One small thing: James Rogers is a fourth year senior. Carr burned his redshirt by having him play some garbage time cornerback as a freshman.
Coaches' Clinic Tea Leaves: Defense
Continued from yesterday's extended look at the offense.
Scheme vs. Fundamentals: Fight
If you ask about the 3-3-5 and pull the string on a Michigan coach, this is what you get:
"Too much has been made out of it, scheme-wise," Rodriguez tells Ryan Terpstra on ESPN 96.1. "I mean, a lot of people are saying we're doing this or that, but basically, what we're doing this spring more than anything else is fundamentally trying to get better – trying to tackle better, trying to be able to react to the ball better so we get more people around the ball."
Greg Robinson said much the same thing to Adam Rittenberg and reiterated that to the folks at the coaches' clinic: "The fundamentals of leverage and angle and how a player uses his eyes and hands is more important than any scheme." I'm sure if you bugged any of Michigan's position coaches they would robotically intone a similar paean to fundamentals.
To this I say: 50% bollocks! It's not that fundamentals aren't important. Anyone who saw the performance of Craig Roh and Stevie Brown relative to expectations last year knows that how you tackle, cover, and read the opponent is a huge part of a football team's suck or lack thereof. You can ask Florida State about that. But I interpret "too much has been made out of it, scheme-wise" as "I would not like to talk about the details here; let's focus on platitudes." Certain defenses have strengths and weaknesses and fit other players better or worse, and while a defense that is robotically efficient is probably going to be decent that will depend on how well the players fit into the scheme.
The line should be the strength of the defense again. Will Campbell is rounding into a load, a true NT who requires a double team and holds up against it most of the time. At other times he gets too high, but they're working on that and by fall they hope he can be an anchor in there. Van Bergen is a redshirt junior who played well in a tough spot as a starter last year and is at a more natural position where he's doing well. No one's 100% sure that Mike Martin is going to be the other DE—the coaches will try him at both spots in fall—but Campbell "needs to be on the field" and Martin is likely to be Michigan's best defensive lineman, so that's the logical spot.
Michigan would like to get Campbell down another 10 pounds or so.
At end, Banks is starting in Martin's absence. Rodriguez mentioned yesterday that they've moved Adam Patterson to the nose, which 1) just about spells the end of Patterson as a potential contributor and 2) hints that Martin is going to start in the spot Banks currently occupies. I can't imagine a 272 pound senior is going to get substantial playing time as a zero-tech NT. He may be a situation substitution in pass-rush situations, but I kind of thought they might move Martin back inside and let Banks or even Roh take a crack at a speed rush when that happened.
The backups here are pretty sketchy without the freshman reinforcements, but Anthony Lalota was a regular entrant into the backfield against the second-string offensive line. He's RVB's backup with Heininger out.
There were some concerns about Craig Roh, who's a great athlete going directly upfield but doesn't have the lateral mobility to shuffle a step or two one way and then re-route his body in time to avoid blocking angles or get a proper zone drop. He'll be blitzing a ton; Michigan will be vulnerable when the opposition is running misdirection and Roh is being asked to execute linebacker responsibilities. Think waggles, counters, reverses, that sort of thing. He has displayed an aptitude in one-on-one coverage, though. He tracked a Michigan State tight end down and raked a ball free last year in a matchup that you'd think heavily favors the receiver; there were a couple other instances where his ability to cover a guy downfield was a surprising bonus.
There didn't seem to be a whole lot of progress with Ezeh and Mouton, though it's hard to tell with the move to the new system. Their responsibilities have changed and there's a learning curve that anyone would have. Moving to the 3-3-5 should allow Mouton to blitz almost as frequently as Roh; this is Mouton's main strength.
A surging Kenny Demens has been held out the last few days.
Observer A is a major believer in Robinson, though, citing that Roh play and a few others as an example of Robinson's ability to coach up players in a short amount of time. He was in charge of Roh and Brown last year; this year he's got all three linebackers. Robinson himself believes Mouton could be a breakout player. Here is a classic Robinson-ism that will make Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician delighted: "We just need to get him to slow down to play faster." Mouton overruns plays because he's "too instinctive" and doesn't always follows his keys, as anyone who remembers his 5-minus 8-minus 3 lines in UFR can tell you.
