Of Coordinators and Such

[The Six]

I would be really surprised if either was a name any of us had read anywhere prior to the announcement. I base this on Chizik's complete distaste for media of all types. I don't think there are good leads being fed to the media so if you "hear" something from someone who covers Auburn, I would assume that's smokescreen for the most part. In the end, it probably won't be people most of us have ever heard of.

I'm still not sure what direction the offense is going. Think about it from the outside for a second. What are Auburn's strengths on offense going into next year? Answer: one good WR, one good TE who is a team player, and some interesting talent at RB. The biggest question marks are offensive line (we simply don't know how good or not good they will be) and quarterback (no one can honestly say they have any idea who is in the lead going into spring practice). OL appears to have promise based on recruiting and assuming Grimes would be a part of the next plan (though remember OCs often want to bring in people and line is a big issue - see Nall vs. Franklin 2008). Auburn's had solid line play and has put OLs in the NFL for years so being able to attract that isn't a big issue I'd think. QB is another story. You can look at 2011 a couple of ways. Either Trotter and Moseley really were close and that's why they proved to be virtually interchangeable in the end and Frazier's arm just hasn't come around or the previous regimes idea of QB development was running them through a lot of drills waiting for something good to emerge which never really did on a consistent basis. Either way, and OC who can develop and recruit at the QB position would be high on the wish list I would think.

As for DC, we all know where the major deficiencies lie. Auburn needs a difference maker at MLB in the 4-3 scheme (every 4-3 team does) and they need more consistent play from the DBs. Personally, I'd like to see Auburn "attack" more on defense instead of the "ready react" defense that's been favored the past three seasons.

My thoughts. What are yours?

[AU_Tiger_2000]

I just hope we get a great recruiter in at OC.  Not to attract new kids, his biggest recruiting coups this year would be convincing Blake, Lutzy, and O-Mac to hang around for another season.

[Snaggletiger]

I just hope we get a great recruiter in at OC.  Not to attract new kids, his biggest recruiting coups this year would be convincing Blake, Lutzy, and O-Mac to hang around for another season.

And get Eric Smith to come back.

Wait...what?

[JR4AU]

I would be really surprised if either was a name any of us had read anywhere prior to the announcement. I base this on Chizik's complete distaste for media of all types. I don't think there are good leads being fed to the media so if you "hear" something from someone who covers Auburn, I would assume that's smokescreen for the most part. In the end, it probably won't be people most of us have ever heard of.

I'm still not sure what direction the offense is going. Think about it from the outside for a second. What are Auburn's strengths on offense going into next year? Answer: one good WR, one good TE who is a team player, and some interesting talent at RB. The biggest question marks are offensive line (we simply don't know how good or not good they will be) and quarterback (no one can honestly say they have any idea who is in the lead going into spring practice). OL appears to have promise based on recruiting and assuming Grimes would be a part of the next plan (though remember OCs often want to bring in people and line is a big issue - see Nall vs. Franklin 2008). Auburn's had solid line play and has put OLs in the NFL for years so being able to attract that isn't a big issue I'd think. QB is another story. You can look at 2011 a couple of ways. Either Trotter and Moseley really were close and that's why they proved to be virtually interchangeable in the end and Frazier's arm just hasn't come around or the previous regimes idea of QB development was running them through a lot of drills waiting for something good to emerge which never really did on a consistent basis. Either way, and OC who can develop and recruit at the QB position would be high on the wish list I would think.

As for DC, we all know where the major deficiencies lie. Auburn needs a difference maker at MLB in the 4-3 scheme (every 4-3 team does) and they need more consistent play from the DBs. Personally, I'd like to see Auburn "attack" more on defense instead of the "ready react" defense that's been favored the past three seasons.

My thoughts. What are yours?

Has there been an actual sourced story reporting any name, for either position, that has actually been interviewed?

[Godfather]

I heard Chizik was still going to coach the defense and in an effort to make up the remaining money from taking the HC job at Arky State. Gus will be running the offense via a payphone just outside of Jonesboro.

[Buzz Killington]

I heard Chizik was still going to coach the defense and in an effort to make up the remaining money from taking the HC job at Arky State. Gus will be running the offense via a payphone just outside of Jonesboro.

So, he started early when he phoned in the Iron Bowl?

[Godfather]

So, he started early when he phoned in the Iron Bowl?

You complete me

[Snaggletiger]

So, he started early when he phoned in the Iron Bowl?

hussle...ur doin' it rite

[jmar]

I would be really surprised if either was a name any of us had read anywhere prior to the announcement. I base this on Chizik's complete distaste for media of all types. I don't think there are good leads being fed to the media so if you "hear" something from someone who covers Auburn, I would assume that's smokescreen for the most part. In the end, it probably won't be people most of us have ever heard of.

