first!
fastest?
Sounds good to me...sign me up.
Yay!!
WORD!
Well, if the Michigan safety hating god wouldn't mind laying off, this defensive philosophy could work out really well for us. Hopefully the secondary will be up for the challenge
If one time a DC came out and said, "We'd like to give up as many points as possible. Those lazy bastards on offense need to prove that they're worth the fanfare." I would probably freak out.
a little off topic for this thread, but now, this is where the actions at...
the best things about those videos a few posts down is how he explains the OL blocking schemes. VERY SIMPLE. block left, block right. hit the guy nearest you. if there's no man there, go to the 2nd level (unless it's a pass play). no more complex calls at the line..no more doubling and scoop/handoff blocking that leads to confusion about just who is doing the scooping. this, plus the S&C program should let the OL flourish in 08. even w/o long, et al. how many days till 8/30?
I like that despite the spread moniker, RR's offense is a run-first, get-physical scheme. None of that grass basketball crap here.
Happy that we will not use the 3-3-5. We have too many good DL next year to do so (as long as TT returns).
So what are we running?
4-3
"We don't want to be a defense that sits back. We want to be a defense that creates turnovers and scores touchdowns. Lead the conference in sacks, interceptions and defensive scores."
Begin mancrush.......NOW.
@ DanK: I wholeheartedly agree. That might be part of the reason why WVU has so much success running the ball with meh OL recruits (besides the presence of White/Slaton/Devine obvs). Just get in someone's way and don't try to do too much.
Negative points for Shafer on the typical coach speak, but he does seem like an ethusiastic cat. I really don't care what he employs - just dont screw things up, and please find a way to make sure that the safeties we recruit don't eat themselves right out of the position.
We will run a multiple front defense. Perfect perfect perfect! Why dont more teams run this defense, using almost all defensive fronts?? Gsimmons??
I love how he is saying just like RR, we will set it up for them to help us succeed. MAN CRUSH #2 for me.
Who knew football could make me have crushed on grown men, gross! But I dig!
ok I missed what I was trying ot say: "we will set our defense up around our players"
A lot of teams do use multiple looks. Hell, we probably have under English.
Off the top of my head, New England runs a 3-4 but goes to that crazy 1-5-5 every once in a while to fuck with people.
3-4 teams still put in a 4th lineman to play nickel, or dime - everyone runs "multiple looks", I think. We even played 3-3-5 against Oregon a decent amount this year.
@ MichiganStudent
I'm far from an expert, but here's my take on the reason a lot more teams don't use multiple front defenses:
Most teams don't have versatile enough players (mentally and physically) to switch around like that. You have to have guys like the Patriots do - guys who are willing to play in schemes in which they won't quite be at their best and guys who are smart enough to keep mulitple sets of assignments in their heads. You need guys like Richard Seymor, who can and will play end in a 3-4 or tackle in a 4-3, and Mike Vrabel, who will play inside in a 3-4 and outside in a 4-3.
Ok true- I just listend to the audio...he said the base will be a 4-3 attack style defense with a bunch of different fronts which I cant remember right now...
Favorite quote about his style "I don't just want to stop their offense and give the ball back to ours, I want to score points as well and do our part putting points on the board throughout the year"
Erik- thats what I thought (pIayer issues). Noticed on XBOX/PS3 they have that multiple d option to choose from. I guess i'll have to switch to that now and the WVU spread offense attack. haha
Worst quote "I loved the Buckeyes and the Wolverines together, whoever made it to the Rose Bowl is who I rooted for" At least he's honest.
looks like gsimmons is out of bizness~!
jk young man.
Kepp the knowledge coming.
Ok one more question- are we going to hire a Special teams coach? or will one of our current coaches also have that be a part of his responsibilities?
I hope we do no continue to have a special teams that is sub-par. Kind of how Minor caught the ball and went out of bounds on the first play against Florida. I was like OMG here we go again....thank god it turned out much differently then it started
hey now....
most dc's like i said a few days ago, would say they are a mulit front defense.... defenses can morph so easy.... i wouldnt be supprised by any front he brings to a game.... as long as they are fundamentlally sound, and know their assignments...
I like him already...
I was looking forward to seeing how a program with a recruiting edge would put the 3-3-5 into effect, myself.
My attitude toward this whole RichRod hire has been that UM's football program would be like WVU on proverbial steroids...which would be all-conquering, as WVU on their own are mighty damned impressive without having nearly the stature of the UM program.
