Impressions? D a little soft?

Submitted by myrtlebeachmai… on

Alright, work caused missed game. Saw the 10 min highlight on YouTube. The O looked solid, as expected, big gashing runs, a few great passes.

What about the D? Not that 17 pts is a ton, but it seems like EMU sustained some rather lengthy drives? Higlights didn't show a lot of D. Anybody wnat to summarize?

(sorry, don't have the gumption to read the whole game live-blog to catch up at this time of night...)

Blazefire

September 19th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^

EMU had one successful play they ran over and over, intermixed with a QB run that worked for most of the first half. A more accurate QB or less pressure would've led to a DOOMING day of successful deep passes, as Warren was fantastic, and... nobody else was.

Linebackers and Safeties are problematic, to say the least.

HartAttack20

September 20th, 2009 at 12:20 AM ^

but I would say some linebacker trouble may have to do with Mouton's absence for this game. Roh made a few plays here and there, one being that big interception. Basically what you said applies to the first half. In the second half, however, we adjusted and shut EMU down pretty well with the exception of one drive that we stopped them on 4th and goal (or red zone at least). Our offense was pretty solid all game. Denard had some big runs, threw two picks. Tate had an injury scare. Brown ran like a mad man. Minor played sparingly. Tate wasn't really asked to do a whole lot in this game except scramble a little and hand the ball off. Pretty good win IMHO.

wolverine1987

September 20th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^

I think the linebacker trouble is the linebackers we have, unfortunately. Ezeh is never going to be more than serviceable, making a good read one play and missing a tackle the next. Leach was fine but got caught out of position a couple of times. Another concern, particularly in the first half, was that the tackling was reminiscent of last year, meaning very poor. And in the second half, Eastern still got another 52 yards of rushing, which is ok, but hardly qualifies as shutting them down. It seems pretty clear that we'll need to score a lot this year to continue this success, which is what we thought going into the season, but I was hoping for more improvement in the back 7 than we have had, other than Warren.

GBOD79

September 19th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^

The D played fairly poorly in the first half (when all 17 EMU points were scored) and then played much better in the second half. I think our line play was much better today than it was against ND (granted ND>EMU).

The real problem with our D is the depth. We have quality 1st string players but the drop off is so big at some positions (ie all of secondary) that we can not rotate and guys play the whole game. I am not as down on our D as some are as I see that they are very capable of making necessary adjustments and correcting mistakes. I just worry that the injury bug is going to find us at some point.

myrtlebeachmai…

September 19th, 2009 at 11:49 PM ^

Could it be that RR and staff just aren't as adept at D game planning, as they are at O?

I remember a lot of discussion after his hire, with stats of some good D years at WVU, with the dissenting opinion "remebering" all the "shoot-out games" with teams like L'ville, etc.

Perhaps this is the sword we'll live by? O great out of the gate & all game. D please keep us in it until half-time when we can catch up? - or is it truly lack of talent/depth on D?

Thoughts?

jabberwock

September 20th, 2009 at 12:00 AM ^

Every article or interview I've read about RR usually mentions his focus on offense, it's his specialty. He has admitted that he is much less concerned about defensive matters, to the point of letting his coordinators have complete defensive control. I don't know if he's changed his philosophy or responsibilities in the past couple years, but he is the first one to say that you win games by scoring more points than the other guy.

GBOD79

September 20th, 2009 at 12:00 AM ^

I dont think RR is the one making the defensive gameplan. GERG is the one doing that. I think with the offense we have right now and the way it will develop most likely, our defense does not have to be great in order for us to win a lot of games. Plus right now some are complaining about our D like we gave up 35 points today to EMU. We gave up 17 and they averaged just 3.9 yards per play. While criticism is certainly fair its also wise to point out the positive developments on our D like the play of Sagesse and Leach. Leach had a pretty good game today and Sagesse looked impressive as well. Barring injury our depth will continue to get better this year as more guys get playing time.

IME, its not a lack of talent its a lack of consistancy due to 3 coordinators in 3 years. Give GERG a couple years here and I am willing to bet our D is going to be much improved.

myrtlebeachmai…

September 20th, 2009 at 12:12 AM ^

What it will ultimately come down to is what will GERG's defense be like, agree? Again I agree on some points, but also have a hard time swallowing 17 and 3.9 to an 0-3 MAC cellar-dwelling EMU (against ND another story).

