Michigan defense amazing stat (a slight RR bash)

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

In three years - or 37 games - under (Rich) Rodriguez, the Michigan Wolverines allowed 40 points nine times. From 1935 to 2007 - or 778 games - the Wolverines allowed 40 points a total of nine times.

 

[Michchamp]

I have reasons to believe that during that entire stretch from 1935 to 2007, we consistently fielded defenses composed entirely of juniors and seniors who were ranked 4 or 5 stars on Rival or Scout, or would have been had Rivals & Scout been around that whole time.

Then, after 2008, this abruptly changed and we had less talent than bottom-feeder MAC programs like Bowling Green State U, or Toledo.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I have reasons to believe that during that entire stretch from 1935 to 2007, we consistently fielded defenses composed entirely of juniors and seniors who were ranked 4 or 5 stars on Rival or Scout, or would have been had Rivals & Scout been around that whole time.

Then, after 2008, this abruptly changed and we had less talent than bottom-feeder MAC programs like Bowling Green State U, or Toledo.

Very true.....but to be fair there used to be different scholarship limits which did help.

Surly Kovacs wouldn't have even been on the team pre 2007.

 

[Michchamp]

OR maybe this had something to do with the decision to run the 3-3-5?

the 3-3-5 is also a valid reason for explaining the poor defensive performance, and acceptable to mention as long as you don't start to question 1.) the wisdom of implementing a defense that requires an overly-complicated number of position changes, formation changes, and in-game substitutions, especially when coupled with a young team, and coaching staff that appears to struggle with teaching basic fundamentals; and 2.) what is the point of switching to a base defense like this in a run-heavy conference like the Big Ten.

And if you do raise either of those questions, you must then blame Greg Robinson, who didn't have "enough experience" running the 3-3-5 to make it work.

And if you question the wisdom of hiring a defensive coordinator without the experience you are looking for, to then run a defense he is unable to run... well... you are just a hater at that point.

 

[uofmpoweri]

Or blame the fact that RR made a career out of running up the score at WV against inferior opponents. He had a couple bowl wins, but so did TCU. One big win doesn't make up for the weak schedule that he played and his poor coaching philosophy. RR never stressed defense because he was content winning 50-40. His problem was that he could not score 50 points against quality opponents in the big ten, but they could still score 40. It was never a personnel problem, it was always a RR problem.

 

[bamf16]

I have reasons to believe that during that entire stretch from 1935 to 2007, we consistently fielded defenses composed entirely of juniors and seniors who were ranked 4 or 5 stars on Rival or Scout, or would have been had Rivals & Scout been around that whole time.

Then, after 2008, this abruptly changed and we had less talent than bottom-feeder MAC programs like Bowling Green State U, or Toledo.

Knowing you typed,

"AAAAARGH!!!! THE TALENT POOL WAS NOT, AND IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!!!!

How many times to we have to go over this?"

in reply #29 to the "Does Kovacs start the first series?" thread, do you understand now why folks like me wonder if you have any clue at all what in the hell you're talking about?


(This should be good.)

 

[bamf16]

Or blame the fact that RR made a career out of running up the score at WV against inferior opponents. He had a couple bowl wins, but so did TCU. One big win doesn't make up for the weak schedule that he played and his poor coaching philosophy. RR never stressed defense because he was content winning 50-40. His problem was that he could not score 50 points against quality opponents in the big ten, but they could still score 40. It was never a personnel problem, it was always a RR problem.

How about you go look back at WVU's total defense rankings when RR was there. He had a BCS win over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, and the team he abandoned to come to UM beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl. That's two BCS wins for teams RR built and one for UM in that same time period. That's what makes this MORE frustrating. This was a guy who did it at WVU, and who couldn't do it at UM.

I understand the desire to point out every mistake the guy made. We've all done it. You're just doing it wrong.

 

[bamf16]

OR maybe this had something to do with the decision to run the 3-3-5?

the 3-3-5 is also a valid reason for explaining the poor defensive performance, and acceptable to mention as long as you don't start to question 1.) the wisdom of implementing a defense that requires an overly-complicated number of position changes, formation changes, and in-game substitutions, especially when coupled with a young team, and coaching staff that appears to struggle with teaching basic fundamentals; and 2.) what is the point of switching to a base defense like this in a run-heavy conference like the Big Ten.

And if you do raise either of those questions, you must then blame Greg Robinson, who didn't have "enough experience" running the 3-3-5 to make it work.

And if you question the wisdom of hiring a defensive coordinator without the experience you are looking for, to then run a defense he is unable to run... well... you are just a hater at that point.

The 3-3-5 when implemented correctly can and does stop the run. The Pittsburgh Steelers have led the NFL in rushing defense over the past decade or so with a 3 man front. They blitz their linebackers from anywhere and everywhere, so the Oline struggles with where the 4th and 5th rushers will come from. The UM defense was run by a guy whose career was made by a 4-3 cover 2 defense with few if any complex blitzing schemes that comprise any defense running a 3 man front. Add to it that 3 man fronts require 3 Dlinemen who can eat up blockers, and RR and GR tried it with a 255 pound Craig Roh, and the inexperienced secondary was relied upon for run stopping when they should have had their jobs simplified, well, that's the reason for the debacle the last couple years.

