I hate to second guess the coaches - obviously Greg Robinson knows more about both football and hair care products than I do - but I agree with your point. I think that the 4 man front allows us to bring much more pressure.
The Roh DE/LB experiment needs to be shelved
They've used a 4-man front quite a bit, actually.
Right. And it is just my opinion, but it seems like when they do, they are getting more pressure. Also, I do think that it has been effective to mix up the alignments, to keep the other teams on their heals.
Here's the thing this week. We are dealing with an experienced QB that uses a lot of 3 step drops. The only way that pressure is ever going to reach him is if our back 6-8 can cover the receivers enough to make him check down once or twice. Now, you might be able to accomplish that with a 7-man zone, but once you start getting more than a 4-man rush, our zone is going to look pretty porous and he will have a big day.
In this game (i.e. this game only), I think we need to alternate between a 3-man and 4-man rush. That will force Chappell to check down, get flushed from the pocket, and throw on the run. This will cause bad passes and effectively take away half the field. It might also lead to a few interceptions.
I bet your hair care product knowledge would surprise.
The problem has been that Herron has been injured so Roh needed to drop back to Sam. With Herron as a probably starter this weekend, you will probably see Roh back on the line.
Good point. Herron's injury (and lack of depth) has forced GERG's hand in how to use Roh the last couple games.
Now, the defensive scheme just needs to read up on what is commonly called "a blitz" and try one of those things out this week. If Ezeh runs around in circles in pass coverage anyway, why not teach him to run real straight, real fast, and hit the QB real hard.
With Herron back look for DeathRoh to make more of an impact, and also for Chappell to be running around like his hair is on fire. Can't wait for Saturday so everyone can shut up about with the "they were 4-0 last year too" bull.
have you not seen the shine on GERG's hair?
it is technically "glisten." But your point is noted.
Dumb question but-who does Herron keep off the field if both Roh and Herron are on the field at the same time? With Herron there are we running a 3man line with RVB, Martin and Roh?
Mouton was dropping down to play DE in a 4 man front (Mouton, RVB, Martin, Roh). Banks left the field.
will probably take all the snaps (and then some) that Kevin Leach has been getting the last two weeks.
From your lips to GERG's ears
I think Robinson is the right guy for the defense but I really believe the type of defense we run is what raises questions for me. Running a 3-3-5 stack defense in the Big 10 just doesn't make sense to me when you have teams like Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin looking to run it down your throat. The 3-3-5 worked well in the Big East for Rich Rod in the Big East because he didn't have Big 10 offensive lines and runningbacks to defend. I really think a 4-3 defense with Martin, Campbell (Former prized 5 star), RVB, and Roh on the line rushing the passer and stopping the run would be so much better for them now and in the future against these Big 10 teams. Now I know the DT spot is thin right now for a 4-3 defense but a difference in recruiting could help that. Just an idea thrown out there. Either way, Go Blue.
Specifically O-state last year, the D looked ok to even good. I am not as concerned with the scheme as I am the talent on the field and the depth to sub in and out. Look at all the ways our offense can attack these days. GERG needs time.
Unless I was mistaken (which is possible), we were not in a 3-3-5 set.
Talented well coached players are much more important than scheme.
The 3-3-5 (as has been covered here extensively) allows a flexibility to drop 8 or to stuff the box. Also, Campbell isn't ready for the pass rush.
thank you everyone sees 3-3-5 and thinks it totally going to get pounded on by a power run team.
The way it is typically run, it is more of a 3-5-3. Just because the personnel is defined by the 3-3-5 doesn't mean that we can't run out of a different formation. For example, if they come out with to TEs and a FB, you bring the Spur and Bandit in on the edges and Mouton puts his hand down. That gives us a 4-4. The formation gives you the personnel on the field to easily run out of the 3-3-5 stack, 4-3, 3-4, 4-2-5. If you sub in another corner for a LB, 3-2-6, 4-1-6. If you take out the Spur for a DT, you can run a 5-2.
