FauxMo

September 16th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^

I doubt college football teams across all of D1 are distributed on anything close to a normal bell-curve distribution. In fact, it seems to me that D1 CFB teams are probably distributed leptokurtically, with a higher peak around the average, and fatter tails (i.e. more teams at farther extremes).

"Did you want to talk about the weather, or were you just making chit-chat?" Bill Murray, "Groundhog's Day"  

pescadero

September 16th, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^

Utah is #35 of 128 in S&P+ overall... but since we're talking about our defense:

Utah offensive S&P+: #63 of 128

 

 

Oregon State is #85 of 128 in S+P+.... but since we're talking about our defense:

Oregon State offensive S&P+: #122 of 128

 

So as far as offenses go -

Utah is in the fat part of the bell curve overall in D1, but at the low end of P5 teams.

Oregon State is at the absolute bottom. One of the most awful offenses in all of D1 football.

lilpenny1316

September 16th, 2015 at 11:27 AM ^

I watched their game against Eastern Washington and their defense was awful.  I understand the AP Polls -- they have to sell newspapers that nobody reads.  But the Coaches should wait until October.  If a former Secretary of State and an athletic director who doesn't know what it means to actually retire from coaching can wait until October to wait, so can the coaches.

jackw8542

September 16th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^

MSU did not do nearly as well on offense against Oregon as Eastern Washington did a week earlier when it played at Oregon and still got 10 more first downs that MSU got, 160 more total yards and 11 more points.  Except for its very first rush of 62 yards, MSU's rushing game looked pretty weak, and Cook did not look "special" either, as he got only 6 YPA, whereas the Eastern Washington QB had 8 YPA while throwing 55 times.  And even with Oregon having a QB with an injured hand, MSU's "vaunted" defense gave up 28 points.

getsome

September 16th, 2015 at 6:51 PM ^

yep, some may not realize it but oregon lost multiple defenders to nfl and had to replace like 8-9 2-deep guys on that side.  

well see how they end up later in the year since thats when it really counts, but they havent looked good so far.  they look much weaker at all 3 levels of D, particularly back 7 playing soft vs the run, missing tackles all over, giving up huge plays.  

itll be interesting to see if oregon turns it around on that side bc they still have an O capable of winning the conference

GoWings2008

September 16th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^

Unless there's a video that I don't see.  The link to the story is enough.  Good job, great info.  But I agree with Wolverine in Iowa...lets not get too far ahead of ourselves, but they sure are on the right track with that line and the rest of the D.

Soulfire21

September 16th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^

True, but if you weren't impressed by the production through two games consider that Michigan has played 2 PAC-12 teams and many other teams have played patsies and/or FCS teams.

When viewed through this lens, it is encouraging and exciting, at least for me.  I've had a lot of pessimism since 2008 and it's time to suck that venom out.

FauxMo

September 16th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^

But we need and want more than that now. You just summarized the last several years (i.e. a good defense that kept us in games when the offense was god-awful). Now I want a great defense (better than the last several years even) and an offense that AT LEAST doesn't lose the game for us...

UMProud

September 16th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^

in the OSU game when they snapped the ball over the kicker's head you saw the Michigan defenders barreling down on the kicker.  The camera point of view gave a kicker's view of it and it was scary.  

Wolverine helmets will soon become a THING OF NIGHTMARES again!

 

DonAZ

September 16th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^

So let's turn this into a discussion ... what game metrics would we like to see to indicate progress from "good" to "great?"

Score, obviously ...

But order your preferred metrics:

  • TFL -- to indicate pressure?
  • INT -- to indicate secondary?
  • YAC -- (catch or contact) to indicate aggressiveness?

cali4444

September 16th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^

My favorite metric is CGL   otherwise known as:  my Confidence in the defense when the Game is on the Line,  Even the last couple years, with a pretty good D, your gut feeling probably wasn't good in the 4th quarter when we needed the big stop.  I think that's changing...for the good!

LSAClassOf2000

September 16th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^

I was always a huge fan of the stats which give some insight into how hard a team is needing to work to get points or stops, expected average return on red zone drives, and other ones which seem to gauge the quality of overall play. For example, points per play, yards per point, yards per play....also conversion and turnover differentials to see who is winning those battles. All of them can be figured for offense and defense, of course.  

DonAZ

September 16th, 2015 at 12:00 PM ^

If we stick to defense (the focus of the OP), then I tend to focus on:

  • 3rd down conversion rate -- as a measure of efficiency getting a stop when it really matters.  Breaking that down to "stops on 3rd and short" vs. "stops on 3rd and long" is interesting as well ... short = gut-check stops; long = not allowing the demoralizing conversion.
  • 1st down production -- as a measure of efficiency limiting the opponent's offense to facing more challenging 2nd- and 3rd-and longs.  This is a stat most basic box scores don't cover, so it has to be teased out.
  • Sacks, TFL, QB hurries -- because it indicates how much pressure we're getting.  Ideally the stat would be broken out by "front-four only" vs. "front-four + blitz".  Pressure from the four four is what great defense do consistently.

I'm torn on YAC for a defensive stat since it implies a catch.  I'd rather no catches.  Maybe a better stat of defensive efficiency on passing is completion percentage, but that number gets a bit cloudy since so many factors can enter into an incomplete.

I don't know if there's a stat to measure effectiveness stopping the edge rushes and screens.  So far we've been okay, but I'm not sure we've faced a truly fast edge team.  I love our LB corp, but I think LB speed is an issue.

DonAZ

September 16th, 2015 at 1:27 PM ^

I had "Score, obviously" in my post. 

But points allowed is too coarse a metric.  Example: a team could gash the Michigan defense but have some untimely unforced turnovers.  They don't score or not much.  Is that because of Michigan's defense?  No.

Plus, the points allowed metric doesn't tell much on a game-to-game basis because it doesn't take into account the opponent's offense.  If Michigan shuts out UNLV but allows 28 to Ohio State, does that mean our defense is getting worse?  No, not necessarily.

I'd bet dollars to donuts Harbaugh and Durkin have all manner of defensive metrics they track game to game.  I thought it'd be fun to bat the ball around a bit on the topic of defensive metrics.

Mgoblue2az

September 16th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^

Wormley is going to start getting a bunch more attention from the offensive lines moving forward. Hopefully Taco and Henry take full advantage of this. We need teams not to be able to focus on just double teaming Wormley. Which is going to start happening.

Lanknows

September 16th, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

Should be interesting to watch if they start flipping Henry and Wormley at times to cause confusion in the O.  Nice thing about having a bunch of linement in the 290-310 range is you can move them around.  Henry can play any of the the 3 line spots.  Wormley makes sense at a couple and can be used situationally at NT too.  glasgow's probably a pure nose, but they rotate taco, hurst, and godin in frequently enough that Michigan can offer a lot of looks.

rob f

September 16th, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^

to judge, I love what we're seeing and the potential of this D line. Mattison has a great gig as line coach and I really like having him in that position as he guides them while in the twilight of his fine career.

swalburn

September 16th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^

I'm excited just because I think we will improve as the year goes on.  You can already see signs of it.  In the past, it didn't seem like that was the case.  We may be a tough out by the end of the season.