Chris Spielman
I am not a big fan of former tOSU players offering color commentary for a Michigan game. However Spielman was actually insightful and very good on today's broadcast. His comments about the 3-3-5 and the bubbles of space that force your 5 defensive back to make the majority of plays 2-4 yards beyond the line of scrimmage was dead on.
Spielmans comments about recruiting were also succinct pointing out that although we did lose some players on strange one off's (Cullen Christian) that for the most part players that work on the defensive side of the ball at West Virginia are just not going to cut it at Michigan.
However, ESPN has no excuse to miss 5-7 Michigan plays today becuase of a sideline interview or pictures of the stadium from 1927 when we are in the hurry up.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
What school from the Big 12 and SEC were trashed by RR defenses. I completely agree with the freshman part and have plenty of room to grow though, def not saying this 3-3-5 cant work, but it hasnt worked in the big ten so far
November 20th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
To answer your question, none (unless holding Oklahoma to 28 is considered "trashing").
November 20th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^
To be fair, they held OU to 15 points through 3 quarters while racking up a 20+ point advantage. That was a VERY impressive defensive performance.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:51 PM ^
It was a very good performance. One good (not spectacular) performance against a Big 12 team doesn't support the statement that Rodriguez's defenses "trashed" Big 12 and SEC teams, or otherwise prove that he is capable of presiding over a top tier defense.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
What teams from the SEC and Big 12 did Rodriguez's defense ever "trash"?
November 20th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
"Trash" might not be a good word, but they held OU to 28 points (and 13 in the 4th quarter when the game was out of reach), and they did beat Georgia (though 35 points is nothing to write home). They also beat a good Georgia Tech team that was running over people. So yeah, not necessarily dominant performances, but they were able to hold up against very good teams from power conferences, which is more my point.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
And they gave up 35 points to that Georgia Tech team (who, while good, was certainly not typically putting up 35 points against non-patsy opponents. They put up 38 against V Tech, but didn't break 30 in any other games against real competition).
Obviously the West Virginia defenses were better than what we're putting on the field now, but to suggest that Rodriguez's defensive system has a proven track record against top-quality opponents is just revisionist history.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Those are really not good numbers. RR at WV was always known for his offense and thats how they won games, you cant say that his defense was ever really a factor in them winning at WV, it was a combination of a great offense and poor BigEast teams. And Im all for RR running his offense it works, but if he doesnt know what to do with his defense or how to stop someone then he needs to let go and bring in someone that knows what there doing and let them have full reigns of the defense, in matters of not only play calling, but in schemes, formations, and recruiting.... and to be perfectly honest that puts you as having your head coach simply as having the responsibility of an Offensive coordinator, which is not a head coach
November 20th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
Yeah... Spielman's recruiting comments were idiotic.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
I have to say and Im sure none of us are fans of Spielman but he did have many valid points today. Especially about us getting back to Big Ten Defense of playing the 4-3 with big D-line that can actually stop the run instead of trying to make Mike. Martin hold up 3 O-lineman and still make the play. And yes the play where he showed the bubbles in our 3-3-5 and then they run right up one of those for a score. In all honestly I'd take him as D coordinator at Mich. He knows defense at not only a Big Ten level but at a professional level as well. But either way as we all know something has to change with this defense
November 20th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
I like how Spielman went through the whole list of players in the secondary who either left early, were injured, or didn't make it to campus and then said that there was no excuse for Michigan to only be starting freshman back there. One of the bigger non sequiters I've heard lately. I thought the broadcast as a whole was irritating and so filled with cliches that they should have just replaced the color guys with a robot that randomly generated commentary.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:46 PM ^
It's only a non sequitur if you hold the Michigan coaching staff blameless for the massive attrition, or for recruiting players who were not academically qualified.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
His "analysis" of the defense was often little more than, "I don't see too many NFL-caliber players out there"--i.e., hur hur Michiganz defense sux hur hur. While obviously true, I didn't need to hear that (or something like it) a dozen times in the second half, and certainly not when we had the football.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^
Almost all sports journalism sucks these days.
I worked for the sports department at KRON-TV in the early '90's and then worked for the sports deaprtment at the two radio stations that carried the A's and Sharks. This was right around the time that ESPN EXPLODED, and everyone in sports broadcasting was trying to rip off Olbermann and Patrick's schtick. Basically, it all went down hill from there.
Hiring ex-jocks to do sports commentray isn't a new thing (ex-Lion Wayne Walker did sports for the CBS affiliate in San Francisco for what seemed like a million years). But at least Walker knew his stuff and was never Captain Obvious, unlike Spielman and the rest of ESPN's minions.
