Defensive adjustments

[Robsnotes4u]

No doubt. Different conversation in my opinion. I wouldn’t argue that any of our DBs are as athletic as those guys. But he was arguing against our simple measurables. His initial post was that our DBs are all “5’9 from Chinook.” Which I think anyone would agree is really dumb, no?

I think the argument could be made that you could go find more preps with good measurables who play in highly competitive leagues in places like California and Arizona who are more game ready by the time they get to college than you could in Montana, especially at a position like corner. Not that you can't find those kids in Montana, they are just less plentiful or take more time to develop both from a technique standpoint as well as physically.

As someone who watches a fair amount of big time high school football, I see a lot of these really talented kids winding up at places that have no business getting them, places UM should easily be able to out recruit.

Have to agree. My brother-in-law while living in Midland, Tx use to go watch the Permian Panthers, where his wife was a chearleader in her high school years, then moved to Southlake, TX, where my niece went to school at Southlake Carroll during the Chase Daniel’s days. Being from Montana, he would say the football was nuts. When you have that level of quarterbacks they do, in these bigger areas, you have to have great dbs

 

[GrizRealist]

I think the argument could be made that you could go find more preps with good measurables who play in highly competitive leagues in places like California and Arizona who are more game ready by the time they get to college than you could in Montana, especially at a position like corner. Not that you can't find those kids in Montana, they are just less plentiful or take more time to develop both from a technique standpoint as well as physically.

As someone who watches a fair amount of big time high school football, I see a lot of these really talented kids winding up at places that have no business getting them, places UM should easily be able to out recruit.

Have to agree. My brother-in-law while living in Midland, Tx use to go watch the Permian Panthers, where his wife was a chearleader in her high school years, then moved to Southlake, TX, where my niece went to school at Southlake Carroll during the Chase Daniel’s days. Being from Montana, he would say the football was nuts. When you have that level of quarterbacks they do, in these bigger areas, you have to have great dbs

There is a contingent of folks who strongly believe the roster should be heavily rooted with Montana high school athletes, so much so that they see preference over out of state athlete's. UM has been lucky over the years to have had some great players come out of the Montana high school system. I think UM should still take the best of the best out of Montana, but I am also a firm believer that the roster should be rooted with whoever is going to form the best collective team and win football games. Maybe that is 30 Montana kids, maybe its 5. You win football games by putting the best kids on the field, regardless of where they come from. It just so happens that Montana high school football is not very competitive in comparison to some of the other places in the western footprint.

 

[Missoula223]

Have to agree. My brother-in-law while living in Midland, Tx use to go watch the Permian Panthers, where his wife was a chearleader in her high school years, then moved to Southlake, TX, where my niece went to school at Southlake Carroll during the Chase Daniel’s days. Being from Montana, he would say the football was nuts. When you have that level of quarterbacks they do, in these bigger areas, you have to have great dbs

There is a contingent of folks who strongly believe the roster should be heavily rooted with Montana high school athletes, so much so that they see preference over out of state athlete's. UM has been lucky over the years to have had some great players come out of the Montana high school system. I think UM should still take the best of the best out of Montana, but I am also a firm believer that the roster should be rooted with whoever is going to form the best collective team and win football games. Maybe that is 30 Montana kids, maybe its 5. You win football games by putting the best kids on the field, regardless of where they come from. It just so happens that Montana high school football is not very competitive in comparison to some of the other places in the western footprint.

Yeah I’m completely with you. I don’t think that anyone would argue Montana football is elite by any means. What I would be curious about is the amount of the top MT recruits that MT wins now as opposed to 10 years ago. Without doing any research, I would guess that 10 years ago, Montana would win the top 90% of MT recruits. I don’t know that thats the case anymore. If you take 5 Montana kids a year, and they’re not the top 5 in Montana, that significantly dilutes the quality of your roster over 4 years.

With all that being said, the goal should be the best players that you can get regardless of location, and I think Montana should be fully capable of both winning over MT recruits, and competing with mountain west schools in recruiting hot beds.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I think the argument could be made that you could go find more preps with good measurables who play in highly competitive leagues in places like California and Arizona who are more game ready by the time they get to college than you could in Montana, especially at a position like corner. Not that you can't find those kids in Montana, they are just less plentiful or take more time to develop both from a technique standpoint as well as physically.

