I kept bitching to my wife that I was missing parts of plays because the camera was in John Clay's face.......ugh
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.
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.
Was dumb and ill-informed.
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?
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.
about Clayborne and Kerrigan last year. Both were speculated as 1st rounders if they chose to leave early.
the defensive recruiting in 2009 and 2010 has been just as good as the offensive recruiting in both quantity and quality
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.
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.
You're funny. RichRod isn't getting fired, chief.
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?
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."
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
Keep in mind that these stats include the 3 overtimes against Illinois.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
He might be a good color guy, but he still annoys me.
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.
Surprised he didn't have cutoffs like he did for his official visit to Michigan back when.
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.
3 d-lineman for UM vs 5 o-lineman at 330lbs for UW = 48 pts for UW
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
...slight the overall change is. Plus you are factoring in a recruiting class (2011) that isn't finished yet.
...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 :) ).
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.
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.
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.
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
To answer your question, none (unless holding Oklahoma to 28 is considered "trashing").
To be fair, they held OU to 15 points through 3 quarters while racking up a 20+ point advantage. That was a VERY impressive defensive performance.
It was a very good performance. One good (not spectacular) performance against a Big 12 team doesn't support the statement that Rodriguez's defenses "trashed" Big 12 and SEC teams, or otherwise prove that he is capable of presiding over a top tier defense.
What teams from the SEC and Big 12 did Rodriguez's defense ever "trash"?
"Trash" might not be a good word, but they held OU to 28 points (and 13 in the 4th quarter when the game was out of reach), and they did beat Georgia (though 35 points is nothing to write home). They also beat a good Georgia Tech team that was running over people. So yeah, not necessarily dominant performances, but they were able to hold up against very good teams from power conferences, which is more my point.
And they gave up 35 points to that Georgia Tech team (who, while good, was certainly not typically putting up 35 points against non-patsy opponents. They put up 38 against V Tech, but didn't break 30 in any other games against real competition).
Obviously the West Virginia defenses were better than what we're putting on the field now, but to suggest that Rodriguez's defensive system has a proven track record against top-quality opponents is just revisionist history.
Those are really not good numbers. RR at WV was always known for his offense and thats how they won games, you cant say that his defense was ever really a factor in them winning at WV, it was a combination of a great offense and poor BigEast teams. And Im all for RR running his offense it works, but if he doesnt know what to do with his defense or how to stop someone then he needs to let go and bring in someone that knows what there doing and let them have full reigns of the defense, in matters of not only play calling, but in schemes, formations, and recruiting.... and to be perfectly honest that puts you as having your head coach simply as having the responsibility of an Offensive coordinator, which is not a head coach
Yeah... Spielman's recruiting comments were idiotic.
I have to say and Im sure none of us are fans of Spielman but he did have many valid points today. Especially about us getting back to Big Ten Defense of playing the 4-3 with big D-line that can actually stop the run instead of trying to make Mike. Martin hold up 3 O-lineman and still make the play. And yes the play where he showed the bubbles in our 3-3-5 and then they run right up one of those for a score. In all honestly I'd take him as D coordinator at Mich. He knows defense at not only a Big Ten level but at a professional level as well. But either way as we all know something has to change with this defense
I like how Spielman went through the whole list of players in the secondary who either left early, were injured, or didn't make it to campus and then said that there was no excuse for Michigan to only be starting freshman back there. One of the bigger non sequiters I've heard lately. I thought the broadcast as a whole was irritating and so filled with cliches that they should have just replaced the color guys with a robot that randomly generated commentary.
It's only a non sequitur if you hold the Michigan coaching staff blameless for the massive attrition, or for recruiting players who were not academically qualified.
His "analysis" of the defense was often little more than, "I don't see too many NFL-caliber players out there"--i.e., hur hur Michiganz defense sux hur hur. While obviously true, I didn't need to hear that (or something like it) a dozen times in the second half, and certainly not when we had the football.
Almost all sports journalism sucks these days.
I worked for the sports department at KRON-TV in the early '90's and then worked for the sports deaprtment at the two radio stations that carried the A's and Sharks. This was right around the time that ESPN EXPLODED, and everyone in sports broadcasting was trying to rip off Olbermann and Patrick's schtick. Basically, it all went down hill from there.
Hiring ex-jocks to do sports commentray isn't a new thing (ex-Lion Wayne Walker did sports for the CBS affiliate in San Francisco for what seemed like a million years). But at least Walker knew his stuff and was never Captain Obvious, unlike Spielman and the rest of ESPN's minions.
