Fwd: [Husker] Defensive Scheme and Speed

[jonlists]

This discussion implies that there is an either-or method of playing 
defense - playing either zone or man to man. Cornerbacks could play man to 
man at the on the same play the safeties would be in zone coverage over 
the top of them. Next play they all might play zone, the next play they 
may switch to man to man. 

I'm curious whether you actually went back and looked at the defensive 
coverage during the games to determine what types of coverage they were 
playing, and how you determined it. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, 
nor argumentative, I'm just asking. 

With all due respect, Andy, I don't think of any of us has the expertise 
to know what they were supposed to be doing, but only that they didn't do 
it. 

Jon Johnston
Creative Business Solutions
IBM,Microsoft, Novell/Suse, Sophos Consultants
http://www.cbsol.com
952-544-1108 
Blog: http://bingo.cbsol.com

husker-bounces at tssi.com wrote on 12/01/2004 10:20:39 AM:

> 
> 
> >  From what I've heard on an Omaha sports radio program:  Some 
> coaches [not NU] 
> > say that NU's safeties are required to cover man-to-man, 
> especially the slot 
> > receiver, and they aren't able to do the job.  There may be many 
> reasons for 
> > this but these coaches[the hated unnamed sources] blame man 
> coverage for NU's 
> > dramatic fall in pass efficiency defense.
> > Maybe another example of putting personnel in a position to fail 
> rather than 
> > succeed.
> 
> Since the secondary was playing mostly man to man,  the safties 
> would have to as well :-)
> 
> The transition from zone to man to man is a very difficult task, as 
> is the other direction. When your secondary has better atheletes 
> than the WRs,  M-M is the D to run, when you are have physical 
> matchups you cannot win,  zone is what you play.  In addition zone 
> helps with run support since DBs face the QB more often and are in a
> position to help with run support. 
> 
> At the end of 2001, it was apparent that, while NU had some very 
> good CBs (Groce, Craver, etc) they still could not match up to some 
> of the great WRs in the B12 (Williams/Johnson at TX, Woods at OSU) 
> or, like Miami, the CBs could but the #3 & $ WRs were able to beat 
> the safeties. 
> 
> So Bohl & Darlington made the switch to a zone.  Zone takes time to 
> learn to play together properly. Anyone who remembers the PSU game, 
> WRs ran across the zones and pulled guys out of position. 
> Underneath guys were open and they marched down the field. 
> 
> After a year of bad D,  (whether it was Pelini or just experience I 
> do not know) the secondary settled into the zone coverage an played 
> it very well last year. 
> 
> This year the secondary played the M-M poorly.  There were a number 
> of times when a WR was uncovered when the O came to the line.  That 
> is an automatic 10 yards.  Sometimes DBs lined up 10 yards off the 
> WR (not wanting to give up the long ball),  that is an audible for a
> quick pass (usually a 1 step drop), 5 yard gain and longer when a 
> tackle is broken.
> 
> 
> I tried above to set the facts down as unbiasedly as I could.  Now 
> will come my biases opinion. This is also why I have been very down 
> on the coaches (D).  They made the switch from zone to man quickly 
> and that takes time. Even with the ability we have in the secondary 
> it was a mistake. The coaches were likely thinking that they were 
> going to change regardless and best to make that change with 
> experienced players. While that is a reasonable approach,  when a 
> team is depending on the D to cover from an O in flux,  changes like
> that cause a 5-6 season. 
> 
> FWIW,  yes I did play in HS and one year of college (Division III) 
> so I do speak from experience.
> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> Andy Knipp
> andy at knipp.com
> (480) 818-1026 (M)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker