no, YOU'RE off topic
Previously: The story, the secondary, the linebackers, the defensive line, the quarterbacks, the running backs, the receivers, the offensive line, special teams, the conference, offensive questions answered(?).
I keep trying to reconcile quotes like this from Rich Rodriguez…
How have some of the guys responded to the new 3-3-5?
“It is not a true 3-3-5. Again, there is as much as we were doing last year as there is new stuff from the spring. We’ve tried to keep things a little simpler, added a few new things simply because of the youth on defense and we need to play a little faster. ”
…with views of the defense in spring and fall in which Craig Roh hardly ever plays with his hand down. A quick review of Devin Gardner's time in the spring game—which I picked since it was mostly against the first team defense shows 17 snaps on which there's a three man line (a couple of these do have Roh as a standup DE, FWIW) and just six on which he is in a three-point stance, two of those plays where the offense is backed up on their own goal line and the D is expecting a run. In more open play the ratio is a striking 17/21. It certainly looks like Craig Roh is a linebacker who moonlights at defensive end a la Shawn Crable. It looks like a 3-3-5.
Maybe that's an artifact of playing a spread offense and in games against beefy, power-heavy teams Michigan will go to more of a traditional look, but I don't think that'll happen either. Michigan deployed a formation USC calls "Double Eagle" more and more as the year wore on, debuting it against Iowa and deploying it extensively against Ohio State:
This was responsible for Michigan's excellent interior run defense when Ohio State did it's usual DAVE SMASH plays. It was also fundamentally unsound when OSU went unbalanced, but hopefully they fixed that. Either way, only Ohio State has the ability to run it down your throat and switch to a spread n shred—the other beef machine teams in the Big Ten feature pocket passing QBs.
With Ryan Van Bergen and the Sagesse/Banks platoon at defensive end, Michigan's line is four guys who would or could be 4-3 defensive tackles. It seems natural to tuck people inside and and run this thing you've clearly been installing for over a year.
The verdict: it's a 3-3-5 base with four-man lines a "multiple" look Michigan will run for a curveball. The coaches can say it's not a "true" 3-3-5, but to everyone but a football coach it will look like one. Craig Roh is a linebacker, mostly, and Jordan Kovacs is a tiny linebacker. I expect three-man lines to be present on 60-70% of Michigan's snaps this year.
This is not actually a surprise. The ugly bit about Misopogon's Decimated Defense series—other than all of it—was how little matters were scheduled to improve this year:
…last year was very thin – one or two guys recruited at each level. All told, 11 recruits, meaning if everybody played up to their hype (which never ever happens), we would have had an upperclassman team with some really good players and some really mediocre players. This year, there's a little more play but it's not all that different. Specifically, the tradeoff in upperclass talent is a likely Brandon Graham (6.1) and Renaldo Sagesse (5.6) for two likely Ryan Van Bergens (5.8) and an Obi Ezeh (5.5).
Straight-up, it's probably not a difference, meaning the performance level that Michigan's defense gets from its upperclassmen in 2010 will probably be about what it got from its upperclassmen in 2009. It is still well below that of Ohio State, and like last year, is drawing from a significantly smaller but significantly more talented pool than Michigan State.
Put another way by diarist Jokewood in November:
Comparing Michigan's defensive upperclassmen not only to Ohio State, Penn State, and Notre Dame, but to the rest of the conference as well...
Ohio State - 22
Northwestern - 21
Indiana - 19
Illinois - 19
Michigan State - 19
Penn State - 19
Iowa - 18
Wisconsin - 18
Minnesota - 17
Purdue - 15
Notre Dame - 15
Michigan - 12
The rest of the Big Ten averages 50% more upperclassmen on defense. We are dead last in the conference by a wide margin in terms of experienced defensive players.
Michigan's number in 2010 was scheduled to be a still really crappy 14 before Brandon Smith transferred (and subsequently washed out at Temple), Donovan Warren entered the draft, and Troy Woolfolk exploded. Michigan is down to 11 upperclass defenders, 12 if you count James Rogers, 13 if you count Steve Watson. They've gone nowhere.
The sudden fall attrition has hurt matters, especially since it's been concentrated at the position at which Michigan was most vulnerable, but this was always going to happen.
