Defensive Line
I don't want to bash any players, the defense has already exceeded my expectations thus far. Although, I'm a bit confused about the RDE position. Banks was the starter in game 1, Roh in game 2. With Herron out, Roh moved back to LB.
This makes me wonder: If Herron is out for UMass, who will start at RDE?
I for one am really dissapointed that Will Campbell is only seeing time on special teams and short yardage situations. I would prefer to see him sub in for Martin at nose, and see Patterson at RDE along with Banks/Sagesse. Last year Sagesse did OK when subbing in from time to time. I was hoping he would get the nod this year at RDE. Thus far Patterson/Banks/Sagesse has not impressed.
If the upper classmen can't get it done, then maybe the coaches should give Black more chances at DE along with Patterson/Banks/Sagesse. One way or another, we need to get more out of the RDE position. I just don't see Roh starting at RDE against Wisconson, Michigan St. or Ohio St. and the results being good in the end (whether Herron is healthy or not).
Maybe the GERG 3 man rush is partly to blame for my concerns. Hopefully a few more 4 man rushes will be unleashed over the next few games. I'd hate to see Michigan lose out on good DL recruits simply because this team isn't getting much out of the DL thus far this season. Martin and VanBergen have worked their rear off the last two weeks with very few stats to show for it.
Anyone seeing something out of Banks\Patterson\Sagesse or Black that I'm missing?
September 16th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
Anthony Lal...never mind.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^
Per the defensive UFR, the 3-man rush seems to be holding up pretty well, especially given our concerns in the defensive backfield.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:45 AM ^
The nice thing about the 3-man rush is that it gives us an extra LB or DB is pass coverage and even run support. However, I agree with you that we need to mix in some more 4-man rushes and blitzes to throw off the OL and QB and apply some more pressure. Its only been two games, so I am not too worried yet and we played decent enough against two pretty good teams. As the season progresses, GERG will mix in more as the DB's (Cam mostly, IMO) gain more experience and confidence.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
UFR aside, Michigan was playing against a true freshman QB (Rees) and a first-year JUCO transfer (Montana) for nearly half the game . . .
. . . and the defense still gave up 381 pass yards.
I don't know for certain that a 4-man rush is the answer. But I think we should all agree not to pretend that we've covered up for our secondary's deficiencies by only rushing 3 defensive linemen. Notre Dame was a victory, but our defense's success is still pretty murky.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
Yes, but remember that ~150 of those yards came on two plays. I think rushing 3 may give us a little more leeway, but you're right, it's not going to make up for epically blown coverages.
September 16th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
that those two plays still happened and they were scores. i dont mind rushing the three as long as you mix the looks up from the LB's and the corners off the edges! we have to create more expectancy of being hit even if the opposing QB gets the pass of. right now OC's looking at our rush aren't really afraid of being (the all to important stat) HURRIED or for that matter sacked! as for the secondary i believe they have been in the right places more often than not! here is to hoping that we iron things out against UMass, BG and Indiana! if we do we will be scary!!! GO BLUE
September 16th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
I agree but a large portion of that yardage came on two gaffes. There wasn't a systematic defficiency like there was last year and we're getting off the field on 3rd down. Also, the defense faced 17 drives, they only gave up about 30 yards per drive...that's not terrible.
Even if you just look at the Crist drives, they gave up 40 yards/drive. That's a lot to be sure but I'll take that against Brian Kelly, Dayne Crist, Michael Floyd, Kyle Rudolph, and Armando Allen. ND with Crist only had 1 long drive (the first one) the rest were pretty respectable and two errors. Gotta get the errors fixed, but we're way better than anyone figured we'd be.
At least for me, that is the encouraging part. Our problems seem to be experience based and not talent based. Experience will come.
September 16th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
this team and this season could be special (relative to the last several years, maybe not great just yet but special) if: 1) the obvious, players stay relatively healthy, 2) our defense goes from abyssmal and skips mediocre and good on its way to excellent. there is an excitement in my gut that is hard to contain in staying humble and not jumping the gun! man is it hard but freaking awesomeness is the feeling!
September 16th, 2010 at 10:36 AM ^
Kelly's scheme, at least while at Cinci, involved a lot of quick throws which pretty much renders the rush ineffective. If you're not going to get there why send a fourth or more guys when the balls gone before they get there. IMO, Gerg will send more when we play teams that rely more on play action and 5-7 step drops.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
I could be wrong, but there seemed to be a fair number of slow-developing pass routes for Notre Dame on Saturday. I know that's Kelly's staple, but maybe at Notre Dame he feels like he's got the talent to run his offense differently.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^
September 16th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
The transition from high school defensive tackle to big time division 1 defensive tackle is a very tough transition to make. Will Campbell will contribute and eventually he will be a dominant piece to our defense. Let the coaches figure it out and don't over think the defensive end positions all that much because they will probably continue to change and switch personnel in and out until they find the most productive player(s).