Better: Size or speed
All I've heard in the weeks leading up to the Iowa game is how big and strong their defense is. After Michigan won a few games this year everybody praises them for their offensive speed. Who has the advantage, a team with a big front seven or a fast spread offense? Will the hurry up wear them out?
October 6th, 2009 at 9:47 AM ^
"I like 'em both."
October 6th, 2009 at 9:49 AM ^
I like to think our offense is filled with speed guys who are strong. I'd take that over big, slow guys of equal or slightly superior strength.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^
I also believe Lloyd classified Navarre as a scrambling QB
October 6th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^
speed>size. It aims to build up the size also, unfortunately that comes a year or two after you've lost the fat and gained speed.
So a couple of years from now, when our young guys are seniors, the Michigan line will be a bunch of speedy massive beasts (think Mike Martin only bigger and greener).
October 6th, 2009 at 10:22 AM ^
(think Mike Martin only bigger and greener)hopefully mm reads this statement, gets angry thinking someone could be bigger than he, mutates, then takes his anger out on stanzi.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
I was a little disappointed that MM didn't pick up a Spartan O-Lineman in each hand and Hulk-smash them together. Perhaps he was worried he'd confuse himself with one of them so he purposely avoided getting too angry.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
Bucky the Badger. Built like a building and moving about as fast.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:02 AM ^
But Michigan isn't that fast, at least they really haven't shown it. Sideline to sideline, and with misdirection maybe, but not in the passing game. I heard Rodriguez say the point of a spread offense is to make defenses cover the entire width and length of the football field. Pretty much you want to make the defense cover from sideline to sideline and to the back of the endzone.
I think the same thing about the offense this year as I was saying last year, they do a horrible job of stretching the field. It's easy to stop the run when your safeties are playing less then ten yards deep because they're more afraid of your running game then your passing game.
I think Michigan's best bet against the Iowa defense is to come out early and consistently run deep routes to not only get the defense out of run first pass second mentality. Most importantly to get them moving. I can guarantee you running 30 to 40 yards up field and back every other play is not fun, and that is were you start to see a fast team effect a big team.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
the last thing we need again is a bunch of 3 and outs, with Iowa tiring out our defense in the first half, ala MSU.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^
A healthy dose of Minor rage is what we really need (for the good of the O and the D).
October 6th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^
That our receivers don't butter their hands before the game. For each of the past three games, the first three quarters have been nothing but a trail of tears.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
This is true, but even the threat of the deep ball coming on any play is enough to make the secondary play a few steps deeper.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
I don't think it's possible to say that one is greater than the other.
Penetration = death
If a defensive line gets penetration because they're stronger, that's bad. If a defensive line gets penetration because they're quicker, that's bad, too.
(Incidentally, "penetration = death" is written on my chastity belt, too.)
October 6th, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
I can't believe it took this long for a sexual reference to be posted on this topic.
Seriously, people: "Better, size or speed" as a post topic and only one sexual innuendo. FAIL! ;-)
BTW, +1 Magnus...
October 6th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
Sense of humor.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
I can tell you that speed has always been favored there. Granted, you need a particular size of individual to be able to compete at the top collegiate level, let alone the NFL. However, when you look at the Miami and Florida State teams of the 90s, and the SEC in general, you see massive speed, to include at the LB positions.
Former Hurricanes players like Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Devin Hester, Santana Moss, and Andre Johnson are known for their speed and agility - let alone being extremely physical players. I dont see too many defensive players especially built around the Big Ten mold. And criticize all you will, but the Hurricanes hold the record for most players selected in the first round in a single draft (6, in 2004); most first-round draft picks in a two-year period (11, from 2003 to 2004); most first-round draft picks in a three-year period (15, from 2002 through 2004); and most first-round picks in a four-year period (19, from 2001 through 2004). For the past 14 years, from 1994 through 2008, Miami has had at least one player selected in the first round of the NFL draft, a record unmatched by any other college or university.
I think they are on to something. Doesn't mean that Michigan's goal is to put out NFL players but its obvious that those who become top NFL players were also pretty awesome in college.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^
Football when stripped down to the basics, is a game of force. Who can push who with the greatest amount of force and move them? Same thing with Tackling. When coming into contact, who will provide the greater amount of force, the ball carrier or tackler?
So with that in mind, which will provide a greater force against the object it hits? A baseball traveling at 90mph or a soccer ball traveling at 40-50mph?
When I played football, we were told that it didn't matter how big you were (to an extent), you could still deliver big hits and push people around if you were quick and fast moving.
Now it'd be a bonus if everyone were built like a truck and could run like a rocket, but if I were a coach, I'd take speed everytime.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
"Now it'd be a bonus if everyone were built like a truck and could run like a rocket..."
Personally, I don't want to run like a rocket. Not only do they have no legs, but they also blow up on impact.
However, I am Ford tough.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:33 PM ^
Perhaps the phrase should have been "run like dilithium". Or, in full Wolverine glory: "Built like Will Campbell and could run like D-Rob."
October 6th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^
Built the The Tractor and run like The Rocket. (Sorry for the ND reference.)
October 6th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
It's not the size and strength of the linemen but the quickness they have with the size and strength that matters most. Put two 300 pounders against each other and chances are the quicker of the two will win.
So I guess I'm saying speed matters most. But if you're *significantly* smaller, well you're at a disadvantage. Somewhere a line gets crossed where your linemen can be too small to be effective even if they are faster than their opponents, but that is something hard to pinpoint (in terms of exact height, weight, etc).
October 6th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
For what it's worth, when I went to the PSU coaches clinic last spring, Larry Johnson (their DL coach) preaches that the first man to make his SECOND step usually wins the battle. In other words, a guy might have a quick first step but if his stride is too long or if he's too slow with that second foot, he's probably going to get beaten. He preached a quick first two steps hard to us and to his players, and considering the success he's had at producing quality defensive linemen, I trust his word.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:36 AM ^
Yes.