I don't count 2006 because O$U and USC combined for 942 YDS
so much for that
When is the last time we had a truly dominating defense?
July 18th, 2009 at 2:50 PM
#1
When is the last time we had a truly dominating defense?
July 18th, 2009 at 2:52 PM | 
1997
1997
July 18th, 2009 at 2:52 PM |
2006 should count but
2006 should count but
1997 if it doesn't.
10.28 100M
July 18th, 2009 at 3:17 PM |
was there another Carr
was there another Carr
was there another Carr defense that only got smoked in 1 game?
"Relax you panic monger" -Megatron
July 18th, 2009 at 2:58 PM |
2006 should have been a
2006 should have been a
2006 should have been a dominating defense, considering all the future NFL talent on it. I just think we gameplanned really crappily for those last two games.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:00 PM |
I cosign this. ^^^
I cosign this. ^^^
I cosign this. ^^^
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
July 18th, 2009 at 3:03 PM |
After losing to OSU our guys
After losing to OSU our guys
After losing to OSU our guys didn't really play that hard against USC. After you barely miss the NC game, you're pissed and don't care about winning a game for 2nd place.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:05 PM |
I don't think that was it.
I don't think that was it.
I don't think that was it. The D actually played very well in the first half of the SC game (it was 3-3 at the half). But then SC made its adjustments (in particular, rolling the pocket to buy Booty more time) and we were helpless. Booty always rolled to the same side of the field, but it never seemed to occur to us to send more pressure from that side.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:24 PM |
I guess I said it wrong. We
I guess I said it wrong. We
I guess I said it wrong. We played pretty hard but our hearts weren't in it. You didn't see people going the extra mile.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:07 PM |
Really?
Really?
That's a hell of an opinion to hold. They had their hearts in it enough to hold SC to 3-3 at halftime, but then they "didn't go the extra mile" in the second half and lost? I prefer the more rational and non-insulting answer: SC adjusted and Ron English didn't adjust to the roll-outs in the second half. I'm going to go with that instead of impugning the desire of Woodley, Burgess, Harris, Adams, Trent, Branch, et al to play hard, especially since you're insulting them over something you could never prove.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:43 AM |
I agree that we lost that
I agree that we lost that
I agree that we lost that game because we couldnt make adjustments, but I felt the defense in the second half of the rose bowl was just bad because they were on the field too long and got tired, which happened because the offense couldnt make the adjustments, i.e. they couldnt run the ball because sc was stacking the box, and the passing game wasnt working because henne wasnt making the right calls on hot routes and such that you need to when a team stacks the box and brings the house. The roll outs thing might have been a factor, but i personally feel that the amount the defense was on the field was the bigger reason they stunk it up the second half.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:29 PM |
Agree
Agree
That's the way I remember it too. I felt like our offense was getting sacked or pressured constantly and couldn't get anything going. I felt like every possession was a three and out.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:01 PM |
It's hard to go an extra mile
It's hard to go an extra mile
It's hard to go an extra mile when you're playing on a 100 yard field..
July 19th, 2009 at 2:02 AM |
Sorry
Sorry
I don't buy that at all. USC has been torching everyone who sets foot in the Rose Bowl since Carroll arrived.
I've always felt the kids came to play and they looked damn good on D in the first half of that 2006 Rose Bowl game against USC (They gave up 3 points in the first half remember?).
Halftime comes. Pete Carroll does what Carr and DeBord never do and made adjustments. BLAMMO they drop 29 second half points on us. All coaching imo.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:51 AM |
I can get behind that.
I can get behind that.
I can get behind that.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
July 18th, 2009 at 3:06 PM |
I felt like in 2006 it was
I felt like in 2006 it was
I felt like in 2006 it was dominant ... but against osu we just had a crappy gameplan in the 1st half ... and the 2nd half we did much better ... and against USC our offense did not move the ball well which made it tough on the D because your not going to hold their offense all day and the D couldnt get a breather
July 18th, 2009 at 3:12 PM |
2006 was the #1 defense in
2006 was the #1 defense in
2006 was the #1 defense in the country going in to the tuous game. they just played crappy the last 2 games.
"Ohio is like a giant turd that Michigan just can't pinch off"
July 18th, 2009 at 8:18 PM |
The 2006 secondary was not very good
The 2006 secondary was not very good
The 2006 secondary was complete garbage...if we're talking in terms of 'best of the best ever'. USC's WR's torched the hell out of us in the 2nd half.
tOSU spread that secondary out and all we could do was give 4-5 yard cushions and Smith just threw quick darts all day long. Shawn Crable was in that backfield like crazy...I would go as far as to say we had a better pass rush that game than Florida did in the NC game. Our secondary couldn't press to save their lives though.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:32 PM |
It's pretty harsh (and
It's pretty harsh (and
It's pretty harsh (and untrue) for you to refer to a secondary which featured a first round pick in Leon Hall "complete garbage."
