Spring Practice Secondary Highlights
http://mgovideo.com/spring-practice-secondary-update/
Delano Hill and Dymonte Thomas have come a long way.
The clips were secondary highlights so the coaches obviously told the quarterbacks to make bad throws so the backs could make a play on the ball.
Yay for optimism!
Was the secondary taught in an improper way the last few years? Or is it just a matter of preference? With all of the coaching clinics that exist I would think there isn't much variation on teaching a good secondary.
And this seems to be a recurring theme - from hearing that Kalis "wasn't coached" (is that an accurate quote?), to Willie Henry receiving input from too many sources, to Tyrone Wheatley breaking some of the bad habits the RBs accumulated.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
The DBs were taught by a linebackers coach. That's not a knock on Manning; that was just a really dumb decision by Hoke. It was questioned constantly and Countess' struggles were very evident. They undid a lot of that press man stuff after ND shredded it. In hindsight it seems the guys best at it (Peppers, Lewis) were naturally good at it; meaning they weren't developed for squat.
The other position coaches I note that have had to start all over (RB, special teams) had complete dead weight before them as well in Ferrigno and Jackson. QB's different; Gardner's gone so Harbaugh's got a lot of pups regardless of who was QB coach before him. Don't hear so much "starting over" talk from the O-line, D-line, or linebackers. Funk under Nuss was allowed to coach up the O-line to about average, and Durkin picked up where Mattison left off.
I'm still scratching my head over who the hell's teaching the WRs and TEs, though. Fisch is kind of like Borges in that he's an X's and O's guy, and so is Jay. Neither of them are qualified to teach technique. The feature I've been really looking for is receivers (we got "passing game" even though Wheatley got his own feature).
March 30th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
If he doesn't know proper technique for WRs, then there is no way he would have gotten to where he is today. You can be an "X's and O's guy" all you want, if your receiver isn't in a place, on time, consistently, then your X's and O's don't work.
I can promise you that Fisch knows how a receiver should stem, how he should break in and out of cuts, how he should use his hands, because his X's and O's and the QB's ability are contingent on those things (this is why Harbaugh is going from group to group coaching all of them, they are all qualified to do that because their group depends on all the other groups, that's part of what is great about football). He is coaching the WRs those techniques.
Now, it may take some time to learn some of the tricks of the trade, some of the "grab his thigh pad" types of "cheats" that come along with playing the position and teaching it for a number of years. You learn the best ways to teach guys various things through experience (by the way Fisch has coached WR at various stops before, including the Ravens and Broncos), at that may hurt him a bit early. But a teacher is always a teacher and a coach is still a coach. If he's qualified to coach technique to QBs, then he'll get the knowledge and experience needed to coach WRs technique.
I think people over-emphasize how much coaches are specialists in only some areas. This isn't asking an English teacher to teach Math. This is asking an American Lit teacher to teach British Lit.
March 30th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
"You can be an 'X's and O's guy' all you want, if your receiver isn't in a place, on time, consistently, then your X's and O's don't work."
At which point an X's and O's guy will point out what's wrong about the execution. . . and that's as far as it goes. What experience gives a guy is the ability to get inside the player's head, because he's been there already.
I don't know how good a teacher Fisch is and I'm sure he knows a lot about football, but I feel we may have given up a lot by not getting a dedicated WR coach. Hands-on experience gives you insight. That's how one can tell what's weighing on a kid's mind, or if he's maybe hiding an injury, or if he needs to invent a new technique or drill tailored to the individual. If all anyone can do is tell the difference between good and bad technique, that's all they'll say. That can work but it's notoriously inefficient; the results depend on the players' ability to figure it out. They may be OK, but this is how we taught QBs 2-3 years ago and CBs last year and both were total disasters. So, yeah, among an overall stellar coaching group, I'm a little leery about this one.
I wouldn't compare this to American Lit vs. British Lit; this is more like a trumpet player coaching a violin. The guy can easily tell if a note's in tune or not, if it's early or late, and what the music should sound like, but won't know the first thing about how to fix a bad habit except to say it's being done incorrectly.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
A lot of coaches made their living and never played the position they are known as being great at. Belichick was a mediocre at best TE/C. He's known for his ability to coach defense. Urban Meyer played DB, and is known for his ability with WRs and QBs. Rich Rod was a safety, he's known for his ability with QBs. You look at MSU's staff: Tressel played DB (coaches LBs), Warner played QB (teaches RBs), Snyder played Safety (coaches LBs), Staten played DL (coaches OL). Yes, a lot of coaches go on to coach what they played and what they've coached, but like I said, coaches are not as specialists as you think. That goes throughout staffs (Beck, OSU's Co-OC, never coached QBs until Nebraska, and now coaches OSU's QBs).
