Question for Magnus and defensive masterminds on the board

Submitted by Blue in Yarmouth on

To preface this, I am a novice when it comes to my understanding of football even though I have been a fan of the sport for over twenty years. After watching the first few games and listening to the various opinions as to what is going on with our defense I wanted to get some input from people I think actually know the sport so I can form a more educated opinion.

I guess to be clear, I would really like input from guys like Sharik, Magnus, the other Brian and Brian himself. I welcome any input from people on the blog, but I am particularly interested in what these guys think.

What I am struggling with is whether the issues we are having on D are really a lack of experience and talent or if there is more to it (in your opinions)? I guess when I look at it I don't see that huge lack of expereince that most here describe (except in the secondary). I do see a lack of talent at some positions though.

What I am asking is what you think it is? Is it scheme, talent deficit, lack of experience, poor coaching? I don't want to start a shit storm, I just want to know what people who are far smarter than me when it comes to football think about the situation.

I also wonder if we are playing the 3-3-5 as a result of the players we have and would change if we got more bodies at various positions or if we are actually recruiting people to fit into a 3-3-5 defense? I kind of thought we went with it because of the players we had originally with the intent to change it once we got some new recruits in but I am starting to wonder now.

Anyway, these are my questions and I hope you all can help me out with them. Thanks.

umjgheitma

October 12th, 2010 at 1:37 PM ^

would have to say it's just experience (except for James Rogers, he's not a CB). With so many freshman DBs, they haven't seen the talent they are on a regular basis. They were just in high school a year ago where they maybe saw a T. Doss like once a year and now it's almost on a weekly basis. It's just going to take time until the D gets used to covering talented receivers. With the LBs in their like 3rd scheme in 4 years, I can't help but feel bad for them. I feel bad for GERG as well when he tried to scheme but the players just have no time in the system to have a large defensive repitoire. It'll be about 2-3 more years before we have a more dominating defense. Fingers crossed on no big injuries next year.

Maizeforlife

October 12th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

I don't know.  I have to say that I find a scheme that only has 3 men up front pretty bad when it comes to stopping runs that go between the tackles.  The defense doesn't even make contact with the runner until he is past the line of scrimmage.  If they do, it's because of an amazing play by one of the lineman who inevitably have to split a double block to get there.  That's not something that can be relied upon on a regular basis.  I'm all for innovative schemes, but I find the 3-3-5 to be proven ineffective. 

Bodogblog

October 12th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

And no one seems to have an issue with that defense.  In fact, I'm quite sure I could put up picture pages of our 3-3-5 vs. a typical 3-4 and very few fans would know the difference.  No one dislikes a 3-4, which only takes out the hybrid safety/LB and replaces with a "true" OLB.  I understand there are other differences, but personnel is similar.  3-4 is run everywhere, and it must be laughing at all the grief given to the 3-3-5

I also like a 4-man line, but probably only because it looks stronger visually, and you do get more beef out there by replacing an LB/hybrid with a lineman.  Specific to M, I like having Roh down and not playing in space. 

EDIT: didn't neg you, have an understandable view

jmblue

October 12th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^

We used a three-man front (with a rush LB who sometimes stood up at the LOS) for most of the Carr era, including 1997.  By and large, Carr's defenses were pretty stout between the tackles, and teams that tried to use a power run game (like Wisconsin) usually got shut down.  The key is to have linebackers who make their reads correctly and shed blockers.  Actually, that's pretty much true in any D. 

bighouseinmate

October 12th, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^

.....and I will include both the 3-4 and 3-3-5 since they are essentially the same, is that a 3-man front relies heavily on beef up front. If you look at the NFL teams running this front, they typically have a massive space-eater in the middle with another massive space eater as DT, and a very mobile, strong, not-necessarily fast, DE.

What we are missing in the makeup of the 3-man front compared to the typical seen, is the massive DT as a space-eater. Martin is the typical NT type seen in the scheme, but we don't have the huge DT needed. Campbell has the body and strength, but not the skill to play the position as starter.