"I'm Leslie E. Miles and I approve of this message."
July 18th, 2009 at 8:35 PM |
how often could he trust his
how often could he trust his
how often could he trust his safety help? Leon Hall is great...the secondary as a whole (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th CBs and all the safeties)...against the best of the best...didn't hold up.
What makes it so tough is...imagine if we closed in on Rolle or King or any other of the half dozen DB's we were so close to getting the previous 2-3 years. But I know, let it go....
July 18th, 2009 at 8:37 PM |
I really think that, overall,
I really think that, overall,
I really think that, overall, Ohio St. & USC were just a bit more talented than we were. Truth be told, we feasted on a fairly easy schedule up until the OSU game, imho.
"I'm Leslie E. Miles and I approve of this message."
July 19th, 2009 at 12:19 AM |
I was w/ you until this
I was w/ you until this
I was w/ you until this reply, I don't think OSU was more talented than us. Now yes, but not then; except maybe in a few positions.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
July 18th, 2009 at 11:41 PM |
Agree. The DB's, although
Agree. The DB's, although
Agree. The DB's, although lauded, came up short when they needed to take it to the next level.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:41 AM |
Given that we basically never
Given that we basically never
Given that we basically never played press coverage that season (or really, any season after Woodson left), it's tough to tell whether or not the 2006 DBs were capable of it. What we do know is that the soft zone coverage didn't work out too well in that game. Smith continually found open receivers before our rush could get there.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:17 PM |
1985
1985
1985
July 18th, 2009 at 5:16 PM |
I agree 1985
I agree 1985
My freshman year - those boys were awesome. If Bo had let Harbaugh throw the ball in that Iowa game (#1 vs #2 - we lost 9-7 iirc) - it would have been a NC year.
This - by the way - was the year after our previous "worst year in recent memory" of 6-6...........I'm just saying....
July 18th, 2009 at 3:23 PM |
For me, the 2006 team was
For me, the 2006 team was
For me, the 2006 team was truly dominating. However the 1997 team was the best defensive team i've personally seen Michigan field.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:28 PM |
Have to agree w/
Have to agree w/
Have to agree w/ 1997...aleast for my somewhat young recent memory.
The 97 defense was shutting everyone down led by the best cornerback in UofM history...Charles Woodson!
July 18th, 2009 at 4:26 PM |
Not just the best CB in UM
Not just the best CB in UM
Not just the best CB in UM history, but probably the greatest college football player to play on defense.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:33 PM |
1998
1998
did fairly well after the opening 2 games, iirc.
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:41 PM |
But it stunk in the OSU game
But it stunk in the OSU game
But it stunk in the OSU game and was just so-so against Arkansas (though it did score twice on INT returns).
July 18th, 2009 at 3:43 PM |
osu
osu
had one of the best offenses of the 90s that year, in cbus.
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:58 PM |
They had equally good
They had equally good
They had equally good offenses in 1995 and '96 and we held them in check. Not so in '98.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:44 PM |
1997
1997
Not only do I agree with 1997, but I wonder if it is possible to even have a dominant defense anymore. The proliferation of the spread seems to have temporarily shifted the balance of power to the offensive side of the ball.
I think defenses will adjust, but I also think the game has permanently evolved to a point where the definition of "dominant defense" is about to undergo a great change.
It's sorta like the way defenses suffered when everyone started passing and "three yards and a cloud of dust" became obsolete; teams started scoring more points. The spread is having a similar effect on the game.
Much like the days of 10-7 games are pretty much gone, the days of 17-14 games are fading into the distance, too.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:27 PM |
Football is always evolving.
Football is always evolving.
Football is always evolving. Otherwise, offenses could never score because the defense would know what they were doing. There was a time in football when they never even passed.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:31 PM |
2009
2009
2009
Give me negative points
July 18th, 2009 at 4:38 PM |
After the 06 Ohio State game
After the 06 Ohio State game
After the 06 Ohio State game I thought Carr did a poor job preparing the team for the Rose Bowl and the 07 season for that matter.
It really ticked me off that the 06 team after losing to OSU talked about winning the NC in 07. Damn, how about winning a Rose bowl, or a Big Ten Title, or beating OSU, before you make grandiose plans for a NC.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:09 PM |
That ticked you off?
That ticked you off?
Isn't the goal to win the National Championship, every year? If not, why support Michigan? Yes, beat Ohio State, beat em. However, if your goal is just to beat your biggest rival every year, there's a team in East Lansing who would welcome your fandom.
