ESPN Article on Mattison
Here's an article from Rittenberg on Mattison's job to restore the Michigan defense.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/39859/mattisons-mission-restore-michigan-d
Basically, we're going back to the old days. Four man front and all that. No new information, but at the end he says the players have a lot of potential and it's the coaches' job to get them there.
That he thinks the players have a lot of potential and that he embraces that its HIS job to coach them to that potential.
I especially liked how he pointed out that basically you cannot overcome fundamental shortcomings with scheme, there's good coaches in the big10 and they will expose you. This is the truth IMHO. Our past regime seemed to not understand this concept.
I laughed at how he wasn't originally going to watch film on last year's defense but then morbid curiousity got the better of him.
Glad to see I'm not the only who found that funny.
It might just be wishful thinking (eh, yeah it's wishful thinking..) but I want to believe so hard that he truly believes the current guys have the chops. But comparing the average size of Mich D players today to late 90's.. they honestly look 20-30% smaller. Coaching can't fix that.
This defense will be a bit more seasoned and have more depth. We finally have a good DC in Mattison. It will be interesting to see to what degree the defense will improve through the season. I think we'll see a big improvement this season, may be back to being an average b10 defense by the end of the season! And in a few years I hope we can be one of the best defensive teams in the b10.
I think we got good players and Mattison will get them back to being solid this year. He's not a miracle worker, but I will say that after 85 the defenses from 95-97 were my favorite at Michigan and Mattison coached the 1st 2 of those.
I still remember hating Lloyd's defenses at the end of the Moeller years and when Lloyd was made head coach a lot of people were ticked. I remember telling people maybe he'll be better as head coach than coordinator. That seemed to play out. As with most of these things that could have totally been coincidental with the arrival of Woodson, Steele, Ray, Hall etc. Maybe Lloyd would have been the next great defensive mastermind and got a job somewhere else if Mo had stayed.
It's an interesting what if. With Mo running the offense and Lloyd in charge of the d in 96 and 97 could we have won the NC and where would Lloyd have gone as the hottest assistant in america?
We will have a top half Big Ten defense this fall. Here's why:
Despite the last couple years, we have more talent than 2/3 of the conference. Outside of OSU, PSU and Nebraska, we have more raw talent on D than any team.
We are returning all but 2 players, really one when you consider Woolfolk taking over for Rogers. Depending on who ends up where, we might have all 11 starters who have started at least a few games last season (or the season before, in TWolf's case). No other Big Ten school can say that, or even come close.
We have, arguably, the best DC in the league. He knows how to coach and motivate players, and should be able to do it again in AA.
We have a long way to go, but because of those three points, I believe we will be, at least, top 6 in the B1G this fall in most major defensive statistics.
but I can't believe your conclusion
I need to see a few stops on 3rd and long before I can become a believer again
I agree with diaper changing Hoke. I want to believe so perhaps watching our D-Line stand up to the O-Line this spring will be a start.
One point to remember is that while we have many players coming back, several are still very young and no where near where they will be physically in a few years. The importance of experience certainly cannot be overlooked, but we can only expect so much from 19 year old players. The are not big enough nor are they strong enough.
The future certainly looks brighter than the past.
Personally, I don't know where all these young players are you speak of. The youngest guy on our DL will probably be Roh (3rd year) but maybe second year Jibreel Black. Personally, I think RVB stays at end and Black is the 3rd DE, but I'll give you him.
At LB, Demens is a 4th year player, and the other starters will be some combination of 3rd and 4th year players (Cam Gordon, Mike Jones, JB Fitzgerald). The only second year player who might have a shot here is Jake Ryan, but like Jibreel Black, if he starts it's because he beat out older players, and is likely physically ready to be a Big Ten starter.
The secondary will be the youngest. However, 5th year senior Woolfolk will be one starter, and 4th year junior Kovacs is about 50/50 to start as well. 4th year CB JT Floyd is a likely starter as well. If Floyd and Kovacs start, we'd have 3 of 4 DBs in at least their 4th year on campus. If guys like Marvin Robinson, Carvin Johnson or one of the soph CBs take one or two of those spots, the secondary will be pretty young, but not crazy young. And at least one DB will be a sophomore, either FS or CB.
However, this shows we would start somewhere from 1-5 second year players, and no first year guys. If we end up with 5, then yes we're still young. If it's more like 2 or 3, then we're about where every Big Ten team is.
3rd year players should be considered about average age, especially if they're RS sophomores.
If RVB moves to end DT will be manned frequently by RS freshman like Ash or Talbott or Wilkins or Paskorz; unless you think 3rd year players who've yet to show they can play (Cambell and Washington) will both pan out - very optimistic thinking, if so. The DL will probably be old as a starting unit but the depth is young and more importantly - extremely inexperienced.
Agree on the Linebackers though. They'll be 'young' only if some older players get beaten out by Freshman.
The secondary is a mixed bag. Woolfolk, Floyd, and Kovacs are veterans. Most of the rest are going to be young, but they all have experience.
Overall, I agree - the defense won't be as young as everyone makes them out to be and in terms of experience, above average. Very few teams are full of 4th and 5th year players at every position.
