Next Year's D-Line?
I've already commented on other threads and begged this question, but how does the D-Line work next year? I've heard everything, freshmen like Kenny Wilkins starting, Obi Ezeh switching to DE, bulking Craig Roh up to DE, but I feel like this is one of the most likely (and exciting) lineup (2009 starter in parenthesis)
NT: Will Campbell (Mike Martin)
DE: Ryan Van Bergen (Brandon Graham)
DT: Mike Martin (Ryan Van Bergen)
Now logically for this to work RVB's gonna have to get a little more explosive in the offseason, but that is definitely something that can be taught, trained, etc. Martin was dominant, even when facing double teams. Get him on one-and-ones with the OT's, he'll be crazy. Obviously Campbell has some technic to work on, but there is no way you can deny his talen.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:24 PM ^
The best situation would be to have a similar lineup to now with roh taking de and a freshman ready to take the deathbacker
NT- Martin
DT- Van Bergen
DE- Roh
DB- Someone new
the reason i say this is cause then this year we actually have decent backups, so when martin needs some air we have campbell coming in.
I really think Will will be fine by next year and coming in every few plays will allow our strength up the middle to be better. For DT or DE im sure some of the readshirt players will be serve well like lalota and some other DT
November 25th, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^
It'll be Campbell at nose, Martin at DT, and RVB at DE. Mostly for the size upfront we lack for Big Ten play. Roh also needs to stay OLB (the actual name) because it is a position that takes time and skill to play. We already had his freshman growing pains why start over there again?
November 25th, 2009 at 9:59 PM ^
So then who backs up Martin and Will with our lack of experience/depth at those positions? It will lead to similar situations where when Martin and Graham were resting and our line turned horrible
November 25th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
against Penn State this past season had Greg Banks as a DT back-up and Renaldo Sagesse as a NT back-up. Granted they obviously aren't as good as the starters but Sagesse seems to be improving.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:07 AM ^
Also, there's still the (unlikely) possibility of a freshman like Talbott or Big Tex (if we can swing him) stepping up into the backup position.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
Straight up, I'd rather have a freshman as a back-up than as a starter. If we keep Roh at the OLB and have Campbell, Martin and RVB on the line, we have WC as the only inexperienced guy in there, but he saw the field a decent amount.
If we move Roh to DE, then we need to play a guy at OLB who has virtually no experience at the position - not something I'd like to do.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:28 PM ^
Why do people keep trying to pretend that the Big 10 is still some type of "3 yards and a cloud of dust" conference? It's not, so stop making it out to be one.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:54 AM ^
Good point, MattC87. There are still B10 teams that play the cloud-of-dust game (Wiscy, OSU, Iowa, State), but the others don't roll like that.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
Last time I checked OSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin finished 1,2,3 in the big ten. So your right lets not worry about giving up 200+ yards rushing and then getting very little pass rush.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:39 PM ^
But were his freshman growing pains that bad? I honestly dont remember a play where because of Roh's mistakes we had a long touchdown. They might get a few yards but if anything the DB( OLB) position in our offense is one of the few you can make a mistake and not be a goat for the game.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^
Part of that is the nature of Roh's position. It's not the type of position where a mistake costs you an 80 yard touchdown. Roh showed potential, but he was constantly overpowered. He has a lot of things he can improve. I think he will make a lot of progress this off-season.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
That's why I originally said move Roh to DE and have a freshman/ RS Freshman take the OLB Deathbacker position its a position where a mistake or two isnt going to cost the game most of the time. If not who's DE and who's attempting to be Brandon Graham. Without much success
November 27th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^
I don't think he was overpowered due to lack of ability. The size factor had more to do with it. He'll be fine when he puts on more weight. He also showed superb tackling fundamentals, something that was missing from the defense as a whole.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:10 PM ^
campbell is too good not to be in the starting lineup. it'll most likely look something like this:
NT: Campbell
DT: Martin
DE: Van Bergen
DB: Roh
but he's also too big not to get tired, so we'll probably see a lot of this in passing situations:
NT: Martin
DT: Van Bergen
DE: LaLota/Wilkins
DB: Roh...Ezeh (w/ Roh at DE)
November 25th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^
Should Campbell be a starter? Probably yes but there is such a drop off in the backups. If Campbell is the backup to Martin there will be little to no dropoff and you can play them 50 50 and they shouldnt get very tired during the game.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:49 AM ^
next year should be a pretty good year for Campbell. We saw him progress from getting his lunch handed to him by Iowas center to looking decent vs OSU. Another off season of technique training/conditioning should have him ready to go next year. Banks and Saggesee played decent when they went in, so I think you have to get your horses out there and hope Banks and Saggesee can soak up the leftover minutes.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:09 AM ^
I like the idea of getting Ezeh closer to the D-Line, but I figure there has to be someone more capable of being in the talks for DE than a freshman; maybe LaLota or Hawthorne perhaps? Or is the general consensus that he's staying at Outside Backer
November 25th, 2009 at 10:40 PM ^
There was a play against Ohio St. where you really saw Campbell's potential. There appeared to be a gaping whole in the offensive line, but when the RB hit the gap, Campbell sprung off his blocker and quickly moved horizontally several yards to make the tackle. I think he definitely improved over the course of the season. With the practice and conditioning in the off-season, I think he will be a capable starter next year. I also think Banks and Sagesse are above average for backups, so I'm not too worried about rotating them in. The interior of the line next year could potentially be the strength of the defense.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:54 PM ^
it was one of the bright moments of the game for me. it was the first time he really blew a few guys up; I think he had a deflection in a previous game, which was a nice heads-up play, but that campbell play was a real standout of the kind that Martin had a lot as a frosh, and made me excited about the possibility of them both starting.
