Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

so how much better will the D be and why?

hungry

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
I think it will be a lot better.

4 man rush instead of that weird hybrid thing they were doing, 335 one play, 3-4 the next, 4-3 the next. Those poor kids didn't know what they were going to do next. This year, its the 4-3. Everyone knows it.

healthy and experienced corners (hopefully) T Woolfolk back on the field, Floyd on the field, Avery and co with a year of experience and hopefully with an improved pass rush to help them out

improved pass rush, 4 men on the line, occasional blitzing linebackers, the 4 lineman are a year older, bigger, and stronger than they were last year. Hopefully, that translates into results.

better coaching...

All in all, its a formula for a huge improvement. All of my associates that aren't Michigan fans are saying that the Michigan D is still going to stink and that Dnard is a turnover machine. Hopefully, they're in for a surprise...
 
agreed about the D.

Worried about Denard and his turnovers though. Also his ability to throw the deep ball and stretch the field a little bit.
 
I think the D will be better. But I mean how could it be worse lol. I like what this coaching staff is doing. They brought in coaches that can go get kids with NFL talent. Im excited about this season. I dont expect a great season but do expect vast improvement.
 
Like you guys said it has to be better right? I mean that was a freak show that RR had the last three years. i have to admit i supported him until the last season when it was apparent he was not going to get it done.. I admit i was very wrong about RR..
 
The bowl game this past year really sent me over the edge with RR. He kept talking about bringing in speed and what not and MSU just ran around and through us. It was embarrassing no part of it was good. So now we need to get back to Michigan greatness.
 
I guess the question is how much depth does the defense have this year. Will it be able to withstand a couple of injuries (This is supposed to be a question, not a leading statement)?
 
Hey, I took my shots for it, but losing against Miss State was the best thing that happened to this program. I was not rooting against Michigan obviously, but I was not sad they lost. If the options were win and keep RR for another year, or lose and overhaul the whole thing, I'd take the latter.
 
I see no reason why they couldn't make a drastic improvement. The fact that this coaching staff is having to go back and teach a lot of fundamentals should really show how little they were taught by the previous coaching staff.

add to that we are coming off basically being ranked as one of the worst defenses in the country. That leaves a ton of room to improve.
 
motown1958 said:
I think the D will be better. But I mean how could it be worse lol. I like what this coaching staff is doing. They brought in coaches that can go get kids with NFL talent. Im excited about this season. I dont expect a great season but do expect vast improvement.

I agree with this and was actually thinking about it when I was getting ready this morning. I am thinking/hoping that the new coaching staff is that they actually are VERY good at coaching kids. If so, there should be some decent improvment.
Also, agree about Denard, worried about the INTs a bit. Hopefully an off-season of hard work will pay off for him.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
I see no reason why they couldn't make a drastic improvement. The fact that this coaching staff is having to go back and teach a lot of fundamentals should really show how little they were taught by the previous coaching staff.

add to that we are coming off basically being ranked as one of the worst defenses in the country. That leaves a ton of room to improve.

We did hear similar things when Rodriguez took over. That he had to teach these guys how to be D1 football players. I wouldn't read too much into Hoke's comments. It's really about teaching the fundamentals how you want them to be done...there's not an implication that they weren't taught at all before (although with Rodriguez' comments it did seem that way, to me at least).

I agree with a lot of what Hungry said, mainly that the added pressure will help. This staff will not be content with rushing three and letting teams pick them apart. I'm also looking for a huge boost from Roh in the pressure department. A decent to good pass rush alone will bump this defense up 30 spots, and hopefully an improved secondary will get them up to the midpoint. I still have no idea what to expect from the LB's outside of Demens.
 
If they had just played an exclusive 4-3 Cover 2, they wouldn't have been 102nd overall in defense (or whatever they were), giving up 447.9 yards per game. Instead, they tried to run a defense with a coordinator who didn't know it and they put players in positions to get their asses kicked.

-A 3 man front requires 3 man eaters up front who can force opposing OLines to double team them; Craig Roh was woefully inadequate given his size.

-An inexperienced MLB in Kenny Demens struggled to read and react before one of the OLineman got to him and locked him down. He didn't have a ton of time since our DLine wasn't made up of gigantic DTs who could eat up blockers.

