Something To Chew On

[OneillIrish]

no... if Michigans offense doesn't improve 5 or more losses is likely. Their defense will be top 5 again. Replacing 10 starters and had a top 3 defense is overrated?? geez I call that over achieving

Michigan did not have a top three overall defense.

michigan’s defense did well in some raw statistics, but that’s meaningless.

Michigan’s defense flopped against every quality opponent it fixed, Allowing 27.5 points per game, on average, against body competition.

Virtually the only time is Michigan’s defense looked high level was when they were facing non-bowl opponents. That’s not impressive.

If Michigan’s defense can’t improveAnd start competing with quality opponents 5 or more losses is likely.

 

[OneillIrish]

no... if Michigans offense doesn't improve 5 or more losses is likely. Their defense will be top 5 again. Replacing 10 starters and had a top 3 defense is overrated?? geez I call that over achieving. You're looking way too in depth at time of possession. The offense constantly ran plays with less than 5 seconds on the play clock just to give the defense a break. Navy threw for more touchdowns than Michigan last year.. Navy. But youre blaming Michigans defense for their losses against top 25 teams? thats idiotic

Furthermore, given that Michigan schedule is harder in 2018 then it was in 2017, if Michigan’s offense doesn’t also improve from its abysmal performance… It’s entirely possible that Michigan missed a bowl all together.

Without improvement on offense Michigan will almost certainly lose to all of Ohio state, Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Northwestern....And it would also be vulnerable to losses against Nebraska and Purdue.

Michigan was lucky to only face five teams who won more than 6.Regular-season games in 2018, otherwise their record would likely have been much worse.

The 2017 Michigan team was not capable of beating quality opponents.

 

[OneillIrish]

But Notre dame didn't look impressive either against offenses that weren't even good? so whats the difference? And again defense will improve but doesn't determine whether they lose 5 games. Its the offense the defense was just fine last year anyone with a ounce of football knowledge would know this. Even with advanced metrics like S&P Michigan still had a better defense than Notre dame..

Huh?

As I have repeatedly explained to you, Notre Dame showed that it could shut down high-quality opponents, like UFC, North Carolina State, Michigan State, and to a lesser extent Georgia.

Notre Dame was not a great defense, so it didn’t always shut down quality opponents, such as Miami and Stanford.

The difference is, Michigan never shut down a quality opponent, but rather got abused on defense every time it’s based decent competition.

That alone bars Michigan from being a high-level defense in 2017.







As for comparing Michigan’s 2017 defense to Notre Dame is 2017 defense....

The meaningful metrics have them about the same, while the on the field results favor Notre Dame (as explained above). Overall, they were fairly comparable.

Both defenses return a lot for 2018, however, Notre Dame actually returns more.

As such, it’s reasonable to expect the defenses to be approximately comparable in 2018 as well.
(However, it remains to be seen if Michigan will be able to compete with the quality opponent in 2018, as a post to their constant failures in 2017).

 

[OneillIrish]

im not shocked they weren't capable of it.. it was a rebuilding year. They replaced 18 starters and was forced to start a 3rd string quarterback. The optimistic view is they had a chance in every single one of those games besides the blowout at Penn st. Notre Dames rebuilding year they didn't even make a bowl game.

There is a ton of an accuracy in this post.

First of all, what does it matter if Home or fans believe that Michigan “had a chance” in a bunch of games that lost?

The better team one in those games, over and over and over again.

Second of all, 2016 was not a rebuilding year for Notre Dame. There was plenty of talent on the roster, it was just coached so poorly it’s hard to put it into words. That season was a total failure by Brian Kelly.
(Not sure how that’s relevant to how overrated Michigan’s defense was and incapable the team as a whole was in 2017?)

 

[NDIRISH53]

I never said Michigan didn't have a solid defense. I said that anyone who would take Michigan's defense over Georgia doesn't know a lick of football. I stand by that.

Not Michigan’s last year, but yes I would take this years Michigan d over last years UGA. And I know a hell of a lot more than a lick about football.

 

[OneillIrish]

Not Michigan’s last year, but yes I would take this years Michigan d over last years UGA. And I know a hell of a lot more than a lick about football.

I think that’s foolish.

That is projecting a pretty massive jump from Michigan’s defense, considering George I was actually very good against quality opponents in 2017… Whereas Michigan was a constant failure.

 

[NDIRISH53]

I think that’s foolish.

That is projecting a pretty massive jump from Michigan’s defense, considering George I was actually very good against quality opponents in 2017… Whereas Michigan was a constant failure.

Based off of coaching, attacking productivity, and returning talent I stand by that.

 

[hfhmilkman]

You have the same basic intellectual failing as @hfhmilkman and @ivan brunetti do.

