On Today's Defense
An awful lot of complaints today in the liveblog... I would like to address a few that I thought were nonsensical:
Did we play poorly on Defense?
In general, yes. A few guys played well (Martin, etc.) There was a lot of holding, their O-Line was HUGE, but still very little excuse. Tackling was not there, especially. Kovacs was a monster, though.
Does GERG suck?
No. This is important. GERG did not make any major adjustments in this game. Nothing new was shown. Therefore, GERG called an excellent defensive game. We saw some offensive wrinkles we haven't seen yet with this D, and GERG reacted to them without varying current schemes. I would say that he will have a response against the next team that shows the same offensive style.
So why am I okay with the way the defense played?
The hand wasn't tipped. There were no new plays and there was no new useful video generated. I prefer winning by a little while looking like crap using old material on D against a bad team than winning by a lot and tipping our hand showing new material to the rest of our opponents.
In conclusion:
Does our D need work? Yes. Are there major deficiencies in the personnel? Yes. Is GERG one of them? No. Will next week look the same? I think we'll win close games until we reach the next big team... I would prefer we don't make adjustments in-game unless it's absolutely necessary against a non-BCS team.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^
...suddenly scares the crap out of me.
September 19th, 2010 at 12:44 AM ^
Agreed.
This is probably going to be the only post I make about this week's game, because:
- Our offense was great.
- Our defense and special teams were awful.
But everyone already knows that. There's not much more to say. (Plus I know very little about defense, and thus have nothing really to say that will be insightful.)
But by means of general commentary, here's the thing.
Most people were thinking 7-5 going into the season. That's what I was thinking. After the excitement of the past 2 weeks, I (and I'm sure others too) got carried away and was thinking more like we'd *definitely* go 7-5, and 8-4 was *very* doable.
I've come back down to earth.....earth being 7-5....with my expectations. Others, though, it appears have come crashing down with their expectations and are expecting impending doom.
Let's have some perspective here, folks.
The first 2 weeks were euphoric. Let's enjoy them for what they were, but also not let ourselves get carried away.
But let's also not get carried away with panic from today.
Is our D good? No. Is it better than last year? Probably not by much, but overall I'm still saying yes.
We came away with a win. So let's all breathe a collective sigh of relief, and keep the expectations reasonable. We can still attain them....which means improvement....and which means a bowl game. That's what counts most this year.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
5-7, 6-6. I have a hard time seeing more than 3 wins the rest of the way with how bad the defense and special teams look.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
Really, you have a hard time seeing more than 3 wins against Bowling Green, Indiana, Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue, Penn State, and the 3 big uglies?
Get out of panic mode, and return to rational thought. We're going to be fine. We didn't learn anything new out of this game except that our defense has trouble against teams in the top 70 in the Sagarin Rankings. And that our running game will be just fine.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
September 18th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
The offense is considerably better. It's looking like one of Rodriguez' old WV teams.
The defense is still weak, which is disappointing but understandable. 4 of the 5 best players from last year's defense are gone. The secondary has a near-total lack of experience and is starting 2 guys who were receivers last year. The defense is unlikely to be good this year, but it could and should get better as the season goes on.
September 18th, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^
combo of lack of talent (in some areas of the field) but mostly lack of experience and somewhat schemem IMO!
September 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
I agree; even after the wins, I said that I was sticking to my 6-6 prediction.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^
just like any poster who said Oklahoma sucked this year after their close win over a cupcake.
1 is an anomaly - 2 is a trend.
I am curious about what appeared to be a big rotation in the defensive personel - Leach was getting owned out there on at least one drive.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
Some great thoughts. But Firstbase made one at least as good.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
basically 2.....2.....2 f'ing 100 yard rushers (114 & 96). that stat is scary.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
GERG called an excellent defensive game
We gave up 432 yards to a D-II team. That's not excellent. The defense looked lost, unprepared and unmotivated.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
Yeah he lost me after that statement
September 18th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
they are d-1 (previously AA but now FCS)
September 18th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
That is a poor excuse for a 2 time super bowl winning DC!
September 18th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^
13 Freshman, Sophomores, and Walkons in the defensive 2-deep.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
I consider an 'excellent defensive game' against an I-AA team a game in which no new plays are called. In fact, I'd rather see RPS -'s against I-AA teams as long as we win - generate useless video.
