they hit two long passes, without those our D probably held them under their season avg.
I thought that myself when I read that article that talked about a Data Scientist(tm)
they hit two long passes, without those our D probably held them under their season avg.
The defensive play-calling has been very vanilla. More than likely, this was on purpose due to the competition. It also likely played a part in the team "playing down to the competition".
If you think we roll out a 4-man rush with virtually no stunting for the rest of the year, you're insane. The coaches have called this type of game to keep the ball in front and not give up huge plays. Mattison is a smart guy. He'll shake things up.
I agree, I'm sure Mattison will have some this in store for the conference season.
Against Akron all we did was stunt. Totally ineffective
I've noticed that we usually give up a drive early on...very often the opponent's FIRST drive goes for at least a FG. We usually adjust and are stingier after that.
Also (obvious), the D tightens up pretty well in the red zone. Mattison seems bent on no big plays, hence dropping into coverage and allowing short completions vs. big plays. Tighter coverage and blitzing when the opponent gets in the RZ. Working okay so far but NERVE racking for us fans.
the first few series, work hard to surprise, etcetera. . . A lot of college football games start with the underdog scoring.
haven't given up a rushing TD this year! Even with terrible opponents....that's a pretty good stat.
my only gripe with the defense is there arent enough negative plays. I much prefer an aggresive attacking style defense..college teams struggle with it.
Blake the snake leads the nation in int's and int return yards.
I'm pretty sure it's a law that you must be named "Jake" to be called "The Snake".
Why is everyone acting like we are the only team in America who has played lesser opponents in the first 5 games? Mostly all of the big schools have played one decent team and a few scrubs. So why should our stats not count for anything?
Cannot wait to see JMFR back and more blitzes.
Also teams are still taking advantage of the middle of the field with slant routes.
Mattison knows how to make a defense effective, even if it's not pretty.
He has the intelligence and experience to create a game plan around his defenseive personnel's strengths and weaknesses that works.
I'm confident that he'll know when it's OK to dial things up, but right now I believe that his main priority is to put his players in a position to learn the basics as they play, hence the vanilla calls.
It's all a balancing act at this point.
Ummm what? The goal of the defense is to not get scored on. Check. Period.
Otherwise awful teams. ND also put up a lot of yardage on us.
Statistics before the end of the season are not meaningful for us, since out good competition is in November.
Next we have PSU and Indiana. Don't tell me either of those teams are any good.
Oh yeeeah. Sorry I forgot this year they changed the tie breaker to least yardage given up.
So when they play a great offense and give up more yards, that means they're not good? Do you not see the logical flaw there?
You sound like the two guys who sat behind me yesterday. They said nothing positive.
Gotta love that.
This is a weird argument. Have you watched every other defense play? If so, then provide your analysis of all those other defenses that are 'good' and why UMs is not good. In general, when one can't watch every single team's defense, stats are a great resource.
Other than ND ( who is not a top 25 team), Michigan has put up their numbers against CMU, Akron, UConn, and Minnesota...all totally bullshit teams. Slow down NW and Ohio St and I will buy in to your current Kool-Aid statistics.
Outside of Georgia, Bama,and Notre Dame, few top 20 teams have played multiple top 20 opponents.
Michigan is 5-0. Yes, two of those games were ugly. No doubt about that. But as Lewan said, no one has to apologize for being 5-0.
multiple Top 20 opponents but Akron, UConn and CMU are awful. Minnesota isn't that good either. There's a good amount of teams that maybe haven't played multiple Top 20 opponents but haven't played the majority of games against god awful teams.
#27 Notre Dame
#147 Central Michigan
Note that 2008 Toledo finished at #134. (Michigan finished at #95 in the final 2008 Sagarin ratings.)
I'm still choosing to believe that we have a young team that has the raw athletic talent to improve in leaps and bounds (literally). But there's no denying that the UConn & Akron games were atrocious performances.
was good in 2011, was good in 2012, and will (continue to) be good in 2013. Why anyone would be surprised by this is the mystery to me.
It is not surprising. They are good and we have good coaches. Nothing surprising about that.
it's become apparent the roster lacks playmakers other than Blake, and he is still more opportunistic than shutdown CB.
Hope Jake is healthy as we desperately need his ability to cause match-up issues and make plays behind the LOS.
People love saying "he was just in the right place" like that's not a skill. Then why aren't other players in the right place as often? Or some that are who don't make the play and he does? He deserves credit.
Precisely. Two of his receptions that I can recall resulted from him reading the QB and collapsing to help with the target receiver, including the one yesterday.
Need to see what happens against Indiana first.
There's nothing wrong with being technically sound and giving up yards between the 20s. Mattison sells out when necessary. if you watched State, they got burned for a TD on a hot route when they brought a corner blitz.