I've been pretty positive about the idea of running Jordan Kovacs out as a box safety since he was a heady kid and solid tackler and in the 3-3-5 DVD I have that is no longer a wasted purchase, Jeff Casteel repeatedly emphasizes that those characteristics are by far the most important when it comes to spurs and bandits. As a bonus, as the weakside guy Kovacs has the luxury of playing in space (usually) unblocked, so his size won't be a major hindrance.
HOWEVA, discussions with Observer A made it clear that running a 1-high defense* constantly is a recipe for getting four verticals in your face time and again and that teams could force Michigan into a two-deep alignment by formation or playcall. Jordan Kovacs being a walk-on sort of guy, they will do this constantly until Michigan proves they can deal with it.
Why not just deposit Marvin Robinson or Josh Furman at this spot in fall? Think about it: the bandit has to roll up to the line of scrimmage and act as a force player in the 3-3-5. Force players are important. It's their job to funnel everything inside of them. (This is often called "leveraging the football.") If they screw up, the runner is outside everyone and loping for a first down. In pass coverage they have to read and drop into flat zones, play something called "flat buzz" that I'm not quite clear on yet, and generally act as a cover two corner would. So there's all that. Then the bandit will have to rotate back into a two-deep on occasion, play a deep third when they switch up coverages, blitz, respond to motion, etc etc etc. It's probably the most complicated position on the defense. Throwing a freshman in there is asking for it.
Kovacs is Michigan's best option at the bandit, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a good option.
Spur is also sketchy. Mike Williams has plummeted down the depth chart and is now behind both walk-on Floyd Simmons and redshirt freshman (and scholarship possessor!) Thomas Gordon. Williams is healthy, FWIW. Gordon did get some daps/love/props from observers who thought he was aware and athletic enough to deal with the coverages he'll be asked to run—a "pleasant surprise"—but he's safety-sized and is going to be asked to play over a tight end. He's also a redshirt freshman. Simmons also made a few plays and might be an okay option as a backup.
Observer A evaluated this group of eight players as "slow, small, inexperienced, or injured." He didn't add "pick three," but my brain did. Michigan's got a couple of fantastic prospects for the future in Josh Furman and Marvin Robinson (plus Carvin Johnson), but a couple of painful years beckon before Michigan has any chance of getting a guy who has both athleticism and a clue on the field.
The combination of cluelessness and lack of crazy athleticism led to a couple plays were Michigan just ran a tight end straight down the seam without a bump and gave up 30-yard plays. Michigan has an adjustment they want to install, but they haven't done it yet.
*(A one-high defense has one safety in the middle of the field and is usually cover 1 or cover 3 unless the defense is playing a disguised coverage. A two high defense has two safeties approximately on the hashes and usually suggests cover 2 or 4.)
The three members of the secondary proper actually didn't scare Observer A very much. Woolfolk is pretty good, Floyd is improved—though he shared my skepticism he would ever be above average because of his speed deficiencies—and Turner, while rougher in drills, got the proverbial "just makes plays" endorsement. It's tough to tell a kid's playmaking rate based on limited observation, but the general impression I got was that Turner should be okay eventually. It seems logical that when the freshmen arrive, there might be some reshuffling with the spurs and safeties. Observer B also thought Turner "was OK."
James Rogers seemed to be doing well in drills, too. He's "beginning to learn the position," which is a sad thing to say about a
fifth year senior who's bounced around so much.
Cam Gordon is the guy at free safety, but you knew that.
Robinson's entire session at the coaches' clinic was on his tackling system, which is unusual in a couple ways: it uses different aiming points than conventional systems and doesn't ask the player to break down and wait for the ball carrier to arrive; you "shimmy" to the ballcarrier. It's also unusual because Robinson picked it up from a high school coach, something the old regime "wouldn't be caught dead" doing. Michigan's current group of guys seems far more likely to pick up an innovation being run by high schools or lower division schools than the old guys, who talked to the NFL and only the NFL, which is probably why they couldn't defend the option worth a damn for almost a decade.
