Are our defensive players too small?
Upon a debate I came across on whether our defensive players were much smaller than "before". I did a little research on one of the recruiting sites on what type of recruits we are getting now (under current coach) compared to 2002-2004 (under past coach). I was very encouraged with my results,
Remember these #'s reflect the defensive side of the ball (before transfers / position switches / etc.
Current Staff - AVG weight (defensive line) 264.20 (3.8 stars) / LB wt. 209 (3.67 stars) DB wt. 188.25 (3.38 stars)
Past staff - AVG weight (DL) 266.88 (3.75 stars) / LB wt. 230 (3.75 stars) DB wt 191.86(3.71 stars)
I guess in short, the reason for my optimism is, the past coach had these results in the middle of his "term" following years of Big 10 champs, a 3 year rcord of 28-10 and within 5 yrs following a National Championship. The other had to persuade these recruits after a coaching change in December, the biggest upset in college football history AND a combined record 16-20. I will say this, there seemed to be MORE defensive recruits under the past coach vs. the current-
Go Blue
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
average age....that will tell you an interesting story.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
High school kids are getting younger? I guess the old "I keep getting older and they stay the same age" bit isn't going to fly anymore.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
Busted...I skimmed the post and thought it was about our current roster.
Shite, shite, shite...
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
I think so, but you have to take into account youth.
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
I thought RR only recruited undersized players because it works in the Big East?!?
My world is ruined
November 22nd, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^
When it comes to BCS college football players:
18 year old are generally too small.
19 year olds are generally bigger, but still small.
20 year olds are generally about the right size.
21 and 22 year olds, generally, are big enough.
-Craig Roh will be the perfecet example of this through his 4 years. It is also why every UM offensive lineman has redshirted for the last 30 years and very rarely does a DL play significant time as a true freshman.
So, yes, I'd say our D is too small this year.... but not because of "recruiting small players" but because we have been forced to play too many true freshman who would have otherwise been redshirted or only played special teams and 3rd string
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
but everyone says Wisky is so much bigger and tougher. Ya, because they are all older; probably by about 2 years.
hell, i gained about 20 lbs my frosh year w/o even trying, yet we have a bunch of true frosh starting and getting significant playing time. i don't think RR is happy seeing guys like vinopal, avery and johnson get thrown around like rag dolls. i certainly don't, but that's the hand RR has been dealt. all these kids shouldn't even be playing. they should be focused almost solely on a weight program and not the playbook.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^
Young players are too small.
Michigan's defense has many young players.
Michigan's defense has many players that are too small.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
Ergo our Defense is bad.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
The transitive property is fun!
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
Can uit be used to save Gerg's job? It sure seems to be used in an attempt to absolve Rodriguez of any blame for this mess.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
I think I remember this one from the Wonderlic test...
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
Nice enthymeme...or is that a syllogism?
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
Clearly, they're not as good as past defenses. There isn't much of a difference at D-line, our line is average this year, and probably would be a lot more effective if we consistently rushed four. There is, however a big difference in linebackers. This is either because RR is looking for faster LB's or they may just be undersized. Big or small, they aren't great as a whole. There isn't a drastic change in DB size, but there sure is in play (obviously). In every category, it looks as if we are getting better talent now. I doubt that we have that many bust recruits on our team, so I think this one is on the coaches. Historically, we had good defenses during the Lloyd era, so Gerg and RR are to blame. They may be young, but they shouldn't be this bad, especially because we are getting good players for the most part.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
Can you make the fact that you are referencing the size of our players when they are signed clearer? Everyone seems to think you are talking about the size of the players currently on the roster. A bolded clarification in your original post should help this.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
Agree with you. Young men grow larger, heavier, and most importantly, learn to hit much harder over a five year period. An younger defense is a much bigger liability than a young offense.
We have learned this lesson the hard way.
Onward we march. Better days are ahead.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
this is what sux the most for the future. most (if not all) of these true frosh will not be playing in that 5th year, because we had to play them this year. so we are trading a strong 5th year for a weak true frosh year, because we have no current depth in the pipeline at DB.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
This post does tell a story... but unfortunately, it's a story a lot of people don't want to hear. "Patience." Save for the occasional ManBearFreak 18 year old, a younger defense IS going to be a smaller defense... takes some time to put on "good weight."
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
you tell me:
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
LOL I would give that kid a wedgie. After he got done crying, I would say "Tie your shoelaces, you punk!"
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^
he kills you.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
the Hulk
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Mike is the Hulk.
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
And put 11 Mike Martin's on defense?
