Do we have the personnel to run a "conventional defense?"
I'm looking at this more in terms of next year, because I think its pretty unrealistic to expect massive change this year. And yes, I'm fully aware there are going to be a few of you who are going to huff and puff about worrying about this year first. Oh well, deal with it.
Anyway, the general consensus is that the scheme has issues and we would be better off running a more traditional 4-3 defense. I know that we run "multiple" now that features a 4 man front at times, but our guys seem confused more often than not and there does not seem to be much consistency. I've also heard the argument that we dont have the bodies to run a 4-3 at this point. How about next year? Obviously QWash or Ash would need to step up and handle nose tackle.
Also..linebackers. We've got plenty of them but I dont know who would play what in a 4-3. MLB is obviously Demens, perhaps with Bell, Ryan and maybe Kellen Jones in the mix. The WLB and SLB..I really dont know. We'll have Herron, Fitz, Mike Jones, Cam Gordon, Leach, maybe Furman and M-Rob. I'm not a defensive guru, does anyone have any insight on what qualities are needed to be successful at WLB and SLB and who might project there?
November 4th, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
I believe we are moving 80s heart throb Jake Ryan to the D-Line.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
Obviously QWash or Ash would need to step up and handle nose tackle.
I'd think that Martin would probably continue to handle NT duties.
I'm not a defensive guru, does anyone have any insight on what qualities are needed to be successful at WLB and SLB and who might project there?
I'm no guru either, but here's what I know. WLB is a lot more athletic than the SLB. SLB is charged with man coverage on TEs, keeping contain on stretch runs, etc, and is all around more physical than the WLB. Roh/Herron/Fitzgerald/Gordon/Gordon/Leach would seem to be good (although heaven forbid we see Roh at LB next year). The WLB is more agile, athletic, and somewhat smaller. Bell/Jones/MRob/Furman/K. Jones could all have impact here. It's my understanding that Bell is a MLB prospect
November 4th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
I thought in a 4 man front they would want Martin at DT and Ash or QWash at NT? From what I've read, Van Bergen is really a strong side DE, and he doesnt really fit playing inside in a 4 man front. I'd put Martin/Ash or Washington insde, and RVB/ Roh or Black outside.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
I think Martin's the best fit at NT. If Black continues to put on weight in the offseason, he could easily be the 3-tech, I don't see him being a 4-3 DE. With Roh at weakside DE and RVB at strongside DE, it would provide us with the best combination of experience and talent. Basically, I don't want someone inexperienced like QWash or Ash seeing significant time next year, I've had enough of that this year.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^
I don't think having an inexperienced nose tackle is that big of a deal.
If we could find a solid nose tackle, I really think Martin would be a good 3-tech. The only reason Martin has stayed at NT is because they haven't been able to groom a solid player to fill the position in order to move Martin.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
What do you think about RVB, Magnus? Do you think he's a better fit at strongside DE?
November 4th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^
Yeah, I think he would be a solid strongside DE. I don't like him as a DT, although he performed better as a DT last year than I expected.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:23 AM ^
Van Bergen is 6-6 and 283. Great frame for a strongside DE, not so much for a DT.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
NT has to be able to read and diagnose the play properly or he gets handled and the backers are neutralized. Shawn Rogers of the Browns was discussing his role in the 3-4 with the Browns and how now that he fully understands the defense, he is able to make plays and be more effective. I think plugging in inexperience puts a body on a body, but in order to improve your chances of winning, you put players in a position to win 1 on 1 matchups.
We have more than enough players (according to the players) and word is that the d-lineman and lb's on the team would prefer to run a different defense.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^
Well, it would be great if we could have an experienced player at every position. But that's not possible for U-M. You can have a solid defense if your NT is inexperienced, as long as he's not physically limited (say, 275 lbs. like Adam Patterson).
November 5th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
Agreed, Adam gets neutralized on 9 out of 10 plays. He has no "anger" when he plays. His brother was very similar as rb with a dozen BCS level offers in high school. No aggression at all. It's why I love Jibreel Black (in passing situations)
You need a coach that can teach a DT to play in that system, because it really is the most important position on that front 7 over the course of an entire game. I think it's evident that "DC who's name will never be spoken again by me" doesn't know. Mike Martin is having a good season, and he looks like a 4-3 DT in technique more than a 3-4 NT.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:47 PM ^
Do we have personnel?
November 4th, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^
When you say "conventional defense" I assume by that you also mean a defense that periodically stops the other team somewhere short of the endzone.