July 18th, 2009 at 5:20 PM |
You can spin it anyway you
You can spin it anyway you
You can spin it anyway you want, but I saw a lack of focus in the 07 Rose Bowl and the O7 season. We were favored in the Rose Bowl and needed a late TD to lose by 14, hardly an inspired effort. The Offense was putrid.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:42 PM |
Maybe it is now, but...
Maybe it is now, but...
In the pre-BCS days, the goal was to win the Big Ten and play in the Rose Bowl. It was plenty, and it was enough.
I automatically downvote "B1G"
July 18th, 2009 at 5:54 PM |
1997 and 2006
1997 and 2006
1997- the year defense was fun to watch. good even in the Rose Bowl despite WSU's 5 receiver sets and a coach who knew that quick throws are needed to attack blitzes and speed.
2006 - the defensive line was superior to 1997, but the strength of the 1997 team was the secondary and the linebacker speed (Jones, Gold). Our 2006 secondary did not perform against OSU and USC. I invite others to explain that.
2006 Rose Bowl really pissed me off. The mistakes of the offense (inability to run, inability to avoid the pass rush by rollouts and short passing) were the same errors made in 2003 Rose Bowl against same team. This performance said Carr would not learn. This is when, for me, the plane crashed.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:40 PM |
Yeah, it was a shame to see
Yeah, it was a shame to see
Yeah, it was a shame to see Pete Carrol dust off the same blitz packages he used in 2003 and use them to beat us again in 2006. I blame Michigans lack of adjustment on arrogance. It seemed like Carr was determined to impose his will on the USC defense.
A three step drop would have helped to...oh forget it. Now I'm pissed all over again.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:35 AM |
Indeed. Shotgun snaps and
Indeed. Shotgun snaps and
Indeed. Shotgun snaps and quick throws would have made a world of difference. Instead, Carr hung Henne out to dry by leaving him vulnerable to SC blitzes.
eenie meenie miney mo, catch a WR by his toe. if he scores six, let him go
July 18th, 2009 at 10:30 PM |
That 1997 team was awfully good
That 1997 team was awfully good
I just finished watching the 1997 tosu game and Glen Steele was an animal. At 290 he was all over the field, catching running backs from the opposite side of the field, making sacks and causing all sorts of mayhem in the middle.
That team had Woodson (obviously), Steele, Hall, Dhani Jones, Ian Gold, I really miss the defenses we had that were so stingy and relentless.
I can't wait for our next great defensive team.
What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve and...Those Who Stay WILL Be Champions.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:37 AM |
dont forget sam sword, marcus
dont forget sam sword, marcus
dont forget sam sword, marcus ray, rob renes, and josh williams. if im not mistaken, they were all nfl players or picks. actually, all but ray spent time with the colts.
josh williams was a cool dude. i played football when he visited my middle school on a mentoring trip. he'd been drafted 2 days before (3rd round) and had his colts hat on.
This is home...
July 18th, 2009 at 11:57 PM |
-1 for use of "O$U"
-1 for use of "O$U"
-1 for use of "O$U"
No question, Jim.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:04 AM |
if you don't count 2006
if you don't count 2006
then i don't count you as particularly intelligent.
...the Canadians make up for it with their emotion and classic ice-dancing skill.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:13 PM |
1997 -- there was a stretch
1997 -- there was a stretch
1997 -- there was a stretch leading up to the tOSU game where no one scored more than a field goal on us in the second half of games. Over and over and over again that season I kept thinking to myself, "This is how you play defense!" We have had good defenses since, but nothing like '97
Cranky, long-time MGoBlogger, prone to shooting his mouth off from time-to-time, missing the days of the neg-bang and a proud member of the "06/30/2008 Club".
July 19th, 2009 at 9:46 PM |
IDK
IDK
Up til OSU really, the '06 D was downright amazing. For a while there, I believe their rushing yards allowed was negative because of all the sacks. I'm too lazy right now to look up the stats, but that was an impressive defense.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
July 21st, 2009 at 11:27 AM |
I'm surprised nobody
I'm surprised nobody
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the 2003 defense. It compares very favorably to the 2006 defense.
Rushing Defense: 22 (#1 in 2006)
Pass Efficiency Defense: 9 (#25 in 2006)
Pass Defense: 15 (#89 in 2006)
Total Defense: 11 (#10 in 2006)
Scoring Defense: 11 (#15 in 2006)
July 21st, 2009 at 2:42 PM |
The 2003 squad would be up
The 2003 squad would be up
The 2003 squad would be up there were it not for that bizarre 400+ yard rushing performance by Minnesota.
the best defense I have ever seen. What they did to all of the high powered offenses they played was astounding.
"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."