It's Not Always Youth
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^
The youth excuse is a valid one for being a below average/poor defense at Michigan. Its not an excuse for being the worst defense in history of the school and/or possibly the conference.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^
were those Oklahoma players rated coming out of high school? I know that doesn't always matter but it usually makes a pretty big difference.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^
I'm simply saying, anyone saying that youth is the reason our defense is what it is, either doesn't understand the complexity of the situation, or doesn't grasp how truly awful our defense is.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
two seniors, a junior, and a sophomore. This allows you to do a lot of things on D. The real break down is 14 Freshman or sophomores and not one true freshman starts. 3 true freshman 2 four star one three star, 2 RS frosh both four star, 4 true sophs 3 four star and a three, and 5 RS sophs 1 5 star, 3 four stars, and a three star. OU upper classman starters 3 5th yr. seniors with two 4 star and one 3 and 3 4th yr Jrs all 4 stars.
There is no comparison as Michigan's only upper classman in the secondary is James Rogers and he's not a true DB.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Historically, Oklahoma and Michigan have recruited about equally well. If we aren't bringing in quality defensive recruits, that's not a positive reflection on the staff.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
back seven recruiting was pretty poor despite a significant need. If we are starting primarily freshman and sophomores it reflects poorly on the previous regime.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
how many of those Fr/So at Oklahoma are RS's?
http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/football-depth-chart.html
Currently looking that their depth, and you can throw out the nickle back (replaced by the WLB
so they effectively are starting on D..
4 Srs
3 Jrs
4 So/RS Fr
And O
3 Sr
3 Jr
4 RS Fr or SO
2 FR (WRs) (included both TE and SL WR)
not entirely sure they are the best comparison...
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^
I wonder how Greg Robinson can sleep at night.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
And luxurious hair.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
I literally can't stop laughing at your avatar.
.jpg)
November 2nd, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
I'd like to see lots of underclass on the 2-deep (preferably the second string) as it means the kids being brought in are talented / developing quickly.
That many on the starting line, means there are retention/ attrition problems.
So - how many of OK's underclassmen are starting 11 on Defense vs. how many of Michigan's? I have a feeling that may be telling.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:32 AM ^
5 starters for Oklahoma are Fr or So, 6 for Michigan
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
These numbers don't exist in a vacuum. There is context (redshirts) that hopefully you're not intentionally leaving out to prove your point.
They also have a top 5 DE, a top 5 Safety, OLB Travis Lewis, DT Adrian Taylor.
That's at least 4 upperclassmen out of 6 that will be in the NFL. All that and the D is STILL not great!?
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
this is completely wrong
There are four total, three in the back eight, and two of them are DBs. The fourth is RS sophomore d-lineman. Oklahoma has two seniors and a junior in their secondary.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
I'm sorry. That's a reading comprehension fail on my part. I thought you were talking about OU's defense, not Michigan's.
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^
Hell, I would throw in a tailback and 2 schollies from the up-coming recruiting class.
November 2nd, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
Exactly. They're starting seven upperclassmen and a redshirt sophomore. This defense just doesn't compare to Michigan's experience-wise.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^
I think we can all agree that unless GERG shaves his head and comes out with a black beard / white fumanchu (hollywood hulk hogan style) - he's done.
This post does a good job showing what a young defense can look like (mediocre - not "worst in class"). Albeit I'd bet a large sum of money OU has more talent on D than we do, but still..... the coaches have the fall on this sword.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^
Youth+career backup veterans starting= turrible defense.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
Team B is predominately 2 and 3 star talent who happen to be FR and SO and some are playing positions they did not play in HS. Team A is predominately 4 and 5 star talent playing postions they played before.
RR has said talent and speed are lacking on D. Star rating might not be the end all be all, but it is a good barometer. Not to mention some of our recruits are tweeners or HS QBs not experienced in the positons they are playing..it factors. Look at Tony Jefferson for OU. High ranked recruit playing well for them.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^
Will the excuses never end.
First, those defending our defensive problems pointed to youth. Now the OP has laid out a situation where a team with as much youth has done a mediocre job of fielding a decent defense, and the excuse morphs to, "well, their youth must be better than our youth."
I don't doubt that Ok may hay higher rater youth than us. But, on that point, I have two counterpoints:
1. Wasn't one of the supposed strengths of this staff the ability to "coach up" lewer rater players into lean, mean fighting machines capable of unleashing havos? Why has this not happened?
2. Who recruited this less talented youth? If they are freshmen, they must have been recruited under RR's watch. So if these players are so bad, why recruit them? Why are other teams able to get better recruits? In fact, shouldn't our thin defense actually give us a recruiting advantage, because we can sell immediate playing time?
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
because they have been on campus for what 4 months?
