Is Mattison's NFL Stint Hurting Us?
First, let's get this out of the way. This is NOT a thread about getting rid of a coach. I hope most of you are not like that idiot who called for firing DL coaches (think about that one). I hope Mattison stays as long as possible and enjoys good health. So, if you want to spew about who should be replaced with who, go elsewhere, there are plenty of threads about that.
What I want to talk about is why Mattison is so averse to pressuring bad QB's.
Is it because of the time he spent in NFL where there are many quarterbacks who will carve up the blitzes? Rushing four is definitely the main tools of the best D's in NFL (Seattle, Baltimore, etc.). But is it really necessary in college?
College QB's are not like NFL QB's. Even very good college QB's do not handle pressure well (see Devin), let alone poor ones like Hackenberg (still a freshman) and Cook. But it seems like we are determined to give them as much time as possible and let them be comfortable in the pocket with ever increasing percentage of completions as the game goes on and they gain confidence.
I just don't get it. You can see how much havoc pressure can cause (see MSU). We are very effective when we blitz (I have numbers). I understand rushing only four is preferred, but why keep doing it when it is not working?
November 3rd, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
"Point to me the national titles Narduzzi has won as a DC."
Was Barry Sanders a great player? Is Calvin Johnson a great player? Are you implying unless a player has a pro championship or NC ....or a coach has a NC he is not potentially great? In CFB there are about 7-10 teams with a legitimate chance of winning a NC. Is your belief that there are no superior coaches in the country who coach at one of the other 110+ teams? Because unless they have a NC they are not tobe spoken of in the same breath.
I am sure Mattison is a fine coach - I am just replying that the excuses that we cannot run a defense due to lack of talent are just that. MSU's best class is akin to UM's worst class 9 out of 10 years.
p.s. I have no idea who is behind MSU defense, my gut says it is Dantonio since he has the track record at OSU. Narduzzi may be getting the credit for it. I am only saying there is clear evidence that MSU develops talent in house on defense. And doesnt rely on excuses about lack of talent... by going off stars their defense should be ranked 70th in the country. Also Dantonio does have a NC ring so your comment is a bit moot.
You never answered my question - you say MSU is like this because it is a senior laden 2013 squad. So what explains their success in 2011 when those seniors were sophomores? And sophomores with 2-3 stars?
November 3rd, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^
Some probably don't realize or remember this, but the MSU fanbase was up in arms by year three under Dantonio at State and demanding Narduzzi be fired. Did he suddenly figure out how to coach defense in year four? Or could it be that the recruits he brought in for his style of play and who now had multiple years in his system were much more capable?
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
NO.
This is execution, not playcalling.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
I don't think the defense was good yesterday. Once you get past the problems on the OL and give State's defense its due, you can look at the last drive of the first half and the first drive of the second and see where this game was lost. State's identity is defense, give them a two score edge and their confidence and aggression multiplies.
November 3rd, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
November 4th, 2013 at 3:36 AM ^
an INT in msu territory. the O could have gotten us back into the game with that but failed. the focus in this thread is on the wrong side of the ball. i see almost every player on D improving and they are solid unit. and i expect near elite next year. wish i could say the same for the offense.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^
The lack of pass rush is an example of this. If we think back to 2011, when Martin and Van Bergen were manning the front lines, they made reads and we're able to identify plays ahead of time to make adjustments.
I truly believe the vanilla defensive schemes and heavy rotation amongst the 3 deep reflects the personnel available.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^
Mattison rarely brings pressure this season and it really hurts us because our defensive line is not good. Cook made bad throws/threw out of bounds (once for int. grounding) on the few ocassions we did bring pressure. Also, maybe the DBs could do some WR drills this week and learn how to CATCH THE DAMN BALL.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
Our defense was fine. The problem was 100% on offense yesterday.
For example, we needed a break in a big way, and the defense came up with a huge interception giving the offense the ball inside of field goal range. On the next three plays when a quick touchdown would have brought us right back into the game, the offense proceeded to lose enough yards to take the team well outside of field goal range.
I will be happy when we have a running game in the next two years.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
The problem is we have no playmakers on the d-line. No one can rush the passer. If we simply could get QB pressure with anyone the rest of the defense looks just fine. Granted, we are not killing it with the other guys, but we are plenty good enough at other positions if we simply had a d-line that could rush the passer. Now the question is why? Pipkins as a sophomore should have been able to do more IMO. Charlton should at least be getting snaps here and there IMO. Ojemudia and Wormley should be progressing a little faster IMO. Clark, Black, Q-Wash, Heitzman, etc. are what they are.
