This proves the point. It's lack of talent, not coaching.
IMO this game proves one thing, that the lack of talent we have on D is the culprit for this season. There has been much debate of late on the board, with some increasingly blaming RR and GERG, others pointing out the talent and experience issue as the main culprit. But this game tips the balance of evidence fully on the lack of talent IMO--we were not out-schemed in this game, we were not out-coached, nor were we out-motivated. We knew exactly what they were going to do, they had no surprises for us, yet they showed up and did it. After a decent start (for us) we simply could not stop a team with no trickery and little tendency changes. Very simply, we are not good, were are a very bad defensive team, and IMO no D-coordinator on earth would have changed that this season.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^
Good point. I think the coaches have made some bad calls, but we saw this early in the season - IU had an 85-yard TD run because the LBs couldn't tackle. There are guys who know how to play and those who do not. Unfortunately, UM just doesn't have that many guys on the D.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
quite frankly, take a look at this defense we have right now and the players on it. we need a basic (if not completely scientific) metric of comparison for these players. so lets see how many of the players on this defense would have made it on the two deep for our great '97 defense. tough competition, but compare to the best.
so, starters:
Graham
backups:
warren
martin, probably
maybe stevie brown if they'd had a position similar to what he's playing now?
so there you go. there really is no one. and the problem isnt any one person's fault. here's a few of the contributing reasons:
1) 3 DCs in 3 years - no consistency
2) coaching change (carr to rrod) = attrition
3) lloyd's recruiting got lazy as his tenure wrapped up
4) poor position coaching - im looking at you jay hopson
5) its tough to recruit the best players when you go 3-9
6) bad luck
November 14th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
These new defensive secondary recruits can't get here fast enough. Kovacs single-handedly lost this game for us today. I made a specific effort to watch the coverage on every play today and 95% of the blown coverages and completions allowed were on Kovacs. Although, the stupid call to have Forcier try and run the ball in TO THE OUTSIDE AND OUT OF THE SHOTGUN from the one yard line and the roughing the kicker penalty didn't help matters either.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
Forcier run at the end zone. Didn't get that at all.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:34 PM ^
Am I the only one that thought Grady should have gotten the ball and punched it through? Bad call coach, bad call!!
November 14th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
It's hard to make sense of a team who shows they can play at times (in the first half, I thought, what do you know! they're actually playing!) and then completely collapses. I get Tate's issues. He's trying to make every pass play a big play. That's just immaturity. But the D is a conundrum. Hence the many, many explanations here.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
I agree and it's a good thing - the younger players will get better with experience. I thought the D was generally in the right position most of the times, but was simply physically beaten. They stopped the big pass play for the most part - the result being a lot of passes caught in front of the safeties.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
Cincinnati has a new defensive coordinator, Michigan has a new defensive coordinator.
Cinci had 1 returning starter on defense. Michigan had 5 returning starters on defense
Michigan has an all-American DE, Cinci does not.
Michigan has several other future NFL players, I don't think Cinci has any.
Cincinnati has the #32 defense, Michigan has the #89 defense.
Look, I know our defensive talent isn't up to typical Michigan standards, but you can't blame our performance on this.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^
http://cincinnati.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp
Every player on the Cincy 2 deep is an upperclassmen. That means they've all been there since Kelly's regime, had time to get in S&C program, learned the scheme, and prolly got meaningful PT the last few years. That's 24 upperclassmen on the 2 deep. Michigan, in comparison, has 12 upperclassmen on the 2 deep and alot of key players are either freshmen (Roh, Floyd, Fitzgerald) or walk-ons (Leach, Kovacs). I'm willing to bet big money that the new Cincy D coordinator kept the schemes very similar to his predecessor.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:26 PM ^
Their current one is here. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/cinn/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/weekl…
They have 7 freshmen on their 2-deep, but they also have 6 seniors starting.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm saying that, in the main, our poor defense is a question of talent rather than a question of coaching. When you lose, everyone has to share in the blame, so the coaches must be responsible. I just think it's pretty clear watching this team that we have, for Michigan, unprecedented talent issues on defense. This game was man on man, no trickery, Wisc. stuck to what they showed in film, and just beat us. When you line up man on man, whether in practice or in games, the better guy normally wins. Sometimes coaching, strategy or emotion overcomes that, and if you like you can say that we didn't come up with a scheme to confuse them. But in this game, I think the coaches on either side were irrelevant. Man on man, they won, and have better players.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
That bucket is your argument.
I will now point out what some of the holes are.
1) Cincinnati's schedule is much easier than Michigan's.
2) Cincinnati's offense has been much more consistent than ours, both in scoring and TOP. That means less pressure on the D and a more rested D.
3) As WestTexasBlue mentioned, all starters are upper-classmen = time in the system, in the program, and familiarity.
4) Cincinnati's gotten lucky more than we have.November 14th, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^
Cinci also plays in the Big East. I know, I know, this topic has been beaten into the ground, but anyone that thinks the Big East can compare to the Big Ten is fooling themselves. Players in the Big East are just much physically smaller than players in the Big Ten. This is just established fact. Health conscious east coasters just can't compare to corn and cheese fed midwesterners in size. All of that aside, Cinci is in the Big East and the Big East is not the Big Ten. Whether or not the BIg East is a better conference than the Big Ten is irrelevant, even though it's not. It's too hard to compare how one team from another conference would fare in a different conference. Bowl games just aren't very good indicators. There's too many outside factors to consider. If you're going to point to another team's defense and say "look, they have the same problems as us and look how well they're doing", then use a team in the Big Ten.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:35 PM ^
I have to say, I was impressed with how Brandon Smith played today. I think he's going to be good in Stevie Brown's position next season. The front 4 played a nice game. The linebackers and safeties just are not good at all.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
I am NOT making excuses for the LBs. They are horrible. So, why does GERG insist on putting four of them out there??? One way you can scheme to cover up poor LBs is to have more of a beefy D-line that takes up blockers and allows LBs to make plays. I have no idea why we don't run a 4-3 with Campbell and Sagesse getting in a DT rotation with Martin and Roh and RVB rotating at DE. Of course, keep Graham in the whole game.
