Sparty #1 Overall Defense Ranking - Not that impressive?
Maybe I'm just looking to closely at numbers instead of how this game is played (i.e. Unnecessary roughness and bullying) but I'm not all that impressed with the nations #1 ranked defense considering the competition level.
| Opponent | Passing Yards | Rushing Yards | Total Yards | Scoring |
| W. Michigan | 193(90) | 11(109) | 204(115) | 13(119) |
| South Florida | 66(119) | 89(112) | 155(123) | 6(120) |
| *Youngstown State | 121 | 51 | 172 | 17 |
| Notre Dame | 142(54) | 78(96) | 220(82) | 17(72) |
| Iowa | 241(88) | 23(47) | 264(75) | 14(79) |
| Indiana | 259(10) | 92(63) | 351(10) | 28(8) |
| Purdue | 160(92) | 66(121) | 226(122) | 0(121) |
| Illinois | 103(43) | 25(94) | 128(74) | 3(58) |
| Average Rank | 71 | 92 | 86 | 82 |
| ][\/][ Rank | 42 | 49 | 45 | 8 |
| *FCS | (National per game rank in parentheses) |
I know that this type of data will be discussed ad nauseam over the next few days but I was hoping to generate some like mind discussion or to the contrary, as I am not being productive at work anyway.
UM28 - MSU13
October 29th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
The opponent-adjusted stats on Football Outsiders have them 4th and 5th. So they're still really good.
October 29th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^
Yep! Have you checked our opponents? Likewise horrid. And we are in the 20s and 30s for many categories save pass defense which is near 100. Are they #1 in the country? No. Are they top 5 in the country. Yes. And all that matters is they play Big 10 competition ex non conference so it really doesnt matter how Alabama or Va Tech defense match up with them. They have built something very good with talent "below" what we have - their defensive coaching staff is killing it right now and rationalizing it away sounds petty and pardon the pun...defensive. If they had resource to the talent we have (the Hands of the world dont consider MSU) they might have an Alabama type defense with the way they can coach up kids. Every rationale dude on this blog would trade defenses in a heartbeat with MSU right now. It is especially "fun" to see how they attack attack attack on defense versus our bend dont break concept.
October 30th, 2013 at 1:52 AM ^
First, I'm a Sparty. Not playing games.
Okay, my biggest concern about this game is which Gardner shows up. Then, which Borges will show up. "A" games from Gardner and Borges vs a "C" Cook game will mean UofM wins. That could happen.
What caused me to write the post is the meat of your post - at least how I read it. MSU is, and has been, clearly getting crushed in recruiting rankings vs. UofM. So how on earth does MSU have these consecutive D's? (And what's the deal with UofM's D...in comparison). Not one starting 4* on the DL. One starting 4* (Bullough) at LB. One 4* DB (Lewis). 2 2* CB (both likely playing on Sunday's in the near future). And plenty of subbing.
Is it scouting? Is it coaching? Giving up less than 100pts after 8 games? Giving up a total of three points in the last 2 games? With DL injuries? Kittridge and Hoover as the starters (DT's) nursing injuries.
I think it's safe to say that MSU has something going on the D side of the ball.
MSU clearly wanted a LOT of guys UofM got over the recent years, but still...
Even on O, to some degree. 3* unknown true frosh RB getting real, productive playing time. 5*, #1 rated RB at UofM reeeeeally under-achieving. Unknown, un-recruited freshman OT playing + football, but all-world Oline recruits getting shuffled every week at UofM.
Out of nowhere, 3* soph QB with decent production with 3* WR's and no-name TE's?
One 4* DT on the OL. The rest are 3's or 2's.
Only one top 20 class (17th) in Dantonio's head coach career.
Yeah, now I'm just being a douche. But, what is it? Scouting, coaching, luck?
And what about UofM? Talent, talent, talent, but not scaring anyone.
October 30th, 2013 at 1:52 AM ^
First, I'm a Sparty. Not playing games.
Okay, my biggest concern about this game is which Gardner shows up. Then, which Borges will show up. "A" games from Gardner and Borges vs a "C" Cook game will mean UofM wins. That could happen.