As for the scheme itself, it works just fine against the run, as seen by the Steelers, Ravens and other NFL teams that utilize it extensively.

What we miss more than anything though, is a strong, instinctual MLB who has a nose for the ball and flows well to the play. That, too, is what makes any defense work better than others. A team can have top talent and skill on the line, and even have good secondary players, but without the strong instincts of a good MLB to plug holes and make tackles, the defense will give up lots of yards and points to good teams.

Blue in Yarmouth

October 12th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

I actually believed that the problem with a lot of the players from the Carr days were suffering due to the changeover in multiple defensive coordinators. I thought that had a lot to do with the performance of the players but a few people in other threads said that is a weak arguement. The point to the fact that in college coordinators and assitants are changed at a high rate and most teams don't experience the fallout we have over the past few years.

Again, I am no expert in how something like this would impact a team in football, but that is what some others have said. In my novice mind I would think that would have to impact defensive play to some degree anyway. I guess another questions to the experts would be how long should  it a take for a new coordinator to have his D up and running at full speed?

cfaller96

October 12th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

Ingredients

  • 1/4 cup all-purpose flour
  • salt and pepper to taste
  • 1 1/2 pounds round steak, cut into small pieces
  • 3 tablespoons vegetable oil
  • 3 stalks celery, chopped
  • 1 onion, chopped
  • 3 carrots, shredded
  • 2 (14.5 ounce) cans diced tomatoes with juice
  • 1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce
  • 2 tablespoons brown sugar, or to taste
 

Directions

  1. In a shallow bowl, mix the flour, salt, and pepper. Lightly coat the round steak pieces in the flour mixture.
  2. Heat the oil in a skillet over medium heat, and saute the celery, onion, and carrots about 5 minutes, until tender. Remove from heat, and set aside. Mix in the round steak pieces, and cook until lightly browned.
  3. Place the vegetables and steak in a slow cooker. Mix in the tomatoes with juice, Worcestershire sauce, and brown sugar.
  4. Cover, and cook 8 to 10 hours on Low, until the round steak is very tender.

cfaller96

October 12th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^

I guess when I look at it I don't see that huge lack of expereince that most here describe (except in the secondary). I do see a lack of talent at some positions though.

So, you don't see a lack of experience and/or talent, except where you do.  Got it.  Oh, and, what do others think?

If there was a serious question in there, then I missed the serious aspect to it.  Come on.

NOLA Wolverine

October 12th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

They don't know how to play defense. Not many of them have the mental toughness to go up and hit the ball carrier, and it shows on Saturday. We don't have a "swarming" defense. The best example this year of a swarming defense is Boise State. And maybe that will come with experience, and if that does actually prove true, then experience is the issue. If they were more willing to step up and make the tackles, the would be better results. Granted, we're just not going to cover anybody well this year, but it would help a lot of the problems if we played tougher all around.

Tacopants

October 12th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^

Bullshit.  Don't feed the dumb "mental toughness" lines to people.  It's an idiotic excuse.  I don't think our defensive players are afraid to hit somebody, its just they're often on the wrong side of the play.  Our secondary also has a hard time tackling people.  Then again, they're freshmen and are usually giving up 40 lbs to their targets.

Please, go out and find some examples where our defensive players are afraid of hitting the ball carrier.  Then I might concede the point.

NOLA Wolverine

October 12th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^

00.37, 1:39, 2:37(x2), 3:13, 4:33 for the glaring examples in the [0,4:33] interval. And that's just getting into the very bad intervals, they played pretty well for most of it (The front 4 were had the biggest impact I believe).

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/michigan-defense-vs-msu-every-snap-video

As a clarifying sidebar, I'll stand by what I've said before, Kovacs is the toughest back 7 player we have, he's the only one who I can see consistently runs through tackles, which is what my reference to mental toughness is. That's probably the hardest thing to master in football, being able to continuously run into, and continue driving your feet through, a ball carrier.

