Tag: Mailbag

Mailbag: How will Craig Roh be used?

Indiana sucks.  Craig Roh doesn’t.

My understanding is the he DC ran the 3-4 at Baltimore and I’m concerned what this means for Roh.  He doesn’t seem suited to play LB or DE in that system. Is he strictly a one-gap lineman and if so, how do you see him being used by the staff?

First of all, I think Roh is one of the top two defensive players on the roster (with Mike Martin).  He’s 6’5″, 250+ pounds, he’s strong, he can cover a little bit, he’s pretty quick, and he’s aggressive.  So I don’t blame you for being concerned about how he will be used.

Luckily, I think new defensive coordinator Greg Mattison will put Roh in a position to achieve success this coming season.  In my opinion, the old coaching staff was almost criminally negligent in their use of Roh last season.  As a true freshman in 2009, Roh split time with Brandon Herron and notched 7.5 tackles for loss and 2 sacks.  As a full-time starter in 2010, Roh inreased his total tackles by only six (37 to 43) but his tackles for loss dropped to 5.5 and he had a whopping 1/2 sack.  That’s why I was so convinced that the spring 2010 practice rumors were erroneous or overblown that Michigan would be using a 3-3-5.  Sure enough, Michigan tried to play Roh as an outside stacked linebacker, which was a failure.  Rumors popped up that Craig and his father, Fred, approached the coaching staff about using Roh appropriately . . . or running the risk of seeing him transfer.  Almost immediately afterward, we saw Roh playing defensive end again.  I can’t vouch for the validity of those rumors, but generally, where there’s smoke there’s fire.

As for Michigan’s defense in 2011, recruits have reported that Brady Hoke has been relaying messages about running a 4-3.  Obviously, things could change or be misinterpreted, but that’s the word on the street.  On the other hand, Mattison did indeed run a version of a 3-4 this past season with the Baltimore Ravens, and I have a hard time believing that he would change schemes at the snap of a finger.  On the other other hand, someone with Mattison’s age and experience probably knows the ins and outs of both systems.

Really, it would be nothing more than a guess for me to say what type of defense Michigan will run in 2011.  There seems to be evidence for both.  But Roh has the size and skill set to play weakside defensive end in a 4-3 (Tim Jamison was 6’3″, 263 as a senior) or outside linebacker in a 3-4 (Terrell Suggs is 6’3″, 260).  My guess is that the defense will be a hybrid type of 3-4/4-3 in which we’ll see Roh deployed like he was in 2009, back when Greg Robinson had some semblance of a clue what he was doing with the defense (remember when Roh looked promising and Steve Brown had such a solid season?  You know, before Rodriguez forced the 3-3-5 on him?).  Once in awhile, Roh will drop back into the flat or pick up a running back in man coverage.  Once in awhile, Roh will stand up and blitz the interior of the line.  Most of the time, he’ll rush the passer.

I was wrong last year when I said that Michigan would probably run a 4-2-5, but after the defensive performance of 2010, I’m not convinced I was wrong that Michigan should have run a 4-2-5.  It’s not that the 3-3-5 can’t be successful in the Big Ten, but that assumes that the linebackers can be competent.  Obi Ezeh was a disappointment, Mouton was off-and-on, Roh was misused, and by the end of the season, only Mouton remained in the same spot (Ezeh was benched for Kenny Demens, and Roh was put at defensive end).  Rodriguez, Robinson, and the other defensive assistants had no clue how to work together and employ their personnel, and they were sent packing because of it.

Now that Hoke is in charge and brought in one of his guys – somebody he knows and trusts – I think the defensive coaching will be much smoother.  Michigan had an identity when Rodriguez brought Calvin Magee to run the offense.  They both knew what they wanted to do, and the offense improved steadily.  Conversely, Rodriguez brought in a 4-3 guy that he didn’t know (Shafer), forced him to run a 3-3-5 after two-thirds of a season, fired Shafer, brought in a 3-4/4-3 guy that he didn’t know (Robinson), forced him to run a 3-3-5 after a full season, and then got everyone fired.

