How Much Should The D Improve? Not Enough
Let's take some small sample sizes and extrapolate wildly. It will be fun. Here's Bill Connolly breaking down expected improvement from teams that return varying numbers of defensive starters:
So Cincinnati returns 11 defensive starters. That's probably a good thing, right? But how good? And how much can a bad defense improve in one offseason just because of experience? Let's take a look, shall we?
Average Change In Def. F/+, Last Three Years Starters
ReturningN Avg Chg in
Def. F/+1 1 -12.4% 2 4 -10.9% 3 10 -8.4% 4 32 -2.1% 5 53 -1.1% 6 69 -0.5% 7 85 1.1% 8 56 1.5% 9 37 4.2% 10 9 6.0% 11 3 5.4% So basically, if you return between five and eight starters, you are likely not going to change much, but three or fewer is a problem, and nine or more is a good thing.
F/+ is Connolly's advanced metric; it's play-based instead of drive-based like FEI. Don't be fooled by the % symbol—the metric is percentage based and from context it's clear the difference is meant to be added to the score, not multiplied. Since the best defenses are around +17% and the worst around –13%, 6% is about a fifth of the entire scale.
Michigan is, unsurprisingly, right at the bottom of that scale at 115th. They were 12% worse than an average defense down-to-down. The good news is they return 9-ish starters, losing Greg Banks, James Rogers and Jonas Mouton while reacquiring Troy Woolfolk. (They also lose Ray Vinopal and Obi Ezeh, but Ezeh had been replaced and Michigan should get JT Floyd back so let's call it a wash.)
The numbers are thin at both ends of the spectrum but, hey, extrapolating wildly from small sample sizes. Doing so says Michigan's defense will storm forward from 115th nationally to…
99th.
I have no source for this, unfortunately.
But wait! Our sample sizes are not small enough and our extrapolation is not making out with other nubile young extrapolations in front of a television camera. Bill added a second factor, the previous year's defense, and finds that a defense with an F/+ under –10% that returns nine starters should expect (for a given confidence level that is not high at all) to improve by 8.6%, which would see them get to…
82nd.
You might be able to argue that Mike Martin wasn't right and the team was even younger than the average team that returns nine starters and GERG is rubbing stuffed animals on the faces of other stuffed animals at a tearful tea party and for the first time in a long time they'll just run one damn defense per year and that they should expect to improve even more. You're probably setting yourself up for disappointment. Like installing the spread 'n' shred, digging out of a hole this big is a multi-year project.
It does, but it doesn't preclude it from happening again. (Like offensive and special teams turnovers leading up to last year).
You know, Mat, expectations have a kind of self-fulfilling nature.
I would like for (at least, the players), to be optimistic to start this new season. If it's not to be, we'll find out soon enough.
or mine, have any impact on what happens on the field, you think very differently than I do.
I think the player's expectations do.
I agree. NFL scouts have been saying that this defense lacks NFL talent, consistently saying that Martin is a marginal talent and there's nobody else. The NFL usually identifies talent on poorly coached teams just fine, and if their projections are accurate, this defense is going to struggle to be much better than an average Big 10 defense, no matter who the coach is. The good thing is, that if we get that kind of improvement out of the defense, with minimal regression out of the offense, we could still have a very nice year.
Thanks. Even though quie subjective, it is easy to understand why you came out where you did. Further, you actually looked at team specific factors while doing say. While not an unreasonable lower bound, I would say your ratings are pretty pessimistic.
<br>
<br>I don't think you'll get an argument from anyone that Martin is clearly above average. I do however think that all of the players you have suggested as average have the potential to be above average. While it is unrealistic that they all will end up above average, I don't think it is unrealistically optimistic to think at least one of them will.
<br>
<br>Roh - back in a position suited for him and bigger. As long as bulking up hasn't taken away much of his speed/athletisism, he is my number one candidate for above average.
<br>
<br>Kenny Demens - has physical skills and seemed to understand what he and the rest of the defense were doing better than Gerg.
<br>
<br>Woolfolk - biggest cocern, is he back 100%? In 2009, he was solid as a first year starter flipping back and forth between two positions. If healthy, focused on one position, above average does not seem unrealistic.
