A Contrarian View of the Defense
After the spectacular play of the defense on Saturday the praise has been overwhelming from everyone including Brian, but I got to thinking of all the fortune blessed upon this defense and put together this post to point out some information that might give you some pause to take Mattison from Deity to simply a great D Coordinator.
1. Tempo- "Enjoy Life" just put together a terrific diary explaining how offensive tempo changes defensive stats. So I thought as a baseline to determine the defenses improvement we should look at per play stats because that would eliminate the offenses effect and turnovers effect on the defensive performance which we have learned the last few years has been massive. So last year we were 98th and this year we are 40th. Fantastic, but not as ridiculous as the 110th to 5th jump I've seen reported.
2. Players-
a. Returning Starters-From last years team to this year we have 6 returning players who we we can all assume would be better to varying degrees. RVB, Martin(plus injury), Roh, Demens, Kovacs, Floyd(half year)
b. Not Returning but Weird Circumstances Upgrade- Heininger missed most of last year with an injury and he has been a push to an upgrade over Banks, Patterson. Woolfolk was supposed to be a huge upgrade over J. Rogers but due to injuries and play he has actually moved over to Saftey where he has filled in as an upgrade over Cam and Vinopal.
c. More Freshmen WTF They are Killing Us!!!.... Wait What They are Good?- That leaves 3 more starters Ryan, Countess and Morgan. While Morgan/Ryan is a downgrade over Mouton these freshmen have actually upgraded their position because they had to beat out actual scholarship players and not air. Each man had to beat out at least 2 scholarship guys that weren't freshmen to earn their playing time.
This isn't exact because of the scheme difference and personal opinion being what it is, but I would say Michigan has a talent upgrade at every position save Mouton's LB spot that has nothing to do with coaching.
3. Schedule- When I was discussing this with my buddy yesterday it seemed like a big factor, but when you look at the numbers they don't seem to tell you a whole bunch. It's one of those situations where you could make your numbers fit your argument either way so I'll just leave it to you guys to discuss. It's pretty clear that in Big Ten play the offenses have been worse from last year..MSU, Ill, Iowa have all taken big steps back, Ind with Chapell was much better than Minn and NW and Pur were better than Penn St last year and Purdue last year. So it's 4-2 in BT play. One other note of how bad the BT is this year. Mich is currently 15th in total defense but 6th in the Big Ten. A lot of Big Ten defenses getting fat off of these offenses.
4. Trash Tornado- Not sure of the exact weather of every game last year, but the wind this year has been ridiculous. 4 games have been effected pretty significantly by the wind. Last year I can recall 2 Trash Tornado like games. Uconn(not bad but wind helped) and the d looked good and Purdue(which was a disaster from all accounts) and the d looked good as well. These tornado games timed well as they were against some of the better offenses if we can actually say that vs Minn and Purdue which were nice weather.
So in conclusion I'm not sure how to quantify the effect Mattison has had on this d from last year to this year, but it's definitely been positive and I would say it was far less than 102 spots from 107th to 5th in scoring defense and a little less than 58 spots in the yards per play of 40th vs 98th. It feels like to me like an upgrade of about 20 spots fro having Mattison. Last year a perfect storm of shit and this year a little friendlier storm with a big upgrade at D Coordinator, but not that big*
* Yes that is what she said. 98 98 lklgfh. se
November 17th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
If "healthy" means not completely out all season, and getting beat out by a freshman and a guy people thought was a disaster before last Saturday, and moved to another position, where he really only starts when there's injuries worse than the ones he's playing with.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
he's around, he's contributing, and he's certainly an upgrade over true freshman and walk-ons that populated last year's secondary.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
Roh playing woefully out of position at Outside Linebacker as the same thing as zone blitzing, did you?
It might have been a bad defense. But it certainly wouldn't have been a HISTORICALLY bad defense.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
But yeah...it is the same thing. Roh still rushed off the edge on most plays. The difference between a WDE and OLB is often a nominal distinction.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
Roh was being so woefully misused last year that he himself pointed this out to the coaching staff and asked to be switched back to DE. That's how clueless GERG was; he failed to recognize the natural strengths of his players to the extent that they themselves had to draw the coaches' attention to what position they were best suited for.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
I read Mgoblog.com too. However, did you notice that all the other candidates for OLB last year are sitting on the bench this year. It's possible Roh was simply the best option - especially with a handful of seniors on the DL. I think that's somewhat hard to believe (since Ryan was red-shirting) but it's not totally crazy.
