The Question:

Taking an old question in reverse: Choose one current Michigan player whom you'd like to take back in time and have him play for a former team?

-----------------------------

The Responses:

David: I think I would put Zach Werenski onto the 2010-11 Michigan Hockey team. 

After Brandon Burlon's injury before the tournament run, freshman Kevin Clare was pushed into Michigan's 3rd defensive pairing...which ended up turning into playing mostly just five defensemen.   After the Tiny Jesus show against North Dakota in the National Semifinal -where Hunwick made a whopping 40 saves- Michigan was just gassed going into the Title Game.  It showed as M took twice as many penalties as Duluth did.  Hunwick played amazing again, but the team was chasing play most of the time.  If you put another NHL first round defenseman on that team and Clare isn't forced into action that might have been a little above his head -or if thy could have rotated through 6 blue-liners more confidently (Clare did have 2 of M's penalties)- Michigan might have been able to stay out of the box more and conserved energy, etc, etc.  Not to mention adding Werenski's offensive prowess...he already has 4-8-12 in half a year, this year.  Would it be a slam dunk?  I don't know...but I would take another shot at that game if I could get it...

Option #2 (if its allowed): Trading Senior LeVert for Freshman LeVert in 2012-13.

Option #3: Adding Peppers/Lewis to the '06 football team...but would either of them (or anyone, for that matter) keep their feet on that hideous Columbus sod??

-----------------------------

[After THE JUMP: we debate which team would most benefit from #HoverPeppers]

 
Screen grab / TONY DING

Title note: Since Brian moved this column to Wednesday morning, "Museday" is now "Hump Hypotheses," until that name also becomes stupid. New format, same old Miso soup.

Question: Against SD State we finally got to see Michigan play a full game against a pass-oriented offense. Against this Michigan usually sent four rushers, occasionally more. Last year I seem to remember this being three (out of a base 3-3-5) more often. I wonder if the extra rusher is making Michigan more effective against the pass this year?

Declaration of biases: Eeeeee Mattison.

Research: Thx Brian for adding rush stats to UFR since ND 2010. Yoink. Since it's not available yet I had to do my own SD State charting. From this I took out anything that looked like an end-of-half/4th quarter prevent, plus all of the runs, big play-action, waggles, and any plays from inside the 10, which make it hard to gauge if there were any late blitzers. I also excised last year's game against Purdue because that was played in a monsoon against Perry the Torn ACLephant.* Then I went about determining if each of those plays was a "Win" for the defense, defined thusly:

• 1st down: If the offense gained less than 1/2 of the yards for a first down (so 5 yards from 1st and 10) that's a "Win"
• 2nd down: less than 2/3 of the yards to first down=Win
• 3rd or 4th down: if the offense does not get the 1st down
• Turnovers are obviously Wins.

Incompletes go for zero yards—if the pass went to Tacopants, well it's results-based charting. Have at it.

--------------------------------------------------------

*Michigan spent the whole day rushing three and this worked pretty much 90% of the time.

--------------------------------------------------------

Hypothesis: We were right to be saying "Michigan sends 3 ARRRGGGHHH!" last year. Sending four this year is helping the defense improve.

Let's test that: In case your eyes haven't  picked this up already, Mattison sends more guys after the passer. He's averaging about 4.5 rushers per pass play, versus GERG's 3.9 among those we count from last year. Here's a tendency chart:

Rushed:	2	3	4	5	6	7
2010 (GERG)	0.4%	41.3%	36.9%	12.3%	7.5%	1.6%
2011 (Mattison)	-	6.1%	50.0%	29.8%	12.3%	1.8%

This is not just a difference of a 4-3 defense versus a 3-3-5. Mattison has called a lot of zone blitzes where a DL backs into coverage, and the 3-3-5 is designed to often have one or two guys coming. Michigan's defense in 2011 is more aggressive than it was last year. Using the W/L formula above, let's see how much more effective it is because of that:

GERG in 2010:

Rushed:	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total
Win	1	61	43	18	10	3	136
Loss		43	50	13	9	1	116

Contrary to my memory, Robinson's 3-man rushes were kind of effective by this simple win/loss method. Everything else was flipping a coin.