Here's how Greg Robinson explains Braithwaite's hire:
Robinson used the new coach, Braithwhite as a demonstrator of technique. He said the “best demonstration” coach he ever saw in his life was Jim Colletto but he says that AB is every bit as good. The impression they give is that this guy was hired because a) he knows what he is doing and (b) he is great at demonstrating techniques to the players.
Observer B notes a difference between the offensive and defensive coaches: the offensive guys are "tireless" explaining and drawing their schemes, but it's hard to get anything out of Robinson. Where Robinson gets expansive is when it comes to the aforementioned fundamentals. There was a chalk talk in which Robinson spent a good deal of time illustrating the right way to do a "dip and rip"; Bruce Tall was also in the midst of an animated technique discussion that lasted two hours.
One of the best things about having a hybrid-laden defense is it minimizes situational substitutions in today's fast-paced modern football environment. You should be able to respond to whatever the offense throws at you without having crazy packages where non-starters get pushed into the lineup, and can adjust to bizarre formations (wildcat) on the fly.
Defense In Toto
I got a vastly different perspective from defensively-oriented observer than was provided by the posters here over the weekend. We're going to have to score some points. I think in objective "this is Michigan" terms the defense is going to be bad, but one of the main confusions batting about the internet at the moment is someone asking "is this defense going to be (as) bad (as last year)?" and someone answering "(in terms of what I have come to expect from years of watching Michigan play and taking that as a baseline) yes."
I had this same sort of foreboding Q&A with Observer A, but when I asked point-blank "will they be better" I got a pretty solid "yes," albeit with the caveat that the same guy thought they'd be considerably better than they were last year.
That doesn't mean the defense is in a spot where it will remind anyone of 2006, or even 2005. In the Saturday scrimmage the defense did well on the first couple series but "after that the carnage was brutal," with the offense moving the ball "almost regardless of what unit was facing what unit." You can get a hint of that in the quarterback stats provided by MGoBlue in the most recent Inside Michigan Football, which are 9/11, 9/12, 100 yards rushing, made a pony sort of things.
There aren't any walk-on punters who are serious threats to play; the best guys they currently have are averaging in the 30 to 35 yard range. This is Will Hagerup's job as soon as he steps on campus.
Placekicking will be an adventure. Brendan Gibbons has a big leg but is "erratic at best." Walk-on Justin Meram was the other kicker who participated in the scrimmage; he seemed accurate on short stuff but his range might top out at 40 yards on a good day.
I mean, is that too much to ask?
They had flashes last year, but stunk up the joint for the most part.
To be successful, the defense will need to be somewhat average/competent this year. Otherwise, it will be another long season, and I will die a little inside.
I'm not expecting a great/dominating defense but I'd like to see one that is competent too - making tackles when the opportunity is there, not getting gashed for big plays, etc.
.... should be the new name for the 3-3-5 given Brian's description ("One of the best things about having a hybrid-laden defense is it minimizes situational substitutions in today's fast-paced modern football environment.").
that you picked up the reference. Scary awesome. Plus lots to you, sir.
Let's hope this season of using Fuzzy Dunlop turns out better than the "test drive" did for Herc and Carver (or for Michigan in the 2008 Purdue game).
He should be a management consultant, (which I'm). He's got all of the multi-syllabic words down into the appropriate, marketing jargon-laced, techno-babble.
Maybe I'll reach out to him and dialogue about it. Then, we can circle back and put together the list of deliverables and value prop.
Part of me despises you. No offense.
Followed closely by transparency and a win-win outcome.
I think as an organization we really need to get beyond zero sum thinking and try to foster the innovative problem solving culture that will keep us ahead of the curve.
I have a pretty good feeling about both the offence and defense but I get the vapors (not the good ones) when I think about close games comming down to a field goal.
a good feeling? I remain hopeful, and didn't expect much better from insider accounts, but nonetheless I have a cold, shivering feeling all over.
not necessarily this write up. Maybe Im being a bit of an optimist, but I think this defense is going to have enough depth to be better in the close games late in the fouth quarter or maybe I just woke up on the right side of the bed this morning. Either way by fall I hope I feel very good instead of pretty good.
the line excites me the most, too.