the idea that campbell might be best used as a backup is interesting. at first I disagreed on the grounds that this isn't basketball, where you're not always served by having the best five all-around players on the floor. you have 11 assignments and you want the guys who are best able to execute those assignments to play. but then I thought of martin as a freshman--who was deployed, it seemed, to come in and try to slash into the backfield. I guess it might be possible that Campbell could learn some specific line "games," as the coaches on here call them, that he could come in and execute with max intensity, while sagesse provides a more consistent effort on a wider variety of defensive approaches.
but I don't know if there are enough defensive line schemes that this is actually something that would make sense. DL would seem to be the position that requires the LEAST amount of mental flexibility. who can answer this question? steve "the shark" sharik? magnus?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:05 AM ^
DL is alot more about attitude and technique then having to think about what you are doing. Some teams like Iowa use alot of twisting to create pressure but it requires players that can execute it. If your players are quick enough to explode into a crease and attack the chipping Olinemens shoulder using his hands, you give your DLmen a better shot of winning a 1v1 battle because because his base is shifted trying to cover the ground that he left pushing his man inside. I coach DL in a 30 stack system in HS so there's not a ton of stunting/twisting you can do compared to the 4-3 under that Michigan deploys.
Michigan didn't do alot of twisting with the NT/DT and the quick/DE. I believe that might be because the coaching staff felt that the best way to create pressure was leaving BG on the edge. This year we might see more twisting without a dominant edge rusher.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 AM ^
when I saw that Campbell play. He has a bright future.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:21 AM ^
I am wondering (and I know it has been talked about before) if Big Tex decides to go elsewhere and we are left looking for another d-line prospect who are we in on?
I know to this point Hankins has not done enough to impress the coaches to earn an offer, but as time passes does anyone think he could still get that offer just to fill a spot?
I am also wondering if anyone has heard anything about him recently? (i.e. is he still interested in UM and has he improved, had a good season, stuff like that).
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:56 AM ^
Mike Thornton is really the only other DT we'd have a shot at if Beachum sticks with Arkansas.
Hankins is still interested in Michigan. I've read recently that he would still commit practically on the spot if Michigan offered him. I don't know how likely it is that he gets an offer, though. The coaches have already run off a couple too-big guys (Kates, Mitchell, Boren) who weren't willing to put in the work. Why would they want another who hasn't shown the dedication to losing his extra weight?
November 26th, 2009 at 9:06 AM ^
Yeah, I agree. I guess I was just kind of hoping he had shown some new found dedication to getting his offer. It is beyond me how, given the importance of selecting a university and career path, one can't find the motivation to drag their ass off the couch and get in shape. I was hoping he would do what was necessary.....I guess he hasn't. Thanks Magnus!
November 26th, 2009 at 9:12 AM ^
I've often wondered the same thing, but I guess it happens everywhere. There are a lot of guys with NFL potential who seem to underachieve continuously due to their work ethic and body weight, so I guess it's more common than we think...
That being said, my life depends on staying/getting thin, and I won't be able to say no to about 5 pieces of pie and 7 heaping mounds of mashed potatoes and gravy today, so who am I to talk? (Not that I'm morbidly obese, but I've got a couple extra pounds on this sexy body of mine.)
November 26th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^
Well try and keep it in check today bro. I'll wish you a happy thanksgiving. We had ours last month and I couldn't escape without a few extra portions myself.
Happy Thanksgiving to all of my American neighbors!
November 26th, 2009 at 9:25 AM ^
Well, Happy (belated) Thanksgiving to you, too.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
What about Richard Ash are we no longer in with him since he missed his visit?
November 26th, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^
I think he still likes us, but he's pretty tight-lipped about his recruitment. He's also a DE/DT tweener.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
In fairness to Hankins, Campbell was enormous in high school (some of those Army AA game photos make him look like a beached whale) but he very quickly transformed his body once he got to UM (he looks night and day different in less than a year). I think if any staff can instill that dedication to losing weight, Barwis and Co. would be the leading candidates.
That being said, the staff may see things in Hankins' personality that indicate he wouldn't respond well to being Barwisized or they may just not like certain aspects of his game (I don't know the kid and have never seen him play so I can't really comment on any of that). They obviously aren't too high on him but I don't know that his weight alone should be a deal breaker if he really wants to come to UM and is willing to put in the type of work that Campbell has.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^
Well, first of all, Campbell was offered by the previous staff. So Michigan had already built a relationship with him, although there were obviously new coaches.
Second, Campbell was a 5-star stud, unlike Hankins. Sometimes you can deal with weight issues if the guy is a beast. If he's a so-so prospect AND he has weight issues, then sometimes that's a problem.
Third, Campbell (as far as I know) was never given an "ultimatum." Michigan's coaches said to Hankins, "If you lose X amount of weight and look good at camp, we'll think about giving you an offer." Hankins showed up at summer camp having lost a bit of weight, but he kept taking plays off.
So I think that told the coaches what they needed to know.
November 26th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
....Martin is playing out of position....but he worked his tail off to the best of his ability to play there but he's not a true nose-tackle. Martin will shed some pounds, work on quickness and will move outside with Van Bergen. I agree with someone's post about twisting and stunting...I barely saw us do any of that this year....definitely because they didn't think we were quick enough and didn't want guys bottling up Graham. I agree that we'll see a lot more of that this year. One thing I was alittle shocked at this year was that we didn't zone blitz more often, to take advantage of speedier guys, probably had something to do with our inferior defensive backfield...which is why they're the coaches and we're just fans.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:51 PM ^
what are the chances of ezeh being moved to quick?