Former prized 5 star
Former is the key word here. He hasn't shown any reason to put him on the field or else the coaches would.
Campbell may have not shown enough to be on the field but I think it's more of Martin is an animal at the DT position that contributes the most to Campbell not seeing the field. I would just hate seeing Campbell potentially only starting one season with Martin being one year ahead of him (Unless of course Martin leaves early which he better not.) Of course a position change for Martin could be the answer to get them both on the field but who knows. I definitely respect what you're saying though about him not showing his ability yet so hopefully that works out and we can improve on the defensive side of the ball.
If it was only Martin being an animal keeping Campbell off the field, he wouldn't be 3rd string. Also, they would either have a 4 man line or Martin/Campbell would be in a healthy rotation to keep them both fresh.
Campbell is 2nd string behind Martin...
And that was the whole point of my post. A four man front with Martin and Campbell anchoring the middle to stop the run.
The in-page pdf didn't work for me. The giant link at the top goes here:
"Running a 3-3-5 stack defense in the Big 10 just doesn't make sense to me when you have teams like Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin looking to run it down your throat."
Why do you think that? It's actually difficult to run on a 3-3-5 (assuming you have competent players at every position).
- - -
On the subject of cliches (i.e., "run it down your throat"), do those schools also have defenses that want to HIT YOU IN THE MOUTH?
I agree, the 3-3-5 can be effective but I'm just not getting having 3 guys at the point of attack on the line when you're versing backs like John Clay and Evan Royster.
'Taint the Xs and the Os, 'tis the Jimmies and the Joes.
maybe he is sacrificed to cover up the deficiencies of the overall unit.
I think you're correct here. However, I think he'll stay on the line more against B10 opponents.
I think this combined with the return of Herron will see Roh play more as a DE
Realistically, our defensive personnel probably match up better to a TCU style 4-2-5 than the 3-3-5 we're currently running. Ever since I saw Roh's highlight tape, and then saw him his first season, the first thing that comes to mind is "Jared Allen." We're clearly not getting pressure with a 3 man rush, but you could see the difference a 4 man rush made against BG. Realistically, you don't even need to change any personnel.
SAM DE-Ryan Van Bergen-basically the prototype SAM DE.
WILL DE-Craig Roh-Perfect for the position. I'd wager he'll be too heavy for LB by next year anyway.
NT-Mike Martin-Will Campbell is, again, the prototype for the NT position, but he's not ready, and Martin is a beast regardless. He'd be better as a 3 tech UT, but he's still a damn good NT
DT-Greg Banks-Yea, undersized and all that, but with 3 other beast on the line, all he really needs to be able to do is hold up against the run.
Your secondary guys would be the same (including Thomas Gordon/Carvin Johnson).
And I'd say that if all the DT opposite Martin needs to do is hold up against the run, then Campbell shouldn't be too far off.
If/when Campbell is ready to play, I would assume that the coaches would play him at NT and Martin at the 3-technique DT.
Martin's quickness/strength/explosiveness would be much more disruptive as a strong-side 3-technique (think Warren Sapp in his prime). Campbell's size is perfect for making piles or clogging up the middle of the line which is ideally what you want from your NT, especially against power teams that pull a lot.
I think one of the biggest problems with Campbell getting more playing time is he is without a position in the 3 man front. A "true" nosetackle is typically 6'1" or so. He stays really low and gets under a center, who is typically the shortest offensive lineman. Martin is good at this. Campbell is 6'4" at least and plays too high. He is too slow to play defensive end. He is a prototype defensive tackle for a 4 man front, but doesn't fit well with the current scheme.
The scheme right now is being used because of our personell. If there was more defensive tackle depth, I think we would be running much more Campbell-Martin-Roh-VanBergen 4 man lines, but the seniors aren't that good and the freshman aren't ready. I hope next year that is what we see as Black, Talbott, Ash and others become more ready to play.