That would be fantastic.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:27 AM ^
I think the answer so far in big ten play is a resounding NO.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:52 PM ^
do we have the personnel to run any defense?
November 4th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^
Other suggestions:
Should GERG be fired?
Should we hire Harbaugh?
Should we give RR more time?
Your humorous reply would fit right in with some of the threads I keep seeing (over and over and...)
November 4th, 2010 at 11:03 PM ^
way to make the same exact joke I did
November 4th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
We only have the personnel to run the patented flying V defense.
Edit: Guess I don't know how to post an image on the board. I guess cut and paste doesn't cut it.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
need a Charlie Conway and we'll be set
And, for future reference, someone posted a basic HTML guide that can be found here
Hope that helps
November 4th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^
I'm not one of those who thinks that we need to run a "conventional" defense in order to be successful. The 3-3-5 is fine if you a) have the personnel and b) know how to deploy your personnel.
If we ran a 4-3 like Michigan ran under Ron English a few years ago...
LDE: Black
DT: Martin
NT: Washington (?)
RDE: Roh
SAM: Mike Jones
MIKE: Demens
WILL: Cam Gordon
CB: Floyd
CB: Avery
FS: Woolfolk
SS: Kovacs
It's still not a great defense, and we have no real SAM linebacker. But no matter what defense we run next year, it's still going to be bad.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
No Van Bergen? And you really think we are doomed no matter what? I look at what we have and think we can be at least an average D if we just had a little more experience. Oh..and also a clue. Hopefully we'd get a clue by next year.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^
I knew I was forgetting someone. Yeah, I'd insert Van Bergen for Jibreel Black. Or potentially keep black at DE, put Van Bergen at DT, and leave Martin at NT.
And yes, I think we're doomed, regardless. Our defensive backs are still bound to be horrible in 2011. Even marginally better leaves them in the category of "very bad."
November 4th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
Even with the return of Woolfolk?
November 5th, 2010 at 12:07 AM ^
November 5th, 2010 at 1:26 AM ^
seems to be regressing. I'm not expecting some miraculous turnaround this season and not sure how much better he'll get next year. I'm wondering if he's going to fall in the Ezeh/Mouton catagory - guy who plays a lot in his career but never really gets better.
November 5th, 2010 at 2:17 AM ^
Couldn't the "Floyd regressing" be blamed on a snowball effect? I don't remember hearing much of him earlier in the season other than him being pretty serviceable. With the defense being the culprit every game and JT probably taking the majority of the stress because he's the "veteran" in that secondary. Obviously, CB is a position you want a ton of attitude and cockiness. Floyd got burned a couple times and it just fell apart from there.
November 5th, 2010 at 2:29 AM ^
Like I said, Floyd should have been Troy or Donovan's backup this year.He was forced into action, like pretty much everyone else in the secondary, when he wasn't ready.
Ill give you Ezeh, but I really do think Mouton improved dramatically from his play last year. Him and Ezeh seemedl iek the same player last year, and this year Mouton is light years better. Still not great, but Mouton overall improved his game.
November 5th, 2010 at 4:01 AM ^
Regardless, the other cornerback and the other safety (if Woolfolk plays FS) will be bad. And Floyd isn't good in the first place. If both Floyd and Woolfolk play CB, then both our safeties will be bad.
We're still going to have a bad defense in 2011. It might be better, but it still won't be good.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
I honestly think Rich made the decision to include the 3-3-5 in their 'multiple schemes' because the type of athlete it uses in the optimal alignment has been the focus of our recruiting. We are seeing lots of hybrids from LB-S to DE-DT. Positional flexibility I think has been a focus of our defensive staff, whether by choice or neccesity.
So, I think we can run convential schemes on D, but the coaches though we would have more potential running something slightly unconventional and have recruited upon that assumption.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^
I think the 3-3-5 this year has been more a function of our current personnel than anything else. We don't have enough defensive linemen to run a 4-3 and not enough linebackers to run a 3-4.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
I agree that our personnel has dictated this alignment. I was just trying to say that from the moment RichRod has been here, it seems that he has recruited for the 3-3-5 on defense and that possibly confirmed his choice to run some 3-3-5. Reasoning being that the decision was made and that recent recruiting classes and the guys were after now were the nail in the coffin.
I think this scheme is what he wants to run long term and he has had the urge to put it in but I feel like he has always questioned if he should take the plunge.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:23 AM ^
I have never understood this line of reasoning.
