Sam M's Diaco piece

[inWV]

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/footba...cle_45aa5646-9117-5ebe-ab95-29149d8e560d.html

If they fail, it won't be because of lack of player buy in.
Riley - “Bob does a great job of painting a picture for a player,” Riley said. “There’s a ton of emphasis placed on how to play. ‘This is your position; this is what you have to do.’ ”

And I like this - After practices, Diaco had the team watch film together.
“Each day after practices, we’ll have cut-ups of good and bad and we learn from situations in practice,” cornerback Lamar Jackson said. “Each person gets to see what people missed everywhere. So you know everyone’s job by the end of the period. You get the see the mistakes and hear the corrections day by day. It’s good. In order to be good, it’s great to know what’s going on around you.”

And this, Gifford - “We noticed from the beginning that, when we ran things right and did it the right way, we made plays,” Gifford said. “It worked. When you start seeing results, it really changes the way you go about your work and how driven you are to get after it.”

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Queue the "They say that every year" crowd

 

[Pennsyhusker]

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/footba...cle_45aa5646-9117-5ebe-ab95-29149d8e560d.html

If they fail, it won't be because of lack of player buy in.
Riley - “Bob does a great job of painting a picture for a player,” Riley said. “There’s a ton of emphasis placed on how to play. ‘This is your position; this is what you have to do.’ ”

And I like this - After practices, Diaco had the team watch film together.
“Each day after practices, we’ll have cut-ups of good and bad and we learn from situations in practice,” cornerback Lamar Jackson said. “Each person gets to see what people missed everywhere. So you know everyone’s job by the end of the period. You get the see the mistakes and hear the corrections day by day. It’s good. In order to be good, it’s great to know what’s going on around you.”

And this, Gifford - “We noticed from the beginning that, when we ran things right and did it the right way, we made plays,” Gifford said. “It worked. When you start seeing results, it really changes the way you go about your work and how driven you are to get after it.”

Good article. I like the part about how the players noticed that when they followed Diaco's scheme "they made plays". This increased motivation to learn and follow that scheme.

We often hear people say "well that coaching staff lost this team by the end of the year". What does that mean? It means the players noticed that when they did what the coaches asked, that it did not work. They further noticed that the coaches had no answer to that situation and kept doubling down on the same flawed schemes. Players aren't stupid. They see, better than the fans, what works and what doesn't. And they lose confidence fast in coaches that seem outclassed by their opponents and can't make proper schematic adjustments.

I think Banker lost the confidence of his defensive players last year. No way we should have looked as bad as we did post-Wisconsin. I think it is telling that after Banker was fired there was not a single whimper heard from a single Husker defensive player. I think they were glad he was gone even if he was a very nice guy.

I will repeat what I said in another thread. I think landing Diaco may be one of the most important things to happen to Husker football in a long time.

 

[headcard]

Love that quote by Gifford. That's what good coaching really is, putting players in a position to be successful.

 

[inWV]

There was a lot of excitement when upon the second coming of Pelini and we did see a better performing defense when we had guys like Suh, Crick and that great crew of Dbacks. For a couple of years, we made Big XII offenses look pretty stupid. But it was as if there wasn't an interest in planning for the transition to the B1G and the move corresponded with a degradation of talent on the defensive side of the ball.
Diaco inherits a combo of Pelini and Riley recruited players. There is talent on the defensive side. Lamar Jackson was the #1 ranked safety, Eric Lee was #12 at CB, the Davis twins 22 and 24 at DT. And so on. And it seems that the players have bought into what Diaco is selling.
It wasn't as if the D was a total bust last year. Statistically we did quite well. It's just that, as in recent past years, the wheels came off in a couple of key games and that rightfully colored the season overall. I've posted this thought a couple of times, but if Diaco's D can tamp down on teams like NW, Iowa and Wisconsin springing chunk yardage runs, we win those games. Does that happen?

 

[Toms Wife]

Sam should just stay positive and avoid the hit pieces.

 

[inWV]

Good article. I like the part about how the players noticed that when they followed Diaco's scheme "they made plays". This increased motivation to learn and follow that scheme.

We often hear people say "well that coaching staff lost this team by the end of the year". What does that mean? It means the players noticed that when they did what the coaches asked, that it did not work. They further noticed that the coaches had no answer to that situation and kept doubling down on the same flawed schemes. Players aren't stupid. They see, better than the fans, what works and what doesn't. And they lose confidence fast in coaches that seem outclassed by their opponents and can't make proper schematic adjustments.