What caused me to write the post is the meat of your post - at least how I read it. MSU is, and has been, clearly getting crushed in recruiting rankings vs. UofM. So how on earth does MSU have these consecutive D's? (And what's the deal with UofM's D...in comparison). Not one starting 4* on the DL. One starting 4* (Bullough) at LB. One 4* DB (Lewis). 2 2* CB (both likely playing on Sunday's in the near future). And plenty of subbing.
Is it scouting? Is it coaching? Giving up less than 100pts after 8 games? Giving up a total of three points in the last 2 games? With DL injuries? Kittridge and Hoover as the starters (DT's) nursing injuries.
I think it's safe to say that MSU has something going on the D side of the ball.
MSU clearly wanted a LOT of guys UofM got over the recent years, but still...
Even on O, to some degree. 3* unknown true frosh RB getting real, productive playing time. 5*, #1 rated RB at UofM reeeeeally under-achieving. Unknown, un-recruited freshman OT playing + football, but all-world Oline recruits getting shuffled every week at UofM.
Out of nowhere, 3* soph QB with decent production with 3* WR's and no-name TE's?
One 4* DT on the OL. The rest are 3's or 2's.
Only one top 20 class (17th) in Dantonio's head coach career.
Yeah, now I'm just being a douche. But, what is it? Scouting, coaching, luck?
And what about UofM? Talent, talent, talent, but not scaring anyone.
October 30th, 2013 at 7:33 AM ^
How ya been. Ready for that beatdown on Saturday? You without question have something going on defense, you have upperclassmen studs all over the field on defense. They were heavily recruited players that came up during what we over here call the dark years. You are not rolling out scrubs that Narduzzi is somehow magically turning into this dominant unit, I knew from day one what your defense was going to look like this year and it has not dissapointed. You are vulnerable in one area, you know what it is, you are just hoping the blitz gets there in time and that Gardner does not have time to get good looks over the top. And with our defensive line average age of like 13, it very well may. Which brings me to my point regarding your post overall. It is not an excuse, it is a fact. Maybe the two most important areas on the field, offensive line and defensive secondary, we have the ingredients in our cupboard, we just have not had time to cook the meal yet. We have two true freshman on both units playing substantial time, and really none of the primary contributors in our defensive secondary were really big time prospects (Countess excluded but he blew out his knee last year and is still formidable but probably will not be the player we thought we were getting). 2015. That is the year we over here are looking at to see the full picture. Unlike Rodriguez, Hoke will have the time to fully develop one or two classes and things will look a lot different. In the meantime, we will have to settle for beating you by one score instead of multiple scores. Ha. Just playin. Good luck and just grab Funchess and Gallon when they get behind you. 15 yards is better than 50 yards and the score.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
Nope. Our #13 overall defense is impressive though.
Beat State!
October 29th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
MGoBlog is slowly coming undone at the seams.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^
this has been a pretty concerning string of posts the last couple of days. I don't know what the hell is going on. It is like a really apologetic obsession with Michigan State, like the Board is completely obsessed with them but won't even own up to that. I usually kind of like this week but this has been a rude awakening. I need to stop reading this or I may end up rooting for them on Saturday.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^
Not just here at MGBLOG. Have you seen all the love Beaver is giving MSU over on the scout board? He even said Bo would have liked Dantonio and called them "kindred spirits". Saw Spath from Rivals is picking MSU. ESPN and BTN guys seem to all be writing off Michigan. Only one I've heard still leaning Michigan is Bill King.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^
Going into the OSU game that year, we were heavy underdogs. I mean, ABC thought this was such as "meh" game that Mark Jones did the play-by-play. Look at how that turned out.
But this is the best team we have faced so far though. And MSU's defense has earned their reputation, so they deserve favorite status. But I mean, there's nothing to fear yet with their offense and I don't think they can stop both Gallon and Funchess. This is a tossup with a lean to MSU only because they're at home.