Starters:
RVB
Martin
Banks
Roh
Subs:
Black
Patterson
Campbell
Sagesse
With those 7 guys from Spring practice forward, you would think we had enough to run a 4 man line. Especially considering the shape that RVB, Martin, and Roh are in. RVB and Martin don't come out much, if at all. Considering the amount of time the defense spends on the field, that is amazing. Michigan didn't need 10 good DL to run a 4 man front, right?
Not trying to argue, really want your answer on why you think we didn't have enough DL to do the 4 man front.
November 5th, 2010 at 2:37 AM ^
Campbell isn't on D anymore, Sagasse is terrible, as is Patterson. Black is the only decent backup we have on the line for now. Hopefully Ash and Talbott can contribute next season, as well as QWash.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:58 AM ^
Now imagine a long drive or subbing out after your offense scores quickly. Picture Black, Patterson, Campbell, and Sagesse out on the field together.
Yikes.
We have enough defensive linemen, but not enough quality.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
I guess I just don't buy it. Seeing as RVB didn't come out of the PSU game, Martin rarely came out before he got hurt, and Roh only comes out when the coaches are upset that he doesn't play LB well. I don't think the scenario you through out there is all that likely.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
Would love to see the 4-3 more just to see Roh on the line where he belongs
November 5th, 2010 at 12:27 AM ^
WIth this group, I dont like a 3-anything because Roh is a good weakside DE in a 4-3 but unsuited to playing LB and too small to play on the line in a 3-anything except on obvious passing downs.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^
personally i think the 4 man front fits the team better right now. Roh, Martin, Van B, and...Banks? That fourth guy is the only problem, but i think everyone is aware that Roh is much better at rushing the passer from a down position than what they have had him doing for a majority of the season. If we do go to a 4 man front next year, I could see a lot of potential improvement on the defensive side of the ball.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:39 AM ^
Well, except for a competent Defensive Coordinator.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^
November 5th, 2010 at 1:55 AM ^
the realistic chances RR fires all his WVU boys and brings in a good DC and overhauls the defense? Gibby can stay on board as special teams Coord, (only RR best friend and not likely to fire him) What do you guys think will happen defensively during the offseason, assuming RR stays in AA? Which i hope he does!
Hail
November 5th, 2010 at 8:14 AM ^
...that DB tells RR he doesn't have a choice if he wants to keep his job? I think the smart money is on, whoever the DC is, the DC having total control of the D. I think RR has proven he can recruit and coach a top ranked O. He needs to keep his hands off the D.
Either way, I trust DB to make the best decisions for the school.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:28 AM ^
didn't want to start a new thread about this but I was watching Syracuse 2010 football and their defense actually looks really good. I then watched 2007 Stanford Defense and once again, very good. Scott Shafer's defenses play fast, aggressive and wrap up when they tackle. I really think RR forced a scheme on him and didn't allow him to teach his players what he knew. If you remember, they "mutually agreed" for him to resign - I didn't buy it at the time, but GERG seems like he's being forced to do the same thing. If GERG goes, I really hope David Brandon lays down the law and tells RR that the new DC will run what he wants to run with his own staff. I know that is kind of undermining the coach, but RR needs a little taste of his own medicine and be "forced" to do something - it will actually help him keep his job.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
Syracuse started 9 upperclassmen on defense this past weekend. 7 seniors, 2 juniors, and 2 freshmen. Stanford had 8 returning starters in 2007 including 4 seniors, 3 juniors, and 4 sophomores. 2 of those sophomores were returning starters.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
At the beginning of the season UM actually had a number of upperclassmen starting/playing a lot - Banks, Sagesse, Martin, Van Bergen, Ezeh, Mounton, Herron. In addition some of the sophomores that were starting/playing a lot were returning starters - Floyd, Kovacs, Roh.
That's what 4 seniors, 3 juniors and 3 sophomores that started/played a lot last year. That looks pretty similiar to the numbers you posted for the 2007 Stanford team.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
At the beginning of the season UM actually had a number of upperclassmen starting/playing a lot - Banks, Sagesse, Martin, Van Bergen, Ezeh, Mounton, Herron. In addition some of the sophomores that were starting/playing a lot were returning starters - Floyd, Kovacs, Roh.
That's what 4 seniors, 3 juniors and 3 sophomores that started/played a lot last year. That looks pretty similiar to the numbers you posted for the 2007 Stanford team.