Banker Vs Pelini Defense

[St. Anger]

S&B were discussing it this morning and I just saw the article they were likely referring to.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker...cle_ff19c577-9593-5f7b-944c-938cdd918362.html

In a nutshell, Pelini's defense was largely reactive in nature. "If this, then this" type of concepts. A lot of thinking required during a live play. Biggest weakness? Well, I think we all saw it several times. The risk of giving up huge running plays. Defense hanging back, waiting for play development and boom, huge chunk of run yardage.

Sounds to me like Banker's is much more proactive in nature. Make a play on the ball, especially the front 7 with the secondary having a more active role as well, playing closer to front 7. Biggest weakness? In all likelihood, giving up big pass plays. Everyone charging the football gives a WR or TE the opportunity to find a gap in midfield coverage or get behind the secondary.

Probably a bit biased based on history, but I would take the Banker scheme all day every day. Aggressive, hunt the ball carrier, attack style of defense. Now, what does it take for this type of defense to succeed (or any defense, for that matter) is pure talent. Look at Lavonte David for example. I'm 100% convinced the guy never once followed Pelini's defensive calls. Guy just had a knack for finding the ball and making a play.

 

[leodisflowers]

Agree with you on LaVonte. It was pretty hilarious to listen to Bo talk about all of the stuff he screwed up, and how he needed to learn. HE MADE PLAYS AND SAVED YOUR ASS BO! Anyways... I just hope we have the best players on the field and they make plays. I really don't care what scheme we have as long as the busts go way down, and we are able to hold teams to under 21 points. Our odds are pretty darn good when we hold to under 21 historically.

 

[SnohomishRed]

S&B were discussing it this morning and I just saw the article they were likely referring to.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/banker...cle_ff19c577-9593-5f7b-944c-938cdd918362.html

In a nutshell, Pelini's defense was largely reactive in nature. "If this, then this" type of concepts. A lot of thinking required during a live play. Biggest weakness? Well, I think we all saw it several times. The risk of giving up huge running plays. Defense hanging back, waiting for play development and boom, huge chunk of run yardage.

Sounds to me like Banker's is much more proactive in nature. Make a play on the ball, especially the front 7 with the secondary having a more active role as well, playing closer to front 7. Biggest weakness? In all likelihood, giving up big pass plays. Everyone charging the football gives a WR or TE the opportunity to find a gap in midfield coverage or get behind the secondary.

Probably a bit biased based on history, but I would take the Banker scheme all day every day. Aggressive, hunt the ball carrier, attack style of defense. Now, what does it take for this type of defense to succeed (or any defense, for that matter) is pure talent. Look at Lavonte David for example. I'm 100% convinced the guy never once followed Pelini's defensive calls. Guy just had a knack for finding the ball and making a play.

Pelini's defense worked better in the BIg12 than in the Big10 but imo it is just plain flawed - In the last three years in every single loss we had the opposing team ran for more than 150 yds and in most cases much much more than that. 150 yds for a rush defense puts a defense about average. Pelini just could not grasp that you stop the run first and if you do even if you are getting torched through the air your team still has a chance - Think Baylor vs MSU last year

I will take shaky secondary play all day long vs giving up a bunch of yards on the ground. Now his defense played better in the Big12 because the teams were not committed to running but it was exposed horribly in the Big10 and he was either to stupid or stuibborn to change

I like Bankers scheme much much better

 

[otismotis08]

Banker's scheme appears to more closely resemble McBride's.
Bring back the Blackshirts!

 

[jimbosc]

I think Bo understood - he expected his D to stop the run using the scheme being played - not that he would have to change anything (yelling at players making mistakes seemed to be his preferred coaching option). That said - Bo suffered from NFL think - don't give up the big pass play being the #1 goal of the D. Players are good enough to stop the run AND take away the deep pass - right?? However - since Bo left the NFL - putting 8 in the box has become much more common on 1st and 2nd down to try and force 3rd and long situations as much as possible.

 

[cubsker]

at times there were scheme issues, but we couldn't tackle worth a shit.

 

[chicolby]

There's no doubt, Pelini could stop the passing game unlike most any other team in college football. His defenses were the tops or at least in the top 10 against the pass, even when they faced prolific passing offenses. There was definitely some intellect that went into establishing that kind of consistent defense. Unfortunately, it came with a cost (the inability to stop a power run game) and when Nebraska swapped leagues, that defense was not built to be successful.

