I'm going to say this right now, the 2009 version of our defense is better than last years version.
I know we don't have Larry English but I think we have more playmakers at just about every single position. (Of course not DE or MLB)
We have Sobol on the bench! Not to knock him, but if we have enough talent where he can come off the bench as the #3 or spot starter for someone you know you have depth at safety.
The interior of our D line has actually played very well, I don't remember the last time I've ever been able to say that. Maybe back when we had Pittman? Maybe?
Our corners seem to be able to turn their heads and run at the same time. Amazing.
Our ends are solid. We are lucky enough to have enough depth to have situational DEs. Progar, Baxter, and Bolding can keep everyone fresh.
I think we'll give up yards over the middle from time to time, that happens in a 4-3 when you aren't AMAZING at your middle backer spot (Urlacher amazing), but I think we'll stop more big plays from happening than we could ever do in any other year.
(09-22-2009 04:14 PM)TheNEWguy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to say this right now, the 2009 version of our defense is better than last years version.
I know we don't have Larry English but I think we have more playmakers at just about every single position. (Of course not DE or MLB)
We have Sobol on the bench! Not to knock him, but if we have enough talent where he can come off the bench as the #3 or spot starter for someone you know you have depth at safety.
The interior of our D line has actually played very well, I don't remember the last time I've ever been able to say that. Maybe back when we had Pittman? Maybe?
Our corners seem to be able to turn their heads and run at the same time. Amazing.
Our ends are solid. We are lucky enough to have enough depth to have situational DEs. Progar, Baxter, and Bolding can keep everyone fresh.
I think we'll give up yards over the middle from time to time, that happens in a 4-3 when you aren't AMAZING at your middle backer spot (Urlacher amazing), but I think we'll stop more big plays from happening than we could ever do in any other year.
Pirkle will be ALL MAC NG/DT
For as much crap as Limegrover and the offensive staff gets, Claeys and the defensive staff needs to get just as much credit. They have done an amazing job with the defense. Think about hot much they improved in 2008 from 2007 with basically the same group of guys.
Quote:Our corners seem to be able to turn their heads and run at the same time. Amazing.
This was always the thing that frusterated me the most about our defense during the Novak years. Our corners could never find the ball. They would have good coverage, but the pass would be completed because they could never find the ball.
There's no doubt to me that this defense has more talent across the board than last years did, and I expect it to keep getting better and better as Claeys gets more of his guys in here. If any of the assistants end up leaving, I think he'll be the first to go.
Depends which 2009 D shows up. If it was the loose playing zone we played our first two games, then 2008 D> 2009 D. It appears we changed our defensive scheme vs. Purdue, and actually had our corners play up close to the line and cover their receivers during their entire route. I liked it. Much more effective. Hope they keep that scheme. Regardless of coverage schemes, I think this year's D, through three games, is tackling and swarming to the ball better, and is hitting harder. The jury is still out.
I really like our defense too. A solid run defense is one of the biggest keys to winning games, and ours right now might be better than ive ever seen it.
(09-22-2009 05:32 PM)7 Wrote: [ -> ]For as much crap as Limegrover and the offensive staff gets, Claeys and the defensive staff needs to get just as much credit. They have done an amazing job with the defense. Think about hot much they improved in 2008 from 2007 with basically the same group of guys.
Quote:Our corners seem to be able to turn their heads and run at the same time. Amazing.
This was always the thing that frusterated me the most about our defense during the Novak years. Our corners could never find the ball. They would have good coverage, but the pass would be completed because they could never find the ball.
There's no doubt to me that this defense has more talent across the board than last years did, and I expect it to keep getting better and better as Claeys gets more of his guys in here. If any of the assistants end up leaving, I think he'll be the first to go.
Agree. I always got the impression that we had pretty good linebackers too, but so often they weren't in a position to make plays. I wondered if maybe it was the coaching. With the improvement on the defense in 2008 with basically the same players, it does seem that it was the coaching. And it really has been frustrating watching the corner step for step with the receiver and not finding the ball. I remember a couple games with 2 Huskie defenders on the WR and the WR would still come away with the football.
That said, the jury's still out on this year's defense. Idaho's passing offense will be the next test.
Chris Smith can downright play.
The defense is better as a collective unit rather than as individuals.