Like I said above, Roh rushed the passer from the edge on the majority of plays. He was misused and the scheme sucked, but people act like he was playing cornerback.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
The late season 2010 LBs were Demens, Mouton and Cam Gordon. Mouton graduates and is replaced by Herron. Cam Gordon gets injured and is replaced by Jake Ryan. Then Herron is injured and is replaced by Hawthorne. Hawthorne makes plays, but is also hesitant and ineffective on other plays and loses his spot to Morgan. Mouton isn't sitting on the bench because he graduated. Cam Gordon is sitting on the bench, but he had a back injury and Jake Ryan is playing too well to be replaced.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
They wouldn't be distinct positions. And if Roh was equally suited for both, he probably wouldn't be putting up better numbers and less 'derps' than last year in his new position.
Really, I'm surprised current pictures of Brian have any hair left in them after all the times he cursed out Roh in coverage. (Assuming he hadn't pulled it all out after the Obi-Demens stuff).
The difference in being outside and expecting to cover one on one, or at least take zone responsibilities, and zone blitzing where you're covering but they're offsetting it bringing heat from somewhere else to confuse the offense is more than just nuances of the position. It's a whole scheme different. Last year Roh was covering...just like the other 8 guys while a flaccid 3 man rush was going on. This year, if he's covering, it's been accounted for.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^
Depending on scheme Lamar Woodley is a LB or a DE.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
No, it wasn't going to be a horrible defense, regardless of the coach. The defense was bad for three years in a row, no matter who was on the field. It was the coaches/scheme. That's the bottom line.
The defense sucked in 2008 when there were legitimately talented players (Will Johnson, Terrance Taylor, Morgan Trent, Brandon Harrison, Donovan Warren, etc.). None were superstars, but many were solid.
The defense sucked in 2010, even though many of the players (Roh, Martin, Van Bergen, Demens, Floyd, Kovacs) are the same, and Jonas Mouton (a 3rd round NFL pick) departed in the meantime.
Mattison would have been just fine in 2010. Rodriguez and his staff sucked at coaching defense. Sad but true.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
The defense was only really awful last year. No scheme was going to fix that secondary. The scheme sucked, but the team was still going to suck regardless if you can't cover anyone.
The '08 D wasn't great, but it didn't suck. See: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-f1cyHioAqWo/TsGxktKdkKI/AAAAAAAAFtY/…
"Rodriguez and his staff sucked at coaching defense. Sad but true."
Agree. They did - particularly at developing linebackers and safeties.
All the OP and I are saying is that it goes beyond coaching.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
When you're ranked in the 70s or 80s at Michigan in major defensive categories, the defense sucks.
I agree that it goes beyond coaching, but what's the difference this year? Aside from experience - which we had plenty of in '08 - the difference is coaching. The kids on this team aren't elite recruits for the most part. Countess was a fairly highly recruited kid, but he's a true freshman.
No experience + bad coaching = 100s
Experience + bad coaching = 70s/80s
Experience + good coaching = single digits/teens
The good coaching and scheming has been worth a bump of about 60 or 70 spots.
November 17th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^
Magnus do you not believe in YPP as a relevant stat?
YPP only sees a 58 pt jump in rating.
Martin, Roh, Campbell, RVB, would like to have a word with you concening their rankings coming out of school.
08- infighting between seniors and coaching staff sabotaged what could have been a very good d
09- Shaky talent wise. Should have been better. Gerg blew this one
10- Martin getting hurt and laying back to try and help the secondary were 2 critical errors, but nodody could have saved that back 7 last year.
November 17th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
Sorry - I said 60 or 70, and it was actually only 58. My argument is doomed.
