New DC

[Jack The BN]

Guys, there is only ONE obvious answer. Tim Duchamps! We don't get him in here and it's just over. This guy's genus and recruiting skills are the only thing that can turn this defense around.

We already missed the boat with Rick Laweson, we can't make that mistake again!!

[NotSoFastMyFriend]

Rhodes has been here the whole time.  if he could have fixed our problems why didn't he?

I have no idea what Paul Rhoads would be like as DC but expecting him to fix the defense as a position coach is akin to saying that the guy hired to change tires at your local auto shop should be overhauling engines as well. It doesn't work that way. Never will.

I know that doesn't fit the "Bret can't make ANY good hires" narrative but it is what it is.

[HOGINTENNESSEE]

Remember, great recruiters that recruit great elsewhere, don't translate to great recruiters at Arkansas.

Sam Pittman disproved this pulling in 6 4 stars. Ledbetter, Ragnow, Heinrich, Koehlar, Ragnow and Merrick

[The Kig]

With the current state of the program what quality DC would take the job?

We weren't exactly a shining gem when Enos took a step down (in title) from HC to come here as the OC.  That turned out ok (despite the last two games of not scoring in the 2nd half) and he is a warm/hot commodity.  He got a raise in the process by coming to the SEC as a coordinator.  He transformed BA from goat to hero in one year... and a roster spot on an NFL team. 

Not saying we can just "ta-da!" and get anyone we want, but money talks and it's not as bad as many think.  Devils advocate- Why WOULDN'T a good candidate want this job?  Seriously, look at it this way... last year we were AWFUL against the pass and this year we were historically TERRIBLE against the run.  Just getting us to an average defense would be a huge resume booster for any decent coach ("Coach so-and-so took the Hogs from last in the country to top 50 in total Defense in his first year").  Much of what made this defense bad can be fixed with a decent gameplan.  So many WTH moments over the last two years that had nothing to do with talent.   

Taking over as DC at Bama would be a terrible job with huge pressure to stay at #1.  Any drop off at all would be blamed on the new guy.  Even dropping out of the top 10 would be considered a disaster.  Here there literally is nowhere to go but up.  Short of not even fielding a defense, we couldn't be worse.

[bennyl08]

The question becomes, who do we think will do a better job than Smith did here? Smith had a very strong resume and a good amount of success before coming here.

So, that leads us to one of three options.

First: since CRS didn't work out here, and he had a strong resume, we have to bring in somebody with an impeccable resume. I'm talking DC of a top 10 school type of hire. If strength of resume is the key point, that is literally our only way not to be a lateral move on defense.

Option 2. Maybe strength of resume isn't the key point. Maybe we can find somebody who has the qualities of a top DC but hasn't been around long enough to have an elite resume. This would be the up and comer type hire.

Option 3. What works on defense for other places isn't what will work here. This is the least likely.

[jvanhorn]

I don't know.  Rhodes would be a fall back plan.  if we go that route, it would make me think our program is toxic and nobody wants the job.

I'd love to bring Patridge back for DLine, but I don't know that he is the answer at DC.

I think we hire another young up and comer right after the coaches conference.

I don't consider Rhodes a fall back plan but a good legitimate option.

[PorkSoda]

The question becomes, who do we think will do a better job than Smith did here? Smith had a very strong resume and a good amount of success before coming here.

So, that leads us to one of three options.

First: since CRS didn't work out here, and he had a strong resume, we have to bring in somebody with an impeccable resume. I'm talking DC of a top 10 school type of hire. If strength of resume is the key point, that is literally our only way not to be a lateral move on defense.

Option 2. Maybe strength of resume isn't the key point. Maybe we can find somebody who has the qualities of a top DC but hasn't been around long enough to have an elite resume. This would be the up and comer type hire.

Option 3. What works on defense for other places isn't what will work here. This is the least likely.

I tend to think there was some personality clash going on.  you don't have historically bad defense because of scheme. 

[12247]

BB will go down a long list before someone says, OK, durn it, I'll work for you.  Theres our hire and the sunshiners will declare it a major hit, maybe best DC ever at Arkansas and some will even declare the best ever anywhere, anytime.  Then the negs will declare it a disaster and pee and moan about the poor decision and how bad BB is at picking help.

[AirWarren]

BB will go down a long list before someone says, OK, durn it, I'll work for you.  Theres our hire and the sunshiners will declare it a major hit, maybe best DC ever at Arkansas and some will even declare the best ever anywhere, anytime.  Then the negs will declare it a disaster and pee and moan about the poor decision and how bad BB is at picking help.

