A lot has been made on the board lately about the struggles of the Michigan defensive line. My question is about disbursement of coaches and how it impacts player development. When Jerry Montgomery left for Oklahoma we hired Roy Manning to coach linebackers and the joke was consistent prior to Montgomery leaving that he was in the Beyonce coaching position. However, with Mattison have DC responsibilities and Hoke having HC responsibilities and no dedicated D-Line coach are those players getting enough individual or position group attention to develop like other positions or am I overthinking the importance of having dedicated position coaches?
Coaching question D-LIne edition
I think they're getting plenty of attention, and it's all negative. They'll get better with, or without a DL coach.
It's all personel. Montgomery was here last year and we weren't much better.
Disagree. They are a year older and stronger but played worse. I would not underestimate the impact of losing Montgomery. Look at Oklahoma last night against the all powerful king of the SEC.
With the exception of Q Wash inexplicably getting yanked, everyone did look better. Clark may never reach his hype, but he was much improved. Pipkins played meaningful snaps and was showing good signs until he got hurt. Willie Henry had a hell of a first year for a RS FR. Black and Beyer did what they could, but they were both forced into positions that they were woefully undersized for.
We also lost Campbell and Roh, two solid, if not spectacular players. After Pipkins went down and (I'm assuming) so undisclosed issue happened with Q Wash, we were left with a complete lack of beef in the middle of the line and it absolutely killed us against the run and we didn't really find much pass rush with the theoretical increase in speed.
In every video I have ever seen of Michigan practice videos it seems like Hoke is with the DL. So they should be fine as far as coaching goes. You see Mattison working with them a lot as well.
Personally coaches the D-line and that's what he's good at. It's our O-Line coach that seems to be shitting the bed. Did you see Mone today? He's gonna add some beef to the D-Line instantly. I know some people think his Fr year will be redshirted, but I think he makes the two-deep right away.
I can't be the only one who saw the discipline displayed by the OU DL on the 4th or 5th sack.
One of the interior DL collapsed the line, but instead of disregarding his run lane and allowing McCarron to escape the pocket, he actually slowed his pursuit and let his teammates clean up the play.
Contrast that with all the times we were forced to watch one of our DL scream past the QB and let the QB scramble for a huge gain
OU's ends were owning AL's tackles all night long and pretty much getting free runs at McCarron without getting kicked way upfield like our ends often do. The tackles also got push with straight bull rushes and didn't have to rely on stunting and trying to slice into the backfield like our guys because they're woefully undersized. McCarron also isn't the fleetest of foot, so that helps.
You could definitely tell the difference in strength and speed to our guys. Hopefully Clark continues to improve and Charlton and Ojemudia come on. Add Jake Ryan to that list too I guess. In the middle, we really need Pipkins to come back at 100% and for Hurst to come in off RS strong. I expect improvement but it'll probably incremental (shakes fist at Da'Shawn Hand)
and OU has 26, with Michigan having 25. I think these numbers are before the bowl games, but even so it's surprising to me, given how strong OU's DL was against Alabama tonight, and how seldom we were able to really generate pressure with our line.
Does this mean I was overstating the importance of Montgomery? Maybe so.
(Montgomery was supposed to be a helluva recruiter, but that's not the topic here...)
To make that relevant, Don, what were the distributions across the D lines?
If I recall, Montgomery didn't coach the entire DL at Michigan, but I can't remember what position group he was in charge of.
are divided. Manning is the outside linebacker coach and Smith has inside linebackers. Two coaches for three positions seems very unusual. Perhaps they have some additional responsibilities. Considering how much we're in the nickel, that's two coaches for 2-3 positions and one coach for 4-5.
Although Mattison is listed as the d-line coach, my understanding is that Hoke coaches the DTs. Bringing in a dedicated position coach for this group doesn't seem like a high priority. Would he take over for Hoke/Mattison or just be a third coach for the DL? I think we know that answer.
This "coaching responsibilities" thing often comes up, and I always encourage people to look at other teams. Head coaches often have a position group they work with, defensive coordinators always have a position group they work with, and offensive coordinators always have a position group. Under Rich Rodriguez, he was involved with all aspects of the offense, but Calvin Magee was the tight ends coach, and Greg Robinson and Scott Shafer were the linebackers and cornerbacks coach, respectively.
All coordinators have a position group. The Head Coach doesn't always have a position group, but look at it this way: Hoke is taking the tackles only, not the entire DL. Mattison is the DEs, not the entire DL. If Hoke has other responsibilities, I'm sure Mattison can become a defacto DL coach, like most teams have. Same is true is Mattison needs to take care of other responsibilities.
Also, Montgomery was only a DE coach, Hoke still coached the tackles. Mattison I believed slid down from coaching the OLBs. In reality, the two positions aren't entirely different.
question: do u think in retrospect, instead of bringing in Manning, Michigan should have brought in a separate QB coach?
At one point this year, 7 of the top 10 teams had offensive coordinators who were also the QB coach. The OC has to coach a position. Gardner improved from the first half of the year to the second half, and Morris did pretty well for a true freshman.
I thought Manning was a fine addition, and I don't have a problem with an OC being a QB coach. I personally prefer a QB coach just because I prefer someone on the sidelines with the QB in games, but I don't think it's anywhere near a requirment, and I think Borges knows a thing or two about coaching the QB position and feel I've seen improvement from the QBs throughout the year (despite some sub-optimal things happening around them, such as poor pass protection). You also then essentially force Borges to be a position coach for a position he's never coached.
Also, what Magnus said.
The only season our dline showed glimpses was the season we had upper class men, the Sugar Bowl champ team.
Is there a cap on how many position coaches you can have? Why can't we have both a d-line and a QB coach simply added to the staff? I know they can afford it. I'm pretty sure it would help. The only reason I can think of is you are limited by the NCAA with number of positions coaches. What gives, why doesn't every position have a coach?
There is a limit of one head coach and nine assistants (this includes coordinators) and two grad assistants.
So, what you're saying is that we Brady and Steele to come back and get thier graduate degrees to be a grad assistant to coach the QBs and Dline?
I would think the head coach would have someone else double up rather than have a position himself.
They get paid like GAs in other departments, not really a living wage. Their eligibility has to have recently expired too.
can develop into a great QB sacking DE!