Eight Man Fronts In The Forecast Comment Count

Brian

I bolded this in the announcement about Adam Braithwaite's hire but failed to grasp its oddness and potential significance:

University of Michigan football coach Rich Rodriguez announced Thursday (Feb. 11) the hiring of Adam Braithwaite as the program’s safeties/outside linebackers coach. … Assistant head coach Tony Gibson will coach the cornerbacks and free safety position.

 Your response in the form of a cat—which they should totally do on Jeopardy, BTW:

Dude wait what

Braithwaite now coaches the safeties and the outside linebackers. Greg Robinson now coaches the inside linebackers, emphasis on the plural. Tony Gibson now coaches the cornerback and… uh… one safety position. What sense does it make? It makes none. It makes less sense if you believe the premium moderator folk who have been asserting that Michigan is in the odd habit of calling its deep safety "strong" and the guy who rolls up to the line of scrimmage on occasion "free."

So what the hell is going on here? First: however deeply screwed up Michigan's internal lingo about safeties is, my assumption is that the free safety is your deep-zone ballhawk and the strong safety is the guy who rolls up to the line as a semi-linebacker. It would be totally insane to give Gibson the guy at the line and some cornerbacks and Braithwaite one guy at the line and one guy in a deep zone. (Wags may joke here about Rodriguez's previous defensive hires. Take my defensive coordinator… please!)

So that means Gibson is the secondary coach and he is a man in charge of three people. Meanwhile, the outside linebackers coach has a safety or two. Hmm…

zonepresnap

Now, I know what you're thinking: ack Donovan Warren is about to get an eight-yard screen in his grill. Or ack Andrew Quarless is about to run straight downfield untouched for a 60-yard touchdown. Or ack… well, we were all around last year. The walls have dents to prove it.  The only thing you're not ack-ing is the defensive line. This is a digression.

The particulars of Braithwaite's hire indicate the eight-man front Michigan ran much the second half of last year was not an immensely unsuccessful attempt at emergency triage on a walk-on-laden matador defense but rather the intended base defense going forward. With so many bodies ticketed for Craig Roh's "quick" position, I don't think this presages a move to a straight 3-3-5 like West Virginia ran. The 4-4-ish set above is likely to be Michigan's most frequent alignment, with quick-as-linebacker sprinkled in as a changeup.

It's half 3-3-5, though. Aside from the disposition of the line and the middle linebackers, that's what it is. The secondary aligns like it's a 3-3-5. The "spinner," while technically a linebacker, was safety Stevie Brown last year and will be either Josh Furman, Mike Jones, Isaiah Bell—though he may have moved inside—or Brandin Hawthorne this year. All of the candidates were high school safeties tagged as tweeners except Hawthorne, who was a safety-sized defensive end. Last year the strong safety was Jordan Kovacs (tweener safety), Mike Williams (just a safety), or Brandon Smith (tweener safety), but this year it's likely to be Marvin Robinson, Carvin Johnson or Vlad Emilien: more high school safeties tagged as tweeners. The distinction between the OLB and safety is also in keeping with 3-3-5 principles: most teams have wacky names for the strongside (spur, spinner, ferret) and weakside safety types (hero, bandit, saber-toothed dragon) because they have different roles. As Jeff Casteel explained so elegantly on the incredibly expensive and totally useless (at the time) 3-3-5 DVD I bought, the weakside guy "gets his meat cooked"—does not have to deal with lead blockers—and the strongside guy "gets his meat raw"—oh God, that's Owen Schmitt and I weigh 210 pounds.

If I'm right, this is one hell of a bold experiment for Rodriguez. His ass is in the wind right now and last year's attempt to implement this was a flaming wreck unprecedented in the modern history of Michigan football. I'm not a coach but I do watch unhealthy amounts of college football and I don't think I've ever seen anyone try this 4-2-2-3 style of D—please correct me if this is not the case. It's a gamble.

[Update: Corrected. Virginia Tech does this plenty. Tyler Sellhorn:

Dear Brian,

Please don't freak out about the defensive changes.  Mostly it seems like a move to VaTech's defense.  The high school where I coach plays a very similar scheme to VaTech (visited Blacksburg twice to commune with Bud Foster and his staff) and has a similar scheme to what you are suggesting M is declaring. 