Observer A evaluated this group of eight players as "slow, small, inexperienced, or injured."
This quote brought saddness to my day :(
Kovacs will be a solid contributor again this season, but the other position could be a revolving door until the freshmen arrive.
I believe M. Robinson will take over the spur position before it is all said and done.
should have taught you that you have absolutely no way to predict who the coaches believe is the best person for the job before they have stepped on campus.
My guess is that before they played a down last year, you had never heard of either of them.
Turner was a five star and is still not likely to break the starting lineup.
The benefit of a 3-3-5 stack vs. 3-4 or 4-3 formation given our lack of any solid CB’s/DB’s/Safeties? Maybe I am completely underestimating the value in the versatility of a 3-3-5, but if our best players are our DL and Roh, shouldn’t we put them on the field together as much as possible? Also, why put Roh further from the action? Just seems like we are setting ourselves up to give up a ton of yards and points with the 3-3-5 simply b/c our guys will, most likely, have to cover serious ground before meeting the ball carrier. It seems counterintuitive to believe that our leading tacklers will be our backs yet we will still be an elite unit. If I’m wrong, please explain (in laymen, please).
I'm in the same boat, our best defenders seem to include a defensive end (Roh) and two defensive tackles (Campbell and Martin). It doesn't make sense to me to change Roh's and Martin's position and responsibilities.
That said, Gerg isn't a 3-3-5 guy, so he's probably been sold on the benefits of a more simplistic scheme to keep all the young players that Michigan is going to have to play if they want any level of depth at all. Michigan can't spend another year not rotating anyone in the defensive backfield and hope to be successful. They'll be ground into a pulp by mid-season and spend the last four or five games getting stomped on once the first quarter adreneline wears off.
That's my take--it's a depth focused move.
...however, a couple things:
1. Michigan is not a 3-3-5 team, nor are they a 4-3 under team. They are a multiple package team that uses hybrids to be able to play all packages without substituting (goal line package(s) excepted).
2. The 3-3-5 is designed to confuse the offense, and with many inexperienced, undersized, or nonathletic defenders, this might help cover up said weaknesses.
I, for one, would like to see the combination of DEs VanBergen and Roh with 3-tech. Martin and 1-tech. Campbell as much as possible. And when we play teams like Iowa and Wisconsin (as well as MSU and OSU, somewhat), we will see that more b/c the formations those opponents run will allow us to do that. This is comforting.
the diary post on the 3-3-5 (sorry I'm lazy on finding the link, but should be easy to search on this site for it) that was also "pushed to the front" is a great pictorial on what the 3-3-5 is trading off versus the more talked about 4-3.
I think calling it a 3-3-5 makes it distinctive and highlights the fact that it's giving up an always inpenetrable run defense for a blanketing pass protect defense in todays highly variable and high receiver count offensive formations.
But you can also think of it as a 3-5-3, if you think of the hybrids as more linebackers than any other position. This still isn't accurate, since they are a completely new kind of skill set position "hybriding" skillsets from other positions.
But the phrase "jack of all trades" applies here, especially since most people ignore the second part of the phrase, "and master of NONE" The hybrids need to be decent ( a jack, not a master) at both sealing the outsides against running backs and running/scrambling QB's and also decent at covering any one running a pass route who isn't a deep threat wide receiver (which in my opinion can only be done by a master, or the two corners and the deep safety).
So thinking of it this way, 3 master DL and 3 master corners/safety, you can understand why a team would try to tear up this scheme by using 4 deep threat WR's in the offensive formation. One is going to be covered by a Jack, and 5 OL plus a running back will only need to hold off 3 DL plus a blitzer long enough for the pocket QB to find the one open WR
mean while our 3 LB's will stand around looking clueless, they have no one to cover, no one to tackle and if they rush the QB they are too late or just caught in the general mass of bodies.
