Depth Chart 2011: No Longer Decimated
[Ed-M: What are these numbers? Returning players on 2-deep? Next year's upperclassmen? Whatever: to the board with you]
edit: fuck it, see below. Much better stated.
EDIT 2:
I am sorry for not writing what I was using down. I DERPed up. I am doing this by Varsity letters earned by returning players.
For paragraph 2 I will state this: for career back-ups I awarded a varsity letter only if they are an upper-classman. This was to differentiate between a returning sophomore who only played (for example) 3 games and crap time, and who hasn't gotten enough lifting time in and a 5th year returning senior (who you could say would equal Banks I guess, so it's still off). The thought was that a returning 5th year who was a career back-up would only get 1 vasity letter awarded beause they didn't do much in PT, but they did get scheme training, and weight training.
Team | DL | LB | DB |
Wisconsin | 9 | 2 | 10 |
MSU | 8 | 4 | 3 |
OSU | 7 | 3 | 5 |
Iowa | 5 | 4 | 8 |
Illinois | 7 | 7 | 8 |
NW | 9 | 4 | 9 |
PSU | 9 | 5 | 6 |
IU | 8 | 5 | 7 |
Purdue | 7 | 6 | 9 |
Minn | 11 | 7 | 3 |
UM | 7* | 4** | 8 |
Averages | 7.90*** | 4.63 | 6.63 |
*We run a 3-3-5, not a 4-3. Thus, we’re under a player here.
**For convenience I’m putting the Spur as a WLB, not an additional safety, for this metric.
*** based on the metric below, the average is 5.9 years of PT.
Complicated crap that you might not care about:
If you shift the numbers on DL to a three man front, it gets really complicated. Whose production do you take out? The other team's least or most experienced player? I can't think of a metric for this other than AVG EXP/player/3 DL positions. If you use that, the average EXP for DL is about 5.9 years. If anyone has any better ideas for this metric, tell me.
WHAT THIS MEANS:
You’ll see that our DL is more experienced than average (per player, not unit) while the rest of our D will be just around the normal experience level. In Fact, our secondary will be more experienced than the average BT secondary. This makes sense.
- We lose 1 player in the secondary: Rogers. Not much of a loss, but a significant loss when you think about PT. Counter that with Woolfolk, a 5th year Senior taking Roger's place, and you don't lose any experience.
- We don't lose any other players in the secondary; everyone comes back with experience
- After such decimation for two years, we should have expected this. It only makes sense that teams will tend back to the norm.
The fact that the DD argument will no longer be tenable next year (due to us having MORE!!! experience than an average BT team) is a good thing. While we can no longer cling to that as a legitimate excuse for RR, we can now bring up our expectations.
- DD is no longer a valid excuse. It's premise was that we lost experience; we now will have average experience. If low PT was the reason for a poor defense, a middling PT/experience factor should give us a middle-of-the-pack defense.
- Our D SHOULD be middle of the pack, based on the PT logic. I've argued from day one that a middle of the pack D would give us a shot at the BT title and if our O is #1 (which it could be, but depends on TOM) a shot at the MNC.
- We should shoot for the BT title next year. If our offense continues taking the strides it has, and we stop this TOM BS our D should finally be good enough for this to be a goal.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
Considers only the starting 11 players, correct? There's some truth to what you're saying, but you're massively oversimplifying the issue.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
I can't wait for this meme to die. I was wondering if the free pass would be extended until Mispogon got his PhD in Decimated Defense.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
November 8th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^
I was wondering the same. Because the former is a no-brainer, but something we all want very badly. The latter, well, the only reason it's brought up is because it's true. An explanation, not an excuse.
But I agree, next year it won't be the case, so it won't need to be said.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
So we should all feel sorry for GERG and give him a three year free pass, right?
November 8th, 2010 at 6:09 PM ^
No -- we should (as Brandon himself might put it) take a *careful* and *detailed* look at how the defense got the way it is, rather than bleat about how we deserve better.
In case you receive this the wrong way, I'd expect to find problems at the RichRod and GERG levels. But, I'd also expect to find a lousy hand of cards dealt the the coaches. For example (and for the 88th time, probably), who recruited ZERO cornerbacks in '06? RichRod? GERG? Those would be your 5th-year seniors.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^
But there is a torrent of hatred for GERG out there and a ton of "He can't coach!"--which has come directly from left field and undercut the "GERG is great!" from year one of GERG, and "Now just wait til we have the same DC for a second year" stuff.
