Tackling and third down conversions key to defensive rebound

Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini talked a big game at his first press conference after the Huskers 34-27 come-from-behind win over Ohio State on Oct. 8.


The Huskers, who are ranked No. 13 in the AP poll, had a bye and will resume action on Saturday at Minnesota.

"We're 5-1, we'd like to be 6-0," Pelini said. "But I think that with continuity we're starting to settle in, and that lends itself to us being a better football team in the second half of the year.

"I feel good about where we're at, where we're going and where our potential is. I think we're very close in making a big jump as a football team. It's about the daily grind and about trying to get better."

If the Huskers are to make a run at a Big Ten title, the side of the ball that absoutely must get better is the defense. On that front, Nebraska was supposed to be strong but has been a big disappointment. Pelini's reputation as a defensive guru has taken a hit this season as the Huskers Currently, the Huskers are 80th in the country in rushing defense, giving up 167.8 yards a game and 94th in opponents' third down conversion percentage.

However, I refuse to believe that Pelini suddenly forgotten how to coach defense. This is the same guy that replaced Craig Bohl as defensive coordinator in 2003. The Huskers ranked 56th ranked in total defense during a 7-7 season in 2002 but shot up to Top Ten during a 10-3 campaign in 2003. Pelini led a 17-3 win over Michigan State in the Alamo Bowl as interim head coach after Frank Solich was fired. Well, you know the rest of the story, Bill Callahan was hired as head coach and was fired after a 27-22 stint that culminated with a 5-7 campaign in 2007. The Husker defense ranked 114th under defensive coordinator Kevin Cosgrove. Under Pelini's guidance they shot up to 55th in 2008 and No. 3 in 2009.

So what's the problem now? In terms of the secondary, part of the problem was the loss of cornerback Prince Amukamara to graduation coupled with Alonozo Dennard missing the first three games with a quad injury. Even with Dennard's return, attacking the Huskers via the air is simple. Don't throw the ball anywhere near Deannard. Sure, he takes away half the field but when you can abuse Ciante Evans and Andrew Green there's no rhyme or reason to throw within 15 yards of Dennard. There might be hope, however, in the form of converted receiver Stanley Jean-Baptiste, who intercepted a pass that led to the game-winnin score against Ohio State. However relying on a guy that is making a position change has its risks.

However, part of the reason the secondary has had its issues is because the Husker front four has not gotten the pass rush -- and that was even before defensive tackle Jared Crick was ruled out for the rest of the season with a torn pectoral muscle. It also has not helped that tackle Baker Steinkuhler and end Cameron Meredith have underachieved. Thus, front four problems lead to secondary problems.

OK, so Crick is out for the season. Amukamara is not getting a year of eligibilty. Hopefully, the likes of Meredith and Steinkuhler can start to live up to their advanced billing. On defense, the only player that has lived up to the preseason hype is linebacker LaVonte David.

The Huskers are 5-1 right now but if they don;t shore up what has been terrible tackling and third down defense, this team will be in for more than a few disappointing outcomes. Poor tackling leads to oppnents getting good yardage on first down, which in turn leads to advantageous third downs they can convert.

The Huskers allowed offenses to convert third downs 30 percent of the time last year, and 32 percent in 2009. Even in 2008, when the Huskers were figuring things out under the new Pelini system, teams converted 34 percent.

Nebraska's tackling problems have nothing to do with the scheme. Players have been in position to make plays but time after time there are missed tackles that allow plays to be extended. In fact, I'm surprised legendary Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi hasn't popped out of his grave and yelled, "What the hell's goin' on out here!" or "Grab, grab, grab! Nobody's tacklin'!"

To compare it to other sports, a football team missing tackles is a lot like a baseball team making errors or a basketball team missing free throws. When the habit forms, the problem snowballs.

If that is the case, then the bye week couldn’t have come at a better time. Hopefully, the team can reset itself defensively and a defensive rebound is in order. But that turnaround must start Saturday.

So where does Osborne belong on TSN's list?

“Lists.” They can be broken into subcategories or become all-inclusive. The Sporting News magazine recently released a Top 50 list that falls into the latter category.

The publication compiled a list of Top 50 coaches of all time regardless of sport. Well, the sports accounted for are football (college and pro), basketball (NBA along with college men’s and women’s), baseball (MLB) and hockey (NHL). Well, if you really wanted to make the list ALL inclusive you could put Dan Gable on that list based on winning 15 consecutive NCAA wrestling titles at the University of Iowa. You could also include Augie Garrido for winning more games than any coach in NCAA baseball history (478) and five College World Series titles but you can’t make the list too big or you complicate matters much more.

Anyhow, the list had Tom Osborne at No. 34. Osborne (now Nebraska’s athletic director) went 255-49-3 with 13 conference championships in 25 years as the Huskers head coach and three national championships.