JC3

October 12th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^

Ryan Van Bergen said in his recent press conference some pretty telling comments. He said something about how on the two long touchdown runs, the staff prepared them all week for those two plays, and yet they couldn't stop them in the game.

It's a real mess at this point, with one part coaching, talent, scheme, and execution each. Just not something that will be fixed this year, or next really.

His Dudeness

October 12th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^

Magnus is more of a salty snacks and Hostess cakes mastermind than a defensive mastermind, ime.

/never met him although remember reading he was built like a comic book store owner

AAL

October 12th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^

People seem really caught up in the scheme. Any scheme can be executed successfully with the proper talent. This is a talent issue. (And by talent I mean bad players and young players yet to develop.)

A lot of folks are focusing on the secondary, but the play of the Mike and Will are as bad or worse. What does this mean? It means M can't stop the run or the pass. When you can't stop one or the other you don't have a very high probability of giving up few points. You can't dictate a single thing defensively and the game boils down to who can dictate play.

It is impossible to know the defensive staff's ability to develop talent without both a) knowing football well, and b) being inside the program. In my experience good/smart football players can figure out what to do with any type of coaching as long as what is taught is consistent in terms of responsibilities. I'm not saying the staff is good or bad at development, I'm just saying that speculation about it is exactly that. My inclination is that at the level of coaching success they've achieved, there is a higher probability of knowing something about it. I could be wrong.

Finally, a lack of depth is more than a game/injury issue. Lacking depth means practice is less competitive, less leadership is available, and some starters don't have to use every last bit of their will to earn a starting spot. Some never have the opportunity to learn the game well from a more experienced player. At the same time, motivation can diminish because players reach their goals more easily than they otherwise should. It can and does impede a player from reaching their ceiling. If you look back at previous Michigan players who started as freshman (defensively) and ended up being great players, they were surrounded by experienced, high caliber players who both helped shield their deficiencies and taught them about playing the game well. This year, M's defense has only a few upperclassmen, most of whom aren't very good.

kiwiwolverine

October 12th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^

RR is using it because that is what he is comfortable with and that is what he has had success with in the past. Like his offense it relies on speed and quickness to be successful. This is the first year he has fully committed to it so it isn't surprising to me that on defense we look like we did on offense 2 years ago. I think if they stick with it we will see similar improvement next year.

DesHow21

October 12th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^

admission is 10 mins per day because:

" He doesn't want to stretch himself too thin". 

 

Um...okay coach..keep concentrating on the aspect of our team that a has a freaking Heisman candidate and not on the one that has Obi Freaking Ezeh. I personally feel Calvin Magee is more than capable of making sure our offense is on track and any responsible HC would be spending his every waking minute trying to make our defense better.  Apart from his ONE failing, I think RR is a great HC and a fantastic representative of our program. 

 

Magnus

October 12th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

I read at some point this season that the change in defensive philosophy (from 4-3 to 3-3-5) was due to the lack of big bodies.  Rich Rodriguez thought that they didn't have the personnel to put 4 defensive linemen on the field and have enough backups on the line to keep them healthy and fresh.  So the 3-3-5 is at least partly due to the players we have available.

Personally, I think it's a combination of all of the above issues.

We lack experience in the secondary, which has especially been a problem at FS with Cam Gordon.  Rogers hasn't been great at cornerback, but he would be serviceable if we had better players around him.  I don't think JT Floyd is anything special, but comparatively, he's been solid - and it's no coincidence that he's the longest tenured DB on the team.

We lack talent at linebacker.  Ezeh isn't as bad as many people make him out to be, but he's not great, either.  It would be swell if somebody could step up and take his job, and the coaches showed last year that they're not afraid to yank him (in that case, for Kevin Leach).  So I think it's telling that Demens and Moundros haven't played much yet - they must not be good enough.  I've never been a huge fan of Demens, and I thought Isaiah Bell should have moved from FS to OLB rather than MLB.

As for coaching...it's been a bit of a cluster.  Shafer was neutered by Rodriguez and Co.  Hopson obviously didn't do much good.  Robinson is running a defense he's not accustomed to running.  It just has never seemed like everyone's on the same page (coaches or players), and that shows on the field.