Spot on.

What about the middle men like myself? You forgot us?

[Sanctified Swine]

I know he may be a bit controversial right now... Tracy Claeys has a terrific resume.

[Sivad]

I don't consider Rhodes a fall back plan but a good legitimate option.

He certainly is.

[Smalltownhog95]

My bet is Paul Rhoads is promoted to DC and we end up searching for a new DB coach. But then again I'm terrible at gambling.

[ricepig]

Erik Chinander

[TrueBlue]

I know he may be a bit controversial right now... Tracy Claeys has a terrific resume.

Aw heck no!

[bennyl08]

I warned about this on the board when Paul Haynes was hired. Don't judge him off of the cotton bowl game, because almost none of those players will be back (Nelson, Franklin, Bequette, Thomas, etc...). What happened? Those players had a good game, our defense did well overall, people got too high on the DC and then what do you know, those players leave, and our defense takes a huge tumble.

Not to say that the coach isn't important at all. 2012 showed us otherwise. However, those players were going to play hard and well no matter who the DC was, and there was going to be a big dropoff in defense no matter who the DC was after they left.

Fast forward to 2014. Robb Smith comes into a senior heavy defense. Flowers, Tevin, Spaight, and others. With that top talent, he put together a top defense. No matter who our DC was in 2015, it was going to take a big step backwards, and it did. However, we drastically changed scheme as well, utilizing the players we did have to stop the run and force other teams to pass. If they had a good qb, we got burned, but if they didn't, it gave us a chance. 2016 came and brought us another senior heavy defense. However, the defense never built an identity. In the offseason, they made moves to make it similar to the 2014 in scheme, but come gameday for one reason or another, they backed off and didn't let the players be aggressive. Perhaps the worst thing they did was actually play well in the first half of the last 2 games only to collapse in the 2nd half. Why that is the worse thing is 2-fold. First, it shows fans that there is the talent on defense to do good things, but the coaching staff was unable to do that consistently. Further, the last two games stick in people's memories more. It would actually be better to be completely blown out because at least you know you simply weren't good enough in the first place. To show that you are the better team but then screw up in the 2nd half shows that you aren't performing to the level you should be.

What about on offense? Dan Enos came here with a senior heavy offensive side of the ball in 2015 and worked wonders. I cautioned people to be realistic about the offense this year. However, Enos, unlike Smith, still put together a very good offense this season. It undoubtably had it's struggles, particularly struggles you'd expect inexperienced guys to have. But overall, they were good. The worst parts were when they started pressing as a reaction to the defense's 2nd half collapses in the last 2 games. The offense didn't maintain it's composure and tried to push too hard and do too much, which only compounded the defense's problems.

What's the moral of this story? Whoever the new DC is, will be coming into a talent rich and already deep defense, built by coaches now being replaced. There is a good chance they will have some early success. The only the team will lack on defense next year is experienced pass rushers. The true test, IMO, for whoever we may hire next would be 3 years from now when the players on defense are primarily their own and those who aren't will have spent more time under the new coaches than the old.

[Big Daddy]

Yes, he will pull someone from somewhere between left field and his a$$.  And 1/2 will say yay and half will say boo.

Agree. That's his MO.

[Sho Nuff]

LOL I love the speculation.

If y'all have learned anything from CBB it will be a name y'all haven't mentioned, heard of or want.

Y'all want these coaches now but will be "unimpressed" when one is hired.

It'll be a good D.C.  Let's just hope the players get better. Because it could be Dr Sues with great players and y'all will want lifetime contracts or it could be Nick Saban with average players and wanna fire him in the middle of the night.

This is true

[The Kig]

BB will go down a long list before someone says, OK, durn it, I'll work for you.  Theres our hire and the sunshiners will declare it a major hit, maybe best DC ever at Arkansas and some will even declare the best ever anywhere, anytime.  Then the negs will declare it a disaster and pee and moan about the poor decision and how bad BB is at picking help.

Both sides have no doubt already prepared speeches, typed up message board content, and written scripts for the call-in shows... just waiting to insert the name. 

One thing that neither side can dispute is that CBB will have answered the question about making a change and taken care of CRS in the process.  It may not have come as fast as some were demanding and the CBB haters are still gonna find something wrong, but it was necessary and it happened.  I am neither a darksider, nor a sunshine pumper... both annoy me equally and consistently.  For those of us who just want to see the program be successful, it looks like he handled this with class...and that will inevitably be considered by whoever replaces CRS. 