Despite the general poor view on the skill set of the potential Bandits and Spurs, I think the bandit is the response to the 4 WR set, and the Spur is the DL add on. The strategy is that the Spur will be able to leverage the fact he's not on the line and targeted by the OL, and the Bandit will just have to find a way to disrupt the WR route at the line of scrimmage, cause no way is he hanging with Golden Tate, thus this is where the "headiness" is needed to just be able to perform the Hybrid role.
Now of course having a designated Bandit and Spur takes away the surprise factor, since the QB will key off the fact that the bandit just lined up on the WR, and he'll make sure the OL is targeting the Spur.
So yes, this defense will progress past last year, but they will not be the smothering defense that is lodged in everyone's mind from 1997.
But I don't think we'll ever see that again, since offenses already have the scheme/strategy answer to the 1997 defense. In fact WSU in the Rose Bowl almost did. And didn't they have an awful lot of receivers and a strong armed QB? nah, can't be possible that "spread" existed way back in 1997, And Michigan of 1998 wasn't completely torn up by a Mobile QB from Syracuse because dammmit, that was a Traditional Michigan defensive team, built by Michigan Men, applauded by Michigan Men and written up in the papers by Michigan Men.
Well time to go watch the 2008 Fiesta Bowl so I can remember what a Michigan Defense was like,
oh wait, we only won that by completely outscoring Florida in a high octane Sling Fest by a soon to be NFL QB. Damn now I don't know how to complain.
Not sure what to make of this here (especially towards the end - is that sarcasm?) but I guess the point I was trying to make was the following:
- I've always been taught that the best teams dominate from the inside out and that your best players should be the closest to the ball at all times (i.e. DL > LB > CB/DB, etc. in terms of importance).
- This new defensive alignment seems to turn that belief system on its ear.
- We (seemingly) don't have the right personnel to run the new system effectively so I am not sure why we would consider it now.
- We don't have any QB nearly as good as Henne in '08 who can consistently handle shootouts everygame. Our O averaged 24 pts against B10 opponents last year and we had to hang 40+ on Florida to pull it out. That is a heavy burden on such a young team.
I for one am for any formation that allows us to blitz the hell out of our opponent and bring our CB's/DB's closer to the line. If this is it, great. But, I fear it is more of a bend don't break system which is physically taxing and can lead to big problems if our O can't keep our D off the field with consistent scoring/long drives.
The point of the sarcasm was, "yes we have to wait to return to glory on both sides of the ball, AND the world has changed, and was changing way back when the perfect Bo Defense took us to a national championship and was paired with an adequate time eating offense"
So, I don't see much point in arguing that the coaches should have made everything good by now, or at least that is no longer an interesting discussion to me, and not relevant to this post.
But I did want to have a discussion on your other items that I thought were relevant, and since you pointed out the "inside out" as the way to structure a defense, it is very interesting to me that this is exactly what Coach Robinson said his philosophy was in his press conference, which you can read here or watch in a variety of places.
and it fits with my point as well, the core of the defense are the expert (or as I named them "masters") at their positions, so the 3 down lineman and the 3 linebackers. (I called the secondary the masters also, but they are on the outside, so not the focus)
so the trade off of the 3-3-5 from the 4-3 is to reduce the core by 2, 1 for DL and 1 for LB to increase the pass coverage by 2. The caveat being that the coverage be a hybrid position that can still provide support for the core positions they used up.
So if I have interpreted things correctly in today's nomenclature, the bandit takes away that core LB, and the spur takes away that core DL. Basically they don't have the same mass, but they also don't hone themselves on the one dimension, They must be good at two dimensions and do so with either not enough mass (covering for DL and run stopping LB) or too much mass (can't keep up with a vertical threat WR).
And we can have a discussion on whether this is the best strategy or not in today's offense scheme climate. I think it is for many of the scheme discussion information presented in this post as well as others.
Now the other discussion to have is, how is the talent shaping up and can they execute. For the moment there are two things becoming clear. 1 - we do not have top talent with junior and senior level experience in all (any?) positions, especially the new hybrids, 2 - defensive positions (except maybe DL) are thin.
