Is it time to evaluate the capabilities of the DB coaches?
There is a long litany as to why the defensive backfield is in the shape it is in. You can't point to just one thing.
We all know the recruiting story:
'08 = Cissoko, JT Floyd, Brandon Smith
'09 = Emilien, Cam Gordon, Thomas Gordon, Justin Turner, Adrian Witty
'10 = Avery, Christian, Dorsey, Carvin Johnson, Talbott, Vinopal
We all know the attrition story:
Cissoko, Smith, Emilien, Turner, Witty, Dorsey
I can understand the scheme's GERG is forced to run (even if you disagree):
Bend but don't break/limit opportunities for DB's and LB's to be exploited one-on-one
During the Indiana game was the first time I noticed the DB's not just being exploited due to scheme, but saw issues I would account to coaching.
The question I have for the coaches and true guru's is, from what you have seen, is it time to also evaluate the capability of Tony Gibson and Adam Braithwaite as coaches?
Thanks for your insight.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
Noooooope. Your post includes all relevant information. On almost every other ranked program almost all these players would still be on the bench. It's always fair to evaluate the coaches, but we have to be really careful to recognize the incredible youth of the backfield.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
I would definitely be interested in hearing the coaching issues you noted. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I noticed the DB's playing tighter than they have in previous games and yards are to be expected when the offense passes 60+ times.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
LOL a Turd trying not to be a Dick, I find this incredibly dumb, juvenile and humorous.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:37 PM ^
I noticed the DB's playing tighter than they have in previous games and yards are to be expected when the offense passes 60+ times.
That's a problem, if true, because we still weren't sticking tight to the receivers. Besides, Indiana still averaged 7.5 yards per attempt and completed over 70% of their passes.
Yards are to be expected, but Michigan only had 3 PBUs and 1 INT in 64 attempts.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^
and when? I can't remember any.
I said in an earlier post that the ratio of PBUs to pass attempts was shocking. if you were playing DB in backyard football against someone much bigger, stronger, and faster than you, you'd still, by chance, pick up a break-up more than one out of twenty times, right? I don't know what the underlying issues are, but I also don't know how scholarship athletes at Michigan can't break up more passes than 1/21.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^
Cam Gordon, JT Floyd, and Jonas Mouton each had one. I remember Floyd's and Mouton's, but not Gordon's.
Put it this way: I was horsing around with some of our players on Saturday, and I broke up 1 out of the 4 passes thrown to the kids I was guarding. And I have no business running around a football field with a bunch of 17-year-olds.
October 3rd, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
sounds like your team sucks then
October 3rd, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
But I'm guessing those kids are a tad less accurate than Ben Chappell.
Gordon's breakup came when he dove and nearly intercepted a bal in the first half. I believe it was on their second scoring drive.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
They're sitting in a zone and trying to force college quarterbacks to consistently move the ball, assuming that the majority of college quarterbacks cannot do it with the consistency to outscore Michigan's offense.
The huge plays have been significantly reduced compared to last year, which is a huge improvement. If Woolfolk didn't get hurt, you'd probably see some more inventive schemes and tighter coverage.
As it is now, they're starting a converted receiver, a guy who was so hopelessly over matched last year that Kovacs became a deep safety, two redshirt freshmen, and a walk-on. What do you want from the staff as far as player development and coaching? I want better player retention, but I don't know the inside story about any of the departures.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
improved defensive recruiting (or increased focus to that side of the ball) to your desire to see better player retention. I assume now that we have the offense up and running that we will bot get what we desire (for Michigan Football only).
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:57 PM ^
You probably wouldn't say that if Turner, Cissoko, Emilien, and Dorsey,were all on the team and developing normally. Add an uninjured Woolfolk, and you've got two veteran cornerbacks who are at least serviceable, a 5* safety in Turner, a 4* safety in Emilien, and Dorsey playing nickelback while pushing Cissoko for his starting slot. It's not too hard to imagine that secondary pulling this defense up to around 60 in the country--which would make this team a serious Big 10 title contender.
Obviously, things don't work out all the time, players get injured, and some players get felony convictions, but the cumulative effect is an indictment of the staff, IMO.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:33 PM ^
I don't know about huge plays being "significantly" reduced. I feel like we've still given up our share. But what I do know is, 5 games in we are giving up approximately 80 passing yards per game more than last year, and are currently dead last in the country in pass defense. I agree that the players you've mentioned should not be starting, but in three years the defense has actually managed to regress every year. Mind you, the reference point isn't the 2006 Woodley/Harris defense here, the 2008 defense was at that time the worst defense in Michigan history. 2009 was worse, and we are on pace to obliterate the 2009 mark this year. I don't think we should be dead last in the country even with this current group of players we have. Don't you think at least some of that falls on this scheme that we are playing? Bend don't break seems more like bend over and take-it-up-the-you-know-what currently.