I still believe in Roh’s talent, and sadly, a 3-3-5 is just about the only defense where he can’t fit somewhere.  I think 2010 was a bit of an aberration in Roh’s maturation, and we’ll see an explosive pass rusher and stellar athlete wearing #88 once again, rather than this:

Yes, that’s a 250 lb. defensive tackle lined up over Mississippi State’s left guard.  It’s also a touchdown.

Mailbag: Why would Denard change positions?

Denard Robinson: Faster than a horse.

Thanks for the blog, which I enjoy. As you are clearly knowledgeable about football, I was surprised by the following comment:

“My initial reaction is to expect that Robinson will transfer, perhaps to Pitt, where former Michigan offensive coordinator Calvin Magee has alighted. He could go to Pittsburgh, sit out 2011, and have two years of eligibility to play quarterback. In my opinion, the best chance Hoke has to retain Robinson is to make a pitch for Robinson to become a running back or wide receiver.”It seems to me that if Robinson stays, he simply must be a quarterback. Otherwise, with Forcier gone, Michigan would be down to one scholarship quarterback, which is clearly unacceptable.

As of now, there are no QB commits in the 2011 class, and at this late date, I suspect the best Hoke could get is a mid-range three-star who will show up in August unprepared for Division I football. If Robinson transfers, we will have to live with that. But if Robinson stays, I cannot imagine that the coaches would choose to hand the job to Gardner, with an anonymous true-freshman three-star kid as his backup.

Let’s assume that Gardner would beat out Robinson in an open competition (not at all obvious to me, but I’ll run with it). You still need two guys ready to play the position. QB is hard enough to learn when you practice it full-time. I can’t imagine that Robinson would have be able to learn a new playbook, get fully prepared to back up Gardner, and have any significant amount of time left to practice other another position that he has never played before.

On top of all that, Robinson seems to want to play QB. I doubt that he would survive a whole season at running back, given his propensity for injury, and he has no history catching the ball. But even if Robinson wanted and were suited to another position, the lack of depth at QB pretty much precludes that idea.

Again: love the blog. I just wonder what on earth you were thinking when you suggested a position switch for Denard. It seems to me the world’s most impractical idea.

Best regards, Marc

Here’s my thought process on the matter…

Denard is an excellent runner. He’s a mediocre thrower and I’m not sure he has the ability to play quarterback in an offense that’s something other than an option offense where he’s a frequent running threat.  His mechanics are iffy, his decision making is iffy, and his 62.5% completion percentage belies his scattershot arm.  There’s a frustrating lack of accuracy on short throws from Robinson that often prevents his receivers from doing much with the ball once it hits their hands – and that’s to say One could point to Roy Roundtree’s frustrating drops – especially in the second half of the season – as a reason that Robinson’s completion percentage should be higher, but I would argue that Robinson’s running ability created a significant amount of wide open, easy catches (see Terrence Robinson’s catch against UConn, Roundtree’s touchdown against Mississippi State, and Roundtree’s long touchdown against Illinois for just a few examples).

I don’t think I said this in the other day’s post, but I expect that Brady Hoke will recruit one or more quarterbacks in the Class of 2011. They probably won’t be top-tier guys, but they’ll be quarterbacks nonetheless. That would leave Devin Gardner, perhaps Tate Forcier (if he’s reinstated), and a freshman or two.

I believe Gardner is a better fit for a pro-style offense than Rodriguez’s zone read option. Gardner isn’t a great runner. I think he’s a pocket guy who can scramble. He would be great out of the shotgun, but he’s not going to break big runs like Denard, Pat White, etc. I won’t say that Rodriguez and Gardner were a mismatch, but I think Gardner would be more effective when deployed like Ohio State’s Jim Tressel uses perennial bonehead Terrelle Pryor.  So here are the steps I was suggesting Michigan should take:

1. Prepare Gardner to be the starter.
2. Bring in a freshman or two and see if they can handle being the backup.
3. Move Denard to RB or WR. Create a package for him to be the “Wildcat QB” or just let him get a few reps at QB in case of an emergency. And if people get hurt ahead of him, he could always move back to QB in a Paul Thompson (ex-Oklahoma QB/WR) or Justin Siller (Purdue QB/RB) type of way.