Honestly, I think he'd likely be a pretty good NFL D Coordinator where a) the players are all world athletes and very knowledgeable about different schemes with several hours of film study each week.

I am also looking forward to the more aggressive defensive style, but I'm also cautiously awaiting results as I don't recall Oregon State being known as having an especially stout defense. So for now, it's a lot of words, and I hope those words translate into on the field success.

 

[mkbrkloster]

at times there were scheme issues, but we couldn't tackle worth a shit.

So you're saying the two can't be related?

 

[cubsker]

they can be, but our tackling fundamentals in the open field were poor and that's not really related to scheme. safeties running away from ball carriers hoping for somebody else to catch up isn't scheme related...it's just sad.

 

[NikkiSixx]

When you give up a big pass play, the result is either a big change in field position, or an outright score. Generally, you want to force the opposing team to have to put together a long drive, getting first downs one by one, and the odds of them scoring, are a lot lower if you force them into an 12-15 play drive.

Pelini's scheme I think was a good one most of the time. But it was Pap that was running it there in the end, and that scheme is suspect against the run when you don't have guys that fully understand it.

This new scheme will be better against the run, no doubt about it. But the weakness is getting torched by good passing teams. It it can happen lightning fast.. it won't take a churn of 12-15 plays from the opposition.

Playing against a mobile QB will also take a turn for the worse, where previously containment was desired. Sending guys in, will result in some very long QB runs.

It's way too early to be laying praise on Bankers D.

 

[St. Anger]

Pelini's scheme I think was a good one most of the time. But it was Pap that was running it there in the end, and that scheme is suspect against the run when you don't have guys that fully understand it.

That's all speculation on your part.

 

[NikkiSixx]

That's all speculation on your part.

disagree.. and Lavonte David understood all those X's and O's even back in community college before he got here, and is one of the reasons he was offered. Bo discussed that at length. So your quote,

"Look at Lavonte David for example. I'm 100% convinced the guy never once followed Pelini's defensive calls."

Is completely inaccurate.

http://hailvarsity.com/news/hot-reads-lavonte-david-and-defying-expectations/2015/05/

 

[timnsun]

When you give up a big pass play, the result is either a big change in field position, or an outright score. Generally, you want to force the opposing team to have to put together a long drive, getting first downs one by one, and the odds of them scoring, are a lot lower if you force them into an 12-15 play drive.

Pelini's scheme I think was a good one most of the time. But it was Pap that was running it there in the end, and that scheme is suspect against the run when you don't have guys that fully understand it.

This new scheme will be better against the run, no doubt about it. But the weakness is getting torched by good passing teams. It it can happen lightning fast.. it won't take a churn of 12-15 plays from the opposition.

Playing against a mobile QB will also take a turn for the worse, where previously containment was desired. Sending guys in, will result in some very long QB runs.

It's way too early to be laying praise on Bankers D.

One of the problems with Bo's D was seen against Minnesota, where we made their non-mobile QB look like Scott Frost. That killed us.

Also, the long drives are great as long as we get a stop. Too many times the long drives yielded points as well. It didn't seem to happen as often as I liked that a 12 play drive ended with no points for the other team. So this really seems to be a case of pick your poison.

When we had our greatest success it was taking away the run and forcing them to pass. If this D can do that, I'm all for it. Of course, we had great cornerback play at the time, and the rules were different as well...

 

[omnione]

But it was Pap that was running it there in the end

False

 

[huskerbr12]

Line up correctly - Stop the run.

All defense is read and react. Read a key, get to your spot. Some schemes have more reads/keys than others

It seemed to me that Bo was hell bent on stopping the run with his front 4, wanted perfect match-ups with offensive skilled personnel, and was terrified of the deep ball. It worked pretty well when you had the NFL's highest paid DL (Suh) and LB (David) on your side. Didn't work at all when the d-line was blocked into linebackers, or when a corner was expecting help that wasn't there, or when a safety would take a bad angle.

Banker sounds like he's focused on stopping the run. Plug gaps, spill to the sideline, chase and hit. Great. But, I'm having nightmares of MLBs chasing TE's down the deep middle of the field or LBs trying to tackle slot receivers in open field. Good quarterbacks will be able to manipulate our lbs with their eyes, and if we can't get pressure it's one on one match ups on the outside.

