Michigan tries to get up off the mat after a demoralizing loss to Penn State, while Detroit tries to unveil a (slightly) different program identity and begin 2014 with a bang. Both programs welcome Mercer to Southeast Michigan for indoor games.
Mercer
Fear the Bear!
@MercerLacrosse.
Mercer pre-trip notes.
Michigan
Feb. 14 2014. 7 p.m. EST
Oosterbaan Fieldhouse
Live stats
@UMichLacrosse. @GreatLaxState.
Michigan pregame notes. .pdf notes.
Detroit
Feb. 16, 2014. 2 p.m. EST
Ultimate Soccer Arenas Pontiac
Live Stats
@DetroitTitans. @GreatLaxState.
Detroit pregame notes. .pdf notes.
Tempo-Free Profile
The TempoFreeLax.com numbers displayed here are adjusted for strength of schedule, and are obviously last year’s figures, given that Mercer has played all of one game (and against a first-year team) so far. The Bears played the No. 62 schedule – second-easiest in the nation – last season.
| Mercer 2013 | |
|---|---|
| Pace | 67.18 (29) |
| Poss% | 50.88 (24) |
| Off. Eff. | 25.88 (53) |
| Def. Eff. | 38.47 (60) |
| Pyth% | 24.61 (54) |
Last year was the Bears’ third at the Division-1 level, and they took a nice step forward getting to three wins (though part of that was strength of schedule, given that they beat the two worst teams in the country).
Mercer played an average pace, which you can expect out of a team with their standing in the nation: they probably want to slow things down to not get blown out, while opponents generally can score pretty quickly when they get the ball. That the Bears had a pretty good possession game helped them slow things down. That was mostly thanks to faceoff success, since their clear and ride were both bottom-13 or so nationally.
The offense was a struggle (like you’d expect from a relatively young program). They reached double-digit goals in all three wins, plus losses to Marquette, Manhattan, and High Point. They didn’t face a murderer’s row, so strength of competition definitely comes into account, and helps them get out of those national depths pre-adjustment.
The defense was really bad, however, and went against four of the worst seven offenses in the country (again, some of that lack of quality in their ranking is on account of the adjustment). There were only two games – a one-goal loss to Towson and the win over St. Joseph’s – where they didn’t allow the opposition to crack double-digits.
All told, it adds up to one of the lesser teams in the country, propped up by the ability to win faceoffs and possess the ball. That helped them slow down the game and keep scoring margins reasonable in some of the losses.
Offense
The positive to a young offense in 2013 is the return of almost all production in 2014. Midfielders Keoni Rausch (eighth on the team in scoring with three goals and four assists) and Tyler Schott (one goal), and attackmen Ian Gehlbach (two goals) and Jay DeBole (a goal and three assists) are the only departures from the offense. That’s 14 of 184 points on the year, so the important guys are back.
That includes all three starting attackmen. Chris Baxa led the way with 33 goals and 10 assists as a freshman, and Zack Ward and Cole Branch are seniors who scored 30 goals and five assists, and 15 goals and 11 assists, respectively.
Harry Baker, also a senior, was the top-scoring midfielder, though he put up just 10 goals and eight assists all year. Tim Geran wasn’t far behind with nine and six, and Eoin Collins had six himself while assisting on six more. Those three were scorers 4-6 down the roster, showing that this is an attack-oriented offense.
Ward (six goals) and Baxa (four goals and two assists) had six points apiece in the season-opener against Boston U, so the focus of the offense likely hasn’t changed. Geran had a goal and three assists, but the new name to watch is freshman James Tautkus, who had two goals and two assists. Three of his points came in the fourth quarter, so he could be more of a depth player in a competitive game.
Detroit’s defense is still a mystery at this point in the year, but for Michigan, high-output attackmen are a problem. That’s an issue from the last two seasons that seemed to persist against Penn State, and while none of these guys are on the TJ Sanders or Shane Sturgis level, they’ll definitely be dangerous.
Defense
Mike Nugent is the returning keeper after playing all but six minutes last year (backup Dillon Volk is no longer with the squad). Despite a somewhat bad overall defense, Nugent put up respectable save numbers, saving .533 of shots faced – and he faced a lot of them. He saved 10 of the 16 he faced last weekend against Boston, though the Terriers likely don’t have the firepower of either Michigan or Detroit.
