New Practice Video
http://www.mgoblue.com/
I don't see this posted anywhere so I'm putting it up.
Are you going to the clinic?
I wish I could. Unfortunately, I have another commitment that weekend.
One of the Rivals posts made it a bit foggy for me. There was a quote from a source saying something like, "If we play this defense, I think Obi will benefit from having a linebacker on either shoulder." That made it sound like a 3-3-5. But they also said Roh was playing OLB, and I can't really picture Roh playing OLB in a 3-3-5. I'm definitely intrigued by all that's going on...
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
I saw that comment about Roh. Maybe they were referring to OLB as one of the stack backers. 3-3-5 guys call those overhang players "spurs" or, in Joe Lee Dunn's case, "dog safeties."
Hmmm....
I can't believe nobody else has pointed that out yet...
Would a change to a pure 4-2-5 be good, bad, or idk for UM's D in your opinion?
As nice as it is to see Shaw and some of the receivers breaking long gains, it's equally alarming with regards to the D.
I'm not at all saying that the d-linemen need to show their dominance in this drill. I've only played highschool ball but we had similar drills and while I don't expect the D-line to actually tackle the RB, I do expect a 5-star like Will to at least hold his own....in that I mean he should be able to get his hands on the shoulder pads and bull rush his opponent back a yard or so. In that shot he was beat - nothing more to be said. His opponent stood him up. . . . look at his head in that video, he's looking at the sky.
a) He didn't get a good jump.
b) He was up against Michael Schofield, so his opponent wasn't exactly chopped liver.
c) I'm not concerned about one clip.
but it does speak to my concern that:
i.) he's not quick enough off the ball
ii.) he's not as athletic (yet) as I'd have hoped
iii.) he's a BIG guy but is he strong enough to bull rush?
He played to high and got beat...I would have like him to stay low and get under the pads a la Mike Martin. Thus far he reminds me a lot of Terrance Taylor who IMO underachieved. I WANT him to do well but I had these concerns when he signed...he is a big boy who physically dominated in highschool. I'm just a little worried that he will get beat by stronger, more physical, athletic linemen. Let's his skills improve with coaching.
Again, yes, he got beat. But it's only one clip. You shouldn't have a litany of concerns based on one clip from the first day in pads.
"I'm just a little worried that he will get beat by stronger, more physical, athletic linemen."
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't EVERYONE get beaten by people who are stronger, more physical, and more athletic?
And while we're at it, I'm guessing there aren't going to be a ton of 325-pounders who will be stronger and more athletic than Will Campbell, but he's still only a frosh, so we'll see, I guess...
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^
So Sharik noticed not one, but two different guys talking about installing a new defense. I too was like, hmmmm? RR also says something about picking up the new schemes that they put together. I thought they were going to have continuity between year 1 and 2 of GERG??? Don't get me wrong, I like the staff on defense, and I trust that they know what's best for the team. However, I was hoping that this wouldn't be the 4th year in a row that we have installed a completely new defense. I assume there will be a ton of similarities because it's the same D coach implementing the scheme.
Is it the 4-2-5? Why not just call it the Nickel? Is there a difference? Will the 5 DB's be 3 corners and 2 safeties, or the other way around perhaps? The lack of depth and talent at the linebacker position again this year could be why they think this is a good base defense. Maybe they analyzed last year's calls against the opponent and we were in Nickle all the time anyway?
I wrote about this last week. My thoughts:
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-will-michigans-defense-…
A nickel defense is not the same as a 4-2-5. It could be, I suppose, but most 4-2-5 teams employ 3 safety types and just 2 cornerbacks.
We didn't run a nickel package one time last year, because we had Steve Brown playing SAM; he was kind of our nickel corner.
I appreciate the info, and it does seem to be the best way to use the best players we have on the field. I agree that it actually makes us bigger in the front seven which should help more against the run. My concern is still that we keep changing our defense every year, and they need consistancy badly. Maybe this new scheme will stick?
The scheme changes won't be that big, in my opinion. There will likely be just a few changes here and there, but our defensive line, inside linebackers, corners, and deep safety will have virtually the same responsibilities. It's kind of like we'll be playing two "box safeties" instead of one like we did last year.