Sharik's Response to the Iowa Question

Submitted by Meeechigan Dan on
Steve Sharik's response to the I Am So Confused post was after it had moved off the front page, so I am reposting it:

These are the characteristics of a successful defensive system:

  1. Lots of talent of varying experience levels at ALL positions.
  2. Coaches at every position who can coach technique.
  3. A coordinator who knows scheme.
  4. A coordinator who can communicate what he wants done by his position coaches.
  5. All of the above in place w/o change for at least a few years.

Let's examine the two teams in regards to these areas.

Iowa

  1. Not really high talent, but does have players used to the system from seniors to freshmen. Seniors teach the younger players what the coaches expect and also hearing the same thing but in different words deepens understanding.
  2. In spades.
  3. Definitely.
  4. That staff has been together for so long, this is absolutely true.
  5. The real secret behind Iowa's defensive success.

Michigan

  1. No. Most of the talent is concentrated on the DL. Warren is obviously awesome, but Mouton and Brown are highly rated SAFETIES, and are playing LB. Mike Williams and Cissoko are young players, but Williams doesn't have anyone to mentor him. Cissoko...I feel for him.
  2. Not sure yet. If I was on staff myself (ha!) I could tell, but then I wouldn't be able to tell you. Man, that was helpful, eh?
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes.
  5. No, no, no. This is the real problem. This system is new to everyone EXCEPT Greg Robinson. He gets to decide not only the scheme, but also how he wants individual techniques taught. Maybe some of them are different than before. This means not only do the players have to learn new techniques, but the coaches have to teach differently than they're used to, perhaps. Continuity and consistency...and that happens when the coaches are so used to it they can coach it in their sleep and, furthermore, the older players can mentor the younger ones.

So, Iowa has 4.5/5 and we have 2/4 and IDK on the fifth (#2). It should come as absolutely no surprise that Iowa is better on defense.

If this defensive staff is still together in 3 years and Iowa is still more successful on defense (assuming they'll have the same staff) then I think it's safe to say that some of the assistants aren't cutting the mustard, b/c I'm pretty confident we'll have better players and will have rounded out the roster; i.e., we'll have quality players of varying experience at all positions.

As for this year, well, maybe we'll have an average defense by the end of the year.

I predict us to lose to MSU, get thumped at Iowa (they're quite adept at defending the spread), lose a close one to Penn State, and then maddeningly lose to Illinois (a la the basketball team at Iowa last season) but get the rest, including at Wisconsin and then, finally, over the Buckeyes. We end the season on a high note with a win over a name brand SEC team in the Outback bowl and finish 9-4.

Thanks, Steve. Even though there are some painful losses in your scenario, I will sign up for it right now. I have a few questions for you:

  • You seem comfortable with GERG's knowledge and scheme, which puts me at ease. I assume you were less comfortable with what Shafer was doing?
  • Why don't we give more help to our weak corner? How come that corner always seems to be out there by himself against Floyd or Doss?
  • How do you explain that our highly-rated LB recruits who we so desperately need - Demens and Fitz - are still not very good in year two? Did we just strike out on both? Is it too early to tell?
  • Why has the tackling fallen off so sharply from week 1? Competition? Habits? I was blown away by the crispness of our tackling early and not so much lately.

Thanks, Steve!

defense
Iowa
Sharik

Comments

Fresh Meat

September 29th, 2009 at 7:59 AM ^

I agree about our tackling. It looked so sharp week one and was maybe the thing I was most impressed with after the first game. It seems to have completely disappeared the last 3 weeks.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 1758

jg2112

September 29th, 2009 at 8:12 AM ^

what Steve Sharik wrote, you'll see why Demens and Fitz aren't on the field much yet - new coordinators, everyone's learning a new technique, and because of that, Ezeh and Mouton can't teach what they know, like Iowa can to its LBs, because they're learning a new way to play. Let's not rush to judgment on a true sophomore and a redshirt freshman just yet. Remember that in our younger days those kids would not see the field and that was to be expected (neither would Martin, Cissoko, Roh or the walk-ons, FWIW). As it is, they have Ezeh (3 year starter) and Mouton (2nd year starter) in front of them, and will be starting as either juniors or seniors. Think David Harris - there is nothing wrong with letting these guys naturally develop.

Joined: 11/24/2008

MGoPoints: 9925

Needs

September 29th, 2009 at 9:04 AM ^

But the gap between Harris and Ezeh is one of the problems... and I don't mean the talent gap. Ezeh started as a redshirt frosh after practicing behind Harris for one year, and who knows how much practice time he got as a redshirt (and there was a position switch IIRC). Ideally, there would have been a player in between that could have played the past two years, allowing Ezeh to learn technique, reads, etc. As is, he's consistently had to learn on the fly without the ideal base of technique and understanding of the D (which has also changed every year he's played). This is what Iowa's done really well, introduce players as starters that already have excellent understanding of technique, scheme, responsibility, because they've been operating in a system for 2-3 years. It's part of the reason why Ohio State and Penn State consistently roll out strong D's despite replacing numerous players. They have stability and we haven't. The constant turnover of staff and scheme, as well as the inability to spend time as backups, have really hurt our players' development, especially in positions where technique and read/reaction are at a premium (ie right up the middle of the defense.)