As someone who watches a fair amount of big time high school football, I see a lot of these really talented kids winding up at places that have no business getting them, places UM should easily be able to out recruit.

Have to agree. My brother-in-law while living in Midland, Tx use to go watch the Permian Panthers, where his wife was a chearleader in her high school years, then moved to Southlake, TX, where my niece went to school at Southlake Carroll during the Chase Daniel’s days. Being from Montana, he would say the football was nuts. When you have that level of quarterbacks they do, in these bigger areas, you have to have great dbs

Totally. And it goes both ways. When there are great DBs, you have to have great QBs if you want to pass at all. I also agree with the poster who mentioned that a lot of these kids go to places that have no business signing them. If we aren't going after them, we need to try. Just my opinion.

Quick edit: Here's a 2019 article that breaks some things down.

https://www.bannersociety.com/2019/8/14/20747379/college-football-players-map-where-from

Of course, it focuses on top recruits that we don't have a chance at getting, but the second-tier ones in those areas who played against those top recruits could be where we could focus more attention for QB/DB/RB/WR. Again, not 100% focus, just maybe more. I think a lot of these kids could be early contributors at UM but end up at places like Mt. SAC JC or Goldenwest JC. That kind of dovetails with leaning into the portal to use it to our advantage. (Sorry. That was anything but a "quick" edit.)

 

[Grizfan-24]

I just don't have the band width this week to write any thing substantive, but the form and function of the defense is different and it has been that way from the first snap of the season against Butler. They had a really bad week against NAU, but I wouldn't put that wholly on the defense as a whole but more of a one off.

As the coaches have attempted to create a bit more complex coverage scheme, it is going to have some hiccups. The adjustments last week fixed some of the communication and interchange issues that caused problems against NAU. When you face teams who run a lot of motion to balanced or unbalanced receiver formations, you'll have to roll your coverage one direction or the other to help account for the new alignment. That in most cases requires a change in coverage AND alignment when you are running a new coverage philosophy, that can cause some headaches. When you run a lot more combo coverage, one or two free as full zone it puts a premium on pre-snap identification, where the threats are coming from and communication in play. There are going to be issues and we saw that in small amounts prior to NAU and it blew up against NAU.

Under the older model, Montana zeroed out its coverage and it made adjustments to motion and alignments a lot easier. Players knew how to adjust, but for 90% of the snaps it was more about knowing who you had and being in the right alignment and leverage.

The outcome this year is that I do think they designed the adjustments from the back to front and not the other way around. Not commonly how you go about scheme adjustments, but the clear objective was that Bradford wanted to fix the alignment and coverage issues that caused problems the past two years in multiple ways. That roll out has been pretty successful, even though there have been some issues (pressure, coverage mistakes) that continue to flag the group.

The benefit is that by restructuring the coverage and using 1 and 2 free concepts as well as some cover 2/3/4 stuff, you are going to have better positioned secondary players to make plays on the ball where they can break off their own coverage to help out on. However if you want to reduce the risk of coverage screw ups as your secondary is getting used to the mixed coverage concepts, you blitz less and I think at times it has shown how little pressure they have gotten on the QB with 4 and 5 man pressure. Yet the outcome as we saw against Idaho State was that they didn't conceded a lot vertically, and were really sound in the middle of the field. That wasn't something we saw a lot of last year in coverage.

There is a lot more space to run different fronts and stunts than what we have seen to date. There are things that they can do and haven't shown that would increase the effectiveness of their pressure, but I think concessions have been made to make help the secondary to develop better coverage fundamentals.

 

[Hoops Translator]

Again, only 2 of our starting DBs are under 6 feet tall. Walker has been a starter for like 3 years and Meyer is second on the team in tackles despite splitting time with graves. So those are the two that you have issues with? Because Cotton passes the eye test. Graves certainly passes the eye test. Fouch passes the eye test. And Gradney passes the eye test. What measurables do you think DBs should have at the FCS level?

Alabamas starting corners are Kool-Aid Mckinstry who’s 6’1 195 and Terrion Arnold who’s 6’0 196.
Trevin is 6’0 188. Corbin is 183. Do you expect Montana to have corners that are an inch taller and 10 pounds heavier? Just like a premier SEC program?