Not a bad hire. One thing that I am starting to really like about this staff is that it is fairly eclectic. We have brought in at least a few coaches from places other than WVU, and by retaining Fred Jackson, have at least retained one former Michigan coach. And, I like the fact that we have a big name HC and are taking a flier on one or two younger up-and-comers as assistents. Good mix, all around.
The one common thread amongst all of the guys that RR has hired seems to be that they are all very intense, aggressive coaches. From the offense to the defense to the S & C, there seems to be a real emphasis on aggressive play.
I don't get all the love--Shafer is better than Ron English how? He knows how to sound decent at a press conference? So did Charlie Weis--remember "Notre Dame will have the advantage when it comes to Xs an Os"? I'm not saying this guy will not be as good or better than English would've been (and English I think would only have gottent better). But why all the love already? If Carr hadn't retired but had fired English and replaced him with Shafer and think we'd all be asking serious questions.
off topic: I am curious about everyone's thoughts on the suggestion by the President of UGA (earlier in the week) regarding a playoff system, with the winners of the 4 major bowls playing in a +2 format. Thoughts?
I think we'll pretty much have to play an aggressive defense this year given that the offense consists entirely of question marks and guys who haven't distinguished themselves yet.
I'm with Wishbone. Healthy skepticism until we see on field results. Even Herman's defenses sounded good in theory.
Herrmann's defenses were good -- until he became stale. Hey, there's a reason he was the Assistant Coach of the Year in 97! Also, I remember the time Purdue came in with one of their "super" QBs. We came out with 6 dbs and the guy went something like 10 for 30 for 95 yards.
Sure sounds like we are going to get the Crazy Kung Fu Defense to go with our Wacko Ninja Offense.
"Hey, there's a reason he was the Assistant Coach of the Year in 97! "
Yes, it was called Charles Woodson.
If you'd read me that quote, said it was from a guy who was the Michigan defensive coordinator, I would have asked you "did they re-hire Ron English?"
Didn't he say the same things when he took over? (To his credit, the D delivered just that for almost all of '06)
Scott who?
OTOH, I am worried: Who the fuck is this guy? OTOH, I like that RR doesn't feel it necessary to feature the 3-3-5 because that's what he used at WVU. He's willing to consider other options in light of the type of players he has, the opponents, etc.
Hopefully, this choice shows genius. But, who knows?
As long as we have a stiff rush defense we'll be fine in the Big 10. Purdue always craps their pants against teams with pulses, and Northwestern...is Northwestern. Pretty much everyone else uses power-running attacks or just has a bad QB right now.
I like the hire, anyone who attacks on defense is good by me. The bend don't break philosophy made me crazy.
I do want to know if Muschamp or Tenuta were ever talked to/about or even considered?
RR said in an interview with Jim Brandstadter that they would use multiple looks, including some 3-3-5.
i figured the 3-3 would be part of the scheme.... multi front means multi front..
So we lose out on English to get a guy with similar experience and less connection to the program?
I'm starting to be a little bit annoyed with the Rodvolution.
off topic: I am curious about everyone's thoughts on the suggestion by the President of UGA (earlier in the week) regarding a playoff system, with the winners of the 4 major bowls playing in a +2 format. Thoughts?
gobluemich | 01.11.08 - 4:05 pm | #
that means their season is then 14 games for a +1, and 15 for a +2...
what if UM has the B10 sewn up by Nov 1st, and are pretty much a lock to go to a BCS bowl, with a chance to play-in... do we play starters v OSU and any other remaining Nov. game?
I think it puts a lot of extra strain on the players, doesn't really guarantee an undisputed champ (it could periodically, but not always, so not that much better than the current system), and begins to decrease the meaningfulness of (what then become) "regular season" games...
Perhaps I'm the only one who doesn't think highly of it... I think B-Ball, and hockey for that matter, are so much different that a year-end tourney makes sense, but I'm just not convinced it would work in CFB...
I don't know. Not asking for flames here, but do people disagree? can you convince me I'm wrong?
i don't really want a playoff anyway, since i'm not convinced it'll ever yield a legitimate national champion. the number of games versus the number of teams doesn't align well. the NFL has 32 teams and a 16 game regular season and that ratio is by far the lowest of the professional leagues.
No problem with Shafer. Probably a great addition. Still, it does make me wonder what English might do with this coaching group had he been retained. My gut tells me that RR + English would have been a great combo. Still I'm good woth Shafer.
