We can kinda get into this game where we compare and manipulate stats to fit narratives but that one speaks for itself in my opinion. Very cool stuff and it just reinforces the “why” with how bad we were.
Also another aspect I found interesting is the discussion about Marshall using 2 down lineman and standing up the ends.
It’s deeper than just being different or innovative. He was going that to make up for what Marshall lacked. They beat Notre Dame in part because he said we can’t just line up and beat them so let’s see how I can scheme my way around this and give us a chance.
I have no clue why that’s such a visionary approach but we saw NONE of that last year on either side of the ball. Really fun stuff to listen to.
I think sometimes people who coach at smaller schools, like Marshall, or our own Coach L at George Mason, are forced to be creative because of what you wrote, they can’t recruit at the same level so they have to out scheme. The progression upwards does not always work. For example, Shaka Smart’s VCU teams were a terror because those lightly recruited kids could be made to press 94 feet all game long. But Smart goes to Texas and the highly recruited kids aren’t willing to play that way.
But I am willing to bet that Guidry can make it work at UM. And I think we will see a dramatic improvement in year 1 because in the end Guidry’s schemes are still sound. They are just made to fit his personnel and to address what the opponent can do.
FYI, I looked it up today and the UM defense improved in points scored against by 7 points per game from the 1998 season to the 1999 season; when Butch replaced Miller with Schiano.