Statistical Analysis of Defense Through 4 Games
I posted a very similar diary last year that analyzed the defense during B10 games only. With the schematic changes made to the defense as a result of the new coaching staff, I thought it would be interesting to compare the 1st four games of 2010 vs. 2011.
I have never thought that using total yardage and/or points exclusively are necessarily the best measurements to evaluate our defensive performances. Those measurements fail to account for how quickly we score on offense, our special teams (or lack of in this case) play, turnovers, and starting field position for the opposition.
I decided to evaluate the defense in a more comprehensive manner, using several statistics to get a "big picture" view of the defense in 2011 vs. that of 2010, for the first four games only, to see if we can find any significant improvement statistically.
1.) Yards per Drive by opponent
2.) Points per Drive by opponent
3.) Stop % - defined as the percentage of non-scoring drives by the opponent
4.) Punt % - defined as the percentage of drives the opponent punts
5.) 3 & Out % - defined as the percentage of the opponents' drives that are 3 & Outs
6.) TO % - defined as the % of drives that the opposition turns the ball over
7.) Starting Field Position by the Opponent
** - there will be 2 stars placed next to the TO% column in some games to indicate that a portion of the TO% was created by a TO due to a loss of downs by the opponent
I constructed the following chart in a manner that allows me to "mirror" games vs. opponents based on the relative quality of the opposing team. Obviously, the 2010 Notre Dame game will be mirrored by the 2011 Notre Dame game. I think the 2010 Uconn game should be mirrored by the 2011 San Diego State game, the 2010 Umass game vs. the 2011 WMU game, and I think we'd all agree that both Bowling Green & EMU are horrible teams.
| Game | Yards/Drive | Points/Drive | Stop% | Punt% | 3 & Out% | TO% | Starting Field Position |
| Uconn | 38.1 | 1.1 | 78 | 33 | 33 | 33** | Uconn 36.9 Yard Line |
| SDSU | 26.9 | .5 | 93 | 36 | 21 | 43** | SDSU 28.4 Yard Line |
| ND(2010) | 31.5 | 1.41 | 76.5 | 47 | 23.5 | 18 | ND 22.4 Yard Line |
| ND(2011) | 39.5 | 2.38 | 61.5 | 31 | 23 | 31 | ND 30 Yard Line |
| Umass | 36.6 | 3.1 | 50 | 25 | 8.3 | 16.7 | Umass 38.2 Yard Line |
| WMU | 35 | 1.25 | 75 | 25 | 12.5 | 37.5 | WMU 34 Yard Line |
| B. Green | 21.8 | 1.62 | 77 | 38.5 | 30.1 | 15.4 | B. Green 28.2 Yard Line |
| EMU | 23.6 | .3 | 90 | 50 | 20 | 30** | EMU 38.1 Yard Line |
This chart reflects that the defense has not improved much(if at all), at least statistically speaking for most of the metrics above. Overall, we actually forced teams to punt more, and to go 3 & out more than we have this year through 4 games. In terms of yards per drive by the opponent, it is just above even, with a slight advantage for the 2011 defense.
The huge disparity comes in the points per drive metric, where the 2011 has a huge advantage. We can account this to the huge variation in the TO%, where the 2011 defense has essentially doubled that of the 2010 defense.
I have to agree with Brian that Turnovers are just too random to predict for any given season. In all honesty, our defense has just been lucky in terms of turnovers. There can be no doubt that the defense has forced turnovers with pressure, but a significant proportion of these turnovers are simply unforced errors by the opponent.
Taking that into account, the 2011 defense is very flawed, although I do believe they are slightly better than last year's version. However, I still believe the defense is not operating at competent level at this point, we've just had the fortune of being bailed out on many lengthy drives by the opponent.
Quite honestly, if you switch the TO%, or even make them even for that matter, the 2010 defense would most likely have a huge advantage.
That being said, if we're going with the "eye test", I do like some things from the 2011 defense. I certainly like Coach Mattison's emphasis on pressuring the QB(certainly the SDSU game), which I do think is improved, but not as much as I expected it to be. However, the run defense hasn't seemed to improve at all, while the secondary has improved slightly with Thomas Gordon in particular, and a sporadically healthy Woolfolk along with a seemingly pleasant surprise in Countess.
