Defensive Players Adjusting to Brown?

Submitted by funkifyfl on

After the excitement that was NSD, I'm still starved for substantive discussion before spring practice starts. After reading some of the ESPN Way Too Early Top 25 thread, someone mentioned that they expect this defense to be tops in the nation. My question is whether anyone foresees any issues transitioning to Don Brown's defensive schemes coming off last year.

 

This defense will be crazy talented and experienced. The d-line has 7-8 starter quality players and multiple stars. The secondary has 2 incredibly high caliber athletes and good experience. The linebacker corps is definitely the weakest of the 3 defensive units, but with Peppers playing the hybrid blackhole of space position, UM will likely only need 2 fulltime 'backers.

 

Just as I expect the returning offensive players to improve after having another year in the Harbaughffense, I think it naturally follows to ask whether the defense may take some time to adjust to Brown's style. Fortunately, Michigan's first 3 games are against teams that were fairly abysmal last year and are all at home. Colorado had 4 wins last year which is more than Hawaii and UCF combined. That builds in some nice cushion for the defense to learn the nuances of the scheme. Frankly, the D line should have no problem adjusting because other than run fits and select drop coverages, their complexity is likely limited to stunts and twists. The secondary plays a lot of press man, and that won't change much. So it really boils down to the LBs.

 

While last year's D handled pro style offenses well, once Glasgow went out and they played spread offenses or IU, things went south. There are some potentially mitigating factors (read: Durkin packing his bags during OSU week), but nevertheless, do you expect there to be any growing pains as this talented, experienced D adapts to Brown's schemes and likely integrates 2 true freshmen and essentially a new LB corps?

YTBI

February 9th, 2016 at 12:11 PM ^

There are always growing pains with new coaches eg. Ohio State's massively underperforming offense.  I think the easier part of this is that Durkin was only there one season so it should make it a bit easier.

WolvinLA2

February 9th, 2016 at 12:45 PM ^

That's good. That way right off the bat you specify whether your post is a "here's me giving you information" post or a "here's me posing a question to spur discussion" post. Both are good, it's just best to specify which it is up front.

big10football

February 9th, 2016 at 12:18 PM ^

I mean, the defense only played under Durkin for 1 year and performed well.  i don't see any reason a more experienced group should take a step back adjusting to Brown's defense.

funkifyfl

February 9th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

We saw how changing philosophies on an annual basis hampered the offense during the Hoke years. Granted defense is a different animal and this staff is substantially better than Hoke's, but I think the points Alum raises below are valid. Everyone expects this defense to just hum along, but we have an entire level that is an X factor at the moment (LB) and we are thin at S.

DingoBlue

February 9th, 2016 at 12:19 PM ^

Something something experienced defense will pick it up quickly.

Something something kinks worked out by MSU game

Something something it's all good we got Rashan Gary

ijohnb

February 9th, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^

in OT season though.  The next peice of quality information will be the spring game, until then, who cares if people basically post opinion peices.  It's no better or wose than "Etiquette for Free Tickets Behind Minnesota Bench" or "Help Me Pick One Game to Attend This Year."  In fact, I prefer this kind of post because at least some thought went into whereas the other ones are just "hey-look at me!"

alum96

February 9th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^

Not sure we get much of anything out of the spring game.  Isn't it the annual "Don't worry about the offense - the defense is always way ahead of the offense at this time of year" talk?

And if the offense does anything at all - then people hand wring about the defense and adjusting to Brown.

Other than Glasgow starting ahead of Pipkins 2 years ago, Malzone overwhelmed as a freshman, the OL when split into 2 pieces (indicating bad depth) not very good, and Norfleet not being a good cornerback I am not sure I have received much real data from these spring games.

But yeah I am going to go with "the defense is way ahead of the offense" line 2 months in advance....

ijohnb

February 9th, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^

there is nothing there, but at least it is something with a beginning and an end and we can act like it has something to do with actual football.  So, yeah, 1) the defense is way ahead of the offense, 2) _____________ quarterback looks to have a slight edge on ____________ quarterback, and 3) looks like it may be running back by committee this year.  I am going with those as the 3 headlines.

In reply to by ijohnb

LSAClassOf2000

February 9th, 2016 at 12:57 PM ^

I do go to the Spring Game when I can, although you proably get even less out of it in person than you do watching it on television because at the stadium you get to see and hear things on the field that would temper even the hint of a thought that you were going to be able to draw conclusions. 

That being said, the best part of that weekend is usually the one poster that tries to project the entire season based on the Spring Game - usually extremely conservatively - only to see the first 150 replies in their thread basically read "STOP. JUST STOP."

PinballPete

February 9th, 2016 at 5:14 PM ^

 

Not sure we get much of anything out of the spring game.

 

For serious? The weight changes alone will give us a weeks worth of 'murmurs'. We'll have the overanalysis of QB play (there can be only one) and we'll likely get some clarity for the 'how do we get to 85' re-hash. Not to mention the annual Freddy Canteen 'Bout To Blow Up' award. 