On the bright side, ESPN pays like shit. Chances are, your local sports anchor is making more then an ESPN hack.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
re: scheme/philosophy and recruiting. Where is the NFL talent on the defensive roster? Outside of Mike Martin (maybe) there isn't. Too many three star, undersized and inexperienced defenders flailing around out there. Sub-.300 Big 10 record after three years is downright embarassing. No wins against MSU, Iowa, PSU or OSU (sorry, but it would be a minor miracle for Michigan to beat OSU in Columbus next week). I've been a MIchigan fan for as long as I can remember, and for the first time, I no longer expect MIchigan to win. I don't even get upset anymore. I expect Michigan to get pushed around the field on defense regardless of their opponent. Remember when 7-5 was a down year? I'm just frustrated right now.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
Where is the NFL talent on the defensive roster?
Where are the upperclassmen on the defensive roster? Martin, Mouton and Van Bergen are the only juniors or seniors (unless you want to count James Rogers), and all those guys are pretty good. Spielman even said that the two guys who "stood out" on this defense are Martin and Mouton.
Young guys are, by definition, inexperienced and usually undersized. It's unfortunate that we don't have more talented upperclassmen on defense, but Spielman shouldn't be blaming Rodriguez's recruiting for that, because that just doesn't make any sense.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
Other than Martin, that you project to the NFL? Young, old, otherwise.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
Demens has potential - I could see him being a decent LB in the pros. With the secondary, you never know - Woolfolk definitely could have played himself onto a team if he was healthy, and guys like Black and Roh may well develop into solid players. Also, Christian has been a disappointment so far, but who knows? Maybe he will wind up as a decent NFL prospect.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
And a reasonable assessment.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
But I agree that the level of defensive talent on this team is the lowest in recent memory. That falls on Carr, RR, and pretty much the entire program. Hopefully that will change in the near future, but right now this team is definitely one of the least-talented that I can remember.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
But the point is that none of us know or could know at this point. The best we can say is that it's doubtful that any of them will become Charles Woodson, which isn't a mark against them.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:26 PM ^
Avery is a guy that I think has a lot of potential. I really like his cover skills. I could see him eventually being an NFL prospect.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
You must be new here. You're not allowed to say anything negative about Rich Rodriguez at MGoBlog. You think I'm joking...
November 20th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
funny but true
November 20th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
You must not get that people around here don't mind RR criticism, but absolutely hate stupid criticism with no connection to reality.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^
Whose reality? The reality where RR has yet to beat our main rivals? The reality where our team is now comfortably lumped in with Illinois, Purdue and Indiana? The reality where we aren't even competitive with teams we used to expect to beat?
No. People here lose their minds at the mention of any fact that might reflect poorly on the coach.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
People here lose their minds at the mention of any fact that might reflect poorly on the coach.
And some people will never be satisfied with Rodriguez, regardless of how much the team improves from year to year.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
I guess that depends on your definition of "team". Because my definition includes offense, defense and special teams...I don't feel that "the team" has improved from year to year. The offense certainly has (although not in the first half against quality opponents), but the defense and special teams have gotten worse each year. I guess, on the whole, we're certainly better than year one, but about the same (one bounce here or there) as year two.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
To me, this team is a work in progress and while I think the defense definitely need an overhaul - and I blame RR for that - the offense is one of the best in the country with a first-year signal caller and no top-flight RB. Those are facts I like to focus on. Some facts are negative, some are positive, but don't act like you are looking at the whole picture when your post clearly shows your mind made up.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
My mind was made up last year when I felt RR should have been fired because I didn't think he had the ability to create a strong enough program in A2. Then, when he was retained, I resigned myself to hope that RR would show enough improvement this year to turn us into a monster. I have not seen that. Unless he beats OSU, I think he must be fired. Losing every game to your top rivals (without even being competitive) and sitting in the muck with Purdue/Illinois/Indiana is not the type of program we should be. I don't think he can afford another year of "hope" when the refrain will again be something about "young defense" or "new coordinator" or another excuse.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
Work in progress? You can say that about any bad team. I actually have more hope for the Lions right now than what I have for Michigan under this coaching regime.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:02 PM ^
You act like Michigan is going to be like this for the next 15 years. They're not. The improvement is there: where the team used to be absolutely dreadful in every category (minus Brandon Graham how much better was last year's defense than this years?) and, for the most part, they are making improvements. Next year will be remarkably better: experienced defense, ND OSU and Nebraska all at home, and, oh, yeah, Denard. Michigan's future is much better looking than its present.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^
"You act like Michigan is going to be like this for the next 15 years. They're not."
True enough. Rich Rod will get fired eventually and then this nightmare will end.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^
You act like Michigan is going to be like this for the next 15 years. They're not.
I think you forgot to add, "I hope" after "They're not". Because that's what you're going on. The defense is not improved. It's worse than ever. Just because the kids get older, that doesn't mean they'll be more talented, or in a better scheme, or bigger, or better coached.