To me, the biggest indictment of the RichRod regime so far has been the complete inability to improve our defensive personnel/depth. You are right, those players should not be starting. But whose fault is it that three years in that these are the players starting? We've had ridiculous attrition, and more non-qualifiers than I can ever remember having (of course recruiting coverage wasn't so intense in the past, but apart from Slocum, I can't remember any in the years I have followed Michigan). I really want RichRod to succeed, and I love watching this offense, but I am genuinely worried that unless the defense miraculously improves in the next year or two, and we start winning more B10 games, this experiment might be cut short.
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
BG's pass rush plus Warren and Woolfolk has nothing to do with it. Throw in the graduation of Stevie Brown a Sr. and you have a defensive backfield made up of two guys who aren't DBs, Rogers and Cam (a LB imho), and a bunch of freshman or RS freshman.
Our highly ranked guys by the so called experts haven't panned out or didn't qualify. Our D is what it is and did give us the opportunity to go up two TDs on a couple of occasions in the second half and the O didn't take advantage. The fumble on the one that kept us from going up 21-7 was huge.
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
I don't mind the zone, but blitz alittle more please. With pressure, the qb was horrendous. why not rush 5 or do man with deep safties every once in a while?
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
The "Recruited By" on this page is all I need to see from Tony Gibson.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-D…
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
How many FAKES out of five does his 4.48 40 yard dash time receive?
October 3rd, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
Negative three.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
He's good at bringing in talent, but has yet to prove that he's good at developing it.
I for one would love to see him be a full time recruiting coordinator and leave the coaching to guys with proven track records of developing D1 talent.
Hell, you can even keep him as special teams coord if you want. Just send him off to Va Tech for an off season to learn how it's done.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
Tony Gibson has been coaching with Rich Rod since 1996. He ain't going anywhere, no matter what small quibbles you have with him.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
how much better we would be if he were a 5*
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
No, it is not time to evaluate the DB coaches. Next question please.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
I believe Shafer was coaching the corners in '08, so Gibson's only been with them two seasons, and Braithwaite is in his first year. Given the massive turnover we've experienced there, I think it's too early to draw any conclusions.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
after being on the job for about 6 months and whose starting personnel include a walk-on (Kovacs), converted rs-fr receiver (Gordon), and a freshman (Carvin)?
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
what about marvin robinson? i thought he was supposed to be a stud, and i haven't seen him on the field much. And I am sick of seeing james rogers play corner, he is TERRIBLE. We won't win anymore big ten games if we don't play bette in coverage.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
Marvin Robinson is a freshman. Your argument is invalid.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
Who's your Bette? Bette Boop, Bette Davis, Bette Midler, if we play any of them dames in coverage, I will be pissed, stick with Rogers.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
what about marvin robinson? i thought he was supposed to be a stud, and i haven't seen him on the field much.
That may have something to do with him being injured for most of the season to date.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
Fuck that James Rogers guy, stepping into play CB even though he was a high school QB who played receiver at Michigan until last year.
His play at DB has been UNACCEPTABLE.
Also, Avery, Talbott and Christian have been mediocre at best, making them not ACCEPTABLE and staring at the precipice of UNACCEPTABLE.
To conclude, we should switch Gardner to CB if he's not going to be the backup QB. Also, Odoms should play two ways.
And we should throw it deep more often. And recruit more 5-star DBs - THIS IS MICHIGAN.
/Sorry, had to get it all out.
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
the way Brian would in a game preview:
Secondary ability level: 2 (Baseline 5, -1 for two freshman starters, -1 for position switch starter at deep safety (C Gordon), -1 for starter who wasn't good enough to see the field on last year's defense (J. Rogers), -1 for starter who got seriously outrun by Indiana last year (Floyd), +1 for But Floyd's been ok this year, -1 for starting a sophomore walk-on, +1 for KOVACS GRIT!, +1 for We actually have interceptions this year, -1 for That happens when teams pass 60 times on you.)
Think back to Michigan's teams of the Lloyd Carr era. How many of these guys would start on any of those teams? Now remember that our safeties were bad on those teams, and that we had trouble covering good receivers back then as well (remember Plaxico Burress?).
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
Your current mgopoint total is 1096 and it is messing with my eyes. Looks like 10%. Aside from that, I don't have anything useful to add to your post. But, I do appriciate the Brian-like points analysis.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
What Michigan is going through in terms of total defensive performance was expected and predicted by everybody and anybody who has two brains cells to rub together. Most of the issues are depth and experience related.