While I too am happy about any depth/solid playtime/success for our back-ups, my question is not so much who we have NOW. I agree with jmblue below, that Carr left both sides of the cupboard bare, and we have to be thankful we're at least outscoring others.

The dark question I have inside is, with an offensive coach, will we ever see the recruiting hinge/focus on getting the D guys we need to have a TRULY successful D? I'm not sure looking at the first couple of classes.

spacemanspiff231

September 20th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^

Fair point, but if you watched the game and know anything about football (not implying you don't) then you know that our run defense was atrocious. Absolutely atrocious. In the 3-4 we just don't get any push from the D-line. We got penetration on a lot of plays but we also let up a lot of big runs as well. And many times that we got penetration from the D-line, the run was going somewhere else and through a big hole where we didn't have any defenders in position. Our tackling wasn't anywhere as good as it was in the first two games, and while they only scored 17 points, it was E. Michigan. This was not a particularly powerful team. I'm scared to death of how only having 3 down linemen with any size on every play is going to work out against teams like MSU and Wisconsin. Notre Dame's run game was supposed to be their weak point on offense but with their production on the ground and our inability to shed tackles in that game, our run D just looked silly. It's inaccurate for people to say that we don't have good sized D-linemen. Van Bergen, Mike Martin, Will Campbell, Graham and even Sagesse are all beasts. We only lack size up front b/c we're only playing 3 down linemen with any size on any play. Craig Roh is really just a bigger linebacker at this point, he's not very big.

The Original Seth

September 20th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^

I agree that our run defense has been somewhat disappointing, and agree with your point concerning size on the line and the dangers of Big 10 play.

At the same time, just one quibble about using our run-D's performance vs ND as a depression-inducing metric -- MSU, which likely has a better defense than we will this year, and certainly a stronger linebacking corps, got run on for 133 yards on 23 attempts (5.0 ypa). This is almost identical to our defensive performance against the Notre Dame rush (154 total yards on 30 attemps, for 5.1 ypa). I think that in any other year, it would be reasonable to assume "getting run on by Notre Dame" = "terrible run defense and line play." This year, it seems, ND might just actually have a decent rushing attack.

jmblue

September 20th, 2009 at 12:01 AM ^

I think it's a talent/depth issue (and it probably was one at WVU, as well, given their generally low recruiting rankings). We are very young and very thin (both literally and figuratively - we're seriously undersized up front). Robinson's base defense realistically isn't going to be a lights-out unit this year. He's going to have to throw in a lot of wrinkles to keep opposing offenses on their toes.

I don't think this has much of anything to do with RR. Carr's last couple of recruiting classes just weren't that good, and we're paying the price now. In fact, I'm comforted by the fact that we have a terrific offensive coach now to take pressure off the D; I'd be scared to think of how this young, thin team would perform (on both sides of the ball) in the Carr system.

umjgheitma

September 20th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^

I noticed on several plays where the D-line would stand up and just get driven to whatever side the O-line wanted them to. For some reason the linebackers look like they want to crash into the offensive linemen and not worry about plugging the holes. Frustrating watching stretch plays where it looks like the D has a read on it and are all in place but the RB turns it up for 5-7 yards. ALSO, for the love of God, if the safeties are gonna sell out on a tackle.....GO FOR THE LEGS!! Numerous times the safeties would jump into the RBs shoulder pads and they would bounce off letting the RB rumble on further down the field.

Upside is that a lot of the rushing D issues can be fixed with technique and it's not a lack of talent. You can see when everyone actually does what they're supposed to penetration into the backfield spawns. Coverage is just going to take more experience and possibly just new talent, hopefully if Grimes and Christian commit and Turner red shirts along with Cissoko just being a sophomore then our corners look solid for years to come.

KinesiologyNerd

September 20th, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^

The way I see it is that GERG was a great hire (as I think most of us agree). We are already seeing great flashes out of this defense, and I just can't wait until we start winning and can get those high(ly/er) rated guys. The biggest thing with that is I can't wait until gerg has the type of guys he wants. Look at Roh, he already has what? 2 sacks, an INT and is really playing well. Yes, I believe some more growing pains for a year or two, but give it time boys it's going to be fun

myrtlebeachmai…

September 20th, 2009 at 12:25 AM ^

I just wish (and I almost can't stand myself saying this as I recall languishing in agony, riding prevent D wins to the last second with Lloyd) we were winning with D - where other teams had real trouble socring on us. I don't know if my heart can stand having to outscore people on the high end. ;)

I will say I LOVE our new speed on D; I hope we get to the state of speed and lights out. I'd feel better with some high-end D recruits on board.

