so how much better will the D be and why?

[biggunsbob]

The new system on both offense and defense worries me but a change had to be mad. We don't every want to see a defense that bad again EVER at Michigan...

 

[deathroh]

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.

.....

I'm not going to disagree with that first part.

So what? I'm not saying they're not stressing fundamentals. Good luck finding a new coach that doesn't stress them right off the bat. That's my point.

 

[bamf16]

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.

So pointless it got this response?

And you're right, no one here knows if that discussion did or did not take place. We know RR's loyalty to guys like Gibson, so a denial to take actions with his defensive staff is and was more than just "possible."

If you'd have told me on January 1st after the horrific bowl loss that our next defensive coordinator would be stolen from the Baltimore Ravens, I'd have had you committed.

 

[Michchamp]

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.

.....

I'm not going to disagree with that first part.

So what? I'm not saying they're not stressing fundamentals. Good luck finding a new coach that doesn't stress them right off the bat. That's my point.

ok, well I'm saying RR didn't actually stress fundamentals, despite what he may have claimed. Either he was outright making that shit up to cover his ass, or he was doing it wrong. At best, RR & staff thought they were stressing fundamentals, but their approach was not productive, or indeed may have been counterproductive. Maybe it was a question of quality (poor instruction, negative reinforcement, bad chemistry), or quantity (insufficient repetition of drills), I wasn't there to judge. but it was certainly not adequate as when Saturdays rolled around I thought the poor preparation spoke for itself..

I know at the time some Michigan posters dismissed comments from WVU fans as just sour grapes, but the idea that some of RR's assistants (notably Tony Gibson) were basically negligent when it came to coaching & teaching seemed supported by the results on the field.

if you looked at where these guys were coming from, their coaching experience was notably lacking when compared to the guys we had before, or that we now have under Hoke. The fact that RR would promote a recent grad assistant to his LB coach should have been shocking to people. No way should a guy with that little experience be in that position at Michigan.

so maybe every coach comes in and claims to be stressing fundamentals, I don't know. But despite RR's claim, he either wasn't, or was doing it wrong.

Like I said, a notable difference is that I don't remember many positive reports coming out of RR's early practices, either from the coaches or the players...

 

[Michchamp]

So pointless it got this response?

And you're right, no one here knows if that discussion did or did not take place. We know RR's loyalty to guys like Gibson, so a denial to take actions with his defensive staff is and was more than just "possible."

If you'd have told me on January 1st after the horrific bowl loss that our next defensive coordinator would be stolen from the Baltimore Ravens, I'd have had you committed.

Bam, I don't think RR could hire a good DC if his job depended on it...

 

[bamf16]

Wasn't Greg Robinson also the linebackers coach?

 

[deathroh]

I'm not going to disagree with that first part.

So what? I'm not saying they're not stressing fundamentals. Good luck finding a new coach that doesn't stress them right off the bat. That's my point.

ok, well I'm saying RR didn't actually stress fundamentals, despite what he may have claimed. Either he was outright making that shit up to cover his ass, or he was doing it wrong. At best, RR & staff thought they were stressing fundamentals, but their approach was not productive, or indeed may have been counterproductive. Maybe it was a question of quality (poor instruction, negative reinforcement, bad chemistry), or quantity (insufficient repetition of drills), I wasn't there to judge. but it was certainly not adequate as when Saturdays rolled around I thought the poor preparation spoke for itself..

I know at the time some Michigan posters dismissed comments from WVU fans as just sour grapes, but the idea that some of RR's assistants (notably Tony Gibson) were basically negligent when it came to coaching & teaching seemed supported by the results on the field.

if you looked at where these guys were coming from, their coaching experience was notably lacking when compared to the guys we had before, or that we now have under Hoke. The fact that RR would promote a recent grad assistant to his LB coach should have been shocking to people. No way should a guy with that little experience be in that position at Michigan.

so maybe every coach comes in and claims to be stressing fundamentals, I don't know. But despite RR's claim, he either wasn't, or was doing it wrong.

Like I said, a notable difference is that I don't remember many positive reports coming out of RR's early practices, either from the coaches or the players...

Hater.

 

[Michchamp]

Wasn't Greg Robinson also the linebackers coach?

looks like they broke it up between inside LBs/outside LBs. this is the guy I was talking about: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/021110aaa.html

seems to me that the LBs are a unit & should be coached as such.

the convoluted coaching responsibilities on defense were probably another cause of the disaster on the field. I could see struggling with this... maybe ... in year one, but when a head coach still can't put together a competent staff in year three, and is basically throwing up his hands in press conferences and saying "I give up" or "Vince Lombardi can't coach these guys"... well... I don't know how his admirers expected this to improve in year 4.

