Fretting over D scheme is akin to 2008 panic
Remember in 2008 when words like "Denard" and "Tate" didn't exist in our vocab since our top 2 QBs were none other than the gentleman below?
t
This picture provides perspective for the challenge our D faces. Aren't you glad RichRod didn't listen to the critics and put Threet/Sheridan under center in a pro-style offense? How invaluable was it that our OL and WRs learn the spread offense in 2008 to prep for what we now have in 2010?
While I do concede some things can be tweaked on D (like Roh looking lost on zone coverage vs. his strength of rushing the passer), we have to give RichRod time on defense. He made a swift move to fire Schafer for a reason. The jury may still be out on GERG and that's fine. But RichRod has brought in solid, young talent on D. If he can develop Lloyd's players (see Jr. Hemingway and Jonas Mouton), this D will grow up in time.
Regardless of how the D performs this Saturday or this year, I am positive we will have Denard/Roundtree/Lewan type all-stars on our D soon. Here's to hoping that young talent shines against Sparty this weekend.
Go Blue!
October 6th, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^
Great way to look at it!
October 6th, 2010 at 10:59 PM ^
I don't know about this board, but I know on the espn michigan forum in 2008 people were hammering RR for "not changing his system to fit the QB's".
October 6th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
I saw a press conference with Brian Kelly a couple weeks ago (probably after the MSU game) in which someone brought up changing his offense to fit Crist's giant-statueness. Kelly straightforwardly said, "We run a spread offense that requires the QB to run. He's going to have to run, and he's going to have to do it well."
I don't follow ND at all, but I'm curious if the Irish fanbase and/or the media are railing against Kelly for not adapting his offense to fit the Navarre-like Crist.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:33 AM ^
Crist is actually pretty fast. If you remember, he carried the ball a couple of times in the first drive against us, but after the concussion/contusion/whatever, Kelly became cautious and didn't use him as a runner.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:36 AM ^
Yeah, fair enough, that "Navarre-like" comment was pretty unwarranted. What can I say, I was feeling a little saucy.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:47 AM ^
But to answer your question, the NDNation board is full of people complaining that Kelly is too married to his system, and putting the game in Crist's hands instead of relying on Armando Allen.
October 7th, 2010 at 3:15 AM ^
Relative to other football players, I would not call him fast, just not slow.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^
I feel that we've got potential all-stars on our D right now (save for certain decimated coverage positions).They just need another year or two under their belts to blow up. Still, more all-stars is better than less of course. Good call. Hindsight is always 20/20 but those who do not learn from the past....
October 6th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^
It's amazing what all has taken place since that 2008 opener verse the Utah Utes until now. Remember, Utah that year went undefeated beating Bama in the Sugar bowl and Michigan only lost to them 25-23 with Sheridan and Threet at qb. Mike Shaw scored the first td in the Rich Rod era on the little dump out to the right from Sheridan. Now we see Denard scoring td's left and right. What has taken place and has evolved in AA has been truly a sight to see and it creates a lot of excitment for the years to come for the maize and blue.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^
Remember that horrible statistic from the first month of the '08 season or so, when like 40% of our offensive plays went for no gain or a loss? That was just brutal.
October 7th, 2010 at 3:19 AM ^
those were not fun times.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^
I don't know how anyone expected Threet to run that offense, let alone Steve Carrell up there. Heck of a comedian though.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
Interesting, except that Death Roh is standing up at LB and looking lost, we have depth on the DL and it isn't being used, we haven't even tried other LBs to replace Obi, it's easier to learn defense that offense and we are #120 out of 120.
Pretty much other than that, I agree with you.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^
I’m sure if you tried hard enough, you could find plenty of examples of good players looking lost at their positions in 2008.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:58 AM ^
Wow. Not a single one of those points is correct. But, you're gettin' there... you're gettin there though.
October 7th, 2010 at 6:30 AM ^
We're 102/120, we're not that bad ;)
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2010&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=…
Oh wait, we ARE 120/120 in pass defense.
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2010&rpt=IA_teampassdef&site…
October 7th, 2010 at 7:42 AM ^
Michigan is also the team to have faced 400 pass attempts. Teams never have a chance to let off the throttle, so they just pass it all over all game. The efficiency defense numbers aren't good, but they're apocalyptic.
And are you saying Roh should be kept on the line so that DL depth stays on the bench or should play LB (where playing some coverage is required) to let that DL depth play?
October 6th, 2010 at 11:34 PM ^
You make a very good point comparing the 2008 offense to this defense. I think most people are just frustrated with the 3 man rush and allowing opposing QB's to pick us apart. We all want more pressure put on the QB. And from what I understand about the 3-3-5 is that it is supposed to be a blizting defense. Here is a paragraph from an article about the 3-3-5 defense.
Obviously we are not doing this, and wasting the number 1 advantage of the defense we are running. I am not saying we should blitz every play, but it would be nice to see us send Roh or Mouton more than we are.
As far as I am concerned we aren't stopping offenses the way we are playing right now, so we mine as well take some chances and try and create some big plays on our defense. If we give up a big play, oh well, they were probably gonna score anyways.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
I think part of the reason that there isn't more blitzing is because they are trying to cover up the youth and inexperience of the secondary by dropping everyone into coverage. It could also be that since it is a new defensive scheme, players do not know their assignments all that well and thus are playing a very vanilla style. This is just speculation so if someone with more knowledge of the game (especially on the defensive side of the ball) please correct me.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
that is the exact reason. Until the DB's can be trusted in man coverage there won't be a lot of blitzing. Though I could see the argument that the D is so bad regardless, may as well take the chance on man coverage.
