LJ;567171 wrote:So you are telling me that a team that is short on DB's that is running a defense that is dependent on on having exceptional DB's wouldn't be any better running some type of traditional defense? riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

WebFire;567172 wrote:Don't worry, we'll switch to the 4-3 and beat OSU next week. Right LJ?

LJ;567175 wrote:What a stupid fucking comment. The defense would be better as a 4-3, but it wouldn't become a world beater. That is on recruiting. But UM probably wouldn't be getting tore up for 6.8 YPC right now

LJ;567175 wrote:What a stupid fucking comment. The defense would be better as a 4-3, but it wouldn't become a world beater. That is on recruiting. But UM probably wouldn't be getting tore up for 6.8 YPC right now

WebFire;567185 wrote:So recruiting is to blame?

LJ;567188 wrote:They could be average running a good traditional defense

WebFire;567189 wrote:6 guys on the line and a ...touchdown!

WebFire;567192 wrote:I beg to differ. The linebackers and DBs are just awful. Demens will be good but he needs experience.

LJ;567193 wrote:You really don't understand how the 3-3-5 scheme works do you?

LJ;567195 wrote:DB's are awful! I know, let's run a defense that completely relys on good DB's!

BRILLIANT!!!

WebFire;567196 wrote:Yes asswipe. Give it up.

The 3-3-5 SUCKS. But switching to a 4-3 does not make magic. What the fuck is so hard for you to understand?

LJ;567201 wrote:Where did I say it would make magic? It would help them at least be an average defense.

se-alum;567208 wrote:I really think UM's defense is just void of talent, no matter what defensive scheme they run. To me, what you call a defense isn't that important. It's the depth and talent that matters. Look at OSU. You may call their defense a 4-3, but the majority of the time they run a 4-2-5 or a 3-3-5 with Nathan Williams standing up either off the edge or up the middle.

se-alum;567208 wrote:I really think UM's defense is just void of talent, no matter what defensive scheme they run. To me, what you call a defense isn't that important. It's the depth and talent that matters. Look at OSU. You may call their defense a 4-3, but the majority of the time they run a 4-2-5 or a 3-3-5 with Nathan Williams standing up either off the edge or up the middle.

LJ;567214 wrote:But that is the problem with RR. He recruits on Defense just to recruit. He has NEVER had the guys to run a 3-3-5. The problem is you need amazing safetys who can come up and play LB when needed in the run game. He has never had those guys, never will. To play with teams like Wisky, Iowa, MSU, OSU, etc having 5 DB's isn't going to help. And when Williams stands up it's either a 3-4-4 (he is the 4th LB tech or the star being the 4th) and sometimes a 3-3-5 in PASSING situations.

LJ;567214 wrote:But that is the problem with RR. He recruits on Defense just to recruit. He has NEVER had the guys to run a 3-3-5. The problem is you need amazing safetys who can come up and play LB when needed in the run game. He has never had those guys, never will. To play with teams like Wisky, Iowa, MSU, OSU, etc having 5 DB's isn't going to help. And when Williams stands up it's either a 3-4-4 (he is the 4th LB tech or the star being the 4th) and sometimes a 3-3-5 in PASSING situations.

se-alum;567224 wrote:I think we can agree, if you have talent, you can run whatever the hell defense you want. OSU recruits talent and molds their defense to their personnel. RR HAS to take this approach(if he happens to get another year) if he wants to be successful. Their defense is so far away from being decent, it doesn't matter what they do. Basically, they don't even have a 1st string defense right now, let alone depth.

WebFire;567232 wrote:I can honestly say Mike Martin is the only player on the entire Michigan defense that would even crack the 2-deep at OSU.