In sum, we're still getting nickle and dimed to death, but we're getting bailed out by the silly mistakes of the opposing offense. I think we've made slight improvements, and hopefully we're operating somewhere near average during the last 3 games of the year.
Here is an individual game breakdown of the 2010 and 2011 defenses(1st 4 games only)
2010:
Game 1(Uconn)
1.) 343 yards on 9 drives = 38.1 yards per drive
2.) 10 points on 9 drives = 1.1 points per drive
3.) 7 stops on 9 drives = 78%
4.) 3 punts on 9 drives = 33%
5.) 3 Three & Outs on 9 drives = 33%
6.) 3 TO’s(2 counted on loss of downs) on 9 drives = 33%
7.) 332 yards on 9 drives = Uconn 36.9 yard line
Game 2(Notre Dame)
1.) 535 yards on 16 drives = 33.25 yards per drive
2.) 24 points on 16 drives = 1.5 yards per drive
3.) 13 stops on 17 drives = 76.5
4.) 8 punts on 17 drives = 47%
5.) 4 Three & Outs on 17 drives = 23.5%
6.) 3 TO’s on 17 drives = 18%
7.) 381 yards on 17 drives = ND 22.4 Yard Line
Game 3(Umass)
1.) 439 yards on 12 drives = 36.6 yards per drive
2.) 37 points on 12 drives = 3.1 points per drive
3.) 6 stops on 12 drives = 50%
4.) 3 punts on 12 drives = 25%
5.) 1 Three & Out on 12 drives = 8.3%
6.) 2 TO’s on 12 drives = 16.7%
7.) 458 yards on 12 drives = Umass 38.2 yard line
Game 4(Bowling Green)
1.) 283 yards on 13 drives = 21.8 yards per drive
2.) 21 points on 13 drives = 1.62 points per drive
3.) 10 stops on 13 drives = 77%
4.) 5 punts on 13 drives = 38.5%
5.) 4 Three & Outs on 13 drives = 30.1%
6.) 2 TO’s on 13 drives = 15.4%
7.) 367 yards on 13 drives = B. Green 28.2 yard line
2011:
Game 1(WMU)
1.) 279 yards on 8 drives = 35 yards per drive
2.) 10 points on 8 drives = 1.25 points per drive
3.) 6 stops on 8 drives = 75%
4.) 2 punts on 8 drives = 25%
5.) 1 Three & Out on 8 drives = 12.5 %
6.) 3 TO’s on 8 drives = 37.5%
7.) 272 yards on 8 drives = 34 yard line
Game 2(ND)
1.) 513 yards on 13 drives = 39.5 yards per drive
2.) 31 points on 13 drives = 2.38 points per drive
3.) 8 stops on 13 drives = 61.5 %
4.) 4 punts on 13 drives = 31%
5.) 3 Three & Outs on 13 drives = 23%
6.) 4 TO’s on 13 drives = 31%
7.) 388 yards on 13 drives = 30 yard line
Game 3(EMU)
1.) 236 yards on 10 drives = 23.6 yards per drive
2.) 3 points on 10 drives = .3 points per drive
3.) 9 stops on 10 drives = 90%
4.) 5 stops on 10 drives = 50%
5.) 2 Three & Outs on 10 drives = 20%
6.) 3 TO’s(1 counted on loss of downs) on 10 drives = 30%**
7.) 381 yards on 10 drives = 38.1 yard line
Game 4(SDSU)
1.) 376 yards on 14 drives = 26.9 yards per drive
2.) 7 points on 14 drives = .5 points per drive
3.) 13 stops on 14 drives = 93%
4.) 5 punts on 14 drives = 36%
5.) 3 Three & Outs on 14 drives = 21%
6.) 6 TO’s(3 counted on loss of downs) = 43%
7.) 397 yards on 14 drives = SDSU 28.4 Yard Line
September 25th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
1. For the last 3 years we had terrible defensive coaches, and we forced next to no turnovers. Now we have great defensive coaches, and are forcing a lot of turnovers. I get that there is a random element to TO margin, but you can't possibly think that this is completely random.
2. When you force more turnovers, you will force less punts. The more important stat would be stop percentage, which we are better at this year by a large margin.