And that stat from the OP is crazy.

 

[uofmpoweri]

Or blame the fact that RR made a career out of running up the score at WV against inferior opponents. He had a couple bowl wins, but so did TCU. One big win doesn't make up for the weak schedule that he played and his poor coaching philosophy. RR never stressed defense because he was content winning 50-40. His problem was that he could not score 50 points against quality opponents in the big ten, but they could still score 40. It was never a personnel problem, it was always a RR problem.

How about you go look back at WVU's total defense rankings when RR was there. He had a BCS win over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, and the team he abandoned to come to UM beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl. That's two BCS wins for teams RR built and one for UM in that same time period. That's what makes this MORE frustrating. This was a guy who did it at WVU, and who couldn't do it at UM.

I understand the desire to point out every mistake the guy made. We've all done it. You're just doing it wrong.

I don't need to point out anything because the stats are on my side. Should we check his record in the big ten? The Big East is a joke and it always has been. I don't really care what he was able to do to South Florida, Rutgers, UCONN or any of those other powerhouses that he faced week after week down there.

RR vs. Ranked opponents
2006
Louisville Lost 44 points
Rutgers 39 points
Georgia Tech 35 points
2007
S Florida lost 21
Rutgers 3 (woohoo RR is a great Defensive coach)
Cincinnati 23
Pittsburgh 13 Lost

Run up the score and forget about playing defense is his game. It doesn't work against real teams. These "ranked" opponents are not exactly a list of who's who in college football either.

 

[bamf16]

How about you go look back at WVU's total defense rankings when RR was there. He had a BCS win over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, and the team he abandoned to come to UM beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl. That's two BCS wins for teams RR built and one for UM in that same time period. That's what makes this MORE frustrating. This was a guy who did it at WVU, and who couldn't do it at UM.

I understand the desire to point out every mistake the guy made. We've all done it. You're just doing it wrong.

I don't need to point out anything because the stats are on my side. Should we check his record in the big ten? The Big East is a joke and it always has been. I don't really care what he was able to do to South Florida, Rutgers, UCONN or any of those other powerhouses that he faced week after week down there.

RR vs. Ranked opponents
2006
Louisville Lost 44 points
Rutgers 39 points
Georgia Tech 35 points
2007
S Florida lost 21
Rutgers 3 (woohoo RR is a great Defensive coach)
Cincinnati 23
Pittsburgh 13 Lost

Run up the score and forget about playing defense is his game. It doesn't work against real teams. These "ranked" opponents are not exactly a list of who's who in college football either.

Got it.

1. Come to a conclusion.

2. Then look at just the facts that support it.

3. Mock the ones that dispute it and justify them as somehow less important.

4. Tell the world how smart you are.

You should write a book.

 

[wolverine304]

Wvu did what tcu and boise does. Play an easy schedule and play well in the bowl game. Its not that his defensive schemes would have never worked, he just should have teached it before making a young defense do something they didn't understand.

You even saw last year that Rodriguez could beat down the big east, beating the big east champs 30-10.

 

[bamf16]

Its not that his defensive schemes would have never worked, he just should have teached it before making a young defense do something they didn't understand.

How much longer do we have to endure the absurd absolutes regarding the RR tenure in Ann Arbor from people who know he failed, but have no idea of why?

How does anyone know how much was "teached" or not "teached?" You assume based on what you saw of something of which you have a very superficial understanding.

Obviously, you can say that some coaches know defense better than offense, or offense better than defense. But to make a statement that a coach "didn't care" about one side of the ball is stupidly ludicrous. You can say he didn't fully understand it, or focus on it, or hired the wrong guy to run it, etc. etc. etc.

 

[uofmpoweri]

It has nothing to do with you. I did not demean you, and these stats were not hard to find. One thing that I did that you didn't do was actually back up my conclusion with facts. When did that become a bad thing? I know that this is a U of M board, but that doesn't mean that we all have to talk out of our pompous asses.

 

[wolverine304]

Its not that his defensive schemes would have never worked, he just should have teached it before making a young defense do something they didn't understand.

How much longer do we have to endure the absurd absolutes regarding the RR tenure in Ann Arbor from people who know he failed, but have no idea of why?

How does anyone know how much was "teached" or not "teached?" You assume based on what you saw of something of which you have a very superficial understanding.




Obviously, you can say that some coaches know defense better than offense, or offense better than defense. But to make a statement that a coach "didn't care" about one side of the ball is stupidly ludicrous. You can say he didn't fully understand it, or focus on it, or hired the wrong guy to run it, etc. etc. etc.

I never said anything about the way he taught, I said time to each. A lot of the defense was fresh and soph players, so obviously they didn't have too much time to learn. Which is why it was stupid of him to run a defense that the players didn't know.