I think the best terminology for the setup is the 4-2-5 is "multiple" meaning that most of the defensive calls are intended to trick the opposing QB/coaches at the snap.  The OLBs are really more like SSs and rotate up and back based on d-call and opposition formation/personnel, and the "FS" is nearly an identical player who can roll down to play the OLB spot as well based on motion/personnel.  Up front, lots of stunting (lining up in one gap, crossing into another), lots of gap exchanges, lots of rolling coverages where the OLB/SSs will drop into deep coverage.  The scheme is sound.  Maybe you should do your HTTV tape study this summer on 4-2-5/VaTech stuff?

The biggest reason teams use the scheme? OLB/SS away from two-reciever side/strong side plays tight behind backside ILB so that he can flow hard to action away, OLB/SS has what you have called the scrape exchange.

Two notes: "flowing hard to action ", whether it was away or not, is definitely what Michigan was doing with Jordan Kovacs when he was the box safety and Woolfolk was deep, and who was the other team hard after Josh Furman? Virginia Tech.]

On the other hand, going from year one in a system to year two will be a rare privilege for these Michigan defenders—it will be the first time in anyone's career other than fifth-year seniors this is the case—and I'm heartened that amongst the flaming wreck at the end of last year there was a semblance of a long-term plan. By God, they were terrible, but they were terrible with purpose. This passes as optimism for the 2010 Michigan fan.

Anyway, we'll find out in spring if my speculation here is correct. I think they've tipped their hand. I have no idea how it's going to work out but at least they're sticking to one thing for the first time ever-ever.

Side note on Gibson-related special teams bitchin'. I've seen or heard a lot of this over the past couple weeks, and have to provide a "dude wait what" to that, too. Michigan's coming off a year in which they finished third in net punting, 23rd in kickoff returns, 62nd in punt returns, and was 11 of 15 on field goals. Taken together, the metrics indicate one of the best units in the conference, if not the country. Critics are likely thinking of Michigan's persistent inability to field a punt in the Rodriguez era, Zoltan Mesko going blue screen of death on his rollout option punt against Michigan State, and a couple roughing the kicker penalties.

Those things do detract, but they're offset by the kickoff coverage—I can't remember a big opposition kick return—and a few punt blocks. Special teams were the least of Michigan's problems last year. They have to replace both specialists this year so there might be a hiccup. Even so, I'm baffled by special teams criticism outside of HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL issues that I think are a little fluky. (Yes, even now.)

Comments

brianshall

February 12th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^

so appreciative for your amazing, intense, detailed coverage. Then there are times like this when I kinda feel sad for you. It clearly cuts you deep. Every bit of it.

kman23

February 13th, 2010 at 2:55 AM ^

To borrow from Bill Maher: New rules! Pass negative 400 and for 3 months you must 1. be banned from posting and 2. wear the "In Rich We Trust" shirt. If you're from Ohio add a third step (also for 3 months) wear the "Worst State Ever" shirt.

Smitty D

February 12th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

most teams have wacky names for the strongside (spur, spinner, ferret) and weakside safety types (hero, bandit, saber-toothed dragon Saber-toothed dragon = Awesome

Erik_in_Dayton

February 12th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

I'm confident that RR and Coach Robinson know what they're doing. RR used the 3-3-5 to good success and Coach Robinson has been around the block plenty of times...I think they want versatility in a defense, which makes sense given that you might face a spread one week and a power running game the next in the Big Ten.

CRex

February 12th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

That's a great link and has some interesting parallels to Michigan. They talk about tech running Cover 2, with 2 corners instead of Safeties being the Deep 2 is interesting when you consider how we're looking at taking Dorsey, a stud HS safety, and make him a corner. Also the talk about how the 4-4 adapts to the spread is interesting. Helps explain why we're either converting safeties into a "coverage LB" and looking to recruit a decent haul of potential coverage Linebackers.

msoccer10

February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^

If what Brian says is correct, it would seem the corner's main job is not to get beat deep, ever. In that case, the outside linebacker and close safety are tasked with covering the short screens. That didn't work out so well last year. I distinctly remember Mike Williams getting chewed out for getting to the wr late. Hopefully we can figure out a way to get those guys out wider so the screens aren't so easy for our opponents. That would also make sense to put Dorsey as a corner since he will be one of the fastest guys on the team.

