Becoming? Yes.

Are they? I don't think so... not yet.

TOs and lack of penalties have become a plus.  Defense and special teams still have some points to make on the field.

TO margin really only says we played ND - I suppose, but I take the OPs point re: this D causing TOs as opposed to last years "Take it like a man" D.

This is a good post.

I would say yes if it weren't for kick coverage.. That's one of the biggest things we have to fix right meow. It's bad when EMU is getting to the 30/40 yard line consistently on kickoffs.

The offense is worse given the scheme, the defense is better due to great adjustments by Mattison.  I would say special teams are roughly the same with field goal kicking an unknown.

I like what I see though.  Borges isnt afraid to use the spread and there should be improvement in the punting when Hagerup returns which may let Wile get those kickoffs a little further.

I don't know if I would call them a "strength" yet.  Are they much improved?  Yes.  Are they showing promise?  Yes.  Can they potentially become a strength, even later this season?  Yes.  But are they a strength as of this moment?  I'm gonna have to say no

"becoming" is indefinite.  maybe in a year or two.  not this year.

One problem I have is the kickoff coverage.  It seems that we never stop them until they reach at least the 30, sometimes even the 40.  In contrast, our kickoff returns are usually brought to around the 20.  Giving teams that much extra field to start out with is huge, and we need to correct that somehow.

I hope they are both becoming positives.

Let's wait until we get into big ten play and see where they are. I have seen this movie too many times the past few years.

Kind of a yes and no.

When Notre dame marches down the field in 42 seconds and gets a TD, it is hard to say that the defense is improving.  I do think that Mattison makes adjustments that help, but that isn't the same as an improving defense.  That is what a good DC does.  I do think that some of the young guys that are playing will make much more progress than took place last year. 

The turnover margin looks good to date.  Some of that is attributable to the D, some to good luck, like when Rees drops the ball and we happen to recover.

There are some bright spots, like BWC.  Let's hope that trend continues as he could help us immensely if he finally figures things out.  I get the feeling, particularly when I listen to Mattison's pressers, that we are in much better hands than we have been in a while.

The real question is one of continued improvement in the defense and special teams play. 

My observation after watching the first 3 games is that the defense is still learning how to play this defense as a concept and where to line-up.  That being said, it appears that this set of defensive coaches teach better and identify talent and how to use it better than the last set of coaches.  At least, that is what the stats bear out so far. 

Since the NCAA does not count our stats against Western Michigan, we are currently ranked 76 out of 120 teams in total defense, 103rd in rushing defense, 26th in pass defense, 92nd in passing efficiency defense, 35th in scoring defense (bend but don't break? and turnovers!), tied for 11th in turnover margin.

As the season moves on, these are the stats to watch as both we and other teams play more games and get a larger sample size.

We still need to get deeper kick-offs and better kick-off return coverage, and continue to avoid any killer turnovers.

Here is the website where you can get the stats for parsing....

http://statistics.ncaafootball.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=ncaa-football&p…

Good post. One thing you didn't mention is that we've already seen a lot of change in personnel on defense through three games. Guys buried on the depth chart in week one like Hawthorne and now Taylor are getting a lot of snaps and have looked good. I expect the defense's performance to improve as the season goes on. It looks like we do have some depth this season.

Special teams and defense seem to be improved over last year; on the other hand, they had nowhere to go but up. To call them positives is an exaggeration.

Kickoff coverage and kickoff returns are still mediocre. Gallon has shown some signs on punt returns, but he isn’t yet a consistent threat. Matt Wile’s punting hasn’t hurt the team, but he hasn’t been strong, either. It is too soon to tell about FGs, as the team has attempted only one short kick, offset by a missed extra point in the first game.

On defense, Michigan gave up over 500 yards and over 30 points to the only non-MAC opponent it faced. After a slow start, Michigan dominated Western Michigan and Eastern Michigan, but bear in mind the Wolverines did the same two years ago.