Anyway, maybe it's just an issue of semantics, but I don't consider Ryan Van Bergen an elite recruit. Campbell, sure, he was an elite recruit - but he's not even a main part of the defense, so I'm not sure why you're bringing him up. Martin was on the cusp. Regardless, I said "for the most part" they weren't elite recruits. And when our starters include Thomas Gordon/Troy Woolfolk, Jordan Kovacs, J.T. Floyd, Desmond Morgan, Jake Ryan, Will Heininger, and then iffy guys like Van Bergen, Martin, and Countess, that's a pretty good amount of success. There's not a single 5-star starting on defense and the only one out of Van Bergen/Countess/Martin who was in the top 10 at his position was Van Bergen, the #8 defensive end to Scout.
I don't consider all 4-stars to be "elite" but like I said, maybe that's just me.
November 17th, 2011 at 6:38 PM ^
that's just one stat; although a useful one for analysis. but how about pts per possession or any # of other stats i could argue as equally important.
but lets focus on YPP. think about how many 3rd and 4th down short yardage plays have been stuffed this year. those result in punts or change of possessions. now if this D would have given up a yard or two on 10-12 of those plays, it would have almost no impact on the overall YPP for the year. However, those plays resulted in punts this year, where they most likely would have been first downs last year.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:41 PM ^
Not all yards are created equal. 5 yards at the opponents 30 isn't as bad as 5 yards on your 2. I'm sure there some adjustment for that, but where we've been so good is by giving up yards, but not points. Stops, Redzone protection, turnovers. Thus not magnificent vs. Yards, but much better vs. Points.
<br>
<br>Shockingly the latter is still how they determine who wins.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
Experience + good coaching = 30-50
<br>
<br>Experience + great coaching or Experience + good coaching + great talent = single digits/teens
<br>
<br>Experience + great coaching + great talent = LSU/Alabama
November 17th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
In your avatar....
November 17th, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
We may be arguing semantics, but you think after all the injuries last year this could have been a good defense?
MM on 1 leg with freshmen all over the place? Could it have been better? Sure. Greg did a horrid job, but to think that was going to be anything but a 70-80 defense is nuts.
November 17th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^
So basically, here is the gist of your argument:
"Last year's defensive staff sucked, but not quite as much as you think."
November 17th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^
Yes, if they had more than a 3 man front, biltzed more than once every other half and put the best players on the field in the best position to make plays, then yes. Last year we could have had the same identical DLine we do this year, which RVB said recently in a presser that he felt was "the best in the country." Just getting pressure on the qb every so often magically makes everybody else in the backfield better. Heininger is a DT now instead of a DE reserve, Roh lines up with his hand in the dirt most of the time instead of deep in coverage, Campbell plays on the right side of the ball again, Fitz plays ILB instead of OLB, our spurs are lining up where Roh was last year,the entire DLine isnt getting double teamed every snap now, on and on and on. The players are also more agressive, calling out lineups on offense, playing like a team, tackling in open space, and attacking. Last year we couldn't keep a cow from wandering into the end zone, this year we're #1 in the country in red zone defense.
November 17th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
It would have been a significantly better defense. We wouldn't have had Roh playing linebacker, and we sure as hell wouldn't have had Adam Patterson playing as a backup nose tackle. The linebackers would have been better, and so would the cornerbacks.
Sure, Martin's injury would hurt either coaching staff's efforts, but that defense shouldn't have been rated as one of the worst in the country - freshmen or not.
November 17th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
Mattison often uses personnel the same way GERG did last year. Roh has dropped into coverage pretty frequently this season.
November 17th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
Roh doesn't drop into coverage NEARLY as much as he did for the first half of last season. Not even close. There's really no point in you even bringing this up, because it's such a small percentage of the time.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^
and thereby figured out where they were supposed to be on defense, even though this is a new defense from last year's? Seems rather that the players had no idea where they were supposed to be much of the time last year, and this year they know. Seems more like the players had major problems actually, you know, tackling people last year, and this year they can. In fact, even the freshmen seem to have learned how to do so their first year out. Isn't it pretty obvious that the defensive schemes make sense now, the players understand them, and they apply proper techniques? That isn't just being a year older.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
That's why I said in my post that Mattison was a great D coordinbator and worth at least a 20 spot jump over Gerg.
Players do get better year after year just beacuse they get older and stronger. That is why players tackle better. Players did improve under RR/Gerg. Under your scenario the only way B. Graham and S. Brown got much better was Gerg's coaching and not their own hard work and again. Oops. Logic Fail.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
Players improved under RR?