RagingBean

February 12th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

I feel like this 4-2-2-3 that Brian is talking about operates differently than the VT defense. The article you linked talks about how Bud Foster has walked his old Rover OLD back to the SS position, to counter the Spread, whereas this crazy thing seems to be doing the opposite. My only worry with this defense is that it will limit our ability to have safety help in man coverage. If our FS is walked down into the box I'm not sure how he can get out to help in deep coverage. But then, maybe that's the point, RichRod and Gerg want to run predominantly Cover 1 with man and Cover 3 with zone and keep athletes in the box to counter spread and power games alike.

Huntington Wolverine

February 12th, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^

I think there's a solid point in your second paragraph. That may explain why we often played our CBs on an island with 5-8 yd cushions off the WR. If RR and GERG are looking at something philosophically to VaTech, I'm excited to see what year 2 could look like even having lost Warren and Graham. I'm not excited about losing those two by any means but it seems like VaTech's system can cover a lot of individual deficiencies once the guys figure the system out which could lead to our defense being stronger this year even though we'll still be young.

Crime Reporter

February 12th, 2010 at 12:59 PM ^

We finally have enough corners that the D can sprinkle in nickel and dime packages, instead of having one of the LB cover a third or fourth receiver. They rarely switched it up last year, and spread teams (well just about everyone else, too) killed us.

jtblue

February 12th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

This may just be the beginning of Coach Rod pushing all of his chips to the center of the table...Here's to hoping the new kids can ensure he hits it big I will love the 4-2-2-3 if... * It improves our angles to the ball * Prevents Jonas and Obi from biting on every stinkin play action * Puts a premium on putting the most speed on the field as possible. Love the Kovacs story and all, but man if he wasn't the second guy into the opponents end zone on so many plays 4-2-2-3 - Geez Brian, this blog is ridiculously good

kman23

February 13th, 2010 at 2:37 AM ^

Your quote "but man if he wasn't the second guy into the opponents end zone on so many plays" is the line I've been looking for all year to describe Kovacs. I think the D is more a 3-1-2-2-2-1 then a 4-2-2-3 but that's just being picky.

colin

February 12th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^

Coaching The Under Front Defense (Now with Smart Football blurb!): http://www.amazon.com/Coaching-Under-Front-Defense-Gordon/dp/1606790765… And it's pretty great/enlightening. For one, I can figure out who is where on the field now without having to look at their numbers because the Sam sets the defense and everyone lines up based on that. So if I knew where Stevie was, I could find everyone else when I went back and watched games. This and other various details leads me to believe that the following statement:
If I'm right, this is one hell of a bold experiment for Rodriguez. His ass is in the wind right now and last year's attempt to implement this was a flaming wreck unprecedented in the modern history of Michigan football. I'm not a coach but I do watch unhealthy amounts of college football and I don't think I've ever seen anyone try this 4-2-2-3 style of D—please correct me if this is not the case. It's a gamble.
Isn't really accurate. It's not exactly a bold experiment to base out of a 4-3 under with a single high safety. This is all more or less what Meyer, Saban and Carroll are/were after, with slightly different implementations. Carroll is the closest, since I know he ran the 4-3 under, but Saban is well known for his single high safety C3/C1/pattern reading defense. Florida has a similar package that I assume they base out of, but I don't watch enough to know. And here's Bud Foster running a single high with robber.

Birdman

February 12th, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^

Richrod already invented the new college offense, why can't he go invent the new college defense too. ...Cheering for offense isn't as fun as I thought it would be though.

colin

February 12th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^

The primary difference between the defenses I mentioned and what we expect to throw out there seems to be in size. Rich prefers speed to size? That sounds about right. He hasn't had the success on the field to get the huge dudes who can still run, so he's forced to make some sacrifices. Still, I expect we'll eventually see Sam backers in the 230 lb range once our depth and skill issues get ironed out.

