Imbalance in ratio of offensive to defensive coaches derp

Submitted by mejunglechop on

I haven't seen this raised with relation to why our defense is so bad, but here it is: we effectively have 6 offensive and 4 defensive coaches. Really.

Rodriguez has spent almost all his time with the offense. On top of that you have Dews (WR), Frey (O-line), Smith (Qbs), Jackson (Rbs) and Magee (O-coordinator, TEs and Slots).

On defense we've got Tall (D-line), Braithwaite (safeties), Gibson (corners? and special teams) and Robinson (D-coordinator and LBs).

So yeah, we have 50% more coaches devoted to offense. One effect is both Gibson and Robinson double up while the offensive coaches are more specialized. Another is that simple math dictates defensive players get less coaching per player than offensive players. I don't know what to say besides derpity derpity derp derp doo. FML.

EDIT: I've been doing more research to figure out exactly what is common practice and how much different arrangements are correlated with a relatively stronger defense or offense. I'll be making this into a diary in the coming days.

MGoBoard
Football
Assistant coaches

switch26

November 1st, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^

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..

Joined: 02/04/2010

MGoPoints: 8309

bluenyc

November 1st, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^

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..

Joined: 06/25/2010

MGoPoints: 7044

tlh908

November 1st, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^

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?  

Joined: 09/25/2010

MGoPoints: 2842

mejunglechop

November 1st, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^

If someone wants to do a deeper comparison, please do, I'd love to see it. I don't have the time to write a thesis on this. I'd be surprised if someone found devoting 50% more coaching time to a more or less equal number of players would produce equal results, though.

Joined: 07/09/2008

MGoPoints: 6618

dollarbill

November 1st, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^

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.            

Joined: 12/22/2009

MGoPoints: 288

mgokev

November 1st, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^

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.

Joined: 06/17/2009

MGoPoints: 18955

tenerson

November 1st, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^

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.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 2371

Tacopants

November 1st, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^

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.

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 3579

Clarence Beeks

November 1st, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^

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.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22732