On the bright side, ESPN pays like shit. Chances are, your local sports anchor is making more then an ESPN hack.
re: scheme/philosophy and recruiting. Where is the NFL talent on the defensive roster? Outside of Mike Martin (maybe) there isn't. Too many three star, undersized and inexperienced defenders flailing around out there. Sub-.300 Big 10 record after three years is downright embarassing. No wins against MSU, Iowa, PSU or OSU (sorry, but it would be a minor miracle for Michigan to beat OSU in Columbus next week). I've been a MIchigan fan for as long as I can remember, and for the first time, I no longer expect MIchigan to win. I don't even get upset anymore. I expect Michigan to get pushed around the field on defense regardless of their opponent. Remember when 7-5 was a down year? I'm just frustrated right now.
Where is the NFL talent on the defensive roster?
Where are the upperclassmen on the defensive roster? Martin, Mouton and Van Bergen are the only juniors or seniors (unless you want to count James Rogers), and all those guys are pretty good. Spielman even said that the two guys who "stood out" on this defense are Martin and Mouton.
Young guys are, by definition, inexperienced and usually undersized. It's unfortunate that we don't have more talented upperclassmen on defense, but Spielman shouldn't be blaming Rodriguez's recruiting for that, because that just doesn't make any sense.
Other than Martin, that you project to the NFL? Young, old, otherwise.
Demens has potential - I could see him being a decent LB in the pros. With the secondary, you never know - Woolfolk definitely could have played himself onto a team if he was healthy, and guys like Black and Roh may well develop into solid players. Also, Christian has been a disappointment so far, but who knows? Maybe he will wind up as a decent NFL prospect.
And a reasonable assessment.
But I agree that the level of defensive talent on this team is the lowest in recent memory. That falls on Carr, RR, and pretty much the entire program. Hopefully that will change in the near future, but right now this team is definitely one of the least-talented that I can remember.
But the point is that none of us know or could know at this point. The best we can say is that it's doubtful that any of them will become Charles Woodson, which isn't a mark against them.
Avery is a guy that I think has a lot of potential. I really like his cover skills. I could see him eventually being an NFL prospect.
You must be new here. You're not allowed to say anything negative about Rich Rodriguez at MGoBlog. You think I'm joking...
funny but true
You must not get that people around here don't mind RR criticism, but absolutely hate stupid criticism with no connection to reality.
People here lose their minds at the mention of any fact that might reflect poorly on the coach.
And some people will never be satisfied with Rodriguez, regardless of how much the team improves from year to year.
To me, this team is a work in progress and while I think the defense definitely need an overhaul - and I blame RR for that - the offense is one of the best in the country with a first-year signal caller and no top-flight RB. Those are facts I like to focus on. Some facts are negative, some are positive, but don't act like you are looking at the whole picture when your post clearly shows your mind made up.
Work in progress? You can say that about any bad team. I actually have more hope for the Lions right now than what I have for Michigan under this coaching regime.
You act like Michigan is going to be like this for the next 15 years. They're not. The improvement is there: where the team used to be absolutely dreadful in every category (minus Brandon Graham how much better was last year's defense than this years?) and, for the most part, they are making improvements. Next year will be remarkably better: experienced defense, ND OSU and Nebraska all at home, and, oh, yeah, Denard. Michigan's future is much better looking than its present.
"You act like Michigan is going to be like this for the next 15 years. They're not."
True enough. Rich Rod will get fired eventually and then this nightmare will end.
I thought you would go away after your Purdue comments, alas I was wrong.
Remember when 3-9 was a down year? How about 5-7? Listen, this team has an outside chance at 9 wins and a good chance at 8. That's not great by any stretch, but it is progress. As for the defensive talent, the secondary has 6 kids who are RS or true freshmen. There might well be NFL-level talent there, but it takes time to develop. Brandon Graham and Stevie Brown were drafted last year from this defense, and Warren probably would have if he had stayed (or if he apparently didn't implode at the combine). Martin and Mouton will both play in the NFL, and guys like Roh, Black, Demens, and Woolfolk all have chances to make it at the next level. Teams have up-and-down runs, and just because UM rode a wave for 20+ years doesn't mean you can't have a couple of down years. Yes, 7-5 next year is a disappointment; 7-5 with this year's team and injury woes is acceptable.
before rr got here. hell, winning 8 used to suck. what the hell are you talking about.....