Think of a college band director. He may have played trumpet, he may have worked his way up teaching trumpet (I don't know how band works), but I can promise you he can correct the horns and the drum and the woodwinds and give advice on each. These are guys that are around guys correcting those things all the time. They take that information in because it helps them perform their job at the time.
I really think you have a flawed view of what an "X's and O's" guy is. I think it's flawed because it's very biased based on results and your perceived thought of what an "X's and O's" guy is. X's and O's don't work without execution. You can't execute without teaching technique. Technique is harder to teach, certainly, but all these guys have some capability of teaching technique or they wouldn't be where they are. You don't become an X's and O's guy because you lucked into a bunch of players that automatically knew how to execute. The leap from the high school game to the college game is too vast to allow for that.
Yeah, it'd be great to hire a guy that had more experience being a WR specialist. That provides you insight that certainly helps you in many ways. That's the same for every profession, yet countless engineering majors succeed in business, countless physics majors succeed in accounting, etc. The more important thing is that Harbaugh hired a teacher. If Fisch can teach, he can and will succeed as a WR coach. It's not about not having experience at the WR position (of which he has anyway), it's about his ability to teach. "X's and O's" guy is just a derogatory term for a guy that can follow a recipe in a cook book.
I am no fan of the position coaches by and large under Hoke but some of you guys are just a trip.
"Funk under Nuss was allowed to coach up the O-line to about average"
I remember when Borges specifically disallowed Funk to coach the O'line to average. That was cool.
Or maybe Funk was a very average coach who had a lot of 1st year starters in year 1 and didnt do a good job of developing them. Maybe OSU had far superior coach who could do that. And maybe in 2014 he was blessed with a guy who was ready right out of HS for 1 spot and all the other spots had 1 year of experience under their belt.
No, it had to be Borges specifically limiting Funk's ability to coach in 2013.
As for the DBs in 2014 - no they were not a LB coach. Only the CBs were. The entire secondary was coached by someone else in 2013 - who escapes criticism here by and large . And then he took over just the safeties in 2014 and they were the worst D grorup, not the corners.
So our former LB coach got Lewis to be better by luck/natural talent of Lewis even though he clearly got better as the year went by - he gets no credit for helping/developing Lewis. But blame for the other guys.
Countess is a solid player but like Norfleet overhyped here. I didnt hear Countess go top 5 in the draft despite being a 5th year senior. He got torched vs KSU with another coach coaching him and aside from INTs 2013 he was not superlative in anyway. He iz a zone corner who basically lives off INTs not great coverage skills. 2014 he was worse. But I am sure the same coach harmed Blake while concurrently doing nothing for Lewis. Or maybe Blake is just what he is.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
My guess is that it's a correction of bad habits that form from not paying attention to detail. It's not that the last staff taught them incorrectly, it's that either they didn't correct details that were already incorrect, or that they let things slide when the season started. Let's focus on maybe the most common and easy to see issue DBs make: false steps
Most DBs coming into college have issues with wasted movement. These guys are such high caliber athletes that an extra step here or a step to the wrong spot there don't tend to bite them. They can fight through those issues because they are great athletes. They've been that way their whole life and it's never changed. Now they come into college and the guy across from them is just as good of an athlete. It's not that the guys coaching DBs don't know to minimize false steps. It's not that they don't know: put your first step here and second step there and don't have any other wasted movement. It's that they have to coach it so that the players can absorb it, and they have to continue coaching it and coaching it and repping it and repping it, because it's not something new that you're just teaching, your breaking a habit that has formed for something like 14 years, since these kids played ball on the street or in the park.
For the latter case stated above, a lot of camp (spring and fall) is time spent establishing or re-establishing these techniques. You spend so much time scouting and putting in tweaks during the season that a lot of these fundamentals don't get as much time anymore. It's not that they are ignored, but again, you only have a limited amount of time to practice. But coaches have to stay on it. They can't allow it to slip. You can't gloss over fundamental errors, and when you start to revert it needs to be haulted immediately or it will continue to revert. So in this case, they may have not spent the amount of time needed to quickly correct and stop the reversion to these old habits.
