Poor tackling is cause by not practicing, you know, tackling.
So we've been frustrated by poor tackling, which has compounded the problem of our defense's lack of talent and experience. Look at most every opponents big play, or play that should have been a couple yards turned into 6-7, and you will likely see a poor angle or poor tackling technique from our guys.
This is not a recent problem, it has been a M fan's primal scream for a few years now. I remember running the tape slow motion of the Rose Bowl game against Texas, and screaming at the TV at a game that had already happened. It also isn't unique to us: tackling has gotten poorer everywhere in college and the NFL-I saw a scout recently saying that tackling in the NFl is the worst he has ever seen in 30 years of scouting.
So can it be fixed? Yes and no. Yes because IME the fix is easy: when you practice something regularly, you often get better at it. But no because starting in the NFL, and now migrating to the college game, is the idea that teams can't "risk" tackling in practice because of the risk of injury. So you see RR say (paraphrasing) that "I'd like to hit more in practice, but we can't risk injuries." And "we try to point out technique problems to our guys in games."
I completely understand this impulse, especially given our depth issues. The fan base would scream bloody murder (IMO wrongly) if Denard or other important starter went down to injury in practice due to being live. But isn't it ironic that coaches, who have a mantra of repetition creating excellence, complain about bad tackling yet, alone among every other skill in football, tackling isn't practiced regularly in season?
IME tackling is so important to a good defense that you should risk injury and practice it regularly during the season. But I don't get paid to coach, so there you go.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
There have been collective gasps over every slight hit Denard takes. and you want him (and everybody else!) to just "Hit more!" ?!?@?!? Football's a violent game. I think there's a reason that the coaches are paid millions to coach, and no one hits every day of the week...
Is it 9pm yet so I'll be in Ann Arbor, Drunk, and not reading MGoBlog?!?!?
(for those of you who suggest I work at work.... I've got nothing. This is what I do at work)
October 8th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
Don't lie... I bet you MGoBlog on your iPhone while at the bar. Or am I projecting again?
October 8th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
Is it 9pm yet so I'll be in Ann Arbor, Drunk, and not reading MGoBlog?!?!?
Dee's announcing around 9:30, so you may want to check back for that. The news should lift your spirits at least.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
I said that I completely understand the impulse and that it was widespread, But you are incorrect--it is a very recent development in college that practices are not live--in fact, as recently as the Weis era at ND, he was getting criticized by ex-players and coaches for NOT going live in practice. Coaches were making millions and going live in practice quite recently.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
I think you are taking a few soundbites a little too literally. Every team does some hitting in practice. The amount is probably less than it once was, before scholarship limits, but it's not zero.
The standard practice is to have your most physical days on Tuesday and Wednesday, followed by two lighter days. This is why the injury report comes out on Thursdays.
IMO, a big factor behind the general decline in tackling is the rise of spread offenses. It's easier to look bad when you're isolated one-on-one on a ballcarrier, with no help anywhere. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd bet that the average player has to make more solo tackles now than in the past. It's hard to outnumber the offense at the point of attack when 1) it's not as predictable where the point of attack will be and 2) you're being spread sideline-to-sideline.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^
The defense really doesn't have the depth at this point to risk injury.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
You raise a very good point.
Here is how I see the balance between tackling and injury risk: If you have a ton of experience and depth, you can afford to hit more and tackle more in practice. For Alabama, for example, if one of the DEs of corners goes down, they have 5 more that can step in. For us, if we lose Roh or Mouton, the back-up is DOOM. We just don't have the luxury of depth that would allow us to suffer injuries.
Over time, hopefully we will reload and then we will be able to practice at full contact more, hence improving our tackling.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
In a similar vein, being unable to conjugate verbs properly in the titles of MGoPosts is caused by not practicing, you know, conjugation.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
I agree in general with your Catch 22 statement. This was also true for USC, Hawai'i. It was discussed at length during coverage of that game. I disagree that you should risk injury to players, especially considering you're responsible for the safety of players to some extent.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
Or the 3rd stringers.
<br>
<br>They aren't people!
October 8th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
October 8th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^
Joe schmo off the street isn't as good as practicing 1st stringers but it's something
October 8th, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^
Well, except for your Defense who's doing the tackling, which is where the depth is really hurting.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
Little Joey from south quad would pose a significant threat of injury for our defensive players.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
Troy broke his ankle in practice tackling someone and from what I heard it was just as simple as when he went down his foot got stuck in the turf, this can happen against 1st stringers or the practice team.
October 8th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^
And what happens when Little Joey from South Quad falls on you the wrong way and you end up with cleats on your neck?