 

[The Kig]

While I completely agree with you regarding talent making any coach look like a genius, I can't imagine a world where we don't show improvement defensively with a new hire.  Almost impossible to be worse than we were this year.  It wasn't simply a function of talent either.

Schematically, we didn't see some very basic things done and for the life of me I still can't figure that out.  CRS had a reputation for building aggressive defenses coming in.  We completely squandered the talent we had on the DL, which in turn put more pressure on our DB's.  Last year our pass D was terrible, but that was partially due to not applying any pressure on the QB.  This year our run D was terrible.  While the injury to Greenlaw and being slow as molasses contributed, the playcalling wasn't there to compensate.

There is a very low hurdle for whoever takes over for CRS to step over with regards to improvement.  Absolutely unquestionably we need better talent, but using what we do have better could have made us better this year.  Simply making sure that the players are in the right spot to make a play will yield improvement.  Then the players have to wrap up and make the play...which is on them. 

[King Kong]

So you give me examples of instant success at the beginning and tell me to be cautious and not excited for change?

[PonderinHog]

Here's the hurdle the new DC, if there is one, has to get over.  "Tackle the football."

[rhames]

I don't think we really ever saw a motivated Paul Haynes

[Pork Twain]

Where was Robb Smith known for fielding such a great defense at before he arrived here?

[younghog]

So you give me examples of instant success at the beginning and tell me to be cautious and not excited for change?

Quote of the YEAR..

go hogs

[RazorPiggie]

I don't think we really ever saw a motivated Paul Haynes

True. He knew the new HC would bring in his own guys.

[hoglady]

In my mind I gave Robb Smith a pass for the 2015 defense after losing "The triangle".
No excuse for backward steps from 2015 to 2016 with 9 returning starters.
The lack of improvement should be laid at the feet of the coaches.
Could be as much Bielema as Smith - but the only way to know that is to bring in someone else and see if changes happen.

[The Kig]

Here's the hurdle the new DC, if there is one, has to get over.  "Tackle the football."

I would settle for them tackling the guy with the football...

[ballz2thewall]

While I completely agree with you regarding talent making any coach look like a genius, I can't imagine a world where we don't show improvement defensively with a new hire.  Almost impossible to be worse than we were this year.  It wasn't simply a function of talent either.

Schematically, we didn't see some very basic things done and for the life of me I still can't figure that out.  CRS had a reputation for building aggressive defenses coming in.  We completely squandered the talent we had on the DL, which in turn put more pressure on our DB's.  Last year our pass D was terrible, but that was partially due to not applying any pressure on the QB.  This year our run D was terrible.  While the injury to Greenlaw and being slow as molasses contributed, the playcalling wasn't there to compensate.

There is a very low hurdle for whoever takes over for CRS to step over with regards to improvement.  Absolutely unquestionably we need better talent, but using what we do have better could have made us better this year.  Simply making sure that the players are in the right spot to make a play will yield improvement.  Then the players have to wrap up and make the play...which is on them.

i agree with you. something this year wasn't just talent. and i still say it goes back on a common thread for several years.

[bennyl08]

While I completely agree with you regarding talent making any coach look like a genius, I can't imagine a world where we don't show improvement defensively with a new hire.  Almost impossible to be worse than we were this year.  It wasn't simply a function of talent either.

Schematically, we didn't see some very basic things done and for the life of me I still can't figure that out.  CRS had a reputation for building aggressive defenses coming in.  We completely squandered the talent we had on the DL, which in turn put more pressure on our DB's.  Last year our pass D was terrible, but that was partially due to not applying any pressure on the QB.  This year our run D was terrible.  While the injury to Greenlaw and being slow as molasses contributed, the playcalling wasn't there to compensate.

There is a very low hurdle for whoever takes over for CRS to step over with regards to improvement.  Absolutely unquestionably we need better talent, but using what we do have better could have made us better this year.  Simply making sure that the players are in the right spot to make a play will yield improvement.  Then the players have to wrap up and make the play...which is on them.