As far as home field advantage...Look, I thought we'd beat MSU because we played them at home. Teams don't fear coming to A2 anymore. Hell, not even Toledo is afraid of us. If RR is retained, I sure hope we improve, but we're still going to get pushed around by big teams (i.e. the Big Ten) and our defense will still be young and shallow.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
I thought you would go away after your Purdue comments, alas I was wrong.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
Remember when 3-9 was a down year? How about 5-7? Listen, this team has an outside chance at 9 wins and a good chance at 8. That's not great by any stretch, but it is progress. As for the defensive talent, the secondary has 6 kids who are RS or true freshmen. There might well be NFL-level talent there, but it takes time to develop. Brandon Graham and Stevie Brown were drafted last year from this defense, and Warren probably would have if he had stayed (or if he apparently didn't implode at the combine). Martin and Mouton will both play in the NFL, and guys like Roh, Black, Demens, and Woolfolk all have chances to make it at the next level. Teams have up-and-down runs, and just because UM rode a wave for 20+ years doesn't mean you can't have a couple of down years. Yes, 7-5 next year is a disappointment; 7-5 with this year's team and injury woes is acceptable.
November 20th, 2010 at 6:43 PM ^
before rr got here. hell, winning 8 used to suck. what the hell are you talking about.....
November 20th, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^
Evidently, he's referring to the Bump Elliott era. Don't remember that? No? Neither do I.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Outside of the secondary, which has had some special issues (and Cullen Christian played this year and was a 4 star recruit) the LBs had 2 four star guys (Fitzgerald & Mouton) and the Line had 3 starters (Roh, Van Bergen, and Martin were all 4 star committments). We also have 2 incoming freshmen DBs who have 4 stars on ESPN's recruiting board. LBs also have Marvin Robinson as a 4 star recruit
November 20th, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^
"(sorry, but it would be a minor miracle for Michigan to beat OSU in Columbus next week)."
Miracle, yes. Minor, no.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
For the most part his comments were asinine and generic. "There are no NFL players on the defense" because NO ONE is even fucking eligible for the draft.
Martin and Mouton could both play in the NFL right now.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
Neither Martin nor Mouton were recruited by Rodriguez, which was kind of Spielman's point. You can't defend Rodriguez's recruiting by pointing to Carr recruits.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
...its hard to say if Craig Roh, Jibreel Black, Cullen Christian, Kenny Demens, or Marvin Robinson might develop into NFL players. With the exception of Demens (who's been in the program 3 years, 1 of which was a redshirt) they're all true freshmen or sophmores. Which according to 97.1 is an "excuse" (even if its proven true more often than not regardless of the program). That's what chapped my ass on Spielman's comment, it's the commentator as all-knowing God who doesn't need to look at things like...uncomfortable facts that contradict the point.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
Spielman is clueless.
Griese is clueless.
Does anyone really think we would have a competent defense if we simply went to a 4-3 look with our current personnel?
Good job by Spielman mentioning Texas and USC as teams that have reloaded. Oops.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
No we wouldn't have a competent defense right now if we just switched to a 4-3 mid-season, but if we started recruiting players that fit a 4-3 and started coaching it up in the off season then we would be. Any team that has had any kind of rushing attack: MSU, PSU, Wisc., Ill. , Iowa all ran it right down our throats. I remember reading right after the MSU game players saying how pissed they were that it was plays that they saw all week in prac. that they were ready for and just couldnt stop are what beat them. In the Big Ten you have to be able to stop the run plan and simple
November 20th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Can't you same thing about recruiting players for a 3-man front? Of course, any of those guys you get from recruiting start out as "freshmen" and then we can blame the lack of experience.
Were you opposed to the 3-4 Michigan often ran under the old regime? Seems to me there would be bubbles in that defense too.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^
There are bubbles in every defense. And Im not opposed to a 3-4 either, Im not opposed to any defense that will stop someone, Im more interested in being able to just stop someone, we couldn't even stop IU or Del. State this year. And Im more interested in recruiting Big Ten type players, these smaller guys are just getting thrown around out there
November 20th, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^
Big Ten-type players. Another typical red herring.
Who are the small guys you seen getting thrown around?
Our base defense today:
Roh/Martin/Van Bergen
Ezeh/Demens/Mouton with Cam Gordon as the hybrid.
The corners were Avery and Rogers with Kovacs and Vinopal at safety.
The only guys that are truly undersized on the defense are Kovacs and Vinopal and only one of them was recruited. Without severe attrition Vinopal would be red-shirting and not playing outside of special teams until he was a junior. Kovacs would never have seen the field if not for injury and lack of depth.
I suppose Roh is undersized too for this defense, but he was a 4-star recruit and has been pretty solid since being moved to DE. Do you think he's not a Big Ten-type?
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:51 AM ^
By undersized Im saying starting 5 DBs against a power running Wisc. team. Cam Gordons position would typically be occupied by a LB so he would be extremely undersized especially when he was starting at the safety position earlier in the season. Yes Roh is undersized for the big ten at the DE position hence why the coaching staff tried to move him to LB at times this season, but although hes undersized he is very talented and needs to be on the field.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
As you can still rush 4-5 guys and have 2 inside LBs to handle the run. ANd we have the personnel to more immediately convert to that scheme.