Terry Talbott & DT Recruiting as a Case Study on New Defensive Theory
Watching DT recruiting play out this year has been very informative as far as how this staff is looking at defensive schemes and personnel. It is the opinion of most fans (judging by message board angst) that we are sorely in need of top-notch defensive tackles. The recruiting emphases of the staff this offseason, however, suggest they do not think they need many "DT" bodies. I put DT in quotes to refer to high school players playing the position, or players ranked and projected for that position by the recruiting sites.
In fact, it seems we are planning to either (a) move DEs to DT from among our current players, or (b) only use one traditional DT at most times. One cannot be sure--it is not that we don't have the bodies to play a pair of DTs with backups. However, if we expect to be playing two DTs with sufficient backups--comprised of players recruited as high school DTs--our numbers would seem low and our recruiting at the position more lackadaisical than one would expect from this otherwise highly motivated staff.
As a case study, it is interesting to observe the recruitment of Hankins and Talbott. Hankins (Scout: 28 DT, Rivals: 5.5, ESPN: 77) is higher rated than Talbott (Scout: 50 DT, Rivals 5.5, ESPN: 73). More importantly for the MSU-insecure among us, he hails from within the borders of Michigan. But we were not crazy about Hankins. We are pursuing Talbott. The difference?
The most immediate one is body type. Talbott has tall, rangy, DE build. As ESPN begins, and ends, its assessment:
Indeed. He looks like a DE. But we are recruiting him to play on the inside. I think what DT recruiting this year suggests is we no longer are shopping for Terrance Taylors, i.e. stout 4* gap-stuffing fire hydrants. Or jelly roll behemoths. We will take an athletic behemoth like Will Campbell (or any 5* in our backyard, probably), but on the inside now we want guys who are fast and active. I like this approach.
It is interesting to observe that many pundits have deep doubts about the ability of Michigan's speed defense approach to withstand the power running teams of the Big Ten (nevermind the parallel stories on how the whole league has gone to the spread). I agree it will be interesting, but I have more confidence than most. If teams truly are gashing us within the tackles we can always send more bodies crashing into the box. At least we can do that more easily than scattering our stout bodies across a wide field to cover spread sets (see Ohio State 2006, App St./Oregon 2007, etc.)
Terry Talbott is not a win in the recruiting war in terms of quantified ratings, but I think he is a terrific fit for a scheme that can be implemented to terrorize opposing offenses from sideline to sideline. I am voting "yes" for Terry. I hope you will too.
In fact, it seems we are planning to either (a) move DEs to DT from among our current players, or (b) only use one traditional DT at most times. One cannot be sure--it is not that we don't have the bodies to play a pair of DTs with backups. However, if we expect to be playing two DTs with sufficient backups--comprised of players recruited as high school DTs--our numbers would seem low and our recruiting at the position more lackadaisical than one would expect from this otherwise highly motivated staff.
As a case study, it is interesting to observe the recruitment of Hankins and Talbott. Hankins (Scout: 28 DT, Rivals: 5.5, ESPN: 77) is higher rated than Talbott (Scout: 50 DT, Rivals 5.5, ESPN: 73). More importantly for the MSU-insecure among us, he hails from within the borders of Michigan. But we were not crazy about Hankins. We are pursuing Talbott. The difference?
The most immediate one is body type. Talbott has tall, rangy, DE build. As ESPN begins, and ends, its assessment:
Talbott plays a little out of position in high school as a defensive tackle. In college he could be looking at a move to defensive end...a bit of 'tweener position wise right now.
Indeed. He looks like a DE. But we are recruiting him to play on the inside. I think what DT recruiting this year suggests is we no longer are shopping for Terrance Taylors, i.e. stout 4* gap-stuffing fire hydrants. Or jelly roll behemoths. We will take an athletic behemoth like Will Campbell (or any 5* in our backyard, probably), but on the inside now we want guys who are fast and active. I like this approach.
It is interesting to observe that many pundits have deep doubts about the ability of Michigan's speed defense approach to withstand the power running teams of the Big Ten (nevermind the parallel stories on how the whole league has gone to the spread). I agree it will be interesting, but I have more confidence than most. If teams truly are gashing us within the tackles we can always send more bodies crashing into the box. At least we can do that more easily than scattering our stout bodies across a wide field to cover spread sets (see Ohio State 2006, App St./Oregon 2007, etc.)
