Sacks

Submitted by Hoke_Floats on

Indiana dropped back to pass over 70 times.

  • 64 passes
  • 2 sacks
  • 1 int
  • Chappell is listed as running 7 times for -5 yards

I am going to go out on a limb and say were are not getting enough sacks.

I don't have the numbers, but it did look like Chappell got hit a ton.  I think our pressure and blitz packages were good at getting to the quarterback.

My question is this...if we are getting decent pressure or at least a bunch of quarterback hits (some of them after he released the ball and illegal) why aren't we getting more sacks?

I would say its b/c our secondary is playing too soft.  I got sick of watching the QB get hit as he threw the ball to a reciever with a DB playing a soft 5 yards behind.  If the secondary played a bit tighter we may give up a few more big plays, but I would think we would also get a bunch more sacks.  I say this b/c in the split second the QB has to decide if he wants to throw all he sees is his own player, if there were a DB in the area he may think twice pull the ball down and take the sack.  Thats just my opinion.
 

I know our Defensive philosophy is to make a QB beat us, but we shouldn't make it too easy for them.

Logan88

October 4th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^

I stopped watching UM's defense by halftime of the ND game, so I haven't seen for myself, but can anyone explain why Craig Roh's numbers are so "meh" this season? I think he has 18 tackles, 3 TFL and 0 sacks. Those are WELL below what I anticipated he would have through the first 5 games of the season.

Magnus

October 4th, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^

Because he's not playing a position that suits his skills.

He's a DE in a 4-3 or an OLB in a 3-4.  But they're forcing him to play as an OLB in a 3-3-5, which means he's dropping into coverage too often and not having a chance to use his pass rush skills. 

That's one of my issues with the defense this year.  They've taken their best pass rusher (Roh) and turned him into a traditional linebacker.  It doesn't seem like a good way to utilize the talents of your personnel.

Logan88

October 4th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

Thanks for the reply. I suspected that this might be the case as I have read a lot of people complaining about UM only sending 3 to rush the QB and figured that Roh was not included among those three.

Do you find it at all strange that RR, who played Safety in college, seems so clueless when it comes to putting together a good defense? Roh as a LB? Cam Gordon as a FS? These seem like weird personnel choices.

WVU usually fielded competent defenses. I wonder if Jeff Casteel was the sole reason for their defensive "success" and why he didn't come with RR to UM?

Magnus

October 4th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^

I think that Rodriguez concentrates so much on offense that he probably leaves the defensive issues to be dealt with by his assistants.  I don't think he's necessarily clueless about defense.

There have been some odd personnel choices, and I might blame the 3-front on Rodriguez.  It's his decision to make such a big change.  However, the Cam Gordon at FS thing isn't really Rodriguez's fault.  Michigan didn't really have a choice on that one.  It was going to be Cam Gordon or some other player ill-suited to play FS (Emilien, Hawthorne, Jerald Robinson, etc.).

bluenyc

October 4th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^

I agree with you on Cam as a FS, he just doesn't have the speed, but who would you put in to replace him.  I thought Carvin might be better.  As for Roh, as others have said further down on this thread, he seems undersized as a straight DE.  

It was interesting that when GERG rushed 3 a couple of times late in the 2nd half, it actually worked.

I love to hear what Magnus and other more informed people think if we have the right personel on the defense.

 

Edit : Slow typer, thanks for the answers

johnvand

October 4th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

There needs to be a serious intervention on defense.

We have personnel for a 4-3, or even a 3-4.  Not this bastardized hybrid of the two.

If we're going to run zone all day I can't see why the base package isn't:

 

Roh - Sag/Banks - Martin - RVB....   on the line  Roh as either a 4-3 DE or a 3-4 OLB

Mouton - Ezeh/Demens  - Herron/JB.... as the LBs

Floyd - Gordon - Kovacks/Carvin/MRob - Rodgers/Avery....   as the DBs

In nickel situations take out Herron/JB and bring in a 5th DB/Safety.

You can still play this cover 3 garbage with the 2 CBs + Gordon.   Keep the SS position closer to the line for run support and short passing game support, also bringing the occasional blitz.  Have the OLBs cover the flat, and the MLB cover the short middle.

It gets our best pass rusher on the line doing his thing (Roh).

It gets our best interior lineman in a gap where he can create havok (Martin)

And maybe just maybe forces a QB to think fast before a WR can burn our bad secondary.

