"I think Matt's point, which is well-taken, is that with the base defense for most teams shifting to be nickel, on most plays, a team will have five defensive backs on the field on most plays, and if you allocate 4 defensive position coaches proportionally, you would probably have two DB coaches, one LB coach, and one DL coach."
Yes BUT......
It's even worse than that. Nothing says you only need four defensive position coaches. That was a Shaw thing, and one of myriad ways in which he disrespected the defense. Defensive backs are so much more in need of coaching and nuanced supervision than most other positions (obviously OL also super important and also a brobdingnagian part of the roster) it's not even funny. That's because "DB" is a misnomer. They're different positions in a way X and Z receivers are not. If you have one coach you box yourself into generic, unnuanced, lowest common denominator coaching. We saw that every time Akina or his charges opened their mouth with all the talk of versatility. Fortunately, teams have a solution with the tenth spot - just break the secondary up into two groups and make sure you can have dedicated coaching and scheme. Shaw chose to have, in essence, six offensive coaches (including himself, which I think you have to do as he was essentially the coordinator), four defensive coaches, and a special teams coach. Very unbalanced. He didn't have to do that. But he's not a defense guy, plus on top of that he showed more love to special teams than defense.
By the way, I think Akina's results in both recruiting and performance were solid. I bet it would be hard to find too many better DB coaches in the nickel age who performed as competently coaching 45 percent of the defense themself. It's just that as a management practice I think it's clear the best practice of good college football teams is to have at least two secondary coaches. One is a real outlier. Again, just as prominent among good teams to have THREE as it is to have one.
Yes BUT......
It's even worse than that. Nothing says you only need four defensive position coaches. That was a Shaw thing, and one of myriad ways in which he disrespected the defense. Defensive backs are so much more in need of coaching and nuanced supervision than most other positions (obviously OL also super important and also a brobdingnagian part of the roster) it's not even funny. That's because "DB" is a misnomer. They're different positions in a way X and Z receivers are not. If you have one coach you box yourself into generic, unnuanced, lowest common denominator coaching. We saw that every time Akina or his charges opened their mouth with all the talk of versatility. Fortunately, teams have a solution with the tenth spot - just break the secondary up into two groups and make sure you can have dedicated coaching and scheme. Shaw chose to have, in essence, six offensive coaches (including himself, which I think you have to do as he was essentially the coordinator), four defensive coaches, and a special teams coach. Very unbalanced. He didn't have to do that. But he's not a defense guy, plus on top of that he showed more love to special teams than defense.
By the way, I think Akina's results in both recruiting and performance were solid. I bet it would be hard to find too many better DB coaches in the nickel age who performed as competently coaching 45 percent of the defense themself. It's just that as a management practice I think it's clear the best practice of good college football teams is to have at least two secondary coaches. One is a real outlier. Again, just as prominent among good teams to have THREE as it is to have one.