Depth Chart 2011: No Longer Decimated

Submitted by tasnyder01 on November 8th, 2010 at 5:30 PM

[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.

Comments

Jivas

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.

WolvinLA2

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.

blueheron

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.

Roy D Hibble

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.

blueheron

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.

bouje

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

Seth

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.

Roy D Hibble

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).

blueheron

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.

j-turn14

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.

Farnn

November 8th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^

Are you doing this ranking by years of playing time? Because I think at times people over-value playing experience vs time in the program. Game time only makes up 48 hours a year, while there are hundreds of hours of practice, plus time spent without the coaches on "voluntary" work. Additionally, strength gains are a big part of more time with the team.

I'm not trying to excuse next years defense in advance, but I think only considering playing experience ignores another key factor. While next year the defense may have more starting experience, I don't know how much better a true sophomore Avery would be compared to a RS freshman who starts for another team. Ideally, you don't want either to start, with upper-classmen ahead of them.

blueheron

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.

MGoTarHeel

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.

tasnyder01

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.

Papochronopolis

November 8th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^

But you never know. If we have another round of killer injuries and transfers we could find ourselves right back in the same place. Here's to hoping we don't face those issues and we do pick up a stud DB or three in this recruiting cycle.

ThWard

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.

Roy D Hibble

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?

funkywolve

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.

expatriate

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.