Unlike Notre Dame, Michigan FAILED against EVERY Top25 OPPONENT it faced. It wasn't up-and-down, it proved it was incapable of competing.

ND, on the other hand, was up and down. ND dominated USC, Michigan State, and NC State while flopping against Miami and Stanford.

A defense that flops against EVERY quality opponent it faces is nowhere near special. Good? Sure. But nothing near special.

We'll see if Michigan's defense improves in 2018
It's possible.

Michigan State had one of the worse offenses in the Big10. They won because PSU lost focus after a 3.5 hour thunderstorm and practically half the teams they played were down their starting QB.

And get off the thunderstorm narrative. I was in Ann Arbor outdoors the entire evening. After the front blew through it was typical football weather.

 

[hfhmilkman]

Michigan did not have a top three overall defense.

michigan’s defense did well in some raw statistics, but that’s meaningless.

Michigan’s defense flopped against every quality opponent it fixed, Allowing 27.5 points per game, on average, against body competition.

Virtually the only time is Michigan’s defense looked high level was when they were facing non-bowl opponents. That’s not impressive.

If Michigan’s defense can’t improveAnd start competing with quality opponents 5 or more losses is likely.

I thought ND had a pretty good defense last year and they gave up 21.5 in all their games. I don't think UM was top 3 because ypp is more important. They were about 10th in my boat. They had a top havoc rate. A great ppr on pass defense and pretty good against the run, especially after they converted to a 4-3.

ND was about 20th because even though they did not have a great havoc rate their stuff rate was top ten. They won a lot of series turning 1st and 10 into 2nd and 8 and than 3rd and 6.

 

[ivan brunetti]

There is a ton of an accuracy in this post.

First of all, what does it matter if Home or fans believe that Michigan “had a chance” in a bunch of games that lost?

The better team one in those games, over and over and over again.

The same way it matters that ND "had a chance" vs Georgia and Stanford. A blowout loss like we had with Penn State and ND had with Miami is not the same as a competitive loss wrt evaluating teams.

 

[hfhmilkman]

Huh?

As I have repeatedly explained to you, Notre Dame showed that it could shut down high-quality opponents, like UFC, North Carolina State, Michigan State, and to a lesser extent Georgia.

Notre Dame was not a great defense, so it didn’t always shut down quality opponents, such as Miami and Stanford.

The difference is, Michigan never shut down a quality opponent, but rather got abused on defense every time it’s based decent competition.

That alone bars Michigan from being a high-level defense in 2017.







As for comparing Michigan’s 2017 defense to Notre Dame is 2017 defense....

The meaningful metrics have them about the same, while the on the field results favor Notre Dame (as explained above). Overall, they were fairly comparable.

Both defenses return a lot for 2018, however, Notre Dame actually returns more.

As such, it’s reasonable to expect the defenses to be approximately comparable in 2018 as well.
(However, it remains to be seen if Michigan will be able to compete with the quality opponent in 2018, as a post to their constant failures in 2017).

Here is your problem. You look at points. ND lost to Miami because Brandon Wimbush imploded by THROWING THREE INTERCEPTIONS!!!! Miami's biggest 1st half drive was 58 yards. NDs defense played pretty well. What happens against Stanford? Offense goes 3 and out in the red zone after a great punt return. Stanford scores a TD. So its 24-20. Then Wimbush interception, TD, fumble for TD, and another interception. Stanford could have put up 45 if there was 2 more minutes in that game.

You say ND defense stunk without even bothering to realize the offense turned the ball over 6 times in two halfs.

You are stuck in just looking at the wins and losses and points without understanding the why. Maybe ND defense could have turned a few setbacks into FG's. But it was a very good bend but don't break. Just not its character. ND defense played just fine. The offense and special teams blew it.

There is more to football than the offense is great because a lot of points were scored and the defense stinks because a lot of points were scored. That is why in baseball we have gotten away from RBI, batting average, and HR's to determine value. Slugging, and onbase percentage is far more important. Same thing with defense. Lumbering Cal Ripkin used to gold gloves because he could field everything within a step. Now we know that a fielder with triple the errors but triple the range is ten times better because he fields so many more opportunities that Cal just waved feebly at.

Different systems have different metrics. We all can argue on which system is better. Regardless of what you think, the nerds that clean your clock at sports betting had UM about 10-12th in best defense last year and ND was about 20-25th. Unlike you where this is a trollfest, this is their livelyhood. If you are wrong you just get flamed. If they are wrong they lose their shirt.

 

[OneillIrish]

Based off of coaching, attacking productivity, and returning talent I stand by that.

Kirby has done more in CFB than Harbaugh.

Michigan had no poducitivity against quality opponents. They flopped against every single one.

And while they do return a lot of talent, they lost their best defender off the 2017 DL.

