Urban holds meeting about Ohio's defensive struggles

Submitted by FrankMurphy on October 15th, 2012 at 8:12 PM

[TItle says it all. Urban Meyer held a meeting with his defense to try to get his house in order.]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8509061/urban-meyer-ohio-state-buckeyes-calls-meeting-defense

 

[ED:BiSB - Substance is interesting. Making this about RichRod is... misplaced]

[Response to mod edit: Fair enough. I just think the 'Urban = Rich Rod' meme is a little too common within our fanbase.]

Comments

LSCrepair

October 15th, 2012 at 8:18 PM ^

urgency in 2010? What about 08 and 09?

 

And starting a thread with "not to beat a dead horse" should be automatic don't post this. All of the info about Urban could have been posted minus the RR junk.

Lofter4

October 15th, 2012 at 8:19 PM ^

Yes, if only Rich Rod would have gotten involved with the defense and forced the 3-3-5 on coaches who had no business running it...

 

What could have been!

Yeoman

October 15th, 2012 at 8:20 PM ^

I guess as long as this is out there I'll have to ask the question:

Was Fickell invited to the meeting, or just the position coaches?

artds

October 15th, 2012 at 8:24 PM ^

The fact that Urban is even doing this shows that he, unlike RR, doesn't view defense as some secondary, less important aspect of the game. You'll never hear Urban say some shit like, "Meh, I don't really coach that kind of football" in response to a question about why the defense is so horrible.

Tater

October 15th, 2012 at 8:57 PM ^

This is an article about Urban Meyer, and some assholes still found a way to continue beating the dead horse and wallowing in the RR bitch-fest.

He's been gone almost two years now; let it go.  How low of an IQ does one have to have to not be able to see that all people "accomplish" when they bitch about RR is to invite people to go deeper into the story, like "Three and Out" did?

Give it a rest.

 

not TOM BRADY

October 15th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^

This doesn't mean he is going to fix it just because he hosts one meeting. I don't think RR stood their and did nothing about a bad defense, any coach would. This does not make urban special as some could view it.

Maize_in_AZ

October 15th, 2012 at 8:28 PM ^

It would have taken a lot more than a meeting to un-GERG the defense in 2010.  The huge reversal from '10 to '11 is a primary example that unless that meeting (and many more after it) was about sound fundamentals and assignments, nothing was changing no matter how involved RR got.

mGrowOld

October 15th, 2012 at 8:34 PM ^

Exactly right.  Like Brian posted  about Mattison watching film of his D-Line's footwork and how they did exactly what he coached them to do.  Gerg couldn't even get the Linebackers to set up properly....footwork would've been a completely foreign concept to him

And all the meetings in the world wouldn't have fixed that.

Oh...and welcome to the Board!  Good first effort.

FrankMurphy

October 15th, 2012 at 8:34 PM ^

The point isn't simply that he held a meeting. The point is that Urban recognized that there was a problem and resolved to fix it. He didn't whine about how many freshman linebackers he was playing or how many injuries he was dealing with. Urban wouldn't be averse to firing an incompetent assistant coach whom he had been working with his entire career simply because the assistant had been the best man at his wedding. 

FrankMurphy

October 15th, 2012 at 8:56 PM ^

No, because Urban did fire (or declined to retain) Jim Heacock who was the DC under Fickell (which was probably his mistake; he kept the wrong guy). He brought on Everett Withers to be Fickell's co-DC. The strategy mirrors what he did at Florida in keeping Charlie Strong from Ron Zook's staff but bringing on Greg Mattison to be Strong's co-DC. 

Yeoman

October 15th, 2012 at 9:28 PM ^

Fickell was already there as you say; Shafer was not.

And here the meeting came before the defensive collapse (at Purdue); there it seems to be the other way around, with the collapse triggering the meeting.

(But I wouldn't have asked if Fickell was at the meeting if I hadn't had the same thought you did.)

WolvinLA2

October 15th, 2012 at 9:01 PM ^

The big difference there was that switch was made in the offseason.  In the spring game, Moundros played LB, and spent all of fall camp playing LB before he ever started a game. 

Boren switched over mid-season, and had a whole week of practice before playing there in a game. 

Off-season position switches aren't uncommon, even from one side of the ball to the other.  Doing that in the middle of the season in unheard of.

TIMMMAAY

October 15th, 2012 at 8:31 PM ^

The thread is ok, but bringing up RR was not wise. Then to top it off with the whole "not beating a dead horse" thing...

But the article itself was ok.

justingoblue

October 15th, 2012 at 8:50 PM ^

Why do we need another RR thread? He's coaching at Arizona and we're playing the most important game of the season (so far) on Saturday. I understand keeping up with Meyer, but none of the OP was dedicated to that, except to set up the same tired arguments against RR.

I don't think I'm taking a position on the RR issue when I say I bet he had meetings about defense countless times during his tenure here.

MikeCohodes

October 15th, 2012 at 8:58 PM ^

This is State week.  We should be unified as a fanbase, not divided and bringing up the RichRod past.  What's done is done, the past is the past, and everyone's opinions here are pretty set in stone on RR, one way or another.  All I know is that unless Michigan is playing Arizona, I don't want to discuss RR again on this board other than to thank him for bringing Denard here.  Even if things didn't work out with RR we'll always have our amazing memories of Denard's awesomeness, so I'll always thank RR for that.  Other than that though, I have no desire to rehash those years.  I closed that part of my brain when I finished reading Bacon's awesome book 3 and Out.

EDIT - this was supposed to be in reply to Justingoblue's comment a couple above mine, hit the wrong reply button.

saveferris

October 16th, 2012 at 8:44 AM ^

We SHOULD be united as a fanbase, but we're not; the Rodriguez years exposed that and continue to expose it every time his name comes up.  The factions are at peace for now because Brady is succeeding, but the second things take a turn for the worse, I fully expect the pettiness and back-biting to resume once again. 

Also, we should also thank Rich Rodriguez for more than just Denard.  This team is winning with players Rodriguez recruited.  If things go the way we hope and the year ends with a B1G Championship and a Rose Bowl berth, it will be because Rich left a good foundation for competent coaches to work with.

MikeCohodes

October 16th, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^

Especially if the team regresses on offense next year after Denard is gone, losing that level of leadership and talent is going to hurt.  I can already see a 3 way split of the fanbase simply over who we start at QB - Gardner, Bellomy, or Shane, if there are struggles on offense early.

lonewolf371

October 15th, 2012 at 9:01 PM ^

Travis Howard is depressed about it.

But really, I'm a little surprised at how bad their defense has been. It's not like they don't have talented players. I thought in Meyer's first year the offense would sputter while the defense carried the team, but it's been totally the opposite so far. Let's hope they don't get it turned around any time soon.

FrankMurphy

October 15th, 2012 at 9:11 PM ^

I think part of the reason is that Urban made a mistake in firing Jim Heacock and keeping Fickell; he should have done the opposite. His mindset is that he probably preferred to have younger guys on his staff, and Heackock is pushing 65. But Heacock was Ohio's Fred Jackson (he was originally hired by John Cooper), and he was probably more instrumental to Ohio's solid defensive play under Tressel than Fickell was.