It's not the scheme, not the inexperience, not the talent at fault.
It is simply, the fundamentals of tackling, angles, and assignments that are lacking. The biggest criticism of the coaching staff on defense has nothing to do with scheme. Youth and talent are a factor of course, but that is not where we fail. It is the simple fact that we cannot teach, for whatever reason, our players to tackle properly, pursue properly, and be disciplined. Coaches CAN teach players of mediocre talent and no experience to tackle properly. That is not a matter of opinion but fact. It happens elsewhere in the country on multiple teams. No one should have expected anything but a poor to mediocre defense this year. But we should expect players that tackle, pursue, and have proper assignments--regardless of experience and talent. I don't care what our scheme is next year, not one bit. I care that we have new defensive coaches who can teach fundamentals. Our coaches have failed miserably at that.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
Losing some recruits on signing day, admission issues and kids just leaving has hurt big time.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
I don't care about the recruiting and transfers (of course I do, but not for this point)--poor players can be taught to tackle and stick to their assignments--ours do not. That is the difference between awful defense and poor to mediocre defense. If we had decent tackling I truly believe we would have at least one more win right now.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^
This is one thing I hate about people in this blog, why negbang him for stating a legitimate point that is obvious. He's not saying i hate michigan, or bitching. I'm guessing the person that gave him a -1 point never played football or any contact sport...
November 20th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
Agree 1000000000000000000%. I'm all in for Michigan, and Rich. But Greg Robinson needs to go (I keep saying this, and this board keeps giving me negs). There are plenty of defensive coordinators out there who could at least get us to tackle properly. I love our players, and fuck Spielman. He said we have no talent on the defensive side of the ball. We have been recruiting fine on that side of the ball. There is no reason why Wisconsin, who we definitely out-recruit on that side of the ball should have an incredible defense, and ours should be so poor. Granted they have experience, but our youthful talent was definitely capable of a middling defense this year, if it weren't for Greg Robinson.
Our offense will keep rolling next year. Bring a new D-Coordinator who can teach discipline and fundamentals, and we'll have a shot at the Big Ten Title. I swear to all of you there is no need to worry about a defensive scheme change. Defense has always been about discipline, tackling, pursuit angles, and aggresiveness. I played LB on two state title teams, and trust me we weren't running crazy schemes.
I'm proud of the heart we played with today. We could have easily came out and quit in the second half. Go Blue, Go Brandon, Go Rich, Go Team! We're on the right path!
November 20th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
You have negative a billionty points. Of course you agree with him.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:55 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^
Wisconsin and Iowa are perfect examples. Neither team lands elite recruiting classes, but year to year they always field good teams that, for the most part, are always competing for a big ten title. With the right coaching any team can be competitive and win big games. And with Michigan's young talent, improvement will happen.
Go Blue!!
November 20th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^
"No one should have expected anything but a poor to mediocre defense this year. But we should expect players that tackle, pursue, and have proper assignments--regardless of experience and talent."
If our defense could tackle, pursue and have proper assignments, where exactly did you expect them to be poor/mediocre?
Also, why are you unwilling to attribute proper tackling techniques and pursuit angles to inexperience? That seems to be directly a result of our defense starting so many freshman.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
If the defense could do even one of tackling, pursuit angles or assignment management well would we have such issues on the defense.
They are mediocre, for sure...why do you expect anything else given their limited pedigree (Rogers etc.) or the high volume of freshmen playing (Big Play Ray, Avery etc.)? Does it occur that the teams that will inevitably be mentioned in the thread as "coaching em up" also are starting a significantly high volume of "coached up" juniors and seniors on defense?
November 20th, 2010 at 9:46 PM ^
"Does it occur that the teams that will inevitably be mentioned in the thread as "coaching em up" also are starting a significantly high volume of "coached up" juniors and seniors on defense?"
Valid point. Well articulated. And I was not one to be inclined to agree with this general sentiment opening this thread.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
Who do you think we would've beaten?
November 20th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^
Penn State for one.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
do you have -166 for that comment?
