Stanford's Vic Fangio was awarded Defensive Coordinator of the Year.
IMO, it's this guy that makes the Harbaugh option much more attractive. If Fangio wouldn't follow Jimmy, but Casteel would come work for RR, then I'd say keep RR.
and now they have the nerve to do the same to GERG!
/Well. I. Have. Never.
Holding BCS powerhouse U Conn to 10 points has to count for something
His resume blows Gerg's out of the water, IMHO.
Whether or not Fangio would have come here with no control over the makeup of his staff is another question entirely.
he likely only came because he worked with the brother in the NFL
Actually Don would ANY self-respecting DC come here if they couldnt' pick their own staff? The only reason Casteel would is because the guys already here ARE his own staff.....
Any DC coming here after the last two have spectacularly flamed out with the current staff in place, probably not.
Well congrats to him but I am still for RR staying. Hopefully Casteel comes to UM but if not we need someone that can run a defense. Sorry GERG but your stuffed animal and other tactics just don't cut it.
Any info as to his background? As I understand, Stanford has had some poorly rated defenses in the past 3 years and really started to make the turnaround this year.
Is Fangio new to Stanford this season? Last season, Stanford made some steps forward, was that his start? Just curious for more info, thanks.
Fangio made an immediate and dramatic impact. He worked for Jim's brother on the Raven's staff. Fangio has a very impressive resume. He is not a youngster.
This guy's performance in his first year is further evidence against people who argue for the M defensive staff to stay intact for continuity's sake. F that. Defensive schemes are much less complex and it isn't uncommon to see huge improvements in a new DC's 1st year.
Most pro-RR people I see on this board are fine with major turnover in the defensive staff.
Hiring Jim Harbaugh's defensive coordinators has proved to be a great strategy so far.
Hiring any DC and then having them run a system they're not familiar with has not proved to be a great strategy so far.
Schaefer ran a 4-3 most of the time in 2008. In 2009 we ran that 4-3 under alignment almost exclusively.
The "RR is forcing everyone to play the 3-3-5" meme doesn't jive with what our football team has actually done on the field most of the last three years.
If our D was as good this year as it was in 2008, we would probably have a better record, and all these "CC" threads, might not exist.
After giving up 45 to Illinois, 46 to Penn State, and 35 to MSU (after giving up 35 to ND earlier in the year), the head coach and some of the assistants thought maybe they should try something different? Obviously it didn't work, but how many people would have been complaining if they had done the same shit that they all knew wasn't working?
And of course the next two weeks they held Minnesota to 6 points and Northwestern to 21. So post "meddling" things actually got better. But yeah, it makes sense to keep complaining that the coach "forced" a system they tried for one game to mix things up when the defense was not performing.
If that was the plan, why did the coaches not play that system they were dying to force on the defensive coordinator at all the next season?
in the Minnesota and NW games, did they?
Also, as wretched as the offense was that year, I seem to remember the defense spending a lot more time on the field that year. 3 and outs a-plenty.
They ran it for one game over a two year period, yet the overriding sentiment seems to be that Rodriguez has been hellbent on forcing his uncooperative defensive coordinators to run the 3-3-5 against their will.
Obviously the Purdue game was a shitstorm, but the same people complaining about changing up the defense for that game are the same who will bitch and moan that Rodriguez doesn't take any interest in the defense and never makes adjustments and when he does make adjustments and they work out (e.g. swapping Ezeh for Demens in the starting lineup) they still bitch that the change didn't happen soon enough.
Personally, I think Shafer is a very good defensive coordinator. My problem is with the people who all wanted him fired for struggling with a sub-par roster (when sophomore Obi Ezeh is your default starting middle linebacker, for example, your defense is probably going to struggle) that, as you point out, was constantly put in bad situations because of the offense. Now these same people, seeing him have success elsewhere, are in unanimous agreement that it was a stupid move to fire him. These same people now are convinced Greg Robinson spends his evenings sipping cognac by a roaring fire before unsuccessfully attempting to fuck a doorknob. These people don't have a good track record as far as I'm concerned.
Wait . . . so you're saying that giving up 40+ points to Justin Siller and Purdue while running a 3-3-5 wasn't a big deal? Purdue sucked that year. All those other teams you listed (PSU, Illinois, etc.) were decent teams in 2008, and let's not forget that the offense was atrocious, which led to a lot of those points.
Then Minnesota (who sucked) and Northwestern (in driving snow) scored only a few points, and somehow that's a success story?
Rodriguez and his staff WERE hellbent on running the 3-3-5. If you don't believe us about 2008, then just take a look at the 2009-10 offseason . . . when they installed the 3-3-5 again.
When did I say giving up a ton of points to Purdue wasn't a big deal? My point was that with respect to running the 3-3-5, it is a lone outlier in Rodriguez's first two full seasons at Michigan. If they were hellbent on running the 3-3-5, why didn't they implement it in the 2008-09 offseason? Or the previous offseason? Head football coaches, who as far as I know have the power to do whatever the hell they want with respect to on-field decisions, don't need to wait two years to do something if they are "hellbent" on making it happen.
Obviously the Purdue game was a total screwup on defense, but the same people who complained about the failed change were the same ones constantly complaining that Rodriguez and Co. needed to make changes and try anything (the "just blitz every play" crowd) on that side of the ball. They tried something new for one game, it didn't work (though nothing else had been successful earlier) and a week later the team played its best two defensive games of the season (not a "success story", but a huge improvement over prior results)
Also, Illinois went 5-7 that year. If they were a decent team then Purdue wasn't far behind and Minnesota (who had a better record and beat them in Champaign, despite your claims that they sucked) was downright awesome.
Ahh, I see he coached for the Milford Academy in 1982 although I bet he was neither seen nor heard.
I bet his coaches meetings are exceptionally quiet. You can always tell a Milford man.
We need to hire a defensive coordinator who make Stanford look good! I wonder if there are any past Stanford defensive coordiinators we could hire? Remember when Stanford beat USC when USC was awesome? Could we get the guy who engineered that masterpiece I wonder?
Hmmm...isn't that guy at Syracuse now?
He wasn't a very popular D-Coordinator in the places he coached at in the NFL. Scuttlebutt is that he cost Capers his HC job twice.
Worked around him before. Extremely quiet. They didn't exactly shut down Oregon. I think I'd take Shafer instead.
I'm not saying I want the guy or don't want the guy, but I don't think getting lit up by Oregon one time this year is the worst thing that has ever happened to a DC candidate.
That is because those crazy 4-fronts can't work against the spread. 3-3-5 for all.
What a joke. Scott Shafer took a Syracuse team that was 110th worst in the nation under Greg Robinson two years ago and made them the #6 defense in the nation.
Stanford was #24.
Hire Shafer! Shit...