Don Brown Defense: Year 2

Submitted by Catchafire on

It goes without question that the first year of the Don Brown lead defense was a success.  Built upon the success of DJ Durkin and Greg Mattison lead defenses, the wolverines were nasty on defense and held their ground against top ten defenses.  What can we expect from year two?

<p>

The team loses a lot of starters, but gain a handful of highly touted recruits and a continuation of trained players currently in the system.  Do you think we can top last year's defense or at least sustain it?  The learning curve has decreased so things should be smooth right?

<p>

Can't wait to see the team play against Florida! 

reshp1

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:17 AM ^

I don't think it's realistic to lose 8 NFL caliber players (11 if you count the UFAs) and not see a step back. It's really more of an question of how big of a step back. Watching the Spring Game was a bit alarming at times, particularly the back up guys on the DL. Some of the expected starters were out or didn't play much (Hill, Dwumfour), but still, there was a pretty steep drop off from the guys manning those spots a year ago. You can see the talent at times though, so there's definitely something there for Brown to work with.

 

Gun to my head, I would guess we're a top 25 defense based on scheme and raw athletic talent, but not anything close to the 1st or 2nd like last year.

dragonchild

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:47 AM ^

and in our case, yes, but this isn't inherently true.  OSU had about that turnover two seasons ago and just reloaded.  The long-term goal of any elite program (short-term ever being championships) essentially boils down to being a pro factory.

So, it's possible to lose a bunch of starters to the NFL and not see a drop, but obviously we're not there yet.  Year 2 DB will be largely the same as Year 1 DB (not that that was bad!), because everyone just past the starters are as green as a golf course and Brown's defense is tough to learn.  So losing all those starters will definitely have an impact -- but this time around I'd say it's because of experience, not talent.

reshp1

May 3rd, 2017 at 2:36 PM ^

2016 OSU was a drop off from 2015 OSU though, noteably in some spots (OL comes to mind). Also, they're enjoying the fruits of a program that's been stable and successful for years. We're still reeling from a shock of yet another regime change and the recruiting dip that goes along with it. There aren't a whole lot of guys from the 2014/2015 class ready to take the baton, and we're instead relying on the 2016/17 class more than a stable program would.

Frank Chuck

May 3rd, 2017 at 6:18 PM ^

OSU's 2016 defense was statistically better than its 2015 defense despite playing better competition.

Football Outsiders Defensive S&P+:

2016 OSU - 13.6 (5th)

2015 OSU - 16.7 (9th)

2015 OSU defense lost DE Nick Bosa, DT Adolphus Washington, DL Tommy Schutt, LB Darron Lee, LB Joshua Perry, CB Eli Apple, S Von Bell, and S Tyvis Powell. Only Powell and Schutt went undrafted.

LloydCarnac

May 3rd, 2017 at 2:05 PM ^

The defense doesn't need to be the best on paper. It needs to continue being good, especially in the fourth quarter.

Then, our best defense could be a high-firing offense. It's about time for the O-Line to give the D-Line a break. Giddy up, offense! Score more points than opponents. Hopefully, many more. .

The Fan in Fargo

May 3rd, 2017 at 5:42 PM ^

I agree. TIme for o-line to get it done. Looks like its two seniors in Kugler and Cole along with talented Bredeson. The other three could be two awesome true freshman recruits and maybe the likes of Onwenu or whoever. That should be enough fire power that there isn't a drop off too huge from last year. Not like last year's line had any kahunahs anyway. No more excuses for Drevs. He got his new associate o-line coach. The players are 3 years into the system now right? Time to get it done boys. Money talks and bullshit walks. Drevs is getting paid as are the rest. It's gotta happen this year.

The Oxford Wolverine

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:17 AM ^

If Michigan was a Top 5 defense last year, and #1 in certain statistics, I expect them to be somewhere in the Top 20 this year.  There will be a fall off, if for only because there is experience and depth concerns along the front line.  But by years end, they should be humming along quite nicely, barring a rash of injuries to key positions.

The Maizer

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^

I would be very surprised if we can top last year's defensive performance.