-When the opposition did throw, we had our #6 WR starting at one corner and a slew of freshmen on the other side.

-We didn't blitz nearly enough behind our 3 man front, and so we asked a reserve WR and a bunch of freshmen to cover the other team's receivers for 4+ seconds, which was a nearly impossible task.

-Guys are a year older, more experienced, and hopefully better. Even when the right play was called, gaffes were made that could have altered games. Kovacs dropping a pick 6 against Iowa that would have put us up 14. On Iowa's final FG drive, a third down dump off becomes a big gain after Avery missed the tackle that would have forced a punt and given us a shot to win with the last possession. We'll still see mistakes made by players, just hopefully fewer of them.

The job of a coach is to put players in the best positition to succeed. Last year's personnel was in no way, shape, or form put in the best positition to succeed in that scheme. It wasn't the scheme necessarily that was destined to fail, but the players we had weren't built to run it. I was in favor of keeping RR as head coach and doing what Illinois did to Ron Zook, and tell him to fire his DC. I think a guy who understands the 3-3-5 and can teach it to kids while running it on gameday would have provided a pretty big improvement. Heck, I think our personnel right now is best fitted for a TCU style 4-2-5 (Roh, Martin, Campbell, RVB, Demens, Fitzgerald, Woolfolk, Avery, Floyd, C. Gordon, Johnson/Kovacs/Robinson/T.Gordon) but that's a different discussion for a different day.

By going to the 4 man front we should see the following immediate benefits.

-more pressure on the QB by virtue of nearly always having a 4 man pass rush.

-better run defense by not asking Craig Roh and Ryan Van Bergen to always have to take on 2 blockers.

-less pressure on our LB b/c they'll be more than 3 yards off the line of scrimmage and won't have an opposing team's guard on top of them after they bypass our DLine and get to the seocnd level. This will also allow them more flexibility in blitzing.

-less pressure on our secondary b/c they won't have to cover for as long, and they won't feel as much burden to stop the run. Hopefully doublemoves consistently working are a thing of the past. We'll still see instances of man coverages getting burned with Woolfolk coming off a horrific injury and a lost year of playing and Avery still only being a sophomore. But it should be a noticeable improvement.

-Plus our offense won't be snapping the ball when the play clock is still at 25, cutting down on the number of plays the opposition runs against us.

Shoot, just by limiting the number of plays run and the big plays allowed we'll see big improvements. A 50 yard per game improvement on defense seems pretty big, but in what games last year DIDN'T we give up a 50 yard gain?! I think that our starters have the ability to be a middle of the pack Big 10 defense next year. (Questions surrounding Will Campbell, our OLBs and still inexperienced secondary keep us just hoping for that) By last year's numbers, that's about 350 yards given up per game and 23.5 points. That's how much better I think the defense will be and why.
 
I think to hear people say there is a severe lack of talent on the defense is laughable. They have a LOT of good players on that D, who have a chance to be great. The fact that they had to switch their formation over and over again under RR, and were never able to get continuity was damming.
 
motown1958 said:
I think the D will be better. But I mean how could it be worse lol. I like what this coaching staff is doing. They brought in coaches that can go get kids with NFL talent. Im excited about this season. I dont expect a great season but do expect vast improvement.

"How could it be worse?" and "LOL?"

You really need to ask that?

see 2009 and then 2010...it can get worse.
 
The defense will be an average BigTen defense this year, making it MUCH better than last year. Sylistically, I'd expect to see the mega-huge plays disappear and while the D may not be as physical or as tough as it will in coming years, I also see them holding a 3rd and 8 or forcing a fumble or two in the backfield, which we have done very little of the past three years --- get pressure, force turnovers OR get off the field on 3rd downs.
 
bamf16 said:
If they had just played an exclusive 4-3 Cover 2, they wouldn't have been 102nd overall in defense (or whatever they were), giving up 447.9 yards per game. Instead, they tried to run a defense with a coordinator who didn't know it and they put players in positions to get their asses kicked.

