The Tendency to Judge the Defense
I have two things I want to address concerning the defense.
First, according to what I see on the two deep, we have Van Bergen, Martin, Banks, Roh, Ezeh, Mouton, Gordon, Kovacs, Gordon, Rogers, and Floyd as starters on the D. Not a single true freshman, so why all the talk about how "we are so unbelievably young on D". Yes, the two-deep adds freshmen, but 80% of the plays we're not THAT young. Now before all the haterz come out.....I'm just putting this out there, for the sake of discussion. Don't freak out.
My second point is about the general tendency to criticize a team with a good offense but a bad defense. For some reason, it seems that having a crappy offense and a great D gets a lot more love than having a crappy defense and a great O. For example, I don't think people would be freaking out about the offense if we had won every game 14-10. My question is, why does it matter? Whether we're winning 10-7 or 42-35, winning is winning.
To ask for a touch of defensive improvement is certainly not unreasonable, because this D just got torched all day today. But, great start to the season, 5-0!
October 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
over/under? 10
any takers?
October 2nd, 2010 at 7:57 PM ^
RVB = soild
Martin = beast
Banks = career backup starting for first time
Roh = true sophomore switching from DE to OLB
Ezeh = uh yeah, have you watched last few years?
Mouton = generally solid
T Gordon = RS FR playing for first time
C Gordon = RS FR WR converted to FS, starting for first time
JT Floyd = RS Soph, starting for first time
Rogers = senior who bounced from CB to WR to CB and career backup
So yeah, look at secondary and there's majority of your problems. 2 freshmen, a career backup, and a first year starter.
October 2nd, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^
Great idea on the preemptive "don't freak" plea. But having it actually work is asking a lot. Anybody who sits here and tells me that this defense stands to get significantly better over the next two years is going on the understanding that guys generally improve with maturity in a program. They aren't going on impact talent that is visible right now. It is thin.
This defense is what it is, but it also made plays near the end at just the right times. Michigan wins.
October 2nd, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
It was a combination of things. First, Indianas offense was ranked #12 in the country. Their qb threw the ball 60 times. And our offense scoes really quick, not giving the D much rest. They looked pretty good in the 4th quarter when they looked in good physical shape and Indiana looked out of it.
October 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
October 2nd, 2010 at 8:13 PM ^
We really need to get some stud recruits on defense who can step in immediately if we want to have an above average defense in the next couple of years. I can't understand why a top MLB wouldn't come to U-M this year with the strong likelihood of stepping right in to a starting role next season?
October 2nd, 2010 at 8:24 PM ^
I think it matters because when we face a team with both a good offense and a good defense we will loose. I hope I am wrong but I truly don't see us winning many more games this year. You just can't have just one side of the equation and win. I just hope we win enough to keep RR around long enough for the D to get good. I would really miss this offense if he gets canned. It would be torcher to go back to a Debord offense.
October 2nd, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
I realized something today...our defense is not as bad as it appears. Gerg's defensive play calling sucks monster cock. Maybe Rich Rod likes having a fucking heart attack on every third down but I doubt it. Why can't we play with a little more risk, like um rushing four guys? Ezeh and Roh are useless as roaming linebackers especially when Indiana is not sending any tight ends or backs into patterns. Our front three was solid against their five man line, imagine if they had any help at all going after that fat shit Chappell. If Indiana is just going to go down the field on every drive why not take some chances with actual blitzes (how many times was Indiana fooled when we brought three extra guys into the box only for them to retreat into coverage), maybe get some turnovers? It worked for a mediocre Saints team last year.
October 2nd, 2010 at 10:06 PM ^
For example, I don't think people would be freaking out about the offense if we had won every game 14-10. My question is, why does it matter? Whether we're winning 10-7 or 42-35, winning is winning.
I believe this statement is 100% truth. I think the fear is that it's much harder to start having good defensive games than it is to bounce back offensively. I don't know if that's true, but that's the fear. I agree with you though.
IU had posession almost the entire game. THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY MINUTES IN A FOOTBALL GAME. Other teams aren't going to score substantially more because there simply isn't enough time to do so. So as long as the O continues, then the D is just fine.
October 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
I agree with your sentiment about the defense. I do think people kill it because everyone is used to UM's defense being better than the worst in the Big 10, and it doesn't "feel" like there should have been the transitional pains experienced by the offense. The struggles defensively are almost amplified by their yakety-sax nature, with guys 15 yards open or running through 3 tackles. On offense, your zone read is stuffed for 2 yards and you figure it was just a missed block. But with the defense, the big plays are hard to ignore and the 3rd-down conversion rate is terrifying.
I will take issue with the defense being young - sure there are a couple of seniors, but they tend to be at positions where they would not be playing if the team was better. Obi seems like a nice guy, but he would never be starting if it was not sure the complete lack of depth. Same with safety and CB - some of those guys should not be starting, and would not be, if the team was better and the younger talent developed. So while I agree that the defense is not insanely young on paper, younger players with more talent should have developed along the way.