I THINK Banker's defense will be better. I expect the defense will be lined up correctly prior to the snap (not standing around looking at the sideline trying to get a call). I think he'll stop the run. I guess I'd prefer to be beaten with good quarterback play rather than 400 rushing yards.

Sept 5 can't get here soon enough.

 

[tithay01]

I hope Banker and crew is better than Mark by himself. But remember OSU fans were ready to run Banker out of town.

 

[mothmonsterman]

I hope Banker and crew is better than Mark by himself. But remember OSU fans were ready to run Banker out of town.

I have no idea how Banker will do here, he might be a colossal flop, but we were ready to run Charlie McBride out of town right before the beginning of the championship runs. I also think his scheme probably works better against the better teams in the Big Ten than it did against the Pac 12. The teams in the Big Ten that pass a lot tend to be the ones against whom we should usually have an overwhelming talent advantage.

 

[dinglefritz]

Line up correctly - Stop the run.

All defense is read and react. Read a key, get to your spot. Some schemes have more reads/keys than others

It seemed to me that Bo was hell bent on stopping the run with his front 4, wanted perfect match-ups with offensive skilled personnel, and was terrified of the deep ball. It worked pretty well when you had the NFL's highest paid DL (Suh) and LB (David) on your side. Didn't work at all when the d-line was blocked into linebackers, or when a corner was expecting help that wasn't there, or when a safety would take a bad angle.

Banker sounds like he's focused on stopping the run. Plug gaps, spill to the sideline, chase and hit. Great. But, I'm having nightmares of MLBs chasing TE's down the deep middle of the field or LBs trying to tackle slot receivers in open field. Good quarterbacks will be able to manipulate our lbs with their eyes, and if we can't get pressure it's one on one match ups on the outside.

I THINK Banker's defense will be better. I expect the defense will be lined up correctly prior to the snap (not standing around looking at the sideline trying to get a call). I think he'll stop the run. I guess I'd prefer to be beaten with good quarterback play rather than 400 rushing yards.

Sept 5 can't get here soon enough.

IMO most of Banker's problems at OSU were limited talent. Our problems these last few years might have been some talent shortage at a few positions but largely it was coaching. Paralysis by analysis is the best description of what I saw from our defense these past few years. As far as LaVonte David goes, when he played at NU we heard multiple times that he was repeatedly making mistakes but was making up for it by going full speed with his great athleticism. His recovery and closing speed was tremendous. I thought we saw some of that out of Zaire Anderson before his injury. Then I'm not sure what happened but it appears he might make the Denver roster.

 

[Husker.Wed.]

Seems like Bo would design an exotic package for each opponent, then try to tweak it every play from the sideline as the game went on. That often led to players looking at the sideline as the ball was snapped. To be fair, Bo coached some good defensive efforts and if his defenses flat-out sucked, he would have never won all the games he did. Unfortunately, when very good coaches (Stoops, Mora, Richt, Bielema, Kill, etc.) saw what he was doing and countered it, Bo had no answer, the scheme for that game fell apart, and we then saw the ugly, embarrassing exchanges between Bo and Carl or JP. Meanwhile the opposing team lit up the scoreboard like a pinball machine. That is why I was encouraged when before spring Banker said something about having a base package that everyone knew well, so when things went bad, they could go back to base and calm down (or something like that).

 

[cubsker]

One of the problems with Bo's D was seen against Minnesota, where we made their non-mobile QB look like Scott Frost. That killed us.

Also, the long drives are great as long as we get a stop. Too many times the long drives yielded points as well. It didn't seem to happen as often as I liked that a 12 play drive ended with no points for the other team. So this really seems to be a case of pick your poison.

When we had our greatest success it was taking away the run and forcing them to pass. If this D can do that, I'm all for it. Of course, we had great cornerback play at the time, and the rules were different as well...

Our Sr. CB blew his assignment basically every one of the QB runs on the zone read iirc.

 

[timnsun]

Our Sr. CB blew his assignment basically every one of the QB runs on the zone read iirc.

Then why didn't Bo gently call him over and say, "Hey, Josh, you're missing your assignment..."

Blame Mitchell all you want, the flaw wasn't just the player.

