MGoFish: Next DC Expected to be a "3-4 Guru" and a Slamdunk Hire
Team Harbaugh is apparently giving some recruits information on who the next DC will be, and I suspect we will be very happy with the decision based on these rumblings:
#Michigan expected to hire a "3-4 guru" as their next defensive coordinator https://t.co/7dN9QAtBZW
— Garrett Fishaw (@MGoFish) December 15, 2015
Also, MGoFish is hearing positive things about Bush and Walker. While the dude can be over optimistic at times, his sources seem to be fairly solid.
Late Night Update: https://t.co/zzo81mPY4d
— Garrett Fishaw (@MGoFish) December 15, 2015December 15th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
Great find. Thanks for posting. Wish I could offer more than +1.
December 15th, 2015 at 4:30 PM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^
Did you see Thomas Rawls before he got injured?
Time to get off Coach Jackson maybe?
His talent evals may have actually far outstripped his coaching!
December 15th, 2015 at 5:11 PM ^
only with a better eye for talent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Lucadello
Anthony Lucadello (July 30, 1912 - May 8, 1989) was a professional baseball scout for the Chicago Cubs (1943–1957) and Philadelphia Phillies (1957–1989). During his career, he signed a total of 52 players who made it to the Major Leagues, most notably Hall of Famers Ferguson Jenkins and Mike Schmidt. His total number of Major League signings is considered to be unsurpassed, and some have called him perhaps the greatest scout ever.[1][2][3][4]
December 15th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
He's like me, except he still wears a Starter jacket and he throws like a girl.
BLOG WARS!
December 15th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 4:34 PM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 9:52 PM ^
Darn tootin'.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:08 PM ^
You'd win a lot of hipster-cool points.
December 15th, 2015 at 1:30 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^
I do. Duh. There's no way for him to be aerodynamic wearing one of those Starter jackets.
December 15th, 2015 at 4:20 PM ^
I still have my old Apex One jacket. No clue where my old Chicago Bulls Starter jacket went...
December 15th, 2015 at 9:51 AM ^
I knew Pruit to Alabama was just a smokescreen.
/s
December 15th, 2015 at 10:07 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^
Yep, hell we might go 5-1-5 next year!
But down the road if you flip Onwenu to DT you go with Mone as your space eater in 2017 and Onwenu 2018+. But finding the 4 LBs is the issue.
I wonder if this affects Carlos Kemp's thoughts as well.
Just glad we can talk to recruits now with a firm answer on system! Webb said that was a big concern for Bush's dad as FSU has its DC in place and we did not.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
A 3-4 really isn't that farfetched for our personnel. I might even argue that it could fit our personnel better next year than a 4-3.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
The thing is that you're not putting four 4-3 LBs on the field. You're probably putting two 4-3 LBs on the field with your OLBs being the equivalent of our Buck this year. So, you end up with something like 5 DL and 2 LB from the 4-3 personnel. It will require some weight changes and some changes in responsibility, but getting more DL and fewer of our current LBs out on the field is the argument to be made for moving to a new system.
December 15th, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
Depending on what you do with those OLB's, they may actually play more as linemen than linebackers. So you really end up with 5 or 4 DL on the field even though you are theoretically in a 3-4. You just call them "Rush Linebackers" or whatever.
I believe James Hall was designated as a "Rush Linebacker" back in '97, yet he was essentially a DL.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
People are so confused about the 3-4, for some reason. LaMarr Woodley is/was an OLB at times. Mario Ojemudia was an OLB this past season. We ran a 3-4 this year. It's not changing personnel; it's changing alignments, stances, etc.
December 15th, 2015 at 11:34 AM ^
I guess I'll respond to you since all three posters said similar things.
I understand that RJS and Ojemudia played essentially OLB last year, I never argued against that. But both of those guys are gone next year. Once our DL started getting hurt last year, Taco Charlton ended up playing a lot of BUCK, a position that he's not the most natural fit for. He played it out of necessity, and he did a fine job, but that doesn't mean that is his best position.
If we're going to play a 3-4 next year, as joeyb said:
"You're probably putting two 4-3 LBs on the field with your OLBs being the equivalent of our Buck this year. So, you end up with something like 5 DL and 2 LB from the 4-3 personnel."
That's true, but who are our BUCK options next year? Marshall couldn't even crack the field this year despite all of our injuries. Carlo Kemp isgoing to be a true freshman who played in Colorado in HS, so not a guy who was playing against the highest quality of competition in the past.
The other option is to put Taco back there as a stand up 3-4 LB rusher. While he could excel there, going from playing with his hand in the dirt to a stand up LB is a change he'd have to learn, and once again that's probably not his best position. There's a reason he started last year as a SDE, because that's what his natural/best position is. Our lack of a proven BUCK makes me believe that, despite what Durkin ran last year, next year our best bet is to run a 4-3.