If I was a DC, and we had a very low chance of losing, I'd intentionally call mediocre matchups in order to screw with future watchers of that game video, even if it brought the game close. Who cares about the spread. A W is a W.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
I'm sorry, but I HATE this reasoning.
This just flat-out doesn't happen. Our coaches do not call a "bad game plan" intentionally, ever. And if they did (which they don't), being down ten points in the first half certainly would have stopped any of that (not that it started in the first place).
It's a lame excuse, and the fact that the correct adjustments weren't made is a bad sign, not a good one.
Hopefully, we'll get it together for next week.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
You have a poor grasp of long-term strategy. It's a single battle, not the war. We were bloodied, but we didn't throw away resources unnecessarily to win.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
I hate this reasoning because you have a poor grasp on reality and football. This is defense, not offense: we don't have a bunch of "plays" that we're keeping a big secret. We have a base set (3-3-5 stack, where we run a couple of variations on pash rush and coverage). We ran this base-set nearly 100% of the time against ND (aka a big game). There's just not a ton of variety -- nothing to hide. And we certainly don't have some extra, secret personnel that we're saving to unleash for big10 season--Unless Michael Williams is secretly Ed Reed, or Denard is going to play corner.
And finally, i'll repeat myself, if Greg Robinson is calling an intentionally bad gameplan, in a game where we were down by 10, then he should be fired. But he didn't, because he's not that much of an idiot.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
There are defensive "plays" that are called coverages, and there are methods of blitzing, and there are playbook match-ups where you call X against Y that Brian likes to call RPS+/-. Obviously you know this.
If a Cover 2 doesn't work against a play, then you run a Cover 3, or man, or you send a couple more guys at the line, or run one of the bunch of other coverages that are probably in the defensive playbook... but if you never show what your other coverages look like against that play, because you are bending but not particularly breaking, then other teams don't know what you are going to do when they bring that play at you. Therefore, you play a team later on who comes in expecting you to do A against their B because you did A on the video, and instead you do C, and they are like well crap, that video was useless. Thus, long-term strategy win, even if it looks like a short-term tactical loss.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
I understand your premise, I promise I do. And maybe if we're up 30 the entire game, then I agree.
But we weren't. We were breaking, and could not afford to hold anything back. And I sincerely do not believe GERG was doing this. Our failures were a combination of a bad scheme for this type of offense, inexperienced personnel, and bad adjustments -- not intentional vanilla-ness.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^
Isn't some 'new' coordinator saving stuff in his scheme, blitz and personnel packages. UMASS could have 30 yrs of data on GERG and then look at a secondary that might be as good as an average FCS team.
He was outcoached today. It's OK to say it.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
Winning by less than one score is a failure when it's an FBS program like Michigan against an FCS program.
Bottom line: Whether we showed new wrinkles or not, 37 points is too much to give up. I appreciate your attempt to be optimistic, but it's okay to be realistic, too.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
win!
James Madison BEAT Virginia Tech. They weren't even ranked! Michigan with Chad Henne and Jake Long LOST TO APP STATE.
Was this good. NO. IS IT THE END OF THE WORLD OMG WE ARE TOTALLY FUCKED RR IS GONE OMG! NO!!!!
We aren't going to win a National Championship but we RR will be here next season. Anybody wanna bet on it?
September 18th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^
So you're saying that a win is better than a loss?
I feel enlightened.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
A piss poor defensive effort was. No one on this thread is talking about NC or RR being axed. The D sucked and the correlation is this: If that is the kind of defense M will play against superior personnel.....*thumb sucking*
September 18th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
Is ND better on offense (and defense) than UMass?
Do they have more talent?
I'm watching the ASU/UW game and ASU is shutting down WISCO. ASU has NEVER EVER had a good defense.
Nothing is fucked.
September 20th, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^
Thank you for putting that, more people need to be realistic.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
They're the equivalent of a decent MAC team. Their offense is better than UConn's. I'd take Havens over Frazer any day of the week.
On the other hand, with the exception of Martin the defense indeed looked lost, unprepared, and unmotivated.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^
lol...Yeah, they are just gonna be vanilla and let teams hang around and possibly lose so they dont have to show anything for "big" games...lol
September 18th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
why couldn't we play delaware st again?
