The move to 4-3

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

Mattison has us transitioning to a 4-3 defense.  This strikes me as a good decision, in the abstract.  But I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about this.  How will it fit our personnel?  What will it allow us to do on defense?  What, specifically, will it help us improve upon from our 2010 defensive nadir? Are there any drawbacks to using scheme in the Big 10 or FBS that we should be aware of?

Blue in Seattle

February 7th, 2011 at 2:32 AM ^

you don't have a NT?  you have 2 DT and 2DE?

and assuming you can have Hulk and Thor as your DT, doesn't that mean you have Roh and RVB as the DE?  Or maybe Black displaces RVB?

I think moving to the 4-3 is the best for the talent we have.

The thing that has to change is having someone who knows how to train Linebackers to do their job consistently.  Hopefully the guy who coached Ray Lewis, and the 95, and 96 Michigan defenses knows a little something about how to do that.

Penn State destroyed us by running, not passing.  Same for Wisconsin.  If you can't stop the run game, arguing about poor secondary coverage, lack of blitzing, etc. are all moot.

 

 

SC Wolverine

February 7th, 2011 at 8:47 AM ^

A 4-3 will usually be imbalanced one way or another, so that you have a 1-tech DT who is more or less a noseguard.  He blocks things up, takes up two blockers, and lets the 3-tech penetrate and wreak havoc.  As was said above, it would reall help if one of the big guys like Will or Quinton would step up and be the 1-tech guy.

JBE

February 6th, 2011 at 9:13 PM ^

 X                 X      X    X     X                            X

Wind                Thunder                          Lightning                                    

                        X      X      X

                          Avalanche   

         X                                                   X                                

      Dragon                                         Tiger

 

The nadir is the direction pointing directly below a particular location; that is, it is one of two vertical directions at a specified location, orthogonal to a horizontal flat surface there. Since the concept of being below is itself somewhat vague, scientists define the nadir in more rigorous terms. Specifically, in astronomygeophysics and related sciences (e.g., meteorology), the nadir at a given point is the local vertical direction pointing in the direction of the force of gravity at that location. The direction opposite of the nadir is the zenith.

I hope I've helped.

moredamnsound

February 6th, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^

and you're still thinking about Michigan. Very nice. I think Hoke said in his first day that you can run a any defence, even mentioned a 6-2 as long as the guys know what they're supposed to do.

I'm with the coaches in that whatever they run, they need to be tough.

Eye of the Tiger

February 6th, 2011 at 9:22 PM ^

That is my motto.  

Seriously, though...I totally agree that scheme is secondary to execution.  

But scheme does matter, and can affect execution.  So I'm still wondering if people have any specific aspects of our defensive performance they expect to improve through the implementation of a 4-3 scheme?  If so, what?  What about reservations about implementing this scheme, vs. say, a 3-4 or something else?  I'm curious about both reservations in the abstract and ones contingent on our specific roster and its strengths/weaknesses.  

My own personal feeling is it's good for us, because it puts more bodies on the DL, where we are relatively strong, compared to LB, where we are relatively weak (aside from Demens, who I think will have a monster year in 2011).  But I'm no expert on defensive schemes, so I'm asking people who have more knowledge for their opinions...

Mgobowl

February 6th, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^

I think the hope is that with a 4-3 we can hold up more at the point of attack and establish a toughness in the trenches. This hopefully will result in a better run defense. Whether we have the personal to do this remains to be seen. I'm not sure who our 2-deep is at DT.

The secondary should be better based solely on the the experienced gained by the freshman this past season.

The 4-3 we ran in the waning Carr years did not match up well against the spread, so that may be a concern going forward. Then again the 3-3-5 was supposed to be the great equalizer when it came to defending the spread and we all know how well that worked out.

I honestly wouldn't mind having a D like Iowa. They throw rock every play and everyone knows that it is coming, yet they out execute you and shut you down.

kmanning

February 6th, 2011 at 9:46 PM ^

I don't think scheme is a big deal for next year. 4-3, 3-4, 3-3-5, 4-2-5. Whatever they run, they should be better with losing basically no one important. The big thing to turn this D into "decent" or better is finding someone to eat space and double teams in the middle so Mike Martin can attack more and not be forced to play nose tackle. That happens and a lot will change for the good for Michigan's D.

El Jeffe

February 7th, 2011 at 8:20 AM ^

Guilty on the smartass charge, but sometimes the shoe fits. Are you suggesting that, despite the colossal suck of the defense, Random Internet Man is in a better position to understand Mouton's underachievement than the coaches? Please enlighten me on how that is possible.

Here's an alternative explanation: Mouton was as good as he was going to get.

I'm not saying the alternative is true, but we have no way of knowing for sure. Hence, the smartass remark about sofas and TVs.

Litt1e Rhino

February 7th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

I don't see how you think I think I know more then the coaches. I have made no remarks to say that in the least. I expressed that Mouton underachieved while here in my opinion. Some of which was not his fault and some of it may have been. Who knows maybe he filled or exceeded his potential and may not do anything for the rest of his career. I hope he does have a great career just like I hope everyone that wheres the Michigan jersey will also.