Yards per game given up defensively:
2008 - 366.9
2009 - 393.3
2010 - 447.9
For this year under Mattison
2011 - 317.9
You and I obviously have a very different understanding of what improve means.
November 17th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^
The defense was most experienced in 2008 and least experienced in 2010. You're supporting his argument.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:52 PM ^
Yet far better this year....hmmmm....
November 17th, 2011 at 9:55 PM ^
hmmm.....
So close.
But not really.
November 17th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^
And TOP difference is negligible, (that doesn't matter anyway, right?), and the stat was yards, not points, bad offense actually gives the ball away in worse field position for the D, and thus gives up less long drives, and less yards.
<br>
<br>But good to hear you say our offense is really good this year.
<br>
<br>Keep failing.
November 17th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
Did you even support the team in 2008?
I'll assume you wore the opposing team's jersey over your signed Lloyd Carr snuggie and did watch the games from the comfort of your couch, wildly cheering every opponents touchdown as a way of sticking it to anyone who thought he should have retired.
My simple friend: TOP doesn't matter in the broad sense of an offense scoring quickly as opposed to sustaining long drives. However, when an offense is incapable of moving the ball and has a large number of three and outs, it gives the opposing offense more opportunities to rack up yards.
On top of this, there is no way to measure the mental toll on the defense. They would make stops, only to see the offense bungle their way to another 3 and out or turnover. After a time, this can become maddening.
Add this to the fact that many of the players were unsatisfied with the new regime - mainly due to similar attitudes such as your own...because you are the worst kind of Michigan fan - and you have a defense that was talented and experienced, but performed worse for a variety of reasons that have nothing due to coaching.
Now, one could make the argument that coaching did affect things such as the Purdue game, when they went about the full scale switch or the Illinois game - but when has Michigan ever been able to defend a mobile quarterback? - as Juice Williams ran riot, but one could also say the same thing about this year's Notre Dame game. Sometimes the opposing team's offense/defense is just better than your offense/defense.
Finally, I am a huge Mattison fan. I think he makes a great deal of difference instead of Robinson. However, unlike you, who cannot bring yourself to ever admit anything other than "Rich Rodriguez bad! Always!", I can see that there are other factors at work in our defense's improvement than just an improvement in coaching. I do hope that someday you will be able to see things from something other than an anti-RR standpoint, but I am losing faith in anyone seeing that day.
On a side note: Why are you still here? I'm confused as to why you haven't left as I thought we had an agreement that since you're a "Lloyd Carr's Univeristy of Michigan" kind of guy you would take your leave until the last of the RR players graduated. It's only fair: you gave them no support when times were bad, bashed them as a team constantly and now want to pretend to be there when things are looking up.
As fairweather as they come.
November 18th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
The only one who's a fairweather fan is you, who was a fan of the team for all of three years. You hated everything that came before it. And try to tear down anything before or since to make those 3 years where the program was what you wanted it to be (mister Ohio State is going to be what I wanted Michigan to be...but it's not....whhhhaaaaaaaa!!!!) look better than it was. Which was the most awful in our lifetimes. You're not a fan of the program. You're a fan of what you think it should be. And since, apparently, it never will be, why don't you go crawl back into your whiney talk radio hole, and go root for some spread team somewhere. Or whoever the hot winning team du jour is. You'll be much happier.
I was fan long before you were. And I'm a fan after you've given up your fandom to pine for a failed era. You bandwagoned on...and are still stuck on that wagon, even though it stopped rolling and fell off a cliff. You're just a liar who doesn't have the character to admit he was wrong. So you make up more lies about others to cover it up. Try being a fan of Michigan Football as it is rather than what you wish it was.
And "simple" is using the same mentally challenged arguments that people used to say "the spread won't work in the Big Ten" to defend why our defense was bad in 20098. You lend credence to outrageously wrong theories, and you come off as a giant hypocrite. Like saying people don't support "Rich Rod's players" while throwing the players Rich inherited under the bus. You don't give two shits about the players or the program. Just a coach who failed and a system you think is the be all and end all of success in football...even though it only half worked. If anyone needs to leave, it's you. Leave Michigan Football to those who have always cared about Michigan Football, and go follow your coaches and systems someplace else.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^
Who exactly got better during the Robinson years? Graham, Brown...and who else? So in two years, you have evidence that two players improved. Yippee.
