Secondary Experience: a closer look (with stats and links!)

Submitted by tasnyder01 on

Preface: This whole thread is meant to be a summation of previous ideas to which I consign myself, and their rational arguments.  This is to end the "I want GERG/RR fired" crap and explain the "Even Lombardi couldn't [make the secondary awesome]" quote.  If you want to neg me go ahead, but please explain why as well so I don't keep DERPing it up.  With that in mind

Experience and Seniority
Random: anything with an * next to it means I have charted/threaded the data/argument below.

On Experience:
Our team lost Woolfolk, Warren, Dorsey, Emillien, Turner, and Cissoko as people who could have played this year*.  We’re one of the more inexperienced teams in our backfield.**  To assert how much more important experience is than talent (5 star recruits, etc.) I behoove you to check the information compiled below***.
It is NOT RR’s fault that people left early.  He could not forsee the injuries to Woolfolk, the early departure of Warren, the transfers of other guys: those are not all his fault.  You just can’t control some things and we’re been hit pretty hard there.
If you believe my logic then one pattern jumps out:
1.) we lost a lot of talented players in the secondary, leaving it full of young players. *
2.) Because of this, we’re one of the most inexperienced teams in the BT. **
3.) young players are not able to make up for experience with talent. *** (They may be able to make up a little, but not the whole thing).
4.) THUS: we are bad because of lack of experience, and experience and good coaching are the only cures.

HOWEVA: While I can’t speculate on the coaching, I will say that things look good for next year (if you’re basing life off experience.) ****

Our Relative Experience Next Year:
We only lose Rogers in the secondary next year, and I'll gladly take Woolfo(r?)k over him any day.  He's actually got more PT so, I think that's a net gain.

Here’s a breakdown of the rest of the BT teams and how many returning starters they will have****:

Tables:

On Experience
*Woolfolk=injury
Warren=bad choice on NFL draft
Dorsey=bad grades
Emillien=bad attitude
Turner=bad attitude X 2
Cissoko=bad attitude X 3

**Average (based off Iowa, MSU, PSU, OSU, Wiscy  because I don’t want to be like IU, Purdue, NW, et al.)
3.15 average total years per secondary starter.  1=fresh, 2=soph, 3=junior, 4=senior.  UM averages 2.25.  To see the full effect look at the total years in college below:
UM=9
Iowa=12
MSU=10
OSU=14
Wiscy=14
PSU=13

***on experience v. talent here’s a great link:  http://mgoblog.com/content/unverified-voracity-finds-comparison And another, lesser one: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/monte-kiffin-unacceptable

 

****(I won’t even do Minnesota, IU, or Purdue.  They always suck.)
The total returning secondary starters per team are as follows:
OSU: 3/4
Wiscy: 2/4
Iowa: 1/4
PSU: 2/4
MSU: 1/4

UM has 3/4 (if you haven't noticed)

Assuming our loss (Rogers replaced by Woolfolk) isn't as bad as MSU and Iowa's respective losses are, our secondary will be the team that loses the least for next year.  (We might also return the worst of the group too, but hey...)

I don't want this to be a diary (I'm still scared of you all neggin me) but the second part was supposed to be on our experience for next year with a more in depth look.  If anyone wants it I can always add that as a post later and tag this thread in there.  If this whole thing is just stupid neg me, but please tell me how I can stop DERPing.)

Blue in Yarmouth

October 20th, 2010 at 8:23 AM ^

I find it irritating and quite silly how some people here can draw a conclusion that holds Gerg and RR completely responsible for what we are seeing on the field when very little of it is their fault IMHE.

You can polish a turd as long and with as much care as you like but at the end of the day what you're left with is a polished turd, you can't turn it into a diamond no matter how hard you try.

As much as I really support RR and his staff though, there is one thing that I can't say for sure has nothing to with them.....I am not completely sure why guys have transfered and left the program but it must, at least in part, have something to do with the coaching staff. I am not an insider so I can't say how much or in what way, but they must be playing some part in it.

