D stats and improvement? (add on to HeismanPose's Diary)
A couple additional things on the Defense team stats:
We're currently 82nd in scoring defense and 105th in yardage allowed (thanks HeismanPose Diary)... HOWEVA:
- DYK that of teams ranked 90th or lower in yardage allowed, we're one of 5 teams with a winning record? Others? USC (90th, 5-2, did you hear they have a DC who has won a Super Bowl and is considered one of the best defensive minds in football, AND has a full compliment of scholarship players who average 4 stars?), Ok St (92nd, 6-0), Tulsa (107, 4-3), & East Carolina (115th, 4-2).
- But for scoring defense, we're 82nd and only 5 teams below us have winning records. Compare to the yardage stats up above, in the 90th ranking and lower in scoring defense, only 2 teams have winning records
So what does this mean to me?
- This may win the internet for MOST OBVIOUS ANALYSIS EVER, but contrary to the blue hair in Sec 37 who says that our play is UNACCEPTABLE, you can give up yardage by the boatloads and still win a lot, you just better hold them to FG's every once in a while. So it's possible offense wins... just not very likely
- Our defense is bad, probably worse than any other team in the Big Ten, but that doesn't preculde us from having a good season (8+ wins, see Ok St) provided our offense can find a way to stop self-destructing. Remember our all time winning percentage is .736; in a 12 game season, that equates to 8.8 wins per year... with all the problems we have, if we can beat Penn St, Illinois & Purdue, we'll be 0.8 games below historical average. Add in a bowl game win and adjust for a 13 game schedule, we'd be 0.5 games below historical average. I'll take it
- I don't know if Bill Belichick could turn this defense around... I'm pretty sure Monte Kiffin has a good reputation as a defensive coach and they're getting torched like us, the difference being approximately (1) 40 yd play per game than equates to four extra points for our opponents than USC's-- USC has some similar issues to us in terms of injuries & defections in their defense and they have a hell of lot more "star talent" than us right now.
Wrapping up: defense is bad, but not so much that it's a statistical impossibility we can have a successful season; other teams with "good coaches" can have bad defenses too if plagued by personnel issues (and they have more STARZZZ); if offense doesn't self destruct and finds a way to take 2 out the next 3 and pull an upset (OSU or Wiscy), we'll be right in line with historical winning percentages, albeit a little below.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
Why do we have a DC who has never run a 3-3-5 being forced to run a 3-3-5? If we wanted to run a 3-3-5 all along then why not hire a DC with 3-3-5 experience? That is my only issue. It seems to me that RR wants to hire a DC who will basically run the whole damn thing from recruiting to play calling et. all so he can be hands off and focus on his O, but he hires a guy who (has certainly run a team from top to bottom) has never run a 3-3-5... That to me is a problem. If you are going to hand cuff a guy to a system then can we at least make damn sure he knows that system? Not to mention, please let the DC hire his own staff. To have a bunch of guys there who know RR better (have known him longer) and more than likely let loose on any wrong decision you make behind closed doors cannot foster a healthy working environment. Especially when the heat gets turned up as it is right now. It just appears to me that the defensive side of the ball has been poorly constructed... twice.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
Robinson himself claims he ran a similar scheme with the Broncos and Jets and that he was on board with the change.
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-defensive-coordinat…
I don't think the 3-3-5 is the problem, especially since we have used the 4 man front more against MSU and Iowa.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
beat me to it, +1 to you sir.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez ran a 3-3-5 during part of his tenure at West Virginia, but Robinson said the entire coaching staff was on board with the change. In the 1990s, he said he ran a similar scheme as defensive coordinator with the New York Jets and Denver Broncos.http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-defensive-coordinat… Unless he's just trying to quell any doubts, it doesn't seem like anything all that new to him.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
For the same reason UCLA didn't fire Norm Chow when switching to the pistol offense this year.
If Robinson's a compitent enough teacher to work with this young squad, he should be able to impliment any scheme. Dude knows his D.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
Sincere apologies, I had no idea GERG had run a 3-3-5 before. I think in the next few seasons we can compete for a Big Ten championship and a National championship if we just have an average D. We have a long way to go to be average. I don't know how we can get there, but I sure hope we do. Thanks for the informative comments.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^
Pretty much any DC who's been around a few years will have run some 3-3-5 (along with virtually every other defensive scheme). No team just runs the same scheme for every single down on defense.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
We all knew this year is going to be a slog - especially after Woolfolk went down. However, we were not going to win the BigTen this year anyway - so as long as we do enough to develop talent so that we are better positioned for next year, and save RichRod's job - this year is a success.
