I Am So Confused (or Why Do My Four-Stars Suck?)
Note: The data is from Rivals; I recognize that they have some different class (fresh, soph, etc.) info than I expected on some players, but for consistency, I used their data as published.
I am no Steve Sharik or gsimms, but after watching Iowa play defense Saturday night, I have to report back to Houston that there is a problem, and it’s not just our players. I just don’t buy Brian’s comment in his “Soaring” post that “Michigan's recruiting was wildly deficient in more than one area and will be an anchor going forward.” We may lack depth, but the guys on the front lines are supposed to be studs. Individually, many look like studs – Graham and Warren and Martin and Roh and even Brown this year – but put them together and Indiana shreds us.
Iowa's defense is better than ours. A lot better. This doesn't surprise anyone reading this, but the point I wish to make is not that they are better, but how in the name of Shiva the Destroyer is such a thing possible?
Let's look at the two defenses:
The Iowa defense is younger than ours overall and features a less-experienced secondary that averages 5.3 for a Rivals Rating, or a middle range two-star. Brian says about Michigan, “There is exactly one junior and no seniors at both safety and cornerback.” Iowa has less experience. Yet my gut tells me – with absolute certainty – Darryl Clark will have a far better day against our secondary. Who wants to take me up on that bet?
In general, their players are more lowly rated at every position (possible exception of one LB), often significantly so, with players converted from the offensive side of the ball (a TE turned DL) and one playing out of position.
Now one of two things is true.
- All our studs coming out of high school were overrated and we can say things like Cissoko isn’t good and Van Bergen isn’t good and our LBs aren’t good with a straight face and a shrug towards our bad evaluation of talent over two coaches, or
- Our coaching/scheme is flawed. The front line talent is there (no depth, I know), but they either haven’t been developed or the system hurts their performance.
Occam’s Razor makes it difficult to accept that our stud HS talent was pretty much collectively overrated, and Iowa’s meh HS talent was pretty much vastly underrated. Ferentz would have given a kidney to have Cissoko or Warren or Graham or Brown or Mouton or Martin. He doesn’t have enough organs to bargain with the devil to get those types of players with mega-hype coming out of HS, yet he easily is fielding a better defense that probably would have consumed Indiana whole without any sauce.
As for the “new system” argument – that switching from Shafer to Robinson has resulted in our guys being at the start of a new learning curve – I accept some of that, but not all. Now, I will defer to Sharik or gsimms to tell me whether a new system can transform studs into non-studs, but it would seem to me that stopping Eastern in the first half or stopping Indiana at all would frequently be possible with raw stud talent playing by instinct.
Please understand that I am not traditionally negative, and that I am really seeking an answer from people who know more about football than I do. Is our system/defensive coordinator sound? Are most of our players overrated? Would Iowa's starters on defense playing for Michigan and GERG be playing at the same high level? Or would Brian be observing that an unrated player (a walk-on, I assume) was playing in the secondary?
September 28th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^
Go to an Iowa board and see what they think of Normie and his cover 2. Let's play the game 1st before we speculate on how much better they are than us.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^
After Saturday's outcome, I'd imagine they feel pretty good about their defense right now.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^
Who is complaining after holding Penn State to 10 points in Happy Valley? I would assume a wingnut. They gave up 3 points to team otherwise averaging 32 points a game and held both Arizona and Penn State to small points. This, I would argue, is superior performance to what Michigan has shown.
I hope you track me down and laugh at my laughable post after we destroy Iowa - never would I be so happy to be wrong.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
If you look at Brian's "depth chart by class" page you will see that Michigan has 16 sophomores, juniors or seniors on defense. By comparison, the offense (which is also considered very young) has 24 sophomores, juniors or seniors. When you are choosing from such a small pool of experienced players, chances are you are going to play some guys who you do not want on the field. Then add a couple injuries into the mix, and it's easy to see why Michigan's situation on D is not so good.
I do not know Iowa's situation on defense very well, but it would not surprise me if they have a larger pool of experienced defensive players to choose from.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
Lack of depth is a real problem. I don't know about Iowa's situation, but we've got walk-ons and true freshmen rounding out our two-deep. This hurts in a couple of ways. For one, the starters don't have the practice competition they need to be pushed to excel. For another, they have to play a large number of snaps and no matter how hard you train in the offseason, that can catch up to you.
