Defensive Tackle Numbers

Submitted by jbibiza on June 28th, 2011 at 8:42 AM

When Danny O'Brien was quoted by Tom VH as being told that we will take only one interior guy I thought that might have been a pressure tactic, but over the past two days Sam Webb has voiced a firm opinion that we will take only one DT in this class.  Take a look at the Depth Chart by Class and tell me what I am missing.  By the time these recruits come to campus as true freshmen we will have at most five DT's on the roster and that will include Talbott who  has injury issues and Rock whom we assume will grow into a 3 Tech. The only NT/One Tech players will be Ash (RS So.) and Q. Washington (RS Jr.).  We all know that Wormley and/or Godin have the potential to grow into a 3 Tech, but that does not solve the depth problem inside.  Given this scenario it seems obvious that we need both Pipkens and either O'Brien or another good interior DT, so IF the coaches are actually planning on taking only one it seems a bit strange.  One possibility is that they are planning a new type of defense that is less dependent on big inside DT's.

 INSERT: standard disclaimer that the coaches know what they are doing.

One possible good note on this is that Mattison and Hoke must like what they see from Q and Ash so far.



June 28th, 2011 at 8:44 AM ^

I agree.  Only thing that keeps me sane is knowing that I have zero collegiate head coaching experience, so I assume they have it under control.


June 28th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^

Not to compare it, but the "I don't get it either but they know more about football than I do so I can't question it" line of thinking was implemented by many when we switched a 3-3-5 defense, when Nick Sheridan got the starting nod over Steven Threet, etc.

Bottom line: It's a bad thing to say.


June 28th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^

News flash: that's what this site has always been like, and what it always will be like. That's the nature of the internet.

Besides, not every thread is exactly the same, since different commenters get involved at different times. If Magnus takes part in one thread and Steve Sharik a later thread, I'm still going to be interested to skim through both threads even if they're about the same general topic. Or sometimes an informed commenter will make one point in one thread, and a different but still relevant point in a later thread about the same subject.

If you don't like repetitive posts, then by all means either don't read them, or post your own original material.


June 28th, 2011 at 8:53 AM ^

Going three-deep at nose tackle isn't bad depth.  Frankly, if two of your top three guys get injured (or, God forbid, all three), you're going to be screwed whether your #4 NT is out there or whether you put a guy there who's a 3-tech.

As long as whoever they bring in can contribute at least a little bit as a true freshman, then NT depth doesn't really concern me.


June 28th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^

Yeah, I do.  I don't think they'll be great immediately, but you don't need to be great to be a #3 nose tackle.  Pipkins has good enough size (but needs to work on conditioning) and O'Brien understands leverage (but probably needs to add a few pounds).


June 28th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^

I may be takling out of my ass but isn't a newer trend atleast in the nfl is more athletic tackles? less of the hole filler types more of the well for a lack of a better example suh type? bigger than and end but still athletic enough to play end in some situtaions.  maybe Mattison wants to take a bunch of athletic type DLs and only have a few "hole fillers" and go with a more athletic front 4


June 28th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^

It depends on the type of defense you run.  If you run a Tampa Cover 2 defense that requires getting pressure with your front four, then yes, athletic tackles are more important.

If you run a 3-4 or a 4-3 Under type of defense, the NT is still more of a space eater.  "Phil Taylor from Baylor" (which Gruden loved saying during the NFL Draft) was picked by the Browns in the 1st round for his ability to eat lots of things, including space.


June 28th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^

My impression is that the 3-4 defenses in the NFL have 3 Huge guys up front with two OLBs who are pretty big  (260 - 270 like  Woodley) but are athletic and mobile enough to cover the flats.  I do not see much NFL as I live in Europe so correct me if wrong on this.


June 28th, 2011 at 11:23 AM ^

the 2012 class will have some time to work into it. The NT will need to contribute as a freshman, but the other guys will have time to grow. So to be honest, from the 2012 class it looks like the coaches will surround the NT with 2 RVB types DT/DEs, and then bookend the line with 2 Graham type DE/OLB tweeners (one being the SAM). Our currnet kids will be starting through 2013 so I can see them having Brown-Godin-Pipkins-Wormley and not be undersized because by 2013/14 Godin and Wormley could be touching around 290-300.


June 28th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^

Also keep in mind that in 2013 we'll still have Jibreel Black and QW, and in 2014 we'll still have Wilkins, Ash and Beyer as likely starters/contributors too.  There's not a lot of pressure on those guys to do too much until they get their bodies right.


June 28th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^

but it looks like our 2012 Ends will be Roh and Black, and Wilkins will be 1st choice backup and our 2013 DE's will be Black and Wilkins with Beyer and maybe Wormley/Strobel playing backup. They can sub in where they're needed but DE has bad depth too until these 2012 kids come in. Black and Wilkins could definitely contribtue in the DT depth chart, but (again I'm guessing) I think they'll be starting somewhere else by then. It looks like 2012 (to me) we'll have Campbell-Washington and Ash-Pipkins (true freshman) and the year after that Godin will have to play as a RS freshman in place of Campbell. Unless they bring in more 2013 freshman to play I'm guessing a guard moves to the other side of the ball. But then again, the coaches told Bars he's a left tackle so who knows whats going on anymore.


June 28th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^

I don't share your same concern with 2013.  I think Wilkins might be playing some at the 3-tech by then (kinda like RVB where he starts at one spot and subs in at another occasionally).  I think there will be one solid 2013 recruit, like a Pipkins, who can some in and be a sub right away, and I think either Godin or Wormley (maybe both) will be able to sub in at the 3-tech by then.  If we assume that Ash, Washington and Pipkins are at the starter level for those 2 interior spot and Wilkins, Godin/Wormley and 2013 guy can sub in, we're in good shape.