That said, I am certainly not one who needs to be convinced that what we are seeing on the field can be blamed on Gerg or RR, it is a product of being young, inexperienced and less talented than the opponents we have lost to.

I think it is about time some people on this board start to see this team for what it is. Our two losses are against two team that may very well finish 1-2 in the big ten this year. It isn't like we would ever have expected that this team would be top two this year. \

I say let the season play out and quit ragging on the coaches and players.

willywill9

October 20th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^

I am not completely sure why guys have transfered and left the program but it must, at least in part, have something to do with the coaching staff. I am not an insider so I can't say how much or in what way, but they must be playing some part in it.
I don't think this is necessarily a fair conclusion. At the onset of RR's tenure, some guys left for the NFL, some guys transferred (normal.) Transferring is not unheard of, I think in the majority of cases it's directly related to playing time. Here's an excerpt from an article about Emilien leaving:
"He told me I'm a good kid," Emilien said. "I love coach Rod as a head coach and a person, too. I just told him I need a fresh start. I hope it goes well for him, and I hope we win Saturday. "I love the school, I love the social life, but I just felt like got stressed dealing with football, and I didn't want it affecting my academics. There's a plan for me. I feel like I made best decision for me."
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100909/SPORTS0201/9090475/Vlad-Emilien-see…

Blue in Yarmouth

October 20th, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^

but that is kind of what I mean by "but they must be playing some part in it."

Playing time is a coaching decision and if I guy tranfers because he isn't getting any I think that is a coach playing a role in a player transeferring. I am not saying they are leaving because they hate RR or Gerg or anyone else.

I guess what I am saying I don't think RR is doing anything wrong that is causing these kids to transfer (truthfully I nor anyone on this board can say one way or another) but for us to insist that it can't possibly have anything to do with the coaches (and the decisions they make, right or wrong) is drawing conclusions based on very little evidence.

To be clear, I am not saying anyof the coaches have done anything wrong to cause a player to tranfer, but in my mind if a player tranfers because he isn't getting enough PT and says he believes he is the best player on the team at his position, I have to say it sounds the coaches have played a role, not the cause (which isn't what I stated to begin with), but played a role.

That's all I'm saying.

willywill9

October 20th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^

Yes, there's something odd about a kid concerned about PT, particularly on Defense.  Other than some folks saying he wasn't 100% after the knee injury, I can't begin to understand why he was concerned about PT.  I guess he got buried on the depth chart at that position anyway.  And also, (while it's still early) with the recent Demens/Ezeh situation/evaluation, one can only wonder... 

I guess my point was that there isn't some systemic problem w/r/t players transferring or anything like that.  The only outlier was RR's first year... that's all I was getting at. 

Perhaps it's in RR and his staff's nature to think "If they don't wan't to be here, then I won't force them to stay."  If this is indeed the case (not saying it is), then I'd argue that this might be a good approach in normal times, but we're hurting for depth currently.  At the same time, you don't want someone to be unhappy in the locker room.  I'm rambling now.

MICHfanINsecLAND

October 20th, 2010 at 8:29 AM ^

I love reading statistical things that are geared toword making me feel worm and fuzzy about Michigan's future...The future is bright for Michigan football I don't understand how some fans can't see this...

willywill9

October 20th, 2010 at 8:32 AM ^

No negging but here is some feedback (FWIW, and I like where your head's at):

  • Years in college isn't the best metric to use; I'd argue # of starts prior to this season, or # of starts including this season would be more important. 
  • The formatting was a little hard to follow, then again I have severe ADD.
Tables: On Experience *Woolfolk=injury Warren=bad choice on NFL draft Dorsey=bad grades Emillien=bad attitude Turner=bad attitude X 2 Cissoko=bad attitude X 3 **Average (based off Iowa, MSU, PSU, OSU, Wiscy because I don’t want to be like IU, Purdue, NW, et al.) 3.15 average total years per secondary starter. 1=fresh, 2=soph, 3=junior, 4=senior. UM averages 2.25. To see the full effect look at the total years in college below: UM=9 Iowa=12 MSU=10 OSU=14 Wiscy=14 PSU=13

This part confused me... where are the tables? I see what we average, but what does the B10 average? (I think you should include even the mediocre teams, if you're going to go this far, might as well go all the way. Balls to the wall.)