The other issue is having three DCs in three years. They've had to process a lot of differing information. Shafer's system in particular was supposed to be complex and seems to have been lost on the players, possibly setting back their development.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
Dan, because they're younger, that doesn't mean they have "less experience". Michigan returned 5 defensive starters - Graham, Mouton, Ezeh, Warren, and sort of Stevie Brown (I say "sort of", as he's a starter at a new position). Iowa returned 8 - Clayborn, Ballard, Edds, Angerer, Hunter, Speivey, Sash, and Greenwood. So - they have twice as many experienced starters.
Next, lets look at the "new replacements":
Karl Klug played in 13 games last year, somewhat extensively: enough to rack up 17 tackles, 5 TFL's, and 2 sacks as a backup DT.
Broderick Binns played in 12 games, also somewhat extensively: racking up 22 tackles, 2.5 TFLs, and 2 sacks as a backup DE.
Shawn Prater played 13 games, picked up 13 tackes and 3 PBU's.
Michigan's new starters:
Ryan Van Bergen is somewhat experienced - playing all 12 games, picking up 13 tackles. He has less experience and less production than either of Iowa's "new" linemen.
Mike Martin got a fair amount of experience: 12 games, 20 tackles, 4.5 TFL's, 2 sacks. We'll call him a wash with Iowa's two new DL's.
Cissoko is likely roughly as experienced as Prater - 12 games played, 15 tackles, 3 PBU.
Troy Woolfolk didn't play a down of defense, racking up 10 games played and 9 special teams tackles.
Mike Williams was our 4th safety, and played 11 games, making 14 tackles.
Craig Roh is a true freshman.
Iowa returned 98 starts from last year on defense, Michigan returned 55. Not a single one of Iowa's "new starters" are green. At least 3 of of Michigan's are, and a 4th is playing a new position for the first time.
So say that Michigan is more experienced than Iowa is, simply, wrong.
If your point is that "Iowa has done an excellent job developing their talent", I agree with you. Ferentz often turns out extremely good defensive teams, often with lower-recruited players. I just think the information, as you present it, is misleading. Iowa's defense, regardless of class, is veteran.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:47 PM ^
Fair enough and good research. However, one would expect that while they appear from your numbers to have an experience edge, we would appear to have a raw talent edge. Yet, I would argue their performance to date is much stronger.
That said, the great test of many of the recent posts will be improvement as our inexperienced players rack up game time. While it seems reasonable to expect that improvement, I have a cold fear of what Michigan State will do this Saturday, and I think that fear has a schematic component. Too often, I see our marginal CB position alone on a island against talent. Too often, I see a LB bounce off of a RB or appear confused. Too often, our rock meets their paper.
Again, I very much hope to be proven wrong.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
There are so many factors that go into football defense. (And this list probably isn't exhaustive.)
1) Scheme - How the players are deployed by the coach.
2) Execution - How the players execute the scheme. (Are they in the right gaps? Covering the right zones--or men?)
3) Technique - Are the corners turning the hips the right way in coverage. Pad Level on the D-Line. Form Tackling.
4) Talent - Do you have the skills to win individual battles against your opponent? (Like Braylon vs. any corner. Like the Warren interception. Some of our nasty D-Lines--2006 or 1997--consistently pressuring with 4 rushers and stopping the run.)
All the talent in the world can cause an "instinctive" LB or Safety to bite on Play Action. All of the speed in the world couldn't help Stevie Brown (v1.0) take the right tackling angle as a safety.
Talent can bring a lot of these things together. Talent can create big plays. Talent can create good problems (e.g. How do I get Denard on the field so he can use that relativistic speed?) But by itself, talent cannot win close games.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
This “problem”, highly touted recruits not living up to expectations, isn’t only a D problem, and it didn’t just start last season. Michigan has not played up to expectations for some time. Just take a quick look at Rivals & Scout recruiting rankings for Michigan and tosu during the Carr/Tressel years:
Rivals Rankings
Michigan TOSU
2002 #16 #5
2003 #17 #41
2004 #5 #9
2005 #6 #12
2006 #13 #12
2007 #12 #15
Scout Rankings
Michigan TOSU
2002 #19 #3
2003 #8 #25
2004 #5 #11
2005 #2 #7
2006 #9 #13
2007 #10 #16
Basically, per Rivals, Lloyd out recruited Tressel 4 out of 6 years that they went head to head. Per Scout, 5 out of 6.
