Assuming Coach Rod stays, how can we improve our defense?

Submitted by Ben from SF on

Assuming Coach Rod stays, which will happen based on our current assumptions, what should he do to improve our defense?  Here are a few scenarios:

1.  Keep the current coaches and stay the course

Pros:  Our players will have one year of play experience to learn from.  GERG will be more familiar with the 3-3-5.  Most importantly, our offense will cut down on the turnovers, and keep our defense away from poor field positions.

Cons:  Will GERG learn more about the 3-3-5?  Will our young defensive players improve under our current position coaches.  Is there a fundamental issue running the 3-3-5 against power running teams?

2.  Keep GERG and let him select a system and hire coaches who can teach techniques required for that system.

Pros:  GERG coordinated two Superbowl champions at Denver and should know what he is doing.  Players will get NFL-level individual coaching.  Recruiting may be easier with the NFL-style defense.

Cons:  Can our current position coaches teach NFL technique when none of them has coached in the NFL?  Will RR remove any of the position coaches and hire GERG's folks?  Can our young players execute an NFL scheme at their size and speed, or will we have to change our recruiting strategy again?

3. Keep the position coaches and hire a 3-3-5 guru (Jeff Casteel, Pete Kwiatkowski from Boise State, or a FCS D-coordinator).

Pros:  Tall, Gibson, and Braithwaite will keep their jobs and allowed to reinforce the techniques they are teaching.  The new coordinator may be more aggressive and maximize the speed and athletic abiltiy our young defenders possess.  Defensive recruiting strategy can stay as is.

Cons:  Casteel may not come.  Other d-coordinators may not mesh with our position coaches.  Will RR keep his paws off the new d-coordinator (his third in 3 seasons)?

4. Hire a new DC and let him build a staff based on the system he wants to run.

Pros:  Our offense has not done anything in 3 years, a new voice will not hurt.  The new staff may be able to clean up the sloppy technique / tackling issues we have experienced.  The new staff may also come up with more creative schemes.

Cons:  Tony Gibson is RR's best friend, will RR be able to work without him?  Do we have the right players to implement a non-3-3-5 system?  Since Gibson is also our recruiting coordinator, what's the fallout?

Interested to spark a discussion.  Please post with your preferences.

MGoBoard
Football
better defense

Beavis

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^

5.  Drink so much before the game, you blackout, and forget what happened. 

GATOR BOWL 2011 HERE I COME.

Joined: 07/28/2009

MGoPoints: 5993

scottydreisbach

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^

The defense automatically improves as a result of an extra year of experience and Woolfolk coming back from injury, even if we keep GERG and do nothing at all.  That said, I would love to see a completely revamped Michigan defensive scheme as well.

Joined: 11/20/2010

MGoPoints: 193

Ben from SF

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^

...that's all.  Trying to post a serious football discussion without mentioning the current head ball coach at Stanford University or the karaoke session last evening.  :P

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1349

mdoc

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^

Understood, I apologize for being dickish.

And I pick option 4. It never made much sense to me, looking at our personnel, to play a 3-3-5. It seemed our linemen were the strongest part of the defensive unit, and the DBs were the weakest, so to have a scheme that played 3 linemen and 5 DBs was a little wonky compared to say a 4-3. I'd rather scrap the project and bring in a good coordinator with the scheme that best fits our personnel.

Joined: 01/14/2009

MGoPoints: 5870

Captain

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^

I think the case for the 3-3-5 when you have a weak secondary but strong defensive line is as follows:  when your secondary is not very good, having more bodies in the secondary goes a long way (put James Rogers on an island, and the receiver may find a paddle boat and head six miles offshore).  The system also puts a lot of pressure on the D-Line to come up with pressure, so it better be good.  Given our personnel, this fits the bill.  In theory.

Joined: 06/12/2009

MGoPoints: 12509

mdoc

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:22 PM ^

My line of thinking was that a good 4 man line would provide more pressure than a good 3 man line, causing the opposing QB to hurry his reads more often and thus hopefully screw up more often and bail out the secondary. Our 3-man line was hit or miss in the pressure department, so I guess it's pick-yer-poison. 

Joined: 01/14/2009

MGoPoints: 5870

blueloosh

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^

1. hire new DC, someone hungry and up and coming who is used to working with collegiate talent

2. give him complete control over staff and scheme.  If he wants to keep a current position coach, great.  If not, fine.  Get a group coaching defense that is all on the same page and leave them to do their job.

3. Pray blessings over Woolfolk's foot.

4. Look very hard at JUCO CBs and Safeties

5. .....

