The Recent Football Moves Make Me Nervous Comment Count

Brian

10371144433_b465d57ca7_c[1]

Upchurch

I mentioned this on the podcast, but here's a text version: the recent shuffling in the football program does not fill me with a feeing of warmth. Three things that have happened that make me frown about where we are right now:

Moving Jake Ryan to MLB. The linebackers were slightly disappointing last year but mostly because they ended up playing behind guys like Nose Tackle Jibreel Black and Richard Ash. They weren't kept clean, ate a lot of instant-release blocks, and tried to cope.

Desmond Morgan is a quality player and James Ross will be once someone blocks a dude in front of him; Michigan also returns both of their backups. There is zero reason to move Ryan to the interior.

Meanwhile, SAM is much closer to the WDE spot than either interior one. Michigan will flip its line on up to 40% of their snaps, whereupon Ryan essentially is the WDE. He has never had to read run/pass from behind a defensive line. He's is prone to breakdowns he can get away with on the edge, given his athleticism and time. He has a spot as a WDE in nickel packages that gets him rushing the passer, which he's really good at. He's not used to the zone drops he needs to take from the interior. His best asset—rushing upfield—is going to happen on way fewer snaps.

That move is flat-out nonsense. Who plays SAM now? Are they moving Ross there? Playing Gant? McCray? Any knowledge we don't have about why they're making this move is bad knowledge to have about the future: it basically means that the current returning starters on the interior can't play, unless you want to be a Mike McCray booster.

Reshuffling every defensive assistant. Cornerbacks coach Roy Manning, who has never played or coached cornerbacks, sounds… not good. I'm willing to throw anyone who can recruit at a RB or WR position, but corner seems like a thing that you should either have done yourself or have a heap of previous experience doing.

Other guys do have some experience with the roles they step into, but shuffling these guys around is redolent of panic and seems unlikely to do much of anything to help. They had something very good going with their DL development, something that personnel issues may have obscured last year.

And the defense was basically fine last year until the last two games, when they got ground down by the best rushing offense in the country and blasted off the field by Tyler Lockett. Neither was entirely surprising. Meanwhile, the offensive staff is sacrosanct save the coordinator.

8646237509_35ec20ca02_z[1]Chris Bryant's departure. Not that I had much hope that Bryant was going to contribute once we'd heard about yet another surgery for the poor kid.

The issue here is that the exit, which Michigan certainly knew about or could predict before signing day, makes the whole no-commits-since August thing look even worse. It reinforces the toxicity that descended on the program midseason. It's one thing to lose the two DL you have on the hook because you can't run for yard one; it's an additional thing to replace them with air.

Depending on the status of a couple of special teams players, Michigan is one or two scholarships short and if inclined could have given a firm handshake to a couple of graduated fifth year guys. It's one thing to have a 16-man class when you've really only got 16 spots; it's another to leave three or four potential slots open, especially when you're the opposite of careful with redshirts.

That's why this class isn't quite what the star average makes it out to be, and why the recruiting tailspin hurts more than just on the defensive line.

These are the reasons I'm feeling nervous. But hey I was just feeling super optimistic in August so I'm probably totally wrong about this! That's the ticket!

Comments

gbdub

February 25th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

The defensive coaching shuffle doesn't bother me too much - these guys have been together 3 years and I'm fairly confident the coaches know what they can expect out of each coach. The move seems to recognize that some players weren't developing well and need more focused attention. The multi-headed interior line coaching clearly wasn't working all that well.



The Ryan move seems odd, but the "get him involved on every play" thought process seems at least plausible. I think Brian's assessment of him as basically a reckless pass rush specialist may be valid as of the last time we saw him a full go - but that was two years ago. I assume he's improved his football smarts since then. I also think it's a mistake to assume the SAM will be deployed in the same way as the last couple years - moving both the best LB and changing the LB coach sounds like "scheme change" to me. So no, no one can immediately fill the Jake Ryan SAM role, but perhaps no one will be asked to.



