Semi OT: Article on Gary Patterson's Defense (Full-time HSP)
This was a really informative article on Gary Patterson's approach to defense, which involves a full time Nickel Back to counter spreads. I thought it was pretty timely given the amount of discussion about the HSP on this board and our high expectations for Peppers this year.
https://grantland.com/features/hard-knocks-playing-defense-with-tcus-ga…
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
Vague title made me vomit. Gary Patterson's D??? Gross.
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^
For the more gutter of mind, weak of stomach among us.
September 2nd, 2015 at 5:14 PM ^
Forever unclean!!!!
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:19 PM ^
Isn't the 4-2-5 just a 4-4 but with two hybrid space players instead of outside line backers?
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:26 PM ^
In terms of personnel, yes. In terms of philosophy, no.
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:55 PM ^
Sort of. Even closer would be a 43 with one of the linebackers as a hybrid db type players, or just call it a nickel formation which is exactly what it is.You could say that for most formations though if you add the descriptors. All the brief formation names (43,34,44,425,etc) are just ways to quickly give you an idea of the personell. Everyone runs each formation different due to scheme.
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:45 PM ^
Just some background before those who scoff at what Baylor did to them or TCU's general defensive prowess last year.
First Baylor does that to everyone. Second, TCU's average time to score was relatively low so their D was on the field for a lot of quick changes. Their TOP was 30 min a game (average) but TCU will have more drives per game than most teams and thus the opposition will have more drives as well - the complete opposite of what Hoke did with UM.
To that end TCU had 1038 plays and nearly 7000 yards (opponents had 953 plays and 4500 yards). For comparison UM had 751 plays last year - 25% less than TCU...and a whopping 4000 yards. UM's D only had to face 783 plays last year - 20% less than TCU's, giving up 3700 yards.
Even with ALL that TCU still finished 18th in NCAA's total defense - which does nothing but rank teams on yards given up per game. A stat Big 10 defenses thrive on since the offenses are generally run based, slow paced, and plodding with bad QBs.
TCU's FEI D was 4th in the nation, and their S&P+ was 13th - stats I take more seriously than the NCAA's blunt instrument.
Going further back, Patterson is a defensive guru and up to 2014 he relied on run based offenses with stellar defenses. When they moved up to a P5 conference he didn't have the personnel to do that week in and week out and he suffered the first few years. Rather than being stubborn like many coaches he adapted. He took in 2 air raid coordinators from other teams and completely changed his offense philosophy in 1 offseason. Helps to have a great QB of course. Based on a curve they still had an excellent D last year, despite the hiccup to Baylor. (To be fair Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas had below normal offenses last year vs their norm)
September 2nd, 2015 at 4:44 PM ^
Always run with the 4-2-5 in NCAA '14.
September 2nd, 2015 at 8:37 PM ^
I actually found the article quite fascinating. The way Patterson described the enormous amount of research and energy that goes into his playcalling was really interesting. I've always considered Brian's RPS measure to be as much about luck as anything (The name is after all Rock, Paper, Scissors). Two coordinators pick plays without knowing what the other will do. How the two plays match up is anyone's guess. But Patterson seems to be able to divine, based on a near-obsessive examination of tendencies, what an opposing playcaller will do. Great stuff.
September 2nd, 2015 at 11:49 PM ^
Explained in a concise, simple way. Will help me understand our defense better this year.
I admire what Patterson has done. His attitude seems similiar to Harbough's, "backing down to no one". If Jim hadn't come, he would have been a great candidate, even though he isn't a "Michigan Man".