Who got better during the Mattison year so far? Floyd, Thomas Gordon, Martin, Van Bergen, Roh, Demens, Hawthorne, Campbell...
Some players are going to improve as they get older because that's the natural thing to do. I'll give credit where credit's due - Robinson helped improve Graham's and Brown's draft stock. But almost to a man, the rest of those players remained stagnant or regressed.
I haven't seen a single player regress under Mattison, except perhaps Cam Gordon (who has barely seen the field, largely due to injury) and Troy Woolfolk (who hasn't been healthy yet this year).
November 17th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
RVB and Martin both improved from 08 significantly, Roh was misused. Demens was his 1st year starting, ditto Thomas Gordon. Players make their biggest jump from Freshmen to Sophmore years.
Kovacs improved under Gerg as well.
Only players that regressed that I can think of.
Roh-Misuse
Ezeh-No idea
November 17th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^
Van Bergen remained stagnant from '09 to '10.
Martin didn't get much better, except for the fact that he was a freshman in '08 and played a backup role to Taylor/Johnson. From '09 to '10 he didn't improve at all, really. His tackles went down and his sack numbers remained stagnant. He already has nearly a career high in tackles here in '11 after only ten games, and he's set his career high in sacks already this year, too.
Kovacs was a Freshman All-American in 2009 when he started the last 8 games of the year. Then in 2010 he started 12 games but his production was largely the same if you project his 8 starts over 13 games.
Like I said, the players and the overall product remained stagnant or regressed during Robinson's tenure. Now almost everyone is taking a leap forward.
November 17th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^
Individual defensive stats can be pretty easily manipulated. Martin was hurt the last half of the year and constantly doubled and tripled. He looked pretty good at the beginning of last year.
RVB got better
I'm not going to argue awards,
November 17th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
I've been saying some of the same stuff. Personnel is MUCH better this season, at almost every position (Mouton/Morgan being the only downgrade).
Heininger is an upgrade to Banks/Patterson - remember, he had already beaten these guys out to be Graham's primary backup in '09. He would have done the same in '10 if not hurt.
The road schedule was MUCH tougher last year. We lost to MSU/Iowa this year. Northwestern barely counts as a road game.
The trash tornado thing seems like a stretch compared to the other stuff.
If Mattison improves the d performance from '11 to '12 though...there will be no doubts. Not much room for improvement in terms of national rankings and 3 senior DL disappearing. Everyone else should probably be roughly the same. Improving will be primarily coaching based, so if he gets better than top 20 or whatever next year...that'd be impressive indeed.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:13 PM ^
Illinois 2010 v. Illinois 2011.
Also, how can you not credit the defensive coaches for making 3 freshman ready to start and also developing Floyd into an all-conference contender at CB? You pretend that player development has nothing to do with coaching. Like Floyd would be just as good this year if we didn't change defensive coaches and therefore, the coaches don't get credit for that.
We gave up 37 points and over 400 yards of offense to Umass last year. Let's not pretend it wasn't that bad.
I also notice that you arbitrarily choose to place an emphasis on yards rather than points. I think yards can be overrated. A team can get 80 yards in one drive during garbage time. That doesn't say much.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
Where did I state that coaching did not account for player development? In most cases college players improve each year. If you look at each individual player, I would say that player development is a little less than we hoped for in total.
People were expecting great strides from Roh, Black, Demens and Campbell and that has not really happened. The one player that has had a massive improvement from last year is JT Floyd.
Mattison has done a terrific job as I state several times in the article, but you can't stop the internet from doing what they do..
Reality is usually shades of grey. Internet is the deepest black and brightest white you can possibly imagine.
November 17th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
On how the defensive staff really isn't that good, and the last defensive staff didnt' suck donkey balls?
November 17th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
Huh? I said clearly in my post that Mattison is a great defensive coordinator and worth at least a 20pt jump in our ranking.
Yesterdays post was just asking a question if they would use more packages. Not a statement against the coaches or even stating my opinion was right. It was an observation followed by a question.
Last thing we would want anyone to do on this board is take a 2nd look at something.
