is it about taking a chance a moment earlier and getting yourself into a better position to make that impact. That is the kind of risk that might leave you out of position if the play takes a bad turn.