Every team has an identity. Ours is "inside and in front", which leads to less big plays while yielding more yards.
Marcus Ray has said that Mattison ha the exact same mantra when he was here in the 90s, and that team had plenty of playmakers. He's not being conservative because we lack playmakers, he's just demanding sound fundamentals. If you are good against the run and don't give up big plays that pretty much leaves little dink and dunk passes, and that's where teams have hurt us, but I think that will get cleaned up with the return of JMFR.
Although I hate allowing a freebie pass completion just for the sake of not getting beat deep, I have a feeling that as two things happen we will appear more aggressive without actually changing our defensive style/schems. One, when we get/develop good pass rushers whether that be Ryan back from injury, a guy like Wormley, Ojemudua, or Pipkins develop, or a guy like Mone, Hand, or Charlton gets in/here. There's a lot of potential there. Two, we get more talented/aggressive DBs like Peppers. My hunch is Peppers won't let people burn him deep or short because his talent level, speed, and ability will just be that much greater than the reciever he covers. So, once you combine some guys on the d-line that can get to the QB and DBs on the back end that can match up better in coverage we will stop giving up so many short passes in an effort to keep from getting beat deep. We should be able to do both at the same time as the talent level increases...or at least that's my hope.
but it is obvious that Mattison knows he does not have the experiencd athletes along the front and CB's to be Sir Blitz-a-Lot. This year is a learning year for many of UM's defenders.
Isn't it funny that our d-line looked so good in spring and summer camp and now it appears to be our weakness.
Guys shit canning the stats have to think about the 10 turnovers (3 of which are scores held against the defense) that have put the D in a sudden change/hole situation. I thing given those liabilities, the D doing very well.
I believe Brian mentioned in a mailbag recently - or maybe some other column - that the defense is unimpeachable. He's right. This bellyaching about a 5-0 defense with excellent stats (except for 3rd down conversion percentage) is silly. They're good, they're relatively young and inexperienced, they're well-coached, the results are not surprising.
I also hate the idea that 'we don't know anything about a team' until it's November, or until it plays Team X, or until it gets player Y back, or until its conference season, or until the opponents stop being spread teams, or whatever. We've played five freaking games already. We know that they're good. We know that they can beat decent football teams. We know that they can struggle against bad football teams. We know that they've gone through growing pains and that they've had to work very hard to limit turnovers, especially from the QB. We know that their ground game is anemic, at least compared to where they want it to be. We know that line play on both sides of the ball is often questionable. We know a lot.
Lots of petulant demeanor, even following a turnover-free 29 point win. I'm not sure if we'll ever get over Akron or UConn, at least not this year, we'll always come back to it.
Exactly. Negativity is hard to shake. 3-4 years ago people would have killed for a 5-0 start no matter how the team got there.
Except we had two 4-0 starts under rich rod.
Actually 3 years ago we were 5-0 to start the year. I should have said 4-5.
I think it's still left over from years of the end of the Carr years and the RR years, not just the Akron/UConn games. It like the fan base has just been so conditioned to disappointment, underperforming, and waiting for the 'other shoe to drop'. It'll take years of high level performance for the fan base to not expect everything will turn out poorly.
Our defense seems the be the bend but don't break variety where we only bring pressure in the red zone and on 3rd and long. But, unfortunately we give up way too many yards on 1st & 2nd down. Are we running this defense because we have to due to a lack of talent and/or experience or just because it's the best strategy? In years to come when we are playing predominately 4 &5-star defensive talent like Charlton, Pipkins, Mone, Hand, McCray, Ferns, Ross, Peppers, Wilson, Thomas, and Countess will be more aggressive with an assumed higher talent level or will we still be playing this same style 2 years down the road?
but this isn't a good defense. Good defenses don't let a team without its head coach, a brand new starter at QB, and that just got crushed by Iowa to throw for 66.7% completion and go 8/15 on 3rd down conversions.
Opportunistic? Yes. Coach who knows how to defend the red zone? Yes. Good? No.
That said, the reason is b/c we're playing a crap-ton of young guys. We'll be a good-to-great D, but it'll take some time...maybe good in 2014, great in 2015.
You can't cherry pick two stats to say its not a good defense. It's a good defense. It's not an elite defense. And Leidner was not a first time stater.
Leidner is a RS freshman, so he's definitely a first-year starter. I don't know if he'd started before Saturday, but he threw only 20 passes combined in the first five games of the season.
Leidner started against San Jose St. 2 weeks ago and rushed for 154 yards and 4 TDs. It was a surprise to see that Minnesota gave the keys back to Nelson against Iowa. Leidner has shown more than Nelson IMO.
Once we can get home with 4 we will go from good to great. We will get better as the year goes on.