The Schaffer Effect

Submitted by jtmc33 on
The more I contemplate last years horror, the more I realize that our defensesive coordinator, alone, caused 40% of all our problems. Considering that this is utilizing Hindsight 20/20, and accepting the possibility of scape-goating someone who no longer is one of ours, I still believe that last year was at least a 5-7 / 6-6 team without Schaffer at the healm of the defense. First, I know our offense was the biggest liability for our defense. Illinois, Penn St., and OSU prove that... as soon as our offense was halted, our defense was put in such horrible position that no scheme could make up for it. No defensive scheme would have won those games. It was obvious that our defense had no concept of tackling fundamentals, and at times it was obvious that the schemes were too complicated for a 1st-year system. My biggest complaint the whole year was how Harrison was handcuffed in a scheme where his speed and versatility was not utilized (Schaffer must not of watched the Capital One Bowl film where Harrison spent the entire game chasing (and hitting) Tebow in the backfield in between knocking receivers off their routes). And mostly I still can't believe that he couldn't take advantage of the depth and talent on the D-Line.... giving Stevie more time to be exposed down field. NOw knowing that RR shipped him out after only a year, and now hearing that there was discourse in the locker room, it is obvious (maybe only to me) that Schaffer and RR weren't only on different pages, but actually were at odds with each other. For a head coach that has never coached defense and has always relied on the D.C. to essentially be a co-head-coach, hiring Schaffer was a huge mistake; but Schaffer's inability to adapt (or refusal to adapt) killed us. Putting the past behind us (which I'll never be able to do, 3-9 for God's sake!), Robinson is that head coach that will coach up a defense. Imagine if at this time last year we were talking about S. Brown at "safety-backer" and "Spinners (Deathbackers)" and admissions by our coaches that our players "need" to work on fundamentals. These adjustments and schemes will improve this team as much as anything else next year. With an offensive line, a capable qb, a healthy TB tandem... and a legit D.C., this is at least an 8-4 team.

Nate-Dawg

June 9th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^

At least an 8-4 team? Dunno about that dude. Facts: True freshman quarterback. Only 5 returning starters on a bad defense. 3rd new DC in as many years. We'll be better, but at least 8-4? I mean, I hope your right but seems like a pretty biased prediction.

jtmc33

June 9th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^

1) True freshman qb that fits the system better than the Walk-on sophomore and redshirt freshman we had last year. +2 win. 2) "Bad defense" b/c of the coordinator, not because of the talent that was avaiable. Better schemes with the ability to adjust vers less talent / depth. Push. 3) New defensive coordinator --- thank God. +1 win. 4) Experienced offensive line - healthy Minor. +2 wins. And I blame Schaffer for 40% of all our problems, not just defensive problems. The only thing keeping him from shouldering most of the blame is that our offense was so bad last year. A great defense would have still given us a 7-5 / 6-6 team at best

jtmc33

June 9th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^

The easy one is Purdue.. offense actually held up its end. I think with the run game established verse N'W and the special teams td, that should have been a win if the defense would of held up. Toledo should have been a win (and not just b/c of the missed fg) but because their offense was able to throw 6 yard outs all day and we never adjusted (which is what Purdue did also) That game was a disaster on O, D, and Special teams, obviously.

MichiganStudent

June 9th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^

What were you fishing for? The Notre Dame game? I wouldn't put that in the win column because we turned the damn ball over a gillion times. Otherwise, yes, I would put that in the win column. Although, thats kind of like saying "if we scored more points than the other team we would have won". Anyways...

BlockM

June 9th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^

You might very well be right, but I hate the bullet point logic that points to certain improvements and assigns them a specific increase in the win column. It makes zero sense. You *might* be able to make that case for one issue at a time (something like, "If we had had a lock-down defense, we would have won at least two more games.") but not for a laundry list of things. I understand that football is very tricky to analyze, and I'm definitely not great at it myself, but you can't just add up wins based on strengths of a team.

lhglrkwg

June 9th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^

where do you get all these random numbers? i mean i can make up numbers too that support my argument 1)no more steven threet. -4 wins 2) big will. (STUD) +8 wins 3) GERG +9 wins therefore we will be undefeated national champs this year. i never knew it was so easy

sammylittle

June 9th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^

1) Another year for Barwis to work his magic --- with or without increased size = +2 wins. 2) Stadium renovations further along --- Loud Loud = +1 win. 3) Another year in the offensive system --- Execution = +2 wins. 4) Stevie Brown moved to a position where he is not the last line of defense --- Run Away = +1 win. That puts us at 14 wins. Feel free to add to our lists.