October 29th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^
Was undefeated, ranked #2 in the country, and steamrolling teams leading up to the MIchigan game. Also they had 3 first round draft picks on offense. Little different than a 1 loss #22 ranked MSU team that needed a defensive TD and trick play to beat the worse team in the B1G just 2 weeks ago.
MSU has a great defense. So what. Did anyone expect anything less going into this year? They had a great defense last year and the year before as well. Their offense is also medicore to bad. They have been just as inconsistent as Michigan has this year. They both have a couple ugly wins and a close loss. They are both flawed.
I understand that its a toss up in a lot people minds and MSU is home so people are leaning that way. Fine, understandable. But all the predictions for "doom" and "pain" are ridiculous. And thats not even from the national ESPN guys or regional BTN guys. Those predictions are coming from mostly Michigan sites.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:33 PM ^
Seriously? I know lots of people don't like Beaver, but I thought he was smarter than that. Bo and Dantonio would have absolutely despised each other.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^
While I agree with the sentiment, is the MSU-obsession really that surprising?
UM hasn't won a B1G title in a decade. A loss means dropping 5 out of 6 to them. They are in the same division and again stand between UM and a title shot. They also just so happen to have an elite defense.
Normally we'd expect this board to be OSU-centric when it comes to discussing opponents but until next year, it is THIS game that is bigger when it comes to the program's stated goals.
In short: Obsess much? Well, yea actually.
October 29th, 2013 at 7:30 PM ^
It should also be noted/emphacized that a loss on Saturday would pretty much take us out of the Big Ten title picture. Big game + bye week = more focus and scrutiny on MSU.
October 29th, 2013 at 7:02 PM ^
perform week to week under this staff. This reflects at all levels of game management and performance. This team hasn't demonstrated an identity, except that it will respond to adversity. So, understanding how to perceive this matchup is difficult. Michigan State knows exactly what it is and how it wants to win. Michigan not so much. And I am talking on both sides of the ball.
MSU wants to destroy your offense and will, taking away your ability to compete. Michigan just wants to stay in every game and hope its offense is good enough to beat you. I'll take a credo and attitude over a hopeful pledge every time. Identity versus uncertainty. In rivalry games, what you are and how you achieve it, make you an easier commodity to deal with but a more difficult opponent. Because it means here we are, beat us.
Michigan doesn't have that mindset. I have no clue what Michigan is trying to be at this point.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^
"I was hoping to generate some like mind discussion or to the contrary..."
Putting aside the grammar, this sentence summarizes surprisingly concisely the frustrations of many long time MGoReaders with the current state of the board.
"I was hoping to generate some discussion..."
Of course you were. It's a message board. That's what message boards on the internet are used for, right? Generating discussion, whether between like-minded individuals, or among those with contrasting opinions. Sounds perfectly reasonable. I'll call this the mgoBOARD perspective.
The thing is, though, that there was a time when posts on this blog, even on the message board section, were not about "generating discussion." They could better be summarized as "I would like to present this analysis." And by analysis, I don't mean a summary of what's been said on talk radio and rival blogs; I mean an insightful look at how our right guard matches up against an opponent's defensive tackle, or how a well-used combination of routes might be particularly effective at countering a double-A-gap blitz frequently deployed by an in-state rival. Such posts are not merely "discussion" in the sense of having a conversation for the sake of talking about it; they are informative, value-added, and help us fans better set our expectations, and better understand what's actually going on in the game. I'll call such contributions MGOboard posts.
There was a time when the frequency of MGOboard posts, and relative paucity of mgoBOARD posts, was what first distinguished MGoBlog as the premiere destination for coverage of Michigan sports. And there are indeed still a good number of such MGOboard posts being posted. But the steady increase in mgoBOARD posts, where people post simply to express an opinion or to stir up conversation without really adding to it, has really diluted the overall quality. And that dilution is what many long-time readers here find frustrating.
And the "if you don't like it, don't read it" response becomes very tiresome too: the reason I read MGoBlog, and not the comments section of MLive, is precisely because I want to avoid reading posts that contribute nothing. When those posts show up on MGoBlog too, it's like advertising in the Big House: yeah, it's not the end of the world, but it's irritating, surprisingly hard to ignore, and undermines a significant piece of what made the Big House special in the first place.