Me saying that we should be running a 4-3 has nothing to do with what we ran last year. I'm saying that, with our current personel, moving from a one gap 3-4 to more of a pure 4-3 under is a better fit for our team. It allows Taco to play WDE, where he's a better fit than BUCK/3-4 pass rusher or whatever you want to call it IMO, and also fits better with playing 3 safeties (Peppers, Hill, Thomas) and 2 LBs (Gedeon, ?), which, once again IMO, is the best personel we can have on the field next year.
Even if you want to say hiring a 3-4 DC will lead us to playing the same defense as last year where we line up in a 4-3 but essentially play a 3-4 and Taco/whoever will still be playing their hand down as a rusher most of the time, sure, we could do that. But I think our roster next year is best suited to move away from that to a 4-3 under, even if we could still play well in a Durkin style defense.
December 15th, 2015 at 11:53 AM ^
Potential options at a Buck-like position: Taco Charlton, Reuben Jones, Lawrence Marshall, Carlo Kemp, and Shelton Johnson.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^
Right, we have options. But we have no proven options. Taco at WDE is a much more proven option than anybody we could currently play at BUCK, and Taco at WDE is better than Taco at BUCK. Which is why I'm a propenent of a 4-3 under. I'll happily be wrong if we play a 3-4 and someone plays great at BUCK.
December 15th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^
...then you line up Taco at OLB/DE and have him rush. You do away with a lot of his "linebacker" duties as a coverage guy and such. There's lots of flexibility.
December 15th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^
I mean sure, but if you're lining Taco up at DE and rushing him then at what point is it no longer a 3-4 and just back to a 4-3? In what capacity is Taco a LB if he's lining up at DE with no LB duties?
December 15th, 2015 at 2:32 PM ^
Welcome to the world of defensive alignment
December 15th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^
That doesn't mean you change your whole defensive philosophy. Harbaugh has been a 3-4 guy, and he will probably remain a 3-4 guy. You can line Charlton up at OLB and rush him 85% of the time. But then you could line up, say, Carlo Kemp at that same position and only rush him 60% of the time, while dropping him back in coverage 40% of the time.
Just like you can put in Ryan Glasgow on run plays, but then pull him on passing downs in favor of Maurice Hurst, Jr.
You mix and match your coverages, tendencies, alignments, personnel, etc.
December 15th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^
I'm not asking Harbaugh to change his philosophy, and I don't think discussing the semantics of whether Taco will be a DE vs OLB is asking him to do so.
All I'm saying is if we're saying Taco is going to be the nominal DE/BUCK thing starter, he is best served rushing the passer. You can line him up at OLB and do that, but last year when Taco played at the DE/BUCK position, he generally lined up as a DL (aka with his hand in the dirt) to rush the passer. I think it would be foolish for a DC to come in and ask Taco to start rushing from an OLB position just to fit the narrative of being a 3-4 defense.
Taco is better served and probably more efficient rushing as a DE considering to this point in his career he's been a SDE.
Most things you want Taco to do rushing the passer as an OLB, he can do lined up as a DL and on those occurences when he can't, line him up as an OLB. I don't think it's asking too much of Harbaugh/the DC to say when you want Taco to rush the passer, have him rush as a DL since that's probably what he's better doing considering his playing style and positional history. Every other position/assignment/scheme would be unaffected. The only reason to rush him as an OLB would be if he's more effective that way, which I don't think he is. Granted if the new DC disagrees and thinks he'd be a better pash rusher as an OLB, then obviously they know better and I hope I'm wrong about everything.
Now if you don't want to say Taco is the nominal starter and someone like Kemp will over take him as he's a more natural BUCK, once again that's fine. But once again, in that scenario, I would hope Kemp only starts over Taco if he makes the team better. Having Kemp start just because he is the more natural BUCK so you can play a 3-4 instead of starting Taco in a 4-3, when the 4-3 would be the more effective defense, would be dumb. Obviously the new DC would do whatever is best for the team, but at this point I am of the opinion that Taco at DE is by the far the best option for this team, which is why I made my original comment.
December 15th, 2015 at 6:43 PM ^
...but doing all those things is, by and large, changing your philosophy.
It's just not changing terminology while you're changing your philosophy.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:08 PM ^
...except it's not.
What people can't wrap their heads around is that any philosophy has numerous twists and turns and variables and adjustments.
If my offensive philosophy is as a run-first, pound-it-down-your-throat, three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust team, then that's great as long as it works for me. I put in Leroy Hoard and I pound it down your throat. But then it's 3rd-and-12, and maybe Leroy Hoard doesn't get it done for me. So I put in Vincent Smith, and maybe I throw him a screen. Have I changed my "philosophy" on how to win football games? No. I'm adjusting to the game situation, to my personnel, etc.
Jibreel Black was a 4-3 defensive end at Michigan, but on passing downs, he would often become a nose tackle. Philosophy change? No. Personnel adjustment. Alignment adjustment. Etc.