When you can't wait for true freshmen to get healthy again and join the starting lineup for your secondary, that's a tip. It serves as a nice reminder that the ship you call a "defense" is patched together with sandy mud, twine and masking tape. It's not pretty, but it probably won't sink immediately either.
As scary as the horror show is on defense for Michigan this fall, if we've learned anything it's this: Next year Michigan is going to field one of the youngest and most experienced defense (and offense) in the league.
Plus 2010 is not all bad. At least this year Michigan has a death grip on the "most dangerous Big Ten team" moniker. I'm not saying people are afraid. But man I don't think anyone is chalking up a free "W" for Michigan anymore.
October 3rd, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
in their favor. So far, the defense is WORSE this year than last. To your point, everyone did expect that the defense would be bad. But there was a legitimate reason to expect that the defense would be improved--slightly--this year vs last, despite the loss of Graham, Brown and Warren. In fact many reasonable people on the board expected/hoped for that. Having GERG take over LB coaching, the (hoped for) improvement from Campbell, potential emergence of someone new at LB (Fitzgerald, Demens etc), more experience/improvement from Roh and Martin, another year in GERG's system, and more experience for our young guys, all were sited as hopeful signs by many. But 5 games in we are worse. That is why the unacceptable crowd is out. And I understand that.
October 3rd, 2010 at 7:55 PM ^
say what you want, but this is a 3-3-5 and I can't remember Gerg ever running it as a D coordinator. Certainly not in the pros where he was the D coordinator for two SB champions nor at Texas, Cuse, or anywhere else I recall.
This is the D most of RR's coaches are familiar and Gerg is adapting. I do wish he would call Dick Lebeau and get some of his zone blitzes to install here. At the same time when the QB is in the shotgun and getting the ball out quick is there really any sense in sending more guys who aren't going to get there unless you jump into a bump and run. Hopefully, he can mix some of these things in our we may just have to outscore everyone.
This D kept us in the ND game until our O could pull out the win. Take out Cam's three big mistakes and ND has two less TDs and 200 less yards of O. We're 5-0 enjoy it and lets see how the D plays next week. I would think some major recruits would see the opportunity for immediate playing time and a dynamic offense that will only be better next year. Win some more and they will come.
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
Yep. There's some revisionist history going on from those saying "everyone knew we'd be worse this year."
In the off-season, I recall a lot of people making 9-3 or 8-4 predictions (without knowing that Denard would suddenly morph into the greatest player in college football). When some on the board suggested that such a record might be tough because the defense would likely be worse given the loss of our top 3 players, these people would erupt with rage, citing the very reasons you list to state that it would be idiotic to think that the 2010 defense would be worse than 2009.
October 4th, 2010 at 1:18 AM ^
That was also before Woolfolk went down. He would've made a big difference on Saturday - Rogers' weakest game by far.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
Don't count on getting any information to backup the claims of the OP. There are multiple posts on the espn michigan forums spouting this same garbage with absolutely no evidence to support the claim. In fact if anything the evidence would suggest that the D Coaches have done a good job considering the injuries/attrition they have experienced.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
did he even play? D-line can always help the backfield...throwing 64 times will make them tired...AND THEY WERE STILL GETTIN AFTER IT late in the game. The kids are playing tough.
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
i think he should play more, but so far he hasn't played much. Personally, i hate the three man rush, and when we rush four we usually have better success. I hate the coverage scheme, but we couldn't really rush more than three because all Indiana did was pass. I hope we blitz more next week against mich. st. and get to the quarterback early and often. We should try to play to the strenghts we have on D.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
you want a bigger penis?
October 3rd, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
We're 5-0, what will it take for you enjoy being 5-0. 13-0 is still a possibility. Fucking enjoy it.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^
You seriously think this team is going 13-0? Please, tell me why you think this?
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:18 PM ^
We're 5-0, unless you're are some kind of fucking idiot who can pretend to see the future, then you have no fucking idea that we're going to lose a game. I'll believe we're going to be 13-0 until we actually lose a game, then I'll believe we are going 12-1.
We don't need half ass fans like you.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
word.
+1 to you.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
Did you just take a shot at, THE_KNOWLEDGE? Looks like somebody is about to be left in a cloud of dust.
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
We also don't need fans telling other fans not to be fans. Just because you use "fucking" a lot, doesn't make your point any more valid. It just makes you a child who gets angry about someone being dumb on the internet. Take it easy, enjoy the fact that we are 5-0.
October 3rd, 2010 at 8:29 PM ^
The fact that this has a plus 8, and someone making the indisputably more rational point that we are not likely to go 13-0, tells me that we've gotten to the point in the season where a rationale discussion of this team's strenghts and flaws is impossible. Being willing to say that your team is less than perfect doesn't make one a "half ass fan."
October 3rd, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
he said "possibility"
At least thats what I read, yes?