I'm still not sure what direction the offense is going. Think about it from the outside for a second. What are Auburn's strengths on offense going into next year? Answer: one good WR, one good TE who is a team player, and some interesting talent at RB. The biggest question marks are offensive line (we simply don't know how good or not good they will be) and quarterback (no one can honestly say they have any idea who is in the lead going into spring practice). OL appears to have promise based on recruiting and assuming Grimes would be a part of the next plan (though remember OCs often want to bring in people and line is a big issue - see Nall vs. Franklin 2008). Auburn's had solid line play and has put OLs in the NFL for years so being able to attract that isn't a big issue I'd think. QB is another story. You can look at 2011 a couple of ways. Either Trotter and Moseley really were close and that's why they proved to be virtually interchangeable in the end and Frazier's arm just hasn't come around or the previous regimes idea of QB development was running them through a lot of drills waiting for something good to emerge which never really did on a consistent basis. Either way, and OC who can develop and recruit at the QB position would be high on the wish list I would think.

As for DC, we all know where the major deficiencies lie. Auburn needs a difference maker at MLB in the 4-3 scheme (every 4-3 team does) and they need more consistent play from the DBs. Personally, I'd like to see Auburn "attack" more on defense instead of the "ready react" defense that's been favored the past three seasons.

My thoughts. What are yours?

I have only heard a few names thrown out by fans and one report on the radio that Stoops got a raise to stay at FSU. I like McCall and Casteel. McCall because we have spread personnel on offense with even more speed than he is used to; he likes a QB run/pass threat and vertical game, plus his TE/HB catches a boatload (49) of passes.He utilizes everyone and we can still keep our bread and butter run plays w/o a hitch. He's not a bubble screen freak nor air raid and he puts out consistently good showings with less fanfare and is a steal.

Casteel runs a 3-3-5. Might not be Chizik's cup of tea but the guy gets results year in and out. They seldom get embarrassed and generally have a high sack rate and stingy with points. He is known for second half shutouts. Richrod is trying to lure him away. He's not known as a recruiter, so I've read.

I don't want to go the way of Florida on offense and only know the defense needs an overhaul, just an amateur wish list from a fan that wants to keep the positive energy of the Chicken Bowl going, tutoring and development required.

[The Six]

McCall because we have spread personnel on offense...

Maybe at WR but I think Auburn is at the perfect time to switch if they want to. The OL and RBs could play in many offenses. The QBs...well, that's another story. But I don't think Auburn is so far down the road in recruiting that they are locked into the spread offense philosophy. Not yet.

[GH2001]

I have only heard a few names thrown out by fans and one report on the radio that Stoops got a raise to stay at FSU. I like McCall and Casteel. McCall because we have spread personnel on offense with even more speed than he is used to; he likes a QB run/pass threat and vertical game, plus his TE/HB catches a boatload (49) of passes.He utilizes everyone and we can still keep our bread and butter run plays w/o a hitch. He's not a bubble screen freak nor air raid and he puts out consistently good showings with less fanfare and is a steal.

Casteel runs a 3-3-5. Might not be Chizik's cup of tea but the guy gets results year in and out. They seldom get embarrassed and generally have a high sack rate and stingy with points. He is known for second half shutouts. Richrod is trying to lure him away. He's not known as a recruiter, so I've read.

I don't want to go the way of Florida on offense and only know the defense needs an overhaul, just an amateur wish list from a fan that wants to keep the positive energy of the Chicken Bowl going, tutoring and development required.

You can have that 3-3-5. In the SEC it would spell disaster. Think about it.

[The Six]

You can have that 3-3-5. In the SEC it would spell disaster. Think about it.

LSU had zero issue moving against it. I can think of a few other teams that would shred that as well.

Again I think the defensive issues are more along the "attack" vs. "read/react" philosophy.

[GH2001]

LSU had zero issue moving against it. I can think of a few other teams that would shred that as well.

Again I think the defensive issues are more along the "attack" vs. "read/react" philosophy.

It plays right into the hands of a traditional offense or pro style.  Rich Rod ran it at WVU "ok". How did it do at Michigan where they play more traditional style Foosball in the Big 10+1+1? Well, x 10 for the SEC.

From 2010:

The Wolverines have let everyone go this season. They rank 112th out of 120 schools in total defense, allowing a mind-boggling 445.2 yards of offense per game.

“I'm not a big fan of the scheme because there are a lot of bubble areas to run. They're not gap-sound. They make a lot of mental errors. I think some of it is youth.", Chris Speilman said.