Of course, that’s not how things played out on the field. Recruiting rankings, either by class or by player, tell only a very small part of the story.
And since this is only the second season w/ the new coaching staff? You won’t be able to judge R2’s player recruitment and development (or Robinson’s or anyone else's) for another year or two.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:53 PM ^
Excellent observation, one I made back in my blogging days...
http://www.logictimes.com/Blue/Recruiting-Surprise.htm
...and I am eager to see the new talent. But GERG is the unknown here; there is no Jeff Casteel to implement RR's vision (stack). There is a bit of a gamble underway.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
3rd D coordinator in 3 years.
I don't think people understand how much this can mess up a young player's head.
Another year, another set of responsibilities and calls to learn. This simply can't be helping, and probably hasn't helped with recruiting either.
I'm looking for the defense to tighten up as the season goes on. Yes I realize it's week 5 now and freaking Indiana torched our D, but I have to think it can only improve, right? Can't get much worse.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
I think at least some of the brutality borne by the secondary each week is due to the almost complete inability of our D-Line to generate pressure with any consistency (How many sacks has our defense generated on the year? 1 per game? Less?). If the quarterback can get all day to throw, he'll dice up any secondary not featuring 5 Donovan Warrens. And even then...
I'm somewhat mystified by our D-Line woes, since Roh has shown great promise and a crazy crab-stance-of-destruction, BGraham is BGraham, and reports in the offseason were that Van Bergen and Martin were talented. Mouton and Ezeh have obviously been spotty at best, but anyone watching games (or other teams' run games) have seen our line get manhandled by the other team's O-Line.
...and as a final question, why is Will Campbell not seeing snaps? The few snaps I saw him play against Eastern resulted in PANCAKE takedowns of his assignment on the goal line. Any word on why he's MIA?
September 28th, 2009 at 8:44 PM ^
and then not being able to take advantage of our numbers in the secondary. i think you can protect 1 deficient player in the secondary, but two is asking too much. Kovacs and the non-DW corner just can't hack it.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:21 AM ^
Hmm thanks for the answer colin-- I guess we should either revert to more blitzing or hope JT Floyd, lacking speed, develops Leon Hall ballhawking ability fast.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:47 AM ^
than being especially effective with the rushers that are sent. Especially calls good enough to confuse the opposing OL/QB and disguising coverage. There are plenty of counters to blitzing, so there's no gain in being predictable.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^
The numbers analysis relies on comparing the starting 11 for comparing averages in star/# ratings and experience, but if you entedn that to all players that have actually been on the field, my guess is that it will be a lot closer. You add in a few walk-ons with zero ratings on the michigan side and that number will drop precipitously.
Factors:
DEPTH: As mentioned in previous replies, you have a much lower talent level across the guys that are rotating in to rest the starters and less competition in practice.
NEW DC/SCHEME: young players becoming accustomed to 'another' new scheme after only only getting a partial 'package' last year. See Ryan Van Bergen's mistakle on the 85 yard touchdown run....purely a new player, new scheme kind of mistake in setting up.
REPOSITIONING: Lots of players getting first time experience at a new position or a re-alignment/re-purpose of their previous duties.
ADD al these together and you have the recipe for some growing pains, which i think was rather widely predicated by most at the beginning of the season. I don't ever remember anyone, fan or media, predicting anything except that the michigan defense would be suspect at best....and here were are, suspicious.
I agree with previous posts, I think that it is premature to gauge player recruiting and development overall without some more continuity in the program.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:28 PM ^
It seems to me the consensus is moving towards Michigan's practical inexperience. Please note, however, that an alarming number of players have been dubbed "not good at football" or close to it by our fearless leader. This would suggest no amount of experience will help.
Obviously, time will tell. But it should tell quickly. I don't think MSU is the test, because they would appear to have a ND like passing game, which is garlic to our vampire. No, the test appears to be the Iowa, Deleware State, Penn State games. Iowa, to see how they stop us, Deleware State because they cannot score, and Penn State to see who we stop them.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^
why type everything out when you just said it. This arguement would be better served to have in a year. I think that we are winning games because of the superior level of talent. An arguement could be made that we could easily be 2-2 if we had Iowa's level of talent. We have more years at LB, but they have more years in their system at LB. It shows.