A couple extras:  I forgot about Rock and Heitzman, one of them will play 3-tech by 2013, probably Rock.  Heitzman backing up Black at the 5-tech might allow Wilkins to play primarily 3-tech. 

Also Also - I think Beyer takes over for Roh in 2013.  He's good, and he'll have the size by then.  We'll have a couple 2012 guys to back him up, maybe a 2013 guy too.


June 28th, 2011 at 1:06 PM ^

switch positions and sub in at the 3 tech spot, or we could find another dedicated 3 tech. I see Rock and Heitzman getting passed over by 2012 kids, so maybe one switches spots. They could grow into the role as juniors or seniors but Rock would need to put on 50 pounds in the next 2 years, and Heitzman nearly 60 to be genuine 3 techs by the 2013 season. Beyer is a tough call, but with his height he could take over for Roh, but in the new defense he's a tweener at 6'4", and only currently weighing 215 he could end up as a SAM in 2012 before he pushes a WDE out of the rotation in 2013 or 14. I've got him ending up a WDE eventually but we'll also have Pharoah Brown in there in 2012 or 13 who's taller and bigger. I see Beyer and Ojemudia playing the same spot for a while. I just think using all these undersized 5techs and DE/OLB tweeners as DT backups and making true freshman play in 2012 and 2013 doesn't pay appropriate attention to the trenches.


June 28th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

I think you're severely underestimating Beyer's size. From what I read, he played his senior season around 225 and should be around 235-240 for his first year here, and around 250 in 2012 - about the same weight progression Roh made. Unlike Roh, Beyer won't be asked to start until his third year on campus, at which point I'd expect him to be 260+, big enough to play WDE.

Beyer was more highly rated than Brown is, Beyer will always have a year of age/size/experience on him and Brown weighs about as much now as Beyer did a year ago.


June 28th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^

I would like to see how a 3-4 lineup would look.  It would be kind of interesting because Ojemudia would be perfect as a outside backer/rusher for a 3-4 and it seems as though Strobel, Godin and Wormley (if he commits) would be perfect size for the 5 tech (6-6, 260-270) hopefully either Pipkins or O'brien would be near perfect nose tackle. And then with all the linebackers we'll have on roster, it could be interesting. 

Six Zero

June 28th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^

 INSERT: standard disclaimer that the coaches know what they are doing.

You must be new here.  That sort of talk is not tolerated at MGoBlog.

Bobby Boucher

June 28th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^

I still think they'll take at least 2.  Besides, if two good prospects want to commit then who in their right mind would turn one of them away?  I also don't believe for a second that we'll take a QB.


June 28th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^

"Besides, if two good prospects want to commit then who in their right mind would turn one of them away?"

True...except you could say that about Washington, Stanford, Banner, Garnett, Peat, Dunn, Marshall, Diamond, Wormley, Wright, Wilson, Kiel, Mauk, Fuller...

Now our class is up to 32.

Mr Mackey

June 28th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^

You might be surprised then.. The coaches have said they want a QB every year. Mauk and Kiel are both announcing soon, and Devin Fuller is visiting this summer. If we don't get them, we'll probably see offers go out to guys like Appleby.

Ideally, I'd want to use the scholarship on someone else (another DT or WR or RB or whatever) and be guaranteed that our current QBs stay healthy and Morris will be a 7* amazing Michigan commit for '13, but we probably just can't take that risk.


June 28th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^

I can see this two different ways. On the one hand, the coaches have stated they want one QB every year and I certainly expect that they plan on taking one if they find the guy they want. On the other had, if they are afforded the opportunity to redshirt Russell Bellomy, he becomes, in a way, a class of 2012 QB. If no QBs transfer out, they'd be safe with taking no QBs.

I still expect them to take a QB, however, and I think their O-line haul will make them more attractive to highly regarded QBs.


June 28th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^

Wormley is not a 3 tech DT, nor will he ever be. Godin is probably better suited at that position but as far as I know, was recruited for the 5 tech. I believe the coaches could take 2 more interior guys but I also think they are saving 2 spots for top prospects at any position.


June 28th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

Yeah, it's very possible that Wormley grow into a 3-tech.  I've seen some places reporting him as big as 260-265, and he has a full year until his true freshma year.  Godin and Strobel are similar players - both remind me a bit of RVB, and based on their height could grow to over 290.  Let's not forget about Rock and Heitzman from the 2011 class - both of them have the frames to put on a lot of weight, and Rock was 250 before his senior year of football.  Neither of those guys will need to play this year and will RS while they put on lbs.

in 2012, we'll have BWC, Q, Talbott Major, Ash, Wlkins and one of Rock/Heitzman for the two interior spots, and that's before the freshmen get here.  Like Marnus said, as long as the one guy we get is a semi-instant contributor (which Pipkins and O'Brien are) we'll be fine. 


June 28th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^

I'm all for raunch. But unless I'm missing something -- ie, Magnus being out of the closet -- gay insults should bring the ban-hammer. That stuff encourages more slurs. What if Magnus had instead called the guy "JewinLA" or "blackinLA"? Would that be okay? I doubt it.
<br>Also, it's just lame.


June 28th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^

Lighten up, man.  If the mods want to delete it, fine.  But WolvinLA2 and anyone who's been here half a minute knows that I'm joking.

I was in the University of Michigan Men's Glee Club.  If I were truly a homophobe, I wouldn't have lasted a single second in that group.