Should we give the defense more credit for their part in the victory?

Submitted by Bosch on

Ok.... They gave up 486 yards of offense and 45 points in regulation.  To state the obvious, that's less than exceptional.  However, I do feel better after looking a little closer.

Illinois and Michigan each had a staggering 16 possessions in regulation.  A recap of Illinois' possessions (minus overtime) is as follows:

Starting Position       Result

  1. Ill-33               FG
  2. M-47               Fumble
  3. M-33               FG
  4. M-32               TD
  5. Ill-36               TD
  6. Ill-44               Punt
  7. Ill-29               Punt
  8. Ill-40               TD
  9. Ill-35               FG
  10. Ill-43               Punt
  11. Ill-49               Missed FG
  12. M-42               Punt
  13. Ill-25               TD
  14. M-28               TD
  15. Ill-11               Punt
  16. Ill-18               Punt

In 16 possessions, Illinois scored 5 TDs and 3 FGs.  They punted six times, missed a field goal, and had a fumble.  Michigan's defense kept Illinois off the scoreboard in 8 of their 16 possessions.   Given the state of our D and the potency of our O, I would argue that stopping the opponent half the time is a win.  In fact, I'd argue that holding the opponent to a field goal is a win. 

it also should be pointed out that Illinois had an average starting field position at their own 43 yard line, with 5 drives starting on Michigan's side of the field.

Yes, the final play was memorable, but I don't think the defense is getting enough credit for their effort the entire game.

mxair23

November 8th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^

They got gashed at times but when we needed a stop or two through out the game they delivered. And when their number was called to destroy the OL and kill the QB...well you know what happened!

Bosch

November 8th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^

Unless a poster is sharing a link that was shared before with no unique dialogue, I don't agree with the "it was mentioned before so it can't be mentioned again" MGoMeme.  When it comes to personal opinions, I'm certainly not going to spend a whole lot of time worrying about whether or not it's an original thought.

Yes, the post that you linked was similar to mine.  However, it was put up on Saturday night and it probably didn't take very long for it to get buried amongst the other threads.  What percentage of the site's visitors do you suppose saw it?  10% is probably a conservative guess.  With the way this blog's board is set up, people rarely go back and contribute to threads that are off the side bar so a lot of worthy topics get over looked by  many members, especially during high volume times like the evening after a football game.  Are we really at apoint where we are so finicky that posts are unacceptable if they aren't unique, regardless of whether or not the material is discussion worthy?

Number 7

November 8th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^

It bears mentioning that the Mathlete's diary says as much, with math to back it up. 

In less techy terms than the Mathlete uses, the key stat is "Stops" -- in which I would include punts forced, turnovers (including turnover on downs);  FG attempts (made or missd) would, for me, count as half a Stop.  By this metric, I'm pretty sure this is the D's best Big Ten game -- and, as you say, that's not even getting into the key stop (small s) on the last play.

cm2010

November 8th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

Definitely - Illinois had 9 possessions in the first half alone with 3 field goals, 3 tds, and 3 outright stops. PSU had 9 possessions the whole game, and gave up 5 tds and 2 field goals. Considering the horrible positions they were put in, I'd say they held up pretty well (compared to the standards they've set this season).

Blazefire

November 8th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^

I think they really have figured some thing out, and I'm looking forward to seeing what's to come. I actually have... confidence about our D going forward. Not a ton, mind you, but I will no longer assume we CANNOT get the critical stops.

Actually, what really bothers me is it seems like when the D DID get a stop, the O couldn't score those times. If everything had gone fluidly, we'd have won about 80 to 35.

robpollard

November 8th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

I appreciate everyone pointing out the defense held up well at times (e.g., much of  the second half, the key final 2-pt conversion) and was put in some difficult spots (e.g., the turnovers we committed), but they still went from epically bad (Penn State) to bad (Illini).  That's an improvement, but it is still bad. They got absolutely lit up in the first half (31 pts!) and in overtime, the Illini scored TDs with complete ease on 2 of their 3 possessions. I can't say, like some, "they held up pretty well," or "they deserve a lot of credit." Even if it was "their best Big 10 game," that's not saying very much at all, based on our results.

Illinois is not a good offensive football team.  They're OK. They do well against bad defenses (us, PSU, Purdue, Indiana) and poor against pretty good/v good (scored 6 on MSU, and 13 each against OSU and Missouri.) We gave up 45 pts to them in regulation and even if you take ~10 pts away due to our turnovers, that's still giving up 35 pts at home -- not good.

I'm encouraged the defense didn't quit after PSU, have a lot of youth to build on for next year (and hopefully as this season progresses, incl the bowl) and there were some nice individual plays (e.g., Avery's open field tackle; Vinopal ditto). That's what I give them credit for (as opposed to say Texas, where they appear to have packed it in), but this game, as the final score showed, was basically all about offense with a little defense sprinkled in.

robpollard

November 8th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

Not a bad point! Perhaps I should go down to 85%.

However, how much are those turnovers worth?  I'm sure there's a stat out there that converts where the turnover occured, i.e., one on your own 30 is "worth" more than one on your opponent's 30, b/c it's easier in the former for the opponent to score, but let's say it's worth 4 pts each.  I would argue the very last turnover by Tate, b/c the Illini had to go at least 25 yards in 13 secs or less to set up a difficult FG, was virtually worthless, so let's say that's 16 pts given by UM's offense to the Illini.