Now, next year, we will have almost everybody of consequence back (Shilling, Mouton, Webb are the only significant losses). We will have a new crop of RSFr to help with depth - and a new set of Fr - perhaps a couple will blow up there as well. I can see the defense improving next year with added depth, experience, longer in the scheme... and with offense getting out of Sophomore mistake prone plays - we should contend for BigTen next year.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Although I agree with you that we return most of our team, I would argue that losing any starter is a significant loss. Rogers, Dorrestein and Banks aren't exactly all-americans, but considering the depth at their spots, their losses are big too.
Dorrestein leaves, giving us 3 OT's who are not true freshmen. One of them, Schofield, hasn't seen a meaningful snap. We might want to move Mealer to tackle.
Banks leaves, and takes Sagesse and Patterson with him. That's 75% of the tackles who h ave played this year. Our DT's next fall will be Martin, Campbell, 2 RS frosh in Ash and Talbott who either need to lose or gain a ton of weight, and whatever true frosh we bring in. Thin.
Rogers is the senior I'm the least sad is leaving. He might lose his starting job before the end of the year, but CB is CB, lord knows losing anyone there is bad. Even if he's the worst starter on the team.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^
Thanks for sharing... this season is far from over. The defense will struggle, but as long as the offense takes care of the football, I like our chances at 8 wins.
Completely unrelated, but I'm curious to see what that chart would look like with the most commonly used words on MGoBlog (most common words are larger, less common smaller.) I wonder where DEFENSE and UNACCEPTABLE fall.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
But saying "Even god couldn't do much with the talent currently on this defense" is appropriate in the first year of coaching a program, sometimes even the 2nd year, but perhaps not the 3rd. Before you say 2008 doesn't count, well, that's the exact same situation every new coach faces ( no time to recruit the 1st year).
I am actually fine with most of the defense. The most disappointing thing about RR to me is the play of our SENIOR LB's and special teams ( you don't need RS Seniors to have good special teams).
October 18th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
"But saying "Even god couldn't do much with the talent currently on this defense" is appropriate in the first year of coaching a program, sometimes even the 2nd year, but perhaps not the 3rd"
What you're saying is that in a coach's 3rd year, he should have better talent than this, right? Then don't blame Robinson, because he's only in his second year, he's had no influence on any recruit who's not a true freshman. And he's only had one true off-season of teaching on this team. Keep in mind, the seniors on this team have had 3 DC's to work with.
A couple things that aren't RR's fault - Warren leaving early (that was happening no matter the coach), Woolfolk's injury, LC not having a lot of luck with LB recruits. If we had one more 4th or 5th year LB on this team, and upperclassmen DB's, this defense would be good. I can't really blame RR for that, certainly not GERG.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
Jesus Christ couldn't hit a curveball?
October 18th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
a little worried about Illinois. They don't look like a pushover everyone is making them out to be,
October 18th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
But their strength is their defense, specifically DL and LBs.. after what we did to Iowa, I don't worry about that. Their offense is run by a 1st yr starting QB, so depending on how we do against Penn St, that will amp up or lower my anxiety about Illinois.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
I am worried about every team left on the schedule. But I am confident that this team will win 2-3 more games.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
UM's all-time winning percentage is not good enough. If that was the bar we were aiming for, LC probably still would be our HC. UM's all-time winning percentage includes many bad years and I have had enough of those for a lifetime.
When we replaced LC with RR, I thought the goal was to move back up to the elite level, winning 10+ games per season and hunting for NC's. I know that is what I am expecting. Whether we win 7, 8, 9 or 10 games this year is a distant second in my view. Far more important is what we do in 2011 and each year thereafter. UM has the tradition and the resources to be up with the elite teams. Winning 8-9 games per season and coming in 2nd or 3rd in our conference is not the target.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
So even though Michigan has the highest winning percentage of any team in college football, aiming for that isn't good enough? I agree I want to be winning 10 games a year too, but to be at our historical average while we're still rebuilding isn't a bad thing.
No one said 9-4 is satisfactory every year going forward, but for this year it would be pretty good. We would finish in the top 25.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
So even though Michigan has the highest winning percentage of any team in college football, aiming for that isn't good enough?