Needs

October 4th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^

I generally agree with the comments on our personnel (other than playing Banks/Sagasse at DT, where they would be total disasters, they're just not stout enough to hold up inside). The major flaw of this defense is that Roh doesn't play as well in space as the coaches thought he would; he's far more effective on the edge. The 3-3-5 seems to require 3 Moutons, linebackers who can be effective on both the blitz and in disguising their pass drops. Roh is not Mouton, they have very different skills and strengths.

That said, I don't think you can change a defensive setup during the season, especially one in which the secondary is as young as this one is. They've spent two months now coaching the 3-3-5, installing a new base would result in an even more vanilla defense than we've seen already, and would likely result in the kind of big plays (via assignment confusion) that the coaches seem to regard as public enemy #1. Maybe they can do something during the bye week, but I doubt we're going to see significant change until after the Penn State game.

For those advocating installing dramatically new defensive setups during the season, remember Purdue '08. Things can get worse.

RockinLoud

October 4th, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^

Magnus, do you think going to more of a 4-2-5 look with Roh as a DE the majority of the time would yeild better results for the D?  It seems to me this would be a better option to utilize the talent we have on hand and get more consistent pressure on the QB to help our razor thin secondary not have to play 10yds off the WR every play.

Firstbase

October 4th, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^

The bend but don't break conservative philosophy is the reason, I think. We typically rush 3 to 4, and I can't remember the last time I saw our safety blitz. 

We're playing a type of prevent defense that results in the lousy outcome we've seen thus far.

IPFW_Wolverines

October 4th, 2010 at 9:32 AM ^

the problem is though Michigan played a more aggressive D last year and got burnt all the time for big plays.

Being such a young defense its a matter of pick your poison. Sure G Rob could dial up more blitzes but is everyone okay seeing Cam Gordon vs ND type plays? That will be happening quite a bit. 

Instead Michigan goes with the bend but don't break and makes teams slowly move down the field, hoping they make a mistake. I have never been a fan of the bend but don't break. I just don't thnk there is much choice this year.

In reply to by IPFW_Wolverines

maineandblue

October 4th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^

Thank you. Does this make sense, or am I losing my mind? What am I missing?

Our guys in the secondary cannot match up (man or zone) and need all the help they can get. We saw huge breakdowns and missed assignments last year. Rushing 3 and giving receivers cushion for the short stuff (i.e., bend but don't break) is the lesser of two evils, and so far it seems like we're not giving up the huge plays we allowed repeatedly last year. 

Do people honestly believe that our staff prefers to avoid sacking quarterbacks or playing tight coverage on receivers? Maybe they don't realize that sacks = good and fire = bad?

Nothsa

October 4th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^

Even with a 3 or 4 man rush, M got to Chappell. He's a big QB with years of experience getting pressure behind a mediocre line, though - that means he's hard to surprise, and he doesn't just fall down. Indiana's off generally had available dump off options, and Chappell found them.

He was limping pretty noticeably on the last couple of drives though - he played through it and led the Hoosiers on the tying TD drive, so I give the guy a lot of credit.

oakapple

October 4th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^

For now, Michigan seems to be committed to the “bend, don’t break” defense, where you force the opponent to march down the field in relatively small chunks. GERG is clearly trying to avoiding blitz packages that would leave the secondary exposed with one-on-one coverage. GERG certainly knows how to blitz, but then every pass play would be either a sack or a touchdown. (OK, I am exaggerating slightly.)

I am not sure why Michigan’s front three (or sometimes four) don’t get better pressure. One reason is that the Banks/Sagesse tandem are just not very good, which leaves the opposing offense with just Martin and Van Bergen (sometimes Roh) to deal with. Only Martin seems to be consistently disruptive in the trenches, and Michigan needs more than that.

If only Will Campbell were able to play as an every-down starter.

Black Kerouac

October 4th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

What are those?

Seriously though, I think that's our only hope on D. Blitz, get pressure, create confusion and hurry the QB, get sacks, and force mistakes leading to picks, fumbles, and bad passes. I know our secondary is porous, but dropping 7 or 8 and letting a quarterback like Chappell (sp?) pick us apart is, to me at least, not a sound defensive strategy going forward. The worst thing you can do is let a good, accurate QB get comfortable and into a rhythm with a bad secondary to back you up. We need to have the opposing QB wondering where the blitz is gonna come from a lot more often, in my opinion.