-A 3 man front requires 3 man eaters up front who can force opposing OLines to double team them; Craig Roh was woefully inadequate given his size.

-An inexperienced MLB in Kenny Demens struggled to read and react before one of the OLineman got to him and locked him down. He didn't have a ton of time since our DLine wasn't made up of gigantic DTs who could eat up blockers.

-When the opposition did throw, we had our #6 WR starting at one corner and a slew of freshmen on the other side.

-We didn't blitz nearly enough behind our 3 man front, and so we asked a reserve WR and a bunch of freshmen to cover the other team's receivers for 4+ seconds, which was a nearly impossible task.

-Guys are a year older, more experienced, and hopefully better. Even when the right play was called, gaffes were made that could have altered games. Kovacs dropping a pick 6 against Iowa that would have put us up 14. On Iowa's final FG drive, a third down dump off becomes a big gain after Avery missed the tackle that would have forced a punt and given us a shot to win with the last possession. We'll still see mistakes made by players, just hopefully fewer of them.

The job of a coach is to put players in the best positition to succeed. Last year's personnel was in no way, shape, or form put in the best positition to succeed in that scheme. It wasn't the scheme necessarily that was destined to fail, but the players we had weren't built to run it. I was in favor of keeping RR as head coach and doing what Illinois did to Ron Zook, and tell him to fire his DC. I think a guy who understands the 3-3-5 and can teach it to kids while running it on gameday would have provided a pretty big improvement. Heck, I think our personnel right now is best fitted for a TCU style 4-2-5 (Roh, Martin, Campbell, RVB, Demens, Fitzgerald, Woolfolk, Avery, Floyd, C. Gordon, Johnson/Kovacs/Robinson/T.Gordon) but that's a different discussion for a different day.

By going to the 4 man front we should see the following immediate benefits.

-more pressure on the QB by virtue of nearly always having a 4 man pass rush.

-better run defense by not asking Craig Roh and Ryan Van Bergen to always have to take on 2 blockers.

-less pressure on our LB b/c they'll be more than 3 yards off the line of scrimmage and won't have an opposing team's guard on top of them after they bypass our DLine and get to the seocnd level. This will also allow them more flexibility in blitzing.

-less pressure on our secondary b/c they won't have to cover for as long, and they won't feel as much burden to stop the run. Hopefully doublemoves consistently working are a thing of the past. We'll still see instances of man coverages getting burned with Woolfolk coming off a horrific injury and a lost year of playing and Avery still only being a sophomore. But it should be a noticeable improvement.

-Plus our offense won't be snapping the ball when the play clock is still at 25, cutting down on the number of plays the opposition runs against us.

Shoot, just by limiting the number of plays run and the big plays allowed we'll see big improvements. A 50 yard per game improvement on defense seems pretty big, but in what games last year DIDN'T we give up a 50 yard gain?! I think that our starters have the ability to be a middle of the pack Big 10 defense next year. (Questions surrounding Will Campbell, our OLBs and still inexperienced secondary keep us just hoping for that) By last year's numbers, that's about 350 yards given up per game and 23.5 points. That's how much better I think the defense will be and why.

Please elaborate
 
Or to summarize .....Don't think of it as losing a Greg, think of it as gaining a NEW, BETTER Greg!!
 
bamf16 said:
If they had just played an exclusive 4-3 Cover 2, they wouldn't have been 102nd overall in defense (or whatever they were), giving up 447.9 yards per game. Instead, they tried to run a defense with a coordinator who didn't know it and they put players in positions to get their asses kicked.

-A 3 man front requires 3 man eaters up front who can force opposing OLines to double team them; Craig Roh was woefully inadequate given his size.

-An inexperienced MLB in Kenny Demens struggled to read and react before one of the OLineman got to him and locked him down. He didn't have a ton of time since our DLine wasn't made up of gigantic DTs who could eat up blockers.

-When the opposition did throw, we had our #6 WR starting at one corner and a slew of freshmen on the other side.

-We didn't blitz nearly enough behind our 3 man front, and so we asked a reserve WR and a bunch of freshmen to cover the other team's receivers for 4+ seconds, which was a nearly impossible task.