 

[suhnami]

I have no idea how Banker will do here, he might be a colossal flop, but we were ready to run Charlie McBride out of town right before the beginning of the championship runs. I also think his scheme probably works better against the better teams in the Big Ten than it did against the Pac 12. The teams in the Big Ten that pass a lot tend to be the ones against whom we should usually have an overwhelming talent advantage.

Didn't McBride change up the scheme as well?

 

[spinner4]

Didn't McBride change up the scheme as well?

Him and TO did after the Citrus Bowl against Ga Tech.

I think its fair to say that Riley 2 biggest question marks so far are
1. His recruiting
2. And Banker

If those 2 work out (and they are both big question marks at this time - don't kid yourself) MR will do fine here. If they don't, NU will be looking for a 6th coach in 20-ish years.

 

[timnsun]

Him and TO did after the Citrus Bowl against Ga Tech.

I think its fair to say that Riley 2 biggest question marks so far are
1. His recruiting
2. And Banker

If those 2 work out (and they are both big question marks at this time - don't kid yourself) MR will do fine here. If they don't, NU will be looking for a 6th coach in 20-ish years.

I understand the skepticism towards Banker, but recruiting? I know it is possible that we strike out on every big name left out there that we have a shot at, but to say this is a big question mark, I guess I don't see it that way. Look at the number of TRUE freshmen that will get significant playing time this coming season... I've heard 7 or 8...

What does that say about past recruiting and the recruiting done by this coaching staff? You could say that the coaches want to play their guys, but I don't think that's the case... They are playing the best players, regardless of age. And if these freshman are high up on the depth chart, I'd say that's pretty good talent they have brought in, and don't see any reason for recruiting to be any different going forward...

 

[otismotis08]

I agree that Banker may be the biggest ? at this point.
MR & Co seems to be doing a nice job on the recruiting trail thus far. Winning will make all the difference in the world here.

 

[jflores]

If the MSU/Banker type scheme needs top flight corners, I can see how he'd have spotty success at OSU. Riley has been quoted as "good CB are worth their weight in gold" and intimated that in his careers its a position where talent has been spotty. He also pointed out the line situation here (as bad as we think it is) is better than most anything he had at OSU.

We have a fair bit of talent in the secondary and we're worried about running this defense at times or guys getting burned in practice. I can't imagine that OSU with regularity had more talent than this sitting around the defensive backfield.

 

[Tulsa Tom]

Charlie McBride had some pitiful defenses in the 80's. It still makes made blood boil. We lost a lot of big games when we had offenses that were plenty good but defenses that just flat-out stunk. A lot of us were calling for Charlie's head and Osborne just seemed deaf to those cries. However, I think Tom had enough by '91 or so and he told Charlie there had to be a change. Now, there was some scheme change (a lot less straight 52 if I recall) and an emphasis on getting the ends up the field. There also was a recruiting change too. Speed became paramount.

That was the thing about Osborne. He was able to make changes throughout his career that eventually led him to the top. People outside Nebraska think we were always just a smashmouth option team. It's not true at all.

 

[leodisflowers]

Him and TO did after the Citrus Bowl against Ga Tech.

I think its fair to say that Riley 2 biggest question marks so far are
1. His recruiting
2. And Banker

If those 2 work out (and they are both big question marks at this time - don't kid yourself) MR will do fine here. If they don't, NU will be looking for a 6th coach in 20-ish years.

For me his two biggest question marks are
1. Banker - I agree here.
2. Bruce Reed - We are paying the guy a lot of money and his special teams better produce. Personally I'd rather have that money allocated to Bray and other recruiters. I guess we will see but this is a huge question mark for me right now.

In regards to recruiting, I like what I have seen so far. Having the #1 LB in California even considering us is awesome. Also, I think Jalin Barnett has an opportunity to be an absolute stud, and we wouldn't have even offered in the past regime. The past did get some good players, but so far we are on a lot of top players shortlist which is refreshing. It is fun to follow recruiting again, and hopefully we score and land some folks.

 

[cubsker]

Then why didn't Bo gently call him over and say, "Hey, Josh, you're missing your assignment..."

Blame Mitchell all you want, the flaw wasn't just the player.

just saying it wasn't a scheme issue. a coaching issue, sure, but not a scheme issue. bo did change things up and have the safety filling the outside instead of the cb after minny qb ran by mitchell for the 4th time.

