Scott Shafer As Tony Franklin

I know WVU's numbers didn't look bad this past year. However, I would argue that several of the "traditionally up" teams in the big East had a "down year" especially offensively. I want to be positive on anyone RR picks, but GOD, can I be the only one who sees the the flashcard that says "WVU defense" instantly thinks of the up-and-down-the-field games against L'ville, or anyone else who could throw? It's just a gut feeling, but I'd rather not see Casteel come. I remember being happy/relieved about the fact that while the offense came with RR, the defense largely didn't.
I'd support Hopson (for the sake of finding another 3-3-5 guy who buys in), but have to admit, the Auburn guy (Rhoades?) is quite a pull for me. I'd take some of that D anyday.

believing in a coach and having blind faith are two different things. you saw the ineptness on the offensive side of the ball when we brought in a new system. if we goto a 3-3-5 expect that on the defensive side. this would not be good...

How do I send a question to the mailbag and for the sake of efficiency, a key virtue of all members of the Michigan Workers' Congress I'm sure, the question is:

What were the differences that led to Michigan's defense sucking and Auburn's still being respectable under very similar circumstances (DC new to the program, awful offense)?

I've thought part of it may be the SEC offenses being fairly mediocre this year and more depth of quality Big Ten offenses, the conflicting philosophies of Schafer and RR, and also that the entire UM staff was new and unfamiliar with the players where as at Auburn only the coordinators were new.

What were the differences that led to Michigan's defense sucking and Auburn's still being respectable under very similar circumstances (DC new to the program, awful offense)?

Go back through the UFR's. I think we had some serious personnel problems, some back luck - poor play on giving up big plays.

While I think Trent and Warren took steps back this year, we really had poor linebackers and safety play. Ezeh is not good. Mouton improved. Thompson was very limited. Safeties were terrible.

As Gsimmons says, sometimes it is Jimmy's and Joes not X's an O's. While there were certain points where scheme seemed puzzling, for the most part, players seemed to be in the right places and just could not make plays - with the exception of Purdue which seems to be the nadir of the rift between Shaffer and Rodriguez.

I have not looked at Auburn, but I think our problems were more personnel than scheme.

Franklin was fired mid-season. Also, the difference between Franklin's system and Auburn's previous one was much bigger than the difference between Shafer's defense and Michigan's previous one (which would, I think, necessitate giving more time to Franklin).

I wasn't for getting rid of Shafer, but it could be that the cohesion gained by promoting Hopson, for example, will outweigh the loss of Shafer's coaching ability.

is recruiting

One of the major reasons people do not run the 3-3-5 is you basically are asking your tackles to act as blockers for linebackers to make plays....when you have Mike Martin at nose I would assume a rotation of Campbell, Roh and Lalota at ends.........but who wants to be a end where you are asked to clog things up but not really there to rush the passer?

oh ya, see ya Brandon Graham, doubt he wants that as well next year.

While checking out Devin Gardners profile on rivals yesterday I found it odd when it listed Shafer as his recruiter. Most UM recruits on rivals don't have a lead recruiter listed so it must of been from good information to put him there. I don't see this hurting the process but did find it odd that somebody with as much talent as Gardner was recruited by him and not RR himself.

This whole philosophy thing is a double standard.

1. We endured the spread when we had the talent for a pro-style offense. But we ran the spread because that is what the coaches coach. And I (kind of) buy this argument, because the coaches shouldn't totally change the offensive philosophy just to suit the players. (But you will still have to explain to me why Threet should have run the zone read play even once.)

2. Shafer is a "Base 4-3" guy. AND he had base 4-3 _talent_. (As our D-line was the strongest part of the defense, we should have considered putting 5 of them out there, not cutting from 4 to 3!) But Rodriguez said, no, we should run the 3-3-5. I'm the coach, deal with it.

Why doesn't Shafer get the same flexibility with the defense that Rodriguez got with the offense? Also, while you can't let the tail wag the dog (the talent on the team determine the philosophy) can't you let it inform your decisions some? And if you butted heads with him on this,
WHY DID YOU HIRE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE? Isn't one of the first questions in the interview, "What is your defensive philosophy?" and "What kind of base formation do you see using?"

Right now, I don't know what Rodriguez' plan is, and this troubles me. I know we've had trouble stopping mobile QBs in the past. But I don't think this was a problem of defensive scheme, so much as execution of that scheme.