Birdman

February 12th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

There has been a shortage on dudes that can run period. Size might still be an issue when it comes to making the tackles, but I think the defense has to be in position to make tackles before they can be too small to make them.

swdude12

February 12th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^

I hated the zone coverage they always ran...it seemed like every pass completed was under neath the umbrella coverage. Like 3 people were around the WR but no one actually covering him.

jmscher

February 12th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

As Brian mentioned the screen cap and idea of playing this D as a base has brought back some nightmares of wide open WR screens as the box safety or SAM scrambles into a position to defend said screen. Is that just a vulnerability of this d alignment(a vulnerability that experience and an upgrade from Kovacs' lack speed can minimize)? Or are there wrinkles that weren't implemented last year mitigate against simple pitch and catch plays going for 8 yards all the time?

dleet

February 12th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^

When you say "WR screens" are you referring to 1) line of scrimmage passes with a block or two in front of the WR, or 2) just a quick throw where the WR is on his own and has to make the CB miss? Assuming it is run out of a 2 WR under center set like in the screenshot, for 1 we can probably blame our linebackers last year for being very poor in diagnosing plays and shedding blocks. If it's 2, then this will be a play that you more-or-less give up wheneveryou show a cover-3 look with the corners backed off. This sort of play is used effectively as a pre-snap audible in a lot of NFL offenses for this very reason.

jmscher

February 12th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^

The 2 WR I-form look in the screen cap would be my biggest concern. With the CB (warren above) playing 10 yards off, and the box safety (looks like williams but i can't get a great look at the number) playing too far inside to defend the WR, isn't a simple audible and quick easy throw pretty much a guarantee 7/8 yards with almost no risk. How can we play a base D that has such a clear problem? I am assuming I am missing some variation here that can stop such a play. I would think we would have an even greater vulnerability to a one back three wide look and a bubble screen with the slot guy lining up a bit outside of the box safety. Obvs some of our problems last year were a lack of speed out of one safety spot and a lack of talent/experience out of the other safety, but this vulnerability seems systemic and talent/experience upgrades won't help

Space Coyote

February 12th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^

I don't think that is our base D. Last year, Warren was responsible covering deep thirds, if not halves, much of the time due to our poor safety play. This forced him to be backed off the line quite a bit and forces the free safety (typical SS) or linebacker (SAM typically, Brown's position) to read that quick check to the WR. If the o-line and back field indicate run (as in run blocking and so forth) the free and SAM are typically sucked into run support and thus resulting in those easy 8 yard gains. With better safety play however you will see less of one CB dropping back into deep zones, unless it is a rolled coverage that would allow the free to basically shoot straight out to the WR and disregard the initial run look the offense is giving. So, in sum, my feeling towards the "base 4-2-2-3" (4-2-5, though I'm pretty confident that it's still a 4-3 above) image above is that the CB is rolled back due to poor safety play, and because the free is sucked into run support pre-snap.

jmscher

February 12th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

So if I'm reading you guys right (and thanks for the answers) next year we can expect the CB closer to the line (to help stop the short pitch & catch play) giving the box safety deep third responsibilty. We couldn't do this last year because the safety play wasn't quite there yet (trying to be kind). So the schematic problems weren't so much about the scheme itself but about compensating for some talent deficiencies on D. This gives me some hope that the article on weak links on D that Brian linked to a couple weeks back might be operative here and replacing said weak links might have a bigger positive impact on the defense than replacing strong links (Graham, Warren, Brown) will have a negative impact. At least maybe a reason for hope.

colin

February 12th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

in that book i linked to devoted to running the 4-3 under vs. 2 backs. iirc, the point of the defense is to make sure you always have someone unblocked in the front. in the screencap from the post, you can see this is true. 2 WR + 1 QB + ball carrier = 7 blockers. but as I tried to show in that HTTV article, teams have no problem at all letting Jonas and Obi run around unblocked.

dleet

February 12th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^

Well that screenshot looks fine to me, although I can't claim that it is representative of their schemes or anything. If you look at where the offense is lined up, they're on the left hash from the defense's point of view. This gives the offense less space on that side of the field. It's probably a key for the defense pre-snap which may allow Warren to line up a little deeper than usual and perhaps for Williams to line up a little closer to the middle of the field. Also if you look at Williams' stance, his hips are facing towards the sidelines. This is a good reason to guess that his pass coverage assignment on this call would be flats or buzz (defend against outside curls/out routes). Also with 3 wide receivers we would probably tend to line the box safety directly over the slot receiver, and we would still have 7 in the box.

