What is the biggest one year jump for Total Defense in Football?
I am not wearing the Maize colored glasses today sipping Hoke's Special Kool-Aid by my UM-themed pool thinking about a Top 10 D, but am considering our current situation and some recent player comments. When considering the following, I wonder if we have a chance at the record of the biggest jump:
- We are starting from 108 out of 120 which provides a chance for a big leap
- We are returning a decent number of starters
- Huge, huge upgrade at DC
- Apparent upgrade with Defensive position coaches
- Comments like "Everyone knows their roles. Everyone knows why they've got to do this, why they've got to do that. In the old defense, we just knew this was what we were supposed to do. We really didn't understand it." from Jibreel Black seeming to indicate that we at least understand the scheme better.
I suppose the only wildcard to dramatic improvement would if the offense implodes and stresses our defense. Just getting to average provides a 50 spot boost. Allowing 350 yards a game and cracking the top 40 is a 68 position jump. Maybe that is not completely unreasonable considering spots 35-45 last year were NCST, Arizona, Illinois, Hawaii, Va Tech, Fla St, Missouri, San Diego State, Air Force, Penn State, Maryland. Granted, that is a 100 yards/game improvement from last year which would be stunning. I don't know what our upside is, I am at least feel optimistic about our chances.
Ann Arbor, 2011 (pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease)
Wow. How did you figure that out so quickly? And I'm not being sarcastic... I guess google, "largest jump in team defense back to back seasons?"
350 years a game? some of them recently have felt even longer than that...
And that's not including the 20 year MMB halftime show.
Embedding:
- Click "share" and then "embed" on YouTube page.
- Copy embed code.
- Switch MGoBlog to plain text editor.
- Paste embed code.
- Switch back to rich text editor and look for a box with "iframe" in it.
- ?
- Profit.
edit: nope, looks like step 6 is important. I'll try again when the computer I'm on has English based commands...
Yea you can't forget about step six; how else would people be able to afford to be on MGoBlog all day?
the sincerity there in your thank you.
An offense that doesn't give the ball away (quick score or three and out) should help the defensive situation tremendously. Last year's defense looked tired at the end of games. A year of experience and a rational offense should help.
Oh, that Mattison guy should help too.
Not to be the RR lover guy but what exactly about last year's offense was irrational? How many points and yards we were able to put up?
<br>
<br>I understand the whole ball control thing but I, for one, kind of like points and yards. Won't find oregon's defense from last year complaining that their offense worked too quickly, I don't think.
<br>
<br>If our defense looked tired last year, it's likely because they couldn't get off the field on 3rd down and any distance (remember Iowa?).
<br>
<br>Resume Hoke uber alles.
Rational, as in positive or at least close to positive time of possession. I certainly don't put all the blame on the offense but quick possessions certainly didn't help a young defense.
I place absolutely zero of the blame for our defensive woes on the offense. By any measure, we had one of the most prolific offenses in the country. Mix in a kicking game and a defense that could get off the field and we would've been scary good.
<br>
<br>Is it our offense's fault that Mikel Leshoure didn't have a defender within fifteen yards of him on those wheel routes? Or that Scott Tolzien had one freaking incompletion against us?
<br>
<br>You can't run a ball control offense when your defense can't stop umass. And the argument that our style lent itself only to quick drives is a straw man. It's not as if our offense was 50 yard bombs and no running game. Should we have had Denard break into the open field and take a knee? I can hear Beckmann in the ND game now "and they'll never catch him...oh wait yes they will he appears to be jogging at the insistence of RR."
<br>
<br>Besides, what about a pro style or west coast offense makes you believe the offense will spend more time on the field? 3 and outs are 3 and outs regardless of scheme.
<br>
<br>The only things that "didn't help a young defense" were GERG, inexperience, lack of size, angry Michigan secondary god and the like.
<br>
<br>RR deserves pleeeenty of blame for a lot of things but an offense that works too quickly and doesn't let the defense rest is NOT one of them.
Michigan ranked 113 in percentage of time of possession in 2010.
"But they score so fast!"
Not exactly...they ranked 25 in scoring offense, which included a basketball score against Illinois. San Diego State ranked 20 in scoring offense, for what its worth.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the 2010 defense but I think the offense deserves at least some of the blame.
Michigan's offense was severely hindered by the lack of support from the defense and special teams.
Just think of it this way: If Michigan could have attempted the field goals they wanted to, let's say they kick 18. Let's say, our kickers make 13 field goals instead of 4. 13 out of 18 (72%) seems reasonable for a team that put up the yardage we did.
So add 27 points to our total. 27 pts/13 games = 2.1~ ppg increase for Michigan.