<br>
<br>RVB - solid all three of his years. Would have hoped for a bigger jump his junior year, but hampered by scheme and later in the year by a subpar Martin, we didn't see it. In more of an attacking four man line, with a healthy Martin and a bigger Roh, I think we can see bigger things from RVB?
<br>
<br>Can we eke out any more average players from the rest of the team? Every year, most teams see players improve and redshirt or even true freahman step up. I think this team has legitimate candidates to do the same.
<br>
<br>Cornerback - Floyd improved significantly last year. If he's back from injury and is no longer the #1 CB, could he be better? Avery was in his first year really focusing as a CB. With another year, he has real room for improvement. Could Countess step up?
<br>
<br>One of the linebacker spots - Gordon, Evans, Jones and Ryan all have potential - is it unrealistic that one of them is average?
<br>
<br>I don't think it takes herculan assumptions to see three above average players and seven total starters who are average or above.
<br>
<br>I am also not as down on Kovacs as many othera on this site are. Yes, he isn't the most physically gifted so he doesn't likely have upside to be above average, but surrounded by better players, I don't see him far from average.
<br>
<br>Now the question is, can someone in the remaining three spots surprise, if not, how far below average will they be?
<br>
<br>DT - here, I can't be that optimistic - however, this coaching staff has a lot of credibility on the d-line and if they really think we only need one, maybe someone can step up here.
<br>
<br>3rd linebacker - see second linebacker
<br>
<br>Free safety - don't have lots of optimism here.
<br>
<br>In short - if two of Wolfolk, Demens, Roh and RVB step up, we've got three above average,
<br>
<br>Someone steps up at the second LB position and the second CB position to be average, we have three above average, four average and four below average (with one at least pretty close to average).
<br>
<br>Can't an above average defensive coordinator turn that into an average defense? What if one of the last four step it up and surprise?
<br>
<br>Yes, it's optimistic, but I don't think insanely so and isn't that what football message board in July is for? I will leave you with one more thought - Eric Mayes (yes he got injured, but who would have looked at his history and exspected the Notre Dame game he had?)
Up on the banner is says, "Hoke Springs Eternal"
and I surprised Brian didn't take the time to find situationally similar teams so we could at least have a non-statistical hope. And cling to it like a life raft.
But I remember someone named Scot Shafer, who somehow revived the Syracuse Orangmen after single handedly destroying the Michigan Defense the year before.
Anyway, I'm Hoke-ful that we get to 8 wins and continue our climb back to the light.
But yes, we get it, the talent level is not rising significantly, and experience level is not a big increment to performance improvement, BUT I think we all agree that the coaching (if we can't statistically prove it) was a significant factor in the defenses poor performance.
I at least expect a consistent defensive scheme, and from my experience have a team of people doing what they are comfortable doing is a significant improvement over asking them to do things they are not comfortable doing while at the same time failing to teach them the proper way to do the new thing.
Brian's Debbie Downer act will go away after the first few games. In a certain way I'm very excited about this season because there are so many question marks. Will Borges ruin Denard? Can Mattison shape this defense into something that actually defends? Will we make field goals?
Summer/Fall practice hype is on it's way!
No, Scott Shafer is absolved from all blame for our defensive struggles. He has proven himself before and after Michigan. How can you say he "single-handedly destroyed" our defense when he was micromanaged by RR and his inept defensive staff? Plus our defense wasn't properly destroyed until 2009 and 2010. Shafer is one former Michigan coach who was certainly screwed over.
At first, I thought he was being sarcastic about Shafer, but perhaps you are right that he was not.
Statistics mean nothing to the individual, or in our case, the team. It is very possible that the combination of returning starters and improved coaching could provide drastic improvement. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens, but I would be surprised if we were anywhere near as bad as last year on D.
But what the hell do I know, im just going with my feelings, man.
Don't forget that Craig Roh will be back to his proper position as well.
That will help greatly, IMO.
But this doesn't take into account the complete overhaul of the defensive staff which should account for a sizable improvement on its own.
And to second it. There will be no drop off in the line coach (Tall was good), and vast improvement in the other defensive position coaches. [Plus, there are four defense-only coaches now, instead of only three.] It's not just switching out the coordinator.