Alabamas safeties are Jaylen Key who’s 6’2 210 and Caleb Downs who’s 6’0 203. Cotton is 6’1 204, Graves is 6’3 210, Fouch is 6’2 207, and Meyer is 5’9 185. So the only one not comparable to the safeties at the UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA is Meyer who beat out the most attractive safety we have in terms measurables.

I hate to say it but your post is quite frankly really stupid and not true. If you’re going to complain, complain about something that has even the slightest bit of validity

Good post. You are starting to post like me. I knew you had potential. Ha.

Translation: The force is strong with this one. Join me, young padawan, and we will spread our ilk across eGriz like the plague. Together, we will rule eGriz and achieve the power that I have wet dreams about.

 

[The.Real.2506]

Have to agree. My brother-in-law while living in Midland, Tx use to go watch the Permian Panthers, where his wife was a chearleader in her high school years, then moved to Southlake, TX, where my niece went to school at Southlake Carroll during the Chase Daniel’s days. Being from Montana, he would say the football was nuts. When you have that level of quarterbacks they do, in these bigger areas, you have to have great dbs

There is a contingent of folks who strongly believe the roster should be heavily rooted with Montana high school athletes, so much so that they see preference over out of state athlete's. UM has been lucky over the years to have had some great players come out of the Montana high school system. I think UM should still take the best of the best out of Montana, but I am also a firm believer that the roster should be rooted with whoever is going to form the best collective team and win football games. Maybe that is 30 Montana kids, maybe its 5. You win football games by putting the best kids on the field, regardless of where they come from. It just so happens that Montana high school football is not very competitive in comparison to some of the other places in the western footprint.

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

 

[AZGrizFan]

There is a contingent of folks who strongly believe the roster should be heavily rooted with Montana high school athletes, so much so that they see preference over out of state athlete's. UM has been lucky over the years to have had some great players come out of the Montana high school system. I think UM should still take the best of the best out of Montana, but I am also a firm believer that the roster should be rooted with whoever is going to form the best collective team and win football games. Maybe that is 30 Montana kids, maybe its 5. You win football games by putting the best kids on the field, regardless of where they come from. It just so happens that Montana high school football is not very competitive in comparison to some of the other places in the western footprint.

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

Does anyone have any hard evidence to support that theory? Or is it just that…a made up theory? Because 15 years ago it was feasible when those top 4-5 were going to Montana schools…now they’re going to Boise, Oregon State, Army, Nebraska, NDSU, etc. MSU and UM are now splitting #’s 5 or 6-15…

I for one don’t give two shits where the players come from. I’ve watched a shiteload of HS football here in Texas and watched kids who would absolutely steamroll 75% of the players CURRENTLY on the Griz end up at D-II, D-III and NAIA schools for lack of better offers.

There are hundreds of 3* athletes in Texas that DON’T go P5 or even G5. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

 

[GrizRealist]

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

Does anyone have any hard evidence to support that theory? Or is it just that…a made up theory? Because 15 years ago it was feasible when those top 4-5 were going to Montana schools…now they’re going to Boise, Oregon State, Army, Nebraska, NDSU, etc. MSU and UM are now splitting #’s 5 or 6-15…

I for one don’t give two poop where the players come from. I’ve watched a poop of HS football here in Texas and watched kids who would absolutely steamroll 75% of the players CURRENTLY on the Griz end up at D-II, D-III and NAIA schools for lack of better offers.

There are hundreds of 3* athletes in Texas that DON’T go P5 or even G5. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

This right here. Kids like this playing in recruiting hotbeds get overlooked all the time because of wealth of talent around them that really dilutes the pool of lower level prospects. I too would agree that I don't care where kids come from. If you gave me a choice of a national championship with no MT kids on the roster or just an average team filled with Montana kids, I chose the former. Every time.

 

[Griz#64]

With the wide Line splits by ISU, I was surprised that they were able to slow down our blitzes. However the QB was able to complete his throws with people in his face, .