**edit**
The effort into your info. is commendable. I always enjoy reading someone who has done their research.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
that Michigan is hardly unique with 5-star flameouts.
It happens a lot.
Just have to rise above it somehow. Like Boise State a team that doesn't face the disappointment because they've never landed a 5-star recruit (scout).
September 28th, 2009 at 9:22 PM ^
Did anyone else think IU was running out tons of trickery? I felt last year and again this year that we are susceptible to trick plays. That could be on inexperience or the new D coordinator.
I also think we are having problems with offenses that M has traditionally countered with a nickel tight D. Watch either 38-0 drubbing of ND or some of our wins over Purdue. The spread passing centric game had trouble with more DBs on the field. The move of Stevie B to linebacker has been universally praised but the counter - that he was to be almost a nickelback in pass coverage. This has played out in that we have stuck w almost the same personnel each play, but please correct me if I'm wrong, but he has not done much nickel work. Not much double coverage. Not much deep zone. He is a straight up speed SAM backer.
I think GERG's defense is a lot like the offense last year: the base has been taught but not much else, and that means teams come out knowing what we are going to do. I have yet to see a pure pass defense installed.
Part of the Brown move is it depleted the DB depth further. Floyd and Turner may be better safeties than corners but Woolfolk has already moved. We don't have the corners to pull off a nickel package. The thing about those dominant Hermann nickel defenses, which throttled spread-to-pass teams, was they could throw guys like Leon Hall out there as a third corner. This team's 3rd guy is Floyd. Not the same.
So maybe this is what we have: the 2008 offense moved to the other side. But there's no genius on the level of RR to promise huge improvement. I do know that a nickel package with a talented backfield has done wonders against the type of offenses we have struggled with thus far. and I have a feeling that we don't have the dudes to do that right now.
Just musing from my iPhone.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:42 PM ^
That's a lot of musing from a phone.
Here is your money sentence: "We don't have the corners to pull off a nickel package." THIS is more true than anything else. But I ask you, if you had to leave Cissoko or Floyd alone on an island, would you not shade your safety help that way? And would you not use more blitz packages to attack the QB?
September 29th, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
nice thing about jewish holidays: you get a lot of time with your phone.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:23 PM ^
It's typically 4 on 6/7 on the rush, that's why they don't get pressure. Called blitzes almost always cause pressure though.
Our ILBs (Mouton, Ezeh) are horrible at the moment, and we have very, very weak 2nd and 3rd CB options (Floyd and Cissoko). If the ILBs were just average, the defense would improve tremendously.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:38 PM ^
So the question "why are our 4/5 stars playing no better than their 2/3s" seems to carry a whiff of worry ("what are we doing WRONG dammit")
As a basic stats issue, though, extremely positive ratings are more likely to be followed by lesser (good but not great) performance. IIRC that's par for the course at rivals and other services - the 5s and 4s do better than the 3s, but not always. From the 5* level the best you can hope for is people aren't disappointed, otherwise the only way to go is down.
A good way to tell whether it is "something we are doing wrong" or whether it is "just some damn statistical artifact" is to compare the performance of the Michigan 4/5s to the 4/5s at other schools (vs our 4/5s to their 2/3s). Only if there is a difference should we be losing sleep.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:38 PM ^
So the question "why are our 4/5 stars playing no better than their 2/3s" seems to carry a whiff of worry ("what are we doing WRONG dammit")
As a basic stats issue, though, extremely positive ratings are more likely to be followed by lesser (good but not great) performance. IIRC that's par for the course at rivals and other services - the 5s and 4s do better than the 3s, but not always. From the 5* level the best you can hope for is people aren't disappointed, otherwise the only way to go is down.
A good way to tell whether it is "something we are doing wrong" or whether it is "just some damn statistical artifact" is to compare the performance of the Michigan 4/5s to the 4/5s at other schools (vs our 4/5s to their 2/3s). Only if there is a difference should we be losing sleep.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:12 AM ^
These are the characteristics of a successful defensive system:
1. Lots of talent of varying experience levels at ALL positions.
2. Coaches at every position who can coach technique.
3. A coordinator who knows scheme.
4. A coordinator who can communicate what he wants done by his position coaches.
5. All of the above in place w/o change for at least a few years.
Let's examine the two teams in regards to these areas.