The 3-3-5 defense brought to Michigan by Rich Rodriguez and now coached by defensive coordinator Greg Robinson has been a disaster this season. Robinson was seen rubbing stuffed animals on his defensive players Saturday as the Wolverines allows Wisconsin to rush for 357 yards and six touchdowns in a 48-28 win at the Big House in Ann Arbor.

"You have a team like Wisconsin that can line up and run the ball 34 out of 35 plays, 24 or 25 straight times down your throat and you know they're not changing and you can do absolutely nothing to stop it."

[AUJarhead]

It plays right into the hands of a traditional offense or pro style.  Rich Rod ran it at WVU "ok". How did it do at Michigan where they play more traditional style Foosball in the Big 10+1+1? Well, x 10 for the SEC.

From 2010:

And with a change in scheme to the 4-3, that same defense (8 returning starters) went from 112th to 17th.  I totally agree with everything you've said.

[CCTAU]

Fantasy choice. Jeff Fisher decides to spend the next four years closer to his son Trent???????

[AUJarhead]

Fantasy choice. Jeff Fisher decides to spend the next four years closer to his son Trent???????

He'll either be in Miami or St Louis next year.

[CCTAU]

He'll either be in Miami or St Louis next year.

I didn't say it would happen. But as my fantasy choice, that would be some pretty cool stuff right there.

We would dominate the media for a while.

[GH2001]

And with a change in scheme to the 4-3, that same defense (8 returning starters) went from 112th to 17th.  I totally agree with everything you've said.

Yeah, having a front '6' doesn't appeal to me or most SEC coaches. 4-3 = tried and true.

[JR4AU]

Yeah, having a front '6' doesn't appeal to me or most SEC coaches. 4-3 = tried and true.

The whole idea of the 3-3-5 is to have 8 men threatening the box.  Against sets like we saw from LSU and bammer, it would be an 8 man box, not 6.  The basic premise of the defense is to bring pressure from lots of different positions, confusing OL assignments.  Even when you only bring 4, they never know who that 4th one is. 

The Spurs (the guys that play the hybrid Safety/OLB position in the 3-3-5) would have to be absolute studs, able to tackle like a LB, and play coverage like a nickle back.  If they can't, then you're screwed.  So, for instance Lemonier would be relegated to playing head up an OT, and playing more like a DT than a pass rushing DE because you can't ask him to cover a WR.  Bates would be the closest thing we had to a spur. 

It's a risk vs reward defense, that will give up big plays, but hopes that they're more offset by the negative plays it causes due to confused blocking schemes.  Also, a good OC can use formations to put your spurs in a bind and force them to be cover guys only then run to that side to take advantage of the weakness, or force the DC to have to bring the FS down to cover a  man so the spurs can play closer to the box.  They can also formation you out of the 3-3 stack, and that hurts the slanting and blitzing aspect that is the base of the defense.  The DL and LBs are constantly slanting and blitzing.  If you guess wrong on where to bring the pressure from, you essentially eliminate the LB you blitzed from the play. 

I don't like it. It's so far and away different from what Chiz does, I can't see him going this route. 

[The Six]

The whole idea of the 3-3-5 is to have 8 men threatening the box.  Against sets like we saw from LSU and bammer, it would be an 8 man box, not 6.  The basic premise of the defense is to bring pressure from lots of different positions, confusing OL assignments.  Even when you only bring 4, they never know who that 4th one is. 

The Spurs (the guys that play the hybrid Safety/OLB position in the 3-3-5) would have to be absolute studs, able to tackle like a LB, and play coverage like a nickle back.  If they can't, then you're screwed.  So, for instance Lemonier would be relegated to playing head up an OT, and playing more like a DT than a pass rushing DE because you can't ask him to cover a WR.  Bates would be the closest thing we had to a spur. 

It's a risk vs reward defense, that will give up big plays, but hopes that they're more offset by the negative plays it causes due to confused blocking schemes.  Also, a good OC can use formations to put your spurs in a bind and force them to be cover guys only then run to that side to take advantage of the weakness, or force the DC to have to bring the FS down to cover a  man so the spurs can play closer to the box.  They can also formation you out of the 3-3 stack, and that hurts the slanting and blitzing aspect that is the base of the defense.  The DL and LBs are constantly slanting and blitzing.  If you guess wrong on where to bring the pressure from, you essentially eliminate the LB you blitzed from the play. 

I don't like it. It's so far and away different from what Chiz does, I can't see him going this route.

Interesting breakdown. Never read much on that 3-3-5 so thanks for providing. Very intriguing.

You know what I want on defense? One that kicks the other team's butt. The end. They can line up in the 1-6-4 for all I care just kick some butt.