I counted this as sending five; Gordon was covering the RB and
stepped up when he saw his man was in pass pro.

Mattison in 2011:

Rushed:	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total
Win	-	2	27	20	8	2	59
Loss	-	5	30	14	6		55

He's definitely sending more guys. Effectiveness seems to be..wait, down?:

Rushed:	3	4	5	6	7	Total
GERG	58.7%	46.2%	58.1%	52.6%	75.0%	54.0%
Mattison	28.6%	47.4%	58.8%	57.1%	100.0%	51.8%

AAHHHHHHH this isn't right. This can't be right. Well for one Mattison barely ever sends three. He did it once versus SDSU, and that when Michigan was up 28-7 with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter. It went for 15 yards. However when I look at the wins and losses when the game is within 8 points it's still way favoring GERG:

Coach	Win	Loss	Total
GERG	100	77	177
Mattison	18	29	47

AHHHHHHH. This is literally not what I expected. Maybe my Wins and Losses thing is just stupid. Let's do this by simple yards per play when Michigan rushes…

Rushed:	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total
GERG	5.0	7.7	9.1	6.2	8.3	2.3	8.0
Mattison		11.3	5.2	5.4	5.2	-	5.5

And there you see it. I may have found what's throwing me off here. The Pass/Fail nature of my system was not showing that when GERG's defense failed, it failed BIG. Look what happens to yards per pass when I only count the "Loss" plays:

	Rush 3	Rush 4	Rush 5	Rush 6	Rush 7
GERG	16.5	14.8	16.6	19.3	19.0
Mattison	13.6	10.8	12.7	11.8	-

When the 2010 pass defense failed, it didn't just give up the first down, but often a good chunk afterwards. The 2011 defense is still 50/50 to get the job done on any given passing play, but at least they're living to see the next series more often than not. That means more chances per drive for a turnover.

Last bit, just to see if this is changing running stats:

	Rush YPC	Rush YPG	Rush TDs/Game	Pass TDs/game
2010 (All of it)	4.4	188.9	2.6	1.6
2011 (4 games)	4.7	156.0	0.5	1.0

Er. My expectation here was that Rushing YPC would be way down due to an extra rusher being around when a running play is called, but they're actually up a good bit. However the TDs given up are way way down. That combined with not once have we seen a freshman corner vacate his zone in dime, and this defense looks like it's already at mediocre and learning things that might make them good.

Holding this to 15 yards maybe should be a win.

Draw a Conclusion: Mattison hasn't even faced the best teams on his schedule yet so I can't claim anything is better or fixed. What I can say is the theory that the huge flip in turnover margin this year and/or improved defensive back play is probably having a bigger effect on Michigan's apparent defensive improvement than line scheme/aggressiveness. The data are way too close and inconclusive to draw anything for certain, and four games is not enough to assess, especially considering it's the first four games with this defense. But it is kind of interesting to see that rushing the extra guy seems to be doing a better job of keeping down the big plays than having eight men in coverage. That was really unexpected, though again it probably has a lot more to do with the efficacy of the specific defensive backs in coverage more than scheme.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonus: here's how they do on each down:

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
GERG	50.57%	56.47%	57.53%	28.57%
Mattison	48.98%	48.65%	57.69%	100.00%

 

Previously: The story, the secondary, the linebackers, the defensive line, the offensive line, the receivers, the running backs, the quarterbacks, special teams.

1. How does the shift back to the 4-3 under fit the personnel?

left: stack no blitzy. right: 4-3, though an even 4-3, not the under

Better than the 3-3-5-type-substance but it's not going to be a huge difference. Fits:

• BETTER: Roh (LB/DE to WDE), Demens (MLB to MLB with guys in front of him)
• SAME: RVB(DE to SDE/DT), Martin (NT to NT), Heininger (DE to SDE), Gordon (spur to SLB), Jones (WLB to WLB), Gordon (FS to FS), cornerbacks
• WORSE: Kovacs (bandit to SS)
Craig Roh and Jibreel Black were men without a position last year. Though Roh actually help up pretty well when he moved to the DL late, he was still miscast as a DE in a three-man line. Black just got crushed. This year both will be playing weakside DE, where they can get after one tackle.