Terry Talbott is not a win in the recruiting war in terms of quantified ratings, but I think he is a terrific fit for a scheme that can be implemented to terrorize opposing offenses from sideline to sideline. I am voting "yes" for Terry. I hope you will too.
I'm going to throw a bone to UNC Wolverine(?) here.
I've noted a couple times about how the recruiting sites don't care about a player's fit with any system other than Pro-Style. These are not 'pro-style' players on the D side of the ball other than that our DC has been on both sides of the draft.
The players fit what is being envisioned for them.
Stars are nice, but only as long as the players fit in the style of scheme.
If scout and rivals went from ranking players based on 'pro-style' and ranked them based on athletic ability, I would imagine our stars ratings would be higher.
The short
Stars be damned. These players are going to be productive even if they don't have the star blessing of scout and rivals.
So, like, is there a special "Spread Defense" or something? I can see that argument with regard to offense, but Et tu, Defense?
Maybe Michigan is going for the Terry Talbots of the world because they aren't having success with the Sharif Floyds of the world just yet?
This reasoning pops up with seemingly every recruit Michigan signs up or gets a committment from now: Well, this guy is just the new Super Secret Special Spread X Factor Galacticon Recruit Weapon that will ONLY work at Michigan under Rich Rodriguez.
im with u...While there are players that I would say uniquely fit our system in a way that they wouldnt others (Christian Pace is a perfect example), I don't think I would label this one of those situations. Its probably more likely that the coaches saw this kid play and simply decided that he had potential.
Rivals does make a distinction between a "Pro QB" and a "Dual QB" by which, I assume, they mean more of a college style QB. It would be interesting if they were to attempt something similar for other positions. The only other distinction they make is between "Strong DE" and "Rush DE."
you may be reading too much into body type and not enough into commitment. Hankins was given the opportunity to earn a scholarship offer at camp. He didn't earn one because when tested by the coaches on four straight plays on a goal line stand, he was gassed by play 3.
He may still get an offer if he gets into better shape.
The conditioning episode is something I was not aware of with Hankins. But I think build and being in shape are obviously related in the sense that getting in shape (usually) changes your build. Talbott has the DT build that I believe UM is looking for. Now. Hankins is someone we may have looked at and wondered whether he could morph his body once on campus. I take his failure to lose weight with a scholarship offer at stake as just what you said, a sign of poor commitment. But also, in this case, poor commitment that suggests he may not be able to handle the S&C rigors and become the body we want on the field.
Plus MSU nor UM have offered him. Some of his offers he says he has are fake.
i like this approach to the defense. With more and more teams going to the spread it makes sense. Look ar our offensive line. We don't have giants just down blocking. they move side to and our d-line needs to do the same. It also opens up the possibility of more d-line stunts because of the increased mobility
you to change your avatar. I am begging you!
Ever since John Cooper's ASU team upset UM in the Rose Bowl with an underrated but fast team, I have had variations of this discussion with fellow fans on a seasonal basis.
My belief is in the old axiom that "speed kills," while the opposing viewpoint is that you have to have a lot of mass in the big ten for leverage when the weather turns bad. I have heard that argument used as a justification for bowl game losses, as in "let's see USC come up here and play with all their speed in November," and have never agreed with it.
I think Barwis is doing it the right way. A combination of speed and explosive strength will always trump a few extra pounds of "leverage." Maybe the physics majors can help out here, and I know my numbers are off, but it seems to me like a person weighing 290 who can bench 350 and leg press 600, for example, will have just as much leverage as someone who weighs 350, benches 350, and leg presses 600. If that's true, then the lighter player will be better because of speed and endurance.
I think.
And thus the people with the larger guys who are taller and thus more bulbous get worse leverage because they can't get down as easily as a guy who is of a smaller build type/frame.
I think the issue isn't in how much the linemen can 'push' but rather how they respond to being pushed. A 350 lb lineman is significantly harder to push down/aside than one who is 290lbs. Clearly though being 290 lbs has its advantages as well, namely speed. Being able to get better leverage positioning or being able to quickly get around someone are advantages a faster/more agile lineman has. That said, the select few who can be both big and fast(Seantrel Henderson) are great for both systems, but that is rare athletic ability not seen often and sought after by every coach in the country.