We averaged 32.6 ppg, this would have jumped us to 34.7. Which actually puts us at 20th in the nation, right behind SDSU who finished 19th.
That is just taking into account something as basic as having a competent field goal kicker. Having a defense that stops no one and generates no turnovers is another topic for another day.
I'm not going to go over it again, but the biggest flaws of the offense were things that could be not be avoided. The only real weakness by Year Three of the RR era that could be attributed to him was the inability to find a backfield sidekick for Denard. But then again, when you think about that, Brandon Minor was plenty competent, but always hurt, for two years. So maybe even that was just another rousing contribution to RR's new book "Bad Luck, Bad Timing: My 3 Years in Ann Arbor".
First of all, my intention wasn't to be anti-Hoke or comparative. I love that big-bellied man and everyday get more excited about this recruiting class and the future.
My only point is to keep the blame for last year where it belongs - on the defense. You keep pointing to time of possession, but that's a much more relational stat than what we're arguing about. With a better defense you'd better believe our net TOP would have improved. And scoring? See above for discussion of a kicker.
And again, not to get comparative, but don't tell me about SDSU's scoring offense and in the same breath mitigate our statistics with references to our opponents. Their opponents included Nicholls State, New Mexico State, Utah State, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado St., UNLV, etc. While they have respectable games against Mizzou, BYU, TCU, and Utah, they didn't exactly play a B1G schedule. Guess what, Tulsa had a top 5 scoring offense, but come on, it's apples and oranges.
I just refuse to place blame for a horrible defense on our offensive scheme. By the way, in net TOP, Oregon ranked 102 while coming in at 31 in total defense, and the "rational" offense you're advocating for ranked 100 in net TOP at SDSU.
I think it would have been nice if the coaching staff could have called some "ball control" plays when the Defense needed a break last year. In other words; hand the ball to someone other than Denard. The Defense, or more accurately, the Defensive Coordinator was a known liability in 2010 but the offense wouldn't (or couldn't) give them a break. I don't know how much it would have helped but couldn't have hurt.
The other side of that is, as you point out, the Defense couldn't stop anything and the kicking game was terrible which makes a ball control system difficult for a lot of reasons. I suppose it's possible my I'm not giving the Rodriguez offense the credit it deserves because the bad decisions (hiring G. Robinson, not recruiting someone who can kick straight, etc.) on every other part of the game.
It's possible for a team with a spread offense to also have a good defense but it seems it doesn't usually happen that way. I welcome an offense that allows the defense to stand on the sidelines. At the same time I hope for a defense that can get the offense back on the field. I don't think it's unreasonable to want both.
Note: Ball control is pretty useless when playing from behind. I hope we can play with a lead against good teams a little more this year.
Me optimistic is this quote right here
"35-45 last year were NCST, Arizona, Illinois, Hawaii, Va Tech, Fla St, Missouri, San Diego State, Air Force, Penn State, Maryland."
So being in this range isnt bad by any means (considering we were 108) and Brady Hoke coached at SDSU with lesser talent and SOME i would THINK lesser coaching ability. When you bring in a guy like Greg Mattison then you have a chance to enhance your defense with him alone. All the guys on defensive coaching staff have tons of experience. So I think our defense can be in this range of 35-45. But more realistically like the 50-60.
Either way says we should win more than 7 ball games and not have to scrap to get that 7th like we did with illinois.
SDSU was also facing a lesser schedule.
Was it a lesser schedule than they faced in 2009? That's the more relevant comparison.
504 Timeout fun.
It's funny you should mention Illinois. Last year they made a dramatic leap in total defense from the previous year. In 09 they were 91st in the nation yielding 403.3 yards/game. In 2010 they jumped all the way to 38 giving up 351.3 yards/game. They returned a number of talented starters and changed defensive coordinators. That improvement may be a decent template for how much better Michigan could hope to get on defense.
Given the change in coordinators and the increase in both depth (not veteran depth, but depth), and experience I don't think it is out of the realm of possibilities to better the yards/game allowed by 50 yards. If that happens M is giving up an average of 400.8 yards/game which would have put them at 85th nationally last year.
I think realistically the ceiling for M's defense is 375 yards/game. That's if they don't suffer a lot of attrition and/or injuries to key starters. In terms of national rank that would probably put them right around 60-70. I'd be pleased with that progress.
Just think for one moment what Illinois's defense would've been ranked had they not given up 67 points and over 600 yards to ......Michigan. That's one heck of an improvement by the Illini.
Holding Missouri to 23 points and OSU to 24 points was pretty impressive last year. I don't think they were the same after our game.
I spent some time pondering that myself. I'm thinking 45-55 and 4th or 5th in the B10.
