Mr. Mathis-Lilley writes: "Slowly getting back to the point of always having a looming, destructive monster defense."
WTF? Only rarely in the modern era could Michigan's defense be described that way ('97, '06, maybe a few in the early '70s). More often, it was good, but not great.
Mathis - Lilley engages in some hyperbole to be sure, but he's far closer to the truth than is Anon #1,
With very few exceptions, Bo's teams played outstanding defense year in and year out, as did Mo's, especially against the run and in the Big 10. Both coaches consistently ran top 20 defenses out onto the field.
It was the yearly ebb and flow of the offenses that determined how it all finished out, especially for Bo's teams, which didn't enjoy a lot of great Quarterbacking.
Mr. Mathis-Lilley writes: "Slowly getting back to the point of always having a looming, destructive monster defense."
ReplyDeleteWTF? Only rarely in the modern era could Michigan's defense be described that way ('97, '06, maybe a few in the early '70s). More often, it was good, but not great.
Its greatness was generally on offense.
That 1985 team .... Was the best I've seen
ReplyDeleteMathis - Lilley engages in some hyperbole to be sure, but he's far closer to the truth than is Anon #1,
ReplyDeleteWith very few exceptions, Bo's teams played outstanding defense year in and year out, as did Mo's, especially against the run and in the Big 10. Both coaches consistently ran top 20 defenses out onto the field.
It was the yearly ebb and flow of the offenses that determined how it all finished out, especially for Bo's teams, which didn't enjoy a lot of great Quarterbacking.