Its not JUST the freshman. Its the career backups and backups to the backups Seniors that are starting as well. Look I root for James Rodgers all day long but in the end there is a reason he moved around 5 times and never saw the field for anything but mop up duty. He plays his ass off but it's just not there.
RR has swung and missed on some recruits and in my opinion two D Coordinators. I think (HOPE) he now sees that he cant go after these borderline guys. It's one thing to take the risk on a guy like Dorsey not getting in. But another to do it on project guys.
I see the defense and I think it should be better as well. Im also excited about a lot of the young guys RR has recruited. I just think there needs to be better defensive coaching around them.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
Honestly, the OP didn't point out anything. This is a totally different situation. His numbers are not not only misleading, they're inaccurate.
In their basic 4-3 starting package against Texas A&M, Oklahoma started:
2 Sophomores on their line, both redshirt sophs.
2 Sophomore linebackers, one redshirt.
One Sophomore CB
Only 2 of these positions are backed up by a fresh or soph. So youth is beating out experience, however these kids are working with experienced players as they learn their positions.
The Oklahoma defensive coaching staff has been together for 12 years in Olkahoma (with the exception of their secondary coach, who's in his first season).
My point is that one can make almost anything fit their argument if you twist it just right, but we're comparing apples to kiwi here.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
Star ratings are a terrible excuse. It's not like our defense hasn't had it's share of highly rated guys. We've had our share of high 4 star and 5 star guys that last few years, that haven't panned out (B. Smith, Lalota, Turner, Campbell (at least thus far on the D, as he's switching to OG), Cissoko, Witherspoon, maybe JB Fitz too). You can call these players lazy, but you have to give the coaches some blame for lack of development and/or recruiting lazy guys.
For what it's worth, in response to Tony Jefferson, Cullen Christian was the No. 3 CB in the country (on Scout). Not exactly chopped liver there.
I also think it's ludicrous when we complain about 3/4 star guys starting for us , like it's a bad thing (as if you need to be a 5 star to play). Go back the last 3 or 4 recruiting classes, and you'll see that most of our players are clearly higher ranked than places like TCU, where they churn our phenomenal defenses every year. That's indicative of coaching there.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^
Speaking of TCU, who the hell is their D Coordinator and why don't we have a private jet heading to ft worth as we speak?
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
Dick Bumpas. I was going to say it might be like a Pete Carroll situation at USC, where Patterson is really running the D at TCU, but in all fairness to Bumpas, he was a finalist for the Broyles award (award for nation's top assistant) the last couple years. That seems to suggest that he's not just along for the ride and the stellar D can also be partly attributed to him.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
I'm going to go out on a limb and and guess that even if Bumpas primary responsibility is to ensure Patterson has a fresh cup of coffee all day, he could still put forth a better product on D than Gerg.
Furthermore, his name is absolutely awesome and I would love to say it more often.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
I think the ratings matter somewhat, you don't that is fine. Look at the D recruits we are in on right now, then go look at a Texas or Oklahoma and compare. Our mean is 3 star. Granted Texas D is not very good with all those high ranked players but I would say their problem is fixable. Ours as RR has said is talent and speed, which cannot be coached up.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^
It's not youth it's also playing experience. There's also a reason why some of the upper classmen haven't seen the field until this year.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^
i think the point is also that you can play youth when they're immediate impact high 4 and 5 star types. our youth is less talented. so while they may be good players ultimately, those sorts of players ordinarily develop while older players are on the field. that's not happening right now.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^
Don't say that....sarcasm/
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
But if true, why aren't we recruiting instant-impact guys on D?
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
Why aren't we recruiting 5* instant impact guys like HCD?
<br>
<br>I'm beginning to hate you. Also our record the last 2 years makes instant impact guys not want to come here.
<br>
<br>
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
Look, recruiting is part of RR's job. He doesn't have a general manager to get him players. He's got to go out and get them (and make sure they make it to campus and stay). You can't make excuses for that. If he needs good recruits to win, and if his own poor record is preventing the program from signing those good recruits, then why exactly should we keep him around?
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
on D left over from the LC era that would be RS sophs, juniors or seniors? Just come out and say you want him fired as every post indicates it. Grow a set.
2006 class would be RS seniors- Banks, Stevie Brown, Ezeh, Ferrera, Kates, Mixon, Mouton, Patilla, Patterson, Woods, BG
2007 (after starting previous year 11-0) RS juniors- Chambers, Evans, Herron, Sagesse, RVB, Warren, Williams, Woolfolk
2008 (LC recruits only)- Cissoko, Demens, Fitzgerald, Martin, Smith, Witherspoon
That's three years worth of D recruits with 5 current starters out of 25 recruits. BG and Stevie used up eligibility and were much better players under RR than LC. Warren made a poor choice to leave early.