As for the Offensive staff being sacrosanct, that bugs me a bit too - I would have preferred to see Nuss bring some new blood with him. But since he didn't, I definitely don't want him shuffling the staff - he can't have the same sort of grasp on the skills of his assistants that Mattisson does on D.

HollywoodHokeHogan

February 25th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^

        was fine, but we don't trust the guys running it?  Sorry, but the turn-around from the joke defense  RR & Greg fielded has bought this coaching staff plently of leeway on that side of the ball from me.  *I'm sure that means a lot to them*

umalum16

February 25th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^

Worst post I've read on this site in a long time.

 

"There is zero reason to move Jake Ryan to the interior."

 

Says who? A guy who watched a bunch of film after the games were over? I'm sorry, but stuff like this really gets to me sometimes.

 

I understand that some people get upset by "trust the coaches" type statements, but has it ever occurred to anybody out there that maybe they actually have information on Jake Ryan and the other linebackers that leads them to believe that they just might be more qualified to make a major decision like this than you are? Do you think they did this on a whim? I'm sure it took weeks and months to make these decisions.

 

Also, questioning which coach coaches which position is old. Yeah, Manning never played CB, but he also never played RB or DL, two other positions he was previously slated to coach. I'm sure the coaches have some idea of what it takes to make such a move.

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 25th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^

I won't say it's been Hoke's whole tenure (I thought 2011 worked out well), the last two seasons have seen more and more personel mismanagement I believe.  The whole Garnder is a WR (who wasn't all the good at it), and Bellomy is a viable back-up (who was just terrible) was an egregious misjudgement of personel that cost UM the division title.  We've seen them shuffle the line in 2012 at the last minute, which also didn't work.  In 2013, the OL got shuffled around a bunch with no answers.  They seemingly wanted Braden to start then pulled that plug at the last minute.  They seemingly wanted Thomas to be the nickel, then pulled the plug on that.  They shuffled the safeties, and inserted CB Avery as safety to no avail.  They still seemed to think the TE's could block. 

A big part of the coach's job is to identify which players on the team will give the team the best chance to win.  They have to do this in practice because one or two games dropped in the season is huge in college football.  And this staff has seemingly not been able to do this consistently.  Maybe this is not roster mismanagement to you, but it seems like it to me.

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^

For the umpteenth time, Gardner was our leading receiver for a significant portion of the 2012 season. Four games into the year, he was our leading receiver. Five games into the year, he had 13 catches for 226 yards (17.4 yards/catch) and 4 touchdowns, which were more than our other receivers had combined (Funchess 2, Roundtree 1). The hallowed Jeremy Gallon had 1 more catch, fewer yards, and 0 touchdowns up to that point. If Gardner had remained at WR in 2012, he very likely would have ended the year #1 or #2 in receiving.

As far the offensive line, Avery, Thomas, etc., just because they tried guys out at certain positions doesn't mean that it was roster mismanagement. That seems silly. Guys get tryouts at positions or get a chance to start all the time, and it's not going to work out 100% of the time. We all should realize this.

LordGrantham

February 25th, 2014 at 2:02 PM ^

So you think it was a good idea to put Gardner at WR so he could haul in a whopping 40 yards per game while leaving no viable backup for your injury-prone QB, a decision which likely directly cost them the conference title?  That's a high price to pay for a few hundred yards. And how would you defend the burning of both York and Jones' redshirt?  Were a handful of special teams plays worth that too?  And what about Bosch? We burned his redshirt only to see him perform miserably and get benched two games later.  Morris is slightly more debatable, but at the end of the day, we had him play garbage spans in a blowout at the beginning of the year, and worthless snaps in a blowout at the end of the year.  And what of the ridiculous shuffling of the D line and the refusal to play Washington?  This is all in addition to what Freddie said above.  It's simply hard to escape the conclusion that this a weak point for Hoke.