Senior Michael Emerson and sophomore Matt Lucas started every game last year at close D, though Emerson didn’t see game action against Boston U last week so his status is unclear. Tim Margiotta started four games as a freshman before getting injured and missing the rest of the year, so he’s back as a redshirt frosh. Junior Matt Campbell started in his stead during the second part of last season.
Senior Wilton McKown and sophomore JT Del Tufo should be the top options at short-stick defensive midfield, after being by far the most-used last year. Del Tufo was the only Bear with double-digit caused turnovers (not a focus of the defensive scheme, unsurprising with a pretty good goalie).
Without takeaway defenders, Mercer seems more focused on taking away good looks and that’s something Detroit, with plenty of offensive talent, should be able to crack. Michigan’s more of a question mark, but we’ll see how the young players on the roster allow for others (including fellow youngsters like sophomore middie Kyle Jackson and freshman attack Ian King) to create.
Special Teams
The faceoff game was the biggest advantage Mercer had last year. Now a junior, justin Evans won .561 of his draws, picking up many of the ground balls by himself. Backup Tyler Schott is gone, so if Evans isn’t working out, we’ll have to see a totally new player on draws. Both Michigan and Detroit have had their runs of success and struggle on faceoffs. Detroit has a number of options – for the first time in a while, they can mix things up and put another successful guy in on draws – and I think they should be able to battle Evans pretty even. If one guy isn’t working out, switching between Damien Hicks/Tyler Corcoran/Ryan Tarzia can make something work. Michigan has a couple options, but none of them other than Brad Lott have seen much success. There’s a chance the Wolverines battle Evans pretty even, but if things aren’t working out, focusing on the prevention of clean wins (and therefore fastbreak opportunities) will become the focus.
Mercer was a bad clearing team last year, hitting the .831 success rate, good for No. 52 nationally. That’s the expectation with a young squad, and given the big leap in experience this spring, it should get a bit better. Still, it’s something that both Michigan teams have a chance to exploit. Both have employed heavy riding off-and-on over time, and can pull it out of the playbook if needed. In the ride game, Mercer was No. 50 nationally. It’s unclear whether that’s a philosophical thing or their just not being very good. Detroit’s clear was really bad last year, and though Michigan’s was better, it still wasn’t great. Both teams should be able to have success.
Lucas, Campbell, and Del Tufo were the team leaders in committing penalties. That’s something to watch, given that Mercer played a pretty sloppy brand of lacrosse last year, with many more penalties than opponents. Their EMO was terrible, and the man-down defense wasn’t great, either. The Bears are going to want to clean up their game at all costs, because it can beat them to commit as many penalties as they did last year. They were really clean against Boston, but that comes with all the caveats of facing a first-year team. Michigan has traditionally been very clean while Detroit has been a little more penalty-prone. With a less aggressive defense expected from this edition of the Titans, look for both teams to have something of an advantage.
Big Picture
Both Michigan and Detroit should have the opportunity to succeed against a program that’s not yet established, and wasn’t very good last year. While Michigan will be coming off an emotional low of the Penn State game and Mercer is off the high of blowing out Boston University, the talent difference between these two teams should come into play. U-M does have more talent, even if the best players aren’t experienced yet.
For Detroit, this should be an opportunity to test-run a different focus. With the best defensive players from a year ago moving on and most of the offensive standouts returning, the aggressive takeaway defense won’t be needed as much. Protecting the goalie and allowing the offense to be possession-oriented (and preferably successful on those possessions) is the new look.
Both teams are looking at Mercer as one of the closest things to a sure win this season, and either of them losing to the Bears would be quite bad indeed.
Predictions
Starting with Michigan:
- The Wolverines seem to play better in Oosterbaan Fieldhouse, so the location is an advantage in that regard. Expect them to be as crisp as you’ll see them all season. The offensive execution is sharp, while other teams have trouble adjusting to the lighting, etc.
- Mercer has an edge on faceoffs regardless of whether Brad Lott plays, but it’s not a significant margin (and even closer if Lott is in). The fast break is in play once or twice though, thanks to a clean win from Evans.
- Michigan will see a player or two notch his first career point. That’s likely to be an assist from a faceoff man (or a goal or assist from redshirt freshman attack Brendan Gaughan), since the most likely options – Mikie Schlosser and Ian King – notched against Penn State.
- Mercer will have some openings on the inside from attackmen in what has become a very frustrating Michigan tradition. Either they’ll have to clean that up, Robbie Zonino will have to play a better game than he did against Penn State, or the scheme might have to get adjusted without Gerald Logan between the pipes.