I stand by that your comment equating them to Georgia 2017 is foolish.

 

[OneillIrish]

Michigan State had one of the worse offenses in the Big10. They won because PSU lost focus after a 3.5 hour thunderstorm and practically half the teams they played were down their starting QB.

And get off the thunderstorm narrative. I was in Ann Arbor outdoors the entire evening. After the front blew through it was typical football weather.

Michigan State was a 10 win team and a solid top 25 team, as they’ve been the vast majority of years under Mark Dantonio.

And you’re wrong again, I was at the game, and that thunderstorm completely destroyed the second half. Michigan played half of the football game which they lost convincingly. Michigan State wrapped it up in the second half and allowed Michigan to further humiliate themselves throwing during the monsoon.

 

[OneillIrish]

I thought ND had a pretty good defense last year and they gave up 21.5 in all their games. I don't think UM was top 3 because ypp is more important. They were about 10th in my boat. They had a top havoc rate. A great ppr on pass defense and pretty good against the run, especially after they converted to a 4-3.

ND was about 20th because even though they did not have a great havoc rate their stuff rate was top ten. They won a lot of series turning 1st and 10 into 2nd and 8 and than 3rd and 6.

You love going back to stats without context, and it’s why I laugh at you so much.

Michigan’s defense was very overrated because it could not compete against quality opponent. It failed every single time, allowing an average of 27.5 points per game.

Notre Dame’s defense was good but not great, showing the ability to handle top competition, but also showing that they were up and down against it.

Michigan was nowhere near a top defense, because it showed it flopped every time it wasn’t playing at Rutgers or a Purdue.

 

[OneillIrish]

The same way it matters that ND "had a chance" vs Georgia and Stanford. A blowout loss like we had with Penn State and ND had with Miami is not the same as a competitive loss wrt evaluating teams.

It’s not really the same thing when you never win any of them.

Once you establish an absolute inability to win against quality teams, you are claim that “we had a chance” isn’t really believable anymore.

 

[OneillIrish]

Here is your problem. You look at points. ND lost to Miami because Brandon Wimbush imploded by THROWING THREE INTERCEPTIONS!!!! Miami's biggest 1st half drive was 58 yards. NDs defense played pretty well. What happens against Stanford? Offense goes 3 and out in the red zone after a great punt return. Stanford scores a TD. So its 24-20. Then Wimbush interception, TD, fumble for TD, and another interception. Stanford could have put up 45 if there was 2 more minutes in that game.

You say ND defense stunk without even bothering to realize the offense turned the ball over 6 times in two halfs.

You are stuck in just looking at the wins and losses and points without understanding the why. Maybe ND defense could have turned a few setbacks into FG's. But it was a very good bend but don't break. Just not its character. ND defense played just fine. The offense and special teams blew it.

There is more to football than the offense is great because a lot of points were scored and the defense stinks because a lot of points were scored. That is why in baseball we have gotten away from RBI, batting average, and HR's to determine value. Slugging, and onbase percentage is far more important. Same thing with defense. Lumbering Cal Ripkin used to gold gloves because he could field everything within a step. Now we know that a fielder with triple the errors but triple the range is ten times better because he fields so many more opportunities that Cal just waved feebly at.

Different systems have different metrics. We all can argue on which system is better. Regardless of what you think, the nerds that clean your clock at sports betting had UM about 10-12th in best defense last year and ND was about 20-25th. Unlike you where this is a trollfest, this is their livelyhood. If you are wrong you just get flamed. If they are wrong they lose their shirt.

Wrong. As usual.

The points for defense allows is ultimately what determines how well he played. Simple as that.

Problem is that you try to rely on (Stats) without context and explain away the points in the outcome… Because you don’t like that Michigan’s defense for laps every time it faces the quality opponent.

Notre Dame’s defense ultimately flopped against Stanford, despite playing well initially. You seem to glaze right over the fact that they allowed those touchdown drives after turnovers… Because it doesn’t fit into your narrative that the pork cube replay of an offense is somehow responsible for poor defense of player.

Michigan’s defense played poorly and was abused against every quality opponent it fixed. It’s a simple as that.

Michigan’s defense allowed an average of 27.5 points per game against quality Apartments… That’s bad. Not decent, not OK, flat out bad.

Michigan’s failure to ever perform well against a quality opponent during 2017 resulted in that defense being very overrated. There’s just no denying that.

We’ll see if Michigan’s defense improves in 2018.

If it does not, Michigan is likely to lose 5 games or more.

 

[mrwigglesby21]

Not Michigan’s last year, but yes I would take this years Michigan d over last years UGA. And I know a hell of a lot more than a lick about football.

Your last sentence is definitely up for debate.

 

[NDIRISH53]

Your last sentence is definitely up for debate.

Lol... cheers