Kenny Demens will be shielded by two senior defensive tackles, allowing him to flow to the ball like he did against Iowa. Michigan set of small, quick WLBs is better suited for the 4-3 since it will be harder for opponents to get a hat on them.

The major negative is not finding a way to keep the two safeties near the LOS. Both are effective blitzers who are a little dodgy in a deep half.

2. How big is the coaching upgrade? Will the transition hurt more than it?

The Mathlete's numbers suggest a coaching change is a drag on the improvement of very bad defenses worth about eight spots. It seems flabbergasting that that could be the case for this specific situation, however. dnak438 found a GERG effect of approximately negative 30(!) spots. While you should take that with a grain of salt because the sample size there is extremely small, each grain adds to a pile threatening to eclipse the Schwarzschild radius. Going from Greg Robinson not running a system he knows to Greg Mattison teaching exactly what he's taught for a zillion years has to be a positive even in the short term.

What causes that drag? Probably a system change. How long has Michigan been running its current system? Six games. They've probably got more experience running the under than the 3-3-5.

Then there are the position coaches: Adam Braithwaite was a grad assistant promoted to LB coach without the usual stops at East Nowhere State. Tony Gibson was reputed to be mostly a recruiter. Bruce Tall seemed pretty good but in his place Michigan has Hoke, Mattison, and Jerry Montgomery. That's an upgrade across the board.

3. Why is everybody so suicidal when the personnel doesn't look entirely doomy?

doug karsch interviewing popular perception about the defense. via firstbase

Slap me for saying this but the starting lineup isn't that scary save for two spots: SDE, where walk-ons Will Heininger and Nathan Brink are backed up by Nobody At All, and WLB, where four cats are fighting in a sack. You know what they say about WLBs: if you've got four you don't have any.

The rest of the line is Martin, Van Bergen, and Roh. Demens is promising at linebacker and they've got a couple of good options at SAM. And the secondary isn't awesome but Avery/Woolfolk/Kovacs/Gordon looks like it could be below average, which will seem like heaven. This year's edition of "Are You Experienced?" sees Michigan move towards average. There's still a gap, but it's narrowing. The Decimated Defense series also sees its Michigan number creep towards sane.

So why is everyone, including myself, afraid of going 7-5 this year with just about everyone back everywhere?

Well, there's depth. Once you get past those starters its scary. There are three backups I wouldn't wince upon seeing enter on the field: Black, Jake Ryan, and Carvin Johnson. I guess Brink fits in there as well but only because he'd be spotting another walk-on. Everyone else on the line has been beaten out by Brink and Heininger, I have little faith in JT Floyd, and even if Marell Evans was injured at Hampton he's done little in four years of football. When injuries happen the dropoff will be severe. It won't even take injuries for the defensive line to wane in effectiveness. Modern football rotates the DL. Michigan has a choice between tired starters and ineffective backups.

Even so I still can't work up the same sense of bowel-crippling panic I had last year when I believed the secondary would tread "horrible, polluted, razor-blade-filled, despair-laden water." Let's poke around at

PROJECTED FRESHMAN CONTRIBUTORS

2010: Black, Gordon, Gordon, Johnson, Avery, Talbott
2011: Maybe Ash

DEFENSES RUN

2010: 4-3 under, 3-4, 3-3-5
2011: 4-3 under

RADICAL MIDSEASON SWITCH TO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM

2010: Third year running
2011: Hell no

MOTIVATIONAL DEVICE

2010: Rubbing a stuffed beaver in your face
2011: Navy SEAL tridents

Michigan wasn't just rocking an underclass two-deep, they were rocking a freshman-heavy two deep. This could work out! For a given definition of work out!