I don’t think Denard is as injury-prone as you suggested, although I do think he’s injury-prone for a quarterback and was asked to run too much. He got his shoulder dinged up, but the main reason that mattered was because he was playing quarterback. A minor shoulder injury isn’t a big deal for a RB because he doesn’t have to throw. And Denard did bang up his hip and knee, but I would guess a majority of running backs get dinged up throughout the year. They were all pretty minor injuries, and I don’t think they would have been as big of a deal if Denard wasn’t a QB and touching the ball on 100% of the plays.

It’s unclear whether Robinson has the ability to play wide receiver, which requires precise route-running and good hand-eye coordinator.  Quarterbacks usually have pretty good hands, and with Robinson’s speed, I don’t doubt that he could play receiver, at least the college level.  And he’s already essentially a running back at times; we’ve seen his patience in waiting for blocks to develop, his ability to outrun or outmaneuver defenders, and his ability to accelerate through the hole.  Receiver might be a huge question mark, but I have no doubt that Robinson could be an outstanding running back at the college level.  I see no discernible difference between Robinson and Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson – one is listed at 6’0″, 193 lbs. and the other is 5’11”, 191 lbs. – who seems to be doing rather well for himself.

Like I said, it’s partially dependent on whom Hoke can recruit to play QB. If he can’t recruit someone for the class of 2011 and Tate Forcier doesn’t return, then Denard surely has to stay at quarterback. But I agree that Denard does want to play quarterback, and there’s something to be said for that. I just also think that Denard’s NFL future depends on his versatility, and playing RB or WR might prepare him more for his future. Guys who convert from QB in college to another position in the NFL generally aren’t anything more than role players in the NFL, although there are a few exceptions (Josh Cribbs, Antwaan Randle-El, etc.). There are guys out there like Julian Edelman, Brad Smith, and Bert Emanuel, but I don’t think many superstar college players want to be the next Bert Emanuel.

None of this is to say that I dislike Denard Robinson or that I want him to transfer.  His leadership, on-field demeanor, effort, and talent are unquestionable.  I hope he remains at Michigan for two more years, Brady Hoke can use him effectively, and Robinson goes on to a long and illustrious football career.  If his goal is to be an outstanding college quarterback, win a lot of games, and re-insert himself into the Heisman race, then it might be in Robinson’s best interest to play at a different school.  But if his goal is to maximize his effectiveness and begin a transition to a position that is more likely to get him to the NFL, it wouldn’t be a bad idea for him to become a running back.

Mailbag: Will Rich Rodriguez return in 2011?

Frustrated.

Dear Magnus,

I’m a long time reader, first time writer.

I’d like to know if a) you think Rodriguez will be fired and b) you think he should be fired.  Please keep your response to 10,000 words or less.

Thanks,

Matt

Thanks for the e-mail, Matt.

These are difficult questions to answer, but I’m just a blogger, so my opinion really doesn’t matter.  So what the hell, let’s go for it.

Do I think that Rodriguez will be fired?  To put it bluntly, yes.  I think the din of disapproval has grown too loud.  People expected more when he was hired, and they expected it faster.  To the vast majority, THIS IS MICHIGAN, and Lloyd Carr couldn’t possibly have left the cupboard this bare.  And to an extent, they’re right.  I have a hard time believing that a Lloyd Carr-coached team would have wandered through a season with as little of a clue about how to play defense as this 2010 squad has, and the mind boggling amount of attrition over the past few years probably could have been stemmed in some way.  How?  I don’t know.  But other programs have gone through coaching changes without losing 17 players in their first three recruiting classes (2008-2010) like Rodriguez has, and that’s not counting the droves who were already in Ann Arbor and were subsequently driven off by Rodriguez’s rules, conditioning, or attitude.

Athletic director David Brandon has been publicly supportive for the most part, and I think he’s done a good job of standing by Rodriguez.  I don’t think Brandon had his mind made up when he was hired that Rodriguez would be gone after 2010, but he has probably reached that conclusion over the past few months.  The 0-9 record against Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State might have been the nail in the coffin for Rodriguez, who lost all of those games handily in 2010.  As I said in my post the other day, the 7-5 record this season was what I expected.  But just because Michigan people expected that season doesn’t mean that they’ll accept it.