I think Banker lost the confidence of his defensive players last year. No way we should have looked as bad as we did post-Wisconsin. I think it is telling that after Banker was fired there was not a single whimper heard from a single Husker defensive player. I think they were glad he was gone even if he was a very nice guy.

I will repeat what I said in another thread. I think landing Diaco may be one of the most important things to happen to Husker football in a long time.

Interesting points here. It could boil down to the thought that if coaches don't want to win more than players, there could be a problem. When Bo became short time, I think the will or "want" to win became secondary. Banker seemed to be more of a functionary in that regard. Diaco may come off as a weird kind of Cat, but it seems the desire to have his guys play well (the "right way") and the "want" to win are strong in him. And he understands that in order to have the second happen, the first must happen. And the players have responded.
I certainly hope that Diaco turns out to be one of the most important things about NU football to happen on the defensive side since old man McBride.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

Interesting points here. It could boil down to the thought that if coaches don't want to win more than players, there could be a problem. When Bo became short time, I think the will or "want" to win became secondary. Banker seemed to be more of a functionary in that regard. Diaco may come off as a weird kind of Cat, but it seems the desire to have his guys play well (the "right way") and the "want" to win are strong in him. And he understands that in order to have the second happen, the first must happen. And the players have responded.
I certainly hope that Diaco turns out to be one of the most important things about NU football to happen on the defensive side since old man McBride.

Part of the "fire" in Diaco for winning, I think, is that the man is still young and has ambitions. He was an "up and comer" at ND, but then flopped at UConn as head coach. The dude wants redemption and has a fire to be viewed again as one of the top coordinators in the country.

 

[Toms Wife]

Interesting points here. It could boil down to the thought that if coaches don't want to win more than players, there could be a problem. When Bo became short time, I think the will or "want" to win became secondary. Banker seemed to be more of a functionary in that regard. Diaco may come off as a weird kind of Cat, but it seems the desire to have his guys play well (the "right way") and the "want" to win are strong in him. And he understands that in order to have the second happen, the first must happen. And the players have responded.
I certainly hope that Diaco turns out to be one of the most important things about NU football to happen on the defensive side since old man McBride.

I get what you are saying about having players buying in and willing to run through a wall for him. I also like McBride's last few years. But man, I hope it doesn't take him as long as it took McBride. Charlie had some bad defenses by Nebraska standards for about a decade.

 

[SnohomishRed]

There was a lot of excitement when upon the second coming of Pelini and we did see a better performing defense when we had guys like Suh, Crick and that great crew of Dbacks. For a couple of years, we made Big XII offenses look pretty stupid. But it was as if there wasn't an interest in planning for the transition to the B1G and the move corresponded with a degradation of talent on the defensive side of the ball.
Diaco inherits a combo of Pelini and Riley recruited players. There is talent on the defensive side. Lamar Jackson was the #1 ranked safety, Eric Lee was #12 at CB, the Davis twins 22 and 24 at DT. And so on. And it seems that the players have bought into what Diaco is selling.
It wasn't as if the D was a total bust last year. Statistically we did quite well. It's just that, as in recent past years, the wheels came off in a couple of key games and that rightfully colored the season overall. I've posted this thought a couple of times, but if Diaco's D can tamp down on teams like NW, Iowa and Wisconsin springing chunk yardage runs, we win those games. Does that happen?

Bo had good defenses initially but then didnt recruit by the time he started recruiting a little better we were in the Big10 and he refused to alter his scheme - I dont care what some players said when he left I would bet many of those defensive players were tired of being blasted in certain games and embarrassed. Banker was not a good DC not because of scheme it was that he was simply not involved with his players, when you have a players leave your defense/team and you had no clue that is grounds for firing right there. He wasnt any good at OSU either

Diaco is a players coach, changing the scheme is just a bonus for me. He is high energy and after these guys not even knowing their old DC they are buying big time imo and we will see it on the field this year

 

[Harry Caray]

Meanwhile, Barf tries to rain on the parade again:

 

[headcard]

Man, Lee B is a grumpy old fart. Must be a blast at parties.

