Imbalance in ratio of offensive to defensive coaches derp

interesting tidbit..  I didn't realize this and I could see this having a big effect..

We should have someone working with special teams every day all practice long..

The corners are a whole nother story..

This is an interesting point. Also, Magee is tight ends and slots I believe.

Maybe and I stress maybe because I don't know, just an opinion, maybe Gibson is doing too much.  He seems to be in front of alot of recruits and has to coach 2 different positions.  We all know Gerg is not often on the road recruiting.  Of course, Coach Rod would know better..

I am not sure the point of this thread.  How does this compare with previous years?  How does this compare with other teams.  Are these stats normal or not?  Is there evidence that adding another D coach will improve the outcome of the game?  

This post leaves me hanging - what should I do with the data?  

double post

This is pretty common.  I don't think it's a big deal.  Under Carr we usually had only three defensive coaches: DL, LBs, DBs. 

RRod is a master of the spread.  He knows exactly what type of recruits he wants for the offense:  powerful guards and centers, athletic tackles, speedy QBs, jitterbug slots, tall outside recievers, explosive backs, etc.  Doubtlessly, he can see and develope offensive diamonds in the rough for the spread offense.  I do not get the sense the defensive recruiting has the same precision.  Where are the immediate impact players in M's defensive recruits?  On offense, you see Forcier, Robinson, Lewan, V. Smith, etc.  On defense, Roh is the closest thing to an impact player but he does not seem to quite fit the scheme -- which is the point of this post.  M needs a D-Coordinator who can recruit for whatever scheme M plays -- whether pressure/man, gap control/zone, 4 down, 3 down, etc.  IMO, only then will M's D rival its O.            

I believe this is "normal" for a RR team only because there are more positions groups on offense with varying responsibilities than on defense. For example, LBs = Running Backs, DB's = Wide receivers, DE's = Tight ends, NT = OL, Safeties = Slots.  You obviously need a QB coach, and you aren't going to have a full coach devoted to nose tackle.  Thus the 6/4 split.

That's a pretty common coaching setup. There's really 3 position groups on D and at least four if you lump the tight ends onto the recievers or Oline but the way they use ours, you can't do that and they need their own coach. I see this as no issue that other teams may not have.

You're realistically talking about 1 guy.  Defense generally breaks down into 3 main areas of coaching, DL, LB, and DB.

It's not even that different than the Carr era.  We had a 4/3 split in position coaches (Loeffler - QB, Campbell - WR, Moeller - OL/TE, Jackson - RB, ??? - DL, Szabo - LB, Bedford - DB).  Add in the coordinators and you're at 5/4.

Anyways,  I wouldn't be worried in the scheme as much as actual coaching of technique.  Tackling issues and mental mistakes are hurting this defense more than an ill timed blitz or zone coverage.

I couldn't disagree with the point of this post more.  This is an extremely common practice and it makes complete sense.  It simply doesn't take as many coaches on defense, primarily because the positions within the subset groups (i.e. DL, LB and DB) are all generally coached the same.  Frankly, I don't see how an additional coach on the defensive side of the ball would add anything; instead, it would be a waste because that coach wouldn't be fully utilized because there'd be a lot of overlap and duplication of efforts.  The only area where I could really see your argument being valid would be to alleviate the special teams duties from Gibson.

I'll echo what almost everyone says on here:

This isn't that uncommon. At all.