Whoa, whoa, let's not get crazy here. Campbell is basically the prototype NT in a 3 man line physically (he's about an inch too tall at 6'5", but he's certainly not 4 inches too tall). It's all about leverage yes, which is Campbell's problem right now. But size wise, he's perfect.
In the NFL today, there are 17 starting 3-4 NT's or guys that were taken recently that were considered fantastic NT prospects. Of those 17, 3 are 6'1" or under. 10 are 6'4" or taller. The average height of those 17 players is just over 6'3" and the average weight is about 332 lbs.
Kelly Gregg-6'0" 320
Haloti Ngata-6'4" 350
Shaun Rogers-6'4" 350
Casey Hampton-6'1" 325
Terrence Cody-6'4" 350
Paul Soliai-6'4" 355
Vince Wilfork-6'2" 325
Kris Jenkins-6'4" 360
BJ Raji-6'2" 337
Jay Ratliff-6'4" 303
Albert Haynesworth-6'6" 335
Gabe Watson-6'4" 338
Bryan Robinson-6'4" 305
Aubrayo Franklin-6'1" 317
Antonio Garay-6'4" 320
Ron Edwards-6'3" 315
Jamal Williams-6'3" 348
I don't pay much attention to schemes, but have they tried a 3 man front with Roh, Van Bergen, and Martin?
First couple games, and we got crap for pressure. The thing about DE's in a 3 man line is you want guys that are about Van Bergen's size (or heavier actually, but RVB is good for college ball) but with great explosion, quickness, and long arms. They need to be able to power through double teams, but also have the explosion to beat a single blocker in the limited opportunities they get. Roh is explosive, but not big enough. When he gets double teamed on the pass rush, he gets crushed. RVB is powerful enough, but really doesn't have the explosion. Roh is best utilized in a 4 man line where he can line up outside shade of the tackle, get an angle upfield and beat the single block of the tackle. RVB is powerful enough to get past the double teams he'll see playing the strongside.
That's what we ran against ND until Herron got hurt. Roh replaced Banks and Herron took Roh's LB spot. According to Brian's UFR, we lined up in the stack literally every play, with Roh lining up off the tackle's shoulder, ie, not head up like RVB. I think the ND game was about seeking to give players as much experience in the base as possible.
I can see that working against spread passing teams, against the beef machines of MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin, it's asking a lot of Roh, even with his increased size, to hold up to double teams (likely a tackle and a lead blocker) for the entire game. If you want Banks/Sagasse in for their size against those teams, though, what happens to Roh? I think the OP's concern about yo-yoing him depending on the opponent is a valid one.
I think we're going to see the 4 man front a lot in obvious passing downs. The nickle/dime GERG rolled out against BGSU was likely a preview of what we'll see a lot this week, with Roh on one end of the line and Mouton either standing up (3 man line) or putting a hand down on the opposite end (4).
That said, I don't think we can switch to a 4 man front as the base defense at this point in the season. That's basically throwing out the work and teaching that the coaches have been doing the past two months. It would seem to radically change the responsibilities of the spur and the bandit, as they'd have one less LB inside to protect the middle and would therefore have to pinch inside more. More importantly, with a defense as young as this in the secondary, I just don't think you can make radical changes during the season to the base D. They barely know what they're doing in the 3-3-5, to now drop a new defense, with new responsibilities, risks completely overwhelming Gordon, Carvin Johnson, Avery, Talbott, Kovacs (maybe him less so). And Mouton and Ezeh have never been the quickest studies at picking up defensive concepts.
Installing the 3-3-5 as the base may have been a mistake (I'm not convinced of this yet, want to see it against decent competition), but given the youth, inexperience, and nature of the players on our D, it's a defense we're stuck with.