 

[headcard]

Meanwhile, Barf tries to rain on the parade again:

View embedded media

Wait, Diaco was a poor HC? Who knew. All that mattered to me from that article was this line: "So Diaco's gone. He was fired and he landed at Nebraska as the defensive coordinator, where he'll probably do well as a specialist"

 

[Toms Wife]

Meanwhile, Barf tries to rain on the parade again:

View embedded media

Having lived in Connecticut the article is on the money when it starts out:

A football program has to be run like a business, not a traveling circus with head-turning sights, sounds and ridiculous attractions. It has to be run by a CEO, not a car salesman..

YET, we didn't hire Diaco to be the head coach. He's not head coaching material. However, that does not take away from what he could accomplish as a coordinator. Leave the business side to Riley and then Frost. Let Diaco excite the players, get them to run through walls, and entertain the media and fans with off the wall interviews. It might just be a match made in heaven.

 

[inWV]

Diaco is a players coach, changing the scheme is just a bonus for me. He is high energy and after these guys not even knowing their old DC they are buying big time imo and we will see it on the field this year

It would seem that Diaco's interests are in having the ability to show multiple alignments.

 

[SnohomishRed]

Having lived in Connecticut the article is on the money when it starts out:

A football program has to be run like a business, not a traveling circus with head-turning sights, sounds and ridiculous attractions. It has to be run by a CEO, not a car salesman..

YET, we didn't hire Diaco to be the head coach. He's not head coaching material. However, that does not take away from what he could accomplish as a coordinator. Leave the business side to Riley and then Frost. Let Diaco excite the players, get them to run through walls, and entertain the media and fans with off the wall interviews. It might just be a match made in heaven.

I was thinking that same thought Riley needs an opposite - One guy way to calm and the other over top maybe it will put the kids heads somewhere in the middle

 

[inWV]

Having lived in Connecticut the article is on the money when it starts out:

A football program has to be run like a business, not a traveling circus with head-turning sights, sounds and ridiculous attractions. It has to be run by a CEO, not a car salesman..

YET, we didn't hire Diaco to be the head coach. He's not head coaching material. However, that does not take away from what he could accomplish as a coordinator. Leave the business side to Riley and then Frost. Let Diaco excite the players, get them to run through walls, and entertain the media and fans with off the wall interviews. It might just be a match made in heaven.

Randy Edsall was a good fit and UCONN and he's back there. For Diaco, UCONN was like a failed starter marriage. He failed as a HC, but not on a big stage. But I am sure that Diaco's ultimate goal is to be a successful head coach. One of his stated reasons for taking the NU job was a chance to work with and learn from Riley. If the talent level continues to increase and his systems are actually for real, we will have great defensive teams and compete in very meaningful end of season games. And programs will again look at him to be a HC.

 

[Minn1954]

I get what you are saying about having players buying in and willing to run through a wall for him. I also like McBride's last few years. But man, I hope it doesn't take him as long as it took McBride. Charlie had some bad defenses by Nebraska standards for about a decade.

You don't know what you are talking about. Charlie's worst defense statistically was in 1991 when the Huskers gave up 19.2 points a game which was ranked 36th in the nation.
There was never a ten year period when Charlie was in charge of a bad defense by Nebraska standards.
His defenses finished in the top 10, nine times during his 19 year tenure as defensive coordinator.

Points per game by opponent per year and national rank:

1981: 10.4 - 4th
1982: 12.8 - 8th
1983: 16.7 - 26th
1984: 9.6 - 1st
1985: 13.6 - 11th
1986: 13.8 - 7th
1987: 13.7 - 8th
1988: 15.8 - 16th
1989: 17.9 - 21st
1990: 16.0 - 14th
1991: 19.2 - 36th
1992: 16.6 - 21st
1993: 16.2 - 13th
1994: 12.5 - 3rd
1995: 14.5 - 4th
1996: 13.4 - 4th
1997: 16.5 - 12th
1998: 15.8 - 12th
1999: 13.2 - 4th

 

[inWV]

You don't know what you are talking about. Charlie's worst defense statistically was in 1991 when the Huskers gave up 19.2 points a game which was ranked 36th in the nation.
There was never a ten year period when Charlie was in charge of a bad defense by Nebraska standards.

Was going to post this, but didn't have access to the data and didn't want to track it down. Charlie gets dinged because he was over-matched speedwise by southern teams in bowl games. Once he went to the 4-3 and got better athletes on D, he was lights out.

 

[big red22]

I get what you are saying about having players buying in and willing to run through a wall for him. I also like McBride's last few years. But man, I hope it doesn't take him as long as it took McBride. Charlie had some bad defenses by Nebraska standards for about a decade.