As far as the spread goes, I like the concept of putting your playmakers in space. But, I still think the smashmouth mentality has a place in football. 3rd and 1? Give them the old I-formation and run it right up the gut. (And we DID this a few times this season). 3rd and goal from the 3? Fade route to Braylon. I don't care who's defending. (I heard that RR likes the little, "squirmy" guys for WR. WV never had a WR in the mold of Braylon.) A QB is a thrower first. A strong, accurate thrower. If all else fails, he should be able to get the first down on 3rd and 7, sliding after 8 yards. Tailbacks need not apply. (I mean really, does anyone buy Pat White as a NFL QB?)

Clearly, I'm frustrated. Clearly I have no better things to do.

Hopson was at Tulane in 1992, about 5 years before Rodriguez arrived on the scene.

in my opinion all this is blown way out of proportion. i mean sure would i rather see the 4-3 sure but its not the end of the world to have the 3-3-5. athletes will be athletes and make plays no matter what scheme they are in, it just depends on fundamentals and wanting to do it. also there is something to be said about being different than other teams. would you rather run a traditional set that teams go up against in practice every day or would you rather force opponents scout teams try to imitate your ones in only one week of practice. being different is more common on o but same principles apply-i mean if cal poly had a kicker their different offense would have beat wisconson in madison

It doesn't really make that much of a difference in the long run. the thing RR needs more than a 4-3, 3-3-5, 5-2 or a defensive coordinator is TIME.

In 2010 Stevie Brown will be gone. RR will have had 2 years in with 2 classes that are his own, and 1 class that has known only him. We will no longer have Freshman Quaterbacks and the players will have had lots of exposure to Barwis.

We need it to be 2010 or 2011 more than anything.

Rocky, used the 3-3-5 for 11 years at New Mexico, with a stop at UCLA preceeding his stop at NM. It is an unorthodox 3-3-5 with 3 LB's or 5 DB's capable of blitzing at any time from any position. Rocky's scheme resulted in several top 20 defenses and held Utah to 13 pts this year. I would love to see him in he Big ten and swap conferences with coach Locksley. After living in Michigan for seven years I love the Wolverines. Now I am back in NM and I am looking forward to our new coach from the Big Ten.

My God, Shafer sounds borderline incoherent in interviews.

I don't know what Rodriguez was thinking switching to the 3-3-5 eight games into the season; Shafer can't be blamed for that screwup. However, aside from that experiment, we ran the 4-3 with a veteran-stacked roster and still turned in one of the worst defensive performances in Michigan history. There were too many times when we looked like we were caught off-guard. Shafer deserved to go.

But this definitely doesn't bode well for next year, especially if Rodriguez decides to go back to the 3-3-5.

"(Again: we Franklined it this season. Or maybe Weised it?)"

We really Schruted this one.

But Bill Mallory, who coached at Indiana, Northern Illinois, Colorado and Miami (Ohio) and gave Shafer his first coaching job, doesn't think Shafer's resignation was a mutual decision.

“For Scott to me leaving after the first year, I know that he's the kind of person that would work very hard to get the situation better,” Mallory said. “And for him to, you say, resign, I can't believe there wasn't pressure put upon him. For him to get the blame, I think that's ridiculous.”

Mallory said he feels anger toward Rodriguez.

“Yeah, I do,” said Mallory, who never fired an assistant based on performance in his 27 years as a head coach. “I think that kind of mindset today, to me, is very irky. I know Bo was not that way.

is everyone done pretending to be an expert of defensive fronts now?

it's everyone else that bothers me

First of all, our defense would have looked a lot better this year if Sheridan, Threet and co. weren't going three-and-out every possession. A lot of times, especially OSU, MSU, and Illinois, it looked to me that they just got tired out. If the offense could hold the ball a little bit longer, and maybe give the defense a better lead with which to play, I'm sure they will play better.

I'm only pretending, but I think everything will get better when we have more talent. I mean, how many times did you watch Morgan Trent and want to drink Drano? Whether we have the appropriate talent is an issue with the recruiting that's already ongoing, but better players, who have not been through the shock of a coaching change, some future uncertainty, and adjusting to Barwis, should play better.

On the offense, there is really nowhere to go but up, but on defense we definitely could have been a lot worse, and I hope a new DC will be a net improvement.

Sorry for the double