 

[deathroh]

Wasn't Greg Robinson also the linebackers coach?

looks like they broke it up between inside LBs/outside LBs. this is the guy I was talking about: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/021110aaa.html

seems to me that the LBs are a unit & should be coached as such.

the convoluted coaching responsibilities on defense were probably another cause of the disaster on the field. I could see struggling with this... maybe ... in year one, but when a head coach still can't put together a competent staff in year three, and is basically throwing up his hands in press conferences and saying "I give up" or "Vince Lombardi can't coach these guys"... well... I don't know how his admirers expected this to improve in year 4.

Didn't they break apart the safeties from the CB's too? That actually makes a tiny bit more sense that splitting up the LB's, but what a clusterfuck.

 

[Michchamp]

OK, sorry for getting into this. I really don't intend to drag up RR-era crap, but it just kinda happens...

Suffice to say, based on my estimation that coaching (or lack thereof) was the primary reason we were so bad last season, I think the sky is basically the limit now that Dave Brandon & BRady Hoke have fixed that problem.

I guess there could be some lingering ill-effects of what 3 years of RR & his staff could do to our guys, but there's no question in my mind at least that the TALENT is there to have a solid defense in 2011.

what this actually translates to in terms of wins, PED, yards allowed, points allowed, etc. I don't know. But I don't get the sense that we'll be repeating those performances where the offense bogs down, and suddenly we're out of games because we know that our only chance to win was to score 45+ since our defense wasn't going to hold up that side of the field...

 

[Michchamp]

looks like they broke it up between inside LBs/outside LBs. this is the guy I was talking about: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/021110aaa.html

seems to me that the LBs are a unit & should be coached as such.

the convoluted coaching responsibilities on defense were probably another cause of the disaster on the field. I could see struggling with this... maybe ... in year one, but when a head coach still can't put together a competent staff in year three, and is basically throwing up his hands in press conferences and saying "I give up" or "Vince Lombardi can't coach these guys"... well... I don't know how his admirers expected this to improve in year 4.

Didn't they break apart the safeties from the CB's too? That actually makes a tiny bit more sense that splitting up the LB's, but what a clusterfuck.

yeah, that same article notes that "assistant head coach" tony gibson was responsible for the CBs and the free safety. Braithwaite had the OLBs and safeties, GROB had the other linebackers, and the defense as a whole, Bruce Tall had the DL. And given the fluid positioning of the 3-3-5, it seems like depending on how they lined up, different players should be reporting to different coaches.

"Are YOU my coach for this play?"

"No, dummy, you're lined up as a DE now. Talk to Bruce Tall! Jeez when are you players going to BUY INTO this SYSTEM!!!"

 

[jever4321]

Didn't they break apart the safeties from the CB's too? That actually makes a tiny bit more sense that splitting up the LB's, but what a clusterfuck.

yeah, that same article notes that "assistant head coach" tony gibson was responsible for the CBs and the free safety. Braithwaite had the OLBs and safeties, GROB had the other linebackers, and the defense as a whole, Bruce Tall had the DL. And given the fluid positioning of the 3-3-5, it seems like depending on how they lined up, different players should be reporting to different coaches.

"Are YOU my coach for this play?"

"No, dummy, you're lined up as a DE now. Talk to Bruce Tall! Jeez when are you players going to BUY INTO this SYSTEM!!!"

Lol, I hope you're right. It makes logical sense. I guess we will see it unfold in a couple of weeks..

 

[deathroh]

OK, sorry for getting into this. I really don't intend to drag up RR-era crap, but it just kinda happens...

Eh, you were pretty much on point. Blame M&B.

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

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

Since he hasn't answered yet, I think he meant-

350 vs 447.9 yards per game last year, and

23.5 vs 35.2 points per game last year

 

[bamf16]

My bad. I thought he was being a smart ass with the "elaborate" after I seemingly typed a book!

 

[deathroh]

Who, me??

 

[silverbullet97]

Who, me??

Couldn't be??

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

Who, me??

Couldn't be??

Barney aficionado.

 

[wheels002]

They will be better as long as they dont play zone and have the kids just standing there with no one within 10 yards of them or on 3rd and 30 having a CB still in his back pedal 35 yds down the field GRob couldnt coach and Gibson was useless. I am not expecting top 10 in the nation but at this point I will take top 50.

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

They will be better as long as they dont play zone and have the kids just standing there with no one within 10 yards of them or on 3rd and 30 having a CB still in his back pedal 35 yds down the field GRob couldnt coach and Gibson was useless. I am not expecting top 10 in the nation but at this point I will take top 50.

To give an idea, if bamf's predictions hold true of 350 yards given up per game and 23.5 points per, then we'd compare to last year this way.

350 would put us at #38 between Air Force and Illinois

23.5 would put us at #49 between Illinois and Texas

Not great. but we'd be in a whole lot more games at the end.