Does Our Offensive Style Impede Defensive Improvement?

Submitted by Fuzzy Dunlop on

So the other day I was daydreaming about Michigan having a mediocre-to-good defense two years from now, after additional years of experience, when I had a troubling thought.  I'd appreciate if anyone could disabuse me of this notion.

As much as games are what matter to us, most improvement comes in practice.  It is due to the thousands of reps in practice that players learn how to react to a given situation, rather than the far more limited reps they get in a game.

Here's my concern.  Michigan doesn't have a very sophisticated passing offense, simply because they don't need to in Rich Rod's system.  Not complaining about the offense at all, but does this limit our defense's ability to learn to prepare for a more traditional passing attack?  Or even a pass-first spread?  Does the offense try to replicate these alternative offensive styles during practice for the defense's benefit, or is most of the defense's experience against other styles of offense coming in limited snaps on game days?

If you look back to the Carr era, our defense was generally great against teams that ran the same style of offense as Michigan -- ground and pound with a pro-style passing attack -- but terrible against the spread, which was certainly not something our offense could replicate in practice.  At the time, I assumed it was because we recruited players that were built for a certain style of D, but now I'm wondering if it's more a case that they didn't have adequate experience dealing with a spread, because our offense couldn't/didn't simulate a spread in practice.

MaizeSombrero

October 6th, 2010 at 8:34 AM ^

But I don't think that's the current impediment. I'd say the current inpediments to success are a lack of depth, talent, and experience. If our defense is still sub-par after those issues are resolved, then you might be on to something. But more likely, it will be a defensive scheme issue.

MGlobules

October 6th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^

that most teams have to prepare for variations of both spread and pro sets nowadays, don't they? If this were the B10 ten years ago it might be a bigger worry. Could be this is why offenses are thriving these days, though. Aren't we in a really high-scoring period? There's a lot for young defensive players, and coaches, to absorb. 

mbrummer

October 6th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^

Could it be a hinderance? Yes.  But there are plenty of good defenses whose offenses run the spread and they can both stop the spread and traditional.  See Florida, Oklahoma and vice versa OSU, Alabama, Iowa, PSU.

By your theory, defenses would only be good at stopping similar offenses to their own which isn't the case

Fuzzy Dunlop

October 6th, 2010 at 8:49 AM ^

Those examples kind of support my point, though.  The teams you mention are generally hybrids, with offenses that utilize components of both the spread and more traditional offenses.  For example, you would never think of Ohio State as a "spread" team, but they certainly pulled it off against us in 2006, and do a good job of using Pryor in a way that takes advantage of his talents while at the same time retaining elements of a traditional offense.

Our offense it a bit more extreme, not only running a spread but running a unique run-first spread.

maizenbluenc

October 6th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^

I would think Devin Gardner gives us a chance to simulate the drop back deep ball look, and we do line up in I formation a bunch. Then there is the scout team.

I think our real issue right now is too much youth, and doing the best we can to keep it simple until they are ready for more complexity. (Keep in mind that even some of our Seniors--I'm thinking of certian MLBs here--don't seem to be able to grasp complexity.)

As we are seeing on offense, even one full season and a spring practice after that, make huge differences in a players ability to grasp the system and their role and react appropriately in a game. No one in our back field has a full season and off season worth of learning under their belt.

oakapple

October 6th, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^

All teams have to prepare for a variety of offensive styles — not just the style their own offense runs. This doesn’t explain why Michigan would be the worst defensive team in the Big Ten, and very nearly the worst in Division I-A.

And it is worth noting that Michigan is poor in practically every imaginable stat (including special teams) that is not offense. There has to be more going on than just, “They don’t see it in practice.”

Fuzzy Dunlop

October 6th, 2010 at 8:52 AM ^

And it is worth noting that Michigan is poor in practically every imaginable stat (including special teams) that is not offense. There has to be more going on than just, “They don’t see it in practice.”