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^

Gardner: I think you try to get your best athletes on the field. Gardner is clearly one of the top few athletes on the team, so leaving him to wait on the bench is pretty silly. It was a gamble that didn't work out because Denard got hurt. Up to that point, Denard was not "injury prone." He got knocked out of a couple games here or there (Illinois, BGSU), but he never had a sustained injury until Nebraska 2012.

York and Jones: I don't entirely understand the York situation. Regardless, he might end up in a situation where he gets the redshirt retroactively like Gardner did. I don't agree with playing Jones, but I'm also not sure that is a huge indictment of Hoke's coaching tenure.

Bosch: Who cares? Our linemen were sucking and getting injured. I don't give a rat's patoot if they stuck another guy in there who was a) healthy and b) champing at the bit to get on the field. The other options were bad, too. They gave Bosch a shot and it didn't work out. This would really only be a bad move if somebody else went in there and did appreciably better.

I'm fairly certain that you will find situations like the Bosch one at just about every program. If you think every coach puts 22 guys out there who are automatically the unquestioned starters and best players at their positions for 12-14 games every season, you have been greatly misled.

LordGrantham

February 25th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

Trying to get your best athletes on the field is not an excuse to set fire to your depth chart, particularly not when your #3 QB is incapable of competing at a Big Ten level.  And sure, we don't care about Bosch now, but if he matures into an excellent lineman as projected, I think people will care a lot that we don't have him for an extra year. 

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^

"Trying to get your best athletes on the field is not an excuse to set fire to your depth chart, particularly not when your #3 QB is incapable of competing at a Big Ten level."

First of all, "setting fire to your depth chart" is hardly the situation when you've got a redshirt freshman backup and you can move your WR back to QB if anything long-term happens.

Second...why not? Let's assume your statement is true. What good does a depth chart do if the starters stay healthy? The last time Michigan suffered a long-term, debilitating injury to a quarterback was (if I'm not mistaken) Matt Gutierrez in 2004, and he was simply the presumed starter, not already entrenched. Otherwise, Henne missed a short amount of time in 2007 and Sheridan, Threet, Forcier, and Denard all remained pretty healthy from 2005-2011, aside from the occasional ding that pretty much every position suffers regulary (missing a quarter or a half here or there).

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

"a decision which likely directly cost them the conference title?"

Also, your use of "likely" is highly questionable. Michigan was not doing well in the Nebraska game even with their starter (Denard Robinson) still in the game, so assuming a win there is odd. Furthermore, Michigan would have had to have played Wisconsin the Big Ten Championship game, a game that would have been 50/50 for Michigan AT BEST. In fact, I would say that Michigan LIKELY still would not have won the conference championship.

funkywolve

February 25th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^

I thought a lot of people felt Bellomy performed as well, if not maybe better, then Gardner in the 2012 spring game (at work and not taking the time to find examples). 

Also, Gardner didn't exactly set the world on fire at the beginning of the Minnesota game.  It took him a while to settle down and get comfortable.  I realize he hadn't practiced at QB much up until that week, but even if they had left him as the #2 QB, I'm not sure he comes into the Nebraska game looking polished and comfortable.  Maybe his running ability gives him an advantage over Bellomy.  Hindsight is always 20/20. 

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 25th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^

But eventually Gallon blew up as a receiver....because Gardner was finally given a chance at QB.  Gardner certainly used his athletcism to gain some yards and convert some TDs, but he also dropped many a ball that Gallon would normally come up with.  He certainly didn't look like the gamebreaker at WR he was hyped up to be.  And I don't believe UM won any games because UM had Gardner at WR.  Conversely UM did lose the Neb game because Gardner was at WR and Bellomy was QB.  If Bellomy had been a legit option at QB, then it may have worked out fine.

Coaches are judged by the personel decisions they make and whether they work out.  In the Gardner/Bellomy case.  It didn't.  In the secondary shuffling, it didn't.  In the OL shuffling it didn't.  The OL and secondary had youth and inexperience to contend with, so I'm tyring not to be so hard on the staff for that, but man, shouldn't something have worked out at this point?  When's the last position switch this staff ran out there and actually worked?  That's my big question.