Who exactly was "good" in your eyes? Anyone? You seem to have a beef with just about every coach. You know there is no such thing as a perfect coach right?

 

[Toms Wife]

Points per game by opponent per year and national rank....Plus Bowl Games.

1981: 10.4 - 4th
1982: 12.8 - 8th
1983: 16.7 - 26th.....31
1984: 9.6 - 1st.....10
1985: 13.6 - 11th.....27
1986: 13.8 - 7th.....15
1987: 13.7 - 8th......31
1988: 15.8 - 16th.....23
1989: 17.9 - 21st......41
1990: 16.0 - 14th......45
1991: 19.2 - 36th.....22
1992: 16.6 - 21st.....27
1993: 16.2 - 13th
1994: 12.5 - 3rd
1995: 14.5 - 4th
1996: 13.4 - 4th
1997: 16.5 - 12th
1998: 15.8 - 12th
1999: 13.2 - 4th

Fixed it for you. In his last seven years Charlie showed we could play defense even in the bowl games. During those years we gave up over a TD less on average in bowl games with the highest number being 24 against Florida because of garbage time. Add to the fact that scores were going up markedly on the offensive side of the ball in the late 90's and you can see a huge difference on defense from the late 80's/early 90's to his last seven years. Fans were wanting to run him out of town after the 1990 season when, for the second year in a row, he gave up over 40 in the bowl game.

P.S. In the twelve bowl games before Charlie's tenure, Nebraska gave up less than 20 points ten times. (The only outliers in those 12 games before Charlie were 24 points in the Blue Bonnet Bowl in a win and 31 points in an Orange Bowl loss to an OU team that Switzer called his best ever. In the other ten games we gave up an average of 10 points per game.)

 

[huskerfan1414]

Good article. I like the part about how the players noticed that when they followed Diaco's scheme "they made plays". This increased motivation to learn and follow that scheme.

We often hear people say "well that coaching staff lost this team by the end of the year". What does that mean? It means the players noticed that when they did what the coaches asked, that it did not work. They further noticed that the coaches had no answer to that situation and kept doubling down on the same flawed schemes. Players aren't stupid. They see, better than the fans, what works and what doesn't. And they lose confidence fast in coaches that seem outclassed by their opponents and can't make proper schematic adjustments.

I think Banker lost the confidence of his defensive players last year. No way we should have looked as bad as we did post-Wisconsin. I think it is telling that after Banker was fired there was not a single whimper heard from a single Husker defensive player. I think they were glad he was gone even if he was a very nice guy.

I will repeat what I said in another thread. I think landing Diaco may be one of the most important things to happen to Husker football in a long time.

Excellent post.

 

[timnsun]

Fixed it for you. In his last seven years Charlie showed we could play defense even in the bowl games. During those years we gave up over a TD less on average in bowl games with the highest number being 24 against Florida because of garbage time. Add to the fact that scores were going up markedly on the offensive side of the ball in the late 90's and you can see a huge difference on defense from the late 80's/early 90's to his last seven years. Fans were wanting to run him out of town after the 1990 season when, for the second year in a row, he gave up over 40 in the bowl game..

Just once I would love to read you admit to being wrong about something.

Even when Minn1954 posted actual stats that showed Charlie wasn't as bad as you claimed, you immediately have to defend yourself.

So with the amended stats, he had 2 teams finishing in the 40s, 2 teams in the 30s, and the rest in the 20s and 10s.

Wow, during that stretch Charlie was horrible!

Just admit that he was a darn good coach who made changes to scheme and athlete in the last 7+ years of coaching and became even better.

Is that so hard?

 

[hddude55]

Sam should just stay positive and avoid the hit pieces.

Either that or he should be banned from posting here, at least until he comes back as Mrs. Sam.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Just once I would love to read you admit to being wrong about something.

Even when Minn1954 posted actual stats that showed Charlie wasn't as bad as you claimed, you immediately have to defend yourself.

So with the amended stats, he had 2 teams finishing in the 40s, 2 teams in the 30s, and the rest in the 20s and 10s.

Wow, during that stretch Charlie was horrible!

Just admit that he was a darn good coach who made changes to scheme and athlete in the last 7+ years of coaching and became even better.

Is that so hard?

The numbers on the outside, that he added, were just the number of points scored in the bowl game.