I feel a fast-paced game coming on (not least of which because that probably benefits Michigan). The Wolverines run out to a 3-0 lead, and while Mercer has a couple medium-sized runs during the game, U-M is able to take it comfortably, 16-10.
As for Detroit:
- The identity change works out in this one. Detroit is able to get attackmen open on dodges, open shooting lanes for Mike Birney and other midfielders, and put together a very impressive offensive performance.
- The defense, on the other hand, will take some lumps early in the year. Over the past couple years, we’ve seen the Titans go away from the pressure defense, then snap back into it (successfully so) once a more passive scheme didn’t work out. Given the roster makeup of this squad, they should be able to stick with it longer, but they’ll have to adjust.
- This should be a game featuring a lot of EMOs – something that really benefits the Titans. Look for at least one bomb on the extra-man from Birney, and some solid scoring with the advantage.
Detroit’s program is far more stable, identity change or not. UDM is also used to playing in the friendly confines of Ultimate Soccer, and they can ride that comfort to an early lead before Mercer adjusts. Titans build a lead then ride it out, working through new offensive sets more than just trying to score all game. Detroit takes it by a 16-5 score.
Share your predictions, discussion, etc. in the comments.
I’m not sure that I agree with the contention that “Detroit’s program is far more stable” given that the Titans lost their starting goalie, 2 out of 3 starting defensemen, starting lsm (and the heir apparent is also out due to injury), offensive coordinator, and director of operations. Relatively stable yes, but nowhere near overwhelmingly so to that of Michigan. In that regard (along with it being the Titans first game of the season and Mercer’s second after a convincing win), the low single digit goal allowance prediction doesn’t quite make sense to me.
I would say the Detroit program is a hell of a lot more stable than Michigan’s at this point (through no fault of the Michigan coaches, they just haven’t had time to build up a roster of D-1 players).
If Michigan’s top faceoff guy – a sophomore – goes down, they have two freshmen (not highly recruited, either) to fall back on, or they can basically concede them and play a pole. Now, I think the backup specialists will be pretty good players, but that’s not a sign of a stable program. So too on defense, where they’ve had a number of guys go down, including some of the top recruited players. They’re pretty much bare bones back there, at least to start the season.
Detroit has six years of Division-1 recruiting – including seeing their first class already make it all the way through the program – and isn’t relying on underclassmen or club guys if somebody goes down (or in some cases to start).
I guess it depends on your definition of “stable” but I agree with Tim. Michigan is still figuring a lot of stuff out, and two recruiting classes is just that – two recruiting classes. Not that some of their older guys like Paras and Meter (is he playing tonight or injured?) are not capable. But there are still a lot of growing pains, very little depth, and young talent that is not fully developed.
JP keeps talking about building a D1 culture, and whatever you call it that process takes a few years – usually four for a new coach taking over an established program as he gets all his recruits there. Detroit has built their culture, and in my opinion Holtz has nailed it. Hard nosed, blue collar, proud of their city, mostly in-state kids who weren’t recruited heavily (chip on shoulder types).
Couldn’t have said it better myself about culture. Holtz and Kolon have absolutely nailed it a few years in. I think that’s part of why they’ve struggled going away from the high-pressure defense in recent years – because it fits so perfectly with their team culture.
The offensive identity hasn’t been quite as intertwined with the team culture over the years, but we’ll see if it all comes together at some point (and having a local kid who’s a big outside bomber might be part of those two merging to an extent).
At the faceoffs for Detroit Tarzia isn’t there anymore, they have a freshman who has been doing very well over these months I think he is there second guy if I’m not mistaken.
Whoops, I meant Joe MacLean for that (former FO specialist and current SSDM). No idea how I ended up writing Tarzia.
Hadn’t realized the backup was supposed to be a freshman. I would assume in that case it’s Benjamin Gjokaj out of Walled Lake Central.
Yeah heard Benjamin Gjokaj was a factor over the fall when the others were not doing so hot. Interesting to see how they find hidden talent. The coaching staff there must be doing a great job for their kids.
1. Syracuse hasn’t had a ‘real’ faceoff specialist for the past couple of years (including this year) and has taken a lot of heat for it. Other prominent teams have gone through similar situations. So I don’t think I’d say that lacking in the F/O department is a major indicator of stability of a program as a whole.