6. Running a more ball control style of offense SHOULD help to keep the D off of the field for longer stretches and allow them to rest up and stay fresh (or more so) for the end of games.
7. Maybe a few stops on 3rd down to get our O on the field more often (can't get much worse than last year on 3rd down Defense)
UofM's defense will go from Yakety Sax to the Joker's theme from The Dark Knight.
I don't know what the biggest jump is but there are dozens of teams that have jumped 50+ spots in total yardage defense in just the past 5-10 years. Multiple teams make these leaps every single year. If Scout had a search function, I would look for some of the posts I made about this last fall.
Some examples from 2009 to 2010:
FIU jumped from 119 to 61.
WKU 118 to 68.
FSU 108 to 42.
TAMU 105 to 55.
It happens all the time and especially with young defenses, obviously.
Realistically, i think the defense will rank anywhere from 50th in the country, to around 75th at the lowest. I know it's a pretty big range but i think it's a safe bet to say they'll finish somewhere between there.
Their 2007 defense was horrible, allowing 477 yards per game (112th) and 37.9 points.
In 2008 they allowed 350 ypg (56th) and 28.5 ppg.
In 2009 they allowed 272 ypg (7th) and 10.4 ppg.
That's two massive improvements in consecutive years. Of course it's easier when you have Ndamukong Suh.
Mike Martin. I think there is a good chance we can make the jump to somewhere in the 40 range. We have essentially our entire defense from last year back with more experience, upgrades (or so it would appear) for the few who departed, Woolfolk and Floyd back and a great new coaching staff. If Coach Hoke could get SDSU to 45 with its level of talent, then I suspect that he, Mattison and the rest of the defensive coaches can get us to the same level.
No offense to you, or JT Floyd, but it's very doubtful he'll ever see significant playing time as a Wolverine again. This is a good thing. Sorry JT... I do appreciate your attitude and hard work.
Not to be negative, but I think the best thing for this team and coaching staff is for us to scale back the expectations a bit. At the end of the day, they're undergoing major changes to the offensive and defensive schemes with reduced practice time, real questions about the talent level on defense (and probably the talent-scheme match on offense), and we're coming off of a season in which we won the close games and got our asses kicked in the losses. I know that we're all feeling good about recruiting these days, but remember that it'll be a long time before these new guys are anchoring the team.
The last thing I want to do in life is temper expectations, three months before the season starts, about my favorite football team.
They're going to go 14-0 until I have hard evidence that requires me to believe otherwise.
More Kool-Aid please!!!
Not until you eat your vegetables.
More Kool-Aid please!!!
Ugh, fine, okay, just stop asking me.
I doubt random internet message board hypotheticals are affecting the Michigan football team or coaching staff. The best thing for them is to practice and learn the new systems.
I think you mean the best thing for our sanity is to scale back expecations a bit.
For now, it actually might help (e.g., with recruiting). If the "fire Hoke!" cries start after a semi-ugly quarter against WMU, though, we could be in for negativity and urgency that aren't good for the program (recruiting, redshirt decisions, etc.).
<br>Personally, I'm thrilled with the long-term prospects for Michigan football and more than willing to wait a couple of years to get there.
tempering expectations due to regime change...
I think that you don't understand that....
THIS IS MICHIGAN!
8-4 is my bare minimum for next year's team before the postseason begins.
The coaching staff has an offense in place that was poised to be excellent as long as it received some help on defense and special teams. That help came in the form of Mattison, experience and (hopefully?!) Wile. There is no excuse for the team not to improve upon it's win total for the third year running.
If Michigan had kept Rodriguez, my bare minimum would have been 9-3. I'm allowing Hoke a one game cushion for change.
Non-negotiable.
THIS IS MICHIGAN NONNEGOTIAIAIFASITBLE HERPEDERPEDERP
UNACCEPTABLE!@$!@$!$@#%$@!
These are the two big keys. Stop both and we should move up quite a bit.
and compete for the Legends division this year . Getting Mattison was HUGE for you guys, he coached the best defense in the NFL.
When Nebraska hired Bo Pelini, we went from 112th in 2007 to 55th in 2008 to 7th in 2009, with the same players, thats 50 spots improvement in consecutive years.
It can be done and I'm convinced it'll happen that fast for you guys.
I'm glad you post here. Seriously; it's nice to get an informed outsider's perspective on things.
From 2005 to 2006, Wisconsin cut their yards allowed per game from 430 to 240. That's the single largest jump that I know of.
The largest jump that I know of for Michigan was from 1994 to 1995. We improved by 105 yards per game. Our first year D-coordinator in 1995?.... Greg Mattison.
I have to say, as much as he comes off as a meathead, Brett Bielema's a pretty good coach. I didn't think they could find an upgrade over Alvarez, but he may be one.