UM's defense thus had to hold a so-so Illinois offense to 4 TDs, disregarding the Michigan's turnovers, to win the game in regulation. They couldn't do that, giving up both long drives (54, 60, 78 yards for TDs) and short drives (e.g., driving 39 yards in 34 seconds to get a tying FG at the end of the half). The one turnover the Illni had was basically unforced (I believe the runner was juggling/dropping the ball before he was hit).

So, if I told you, "OK defense, you start the game up 29-0, at home - can you hold the lead?" and they couldn't, I wouldn't give them a lot of credit. I know we are all happy with the win, and the fact the D improved a bit from the PSU debacle, but we shouldn't get carried away -- Michigan is currently being carried by a record-setting, though not perfect, offense.

This is obviously inexact - perhaps a turnover is worth 3.673 pts, etc. My point is Michigan's defense is still so bad, it can't hold blah offensive teams to 25 or so pts, not to mention giving up 20 out of a possible 22 points in OT (though, trust me, I'm as thankful as anyone we finally sent the house to keep it from 22 out of 22).

wolverinenyc

November 8th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^

I'm not a math guy so i don't know about your percentages but I think Illinois actually scored 18 pts off turnovers. they could've had more. No team is supposed to win when they turn the ball over 5 times. We were -4 in the turnover battle. The D while still bad, made some very key plays early to keep us close and some late to win the game. I would still say 85% is high. we have been hammering the D all year for being bad. give them a little more credit for this one.

ShruteBeetFarms

November 8th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^

I've noticed that a lot of spread/quick strike offenses give up a lot of points. At first glance, it's easy to think these teams have poor defenses. I can't imagine Oregon having a lousy D since I'm sure they recruit well and have had continuity in their coaching staff (aside from Belotti retiring on his own). 

When offenses score quickly and often, it gives the opponents more possession. I'd like to believe that possessions per game equals giving up more points per game than traditional clock hog teams.

Illinois had excellent field position to start their drives. Our kickoffs and our turnovers did not do our defense any favors. However, our defense did make a lot of stops.

I'd like to believe that if our offense didn't turn the ball over, then Michigan would have won by a much larger margin.  I still think our defense would have yielded a lot of points(maybe in the 30's?), but those points would have been a lot less than our points.

Erik_in_Dayton

November 8th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^

They noticeably improved, which is about as much as you can ask.  Also, how many units would have taken all of the criticism they've taken this year and found themselves in that kind of shoot-out but still had the mental toughness to play that hard at the end?  The fact that they never gave up says a lot.  I can't imagine liking a defense more that just gave up 65 points. 

Anonymosity

November 8th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^

Defense was solid in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th quarters, and abysmal in the 2nd quarter and all three overtimes.  All around- a bad defensive game, but much better than last week and [obviously] good enough to allow the offense to win.

Moleskyn

November 8th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^

But would everyone here be saying the same thing if we had been on the losing end of the 67-65 score? Yes, our defense made some great stops, made some great plays, and played with a lot of heart, but they still gave up 65 points and over 500 yards of total offense. I'm just as excited as anybody here about the fact that we won and we're bowl eligible for the first time in a while, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Our defense is still bad and still has a ton of room for improvement.

Bosch

November 8th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^

I would have blamed the 5 turnovers.  If you would have told me before the game that Illinois would only score a TD in 1 in 3 possessions (regulation), I would have felt pretty good about our chances. 

The stats are bad but are also inflated due to 16 possessions. 

maizenbluenc

November 8th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^

We would not have needed to go to OT if the offense hadn't coughed the ball up 5 times, especially the turnovers on our end of the field.

The offense put the defense in several bad situations, and if they had scored on one of those 5 drives ending in a turnover - well no OT / out right win.

Hal_Victor

November 8th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^

Take away the back coming out uncovered on at least two scores -- a glaring error -- and I'd say the defense improved in this game.  Those were potential dagger in the heart gashes, to leave the back so wide open twice (and the tight end once, essentially the same play) but hopefully that will be a lesson learned going forward.  Go Blue.

jsquigg

November 8th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^

The defense played better than awful about a little less than half the time.  At this point all that matters is the team won, and all the players keep saying is how they play as a team, not seperate units.  Let's give them all credit.

Blue Blue Blue

November 8th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^

all those 4 play scoring drives (and turnovers) kept putting them back on the field, often in our end of the field.

FACT:  Illinois only had one TD drive of over 50 yards

FACT Illinois was 6 0f 16 on third down.  

FACT    16 posessions is extreme

OPINION    I nearly spit in my beer when Demens shot through the line to make a tackle.  Linebacker play!  what a concept!

robpollard

November 8th, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^

A "fact" problem:

Illinois had 3 drives of over 50 yards (64, 78, and either 54 or 64 - I've seen Ford's run described as being different yardage; I think scorekeepers had trouble keeping track of everything!)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/gameflash/2010/11/06/429…

We did play well on third down though, particularly in the 4th.  So maybe you're only partially stoned!

Roy D Hibble

November 8th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^

The old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder applies here.

I don't know how you slice 65 points and a zillion yards any other way than "Shockingly horrible."

But you got to start somewhere, I guess.

BigCat14

November 8th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^

our defense did better than the points and stats would suggest!  that was even before i saw your post!  so with the eight stops, add two field goals and in ten possesions we held them to six points!  wow that is telling looking back at it.  with a little time and execution we WILL shore up the out of bounds kicks, the lack of coverage on kickoffs, and the one or two mistakes that lead directly to scores.  Believe it or not, i chose to believe we are close and purdue, wiscy and tosu are going to find out just how close!  Go Blue beat purdue!