Haven't seen mentioned: TCU Def vs Wisc O
One of the main arguments against using the 3-3-5 and having smaller but more athletic players on D in the big 10 was that they would simply get ran over by the Wisconsins of the league. However, with TCU giving the Wisky O fits with their speed on D there's more evidence to go against the argument of the "traditionalists" (though TCU runs a 4-2-5 I believe).
But there a few things to keep in mind as well. This was just one game, of which TCU had weeks of time to prepare for. Whether a proven D with this composition can sustain this level of play throughout an entire season in the Big 10 remains speculation (though we might find out next season with Nebraska). One other thing worth noting is that the Wisky receivers dropped numerous catchable balls that could've made a big difference throughout the game as well. Also I don't know if Clay was still banged up or what but he barely played until Wisky's last drive of the game and came in and steam-rolled everyone en rout to a Wisky TD; why the heck didn't he/they play like that until then?
Anyway, something worth noting that may or may not have any relevance for UM anymore now that RR is lekely gone. It is worth adding to the larger conversation of size vs speed, though. Curious to hear anyone else's thoughts on the game and/or the larger issue at hand.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
I almost like this post thank you.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^
Those caveats about this are ridiculous. They have extra time to prepare... being small? The Wisconsin O destroyed them on thier first drive with enormous holes just like anyone would predict. Wisconsin's size mattered and in a big way. Except that it stopped mattering after that first drive and speed from massively smaller defensive linemen won our enormously. They were tons bigger and made enormous holes early on, and then they scored 11 points in the final 55 minutes. Speed can and does beat size on the defensive line. No caveats required. "can it be sustained" is pretty dumb too. They do it in the NFL for a 20 game season in indianapolis and whatnot. Why can't they do it with an 8 game conference slate?
TCU's defense was first in the nation, it demolished wisconsins 50-80 point scoring offense for the whole game after getting pushed around early, and there are no redeeming caveats to dissuage saying that speed can definitively beat size and experience on the offensive line, in any league and locale.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
Wow, you sound like a kind person.
Wisky had their opportunities but couldn't get it done. I don't think things are nearly as difinitive as you seem to believe concerning speed trumping size and power. There are successful teams and defenses that employ both strategies, not to mention that the NFL is not college, many NFL guys are huge and fast, in college there aren't too many guys of that caliber so you largely have to choose which philosophy you're going to go with. While TCU got the upper hand on many plays, there were also many plays where Wisky got the upper hand on them but failed to execute in the end.
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
Que?
Wisconsin ran the ball an absurd 46 times, averaged about a yard per carry less than their season average. Their YPA was also significantly down. TCU did pretty well.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^
do we have 5 db's?
/s
/kindof
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
won that Rose Bowl for TCU. They lulled Wisky into thinking they didn't need John Clay bowling over defenders to win. By the time Bielema remembered that, it was too late.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^
I didn't get a chance to watch the entire game. However it sure seemed that Wisc. had an opportunity to win, even with all of the mistakes. I cannot argue with the way that staff game plans (as much as I hate to admit it). We could very easily be saying "see, the 4-2-5 wouldn't work in the B1G either."
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
Great fast players beat good strong players.
Great strong players beat good fast players.
I hate these arguments.
Did Nebraska over power those fast Miami teams in the 80's? No they got embarrassed
Did Nebraska over power those fast Miami and Floida teams in the 90's? Yes they kicked their ass.
All coaches are looking for good, strong and fast players. As RR said, no one is turning away Jake Long if he wanted to play for them.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
When I play NCAA '11 online, I use TCU and their 4-2-5 is really effective. That seems like a good defense to run.
I think it's a good defense because you have 4 down linemen and 5 defensive backs. It's like a flex between a 3-3-5 and a traditional 4-3.
TCU was looking for their third straight finish at #1 in total defense so I would say that the 4-2-5 is pretty good.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
We have Obi shedding the sideline too late and coming in as the play has started. This moment, and hearing Craig James talk about it, was when my RichRod support collapsed.