/soapbox moment
October 29th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^
Insightful
October 29th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
ESPN made a list! Vote in they're poll four our teamer-players.
also Freep/Valentini said something about Michigan!
In your opinion does this sway the balance of the rivalry forver or just alter the outcome of this weeks game?
Most important, how does this effects the team recruiting rank?
....
I'll hang up on the internet and stop listening.
October 29th, 2013 at 3:38 PM ^
but boy, you missed a perfect opportuinty to title it "mgoBORED" because that is what a lot of these posts amount too.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
they slowed down indiana better than we could. maybe they arent the best defense in the country but they seem to be pretty close to the top from what i've seen in the few state games I have seen this year. I'd be interested to see what those other schools averages are with the state game removed I'd assume most of the averages jump up at least some.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^
MSU vs Indiana
92 yards rushing/ 259 yards passing allowed
28 points scored
Michigan vs Indiana
162 yards rushing/410 yards passing allowed
42 points scored
MSU vs Notre Dame
142 yards rushing/78 yards passing allowed
17 points scored
Michigan vs Notre Dame
96 yards rusing/310 yards passing allowed
30 points scored
I'm impressed.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
those defensive TOs and TDs are no fluke. please do not turn the ball over in our territory and we have a great shot at the W.
October 29th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
only 23 points were allowed by the defense in the notre dame game...but i think your point is still valid
October 29th, 2013 at 2:51 PM ^
That Sparty's defense is better than M's? The OP is not arguing this
October 29th, 2013 at 2:37 PM ^
But for a couple of "how did we drop that INT", we'd only have allowed 28 to IU as well. I think MSU has a strong D, but not one that's been tested. That said, they don't play OSU or Wisc (or PSU), so we're the only test they'll face all season.
October 29th, 2013 at 7:33 PM ^
They play Nebraska. If Martinez is hurt as he still appears to be Sparty could be a toss up in that game but its still a viable offense. If NW RB gets back, they still have a viable offense. We are not the only challenge but yes they skip Wiscy (as do we) and OSU. PSU is nothing - they have a freshman QB that we made look better than he is at this point (and surely he will eventually be very good). MSUs defense would murder PSUs offense - they attack the QB not sit back and wait for him to get comfortable and they press their CBs onto receivers, not play back 7 yards so a freshman QB can find time and space.
October 29th, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^
OK, so MSU's defense against common opponents looks better than ours. No news there.
Let's do the opposite side of the coin.
Michigan offense vs. ND defense
41 points, 460 total yds, 166 rushing, 294 passing
MSU offense vs. ND defense
13 points, 254 total yds, 135 passing, 119 rushing
Michigan offense vs. Indiana defense
63 points, 751 total yds, 503 passing, 248 rushing
MSU offense vs. Indiana defense
42 pts, 473 total yds, 235 passing, 238 rushing
Michigan offense is looking much better than MSU's...also no news there. Bottom line is that this game looks like a toss-up and everybody just conceding the loss is probably being overly pessimistic.
Michigan 31, MSU 20
October 29th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
Michigan State's defense is really good. I think their tight coverage gets into the head of the offense on most games and if you're not getting pass interference calls you're in trouble against them.
Fortunately, I actually think we will draw some of those calls with Funchess' size or just hurt them in the passing game with him if they choose to lay off. I don't think they can cover him effectively if Gardner has the time to throw.
My eyes will be focused on the middle of our O-Line at the start of this game so I can either predict Yay or Doom.
October 29th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^
Is as good at avoiding aggressive pass defenders as he is with aggressive rushers. If so, we'll be okay.
October 29th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^
Dantonio just tells them to interfere if they think there is a chance they are getting beat deep. It is actually a pretty sound philosophy. Never give up the big play just give up 15 yards.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
Impressive,but so is Halle Berry's back.
October 29th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^
The things that make one do a Google search....
