Youth on offense vs. youth on defense
Question -
Looking through the depth chart, it looks like we have 1 freshman, 4 sophmores, 4 juniors and 2 seniors starting on offense and 2 freshman, 4 sophmores, 2 juniors and 3 seniors starting on defense. That seems pretty similar to me, yet the results are anything but. I understand that there are TRUE vs. redshirt freshman getting pt on defense, which accounts for some of the disparity, but how can the offense be among the nations best so young, while the defense is among the nations worst. All of the talk coming in was how complicated RR's offense was and how it would take a few years for it to develop as the right type of players got the right type of experience. So far that has held true and we are starting to see the fruit of their labor. Is our defense that much harder to figure out than our offense? Is the talent better on offense than defense? Or has the coaching been that much better for the offense? In the immortal words of Jerry Seinfeld (or at least Jerry Seinfeld impersonators), "What is the deal?"
October 19th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^
Easier to limit how your young players hurt you on offense than it is on defense, where other teams can target those weaknesses.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
I find it somewhat ironic that people are so excited about the youth of this offense, but shocked and appalled at the youth of this defense. "Why can't RRod get some experienced defenders out there?" vs. "RRod has depth for the next 3 years for all offensive positions!"
Farnn is right though. What has been killing us these past two games is when offensive mistakes coincide with defensive mistakes. What may have been +7 points for us becomes +7 points for the bad guys. 14 point swings right there.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
Also, someone on here did a study to show that performance at certain positions (e.g. RB) is not dependent upon experience. (Mike Hart.) Unfortunately, I have the memory of a goldfish with alzheimer's and can't remember the details or who posted it... I can look for it though.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^
When you have mistakes on both sides fo the ball, you will most likely be beaten
October 19th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
Because youth isn't the only factor here. Depth and talent are also big issues for us on defense.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^
Seems like since we are dealing with depth, talent and inexpereince, we are not as good
October 19th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
Your take is interesting, but if you spend 5 seconds looking at why certain players are playing it is easily explained.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
One of our seniors is obi ezeh, who hopefully will be replaced. Also, james rogers is a 5th yr senior. I don't count him as a senior because he has less experience at cb than jt floyd. Mouton the other sr is average. I think if we look at players on defense who started last year (kovacs, martin, vb) we see an above average group of players.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
Rogers is a true senior.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
is scary. The BWC move to OL really makes no sense. Patterson, Banks, Saguesse, possibly Martin, and BWC. Who does that leave? Ash and Talbott.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
All they have to do, is do one thing on any given play and do it reasonably well. Run the route, catch the ball. Take the handoff, hit the hole. For positions like O-line, experinece and age/strength help out tremendously, which is why is rare to see true freshman playing there. And I think we all remember how 1st year QB's work out.
For defense, as someone else stated above, you're responible for much more, have to react to what the offense if throwing at you, and you can be exploited. Plus, most young guys on defense, simply aren't strong enough to handle upperclassmen. All recipes for distaster for the young and inexperienced.
October 19th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
Youth hurts at most positions on defense. It hurts mostly at QB and on the line on offense. On offense, a true freshman RB, slot, or WR can shine if he is really fast. His assignments are more individual in nature and don't require a lot of reading, nor do they require a person to be a year or two older, and thus bigger and stronger, like the line does.
On defense, a Ty Law or Charles Woodson can shine at CB if he has decent players around him, particularly at safety, to compensate for his occasional errors. I think this brings it back to talent and depth, as someone already mentioned. A great defense can break in a talented underclassman or two and make up for their mistakes. When half of your defense is underclassmen, though, you are in trouble.
The upside is that underclassmen will eventually be upperclassmen. That is why so many, including myself, are preaching patience. It will eventually work out fine for Michigan; it's just going to be a year or two (or three) later than most of us anticipated or wanted.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
I think it's important, as a general principle, to remember that offensive players know where they're going on a given play. (It's an out route, or block the safety, etc.) Defense is largely reactionary, and when reacting to the new, greater speed of a college offense, freshmen are always slow.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
.....but experience at playing time as well. Rogers is a senior, yet is seeing his first true game experience this year at corner due to position change. Our secondary is filled with starters and backups who are just this year seeing meaningful time at the positions as starters. Not ideal for quality secondary play.
As such, we get burned a ton mostly for players playing out of position, and even more by players playing the WRs too soft, hence the 10 yard curls and 7-9 yard outs/ins that are open all day long to opposing QBs. I expect a major improvement next year in the secondary, one that should end up being a plus to the defense.
Our DL is another story entirely. Upperclassmen fill the two deep, other than Black, and it looks serious for 2012 and beyond unless we see a major DL haul this season for recruiting.
Overall, I expect the D will be average, to better than average, next season, with 2012 being a question mark, not for the secondary, but for the DL.
October 19th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
Take a peek at the second string for a second.
October 19th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
Have you read Misopogan's Decimated Defense? Should explain everything you need to know.
October 19th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
when you look at something in isolation, without any context. If a young player is playing on offense, it means they beat out another talented guy with more experience. See Lewan unseating Huyge. See the potential for Hopkins to take carries from Smith and Shaw because he has been good. See Roundtree lighting it up as a frosh, beating out experienced players to earn pt. See Omameh working his way in the starting lineup at a veteran group. See Koger playing ahead of more experienced options last year. Need I go on?
Now look at the defense. "Senior" James Rogers is a position switch starter seeing the field for the first time-he is effectively a freshman. Roh should have redshirted, couldn't. The entire DL has been average to great and we are happy to return those guys. Floyd at CB has been our best DB and he was supposed to be the 5th or so option at CB, the kind of player that would likely see PT as a Junior/Senior. He has developed nicely and I'll be happy to have him next year. Free Safety is a freshman position switch starter that (IMO) is playing out of position. Other safeties are true freshman and a well-developed walk-on that we want back. Mouton will be missed but has been streaky as a senior - its a talent issue there. Ezeh is in the process of being beat out by a talented underclassman that we want back.
You can't just say "we have x numbers of upperclassman on either side of the ball, why aren't we good?"
October 20th, 2010 at 7:27 AM ^
I was just posing the question for discussion, not trying to argue a point with 1 stat pulled out of context.
October 19th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
It's not just an issue of youth, it's an issue of experience. Most of our offensive starters also started or saw major playing time last year. Basically the only one who didn't is Denard, and he has phenomenal talent.
The D has a number of first-string players who never saw the field before this season, or had a very minor role if they did: Rogers, Cam Gordon, Thomas Gordon, Banks, Johnson. Demens. And the guys behind them are generally even less experienced.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^
Defense this much? They have been suckin it up on defense for years. I sure hope we never get to the point where we expect to be bad on defense every year like those schools. That would be bad
October 19th, 2010 at 11:31 PM ^
Defense this much? They have been suckin it up on defense for years. I sure hope we never get to the point where we expect to be bad on defense every year like those schools. That would be bad