Decimated or not, Big Bad Lloyd Carr Monster or not, Rodriguez is absolved of any and all blame for the defense time and again, and you know, it's OLD in Year Three. It's excuses, plain and simple.
I'm saying if this thing is still decimated, it's not GERG's fault and he should get a second or third chance just as much as Rodriguez and his cronies from WVU.
And I don't see where blowing GERG out after this season is anything but another mistake by Rodriguez.
Call me unsatisfied with 67-65 wins over crap like Illinois (coached by another guy deemed an "idiot" by legions of Michigan fans throughout the cyberspace), I don't care. But Rodriguez is the root of the problem now and no amount of holding your breath til you turn blue to defend him wipes the crap away.
November 8th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
I'd agree that assessments of GERG have been all over the place. I don't see how that's opposed to my point, but whatever ...
I don't agree that Rodriguez has avoided being blamed for the defense. He has, rightfully so IMO, been blamed for poor administration and some recruiting missteps on that side of the ball.
Should GERG get another shot? I'm not completely sure. Rodriguez is an offensive coach, so, while the responsibility is ultimately his, we can't blame him *directly* for the bad coaching. Small benefit to him, granted ...
It's OK to be unsatisfied with 67-65 wins. And, yes, Rodriguez is involved with the historically underachieving teams of the last three years. But, it's not ALL his fault.
Direct question, in case you missed it elsewhere: Who recruited the '06, '07, and most of the '08 class?
A. RichRod
B. Someone else
In case the answer is A, then, yes, we can blame RichRod for dang near everything. Be patient and you may get that shot.
November 8th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
Even if you have somewhat of a valid point, you are a complete tool so it is completely lost. Please root for another team.
November 8th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
His players are all fucking sophomores. There are no more excuses in 2012 IMO and if RR can get there everyone will be happy.
<br>
<br>You can't just spout off bs like "it's year 3 theres no excuses.". Yes there are the whole fucking defensive backfield has 1 non freshman! 1111111111111111
November 8th, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^
Rodriguez is absolved of any and all blame for the defense time and again, and you know, it's OLD in Year Three. It's excuses, plain and simple.
That's untrue. It was untrue a year ago when I wrote DD (which assigned a measure of blame to our current coach), and it was untrue when I wrote yesterday essentially blaming RR for Turner not being here anymore.
Fact is there is a big range of opinions around here (I highlighted a number of people who agree with you in the Dear Diary post yesterday) but those who have managed to stick are not going off on rhetorical extremes and staking absolute claims without providing original evidence.
Plus, I have no idea what this metaphor means:
no amount of holding your breath til you turn blue to defend him wipes the crap away.
Can holding your breath wipe crap away? Do people believe that holding one's breath can wipe crap away?
Whatever. Shape up, or you're getting caved.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
That's funny -- I've been hoping that everyone posting on MGoBlog would have critical-thinking skills and good attention to detail. Oh, well.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
Skills, you must admit, apply these days only to those (at least here and for Scouties) to those willing to extend the hand of excuse waving into the realm of the other-worldly for a guy who has, quite simply, not earned his paycheck so far.
I would like for posters to stop thinking they are smart simply because they have some sort of blind faith in Rodriguez and relegating any arguments to the contrary as irrational. Just because Michigan finally beat someone (and someone barely worthy of note) does not portend a ship that is all the sudden righted.
There is still a LONG way to go to prove this thing will work. Let's see them be competitive for four quarters against Wisconsin and OSU (or against MSU, Iowa, and PSU for that matter).
November 8th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
I don't think you're reading my posts carefully. Where do you see blind faith? When I read them again I see blame assigned to Rodriguez and blame assigned somewhere else. (Note that this "somewhere else" is not Lloyd Carr.)