 

[timnsun]

Thanks for clarifying, but even with the change Leidner still had a career day running the ball. I would say it was a scheme issue, or at the very least, a lack of understanding the scheme by the players, which seems to suggest the coaches didn't coach the scheme very well. The scheme can be perfect, but if the players aren't comfortable with the scheme, mistakes happen. In that case, change the scheme.

 

[nebcountry]

I remember reading some article that talked about Pelini's defense. From what I remember, the argument was if an offense uses a certain formation with certain players in motion, it would "lock up" or confuse the defense. I'm not X's and O's guy, but the article made sense at the time. Certainly there were cases of poor tackling.

The jury is out on Banker. If we need the best players in the world, and the best depth in the world for his defense to be successful then who knows how we'll do.

As far as recruiting, my best guess is we finish in the vicinity of a 30th to 35th recruiting ranking this year. Flip Juarez and we could have a different story. I'd like to be more excited for the players we get, rather than the players we didn't get.

 

[jflores]

For me his two biggest question marks are
1. Banker - I agree here.
2. Bruce Reed - We are paying the guy a lot of money and his special teams better produce. Personally I'd rather have that money allocated to Bray and other recruiters. I guess we will see but this is a huge question mark for me right now.

In regards to recruiting, I like what I have seen so far. Having the #1 LB in California even considering us is awesome. Also, I think Jalin Barnett has an opportunity to be an absolute stud, and we wouldn't have even offered in the past regime. The past did get some good players, but so far we are on a lot of top players shortlist which is refreshing. It is fun to follow recruiting again, and hopefully we score and land some folks.

The recruiting isn't so much a question for me. Riley is recruiting at the level it took Bo 7 years to get to, and even has guys interested that Bo never would have tried to keep going after (like Barnett and that LB kid out of Cali, and Alexandar, Key JR etc). The problem under Pelini never seemed to be getting out athleted, we simply were poorly coached in a lot of areas. And in a lot of cases, our athletes were playing with top recruiting teams like Georgia and South Carolina. A big reason that we were all upset with Pelini was because teams like Wisconsin were running us off the field and there should have been no reason as athlete for athlete we were just as touted or better.

Reed is still probably a question mark for me. But I don't think of it as a money issue. We can pay Reed and still double Bray's salary or more. Early signs in the ST are probably encouraging with him helping to adjust Brown and hopefully having a solid coverage team. The news out of Portland in that article having Reed help determine redshirts and travel rosters based on what athletes he can use successfully is also encouraging.

 

[dockentwo]

We have two other D C's coaching on the defense and I am guessing Bray is overall excellent, not just for lb's. Our db's were dancing bears in Bo's D, guys just ran back as the DT's most often tied up the OT's ( backwards). Results! Bo gave up records by the score ( and scores too ), crazy rallies against N talent. I love the D philosophy now; and the recruit from outside in philosophy for speed.

 

[St. Anger]

408 yards. In 3 quarters. Still can't believe that.

 

[huskerhomie]

Thanks for clarifying, but even with the change Leidner still had a career day running the ball. I would say it was a scheme issue, or at the very least, a lack of understanding the scheme by the players, which seems to suggest the coaches didn't coach the scheme very well. The scheme can be perfect, but if the players aren't comfortable with the scheme, mistakes happen. In that case, change the scheme.

Def a scheme issue. Bo's scheme was primarily run to stop teams from beating us over the top with the pass. But the problem with that, is that in the B10 there were very FEW teams that actually could throw the ball very well. Most B10 teams bread and butter was from having strong running games. So there was really no reason for Bo to be playing 2 high safeties all the time to guard against the long pass while giving up numbers to the run game in the box.

Even if players played Bo's scheme to perfection, you still have the other team with numbers in the box on a running play and you still have one of our safeties having to try and tackle a skill player in space while having to cover 10 yards just to get to them cause they are playing back. That is not usually going to work out too well for a Defense.

 

[codyd70]

As has been said Banker's D being successful relies on having good DTs and CBs when he had that at OSU the defense was great. Especially against the run. Usually it was when there was injuries to those positions it went downhill due to lack of depth. I think with the talent he has at Nebraska at those positions his scheme will do very well.