Looking for Mr. Casteel
I am not that concerned about any playcalling issues because we have the Mad Scientist and well, a Mad Scientist is mad. Means he will do some insane things from time to time. In the end, though, he is going to invent flubber, so I am content.
I think RR is on a quest for a replacement for Jeff Casteel. We know of West Virginia's surprising competence on the defensive side of the ball during RR's tenure, and the Shafer and Robinson moves show that RR is only an Offensive Mad Scientist and searching that defensive counterpart. To that end, he took what bodies he could from the defensive staff at WVU, but reached for some other people, notably Shafer and Hopson. Both those reaches appear to be, well, reaches. Given what I now understand is a fledgling, paper-thin defense, GERG appears to be serviceable. Until RR gets the defensive group he needs, I am afraid we are in for a lot of angst.
I tip my hat to Sparty - they played exactly desperate.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 PM ^
Have you seen the players on defense? We need some big time defensive recruits, otherwise it's going to be a struggle. I agree, Hopson might be gone after this year. The 2 guys he coaches are horrible.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
i don't think he hired gerg as a band-aid. he thinks if gerg gets the players he needs, the defense will excel.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:17 AM ^
I didn't say that. I said Shafer and Hopson were reaches because they were unknown to him. GERG and he have some history and GERG's resume is long, if not always stellar. I think GERG will work out.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 PM ^
but I think the problems on defense might be experience related, and maybe it will just take some time before they jell together. While we could use better talent on D, it's not like our current players were lesser-rated prospects coming out of high school compared to what MSU, Indiana, and most other Big10 teams have. It's not like every team in the nation recruits only 4 and 5 stars. The kind of empty real estate that I saw at times today in our D cannot be explained simply by lack of talent. We saw a bunch of supposedly talented players missing tackles, and then you see a walk-on like Kovacs making plenty of sure ones. And I don't know if Robinson can be faulted for anything yet. Look at ND. They have recruited very well the past few years, this is genius Tenuta's second year, and yet they still don't look that impressive on D. So while I would like our defense to look much better, maybe the learning curve will be a little long, and we might just have to wait and be patient for the time being.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^
Change it please...
October 4th, 2009 at 12:13 AM ^
LOL, that is a common request.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:51 AM ^
I am new. Why does the ugly guy here get negative points for this comment?
October 4th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
a great question.
edit: since I got negged for saying it is a good question I must change my opinion, that is not a good question.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^
THAT is funny.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
It is pretty interesting how Kovacs was looking solid all day on tackles, and then Woolfolk can't wrap up on Caper at the end. But all in all, we do have a little ways to go on defense. I think it's a mixture of lack of talent with the new scheme. We do have some really good talent on D, but also a few holes. I'll think we'll get better as the year goes on. One positive thing: we're not giving up nearly as many big plays as last year and that's encouraging.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:05 AM ^
with the outcome of this game than anything else.
Our backs, Tate, Minor, Brown and DRob had nowhere to run all game long - We're missing Molk more than we thought.
WAY too many missed tackles, poor angles and poor technique allowed MSU to stay on the field - The defensive fundamentals that GERG stressed in camp seem to be erroding.
Overall, the total yards allowed by the defense is making average teams look better than they are - Western got drilled today, IU was dominated by tOSU, a average/poor MSU team totally controlled the LOS today.
It's not the end of the world, but with a much tougher Iowa team next up and an explosive PSU team in three weeks, the Oline needs to get better and the LBs need to find themselves, QUICK!
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^
I am pretty sure its safe to say that there are very few D-Coordinators that would have optimal success with the lack of depth and talent there currently is on that side of the ball at UM. Aside from four players (BG, Warren, S. Brown, Martin) I would call UM's defense talent deficient. So, its gunna take some time as we are young and inexperienced, and a few more recruits come in before we will have a stud D again. I know its hard to believe, but sometimes its not the COACH'S fault.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 PM ^
dude. the defense has had 3 different coordinators in the last 3 years. take that into consideration.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:14 AM ^
Dude. I do.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:46 AM ^
On the bright side, we can legitimately tell defensive recruits that they will have an opportunity to start as freshmen, regardless of what position they play . . .
