Fixing the defense
Rivals has an interesting article about Greg Robinson and the changes he's installing, etc.
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=961296
What I found to be most interesting is the chart that lists the ten worst scoring and overall defenses in Michigan history. It is interesting because 7 of the 10 worst defenses in both categories occurred under Lloyd Carr. I'm not a LC basher, but that speaks volumes about what happened to the physical toughness of our defense during his tenure. I always had this feeling when watching big games especially over the past several years that there was something missing from our defensive toughness and tenacity, but this chart puts some statistics to back up what my gut was telling me for years.
On a less serious side note, this new position called the "spinner" I know everyone has been trying to come up with new names for... I was thinkiing along the lines of something terrifying that spins would be a tornado, cyclone, or tazmanian devil (cartoon version). We could call him Taz for short.
Great, more name ideas for the spinner.
Why don't we call it a "Deathbacker?"
I came up with that just now.
This blog ruined "deathbacker", I always think of Sheridan.
somebody suggested "GERGBACKER," which I think is more appropriate.
"What I found to be most interesting is the chart that lists the ten worst scoring and overall defenses in Michigan history. It is interesting because 7 of the 10 worst defenses in both categories occurred under Lloyd Carr."
Some of that is due to the increasing parity in College Football and the increasing offensive production over the years in NCAA football.
In example of this, is that the great 1997 defense would finish in the bottom third historically of Michigan teams in both categories as well. Yet, I doubt anyone is going to say that the 1997 defense was sub-par for Michigan and we have had around 80 teams with a better defense than we saw in 1997.
I think a more accurate way of looking at the defense over the years is to see the percentage of teams that they had better defensive stats against nationally and in conference.
Your overall point is spot on, but there's no way we've had 80 teams that surrendered fewer than 9.5 ppg and 222 yards per game (our 1997 defensive averages). I think the 1985 team was the only one in the past 50-odd years to beat those averages.
are just a TINY bit better than they were in the first half of the 20th century, when Michigan won all of their national titles save one. That could explain the scoring numbers.
I do like what Robinson's doing. With his experience, we have a "head coach" for the defense. I think he'll be able to tailor a scheme to the players (rather than what I think Schafer and Rodriguez fought over last year).
Last year Ted Roof came into Minnesota with a marginal talent upgrade, upgraded the D from 119th to around 80th or so, and increased the win number from 1 to 7.
If Robinson can bring a consistent, fundamentally sound defense to Saturdays this fall, if turnovers are reduced, and if the QB position can actually function this year, we'll be just fine.
the following was too much to realistically hope for:
"If Robinson can bring a consistent, fundamentally sound defense to Saturdays this fall, if turnovers are reduced, and if the QB position can actually function this year, we'll be just fine."
But on rereading, I don't think you're asking for the moon.
#1 is possible. If they can get their share of 3 and outs and cut down on the number of big plays, they might be okay, maybe north of that if they stay healthy.
#2 - Laws of the universe have to be on our side on turnovers, yes? Lightning striking twice and all that?
#3 No doubt production will be better at QB position. A fuctional offense can be expected. I think we can even expect periods of "more than functional," peppered with some serious struggles at other times.
Okay, so now I'm midly optimistic about 7, maybe even 8 wins. Tho tomorrow I'm sure I'm be back to "yeah but"s
As to the points:
(1) Another thing to keep in mind - the offense had 50-some three and outs last year (1/3 of their series). The defense was gassed. Another 12 months of Barwis and an offense who keeps the ball (remember Minnesota. Remember that great drive against Ohio State, I know I know. Remember the first half against Penn State) will put less pressure on the D, allowing it to be fresher and more aggressive.
(2) 30 TO's last year. Just ridiculous. Can't happen again.
(3) Tate can operate this offense. Sheridan and Threet could not. Denard can run, and run very well. The O-Line in the second half of the year pounded teams (they ran it down tOSU's throat on THAT ONE DRIVE, and Penn State's throat for a whole half before Threet fell apart). Combine all that with a QB who can throw on the run, can hit the bubble screen, and a stable of 4 competent to good RBs? There's no need to be pessimistic.
Pessimism is the wrong thing right now, for sure. We're all way down right now from such a horrible season, but the thing is, we CAN remember highlights from pretty much every game, and quite a few instances where we said, "Hey, they may just turn this around!"
Knowing how talent and experience deficient that team was, and how we've upgraded not only several positions, but several of the most important positions, I think anyone looking at things pessimistically is really just trying to avoid let down. As am I.
That's why I'm predicting about 6-7 wins, when I can easily see my way clear to upwards of 9 without too much stretch.
pants and jg, you guys took the words out of my mouth. cut down on the turnovers(like,what 3 turnovers at the ND game inside the 10 in the 1st 5min). keep a few more drives alive longer than 3 plays and our defense will be much improved even if schafer was back.