The defensive line has been the only solid unit over the past couple years, and I think that's a tribute to talent (Mike Martin is a great raw athlete) and coaching (Bruce Tall is neck-and-neck with Greg Frey as the best assistant coach, in my opinion).

So...uhh...yeah.  It's not a definitive answer, but those are some of my thoughts on the topic.

contra mundum

October 12th, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^

Consistant coaching would help. Knowing the defense, knowing where help is and is not is important. Getting in one system and staying there will help a good bit.

Some of our players lack an overall understanding of defensive concepts I think. They know what to do, but often don't know why they are doing it.

I disagree with Magnus about Obi, but wholeheartedly agree on his statement about competition. If you've got several guys around you competing for the job, you can't afford to slip any. Iron sharpend Iron. I'm dumbfounded that between Demens, Fitz, and Bell we can't find one guy who plays better than Obi. I'd have moved Obi to DE long ago.

I think we moved to a 3-3-5 (we used alot of 4 down linemen against MSU) because our DL was the most experience and talented unit. Coaching staff put the onus on them to make things work.

KinesiologyNerd

October 12th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^

Do you put any stock into the argument that Demens or another LB might be a gamer and that's why they should get a crack? I don't personally, but at the same time I can't help but wonder if we can't get much worse, why not try?

Also, did Tall ever get consideration for the DC position? I agree he's a good coach, and heard other people say it. Is it just that RR wanted somebody who has experience as a DC?

thesauce2424

October 12th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^

I really do think that it can get much worse. I don't buy this argument that we should just start throwing different bodies in there "just in case". I'd much rather give up 2 long touchdown runs a game than 3,4,5,6.... just because someone "might" play better in games than they do in practice. In all honesty, I don't blame the coaches one bit for not throwing different Mike's in there-it's on the players to step up in practice and show that they are better than Obi. This seems to point to the fact that we are seriously lacking in MLB talent. If the coaches were confident that the dropoff would be nominal(they obviously do not feel there is an opportunity to upgrade) you would be seeing someone else. Since our defense is already horrible and there hasn't been a steady replacement for Obi, we can conclude(or believe the coaches have concluded) that the results would be much worse with someone else in there.  

Magnus

October 12th, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^

I do think that Demens might be a gamer.  And while I'm not a huge fan of his talents, I don't think it would be a horrible idea to give him a shot.  Keep in mind, though, that when we've put in backups over the past couple years (Fitzgerald, Moundros), they haven't exactly shocked the world.  Demens might be a different story, of course, but maybe Ezeh really is the best we've got.

I don't think Tall was considered for the DC position.  I'm not sure what Rodriguez was looking for, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted a coordinator with experience.  After the failed experiment with Shafer, I don't think he wanted to make another mistake.

thesauce2424

October 12th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^

Do you think a lack of capable "4-3" linebackers and a lack of capable defensive backs had something to do with it ? I think, I could be wrong, that our 3-3-5 has only 2 traditional linebackers, and has 2 lb/safety hybrid types that should allow for better, or atleast more bodies in,  pass defending and quickness to the ball. As our defensive line is the strongest part of our defense, the staff probably thought this was the best group to leave on an island. We may have switched to the 3-3-5 because it was our only shot. I can't even imagine having a "traditional" defense right now-not with our personnel.

 

-this was intended for Magnus

Magnus

October 12th, 2010 at 8:39 PM ^

I don't think the linebackers had as much to do with it as the defensive line.  In a typical 3-3-5, the SAM (Roh) would be a more traditional linebacker.  I think they're trying to shoehorn 4-3 personnel into a 3-3-5, really.  But I've been advocating a 4-2-5 or a 4-3 since the spring, so maybe I'm biased.

bighouseinmate

October 12th, 2010 at 9:52 PM ^

it is probably a combination of personnel at the line and at LB. Lack of talent at the LB position can be minimized by very good talent at the DL in the 3-man fronts. Unfortunately, we don't have the massive, space-eating DT that a typical 3-man front calls for. If we did, two oline on him, two on martin, one for the DE to blow up and even just serviceable LB's could make minimal gain tackles against the runs.

