Chris Spielman

136 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
November 20th, 2010 at 4:57 PM
#1
HAIL 2 VICTORS
HAIL 2 VICTORS's picture
Joined: 12/01/2009
MGoPoints: -493
Chris Spielman

I am not a big fan of former tOSU players offering color commentary for a Michigan game.  However Spielman was actually insightful and very good on today's broadcast.  His comments about the 3-3-5 and the bubbles of space that force your 5 defensive back to make the majority of plays 2-4 yards beyond the line of scrimmage was dead on. 

Spielmans comments about recruiting were also succinct pointing out that although we did lose some players on strange one off's (Cullen Christian) that for the most part players that work on the defensive side of the ball at West Virginia are just not going to cut it at Michigan.

However, ESPN has no excuse to miss 5-7 Michigan plays today becuase of a sideline interview or pictures of the stadium from 1927 when we are in the hurry up.

"Sex and golf are the two things you can enjoy even if you're not good at them."

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:59 PM | I kept bitching to my wife (Score:1)
Coldwater
Joined: 12/14/2008
MGoPoints: 762

I kept bitching to my wife that I was missing parts of plays because the camera was in John Clay's face.......ugh

November 20th, 2010 at 6:51 PM | not the worst (Score:1)
scottydreisbach
Joined: 11/20/2010
MGoPoints: 193

I felt like Spielman made some  pretty good points about our football team today, though I'm not usually a huge fan of his analysis.  The comment about defensive talent was spot on.  Almost every Carr team had several players on defense who were legitimate starters in the NFL. 

Leaders and Best

Revenge Tour 2011.  Get Ready.

November 20th, 2010 at 7:00 PM | Spielman is way more (Score:1)
ommeethatsees
ommeethatsees's picture
Joined: 08/08/2009
MGoPoints: 357

Spielman is way more insightful than Bob Griese.  I used to like Bob in the day but I think he is starting to show his age.  

November 20th, 2010 at 5:02 PM | The recruiting commentary (Score:1)
m83econ
m83econ's picture
Joined: 09/13/2008
MGoPoints: 955

Was dumb and ill-informed. 

November 20th, 2010 at 5:35 PM | Your comment is conclusory (Score:1)
Fuzzy Dunlop
Fuzzy Dunlop's picture
Joined: 09/22/2009
MGoPoints: 4175

Your comment is conclusory and without support.

Why was Spielman's comment dumb?  In three years, Rodriguez has recruited very well on offense, and has quickly replenished the offensive talent.  He hasn't done the same on defense.  Do you really deny this?  Who are the defensive standouts in Rodriguez's first three classes?

November 20th, 2010 at 6:22 PM | Saying this is Rich Rod's (Score:1)
Blue_Sox
Joined: 09/30/2010
MGoPoints: 4916

Saying this is Rich Rod's "third recruiting class" is a misnomer. He had essentially had a month between the last bowl game and signing day to let the dust of settle and see what he had. He's had 2 full recruiting classes, of which the guys would be true Sophomores or redshirt Freshman. How do you realistically expect them to be stars at this point? Look at Wisconsin, Iowa and Purdue...did you hear much about Watt, Clayborn and Kerrigan last year? Not really, they are seniors now and studs.

As for Spielman...the fact that he kept saying we need to go out and try to get "top talent" was stupid. Does he really think we're recruiting inferior players on defense? That is hollow thinking that makes me think the rest of his analysis was as well.