kman23

February 13th, 2010 at 1:06 AM ^

Williams should drop back to around the 32 yard line though and cut off all these short throws. The QB sees the hole between the safety (Williams) and the CB (Warren), the WR runs the 5-7 hook/slant and the QB throws seeing 3 yards between the WR and the CB. But if you have a good safety (which we didn't last year) once he sees its not a pass he should drop back into that zone right in front of the WR. If he reads and reacts quickly to the QB's eyes its a pick-6, if he reacts slowly but is in the right place its a scary throw and the WR gets popped. The 2nd time the QB sees this he'll throw a bit higher allowing for an overthrow to the CB. The key to this defense is an athletic safety who drops back and out while reading the QB's eyes. Since he's normally not in man (but can be if there are 2 WR on that side) he is free to look at the QB and just react. They safety also needs to be big enough to thump the WR on a slant and hold up a RB trying to get outside until the CB/S arrives.

kman23

February 13th, 2010 at 1:10 AM ^

Basically the goal of this defense is to force the WR to run up and out since the middle is covered by 5 players that make a pentagon. The MLBers cover the short middle or base of the pentagon (3-5 yards behind the D-line), the Spinner and FS cover the outside of the middle or outside points of the pentagon (7-10 yards from line of scrimmage) and the deep safety or SS covers the top of the pentagon. Basically the QB has a small hole in the middle of the pentagon (above the LBers, in front of the deep safety and inside of the safeties) or must throw deep (behind corners but outside since middle is covered by deep safety) or in front of the corners. Ideally short outs can be jumped but the safeties and the long passes outside are covered by the corners.

Erik_in_Dayton

February 12th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

I don't know about any wrinkles, but I do think that the D looked especially bad on those plays b/c of the lack of speed of Kovacs and/or poor play of Williams...Also, I'm using the term "free safety" in the way that the coaching staff apparently does, i.e., to refer to the guy who you'd typically think of as the strong safety.

kman23

February 13th, 2010 at 1:00 AM ^

Yeah it was in large part due to bad safety play by Kovacs and WIlliams. Remember in the 4-4 the 2 outside safeties should be able to cut off all outside runs and short slants. They just need to get there (problem with Kovacs especially) and trust the LBs to cover the middle, which was also part of the problem since Mouton and Ezeh cannot cover either players in man to man or zone.

stubob

February 12th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^

Is referring to the scheme as a 4-2-2 rather than a 4-4 just a reflection of the coaching allocations, rather than any schematic difference? I would think the inside/outside or weakside/strongside LBs would have different assignment and responsibilities, and assigning a specific coach to them seems more like a coaching allocation change rather than a schematic one. That being said, I like the idea of breaking the defensive alignment into smaller chunks to better define their roles and relative roles on the field. Anybody can create a scheme, but it takes serious smarts to create one strong, flexible, and still simple enough to be understood on the field from play to play without a PhD. If I were to play defense, I'd have to be the Frodo: small, remarkably hairy, tough but prone to fall down often.

wolverine1987

February 12th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^

Brian crystalized the issues I had nagging at the back of my mind after the announcement. In his words, how does this make sense? I don't get it, and I don't see how this makes the teaching and coordination aspect of the defense anything but harder--precisely what we don't need with our defensive players. I ma fearful of continued death on defense. Please, someone knowledgeable talk me down.

bsb2002

February 12th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^

the truth of the matter is we'll run different schemes different games, just as we did last year. taking a position coaching hire as a decision to entirely change the structure of the defense is overreacting.

Ziff72

February 12th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^

I wish RR or Greg or somebody would host a nerd chat or something to explain some of what they are doing. This would cut down on the hand wringing for no reason. No one knows anything and the promotion of a db coach has lead to a wild extrapolation. Here is what I know so far. 1. Robinson is still the DC and we finally have got a guy in place for a whole 2 years in a row so that is good. 2. Knowing that continuity is important I'm sure RR and Gerg do not have a lot of massive changes planned for this defense schemewise, especially considering the youth in the backfield this year. 3. Everyone gets way too excited about scheme, the key is to get the athletes and have them all on the same page. With the diversity of packages offenses run, it's important that the players can adapt quickly and understand what they are supposed to be doing. VT is successful with 1 d, Alabama is successful with a different d, Penn St a differnt d, the key is talent and consistent teaching, you only have the kids for 5 years and limited time. 4. No coordinator sets up there defense to be bad against the run. Just because they have 3 downlineman doesn't mean that Wisconsin will run it down out throats(please cheeck in with the Pittsburgh Steelers). The reason teams ran and passed on us is because we stunk not the scheme.