Also, tackling random people is about as useful as tackling a dummy. It won't prepare you for tackling a 230 lb stiff arming running back. All it does is teach you form, the execution bit is on each player.
October 8th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
Really? I've been thinking that tackling hasn't really been the super-white-hot-rage inducing issue this year as it was last year. They've not been perfect, but at least they aren't blowing EVERY TACKLE like last year. There've been some concerns, sure--that long TD Notre dame got because of a horrible angle by Gordon--but the problem is that opposing recievers are getting the ball with nobody within 5 yards of them
Honestly, given the improvement between this year and last year, I'll take it. At least this year they've been moderately competent. Some guys have even been really good. Kovacs has made some tough ones, catching RBs at full blast, and HULK MARTIN has been...well...HULK MARTIN.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
I know that the art of tackling has certainly suffered over the years, but doesn't at least some credit need to go to better offensive gameplans and better athletes? I have watched some of thos games from the 70s and 80s, and the whole "3 yards and cloud of dust" offenses generally meant running at the line and trying your best to push the pack forward. That made tackling "easier" because the athletes on the offense weren't necessarily trying to run away from contact. Now, though, you have offenses predicated on misdirection and getting extremely shifty and quick guys out in space, one-on-one with a defender. Barry Sanders made some of the best defenders in college and the pros look stupid because of his talents and abilities, not because they were objectively bad tacklers.
Yes, the defense certainly has struggled over the years, but as long as I've watched college football I've seen really good defenders fail to tackle guys in space that are elusive. I mean, it was a foregone conclusion that when UM played a running QB there were going to be at least 5-10 "crap!" moments when the guy would break contain and scamper over arm tackles.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
I remember reading a really good article not too long ago, as in probably during the summer, all about the lost art of tackling. It was more focused on defensive players in the NFL not knowing how to tackle, but that obviously is a product of not learning in college. I just tried to look it up to no avail, but if I find it, I'll link it.
As I recall, the gist was that the NFL expects players to have learned to tackle in college, so they don't teach it in the NFL. Defensive players who can tackle well are considered a fairly rare commodity, leading some players to hire personal coaches to teach and train tackling.
I don't remember the precise reason that they gave for college programs giving up teaching tackling fundamentals, but I want to say that it was a combination of safety in practice and focusing more on schemes and assignments.
October 8th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
You also have to keep in mind that some players aren't looking to tackle as much as to deliver a big hit. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but the big hitters usually aim much higher on a body than you should, and tend to lead with their heads far too often.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
This is an inevitable long-term result of the NCAA reducing scholarship limits. I'm sure the boneheads in the NCAA ivory tower thought they were improving the integrity of the game somehow, but the reality on the ground is that the roster sizes now simply don't afford coaching staffs the luxury of the physical sort of practices that were normal when Bo started coaching. There's simply too much attrition. This is one issue that Bo harped on frequently after he retired, along with making freshman ineligible again. Give all players 5 years to play four, and expand rosters to 100, and pretty soon you'd see a return to teaching the physical fundamentals of blocking and tackling in a way that isn't done enough of these days.
October 8th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^
I don't think it had anything to do with the integrity of the game. It was just about balancing scholarship numbers to satisfy Title IX. This is the same reason why women's basketball teams have 15 scholarships to give and men's teams have 13.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
Is the tackling really worse than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago? Or is this more a case of a grandpa-simpson-style "back in my day we played the right way, with fundamentals! none of this forward passing and helmets." Do we know that tackling is worse now than in the past? Do we know that in the past they practiced tackling more? No and no.
I agree with whoever made the point that better atheletes are harder to tackle, even if you have correspondingly better athletes on D. There's no question that there is way more athletic talent in football today than there was a few decades ago (thanks to the game's integration and increasing popularity). This reminds me of stodgy old baseball people complaining that nobody throws 300 innings a year anymore, and nobody can bunt these days. Games have changed.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
Granpa Simson played rugby?
October 8th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^
Actually, poor tackling is almost always more a function of having stiff athletes and ones who aren't good enough to put themselves in a position to make an easier (higher percentage) one. If you're stiff, you can't stop and change direction well. There's not much that can be done about it either.
October 8th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
Is what backs do in rugby. Even Old Phil (me,51) can get around 20yr olds untouched IF I'm at speed when I approach them. I think new emphasis of spread offenses on evading defenders by sending ball carriers into green is partly responsible for bad tackling...because it's HARD for a defender to accelerate fast enough to catch anything but a leg sometimes. You can advance on the runner but have to be ready to go in any direction so can't totally commit. Also, re. injury potential, most of this is on the guy being tackled not the tackler...don't they have some kind of extra gumby suits ball carriers can wear? We wear these in rugby scrimmages.