November 20th, 2010 at 7:58 PM | heard lots (Score:1)
jaggs
jaggs's picture
Joined: 02/03/2009
MGoPoints: 2443

about Clayborne and Kerrigan last year. Both were speculated as 1st rounders if they chose to leave early.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:23 PM | the defensive recruiting in (Score:1)
cbuswolverine
Joined: 08/14/2008
MGoPoints: 1767

the defensive recruiting in 2009 and 2010 has been just as good as the offensive recruiting in both quantity and quality

November 20th, 2010 at 6:27 PM | That is just silly.  We have (Score:1)
Fuzzy Dunlop
Fuzzy Dunlop's picture
Joined: 09/22/2009
MGoPoints: 4175

That is just silly.  We have 2009 and 2010 recruits on offense leading one of the best offenses in college football.  Our 2009 and 2010 defensive recruits are either part of the worst defense in football, or not yet good enough to play for the worst defense in football.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:30 PM | attrition (Score:1)
dahblue
dahblue's picture
Joined: 11/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1481

You realize that 25% of RR's defensive recruits are gone, right?  Getting them to sign is only half of the game.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:37 PM | It's not half the game.  (Score:1)
cbuswolverine
Joined: 08/14/2008
MGoPoints: 1767

It's not half the game.  Recruiting is getting them to sign.  When things go sideways a year later, you don't say, "Well we obviously didn't bring in enough defensive talent a year ago" because you did.

When you sign 5* Justin Turner and he winds up at a DII school in Ohio because he's decided he's not really interested in football anymore, that's not a recruiting problem.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:58 PM | Another example (Score:1)
dahblue
dahblue's picture
Joined: 11/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1481

Can you give me another example of a team that lost 25% of its defensive recruits over 3 years?  That doesn't seem like a HUGE problem to you?  Everyone says "our defense is just young".   Yeah?  And how deep is that defense?  Even if RR stays (which, frankly, will not happen if we lose to OSU), our defense won't have the necessary talent to compete for about three years.

November 20th, 2010 at 7:10 PM | You're funny.  RichRod isn't (Score:1)
cbuswolverine
Joined: 08/14/2008
MGoPoints: 1767

You're funny.  RichRod isn't getting fired, chief.

November 20th, 2010 at 8:03 PM | Rather Cavalier Comment (Score:1)
jdcarrtax
Joined: 10/31/2009
MGoPoints: 77

I don't know how you can be so confident in your assertion considering that he hasn't exactly received ringing public endorsements from Dave Brandon and Mary Sue Coleman.  Coleman clearly stated that it's Brandon's call and Brandon's statements strongly indicate that he is undecided on whether to bring RR back in 2011.  He has also publicly stated that our performance in these last two games will be very important in his decision.  You honestly think that being uncompetitive against Wisconsin and OSU will not impact Brandon's decision?

November 20th, 2010 at 8:52 PM | Misinterpretation of DB remarks (Score:1)
m83econ
m83econ's picture
Joined: 09/13/2008
MGoPoints: 955

Here are the actual comments regarding defense: 

"On the defensive side of the ball, this is such a young team. The development these kids go through from the time they're 18 and 19 to the time they are 22, 23 is amazing, the amount of weight, speed and strength they gain. That's the case in all programs across the country. We've got a bunch of 18 and 19 year old guys out there trying to chase down and tackle and fight off blocks of 22 and 23 year old guys.

"We have two big games to play. It's important to see how our guys improve, particularly as we step up the level of competition, so I'm like everyone else. I'm anxious to see how this all pans out."

http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1155021

November 20th, 2010 at 9:26 PM | I'm not sure I understand if (Score:1)
dahblue
dahblue's picture
Joined: 11/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1481

I'm not sure I understand if you're saying that DB's quote (in light of our poor performance today) indicates more or less safety for RR's job?  Given that DB wants to see improvement against good competition, I'm inclined to say that RR has one last chance.

November 20th, 2010 at 10:01 PM | Misinterpretation? (Score:1)
jdcarrtax
Joined: 10/31/2009
MGoPoints: 77

Not sure where you're going with this.  Are you saying that I should conclude from those comments that Brandon has made up his mind to bring RR back next year?  I was responding to someone who was absolutely convinced that Brandon won't let Rodriguez go.  What does that quote do to support the assertion that RichRod isn't getting fired?  If Brandon has already made up his mind, why doest he say "Rich is the coach in 2011"?  He won't say that because he hasn't made up his mind.