Conservative Llod-ball probably didn't help with the stats either.
We started bend-don't-break defensive strategies anytime we had a lead in the fourth quarter (and often at the start of the second half).
It also cost us a few wins as Brian has been fond of pointing out.
+1000000 to you
I can't remember a game (except the last bowl win over Florida) that we didn't go into a bend-really-far-to-the-point-you-may-as-well-call-it-a-break defense with a lead.
It started anytime the lead was held at halftime (halftime adjustments!!) and got worse as the game went.
how many times in the last 10 years I screamed at my TV because Lloyd turned into Newt Gingrich when he got a 14-point lead and Michigan had to hang on. I don't think that's going to happen under Coach Rod.
14-point lead? More like seven. Someone broke down the results from the Carr era and found that we actually won more often when we trailed by a small margin going into the fourth quarter than we did when we led by a small amount.
Brian did, big awesome post about variance, which I commented on, and my commenting drove an even bigger awesome post on variance.
Actually, a different blogger did it before Brian, and Brian used his data.
Here's the original post from iBlog for Cookies. It's from back in 2006, and at the time Michigan actually had a losing record when leading by single digits entering the 4th quarter over the previous six seasons. And went 6-1 when trailing by single digits entering the 4th quarter over the same six seasons. The main culprit seemed to be losing the turnover battle.
I can certainly understand thinking that during the Cap One Bowl, Lloyd and the offense did not take their foot off the gas. However, wasn't UM up 14 at one point in the first half, and then the offense stalled, only to see UF take the lead? The second half was surely a slug fest, but UM had an opportunity in the first half to really step on UF's throat.
Mike Hart fumbled 2 times at the goal line.
I also remember the announcers saying something to the effect that UM is in this game and has a chance to make a big statement. Then, UF went up a touchdown. I'll go back and watch it again and let you know when.
Yeah, you're partially right. The biggest thing that stood out to me was when it was a tied game, just after UM blocked a fg attempt. Michigan was driving and Hart fumbled at the goal line. The defense held UF to a three and out, and then Lloyd ball happened; trick play interception. The defense came up big again only giving up one first down. Michigan scores on a pass to Arrington right before the half to go up 21-14. Still, UM could have been going into the locker room 35-14.
To start the third, UM steals the ball on the kickoff and eventually scores to go up 28-14 with 12:50 left in the third. UF ties the game back at 28 with 1:26 left in the third.
as in 2005 ohio state? go for it lloyd don't punt! -.-
That is what it comes down to. Michigan has never been able to deal with Spread teams with a running QB. They really stating establishing themselves during Carr's era and that is why most of defenses are Carr's defenses.
Re: our bad defenses.
Offenses are better than they were in the 1970s but they aren't that much better than they were in the 1990s, when Michigan put up some great defensive numbers under Carr, Matteson, and the early Hermann years. The 1994 Penn State offense is still the best offense in Big 10 history (except for maybe the 2006 OSU bunch) and that year we gave up 31 points and it was considered a letdown. The 1991 Florida State offense had fewer yards in that infamous game than Purdue had last year against us. Ohio State brought a couple of insanely good offenses in to The Game in '95 and '96 and Michigan contained them both far better than what we do against teams with far inferior talent nowadays. 10 years ago you would have never seen Michigan give up 300 passing yards to a crappy quarterback like Brian Hoyer. It's not just spread offenses that make us look like fools anymore. Conventional offenses such as the 2006 USC squad have been kicking our asses too. We have given up 28+ points in an incredible 10 consecutive bowl games. That is a mind-boggling statistic that demonstrates incredible futility. There has no doubt been a precipitous decline in the quality of Michigan defense this decade. Schemes and parity are just a portion of that.
Now I'm depressed.
the "spinarooni". When it is mentioned it's name shall be screamed three times, i.e. "Spinarooni! Spinarooni! Spinaroon!", with an optional, "oh by gawd King it's the SPINAROONI!!".
I still don't understand why "a veteran unit with eight starters back" was seen as a positive for UM last year. To me, it was good news, bad news: the good news was that there were eight starters back, but the bad news was that they were responsible for two of the worst games in UM history. I thought the defense was responsible for both the Appy State debacle and the Oregon blowout.
I never understood why having eight players back from the unit that caused two of the biggest embarassments in UM history was seen as an asset. It's not like anyone can suck one year and automatically be great the next because they are a year older. And they can't line up, say "hi, we're Michigan," and expect teams to lay down for them.
This year, rightfully so, the defense is being seen as a big question mark. Hopefully, it turns into an exclamation point by the end of the year.