interesting breakdown.
http://coachingsearch.com/article?a...at-what-Bob-Diaco-brings-to-Nebraskas-defense
http://coachingsearch.com/article?a...at-what-Bob-Diaco-brings-to-Nebraskas-defense
Diaco stats
- Thread starter cubsker
- Start date
I keep getting flak for saying it, but I'm still a bit skeptical. Outside of that 2012 season, his defenses floated in the 25-35 range in the country, which would put us roughly 4th in the B1G. I think we've got some decent talent for the 3-4 and I've got my fingers crossed, but I'll wait to see the results on the field before celebrating the hire.
Looks pretty darn good. I saw some statistical deal, that said he would rank as the 7th best DC in college football.
Last edited:
I am sure another negative would be he is a former Iowa player
From the article:
"Diaco brings a 3-4 background, while the Huskers had been using more 4-3. His defenses have been strong in the red zone and on 3rd down. They haven’t forced many turnovers or negative plays, but they’ve been among the nation’s best in not allowing explosive plays. He takes over a young Nebraska defense that only had three seniors in the two-deep."
While being good in the red zone and on 3rd down are great characteristics, it causes me to pause a bit. It sounds like a defense that is fundamentally strong and doesn't make a lot of assignment mistakes. Does this come at the expense of tackles for losses and turnovers? I think it's a fair question given his track record.
The problem I have is that the defensive scheme seems somewhat reliant on the opposing team to make mistakes and beat themselves. Does this sound like the brand of football Iowa and Wisconsin play? Moreso, are the upper echelon of talented teams like Michigan and Ohio State going to be beaten by this type of defense? I think this defense lends itself to the more talented team winning out the majority of the time.
Further, I think Nebraska needs to acknowledge the talent deficit that we continue to have and play a riskier, high-cost/high-reward type of defense. More specifically, we need to be better at putting the opposing team behind schedule on down & distance with sacks and tackles for losses. Of course, that doesn't necessarily play to this roster's strengths either as we have not had a dominating pass rusher since Gregory left. Still, that seems to be a necessary component of a truly good defense.
Thoughts?
"Diaco brings a 3-4 background, while the Huskers had been using more 4-3. His defenses have been strong in the red zone and on 3rd down. They haven’t forced many turnovers or negative plays, but they’ve been among the nation’s best in not allowing explosive plays. He takes over a young Nebraska defense that only had three seniors in the two-deep."
While being good in the red zone and on 3rd down are great characteristics, it causes me to pause a bit. It sounds like a defense that is fundamentally strong and doesn't make a lot of assignment mistakes. Does this come at the expense of tackles for losses and turnovers? I think it's a fair question given his track record.
The problem I have is that the defensive scheme seems somewhat reliant on the opposing team to make mistakes and beat themselves. Does this sound like the brand of football Iowa and Wisconsin play? Moreso, are the upper echelon of talented teams like Michigan and Ohio State going to be beaten by this type of defense? I think this defense lends itself to the more talented team winning out the majority of the time.
Further, I think Nebraska needs to acknowledge the talent deficit that we continue to have and play a riskier, high-cost/high-reward type of defense. More specifically, we need to be better at putting the opposing team behind schedule on down & distance with sacks and tackles for losses. Of course, that doesn't necessarily play to this roster's strengths either as we have not had a dominating pass rusher since Gregory left. Still, that seems to be a necessary component of a truly good defense.
Thoughts?
I think the quoted is basically the deal. Riley goes out and gets one of the relative handful of top names to be a DC, and folks here act like he killed a puppy in front of their four year old.
This is what you've been screaming about folks. Sure, Diaco may not work out here, but that's a risk you take with basically any coach. I was one of the first ones to say that Venables would be my first phone call, but I would do that knowing that
1. He's an extreme longshot bordering on ludicrous
2. He's got more considerations than the money he is making down at Clemson
Hiring another Top 10 DC with National Title game experience within a matter of 48 hours is a pretty nice consolation prize if you aren't getting Aranda or Venables.
This is what you've been screaming about folks. Sure, Diaco may not work out here, but that's a risk you take with basically any coach. I was one of the first ones to say that Venables would be my first phone call, but I would do that knowing that
1. He's an extreme longshot bordering on ludicrous
2. He's got more considerations than the money he is making down at Clemson
Hiring another Top 10 DC with National Title game experience within a matter of 48 hours is a pretty nice consolation prize if you aren't getting Aranda or Venables.
Turnovers are like coin flips. You can think you control those but in reality they even up over time.
Vegas doesn't even look much at turnovers because of the "luck" factor.
When you are at a decided disadvantage in talent, you typically play more conservatively. That is why service academies and the like play option football and assignment based defenses. You shorten the game offensively and make the opponent drive the length of the field to score and not allow them to score on 2 and 3 play drives. The average drive in college football is 6 plays. That means if you make a team go longer than that, your chances of stopping them increases.