See my reply above to Markgoblue.  I'm not suggesting it's the reason we're bad right now, just wondering if it will hinder our young defensive players' development going forward.

bluenyc

October 6th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^

I would tend to agree with the posters, GERG has been around so long, he probably has seen many defenses and will be prepared.  Of course, it's probably easier for us to prepare for a spread offense.  It's probably harder for us to simluate pro-style because we won't be using the first team offense as practice.  Alabama prepared well for Florida's spread as an example.  Does our offensive style impede defensive improvement, I would say yes for simulating game conditions.

Hoke_Floats

October 6th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^

I don't think Carr really understood the spread or cared to learn that much about it

I think GERG knows about pro style passing attacks, but doesn't have the tools to stop it

Space Coyote

October 6th, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^

If he didn't he would have never been a coach at Michigan.  And he typically did good against Spread pass teams that didn't have a run threat at QB (Purdue).  I think he cared a lot about learning how to stop the spread and how it worked, I just don't think the coaching staff ever really got it right (Most of the time the scheme was fine, it was the players, particularly on the D-line, taking terrible angles).

jlcoleman71

October 6th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^

We've got a bunch of young kids playing CB and S, including position switches because we're so thin...........it's recruiting and holding onto recruits.........too much attrition over the last few years for various reasons.

ituralde

October 6th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

I hate this idea that scoring a bunch hurts the defense. 

Statistically, maybe it does hurt, since the bad guys have more opportunities to make us look bad. 

Realistically, defenses play better with a lead.  All they need to do is get themselves off the field a couple times and it goes into easy mode.

Braylon 5 Hour…

October 6th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^

I think we all love Michigan football and see how good the offense is and it's really hard to accept the fact that our offense can be this good and our defense can be this bad.  It's definitely happened before (Drew Henson's Michigan team), but generally speaking we've always had a few elite defensive starters.  I think that leads us to want to find reasons and brainstorm to things that we can figure out that explains why a defense could be this bad, given that this is basically the worst we've seen in my lifetime as a Michigan fan. 

The answer just isn't all that complicated though: it's all about talent and depth, and we just don't have it. The reasons why have been certainly discussed enough here.  Our starting secondary right now is comprised of a former WR red shirt freshman, a walk on safety, and a 3 year backup who is playing his first CB snaps this year.  It's really hard to devise a scheme to cover that up, even with great linebackers (which we don't have). 

I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to try to change things up and come up with different ways to best utilize the current talent we have, but everytime we plug one leak it's just going to open another one up, until current young guys establish themselves, or we bring in some more talent. Every week's a chance for a new guy to step up and if we can get it from Roh, Talbott, Carvin Johnson, the Gordons, or anyone basically that's not Mike Martin (he's already amazing), it's going to translate to more wins for us this year and beyond. Let's see it, hopefully starting this week...  

rlc

October 6th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^

I know Indiana's pass offense may have been the reason for so many three man fronts, but don't we need these young players to be playing out of base defense more so they can improve at it? I suppose it is a little catch 22, but most of this defense will be here next year. Not playing the base defense because of one or two weak talent spots hurts the development of all the players.

chitownblue2

October 6th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^

WVU's national defensive ranks under RR (yardage, then scoring):

2003: #64, #34

2004: #29, #26

2005: #8, #10

2006: #53, #48

2007: #4, #11

In three of these 5 years, WVU was better than Carr's Michigan in defense. I'd say that it shows improvement, overall, and a high degree of success.

jmblue

October 6th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^

If you look back to the Carr era, our defense was generally great against teams that ran the same style of offense as Michigan -- ground and pound with a pro-style passing attack -- but terrible against the spread, which was certainly not something our offense could replicate in practice.

I think you're missing the larger point, which is this: pro-style offenses, by and large, are easier to defend than spread offenses.  Carr made some laughable personnel blunders trying to defend spread attacks (like putting Chris Graham on Anthony Gonzalez), but even with the right matchups, he would have had challenges.  When you're spread sideline-to-sideline and have to account for the QB as a rushing threat, you can't overload any part of the field.  Then you're basically hoping that you can win a bunch of one-on-one matchups, which very few college defenses can do.