Just before our last RB with USC, Lane Kiffin was interviewed in the papers and issued this statement:
Lane Kiffin, USC's offensive coordinator, said the stereotype exists because of the second-tier Big Ten teams.
"When you look at the Big Ten as a whole, there is not a lot of speed," he said. "Now that's not the case with Ohio State or Michigan."
Still, when asked what he noticed about Michigan's defense, he replied: size.
"They tend to get bigger guys," he said. "I don't know if that's the way they recruit. But when you look at their linebackers and linemen, there is about an average of two inches and 20 pounds compared to our guys."
Size, he said, is not something USC covets.
"We go for speed," he said. "That's just our philosophy."
Now, I'm not trying to suggest that RR is turning Michigan into USC East. However, given USC's dominance of us in the last two Rose Bowls we've played against them, I think it's clear that speed CAN deal quite effectively with size, assuming a relatively equal distribution of pure football talent.
With regard to the question of UM's speed or lack thereof, it's my opinion that our offensive speed is very competitive with teams across the country, including the south. It's on the defensive side of the ball that I think we've been a bit on the slow side.
reasoned.
The Michigan of the West
Why does everyone assume the Big Ten is comprised of big, bruising, running teams? Maybe 5 years ago, but the styles have changed. The only ones that are really left are Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU and to an extent PSU, but they are more of a spread than they used to. Indiana, Purdue, & Northwestern all run spread offenses. OSU is more spread than they used to be, especially with Chris Wells gone. I don't see a problem with a fast defense that can tackle, but maybe I'm missing something.
That was my point. We are adapting with the big ten as everyone else is tryin to get faster so are we.
I would caution against making broad judgements based on only one or two years of data. The DT class in the midwest is very poor this year, and we haven't had success in attracting much long-distance talent.
In many ways I think RR values, more than anything, the same thing that LC valued in recruiting: talent.
"we haven't had success in attracting much long-distance talent."
What?
Walk On WR Joe Reynalds was the State 800 M Champ as a junior and placed as a senior. Even though the 800 is considered "mid" distance, it's pretty close training wise.
This post is predicated on the assumption that we will be running 2 DT sets. We will not. We have switched to a 3-4 defense and don't really need any more than 4 DTs on the roster. Sure, we'll run some 4-3 every once in a while, but not often AT ALL. Certainly not enough to need to worry about depth concerns. Whoever the 3rd and 4th string DTs are will almost NEVER play. What we need are more DEs. We have absolutely no replacement for Brandon Graham after this year and the quick position is extremely weak. Sure, Roh might be ready to take Graham's spot in a couple of years but he definitely won't be ready by next year. He needs to add at least 30 more lbs. Since we won't have any really good players at the DE position next year, with the exception of Ryan Van Bergen, we'll need to compensate with depth. So don't be worrying about our DT depth. We're more that solid there with Martin, Campbell and Sagesse all coming back next year. You need to be worrying about DE.
Post was not predicated on us playing 2 DT sets. Maybe the second paragraph was unclear but the intended thesis is that our recruiting suggests we DO NOT plan on 2 DT sets.
We are running a 4-3 Under. Brian breaks it down in his preview mag (HTTV). Brian also was corrected when GERG was hired: http://mgoblog.com/category/post-type/3-4-defense (read it to see what the talk is.)
Here is a breakdown of what the D may look like: http://www.battleredblog.com/2009/7/23/958892/a-very-brief-introduction…
So my question is: Are the Talbot brother's both in the 2010 class? Or is Terry considered a package deal towards the 2011 class at corner?
Both in 2010.
That's the theme for every position, including the DT position. The point is that the new regime wants DTs who can blow by OL and take angles to get to the ball as opposed to pushing through the line. Having many guys who take different angles and hit different seams will cause problems, though there surely need to be some good tackling LBs for that to be successful. Strength doesn't matter at all if the fundamental goals is to go around someone as opposed to knocking them down.
I agree that the rating sites compare players to the way they would fit in a pro-style offense/defense. That bodes well in some positions where you're recruiting speed, but obviously not at the line positions because the assumption has always been you need big guys who push through as opposed to lankier guys who hit seams.
Comments