The move to 4-3
Mattison has us transitioning to a 4-3 defense. This strikes me as a good decision, in the abstract. But I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about this. How will it fit our personnel? What will it allow us to do on defense? What, specifically, will it help us improve upon from our 2010 defensive nadir? Are there any drawbacks to using scheme in the Big 10 or FBS that we should be aware of?
February 7th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
One thing I think gets overlooked is that playing a 4-3 doesn't mean you have to find four linemen, but rather seven or eight healthy bodies. You can't run the same four guys out there all day and expect them to hold up. Last year, the young guys (Ash/Campbell/Washington) weren't ready to play (according to the prior staff). This to me is a big reason we saw the team switch to a three man line. You basically had Martin, Patterson, and Sagesse as the only real tackles on the roster. Right off the bat you are playing a tight rotation if you use two of them and if somebody gets hurt (as Martin did) you have no depth and are left either switching your defense around, playing an undersized guy like RVB or Banks inside, or sticking a guy who isn't ready yet into the lineup at the expense of all other options.
Next year, those three young guys I mentioned earlier are going to be the key. That second DT position (and the depth at both spots) is a huge variable and will go a long way in determining how the defense performs. If none of them can step up and become solid contributors, you'll see some improvement as the rest of the defense matures but things will still be a struggle on that side of the ball. If they can just take some attention away from Martin and not screw things up, they open up opportunities for the rest of the defense to make plays and become a more aggressive unit (having blitzers or guys like Black and Roh getting favorable matchups would be very nice). If one of those guys emerges as a star player and the others provide adequate depth, they'll probably build a statue of Greg Mattison outside the stadium.
The variables are pretty big. None of the guys have seen any significant playing time (though with their youth this is understandable) and DT's are always enigmatic when it comes to projecting future performance (measurables don't always translate into good play). On the other hand, all three guys seem to have the size, agility, and recruiting pedigree to suggest they can do big things as they gain experience. It will be interesting to watch and should be the one position battle that has a direct, significant impact on how many games the team can win next year.
February 7th, 2011 at 11:22 PM ^
This is exactly the kind of detailed, informed reply I was looking for. Good stuff.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
I think we set up well for a 4-3 and there is certainly no down side to it. It's the ideal defense in the big 10. A 3-4 would be nice, but it's tough to implement without the right players. We have too many 4-3 OLB types on the team and Roh and Martin are minimalized to some degree. Martin as a run plugger, Roh in space.
The key to it this year is obviously the NT spot, or whatever you want to call the spot next to Martin. I'm confident Washington can at least be solid in short yardage situations, but can he be a full time DT for us? Ash was supposedly impressive in bowl practices and will go through his second year of offseason training with us. I think we really need him to be a factor. All 4 of our DTs need to be at least rotation worthy really. Ash or Campbell can rotate with Q at the one spot and whoever loses that battle needs to at least be able to rest Martin. I suppose RVB can be the 4th DT if Ash or BWC is a bust. Ideally he mostly plays DE though. If that is the case, our DE rotation is pretty strong with him,Roh and Black, plus hopefully Wilkins and/or Beyer is ready to contribute. Beyer is a freak athlete and will likely play at about 240, not the 220-5 he's listed at. I think he could be effective spelling the starters occasionally as a pass rush specialist. He's more capable of dropping into coverage than Roh too IMO, so MAttison will probably want to use that. I'd feel better if we had gotten Cooper
If we manage to solidify that NT spot, I don't see LB as an issue. We'll mostly keep blockers off them and Demmens is a rock in the middle. Gordon,Ryan,Furman,Fitzgerald,M.Jones and maybe even Herron,Carvin or one of the freshmen are solid options to take hold of the 2 OLB slots. None are proven, but Cam looked pretty good as a LB and we've all heard the Ryan mythyology by now. Fitzgerald is a good talent who will be a senior,Jones has flashed potential and Furman is a hell of an athlete who needed time to bulk up to LB size. Carvin was one of our best tacklers as a true freshman and may not have the coverage skills for S, especially FS if Kovacs and/or Marvin Robinson are manning SS. I think we are about to see a return to the type of LBs we are used to seeing at Michigan, flying around the field and hitting people.
The secondary is key, but that's true regardless of scheme. We'll be better with a year of experience, a freshman class that at worst is better than last year's seniors(basically Rogers since Troy W was hurt) and Woolfolk back. A WR could be moved here to even out the depth charts. Someone like Grady or Stokes who sees their opportunities shrinking by the day at WR makes sense. Grady has been talked about before, not sure if Stokes could do it. If a young talent like Christian or Countess can beat out Floyd for the 3rd CB job, we'll be in much better shape. Floyd is probably not a top 3 CB in the big 10. Also Christian or Floyd will likely be the FS on passing downs. Christian could take the every job down even if he impresses.