Are you saying that how we performed today, and how we perform next week, is not at all relevant to Brandon's decision because "we're just so young"?  If that's really the case, then why doesn't Brandon publicly say that RR is coming back?

November 20th, 2010 at 7:11 PM | He is not going anywhere (Score:1)
Bryan
Bryan's picture
Joined: 07/10/2009
MGoPoints: 8090

So please stop with that sentiment. In a world that doesn't see Warren, Cissoko, Woolfolk, Emillen, Turner, Campbell (he left the defense), Dorsey, Floyd, (I know there are more) not play on the team/ injured, we may have a different story, but it is what it is, a worst case scenario.

This is the best offense in the histroy of the B10 and the youngest team position to position wise in America that returns 19 (depending on who you count) starters. It'll be alright.

I have a Fandom Endurance III merit badge

November 20th, 2010 at 8:40 PM | 1.  So Rodriguez bears no (Score:1)
Fuzzy Dunlop
Fuzzy Dunlop's picture
Joined: 09/22/2009
MGoPoints: 4175

1.  So Rodriguez bears no responsibility for Cissoko, Emilien, Turner, Campbell, Dorsey and Floyd, all his recruits, not panning out or not being academically qualified to get into school?

2.  This is the best offense in the history of the Big 10?  Are you freaking kidding me?

November 20th, 2010 at 9:43 PM | serious? (Score:1)
Ike613
Ike613's picture
Joined: 02/19/2009
MGoPoints: 51

So you think RR should be responsible for:

Cissoko... kicked off the team for academics and who knows what else, then turned criminal.. he was a Carr recruit who apparently couldn't take advantage of all the academic resources in place around him, and then sadly didn't have the attitude to fight through some adversity and turn things around, and instead made his situation way worse.  Not on RR.

Emilien... came to UM cause he thought there would be opportunity for immediate PT... but transferred b/c he wasn't seeing the field either because he just wasn't that good or never recovered from his HS Sr season injury.  Emilien wanted something RR wasn't willing to just hand to him... PT.  Clearly not on RR.

Turner... I'll put this one somewhat on RR.  He was too talented to not take a chance on even if the staff suspected he didn't have the attitude or committment to play at a high level in college.. but its not like that is real easy to see in the limited time you spend with a kid during recruiting.  Who puts on their game face during interviews?... pretty much everyone.  I don't think it's any different for some of these kids trying to earn offers to their dream school.  Maybe RR could have done more to motivate this kid, but I guarantee he and the staff tried everything they could other than begging on their hands and knees that he spend more time getting in shape, watching film, etc.

Campbell... some recruiting analysts said from day 1 they thought he would be a better fit on the O-line than on defense.  Just because RR moved him to where he though he would be most effective, not where you think we have the biggest depth concerns, doesn't mean he made a bad decision.  It just means he didn't magically transform Campbell into the Dlineman you wanted him to be.

Dorsey... RR thought he had the green light, but then we found out Dorsey spent his senior season or part of it at some 3rd rate joke of an alternative HS program that wouldn't fly with admissions.  RR should have done his research better, but give him credit when credit is due.. they did grab a sleeper in carvin johnson, which IMO makes up in part for the fail on Dorsey.

Floyd?... so now we're blaming RR when players get hurt?  I thought that was something people only blamed Gittleson and his 1970s conditioning program for.

Of all the players mentioned, any sane person might fault RR some for Turner and Dorsey, the rest you've got to be kidding.

As far as the offense... great offense yes.  Obviously not best all time in conference.  They are great, but inconsistent, and won't be elite against good opponents until the defense gets better and takes some pressure off the O to carry this team every week.

Henry Swanson's my name, and excitement's my game.

November 20th, 2010 at 8:45 PM | Best offense in the history of the Big Ten? (Score:1)
vegasjeff
vegasjeff's picture
Joined: 06/13/2010
MGoPoints: 569

C'mon, man. All-time?

This year UM is first in offense by yards and first in rushing yards.

Michigan is not first in scoring offense.

