Thoughts on Defense
So... time to start dissecting the defense. Even though the game got called short, we got a full game's worth of defensive snaps thanks to the TDs. My thoughts:
- They don't look great. Minus the 2 obviously awesome plays, the defense was getting picked apart, bit by bit. They did a lot of quick throws to neutralize the pass rush, which should be one of our strengths, and exposed the coverage.
- They didn't give up the big play. While getting dinked and dunked for yardage and first downs is bad, they did not give up crippling plays. This gives me a small amount of hope that we'll be only a slightly below average defense.
- Turnovers and big plays!!! OMG, please yes more of this.
Agreement/disagreement? Other insights???
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
They don't look great, but they look WORLD's better than last years D.
Things I never saw last year, but saw today:
- CONSISTENT pressure, leading to hurried passes, sacks and turnovers
- Batted passes
- Turnovers
- and most importantly, IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS
I know, I know, it was only western, but I counter with: Indiana and UMass. Which Defensive performance would you take?
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^
to last year actually. Selling out to get pressure because your secondary can't cover is a pretty high variance strategy.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
Seriously? You think adjusting to get constant pressure is the same as last years "Oh, well this strategy isn't working, so let's keep trying it?"
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
to keep him or anyone else from having to cover anyone is better than having anyone in our secondary cover anyone.
I think the fact that we have to blitz Kovacs because no one in our secondary can cover anyone is not a good sign at all.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
Not sure why you are more worried about safety blitzes, since even great safeties and corners blitz. ( like woodsen in green bay)
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
Did you not notice that Kovacs actually made tackles? I don't think they HAD to blitz him because he couldn't cover. They blitz him because it was the right situation.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
tackles has never been a problem. In fact he is mostly an excellent tackler and a good player when near the line of scrimmage. Move him further away, and things get a little dicey.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^
in the endzone or near it?
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
The "thank you sir, may I have another?" defense is gone! When was the last time you saw one of our blitzes get to the QB?
Great start, great adjustments! Patience!
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
Agreed. It's one thing to blitz and another to blitz effectively. Mattison was dialing up the correct blitzes and he wasn't "selling out" on many of them.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
We generated very little pressure last year. We had 18 sacks in 13 games. It looked like we came out pretty vanilla and then, following their initial drive, decided to go with more blitzing. It was pretty effective.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^
because Western is not a very good football team.
I remain incredibly concerned about what will happen when we play a team that can pick up blitzes and our secondary has to actually cover receivers, because, man, we have absolutely no idea how to cover anyone.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
That may be, but I don't know how you can say it looked like a GERG-called defense. We didn't get this kind of pressure against anyone last year.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
The defensive playcalling is likely to be a good deal better than last year. I didn't see anything out of anyone today to make me think any of the players will be significantly better.
My issue is this: I don't think the shitty defense of last year was all GERG. I think we were playing a lot of guys on defense who just aren't particularly good at playing football. And I think that's still very much the case.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
Were you expecting us to play as the #1 defense in the nation? Keep in mind a jump up to about the 60-70 range would be huge given what we have and the fact that we are going through a coaching change.
We brought blitzes that got pressure and caused sacks.
We forced turnovers.
We got two defensive touchdowns off those turnovers.
We wrapped up in our tackles and didn't give up the big play.
Sure, its Western Michigan, but we aren't stacked with the defense that say Alabama has. I thought they showed improvement based on last year, and loved the in game changes that Greg Mattison made.
Sure there is a long way to go and I am sure the coaches will admit that, but there were glimpses of positives that give me hope that this defense will turnaround and not be 110/120 in the nation.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:54 PM ^
I'm glad that we got pressure and sacks. I think that's a very good thing. I'm just not convinced, based on today, that we'll be able to do that against teams significantly better than Western,
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^
All I am trying to say is that expecting a turnaround to a shutdown defense through one game is only going to set yourself up for a letdown. I take this as a game that gives hope for the future, especially when the 2012 class and beyond hit campus.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^
If Michigan hadn't had 2 defensive touchdowns, I do not believe that people would be happy with today's defensive performance. Players did not know where to line up for for the entire first quarter, we could not get any pressure from our front 4, and our secondary could not cover Western's receivers in any meaningful fashion.
