Gerg's NFL Defensive Statistics
I haven't done any analysis, and am just looking at some raw stats, but I thought you all may find these interesting:
The year(s) Gerg was presiding as dc are denoted with a "g" following the ranking.
New York Jets Defense Ranking by yds/g:
1992: 16
1993: 8
1994: 22 g
1995: 6
Broncos "" :
1992: 22
1993: 19
1994: 28
1995: 15 g
1996: 4 g
1997: 5 g
1998: 11 g
1999: 7 g
2000: 24 g
2001: 8
2002: 6
Chiefs:
1999: 14
2000: 18
2001: 23 g
2002: 32 g
2003: 29 g
2004: 31
2005: 25
Now I know the quality of the offense has a lot to do with how many yds/g the defense gives up. That being said, these stats make me think Gerg is a mediocre DC at best. Both the NYJ and KC were worse with him, while the Broncos were somewhat better.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, other than I'm trying to reason a way into believing our defense will be serviceable next year. I'll be extremely pleased if Gerg can just get our defense to mediocrity, as I believe RR can handle the rest on the other side of the ball. We could see similar stats to that of denver from 1995-2000 in that case, because (I haven't looked) Denver had a solid offense during that time.
Anyway, sorry if I wasted your time. The stats can be found at : www.nfl.com/stats
December 30th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
BUT CAN HE HANDLE MEEECHIGAAAAANN?!?!
December 30th, 2009 at 11:12 PM ^
Average NFL defensive coordinator = very good college defensive coordinator.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:41 PM ^
this may ever come to light, but can you imagine a RR offense firing on all cylinders with a ridiculous defense on the other side of the ball?
Now that would be fun to watch.
That being said, I still have hope for GERG. Hopefully we can get a LB coach to shore up those positions and start to turn the corner...
December 31st, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
The difference between the 20th best defense in the NFL and the 10th best defense probably isn't that great. Personnel choices, injuries, and the craziness of operating with only 53 roster spots make taking anything away from NFL coaching performance difficult. Mike Ditka was a genius with the Bears but a simpleton in New Orleans. Belichick (spelling?) did nothing in Cleveland but could get elected Pope of Massachusetts. Parcells didn't do so hot with the Cowboys. Pete Carroll was a .500 or worse coach in the NFL.
I think the fact that he has had success at so many places (UCLA, Texas, Broncos, etc.) says something about his credentials, and the fact that he gets hired so often shows what other coaches think about his abilities. Once the depth chart has been stocked with a roster full of quality scholarship recruits, I don't think we'll have any real cause for complaint about Robinson.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:42 AM ^
The difference between the 20th best defense in the NFL and the 10th best defense probably isn't that great. Personnel choices, injuries, and the craziness of operating with only 53 roster spots make taking anything away from NFL coaching performance difficult.Agreed, there are too many factors involved to truly be able to draw much of anything that is too conclusive from the data, although it does make for an interesting point that he was not an elite DC for most of his NFL career. But I am willing to bet that he has more control over personell in college than in the pros, so that has to work in his favor here as opposed to there. His futility at Syracuse would also make a good point.
December 31st, 2009 at 2:07 AM ^
I guess I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to a head coach who only gets 4 years (EDIT: he didn't even get to finish out his fourth year at SU) after inheriting a bad situation (not that Pasqualoni did a bad job, but Robinson didn't get a great team to work with).
Also, the list of guys who have hired/trusted Robinson is pretty damn impressive: Dick Vermeil, Pete Carroll, Mike Shanahan, Mack Brown and (of course) Rich Rodriguez
December 31st, 2009 at 4:58 AM ^
Good Post. Except Pete Carroll was above .500, albeit not by much, at .516. He wasn't a bad NFL coach by any means.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^
Do you mean Buddy Ryan and the 46? The Bears success was based on their D which Ditka had nothing to do with. His lack of success at NO just proved that as a coach he was ________. I'll let you decide.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:30 AM ^
The 1985 Bears were nearly undefeated and had one of the most dominating seasons ever-including what was at the time a historical blowout victory in the Super Bowl. As good as their defense was, their offense was ranked in the top ten also. I would be careful about dismissing the head coach's role just because he had a good coordinator. What Super Bowl winning team doesn't have a good coordinator?
December 31st, 2009 at 1:08 AM ^
I don't think he's going to be a great defensive coordinator here at Michigan, but I don't think he has to be.
Get the statistical rankings up into the 50's and you'll probably see this team win 2-3 more games next year. I mean, it's not going to to take a team that gives up 250 YPG and 15 points to win 7 games.
I'm praying to every god known to man that Greg can do this, and I think he can. It will be the first time in over 3 years that the defense will have the same scheme. That has to count for something right?
And when the fall comes, I wouldn't be surprised to see the linebackers improve. Why? Greg Robinson will be coaching them.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:19 AM ^
You really don't see a lot of "great" defensive coordinators in college - usually they are coaches just looking to move onto something else. Robinson is what I thought from the start RR needed. An experienced 50-something defensive coordinator without big-time head coaching aspirations who just wanted to succeed in a program like Michigan.
