The wholly mediocre defense...
Ever since the pre-season we've been hearing how the defense is great.
Even after the results of the season up to this point - folks still hold out the defense as being very good and having the potential to approach the elite.
Problem is - the results just don't show anything of the sort. The defense is mediocre.
In Defensive FEI (adjusted for opponent strength) Michigan is #50/128.
We're 11th in the B1G behind:
Penn St. (#5)
Iowa (#17)
Nebraska (#20)
Rutgers (#23)
Minnesota (#26)
Ohio State (#38)
Michigan St. (#39)
Wisconsin (#44)
Maryland (#45)
Northwestern (#49)
This is a defense starting:
Beyer: SR - 4 star recruit
Clark: SR - 3 star
Glasgow: RS SO - 1 star
Henry: RS SO - 3 star
Ross: JR - 4 star
Ryan: RS SR - 3 star
Bolden: JR - 4 star
Lewis: SO - 4 star
Taylor: SR - 4 star
Wilson: JR - 4 star
Clark: RS SO - 3 star
Countess: RS JR - 4 star
Their backups include: 5 star: Ondre Pipkins, Jabrill Peppers 4 star: RJS, Ben Gedeon, Terry Richardson, Delano Hill, Tom Strobel,Mike Mcray, Taco Charlton, Henry Poggi, Ross Douglas, Dymonte Thomas, Michael Ferns.
They aren't young - Only ONE starter who has been on campus less than 3 years (Lewis). They aren't lacking raw talent- only one starter who was less than a 3 star (Glasgow), and a total roster that includes 21 4 or 5 star recruits. ...but they are a mmediocre B1G defense.
So what is the story here????
...and why in the world do people keep talking about our "good" defense?
October 16th, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^
for the reminder
October 16th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
Does FEI take into account field position, time of posession, and other metrics that the offense affects?
October 16th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
I believe so. That is probably why our 2010 defense was (IIRC) #2 in FEI, despite their relatively low scores in some games. I don't know how it treats turnovers.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^
You mean 2010 offense right? I don't think the 2010 defense was #2 in anything, unless FEI stands for Futile Effort Index
October 16th, 2014 at 7:27 PM ^
To me, that just points out a flaw in FEI. The #2 offense in the nation doesn't completely fall apart against better defenses, as it did in 2010. MSU, OSU, Mississippi State, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin and even ND held our offense in check effectively that year. That's nearly half of the teams on the schedule.
The 2010 offense was explosive, sure, but not consistently good. Which brings me to the point that there's no way in hell I believe our defense is 11th in the Big Ten. They haven't been great, sure, 11th is a stretch in my opinion.
FEI can be a good tool, but it shouldn't be taken as gospel. I'm an engineer, so I'm all for removing human bias and digging into the numbers, but you also need a sanity check sometimes. Perhaps Rutgers is ranked #23 in defense because they've played PSU, Michigan, Howard, and Tulane, with their only "good" competition being Washington State and Navy. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, they gave up 38 to WSU and 24 to Navy.
October 17th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
the QB had 500 total yards of offense against ND and UM scored 4 touchdowns against Wisconsin. cmon.
October 17th, 2014 at 6:34 PM ^
That 500 yards of offense got us a total of 24 points. Not terrible, but not "#2 offense in the nation" great. Yards=/=points, unfortunately for that 2010 squad. And the Wisconsin defense let up 28 points, but the offense was scoreless in the first half and didn't score until the game was out of hand.
So that and the fact that the offense got absolutely shut down in 3 other games tells me that Michigan's offense wasn't trule number 2 in the nation that year. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
Yes.
The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) considers each of the nearly 20,000 possessions every season in major college football. All drives are filtered to eliminate first-half clock-kills and end-of-game garbage drives and scores. A scoring rate analysis of the remaining possessions then determines the baseline possession efficiency expectations against which each team is measured. A team is rewarded for playing well against good teams, win or lose, and is punished more severely for playing poorly against bad teams than it is rewarded for playing well against bad teams.
- DFEI: Defensive FEI, the opponent-adjusted efficiency of the given team's defense.
- DE: Defensive Efficiency, the raw unadjusted efficiency of the given team's defense, a measure of the actual drive success of its opponents against expected drive success based on field position.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:21 PM ^
Yes.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef
There are things that our defense is good at if you look through the metrics - where we get stung is that we are 75th on Defensive SOS. For example, we are 29th in Defensive Efficiency and 21st in FD (drives that have at least one first down or end in a touchdown).
October 16th, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^
So the Offensive FEI of Michigan past oppenents is as follows -
- 40 Notre Dame
- 45 Rutgers
- 71 Minnesota
- 92 Penn State
- 95 Utah
- 102 Miami (OH)
- 126 App State
Remaining Oppenents oFEI
- 29 Ohio State
- 32 Indiana
- 36 Michigan State
- 43 Northwestern
- 86 Maryland
Just looking at that makes me shudder...