3. If ND doesn't lose its starting QB last year, they rip that defense to shreds.
4. We have played much better competition this year. SDSU is much better than UConn, WMU is a hell of a lot better than UMass (WMU just came within 3 point of beating Illinois), and this years ND team is a lot better than last years ND team. The only teams that are comparable are EMU and Bowling Green, and we played much better against EMU.
You're really saying that this years defense is hardly better, and only doing better because opposing offenses are making mistakes? Have you watched the defense for the last 2 years?
September 25th, 2011 at 5:11 PM ^
Maybe it's just because I'm inclined to be pessimistic about these things, but I think we should hold off on giving the new defensive coaching staff too many accolades just yet. I'm not saying the old coaches were better (clearly many, many, many, many things were very wrong there), and I'm very happy with the coaches that are here now, especially Mattison.
But the ND game is troubling for a lot of reasons. I think that the ND game is the only game we can take much from going into the rest of the season. And ND should have wrapped that game up a couple of times--the only reason we were still in it at the very end is because of a couple of very unforced errors (Wood fumble, Rees derp) and some other errors you can call forced but were probably just Rees being Rees. And when our defense needed to stop ND from scoring with a minute left, they failed pretty spectacularly. The touchdown bust on that drive is almost certainly a direct result of a poor decision by Mattison.
And before we conclude that San Diego State is better than Uconn (not that they won't be; the jury is gonna be out for another couple of months), keep in mind Uconn went to the Fiesta Bowl last year. They weren't an awful team. I also think San Diego State could have made that a game if Lindley had played better. His passes were off a lot of the time, and I don't think much of that can be ascribed to having a defender in his face. He just played poorly.
What I'm trying to say is that I hope you're right, but I wouldn't get too excited. I think that coaching may have something to do with turnovers, but we haven't seen enough of these coaches to call them great. There is a good chance we've been lucky. And I agree that ND last year would have put up better numbers with Crist in the whole time. But I think the diary numbers indicate that maybe we should brace ourselves for a rougher big ten season than I think we're hoping for because these things take time to fix. Not that this has any meaning for the Minnesota game. Good God is Minnesota awful this year
September 25th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^
I'm not sure if your eyeball pairings is quite rigorous enough to make the definitive claims you make in the analysis. I would expect that this year's SOS is higher than last.
Also, punt % looks pretty good other than ND 2010 vs 2011 (in this case I think 2011 ND is quite a bit better than 2010 ND). This is especially the case since the higher turnover numbers take away from the potential for punt %. Did you consider turnovers on third down that otherwise would have been a punt etc.
I'd go back to the drawing board a bit before you come out and say with such certainty that this defense is "very flawed." With what I'm seeing I think the best you can say is, "the data seem to suggest that this defense isn't quite as improved as we all would like to think." Even that might be a stretch.
September 25th, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^
Points per drive matters more then any other statistic you have. The previous two years the defense couldn't stop teams from scoring. This year the defense has created about 6 redzone turnovers, ie direct turnover int/fumble or stop on downs....
Turnovers aren't just random, and often are unforced unless a rb or qb just drops the ball.
Nd for instance.... Rees fumbles, loses the ball in the redzone, everyone says it was unforced but go watch the tape, Black was coming free and within 2yds of him when Rees's helmet turns slightly and he loses the football. Ie he was about to get drilled and saw it, rushing the throw he loses the footballl...... In my mind that is forced because the qb felt the pressure. Rees int's.. dropping a corner from the short flat zone and peeling back is a defensive call so when Floyd drops to get that int, that is forced, why the qb didn't recognize the coverage. Floyd's int cutting under Floyd is also forced, why great defensive play, break on the ball........
September 25th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^
Does the defense still have big issues? Yes without a doubt.
Having said that the defense just held SDSU to 7 points on 14 (!!!) drives (13 if you do not include the end of half drive). SDSU had scored at least 21 points in its previous 17 games.
The 2010 Michigan defense does not hold SDSU to 7 points. It probably does not hold SDSU to 24 points.
September 25th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
Is that you believe that something 'bad' wil happen on the possessions that ended in turnovers. That is impossible to conclude and, highly dubious, given the improvements that the D made in the other areas. I don't think you can make any conclusions otherwise.