 

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^

"Gardner certainly used his athletcism to gain some yards and convert some TDs, but he also dropped many a ball that Gallon would normally come up with."

What's your point? Your point seems to be that Devin Gardner wasn't as good of a receiver as the Imaginary Guy on the Roster. The fact is that Denard Robinson and/or Al Borges were getting the ball to Devin Gardner, who was gaining more yards per catch and scoring more touchdowns than the other guys. If you want to say that Gardner misjudged a ball here or there or dropped a pass, fine. I can also say that Taylor Lewan allowed a sack to Adolphus Washington, that Braylon Edwards dropped several passes in his career, that Jeremy Gallon got caught from behind too often, etc. Taylor Lewan is clearly a worse offensive tackle than the non-existent left tackle that never misses a block and drives every defensive end 10 yards downfield, but he's the best we had.

Are you suggesting that Jeremy Gallon wouldn't have blown up as a receiver if Denard had remained healthy? So in other words, are you suggesting that Gardner would have remained our best wide receiver if Denard had stayed healthy? The coaches can't count on guys getting hurt. You have to spread out the athleticism when you can.

What's the last position switch that worked out? I dunno...Glasgow moving from guard to center seemed to be a positive step. Funchess moving from TE to WR seemed like a move in the right direction. If you ignore all the good things, there's nothing left but bad things.

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 25th, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^

Well that's quite the non-sequitur.  I expect no one on the roster to be able to adequtely replace Lewan.  What Gardner brought to the table at WR could be replaced by other aspects of the offense. Again, what did Gardner bring to the offense at WR that was the difference between a loss and a win?  The point is that Gardner at WR (even as a leading WR at the time) and Bellomy at QB was not nearly as good for the team as Gardner as back-up QB and Someone Else at Gardner's WR position.  Given what we've seen from Gardner after the Neb game, I don't think it's a stretch to think UM had a good chance at winning the Neb game with Gardner at QB. 

Honestly, the most damning point, if you want to believe the 'insider' talk that Brian reported, is that the coaching staff gave up on Gardner at QB; that they thought he would never be able to play it, and thus moved him to WR.  Who knows how true that insider talk is, but I tend to trust the writers of this site that they are reporting things they hear in good faith.

And did the move of Glasgow to center actually work?  The run game was still pretty putrid with him at center.  And then the team had to deal with some errant snaps presumably because he wasn't repping exclusively at center during the offseason.  Why didn't they identify him as the best center option in the offseason?  The Funchess move was good if you actually consider it a position switch.  I would consider it more of just a modern depolyment of a modern TE, which admittidly looks pretty much like a WR these days.

Reader71

February 25th, 2014 at 4:02 PM ^

They didn't consider Glasgow the best center before the season, presumably because of the bad snaps. That's not unreasonable. Or perhaps they believed he might develop into the best center at some point in the season due to some extra snaps in practice. Or maybe they figured he was the best guard and wanted him at his best position.

The point is that you yourself cast doubt on if his position switch was a success while in the same breath questioning why the staff couldn't recognize he was the best option. When all their options were suboptimal, and the switches offered no clear consensus even in hindsight, how can we really fault them?

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^

Fine. Let's put Gardner as the backup at QB for the first several games of 2012. Take away his 5 catches for 63 yards and 1 touchdown against Air Force, a game Michigan won by a score of 31-25. Can you guarantee that Michigan would have won that game without Gardner's 63 yards and his score? On a literal level, you can't guarantee it, obviously. But in a general sense, we very likely could have LOST that game without his touchdown if his replacement had been unable to score.