October 4th, 2009 at 1:34 AM ^
We did not play good defense today. Some people don't seem to want to admit even this basic point. State did whatever they wanted to until they went into their conservative shell in the 4th quarter. We had three (3!) offensive possessions in the first half, and that's why our offense couldn't get into a rythym.
I feel bad for Brandon Graham because he is such a competitor and such a talent. He's jawing and clawing every play, trying to maintain the psychological aura that is U-M defense. But that aura is slipping away. Our defense is so bad this year it makes me want to cry. When and how will it get better? Sam Sword's not coming through that door. Dhani Jones isn't coming through that door. Charles Woodson isn't coming through that door. A reputation for toughness and invincibility takes a long time to build up, but a short time to tear down. Stud defensive recruits want to play at schools with stud defensive reputations.
October 4th, 2009 at 2:10 AM ^
Talented guys like Turner have come through that door, and we still haven't been able to get him on the field.
I agree with Brian and the others that we have to give Gerg some time and hope that he can bring some consistency to the D and also win a few key recruiting battles.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:49 AM ^
has been on campus for less than 2 months. It's simply beyond the pale to expect that he could come in and play cornerback at any point so far at something resembling competence. NOT EVERY PLAYER IS ALL WORLD AS AN EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD.
The advent of Scout and Rivals has made people like you turn what is the exception (highly touted incoming true freshmen playing right away and positively contributing, like Tate and Roh) into the rule (OMG every four or five star is ready to be a starter now without strength and conditioning or coaching).
Take this as rule #1: if Turner was ready, he'd be playing. The fact he hasn't played yet, means he's not ready. And if the fact that our favorite injured Ghanaian CB has been run by on pass routes has infuriated you and has already labeled him as "bust" status after 3 games of starting, tell me what the MGoBoard would say after Turner gets busted by experienced Big Ten WRs.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:53 AM ^
It the same shit as the "Feagin can't be worse than this!" crowd last year. Everyone's favorite player is the backup of someone struggling.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:19 AM ^
Patience...
Give the current players time to develop. Give the coaches time to bring in the right personnel. Give the defense time to adapt to its third coordinator in as many years.
We all made a big deal about RichRod having to deal with a bare cupboard on offense. Here's a little secret - the level of talent remaining on defense, with of course a few notable exceptions, was also severely lacking. And while a dynamic quarterback and a year's experience can reverse the fortunes of the offense, the defense does not share the same luxury. Why is that so?
I'm so glad you asked. In football, offenses are proactive units, while defenses are reactive. Yes, the defense can take it to an offense with a blitz, but at the end of the day, the offense knows is supposed to happen on a play before the defense does. Thus an offense like ours, that is based on tempo, misdirection, and schematics can elevate the perceived quality of an offense above the talent level. Basically, a scheme like Michigan's, with the right person at quarterback, allows for greater production despite low talent. Remember, RichRod started this offense to make up exactly this sort of thing - Glenville State was a doormat until the idea of a constant two minute drill came to RichRod.
So, while the offense can overcome a lack of talent with a great scheme and coaching, the same for the defense is much tougher. You can't scheme tackling. You can't scheme foot speed. You can't scheme instincts. See the theme? The coaches can try and put the players in the position to make the best play, but if the offense has a better one, even with equal talent levels, the offense will win. That's just how the game is played. As much as a mad scientist defense would be nice, the gimmicks don't really work all the well on that side of the ball, especially against better talent.
Think about it this way - there are tons of different offensive schemes in college football. The run-first spread option (RichRod), the pass-first spread (Purdue), the West coast offense, the power-I (TresselBall), the pistol (Indiana/Nevada), and hybrids incorporating all of the above and then some. Now what are the general types on defense? 3-4, 4-3, 3-3-5. Three major schemes. If you want you can subdivide those into zone and man and get a few other variants (Tampa Two, etc). However, coaching the defense is much more about getting the right personnel on the field in the right situation and not totally fucking up, than having some insane scheme.