4. What is with Will Campbell? Isn't the situation at SDE just horrible?

Man, I don't know about Campbell. Maybe his center of gravity is just too high. Maybe he'll never learn technique in the same way Mike Cox can't remember to run into the hole.

The situation at SDE is caused by whatever it is with Will Campbell and will not be encouraging. Heininger was already a non-entity in the passing game and that was 28 pounds ago. And who the hell knows about Brink? I'm guessing Mattison is just trying to get that spot to hold up against double teams in the run game and will rely on Roh/Martin/Van Bergen to get the pass rush. If they can do that it's a win.

Can they do that? Why do I ask myself unanswerable questions? 

5. Well?

Michigan will be much, much better this year. How much better depends on:

• The health of key, irreplaceable pieces. These are Martin, Demens, Van Bergen, and the starting corners.
• The improvement of last year's freshmen. Avery, both Gordons, and Black all have the potential to leap forward Darius Morris style.
• Nathan Brink. If Michigan's unearthed something here that not only makes SDE acceptable it means the guys he beat out are potentially serviceable.
• Craig Roh. He could be anything from Tim Jamison to James Hall.

The first bit is unknowable but I can hazard guesses on the latter three: two of the four freshmen above will be startlingly good. Two will be meh. I'm guessing Thomas Gordon and Avery are the former. Brink will not be as bad as everyone feared but that SDE spot is going to be averaging +2 for the season, which is bad. Roh will be in the 75th percentile of his range, a fringe All Big Ten guy.

When I wrote that the D should improve but "not enough" I didn't account for a GERG/RR effect that is real. They'll be better than 82nd in advanced metrics this year by a long shot.

Now, behold the greater-thans and less-thans!

BETTER

• senior Mike Martin with ankles > Mike Martin
• junior Craig Roh playing his actual position >>> linebacker Craig Roh
• junior Demens >> sophomore Demens/Ezeh
• sophomore Cam Gordon > freshman Gordon/Gordon/Johnson
• Woolfolk >>> Rogers
• sophomore Avery >> freshman Avery/Floyd
• T. Gordon/Johnson >> Gordon/Vinopal

SAME

• senior RVB == junior RVB
• Kovacs == Kovacs
• Heininger/Brink == Banks

WORSE

• Jones/Hawthorne/Herron/Morgan << Mouton

It's going to take two years to dig out of this hole completely but I think the defense will rebound more effectively than stats and conventional wisdom suggest.

Last Year's Stupid Predictions

Fumbles recovered double to ten.

Michigan recovered seven.

The secondary is actually better than last year's secondary because long touchdowns are less frequent. It will still be very bad.

First sentence: false. Second: true.

Mouton is much better, leads the team in TFLs and sacks, and is still incredibly frustrating.

Very accurate. Mouton led the team in tackles (117), was in a three-way tie for TFLs (8.5, Kovacs and RVB tied) and had two sacks. RVB (4) and Banks (3) beat him but not by much in a pathetic year for sacks.

Mike Martin is great and should get first-team Big Ten recognition, though he probably won't.

This might have actually transpired if he hadn't gotten laid up with high ankle sprains. Before he was chopped down against MSU he was playing very, very well.

Mark Moundros holds on to the starting MLB job all season.

No.

Michigan manages a modest improvement in yards allowed, getting up to the 60-70 range nationally.

Not so much: Michigan dipped to 110th.

Pain.

More accurate than anyone thought possible.

This Year's Stupid Predictions

• Courtney Avery busts out. Going into next year people are talking about him as an All Big Ten performer.
• Kenny Demens leads the team in tackles with Northwestern-MLB-type numbers.
• Brink is a legitimate player, better than Greg Banks was last year. The biggest source of pain on the defense is the WLB.
• Craig Roh leads the team in sacks with eight.
• Sacks almost double from 1.4 per game to 2.4. That would be a move from 98th to around 30th.
• Turnovers forced go from 19 to 27.
• Michigan noses just above average in yardage allowed. Advanced metrics have them about 50th.
• EVERYTHING SEEMS WONDERFUL