Coaching question D-LIne edition

Submitted by mark5750 on January 3rd, 2014 at 12:39 AM

A lot has been made on the board lately about the struggles of the Michigan defensive line.  My question is about disbursement of coaches and how it impacts player development.  When Jerry Montgomery left for Oklahoma we hired Roy Manning to coach linebackers and the joke was consistent prior to Montgomery leaving that he was in the Beyonce coaching position.  However, with Mattison have DC responsibilities and Hoke having HC responsibilities and no dedicated D-Line coach are those players getting enough individual or position group attention to develop like other positions or am I overthinking the importance of having dedicated position coaches?



January 3rd, 2014 at 10:11 AM ^

With the exception of Q Wash inexplicably getting yanked, everyone did look better. Clark may never reach his hype, but he was much improved. Pipkins played meaningful snaps and was showing good signs until he got hurt. Willie Henry had a hell of a first year for a RS FR. Black and Beyer did what they could, but they were both forced into positions that they were woefully undersized for.

We also lost Campbell and Roh, two solid, if not spectacular players. After Pipkins went down and (I'm assuming) so undisclosed issue happened with Q Wash, we were left with a complete lack of beef in the middle of the line and it absolutely killed us against the run and we didn't really find much pass rush with the theoretical increase in speed.



January 3rd, 2014 at 12:47 AM ^

In every video I have ever seen of Michigan practice videos it seems like Hoke is with the DL. So they should be fine as far as coaching goes. You see Mattison working with them a lot as well.


January 3rd, 2014 at 12:51 AM ^

Personally coaches the D-line and that's what he's good at. It's our O-Line coach that seems to be shitting the bed. Did you see Mone today? He's gonna add some beef to the D-Line instantly. I know some people think his Fr year will be redshirted, but I think he makes the two-deep right away.

Jack Daniels

January 3rd, 2014 at 2:00 AM ^

I can't be the only one who saw the discipline displayed by the OU DL on the 4th or 5th sack.

One of the interior DL collapsed the line, but instead of disregarding his run lane and allowing McCarron to escape the pocket, he actually slowed his pursuit and let his teammates clean up the play.

Contrast that with all the times we were forced to watch one of our DL scream past the QB and let the QB scramble for a huge gain


January 3rd, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^

OU's ends were owning AL's tackles all night long and pretty much getting free runs at McCarron without getting kicked way upfield like our ends often do. The tackles also got push with straight bull rushes and didn't have to rely on stunting and trying to slice into the backfield like our guys because they're woefully undersized. McCarron also isn't the fleetest of foot, so that helps.

You could definitely tell the difference in strength and speed to our guys. Hopefully Clark continues to improve and Charlton and Ojemudia come on. Add Jake Ryan to that list too I guess. In the middle, we really need Pipkins to come back at 100% and for Hurst to come in off RS strong. I expect improvement but it'll probably incremental (shakes fist at Da'Shawn Hand)


January 3rd, 2014 at 2:32 AM ^

and OU has 26, with Michigan having 25. I think these numbers are before the bowl games, but even so it's surprising to me, given how strong OU's DL was against Alabama tonight, and how seldom we were able to really generate pressure with our line.

Does this mean I was overstating the importance of Montgomery? Maybe so.

(Montgomery was supposed to be a helluva recruiter, but that's not the topic here...)


January 3rd, 2014 at 5:01 AM ^

If anything the D-line gets too much damn attention. That's all you see in the practice videos -- Hoke grabbing some Olineman while instructing a Dlineman on how to use his hands or leverage himself. The Dline gets a ton of attention, and they should be much better than they are. Unfortunately, lack of experienced talent is hurting us. Furthermore, none of the young talent has jumped out like, say, Joey Bosa or Noah Spence. Pray that Taco emerges, Pipkins is healthy, and somebody emerges from the large group of 'depth' guys and, redshirts, and incoming frosh. We're still probably a couple years away. It takes time to build up a quality 2-deep with experienced talent.

Mr Miggle

January 3rd, 2014 at 7:48 AM ^

are divided. Manning is the outside linebacker coach and Smith has inside linebackers. Two coaches for three positions seems very unusual. Perhaps they have some additional responsibilities. Considering how much we're in the nickel, that's two coaches for 2-3 positions and one coach for 4-5.

Although Mattison is listed as the d-line coach, my understanding is that Hoke coaches the DTs. Bringing in a dedicated position coach for this group doesn't seem like a high priority. Would he take over for Hoke/Mattison or just be a third coach for the DL? I think we know that answer.


January 3rd, 2014 at 8:13 AM ^

This "coaching responsibilities" thing often comes up, and I always encourage people to look at other teams. Head coaches often have a position group they work with, defensive coordinators always have a position group they work with, and offensive coordinators always have a position group. Under Rich Rodriguez, he was involved with all aspects of the offense, but Calvin Magee was the tight ends coach, and Greg Robinson and Scott Shafer were the linebackers and cornerbacks coach, respectively.

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^

All coordinators have a position group. The Head Coach doesn't always have a position group, but look at it this way: Hoke is taking the tackles only, not the entire DL. Mattison is the DEs, not the entire DL. If Hoke has other responsibilities, I'm sure Mattison can become a defacto DL coach, like most teams have. Same is true is Mattison needs to take care of other responsibilities.

Also, Montgomery was only a DE coach, Hoke still coached the tackles. Mattison I believed slid down from coaching the OLBs. In reality, the two positions aren't entirely different.

Space Coyote

January 3rd, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^

I thought Manning was a fine addition, and I don't have a problem with an OC being a QB coach. I personally prefer a QB coach just because I prefer someone on the sidelines with the QB in games, but I don't think it's anywhere near a requirment, and I think Borges knows a thing or two about coaching the QB position and feel I've seen improvement from the QBs throughout the year (despite some sub-optimal things happening around them, such as poor pass protection). You also then essentially force Borges to be a position coach for a position he's never coached.

Also, what Magnus said.


January 3rd, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^

Is there a cap on how many position coaches you can have?  Why can't we have both a d-line and a QB coach simply added to the staff?  I know they can afford it.  I'm pretty sure it would help.  The only reason I can think of is you are limited by the NCAA with number of positions coaches.  What gives, why doesn't every position have a coach?