The solitary hope is that Michigan was so bad at safety last year that even though they've lost two competent cornerbacks and replaced them with green players they will improve simply by playing bend-don't-break and forcing opponents to put together touchdown drives instead of touchdown plays. That could make the secondary a rickety cart balanced on the edge of a volcano, which sounds pretty good right about now.
How realistic is that? Somewhat, actually. After last season, Jon Chait had a post at the Wolverine with evidence the Woolfolk move backfired badly:
Michigan played six games with Woolfolk at safety -- Western Michigan, Notre Dame, Eastern Michigan, Indiana, Michigan State, and Ohio State. (I'm ignoring the Delaware State game because the competition level was so abnormal.) Michigan played five games with Woolfolk at cornerback, which forced Michael Williams into the starting lineup and Jordan Kovacs to move out of his more comfortable position. In those five games, Michigan played Iowa, Penn State, Purdue, Illinois and Wisconsin.
You can probably figure out where I'm going with this. In the six Woolfolk-at-safety games, Michigan's opponents gained 380 yards per game. Those six opponents averaged 374 yards on the season overall, which means that Michigan allowed its opponents to gain just a bit more than they did against the remainder of their schedule. This is a poor result, though not an absolutely horrendous one.
But in the five Woolfolk-at-corner games, Michigan gave up 445 yards per game, against opponents who gained 382 yards per game on the season overall. That is a horrendous result. That is a sieve of a defense.
The scoring numbers are even more stark: Michigan went from giving up 23 points a game to 37. Is it really possible that bringing in Mike Williams and moving Jordan Kovacs deep resulted in two extra touchdowns ceded per game?
Well… not quite. The Woolfolk-at-safety games include two MAC opponents, three approximately .500 teams, and Ohio State. The Woolfolk-elsewhere games are much tougher on average because the bulk of the MAC stats were racked up against other MAC teams. If you hack those out this is what it looks like:
|Opponent||Ydg||Scoring||M Ydg||M Score|
[Note: MSU's overtime period was removed to keep everything even.]
Against teams that didn't play a segregated, much easier schedule Michigan was about 20 yards worse than average in yardage and even on scoring. So moving Woolfolk only cost Michigan about 40 yards and nine points a game. That still overstates the effect since MSU did score a touchdown in their overtime period and Ohio State was Tresselballin' it like a mofo, only putting Pryor in the shotgun once Michigan became vaguely threatening. So let's knock our estimate down to 30 yards a game.
What's thirty yards a game in terms of national averages? Kind of a big deal. Michigan would have leapt from 82nd in total defense to 57th—basically average—if they'd just maintained their Woolfolk-at-safety pace.
Plugging the enormous hole at safety would be great, but even if you make the reasonable assumption that Gordon/Kovacs/Robinson is going to be way better than Williams/Kovacs, the massive downgrade at corner means you're probably just treading water. Treading horrible, polluted, razor-blade-filled, despair-laden water.
Punt. Punt punt punt. I have a tendency to get bitchy about coordinators doing things I see as strategically weird and slammed Scott Shafer over the course of the '08 UFRs for transparently nonsensical decisions like hardly ever playing senior nickelback Brandon Harrison (even against spread teams! In favor of Johnny Thompson!) and pulling one of his senior defensive tackles on downs like third and one. The end result:
The picture painted by the above is, in retrospect, one of huge incompetence. Last year Michigan regularly removed functional veteran players in favor of crappy ones that made no sense given the down and distance situations or the offense on the field, and those things only got fixed (-ish) once Shafer was removed from the decision-making process. It's not like the position guys covered themselves in glory with that 3-3-5 against Purdue but at least they pulled their heads out of their butts afterwards and put in the defense Michigan should have been running from day one against spread teams.
I didn't find that kind of complaining much when I went back over the UFRs for '09. The worst thing I found was after the Penn State game:
Why are you such a grump? Iowa put up 30 points and 367 yards of offense to Penn State's 35 and 396 , and Michigan managed to escape that game with way better numbers.