November 20th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
to identify admissions issues before signing day. That's on the coaching staff.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
These are good athletes with skills...teach and develop the fundamentals!
November 20th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
Don't you think a lot of those things will improve with experience and maturity? I do...
November 20th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
angles yes they will get better but without coaching, the defense will not tackle the way they are supposed to. There has been many times they could have them stopped but then they throw their damn out there to tackle. When you teach tackling, yoou see the target, break your steps down to zero in and then explode through the tackle. They don't do this and you can see they were not taught. Rich admitted in a interview that they don't tackle in practice...well it shows.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
Do you really think they have to learn to tackle in college? By the time they are seniors in high school they either have good tackling ability or your don't. It is as simple as running through the ball carrier with your head across his body. That's it. If you are too slow to get there because you are young and undersized, or because you are slow on your reads, that's why you come in with arm tackles or get bowled over. You don't teach pursuit angles to D-1 players. They are just too weak and slow. 4 D-linemen on the line might help too, but that is another issue...
November 20th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
Jeffry have you ever played football???I think not. It's a little bit more to it than running through the ball carrier. Yeah they were taught to tackle in highschool but D-1 football is a little different.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
Defensive MVP, 1st team all conference, all state honorable mention (I got robbed because our FS was all state and there is politics involved). I led the team in tackles/sacks, and got recruited by plenty of teams but I decided college ball wasn't for me. Not that it makes me all knowing, just trying to prove that I get the game and defense. Our players know how to tackle, hence their scholarships to Michigan. They are just not in the right position because the game hasn't slowed down for them yet, and a bunch of them aren't strong enough to get off blocks and consequently barely get a hand on people and are trying to arm tackle. It is not much more than running through the ball carrier if you are in the right position. I wish you were here for me to show you.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
who are good athletes and don't get the proper technique coaching in HS.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
I want the D staff gone. Let a decent coach come in and bring his assistants. Three years of this piss poor Defense is just far to long. Its crippling our offense production.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
Agreed.
This is strictly a teaching issue. We need new coordinators, because more often then not the team will reflect the coach, and an in your face DC will have an in your face D... cant see GERG yelling at anyone with sincerity.. I want this.
Not saying I want him as a coach, just the fire he brings
November 20th, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
I agree and I can see it on the D they do give it their all. I want to see these guys succeed if not for my health but for themselves. I miss the dominant D that we use to be known for and if we can find that piece of the puzzle again this team will be unstoppable. They are just missing good coaching.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
damn it!!
November 20th, 2010 at 2:36 PM ^
This has been a problem for three years. Someone ask Mack Brown where the buck stops at when it goes that far.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^
MSU is getting killed...
November 20th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
Sparty on top 35-31 and looking like they're going to win it.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
I don't get any enjoyment out of an MSU loss when I'm numb from a Michigan loss.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
Bowl practice, spring ball and especially this upcoming week work on tackling/gang tackling. Preaching to the choir but it boils down to running, blocking, hanging on to the FUCKING ball and Tacking (wrap up and drive through). Didn’t plan on winning but make it a game and for Gods sakes stay healthy for next week.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
are more athletic, can get into better position, and can tackle better because of it. Less talented players....well don't.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^
There's been plenty of times where a Michigan player has been in place and tried tackling them whith their arms. Quit coming up with excuses and call it what it is.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
that RRod doesn't recruit as well on defense as he does offense. I think Spielman hit the nail on the head today.
Players have been out of position all game and when you dive for tackles because of it, you're gonna miss.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
that we have the worst talent in all the NCAA? I do not believe that for one second.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^
in my post it says that they have the worst talent. Coaching and fundamentals certainly factor in. When you have bad or even average talent (average talent on defense is probably what we're looking at) playing smart and tackling can move you up or down depending on how good or bad those things are. It just seems like we don't get those solid defensive recruits we once did.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
but my belief is we have above average talent that is week in and week out blown out of the water. Our coaching is making them the worst in the league and the decisions that get made are just baffling.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
that's where we differ on opinion. Unfortunately, I simply don't see above average talent on this team. We used to get solid 4-5 star players on defense, and now we get 2-3 star players with "upside". I don't take complete stock in the star ranking system, but it's the only thing we have to base opinions on of recruits and I'm of the belief that you're more likely to get a solid player by recruiting the former rather than the latter.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
we are below average in talent? That is interesting because based on the rankings (which aren't infallible) we recruit above average talent in every respect. YET, we still have the worst D in the NCAA. Look, no argument that getting 5* players will improve our D but I think that with our current D coaching, we could take 5*'s and still get blown out of the water.