Yes. That is correct. Teams like OSU and TX and Oklahoma and USC have been gaining ground on UM for most of the past 20 years and either we begin winning at the rate they are or eventually we will become the "2nd winningest program". And then the "3rd winningest". And ... well, you see how the math works.
No reason exists for those programs to consistently outperform ours. All of the elite schools have advantages and disadvantages to their programs, UM included. We need to be competing at the same level. It is simply a matter of will and I believe the hiring of RR was an expression of that will.
Also, I made it clear I am not talking about 2010. RR needs a few years to get us there and we seem to be on the right track. Our very young offense is killer and by some grand irony we appear to be the only team in the country with an irreplaceable QB (DRob) who can be replaced with the second string QB (le Forcier) with virtually no drop-off in effectiveness. If we had even a halfway decent defense and a kicker, we would be nearly unstoppable. I am sure RR sees the same thing and is working hard to get us there. It would be a major downer to find out he actually is gunning for UM's historical all-time winning percentage.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
OK, I thought you were referring to 2010, since the poster who brought up the winning percentage brought it up regarding our 2010 record. What the OP was saying was that if we hit our historical average while we're (presumably) still on the way up, then that's a good thing.
As for 2011 and beyond, I agree with you. Any season after this one I will be disappointed with anything less than 10 wins after the bowls, and depending on how our team looks, some seasons that might not be enough for me.
But this year, 8 is good. Next year and beyond, double digit wins. And I think that's entirely possible.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
.....than the winning percentage. I believe he sees what some of us do, and that is the winning of an MNC or three during his time at UM. He is well on his way to making the offense the best in CFB, and the defense is young. Given time, and much less of the devastating attrition on defense, we will be just fine there.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
OSU, Texas, Oklahoma and USC have not been "gaining on us for 20 years"... each have had impressive runs in the past 10, but I'm old enough to know the train wrecks that were the end of Larry Smith / Paul Hackett years at USC (5 years ending in 2000), the 12 year David McWilliams / John Mackovic era at Texas (late 80's / 90's), the Schnellenberger / John Blake era at OU (8 years), and realize that Michigan routinely had better records than OSU through out the 90's until Tressel came. Additionally, don't forget that USC had to vacate every game that Reggie Bush played in (25 wins). We have had 3 superbly sub par years in 40 years of football (since Bo came, we went 6-6 in 84 and the 3-9 and 5-7 records the past two years).
You say that "No reason exists for those programs to consistently outperform ours". and guess what, you're right! No one has consistently outperformed us in a 40 year time period. Texas has made an impressive run with Mack's 9 straight years of 10 wins, OU has the best winning percentage post WWII, and Tressell has put up great number as well, but I don't think we'd endure a 10 year period of 2008 seasons to allow somebody else to jump up and grab our titles.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^
This is what I was referring to when I wrote that we need to aim higher than our all-time winning percentage of .736 and that the top teams have been outperforming us for most of the past 20 years:
| Win % | Wins | Losses | Ties | |
| 1990-2009 (20 Years) | ||||
| FL | 79.2% | 202 | 52 | 1 |
| OSU | 77.2% | 193 | 54 | 3 |
| TX | 73.9% | 184 | 63 | 2 |
| UM | 70.7% | 174 | 69 | 3 |
| OKLA | 68.7% | 171 | 75 | 3 |
| USC | 68.3% | 170 | 75 | 4 |
| 1995-2009 (15 Years) | ||||
| OSU | 79.9% | 151 | 38 | 0 |
| FL | 79.3% | 153 | 40 | 0 |
| TX | 78.1% | 150 | 41 | 1 |
| USC | 72.9% | 137 | 50 | 1 |
| OKLA | 70.2% | 134 | 56 | 1 |
| UM | 69.9% | 130 | 56 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 (10 Years) | ||||
| TX | 85.3% | 110 | 19 | 0 |
| OKLA | 82.1% | 110 | 24 | 0 |
| OSU | 80.3% | 102 | 25 | 0 |
| USC | 79.7% | 102 | 26 | 0 |
| FL | 76.9% | 100 | 30 | 0 |
| UM | 65.3% | 81 | 43 | 0 |
| 2005-2009 (5 Years) | ||||
| TX | 87.9% | 58 | 8 | 0 |
| FL | 85.1% | 57 | 10 | 0 |
| USC | 84.6% | 55 | 10 | 0 |
| OSU | 84.4% | 54 | 10 | 0 |
| OKLA | 74.6% | 50 | 17 | 0 |
| UM | 56.5% | 35 | 27 | 0 |
October 18th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
but we also have to be realistic in the process that is taking place.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
UM's all-time winning percentage is not good enough. If that was the bar we were aiming for, LC probably still would be our HC.