I think our run defense would be instantly improved, we would have more of a pass rush up the middle, and we wouldn't wear down like dogs on Defense in the second half because the undersized Martin and RVB are getting beaten down for so long. Today was the day to do it against a pro-style offense, a big RB, and an immobile QB. Yet, GERG goes with the same old crap and we give up another 40+ points.
And don't tell me you can't change from a 3-4 to a 4-3 that easily. Its not rocket science and what do you have to lose?
November 14th, 2009 at 3:43 PM ^
Sadly, you must be only watching the boxscore and not the game. You don't just put guys on the D-Line and expect them to work out. Time after time Campbell has been picked up and deposited 10 yards down the field by the other team. He is very raw and has looked average this year. Maybe next year, with depth on the D-line and the guys have gotten bigger, do you maybe switch back to 4-3.
"Its not rocket science and what do you have to lose?" Hey man, feel free to apply for a coaching job. You know more than the coaches, apparently.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
I have not seen him deposited 10 yards downfield a single time this year, much less "time after time". I am indeed watching every play of every game. I'm just completely frustrated. On 1st and 20, our D-line (sans our biggest DTs) gets trucked at the LOS allowing Clay to run inside the tackles for 21 yards. When its 3rd and 6, our DBs are constantly playing 10 yards off the LOS. I guess let's just play the same way every game and hope that our lack of talent will rise up and hold teams under 30.
If "very raw" and "looked average" are impediments to playing on this defensive unit, Kovacs would not see the field.
By the way, usually you play a 3-4 defense when you have a huge, space-eating DT. Martin does not qualify as that. So, your comment about "maybe next year ... [when] the guys have gotten bigger, do you maybe switch back to a 4-3" makes no sense considering we have no business playing a 3-4 right now with undersized linemen.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:14 PM ^
I have not seen him deposited 10 yards downfield a single time this year, much less "time after time".
You must have taken a break during the Iowa game, re-read the UFR. I was at the game, Campbell was blown up one or two times.
Really, stop posting. You are exactly one of the people I was targeting with my "patience and perspective" MGoBoard post from yesterday. You're embarrassing yourself over the football team you support. Stop.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
on Campbell's tip of the pass, he was pushed way off the line of scrimmage, which allowed him to tip it.
I am actually worried about Campbell. He definitely needs technique and work but getting pushed off the ball, rather than just being fended off, is a sign that he's getting dominated at times. I rarely saw that with Martin last year.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:47 PM ^
Normally, you are gonna have at least 2 DBs 10 yards no matter the down and distance. Maybe at 8 yards if it's 3rd and 2 or less...
November 14th, 2009 at 3:42 PM ^
that's all I gotta say
November 14th, 2009 at 3:48 PM ^
I think it's a lack of talent, but I think both our offense and defense are very predictable. I think we should try and tweek our schemes a little next year so maybe we can suprise a few teams.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
We play well and hang in the first half, including a somewhat decent play on D and then we collapse in the second half. If this is all talent, shouldn't we be getting killed all 4 quarters? Doesnt a change in halves suggest one team is making better adjustments and exploiting the weaknesses of the other?
I understand the talent argument and i agree that is sucks, but why the inconsistency from half to half and not just pure suck for all 4 quarters? Doesn't coaching bear some responsibility for this continuous collapse game after game?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:38 PM ^
There's no depth to let players rotate out and stay fresh. That would be a big part of my guess.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
- We gave up roughly the same number of points in each half.
- Lack of depth to rotate in can wear on the starters over the whole game.
- I'm not sold on just how many adjustments we could make. As has been stated ad nausem, if they run away from Graham and throw away from Warren, we can only do so much.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^
we did give up almost as many points in the first half as we did the second and lack of depth does affect you from play to play, but it just looks like we get man handled in the 3rd quarter time after time. Just depressing, i have no other way to describe how i feel about this effort.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
1st half stats for defense:
203 yards of total offense and 21 points allowed
2nd half stats for defense:
276 yards of offense and 24 points allowed
We were nearly as bad in the first half, but our defense caused some turnovers and scored a touchdown so we really didn't notice it.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
Maybe it's time to put in the Wa Wa Wa Water Boy and tell him water sucks and gatorade is better.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
After the defensive TD I texted a friend saying the D was playing well today. At the time we had forced a punt, got an INT, forced another punt (roughing the punter), and got a sack-fumble-td. I made the text and we didn't make another stop the rest of the game. Sorry.
Not placing any blame, but early in this game we had an opportunity to jump out way ahead with two drives starting inside the UW 40. Only getting 3 points and helping them continue a drive on the roughing the punter penalty was just too much to overcome. I do find it very strange that we have been absolutly dominated in the 2nd half in the last few games. That doesn't exactly cheer me up. Lets finish out this season with a couple wins let some young guys develop and come out stronger next fall!