I agree that we see improvement in our D next year, we would have seen improvement with CRS as well. Changes had to be made and CRS's unit was the one I put the most blame on for the 2nd half collapses. However, with him, we know it was possible we could have a top 10 defense. Problem was, he was also capable of a bottom 100 as well. 2014, he had this defense at top form. 2015 any DC here would have struggled. However, 2016 defense should have been much better. Why did we try and recreate 2014 defense only to bail on the playcalling? Did CRS want to go more aggressive and Bielema vetoed that? Did Bielema want to go more aggressive but CRS didn't have faith in the players to use that scheme? Did they both want to be more aggressive but had failed to recruit/develop the players to be able to do so? If it is option #1, then it doesn't matter who we bring in. If it is option #2, then it sucks to have a coach with such potential be so jaded to not even try with the players and so a change needs to be made and will be good and have good talent to work with. If it is option 3, then we won't improve by much, but changes are being made and improvement has the chance to happen.

Which brings up another question. What do we hope to get out of the defense? We had a DC that under good conditions can give a great defense, but under less than ideal situations, gave us a very bad defense. Do we try to keep him and make sure the conditions are always good? Or, do we try and get a more stable coach. That under bad conditions, we can still have a mediocre defense, under good conditions we have a good defense, but maybe not a great one? Ideally you'd want one that could give you great if conditions are good and good if conditions are mediocre, and mediocre if conditions are bad, but that isn't realistic (well, ideally ideally, it's be a great defense regardless...).

At some point, you have to wonder if it is the coaches or the players. For all of Willy's issues, he made good adjustments. Chris Ash did well as the Co-DC at ohio state winning a natty. Of course, we've had our share of NFL players on defense as well, including several who made rosters as undrafted players like Franklin, Nelson, Gatson, and Rassner. So, the answer obviously isn't a simple either or answer. Maybe we've had coaches that have talent, but simply weren't good fits for our players. We've had talented players, but maybe too little depth.

IMO, we need a coach who can maximize the players around him rather than one who is stuck to a scheme. However, we also need somebody who can make 3rd quarter adjustments. The problem with that is those two traits are rare in the same coach. The former is typically much more of a personable coach. Doesn't necessarily have to be a players coach, but somebody who coaches psychologically more than analytically. They learn what the player's weaknesses and strengths are. What motivates them and what doesn't. The latter is typically less of a people person. Doesn't use emotion to coach, but logic. In short, Kirk vs Spock. We need both. For example, Willy Robinson was a Spock type coach. His schemes were too complex for the players, but he could analyze the heck out of the opposing offense. If we could have co-DC's, I think that would be great. One on the sidelines, firing up the players, one in the booth scoping the field. Of course, we'd need a second opening to do this as well, which it is rumored there could be more changes to come.

[bennyl08]

Here's the hurdle the new DC, if there is one, has to get over.  "Tackle the football."

I'd settle for tackle the human carrying the football.

[bennyl08]

I would settle for them tackling the guy with the football...

arg, beat me to it.

[Kevin]

I'd settle for tackle the human carrying the football.

This

[bennyl08]

So you give me examples of instant success at the beginning and tell me to be cautious and not excited for change?

I'll give you one more example. Houston Nutt. Should Mississippi have been cautious and not excited to get Nutt as their HC? He had instant success with the other coach's upperclassmen before showing his true nature as a coach.

That is what I'm cautioning against. A coach coming into a new situation under ideal conditions that somebody else set up and would have happened regardless and getting the credit for that success but then being unable to dial up similar success on his or her own.

[T.V. Caplinger]

Robb Smith was the lotto winner of defensive coordinators. He takes over a defense in Rutgers in 2012 that has 5 NFL draft picks the following NFL draft on defense, not too hard to coach that talent in that conference. He then comes here and takes over a defense that ends up having 4 NFL draft picks on it the following year, against not too hard to coach that talent. The last two years he finally had to coach defenses that did not have unreal talent and the results were bad. This year's coaching job with having the highest % of tacklers back in the country and what was considered to be a top ten defensive line by most was possibly the worst of all time. Thank god he left, should of been fired after the Auburn game.

[bennyl08]

Where was Robb Smith known for fielding such a great defense at before he arrived here?

2013, he was LB coach in the NFL helping 2nd year LB, David, to become an allpro at the position, becoming only the third player in history to have 100+ tackles, 6+ sacks, and 5+ interceptions.

In 2012, he was Rutger's DC/LB coach, ranking 4th in points allowed, 6th in rushing yards allowed, and 10th in total yards allowed and had an all american at LB. That year's draft featured 5 Rutger's defensive players drafted. He was on the Rutger's coaching staff in various other positions on defense in the years before that.