Again, it isn't that the coaches are not qualified to know the position or the techniques. I know the position and techniques and I've only coached high school. The knowing of those things isn't the very difficult part, and, like you said, there are variations on how to do things (back peddle vs shuffle, for instance), but there are only so many ways to skin a cat. Unless it's vastly different on a high level, there are only smaller details that change, not massive things. So what Jackson is talking about likely isn't about the previous staffs knowledge, but their ability to coach the players out of these bad habbits as described in the last two paragraphs.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
It's not that the last staff taught them incorrectly, it's that either they didn't correct details that were already incorrect, or that they let things slide when the season started.
I'd argue that is a distinction without a difference.
If you aren't correcting details that were already incorrect, or letting things slide when the season started - you aren't teaching them correctly.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
The outcomes, in many ways, may be similar, but there is a difference. One is a deficiency in your teaching method. One is a deficiency both in the teaching method and in what is being taught. In former case, the coaches know the difference between right and wrong and simply aren't doing enough to get the players to absorb it. In the latter case, the coaches are deliberately and repetitively teaching something counter-productive.
At the time, both ultimately result in the player not performing optimally. But actively teaching someone something incorrect is much more difficult to correct than not correcting false play. If you are teaching incorrectly, you are forced to correct a players natural inclination and what has been taught to him (along with all the rationale behind why it is taught that way in contrast to the way you are teaching).
Now, no coach is teaching players to take false steps, so the analogy doesn't apply 1 to 1. I also think your nitpicking/pulling out of context what functions as an introductory paragraph without reading (or quoting) the subsequent explanation and further detail. But nevertheless, there is a distinction. One teaches a child that the Earth revolves around the sun, which may be counter to his natural perception of things but hasn't been proven otherwise. The other way teaches the kid that everything revolves around the Earth, which builds on his limited view of things, and now it becomes more difficult to prove to the kid that the Earth revolves around the sun.
the defense is going to own the spring game again? Think it is going to be a low scoring spring game.
I believe the defense is better than the offense, anyway, but it's not surprising that the defense would be ahead of the offense at this juncture. That's how it always is, at any level. Defense is about reading/reacting and offense is about technique, timing, etc.
It should be like this and it's like this everywhere.
However, unlike previous years, I actually think this defense is good while dominating a bad offense versus just benefiting from a bad offense.
I honestly don't see the offense coming around until the conference season. I'm just praying the defense and special teams can win us those non-conference games.
It's certainly going to take an entire summer for things to sink in and guys to develop chemisty on their own.
Expectations for the offense should be set at notch 1 until fall camp. At that time, we'll see who's real and who isn't.
I said it last week, I'd actually prefer to watch fall camp this season more than go to some games this year. I think it'll be that interesting and that exciting. Guys will know "the way" it'll just be about developing and executing.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:22 PM ^
Additionally, Webb said this AM on the radio that the 1st offense could not run the ball on Saturday. Against the 2nd string D. With several injuries holding out DL. Webb called the report 'troubling'. Yeeesh....at least it's only spring I guess.
Wasn't there a report of the running backs not being touched for four yards (beyond the LOS, for the undercover snarks) at some point? Not sure which team that was against.
While I will take all camp talk with a grain of salt the inabity to run inside would not surprise me. I expect our DTs to be the strength of the team - everyone returns a year older and stronger from a decent run defense last year. Glasgow, Mone, Henry and whomever wins the 4th guy in rotation are going to be better than our interior OL IMO. Especially with Kugler and Cole at center with the former struggling and the latter learning a new position. You have a guy like Pipkins/Wormley basically as a 4th/5th DT, with guys like Hurst as the 5th/6th.
However if we cannot run on the edge it is an issue - supposedly Charlton and Mario O are sitting out or partially injured so you have RS freshman like Marshall or other inexperienced guys at the ends. So if we can't seal off newbies like that it is not going to be great vs Joey Bosa or Shilique Calhoun. Or even generic Big 10 JR/SR defensive end.
This team needs to run unless Rudock shows up. But even then we need to run, and not count on a QB this year.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^
with the draft you're probably going to have a mixed bag of players on both teams oline. Instead of having the first string oline on one team and the second unit on the other, you're going ot have a mix of players on the oline for both teams.
Because I think this is one of the best secondarys we've had in quite some time.
We do need more depth at safety though, I'm hoping Thomas and Hill can take the step to becoming starters quality players behind Wilson and Peppers. Clark, too. And wouldn't be shocked to see Kinnel get some early run.
We have four starting CBs for the first time in a long time. I'll take that. Would like to get four starting safties as well.
However, none of that is going to matter if we can't get pressure on the QB.
I've heard a lot of Marshall hype, Ojemudia has shown flashes to run the passer and Taco looks ready to be a high-level performers. Certainly more athleticism.