They need to go...ALL of them
November 20th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
offensive recruits and I think RRod specializes in identifying these kids. For the defense we fielded today, there are a couple four stars, and the rest are are all 3 stars, with a 2 star and a walk-on.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^
WI has a sub 2 star walk-on DT named Watts who handled our OL quite well. I wonder why WI can turn these low ranked players in to monsters in their system?
November 20th, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
...we started 6 4 star recruits (the entire D-line and LB corpes who were the announced starters of the game were all 4 star recruits), a walk-on playing like a 3 star (Kovacs), 2 3 stars, and one 2 star (what happened to Cullen Christian, who was a 4 star?).
The situation in the secondary is a bit unique in that we've had 4-5 4 star athletes transfer, one good starter get hurt (Woolfolk), and one make an ill-conceived attempt to go pro.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^
please tell me where you see we have recruited a two star player. Even if we have five star players, they still need to be coached. So your telling me that Syracuse has more talent than we do on defense. They are the thirteenth best D in the country, up from where they were when Greg was there at like 100 something. Its all about coaching players up.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
two star by rivals.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^
Perfect excuse to cruise Rivals.com. Thank you. Now for the ill-informed...
We have 2 4 star committments on Defense from the two major (Delonte Holliwell and Brennan Beyer) with Dallas Crawford (who had offers from Iowa, Georgia Tech, and Miami Fl) being a 4 star recruit from ESPN.
Last year's class had Richard Ash (4 star, offers from Oklahoma State and USC), Cullen Christian (4 star, offer from Ohio State), Marvin Robinson (4 star, offers from Ohio State and Florida) and Jibreel Black who *should* have been 4 stars after his 3 sack performance in the Ohio North-South game.
The 2009 class? None of them panned out but I caught 4 4 star committments and William Campbell.
There's plenty of 4 star+ commitments on D, just not the coaching to shape them (or in Campbell's case the work ethic).
We used to get solid 4-5 star players on defense, and now we get 2-3 star players with "upside". I don't take complete stock in the star ranking system, but it's the only thing we have to base opinions on of recruits and I'm of the belief that you're more likely to get a solid player by recruiting the former rather than the latter.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
But most of those guys weren't playing today. They may very well pan out, but take a look at the trends over time. From 2003-2007 the percent of 3 star defensive recruits isn't nearly as high as it has been under RRod.
2003-2007 = 16/42 (38%) of defensive recruits that had three or fewer stars
2008-2011 = 22/38 (58%) of defensive recruits that had or have three or fewer stars
November 20th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
...what recruiting site. Scout & ESPN, for instance, think much better of the current incoming class than Rivals (Holliwell is a 4 star on both Scout & ESPN, but only 3 stars on Rivals).
November 20th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
this year (2011), we're not in the top 25 on ESPN and we are 28th on rivals. Last year we were 14th on ESPN and 20th on rivals (and no, 6 spots isn't much of a difference). Some guys are rated higher or lower on each site, but it evens out.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
...as ESPN ranks 4 of our verbals as 4 stars while Rivals only ranks 2 as 4 stars. Then again, Rivals ranks MSU's 2011 class as 2nd in the big 10 when their incoming class is Lawrence Thomas and pray the long-shots work out (LT Is a really, really good recruit, but when he's it you just can't be ranked that highly).
November 20th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
We still get talented players, more talent than half the b10 teams. We have lost a lot of our recruits over the years which is part of the problem. The other half of the problems lies directly on the coaching staff. We have for some reason been unable to develop our players. That goes right to the head coach!