four man front
I am not one to complain about GERG, but if he doesn't have some kind of change in scheme for teams like michigan state, iowa, and wisconsin we are in trouble. I guess I am missing something but why can't we play Campbell and Martin along with two defensive ends? That would be a tougher defense to run against than this three man front. I was at the game and the one play we brought in Campbell (on the goal line) they moved early because they had to account for him. Sure we may give up the occasional long pass with a four man front, but so far this year it looks to me like Floyd and Rogers have far exceeded 'anybody's expectations. Also, I'm not making excuses, but that UMASS line was HUGE, as big as any line in the big ten. IF we make these adjustments than we can probably count this game as a huge blessing. We obviously know now that our three man front isn't going to work against teams like Wisconsin.
September 18th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
Agreed, this needs to happen.
September 18th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
We need to get more pressure on the passer. I'm actually shocked that we didn't pay for this more in our first two games. Our secondary zone is so soft and focused on not giving up the big play. There are 12-yard passes available every single down for opponents. (UConn would have given us a much tougher run if Frazer was making those simple throws and their receivers weren't stonehanded). With such a soft secondary, we really need to give the QB something to think about other than which spot he wants to casually toss a first down pass into. It's not good strategy to hope that Martin can muster a superhuman effort to fight though a double-team every down. We sent some safety blitzes a few times and those seemed very successful. We desperately need to put more heat on the QB if we're going to play so conservatively in our zone.
September 18th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
If Campbell were ready to play, he would be playing.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^
even assuming that he isn't ready its not like they are not going to not run a four man front simply because campbell isn't ready to play. If he isn't ready a four man front with a player from the sagesse / banks / patterson platoon + martin + van bergen + roh would still be more viable than the three man front we saw today. And since campbell is a natural nose he isn't going to be an option on any team that runs a three man front + has mike martin on their defense.
September 18th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^
If we are running a three man front defense, which RR wants to do, then Campbell won't be playing unless he gets better than Mike Martin. At almost 300 lbs Mike Martin is not a defensive end and neither he nor Campbell could slide out and play d-end. So I don't see how the whole "If Campbell were ready to play, he would be playing" thing is held up in such regard.
September 18th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Corners are way to soft... they need to be up, esp rogers since he is physical enough...Floyd Idk if he is good enough...or physical enough right now...
DT is needed in a huge way and it cannot be vanbergen, he is not an interior dlineman, he just isn't...Barnum/Washington someone needs to be made a dt from the olineman that has some TAIL END on them......
De VanBergen, NT Martin DT (cambell/barnum/washington, someone) DE Banks/Roh
Banks run downs, Roh pass rush.... But this defense is way, way to soft against the run against power formation today and my guess is they face a similar run game vs bigten teams all season long....
400yds a game or more will not get it done in bigten play, it won't and if not fixed you can count on 6 wins at best!
September 18th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
Thus far, Floyd has been miles ahead of Rogers. Floyd is just about as physical as Rogers, and he can cover well too.
Barnum/Washington to OL would be more than idiotic. Why would moving two guys who having been playing guard for at least the past two years to DL make sense? We have options at DT, and if you didn't notice Martin was the most solid defensive player today. Banks was playing the 3-tech, and RVB was playing the 5-tech. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, that the line was getting pushed around too much in the interior? Martin wasn't, RVB wasn't exceptional but he wasn't solid, and the Banks/Sagesse platoon was meh as always, but most of the big running plays were related to linebacker play.
Banks and Roh are two entirely different players. Banks is a 280+ DT, Roh is much lighter and plays linebacker half of the time. If there is a four man front, the most likely assembly is RVB-Martin-Banks-Roh.
The coaches will adjust once we face power-I form teams. That means they will change the personnel, adding more Campbell/Martin and less Martin/Banks presumably.
In all honesty this post wasn't that bad, just the idea of pushing Barnum/Washington to DL was so off-base it got me steamed.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
Here's a (Bowling Green) Falcon who just watched Denard's Notre Dame film. Can't wait for next week!
September 18th, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^
they need to be less predictable and switch up coverages every now and then to make the offense react to the defense....Then a CB can move up like you are going to press and drop back in you standard zone.....
September 18th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
September 18th, 2010 at 7:24 PM ^
I like four man lines with Roh on the line. But there is no way a 3-man line with Roh can succeed against the run, he's just not big enough.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
Maybe if we weren't held every pass play (especially Martin) we could get more hits on the QB. I am re-watching the game and it is very frustrating that holding was never called.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
I noticed while watching the game, too. There was a ridiculous amount of holding they were doing that didn't get called, almost comical. I thought the officials last week were bad, but this group has managed to surpass even that.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
I just watched it again too and the holding was pretty bad. Mouton and Martin seemed to get held almost every time.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
Where you finding the game? It isn't on Big Ten tracker yet.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^
September 18th, 2010 at 7:18 PM ^
the DL is slanting too much IMO. Too many time the D is slanting away from the play and the RB is getting all kinds of space.
also Kovacs on a TE is a disaster. He is slower than most TEs and definitely smaller. whenever UMass wanted 5 yds they went to the TE. Same thing with ND.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
Our coverages were mostly all zones, so Kovacs wouldn't have been responsible for man on any TEs. He might not have been that special in zone coverage, but no one was today.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:21 PM ^
He played quiiiite a bit this game. Not just on that one goal line play. He was steady, but he was nowhere near the absolute dominance of Martin these past few games. Also, he and Patterson seem to be a platoon as a backup now, so he still has to share some snaps.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
Our 3-3-5 stands no chance against double TE sets. There are not enough down linemen to cover/protect our LBs.
Why not run the 4-3 under against power run teams with: strong side DE-Van Bergen, NT-Martin, DT-Banks, weakside DE/LB hybrid-Roh, WLB-Mouton, MLB-Ezeh, SLB-Kovaks, "free" or box safety - T Gordon (he's actually been pretty decent; not bad for a guy who had to earn his scholarship by playing defense his last year of HS).
Also, does anybody know why G Robinson slants our defense so much? I don't get the impression that our linemen are overmatched at all, and all this slanting and pinching is putting them out of position when we guess wrong.
Does Robinson have no faith in our line? Or is it that he has no faith in our secondary, so he wants to get TFLs so that the offense is put in obvious pass situations where we can run our 8 man coverages?
September 18th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
Our D is pretty much a 4-3 under/3-3-5 stack hybrid. I agree with the lineup, except Gordon/Johnson's probably the SAM, and Kovacs' the box safety.
As far as slanting, it's pretty effective in 3 man fronts, but when we have 4 or so men coming in and we're slanting, it just leaves cutback lanes. Those and the soft coverage have me the most frustrated at the moment.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
I get the feeling the slanting on the Dline is something GERG does to some how force teams to double our down lineman. I cant think of any other reason why we do it so much. Problem is that if a team guesses right it give free reign for pulling guards to eat our LBs alive and that is what has happened these first 3 games.
A 4 man line if anything lets Martin perhaps with his ability to get in the backfield make plays when a guard has to pull. If anything Banks/Sagesse/Campbell can at least eat up a blocker or 2 which is one less guy who can get out on our LB's and after that we pray to god our LBs make the right reads and actually form tackle guys at the point of attack instead of getting off of blocks from pulling lineman all game long.
September 18th, 2010 at 8:27 PM ^
it's one tradeoff for another. Put more players on the line and it puts more pressure on the secondary to cover well. Rush three players and we have more players in coverage. GERG probably figured it's best to put more in coverage given what happened last year.