Augger

September 20th, 2009 at 12:30 AM ^

When you are thinking about the defense and how the coaches are doing with the talent they have, remember this...Before this year how many walk-ons do you remember ever seeing on defense and starting? I can't remember the last time I saw one play much less start...the talent on the defensive side of the ball right now is paper freaking thin, and the drop offs are grand canyonesque in character.

Aug

Koyote

September 20th, 2009 at 12:49 AM ^

I have a feeling that the UFR for the D will show a lot of vanilla looks for the D.

I think the gameplan for both the D and O was to pretty much not show anything unless we had to in order to win. We were pretty much in control of the game (although the score at the half didn't look the greatest). So it was likely a lot of base stuff just so that our future opponents wouldn't have a lot of good tape on us.

AMazinBlue

September 20th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^

get better. We are very weak at LB and scary-thin in the back seven. The d line needs more size, we are out sized by better teams. Run Defense will improve once Big Will is ready to play. At 318 he is a beast and will allow Graham some 1 on 1 situations. Graham 1/1=SACKS!

Ezeh should be better by now. I'm seeing the tackling getting worse as each game goes by. We were pretty good against WMU. ND exposed our biggest weaknesses and now teams will use that as a blueprint.

GERG is showing to be good at halftime adjustments.

BlueGoM

September 20th, 2009 at 12:59 AM ^

I think we only have 2 seniors starting on defense, is that right? Graham and Brown? All the rest are Sophomores or Juniors.
[edit:]
and duh - Craig Roh a true freshman on D, didn't mean to imply we have no freshman at all on D

kdudley

September 20th, 2009 at 3:44 AM ^

One issue (or non-issue) is that when on offense, we score fast. Our offense so far is so efficient, that with all of the big plays, we tend to score almost too fast. The result is that the time of possession leans heavily towards our opponent, and the defense spends a lot of time on the field. The outcome of this, with the lack of depth we have on D, is that that we will give up far more points that we have been used to. This is the reason why Barwis is essential to our success.

That being said, I'm impressed with GERG so far... and here's to a season surpassing many of our expectations. GO BLUE!

BlueinLansing

September 20th, 2009 at 7:48 AM ^

It was noted while watching that UM seemed to play pretty vanilla D in the first half. When they were agressive and attacking (which wasn't often) they had good success.

Simply put UM didn't need to do much fancy stuff on either side of the ball.

The only noteworthy thing for me today was how MSU was constantly getting pressure on Jimmah Clausen while UM rarely did so. It was noted because UM also had the same trouble with EMU a decidedly much weaker offensive line.

The LB's may get criticized, but they did end up as the 3 leading tacklers, including the team leader Leach in his first game. Not many of those tackles came at the line of scrimmage it seemed.

Also it was so obvious the D had little intensity today coming off the big emotional win last week. I expect a better effort next week, vs our first true spread offense QB under Robinson.

The King of Belch

September 20th, 2009 at 8:01 AM ^

We again have a parallel to early Bo. I believe it was in his first book when he told the story that he made all of the offensive linemen gather for a weigh in during his first year. No one was allowed to come in at over 250. Even Dan Dierdorf (whom Bo joked about starving himself to make the weight and then going out for beers 'n burgers immediately after). Bo's defenses seemed to be lighter and faster guys (and you who are better at UM history can confirm or deny-please do). One thing I remember about Bo's defenses is they FLEW to the ball and swarmed ball carriers. I think this is the approach Gerg and RR want, and will get eventually.

The catch is if you want to go lighter and faster--boy, you better have some afleets out there, and so far, not so much just yet.

When the depth gets better, we'll see not just better performance, but far more rotation of players. There just may be something going on here in terms of holding players back or out just a little to save them for the Big Ten grind. Just a thought.

This is Year Two of Barwis, and of course for the freshmen (expecially those who weren't here for spring ball)--the workout regimen may be almost as tough as a 12 consecutive week game grind. I believe we still will see better results from Barwis next year and beyond as the players become more acclamated to this system. I think the defense was worn completely out last year by even the last quarter of the season. Not used to Barwis plus being on the field so much.
Maybe there is some thought being given to that, and with the emergence of some walk ons, also thought being given to holding back with players like JB Fitz, Emilien, Demens, and a few others. There's still a LONG way to go.

jabberwock

September 20th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^

we'll ever see the Michigan defenses of old again?