First off, great to see Osborne on the list. He belongs there with out a doubt. The list was selected by a panel of 118 Hall of Famers, championship coaches and other experts.

As far as college football coaches are concerned: Osborne ranked eighth trailing No. 3 Bear Bryant, No. 10 Knute Rockne, No. 13 Joe Paterno, No. 23 Eddie Robinson, No. 24 Bobby Bowden, No. 27 Woody Hayes and No. 29 Bud Wilkinson.

UCLA's John Wooden was the runaway overall winner, picking up 57 first-place votes from TSN's panel, which included Osborne, Scotty Bowman, Larry Brown, Whitey Herzog, Tommy Lasorda, Marv Levy, Don Shula, Steve Spurrier, Bob Stoops, Pat Summitt, Barry Switzer, Lenny Wilkens and Roy Williams.

The top 50: 1. Wooden; 2. Vince Lombardi; 3. Bear Bryant; 4. Phil Jackson; 5. Shula; 6. Red Auerbach; 7. Bowman; 8. Dean Smith; 9. Casey Stengel; 10. Knute Rockne; 11. Summitt; 12. Paul Brown; 13. Paterno; 14. George Halas; 15. Chuck Noll; 16. Bob Knight; 17. Joe Gibbs; 18. Tom Landry; 19. Mike Krzyzewski; 20. Bill Belichick.
21. Adolph Rupp; 22. Joe McCarthy; 23. Eddie Robinson; 24. Bowden; 25. John McGraw; 26. Bill Walsh; 27. Woody Hayes; 28. Connie Mack; 29. Bud Wilkinson; 30. Pat Riley; 31. Pete Newell; 32. Joe Torre; 33. Bill Parcells; 34. Osborne; 35. Walter Alston; 36. Bo Schembechler; 37. Toe Blake (NHL); 38. Sparky Anderson; 39. Al Arbour (NHL); 40. Amos Alonzo Stagg. 41. Tony La Russa; 42. Geno Auriemma; 43. Dick Irvin (NHL); 44. Ara Parseghian; 45. Chuck Daly; 46. Bobby Cox; 47. Hank Iba; 48. Tommy Lasorda; 49. Gregg Popovich; 50. Herb Brooks.

Is Osborne too low or too high? Like most Husker fans, I’ll admit to being prejudiced and think Osborne should be higher but let’s also realize that every sport at every level is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas and even apricots. Heck, maybe tangerines. It’s really not worth getting caught up in because again, lists are subjective. Plus, we’re going to talk about more than Coach Osborne. Why not? Because we can.

So I ask myself – whom should Osborne definitely be ahead of on the list? Looking beyond his aforementioned win-loss record, I can understand his 12-13 bowl game record knocking him down a bit but some of those loses also came against some damn good teams. However, the worst season he ever had was 9-3-1 in 1976. Plus, his 1994 Nebraska team that won the National title beat a Miami team (24-17) that had two future NFL Hall-of-Famers (Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp).

As far as college football coaches, I can’t argue ranking Bryant, Rockne, Robinson and Wilkinson ahead of him but Paterno, Bowden and Hayes? Sorry. True Paterno has 383 wins but he has also coached 18 years longer than Osborne and had five losing seasons. Bowden, meanwhile has 382 career wins. Yes, his Seminoles beat Nebraska 18-16 in 1993 but also thanks to an officiating crew that was dislexic in that they didn’t know the difference between William Floyd fumbling before crossing the goal-line and not before the goal-line, not to mention the phantom holding call on Corey Dixon’s punt return for a TD. However, Bowden has also coached 14 years longer than TO. Plus, Florida State has been a pedestrian 31-21 since 2005. As for Hayes, he has three National titles (like Osborne) but not as good a win-loss record at 205-79-9 with 14 conference titles in 30 years. Sorry, no sell.

As for the remainder of the list. OK, we’ve addressed Joe Pa at No. 14, Bowden at No. 24 and wilkinson at No. 29. One from another sport I would pick Osborne to trump:

No. 15 Chuck Noll (Pittsburgh Steelers): OK, I know some Steeler fans might whack me with their Terrible Towel. Noll posted a 193-148-1 record with four Super Bowl crowns in six years (twice repeating as champs) and recorded a mark of 101-29-1 from 1972-1979. However, the Steelers were loaded with Hall-of-Famers. The Steelers had one playoff appearance in the 34 years before Noll’s arrival. He has more Super Bowl wins than any head coach in NFL history. However, besides that run during the Pittsburgh dynasty, the team was fairly average in going 95-95 from 1980-1991.

You can make a case for picking Osborne over say Tom Landry (Dallas Cowboys) or Bill Belicheck (New England Patriots) but I don’t have a huge probloem with those two being ahead of TO.

Again, lists are subjective and fun to talk about but let’s consider ourselves fortunate that TO is our athletic director and was our head coach for several great seasons.