The truth is that various people have different words for the same thing. When you read transcripts of Greg Mattison talking to a bunch of dense reporters, you can almost hear the exasperation in his words as he tries to explain that the difference between a 3-4 and a 4-3 for the defensive linemen is mainly a question of "technique" (a.k.a. alignment). What some call a 3-4 is a 4-3 to others or a 5-2. I've heard coaches call a 3-3-5 stack a 3-5-3.
Just because you make personnel adjustments and toy with tendencies doesn't mean you're changing your philosophy. But I can almost assure you that if Jim Leavitt comes to Michigan, he won't be running a 4-3 as his base defense just because of Taco Charlton. Nor will Lance Anderson. But if you decide to call it a 4-3 just because Taco Charlton is on the field along with 3 other defensive linemen, then that's up to you.
December 16th, 2015 at 2:03 PM ^
"So I put in Vincent Smith, and maybe I throw him a screen. Have I changed my "philosophy" on how to win football games?"
No... because you were still run first.
If you happened to recruit The Riddick and the next season passed more often on first down than ran... then yes.
A philosophy can only be so flexible before it becomes a preference and not a philosophy.
December 15th, 2015 at 12:56 PM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 2:18 PM ^
Theoretically he does, but Taco is not Peppers. Peppers had 5 picks and 13 PBUs in his college career. Peppers actually had the ability to drop bac and play coverage. There is no evidence for Taco being able to be Peppers in that regard and to be that 3-4 OLB.
December 15th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
To be fair, I was describing a base 3-4. In a 3-4 Nickel, we'll end up substituting a OLB/Buck out for Peppers. So, you end up with 3 DL, Buck/OLB, 2 LB, Nickel, 2 CB, 2 S. That doesn't seem so different from what we were running this year in terms of personnel. What you'd see is a slightly different assignments.
December 15th, 2015 at 2:26 PM ^
And I guess this is just personal opinion, but Taco, the nominal 4th DL starter, is not a BUCK. He started at SDE last year for a reason. He played BUCK last year at the end, but he mainly just rushed the passer. Even when he lined up at LB, and we werein a 3-4, he was rushing and we were essentially playing a 4-3.
He plays much better as just a pure rusher than a BUCK. Playing him at BUCK and giving him BUCK responsibilities will probably only lead to bad things. It reduces his effectiveness and will give him responsibilities he probably can't handle.
If you're going to play him as a pure rusher, why not keep him in the same spot as a WDE instead of forcing him to make the change to playing as LB? It just seems complicated. Even if you want to change the scheme/assignments, why not just let him play as a nominal DE? It's where he's played in the past, he's most comfortable with his hand in the dirt. Even if he played at OLB, he'd essentially be a 4th DL, so isn't it just a 4-3 anyway?
December 15th, 2015 at 5:31 PM ^
The whole 3-4 thing has been discussed ad nauseum in the past when the comparison to the 4-3 under was being made. There were some pretty detailed comparisons of how a 4-3 under is almost equivalent to a 3-4. What you're arguing is the same thing that has been argued in the past and that's whether the 4th linemen has his hand in the dirt or not. That's basically the only difference in calling it a 4-3 or 3-4. Your defensive philosophy doesn't change much beyond that. You can have 1-gap, attacking 3-4 and you can have a 2-gap 4-3. You can bring all of your LBs down to the line in an okie look in either formation and have 7 guys ready to rush or drop into coverage.
One of the plays we used to run when Mike Martin was here was to drop him back into "coverage" and then bring him on a delayed blitz. That forced the DL to get assigned to the other 4 rushers and paired him with the RB. In that case, does it make a difference if his hand is in the dirt and it's a 4-3 or if he stands up before the snap and it's a 3-4? It's all semantics.
December 15th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^
That's me right here
If it operates more like a 5-1-5, I get it, but I thought what we ran was more of a 4-3 under, which meant that it was a one gap scheme and one of the line backers (Jake Ryan last year and James Ross this year) acted similary to a permanent stand up DE, with everyone slanting or pulling (can't remember what defensive term for this is). So the 4-3 under was similar to the 3-4, but was stacked to one side or the other unlike a 4-3 over or 3-4, which were played straight up, with the nose responsible for 2 gaps.
4-3 under to nickel seemed like an easy switch with mainly one person changing, without changing responsibility to much for eveyone else.
If we change, I'm sure we'll get an explanation from Seth or someone for all of us non experts.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 9:53 AM ^
3-4 defense.. Lance Anderson?
December 15th, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 10:10 AM ^
That's a posterization!
December 15th, 2015 at 12:11 PM ^
I can't imagine another embarassment of riches in any coaching staff anywhere.
I'd do backflips if the Lions were able to swing John Harbaugh as their head coach, but that's probably way, way, way too much to ask.
John Harbaugh to UM DC is 1,000 times crazier than that.
December 15th, 2015 at 10:13 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 15th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
December 15th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad