Posted on Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 9:44 a.m.
Michigan defensive coordinator Greg Mattison: 'It's not scheme'
By AnnArbor.com Staff
Michigan defensive coordinator Greg Mattison sat down with ESPN analyst -- and his former boss at Florida -- Urban Meyer.
How, Meyer asked, will Michigan regain its reputation as a strong defensive team?
"It’s not scheme," Mattison said. "And I think a lot of people think if we go in and have this scheme, that scheme. Coming from the (Baltimore) Ravens, I got all the scheme you want. That’s not the answer. The answer is starting from day one, every little fundamental that has to be taught. And that’s how great defenses become great again."
Watch the full ESPN interview here.
Comments
DonAZ
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.
If he would just run the 1-1-9 scheme we'd be all set! :-)
DonAZ
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
Well ... you got me there! :-)
David Vande Bunte
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
Well, if the one defensive lineman was Ndamukong Suh...
DonAZ
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.
I'd hate to be the one defensive lineman. What would be the point?
David Vande Bunte
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
If the Nickel has 5 DBs, Dime has 6 DBs, Quarter (ie prevent defense) has 7 DBs, what would 9 be? The Susan B. Anthony defense?
Tally10
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
Mattison did not say that scheme is not important, but that, it's not scheme ( in itself ) that will return UM back to being a strong defensive unit, but fundamentals. As the players learn the fundamentals, they should be able to perform whatever the scheme may be, they can use the 4 - 3 as their base D but will make scheme adjustments depending on what the Offense employ, so they can possibly be in the 3-3-5 at times. Also I think, talent, depth and experience play a huge part in the return.
Dude
Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
Actually, he did say scheme wasn't important. He said, exactly: "It's not scheme," Mattison said. "And I think a lot of people think if we go in and have this scheme, that scheme. Coming from the (Baltimore) Ravens, I got all the scheme you want. That's not the answer. The answer is starting from day one, every little fundamental that has to be taught. And that's how great defenses become great again." "It's not scheme." "That's not the answer." "The answer is..." He flat out says scheme isn't the answer, and that fundamentals are the answer. He doesn't say fundamentals AND scheme are the answer. He says fundamentals are the answer. But it's not at all surprising that somebody around here would take a literal statement by a guy and read into it what they wanted to read into it. Bashing the old coach is too important.
heartbreakM
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
This whole notion of scheme with or without fundamentals is the root of what Michigan's problems were for the last 3 years (and maybe longer). I personally think that poor fundamentals screw up any scheme, but certain schemes lend themselves to better teamwork so long as the players know their position and play together. The D-line must take up space and occupy the O-line, so the linebackers can make plays. But if the linebackers are not taught proper pursuit angles and proper footwork, they will never overcome. Shedding blocks is important in all schemes (and conversely, the O-line must be taught how to hold their blocks and the RBs must hit their holes). A lot has been made of how "talented" the players at Michigan are (or are not) but I think fundamentals and solid play is not completely "talent" dependent and may make a team of players "overachieve". I wonder what would have happened if former coach's first defensive coordinator Shafer would have been given proper support, with years 2 and 3 of prior staff? Shafer sure did have better results at Syracuse with supposedly worse players on paper.
David Vande Bunte
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
Yes and no. Fundamentals are obviously the single most important thing you can do, but can anyone really argue that even with properly taught fundamentals, that the 3-3-5 would be an appropriate defense in the B1G, against the power running games? That 5 DBs are ever going to be able to handle MSU or Wisconsin's running backs? You have to have the right defense on the field, even if your players are superbly coached. I fully understand the back to basics message Mattison is saying, but I think completely discounting the value of the right style of defense ignores a large factor in what will lead to a much improved defense from last year. Mattison is undervaluing the importance of good scheming. Michigan suffered from lack of fundamentals AND a poor defensive strategy the last few years, and the only way to fix it entirely is to fix both aspects, not just one. Essentially, I would weight the importance of fundamentals/proper scheme differently than Mattison, I think they should be more balanced out, rather than state its just fundamentals and scheme isn't important. It sounds like Mattison would go 80/20 or 90/10 fundamentals/scheme, based on those comments...whereas I would probably go more 50/50 or 60/40.
Dude
Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 6:09 p.m.
By the way, TCU uses a 4-2-5 defense. That's 5 DBs, just like the 3-3-5. Do you remember the Rose Bowl last year?
Dude
Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
I love how you talk about Mattison and how much he knows and how he "gets it"... until he says something that goes against all the Rich Rod bashing you've been doing in the last year. Mattison himself tells you scheme isn't important, and you still say the 3-3-5 won't work in the Big Ten. Get over it. The 3-3-5 didn't work for us and our personnel. It shouldn't have been implemented or coached by a man (Greg Robinson) who had never coached it before. But some ignorant perception that there is something about the conference itself that would prevent even a well-manned, well-coached 3-3-5 from working is absurd.
DonAZ
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
Don't you suppose Mattison knows that? That's my point ... what he knows is something different from what he says.
David Vande Bunte
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
Oh, no doubt. I fully understand WHY he would say that, his players are listening, and he was using it as a motivational tool...but it's also only half of the problem.
DonAZ
Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
I think the audience for Mattison's comments was his players. I think the "fundamentals" drumbeat is incessant right now because those were ignored to such a degree the last few years. And my guess is some of the younger players are arriving on campus lacking in some of those fundamentals. So it's "fundamentals" 24 x 7 ... BUT I have a sneaking suspicion Mattison is incorporating defensive scheme training in ... but perhaps not calling it that. I wonder if kids nowadays put too much emphasis on scheme as being the end-all. So I wonder if some of this is breaking the kids of that. Scheme is not thrown out with the bathwater ... just back-burnered until the kids understand the first thing, which is fundamentals. My sense ... just my two cents.