<p>

Last year we gave up big plays relatively frequently, and I think the inexperience in the backfield will lead to more of that. We should still have a solid defense though.

<p>

Magnus

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:39 AM ^

Did we give up big plays relatively frequently? I don't know if that's true. There were some (the long run by UCF, a couple passes against Colorado, a couple plays against FSU), but I don't know if I would call those plays frequent.

LSAClassOf2000

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:18 AM ^

In the UCF game, just as an example and I think to your point, there was the TD run for 87 yards, but in all of the 68 plays UCF ran on offense, they were averaging about 4.65 yards per play, and although the next most prolific rusher for UCF had 81 yards, it took him 17 carries to do it. We really did not give up, as a percentage of downs played, very many like that run. 

BassDude138

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:18 AM ^

Not to mention, the few plays early in the year came when the team was still learning Brown's defense under live fire, and without a couple of key starters. Jourdan Lewis obviously takes away half of the field, and he was out against UCF and Colorado. it is expected that there would be some communication issues playing in a new system without your best coverage guy.

Peppers was out of the FSU game which obviously had an impact, but the wheel routes to Cook on a LB was just good scheming. Not much you can do about that. Overall, the defense did pretty well limiting big plays last year.

The Maizer

May 3rd, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^

I used such weak language ("relatively frequently") on purpose; it wasn't a big weakness for us. I just think we gave up big plays more often than expected relative to the overall efficacy of our defense. And my point was just that I don't think we'll see fewer big plays given up this year because our backfield will be inexperienced.

Everyone Murders

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:07 AM ^

In defense of that, this is a post about Don Brown's defense in year two (the defense having had two other coordinators in recent years), being a defense that lost 8 drafted players who will now be playing defense in the NFL, and a couple of whom may be playing both special teams and defense instead of exclusively focusing on defense (and one of whom may be playing defense, offense, and special teams instead of just defense).

Everyone Murders

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:17 AM ^

The Wolverines were in fact nasty on defense, not just reputedly nasty on defense, and the defense held its ground against each other top ten defense (isolating the comparitive performance of each defense faced), all of which is a topic in a thread about Don Brown's defense which is similar to the most recent DC's defense (but less so w/r/t the penultimate DC's defense), with last year's defense giving up eight players who will play defense on Sundays (and UFA on defense who also could play defense on Sunday, or defense and special teams); the point being that for a "Don Brown Defense" (as opposed to another defense) year two is when we might expect the defense to fully adopt the principles of that defense - a well-regarded defense, indeed.  

HimJarbaugh

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^

I think the DL depth will be tough at first. Thank goodness Mattison is there and has proven to be able to develop young talent.

Beyond that, the secondary will probably be exposed as well but fortunately there aren't many big downfield passing teams. Maybe Purdue or Indiana, but who knows where they will be in year one with new coaches.

Statistically, I expect a top 10, possibly top 5 scoring defense. What I am really hoping for is more turnovers. I know his defenses aren't known for being turnover machines. I do think it could improve with more talented guys marinating in the system for a year.

Indiana Blue

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:56 AM ^

I think the D line is our strength.  Every 2017 starter has experience and the backups are certainly more athletic than at any time in the last decade.  I also think our LB's will be vastly better than the previous 2 seasons.  Probably the only potential area of concern is the secondary ... but the front 7 can offset the inexperience of the secondary by pressuring the QB .. which is truly Brown's #1 priority on defense.

Go Blue!

HimJarbaugh

May 3rd, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^

I don't see it. There are four or five experienced guys on a unit that likes to rotate a lot. Set aside the possibility of injuries and you still have three or four freshmen coming on in relief. 

The biggest upside is that the talent level of those young guys seems high so hopefully they can develop quickly.

RoseInBlue

May 3rd, 2017 at 3:01 PM ^

"There are four or five experienced guys on a unit that likes to rotate a lot. "

Did they like to rotate a lot or did they simply have the luxury of being able to rotate a lot?  Because our 8 guy rotation last year was unusual.  For most teams, their D line looks like ours does right now.  4 starters with maybe a serviceable backup then some dropoff.  This is normal.  So, I'm not certain there's as much panic needed here as some seem to have.