If we stay healthy and continue progressing, we have a shot to have an elite defense.
It would be great if Hill and Thomas (especially Thomas) really started to come into their own. Still crazy that one of those guys didn't get a redshirt. UM is seriously looking at losing all of Jeremy Clark, Thomas, Hill and Peppers after the 2016 season (yes, Peppers will be eligable to leave at that time). That leaves Kinnel, as the only DB recruited to play safety on the roster? That Nicholson non-recruitment continues to baffle. Better get some high level safty prospects in this class who will be ready to contribute quickly. And also look at converting a CB or two.
This can also be viewed as a "QBs making terrible throws/decisions" highlight tape. In that view, our 3 QBs make the following number of appearances:
Morris: 5
Speight: 4
Malzone: 2
I'm just sayin ; )
You're not just sayin. Just sayin.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^
You're not just sayin.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^
[Insert 'Oh No, Not This Shit Again' meme]
Ignoring the obvious sample size, selection bias and the number of reps each QB is taking against the number 1 vs number 2 defenses, this can be also viewed as "QBs throwing terrible interceptions", in which our QBs make the following"
Morris: 0
Speight: 1; two total, but one hit the receiver right in the hands first
Malzone: 1; which was the worst one in the whole highlight tape; a very terrible, yet predictable, INT often made by inexperienced QBs.
See, I can make irrational judgements based on tiny samples too.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^
OH MY GOD
March 30th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
Anybody who makes a qualitative judgement on how well the QBs are doing on the basis of a video specifically produced to highlight the performance of defensive backs is an idiot.
Off topic, sorry, but didnt you mention that you're a Denver based designer on a "occupation" kinda thread? You going to LoDo's for the spring game?
While I agree, it is also a reach to judge the DBs on it. Its a highlight tape - it doesnt show the busted plays by the DBs or completions made on them etc.
It's nice filler. Until these guys do it against non MAC competition its just that - filler.
March 30th, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^
If Morris is getting 3 times as many reps as either of the other QBs, then it sounds like he's the best of the bunch. Is that what you're just sayin'?
March 30th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^
Regarding the ugly throws, or the bad decisions, or the inability to run the ball. . .
It's spring. This is the time to be breaking bad habits and developing good ones. To their credit, a number of position coaches have stressed that they're throwing short-term results out in favor of daily progress (Baxter, Jackson, Wheatley).
If you've ever seen a pitcher try to throw a curve for the first time, or a musician learn a new piece of music -- hell, if you've practiced ANYTHING that takes more than a day to master, you'd understand. Even if it's something you've done before, if you're learning to do it a different way, you'll regress like crazy. That's why bad habits are so hard to break; it's so much easier to do it the old way. Hell, Baxter's teaching the kickers to kick all over again and he's not even letting them try to kick field goals because the ball's going all over the place. He's not panicking; it's by design.
I said the same thing last year when Nuss rolled out multiple TEs in the spring scrimmage. Now it turns out our offense was indeed bad, but that doesn't change anything. Spring is SUPPOSED to look bad. This is when they're tinkering, trying new things, fixing bad habits, and doing all sorts of things that'll prevent the effort from looking polished. Put away the damned polish; it's time for hammer & anvil, sparks and sweat. This is when you're beating the metal into shape. It's WAY too early for polish.
"Perfect practice makes perfect" is one of the stupidest pieces of advice I'd ever heard. It's completely wrong. You practice to get to perfect in an environment where the results don't matter. The spring game could be ugly, ugly, ugly. Let it.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^
March 30th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
March 30th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
when you make a change in your game, any game, you well first regress. That is why many people give up and go back to their old style. You have to continue to work at the new style and eventually you will improve.
March 30th, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^
in regards to bad habits. They aren't necessarily bad habits, per se. They could just be different than what they are now being taught or suited to a different system.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^
The secondary could be very, very good this season. There's a lot of guys back there with a lot of experience. And, of course, Peppers.
But still, the D-Line needs to take a huge leap forward this Fall or it could all be for naught. You could have the best secondary in college football, but if you can't pressure the QB, you're going to get picked apart all day. There's certainly potential in that group, but hopefully Mattison can turn it all into results.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^
We actually have some depth at DL this year much like our secondary and a few of the guys can play inside and outside.
Not sure how anyone can be hype on Marshall considering he hasnt played a down of college football at a demanding position.
Don't forget Wormley - I think with the logjam inside he might become an end and certainly in 3-4 fronts I could see it.
March 30th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
March 30th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 30th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
The Linebacker Corps. is supposedly a key weakness...
March 30th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^