I do not believe that the coaches gave up on Gardner as a quarterback, regardless of whether it was posted here or not. He was the #1 dual-threat QB in the 2010 class, and he obviously has the talent (though not the consistency yet) to be an outstanding quarterback. The idea that this coaching staff gave up on the QB who set records as a passer does not pass the eye test, especially because they didn't recruit a QB in 2012 to take his place. Assuming they thought he was a lost cause as a QB, their depth chart in 2013 would have been a redshirt sophomore Bellomy and a true freshman Shane Morris. Do you REALLY believe they would leave themselves with two young, unproven scholarship quarterbacks while the former #1 recruit at his position ran routes at WR? Really?

I don't know why the coaches didn't identify Glasgow as the best center, but they didn't. He did have some errant snaps - and I was very critical of them - but he ironed out those issues over the final few games. And whether you like my analysis or not, he was better at center than Jack Miller. Of course the line still sucked, but we're talking about individual position changes.

And I'm sorry, but if you don't think Devin Funchess's position changed from TE to WR between 2012 and 2013, then I'm not sure you're qualified to be having this conversation. His deployment was not "that of a modern TE." The offense had a TE or two (Jake Butt, AJ Williams), and their two starting wide receivers were Jeremy Gallon and Devin Funchess. If you want to argue that Hoke's personnel decisions have been poor, I disagree, but have at it. But Funchess playing WR is not a difference of opinion; it's the truth.

gbdub

February 25th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^

The fact that Gardner was our leading receiver at the start of 2012 does not necessarily make his move to WR a good one. The relevant question is whether he was better enough than the next best option to offset the loss of our clear #2 QB, and production isn't the best metric there. Who's to say that Roundtree, Funchess, or Gallon could not have put up similar numbers in the #1 wideout role? We won't know because they weren't running those routes. On the other hand, hindsight is 20/20, and the Gardner / Bellomy distinction was a little less clear at the start of 2012 than it is now.

I'm surprised by your second paragraph. It's one thing to give a guy a tryout at a position. It's another to play musical chairs on a critical unit (known for requiring unit cohesion) for an entire season, especially when the musical chairs do not result in a markedly better unit at the end of the season. Not batting 1.000 is one thing, but the OLine last year flat struck out.

Magnus

February 25th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

"Who's to say that Roundtree, Funchess, or Gallon could not have put up similar numbers in the #1 wideout role?"

We can't possibly know the answer to that question, but you could ask the same question about any receiver ever. By the same token, how do we know that Logan Tuley-Tillman wasn't a better left tackle than Taylor Lewan? If LTT had been given a chance to play, maybe he wouldn't have allowed a sack and would have been an All-American. Maybe Brian Cleary wouldn't have thrown 10 interceptions in the first half of the season and would have led us to blowout wins over Akron, UConn, etc. The fact is that Roundtree, Funchess, and Gallon didn't earn the yardage and scores that Gardner did. Who knows why? But obviously, Denard and Gardner had a pretty good QB/WR connection.

BlueTimesTwo

February 25th, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^

I think that a lot of people are having 20/20 hindisght on Gardner.  I don't recall Gardner being "our clear #2 QB" at the time that he would have entered the Nebraska game.  We were all very pleasantly surprised by the way he closed out 2012, but up until he took over the reins he had been quite inconsistent at QB.  Based on his QB performances up to that point, I don't think that there was any evidence or consensus that he would be clearly better than Bellomy.  Not knowing that the light would suddenly go on for Gardner at QB is not necessarily roster mismanagement, especially since that would have meant leaving one of our best athletes on the bench for the majority (and ideally all) of the season.

LordGrantham

February 25th, 2014 at 3:40 PM ^

Seriously?  Bellomy put out one of the worst QB performances in Michigan history at Nebraska. Gardner had certainly proved an ability to do better than that. Sure, you could say "well they didn't know Bellomy would perform so badly," but if that's the case, its still an indictment of their ability to understand the capabilites of their roster.