HimJarbaugh

May 3rd, 2017 at 4:25 PM ^

Yes, Mattison has talked a lot about rotating a bunch to keep guys fresh and while four starters seems ok on paper, it ignores the possibility ot injuries or other things. 

There is little depth there, plain and simple. The x-factor is having one of the best D-line coaches in college football.

M_Born M_Believer

May 3rd, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^

I really believe that our front 7 will simply wreak terror upon the schedule, but the young secondary may get exposed.  

And by looking at the schedule, there are a few hiccups early on and 1 game that poses a potential issue.

Florida - Ummmmm nope, they can't even settle on a QB still

Cincinnati - Next

Air Force - Will be actually play any secondary people

Purdue - Lack of talent, but with enough shots they will hit some, but I would expect there will be a high number of picks as well

Sparty - Do they have anyone left to play?

Indiana - System team, but see Purdue....

PSU - This is the game that stands out, they fleeced Wisconsin in the Championship game with repeated bombs over the top, while I do not expect a repeat performance like that.  Night Game, White Out, several attempts, they will hit a few to make the game more interesting than it should be.

Rutgers - Seriously.......nope

Minnesota - again, do they even know how to throw

Maryland - No QB = No Passing game

Wisconsin - Man Ball, just need to not bite too hard on play action....

OSU - Last game, defense will be ready, still not a believer that Barrett is actually a QB.....

 

In the end, the PSU game stands out, but I would expect a heavy amount of blitzing to limit the amount of time McSorley gets to wind up and throw......

Catchafire

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^

While I agree to an extent that losing a lot of players will hurt, we are getting a lot of grade A players on defense who weren't even here for the spring game.

 

I predict that the first few games will be a little shaky but we will smooth out by the middle of the season and be much improved to stop the Kevin Wilson lead fOSU team.

MadMonkey

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:36 AM ^

what we lack in experience we will likely make up for with greater risk taking on the defensive calls.   We are going to lose some of those RPS battles which will lead to a lot of big busts (remember first half of Colorado last year).   However, that aggression will be rewarded with some nice turnovers and some big stops.   I think we will see a lot more volatility in the D's performance.

Bluetotheday

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:41 AM ^

I believe Brian/Ace provide analysis of growth under Brown, and year 3 is where you see vast improvement. Yes, we lost a lot to the NFL, but it's year 2 and the DUDE himself created the best D (statistically speaking) at BC...I don't think we see a drop off

MgoHillbilly

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:04 AM ^

I remember something similar. Historically there is a significant bump under Brown in year two when his concepts have started to fully sink in. Other than the true freshman, everyone else had had time to observe, play some, practice and learn. As crazy as it may sound, I expect this defense may be better than last year's so long as depth issues don't come into play.

Magnus

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:43 AM ^

Year two has traditionally been an improvement for Don Brown, I think. I don't know if that will be the case here because we lose a lot of talent, and there's basically nowhere to go but down. Overall, I don't think there will be a huge dropoff. I expect Michigan to still have a top-10 or top-15 defense.

The cornerbacks are a huge question mark on defense. If they can't hold up in press man coverage, that's going to be problematic. They're not going to be as good as Lewis and Stribling, so it's a matter of whether the safeties, linebackers, and defensive line can make up for the difference.

funkywolve

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:12 AM ^

there's a difference between talent and potential.  A player who is talented has proven on Saturdays that he's good.  Potential is players who were highly rated recruits, players who are getting a lot of practice hype, etc.  There's not too many players right now on the defensive side of the ball that have proven themselves on Saturdays.  There's a lot of potential with this defense and with this staff I think that potential will transform into talent.

alum96

May 3rd, 2017 at 12:25 PM ^

+1. After reading Brian's post yesterday was thinking how many guys in the 2 deep got meaningful play in a big 10 game. I only came up with the starting front 4, McCray and Bush, and Kinnel. So that's 7 players of a proverbial 22 player 2 deep.