Yes, there is improvement. The defense is showing good mid-game adjustments, isn’t giving up as many big plays, and has been strong on short-yardage running downs. But you can’t call the defense an asset until it shuts down a good opponent.

After having seen 4-0 and 5-0 starts most Wolverine fans can be a little hesitant if not skeptical to declare any major improvements in the defense until the Big 10 season starts. By the standard of whether we won or lost the game, at this point in the season, the defense is the same. If one uses other statistical parameters like yards yielded, it still has major issues. YET having acknowledged all of these concerns, the verdict is probably YES that the defense is better - the positive turn over ratio, fewer penalties and seemingly fewer blown coverages are all positive trending signs. The best sign is as you noted, the noticeable improvement and adjustment during each game. We all wish the defense would be like a wall from the first series, but it is heartening that it seems to get better with each successful series. Maybe that is something from Mattison NFL background where making adjustments and realizing what is happening during the game may be more important (just speculating).

Special teams are harder to assess. Hagerup hasn't played. Gibbons has not been put into any real pressure situations except making the PATs in the ND game.

Since you also mentioned the Illinois game, it is OT but is Nathan Scheelhasse adapting to throwing better than DR? DR is clearly the more explosive player, but throwing the ball, Scheelhasse seems more comfortable.

I think that the significant drop (and this may only be my perception that the drop is "significant") means that this team is showing a bit more indvidual discipline and maybe knowledge of what their roles are.  Confidence in one's role and responsibilities on the field, which are probably enhanced when fundamentals of football are reinforced, is leading to guys making fewer mental mistakes.

Unless things improve quickly our D is going to get exposed by a mediocre opponent in the short term.  Bullets:

• Our run D is terrible.  No sugarcoat--it's really bad.  Every team we have faced has run the ball at will.  This has been covered up by turnovers and bad decisions by the other temas' offenses to date.
• Our D Line is nowhere near where it should be with the players and coaches we have.  We can't get pressure with 4 and run D is bad.  That's on the D line.
• Linebacker play is spotty but probably improving.
• Our pass D is improving in most parts and an upgrade over last year so far.  We protect the deep ball pretty well but I am concerned about the short passing game torching us.
• The turnover margin will not stay this way.  A good chunk of the turnovers have been unforced errors by the other team.  Once these stop or we finally play a team that plays closer to error-free, watch out.

I've started to get the feeling that Mattison's defense will or may look like crap on paper, but will show up well on the scoreboard.  It's almost like an opposite of last year's offense, which featured unbelievable statistics, but didn't always equate to points... the defense leaks but, at least so far, it hasn't burst.  At this point of the game, I'll take it.

But obviously, at this point, it's too early to pass judgement, good or bad.

I don't care if the defense gives up 600 a game if Mattison can keep them under 17.  That, paired with the offensive production (aka Denard Robinson), looks like a pretty good recipe for success.

They are tackling better. Coverage is still awful and some of the play calls on defense are questionable. Seriously single coverage on Michael Floyd on that pass interference play at the end? Leaving whats his face wide open to score with 30 seconds?

This is a unit I see improving week to week unlike last year where it seems they only got worse as the season went on. LSU's offense could have moved the ball blinfolded on Michigan last season.

Anyone could figure out that the team would continue to improve just by having a majority of upperclassmen.  When you have true freshmen starting on defense and playing on special teams, along with a lot of standard underclassmen, it is never a good sign.  It works on offense with a good scheme, but the lack of maturity, both physical and mental, hurts the most on defense and special teams.

Having a resource like Greg Mattison available certainly didn't hurt, either.  It was pretty much a no-brainer that both teh defense and special teams would improve.  The real surprise is that Borges is still allowing Denard to be Denard while teaching him as much WCO as he can reasonably handle.

As for angst or criticism about Borges and playcalling, you won't find any in my posts.  I can't understand why anyone would complain about a team that is 3-0.  I hope people at least wait for a loss before they go too off the wall.