Blue Durham

June 9th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^

1. Jingling for key plays -1 2. The wave in all of its embodiments, -2 3. Old farts screaming down in front, -3 4. Bloggers throwing empty plastic bottles at cranky old farts -1 5. Dex wearing ass-less chaps to the games eating pizzas that were run over by a car, +5

blueblueblue

June 9th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^

I'm just going to address one of the OP's points that exemplifies the whole post for me - "and now hearing that there was discourse in the locker room" Holy shit! I heard that too, but I thought it was just some silly rumor. Discourse has the potential to lead to discord or discontent or disagreement or dissension, so any sign of talking is a sign of trouble. No more talking in the locker room!!! Only texting (and only if happy emoticons are used), interpretative dancing, or morse code should be used for communication.

jtmc33

June 9th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^

Thank God this is a UM forum and not a Sparty or Purdue blog or people would actually address the primary issues (whether they agree or disagree) and not take the time to point out grammer and/or vocab issues. As a UM grad, I'm use to my fellow alums taking more energy to prove someone stupid than to otherwise argue or discuss (through discourse) the topic at hand. We are a very pompous and proud species, we Wolverines, but let's save our one-upmanship for our cousins that had to go to State.

mejunglechop

June 9th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^

What exactly are the primary issues here? Your point is that "Shaffer" was a really really bad coach, even worse than we think. The problem is that your argument doesn't really bring up any solid evidence we didn't already know. Why should we change our minds? Sometimes your post suggests you're about to add something new and argue for it, for example when you write that you didn't like how Harrison and the D-line were used. That could have been interesting, but please tell us, how so? Be specific. Could you break down where exactly "Shaffer's" philosophy went wrong? Please do not respond to this with something along the lines of, the Harrison and the D-line should have been better. That would be circular reasoning.

blueblueblue

June 9th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

You are much more patient (and nicer) than I. I am with you here, it was the empty statements and inconsistent arguments that led to my I-am-pissed-because-you-wasted-my-time-with-your-dumb-post post above.

jtmc33

June 9th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^

Using Harrison as a blitzing Strong Safety and moving him around the field on the line at times, and deep at others would have been a start. Playing him as a traditional SS kept him out of the backfield... where he was so effective in '07 when he played nickel. Even though he had to start at SS last year, Shafer (or Schaffer) didn't have to ignore his strngths as a blitzing safety while Cissoko played nickel to assist Brown deep D-line: Jamison did well last year, and VanBergen added depth in the run game, and Graham couldn't have played better. But on passing downs it was Graham or nothing. Our DTs were never in the backfield and played straight to give the DEs (really only Graham) the chance to create pressure. All of our qb pressure came from the outside and never from the middle. Mix it up, blitz a LB... bring a SS blitz, make the OL shed the double team on the DT or Graham

Don

June 9th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^

but that's at the extreme edge of probability, with everything going right, esp. on the injury front. We're so damn thin at critical positions that any dings are going to be a big, big problem. Hoping for 6-6.

Nate-Dawg

June 9th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^

But how did you come up with 40%? Did you just pick it because it seemed right to you? Did you utilize a mathematical equation? Did you pray about it? I'm confused.

Irish

June 9th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^

I am confused, I thought RR told Schaffer what defensive scheme to use? I mean the defense didn't out play the offense but it really sounds like your just looking for someone to blame. You say that the defensive scheme was too complicated but the offense wasn't exactly rolling like they fully understood it. I don't know how you can justify firing him for only being in his first season without his players that work in his scheme. Problems: 40% -defense 20% -ST? 40%-offense? If it was personality issues or a clash in philosophies I understand his dismissal but you can't hold only one side of the ball to a standard.

MichFan1997

June 9th, 2009 at 12:19 PM ^

is the logical Notre Dame fan who has appeared at this site. I've never met a logical Notre Dame fan before. Seriously...I roomed with a kid who was one and thought they were turn their 3 win season into a BCS bowl the next season (which was last years meh team). Nice to have met one finally though! Welcome aboard.

Irish

June 9th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^

thank you, Mgo is definitely a bit more down to earth which is why I started posting. I honestly hope most ND fans are not like your room mate though, its attitudes like that which only set us up to fail. I don't care if we get all riled up after actually proving something but until then there isn't much to talk about besides potential.

hennedance

June 9th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^

was something completely different. I get the Shaffer Effect when I go for early morning runs without underwear. You obviously are not talking about that.

Sandler For 3

June 9th, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^

I don't understand your claim that Shafer installed a complex defense that was difficult for our players to understand because of their unfamiliarity with it. It's almost like you're saying he shouldn't have installed HIS defense (complex as it may be) because the players wouldn't understand it. That's like saying Rodriguez shouldn't have installed his offense completely because the players wouldn't have gotten it, which seemed to be a theme in his first years during coaching stints. I know you can say Rodriguez didn't have the weapons for his offense; no quarterback no electron wide receivers, but you need to look at it from the defensive standpoint too. Shafer tried to install a defense that made him successful enough to land a job at Michigan and simply didn't have the players and the time to watch it succeed. I think that he "resigned" more for the fact that he was not a good fit with the school, the coaches and the players and not because his defense was incapable of working at Michigan. To say Shafer was responsible for 40% of the losses is like saying Rodriguez is responsible for 40% of the losses because of the spread offense. That leaves 20% of the blame for the fans and the players I guess.

victors2000

June 9th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^

Egads, I never seen so many turnovers in my life! SportsCenter never shows that many turnovers in the highlights. More prominent ones include Nick against Utah, uh, us against ND, and Steven against Toledo, just to name a few. You take away the Utah and Toledo turnovers, maybe a couple more, and the man might still have the DC job.

dex

June 9th, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^

Little known fact about that game is that the defense actually performed well enough to win. Unfortunately, Shafer stole the headset from RR and Calvin and told Threet to throw a 101 yard INT return for a TD, and then yelled "NOONAN" in the kickers ear during the FG attempt.