Iowa:
1. Not really high talent, but does have players used to the system from seniors to freshmen. Seniors teach the younger players what the coaches expect and also hearing the same thing but in different words deepens understanding.
2. In spades.
3. Definitely.
4. That staff has been together for so long, this is absolutely true.
5. The real secret behind Iowa's defensive success.
Michigan:
1. No. Most of the talent is concentrated on the DL. Warren is obviously awesome, but Mouton and Brown are highly rated SAFETIES, and are playing LB. Mike Williams and Cissoko are young players, but Williams doesn't have anyone to mentor him. Cissoko...I feel for him.
2. Not sure yet. If I was on staff myself (ha!) I could tell, but then I wouldn't be able to tell you. Man, that was helpful, eh?
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. No, no, no. This is the real problem. This system is new to everyone EXCEPT Greg Robinson. He gets to decide not only the scheme, but also how he wants individual techniques taught. Maybe some of them are different than before. This means not only do the players have to learn new techniques, but the coaches have to teach differently than they're used to, perhaps. Continuity and consistency...and that happens when the coaches are so used to it they can coach it in their sleep and, furthermore, the older players can mentor the younger ones.
So, Iowa has 4.5/5 and we have 2/4 and IDK on the fifth (#2). It should come as absolutely no surprise that Iowa is better on defense.
If this defensive staff is still together in 3 years and Iowa is still more successful on defense (assuming they'll have the same staff) then I think it's safe to say that some of the assistants aren't cutting the mustard, b/c I'm pretty confident we'll have better players and will have rounded out the roster; i.e., we'll have quality players of varying experience at all positions.
As for this year, well, maybe we'll have an average defense by the end of the year.
I predict us to lose to MSU, get thumped at Iowa (they're quite adept at defending the spread), lose a close one to Penn State, and then maddeningly lose to Illinois (a la the basketball team at Iowa last season) but get the rest, including at Wisconsin and then, finally, over the Buckeyes. We end the season on a high note with a win over a name brand SEC team in the Outback bowl and finish 9-4.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:08 AM ^
To watch the games, and the season in their and its entirety. We dont just have a young defense, we have a young CULTURE at Michigan right now. And we have been hit by the injury bug as well.
One thing about the defense, that does beyond the "3rd DC in 3 years..." mantra is one interesting comment by Maizeman on Scout (he's made this comment several times. I wish he'd post here so as to find at least a few people who would be able to digest what he says): In Year One, not only did UM make the wrong hire at DC, but there was so much time spent installing and trying to teach the new offense during spring and fall camp--there was very little time spent coaching and teaching the defensive players. Take THAT for what it's worth.
I wonder if that changed a bit this year.
I think the biggest problem for this defense this year is confidence. Yeah, no schwagger, baby. If this D can somehow put together a solid four-quarter performance (hopefully in about four days)--that would build confidence and perhaps be something they can build on for the rest of the year.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:13 PM ^
As mentioned in the Main, Michigan's current DB corps all hail from the 2007 and 2008 classes.
According to mgoblog's figuring, there were NO defensive backs in the 2006 class: Steve Brown and Jonas Mouton were considered linebackers.
Here's what Brian said on the recruiting board about those two positions:
It seems to me that the problem is not with guys not meeting their potential, except perhaps Cissoko. Warren was a 5-star and is playing like a 5-star. Williams was a 4-star and somehow got the gestation period he needed and is on track for a 4-star's career arc. Woolfolk was a big "?" but an unforeseen switch to safety, which should have made him an even bigger liability, seems to be okay so far.
There's your starting four. This isn't guys not panning out to expectations; it's a hideous shortage of dudes.
Lloyd's last class was actually damn fine. Had it followed other classes of its caliber, we would have an awesome secondary right now. Alas, the Class of '07 gave us three starters by their 3rd year, which is all you can hope for from a class, and the rest had to be filled in with sophomores and freshmen.
Um....foreshadowing? For the record, the other two corners were Johnny Sears and Brandon Harrison.Cornerback
Needs: Michigan signed three corners last year, one of whom--Chris Richards--will greyshirt, but that doesn't mean they won't be after more this year. Michigan hasnt recruited a blue-chip CB since Marlin Jackson. They'll be after a big fish this year.