I think it was that all the stuff Penn State was doing came so easy. The Zug touchdowns, the Quarless touchdown, all the long handoffs: all of those plays required nothing more than Penn State not screwing up with wide open receivers. To Clark's credit, he hit all those guys. He then laughed about the primitive defense that Michigan was running, and on review I totally agree: Michigan telegraphed their now-predictable third and long redzone blitzes and got killed. They showed the long handoff was there and got killed. They put Obi Ezeh in man coverage on the edge against Evan Royster and got killed.
That's what the big minus in RPS is there for: I think Robinson got owned by Penn State's offensive brain trust (which is Galen Hall, not Jaypa). This game was slightly reminiscent of the Purdue game a year ago where Michigan switched to a new system and got their brains beaten in by it.
This was mitigated by the situation, obviously:
I don't know. I am sort of mad at Robinson for making it easy by not breaking tendencies with two weeks to prepare. But when you've got Kovacs as your deep safety, what can you do? Kid's smart and can be an effective player in the box but obviously lacks the athleticism to be a deep safety in the Big Ten.
Tactical complaining is absent in other UFRs, though if I'd actually manned up and done the Ohio State one I would have cited the Buckeye Football Analysis link above, in which the guy said he was surprised at how fundamentally unsound Michigan's scheme was, as another negative.
On the other hand, I've been pumping up GERG's work with Roh and Brown constantly and citing his move to linebackers coach as an indication the rest of the staff thinks he's the best option to undo the damage wrought over the past couple years. And, really, what can you do when you're handed the material he was given last year? This has been documented incessantly: given the personnel situation it is totally unsurprising Michigan's defense cratered last year.
So I punt. I'll be looking at the development of Roh and Mouton and seeing if the defense can get off the mat somewhat despite facing down a personnel situation that isn't much better, if it's better at all, than last year's. We'll have a much better idea about Greg Robinson in November.
There were many complaints when I started the preview series off with the secondary and linebackers. People were depressed. They found me depressing. Someone posted something on the message board wondering if I was okay. People of Earth: it is not my fault the back seven on defense is depressing. It just is.
Is there hope? Is there anything resembling it? Maybe. After the Iowa game this is how I diagnosed the D:
On the podcast this week I called the defense "competition-invariant": they have talent and do well when they use it but when they make an error it is so huge that even Indiana can exploit it ruthlessly, so the defense kind of plays the same against everyone.
Maybe GERG can reduce that tendency. Maybe Cam Gordon will 1-0-1 the season. Maybe the linebackers will get less frustrating, and maybe Michigan will give up an annoying number of long drives but not so many awful, really short ones. But here's the greater-thans and less-thans:
It's going to be rough. Tony Gibson:
"If we get any more simple, I don't know what we're going to be able to do," Gibson said. "We can't just play one coverage and do that kind of thing.
"These other teams we're playing, they have scholarship kids. They're not going to say, 'OK, Michigan's young back there, we're not going to throw at them.'
I actually think the defense will improve simply by virtue of having some continuity and knowledge of the players, but not by much. Shootouts beckon.
i watched USC's young but talented secondary last night as a litmus test. they got lit up. someone go tanya harding on michael floyd, stat.
I believe the defense will improve moderately from last year to this year. Last seasons defense not only had the misfortune of having zero depth and a lot of inexperience but it also was on the field a TON. Whether it was our offense scoring quickly, or going 3 and out quickly, or turning the ball over quickly, the defense was forced to play long minutes which seen them break down more and more as the game progressed. While there is no replacement for BG or Warren, we are certainly deeper and more experienced this year. The system is nothing new anymore so players should be able to play fast and not have to think as much as they had to last year. We don't need this unit to be great, but we do need it to be somewhat productive to have a great season. The mindset, attitude, and cohesion of this unit seem to be better this season. Just as the offense will improve as the year goes on, so will the defense. Very excited about the lower classmen that we have. I'm very excited. 1 day!! Awesome post Brian
The games this year will be alternating elation and depression as the offense and defense take the field respectively. Argh.
I think that if they tackle well, and the LBs keep their eyes on the tight-ends that block and release, the defense will be improved. Please be a good coach, GERG.
That is not good. However, since we have not played a down yet, it still surpasses the 2008 cheese-head-cat-fail.
He may be the key to RichRod's survival, whether he stays or goes. I wish I could say that boosted my confidence, but there's a possibility he's been living off of cheap boxes of Grecian Formula for too long, now. Those of you who believe in him: could you cite me all the reasons one more time?