-Guys are a year older, more experienced, and hopefully better. Even when the right play was called, gaffes were made that could have altered games. Kovacs dropping a pick 6 against Iowa that would have put us up 14. On Iowa's final FG drive, a third down dump off becomes a big gain after Avery missed the tackle that would have forced a punt and given us a shot to win with the last possession. We'll still see mistakes made by players, just hopefully fewer of them.

The job of a coach is to put players in the best positition to succeed. Last year's personnel was in no way, shape, or form put in the best positition to succeed in that scheme. It wasn't the scheme necessarily that was destined to fail, but the players we had weren't built to run it. I was in favor of keeping RR as head coach and doing what Illinois did to Ron Zook, and tell him to fire his DC. I think a guy who understands the 3-3-5 and can teach it to kids while running it on gameday would have provided a pretty big improvement. Heck, I think our personnel right now is best fitted for a TCU style 4-2-5 (Roh, Martin, Campbell, RVB, Demens, Fitzgerald, Woolfolk, Avery, Floyd, C. Gordon, Johnson/Kovacs/Robinson/T.Gordon) but that's a different discussion for a different day.

Well, not firing RR and hiring a different DC is an entirely different discussion and a pointless one. He did that once and the D got worse. There is nothing to tell us that RR or DB would have been able to make an adequate hire at DC with RR as the head coach. Mattison said himself that he would never have come back to Michigan to be RR's DC. Those weren't his exact words, but they might as well have been. For all we know, DB might've told RR to fire his DC and his cronies on the D and replace them and RR might've told him, "no." RR got fired and that issue is now dead.
 
The difference in staffs is that with Hoke you get a less polarizing figurehead and much, much stronger supporting cast. It's like having a relatively inexperienced but popular Presidential candidate surround himself with highly-regarded and experienced advisors.

Mattison could be a HC on his own merit as could Al Borges if either were trying to get HC jobs. Rich Rod, on the other hand, was The Man and surrounded himself with lackies and old friends.

Greg Robinson was a horrendous head coach at Syracuse following debatable success as a coordinator (success vs luck) and success with the Broncos in the NFL, leading a defense ranked in the 2nd half of the league.

Hoke doesn't have to be a genius, or a mastermind or call the plays ...he just has to represent MICHIGAN and its fans and Alumni and let the coaches around him do the heavy lifting.
 
DR said:
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
I see no reason why they couldn't make a drastic improvement. The fact that this coaching staff is having to go back and teach a lot of fundamentals should really show how little they were taught by the previous coaching staff.

add to that we are coming off basically being ranked as one of the worst defenses in the country. That leaves a ton of room to improve.

We did hear similar things when Rodriguez took over. That he had to teach these guys how to be D1 football players. I wouldn't read too much into Hoke's comments. It's really about teaching the fundamentals how you want them to be done...there's not an implication that they weren't taught at all before (although with Rodriguez' comments it did seem that way, to me at least).

I agree with a lot of what Hungry said, mainly that the added pressure will help. This staff will not be content with rushing three and letting teams pick them apart. I'm also looking for a huge boost from Roh in the pressure department. A decent to good pass rush alone will bump this defense up 30 spots, and hopefully an improved secondary will get them up to the midpoint. I still have no idea what to expect from the LB's outside of Demens.

yeah, but we now know that RR was completely full of shit.

also, Hoke isn't the only one saying he's had to stress fundamentals... all the players are too.

as someone who never "bought in" to the excuse that the players needed to "buy in" to a defense in order to be competent, I don't expect there's going to be some huge learning curve they have to overcome in order to be able to contain a D-1AA team like UMass's running game...

as far as the talent level, I also thought the that was consistently underrated during RR's tenure, and that is being carried over into this season.

I guess I'd look at similar defenses from the Carr era and expect us to be near enough to that. top 50 at least.
 
They can't be worse, but they are starting from scratch so there could be a learning curve with a new system and new sets. No one knows how these players will adapt to brand new schemes on both sides of the ball, there is bound to be a few games of adjustment and I don't expect either the O or the D to really click until later in the year. Could be some tough losses in the 1st half of the year, but if Hoke is half as good as he claims to be they could win some big games late.
 
Back
Top