Yes, there's a long way to go. We have no idea what RichRod's ceiling is when he gets the ducks lined up to his satisfaction.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:05 PM ^
This is something that bothers me about your kind: the excuse meme. Any opinion that is contrary to yours is simply an "excuse", regardless of its merit. Sometimes there actually are reasons that bad things happen and one person doesn't have to take all the blame just because you say so. If there is a lack of legitimacy to this "excuse", then why don't you disprove it with some kind of your own research. You're obviously a level headed person and i'm sure you'll do a great job of keeping your agenda out of your research. Otherwise, the "excuse" meme is not adding any substance to this discussion.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
You seem to be a clever troll...I dismiss you.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
November 8th, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^
You wrote "I don't know how much better a true sophomore Avery would be compared to a RS freshman who starts for another team."
I think he'd be better, but I'd still take a 2nd-year starter in his 4th/5th program year over Avery / Talbott / Vinopal. It's not clear that overall program experience was considered in the analysis.
Also, to the original OP, I'm going to (sorry) reach a bit and assume that you're annoyed that the Decimated Defense post ever existed. Am I correct? This post sounds a bit jumpy to me. I'd agree that, even when accounting for inexperience, the defense has been a disappointment.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
You are correct sir.
A quick look back at tasnyder's past posts will show that he has been railing against the Decimated Defense "excuse" for a while now.
On a somehwat related note, I would like to thank Misopogon for choosing an amazing alliterative title. Makes talking about the state of the defense somewhat more palatable.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:44 PM ^
I am sorry for not writing what I was using down. I DERPed up. I have now clarified. I am doing this by Varsity letters earned by returning players. This largely agrees with your first paragraph, so YAY WE AGREE!
For paragraph 2 I will state this: for career back-ups I awarded a varsity letter only if they are an upper-classman. This was to differentiate between a returning sophomore who only played (for example) 3 games and crap time, and who hasn't gotten enough lifting time in and a 5th year returning senior (who you could say would equal Banks I guess, so it's still off). The thought was that a returning 5th year who was a career back-up would only get 1 vasity letter awarded beause they didn't do much in PT, but they did get scheme training, and weight training. Ok, I need to add this as an edit. DERP.
November 8th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
November 8th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
No reason to be so extreme. The Decimated Defense series provided a reasonable explanation for the projected poor performance of the D. It was spot on. It's not a get-out-of-jail free card for the Defensive staff, but it was an attempt to understand why the "WE ARE MICHIGAN, WE ALWAYS HAVE TALENT!!! ANGAR!" arguments didn't hold much weight this year.
Celebrate nuance, buddy.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^
This is one of those selctive arguments that is used to support Rodriguez, and it is used ad nauseum.
Wasn't the battle cry at the time of the hiring, "Rodriguez and Michigan Talent? Aww HELLZ YEAS! We'll win all the national championships!"
Yet now, when we need to grant Rodriguez reprieve after reprieve (and I don't know why), it's all the sudden become, "HEY! Quit saying 'We're Michigan' We will not get talent just because of our fancy helmets and great fight song!"
Which is it?
November 8th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
Wait a minute, wait a minute here! Are you RdH or KoB, what's up my brother.
November 8th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
KoB was much funnier and vaguely more interesting than this particular moron.
IF YOU DON'T HATE RR YOUR A BUNCH OF STUPID EXCUSEMAKERS AND ANY EXPLANATION OF YOU'RE ARGUMENT IS AN EXCUSE SO GOOD LUCK LOOSERS
November 8th, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
Seriously... the defense can't get any worse than it is now.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
1. What's Nebraska look like?
2. I'd be curious to know on these teams how many of these are players who start or see the field outside of garbage time. It's always good to have upperclassmen but i'm guessing every program has some guys like Mike Williams/James Rogers (not to pick on them) who are upperclassmen but you don't really want to see them on the field.
November 8th, 2010 at 6:49 PM ^
Please let's close the Decimated Defense Meme era and move onto the Dilapidated Special Teams Meme
November 8th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Now THAT's funny!
November 8th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
who's been a member for less than 3 hours.
MLive will welcome you Em0.
November 8th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^
This seems to assume certain things, and I think it is a bit too early to assume everyone will be back. Last year we assumed we would have Turner, Dorsey, Woolfolk, Floyd (the whole year), etc etc. I am really excited about the possible depth on next year's defense, but we need to keep in mind the insane things that have happened to this team, especially in the secondary.