Can RR build a defense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Casteel#West_Virginia
Yes he can, but only if replace "Casteel" with "RR" as I have done below
"In 2005, the Mountaineers defense ranked 15th in the nation in total defense and 13th in points allowed under [RR]. In 2006, the Mountaineers pass defense ranked #109 out of the nation, 119 teams. The next season, 2007, the acquisitions of safety Ryan Mundy and freshman defensive backs helped the Mountaineer defense to a top 10 defensive ranking.His 2007 defense also ranked in the top 30 in eight categories. The Mountaineers finished seventh in the nation in total defense, eighth in scoring defense and 14th in pass efficiency defense."
They defense was terrible in 2006 but then in 2007 they got Ryan Mundy and were awesome with freshman defensive backs. We are basically in the same situation as that 2007 defense going into the season. Now I pose the a questin to you:
Who will Michigan 2010 Defense's Ryan Mundy?
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 AM ^
Gordon.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:47 AM ^
Clearly he cannot. He has had two coordinators in his first two years. He inheritted a pretty good defensive unit and turned them into a conference bottom feeder. Last year's defense was bad and this years, I suspect, will be worse (too much lost talent that was not replaced, BG, DW, SB, TW). And while he has recruited well enough, he has not brought in a real impact player.
Having said that, I desperately want RR to succeed. And even if UM were to go 6-6, I would want him back because I think it'd be best long-term for the program. Realistically, I think UM will be a 9 or 10 win team NEXT YEAR. Very few seniors in this class, Woolfolk returns (hopefully), QB with real experience and hopefully a RB emerges.
I digress. Sorry. No evidence RR can coach D.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:56 AM ^
Yours is an interesting take on the situation.
If you feel that RR cannot coach a D (a point that I, so far, agree with), how is he the best for the long term success of the program? Many folks seem to have forgotten the defensive nature of the conference. His offense might put up 37/game, but if we give up 38...none of it matters. We all see offensive success on the horizon (shit, even I do, and I'm no RR adorer), but if we also see defensive failure, how is that the best future?
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
How much does RR get involved with the D? I saw a video where he was being asked about that and he kind of brushed it off saying Gibson and robinson would take care of it and he doesn't get too involved.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
You mention the Big Ten as having a defensive nature of the conference, then made your point by saying these teams will score 38 points. That'd make the conference very balanced, which I don't think it is. It's a defensive conference, I agree, but I think having a high scoring spread offense, along with an adequate defense, will do wonders in the Big Ten, once UM gets everything going... And once we start winning, those top tier defensive players -- those five star studs, will return. Oh, and Greg Robinson has only the one year at Michigan... You might want to give that guy a little more time. I think Michigan will be fine, just give them time.
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
I guess I note the threat of tons of points (38) being scored on us because our D has been so amazingly bad. Personally, I don't think an adequate defense is enough (nor do I agree that our D has been even close to adequate). I think we need a strong defense to regain our position as a powerhouse. I, frankly, don't know enough about Robinson to give a fully-informed statement as to his abilities...but I do think it a bit funny that his predecessor was only given one season (yet he needs more time).
I've got nothing but time to give....as long as "time" means "this season". Had the last two years not been so terrible (with the epic collapse last year), my patience wouldn't be so thin.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
I think he will win in year 4 despite his deficiencies on defense. Why? The offensive overhaul will take 3 yrs given the massive departure from our traditional offense and the players RR inheritted and those that defected. We have a small senior class and a very young roster. 1 more year of experience will mean a lot. Our special teams key players in 2010 have never played a game. 1 more yr will make a lot of difference. I also think that bringing in a new coach and a new system (with likely more departures) will set us back even further.
My hope is that the offense matures, our green defense develops, our special teams gain needed experience, we recruit really well (RB, DB, LB), Woolfolk returns and we return to dominance (i.e. not "glory") in year 4. IMO RR gives us the best chance to do that.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
...you degressed.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 AM ^
They showed the amount of cream puff offenses they went against and only 1 time they played a top 10 team during regular season and 44 points were put up against them. So I think those stats are skewed by lack of offensive firepower of teams.
It is a nice positive outlook on how things may go, but I am just a realistic kind of person. If we go 7-5 or 8-4 I will be really pleased. I do hope the D steps up and controls people. With that being said....
Go Blue...
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:00 AM ^
Hey. HEY. You do NOT put a weak-ass ellipsis after "Go Blue!"
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:05 AM ^
Thats us running over the defense
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^
The dots are where I say they are!
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^
Only problem is our defense only went against one top 10 offense last year as well, which was ND, and gave up 34 (and Golden Tate dropped at least one almost sure TD). So yea...........
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 AM ^
I just can't wait for the season to start, and pray to god that this all works out for Michigan and RR.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:13 AM ^
If this season doesn't work out well, I'm going to need your avatar's cardiology department.
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:01 AM ^
Your going to get high scoring games this year. The key to this year is our Offense. Time of possesion is key, sustain long drives and take care of the ball. Its going to be hard because of all the quick scoring this offense will produce. Keep the defense off the field and have it be servicable, creating some turnovers. Team defense, not so much as 1 individual.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^
Considering that the defense was supposed to be the anchor of our team in RR-Year 1, I'd say it appears he cannot. I don't want a statement to be so definitive however, so I'll adjust to "so far" it appears he cannot.
With all the talk about how great our offense will be, and the 724 excuses for RR in year 1 and 2, the talk about the terrible defense has been relatively silent. This year, the defense has an even tougher road ahead...it's looking like Texas A&M style football in A2 this fall.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
I agree completely with this, I mean personally I like to make my judgement of a coach's ability in year 1 of a rough transition. Those silly "excuses" about having "freshmen" and "walk-ons" in the two deep hold no water with me. Because we're Michigan dangitt and we always have had a dominant defense that never got lit up especially in the year before RR got here. Heck I don't even know why we're giving RR year 3 because he's so terrible
Edit: /sarcasm(apparently the quotations marks didn't give it away)
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
If by "never got lit up" you mean the very next game following our National Championship triumph in the Rose Bowl. Syracuse came into Ann Arbor and absolutely trounced us.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
That Syracuse game was actually the second game in a row in '98 where we gave up 30+ points.
Which does reinforce your point, I think.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
...the idea that the defense was going to be the strength of the team in 2008 was a bad sign. The 2007 defense just wasn't that good. Although they did have a shutout against Notre Dame, that turned out to be the worst Notre Dame offense since the sixties. In four other games, they gave up 30+ points.
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
And yet that 2007 defense still managed to hold teams to only 18.5 PPG in the Big 10 and was the #8 pass defense nationally. Yea, they gave up 30+ in four games. While the App St. game was obviously horrible, two of the other games were against the #8 offense in the country (Oregon) and the #10 offense in the country (Florida). Wisconsin was still a top hald of the nation offense. That defense was not that bad (statistically).
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
To be fair, they did reasonably well against quarterbacks who couldn't run, and they did hold Juice Williams in check. Still, if that defense was the strength of the team, the team was in trouble.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
It's all relative based on attrition. I don't know any team out there than can be successful on defense without mostly upperclassmen on the field a majority of the time and mentoring the younglings. Maybe RR is to blame for attrition and lack of depth or maybe he's not. It's simple, his defense isn't built yet. Plus, after so much media attention on the defense I'm sure he's played a bigger role this year.