Joined: 08/05/2008

MGoPoints: 11636

steve sharik

September 29th, 2009 at 8:25 AM ^

"You seem comfortable with GERG's knowledge and scheme, which puts me at ease. I assume you were less comfortable with what Shafer was doing?" Not a whole lot, but a little, simply b/c GERG has a lot more experience. I don't think Shafer was given a real chance, was undercut by the rest of the staff, RichRod included, and the offense was a huge reason why the defense put up poor ppg against stats. Check out yards allowed from last year compared to this year through four games. Someone has it posted somewhere. "Why don't we give more help to our weak corner? How come that corner always seems to be out there by himself against Floyd or Doss?" Good question. As I've said before, the only time I like to play man is behind an all-out blitz so the pass defenders don't have to cover for very long. Playing man is like bull riding at the rodeo: you can only hold on for so long, only in man coverage you have way less than 8 seconds. Also, realize that the more help you give a corner in coverage, the weaker you make yourself against the run. Do we want to do that right now? Yeah, me either. "How do you explain that our highly-rated LB recruits who we so desperately need - Demens and Fitz - are still not very good in year two? Did we just strike out on both? Is it too early to tell?" I don't know. And it's not good that our highly rated incoming LB recruits are OLBs or safeties; we need some ILBs. They could simply be overrated. Again, those ratings are largely based on combine numbers and HS film where these guys are men amongst boys. You never know if a guy will be able to master technique and/or have the grey matter to be able to learn a complex defense. The jury is still out. "Why has the tackling fallen off so sharply from week 1? Competition? Habits? I was blown away by the crispness of our tackling early and not so much lately." First, WMU didn't try to run the ball at all, and our tackling has been weakest against RBs. Second, once you start tackling poorly, your confidence goes and bad habits return. I am most concerned with poor angles taken in pursuit (esp. by safeties) and by players not running the feet through contact.

Joined: 08/08/2009

MGoPoints: 13860

allHAILthedeat…

September 29th, 2009 at 8:54 AM ^

but I think it might have more to do with our inexperience at LB. Sending one LB on a blitz puts more pressure on the remaining LB's (more gaps/field to cover) to stop a potential run play if the blitz is picked up. As the (scarce) talent we have is developed there and LB's get better at reading plays, the more likely GERG is to blitz (because he can then be reasonably sure the remaining LB's will be able to handle it).
I don't know about you, but if you send Brown (our fastest LB) on a blitz, do you trust Ezeh and Mouton to be able to stop a running back from getting into the secondary more than 50% of the time? I know I wouldn't feel very confident about that right now.
Right now, however, I feel like GERG is just doing his best to get guys to play their position properly and not get beat big. I will expect to see more blitzing next year (and maybe the last few games of the season).

Joined: 04/13/2009

MGoPoints: 49

Magnus

September 29th, 2009 at 8:39 AM ^

Let's not get caught up in high school positions. In high school, usually your best athletes end up playing quarterback, middle linebacker, or free safety. A ton of high school players change positions every year when they get to college. High school free safeties end up at corner, high school corners end up at free safety, linebackers become defensive ends, safeties become linebackers, etc. It's not like Michigan is breaking new ground in changing guys' positions in college. Prescott Burgess was a safety in high school. He's now playing linebacker in the NFL. Ian Gold was a running back in high school. He played linebacker in the NFL for several years. Brandon Graham was a linebacker in high school. Now he'll probably be a first-day pick at DE. Steve Breaston was a quarterback in high school. Now he's a 1,000 yard receiver for the Arizona Cardinals. I believe Tim Massaquoi was a WR in high school (correct me if I'm wrong), and he ended up on a practice squad in the NFL for a couple years. Morgan Trent was a WR and now he's playing corner on an NFL roster. Etc. I'm sure there are more examples, but I think you get the point. I'm not concerned at all that Jonas Mouton, Steve Brown, etc. were safeties and are now linebackers. Does that slow down how quickly they'll make an impact? Probably. But it doesn't prevent them from being good players at some point.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166006

MCalibur

September 29th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^

It's one thing to switch positions from HS to college, its another to switch from one season to another once you get to college. Throw in the lack of physical maturity, low starting experience, and coaching turnover...not a huge surprise that things could be better. No less disappointing though. Case in point: RVB's mistaken on field adjustment. More experience would have stopped that play. That's 85 yds and 7 points due to 1 mistake caused by a lack of experience. That's almost 20% of IU's total offensive output. I think last year was a commitment/pride thing. Regardless of whether or not Schafer was a good DC, he was not a good team builder and that is at least as important to the gig.