 

[uofmpoweri]

Its not that his defensive schemes would have never worked, he just should have teached it before making a young defense do something they didn't understand.

How much longer do we have to endure the absurd absolutes regarding the RR tenure in Ann Arbor from people who know he failed, but have no idea of why?

How does anyone know how much was "teached" or not "teached?" You assume based on what you saw of something of which you have a very superficial understanding.

Obviously, you can say that some coaches know defense better than offense, or offense better than defense. But to make a statement that a coach "didn't care" about one side of the ball is stupidly ludicrous. You can say he didn't fully understand it, or focus on it, or hired the wrong guy to run it, etc. etc. etc.

You will never hear me call him an offensive genius either. He runs a gimmick offense that is dependent on one player to succeed. If he doesn't have that one player he cries. Even when he did have his one player he got smoked by the big ten. I know that you hate stats so I won't even bother looking up his points scored against ranked teams while at Michigan. I guess that you can "teached" us about it, because facts and figures are not working here.

 

[bamf16]

It has nothing to do with you. I did not demean you, and these stats were not hard to find. One thing that I did that you didn't do was actually back up my conclusion with facts. When did that become a bad thing? I know that this is a U of M board, but that doesn't mean that we all have to talk out of our pompous asses.

YOU stated that he was content winning 50-40, then you posted that only once did one of his teams give up 40 points, and it was a game his team lost. You also made a point about the Big East being weak, then you listed games against Big East opponents that were ranked nationally.

When his WVU team did hold a ranked opponent to a point total lower than what you would have liked it to be, you mocked the team, even though by your own admission they were ranked at the time, dismissing them because of seemingly no other reason than you don't want to accept a solid defensive performance against a ranked team by a team coached by RR.

Hell, in 2007 his team was one win away from playing for a national championship. In the two games they lost, they gave up 21 and 13 points respectively. An intelligent RR basher would point instead to these stats (that were not difficult to find) to show that maybe he's not the offensive genius that he's portrayed to be.

You didn't back up a conclusion with facts. Not every post including a conclusion and facts is a conclusion backed with facts. You made an assinine point, and then posted facts that didn't support what your point was.

Here were the WVU team defense rankings (nationally, based on yards given up per game) during the last 4 year's of RR's tenure when he was trying to win 50-40...

2007: 4th (1st in the conference)
2006: 53rd (5th in the conference)
2005: 8th (1st in the conference)
2004: 29th (2nd in the conference)

I think these show that a conclusion that "RR never stressed defense" might be a tad flawed. You could have argued that he didn't stress it ENOUGH at UM, or he ran the WRONG defense for the personnel, or he hired the WRONG COORDINATOR who ran what could have been the right defense but in the WRONG WAY, and you could make a point.

But you didn't. And I believe you, good sir, are the one talking out of his ass.

 

[bamf16]

See, now you're moving towards making sense. The spread option is very dependent on one type of QB, and if you don't have it, the offense struggles to compensate for it. You saw it in the loss to Pitt in 2007 when Pat White went down. It's a very specialized position in a very specialized offense.

I even gave you a karma boost for that point. We're supposed to be trying to heal and bring together the multiple factions, right?

 

[bamf16]

And b/c I don't like stats, I won't point out that the 2007 Rutgers team that WVU held to 3 points and 314 total yards averaged 456.6 yards per game (20th in the nation) and 32.8 points per game (34th).

The South Florida team that scored 21 averaged 431.7 yards per game (32nd in the nation) and 34.7 points per game (22nd)

The Cincinnati team that scored 23 averaged 446.1 yards per game (26th) and 36.3 points per game (17th).

I'm not defending RR as a defensive coach. I thought he made the wrong hire in Greg Robinson, and the wrong decision to make him run a defense he wasn't qualified to run and that he didn't know. But to say the guy never stressed defense and was content winning 50-40 is baseless and ridiculous.

We agree that UM defenses sucked the last two years, and he deserves some blame. We disagree with how much and for what.

 

[Michchamp]

I have reasons to believe that during that entire stretch from 1935 to 2007, we consistently fielded defenses composed entirely of juniors and seniors who were ranked 4 or 5 stars on Rival or Scout, or would have been had Rivals & Scout been around that whole time.

Then, after 2008, this abruptly changed and we had less talent than bottom-feeder MAC programs like Bowling Green State U, or Toledo.

Knowing you typed,

"AAAAARGH!!!! THE TALENT POOL WAS NOT, AND IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!!!!

How many times to we have to go over this?"

in reply #29 to the "Does Kovacs start the first series?" thread, do you understand now why folks like me wonder if you have any clue at all what in the hell you're talking about?


(This should be good.)

Folks like you? You mean people that don't understand sarcasm and have no sense of humor whatsoever?

Okay, I can see how you would struggle with this...

 

[Guest]

In three years - or 37 games - under (Rich) Rodriguez, the Michigan Wolverines allowed 40 points nine times. From 1935 to 2007 - or 778 games - the
Wolverines allowed 40 points a total of nine times.

UNBELIEVABLE !!!