Winning might not be everything -- but, dammitt, it's more fun!

When legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi coined the phrase "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing," more than a handful of reasonable adults became overbearing when it came to youth sports.

For that matter, they developed that same boorish mentality when following their favorite college or pro teams. As a University of Nebraska alum, we have always been proud of our passion. However, that zeal can also have a polarizing view. In one circle that passion is great. In another circle, people will bristle, “You guys need to get a life!”

I find the latter view rather comical in that those who are outwardly passionate about their team sometimes automatically seem to get persecuted by some people as being “over the edge” or “win at all costs” or “a fan with no life.” On the other hand, those who are not zealous in an outwardly demonstrative way get labeled as “soft” or “apathetic.”

As if there were no in between.

Anyhow, that classification made me think back to another conversation I had with a former high school assistant football coach. This fellow asked me, “Vince, isn't it easier to cover a winning team than a losing team?” The reason this fellow used the word “cover” is because I have been a sports reporter on a variety of levels (from little league to the NFL) and started this recreational blog about four months ago.

As one who has had the chance to cover everything from little league to the NFL, I would say the answer to that question is “yes and no” but more the former than the latter. If the team I cover is a winning one, my paycheck doesn't increase all of a sudden. In one respect, my job doesn't change whether the team I cover wins or loses. Cover the game. Report on it objectively. Talk to the coach and/or players after the game. Same thing with this blog that focuses primarily on Nebraska football. The only difference is that since I am a fan, I can get away with being less objective.

From my view, however, yes - it is easier to cover a winning team regardless of competition level but is especially true from high school age and younger.
At the pro and college level, media members have an unwritten rule of “no cheering in the pressbox.” That rule sounds good in theory because as media members you are paid by your news organization, not the team or school as the case may be.

On the other hand, I've seen media members go out of their way to be too harsh on the team they cover just to prove they don't play favorites. That approach isn't good either because it comes off as too adversarial.

Covering sports at the younger level (i.e. high school and younger), however, is a different ball of wax. In multiple high school towns, you don't dare show any form of allegiance because the "rival" school is looking for a reason to go to the Bush League "you're against us" card. I use the term Bush League because it typically comes when the individual is on the losing side of the argument and he or she plays that card in a desperate attempt to get even.

In one high school towns, sports reporters have a little more latitude to have a partisan approach. I have somewhat mixed feelings about that procedure because it might lead to having clouded objectivity.

I will admit, however, that covering my local teams when they win is certainly far more pleasurable simply because, in general, athletes under age 18 have a psyche too fragile to want to read about anything construed as negative (i.e. a loss) in the newspaper.
On the other hand, I don't need to worry about that if the team wins or loses but plays well in the process. Plus, the senior year of high school is going to be the pinnacle of most people's athletic career.

In addition, I get asked from time to time, "How do you decide sports coverage or what your main story is?" Well, there's no hard and fast rule because every week presents a different dynamic. In addition, some weeks I might have more stories that are lead material than I know what do with but others might be more of a challenge. The main things I seek are timelines, newsworthiness and, of course, is the team winning. If a team plays well but loses, I'll have no problem making them the lead or going longer on a story.
Some people might say, "Well, do youth sports have to be about winning?" To some degree, I would say yes because people read a community sports section by and large for positive news. After all, there's more than enough negativity to go around by watching newscasts. There's also plenty of unfavorable news on Sportscenter pertaining to pro athletes breaking the law.

If I cover a local team that constantly loses, I'm certainly not going to omit the final score because I've got to draw the line somewhere. If I bury the story, however, it's not because I don't like the players and coaches in question.

Instead, I do it because having been a high school athlete myself of a team that stunk and got little coverage, I felt my hometown paper did the team a favor by not shining the light of us because we got plenty of razzing at school on our own without it.

Again, I think the idea of "winning doesn't matter" is pure nonsense. Notice how those buying into that notion often believe that having fun matters more.

Some folks would even argue that the reason winning is not important is that one out of every 100 high school seniors in America are going to get a scholarship to play a sport beyond high school.

True, however, I would argue that's all the more important reason to preach the importance of winning.

If a young man or woman has only one chance to play youth sports, why not make the most of it?

Having said that, winning and competition are indeed important but it falls on the adults to preach it in a constructive manner.

Contrary to what some may think, there are ways of doing it. Certainly, an occasional
loss can be a useful learning tool, but not preaching the importance of competition gives youngsters a delusional idea of what they will face in the real world.

In my real world, I enjoying covering winners and if the team loses, I focus no more on the negative than necessary.

If the home team plays well but loses a close game, I have no problem delving further because there's no shame attached to that idea. Plus, at least the team had a chance to win.

Just remember, whether you are covering the team as a media member or rooting them on as a fan, it doesn’t suck to win more than you lose. It’s just that there is a right and wrong way to preach the importance of winning.