 

[GrizRealist]

There is a contingent of folks who strongly believe the roster should be heavily rooted with Montana high school athletes, so much so that they see preference over out of state athlete's. UM has been lucky over the years to have had some great players come out of the Montana high school system. I think UM should still take the best of the best out of Montana, but I am also a firm believer that the roster should be rooted with whoever is going to form the best collective team and win football games. Maybe that is 30 Montana kids, maybe its 5. You win football games by putting the best kids on the field, regardless of where they come from. It just so happens that Montana high school football is not very competitive in comparison to some of the other places in the western footprint.

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

All that says to me is the support base is content with mediocrity. UM football is not a charity for former MT high school football players. Recruit and sign the best players possible, Period. Shouldn't matter where they're from or what their last name is. I also have mixed opinions on taking a bunch of developmental guys, that are 3+ years of development away from being able to play. College football has become much less developmental with the transfer portal. Roster management is absolutely critical and the goal should be to continuously improve it through calculated attrition, the portal and prep recruits.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

All that says to me is the support base is content with mediocrity. UM football is not a charity for former MT high school football players. Recruit and sign the best players possible, Period. Shouldn't matter where they're from or what their last name is. I also have mixed opinions on taking a bunch of developmental guys, that are 3+ years of development away from being able to play. College football has become much less developmental with the transfer portal. Roster management is absolutely critical and the goal should be to continuously improve it through calculated attrition, the portal and prep recruits.

Interesting. Is there a "PRIME" example of this out there?

 

[The.Real.2506]

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

Does anyone have any hard evidence to support that theory? Or is it just that…a made up theory? Because 15 years ago it was feasible when those top 4-5 were going to Montana schools…now they’re going to Boise, Oregon State, Army, Nebraska, NDSU, etc. MSU and UM are now splitting #’s 5 or 6-15…

I for one don’t give two poop where the players come from. I’ve watched a poop of HS football here in Texas and watched kids who would absolutely steamroll 75% of the players CURRENTLY on the Griz end up at D-II, D-III and NAIA schools for lack of better offers.

There are hundreds of 3* athletes in Texas that DON’T go P5 or even G5. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Well the only analogy I can give is MSU in the early 90's under the "coach who shall not be named", he cut ties with most MT high schools and felt that there were no players in the state that could play DI. At the same time UM got the whole of the best MT players including a foothold in Butte that has not gone away to this day. It took 20 years for MSU to dig itself out of that hole.

I agree that where a player is from shouldn't make a difference, but I also think that players from MT that are capable of playing DI, should get the opportunity to play instate.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Does anyone have any hard evidence to support that theory? Or is it just that…a made up theory? Because 15 years ago it was feasible when those top 4-5 were going to Montana schools…now they’re going to Boise, Oregon State, Army, Nebraska, NDSU, etc. MSU and UM are now splitting #’s 5 or 6-15…

I for one don’t give two poop where the players come from. I’ve watched a poop of HS football here in Texas and watched kids who would absolutely steamroll 75% of the players CURRENTLY on the Griz end up at D-II, D-III and NAIA schools for lack of better offers.

There are hundreds of 3* athletes in Texas that DON’T go P5 or even G5. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

This right here. Kids like this playing in recruiting hotbeds get overlooked all the time because of wealth of talent around them that really dilutes the pool of lower level prospects. I too would agree that I don't care where kids come from. If you gave me a choice of a national championship with no MT kids on the roster or just an average team filled with Montana kids, I chose the former. Every time.

It’s not rocket science how UIW could literally START a program and be successful right out of the gate…

 

[The.Real.2506]

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

All that says to me is the support base is content with mediocrity. UM football is not a charity for former MT high school football players. Recruit and sign the best players possible, Period. Shouldn't matter where they're from or what their last name is. I also have mixed opinions on taking a bunch of developmental guys, that are 3+ years of development away from being able to play. College football has become much less developmental with the transfer portal. Roster management is absolutely critical and the goal should be to continuously improve it through calculated attrition, the portal and prep recruits.

I agree, there are a few kids each year from MT that can play at this level, and they should have the opportunity to stay instate. I know there are kids on both rosters that really shouldn't be there too. 40% of the roster is probably too high, but I think getting below 15-20% and you will get a lot of blowback from donors and fans which means $$.