October 29th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
The narrative of we don't know who teams are in NOVEMBER because they haven't played anybody is old and tired. College football schedules are college football schedules, teams play who are in front of them on the field. Let the stats and the eye test tell the story. Those two things tell me MSU's defense is really good.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
Not impressive? Their competition has been awful and they do commit a ton of uncalled PI penalties but that defense is good.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^
Can this stop please? Every year before the MSU game some Michigan fans try to rationalize on why MSU isn't that good, why their defense isn't as good as the stats say, etc. In reality, the past couple years they've had an elite defense despite what Michigan fans said before the game, and they do this year too.
Does that mean they are unbeatable? No. Their offense has major question marks. It's looked downright awful in most of their games, the only decent defense they looked good against was Iowa. And while their defense is elite, it is still possible to move the ball, especially in the air, as shown by Indiana and Iowa.
At this point most teams are what you think they are (thanks Dennis Green). MSU is a great defensive team with an average at best offense, while we are a slightly above average team on both sides of the ball with a propensity to turn it over and struggle heavily on the road. That gives MSU the advantage, but it doesn't mean we can't win either.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:38 PM ^
someone needs to calm down.
"Every year before the MSU game some Michigan fans try to rationalize on why MSU isn't that good, why their defense isn't as good as the stats say, etc."
AND every year this will become a topic of discussion again. This was an attempt at generating a discussion with people more knowledgeble than me (which this board has a lot of and which is why I'm here) when it comes to dianosing football.
/epicfail
October 29th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^
"but I'm not all that impressed with the nations #1 ranked defense"
He flat out said he's not impressed. Yes he said with regards to the competition, but considering that they're the #1 ranked defense, what more can they do to impress you regardless of comptetion?
Even if they were just #5, isn't that still impressive?
October 29th, 2013 at 5:02 PM ^
#5, due to the level of competition, was part of his point; he's seeing if others agree that their "ranking" is a bit propped up because of the quality and quanity of teams they've played.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
Obviously the question mark following impressive was not enough of a clue that I was asking a question versus making a statement.
I guess I'll look somewhere else for constructive responses to a completely benign question. It is not as if I said they sucked! I do realize they do not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/messageboardcontentnolongeraccepted
October 29th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
"Not that impressive?" in the sense you used it comes off as a rhetorical question. You can put as many question marks behind it as you want, but to everyone who reads it, it still implies that you are saying "MSU's defense isn't all great" vaguely masked underneath a pretend interest in constructive conversation.
If you truly meant it in a way where you really wanted to know if MSU's D was legit or not, it definitely didn't come off that way and needs to be reworded. I think very few people on here, as homerish as we are, are going to deny how great MSU's D has been this year (but that sure as shit doesn't mean we don't want to expose them as a fraud this weekend!).
October 29th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
Is that better?????????????????????/
In the time it took you to respond in the way you did you could have just replied with a question of your own as to what I meant, and provided your own analysis of why you think my questioning their impressiveness was stupid.
The crazy thing is, is that it's not even somewhat discussion generating threads such as mine that are what is behind the backlash but other much more moronic content. It builds and builds until someone such as myself with a geniune interest in discussing a valid topic gets waylayed. It's been going on like this for some time.
I am a die hard Michigan fan who loves the content that this Blog produces but I don't really have the time to do the type of analysis that gets posted here. So I ask questions.
Sorry you were offended by this!
October 29th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
Never said I was really that offended, and I did write a response to your op before the one you responded to (just a few posts down from here and it simply states the someone would have to be a fool not be impressed by MSU's D). However, I just saw you whining here in your own thread and thought I'd share the reason why people were responding the way they were.
To your other talking point, yeah the board on this site is going down hill (you and I have been on it for pretty much just as long as each other, so we've both seen it happen before our eyes), but what was true back then is still true now: It's hard to decipher intent through a computer screen, so you just have to be careful in how you say something. What you said just came off the wrong way, and continues to do so by how you're reacting about it right now. Not trying to bust you balls, I'm just sayin'...
October 29th, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 1:31 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^