September 18th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
ugly kicking + ugly defense = long painful season
September 18th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
I'm beginning to think that GERG has family members that post on here. How the hell can you say he called a good game? UMASS is a D1-AA team! The spread was close to 30 points...it's not like UMASS scored on some fluke special teams plays, they simply marched down the field a few times. Not good, not good at all.
Rich Rod has to be wondering what he has to do to get a decent DC on staff.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
The spread is about getting suckers to part with their money. Nothing else.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
The hand wasn't tipped? I think you overestimate the complexity of our defense. We're just trying to get guys in the right spot and have them make their tackles - I highly doubt GERG has some complicated exotic packages that he is keeping under wraps.
Bottom line: We have mediocre middle LB play, a very young secondary, and a line that is a little undersized. We're just not that good and the only thing we can do is keep trying to recruit better players and try to get everybody on the same page so they can progress together as a unit.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
The hand wasn't tipped
What hand is that? The "Michigan has a lot more depth in the secondary" hand?
September 18th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
it was at least partly just a let-down from last week. Its very hard to get sky-high for every game.
That being said........damn.....that looked like one of the worst Michigan defensive efforts i can recall since........last year.
UMASS is not a bad team....not by a long shot. But they made our defense look pathetic.
Please tell me we are not really pathetic.....
Without the 2 quick scores just before the half......that was most likely a loss.
We dodged a bullet.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^
I didn't realize how blindly loyal most readers are on this blog until this game. I'm not advocating a regime change by any means, but if you can't admit that this was an absolutely abysmal, embarrassing showing on defense, then you have lost any hope for objectivity. We were at home. We were playing a FCS school. We gave up more points than either of UMass's FCS opponents so far this year. This was a horrible, horrible defensive performance today.
There's little sense in blaming anyone right now, but this is not a proud day for U-M football. If not for Denard, we would have lost this game. And badly.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
I'll bet most folks won't even want to watch the highlights on ESPN or any other college half time show this week. We cringed when the first round of highlights came on as the lede was "Michigan narrowily avoids another Appy State". Sounds good.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
AND JAMES MADISON BEAT VIRGINIA TECH.
WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?
September 18th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
You need to calm down.
September 18th, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
Who the hell cares what James Madison did to VT?
WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR POINT?
September 18th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
am i the only one who thinks that ezeh is a big reason for our defensive struggles. he looks lost in pass coverage. and he allows himself to get sealed off on the run plays way too easily. it seems like he seeks out the TE or pulling guard and is satisfied with just allowing himself to get wrapped up.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^
Ezeh has flashes of absolute suck surrounded by decent play. It's an improvement from last year's flashes of absolute awesome surrounded by crappy play.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
Look at some stats from his days with the Chiefs. I said we'd be winning games 41-38 and I stand by that. He's still a vast improvement over Hopson with the linebackers.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:50 PM ^
yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this. we looked exactly like UConn's D looked in the first half of that first game. slow to ball, unable to wrap up and not really awake at all. there were definitely a lot of plays where guys were in the right spot, but couldn't make a play. that stuff is not on Coach Robinson... but you can not possibly say he called an excellent game.
the scary part is that UMASS looked like a minor league ringer for Wisconsin, except there's no we come out of that game with a win if our D plays like this.
this isn't the end of the world, folks, and whoever said this is the same team as last year, go off yourself, but there's going to be some adversity this year and we're going to have to scratch and claw at times. This team did not look awake today, and UMASS played their guts out behind a bigass line. We'll refocus, and I bet we see huge difference in effort next week against Bowling Green as we prep for the B10 season.
Denard still looks pretty unstoppable, and I liked the emergence of Shaw and Stonum today. We'll be fine. If anything, I like that Denard played the whole game and will maintain his sharpness as a result. Would we all like M to be ahead enough to give him a breather? Sure, but this way he keeps the momentum up.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^
Actually, you agreed with me... I said the play of the players was a problem, not the scheme played.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
Our d sucked today. The scheme and the execution were horrible.
But as long as we don't show a new blitz or new personnel and we win our D coordinator called a good game.
September 18th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
the question is; do we judge the defense by its best performance or its worst?