And I don't mean that as a slam to RR, GERG or anyone else.
I just think (as I mentioned earlier) that RR's focus will ALWAYS be on the offense, and outscoring opponents, not "shutting them down".

Can GERG make up for this alone? Not if his defenses are asked to be on the field for 40 min each game, even with Barwis thats being a bit unrealistic. A few good stops, and a turnover or two is all RR is going to need from his D once the O really starts humming.

It's going to be a very big adjustment for many of us Michigan fans, but I'm sure the wins, and massive point totals will make up for the loss of defensive tradition.

jmblue

September 20th, 2009 at 1:46 PM ^

I think you are overstating things a little. Yes, RR is primarily an offensive-oriented guy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about the defensive side of the ball, or doesn't value it. It just means that Robinson probably has somewhat more freedom to do what he wants than Magee does, because RR doesn't call the defensive signals.

This is normal. Most head coaches specialize on one side of the ball. Jim Tressel is actually the same way; he is mostly an offensive coach and leaves his DCs more or less alone to devise a gameplan. This has hardly caused OSU to struggle on the defensive end.

As for the TOP yesterday, it was a fluke caused by a hyper-efficient offense. We had one TD drive of one play, another of two plays, and another of three plays. And then we had two possessions quickly end due to turnovers. That combination of events isn't likely to happen all the time.

jabberwock

September 20th, 2009 at 3:42 PM ^

I get your point, and you might be right. Most coaches are focused more on O or D; but RR's whole style and history seems to be offensively weighted, more than most. I certainly don't mean to imply that he ignores the D or that we won't develop quality defenses, at the very least they should be faster, and I love GERGs focus on tackling and his adjustments. Does RR really seem as balanced as Tressel? That's an honest question because I don't know, but it doesn't necessarily look that way to me.

Do you know of any stats comparing RR teams offensive vs defensive rankings? That might shed some more light on this, though it wouldn't exactly be definitive.

Also I realize that yesterdays TOP was a fluke, but it is the direction we are headed with this offense, and I'd say that scoring every few plays would be a great problem to have.

The Original Seth

September 20th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^

Rich Rodriguez' teams have, in the past, been able to score at will in drives which clock in under 2:00. All he really NEEDED for perfect, or near-perfect records in the Big East was to make stops on about a quarter of other teams' drives. Since his guys always scored, playing committed defense wasn't as MUCH of a priority.

With that said, the WVU defense was a major reason his boys beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta bowl; they were swarming, rough runstuffers who also managed to put Bradford under a lot of stress.

jabberwock

September 20th, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^

I think it will improve, (how could it not, "a little soft" was an understatement)
and I think between GERG, Barwis, and the superior recruiting capabilities at Michigan that we will see much better defenses. But I don't see RR breathing down GERG's neck if his defense lets an opponent put up 20 pts (assuming we put up 40) like, say, Bo would have. Just doesn't seem to be his style.

myrtlebeachmai…

September 20th, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^

U and I same mindset... I'm not bashing/hating AT ALL. I just don't see the "pressure" or "heat" being felt by the coaching staff to solidify the D as quickly.

Don't get me wrong, they don't want the D to be a liability, but I honestly think we're happy if we fall anywhere this side of that.

I too would really question if RR is as balanced as Tressle. Having big name recruits on D at OSU has never suffered just b/c he handles the O.

I realize THE priority was to get in personnel on the O side (bigger diff to compensate for out of the gate); but if the next class or two doesn't balance out a little, I think we have our answer. (Yes I'm aware we have some potential big names to drop yet this year, but most of them are secondary types, not the "beef" we'd need to change things up front.)

I'll take routine winning of 45-30 games, but damn I'd love me some good old butt-whoopins where teams come away never seeing the end zone against us. Here's to hoping it happens!!

BlueinLansing

September 20th, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^

Haven't seen much evidence of that on the defensive side of the ball.

Will Campbell and JT Turner aside, otherwise the defensive recruiting has left much to be desired even into full class #2 this winter.

jabberwock

September 20th, 2009 at 8:39 PM ^

I mean AT Michigan, it should be easier to recruit higher rated players than at his previous schools.
RR has said that the "Block M has opened doors" for him that were closed when he was at WVU.
I am making the assumption that it applies to defensive as well as offensive players.

Not closing on all of those recruits lately in comparison to other elite teams is another topic.