So, are we making it too complicated? We talk over and over about "fundaments and techniques". Are we making the kids think too much? MSU's defense is not complicated. They know it, they play it hard, and they play it fast. And Bullough, Allen, Lewis, etc. all were good as true sophomores....much better than our higher rated recruits like Bolden, Ross, and Wilson are now. They got it faster than we are getting it. Why? Is it scheme, style, or were they simply under-rated and us over-rated?
I don't think it has anything to do with NFL. It may have something to do with development and teaching/coaching style or scheme. But, it really comes down to no pressure from our front 4.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
That's two more years of teamwide development in scheme. It also helps that they had Jerel Worthy playing in front of them. UM does not have a Jerel Worthy.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:49 PM ^
I'm not sure it matters how long the coach has been there prior to your arrival. Both coaches recruited the players they have, and have been there coaching them from day one. That is an excuse to me.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
Jerel Worthy was a 3 star. I am being told by others to be patient and only when Mattison gets 5 stars can he run his defense in an aggressive manner. Until then our two 4 star corners must play off WRs by 5 yards as no safety we have is to be trusted, and none of our 4 star LBs can effectively execute a blitz that gets to a QB.
How is that other teams can take 3 stars and make them into players other teams must scheme around. We have JMFR as our one shining example.
Calhoun 3 star
Waynes 2 star
Dennard 2 star
Denicos Allen 3 star
Taiwan Jones 3 star
Kurtis Drummond 3 star
i could go on, other than Max Bullough who was a 4 and one other guy I cant think off of top of my head there are no recrooting stars over there and they dont have to "wait" until Peppers and Hand show up ... or a "star" like Worthy (who they developed, not drafted) showed up to run their defense.
Again, will anyone concede that MSU is superior at developing defensive talent or is it still denial. If your coaching staff cannot run its football scheme unless 5 stars are brought in, you dont have much of a coaching staff.... any coaching staff can run a scheme with all 4/5 stars. No need for us to pay big bucks for that sort of coaching.
November 3rd, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
No one here said that Mattison can only run his defense when he gets 5 stars. You are the only person in this thread even bringing up stars. You are being deliberately obtuse.
November 3rd, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
I will continue to be obtuse then, if that is how you view disagreeing with the mob. Sprinkled in this post and countless others on this blog is the belief system that Mattison cannot play his preferred defense because he lacks faith in certain players, and/or the defense is too young, and/or the team does not have enough recrooting stars. I am refuting that. That is making me sound obtuse.
People continue to parrot this is a uber young defense - I see Black, Washington, Clark (3 upperclassmen) on the DL. I see Beyer, JMFR* (injured) at the 2nd level, along with a young but experienced Desmond Morgan. That is 5 of the front 7 who are not "too inexperienced". I see 1.75 year starters at this point of the year in Blake and Taylor. And Thomas Gordon. By my count that is 8 of the 11 starters on defense who are either upperclassmen or in the case of Blake, Taylor and Desmond - experienced youth. The only "true youth" are Ross, Heitzman, and Wilson among the starting 11. Yes the backups are young - so are most teams.
So will Mattison NOT be able to run his system to his full effect until we get 10 out of 11 upperclassmen? Maybe the bigger question is - is this the system unless 5 stars are layered in. And again, if that is the case - I can go find 20 DCs who play this "bend dont break unless I have 5 stars at 3 positions and/or seniors/juniors at every defensive position but 1". The OL I get the excuses. The defense I do not - and I dont think the defense is putrid or bad just a bit above average and lacking any in house playmakers other than JMFR. Why is that not a valid discussion point where UM gets so much raw material to work with. There is no bare cupboard here. There needs to be in house development of players - you cannot just rely on shipping in stars, you need to take some of your 4 stars - of which UM is loaded and turn 3-4 into college level playmakers to be near elite.
November 3rd, 2013 at 4:58 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
The defense was not the problem yesterday. Period. You should be able to count on your offense to not only score a few touchdowns, but also not move backwards on the field in every 3-and-out and give your defense a short field behind them.
I swear, this place has become mlive.
November 3rd, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
The last drive of the first half started at State's 25...they marched right down the field. The first drive of the second half started with the kickoff at State's 36. Neither were about Michigan's offensive inefficiencies, time of possession wasn't particularly lopsided at that point.
Call it what you will but State gave the edge to their defense when they went up two scores. And the second half played out accordingly. Of course it would have helped if Michigan's offense had been more productive but that doesn't excuse Michigan's defense of losing an edge they could have/should have had on State's offense. Instead they helped State's defense by giving them a two score advantage.
November 4th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
And our offense marched down the field precisely....never. Michigan's defense is not as good as Michigan State's, nobody is disputing that, but to say that we lost the game because the defense wasn't able to pitch a shutout to MSU is ludicrous.
Have the Michigan offense go on one, just ONE, sustained TD drive in the first half and you'd deny the MSU offense the opportunity to score their TD before the half. Go on one sustained TD drive in the 2nd half and you've probably won the game.