Which of course were already calculated in to the numbers already presented.

Wha wha wha hah happened was......exactly what you said.

 

[jay-cheese]

Barfy better have a mask in his pocket to disguise himself. His old man hater schtick has worn thin. Are we likely to be undefeated this year? NO. Are we likely to be .500? NO. Give the negativity a rest (he seems like one of those "people" that pride themselves on watching others fail when ironically they'd fair much worse themselves in a similar spot. I'm sure the players can't wait to answer his questions-SARCASM).

GBR

 

[WHCSC]

Leave the business side to Riley and then Frost

Just stop it

 

[inWV]

Barfy better have a mask in his pocket to disguise himself. His old man hater schtick has worn thin. Are we likely to be undefeated this year? NO. Are we likely to be .500? NO. Give the negativity a rest (he seems like one of those "people" that pride themselves on watching others fail when ironically they'd fair much worse themselves in a similar spot. I'm sure the players can't wait to answer his questions-SARCASM).

GBR

I think the Barfster is at the "get off my lawn" phase of his career. The Kevin Steele and Big 8 Skywriters mentions in his recent article were a big time tell.

 

[Toms Wife]

Just once I would love to read you admit to being wrong about something.

Even when Minn1954 posted actual stats that showed Charlie wasn't as bad as you claimed, you immediately have to defend yourself.

So with the amended stats, he had 2 teams finishing in the 40s, 2 teams in the 30s, and the rest in the 20s and 10s.

Wow, during that stretch Charlie was horrible!

Just admit that he was a darn good coach who made changes to scheme and athlete in the last 7+ years of coaching and became even better.

Is that so hard?

Those are what we gave up in bowl games. Nobody talked about national rankings during those years. The perception was that our defense wasn't any good based on games against OU and bowl games. If you followed the team closely, you know that in 1990 Charlie's head was on the chopping block. FSU had destroyed us the year before in the Orange Bowl scoring 41 points. Then in 1990 OU scored 45 against us and that was followed by Georgia Tech scoring 45. The torches and pitchforks were out for McBride. It was Osborne's sense of loyalty that saved him.

Two incidents played into keeping Charlie for Tom. First, it was Bob Devaney. Bob had always been loyal to Tom first as his head coach and then as an AD. Tom knew what it was like to have his head on the chopping block and Bob stood by him. A second thing Tom mentioned was Monte Kiffin. When the heat was on Tom during the 1976 season and he was going to be fired if he lost the Blue Bonnet Bowl, Monte Kiffin bolted to Arkansas. (I'm pretty sure Monte and Tom haven't been real chummy since then.) Tom remembered that and it made a difference in standing by Charlie in 1990. We have seen the bad of standing by DC's in the last three coaches. Obviously, standing by Charlie was the right call.

Timnson, did you follow McBride during that time?

P.S. In five seconds I found this article. McBride was virtually gone.

They remember all too well the humiliating losses that ended last season: 45-10 to Oklahoma and 45-21 to Georgia Tech in the Citrus Bowl. ``If somebody could have sold my house then, I probably wouldn`t be standing here,`` McBride said. ``A lot of people told me to take a hike.``

 

[Minn1954]

Fixed it for you. In his last seven years Charlie showed we could play defense even in the bowl games. During those years we gave up over a TD less on average in bowl games with the highest number being 24 against Florida because of garbage time. Add to the fact that scores were going up markedly on the offensive side of the ball in the late 90's and you can see a huge difference on defense from the late 80's/early 90's to his last seven years. Fans were wanting to run him out of town after the 1990 season when, for the second year in a row, he gave up over 40 in the bowl game.

P.S. In the twelve bowl games before Charlie's tenure, Nebraska gave up less than 20 points ten times. (The only outliers in those 12 games before Charlie were 24 points in the Blue Bonnet Bowl in a win and 31 points in an Orange Bowl loss to an OU team that Switzer called his best ever. In the other ten games we gave up an average of 10 points per game.)

You are a glutton for punishment Toms wife. The numbers I listed for the average points per game scored by Nebraska's opponents included bowl games. How you can criticize a defensive coordinator that finishes in the top 10 in total defense in 9 of his 19 years and never finished lower than 26th?!
You state, "Nobody talked about national rankings during those years." What the heck does that mean?
During every televised football game, the announcers mention the offensive and defensive statistics of the two teams and how they rank by their conference and nationally. The NCAA kept national ranking statistics because nobody cared about them? Um, O.K.
You also mention the perception was Nebraska's defense was not very good based on games with Oklahoma and the bowl games. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with your original statement that McBride had a decade or so of not so good defenses when statistics show that statement is inaccurate based on facts, not perception.

