The defense is surprisingly good

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.

The d-line seems to be not so good.  Seems like no one has a problem running through it.  Also, that pass rush is going to be much more important once we get into the heart of the schedule.

this season is that we've faced terrible competition and played to such varying degrees of success. There is no reliable performance to turn to and say that we will be able to do that consistently against the meat of our schedule.

Take the ND game:  the defense played bend-don't-break and it worked to an extent. But that strategy only succeeded because the offense could consistently move the ball and score and only had 1 (egregious) TO--something that hasn't been reliable since then.

If you go off the eye test, do you think bend-don't-break will work against Northwestern? Or do you think they'd shred the soft zone, no pass rush? Do you think the defense that was getting juked out of their shoes will be able to put a finger on Miller? Do you think STAEE is gonna STAEE against us? Or will we completely alter our gameplan once Jake Ryan is back--or regardless just to change it up?

In conclusion, there is not much to conclude about our defense other than it's done enough, hasn't been remarkbly good or bad, and hasn't shown anything that merits panic or ease.

We've only played 2 real teams. Let's check back in 5 games.  The defense is not bad, not great but somewhere above average.  Other than Blake only 1 playmaker and he is injured.  Its a decent bend dont break but not a stellar defense and if it played some high power offenses it would take some water on in a serious way - if it holds up against Nebraska, NW and OSU (heck Indiana)  I will change my tune but it is what it is.  I think Mattison's defenses always improve as the season progresses which is a plus  - not so much with Borges.

By the way in total defense (MSU #1)

Wisconsin is #6

Iowa #11

Michigan #13

PSU #18

Ohio St #19

That's 6 of our 12 in the top 20.

So either the Big 10 has entered a golden era of defense, or the MAC and Big 10 offenses sorta suck.  I am pretty sure I can figure out which one it is.

For the record, I think our defense is getting better, but they still aren't generating enough negative plays to be viable against the Northwesterns and Ohios of the world.

But, for those who calim everyone plays terrible teams, so our defense rankings are legit:  our SOS is #108 (via TeamRankings.com) out of 125.  The only worse ranking in the B1G is Minnesota.

So, while everyone plays cupcakes at the beginning of the year, we're playing CUPCAKES to start the year.

However, it is important to note that if we are attributing points against our defense only, and not considering points given up by the offense and bad field position then it is important  to do the same across the board.  Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that by taking away points given up by the offense it would automatically make our defense statistically better than other defenses before measuring it against other defenses under the same conditions.  Gardner isn't the only QB to have thrown pick-six's this year.  In addition, let's call it what it is and say there's been too small a sample size to predict how it will perform in Big Ten play.  Finally, shabby defense or not, all we really want for Christmas is a Big Ten title at the expense of Ohio!

you have to act the part of a dominant program. I think I was suprised by some of the numbers mentioned about the defense during the broadcast Saturday. 

I think if you've watched enough football over time, you understand that certain times of the game and circumstances impact point totals, momentum, ability and the appearance of control and/ or domination. Teams typically score early on their first or second possession based on a variety of factors. They also frequently score after momentum plays occur, turnovers or great special teams plays that change field position. 

Michigan allowed what seemed like an incredibly frustrating TD to tie the game on the Gophers second possession after scoring quickly following a great defensive play. I mean if you going to discount what the defense does numbers wise against certain teams, then you must credit the fact that on Saturday, it produced two turnovers leading directly to 14 points. 

And the one TD Minnesota scored was its only TD of the day. The fact that the Gophers bled the clock and their resilient qb kept finding ways to convert on third down was disconerting and seems to deny defensive achievement. But if all you're interested in doing is making your team seem more competitive  by running clock wihtout producing any points just to stay close, then what's the point?

Michigan defended 65 plays and they scored 42 points on 52 plays, which means their play efficiency per point was outstanding. 

Minnesota made some plays. And it does have some pretty decent athletes, especially at tight end. If the other team executes, the fact that your team doesn't  pitch a shutout, deosn't mean your necessarily not effective or bad or even not dominant. It just means the other team executed better, which happens in every game. 

The season is a process, you build on it game by game,  and you learn by doing, which explains why the staff treated the preseason in terms of defensive rotations and vanilla  looks and wanted to see how effective the pass rush is. Basically, they  just wanted to see how things are shaping up now. Each team presents a new challenge and matchup issues, and Michigan will not always be suited to dealing with every team's offense and speed. 

A better way of looking at it, is what the defense didn't give up, which was many big plays over 20 yards. It was on the field longer and it stuffed the run game, which is all Minnesota really does well on offense. And they won going away in their conference opener. All is well in my book, save for potential injuries to Pippens and Kalis. 

The defense might be better than we're giving them credit for, but it still does not account for the comically obvious lack of a pass rush. I trust Mattison and the man knows what he's doing. He's got a national championship ring and an NFL resume to prove it. But it is a little unsettling that we're three years into his system and we're just flat out not getting to the QB. Even against inferior teams. When the QBs of Akron and UConn have all day to sit in the pocket and make their reads, that's a problem. I don't care how you slice it.

Maybe we're just too young right now. Maybe our older guys, at the end of the day, just aren't that good. I really don't want to call it a coaching problem because Hoke and Mattison are D-Line specialists. But this is a problem that needs to be addressed. And addressed quickly. As Hoke always says, winning football always starts in the trenches, and if you can't get to the QB, whether its Akron scrubs or Braxton Miller, they will shred you all day.

Minnesota had enough yards and drove the ball.  Minnesota did not score too often but had too many completions and the QB had too many yards rushing

Hopefully we will have a good enough D to beat the likes of MSU, NU, NE and OSU. IA could be tough. We should take PSU and IU!

not enough ballers on the roster yet, just a bunch of guys who will likely remain competitive in a weak big ten this year but far from excell.  mattison has to play soft keeping everything underneath since he does not have enough athletes to get too aggressive or  stray too much against good teams.  if you watched the osu / nw game (not too mention most sec games as well)  the talent differential bw those teams and UM should be pretty obvious.  guys like shazier and the 9 randoms on OSUs DL are just a tad quicker and more athletic when attacking the qb and closing on the ball.  while far from elite, mattison has some decent athletes and he does the best job possible with his schemes and calls to make it happen.  not his fault if he doesnt have a DL that can consistently get home (unless youre blaming the recruiter, not the coach), and not his fault he sets up perfect calls on 3rd down for morgan and ross to miss tackles on qb or wilson to get turned around in soft zone coverage, etc...  mattison has done an incredible job....cant wait to see his D in future years with athletes like peppers and hopefully hand, etc. unfortunately 2013 team does not have the DL or the overall talent and speed to fully exploit his great schemes and timely calls - i wish it did but im a realist

But you look at the rankings and they're not that bad. 

Part of the reason is the rules have just made defense tough, and you're not going to get too many 14-7 games anymore. The Broncos scored 51 points yesterday.....and won by 3 points. The horrible offensive/defensive struggle of Iowa-MSU was 26-14. Twenty years ago that would have been 7-3.

Between tv wanting points, not being able to touch receivers or the QB, and the protections necessarily to avoid head hits no one is going to put up '85 or '97 numbers again. It's all relative to other teams playing today.