I believe that players and the experience of those players are more important than coaches to a teams success and I like to point that fact out to fans that for the most part place way too much blame on coaches. If you want to make me into a lunatic for that opinion then we just agree to disagree and your opinion that coaches are more important than players will be the overriding them of the board.
November 17th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^
Jim Harbaugh: Took Stanford from a school noone cared about to one that was beating a Pete Carroll-coached USC team by double-digits. Think coaching didn't help there?
49ers this year - Alex Smith has been viewed as a huge bust, and this year he's putting up solid numbers and QBing the team to 8-1. What was more significant, the new coach or the eight months he worked in the same manner he always has?
Nick Saban is another example of a successful college coach wherever he goes.
Coaches deserve to be lauded for their successes (Mattison),and they should also take blame for their failures (Gerg). To blame last year's defense on players being young and attritbute this year's massive improvement to players simply getting "bigger and stronger" as they age is just ignorant. They didn't learn to tackle or keep track of players getting behind them simply because they're now one year older.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
Let's take a few examples from the thousands that exist and prove our point. Ok
How come B. Bellichik got fired in Cleveland?
How come N. Saban went 6-6 his 1st year at Alabama or got his face kicked in his 1st years at MSU? Nebraska used to name their score.
Why did Dungy get fired at TB because he couldn't win the big one but he did win the big one with P. Manning as his qb?
How come B. Bellichik's defense sucks right now?
How come M. Brown went from NC to 4 wins last year? V. Young and Colt Mccoy leaving or he changed his coaching style?
Great coaches make a difference I never said it didn't, but if you polled all the football analysts and coaches around the country and asked them what was a bigger difference in winning coaching or talent. I would get at least 90% on my side.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:44 PM ^
If the prevailing logic on the board right now held true, every coach would have the exact same record every year. Bo never would have gone 6-6 in 1984 because having a young quarterback and then having him break his arm wouldn't have mattered. Only improved coaching (not getting back that young, now old and experienced QB) would allow for his team to finish #2 in the country a year later and to win the Big Ten the year after that. And losing that now legendary QB would never cause the team to fall to 8-4 a year later, clearly Bo must have started fucking up again.
Urban Meyer didn't forget how to coach when Tim Tebow graduated (lost 5 games after losing only 7 over the previous 4 seasons). Monte Kiffin didn't forget how to coach when he inherited a young USC secondary last year (only three teams gave up more TD passes and only 11 gave up more passing yards).
The last time Michigan returned this many contributors on defense, they gave up nearly 100 yards a game less than the prior season (2006). A year later when they lost 5 starters to the NFL draft, they got smoked by App State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and (despite winning the game) still conceded 35 against Florida in their bowl game.
November 17th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
2008 returning contributors: Taylor, Johnson, Graham, Ezeh, Harrison, Trent, Warren
2011 returning contributors: Van Bergen, Martin, Roh, Demens, Woolfolk, Kovacs, Gordon, Floyd, Avery*
There were 7 returning contributors in 2008, if I remember correctly.
There are 9 returning contributors in 2011, although Avery doesn't start, so it's basically 8.
Do you really think that one additional returning starter/contributor makes THAT much of a difference? We were around #77 in defense in 2008, and now we're #17.
November 17th, 2011 at 5:15 PM ^
Magnus what is your obsession with the 08 defense? You use it as an example of RR's defense in every argument. I'm not sure who the blame lies with , but Schaefer is gone. 08 had very little to do with scheme or technique it had to do with players quitting on the coaches. You can blame the coaches, but it has nothing to do with returning talent or scheme which is what the argument is usually about.
November 17th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
To say the underperformance of the '08 defense had "very little to do with scheme or technique" is absurd. Yeah, lets blame everything on "TURMOIL"!
/accountability is dead
November 17th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^
Well, if you're going to excise the entirety of 2008 based on the assumption that every single one of those players quit on the team, then you win. I'll stop now. When you remove the 33% of your data that doesn't suit your argument, I guess it's a good time to go make me some dinner. Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, here I come.
Later, gator.
November 17th, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^
if an individual player quits on the team it could be an anomoly. if as you say the 2008 players quit on the team/coaches, resulting in the poor results, then it is 100% on the coaches. if the coaches can't get the players to "buy in", then it's the coaches damn fault. period.