And Michigan has yet to play the league's No. 1 defense, whether you're using points or yards. (Ohio State)

Michigan's offense is damn good, but let's not fool ourselves that it is the best in Big Ten history.

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/stats/2010-2011/confldrs.html

November 20th, 2010 at 9:18 PM | Do you get to make up facts (Score:1)
nazooq
Joined: 07/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1369

Do you get to make up facts when you get lots of mgopoints? Michigan isn't even the best offense in the Big 10 this year!

http://cfbstats.com/2010/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category09/sort...

Keep in mind that these stats include the 3 overtimes against Illinois.

November 20th, 2010 at 9:24 PM | Sentiment? (Score:1)
dahblue
dahblue's picture
Joined: 11/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1481

What sentiment?  I pointed out the fact that we have no depth on D and have lost (not due to injury) 25% (actually, it's a bit higher) of RR's defensive recruits.  It's just a fact.  I'm not happy about it either, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.  

November 21st, 2010 at 12:35 AM | The best offense in the B10, (Score:1)
joelrodz
joelrodz's picture
Joined: 09/26/2009
MGoPoints: 372

The best offense in the B10, which hasn't been able to compete in B10 conference play during the last 3 years. By competing I mean beating teams in the B10 that actually matter, not Indiana, Illinois, and Purdue.

November 20th, 2010 at 8:32 PM | A huge part of recruiting is (Score:1)
nazooq
Joined: 07/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1369

A huge part of recruiting is identifying players who are good fits for your program and can be inspired to work hard enough to remain in the program.  It's clear that Rodriguez can do a much better job on that front.  Signing a guy like Dorsey is doubly hurtful because not only did he not make it to campus but also because it scared away guys like Tony Jefferson who is contributing as a true freshman at Oklahoma.

November 20th, 2010 at 10:03 PM | Tony Jefferson is a LB (Score:1)
Ike613
Ike613's picture
Joined: 02/19/2009
MGoPoints: 51

and he picked OU in December... Dorsey was still committed to Florida into January.  Dorsey did not scare away anyone.  He was a backup plan as the coaches saw Sean Parker cooling on UM before he picked Washington.

Henry Swanson's my name, and excitement's my game.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:41 PM | The young ones (Score:1)
TIMMMAAY
TIMMMAAY's picture
Joined: 09/08/2008
MGoPoints: 5954

His first class was a hybrid w/ Carr, had several guys leave of bust. We have plenty of new young talent on D, they're just young.

not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user

November 20th, 2010 at 8:47 PM | Did you listen? (Score:1)
m83econ
m83econ's picture
Joined: 09/13/2008
MGoPoints: 955

Spielman's comment was that Michigan should try to recruit the best players and not just those that would be acceptable at West Virginia.  Does that sound well-informed to you?

November 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Spielman's a genius (Score:1)
miCHIganman1
Joined: 11/24/2009
MGoPoints: 250

His solution to Michigan's defensive woes was that Michigan should recruit better players.  This wasn't just a passing comment I could shrug off either as he repeated it about 30 times before I muted my TV. 

Someone please get the word to Richrod; all he needs to do is to recruit better players.  Apparently he's been intentionally recruiting less talented players than what he could be, shunning 5 star players for 3 star players.  

When you have a coaching change followed by two subpar years, an NCAA investigation, and a neverending coaching controversy, recruiting gets a little bit more difficult than it used to be.  With everything considered, I think our recruiting classes have been pretty solid and look to improve drastically in the near future. 

November 20th, 2010 at 5:02 PM | He might be a good color guy, (Score:1)
ken725
ken725's picture
Joined: 10/26/2008
MGoPoints: 4569

He might be a good color guy, but he still annoys me.

Greetings from Bolivia.

"It's special how the real true people hang together. And if you don't support the program you're not a true Michigan guy. It's that simple."  - Gary Moeller

November 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 AM | I personally was pretty (Score:1)
SanFrancisco_Wo...
SanFrancisco_Wolverine's picture
Joined: 11/16/2009
MGoPoints: 2078

I personally was pretty pleased that they said Spielman break out in hives everytime he's in AA....I was really hoping it was serious.