And I think it's almost entirely a fluke that Michigan had two defensive touchdowns.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
are when a QB throws a ball to a LB he doesnt see and its off to the races.
Tipped balls that are INT due to the fact that Q was getting blasted because a DE bullrushed his blocker is not a fluke
Hitting a QB so hard his helmet comes off on a really well disguised blitz is not a fluke.. the ball usually comes out in those situations. Im fully confident our O would have punched that in if we had just fell on the ball.
You are taking away from the fact that we CAUSED 2 turnovers today.. something we didnt do last year.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^
there's far less "causing" of turnovers than most people think. Year to year correlations in turnover margin are not high.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^
Do you realize that by trying to prove your point, and get others to see it your way. It just makes you look like a tool and a jerk. We get it, you were not that impressed by the defensive play. Can you just drop it and let others disagree? The only thing that matters today, is that we won. Enjoy the moment and move on to the next week. Thanks!
- Signed the fanbase
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:00 PM ^
he's making some good points and being a voice of reason for people who think this was a stellar defensive performance. maybe a bit harsh, but someone has to play devil's advocate.
while i'm worried about the D going forward, i will definitely enjoy the win today!
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:05 PM ^
I agree, he did. Then he took it a step further. I am not satisfied with the play of the defense, but i am not gonna argue with everyone that is in the opinion that it was a stellar performance. They were better then last year, but a far distance from where i would like them to be. When all is said and done, we won. That is all that matters to me. Who is excited for next week? I am!
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^
I don't think anyone here is describing it as a stellar performance. That's a straw man. The consensus is more that the D showed progress from last season.
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:01 PM ^
I'm sorry, but a blitz (p.s. that was a very well designed and executed blitz) that causes a fumble is pretty much all on the D. When Ryan beats the interior lineman to crush the QB and cause an INT is also on the D. By saying that Western was better than us when we didn't do good is faulty logic.
<br>If you want to be concerned, be concerned we showed too much today.
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
You're just being a fucking dick. Everyone knows you're a closet Notre Dame fan.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^
good passing team. Our defense looked at least 3 times better than last year's. They had more pressure, they tackled better, they played faster and they flew to the ball. I liked what I saw for a first game.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 PM ^
bothers the shit out of me.
We got dinked and dunked and "sold out" to get pressure. Obviously the idea is to get pressure with 4 but not even the greatest DLs do that consistently.
You miss the point. We tackled in space. We got SACKS.
We didnt get to teh QB last year at all regardless if we blitzed.
Secondly, while we got "dinked and dunked" we changed our D to adjust and they never beat us over the top. Thats a vast difference.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
The runs to the outside and the screen passes killed us...but, to say that we were not improved out there is ridiculous. My biggest concern is getting off the field when we have them in third and long situations... if we can learn that then I am a happy camper. I will take this defenseI saw today over the past three years combined.... They were better. They weren't world beaters but if you were expecting that then you are seriously drinking some maize and blue kool aid. We will see how things go next week. I have confidence in this defensive coordinator....I think Greg Mattison got a chance to see the glaring holes and will make the proper adjustments to shore up some of those problems.... the difference between this year and the last few years is that the coaching is better.... have faith in that... the tackling was better, the intensity was better and even Kovacs looked servicible .... Give it time gentlemen. This is a new coaching staff in their very first game....THIS TEAM WILL GET BETTER.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^
they were zone blitzing. anything 3 deep is pretty low risk. and considering the variation they were able to show, high reward. i was very impressed. outside of them having trouble lining up the first drive, Mattison had them doing the same stuff they were doing in the Spring Game to great effect.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
Incredible in game adjustments. And those abilities will pay huge dividends in big games.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:02 PM ^
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^
the D wasn't good, especially if you believe the theory that turnovers are random. The front 4 did not get any pressure on their own. It was bad. The blitzing was great, and the corners were OK (especially w/ Twofl down). You shouldn't be happy with the D (just look at WMU's QB stats).