A four man front might be the better way to go with our starting personnel, except for two things. One, lack of quality backups for 4 DL players throughout a game. Two, lack of the top quality MLB to make the plays.

Essentially, we do lack the talent for not only this, but any other defensive scheme. I'm not saying we don't have talented D players. Martin is very good, Mouton is a decent OLB, Floyd is decent at corner, and Roh is good as a rushing DE(not LB). T Gordon is decent, as well as the DL backups. What we lack is the key cogs to make the wheel run smooth, namely, the big quick DT type(Campbell and Ash are the only two who have the frames to play there, just not the experience), and the quick, agile, instinctive MLB. Without those two, the 3-man front doesn't work as well. Without the MLB, the four-man won't work that well either.

ajchien

October 12th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^

Hi, its my first post here after reading for quite a while. I'm also interested a lot in this topic. Actually, the RR era has gotten me a lot more interested in the Xs and Os of football than ever before.

From my best understanding, run defense in a 3-3-5 is considered gap sound, where there should be 1 man in each gap. The DL usually take slants, to get into gaps and try to force double teams. If the LBs read run, it's their job to get up into their gap and fill their gap, at the LOS.

IDK, it seems like many times our LBs are meeting the RB 3 yards past the LOS, whereas they should be meeting them closer to the LOS. Or sometimes, it seems that there was no one where RB is at - which makes me wonder what happened to the player that was supposed to be there? Why was he in the wrong place? Did the DL not force double teams, and a blocker got to the LB? Did he go to the wrong gap? Did he read pass instead of run? Did he whiff on a tackle?

Anyway, it would be nice to have a thread to break down these XsandOs - which is why I love some of the analysis on this board. Not sure if we really need the blame game though - Im sure there's plenty enough to go around in a loss.

stillMichigan

October 12th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

The swarming defense usually comes because several players are in position to make a play. Usually it's necessary for one player to slow down or even make contact with ball carrier. This doesn't happen with Michigan's D. I'm no "master-mind", but repeated failure of our D and not being able to trust a teammate to be in his position and do his job just breeds uncertainty. And that breeds failure. These kids do try hard, I give them that.

The only hope I see this year is for the opposing offense to not execute. Otherwise, it means Denard and Co. needs a near perfect game in order for us to win.

tenerson

October 12th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^

really think scheme matters in this instance. When our LBers and safety are constantly leaving gaps open and taking bad angles you are going to struggle. Obi Ezeh needs to be better, especially in a 3-3-5. When you have only one guy in the middle of the line and then the MLB is not disciplined, you are going to have trouble. Cam Gordon is young. I am convinced he will be a very solid player someday, but right now he is missing angles sometimes and he is just plain inexperienced. So, I guess my point of veiw here is that our problem, at least against the run is two-fold. We only have two one guy down in the middle, and if Obi messes up that guy is easily blocked and gashing ensues. Then at the next level every so often Cam misses and Kovacs isn't there. This is why I am in favor of Kovacs in the middle. At lest he would eat a blocker ALL of the time. Besides that, if he reads the play before the block gets to him (which he does a lot) that blocker won't block him and BOOM tackle. I know, I know, he's leetle. I don't care. Obi is big and sometimes undisciplined. He just isn't getting it done and I think the UFR will be very hard on him this week.