 

[AZGrizFan]

All that says to me is the support base is content with mediocrity. UM football is not a charity for former MT high school football players. Recruit and sign the best players possible, Period. Shouldn't matter where they're from or what their last name is. I also have mixed opinions on taking a bunch of developmental guys, that are 3+ years of development away from being able to play. College football has become much less developmental with the transfer portal. Roster management is absolutely critical and the goal should be to continuously improve it through calculated attrition, the portal and prep recruits.

I agree, there are a few kids each year from MT that can play at this level, and they should have the opportunity to stay instate. I know there are kids on both rosters that really shouldn't be there too. 40% of the roster is probably too high, but I think getting below 15-20% and you will get a lot of blowback from donors and fans which means $$.

NDSU literally filled their trophy case with teams built on kids NOT from ND. THEY are the household name in FCS now, not the Griz. You telling me donors wouldn’t trade that? I’d love to meet those donors.

 

[The.Real.2506]

I agree, there are a few kids each year from MT that can play at this level, and they should have the opportunity to stay instate. I know there are kids on both rosters that really shouldn't be there too. 40% of the roster is probably too high, but I think getting below 15-20% and you will get a lot of blowback from donors and fans which means $$.

NDSU literally filled their trophy case with teams built on kids NOT from ND. THEY are the household name in FCS now, not the Griz. You telling me donors wouldn’t trade that? I’d love to meet those donors.

Thus my first post on this subject said that NDSU and SDSU can do this. They are all surrounded but bigger teams and cities so the people don't have the same state loyalty. When I was in Brookings this year I saw as much Nebraska (yuk) and Iowa (even worse) gear as I did Jackrabbit gear in the local Walmart.


The donors will take a championship however they can get it, but what they really want is "Super Dave II" to hold up to everyone.

 

[GrizRealist]

I agree, there are a few kids each year from MT that can play at this level, and they should have the opportunity to stay instate. I know there are kids on both rosters that really shouldn't be there too. 40% of the roster is probably too high, but I think getting below 15-20% and you will get a lot of blowback from donors and fans which means $$.

NDSU literally filled their trophy case with teams built on kids NOT from ND. THEY are the household name in FCS now, not the Griz. You telling me donors wouldn’t trade that? I’d love to meet those donors.

This is my line of thinking as well. Why would someone financially invested in the success of the UM program want the program to do things that would be detrimental to it's success? Like, I get it. It would be awesome if we could compete for titles on the backs of kids from the state of Montana, but that is not a reality.

It might be time for the program (Donors, AD, Bobby, etc) to decide on what their priorities are, because ramming a square peg through a round hole and expecting elite FCS football is not going to work. Might be time to face the realities and do what needs to be done to build a championship level roster, and that might mean less Montana kids getting scholarship offers. If you want to compete with the best, you have to do what the best do.

 

[Missoula223]

I think both UM and MSU would have problems with their support base if they only had 5 Montana kids on the roster. NDSU and SDSU can do this but I don't think we can. I think we are usually looking at somewhere between 20--40. It might get harder, seems like a lot of kids this year have had offers to go to FBS programs.

Does anyone have any hard evidence to support that theory? Or is it just that…a made up theory? Because 15 years ago it was feasible when those top 4-5 were going to Montana schools…now they’re going to Boise, Oregon State, Army, Nebraska, NDSU, etc. MSU and UM are now splitting #’s 5 or 6-15…

I for one don’t give two poop where the players come from. I’ve watched a poop of HS football here in Texas and watched kids who would absolutely steamroll 75% of the players CURRENTLY on the Griz end up at D-II, D-III and NAIA schools for lack of better offers.

There are hundreds of 3* athletes in Texas that DON’T go P5 or even G5. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Not disagreeing with you here. But usually there is a reason why. Texas, LA, and Florida are the most recruited places nationwide. It’s very rare, not impossible, but very rare that a kid simply goes unrecruited by a school that is for their skill set. Meaning if a kid is a G5 caliber player, he typically is recruited and goes to a G5 school. If he ends up going FCS or even D2, there is usually a reason for it.

 

[Robsnotes4u]

With the wide Line splits by ISU, I was surprised that they were able to slow down our blitzes. However the QB was able to complete his throws with people in his face, .

And he is a freshman, correct? What happens with a seasoned QB, like this weekend?