January 3rd, 2011 at 5:56 PM ^
The guy knew his keys and went balls out when he read them. That coaching staff created a monster. Unbelievable effort from a unit that repeatedly hit Wisc pretty hard.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
are kind of useless IMO. just because we run a defensive scheme based more on speed rather than brawn does not mean we have the same level of coaching or emphasis on defense that TCU has. theres very little we've seen from these defensive coaches that makes me think we would be successful in anything, whether that be a 4-2-5, 3-3-5, 3-4, 4-3, or something even more ridiculous than what we're doing now.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^
They've got three interior linemen—Grant, Griffin, and Coleman—who played in most or all of their games this year, and they are 6-2/305, 6-1/310, and 6-2/290, respectively. That's not puny.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
I remember one play from that game: it was a Wisco run to the left (not sure if it was a zone left, sweep, or something else) but one of TCU's D-Lineman penetrated the backside blocking, tore down the line, and tackled at the LOS.
Very impressive.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
Wisconsin has big players (as opposed to small players like Michigan). They run a pro-style offense (as opposed to an offense that would work only in the Big East), which, as we saw in Michigan State's recent dismantling of Alabama, never fails. Also, their players hit you in the mouth. Are we sure TCU won that game?
/s
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
I want Bumpas as DC.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
that Ohio State's defense is effectively a 4-2-5, right?
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
During their final drive, Wisconsin's OL punished the TCU D-Line, opening up large holes, as the running backs gained chunks and chunks of yards on the ground, similar to what they did to our inept defense. If you take a look at the stats, and yes the greatest stat is whether you won or not, Wisconsin outgained TCU by, 80 yards. That game fell on Wisconsin's inability to convert their long drives into touchdowns. Sure, TCU's defense played a huge part in it, but Wisconsin clearly could have, and maybe should have, won that game.
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
Three years ago all I heard about was the big and slow Big Ten. Now last week all I heard about was a big, physical UW team will pound the crap out of the small, speedy TCU.
January 3rd, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^
the B1G Ten laid a goose egg on NYD, 0-5. The UM loss was ugly, so was MSU's loss (-48 yrds rushing), so was PSU's loss (McGloin's 5 picks), and so was Wiscy loss against a non-AQ. Just me trying to find a gleamer of something from the blowout.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^
Dude, Wisconsin steam-rolled TCU on the ground. Removing sacks, they ran for 6.1 yards per carry on a whopping 42 carries.
TCU won because Bielma spent the better part of the middle two quarters trying to throw the ball. If he kept riding their backs, TCU would have been dust.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:11 PM ^
You watched the same game I did. He did it at the end as well.
January 3rd, 2011 at 8:42 PM ^
I've never understood why coaches don't try to run it in on a two-point conversion more often. Wisconsin certainly could have.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:03 PM ^
The fourth guy on the line is not a safety, it is a defensive end with defensive end size. It is the difference of having two guys the size of Martin and two the size of Roh on the line. We don't have that. Their 6 guys in the the front are bigger than our 6 guys in the front. I would love a 4-2-5 as opposed to our scheme.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
To me Wisconsin looked like the better team. Bielema lost this game by going away from his strength.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^
Three reasons why TCU was able to hold Wisky to 19:
1. Tackling (gang and open-field)
2. Wisky called 8 passes out of 27 1st down plays. Perhaps NOT too high, but still more than they would have in the regular season.
3. TCU dared Wisky to throw by bringing 8 in the box most of the game (maybe the reason for 8 first down play passes). This is the same philosophy about how teams "dared" Michigan to beat them by passing or giving to our worthless RBs, without letting Denard run wild.
How many tackles did TCU miss, when it needed a LB or DB to take down the RB or WR?
There was one play when someone bust into the backfield and the Wisky RB tried to cut back. The TCU guy got "leverage" (Announcer used this term) and made the tackle without letting the back escape. Compare that with the same kind of play during a critical point in the PSU game when we had Royster trapped in the backfield short on a 4th and 1 and let him escape. PSU then scored to go up 21-10.
Regarding Wisky's run game and play selection: they had 4 carries that netted 102 of their 226 yds. Taking out the 4 sacks for -16 yds, the other 38 carries netted 140 yds, or about 3.5 ypc average (not bad). This lends credence to the claim that Wisky didn't run teh ball enough.
Wisky has the ball for 36 minutes and got 19 points. As much as I love Barwis, TCU showed it could stay on the field and not getting totally pushed off the field. Whatever was in their Gatorade, we need some on our sideline next year.