No, he would not - because he retired. He was not fired. I can't believe even people on this site are getting the story wrong.
October 18th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
If you intended that comment at me, I never wrote that he was fired and know the difference. I also believe that the constant pressure to win was a major factor in his decision to retire when he did.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
You're still grasping at straws. Pressure had absolutely nothing to do with it. Carr was three years older when he retired than Bo was when he did.
October 19th, 2010 at 3:18 AM ^
Carr was three years older when he retired than Bo was when he did.
Is this supposed to be relevant somehow? Should I counter with a list of coaches who were older than LC when they retired. There are plenty along with a well-known 84 year-old (19 years older than LC) who has yet to put down his whistle.
Bo's retirement age has nothing to do with LC's retirement. The only person grasping here is you.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
I'll give you all the stats you need:
2 or more turnovers by the offense and UM loses. 1 or less, UM wins. They need to score in bulk, bottom line. This defense can't stop a nosebleed.
Like it or not, it makes no difference what the numbers are on the defense. They are so bad that they will not be able to make enough improvement this year to significantly impact wins and losses.
It's about the offense. Plain and simple.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
........that even a team like OSU, with a semi-experienced DL, and much less experienced LB corp, having a DC who puts out some pretty good defenses, if they had the issues and personnel we have in the secondary, would be pretty bad as well. Would their fans be crying over the scheme, or calling for the head of their DC? I doubt it.
What's more, WVU still employs a 3-3-5 scheme, and is fairly successful doing it, regardless of competition faced so far this season.
Our Dis young, with no starter graduating, and will be much better next year. A bunch of different things have happened on our defense over the past few years, including the carousel of coaches, defections and overall attrition from the secondary, and steady drop of talent recruited in the waning Carr years.
Everyone wants to win now, and be a top-flite defense like we've had in the past, but it isn't happening, and that's why people are frustrated. Most can understand this, be we temper our expectations with the reality of the situation(s) the team has been in over the past few years. Patience is not an easy thing to keep in this mad world of CFB, where it seems some teams get very good, very quickly under new coaches, while we haven't. IMO, given the current personnel makeup, coaching, progress of players and recruiting, we are building toward a long lasting dynasty again, particularly in the B10. While patience is hard to bear, I advocate that M fans strive to do so, as the future looks very bright for the program.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
The reason the scoring D and total D are so far apart in the rankings is turnovers. We had 7 or 8 turnovers in our first five games, most (all?) of which were on our side of the field, many in the red zone.
We havent recovered a turnover since the Indiana game, so the scoring D/total D numbers are normalizing. They were 75/112 last week and are 82/105 now. We rarely force punts - opponents have attempted just 7 against us all year (they are 7/7, by the way).
October 18th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
Our biggest problem has been tackling and our inexperienced secondary. I've watched the Iowa game again, and if we just tackled better, we would have had 3 more stops AT LEAST. I can't remember the MSU game all that well (damn ADHD), but I do remember seeing a lot of missed tackles that could have gotten our defense off the field.
We probably won't see the 3-3-5 much anymore since we won't face a dominant passing attack until perhaps a bowl game. Yes, I'm still optimistic that we can turn things around.
October 18th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
.....on the 3-3-5, I would add that the scheme's makeup is not that far removed from the 3-4 defenses populating the top of the NFL defensive statistics. The major difference being the 3-3-5 employs a hybrid LB/S type while the typical 3-4 utilizes four traditional LB types. Our success, or lack of it, is more correctly due to our lack of experienced personnel, rather than the scheme itself. Even if we went to a four man front as our main defensive scheme, we would still have the inexperience(or lack of quality play) from the LB's, and the same inexperienced secondary succeptible to torching by an experienced QB and WR.
As for MSU, their ground game is pretty good, with 3 RB's that could start on most college teams. Taking away their big runs of 60+ and 40+ yards(allowed due to missed assignments), their running game that day would have been held to well under their season average, and the game itself would have been quite a bit different, with Cousins forced to make plays in the air more.
October 18th, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
The last two games, the defense has looked good for the first couple of drives and then faltered miserably.
Is it just that Gerg throws something they're not expecting at them? Is it the fact that they say "Why should we establish the run if we can do literally anything we want against this secondary?" Or perhaps the defensive players lose intensity after a couple of drives?