EDIT: Regarding my last point, I think knowing each teams average is more beneficial

bighouseinmate

October 20th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

......with your point about number of starts. For example, Rogers is a sr. but is also is seeing his first meaningful time at the position, therefore, his experience playing CB is not anywhere close to being as equal as a sr. who has been playing the position for his whole CFB career. Floyd is in a similar position, as he wasn't defense when he first got here, thus cannot be compared to another soph who came in as a DB right away. Thus, the years difference between us and the other schools listed is even greater.

tenerson

October 20th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^

I agree. James ROgers experience isn't all at corner. Kovacs was a redhsirt. Gordan RS with a switch recently. So there you have three guys where number of years here isn't a true indicator of experience at that position. Actually, we are less experienced than classification would show which is already really young.

bighouseinmate

October 20th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

But I would say that anyone placing all, or even most, of the blame on the coaches for the bad defensive play is just not correct. The author here rightly chooses to show the number of years experience compared to some of our contemporaries in the B10, and even without my corrections from above, the difference is big. Next year, our secondary loses Rogers, but gains a better, more experienced Woolfolk back. Our secondary two-deep will be filled with guys who all saw at least some time this year in games. Overall, the secondary, barring the losses we got hit with for this season, should be much better.

As for the coaches, the biggest problem I see from them isn't in the secondary, but the LB play. The Demens/Ezeh thing is one issue, and the spacing of the LBs is another. Watch the best LB corps, either college or the NFL, and you see bigger gaps between them(spaced out wider), and they play farther from the LOS. Ours play within a few yards of one another and just a few yards back from the line. They start out in bad position, and thus, are in bad position to make plays. I know GERG has coached LBs for a long time, and should know much better than I about their spacing and starting position, but I can't help but see the difference that is there and wonder why that is.

Seth

October 20th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^

tasnyder01 - You're going to become one hell of a Diary contributer to this site one day! I almost bumped this one up as well. What held me back was the formatting. Rather than David Foster Wallace-style end-noting, just stick each chart/list in where you're discussing them. Use headers, paragraph breaks (instead of linebreaks) and all the other WYSIWYG editor tools -- they're your friends!

Your thoughts are excellent. I love the idea of collecting all we know about the secondary in one spot. I don't have time to reorganize this one, but if you want to reformat, clean it up, etc., I think the great content you're generating would be a lot more accessible to the board in general.

Either way, keep up the good work! It's very much appreciated!

mxair23

October 20th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

I think you did a great job of explaining where we are at and where we are headed.  I must agree with the rest on the formating though. Thanks for the post.

jhackney

October 20th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^

I was wondering if there is any statistical data that the Mathlete or someone else has access to in order to show if fundamentals (tackling) and schemes improve at all over a bye week and what that will mean for the rest of the season? Spanks!

WolverineEagle

October 20th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^

is that it ASSUMES improvement when all the empirical data suggests that is not likely.
<br>
<br>RichRod has been here three years. Each defense has been atrocious. This happened with an AA on the roster, several all Big Ten types, and a talent level that is no worse than what Iowa or MSU have.
<br>
<br>I understand the youth argument and it makes sense. But UM's defensive issues go further than the secondary. The LB's miss assignments and tackles with alarming regularity, the scheme is not conducive to generating any sort of pressure, and quite frankly, the defense is physically soft. Martin is clearly not, but the rest of the defense is.
<br>
<br>Frankly, I'll believe that RR will field a decent defense when I see it.