average age....that will tell you an interesting story.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
average age....that will tell you an interesting story.
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.
Busted...I skimmed the post and thought it was about our current roster.
Shite, shite, shite...
I think so, but you have to take into account youth.
I thought RR only recruited undersized players because it works in the Big East?!?
My world is ruined
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
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.
Young players are too small.
Michigan's defense has many young players.
Michigan's defense has many players that are too small.
Ergo our Defense is bad.
The transitive property is fun!
I think I remember this one from the Wonderlic test...
Nice enthymeme...or is that a syllogism?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
you tell me:
LOL I would give that kid a wedgie. After he got done crying, I would say "Tie your shoelaces, you punk!"
he kills you.
Mike is the Hulk.
And put 11 Mike Martin's on defense?
Perfect - then we can finally replace the 3-3-5 with a real defense, the 11-0-0...
Dear mwolverinefor life,
OMG Stop it the logic is making me melt!!!!!! Young secondary young secondary young secondary attrition ahh!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
We just aren't keeping them around long enough to develop into older, bigger, more experienced players.
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.
just wondering why these lower rated younger recruits are getting more PT than the older higher rated recruits
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.
...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...
Don't mind if I do.
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.
homage to Michael Scott.
Go Blue! Beat OSU
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 !!!
We have too many muggles on defense, not so much a problem under Carr.
Jonas mouton, Stevie brown, Shawn crable were all "normal" size and carr never recruited tweeners.
Face fucking palm
Luckily, that happens naturally. No matter who the DC is, this defense will be better next year.
Is there any way DB lets Gerg return next season?
it is save to say they are not too small for the BIg Ten. If that is the case, then why were they manhandled by Wisconsin MIchigan State, Penn State and Iowa? In prior years Michigan did that to opponents.
Is it talent or coaching or a combination of the two? Either way, Michigan has a problem.
I don't think our defense is too small. I just think the opposing offense is too big.
does happen and gerg doesnt return next season, It will be interesting to see what we do defensively. I for one hope DB makes RR fire all his defensive staff and clean house!
Does charlie daniels play a mean fiddle?
People aren't missing tackles because they are too small. They are missing tackles because they try to hit people hard and don't wrap up. So ya people will get bigger and stronger but until people learn to tackle it won't matter.
Watched the whole Wisconsin game and did not notice that the coaching staff was missing tackles. All tha ailes this defense is time, time, time. The program is just starting to get continuity now and will improve year to year. The witch hunt hurt worse that the fan base realizes and is still hurting us. The bowl game pratice will be just like an additional spring camp and improve our fundamentals if we can keep enough players healthy.
The high injury rate we are seeing is somewhat related to team maturity and strength. Whether this blog wants to admit it or not there is no magic button or magic coaching that fixes stuff. Time will fix it if we stay patient.