Will we need 22? Nah unless injuries hit but 7 of say 18 needed players are truly proven. Now we can add Metallus I guess if 1 game of viper = full confidence at safety.

Really it's going to be about health of DL and finding realiable secondary players not named Kinnel. Depth outside of LB feels like an issue. Brown will earn his pay this yr and for those expecting rainbows I expect some games the comments won't be quite so glowing in game threads. 2018 defense should be nasty though.

Farnn

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:44 AM ^

Another change this year will hopefully be an increase in turnovers.  They forced and recovered very few fumbles, especially considering how many QB hits there were.  Brown has mentioned they are stressing punching for the ball a lot in practice and that may make up for some extra yards given up due to decreased experience.

BursleysFinest

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:47 AM ^

I'm expecting more boom or bust.  I'm thinking there might be more turnovers created, more WOW plays (both ways), but not as good on a down to down basis.

All in all, still a top-20 defense.

JohnCorbin

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:52 AM ^

I understand we're losing 8 draft picks, 3 UDFAs from last year's defense.  I understand that.

In 2015 Boston College was a top 5 defense with Don Brown running the show.



2016 NFL draft saw 2 boston college players go, in round 3 (DB) and round 7 (LB).

2017 NFL draft saw 2 boston college players go, in round 3 (DB) and round 5 (LB).

That top 5 defense wasn't built on dominant NFL players.  It was built on scheme.

I don't think the sky is falling.  Place I was most worried about was interior DL this year, but Solomon, Hudson, and all the other recruits we have, should provide some much needed depth this year, to compliment/spell our starters.

If we fall outside of the top 10, I don't think we'll dip past the top 15.

Farnn

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:11 AM ^

But how many seniors were there and how many returning starters?  It's less about losing so many NFL picks as it is losing starters.  For a very complex defense, returning starters are a big deal.

JohnCorbin

May 3rd, 2017 at 4:22 PM ^

Losing starters is a big deal, but I'd make a different argument for fun.



Years in the system is a big deal.

The 4 starting DL, all 3 starting LBs (depending if a freshman usurps somebody), and all 4 starting DBs have been in the system for two years.  We're losing 10/11 starters from defense last year.  However, all 11 of those starters were in Don Brown's system for one year



Youth is a big deal.

Offense

3 seniors

2 juniors

5 TRUE sophomores (+ redshirt sophomore Runyan)

1 freshman (DPJ or Black)

Defense

2 seniors

3 juniors

5 TRUE sophomores

1 freshman



I'm always excited for football, but I'm very excited for 2019.

JohnCorbin

May 4th, 2017 at 11:57 AM ^

Right now, there are 22 bodies (excluding Newsome) that are juniors or seniors.  That's not tremendous upperclassman depth.



Barring EXTREME attrition, we'll have the necessary depth for competition.  This year we have 7 non-freshmen non-Newsome OL.  That's 1.4 bodies per position.  That's not good depth for competition.  This year we have 7 non-freshmen DL.  That's not great depth for competition.



Barring EXTREME attrition.  There will be depth for competition all around.  I'm excited for it.

EGD

May 3rd, 2017 at 10:57 AM ^

I think M's defense will continue to dominate average teams.  The question for me is how well the defense will fare against elite offenses, as that is probably the difference between another 10-3 type season and a possible championship.  

With the departures and the resulting lack of experienced depth, it's hard to see M doing as well as or better against top offensive teams this coming season than the 2016 unit.  But the only truly great offense on the schedule for 2017 is OSU at the end of the seeason, and probably the second-best offense is Wisconsin the week before that.  So if the starters stay reasonably healthy and the younger players develop, who knows--maybe this unit could outperform the 2016 defense in the big end-of-season games even if they struggle early on.

RJM

May 3rd, 2017 at 11:12 AM ^

You really think wisconsin has the 2nd best offense on the schedule?

I mean, they could be if Penn State regresses (due to overperformance last year), MSU continues to decline, Indiana suffers after the coaching change, etc. But all three of those teams are at least candidates to be a better offense than wisconsin. What are you basing your assertion on?