 

[inWV]

The perception was that Charlie's Ds did not look good against teams we needed to win the title. But in fact, in several of those bowl losses, it was our offense that couldn't get the job done. In three of our losses, the score was 3-23, 0-22 and 14-27. Just as some of poohbahs wanted to run TO back in the 70s, Charlie was the whipping boy for our bowl woes in the late 80s early nineties. There is a very good piece on how the staff addressed the issue. No quick fixes (like firing Charlie), but a shift in recruiting and a change in scheme to take advantage of more athletic players. And focusing on principles and taking a systematic approach paid off in nearly knocking off FSU in 94 and then winning 3 titles in four years. The run of teams we had in Charlie's last 7 years was a streak of dominant play (8 losses in 7 years) that exceeds the last 7 of Bama (11 losses in 7 years).

 

[Toms Wife]

How you can criticize a defensive coordinator that finishes in the top 10 in total defense in 9 of his 19 years and never finished lower than 26th?!

No need to refute your points. Feel free to think what you want. I'm guessing you weren't following closely in the 70's and 80's. Above, it shows Charlie himself was the one talking about the wolves that were after him after the 1990 season which was after his first decade as coordinator.

 

[inWV]

The fact that Charlie got his seat warm is testimony as to the expectations at that time of a natty. Charlie looked like he was making that harder to achieve. The fact of the matter was that we needed to recruit at a higher level n both sides of the ball. And the truth is Charlie fielded some strong D units in the 80s and of course 90s. He was good to very good with lesser talent and dominating with more blue-chip talent. Just because Charlie caught the flack for TO doesnt mean it's justified.

 

[GeauxBigRed]

Having lived in Connecticut the article is on the money when it starts out:

A football program has to be run like a business, not a traveling circus with head-turning sights, sounds and ridiculous attractions. It has to be run by a CEO, not a car salesman..

YET, we didn't hire Diaco to be the head coach. He's not head coaching material. However, that does not take away from what he could accomplish as a coordinator. Leave the business side to Riley and then Frost. Let Diaco excite the players, get them to run through walls, and entertain the media and fans with off the wall interviews. It might just be a match made in heaven.

God damnit.. I was SO close to actually liking something you said. You just had to throw Scott Frost into it.

Oh well, try again next time!

 

[timnsun]

No need to refute your points. Feel free to think what you want. I'm guessing you weren't following closely in the 70's and 80's. Above, it shows Charlie himself was the one talking about the wolves that were after him after the 1990 season which was after his first decade as coordinator.

Jus stop. You added a bunch of corrections that were proven to be false. So it's back to Minn1954's stats. Those stats are pretty darn good. In the 89-91 seasons he had some pretty bad games, no doubt. But statistically, even with those bad games, he ranked highly. Had you said Charlie's defense had some bad games, you are absolutely correct. But to say Charlie's defenses were bad is proven wrong by the stats.

Things obviously changed for the better with the switch to the 4-3... hoping this switch can bring some big time changes to the defense as well.

 

[Toms Wife]

Jus stop. You added a bunch of corrections that were proven to be false. So it's back to Minn1954's stats. Those stats are pretty darn good. In the 89-91 seasons he had some pretty bad games, no doubt. But statistically, even with those bad games, he ranked highly. Had you said Charlie's defense had some bad games, you are absolutely correct. But to say Charlie's defenses were bad is proven wrong by the stats.

Things obviously changed for the better with the switch to the 4-3... hoping this switch can bring some big time changes to the defense as well.

You obviously don't remember most of the 80's. Nobody was hailing Charlies' defenses and Charlie himself knew it wasn't up to snuff in the big games. The defenses in the 70's were way better in the big games. Obviously the defenses in the mid-90's were way better. As I clearly showed you in the facts provided above, we stunk on the defensive side of the ball as the decade progressed .Against the weak sisters of the poor Nebraska could run the ball and clock, keep the defense off the field, and have good stats. However for a decade many wanted him gone. You can keep arguing this all you want but if you followed Nebraska at that time you know you are flat out wrong.