Formerly akron_wolverine and columbus_wolverine.  New home, new name.  A year in Columbus was enough.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:02 PM | Surprised he didn't have (Score:1)
tUOS is OSU
Joined: 11/09/2009
MGoPoints: 206

Surprised he didn't have cutoffs like he did for his official visit to Michigan back when.

"Don't stop Believin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNG_7ZA70KA

November 20th, 2010 at 5:03 PM | Hot and Cold (Score:1)
umhannon
umhannon's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 4734

Although I am not a fan, I have never listened to a commentator that is so precise and spot on at times and so misinformed at other times. Strange, just strange.

----umhannon

November 20th, 2010 at 5:08 PM | Hell yes he was right. (Score:1)
StraightDave
StraightDave's picture
Joined: 12/27/2009
MGoPoints: 816

3 d-lineman for UM vs 5 o-lineman at 330lbs for UW = 48 pts for UW

November 20th, 2010 at 5:15 PM | 3-3-5 doesn't work against big run oriented teams... (Score:1)
Brightside
Brightside's picture
Joined: 02/17/2010
MGoPoints: 350

No pressure on pass downs, no run stuffing...  190lb DBs trying to tackle 240lb RBs with a head of steam (how many times did we bounce 3 guys off the RBs?)

Should be in a 4-3 with more beef on the line agains UW and OSU...

*** This line intentionally left blank ***

November 21st, 2010 at 1:01 AM | Thank you (Score:1)
romeyjdogg
Joined: 11/11/2009
MGoPoints: 1207

It was blatantly obvious today that 5 DBs have trouble tackling bruising RBs. Who would have thought? When O-lineman and TEs take out the down lineman and LBs, then who do you think is going to tackle power runners? Avery, Vinopal? I mean, they're doing the best they can, but let's face it, 3-3-5 is not a good scheme against a power running team. I think we need bigger bodies in there against non-spread teams. That means 3-4 or 4-3. None of this 5 DBs crap, especially when they're all so under-developed.

November 20th, 2010 at 8:15 PM | He is correct (Score:1)
Yooper
Joined: 09/01/2009
MGoPoints: 1886

You can't expect to stop the good running teams if you let 300pound O lineman get off clear to the linebackers. I can't believe this continues.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:06 PM | Thought he was right (Score:1)
kb
Joined: 10/31/2009
MGoPoints: 1428

about our defensive recruiting.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:37 PM | If you thought that you need to check the recruiting profiles... (Score:1)
NathanFromMCounty
NathanFromMCounty's picture
Joined: 10/10/2010
MGoPoints: 82

Rivals indicates that Michigan had a ton of 4 star committments that committed to UM over some very prestigious football schools.  They've either lacked the coaching or committment to develop.  Plus many of them are Freshmen.  Speilman's comment was just plain wrong factually.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:45 PM | Star ratings (Score:1)
Mitch Cumstein
Mitch Cumstein's picture
Joined: 10/02/2009
MGoPoints: 9641

The coaches aren't looking at rivals to find out who to recruit.  They recruit guys they think will be good in their program.  If RR recruited nothing but 5 stars and they all became busts (like many recruits on our D have become) then that is his fault. 

"A flute with no holes is not a flute. A donut with no hole is a danish"

November 20th, 2010 at 5:48 PM | That isn't really a recruiting issue, that's a coaching issue... (Score:1)
NathanFromMCounty
NathanFromMCounty's picture
Joined: 10/10/2010
MGoPoints: 82

...and if you want to complain about Michigan's Defense coaching (with the *possible* exception of Bruce Tall) then you've probably got your most sympathetic audience possible.  But Coaching =/= Recruiting.