October 16th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
Indiana's will change. They have no more QB's left.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:01 PM ^
That we're really not that good?
I dunno - just a guess.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^
in practice they have to go up against 5* sleds/chutes and tackling dummies.....thus the loss of confidence
October 16th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^
We can't even have an enjoyable week when we win.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:43 PM ^
And it is a bye week.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
Excuses from the Hokeamaniacs:
- they practice well every week, weird shit happens on game day
- Notre Dame is probably National Championship material
- Utah is actually a dark horse to win the Pac-12
- Don't count Minnesota and Rutgers out of the B1G race
- Rich Rod
October 16th, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^
Hilarious
October 16th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
Hoke lost the last bit of my respect when he expressed surprise after the Minnesota game about the mistakes in the game because they had a good week of practice.
Occam's Razor says that Hoke doesn't understand what a good practice looks like. And practice doesn't make perfect...perfect practice makes perfect.
October 16th, 2014 at 5:02 PM ^
This issue is pretty alarming. It seems that Desmond Howard drew the same conclusion when he commented on the lack of effort at the UM practice.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
I mean the defense isn't great or anything, but you can't just look at FEI and say we aren't good. Other numbers that I'm too lazy to look up say we are not too bad.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
YPC against the defense has been low almost every game which puts less pressure on the secondary. I say the secondary has underacheived if anything. They could really use Peppers. I think he would provide a lot of energy. Hope he plays against State.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^
So, average?
That's kinda what mediocre means, isn't it?
October 16th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
I was trying to say that I think we are better than 11th in defense in the Big 10
October 16th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
average is a synonym for mediocre. Are we average? I'd prefer to use the median instead of the mean. There are 128 FBS, putting the median at 64.5. We're better than the median if you consider all FBS teams, but I think the expectation is that of course we're going to be better than the MAC schools and other non-Power 5 teams. Being 11th in the Big Ten puts us solidly below average.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
Michigan has been in EVERY game because of the defense. Even the ND game.
The offense has let the defense down this year.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 16th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^
We were in the ND game?
We were in the Minnesota game?
Despite the fact that these are ridiculous assertions, should we be satisfied simply being "in" games against teams like Utah and Rutgers? It's so sad that we're looking for silver linings by claiming that we had a chance against Rutgers.
October 16th, 2014 at 5:47 PM ^
I'm not justifying the team's losses. But they have been in every game because the defense held for the first half before being left on the field for far too long by a offense that can't find its stride and put together sustained drives.
In the Minnesota game Michigan was down 10-7 at the half thanks to the defense.
In the ND game the team was down 21-0 at the half thanks in part to a late score on a short field. So, for the majority of the first the team was in the game. With any points in the first half, Michigan had a shot.
The offense has been shit. I won't argue that. But outside of a tough night again Rutgers, the Defense has been solid.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 16th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
Are you looking at boxscores when you say the defense has been left on the field to long?
Against ND, UM won the time of possession 33 minutes to 27 minutes. Time of possession was pretty much even at the half.
Against Utah, UM won the time o possession 33:32 to 26:28. UM had a slight edge at the half with time of possession.
Against Minny, Minny won the time of possession 34:40 to 25:20 but that will happen when you give up 200 yds rushing.
Against Rutgers, the time of possession was pretty much even. UM 29:14, Rutgers 30:46. UM won the time of possession in the first half, about 17 minutes to 13 minutes.
October 16th, 2014 at 7:48 PM ^
Were only down 3 at the half against Minn.
October 16th, 2014 at 9:32 PM ^
And the game was over by the end of the third. So, I guess we were in the game . . . against Minnesota . . . at home . . . for a half.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
We are ranked #9 in total defense, but #50 in defensive FEI.
Pretty obvious what is going on here. Total defense is not adjusted for number of possessions or garbage time. Defensive FEI is, however: "The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) considers each of the nearly 20,000 possessions every season in major college football. All drives are filtered to eliminate first-half clock-kills and end-of-game garbage drives and scores. A scoring rate analysis of the remaining possessions then determines the baseline possession efficiency expectations against which each team is measured. A team is rewarded for playing well against good teams, win or lose, and is punished more severely for playing poorly against bad teams than it is rewarded for playing well against bad teams."
Some combination of garbage time, low tempo, and/or crushing shitty teams is inflating our traditional stats and making us look like a top 10 defense. Obviously, we do not have a top 10 defense.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
It could also be that our defense has only forced a pathetic 3 turnovers in 7 games. If FEI takes turnovers into account then it's no surprise that our defense comes out mediocre, since they have simply put up decent numbers against bad competition without ever setting up the offense in good field position.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:30 PM ^
Fremeau. He doesn't "get" our defense at all.