Again, you are free to believe what you want. I will cut you some slack because, perhaps, you weren't around then...or maybe you didn't follow the team closely...or maybe you just have a really bad memory and it's not your fault.

 

[timnsun]

You obviously don't remember most of the 80's. Nobody was hailing Charlies' defenses and Charlie himself knew it wasn't up to snuff in the big games. The defenses in the 70's were way better in the big games. Obviously the defenses in the mid-90's were way better. As I clearly showed you in the facts provided above, we stunk on the defensive side of the ball as the decade progressed .Against the weak sisters of the poor Nebraska could run the ball and clock, keep the defense off the field, and have good stats. However for a decade many wanted him gone. You can keep arguing this all you want but if you followed Nebraska at that time you know you are flat out wrong.

Again, you are free to believe what you want. I will cut you some slack because, perhaps, you weren't around then...or maybe you didn't follow the team closely...or maybe you just have a really bad memory and it's not your fault.

Or maybe you can just believe what you want too.

I know we stunk in the late 80s against the Florida teams in the orange bowl. I know our defenses were frustrating to watch against FSU and Miami 7 years in a row. I remember them well. And in the final 2 years, against Oklahoma and once against Colorado.

So yeah, if you wanna say Charlie was bad during that stretch I can't stop you.

But again, the stats that were quoted over the course of time Charlie coached were pretty darn impressive... his lowest finish was 36th, one finish at 26th, 2 finishes at 21st, and the rest were top 20 and top 10.

And you want to call him out as a bad DC His first decade. As I said, his defense had bad games, but statistically, he was a pretty darn good coordinator.

But go ahead and tell us all how much he sucked the first decade. No amount of actual facts will change your mind.

Don't expect another response from me in this thread. I'll save it for the next time you are being thick-headed in a thread. I will have plenty of opportunities, no doubt.

 

[Huskercigar]

Good article. I like the part about how the players noticed that when they followed Diaco's scheme "they made plays". This increased motivation to learn and follow that scheme.

We often hear people say "well that coaching staff lost this team by the end of the year". What does that mean? It means the players noticed that when they did what the coaches asked, that it did not work. They further noticed that the coaches had no answer to that situation and kept doubling down on the same flawed schemes. Players aren't stupid. They see, better than the fans, what works and what doesn't. And they lose confidence fast in coaches that seem outclassed by their opponents and can't make proper schematic adjustments.

I think Banker lost the confidence of his defensive players last year. No way we should have looked as bad as we did post-Wisconsin. I think it is telling that after Banker was fired there was not a single whimper heard from a single Husker defensive player. I think they were glad he was gone even if he was a very nice guy.

I will repeat what I said in another thread. I think landing Diaco may be one of the most important things to happen to Husker football in a long time.

I agree with all of this. Like many I had reservations about the Riley hire and the last two years haven't helped much. I wanted to believe there was a player cancer but something told me the new coaches have to create buy in. I upped my confidence in this year specifically because I think Diaco is going to help both the offense and defense with that energy and buy in.

I think when MR came on we got the polar opposite of BP and most of his staff was similar. However, Diaco brings some of that same energy back without all the negative 's that Bo had. Crossing my fingers. Not expecting miracles in the w/l column but really hoping we start to have an identity. Especially on defense. GBR

 

[ssmill777]

You don't know what you are talking about. Charlie's worst defense statistically was in 1991 when the Huskers gave up 19.2 points a game which was ranked 36th in the nation.
There was never a ten year period when Charlie was in charge of a bad defense by Nebraska standards.
His defenses finished in the top 10, nine times during his 19 year tenure as defensive coordinator.

Points per game by opponent per year and national rank:

1981: 10.4 - 4th
1982: 12.8 - 8th
1983: 16.7 - 26th
1984: 9.6 - 1st
1985: 13.6 - 11th
1986: 13.8 - 7th
1987: 13.7 - 8th
1988: 15.8 - 16th
1989: 17.9 - 21st
1990: 16.0 - 14th
1991: 19.2 - 36th
1992: 16.6 - 21st
1993: 16.2 - 13th
1994: 12.5 - 3rd
1995: 14.5 - 4th
1996: 13.4 - 4th
1997: 16.5 - 12th
1998: 15.8 - 12th
1999: 13.2 - 4th

Not disputing your post at all, but one thing to take in consideration: McBride had the advantage of being on teams that ran the ball well, dominated time of possession, and shortened the game for the defense.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Ugh...tulsa tom, ugh.