As far as the coverage. Inexperience, Inexperience, inexperience. Kovacs isn't a cover guy. Rogers is Rogers and like it was said he could be OK if he had other guys around. Cam is inexperienced and JT Floyd, who I am impressed as hell with, is inexpereinced and has been forced into a position he is not ready for. His tackling is shoddy, but his coverage is good enough. The rest of the guys there are freshman or Craig Roh. Craig Roh is a DE and I don't care what anyone tells me. He is not meant to be in coverage or in space all of the time. The secondary will get better if for nothing else just because there is no way it can get worse. You add Warren, Woolfolk and possibly Dorsey back there and all of a sudden they are average at worst. That's not even considering if Cissoko was still around. Also, if the secondary was better that frees you up to do more things from a pressure standpoint. It is really a viscious cycle. You can't blitz because your secondary is bad and you can't cover sufficiently because you get no pressure.

ajchien

October 12th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^

After watching the vid on defense vs. MSU, I noticed a lot of 4 man down fronts, in a 4-4 look. Can someone explain to me what is going on? Is it that Roh moves from an OLB position to DE, or is a spur/bandit being removed in favor of another DL?

Does this change the "gap sound" 3-3-5 scheme? i.e. Does that mean that LBs need to read 2 gaps when we go to 4 down linemen like in a 4-3?

Man, I wish the smartfootball.com website would take questions...

NathanFromMCounty

October 12th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^

...I'm new here and don't have the reputation or the background (other than years as a fan) to make this comment but here goes:

The D-Line generally has talent, and some experience as well.  After this it gets a bit ugly as the Linebacking Corps has experience but no talent (aside from Craig Roh if you want to call him an LB rather than a DE) as Kenny Demens still hasn't proven he can get on the field regularly even considering his competition for playing time is the worst starting MLB in UM history.

The secondary, at least starting with RR's first year has managed to get consistently high ranking recruits such as Boubacar Cissoko, Brandon Smith, Vladimir Emilien, Justin Turner, and Cullen Christian (with 3-star players like Courtney Avery mixed in).  Unfortunately all but Christian (for whom the jury is still very much out on) have failed (I forget what the deal was with Smith, but Emilien and Turner transferred, and Cissoko decideded he'd have more fun being a felon) for various reasons.  Cam Gordon was also a 4 star recruit, but I don't believe it was because of his defense.  Next season should be a bit better if Troy Woolfolk can come back without any ill effects from his injury as Christian should have a year in College/the system, and Floyd has a shot at continued improvement (and Kovacs isn't as bad as I keep hearing from his detractors).

However, the linebacking group is a big problem as Demens hasn't shown he can make it ont he field as a starter yet and the only LB in this year's recruiting group right now is Kellen Jones (unless they plan on playing Brennan Beyer at OLB as he's playing DE right now in HS). 

zippy476

October 12th, 2010 at 9:32 PM ^

My question is why nobody calls for Tony Gibson's head? I mean this guy has been here since day one and coachs the worst part of our team DB's and special teams.

I mean somehow this guy always stays behind the scenes and is protected.

Magnus

October 12th, 2010 at 9:41 PM ^

I somewhat agree with you, although I'm not sure if he deserves to be fired.  He hasn't had a whole lot to work with...

...but at the same time, the only DB to really outplay expectations (in my opinion) was Troy Woolfolk. 

It's difficult to get a good read on what he can do because he's got a mish-mash of young players, but the early returns haven't been great.

tenerson

October 13th, 2010 at 8:33 PM ^

a hard time blaming a coah when what is supposed to be your top 4 DBs:

1.Went Pro

2. Got in a lot of trouble and were removed from the team

3. Got hurt

4. Decided to transfer (wasn't really turning out to be what everyone thought a 5 star corner should be)

I just can't fault a guy who has lost his two deep on each side and is playing a hodge podge of young players and James Rogers. It doesn't seem fair. If everyone stays, though, I think that excuse is gone next year.

bighouseinmate

October 12th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^

.........for the lack of quality play from our secondary. Right now we are playing only one guy in the secondary who had any time there last year(Floyd). The others are all making their first starts along with getting playing time. They are a definite work in progress. The schemes they can run are limited (think Denard last year at QB), and are exploitable by experienced QB's and WR's as we have seen from Indiana and MSU.

We aren't lacking talent, just experience in the secondary, and Woolfolk's injury hurt us severely, along with Warren's ill-advised career move. Without those two things happening, no one would be talking about the secondary and Gibson at all.