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
Perfect - then we can finally replace the 3-3-5 with a real defense, the 11-0-0...
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:28 PM ^
Dear mwolverinefor life,
OMG Stop it the logic is making me melt!!!!!! Young secondary young secondary young secondary attrition ahh!!!
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
1. I wouldn't get too excited about the incoming weights of the players, or the star rankings. Barwis can bulk them up just fine as far as weights go, and star gazing doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when some teams are putting out very good defenses with lower rated players.
2. I hate the talk of "ideal" weights or heights for certain positions. Take a gander at the rosters of your favorite NFL team(s) and some of the others around the league. For example, I hear talk all the time from people stating the LBs should be in the 250# range and at least 6'3" or taller. Some of the best LBs in the NFL are only 230# or so and only 6'0-1" in height. Sure, they may be some like Urlacher who goes 260# and 6-5 or so, but they are the rarity. The same thing with DE's as with the LBs. And, as for the DBs, there are several very good starting CBs now who are only 5' 9-10" and 190# or so. In short, it's not the body type so much as it is the athleticism of a particular player that can allow him to be a very good player(I say 'can allow' because game mentality and fundamentals also play an important part).
One of the reasons we were so severely lacking on the defensive line against Wisky wasn't the scheme, but the lack of depth. When Martin and Roh go out, it is very hard to replace those two. The same thing has been going on all season long, particularly since the defense is on the field so much. We lack the quality depth to plug guys in and give others rest without much dropoff. This issue goes back to youth and coaching. Next year, even with the loss of guys like Banks, Sagesse, Ezeh and Mouton, our defensive front play should be much better due to depth where we can plug guys in constantly, keeping players fresh, and without much dropoff. The same can be talked about for our secondary players.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 PM ^
I forget the exact breakdown but I believe its something like 2/3 of 5 stars work out pretty well, 1/2 of 4 stars, and 1/3 of 3 stars with it being even worse for 2 stars. There are exceptions, but if your class is made up of almost entirely 3 stars you don't have much margin of error.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^
Lane Kiffin. From an interview with Kiffikens prior to the Jan. 1, 2007 Rose Bowl with USC:
"Lane Kiffin, USC's offensive coordinator, said the stereotype exists because of the second-tier Big Ten teams.
"When you look at the Big Ten as a whole, there is not a lot of speed," he said. "Now that's not the case with Ohio State or Michigan."
Still, when asked what he noticed about Michigan's defense, he replied: size.
"They tend to get bigger guys," he said. "I don't know if that's the way they recruit. But when you look at their linebackers and linemen, there is about an average of two inches and 20 pounds compared to our guys."
Size, he said, is not something USC covets.
"We go for speed," he said. "That's just our philosophy."
............
If you want to completely discount Kiffin's comments because he's a complete douchebag, then just focus your attention on the results of our Rose Bowls with USC during the last decade. Among other things, one clear difference on the field was the speed of USC's defense. Don't agree with me? Chad Henne does:
"When Michigan lost to Tennessee, everyone could see the team needed to get quicker. Coach Lloyd Carr admitted as much. And for the most part, the team did.
But the dispiriting losses in late November and early January continued, and after USC ran all over the field in the second half of Monday's Rose Bowl game, Carr blamed the Trojans' speed. So did many U-M players.
Said Chad Henne: "Their speed overcame ours."
.............
It's still an open question in my mind whether RR is successfully recruiting superior speed on defense, since so many of his better D recruits are only freshmen and sophomores. We'll have a better idea by the middle of next season.
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
the speed difference vs the size difference.
The one thing that might skew Kiffin's view a little here is the make up of the UM defense in 2006. Alan Branch was a monster of a man and if I remember correctly Crable and Burgess were fairly tall for LB's. I'm not sure the make up of UM's front 7 on the 2006 defense is/was typical of a UM defense for most of the late Carr and RR era.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
Don, interesting stuff. I think we could even go back to the 1980s for more examples.
Notre Dame owned us almost every year under Uncle Lou. We always came in with the beefier, brawnier people in the trenches. They werent as big, but fuck man if they beat us in the trenches due to their quickness.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
I think the answer is YES. We're seeing the Michigan defense get pushed around allot these past 2 years. I think some of it has to due with age (which translates to a lack of strength). I believe we have to recruit girth. More guys in the Q WAshington mold. Guys who will take up space and hold their ground etc. For all that's been written and said about Barwis it hasn't exactly translated on the field where our defensive unit is concerned. We do however have one of the better OLines in the country so there is hope for our defense (and Barwis) yet...