October 6th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
How did that work for us the last 2 years and how did that work for IU last Saturday?
You made some good points up until that last paragraph. The current defense requires the other offense to execute 60+ positive plays to score 35 points. The one you're describing requires 5 really good plays. This is not professional football and most teams will screw up on their own, if you let them. It's not going to be a fan pleaser until you look at the W's and L's.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:04 AM ^
All I am saying is, that it is clear that a good offense can easily put up lots of points on us. I would rather have us play more aggresive and if we give up a few big plays, but also make a few big plays on defense that is probably better than what we do right now. Which is watch a team run 98 plays on us for 41 minutes and score 35 points.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:52 AM ^
October 7th, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^
Actually, the point is that the current scheme allows for more big plays on defense. We simply don't have the playmakers right now to play an aggressive defense, get TFLs, and force mistakes. Being aggressive is going to lead to more big plays for the opposition than big plays for the defense, whereas our current mode of defense is attempting to force an opposing offense to run so many plays that they will eventually make a mistake by the law of averages. Which, yeah, sometimes leads to 98 plays and 35 points. The alternative is what we did to Indiana - 45 plays, 574 yards, 42 points, and a loss.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:59 AM ^
I reeeeaallllyyy wish Brian would put a moratorium on new accounts for awhile.
October 7th, 2010 at 3:32 AM ^
Huh? Unless you responded to the wrong person I think your commentary was unwarranted
October 7th, 2010 at 6:28 AM ^
So you want Brian to discourage people from participating in his own website? Uh... yeah I doubt that'll happen.
October 7th, 2010 at 7:53 AM ^
Why would you say this in response to an intellient comment?
October 7th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^
Seeing as I've been registered for over two years, that would have to have been an awfully long moratorium.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:23 AM ^
I dont think the reason we put up big numbers on Indiana was because there defense was playing overly aggresive. I would say it is because our offense is that good and that explosive. And back to our defense what we are doing now isn't working. I think we can all agree with that. We mine as well play the 3-3-5 like it is supposed to be played by being more aggresive and see if we do any better than we are now.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
At the start of the season what on earth were you expecting? Have you followed this team? The attrition? We have no depth and very little experience on defense. Honestly, tell me what you were expecting?
I don't know many people on this blog that were confident enough to hypothesize that we would be 5-0 at the start of the season. We all hoped we would be, but not many were going out on a limb saying we would be for sure.
You say "what we are doing now isn't working". I say you're full of it because so far it has worked just fine, we're 5-0. No one thought this was going to be a great defense, but they have been able to do just enough for us to win games and I think they will continue to do that.
If we start blitzing all over the place and leave this young secondary to cover more of the field than they do now.......how do you think that is going to help us again?
Ask yourself right now how many times you see a good defense make more "big plays" as you call it, than a good offense? It rarely happens. Now you expect that by blitzing and leaving our secondary vulnerable OUR defense is going to make enough big plays against any opponents offense left on our schedule to make that worth while?? I think you are insane, no sugarcoat.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:24 AM ^
I dont think the reason we put up big numbers on Indiana was because there defense was playing overly aggresive. I would say it is because our offense is that good and that explosive. And back to our defense what we are doing now isn't working. I think we can all agree with that. We mine as well play the 3-3-5 like it is supposed to be played by being more aggresive and see if we do any better than we are now.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
I want to take this opportunity to wish Threet and Sheridan the best. Those two guys were thrust into a situation that neither could have made work and they took a lot of shit for it. But they worked hard, didn't quit all season, and really gave Michigan their all. As painful as that season was and as ineffectual as those two guys were, I appreciate their commitment in a very nasty season.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^
No sense in beating up on Threet, or Sheridan, given their skill set. We pray the defense does the best they can, and that Denard & crew can score more. A year's experience, and more blue chip recruits, and we'll see things improve.
The significant difference between now and 2008 is that the defense couldn't bail out the offense in 2008, while the offense CAN and WILL bail out the defense in 2010.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:30 AM ^
I never noticed it before, but Sheridan looks a lot like Michael from The Office:
(EDIT: D'oh! Beaten to the punch.)
October 7th, 2010 at 5:32 AM ^
I remember this being a big issue back in the Lloyd Carr era. We would sit back in a vanilla zone and be picked apart by the likes of Troy Smith or whoever else. I remember it being very frustrating that we would not put more pressure on QB's. I remember is was also really frustrating the way we were calling our offense. Stretch right, stretch left, pass down field, punt.
For some reason in the Florida game, it was like a light went on. We opened up the offense, spread the field and scored points. We also came out like a bat out of hell and attacked Tim Tebow. It was a great game.
Fast forward to now and I hear the same complaints as I did in 2006/2007. Only this time the defense isn't really fit to come with a lot of blitz packages. The secondary is so young and inexperienced, they are just trying to protect them back there. Which to me is a good thing. It can get frustrating but I think if we came with too many blitzes you would eventually see a lot of blown assignments and big plays.
This is why I love the RR era. RichRod has such and eye for talent, and knows the limitations of his players. Lloyd Carr consistently under used the talent at his disposal. Rich Rodriguez does good to make due with the hand he is dealt.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:01 AM ^
I agree mostly with the OP. I would like to see GERG not rush less than four at all times (OK, maybe if it is 3rd and 20). Playing soft to cover up the inexperience and talent deficiency is fine, but allowing the QB a ton of time to find the hole out there is not what I would call a wise decision.
I really like the package where Roh, Van Bergen, Martin, and Black rush the passer. That may be a preview of the defense we will see next season. Having Roh drop into coverage from time to time (even though that is not his strongest skill) is OK, but please bring Mouton or someone else to keep the pressure on the QB.