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 25th, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^

I get what you're saying, but it's a coach's job to know.  No one is going to be perfect, but how good a coach is is partially about how they can identify their talent in practice effectively to win games.  How was Matt Millen supposed to know all the people he drafted/signed were to suck?  Is he not accountable because of that?  Or is it just 20/20 hindsight on the fans part to point this out.  They looked good in college.  Bottom line is that Hoke and the staff need to know this kind of stuff before it costs them in games.  It's their job.

Space Coyote

February 25th, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^

After the 2012 spring game, most people wanted DG at WR because Bellomy looked better than DG at that point. DG was far from a clear choice at #2 at that point, and most people were advocating the move to WR. DG didn't even start off that great as a QB, only throwing 234 yards against a bad Minny team in which he started out very rough before things started being a bit easier. He went on to have a marginal game against Northwestern, before things started looking better against Iowa, and then finally the bowl game (he was hit or miss in the OSU game).

People act like you can see the finished product (or the more polished product) and assume it was easy to see that is how he would turn out. But I think it's pretty clear that he benefited greatly from confidence and starters reps, but that his ultimate skill was no where near evident before that. He always had potential, but was extremely raw and struggled in the game situations he saw. He worked out for him at QB in the end, but this whole DG not playing WR is very clearly 20/20 hindsight by most Michigan fans.

And he still has great upside at WR if he would have stayed at the position. It's not like they put him at a position where he wouldn't achieve. He had NFL potential at WR if he conitnued to gain reps there.

On top of that, they had prepared a different QB by the next game. You don't go into a game expecting your starting QB to get injured and having to play the backup extensively. Bellomy and DG looked at least pretty equal going into that situation, afterward, they made the change. Acting like DG would have come into a hostile environment at night, losing to Nebraska, and somehow led Michigan to victory is extremely optimistic. It may have even worked out better that he didn't get his first extensive minutes at that point.

gbdub

February 25th, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^

So, we've beaten the Gardner thing to death and beyond.

But the bigger question, "has Hoke done a good job managing his personnel" is still debatable, I think, since that's where "how much should I panic about Jake Ryan moving" comes from. I can think of 3 head scratchers:

1) The O-line shuffle last year. In the end it seemed counterproductive, and if camp and practice were unable to reveal that Miller was not going to be a plausible OL option at any position (and so on and so forth throughout the season with multiple guys playing flavor of the week) then I think the effectiveness of practice has to be questioned.

2) The D-line last year - why did Washington disappear, and why was Jibreel Black deployed at nose tackle against power run teams like OSU despite his inability to keep the LBs clean?

3) I guess this is less of a personnel question and more on Borges, but why did we continue to field TE sets (rather than 3+ receivers) long after it became apparent that none of them could play the blocking TE role effectively?

Now the coaches obviously know more, but they also aren't obviously infallible. I don't think we should panic about Jake moving, but it's not an obvious slam dunk either.

BlueCube

February 26th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^

We have people a year and a half later who think Morris should be the starter. I assume we then leave someone with Gardner's talent on the bench oin case of injury.

Players learn during the season and young players are going to learn at different rates. What I'm hearing is that the coaches should only make changes if they are absolutely guaranteed to work. With that standard, they probably shouldn't have played any games last year given the inexperience of the players.

The coaches are not idiots and they see these players every day. To use hindsight to try to judge their moves at the time and making assumptions on what players would have done may be fun, but it's not very realistic or useful.

True Blue Grit

February 25th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^

you're looking at the wrong coaching administration.  RR set the benchmark for "awful roster management" that Hoke is doing his best to fix.  I agree with Magnus.  Other than not taking a QB in 2012, I think most positions on the roster have improved in quality and depth.  Experience is something that just takes time to fix.

gbdub

February 25th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^

RR made (or depending on how generous you feel, was forced into) some poor recruiting choices that resulted in bad depth. Hoke has been (so far) much better in this regard (though the lack of star DL this year may eventually haunt us).