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^
Now, "Michigan Fans" are even criticizing Greg Mattison?
Maybe Brian should just start calling this blog the "Huron River Message Board."
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^
I respect you dude, but the schtick of "this board has denigrated into [Mlive or whatever shitty online message board]" is really, really old. As old as you and I. Once you make this mindless comment, you relegate yourself to that level. In my opinion.
In truth, the level at which the board is now is the same as it always has been. At least for the 5 years I have been around.
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^
November 4th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
Michigan needed a dominant performance from their offense. That's the strength of this team. That's how we beat Notre Dame. That's how we've beaten everyone, we put points on the board. This team doesn't win by pitching shutouts.
If people thought Michigan was going to win this game in another 12-10 slugfest, they were kidding themselves. That kind of game plays right into MSU's wheelhouse. We needed a 24-28 point result from the offense to have a chance on Saturday and we had no gameplan to get us there.
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 4:00 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 4:00 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^
rushed for somethlng like -48 yards and you are bitching about the DEFENSE?
The offense left the defense in AWFUL field position ALL GAME, not to mention they left the defense on the field CONSTANTLY. What do you expect from the defense? An average defense would have given up 20+ points in the first half given that MSU started EVERY DAMN POSSESSION at midfield.
The problem yesterday was that our offense went BACKARDS on every possession. End of story. It was probably the most embarassing offensive performance I've ever seen from a Michigan team that didn't involve a quarterback named Sheridan, Threet, Brown or Zurbrugg. Not that this was Gardner's fault. He had exactly .5 seconds to do anything after making his useless PA fake before he was sacked by multiple players.
November 3rd, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^
Our D could have played better, but not realistically that much better.
It's wishful thinking to hope that our D plays so out-of-their-minds well that it covers up for our non-existing O. That's what we're all really asking here, isn't it?: "Why couldn't our D have held MSU to just four field goals so that our O could have stayed within 6 points all game until they figured out how to get a first down?"
I'd like to see the D get more pressure on inexperienced QB's like Cook and Hack, but the D is not the reason for our two losses so far.
November 3rd, 2013 at 4:29 PM ^
The job of Mattison is to scheme a defense. He cannot teach 50 guys technique. Technique is up to the position coaches. If all you have to work with is junk because the position coaches are not doing their job your stuck. The bigger question to me is how come Mattison's schemes are not so effective but why players are not developing fast enough. OSU has a very young defense and has a ton of 1st & 2nd year players on their Dline. They were shakey early but have steadily improved and are living up to their recruiting stars. That does not seem to be happening with this team. The Michigan defense seems to be performing at the same level as earlier in the year. For a bend but don't break they seem to give up a lot of big plays. They seem to be pretty good at keeping power runs under wraps. However, the lack of big play ability the other way allows teams to string drives together. It is not like the schedule so far has been challenging. ND and Indiana were the only good offenses. With the improvement by OSU, I shudder at the possible outcome.
November 3rd, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 6:53 PM ^
I don't think his time in the NFL hurts, but having a young and still-maturing defense, along with few playmakers, has clearly limited what he can do. I mean, his first year he at least have RVB and Martin, two guys who could disrupt a defense on their own. Nobody on this line, save sometimes Black and Clark, have been able to do anything on their own. When you can't get much pressure organically, it gets hard to dial up blitzes and confusion when the other team knows to just leave another guy back.
November 3rd, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
Also, do you know that he is currently running his ideal scheme? To be clear, are you so sure that he would be implementing the same schemes if he had an experienced, senior-laden defense like MSU? If we had a more seasoned secondary and a more productive front four, I bet Mattison would bring pressure with a higher frequency than he does right now.
I don't think Mattison's NFL experience hurts us. To me, it would be unfair to say so until our defense is a finished product.
November 4th, 2013 at 1:12 AM ^
November 4th, 2013 at 9:21 AM ^
In his first stint with MIchigan, we played a read/react defense. Not a lot of blitzing but more of read where the ball goes and attack. That first puts an incredible amount of pressure from your front four to get to the QB and then pressure on the back seven to cover for extended periods of time.
I heard the opposite argument when RichRod was here. We seemed to blitz a lot more, but got burned more as well.
After the Indiana shootout and this debacle, it feels like 2010 all over again. Only difference is that Hoke will still have the support of the administration and the players won't quit because they don't feel they're playing for a lame duck HC.
November 4th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^
The defense is NOT the reason we didn't win on Saturday. Mattison's strategy of bleeding Sparty slow would've been completely effective if our offense could've mustered any semblance of cohesion. Like it or not, at this point in time, our defense just doesn't have that many playmakers and aligning ourselves to not make the big mistake has, for the most part, been effective.