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^
Turnovers may be random at the micro level (you can't predict which particular play will be one), but not at the macro level. Two reliable predictions: young offenses commit more turnovers than veteran offenses, and defenses that regularly pressure the QB generate more takeaways than those that don't. WMU has veteran skill players but a young line, and we were able to pressure Carder consistently in the last two quarters.
Look at Herron's two TDs. On the first, Ryan tipped the ball into the air. Tipped balls are often intercepted. On the second, Kovacs sacked Carder. Sacks can often result in fumbles. Even if we had not come up with the ball on those two plays, they would have still been excellent defensive plays. Only the fumbled snap could be considered a random event.
As for Carder's stats, while his completion rate (23-31) was good, his YPA was lousy (5.9). He threw lots of safe, short passes. Those are often hard to prevent being completed - but we did a good job of limiting YAC.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:45 PM ^
Not going to change the mind of people who think TO'd are coin flips, and coached are wasting their time teaching techniques to cause them. Stats are more important.
<br>
<br>I mean, I don't think we were world beaters out there today. I still think there's a big lack of overall talent on D (and on O in some positions). In some cases MSU level talent. But for the first time in awhile they look like they know what they're supposed to do, even if they're not capable. And rather than bending over and saying "be gentle", we actually try and do things to offset those weaknesses. I can't wait till we start bringing in a few classes of big time defensive talent, and then running the defense. Pressuring with a hellacious front four, THEN throwing a blitz in to erase someone. Defense can be fun. There's a reason even with a milktoast offense '97 was as loud as it's been; and the Stadium didn't get loud today till it was emptying and the D was going nuts in the rain.
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^
I know we won, but you're letting that fact cloud your view. WMU picked the d apart at will, until some pressure was brought by Kovacs etc.
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^
... I believe "worlds better than last year" and "average" could be the same thing.
September 3rd, 2011 at 9:20 PM ^
Average is worlds better than last year's D. WMU had only two offensive plays of 20 yards or more. A team like this isn't going to beat us without getting big plays. We forced them to move methodically, and only once did they finish a drive with a TD.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
Didn't look very good. Got bailed out a lot because it's Western. UTL will be a better gauge/
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
I really hope Woolfolk and Gordon are back next week, but Jake Ryan may be a pleasant surprise this season, we did allow a lot of first downs and easy passes, but we tackled WAY better than we did last season! Demens looked good too.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:42 PM ^
the tackling definitely looked a lot better than last year. woolfolk and kovacs laid the wood when they got their chances, but everyone seemed to be doing a much better job of wrapping up in general.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
At most spots on D. Cornerback is still a glaring weakness, though.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
I dont know yet if it is better then last years Defense yet.But the defense played very well after the 1st quarter.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
Agreed. Western Michigan had no problem getting yards on us, but we made enough big plays to counteract that. I did like the fact that we gave up no big plays, but that could be due to the fact that we were playing conservatively which is why we gave up so many dink and dunk plays.
Turnovers were exciting to see. It took a bit to get pressure on the QB but once it happened it happened often. It was also good to see better tackling than in the past.
Overall, I am encouraged by the defense's performance tonight, but we need to keep improving.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:40 PM ^
Really? They had a lot of really good plays. In fact I saw more "plays" today then I saw all of last year. They put pressure on a real good QB and smacked him in the mouth a few times. When was the last time you saw Michigan get in a QB's head due to hitting?
They played better than "slightly below average."
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
Versus the Emu and Brady Quinn both.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:46 PM ^
that was a generalization. but the D gave up a lot of yards in the first half. (similar to michigan last year putting up massive yardage totals but failing to get the points.) to be fair, it did look like they were turning it on when the game got called. but besides the two TD returns, you can't say this was a good defensive performance. the pieces are though; i hope they can build on them through the season!
September 3rd, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^
you're not adjusting for the pick:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/glossary.htm#ay/a
WMU's adjusted yards per play was shite. it was a beatdown.
September 3rd, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^
The secondary doesn't look to be much improved (though in fairness, TWoolf played very little of an already abbreviated game). Front seven are better; the consistent QB pressure and pass rush was good to see.