 

Though at this point, does it really matter whether its coaching or recruiting?  the result is the same.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:23 PM | Per Rivals (Score:1)
kb
Joined: 10/31/2009
MGoPoints: 1428

2003-2007 = 16/42 (38%) of defensive recruits that had three or fewer stars

2008-2011 = 22/38 (58%) of defensive recruits that had or have three or fewer stars

The quality of defensive player being recruited at Michigan is going down.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:41 PM | You do realize how... (Score:1)
NathanFromMCounty
NathanFromMCounty's picture
Joined: 10/10/2010
MGoPoints: 82

...slight the overall change is.  Plus you are factoring in a recruiting class (2011) that isn't finished yet.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:45 PM | I don't think an increase of 20% (Score:1)
kb
Joined: 10/31/2009
MGoPoints: 1428

is insignificant and we're not likely to get enough 4-5 stars this year on defense to make up the difference.

November 20th, 2010 at 6:51 PM | Depth might be an issue... (Score:1)
NathanFromMCounty
NathanFromMCounty's picture
Joined: 10/10/2010
MGoPoints: 82

...but we'll have 4 star guys starting at every position group, so its not like the starting line-up lacks talent (our line and LBs should be completely 4 stars next season...unless Black starts and Black's performance in the North-South game indicates that he might have been under starred).  The secondary is a big problem, but it was an issue under Carr too (which is why Marlin Jackson had to move to safety that one year), though even this is slowly improving. 

Though some of the drop in % of 4 stars had to do with the fact that we were offering a signicant increase of D scholarships, when that happened some decline was likely (unless you are Nick Saban and you over offer scholarships and then run off the 3 stars :) ). 

November 20th, 2010 at 8:37 PM | Your math is off. It's an (Score:1)
nazooq
Joined: 07/09/2009
MGoPoints: 1369

Your math is off. It's an increase of 20 percentage points but changing from 38% 3 stars and below to 58% 3 stars and below, is an increase of 52 percent. 

November 20th, 2010 at 11:07 PM | Look at all the 4+ star players (Score:1)
Ike613
Ike613's picture
Joined: 02/19/2009
MGoPoints: 51

Carr recruited who didn't pan out on defense... there were a TON.  And very few players with less than 3 stars ever developed into contributors under Carr.

IMO, Carr got more credit for recruiting when in reality a lot of guys under-developed under him.  I think what we will see under RR is that he will get a few less 4 star players each year (the difference above is like 2.5 players a year) but I believe he will get more out of the 3 star players he signs... I can already see Carvin Johnson and Courtney Avery developing into good players down the road.

RR's problem has been numbers.  My one beef would be I think he oversigned on offense and undersigned on defense his first couple years, but its not like he had a crystal ball to foresee all the transfers and injuries the team has dealt with.  If he just gets the numbers right, I have no doubt he'll bring in talent regardless how many stars they have.

Henry Swanson's my name, and excitement's my game.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:06 PM | I agreed with Spielman about (Score:1)
bronxblue
Joined: 11/22/2008
MGoPoints: 12591

I agreed with Spielman about the problems with the 3-3-5, but I hate this mindset that permeates broadcasting about how "blank" won't work in the B10.  First it was the spread offense, until teams like Purdue, Illinois, PSU, and UM started putting up huge numbers and slicing up good defenses.  Now it is how RR's defense won't work in the B10, even though it was apparently good enough to trash good schools from the SEC, B12, etc.  RR's defense has its flaws, but with 6 freshmen in the secondary's 2-deep, saying the defense won't work is myopic.  I respect Spielman for his time with the Lions and as a great linebacker at OSU, but his words aren't gospel.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:11 PM | Bingo (Score:1)
shorts
Joined: 08/28/2008
MGoPoints: 2342

Spot-on. +1

Those who stay will be champions.

November 20th, 2010 at 5:16 PM | Agree but a question? (Score:1)
MGoDubs
Joined: 01/20/2010
MGoPoints: 309

What school from the Big 12 and SEC were trashed by RR defenses. I completely agree with the freshman part and have plenty of room to grow though, def not saying this 3-3-5 cant work, but it hasnt worked in the big ten so far

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.