I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
(09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
Indeed, and Wiscy's offense isn't even that dynamic. I think the lack of pressure we put on opposing QB's, unless improved upon, will hurt us down the road.
(09-24-2009 10:13 AM)Field Turf Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
Indeed, and Wiscy's offense isn't even that dynamic. I think the lack of pressure we put on opposing QB's, unless improved upon, will hurt us down the road.
Absolutely agree. Without a lack of pressure from the D, a decent QB will pick us apart.
(09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
I think you have to expect that the first game of the year that a D without its biggest playmaker / 1st round draft pick is going to have some growing pains. As great as LE was, Ill bet sometimes it was easy to use him as a crutch (a la Jordan and the Bulls... please no replies about how NIU is not the Bulls and LE is not Jordan) and the D this year probably found their identity sometime between just after the Wisky game and before/during the Purdue game.
I dont know if theres enough of a difference between the Badgers and the Boilermakers to say anything about our D, at least not by looking at the discrepancy in yards allowed.
(09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
There is no question this defense is better than last year, the biggest difference to me has been the defensive backfield. I can't remember the last time we had that much speed back there. They absolutely swarm to the football.
(09-24-2009 11:09 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
There is no question this defense is better than last year,
Maybe in your opinion. But our pass coverage absolutely sucked the first two games and we don't pressure the QB better than last year. And now just because we beat a mediocre Purdue team, "there is no question this defense is better than last year"? This defense could be better, but for you to say they are now without a doubt better, is just another in a long line of MD overtop posts. You're becoming the boy who cried wolf.
(09-24-2009 11:20 AM)Field Turf Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2009 11:09 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
There is no question this defense is better than last year,
Maybe in your opinion. But our pass coverage absolutely sucked the first two games and we don't pressure the QB better than last year. And now just because we beat a mediocre Purdue team, "there is no question this defense is better than last year"? This defense could be better, but for you to say they are now without a doubt better, is just another in a long line of MD overtop posts. You're becoming the boy who cried wolf.
And you are the boy that cried, "please eat me wolf"
How can you not say this defense is better than last year? The athleticism on that side of the ball has increased by 2 or 3 times. The line may not be better, but the defensive backfield is night and day better.
(09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
You sure that 23 yards is right?
I suggest waiting until we play a team with a legitimate passing offense before we make that determination. Western had a good passing attack, but their WR's dropped so many wide open passes, I lost count.
(09-24-2009 11:46 AM)huskie1stdown Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2009 10:05 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to believe it, and maybe I will in a few weeks, but for now, the jury is still out. The '09 Huskie D has a tough act to follow, with the '08 version leading the MAC.
I was very impressed with the play of the backfield vs Purdue. NIU did a great job of shutting down the Purdue pass attack as well as their running attack. I realized during the Purdue game that I have become accustomed to seeing opponents throw deep on NIU and either finding wide open receivers (1st play in Wiscy game), or getting a pass interference call. It did not happen last Saturday.
Also, consider that the Purdue running attack gained 175 vs Oregon, 315 vs Toledo, but a lowly 23 vs NIU and you can't help getting all giddy.
Keep in mind, though, that Wisconsin did score 28 points and gain 433 yards on the Huskie D, and while NIU does not have to play teams like Wisconsin every week, it does show that there are vulnerabilities.
You sure that 23 yards is right?
Oops! Good catch. Make that 147 yards in 23 attempts. Their QB got 53 of those yards on one play.
I have never been more wrong about anything.
Our D is awful. We have a middle linebacker who can't tackle. When you run a 4-3 your MLB should be the biggest badass ever. Ours just gets run over and blown off the ball. Say what you want, but the proof was out on the field today. He's not a good MLB. That's not to say he's not a good kid, or can't do anything on the football field, he just can't play MLB.
Our secondary seemed like they were avoiding the receivers like they have swine flu. It was awful. Sobol, Bryant, George and Smith ALL had at least 2 plays where you have to wonder what they were thinking.
The D line isn't that bad. We got some pressure from Boldin and Progar today. The line even caused a few fumbles, I don't think we jumped on them...but hey they caused em.
This D is bad. And I take back everything nice I've said about the back 7. I'm hoping there is some sort of shake up, if not I just hope they work on tackling and assignments - you know, the basics.