Bend but don't break can be very effective. It's just not always exciting football.
Vegas doesn't even look much at turnovers because of the "luck" factor.
When you are at a decided disadvantage in talent, you typically play more conservatively. That is why service academies and the like play option football and assignment based defenses. You shorten the game offensively and make the opponent drive the length of the field to score and not allow them to score on 2 and 3 play drives. The average drive in college football is 6 plays. That means if you make a team go longer than that, your chances of stopping them increases.
Bend but don't break can be very effective. It's just not always exciting football.
But that would go against the narrative that "Outside of that 2012 season, his defenses floated in the 25-35 range in the country."
I understand where you're coming from when you state that turnovers have a "luck" factor, which of course they can from time to time, but without me doing a lot of extensive research, I would also bet that the top performing defenses tend to also rank higher in turnover margin (or at least in creating turnovers) because sound defenses force their opponents to start pressing and trying things they wouldn't try otherwise. I don't think people could claim that Alabama's successful turnovers (so consistent this season) were an outcome of luck.
It just depends on what stat you pick. If you look at total defense, he was worse than his ranking in scoring defense. I generally give more weight to scoring defense myself because that's the name of the game.
1620 pointed out that in the last so many years NU hadn't been in the top 25 or 30 of scoring defense more than 1 time, whereas the reverse had been true of Diaco's teams.
Quite honestly, if we just wanted a guy who looked pretty damn consistent in total defense, we should have just hired Iowa's defensive coordinator. You have to also consider that a bunch of Iowa's consistency is because they've been running that same show for nearly two decades. Somehow I doubt that would have moved the needle.
Turnovers gained Stat
2015 Alabama ranked 65th with 20
Nebraska 41st with 23
2016 Alabama ranked 5th with 29
Nebraska 67th with 19
Edit - that's a 7 turnover difference over two seasons and 26 games for Nebraska and 30 games for Alabama.
1.63 per game for Alabama
1.62 per game for Nebraska.
Iowa and Wisconsin limit their mistakes to be sure. Iowa and Wisconsin also beat the tar out of us precisely because we are not fundamentally sound. We haven't been fundamentally sound for ages. Fundamentally sound defenses get you wins, and as we are all well aware, winning cures all ills.
Again, I didn't do the extensive research, but if I would, it wouldn't be to pick two teams. I would want to look at all of the to 25 defenses and compare their turnovers gained against those that do not field top 25 defenses. And it would include more than a 2 year stretch.
Again, I'm not suggesting that luck doesn't play a role, but I have to believe that top defenses simply create more turnovers.
You used Alabama in your example. I compared 2 seasons where Alabama played in the national championship game and were 1 of the 2 best teams in the country. I then compared them to Nebraska a team that was 6-7 and 9-4 and unranked.
Prove me wrong.
Edit- if there was a metric that proved your point, I can promise you Vegas would be using the metric.
Edit- if there was a metric that proved your point, I can promise you Vegas would be using the metric.
Brandon Vogel at Hail Varsity did an article with the same premise: that turnovers are basically unpredictable, luck.
Granted he'll make alot, and alot more than Banker, but on paper it's an upgrade. Also shows SE is hearing the fan base. At the very least might buy him and MR a little extra time should next year be a turd
I'm a stat geek but we really need to change the way we look at them. When a team constantly goes fast all the time you are going to give up more yards than a slow, methodical team that huddles up all the time. Look at the Big XII. Those offenses are vastly over-rated because they are playing a 1000 miles an hour. They rack up points and tons of yardage per game because they have way more plays and possessions. Conversely, their defenses are undervalued because of the same issue. You would probably say the opposite in regards to the Big Ten. (Looking at this bowl season, the league with the best defense in terms of ppg was the Big XII.)
A much better measure is not looking at "per game" numbers but "per possession" numbers. That would tell us how good Diaco compared to others.
A much better measure is not looking at "per game" numbers but "per possession" numbers. That would tell us how good Diaco compared to others.
Taylor Martinez. It was not luck that we had horrible turnover margin numbers during his tenure. (And I was a TMart fan.)
And I have been giving the current staff credit for our turnover margin. It appears that the previous staff just had bad luck.
We are talking about defensive takeaways or turnovers gained, not turnover margin or a QB with a propensity to turn it over.
A defense has only minor control over Taylor Martinez and his ball skils. Martinez tuned the ball over to everyone not just great defenses. A DC doesn't control the schedule or which QBs will be playing or how inclined they are to fumble or throw picks. Some years you may play 10 QBs that don't make mistakes and the next only 3. As I said originally, turnovers gained largely evens out over time.
Again "luck" was on quotes for a reason. The predictability is what I am talking about.
Wouldn't you agree that you have a lot more control over your offense not turning it over than your defense "creating takeaways"?