October 16th, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^
I penalize every Big 10 defense and ACC defense for the loads of crap offenses they play. Usually about 10 spots. So if someone is #9 in total defense, its more like #19 in reality. But this FEI shows its sometimes even worse than that.
Big 10 defenses benefit from playing 1-2 MAC schools for most of them and then pillow fighting each other most of the rest of the year. If these defenses went up weekly vs Pac 12 and Big 12 offenses they'd be LOL in rankings. A team like Washington State which is 2-5 can put up 40 on an average defense any week - same goes for a team like Texas Tech.
On the flip side I punish offenses to the same tune in those 2 conferences as the defensive prowess in the Pac 12 is limited to 1 team (Stanford) and maybe 1-2 (Kansas State, Oklahoma) in the Big 12 although Charlie Strong's group is going to be a 3rd.
I think week 4 or so the BIg 10 had 5 of the top 12 defenses in the country by "total defense" - the benefit of playing a lot of other bad Midwest offenses. Last year we had 3 of the countries top 7 defenses if you believe Wisconsin and Iowa had 2 of the top 7 defenses in the land. Etc.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^
There are some bizarre results in there, including 1-5 Wazzu at #35 overall.
I don't mean to defend anyone, but S&P looks a lot more realistic at this point (Michigan at #23).
October 16th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
I think by week 6 all of the advanced metrics are purely based on actual game day data.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^
As of this weeks results they are only using data from this season.
Washington St is an odd team - a really explosive offense and a really awful defense.
Washington State is #98 in Defensive FEI.
Washington State is #4 in Offensive FEI. They're #26 in unadjusted offensive efficiency.
They're 1-5, but 3 of 5 losses were by a touchdown or less (41-38 Rutgers, 38-31 Oregon, 60-59 Cal).
They're averaging 35.0 points per game, and 490 passing yards per game - and they've played the following defenses:
Stanford (DFEI #2)
Utah (DFEI #3)
Oregon (DFEI #21)
Rutgers (DFEI #23)
October 16th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
I thought they'd be better also. They good but not great. Of course, if they we're able to force a couple turnovers a game it would be a whole different story. One thing that gets me is the total lack of batted balls by the defensive line. Seems like UM's defensive line hardly ever gets a hand on a ball. Probably a big reason why the defemse hasn't created many turnovers.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
I think there are more severe problems, like not getting to the quarterback except against crappy, crappy offensive lines. Turnovers happen when players get pressured into making mistakes.
Typically, a defense picks an identity of coverage or blitz. Either you drop 7-8 into coverage on the regular, or send six or seven on most downs. Michigan does neither. 2011 was definitely a blitzing defense, and having two dominant DL really made the difference. I feel like there would be more payoff going back to that bucket, especially after the four-man rush looked more feeble than a kitten against Rutgers and we still couldn't cover anyone for very long.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^
The defense hasn't really been that bad sans Rutgers or ND. It hasn't been elite but it is respectable.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
Minnesota wasn't the prettiest either...
October 16th, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^
Yeah, but that's only half of our games. In all the other ones they've been pretty average.
October 16th, 2014 at 5:37 PM ^
And PSU has one of the worst offenses in FBS.
Other than Utah and PSU (again - awful) the defense did not do its job this year against Big 5 type teams. Lack of pass rush, bad secondary and the one time the defense went up against a rushing oriented offense the vaunted rush defense was smacked around. ND and Rutgers won via air, Minnesota via run. We did not take away their strengths.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
as VintageBlue said Minny wasn't that great either. The run defense was supposed to be one of the strengths of the defense and then Cobb rushes for 180 yards.
I wouldn't really argue with the defense being respectable, but I think most of us were figuring the defense to be better then respectable this year - the unit as a whole isn't that young and they had ample experience at lots of positions. As someone else said, they defense isn't the main problem with the team but it seems to have underperformed based upon preseason expectations.
October 16th, 2014 at 6:37 PM ^
And by my unofficial count, 317 of this yards were after first contact
October 16th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
Well outside ND, who have we played this year with a pulse?
Basically what we're seeing is this team dominate visibly inferior teams and get beat up by c decent teams. That doesn't suggest great defence to me.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^
A bad offense and a mediocre defense gets you a 3 and 4 record. If the defense was as good as we all hoped they would be Michigan would have had another win or two. The defense is not the biggest issue on this team, it is probably the best of the three phases of the game. But Mattison should not be immune from criticism, the defense has underperformed expectations.
October 16th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
It's been several weeks since anyone here claimed the D was anything remotely approaching elite. In fact, the vast majority were assuming Hackenberg would sit back and tear us to shreds.