Do I think Rodriguez should be fired?  The answer to that is a little murkier.  With even a halfway decent defense, this team could have been 9-3 or 10-2.  Wisconsin and Ohio State were tanks this year; Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan State were all fairly beatable, in my opinion.  If David Brandon sat down Rodriguez and said, “Look, we’re going to hire this particular guy to run a 4-3 (or 3-4 or 4-2-5 or even 3-3-5) defense, and you will leave him alone to do his own thing,” then that might be the difference.  But should an athletic director really have to do that?  If Brandon has to tell Rodriguez what defense to run, then Brandon might as well trade in his suit and tie for a whistle and a headset.  The defense was bound to be bad because of all the youth, but you can’t tell me that it had to be this bad.  Not 109th in total defense and 102nd in scoring defense.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s Harbaugh or bust.  I don’t want Brady Hoke just because “He’s a Michigan man.”  Les Miles’ road to Ann Arbor has essentially been blocked.  I don’t want a first-time head coach like Gus Malzahn, the offensive coordinator from Auburn (who would likely face some of the same resistance Rodriguez has).  Michigan shouldn’t hire some guy just because that guy’s name happens to not be Rich Rodriguez.

If Harbaugh balks, I think Michigan ought to keep Rodriguez and go after a proven defensive coordinator.  I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of bringing in West Virginia’s Jeff Casteel, who might be out of a job if WVU head coach Bill Stewart’s rumored retirement comes to fruition.  But whoever the new coordinator would be, he would have to be given some autonomy over the defense.

I know that’s not an extremely definitive answer, but without knowing Harbaugh’s intentions or the future of Casteel (among other moving parts), it’s difficult to make a decision right this moment.

Coaching Dispersion Amongst Big Ten Teams

There was a comment left in the Mailbag post about Rich Roriguez keeping his job regarding the dispersion of coaches on Michigan’s team.  Commenter TriFloyd brought up an issue with the fact that Michigan has 5 offensive coaches, 4 defensive coaches (one of whom doubles as the special teams coordinator), and a head coach that concentrates heavily on offense.  What better way to address this potential imbalance than seeing how other Big Ten teams do it?

Illinois: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Indiana: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Iowa: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Michigan: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Michigan State: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Minnesota: 4 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Northwestern: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Notre Dame: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Ohio State: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Penn State: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach
Purdue: 4 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 special teams, 1 head coach
Wisconsin: 5 offensive, 4 defensive, 1 head coach

Conclusion: Yeah, everyone does it this way.  With the exception of Purdue and Minnesota, every team in the Big Ten has five coaches dedicated to offense, four dedicated to defense, and a head coach.  Purdue has the luxury of not devoting a specific coach to the tight ends, since the TE position is virtually non-existent in their offense.  Minnesota is in the unique position of having only nine coaches right now, since head coach Tim Brewster was fired a couple weeks ago; prior to Jeff Horton’s promotion to head coach, he was an offensive coach, too.  So the Golden Gophers are essentially in the same boat as all but Purdue.

Those head coaches lean in different directions.  For example, Rodriguez leans heavily toward offense.  I would assume that Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern spends more time with the defense, considering he’s a former linebacker.  Joe Paterno just leans kinda forward because he’s 114 years old and gravity does that to you after awhile.

I failed to research this adequately, but in skimming the coaches, it seemed that any designated special teams coordinators also leaned toward being defensive coaches.  Except for field goals, you mostly want guys who will fly around and hit things going at a high rate of speed; punt coverage teams, kickoff teams, and kickoff return teams all have to have guys with no regard for their own health.  Offensive linemen are too slow to be involved in 75% of special teams play; wide receivers typically aren’t big hitters; and quarterbacks don’t play special teams unless they’re the holder for field goals and extra points.  That leaves tight ends, running backs, and all manner of defensive players to fill out the vast majority of special teams units.  So it makes sense that the coaches who work with those defensive players would be put in a position to coach special teams.

The fact is that offense takes more time to develop.  It’s about timing, working together, and execution.  Every unit has to work at the same speed or the hole closes before the running back gets there, the quarterback doesn’t get to his drop in time, the wide receiver makes his cut too early, the running back doesn’t give his blocks time to develop, etc.  Defense is mostly about effort, reaction speed, and flying to the football.  Offensive players need more coaching.  I realize that may not be the case with this team right this minute – and it might have behooved Coach Rodriguez to devote one more coach to defense this year with this many freshmen playing – but it’s not like Rodriguez is doing something crazy here.