Litt1e Rhino

February 6th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^

My point is that I felt he had all the physical tools to be great. Size speed. I think he could have been great with a better d staff. But we will never know. I wish him the best in his future.

Also I'm not sure how you got beyond certain out of that. I never said it was a sure thing. He may have not been any better then he was. I just felt he could have been much better along with the rest of the D.

PurpleStuff

February 7th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^

The guy made nearly 10 tackles a game and earned second team all-conference honors from the media.  He did it with very little help in front of him, behind him, or next to him for big chunks of the season.

Unless he ends up tearing it up in the NFL it would be hard to say he underachieved here at Michigan.

bluebloggin

February 6th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^

Yes we may have some depth issues but that is reliant on the redshirts playing to their potential. I don't see a mediocre 4-3 allowing the 2nd half of the Wisconsin game, I just don't.
<br>
<br>And 'nadir'? C'mon man. Don't use words that you dont have to.

Braylon1

February 6th, 2011 at 10:54 PM ^

i know this... if Michigan had a pass rush thats 1/4 as intimidating as the Steelers D then we win 9 games next year without question.

i just hope we bring in some elite talent under this coaching staff.

steve sharik

February 6th, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^

...has to go along w/personnel.  Any scheme will work in any league and at any level, as long as the scheme is sound and the personnel fit the scheme.

That said, coaches should coach what they know and know what they coach.  Since Hoke and Mattison are 4-3 guys, it is imperative we are a 4-3 team.  Our personnel is more suited to a 3-3-5 or 3-4, but that's really only two recruiting classes, so it shouldn't be too long before we get the personnel adjusted. 

However, I do agree w/Jon Chait in an article he just wrote for The Wolverine, wherein he states how crucial the next recruiting class is.  He argued that our last three recruiting classes were 16, 20, and 21.  That is not BCS level personnel, and we need to finish no lower than 10th (and I would say no lower than 5th in avg. star rating per player) in the next recruiting class if we are to return to prominence sooner rather than later.

Blue in Seattle

February 7th, 2011 at 3:01 AM ^

Unless you think Will Campbell can't succeed as the other DT with Mike Martin.  I do agree the scheme must fit the personnel, the scheme is the strategy, and strategy dictates resources (or vice versa depending on what time allows you to affect)

Do you think Mike Martin really had the mass to be a dominating NT in a 3 man line?

That said, I think the weakest link were the line backers.  Either they couldn't learn or weren't taught correctly, or just really don't have the talent, as the ranking of the recruiting classes suggest.  Although I still can't place a lot of faith in talent ranking that can vary so much between three ranking services, but in going by Rivals, which I think is the one you are referencing, it is scary that even though Michigan is 3rd in the Big Ten, they are far behind Nebraska at 15 and OSU at 11.  And that there are 4 SEC schools ranked higher than OSU, the best of the Big Ten.

I just hope we win enough next season to get close to OSU's recruiting level.  I know everyone says the coaching controversy caused the problems with recruiting, but I think losing the last three games also contributed quite a bit.

so yes, here's to hoping Nebraska can lost two conference games, but if we can get out of the cellar of the Big Ten, it would just help so much toward getting a top ten recruiting class.

Lancer

February 7th, 2011 at 12:32 AM ^

Honestly, it wont another 2 years till we have an honest shot at beating the buckeyes, depressing...the d needs to be completely rebuilt and Hoke and Mattison are the men to do it. We have to be patient it takes time. As for the offense some works needs to be done...more RB production and Denard needs to build muscle mass and work on his accuracy but the guy is a madly underrated passer, watch for him to scramble more often...less designed runs. Excited for next year my full faith for Coach HOKE. Go Blue, from Windsor!

Hoke-A-Hey

February 7th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^

It's a shifted 4-3 which gives it a little diversity being able to show a base defense from several different fronts. I'm interested to see how much a year, a competent staff all pulling in the same direction, and some much needed depth at positions of need what the product will look like before late august. I'm also curious as to the immediate results of the strength training under the new staff.

IPFW_Wolverines

February 7th, 2011 at 3:19 AM ^

is the LB's. I think they played worse in some games than the secondary did. While it can't get much worse next year with this group, it could very well stay the same. Not a lot of experience returning for a unit that played poorly. At least the secondary will be basically the same guys with another year of experience.  

Even if some of the recruits like Jones can contribute right away I am not sure they will have the size/strength to compete as true freshman. Here's hoping for a miracle. 

Eye of the Tiger

February 7th, 2011 at 7:19 AM ^

Demens should have a monster year but the OLB chart is alarming indeed. Having four on the line should help take a little of that pressure off when it comes to stuffing the straight ahead run game, but I worry about when good running teams take it outside on us.

Still, I think--given returning starters and a better coached scheme--our D makes the jump from "beyond horrid" to "middling" next year. That should be enough for 8+ wins, a couple of which are over good teams.

SC Wolverine

February 7th, 2011 at 8:49 AM ^

One of the big benefits of going to the 4-3 is that it is easier to be gap-solid than the 3-3-5. You still have to have guys who go the right way and make tackles, but you start out with one more guy lined up in a gap.  It would be really nice to see a gap-solid Michigan defense next year.