6. PROFIT!

Joined: 10/26/2008

MGoPoints: 831

BondQuest

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^

If Coach RR stays, I say keep the staff he has so the players don't go through another two years of learning a new system. Stability will help the team.

If there is a new head coach, all bets are off. It is back to starting over to find new recruits, teach new ways, and figure out just what the players skills are when the game is underway.

Joined: 11/22/2010

MGoPoints: 171

34Hybrid

December 3rd, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^

I really hope DB brings back RR because i feel we only need to field a decent defense to compete for Big 10 titles. If RR can persuade Casteel to come run the 3-3-5 defense great, then all the position coaches can stay then. If RR can't do that then i think we need to do what Illinois did and bring in a whole new defensive coordinator and let him hire a staff and have complete control of the defense.

Joined: 11/28/2010

MGoPoints: 484

BlueGoM

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^

I recall reading somewhere on this blog that they were going to do just that.   Given the Gibbons bust (so far, hopefully he'll turn things around) they need to somehow find another kicker.

Joined: 08/25/2009

MGoPoints: 7997

busoflove

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^

We need a new DC who has complete control over te defensive coaching staff and the system. I know another scheme may take time to learn, but our defense can't get any worse than it was this year. Plus, if the new staff teaches good fundamentals we could see immediate results with the defensive numbers.

Most importantly, I want to see player progression. I know freshman will have freshman moments, but Ezeh a 5th yr senior consistently looks like a true freshman out there.

Joined: 12/13/2008

MGoPoints: 281

Monocle Smile

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^

that the poster doesn't really know all that much about football.

Techniques on defense, like tackling and coverage (with variation in scheme), are pretty much the same in college and the pros...pros are just much more technically sound.

Magnus is probably more qualified to eviscerate the lack of football knowledge in the OP, but that's my two cents.

Also remember: the poster boy for "NFL-style college team" and "decided schematic advantage" is Charlie Weis.

Joined: 09/17/2009

MGoPoints: 23020

Ben from SF

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^

You are correct in that I am not a football coach or have an insider's understanding of how different coverage techniques are deployed in a college vs. a pro scheme.

However, based on the relatively simple level of coaching I received in the high school level twenty years ago, there is a difference between "stay within 5 yards of the receiver and make a play toward the ball if it heads your way" and "play the inside shoulder technique because you have no help from the safeties".

The Technical Soundness you referenced is a by-product of how the position coaches train their players based on the scheme deployed.  That attention to detail is the reason why I separated out an NFL-scheme and a college-scheme.

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1349

Monocle Smile

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^

that defensive position coaches like ours who have been part of top-30 defenses would know how to properly coach technique at a level above high school. Of course, as any athlete would know, players (especially young players) do not always do what they are coached to do in a game situation.

I would like to see a list of successful college position coaches who have ever coached in the NFL. It would probably be a short list.

Joined: 09/17/2009

MGoPoints: 23020

ken725

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:46 PM ^

I was thinking the same thing. If the NFL is the highest level of football and they have a certain technique, why doesn’t everyone teach this supposed “NFL technique.”

Edit:  I just read the OP's response.  I now understand you are speaking more on ability than the actual technique.  Which makes sense.

Joined: 10/26/2008

MGoPoints: 32866

Ben from SF

December 3rd, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^

Regarding Charlie Weis...  his teams scored a lot of points, but his teams also gave up a lot of points.  Weis was never able to recruit and/or coach at a high enough level on defense to keep it from being a liability.  In addition, when he was forced to start an inexperienced QB not schooled in his complex schemes (Jimmy Clausen in 2007), his offense imploded.

With all that said, an NFL defense may or may not be the solution for our defensive woes.  I am inclined to keep the staff at status quo to see how much improvement is achieved for next year, but, the coverage and tackling issues suggests that youth and inexperience may not be the only root causes in play here.  Are our position coaches teaching the right techniques to execute the schemes called by the coordinator?

Magnus, feel free to jump in!

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1349

Monocle Smile

December 3rd, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^

Charlie Weis? Not recruit? You must be joking. While he was there, his recruiting classes were always top 10, IIRC.

Weis just generally sucked at building multiple players from the ground up. He did well with quarterbacks, generally, but he wasted a few excellent running backs (including Armando Allen) and relied on raw talent and size of offensive linemen instead of coaching.

Weis' teams didn't always score a lot of points, either...even with an experienced QB. Notre Dame was always rather sack-prone and turnover-prone with him there.

but, the coverage and tackling issues suggests that youth and inexperience may not be the only root causes in play here.
I would think coverage and tackling are the two things MOST hindered by youth and inexperience.

Joined: 09/17/2009

MGoPoints: 23020