 

iskey

February 9th, 2016 at 1:14 PM ^

To me it's much worse scrolling through a chorus of posts with everyone agreeing with the first reply that they were deceived(!) by the thread title, than being deceived(!) by the thread title.  Deal with the deception like a Warrior (Harbaugh!), not like a whiner.  One reply, shaming the OP, backed by all of the upvotes should suffice.

Stay.Classy.An…

February 9th, 2016 at 1:42 PM ^

so you scrolled through the chorus of posts to post? You should have probably just upvoted the first reply shaming the OP and moved on. That being said, this is the MGOBLOG world that we live in, come correct or risk being bombed with sarcasm, memes, gifs, and sarcastic memes and gifs. Scrolling through the litany of people appropriately and hilariously bashing the OP is well worth the read most times. So stop being a Buzz Killington and join in the fun!

 

alum96

February 9th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^

I think the safeties have to be healthy, as one injury there and we are going to very young guys.  I am a bit worried about the hype on the D - it does have holes in an entire level (LBs)... and cant afford injuries at another level (S).  I dont think its a given the D will be better than last year.  OSU thought the 2015 O would be better than the 2014 O because they returned almost everyone with a year of experience.  That didn't work out. 

We lose our 1st or 2nd best DL in Henry, and best safety and best 3 LBs even if they are not high octane guys. 

You do get back Mone and add Gary.  You hope Bush can contribute but no guarantees. 

So you sort of trade freshman Gary for a 4th year Henry, you add Mone, and trade Ty Kinnel for Jarrod Wilson.  Then Gedeon - a guy who could not beat out Bolden becomes a starter and you trade true freshman Bush for say 5th year senior Morgan.  

I see a lot of "washes" and or "maybe a step back" in those specific positions.  To offset that you hope everyone comes back better i.e. the Charltons, Peppers, Glasgows, Wormleys, Hursts, Clarks.  

EGD

February 9th, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^

I'm expecting the senior version of Gedeon to be at least equal to Bolden, as Gedeon is probably the better athlete of the two and I think Bolden had some issues with thinking too much.  But maybe that is just wishful thinking, though we have seen players go from being mediocre as underclassmen to having big senior years in the past.

I like Bush and think he will be a good player--but would be a bit worried if he winds up as a starter in 2016.  Freshman LBs scare me--even if they are early enrollees.  I'd much rather see the lights go on for guys like McCray, Winovich, or Furbush than have to depend on a true freshman.  

I am less worried about the safety position than you are.  Hill and Thomas are a respectable starting pair and if Kinnel can play that's probably all we'll need.  I am also thinking it would make sense for Watson to give safety a shot this spring, since he has the body for it and doesn't have much of a path to PT at corner.

Eastside Maize

February 9th, 2016 at 1:42 PM ^

He won't come in as effective as Morgan against the run but I think he will be an immediate upgrade in ability to cover receiving threats. With our D line, I will take that. There will obviously be growing pains but I view this as a wash or very little dropoff.

bdneely4

February 9th, 2016 at 2:51 PM ^

is a fair comparison.  They went from an Offensive coordinator (Herman) to promoting their O-line coach to offensive coordinator.  Herman has proven he is a legit coach.

We are going from an above average D-coordinator (Durkin) to another above average if not top D-coordinator (Brown) based off experience and results.  We should have no drop-off and should have improvement with our hire compared to OSU's.

BornInA2

February 9th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

Jeebus it would be nice to get 3-4 years of stability in the HC and coordinator positions. It's such a waste to have the players learning their 3rd defensive system in the last three years, instead of perfecting what they learned three years ago.

UMfan21

February 9th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, if we have a weak spot in Brown's defense, the LBs is a good place to have it.   Having weak secondary would be brutal because they are left on an island all the time.  having a weak DL may not create the holes for LBs to be effective.

Perhaps it's my maize and blue glasses, but I feel the DL will be excellent enough to cause some havoc on their own, even when there is confusion/hesitation with the LBs.  The corners should have it all locked down.   LBs can ease into it a bit.

VitaminSteak

February 9th, 2016 at 12:34 PM ^

I doubt they will miss a beat.  The team is full of intelligence and athleticism on defense, so learning or executing scheme won't be an issue.  Attrition at LB or filling some specialized roles could be difficult, but I bet Brown will be able to adapt his system based on the available talent.  Also, guys like Mattison will provide continuity during the transition from Durkin.

Steves_Wolverines

February 9th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

I was wondering this while watching the superbowl:

Did Denver provide a blueprint on how to shut down an offense designed to beat you in all three phases (very solid RB, spread passing game, and a running QB)?

I think that game highlighted how important it is to have edge rushers that can not only get pressure by themselves, but also can contain the edges to prevent scrambling. Also, getting a significant push from the interior to shrink the pocket. They played aggressive on the WR's, ruining the timing on their routes. The LB's had a simple job: fill the holes, make the tackles, disguise blitzes, and spy Cam Newton. The play of the DL made the job very easy on the LB's. 

Anyone else think Denver showed the football world how to entirely shut down that kind of offense?