In response to a Confused Meeechigan Dan
I guess the message from the ill-functioning diary creator is that this was meant to be a board post. So be it:
Injuries are already an issue. Cissoko was/is playing hurt IIRC and if you didn't notice, Williams wasn't in the game. Plug our walk on safety (why can't I ever recall his name? Kovaks, right, Ko-Vaks. Got it.) and JT Floyd and the star numbers get closer. Mouton was not recruited as a linebacker, so maybe drop a star there. We have been bad, but complete lack of depth/viable options means that one or two busts in there makes up the rest of the difference talent wise.
Half of our defense is good to great. The other half is hurt/bust/no-other-option/walk-on. Predictably easy to exploit this.
Actually the star rankings really shine here. Warren and Graham have been very good this season. Ezeh and Woolkfolk are meh, just as 3 stars would be expected to be. Mouton, and Van Bergen, and Brown were 4* but are playing different positions than they were recruited at (Brown notably well). Roh is a true freshman and undersized. Martin is a solid 4*.
In light of all of this I see the realistic rankings more like so at the moment:
Van Bergen: 3* (playing out of position out of necessity (poo-poo-n))
Brandon Graham: 5* (right on)
Mike Martin:4* (ditto)
Craig Roh: 3* (freshman playing out of necessity)
Stevie Brown: 4* (actually has impressed)
Obi Ezeh: 3* (very low 3* obviously**)
Jonas Mouton: 3* (poo-poo-n)
Donovan Warren: 5* (right on)
Boubacar Cissoko: 3* (bust maybe - really this three star belongs to JT Floyd)
Troy Woolfolk: 3* (right on)
Michael Williams: 1* (hurt - really this 1 star belongs to Walk On Kovacs)
Average: 3.36*
The rest is coaching. I would definitely trade GERG for Norm Parker. Plus Parker has had over a decade to install and refine his system, recruit players that fit it, and no less than 2 years to coach every one of his players.
That is the best answer I can give at this point.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
Kovacs.
Three stars are not "supposed" to be meh. You're cueing an argument involving Pat White which has been done here innumerable times.
These are the reasons Michigan's supposedly better numbers are not performing at their supposed level:
- 3 coordinators in 3 years.
- Only 18 months so far with barwis.
- complete continuity in Iowa's coaching staff, as opposed to complete turnover here in 12/07.
- Incredible amount of youth and lack of depth means not much competition to improve this year; AND
- practicing against a god awful offense last year means the defense atrophied in 2008 because it couldn't play a tough O during team scrimmages.
Fix these issues, recruit, and get continuity and Michigan will be fine.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:31 PM ^
50% of the time or more, 3 stars a are "meh". For an elite program, most 3 stars should be your back ups. Recruiting evaluations are certainly not perfect, and there are some great players who were lowly ranked, but on average, over the long term, the higher rated players have a higher success rate.
Agree with you 100% on the DC turnover + lack of Barwis traing. Gittleson's methods were severely outdated, and its going to be great when a senior means four years of Barwis. I hope GERG stays long term. He is not HC material, just a really good DC. Hopefully he realizes that and doesnt jump ship if our D has success and someone offers.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^
Except for the '3 stars not meh' stuff, I think you have taken my thoughts to a logical next level.
3 stars are more likely than not of the Meh variety to teams at the BCS conference level. Pat White, Mike Hart, etc, etc are exceptions that defy their rankings.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
and I think the Cissoko bashing is a bit much. He's a good player that is generally in position. His size does not help, but most of his deficiencies are issues that can be coached.
Also keep in mind that UM puts him out there man a lot. I like his effort, and his attitude. I think he is capable of being really good, its just up to him if he puts in the work to make it happen.
Mike Martin is beast, and I love what Roh is doing. It's hard for me to call him undersized in a system that puts a premium on quickness. Yes he will add bulk in the program, but I don't think UM is now going for the big hogs. I know Barwis will never tell him to eat a pizza every night before bed!
September 28th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
Great, now my confusion is a Title Searchword!
Thanks for the response. I think your points and many of the points in the Diary post are valid, I just am not comfortable that it can all be explained away that easily. There remains talent and there remains Eastern KY and Western MI being far more effective against Indiana than we were.
