Is the Def. Scheme Really Changing?
The weekly release for the Ohio State game last year shows that Michigan ran a 3-4 defense (page 21). Roh’s position was specifically labeled OLB (same as this year) and Brown was playing SAM. Thing is, Brown was a LB in responsibility only; he still had the characteristics of a safety. So, if you count him as a “box” safety and not a LB, you end up with a 3-3-5 anyway.
The only difference I can really think of is the difference between a 3-4 alignment versus a 30 stack alignment. Actually, starting off with 8 guys in the box every time with two of those guys being fast enough to cover people if necessary seems like a good thing.
For whatever reason, I had it in my head that Roh was a DE so I thought we were going from having 4 down linemen to 3. Now it just seems like a change in nomenclature more than anything else. Am I missing something?
I think Robinson (Greg, that is) has been saying something similar to what you've outlined above. That the "move" to the 3-3-5 is more about changes in terminology than changes in assignments or positions.
yes and no.
thanks for the stunning, in-depth analysis.
you too
Technically, Roh was listed as an "OLB" in 2009 and is listed as just a "LB" on the 2010 spring roster.
http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/mich-m-footbl-mtt.html
Also, Steve Brown did not play safety in 2009. If he played anything other than SAM, he played like a slot corner. There was not a single time last year that Brown had "safety responsibility," interpreted as a deep zone (whether it was Cover 1, Cover 2, Cover 3, or Cover 4). I don't understand what you mean by saying he had the characteristics of a safety, but the responsibility of a linebacker; do you simply mean "physical characteristics"?
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Whatever you call him, he still weighs 210 instead of the typical 230 for a true linebacker.
I don't think the defense will look all that different from last year. I think it is Magnus who has pointed out that Brown was indeed a linebacker all the time last year (he never had deep responsibilities like a safety). EDIT: Ha! Guess I took too long to type and he beat me to it.
To me it looks more like a 4-2-5 with flexibility. I think Roh will primarily play on the line as a pass rusher (even if he doesn't have his hand down all the time), with the flexibility to drop into coverage or rush from odd angles to confuse the defense on occassion. Ezeh and Mouton will be your traditional linebackers. Then your two non-deep safeties (with Kovacs more likely to fill Brown's shoes as the player with limited/no deep responsibility) who can step up to make it more of a 4-4-3 in running situations (while still, hopefully, being able to cover the pass) or be subbed out for better coverage players on third and long (Yeah, being able to play nickle!).
If this is true; I will be very very sad:(
I don't think the defense will look all that different from last year.
its all just a plot to confuse us and give us something to talk and rabble about during the off-season.
I heard we are going to a 5-5-1 with Kovacs in deep center.
Thats what i heard also. Kovacs Kankles makes him cover 2x's the area then a normal safety.
3-3-5. 4-2-5. 4-3.
The team will adapt to the offenses it faces.. Sometimes they'll play a 3-3-5 against spread teams, other times they'll drop Roh down to the LOS and move to more of a 4-3 or 4-2-5 look.
Which won actually gets us off the field on a 3rd and 20?
The one where your safeties can actually cover a Tight End running a seam or crossing route.
I like the fact that our first team defense has a chance to be bigger across the board.
1) 2009 we had Martin at NT playing at about 285 versus 2010 having Will I.AM Campbell at 325+...(+40 lbs. there)
2) We had RVB playing DT at 260s versus 2010 having Martin in the 290s. (+30 lbs here)
3) Graham is roughly 265, wheres RVB could be over 280 by fall. (15-20 lb increase here)
4) Craig Roh will be playing at 20 lbs. heavier (255ish).
5) All the safeties are bigger...Cameron Gordon and Thomas Gordon at 210 versus Williams and Kovacs at 175 and 185 respectively. Imagine having three safeties all of whom could be at or around 210 lbs. There are 6 or 7 spots we can be noticably bigger and none on D where we sacrifice much size if any.
I for one expect a bigger and stronger defense in 2010, which is definitely what we need. Forget star ratings when you have a small team and safeties who can't defend the run or pass because they are physically unable. Hopefully, we can build some depth this fall.
The guys at Rivals are saying that Martin will still be a NT in the fall, and Campbell will still be a backup. So we won't necessarily see a size increase there.
Also, Kovacs is still penciled in as a starter at the bandit position. I think your idea of the lineup at safety might need to be tweaked a bit.