Evidently, he's referring to the Bump Elliott era. Don't remember that? No? Neither do I.
Outside of the secondary, which has had some special issues (and Cullen Christian played this year and was a 4 star recruit) the LBs had 2 four star guys (Fitzgerald & Mouton) and the Line had 3 starters (Roh, Van Bergen, and Martin were all 4 star committments). We also have 2 incoming freshmen DBs who have 4 stars on ESPN's recruiting board. LBs also have Marvin Robinson as a 4 star recruit
"(sorry, but it would be a minor miracle for Michigan to beat OSU in Columbus next week)."
Miracle, yes. Minor, no.
For the most part his comments were asinine and generic. "There are no NFL players on the defense" because NO ONE is even fucking eligible for the draft.
Martin and Mouton could both play in the NFL right now.
Neither Martin nor Mouton were recruited by Rodriguez, which was kind of Spielman's point. You can't defend Rodriguez's recruiting by pointing to Carr recruits.
...its hard to say if Craig Roh, Jibreel Black, Cullen Christian, Kenny Demens, or Marvin Robinson might develop into NFL players. With the exception of Demens (who's been in the program 3 years, 1 of which was a redshirt) they're all true freshmen or sophmores. Which according to 97.1 is an "excuse" (even if its proven true more often than not regardless of the program). That's what chapped my ass on Spielman's comment, it's the commentator as all-knowing God who doesn't need to look at things like...uncomfortable facts that contradict the point.
Spielman is clueless.
Griese is clueless.
Does anyone really think we would have a competent defense if we simply went to a 4-3 look with our current personnel?
Good job by Spielman mentioning Texas and USC as teams that have reloaded. Oops.
No we wouldn't have a competent defense right now if we just switched to a 4-3 mid-season, but if we started recruiting players that fit a 4-3 and started coaching it up in the off season then we would be. Any team that has had any kind of rushing attack: MSU, PSU, Wisc., Ill. , Iowa all ran it right down our throats. I remember reading right after the MSU game players saying how pissed they were that it was plays that they saw all week in prac. that they were ready for and just couldnt stop are what beat them. In the Big Ten you have to be able to stop the run plan and simple
Can't you same thing about recruiting players for a 3-man front? Of course, any of those guys you get from recruiting start out as "freshmen" and then we can blame the lack of experience.
Were you opposed to the 3-4 Michigan often ran under the old regime? Seems to me there would be bubbles in that defense too.
There are bubbles in every defense. And Im not opposed to a 3-4 either, Im not opposed to any defense that will stop someone, Im more interested in being able to just stop someone, we couldn't even stop IU or Del. State this year. And Im more interested in recruiting Big Ten type players, these smaller guys are just getting thrown around out there
Big Ten-type players. Another typical red herring.
Who are the small guys you seen getting thrown around?
Our base defense today:
Ezeh/Demens/Mouton with Cam Gordon as the hybrid.
The corners were Avery and Rogers with Kovacs and Vinopal at safety.
The only guys that are truly undersized on the defense are Kovacs and Vinopal and only one of them was recruited. Without severe attrition Vinopal would be red-shirting and not playing outside of special teams until he was a junior. Kovacs would never have seen the field if not for injury and lack of depth.
I suppose Roh is undersized too for this defense, but he was a 4-star recruit and has been pretty solid since being moved to DE. Do you think he's not a Big Ten-type?
By undersized Im saying starting 5 DBs against a power running Wisc. team. Cam Gordons position would typically be occupied by a LB so he would be extremely undersized especially when he was starting at the safety position earlier in the season. Yes Roh is undersized for the big ten at the DE position hence why the coaching staff tried to move him to LB at times this season, but although hes undersized he is very talented and needs to be on the field.
As you can still rush 4-5 guys and have 2 inside LBs to handle the run. ANd we have the personnel to more immediately convert to that scheme.
I have a friend that's staying at the Ann Arbor hotel where the Wisconsin team was staying along with ESPN, he overheard Spielman talking about Brady Hoke being the next coach. I wonder.
FML if that's ever true about Michigan. During the broadcast wasn't he saying that about Hoke going to Indiana or Illinois?
At the Stadium we had to see them all.
Spielman is a good commentator. Surpisingly, I would prob take him over any alternative except Millen(!)
Missing that many plays by ESPN is unacceptable. I demand a re-do of the game.