I don't know how to quantify that, but teaching is a big part of coaching on the college level, and teaching is not easy--some people are much better at it than others--so changing out the teachers can have a significant impact.
Man, Brian. Marriage has already turned you into a cynical bastard. Quick honeymoon, eh. How dare you use your "research" and "data" to dash my wildly overestimated dreams of what this defense will be next year with the Mattison's Magic Defense Dust sprinkled all over it.
Aw, Hamburgers...
You may have missed the announcement of the wedding & honeymoon. The honeymoon is scheduled for the end of the month. This is normal Brian cynicism.
Mattison's Magic Defense Dust == M2D2.
I am definately hoping for a huge dose of M2D2 this year.
M2D2...was that the red astromech droid who's "bad motivator" blew up in Star Wars: A New Hope?
Nah, that was R5-D4, that had the bad motivator. It is clear that our coaches do not have bad motivators.
Ignoring the mattison effect I think is a big mistep in the reasoning. Yes, the loss of GERG is a good thing but it's compounded by the addition of Greg. That combined with less turnovers/more time consumption on the offence should give the defence more rest and less opportunity for "OMFG NO" moments. Will they be top 10 defense? Most likely not. Will they be better than Indiana was last year (#89) or Minnesota (#75) I would think so.
The metrics displayed in Brian's post were of averages for teams with x returning starters. The actual teams delivering stats into that average had their own specific circumstances, one of which is how well their offenses held the ball. The coming (hopefully partial) change in scheme will be a setback to what was going to be an unbelievable offense, but IMO this will be more than made up for in terms of time of possession for several reasons: 1) more experience and time in weight room 2) Denard getting banged up less and able to play more because we'll be less dependant on his legs 3) fewer very short scoring drives (this may or may not be a factor in winning,but it will surely help D statistics) 4) fewer negative plays resulting in very short drives. I think the D statistics improve dramatically this year. Unfortunately I think most of that improvement will come against meh opponents and we'll still struggle disproportionately against teams of a higher quality.
Straight Rankings in the context of statistics do a terrible job at distinguishing the difference between peers. Last year Virginia's D ranked 78th and Florida Atlantic's 85th. Virginia allowed only 5 yards fewer per game than Florida Atlantic. Those defenses performed at the same level but the rankings suggest there is a real difference between them, there isn't.
Using a percentile is more appropriate.
The larger point stands though -- Mattison et al have a long row to hoe.
Bullshit. We're going to be better. Much better.
(The only caveat is that much better than115th is around 70. But I'll take that........for now).
I think the defense is going to suprise some people this year. The staff has people playing where they should be (Roh) and seems to be really motivating our guys. My guess is that we'll end up with a defense right around #50 in the country when its all said and done this year.
that's EXACTLY what I was thinking.
Unless of course you look at last year's Syracuse team.
1. Craig Roh will not play linebacker.
<br>2. Our DC understands the scheme he is running.
<br>3. God love em, but Rogers and Ezeh are addition by subtraction.
<br>4. One new contributor will be a pleasant surprise (Jake Ryan).
<br>5. 2 experienced corners are your starters.
This doesn't take into account the difference between, let's say, a returning redshirt senior and a returning true sophomore.
Well that kinda killed the afternoon for the time being... can I go back to being blindly hoping that everyone on the team will come back as an NCAA 12 equivalent of 99?
I'm willing to bet 500 dollars Floyd doesn't start against Western.
if he's healthy, he might be the fourth CB in the rotation, behind Woolfolk, Avery and Countess.
Go back and have a look at the Penn State UFR. Check out the video of him defending in zone coverage. He's a decent spot starter, but not a part of a solid defense.
I would like to erect (lol) a statue to honor his bravery and heroism.
Seriously? How much do you want to bet? Is there any way we can private message? If not how can I contact you?
? I'm not talking about being right on a message board. I'm talking about actually wagering 500 real dollars.
I give up.
And my work here is done.
I'll bet you 500 virtual Krugerrands that Floyd doesn't start...Call it what you will: a hunch, women's intuition.
Done. How much do you want to do? Can you please private message me.
There are so many missing variables in that Cincinnati "statistical analysis" that it is completely useless for assessing Michigan's defensive prospects in 2011.
Comments