I think Shafer will do great, just based on the sacks improvement (read: attacking style) that his defenses have demonstrated at the last two stops, both of which were not at places with anything remotely resembling talent. English was good (maybe Lloyd was holding him back some still?) but do you really think English would have had similar results if he were at WMU or Stanford?
To answer the question of "Why not keep English?", I say "why not" indeed.
Perhaps coach Rod thought he was going to get his D-Coordinator to join him at Michigan, therefore fired Ron English. Then, when the D-Coordinator stayed at WVU, English was already in Louisville?
From what I've gathered by reading WVU boards, RR and Casteel weren't getting along too well for a couple years, and weren't always on the same page. I think RR is happy to have the position coaches he got, and the new blood with Hopson and Shafer is something that he may have been looking for.
You can;t assume that he wanted to bring, or thought he would bring everyone with him.
New ideas, new blood: New Michigan.
I'm also thinking that you have Ron English, who interviewed for YOUR job, and seriously wants to be a head coach someday, and sooner rather than later. What kind of continuity would you have if English leaves after one year?
Something to consider: Did English WANT to stay???
For the 500000th time, Ron English isn't a good DC. Look what he did in the last 2 games of last year with one of the most talented teams in Michigan history.
He followed it up with App St. and Oregon.
The Florida game is the ONLY freaking time he stopped the spread.
Good riddance!
@ RHammer (SNRE '98),
I could see a situation where the playoffs helps the rivalry. A Michigan-OSU game where the playoffs are on the line would be almost as intense as last year's game. This might make up for the anti-climactic years, which I admit will be plentiful. So, I think it is a tradeoff, but the playoffs excitement just might outweigh the negatives. The way that I see it, the Big Ten Championship has been downgraded a bit by the BCS, so a trip to the playoffs might make the game what it used to be, where the whole season banked on one game. Of course, people won't be happy to get to the playoff, but if it is a 4 team playoff or to a lesser extent an 8 team playoff, a tourney bid would mean alot.
Having said this, I would want no part of it, if they weren't going to allow us to play close to home. No more road games. A playoff game in the big house would be worth it, IMO.
It seems as if anyone who went to a DII or related school could help get an answer on the dilution effect of the playoffs. Are there any good, sustainable rivalries in the lower divisions that have the playoffs? I don't know enough about these teams to know myself. Anyone go to one of these schools able to help out?
@ Enron Bowl
I think one thing to consider regarding English's success was/is the strength and conditioning program. There were times against Appalachian State and Oregon where Michigan's defense just looked slower. If his guys were slightly faster and/or stronger, would it have made a difference? We'll never know, but it's something to think about.
A good point about S&C. Personally, I think people are making much to big of a deal about that aspect of the program however.
I can't believe anyone would seriously be against a playoff system. As it is now, the bowls are virtually meaningless, other than the BCS Championship game. And they are played so long after the end of the B10 season, it is a new season, so you are not even watching the same team
It works at the lower levels of college football, so why not? You could cut down on the games by eliminating 2 of the worthless non-conference "cupcake" games. Also if it was a 16 team bracket, w/ all conference winners getting an automatic bid as was suggested in a yahoo article, then you could play tougher non-conference games and get some more enjoyable matchups.
Also this article suggests home games for the higher seeds until the final 4, then using the major bowl sites. The lower bowl games could keep their games w/ teams not in the 16-team bracket. This would give the teams in the North a home game for once, not always in Pac-10 or SEC country.
I, for one, am all for it.
Either an "and 1" or an 8-team playoff would be far better than what we have now. You work hard and play all season to be in the top 4 (or top 8) and that wouldn't take any meaning away from the UM/tOSU rivalry.
tOSU playing for the championship this year was a joke. Georgia and USC would have demolished OSU and beaten up on LSU.
Love the aggressiveness in all this rhetoric from the new coaches. I think we're in for a nice fresh change. No more Run, Run, Run, Punt and hope our D can stop Troy Smith when we haven't been able to all day and a first down would end the game!
Doesn't Shafer look like Mr. Bennett from the NBC TV show, Heroes??
You have to remember that collge football players purportedly "go to school". Their class-loads are much lighter in season. Going to a 3-round playoff would, in the case of the top two teams, have them playing into February. When Spring practice starts in April. And they have to show up to pre-season in the start of August.
No institution that supposedly is about "student-atheletes" would make actually taking a class so difficult for players.
Commenting by HaloScan