Criticize coaching staffs positioning and scheme. But in this case it seems as if he is half committed to pass and half to run and ending up in a neutral area. Im sure there are little things that we are not picking up but with his ability I could see him improving and making a difference on more plays.
Holy shit....finally a post where somebody questions coaching staff decisions without being treated like he hates the team.
He's only listed at 251 lbs. If they were to put him at DE full-time, he would ideally be 15-20 lbs heavier. At 251, he would be somewhat overmatched against the bigger lines in the Big 10 (twelve), albeit not as much as last year. His mobility for his weight is very good and he certainly has enough speed/agility to play linebacker in the right scheme.
He looks a lot like a weakside OLB in a 3-4. I am going to have to disagree b/c I personally think his size/athleticism right now is perfect for Robinson's hybrid position.
I would absolutely disagree. While Roh has good athleticism for his size, the key term is "for his size." His hips are fairly stiff in coverage. He has great speed for a DE, probably average at best for a LB.
I'd also disagree that he's undersized. Yes, he's a little light (I'd agree that he's definately lighter than I'd like to see my DE's, but there's enough successful, disruptive light DE's out there in a 4 man line that I think he'd be fine. He might struggle a bit against the run, but I'd give up some in the run game to get an, IMO, vastly improved pass rush), but a guy like Aaron Maybin of Penn State had 12 sacks and 20 TFL's at 235 pounds. O'Brien Schofield was 248 pounds when went ahead and got 12 sacks and 24.5 TFL's. That's just two recent examples. There are many, many others Leverage plays a huge part, which actually leads to my next point.
I want people to watch Roh this week when he's at DE and when he's at LB. When he's at DE, he's what scout's call a "flatback." He's incredibly low in his stance. When he comes out he stays basically in the same stance, getting very low with great leverage. He gets his hands out and keeps guys away from his body, and has a great initial punch. He shows a variety of pass rush moves.
When he's at LB, he gets very high. He goes into blockers almost straight up. He lets guys into his body and almost seems to forget his hands until he's already engaged and the blocker is into his body (this is especially evident last year against ND on the Armando Allen hold run at the end of the game, but throughout the season this was a problem). He loses leverage regularly. When he rushes, it's almost always a straight speed rush.
The difference between Roh as a DE and Roh as a LB are night and day. He has flashed the potential to be a fantastic DE. As a LB, I don't think he's going to be much more than an average to slightly above average player.
This is our biggest key. If you watch most of the big plays that were not 80 yard bombs, tackling was the issue. Will the returns of Johnson, Robinson and Herron allow us/do they tackle better?
And as aquaman said, I'm glad no reactionary guys trashed him for raising it, agree or not.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Herron will be starting this Saturday. He and Roh play the same position (SAM), and I don't think taking Banks off the field for Herron is necessarily a positive move.
I expect the starters on the line to be Banks-Martin-Van Bergen and the linebackers to be Roh-Ezeh-Mouton.
However, I too am hoping for more of a four-man rush, even if that means we only drop 7 into coverage.
I don't know, I'd like to see a four-man rush, yet still dropping 8 into coverage. That would really give us an advantage.
needs to go to the officials and tell them his "safe word" for when he is being choked from behind by another hold. Indiana will have no choice but to hold like there's no tomorrow. If the officials call it and IU has to play clean, I see 4 sacks tomorrow just between Roh and Martin.
Does Roh use them?
On his eyebrows, yes.
to the table in terms of a feigned pass rush and as an actual rusher. It appears to me that other teams are very aware of where he is and send RBs out to chip him. I might be wrong but I don't think we've shown too much so far and he might ge some good pass rush opportunities as the coaches tweak these new nuckel and dime packages. If I had to guess, I would venture that tomorrow will be the type of day where you want to cut him loose a little more on the pass rush and forego zone drops etc.
A thread that is really damn thoughtful and has lots of nuggets of wisdom for those of us who know nuttin bout football.
WE MUST CLONE THIS THREAD.