RR 08- Floyd, Hill 1 for 2
2009- 10 recruits if you count Cam with two starters
2010- 15 recruits questionable on starters (Vinopal, Marvin) but shouldn't be starting anyways they're true freshman.
Kovacs not a recruit but belongs with the RR slate. So RR has one RS soph that he recruited on D and the rest either being true soph, RS frosh or frosh and has one more starter than the LC recruits that are RS sophs at the youngest.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
player development. The offense is fine. The defense has zero player development. The LB's haven't gotten better, the corners haven't gotten better, and the most basic skill to play defense (tackeling) hasn't gotten better. If RR doesn't get the axe, The entire defensive staff should.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^
disagree with you. What is this tackeling you talk about?
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
With a team this young, I would have expected to see our defense get BETTER over the course of the season, as the players got used to the speed of the college game, got more comfortable in the system, get stronger and had more time to be coached on how to play their positions well.
This has not happened. If anything, we are getting worse.
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
The competition has gotten better.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
Not last Saturday. PSU was the worst offensive team we've faced since the nonconference season.
November 2nd, 2010 at 11:48 AM ^
I'm interested to see if McGLoin keeps playing whether the PSU offense looks better than it did earlier this year. That QB competition was supposedly close, so maybe McGloin is just better than Bolden.
That said, and I don't know about stat rankings and all that, but I think Penn State's offense is better than UConn, BGSU or UMass. Or ND w/out Crist, for that matter (which is what UM faced for a large part fo that game).
My point was just that the claim that the D has regressed has to be based on comparing apples to oranges. The tough(ish) nonconference schedule we thought we were facing turned out not to be very tough at all. UConn and ND stink a lot more than expected.
I don't think they've regressed. I think they've been basically the same level of terrible all year.
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
Our D played a rather solid game against Iowa,( which had me hopeful) ... a team that trashed Penn State. Penn State gained 300 total yards against Iowa ... we had over 500. Royster had 56 yards against Iowa ... he had 150 against us. PSU started a walk-on QB in his first start ever and our D gave him time to throw essentially on every down. We should have blitzed all night long. They had 1 returning receiver ... PSU had lost all their offensive power from last year. McGloin isn't any good (you will see) ... we just make all QB's look like All-Americans !!
IMO this ws the worst game the D has played all year. Penn State scored 41 pts. ... In B10 play they were averaging 13 freaking points a game and they put 41 on us !!! (they scored 44 on Youngstown State FCS) They didn't score on huge plays (like MSU) they made long time consuming drives. We are the first B10 team that PSU led in time of possession.
Don't get me wrong ... I love Michigan and I am so tired of the players taking the blame for GERG's failures. These kids play hard & we have talent ... what we do not have is a defensive coordinator that knows jack-shit how to coach them up. GERG's scheme must be so easy for offenses to read, that teams have no problem moving the ball on us. C'mon no turnovers in 3 games ... what's the record for turnover ineptness ( and yes this isn't a luck statistic ... its a defensive statistic).
Just watch how many times RR is in GERG's face during the games ... you don't see this on TV - only when you are at the games. RR is a team guy ... and he's not going to fire GERG during the season .... IMO - an early Christmas present to the U of M football team would be to have GERG resign .... NOW. Only a change at the top is going to impact our defensive production.
Go Blue !
November 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
I wouldn't even say the D played well against Iowa. Yes, it didn't give up as many yards as usual, but it couldn't get an actual stop to save its life.
November 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
but maybe better than "average". Here are the number of punts we have forced in B10 play:
Indiana 4 / MSU 4 / Iowa 5 / PSU 2 (ugh)
and if memory serves me correctly, I think we started the Iowa game with a 3 and out and I'm not sure if we've done that otherwise to start a game ( trying to forget those other games).
I think its important to focus on our Big 10 play. It is Michigan's #1 goal every single year ... to WIN the Big Ten Conference. What happens after that is icing on the cake ... but the bakery has been closed for way to long now !!!
Go Blue !
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
But I think we are seeing some development, but at the same time it has been incremental and retarded somewhat by the beatings the defense has received all year. The announcers pointed this out a couple of times during the PSU game, but this secondary has been burned so much that the players look tentative out there, constantly second-guessing themselves instead of playing instinctively. You see that with this team - guys are now missing tackles not because they don't know how to do it, but because they are tentative and, thus, taking bad angles or trying to do too much (like strip the ball or pick off the pass).
Demens has grown into a decent LB, and Mouton went from Ezeh-ish to competent, possible-fring NFL player. Mike Martin took a huge step forward before the injury, and Kovacs is having a very good season given some of his limitations. There are guys out there who shouldn't be playing, but as others have pointed out, this year's defensive struggles will likely pay off next year and beyond as they guys return with experience.