2. I’ll ask this again, if a “club guy” was recruited by other D1 teams and had similar high school credentials as others that went directly to D1, and now has 2 seasons of D1 experience…will he still be branded a “club guy” for life?
3. UDM and UofM looked pretty even and were tied in their game last year, so I just don’t see this vast superiority between the two programs. Yes UDM had close games with ND and Siena (and a few others), but UofM has also had close games with Colgate and OSU in the past couple of years.
4. UDM is not “mostly in-state kids”, it’s nearly half out-of-staters this year, and was slightly more so last year. Regardless of that, we can all agree that it’s nice to see local kids do well in our own collegiate backyard, particularly in the city.
5. I don’t agree with the “bare-bones” assessment of UofM’s defense. I’m not sure how upperclassmen with varsity game playing experience constitutes “bare-bones”. If that’s the case, how is UDM not also considered “bare-bones” at defense with 4 out of 5 on the unit being previous non-starters?
6. UDM had a great starting defensive class just graduate and a great starting offensive group there now, but I wouldn’t overstate their depth nor exaggerate their “6 years of recruiting”.
7. I also like UDM’s culture, and greatly admire the work it took to put it in place from scratch. I disagree with some of the assertion that UofM is still struggling to build an identity. A great foundation was already in place, given a nationally prominent athletic department and long-successful club team.
8. Other than head-to-head and common opponents, comparing UDM and UofM doesn’t tell the whole story. Bottom line, they play very different schedules in vastly different conferences.
9. UDM had a perfect storm (4 yr defensive class finally gelled, ND’s low scoring team, the nature of the MAAC, etc.) of success last year. Make no mistake, both programs are still in a “growing pains” phase. I think it takes closer to 10 years to really build a program (to consistency), not simply 4-6.
1. Of course not having a great faceoff specialist is not the indicator of program health. In Michigan’s particular case 1) it’s not the talent that’s in question, it’s the sheer number of bodies, and 2) the dearth of options is not the problem at that particular position itself, it’s symptomatic of a larger issue.
2. I think it’s become clear that the “D-1 caliber” of Michigan’s club guys was overstated (including by yours truly). Without getting into any specifics, it’s clear that some guys are doing everything in their bodies, but they simply aren’t the caliber of kid Michigan will be bringing in for the near future. That’s not even a debatable point.
3. One result on the field doesn’t indicate the overall picture of a program. Just like Michigan’s close games with Ohio State or Colgate and UDM’s close game with ND doesn’t say everything about the programs, the entire body of work does. Detroit was a significantly better team over the course of last season, wire-to-wire. (And while I don’t necessarily agree, the UDM coaches thought they were on the verge of blowing the doors off that game in Michigan Stadium last year).
4. “Mostly” shouldn’t be taken literally as employed by AndyD. UDM has and is continuing to emphasize in-state talent, augmenting it with some of the best kids that they can get from Canada and Long Island (and a random assortment of other guys here and there). Michigan is going to emphasize the traditional recruiting areas (Baltimore/LI) and the West with occasional forays into Canada, plus maybe the best one or two guys in Michigan that they’re interested in. That UDM’s identity is predicated in part on focusing in-state isn’t inherently a positive for them or a negative for Michigan. It’s just a difference between the way the two programs are built, nothing more or less.
5. Don’t take my word for it, John Paul said after the Marquette game that they have serious defensive depth issues, and they have to stay healthy to get through the year. UDM may be playing relatively inexperienced guys, but they’re still all (for the most part) guys recruited to play Division-1 lacrosse. Michigan has precious few of those, especially with Keady already going down for the year.
6. They have recruited for six years, I’m not sure there’s any way to argue that they haven’t. Michigan has recruited for two years, and again that’s not really up for debate. If you think the program that has fourth- or fifth-year guys available is not in a better depth situation than a team that has to play walkons or freshmen… I guess go ahead.
7. Yeah on the first part. I think you’re defeating a straw man with the second part. Nobody’s saying that Michigan isn’t establishing an identity, just that they’re more than two recruiting classes from that identity paying dividends on the Division-1 level. In fact, I’d say they’ve done an outstanding job developing an identity (more in terms of program-building than specific identity on the field) despite a lack of great results overall.