I think he will do well this fall and beyond.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:23 AM ^
When Gerg was hired one of his former Texas gave a very enthusiastic plug for him because of the way he helps guys drill solid technique and that he pays attention to the little things that make a big difference.
Those are strengths that really stand out in a development stage like college but are easily concealed at NFL level coaching working with players that don't need coached up as much.
December 31st, 2009 at 1:45 AM ^
from what i hear the players love and respond to GRob. hes starting to get more involved in recruiting and i think youll see his impact on the defense sooner than later.
i havent seen a Michigan team tackle as well as they did vs WMU in years. it would have been nice to see the defense be consistent but where there isn't very good talent there's not going to be very good results.
Michigan is a very good pass rusher, MLB, and a year or so away from having a pretty strong defense. im excited for the future. im just hoping the team continues to take big steps forward.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:27 AM ^
I don't think we were outschemed this year. We were outmanned. Guys were in position to make plays, but they were a) too slow to make them or b) failed miserably because they lacked talent/experience.
Take Mike Williams, for example. He was in position all day to make a play on Juice Williams in the read option game. He just chose to chase the tailback because he freaked out and got excited.
December 31st, 2009 at 9:18 AM ^
To flog a dead horse further, out of position and/or slow to react interior LBs undermined the rush defense (giving up leverage, getting suckered in by Juice over and over again, accepting a block rather than trying to flow outside of it, etc), while the pass defense had chronic missed assignments or late reactions to a TE or slot WR breaking deep.
I liked the effort to simplify the defense and focus on fundamental play. That should pay off next year as the veterans will be coming in with some idea about what they're supposed to be doing, for the first time in a number of years. We need these older guys to mentally anchor the new guys for a little while.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:32 AM ^
These numbers tell me that Robinson is good enough to coach a defense that is, at least, competent. Last season is not on him.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
Very selective choice of stats since giving up yards doesn't cause you to lose games giving up points does. Back in those days teams with good records got harder schedules the following year and bad records easier schedules. The Jets went 4-12 in 92 coming off of 8-8 and gave up 19.7 points a game they also lost their best defensive player, Dennis Bryd, toward the end of the season. Easier schedule in 93 plus dedicated season to Bryd and go 8-8 giving up 15.5/game. 94 new head coach Pete Carroll harder schedule and go 6-10 giving up 20/game (Gerg's year). 95 Carroll fired easier schedule, but go 3-13 and give up 24/game. The most Robinson's D gave up was 28 points and they tied for 6th a drop from 3rd. Following year gave up a high of 52 and finished 14th.
The Denver Broncos had just come off of a year where they dropped from 5th in points allowed to 13th giving up and extra 7 points a game when Gerg took over. His worst year was his last when they drooped to 13th with a first year starter at QB. The other years his defense placed 9th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, and 8th. The year after Gerg they placed 12th.
As for the Chiefs, like th Jets the year before Gerg took over they had dedicated their season to Pro Bowler Derrick Thomas who had died tragically. they finished 13th, 15th, and then 11th in Gerg's three years. Their D was 14th the first year post Gerg.
Overall Gerg had 6 top 10 D's and 4 outside the top 10 with 15th being the worst during his time in the NFL. Throw in two SB rings and never being on the losing side of a college bowl game and I think our D is in pretty good hands once we stock up on some talent.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
Just to add one more defense to Gerg's NFL Career. Does anyone else remember what the Chiefs did to those teams? They had every dollar spent on offense...they had no quality defensive personel. The fact he wasn't dead last every year may actually be pretty impressive.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:02 PM ^
Good to great defensive talent that is coached well. I think Gerg's a good coach and as his talent depth improves on defense we should see our defense improve back to being in the top 3 of the b10. When you combine a good UM defense with a spread offense scoring 30 + points per game...then you got a juggernaut!
December 31st, 2009 at 12:11 PM ^
With the offense becoming more high powered year after year our defense doesn't have to be great, just good is sufficient. With that said I would like to see the D become one of the top 3 in Big Ten and top 20 nationally, but I'll take top 5 Big Ten and top 40 nationally. That should be good enough to make us competitive for the MNC and winning the Big Ten.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:20 PM ^
The idea that we should be hoping for defensive "mediocrity" so our "offense can do the rest" is troubling.
You win with defense, not with an offense than can offset shoddy defensive play. I realize the personnel may not be there yet, but I'd hope the philosophy isn't offense-first/defense-out-of-necessity.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
OSU has shown us having a great defense but conservative offense cannot get you all the way. It gets you into contention but is that what we really want?
As I said I would prefer a great defense....partnered with a great offense, but if we can have a good defense and great offense I'll take that every day. A mediocre defense is not acceptable.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
The NFL is a different level of football, with older, more talented players and near-unlimited practice time. I don't think you can draw many conclusions from a coach's NFL performance. We've seen many college stars become NFL flops.