Of course, I was being facetious to a certain degree. But for every offense turning the ball over, there has to be a defense to take it away. A team that really tries to block punts gets maybe a couple blocks per year, but they get none if they don't try at all. So yes there's luck, there's also game planning and preparation.
Diaco's defense doesn't tend to have good numbers at forcing turnovers or getting after the QB. And despite his reputation as a 3-4 guy, he's primarily ran a 4-3 front at UConn with a bend and don't break philosophy of eliminating big plays. Essentially we have a nicer, but less accomplished Bo Pelini as a DC now.
Takeaways- Average 79th
2009 (Cincinnati)- 79th
2010 (ND)- 36th
2011- 112th
2012- 48th
2013- 103rd
2014 (UConn)- 110th
2015- 24th
2016- 120th
Sacks- Average 71st
2009- 10th
2010 (ND)- 54th
2011- 59th
2012- 22nd
2013- 96th
2014 (UConn)- 121st
2015- 94th
2016- 111th
Here's Banker in comparison
Takeaways Average 64th
2009- 105th
2010- 72nd
2011- 49th
2012- 14th
2013- 14th
2014- 86th
2015- 104th
2016- 67th
Sacks Average 61st
2009- 105th
2010- 24th
2011- 54th
2012- 50th
2013- 66th
2014- 42nd
2015- 80th
2016- 68th
Takeaways- Average 79th
2009 (Cincinnati)- 79th
2010 (ND)- 36th
2011- 112th
2012- 48th
2013- 103rd
2014 (UConn)- 110th
2015- 24th
2016- 120th
Sacks- Average 71st
2009- 10th
2010 (ND)- 54th
2011- 59th
2012- 22nd
2013- 96th
2014 (UConn)- 121st
2015- 94th
2016- 111th
Here's Banker in comparison
Takeaways Average 64th
2009- 105th
2010- 72nd
2011- 49th
2012- 14th
2013- 14th
2014- 86th
2015- 104th
2016- 67th
Sacks Average 61st
2009- 105th
2010- 24th
2011- 54th
2012- 50th
2013- 66th
2014- 42nd
2015- 80th
2016- 68th
you'll have to point me to diaco's 400+ yds allowed to a RB, 70 pts allowed performances, or not being able to stop a simple jet sweep game.
His UConn team may have gotten there if he were allowed to continue, they were trending downward drastically in recruiting.
The comparison was meant in scheme, both are coaches who prefer 2 gap, read and react with safeties high to prevent the deep ball. There are a lot of similarities in philosophy between the 2 coaches. Bo has even experimented with 3 man fronts as time went on. BP's record as a pure DC was better than Diaco, Diaco just failed more quickly as a head coach than Bo did.
Hope he works out here, but people praising him as some genius or savior are probably stretching pretty hard.
I'm confused by this... it seems as if many experts have really praised this hire. But you are essentially calling it fool's gold.
Yes, he may have been trending downward at UConn, but isn't that likely because of a lack of talent? When he had talent to work with, it seems as if he had pretty salty defenses. We just have to make sure he has talent and I think we will be ok.
I'm definitely not saying that I dislike the hire or that he's going to fail, but I AM saying that I'm not ready to anoint him as our defensive savior just based on his prior stats. I understand skepticism is frowned upon in here, but it's the only way to keep from getting my soul crushed every season when something fails lol I think he'll be a good coach, and if he can keep us around 25th in scoring defense every year, I think that's good enough to at least keep us in every game. I wonder if defensive ranks were written into his contract...
Remember that game where the winner was determined by sacks or turnovers? Points per game has always been the key stat. His defenses have generally faired well using that metric.
not the point. The goal of every team, every game is to win. Only 1 of 2 will meet that goal.
Sacking the QB was never in anything I said with regards to "luck".
I don't think Tuco's out in left field here on the TO's thing. It should be rather uncontroversial for Husker fans honestly.
BoPeep came in and had an excellent defensive TO season in 2003. A season which he never came close to replicating in any of the years he ran his defense as HC of the program, despite having pretty good defensive talent and a top shelf defense in a couple of those years.
BoPeep came in and had an excellent defensive TO season in 2003. A season which he never came close to replicating in any of the years he ran his defense as HC of the program, despite having pretty good defensive talent and a top shelf defense in a couple of those years.
Banker was judged to be insufficient as our DC by people with more knowledge of the program than us. Diaco is a very well respected defensive mind. We will see what he can do with the materials given in the next couple of years and hope that he can recruit better talent going forward.
The CW is Diaco>Banker. Do some of you think Diaco < Banker? Please state why.
The CW is Diaco>Banker. Do some of you think Diaco < Banker? Please state why.
A much better metric is points per possession. If your offense and the offense of the teams you are playing, play extremely slow points per game is not a good stat.