Before that, he was DC for FCS school Maine, ranking 1st in rush defense, 2nd in total defense, 3rd in sacks, and 4th in scoring defense.

[LJHOG]

y'all can't seem to grasp the fact that it ain't the jockey it's the horse.

[Arkansas Fan]

y'all can't seem to grasp the fact that it ain't the jockey it's the horse.

While I agree we just don't have the talent, or enough of it, on defense, they should still be able to tackle and know where to line up. That still falls on the coaching.

[Razorback_Mack]

y'all can't seem to grasp the fact that it ain't the jockey it's the horse.

Jockeys win more consistently than horses. That's an irrefutable fact.

[ZERO]

Caution with a new DC

My expectations are pretty tempered. The best DC we've had I can remember is probably Reggie Herring for God's sake.

[Inhogswetrust]

I would settle for them tackling the guy with the football...

Everytime I read something like this I'm reminded of what a well known coach said when asked about players having speed responded with  " Maybe that means he gets to the wrong place faster".

[bulldog04]

My expectations are pretty tempered. The best DC we've had I can remember is probably Reggie Herring for God's sake.

Burns

[Al Boarland]

Talent rich compared to what?

[PonderinHog]

arg, beat me to it.

Either way, we're doing it wrong.  I guess times have changed, but our defenses used to swarm to the football.

[HoggyCat]

It doesn't matter who the new DC is.  He'll be a Bert yes man. He'll do exactly and run exactly the defense bert says to run. Look at Ash. He wasn't that great here. He leaves and tOSU has a pretty solid D. We get R.O.B.B. and we still can't pick a time to blitz, still play 7-10 yards off the receivers and still can't bottle the run up; except when we had Flowers & Crew.

The DC isn't the problem, just like Enos isn't the second half problem on offense. It's a scared $hi#less coach that goes conservative at the first hint of pressure. It goes back all4 years here and back to his Wiscy days.

Put the blame where it belongs.

[parallaxpig]

coaches/scheme + players  =  results

first part of equation recruits, teaches and prepares the players.......if you don't change that part then results will be the same as we have seen for past two years............

[PonderinHog]

It doesn't matter who the new DC is.  He'll be a Bret yes man. He'll do exactly and run exactly the defense Bret says to run. Look at Ash. He wasn't that great here. He leaves and tOSU has a pretty solid D. We get R.O.B.B. and we still can't pick a time to blitz, still play 7-10 yards off the receivers and still can't bottle the run up; except when we had Flowers & Crew.

The DC isn't the problem, just like Enos isn't the second half problem on offense. It's a scared $hi#less coach that goes conservative at the first hint of pressure. It goes back all4 years here and back to his Wiscy days.

Put the blame where it belongs.

Get back, HoggyCat!

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

Someone asked above what we hoped for in a defense. My answer is 15 shutouts.

Obviously that's not happening. So . . .

1. Stout on the line, no gashing us between the tackles.
2. Able to pressure a passer while also able to maintain contain. This wish may involve one or more linebackers able to spy a mobile quarterback. That means speed, because by spy, I don't mean watch the QB when he runs but tackle the QB when he runs.
3. DBs able to cover and able to turn and spot the ball in flight.
4. Safeties who can cover and hit.
5. Corners and safeties who can get off of a wide receiver's block and make a tackle out wide.
6. Regardless of scheme some LBs able to cover an RB.
7. A DC who schemes in such a way that our LBs aren't consistently being asked to cover a slot receiver that runs a 4.4.
8. A DC who can adjust when an opponent is trashing the first one or two things he tried.

EFBAB

[98hogs]

My expectations are pretty tempered. The best DC we've had I can remember is probably Reggie Herring for God's sake.

The same Reggie Herring that was giving up 70 + points to USC ??

[elksnort]

Is Robb Smith gone or not?

[HoggyCat]

2013, he was LB coach in the NFL helping 2nd year LB, David, to become an allpro at the position, becoming only the third player in history to have 100+ tackles, 6+ sacks, and 5+ interceptions.

In 2012, he was Rutger's DC/LB coach, ranking 4th in points allowed, 6th in rushing yards allowed, and 10th in total yards allowed and had an all american at LB. That year's draft featured 5 Rutger's defensive players drafted. He was on the Rutger's coaching staff in various other positions on defense in the years before that.

Before that, he was DC for FCS school Maine, ranking 1st in rush defense, 2nd in total defense, 3rd in sacks, and 4th in scoring defense.

Which further solidified the argument that it's Bert's fault.