In summary, having “too many offensive coaches” is a red herring.  It’s the same everywhere.  I’ve seen this issue brought up several times, not just in TriFloyd’s comment, so I thought it was worth addressing.  Look elsewhere for reasons that this team isn’t succeeding.

Mailbag: How important is motivation?

Hey, Man. Are the “motivational powers” of coaches overrated? How significant is this aspect of coaching compared to game-planning, recruiting and whatever else it is that you guys do?


Thanks,
Andrew

I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly think the idea of motivation is overrated.  In my experience, motivation comes from within.  True competitors don’t need an inspirational sermon or pregame speech to get hyped for the beginning of a game.  Kids are either ready or they’re not.  Besides, by the time a team runs out of the tunnel, comes out of the locker room, listens to the national anthem, waits for the coin toss, etc., all that adrenaline from the pregame speech seems to wear off.

The more important aspect of motivation comes on a daily basis when it comes time for practice.  Even some of the better game-time competitors need to be inspired to practice hard, condition hard, use the correct footwork, etc.  Coaches play a lot of mind games during the week, not only to get kids prepared for the game, but to prime them for competition.

Personally, I don’t like to lie to kids.  If a kid is doing something wrong, I’ll tell him.  If he’s not good enough to get on the field, he needs to know that.  It’s not that he doesn’t have a chance to get on the field, but my job is to help win football games, and there’s no way to keep everyone happy.  For example, I had a kid yesterday ask me if he could get some time during defensive practice.  I told him no.  He asked why, and I said, “It’s not in the game plan.  You haven’t shown us that you can work hard consistently in practice, and that carries over to games.  You take plays off.”  During scout team a little later, I tried to give him a breather by sending in another player.  He didn’t want to come out.  When I asked why, he said, “I need the reps.  You say that I don’t go hard in practice, so I’m not going to take plays off.”  I don’t know that yesterday’s practice will turn him into a star or even a starter, but if nothing else, he played harder and gave our offensive players a better look.

There’s also a lot to be said for positive reinforcement.  I’ve worked with coaches before whose lone tactic is to scream at players who screw up.  They want to terrify those kids into thinking that mistakes are unacceptable.  But the problem with that is that not all kids respond to being screamed at to submission.  I’ve seen kids shut down mentally from being yelled at too much.  I’ve also seen kids lose their aggressive nature because they’re afraid of making mistakes.  As a coach it’s important to know the difference between the kids who respond to yelling and the kids who respond to encouragement.

I do think that “bulletin board material” is helpful for motivating players.  Kids (and adults) really like to prove people wrong, so quotes in newspapers, rumors kids hear through the grapevine, actions from previous years’ games, etc. are all effective for keeping kids focused.  In the fourth quarter of a football game, kids still latch onto the idea of beating the player across from them because of something that was said or done previously.  When an opponent or the public in general shortchanges your team, players, or program, that can be a very unifying event.

To summarize up to this point, I think the idea of motivation in the form of pregame speeches and hokey stuff like that is overrated.  If your team is full of kids who aren’t intrinsically motivated to beat an opponent, then no amount of hype is going to overcome that emptiness in their competitive soul.  The key is to keep kids confident and excited throughout the week, so that they’re ready to perform on Friday night or Saturday afternoon.

As for how motivation compares to other aspects of coaching, I think they’re all pretty equal parts of the pie.  Game planning is extremely important, but the best game plan can’t be executed if the players aren’t confident in themselves.  Scouting is extremely important, because we need to know what plays have been shown from which personnel groupings and formations.  Discipline is important because teams can’t be successful if kids don’t realize that their decisions and actions affect every one of their teammates. 

I can’t speak for recruiting much because I’m a high school coach, but I do believe that’s one of the most important aspects of college recruiting.  The old saying goes, “It’s Jimmys and Joes, not X’s and O’s.”  And there’s another relevant saying: “You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.”  Coaches don’t simply need great players to be successful (ask Boise State), but they need solid players who will be disciplined, stay within the system, and work hard to achieve a common goal.  As a high school coach, recruiting is a non-factor.  For college coaches, it is perhaps the most important aspect of the job.