September 25th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Last year, it seemed like every time you turned around, our opponent was making a long TD run or pass. This year, the D has put an almost complete stop to the really big, backbreaking play. In addition, last year, as a poster a few weeks ago pointed out, we were getting killed in the second quarter. This year, to the extent an opponent has been successful, it has almost always been before the coaches have made the first adjustments. The same, in reverse, has been true on offense. Last year, it seemed as if we could fool teams (especially in the first several games) at the outset and then do worse after they adjusted. This year, even if we start slow, adjustments are made and output improves.
My eyeballs tell me that this year, the coaches have made an enormous difference by finding ways to enable our players - both offense and defense - to do better as the game progresses.
September 25th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
I think this year we've done much better in term of not giving up big plays. I realize a lot of the big plays happened in the Big Ten portion of the schedule last year, but I think there must be some comparative improvement in the first 4 games of 2010 vs. 2011. This should probably corelate to opponent scoring drives taking more plays than last year and the more plays the offense has to run, the greater the probability they will make a mistake on the drive. So, would be interesting to see if there's anything inside those numbers.
September 25th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
I think this year we've done much better in term of not giving up big plays. I realize a lot of the big plays happened in the Big Ten portion of the schedule last year, but I think there must be some comparative improvement in the first 4 games of 2010 vs. 2011. This should probably corelate to opponent scoring drives taking more plays than last year and the more plays the offense has to run, the greater the probability they will make a mistake on the drive. So, would be interesting to see if there's anything inside those numbers.
September 25th, 2011 at 5:15 PM ^
I certainly have to concur with this viewpoint, we have been much better at preventing the big play this year.
September 25th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
You lost me with the statment that turnovers are just lucky events that are bailing out the defense. Sure, a few are - Rees dropping the ball while cocking his arm sticks out. However, Jake Ryan tearing through a block to deflect a ball that is intercepted for a 94 yard TD is not lucky. Kovacs coming on a blitz and destroying Carder to force a fumble for TD is not luck. A tackle where one of our guys gets a hand on the ball and forces a fumble is not luck. Kovacs being in position to come accross the field and make a diving pick on the sidelines is not luck. Etc. This is good planning, good coaching and good football.
Your post does illustrate the weakness of the whole "TOs are random things that aren't anyone's fault" meme. Our defense is causing turnovers. To write this off a them being "lucky" is just as faultly as saying last years offense was as good as Oregon's, but was just unlucky because it turned the ball over every third possession.
Put another way, I bet I can come up with stats to prove that I am every bit as good an athelte as Denard Robinson, once you subtract all the speed, strenght and talent that he was just "lucky" to have.
September 25th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
While it is interesting to consider, I have to echo the comments above and add a couple of issues.
1. Agree that the opponent strength has not been adequately considered in this comparison.
2. We have improved in stop % and points per drive over last year-- so there is some improvement
3. Why select these metrics? I can sort of see where points per drive or stop % is a good measure, but you would have to prove to me that "3 and out" pct and "punt pct" (as opposed to "stop %") and yards per drive are really useful.
4. You did not include points per game (which has flaws, I grant you, but no more than some of these other metrics) where we have a significant improvement ( 23 vs 12.8) over last year.
5. There is a dichotomy on turnovers. When our guys do it, we assume that it is an accurate reflection of ability ("Denard throws too many interceptions" or "Hopkins is fumble-prone", but when we recover turnovers, it is all just random chance? I do not think this is logical. I tend to think that there IS some skill set which makes turnovers more or less likely (and involves a combination of both the offense and defense). I think the small number of turnovers that happen and the number of new players per team each year in college football make it impossible to see this statistically, but that does not mean it does not exist.
I think that we need to temper our optimism of the defense until we are into the B1G season, but I think that there has clearly been some improvement in the D, enough that even a pessimist like me is not horrified when our offense does not score on every possession.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
Yeah. 9 times out of 10 we probably lose that Notre Dame game.
And even though EMU only scored 3 points, the first third of that game didn't leave me feeling very confident.
But yesterday our defense played their best game since...possibly 2007 Penn State? SDSU - forget the conference - has a legitimately good offense with a QB and a RB who will both be NFL players and we shut them down. In fact, our offense's struggles were actually a blessing in disguise because it forced our defense to stay alert the entire game (Because you know, here at MGoBlog the belief is a defense shuts down and stops trying completely the moment they are up by 21 points).