I think there are some scheme issues.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:42 PM ^
Fire Gerg?
I don't understand your solution
September 28th, 2009 at 10:18 PM ^
No, of course not. I don't have a solution.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
If any of us had a solution, we would probably be coaching, not talking about it.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:46 AM ^
You will be Barwis'd for even suggesting the release of GERG.
kidding, obviously
September 28th, 2009 at 10:22 PM ^
I am a bit concerned as well. GERG is what we have though and I don't think that RR will give him the heave for at least a couple of years. We need to get the right players for the system, and some solid depth to create competition, and several years of the same coach to get everyone on that same page.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:42 PM ^
I'm sure Iowa and many other teams have position switches as well. We shouldn't use that as an excuse for Michigan.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:15 PM ^
I am not even going to pretend that I wouldn't trade GERG for Norm Parker.
This seems to mean that you WOULD trade GERG for Norm Parker. I take it this is not what you meant? Or you do like Norm Parker more than Gerg?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:24 PM ^
Thanks for catching that double negative. Sloppy work on my part. Fixed.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:39 PM ^
I think we should take a deep breath and not jump on Gerg just yet. Let's remember he does his best work with the best talent, so I think with Gerg you get what your talent level is. Also, while I'd like to see more blitzes mixed in, we have to realize that the depth is so bad that we have stayed in base formation for most of the year.
IMO, I think there is a reason Gerg has kept it simple so far and for whatever reason most defensive coordinators tend not to blitz as much when they are at a talent deficit. I think that's a bit of constipation in play calling, but it is what it is. I guess my philosophy is if you're going to give up 20-30 points anyway you might as well blitz a lot and at least get the offense on the field quicker. That's just me, though, and I don't have half the football knowledge that Gerg does (obviously).
September 28th, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^
I do not believe this has to do with GERG at all. To me, he has done pretty well with the defense in adjusting at half time and confusing the QBs at times with different looks.
The problem is a lack of experience on D, new scheme (for some players its their 3rd DC in 3 years), and some players that are just not great players (or need more time to play to their potential because of the new schemes/DC).
The solution: time, hard work, and recruiting. I say time because we need to allow GERG to teach/coach, install all of his defensive schemes, and allow the defensive players to fully understand the system (as RR would say "play fast because they're not thinking).
I say hard work because we need more time in the Barwis bootcamp.
Finally, I say recruiting because we have a severe lack of depth at many defensive positions. This decreases competition in practice (not scared to lose the starting job), doesn't give GERG the luxury for inserting viable backups for a breather or injury, and quite possibly may limit the effectiveness or implementation of certain defensive schemes (what I mean is he could be handicapped by not being able to install all of the playbook due to lack of depth and overall defensive talent).
September 28th, 2009 at 11:11 PM ^
This college football stuff is fluid, trying to make concrete assertions on a week by week basis is laughable.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:03 AM ^
Is this a response to an earlier thread? If it is, what thread? I'm lost.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:54 AM ^
Get to bed.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:53 AM ^
Yes, didn't you know that the new attention seeking, Scout/Mlive/Rivals thing to do is to post your answer to a particular question in your own thread?
It is only worthwhile when you're responding to one of Brian's crazy information overload posts because there are so many topics involved that the responses in the thread go 900 different ways. (For example, GSimms responding to Brian yesterday with actual football talk and logic, plus the guy is 100 times smarter than most of these other internet wannabe gurus)
Now posters want more attention so they've done it too. MeechiganDan even took it upon himself to copy Steve Sharik's answer from his own thread and pose it as a new diary, because he wanted more attention. If Sharik had wanted to do it himself it'd be appropriate, like GSimms he's a coach, he knows his shit, and he's useful. Meeechigan Dan is just your average attention seeking MGoIdiot that is clearly under some insane assumption that the more people that view his diaries and different threads the more credibility he gets and maybe he'll gain popularity for his own blog, own radio show, get on ESPN be FAMOUS then PROFIT!!!
Wow, maybe I should have started a new thread for this reply. "Response to Psychomatt's inquiry upon MGoBoard insanity"