NateVolk

October 4th, 2010 at 9:35 AM ^

Bend but don't break with very soft coverage on those passes in the flat is tough to watch. With this offense and the lack of experience in the secondary, it makes a lot of sense though.

I'd like us to play tighter on those wide passes to the flat when we bring extra pressure, but maybe there is a reason that just won't work.  I wish someone would address this on here who knows the game. 

I have seen a lot of people on here mention the need to play tighter on the shorter pass plays and it makes sense.

Hoke_Floats

October 4th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^

GERG can't predict when we will get pressure using our basic 3/4 man rush

So he has to assume that we won't and play soft

The issue is when we do bring our extra guy...why not play tighter then.  Of course there is no guarantee we will get to the QB which brings us back to the beginning

Giff4484

October 4th, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^

I know we have been killed when we blitz but the upside is our O can score. Maybe we get pressure and get more turnovers/ sacks or maybe the other team scores . But at this point the other team has been scoring anyway.

The dink and dunks are still killing us so maybe Gerg should just go Greg Williams style from the Saints and bring the house. It's 50/50 with a big play or a sack/ pick .

jmblue

October 4th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

The problem with Roh is that he really doesn't have the physique to be an every-down DE.  He needs to put on another 15-20 pounds.  He's not big enough to engage offensive linemen in the run game.  In the meantime, he's basically just a pass-rush specialist.  Our lack of depth is forcing Gerg to play him every down.

caup

October 4th, 2010 at 9:48 AM ^

is why this year's defense is not as good as last year's.  Basically, just the loss of Graham has made a huge difference.

The DBs' performance has been about the same as last year.

The LBs' performance has been about the lsame as last year.

The DL versus the run has been about the same as last year (or a bit better, actually).

It's the pass rushing that has been abysmal.

And I know everyone around here loves them some Craig Roh.  But what I see is an undersized guy who can't overpower any Big Ten offensive lineman, and whose spin move is 98% ineffective.  I realize he's not officially a DE.  But is he really a LB?   He's a smart kid with a pretty good motor, but I'm not sure how he should be used to make a greater impact.  Maybe they should move him to ILB?

They need to find a powerful, explosive DE and find one ASAP!

Hank Scorpio

October 4th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^

I think Gerg tends to give the opposing quarterbacks too much credit and playing (for lack of a better word) "scared." You're not going to get pressure when you're dropping 3/4 of your defensive personnel into coverage / zone. 



He's obviously terrified to man up his corners, I guess because he doesn't have any confidence in them... but you have to at least mix it up a little bit. If you never blitz linebackers and/or safeties, you're never going to GET sacks unless the offense executes an epic fail (which very occasionally happens.)

I think something needs to change schematically, because what they're doing now isn't going to sustainably lead to wins unless they continue to put up 40+ per game.

Braylon 5 Hour…

October 4th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

Basically we just have too many weaknesses on defense, so however we play, we're going to be susceptible to something bad. I think Gerg has taken the approach that it's better to drop 8 and sacrifice pass rush in return for not giving up 50+ yard plays.  If we start playing a 4-3 and asking Rogers and Floyd to play man up at the line, we'll probably get gashed because we don't have good enough cover corners or safety help to support that.  Our linebackers aren't good enough to trust them on their own to handle the running game. And other than Martin, our linemen aren't good enough to create pass rush very frequently on their own that actually ends up being successful.  

I think with Warren and/or Woolfolk this defense would look a lot different and actually be somewhat competent, but until someone steps up his level of play a lot more or we figure out a better way to get Roh making bigger plays, we're stuck with bend but don't break and prayer.  

StephenRKass

October 4th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

While I'd like more sacks, I think we can't really go to a four man DL until BOTH our LB corps and secondary improve significantly. Having 8 in coverage against a passing quarterback (who isn't that mobile) keeps us from getting burned, and seems like a good strategy to me.

Big Boutros

October 4th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

Remember this name

Brandon Herron

He's been hurt the past two weeks. When he plays, he can take Roh's OLB spot and allow Roh to rush the QB as a DE. He should be back for the MSU james

Big Boutros

October 4th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^

didn't say he was good

but he's a contributor. the D needs those

plus, Roh is going to have to beat someone off the snap, right? preferably a RB or a TE, sure, but, I dunno, I'm just throwing poop on the wall here. We want a better pass rush; Roh is a capable pass rusher. Herron can only help