This second part tells me, we will be scored on no matter what scheme/strategy is deployed.
But the first part tells me, this coaching staff is taking us in the right direction.
Both of my conclusions are debatable, but to really have a good discussion they need to be distinct.
I don't think anyone can pretend we have the elite talent (both experience and ability) to be a shutout defense.
But I think what everyone misses who is holding onto the belief there is a way to create a old fashioned Michigan shut out defense has not realized there are no longer any offenses running 3 yards and a cloud of dust schemes.
Whatever you want to call the range of offenses, they are all trying to dump it in the middle.
Watch any Peyton Manning game, the reason he is not sacked so often is that he can dump the ball off so quickly to a man running in space 5-15 yards away.
yes he can throw an accurate deep ball, but that's not the majority of plays.
how would you defend that? What was the lowest score Peyton put up last year?
"In fact WSU in the Rose Bowl almost did. And didn't they have an awful lot of receivers and a strong armed QB? nah, can't be possible that "spread" existed way back in 1997, And Michigan of 1998 wasn't completely torn up by a Mobile QB from Syracuse because dammmit, that was a Traditional Michigan defensive team, built by Michigan Men, applauded by Michigan Men and written up in the papers by Michigan Men."
Measure assessment, but fair I suppose. I'd rather be giddy with excitement, but the notion our defense will be improved next year is enough to keep me grinning.
"We just need to get him to slow down to play faster."
Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
So, what I gleaned from this is that our D-line will be good. Our linebacking corps( mouton, ezeh and roh) will be okay, especially if roh and mouton are blitzing regularly and ezeh can be consistent. And our back 3 should be servicable at the least; troy being the BG of this year cam pretty much solidifying the back and JTF being vastly improved from last year. I'm honestly not as worried about kovacks because he's closer to the line. He could have to slide to deep coverage, but he won't be there nearly as much as he was last year. Im most worried about the other bandit/spur(forgot). Im glad to hear Robinson harps on fundamentals because if we can get guys in the right position and not missing tackles more regularly this alone would better our defense. We don't necessarily NEED everyone to be playmakers.We just need everyone to not be playmissers.
I read all these observations and I get excited and worried within the same paragraph. Would it be possible that our D line is good enough to cover up some of the growing pains we may have at LB/spur/secondary? In other words, I'm hoping our D line gets consistent pressure to greatly reduce the amount of time our secondary has to cover pass routes.
Our D line got a ton of pressure last year (B. Graham), and the secondary still got torched with regularity.
I think that your point that a dominant D line can cover up some of the problems in the secondary is a good one, but it only works if the secondary is at least SOMEWHAT competent.
all of the big plays that hurt us landed into the soft underbelly of the Linebacking group. Our DL and Secondary got more critiscism than warranted. Any runner that gets out of the backfield was clearly the DL fault or coaches fault for not enough men on the Dline, and any pass play that was run into the end zone was poor angles or lack of speed on our secondary.
But the majority started from the linebackers area of responsibility. The new scheme sticks 5 players into that area of responsibility. The outlook is still grim because this is the area of least experience and talent (as required by the new scheme)
But since the coaches are still teaching what they started teaching last year, and which Coach Robinsone pointed out was good but not game winning good against OSU last year, then I think that things will definitely be better.
Will opposing offenses still attack the weak link? yes. Does this scheme end up in shutout? never.
But will it slow down the opposing offense more than our offense is slowed down?
And that's why they play the game.
everybody would be ecstatic about how great our defense is, right? Right.
As long as we're practicing against ourselves, a certain portion of the fan base will interpret practice performance in the most negative way possible, while a similar percentage will interpret it in the most positive way. It is literally impossible to please every fan simultaneously, but thankfully that's the very last thing on the minds of the actual Michigan coaching staff.
