Wisconsin Football: Deep Dive Inside Mike Tressel’s Defensive Philosophy

Madison, Wis. – Spring football has finally wrapped up, so I wanted to do another analysis for you, much like I did with Phil Longo’s Offensive Philosophy, but this time for Mike Tressel and what he brings to the Wisconsin Football Defense.

You’re not alone if you need to become more familiar with Mike Tressel. There is a lot to learn, given his rather short track record as a coordinator. So, let’s dive into the data and see what Tressel brings to the table for the Wisconsin Football Program in the upcoming season. In this analysis, I compare Tressel to his predecessor Jim Leonhard as well as to CFB & The Top 10 Scoring Defenses of 2022 to give some perspective on Tressel and his defensive philosophy!

What’s the Best Coverage Scheme? Man-Man or Zone?:

I think Wisconsin Football fans and those who get really deep into the Xs & Os will be very intrigued by the first few graphics I’m about to share. First, I’ll take you back to the Coverage Scheme Jim Leonhard liked to deploy, then I’ll show what Mike Tressel like’s to use. Then we’ll look at how that compares to the NCAA AVG & Top 10 Scoring Defenses!

You can see that Jimmy really utilized a lot of Zone Coverage throughout his Defensive Scheme. Now let’s contrast that with Tressel.

Tressel uses a very balanced mix of Man-Man Coverage Schemes as well as Zone Coverage within his scheme! You’ll also see that the AVG CFB Defense & AVG of the Top 10 “Scoring” Defenses are much more reflective of Jim Leonhard’s heavy Zone Coverage Scheme.

But…It can be done in Multiple Ways:

It can be done multiple ways, with Georgia, Penn State, Illinois, Michigan, and Alabama all employing >30% Man Coverage Schemes. Arguably all of those defenses I just listed would be considered the most dominant among the 10 listed. They also would be considered the most “talent-rich” programs and defenses listed as well. So there are some interesting questions hidden within that.

• Are defenses like Iowa and Minnesota good because they use a scheme that allows “less athletic” players to thrive without putting them out on an island where they can more easily be exposed?
• Was Jim Leonhard doing the same with the Wisconsin Defense?
• Will Tressel have to lighten the Man-Man schemes and adapt to his players?

I’m not sure there’s a right or a wrong answer to the first two questions. Certainly, the last one is impossible to answer until Wisconsin Football hits the field on Sep. 2 vs. Buffalo. But I will say, from a statistical standpoint, Tressel gets the edge over Leonhard in 2022! How he “Meshes the Elite” will be something I’ll be watching intently.

However, Wisconsin was the better Rush Defense:

But from a Total Defense Rank & Yards/Play Given Up, Cincy stays ahead of UW!! So hopefully, whatever Tressel was doing will translate, and we can maintain or even IMPROVE our defense!!

Mike Tressel will change who Wisconsin Football uses to defend Slot Receivers:

Let’s dive into the data:

So while this doesn’t seem like a very big change, I can assure you it is. Basically, Tressel will continue using CBs and Safteys primarily in the Slot. However, he doesn’t like to use any ED = OLBs to cover up the Slot! And he’ll use a bit more Safety coverage in the slot than Leonhard did. Now for the interesting part, both Tressel and Leonhard diverge considerably from the rest of College Football in how they defend the slot by positional groupings.

Most other Teams utilize their Saftey’s to help cover slot receivers in Modern College Football. But is that the right approach?

Based on this graph, I would say it’s a toss-up for your S or CB to cover the Slot Receiver. In the case of Wisconsin Football in 2022, the answer was resoundingly straightforward, have a CB cover the Slot Reciever…because our safties were getting GASHED!

How does Tressel’s Scheme translate to Pressure on the QB?

First, we’ll have to look at who Tressel sends to rush the QB because this will also be a slight change from what we’ve been accustomed to from Jim Leonhard-led Badger Defenses.

So, you can see that Tressel sends his DL & ED to rush the QB on pretty much every Pass Play. This is a dramatic shift in strategy from Jim Leonhard, who would send his ED into coverage in about 35% of Passing Situations. Tressel also sends his LBs a nearly identical amount to what Jim Leonhard would, so there won’t be a major difference there. What I found super fascinating was that Tressel barely sends his Saftey’s on Blitz but does send his CBs a fair amount, a near-total flip from Leonhard. Although Leonhard sent his Safteys on Blitz far more often than Tressel sends his CBs.

Here is how that stacks up vs. the competition:

BUT HOW DOES IT TRANSLATE TO PRESSURE?!?

Pressure Rate = Pressures/Pass Rushes

It’s pretty much identical in terms of Pressure Rate, with the stark difference between S and CB pressure rates. For that, I’m going to chalk it up to the divergence in PRSH Rate for (Tressel – S) and (Leonhard – CB). Although they send them less frequently, it’s really effective when they do!!!

What is most interesting to me is the ED Pressure Rates; Tressel Edge Defenders achieve nearly the same Pressures Rate but with 35% more Pass Rush Opportunities!!! That is a ton more chaos for the QB to handle, and I think that could be a major driver to why Cincinnati’s Pass D has been so good under Tressel!

Just look at how it compares to the competition:

Tressel…and Leonhard are “Masters” at dialing up the pressure! So don’t think that’s going away anytime soon. It should have been obvious to anyone after watching “The Launch” that Tressel-led Defenses get after the QB!!!

Say goodbye to the Wisconsin Football 3-4 Defense! New Alignments Incoming:

Here is the Data:

This isn’t a great Xs & Os visual chart, but you can see a little bit of the picture. With his 3-3-5 Scheme, Tressel has significantly more alignment in the A-Gap and significantly less alignment in the B-Gap! How is he going to stop the Run?!? Well, he covers that by adding more LBs/S into the Box (Top of Chart). That’s really it from an alignment standpoint; everything else is nearly identical to Jim Leonard’s “Alignment”. I thought Jesse Temple ran a great piece in the Athletic that allowed Tressel himself to speak on this topic!!

Here are the breakdowns by Position:

Much more A Gap Alignment, with a reduction in B Gap Alignment.

ED Defenders will primarily work Over/Outside the Tackles, with the occasional B Gap Alignment! That’s about it in terms of Alignment changes from Leonhard vs. Tressel.

Why I think Tressel will continue Defensive Greatness for Wisconsin Football:

Look, when you lose a Coordinator like Jim Leonhard, fears arise. And you can’t help but feel a bit uneasy going into the next season. But as I look at the data, I can say with confidence that Tressel is getting results, and furthermore, he’s doing it in a way, much like Longo, with a Scheme that helps UW in recruiting. Especially with positions they haven’t historically gotten “Elite” Caliber prospects QB/WR/TE for offense and S/CB for Defense. The highest Ranked Secondary Prospect under Jim Leonhard is current Wisconsin Football S Austin Brown (463rd Nationally). We’ve already seen that shift with the additions of Braedyn Moore (319th Nationally) and Amare Snowden (443rd Nationally) coming in the 2023 Class!

I’m extremely excited to see it unfold on the gridiron come this Fall! Hopefully, this has gotten you just as excited as me!

Contact/Follow us @Badger_Notes on Twitter, Subscribe to the BadgerNotes Newsletter here, and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes, opinion, and analysis. You can also follow on Twitter @GardYourFickell

Join the Badger Notes watch party and stream Wisconsin Badgers games by following this link.

*Subscribe to Locked on Badgers on Youtube and wherever you find podcasts, the only daily Wisconsin Badgers podcast on the internet.