So relax. Grab a beer or 10. Let the coaches do their thing. Watch what is going on right now closely, because when you look again in the near future, you'll be amazed by the contrast. This Michigan team is laying the foundations for much bigger and better things to come. If you get too worked up over demanding the future, you'll never enjoy the present.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:08 AM ^
I'm looking for a couple of linebackers and a cornerback, personally.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:06 AM ^
The defense in this game is hard to analyze. About the only thing I can say is that it was reminiscent of the Toledo game from last year. Not that many points--but thy just could not get off the field. So many good plays on 1st and 2nd down were wasted by giving up 3rd down converesions. MSU's first drive was the mnost ridiculous thing I've ever seen--they overcame FIFTY penalty yards on that drive alone.
Converesely, the defense held them on two trips into the red zone. One of them was after Mesko's gaffe.
The drive after their first turnover was pathetic. You get the ball on Sparty's 15 yard line and gain -4 yards? You HAVE to cash that in. It was before anything had happened, and there is no excuse for the lackadaisical offense there.
We generated three turnovers, and two of the fumbles they recovered were the direct result of hits. Those are situations that we never saw last year. I felt the defensive line got decent pressure, but containment was lost. Are the defensive tackles responsible for that, or are the linebackers?
Winston and Caper finished with about 80 yards rushing, and 50 of them came on two plays. Obviously, Cousins' 70 yards rushing were crucial.
Aside from the first drive, I'm having a hard time blaming the defense. They gave up 20 points in regulation. If you had told me that before the game, I'd have bet my children on UM to win going away.
The thing that bugs me the most is the third down stuff. Very little blitzing, and when it was done it had no effect (other than Kovacs and each time he blitzed they ran draw plays that he smothered). I don't understand the lack of blitzing--tht seems to me one way to force them out of their comfort zone, and it was never a factor. It seems to me that our defense has been at its bst when blitzing--such as the 3rd and first half of the fourth quarters against Notre Dame. Cousins has shown throughout this season that when he is harrassed, he makes mistakes--and again, UM did nothing most of the time to harrass him (blitzing). I just don't get it.
I have to hang this one on the coaching staff. The play calling seemed disjointed. Minor and Brown were never factors. The O didn't adjust to their blitzes and as much as you watch MSU you HAVE to know Narduzzi is nothing if not a blitz specialist.
Couple of things: Stonum is an emerging weapon. He MUST become a bigger part of the offense. Despite a couple of drops (I think an MSU defended got a hand on one of them)--Koger has disappeared in the offense. He had one catch--and it was spectacular--for 41 yards. They bubble screened the hell out of us and we rarely used it against them.
There was no reason for the offense to all the sudden wake up that late. They did not play "prevent"--our talent just took over. So you don't get that many possessions--make the most of them, and we did not.
I'd have to say the team was not prepared today. The defense is taking a beating, but again--holding them to 20 points in 60 minutes should have been enough. Generating three turnovers and creating chances for two more--should have been enough.
And when all was said and done--after that TD with two seconds to go--I would have gone for the two-point conversion to win it right there. I would havehad the play called and the offense prepared to run it.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:52 AM ^
That's a ridiculous statement, you have no basis for thinking it, you have no basis for saying it.
Michigan State had an 18 play, 10 minute drive in the first quarter. That threw everything out of whack. How do you equate Michigan State executing their game plan to Michigan "not being ready."
If this message board would realize that college football teams do not win all their games, and that sometimes a team plays better than the team you like, perhaps these absurd, ridiculous, and false posts could be curtailed a little bit.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
I'm not saying Michigan looked like a bunch of bungling idiots out there. I took alot of positives from the defensive performance, as a matter of fact.
I DO find a basis for saying the team was under prepared: 6 points in 55 minutes. No answer for their blitzes. The play calling seemed disjointed--not role for either Minor or Brown. They just didn't seem fired up offensively.
And MSU's 47 minute first quarter drive came AFTER UM blew the drive resulting from Stevie Brown's interception.
You have no basis for refuting my claim. I have the evidence from the game. The team looked flat offensively. MSU was lights out after the interception by Brown. On our first, second, third chances, we were poo.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^
The Robinson's defense will be fine once he gets some competent linebackers and safeties.