If some outside observer is a coach or former college player who is willing to identify himself, state the days he was observing practice, mention why it is he was admitted to observe in the first place, then I'll start to put a bit more credence in his commentary. Otherwise, I'm going to take all "observations" about practice by anonymous "insiders" about as seriously as most other stuff I read on the internet; i.e., there's a very good chance said "observations" are heavily influenced by the observer's preexisting notions and desires about who's good and who's not and who deserves to be a starter and who doesn't, etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum. "Observations" such as it was "common knowledge" that Tate has been injured during spring drills, all the while the coaching staff was strangely reticent to mention such an injury, while exposing Tate (along with the other QBs) to tackling like any other player. It was an article of faith not too long ago on the part of many here and elsewhere that Kenny Demens was a complete bust with no future, yet oddly enough here he is apparently performing well in the eyes of the actual, real, Michigan coaching staff.
Of coaches Gin and Tonic.
Speaking of the influence of alcohol, isn't Kenny the guy who recorded "I'm Alright" for the Caddyshack soundtrack? Isn't he a little old to be playing college football?
im tempted to get into the discussion about this post, but ill refrain, you guys seem to have everything figured out pretty well...
Did want to point out one thing though, for future reference.
The "high school coach" that Greg Robinson got his tackling system from is hardly just a highschool coach.
His name is BIll Williams, he is one of the most well known football technique consultants in the country. He has worked with Nfl teams and college teams. When people are haiving trouble tackling, he is who they call.
he works with football teams at every level
Texas still uses his stuff, buffalo bills, kansas city cheifs, denver broncos, all have called him in to teach tackling.
I know this becasue i have worked with him before, he was here this summer, and filmed his latest clinic video with us.
he is crazy, we get along very well..
hope to read more as the season gets nearer. Thanks for the info on Williams.
Bill Williams is a guru, but it is a fact that he's a high school guy. Nothing wrong with that; a significant amount of the good books/vids out there are by high school guys. The sad point is that the previous M staff would have never sought out Bill Williams.
Also, this is interesting:
Texas still uses his stuff, buffalo bills, kansas city cheifs, denver broncos, all have called him in to teach tackling.
...because three of those four organizations used his stuff b/c it was Greg Robinson with Texas, KC, and Denver who brought in Williams.
how is it a fact that he is a highschool guy?
he has coached at several different levels..
but yeah my point was that he isnt a "highschool guy" he is a consultant..
and yes i know about the robinson conection...
there are several other guys in college and the nfl that swear by bill as well..
I defined him as a high school guy b/c:
1. Most of his direct coaching experience is at the high school level. If you'd like me to consider him as more of a consultant than coach, I'm fine with that.
2. Greg referred to him as a high school guy.
am i being uneasy?
i was just wondering how it was a FACT that he was a highschool guy.
he might have been a highschool guy when he developed the tackling system, or when he first got called by Robinson, but i dont know of very many people that would introduce him as a "highschool guy" now
Again, i was just mentioning who he was, and what he is, becasue the article made it sound like he was "just some guy"
sorry to interupt. ill see myself back out
I really appreciate your input.
Know that a great many of us read, appreciate and learn from the comments that you do put on here, so be not discouraged.
Hope all is well with you, (and the Firebird)
Im doing well. hope you are as well
So i assume that since you went to the coaches clinic that you are trying to get back into coaching?
good for you..
I thought the Walk-On Hate would end when Hunwick saved our way into the Frozen Four?
Will it ever end Brian?
At least our Dline should be awesome. I think Obi and Mouton will be better, but maybe it's because they just can't get worse. I think this D will be a little better than last year.
I can't wait to see the competition really pick up in the fall when we add something like 15 scholarship players to the defensive side of the ball. With current injuries I'm guessing the 2nd and 3rd teams are stuffed with walk-ons right now, allowing the offense to dominate. Things should improve drastically in the fall and I think the defense will be okay even if we just get a normal contribution from the freshmen class.
I admit I was unhappy to read Brian say that we no longer teach breaking down in our technique. Then I remembered our defensive guys haven't broken down and form tackled since since 1997.
But seriously, while I have no idea what this "shimmy" technique is it does make me nervous since IME 90% of all of our tackling mistakes the last few years were precisely because guys did not break down.
is a break down, dont freak out. its just different terminolgy
profile tackles dont need break downs..