So in 2006, after our best defensive year since 1997, Michigan was in it for a few blue chips, got none of them, and walked off completely empty-handed in the secondary. This is inexcusable, and is partly on Lloyd's end-of-career drop-off, and partly on Ron English, who was a defensive backs coach-turned-Defensive Coordinator who should have been able to translate that into some recruiting cachet, and is mostly blamed on the Year of Infinite Pain which proceeded 2006 and probably turned off a lot of recruits to Michigan during their junior years. The moral of the story is, with a bare bank in the secondary for two straight years, 2009 was going to be a young year in the defensive backfield. Still, there were three classes after that to re-stock the secondary. What happened then? Rather than Rivals, let's look at Brian's review of the 2008 and 2007 Defensive Backs after those years' recruiting seasons. The full reads are informative, but to recap those projections:Safety
Needs: With Nic Harris' last second switch, Michigan failed to sign a player at safety last year. Michigan will go hard after a couple this year, and are in good position for a couple of top national prospects in Myron Rolle and Taylor Mays. Rivals' preseason AA John Maddox is also a possibility; he attends Philadelphia West Catholic with signee Marques Slocum. Update 4/5: Maddox has turned into a WR recruit and all-everything Myron Rolle has let it be known that he wants to be recruited at corner, leaving the safety position pretty thin on numbers. WR recruit Jamar Hornsby may play safety as well.
| Player | Class | Brian Said | Outlook as of 9/29/09 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donovan Warren | 2007 | Marlin Jackson/Leon Hall path: nickelback quickly, starting by the end of his freshman year, gets expectations sky-high as a sophomore, and slightly disappoints | Brian apparently used one of his turns at the crystal ball on Donovan. |
| Michael Williams | 2007 | second-best secondary recruit we have and should be an early contributor, though one that people may mutter about." "No redshirt. Fairly high probability he starts as a sophomore when Jamar Adams graduates. | Second-best player in the secondary. Redshirted, and won starting role after proper seasoning. All-told, on track for typical life of a U-M 4-star |
| Troy Woolfolk | 2007 | Obviously one of those high ceiling/low floor types, Projection: Redshirt, spends a year or two merely observing behind Warren, Sears, etc., may get in a year or two of starting depending on how well he comes along. | Brian said Woolfolk is Morgan Trent-ish. So far, he has been a positive experiment at safety as a redshirt sophomore. This gamble appears to be paying off early. |
| Artis Chambers | 2007 | Should be decent, unlikely to be a star. 50-50 on a redshirt. With few safeties in the pipeline ahead of him (just Steve Brown now that Jonas Mouton is a WLB), is likely to get a lot of playing time over the course of his career. | Left program because of playing time concerns, which, okay, either Brian was wrong about PT or Artis was. I think this one was on Artis - he wanted to start, and it's not a sure thing he would have, but there was certainly plenty of opportunity |
| James Rogers | 2007 | General Excitement Level: Moderate? I was fonder of him at wide receiver. Yet another boom-or-bust type of guy. Guaranteed redshirt, spends a year struggling at corner before moving back to wide receiver. | Pretty much spot-on. The 4-star from Scout was probably whack. Was boom or bust, and went with the latter I guess (so far) |
| Boubacar Cissoko | 2008 | General Excitement Level: High. Obvious physical limitation aside, the perfect corner. Projection: Plays as a freshman and is starting next to Warren by his sophomore year. | Well, he played as a freshman and is starting next to Warren, but he hasn't been the perfect corner, even with the obvious physical limitation aside. Probably not as polished or as fast as we thought. |
| JT Floyd | 2008 | Meh. Though he's being brought in as a corner a move to safety is likely given the above, where he'll probably end up buried...until his junior year, at which point he might develop into a contributor. | The concern on Floyd, then and now, is his speed. The YMRMFSPA was Charles Stewart, and Brian though he'd make a better Avant-like receiver. If he's playing, it's a knock on our cornerback depth. |
| Brandon Smith | 2008 | Guru Reliability: Low... I'm skeptical of the big split between his ratings and his offers. General Excitement Level: Moderate. Projection: ESPN projects a move to OLB and I think they're right. | Correctamundo. |
Comments