Griese is ready for the glue factory, and Speilman--after making lots of noise about how he was going to give us HIS exalted insight about the D--said nothing of interest. The idea that people necessarily excel as broadcasters because they played the game just does not follow. Get Brian out there, I say.
That said, today was definitely a day when you wondered if RichRod really has forced the 3-3-5 down GERG's throat, and if it's appropriate for the Big 10 or for us v. Wisconsin.
As a much as it kills me to agree with a Buckeye, it kills me more watching the 3-3-5.
It leaves you very vulnerable to teams like Wisconsin. How many running plays was that in a row you could not stop? It felt like 50. They just said we are tougher than you so good luck stopping us.
I think the remainder of the focus of the recruiting class needs to be some DT's.
Normally I think Spielman provides real good commentary, but his talk about the 3-3-5 is just dead wrong, and I'm surprised people on this blog are falling for it.
Thankfully, this is easy to prove. WVU still runs the 3-3-5 with Jeff Casteel at DC. They have the #4 scoring defense (13.2 ppg), #8 pass defense (158 ypg) and #7 rush defense (94.9 ypg, 3.0 ypc) in the country thus far this year. Granted, the Big East isn't exactly a powerhouse in terms of competition. But they are doing this is with WVU-level recruits.
The whole "you need 4 beefy down lineman to play defense in the Big Ten" is a red herring on the level of "the spread offense will never work in the Big Ten." It's just a dumb argument, and anyone who did their research would know better. Just because it's not been tried or done properly, doesn't mean it can't work.
I think the reasons for our defense's lack of success should be pretty obvious by now, they've been described ad nauseum on this blog: youth, lack of talent, injuries, and coaches not on the same page with what system we should be running. The 3-3-5 system, if run properly, is not the problem.
The Big East does not have the size and athletes that the Big Ten does, so your assertion that it works is not applicable to
I agree %1000... no one would say anything if it was a 3-4, oh wait yeah they would.
Even though he went to tOSU, I think he would be an absolutely great hire as a LB coach.
Bo coached at OSU and Mo was a team captain there IIRC. That doesn't bother me, but I suspect he's happy with his broadcasting gig.
I remember in HBO's Michigan-Ohio State documentary, Spielman said he originally wanted to go to Michigan but his dad basically made him go to Ohio State. Although he went to OSU, at least that shows he has respect for Michigan
We won't get many blue-chip recruits as long as we have a coach who keeps juggling d-coordinators and is one or two bad losses away from unemployment. Sure, we'll get the occasional Beyer-type kid, who was born Blue. But why would blue-chips from elsewhere be especially attracted to RR? Seriously. They want a coach they have confidence in.
I tend to remember him a Lion.
Because not only is he wrong about half of what he's saying, his comments about NFL type of players has an indirect impact on recruits and their perception of our program. This is national television here, and that's not right.
That can't be true, or ND would have a million 5 stars based solely on what Lou Holtz says.
but you can't defend the scheme. The 3-3-5 has not worked...yet. It doesn't show any evidence of ever working. I understand the players are young, but Spielman's points about the talent level (ie 3-stars and "project" type players) and the holes in the defensive scheme are accurate. What you cannot defend is that this defense cannot tackle, period. They haven't tackled well all year. Their inexperience affects the angles they take and the positions they end up in in coverage, but tackling, like blocking are fundamental from youth football.
I understand they are young, but this staff has changed schemes so often the kids don't know what defense they are running. Robinson is not s 3-3-5 guy, he is a tried and true DC that has run 4-3 and 3-4 defense in college and the pros. RR is the 3-3-5 guy, the problem is, he is an offensive coach. Let the DC run what he wants.
Unfortunately these kids are trying as hard as they can,, in a scheme no one is en expert at. The staff is putting young in positions where they cannot excel. That's my problem with it.
The reason most UM fans don't like Spielman is because he is an OSU guy pointing out flaws on Michigan. The real problem is, he's right! He certainly is better than Millen.
Recruits don't care what Chris Spielman says. They care about what they're seeing on the field and from the coach. And I'm quite sure they're not seeing much they like.
I don't know why people jump all over a guy who takes the anti-RR view. Reasonable people can disagree. But how could anyone suggest that someone in the anti camp has no grounds? That's kind of silly and reactionary.
Yes, RR has won more games this year. But the real question should be: How has the team measured against quality competition? The answer is: unfavorably. It's nice that we eeked out wins against Illinois and a shitty Purdue team. Last year, on the road, we took MSU and Iowa down to the wire. This year, at home, MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin thumped us. The record is better; the reality is not.