Yesterday was more than anyone could have asked for at this point from a defense was a national joke last year.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
This diary sucks. It's Brian in disguise. Brian will bitch and moan about everything Hoke does because Rich Rod is gone, who he had a gay crush on. He will ignore all the defensive strides we made, like this guy did, and try to find a way to say we haven't improved.
September 25th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
As one of those you have decided to "summarize", I would ask you to please NOT summarize what I have to say. Especially when you get it wrong.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But leave me out of it.
September 25th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
I'm upvoting this for the work you put into it, but like others, I strongly disagree with the "turnovers are random flukes" argument. Defenses with a strong pass rush, and good coverage in the secondary, will generate more turnovers. OSU, whose pass rush is always fierce (and whose DBs are generally very good), almost always has a great TO margin. Last year we had a terrible pass rush and equally bad (or worse) coverage in the secondary, so it shouldn't have surprised anyone that we couldn't generate turnovers. If you're not even in the vicinity of the ballcarrier, how are you going to take the ball away?
September 25th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
Do we have a strong pass rush? Do we have good coverage in the secondary?
I would answer both of those questions with one word - NO.
That being said, how can we explain the apparent discrepancy between the mediocre(being generous) play of our defense, and the outstanding TO generation?
I'm open to answers!
September 25th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Just a question- on what do you base the statement that we do not have good coverage in the secondary?
- If you want statistics, we have the #13 pass defense in the country (in yards/game. It is #41 by pass efficiency)
- If you use the "eye-test", why discount that same "eye test" as evidence that our defense is better this year?
September 25th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^
our placement in key categories such as tackles for loss, sacks, rushing defense, etc.
A look at some current national rankings for our defense, which I generally don't like to uitlize on the basis that our defense usually is on the field at a higher rate than other defenses because our offense generally scores in an expedited manner, which doesn't level the playing field in comparison to other defenses. That being said, if the defense is on the field more, it presents more opportunity for tackles for loss, sacks, interceptions, etc - which essentially means that while we should get some slack for total yardage, we should not get slack for the uninspiring amount of tackles for loss and/or sacks.
Take a look at some key national rankings for the defense
Tackles for Loss - 4 per game(#104 in the nation)
Sacks - .67 per game(#112 in the nation)
Rush Yards Allowed per Game - 176 yards/game(#86 in the nation) & 4.89 YPC
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2011&div=IA&site=org
To put another twist to my analysis of TO's being at least partially random, San Diego State is #6 in the nation at TO's forced(ahead of Michigan who currently sits at #15) with 12, while being #113 in rush defense and 80 in total defense . From my viewpoint SDSU certainly wan't a great defense, if Denard is slightly more accurate, we probably put up 40+ points on a team that is #6 in TO's forced.
Bottom Line - a strong correlation doesn't necessarily exist between TO's gained and a good defense, at least statistically speaking.
September 25th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
Accepting everything you say, all it says is that there is no correlation between turnovers and rushing yards allowed per game.
It does NOT suggest that turnovers are "random". I would suggest that there are certain defensive schemes that may lead to more turnovers. (zone blitzes, for example) It does not naturally follow that these same schemes also reduce total yardage allowed.
In fact, I think that is the hallmark of the "bend but don't break" defense
Namely, that shorter plays may be somewhat easier to make, but that turnovers are made more likely
It also does not say that turnovers are not correlated with good defense- unless your metrics are the only way to measure a good defense.
You report that:
- We are # 112 in Sacks
- We are # 104 in TFL's
- We are # 86 in Rushing defense (yards/game)
Your analysis neglects to mention the following:
- We are # 71 in total defense (yards/game)
- We are # 41 in pass defense (yards/game)
- We are # 13 in scoring defense
Now, I do not really think that we have the 13th best defense in the country, but neither do I believe that we have the 86th best (looking at rushing defense). As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think we have only played 4 games (and actually, I bet that these numbers exclude the WMU game- as per the ridiculous NCAA decision on stats from that game) and so these results are going to be biased by the types of offenses we have played against. Eastern and SDSU both heavily favor the run (Eastern moreso) which will reduce our sacks and improve our pass statistics while worsening our run statistics.
