I don't get the case for Casteel

But the fact that we're running multiple fronts may be part of the problem.  With a young defense, running multiple schemes can only add to the confusion.  The problem seems to be that GERG doesn't understand how to generate pressure out of the 3-3-5.  Casteel blitzes all the time, from every direction.  GERG isn't comfortable doing that.  The 3-3-5 is not intended to be a passive scheme, but GERG has effectively turned it into one, which necessitates periodic switching to a 4-4, which probably just confuses our defenders all the more.

I think Ideally, RR would run the 3-3-5 the large majority of the time, and not be switching up regularly.  That's where Casteel's importance comes in.

It might be RR's last hand of cards, but not UM's. And that is the reason why this should not be RR's decision. Our interests are not identical and it is time to take the chips away from RR and tell him to move away from the table.

I support this!  Folks are disappointed and claiming Roh is not stepping up  or "progressing" this year... but he's filling a new role... I think he needs to go back to the DL, and we'll see him step it up once more.

It was so obvious in the PSU game that Roh is being misused as a LB.  It basically turns Roh into an average to below average player with him at LB.  I would actually like to see the front 4 as Roh, RVB, Martin and Banks.  LBs are Demens, Mouton, Tom Gordon (Spur).  CBs are Floyd/Rogers.  Bandit is Kovacs, Deep safety is Carvin Johnson.  I've removed Cam Gordon from the starting lineup as I think Tom Gordon actually played better at Spur.  Also, with Carvin at Deep S, it provides a bigger, faster, more experienced guy (albeit at Spur for a few games) than Vinopal.  Stir, serve.

Is it Greg Robinsons fault we're starting a bunch of underclassman? How do we come off blaming him for there being no players here? If that's the issue we have with Robinson, let's just bring Ed Orgeron in and have him run the show.

to me it is not particularly compelling.  There is no magic to the scheme, or everyone would be using it.  Football coaches are great at copying what works, and the fact that most programs use other schemes should tell a lot.  Also, loyalty is all well and good, but loyalty to people who haven't performed is a bad thing.  As Head Coach your loyalty has to be to the success of the program first and only.  If your subordinates aren't performing, loyalty means treat them fairly on the way out and help them find a job elsewhere.

as "washing the slate clean" with an outsider?

Or, do you propose to force a DC on Rich Rodriguez who may not be his choice?

I'd agree with anybody, that the Jeff Casteel hysteria (there will be 50 more "Jeff Casteel" threads between now and the end of November, no doubt) needs to get reduced by about four levels.  He's not our DC.  There's little evidence to suggest that we'll get him as our DC in the immediate future.

The one thing that I insist on, is that Rich Rod Rodriguez has been going to Plans B, C and D ever since he could not get Casteel to join up with Michigan, and that RR's first choice -- Casteel -- has been putting out first class defensive teams all along.  So it can be done.

And it just cannot be said enough; our defensive personnel is young, disastrous, and disastrously young.  I'm okay with wiping the Greg Robinson slate clean, but just as the Casteel-love is at a hysterical stage, so is the Robinson-hate.

I agree with you if we can find one more DT (i.e. somebody who is big enough and strong enough).  If we are playing with an undersized, relatively weak and/or poor technique-wise DT, then it makes no difference; the offense will attack and push around that person every time.

I honestly don't think it makes a difference between the 3-man line and the 4-man line.  Our defensive players still need to get bigger and stronger, particularly in the DL (Martin and RVB the obvious exceptions).  Penn State's OL was pushing back our backup linemen at will; it's almost impossible to play LB when that happens.  Another obvious fact is that our LBs and secondary need to get faster.

I know, right?  It's almost like our defense hasn't been doing very well.

I'm not sure what you mean by some of this.  I'm pretty sure we're trying to play a 2-gap system but our linemen (not named Martin and RVB) are doing a horrible job in it. 

A 2-gap system is pretty conservative in nature as it doesn't rely on a lot of blitzing but rather linemen holding up blockers and allowing the reading LBs to attack the ballcarrier unscathed.  Our linemen are consistently getting knocked back and combo blocked; since our LBs are playing read-react, they are basically dead ducks when a LB comes out at them.  The solution is then to use a 1-gap defense with run blitzes.  This requires man coverage behind it in case the offense decides to pass; our corners have proven that they will get burned often in man-to-man.  Pick your poison.

How do you know that our DBs have received man-centric training?  Has that been reported somewhere (not being sarcastic, it's just something I have never seen/heard and is quite contrary to what we have observed for the entire season thus far)?

If we ran the 7-0-5, we'd likely let them chip away down the field 5 yards at a time.

if it got him to a rose bowl

RR should bring in who he thinks is the best defensive coach (whether that means someone who knows the 3-3-5 so that they can jell with the other assistants or someone who has a great reputation for shutting teams down). 

Picking somebody solely based on their Michigan pedigree in lieu of a "better" (however you define it) defensive coordinator is absolutely the wrong move.  If all else is the same, I'm in favor of the Michigan guy but not at the expense of ability/talent.

1) The combination of Casteel with our current coaching staff is a proven winner.

No, it's not.

I wondered when this was going to happen. We have officially become ND during the CW era. The only thing missing is Jon Tenuta as Co-Defensive Coordinator.