I am now sold on a 4-2-5 defense

Submitted by VinnieMac25 on

I am now sold on a 4-2-5 defense thanks to the article on Maize N Brew, that Dave wrote.  Great read if any one is up and would like to read it. 
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/10/5/1731787/fixing-the-michigan-defense-why-not-try-a-4-2-5

So why not try this.  I have been voicing my displeasure with Roh not on the line more often. A line consisting of RVB, MM, Banks, Roh.  Lb's Mouton and Kovacs (Herron). Cb's Rogers, Talbott/Avery/Christian.  Safety Gordon and Floyd, and T. Gordon/C. Johnson.  Whats some of your thoughts?  To me pressure is the key, this would bring some pressure.  The young secondary can still play their zone, and make plays! Maybe Gerg and RR are starting to notice this, thats why we saw some of this switch in the IU game.

Space Coyote

October 6th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^

Sorry, but 195 lb Kovacs would get destroyed at LB.  Making reads from the safety position is much easier than making reads from the MLB position.  If you haven't practiced at MLB and your 195 lbs your going to get pulled in the wrong direction and put in the wrong spots (worse than Ezeh) and then get bull dozed even further from the ball by a Guard of Center.  Plugging in safeties at LB doesn't just automatically work.

Also, the 4-2-5 would probably hurt us against the run.  For all the complaining about all this stuff we actually aren't bad against the run.  Having only two LBs being able to pursue (it's much more difficult to pursue as a down lineman as you already have a O-lineman on top of you) would hurt us against the run.  I agree on passing downs a 4-2-5 would be better, and maybe mix it in a little on other downs, but we can't just turn over the whole thing right now.

gsimmons85

October 6th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

and joes....  not x's and o's...

 

how many switches in pre-snap formations does michigan have to go through before people start realizing the difference between 97's defense and this years defense has a lot more to do personal, and a lot less to do with how many lineman get in a three point stance before the snap....

 

wile_e8

October 6th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

It's especially frustrating since we've seen most of these joes in a 4-man front last year (with BG!) and it still wasn't a very good defense.  But why would anyone want to learn lessons from the past when it's much easier to blame the scheme and call for GERG to be fired?

wile_e8

October 6th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^

We also lost BG, Donovan Waren, Troy Woolfolk, and Stevie Brown from that defense and mostly replaced them with inexperienced underclassmen.  I'd be willing to bet adding those four players would help fix the defense much more than any change of scheme.  (Of course, that is a completely unprovable assertion, but so is all this talk about fixing the defense by switching to the 4-2-5).

I'm concerned, but I don't see how switching the number of down linemen will magically improve anything.  Given the personnel losses, we knew going into the season this defense was going to be bad no matter what scheme it ran.

gsimmons85

October 6th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

and joes....  not x's and o's...

 

how many switches in pre-snap formations does michigan have to go through before people start realizing the difference between 97's defense and this years defense has a lot more to do personal, and a lot less to do with how many lineman get in a three point stance before the snap....

 

Foote Fetish

October 6th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

I suspect that as the corners and safeties get more and more experienced, we'll start to see more of the multiple look we were expecting before the season started, with Roh coming down to the line more often, etc.  I think we've been a little hamstrung based on personel and the type of team we've played.