8. That’s what the stats are for. You can disagree in whole or in part with LaxPower and Tempo-Free Lax, but both say that UDM has been better over the past two years. Per TFL, Detroit was No. 48 and Michigan was No. 61 last year, compared to a difference of No. 50 against No. 60 the previous seasons. Those numbers are schedule-adjusted, and while I do think that the adjustments don’t put enough weight into winning against really easy teams versus losing against really good teams (Michigan’s SOS has been significantly tougher both years, obviously), the difference is there. Not huge, but it’s there.
9. Hopefully Detroit will use last year’s surprising run to build, and become what they eventually want to be (which I think is mostly just a better version of what they are now). Nobody’s saying they’re a finished product, just further along than Michigan, with only two years of recruits and three years of a team.
I thought the UDM vs Mercer game would be somewhat close (as in UDM would win by somewhere around the national average of 4-5 goals), but not nearly as close as what happened on Sunday. I think the results of that game as well as the UofM game vs Mercer (in comparison) at least partially validate (at least some of) my points.
Obviously UDM has 6 calendar years of recruiting under its belt, however, the first year didn’t really yield anything of major significance, the second year brought in the 2013 senior class (of defensive note in particular), and the third year brought in the current/last year’s offensive class. So in a larger sense UDM didn’t start putting together meaningful recruiting until the second and third years. I do, however, think that UDM’s MAAC championship and good NCAA Tournament showing has accelerated their recruiting (“timeline of progress”) from where it might otherwise have been going into this season.
UofM had a much more successful first year (with “club guys”) as opposed to UDM’s first year (with D1 recruits). Therefore, I don’t think the existence of the club program (and its players) should be discounted. Also keep in mind that UofM has 40,000+ students to draw from and a student body with sizeable east coast ties dating back many decades. UDM, on the other hand, only has 5,600 students whom are mostly local and regional. It should also be noted that UofM has a natural base with the top local (lacrosse) high schools. These demographics make a big difference in this debate.
Also keep in mind that there is wide variation in the caliber of D1 recruits. A new program at a small (religious) school in a non-traditional lacrosse area (especially one with the challenges facing Detroit) isn’t necessarily going to get the highest caliber recruits, especially in its first few years of existence. Meanwhile, Michigan is already getting some of the higher-level types of guys and had others who fit the bare minimum profile of a D1 player already walking around campus before there was a varsity team. These dynamics also allow for a pretty quick closing of the gap with UDM’s head start.
Finally, Michigan’s “club guys” and first year recruits were already more than competitive with UDM’s (4th and 5th year) recruited players in their not-quite 1.5 head-to-head meetings.
Again, I think you’re conflating “good team” with “strong program.” There’s little doubt in my mind that Michigan will eventually have a better program than Detroit, and I would say they already have some better players.
The question is whether Detroit’s program is more stable, and I’d say so given that they actually have upperclassmen who were recruited Division-1 players, etc. It’s an odd dynamic with Michigan’s team that the leadership has to come mostly from the guys who aren’t necessarily as good (long-term, at least) as the players who are under them.
Detroit has more depth – a sign of program health – but as long as U-M stays healthy, I think they’ll probably be the better team (and this weekend’s games bore that out, to a degree).
I think leadership coming from less-talented players is a lot more common than you think. It happens quite often in football. Lots of captains in the special teams ranks. Other notable examples: backup MSU QB Andrew Maxwell was a captain. Boston College Hockey captain Patrick Brown (former laxer) is on the 3rd or 4th line. UofM QB Tom Brady was a captain and split time with soph Drew Henson. Obviously those are/were stable programs.
Likewise, I think you’re reading too much into what really makes a D-1 recruit. As I’m sure you know from other sports, one program’s prized recruit is another school’s prefered walk-on. Likewise, as has been previously discussed elsewhere, there are club guys, D2/D3 players, and guys that decided not to play in college that are better than some D-1 lacrosse recruits. With more new lacrosse teams and especially with expanded rosters, sometimes a D-1 recruit is nothing more than someone that can hold his own in practice, get good grades, stay out of trouble, and pay full tuition.
Interesting and valid points by both Tim and CK. I guess I lean toward Tim’s view in light of the fact that UM has won only 3 games in 2+ seasons, and all have come against stinky teams. I predicted several weeks before the season that UM is capable of five wins this year, and I still hold that view. And if I were a betting man, I’d put money (but not a lot) on UM winning tomorrow against UD. But until UM can put together consecutive seasons of five or more wins, I would be reluctant to characterize the team as stable.