Joined: 07/16/2009

MGoPoints: 2361

Magnus

September 29th, 2009 at 8:59 AM ^

Blitzing a linebacker doesn't necessarily put more pressure on the other linebackers to stop the run. If Ezeh stunts through the weakside A gap, that means the A gap is theoretically taken away. It's not like Mouton then has to cover his gap AND the A gap. Blitzing does put more pressure on the other linebackers in the pass game, but running, not so much. If you know the other team is going to run on every play, you'd blitz every linebacker on every single play.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166006

gsimmons85

September 29th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^

"If you know the other team is going to run on every play, you'd blitz every linebacker on every single play." although a good run blitz is helpfull, taking lb's and just throwing them into the los on every play if you think its a run, takes away their ability to read, scrap to clear, and attack... the other draw back fro blitzing a lb on every run play is that if the first person doesnt bring the ball carrier down you have a better chance of the play being a big run... if you blitz lbs on every run play teams will trap couter, and power G you to death.. its not just as easy as "send the house" although there are times when you need too... just his past week we(my team) found ourselves in a situation where our best defense agains their power run was a particular zone blitz... shouldnt have been, but it was..

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 261

Meeechigan Dan

September 29th, 2009 at 9:59 AM ^

gsimms! Good to hear from you. Now that you have addressed that, give me your thoughts on some of the questions that have been a part of these two posts... Are you comfortable with GERG's scheme? Why don't we help our weak corner out more? What about LB recruiting? Are you surprised Demens and Fitz are still raw? Thanks! Dan

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2319

gsimmons85

September 29th, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^

i think schemes are sound (who am i to say they arent?)... its one way to skin a cat... about the player development, again, i cant comment becasue i know nothing about the kids, how hard their working, etc. i think the part about giving help to the corner speaks back to commitment to stoping the run... a lot more things have to go wrong to complete long passes, then to give up yards on the ground... but i think you are seeing robinson (like shafer last year) having to adapt as players arent executing, and opening up the competition. the difference is that this year, the defense doesnt have to throw shutouts to win... so there is a bit more patientence. which is a good thing when you are talking about player develpment...

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 261

Meeechigan Dan

September 29th, 2009 at 10:34 AM ^

Well, this little journey for me has been therapuetic. Thanks to all. I come away knowing that more knowledgeable football people are fairly comfortable with GERG and his gameplan. And realizing that, yes, our back seven, by and large, are overrated/raw.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2319

allHAILthedeat…

September 29th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^

You have a very good point. However, I have a few counterpoints: (please bear with, I have far less experience with the terminology, so I'm going to try and describe what I'm thinking as best I can)
1a. I was merely assuming that only one LB is sent and picked up by the OL. Also, the following scenarios would definitely not happen on every play, but represent the "worst-case".
1b. Yes, moving Ezeh into the now open gap does help close down the exposed area, but (with proper OL blocking) runs between the center and the guard become very dangerous, since if Ezeh misreads the play for a second (covering the wrong gap, see point 2) a RB could be in the secondary in a hurry.
Also, if Ezeh cuts in (and the tackle/guard block their guys) the RB has potential to bounce the run out and hit the secondary there. This second option is far less likely (as Brown will be blitzing from that side) but if Brown gets blocked (by a FB or guard swingin across) this play could be dangerous.
2. Ezeh's play recognition ability, or rather his quick-decision making ability (shoot the gap or contain?, etc.) is lacking. This seems to be something Brown does very well, and Mouton is not too shabby either. So if we're gonna blitz a lot, I guess I'm in favor of blitzing Ezeh most of that time. The problem then, however, becomes predictability.
3. I agree with you that pass protection is much more difficult when blitzing. It's also something we're struggling with when we don't blitz (and even when we only send 3!). I can't imagine that blitzing a lot is a good idea under these circumstances (especially once teams start throwing quick slants to combat the blitz). --------- I'd personally love to see more blitzing ala Ron English, but given our current LB stock, IU can't say I blame GERG for his playcalling style. Now, lining the DB's 8-10 yds off the line, that's a whole other story...

Joined: 04/13/2009

MGoPoints: 49

harmon98

September 29th, 2009 at 10:09 AM ^

A quick bit of homework confirms the middling talent being recruited but is also interesting that all starters (from the Iowa depth chart) were LB's in HS. This can't help but lend towards the continuity referenced above as important. (rankings from Rivals) MLB Pat Angerer SR 3* LB Troy Johnson JR 2* LB OLB A.J. Edds SR 3* TE Tyler Nielsen SO 3* LB WLB Jerimiha Hunter JR 4* LB Jeff Tarpinian JR 3* DB

Joined: 07/24/2008

MGoPoints: 9886

Meeechigan Dan

September 29th, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^

But is not the future prototype for a GERG and RR defense in the post-spread apocalyptic world a Marvin Robinson type LB on the outside, fast and lean? Mouton actually fits the profile of what they want, even Stevie, although he could use 10 pounds. Defensive experts: Do you see the transition from safety to LB as a difficult one?

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2319