Carvin Johnson is automatically going to be worse than Stevie Brown? He had a good senior year, but he was never really at a position well suited to him. Carvin should be a natural.
Unless Ezeh has regressed over the offseason, the better of him and Moundros under Robinson's direct coaching should be better than he was by himself last year under Hopson.
I think the platoon of Banks and Sagesse will be as good or better than Van Bergen was by himself last year, at least against the run.
2008: No offense, leftover defense
2009: Hint of offense, no defense
2010: Good offense, hint of defense
2011: Good offense, good defense?
I can't wait
2011: Great offense, good defense?
win even six games since our defense isn't going to stop anybody besides BG and UMass. The only bright side is that Stonum will get the opportunity to return a lot of kicks.
I think for a true freshman to replace a multiyear starter upperclassman now on an NFL roster seems like at least <<...i do like your optimism though...
Brian, I'm curious where this prediction come from?
Michigan manages a modest improvement in yards allowed, getting up to the 60-70 range nationally.
I was with you right up until that point. The only area I can really see this defense improving is turnovers forced, if only because hopefully we'll move toward the mean. But you spent pretty much this entire preview preparing us for the grim spectre that this year's version of our defense has a real possibility of being worse than last year's. And I agree. I don't mean to be a debbie downer, but I keep reading people projecting modest improvement for our defense this year, and I just don't see it. I mean, nobody really thought our defense would be better even with Woolfolk. I'll all about optimism at the beginning of the season... but at the same time, and maybe this is just me, the sooner I prepare myself for the reality that we won't be able to stop anyone this year, the sooner I'll be able to cope.
I like the idea of the defense being competition invariant, but let's not forget that the offense should be significantly better. You see this all the time in the NFL - if a good offense keeps scoring, it produces a manufactured defense that can play above its head. If this offense consistently puts up 30+ points, teams like IU, MSU, Purdue, Illinois, PSU, etc. will need to take more changes, throw the ball more, and reduce their play calling. When a DC knows that the opposition is limited in what it can do, then the blitzes are more effective, the stunts are more disruptive, and (in theory) the secondary will be protected by not being left out on islands.
Of course, this defense will still get lit up. But unlike last year when you basically conceded at least 3 points per second-half possession for the defense, this year the offense should be able to compensate.
...throw the ball more, and reduce their play calling.
I think that's the big problem. This defense is asking for shootouts.
Game by game, the previews tell me that we:
1. Split UConn/ND.
2. Beat Bowling Green, UMass, and Indiana.
3. Find 2 wins against MSU, Purdue, and Illinois.
4. Hope for two upsets due to dilithium awesome against Iowa, PSU, WIsky, and OSU.
I was at Purdue Stadium in 2008 when a 3rd string QB shredded our D for 48 points. It's a memory so horrific I can't ever get it out of my head. Last year I watched our stud DB give up a bomb on 3rd and 24 and saw countless TE's running free through coverages. Can it really get any worse?
I expect this defense to improve this year to solid. It will be nice to actually have you know scholarship players for depth this year. I don't expect us to be at the top of the Big Ten rankings but I don't expect us to be at the bottom again this year.
This game has blow-out written all over it. Carvin even takes one to the house. 42-21. Watch how many people jump on the bandwagon after this impressive win. We are gonna have all kinds of Mo rolling into S. Bend. 250 yds rushing at least
Let's hope Martin and RVB can get to the QB quickly so that our secondary doesn't get sodomized.
For those who like to play the O/U, I suggest that the over/under for EVERY large (sweeping, overarching) defensive category should be set at last year's final results. There will be some changes in specific categories. But the overall performance of the defense in re: points allowed, yards allowed, etc. might not be much different than last year.
Ipso facto, it's up to the offense.
I dont know, but if your predictions (which are hardly stupid. Shit, you're as good as making predictions as anyone, you're so hard on yourself sometimes) came to fruiton, I really think that will be enough improvement to make a huge difference in overall improvement of team record.
I'm just so bullish on the O that just give us serviceable to gets more takeways and gives up less big plays then a year ago, that we are going to be more than fine.
Like everything else, a great read.