Not necessarily, Cameron Gordon and Thomas Gordon were both working with the ones during the spring game and I'm aware that Kovacs was the bandit, however Kovacs is listed at 200 lbs hence the idea of having bigger safeties. My idea doesn't need to change one iota there. Also, Kovacs isn't guaranteed the starting role in the fall. Just cause the guys at rivals say that about Martin doesn't mean much at this point to me. Will Campbell will earn a starting role in 2010 at some point somewhere even if Martin has to slide over. Brandon Graham nor Woodley never started right away as true freshmen but did as sophomores. I expect the same from Campbell and I think thats reasonable.
guaranteed a starting spot right now? Ill bet you all my mgopoints that Kovacs is starting most of the year if not all of it.
But you guys are making some silly arguments. I don't even know why Magnus replied to my original comment. I never said Kovacs wouldn't start. All I said was that the Gordons were practicing with the ones and Kovacs was 185 last year. He might have been 190 but now he is listed at 200 and could add more weight. "Imagine having three safeties who are around 210 lbs. on the field at the same time." We could easily have a bigger defense than last year at multiple positions with some better overall athletes... and nowhere are we smaller. I find it funny how quickly people can become contrarian. Kovacs will get challenged though at some point in 2010, Marvin Robinson is very physically ready for the college game. With how big Justin Turner is getting there could definitely be some shifting around. Still I agree Kovacs is the best bet right now. As far as saying who is guaranteed a starting spot...idk but some guys have better chances than others so you probably shouldn't debate in generalities like that.
I replied to your original comment to tell you that Campbell might not be a starter this year, according to people who know/think about this stuff for a living. If you don't like people responding to your posts, maybe you're in the wrong place.
learn to communicate without so many suppositions. And damnit we have three safeties lol..So why would anything I said imply Kovacs wasn't starting? Maybe my response had something to do with your quote "my idea" as though I'm somehow less in the know because I don't have 50,000 mgopoints or something like that. Anyway commence with your witty retort about how I'm not able to take internet criticism lol..to which I say "those who live in glass houses.."
"All the safeties are bigger...Cameron Gordon and Thomas Gordon at 210 versus Williams and Kovacs at 175 and 185 respectively"
Hmmmm...maybe this line implies that Kovacs won't be starting. Since, you know, you're pitting the weights of Gordon^2 against the weights of last year's starting safeties.
You said nothing about Kovacs being bigger this year. You mentioned two non-Kovacs players and said that, as starters, they're bigger than Kovacs. Now you're acting insistent, as if we should have read your mind.
Kovacs is 200 lbs. now? Or that we have three safeties? Tisk tisk..lol
We will play whatever the opposing offense dictates us to play. Against Purdue or Illinois I imagine we will play a 3-3-5 and when we face Wisconsin we will probably run a 3-4 or a 4-3, it just depends.
I had an orginal thought that no one else has thought of yet. Maybe, just maybe, the defense will adapt to whatever the opposing offense is doing; so we'll be running everything from a 4-4 to a 3-3-5 depending on the opponet.
There, my originality and geneous shines through yet again.
[/sarcastic blathering that adds nothing new and despite it's blatant satire on people who just reiterate what everyone else is saying will no doubt do nothing to stop such people from posting their reiterations]
granted, my knowledge of defensive scheme-ology is mostly limited to the awesome, fool-proof 4-1-6 defense (with the stud linebacker who can pass rush like a DE and cover like a corner) I run every play in every football related video game.... but, i don't get why we talk so much about the 3-3-5 or whatever numbers are popular on a given day. I think the most reasonable ideas mentioned in this thread and any other revolve around the idea of being able to adjust on the fly to what the offense dictates. with so many teams in spread formations, i think just about every school wants to have a larger number of hybrid players who have the speed to cover the field and the size/strength to take on blockers and make tackles around the LOS.
doesn't matter what we (or the coaches) call it - success on D will come down to fundamentals that have largely seemed to escape michigan defenses over the last decade. i think this is what Greg R has meant when he tells people not to get hung up on terminology.
not having a number of undersized guys like last year should help in some ways, but I see no reason to expect miracles and a shutdown D this year. if we could show some competency/improvement in basic things like tackling and containment, I'll feel just fine, personally. Those things alone are really all we need to surpass 6 wins, get to a bowl, and end the Rich-Rod-hot-seat buzz. I think our offense might turn some heads this year and put up some points (regardless of whether we're starting an experienced Tate or the flashy Denard). If our D can not melt down against awful teams, we should be fine.