But I don't think the complaint is leveled at recruiting - it's what's been done with the guys once they get here. Not just with development (although that's a legit concern, especially on the lines) but on where, how, and when players are deployed. And Hoke is not unquestionably perfect in that regard.

gbdub

February 26th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

1) Rich Rod's teams had the most immediate needs on defense (particularly the secondary) and at the offensive skill positions, and I think his classes reflected that. Unfortunately that's biting us now because it left a hole at O-Line. So not "forced" necessarily, but definitely "had more pressing concerns than the 2013 O-Line".

2) By the end of his tenure, the atmosphere around the program was clearly affecting recruiting, and since you can't force people to sign on, sometimes you miss out on your preferred guys.

2 was largely driven by the team's on field failure (hence my "depending on how generous" caveat) - but even then the recruiting results say more about RR's record than they do about his ability to identify talent and position needs.

3) For Hoke, you could say he was "forced" into making some late pickups of guys he might not have recruited otherwise due to his hiring date. He was "forced" into not pursuing certain DL recruits as heavily because of Hand and McDowell's late decisions (unless you want to fault him for assuming, or at least preferring, he'd get one or both of them).

Main point was that recruiting is not completely in the control of coaches.

mGrowOld

February 25th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^

Who in their right mind trusted Borges?  Brady Hoke did.  And I'm pretty sure he's the guy now "trusting" the defensive staff to make wholesale changes in an effort to make things better on that side of the ball.

wile_e8

February 25th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^

There's a reason people get upset "trust the coaches" type statements: it's a lazy argument from authority:

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]

(emphasis mine)

There are probably plenty of reasons why Brian is fretting too much about these changes - many of them mentioned above. But simply using "trust the coaches" logic is lazy and annoying. Please stop it.

ca_prophet

February 25th, 2014 at 6:44 PM ^

As in "authority figure X made choice 1, therefore it is more likely to work out than not". It cannot be used to establish facts I.e. "Authority figure Y made choice 2 therefore that is the only correct choice".

That being said, Brian is feeling worried - to some degree no argument will help with that, and we are coming off a felt-bad season with lots of question marks - and his judgement appears to be that Authority Figure X doesn't know what he's doing here. Some disagree but the proof is in the season results.

uncleFred

February 25th, 2014 at 10:16 PM ^

In general appeals to authority are not to people whose production is under scrutiny and meassurement. Trusting the coaches is not an appeal to authority it is a recognition that you are acknowledging  that the people you are deferring to must produce. The product of the "authority" is being tested on a weekly basis. It's hardly lazy to acknowledge that the coaches have forgotten more about football than the vast majority of us will ever learn and that they are under incredible pressure to produce. 

I find people who believe that they have sufficient knowledge and expertise to ignore the life long tests faced by the coaches arrogant and annoying "please stop it".

 Feel free to object all you like but the razor cuts both ways. I respect the hard won knowledge that Brian has acquired and acknowledge that he knows far more than me, but he is not a coach and under most circumstances I'm going to trust the coach's opinion over Brian's. 

JeepinBen

February 25th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

Sometimes late position switches work really well. at 6'3" 250lbs, I'm hoping he can be like another late-to-Mike switcher, one mr. Urlacher.

/Glass is 100% Full, half with water, half with air

IowaBlue

February 25th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^

I'm expecting a Sean Lee type of performer out of the Jake Ryan move... tackles being made side line to side line and right up the gut.  Sean was all over the damn field.... I'm hopefully optimistic on this move and expect we'll find a fine replacement for Ryan's old spot.

ohioNblue33

February 25th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

Coached RBs at Cincinnati I believe. I think he can handle it. I thought the coaches said they don't want other teams taking him out of plays. I like the move. He's in the thick of things now.

FreddieMercuryHayes

February 25th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^

Brian specifically mentioned moving someone to RB as not a big deal because 'coaching' RBs doesn't involve as much actually coaching as say, a CB. Technique and reads are huge in the secondary (although a CB can rely on athleticism more than other D positions), while RB is a largely instinctual position, and coaching/improving players is a simpler task.