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
Barwis, at least by reputation, is very good. I think, though, that we expect something magical from our players because of Barwis. That just isn't in the cards. Most good programs have excellent S&C training or they wouldn't be competitive.
Age is huge...simply takes a couple of years to physically mature, although some kids are a lot closer to playing than others when they start school.
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^
about recruiting girth. the key is getting a pipeline of depth in place, so we don't have to play freshmen. i would much rather recruit talent and athleticism than girth, because weight can be added at the college level.
look at graham for example. came in at what 240? and left at what 280? you can probably find many other examples too - woodley, crable...
although these guys may have played a bit as freshmen, but they weren't "counted" on like now.
i believe we have a bunch of fast smaller LB/S types redshirting this year. hopefully, they are adding the necessary 10-20 lbs and will contribute next year. and we will bring some more in this year, so the pipeline is starting. it's just going to be a year or to take hold.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
Geez.
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
I think they are to small but according to dewitt262's stats, it doesn't seem to be the case. So what is the issue? Everyone knows about the youth but where does the fundementals start showing. These guys didn't just start playing football April 2010.
GET A REAL DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR AND LET HIM COACH THE DEFENSE!
November 22nd, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
We just aren't keeping them around long enough to develop into older, bigger, more experienced players.
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:03 PM ^
As who? Indiana?
I certainly don't think we are getting the same level of recruit that Carr and the others here got (but feel free to correct me).
I'm a star gazer. Better talented players with more stars have more potential. Even Mike "See any results, yet? Neither do I" Barwis says so.
Higher rated players have received better coaching, play at better faciltities, play better competition, and can contribute earlier.
The type of recruit we're getting IS the type that needs to redshirt, be an understudy, and then slowly work into the lineup.
This type of athlete is not the type of athlete Michigan should be getting. Unless, of course, we want to be Iowa and Wisconsin when we grow up and challenge for Big ten titles every three or four years.
If you axe me, I'd rather have it back to when we challenged for the Big Ten title all the time.
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
then why are all these freshmen playing? Shouldn't Carr's more talented Jr and Sr recruits be out there? or is it that the coaches do a better job of coaching less talented players, so much so that they out play the more highly-taughted players? it just doesn't add up.
we had two walk-ons get significant playing time last year over the 4 and 5 star upperclassmen, and a true frosh at DE. the talent level obviously wasn't there.
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:10 PM ^
But IMO, the "Let's Blame LLoyd for Everything" ship sailed after last season.
I mean, we have had the Barwis stuffed down our throats for three years, excuse after excuse, and we will likely be on our third DC in four years (either way).
You want to blame Lloyd Carr well into the next millenium, go right ahead.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 PM ^
just wondering why these lower rated younger recruits are getting more PT than the older higher rated recruits
November 23rd, 2010 at 1:32 AM ^
In that unbelievably stupid rant, you didn't answer his question at all. If Lloyd did amazing at recruiting defense, why are RR's freshmen and sophomores playing ahead of the seniors and juniors?
Also, you might want to look at the amount of drafted Michigan players in the last 4 years and tell me there was a ton of talent. 1 guy drafted in the first 3 rounds and we needed a punter to get drafted to even sniff 10 guys drafted in 4 years (I am assuming maybe 1 or 2 get drafted this year). Yeah, Lloyd did amazing recruiting.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:53 PM ^
...with many of the transferees taking some pretty big shots at the coaches.
Not sure how much there is to it, but the results of the present coaching staff (particularly on D) don't seem encouraging so...
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
Don't mind if I do.
<br>
<br>*hack*
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
Admittedly, they are inherently flawed, but...since it's the only way to measure players before they actually hit the field, then it's what we have to use.
Look at Carr's last three classes vs. RR's three classes. You will see that the RR classes compare favorably according to the rankings.
But, as everybody knows, when you lose a bunch of the top guys (Turner, LaLota, Vlad, etc. on and on).
Losing that many guys hurts. Especially the top 4 star guys. Some is just bad luck, some is normal, but as documented by others, we have an inordinately high number of players leaving the program early for whatever reason.
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
That "whatever reason" can not, under ANy circumstances, be Richard Jonathan Rodriguez.
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^
homage to Michael Scott.
Go Blue! Beat OSU
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
so where is the Defensive speed. If we can't be fast ... big, strong, tough & nasty worked for me. With some speed sprinkled in here and there. Come on. Go Blue !!!
November 22nd, 2010 at 5:30 PM ^