"Where RR is just one excuse away from history..."
You ought to trademark that.
I would hardly say that Iowa thumped us, and MSU is debatable. OK, so I won't argue with you about Wisconsin, but that's one out of three.
Besides, we beat an improved (substantially) Illinois team, and Purdue on the road.
Maybe recruits are seeing something better from their perspective.
I don't care who the commentators are. They rarely provide insight to the educated viewer
Most of us follow this team much closer than any national commentator and their game prep is typically pitiful.
...I'll always respect Spielman at some level. I'll say this...
1. His recruiting speech was crap. Everybody TRIES for the top kids.
2. His analysis of the 3-3-5 as a scheme is crap. It has the flexibility to be what ever you want it to be from week-to-week.
3. He talked about an identity crisis. Very true. 3-4? 4-3? 3-3-5? Whatever it is going to be, RECRUIT for it. If that means a dedicated NG at DT, a bunch of OLB/DE and OLB/S tweeners, so be it. But recruit for the D you are going to run. Don't get a 4* DE, play him at OLB and wonder why he is playing at a 2* level.
4. For whatever his weaknesses are, if you had Spielman as a coach, you better bet your ass we would be more FUNDAMENTALLY sound. Stay in your gap, wrap him up, and bring him down. Fundamentals. I pray whoever the new DC is preaches these early and often.
Did anyone actually listen to Spillman? He contradicted himself... First he said its not the scheme their just arm tackling and missing tackles. Then he said ths scheme wont work in the big ten. on top of the shots he kept taking at MICHIGAN which were pretty funny some times. He failed to mention how the negative recruiting takes it's toll on a program in the turmoil MI was going through w/ the investigation.
so many people who have been around the Big 10 for years are saying-that it is almost incomprehensible for Michigan to be so non-competitive on defense. Forget scheme and other excuses-this is not a one-year aberration anymore. It is sad to watch.
In addition to his being exactly right about that facts, here's the worst part about Spielman's comments -- the genuine remorse and sadness in Spielman's voice as he talks about the decline of a once great football program and worthy rival.
Spielman's a football purist and a Buckeye to his marrow. He knows it does the Buckeyes no good to see their greatest conference rival decline into mediocrity season in and season out.
But Rich Rod will get another year. That sucks.
Just glad Bo is not around to see it.
I didnt pay attention to who the commentators were but I did hear their discussion on Michigans recruiting. His talk about how Michigan only recruited good offensive players while not recruiting defensive players really annoyed me. I felt like he should have know about the issues with the program as well as the defensive players we've lost and the ones who were not accepted to the school(Dorsey).
This game was frustrating to watch because I felt like our defense finally were getting to the right spots. The inability to tackle is beyond frustrating. It's one thing if they break one and we are out of position but so many times we were right there and didn't tackle, which has been an issue all year.
There was one major inconsistency in Spielman's defensive recruiting comments. He acknowledged that the defense is very young and should get better as they age, but then went on to say they weren't recruiting good players. If they are that young he can't yet make the determination of how "good" they are. Several highly touted recruits have barely seen the field yet.
Also thought the "what was good enough for West Virginia isn't good enough for here" was a cheap shot. He probably should not have gone there.
I like Spielman but that was not his best effort.
that's been there and done that. He was an OSU great, played in the NFL (if Detroit counts) and knows of what he speaks. I think most will feel he was on target with his criticisms. It's just hard to take criticism and UM and it's fanbase is very proud.
You can't consistently beat Ohio State, with players Ohio State doesn't want.
I can only think of one defensive recruit that UM went head to head with OSU on, and won (JT Turner). It used to be lots of Ohio prospects chose between OSU and Michigan. This doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
List of Ohio players on Michigan's defense:
- Talbott 1
- Talbott 2
None of them were heavily recruited (or even offered?) by OSU. You can argue that Rich Rod can do a better job than the OSU staff at identifying offensive talent (or talent that fits their system), but I don't think that argument holds for defensive players.
Chris Rock and Greg Brown will continue the trend this year.
It's all about putting pressure on the qb. What bugs me about the 3-3-5 is it's difficult to put pressure on the qb with only three lineman up front. You give any qb in the league enough time to pass and they'll pick you apart. I notice when we blitz or put more people at the line of scrimmage, the qb is less likely to complete a pass.