What is my point? I don't know. Lets see if I can summarize:
- I think coaching/technique/scheme can increase turnover rates
- I think certain defenses work by increasing chances for turnovers
- I think whether by stats or the "eye test" our defense is clearly showing improvement
- I think that statistics are good, but we have to recognize that they are imperfect at defining something so complex as an entire defensive performance
September 25th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^
Just making the point to the other poster I responded to regarding the position that TO's are created by pressuring the QB and making tackles for losses. Bottom line is that we haven't done that very well, yet we are among the leaders in TO's gained.
I do think we have improved on the defensive end somewhat, however, I do disagree with those that think we have improved signficantly. Bottom line to me is that although the opponents' scoring numbers may dictate otherwise, we are still a very flawed defense to say the least. My personal opinion is that the TO's have masked those flaws. Granted, some of those TO's have been forced, but a good portion of them have not been created by our pressure in the backfield.
You would have to admit, objectively, that the huge discrepancy in points allowed and the other defensive statistics is quite baffling. How can the defense be very bad at rushing defense, pressuring the QB, average in passing yards allowed, and yet great in scoring defense. I happen to think it is partly based on the randomness of TO's, but that is just my opinion.
We can all twist the statistics to our personal formulations and theories, but the statistics certainly support the fact that we are not in the backfield nearly enough for a defense that is supposedly improved. Just think of what this will look like halfway through B10 play.
September 25th, 2011 at 8:02 PM ^
No doubt it is odd to have a total defense (yards) in the 70s, and the #13 scoring defense. And I also think there is little doubt that this is explained by the turnovers. I think we agree on this. I just give the defense more credit for those TOs. I think the inexplicable drop by CIerre Woods, and the ball slipping out of Rees hand is difficult to credit to our defense. But I remember balls popping out last year that we never seemed to recover- this could simply be bad luck, or maybe Mattison has them pursuing better or showing more urgency in getting to the loose balls. I don't know. I certainly can't prove any of that.
But the Herron TDs, the forced fumbles in the SDSU game, I think our defense has to get the credit for those.
I guess I term our improvement significant simply because we were so unbelievably bad last year that anything approaching competence (and I think it is fair to call our defense 'competent' in that I am not embarrassed to discuss our D with others) to me represents a significant jump. But this says more about our defense last year than this year.
I just think that people are looking for this to be a great defense before they acknowledge taht there has been improvement, and that will not happen this year. But, we just held a top runner to under 150 yards-- and there are a whole lot of teams that would love to be able to do that.
September 25th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
I dont think turnovers are a random occurance in the slightest. The great defenses of the world (Alabama, LSU etc.) always force turnovers and it is not coincidence that we did not get many last year. Also, I do not believe that you can compare this years opponents to last years in the way that you did. All 4 of the teams we play this year are completely different than their equivalent team last year for a multitude of reasons.
September 25th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^
whether a statistical analysis of this year's defense compared to last year was possible and you did it. I am not sure why some of the comments are so harsh against you. With my maize and blue colored glasses, I see that this year's defense is better and that it will get much better throughout the year. The truth is that none of us will know for certain how good the defense is into we get well into the big ten season. I am excited by 4 and 0 and likely 5and 0 record next week. However, I need to remind my self that this is about how the last two seasons started as well. Your analysis provides a good cautionary note.
September 25th, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^
I believe it is a reasonable statement that Mattison's pressure tactics have contributed to the increased TO numbers. However, Mattison's scheme would have been impossible last year. Last year our starting secondary for the UCONN game included a 5th year journeyman who could not start for a MAC team, a converted WR who was a redshirt freshmen, another redshirt freshmen, and a true freshmen. The backups were all redshirt freshmen or true freshmen. Of our two deep which would be ten players, there was only one legit player with any experience.
Fast forward to this year. The 2nd year players are now in their 3rd year. Freshmen who played last year now have experience. Better, James Rogers is replaced by Wolfolk. Pressure defense does not work if you have a black hole in the secondary. I approve of what Mattison is doing. But likewise I understand that his schemes would be impossible last year. UM's defense went from ridiculously young and undermaned to just undermaned.
The reality is UM's defense was good enough the last two years to go 5-0. UM will be 5-0 again. So do we really know anything? Lets wait until UM plays MSU before we claim the defense has improved or not.
Comments