Totally agree. I'll even go out and say we may end up having the top D-line in the conference. This of course hinges on Campbell or Washington/Ash turning into a competent lineman (I know, that is a big "if", but considering the move of Campbell back to D, there is clearly optimisim from some very good coaches). A line of Roh, Martin, Campbell and Van Bergen could easily be one of the best in the conference. And considering Mattison's penchent for a pressure oriented D (the anti-Robinson), I believe that will take some pressure off of our still young secondary.
On the pessimism side:
-New coaches, scheme, terminology, plays, duties will take time to get used to
-Position changes will exacerbate the previous point
-The returning starters are mostly the same people who stunk last year. None were all conference (though Martin was 2nd team to coaches and honorable mention to media)
Let me see if I can help with the pessimism:
1. "new coaches, scheme, terminology, etc . . ."
Fair point, but I would guess that most of these guys played the 4-3 for most of their careers. Certainly, almost every high school runs the 4-3. And, for the older guys, they would be returning to what they ran in the years prior to 2010. As for the terminology, same thing - these kids are probably a hell of a lot more familiar with what a strong safety is than a spur or a bandit.
2. "position changes"
Not sure which starters will be position changes. BWC, perhaps, but even he will be moving back to a position that he is familiar with.
3. "returning starters stunk last year."
Yes, but I would argue that this was largely because of (1) terrible D coaching, (2) playing in a terrible 3-3-5 alignment, (3) being true freshmen for many, and (4) being undersized.
Obviously, the D coaching will no longer be terrible - quite the opposite. Ditto with the formation - thankfully, goodbye 3-3-5. Ditto the true freshman thing. As for undersized, having a full year of strength and conditioning should make a big difference for the younger kids.
Sure, we are still at a talent deficit relative to OSU, PSU and maybe Neb, but against other B10 teams, we should be fine. We are going from a poorly coached, young, inexperienced defense running a terrible formation to a well coached, experienced, less-young defense running a good formation. Sounds like a reason for optimism.
1. All 4-3s aren't exactly alike. I agree it's the most common formation/scheme and furthermore, Michigan still played a lot of 4-3 even last year. But the techniques and points of emphasis may be different. Terminology may not be a HUGE deal, nor may the other issues. Yet, these are hurdles that teams with consistency don't have to face. So Michigan's at a relative disadvantage other teams. Not necessarily a crippling one, but one that shouldn't be ignored.
2. Whoever the 'other' DT is will face a position change because that position didn't exist. The spur, bandit, and deathbacker positions are gone. Craig Roh will be used differently (presumably better). Again, not a deal breaker, but a change in formation brings a change in role/position. Also, there will be some that haven't yet been announced - there always are.
3. Yes, there are excuses and rationale but they were still bad.
3-1 That the coaching will be better is an assumption. I happen to agree, but the same reasoning was applied when the last 2 coordinators were hired.
3-2 The 'terrible 3-3-5' alignment was terrible, but also not that much less terrible than the 4-3 and 3-4 D that Michigan also ran. Last years staff was desperatly flailing.
3-3 Agree. We can reasonably expect to see way fewer true freshman. But Ray Vinopal and Terry Talbot and Cullen Christian might not magically turn into quality players just because they've been around for 12-15 months.
3-4 Again agree. Removing a S and adding a DL will make the defense bigger...but also probably slower.
I think the D will be better, but to expect them to be above average seems optimistic to me.
like getting leverage, shedding blocks and total team pursuit (i.e. swarming), that will be an achievement in year 1. Michigan has quite a bit of experience on defense. The secondary is young, but even that group may have Woolfolk and JT Floyd back, so there's that.
Michigan's defense used to play with a lot of energy and confidence (a little swagger too), with players wild, jumping up and down and congratulating each other after every stop. Those days seem like a long time ago.
The best thing I've heard from Mattison was "We will be a swarming defense how ever we line up". Man, I cannot wait to see that kind of product on the field again.
I really hope one of the younger guys can supplant JT Floyd as a starting corner. He seems far too stiff and lacks change of direction. I'd like to see Avery or Cullen Christian step up and lock down the spot opposite Woolfolk.
I loved Barwis, but I am beginning to wonder about the strength and bulk issues we seemed to have the past few years. I passed it off back then as youth but I wonder now...At that Barwis was a giant leap from pizza eating contests.
When your kids are underclassmen and they are lining up against upperclassmen who have one to three more years of an elite training program and the natural HGH that is secreted during those extra years, your team is going to be smaller and not as strong. Your supposition that there were "strength" issues is 180 degrees off.
Actually, it is a credit to the staff that they were able to beat Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and ND. The extra year will make a big difference this year. Sadly, those still looking to trash the old staff will be using whatever happens as a retroactive excuse justifying the CC.
"Actually, it is a credit to the staff that they were able to beat Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and ND."
You have got to be fucking kidding.
I wasn't the only one who thought that statement was ridiculous.
All year long I felt like we could have been a lot better as a 4-3 D. I got so mad everytime I saw opposing QBs picking their nails in the backfield while they waited for an open man because we couldn't get to them. I think the real indicator that the D will be improved is how much they are paying GM. When RR was here Magee was the highest assistant and it showed that the O was the priority. GM is getting twice as much as AB and to me that is a good incicator that the mentallity in the locker room will be focused on the D.
must be happy to see Hoke and Mattison on the staff given their expertise coaching Dline.