The D has Regressed with Woolfolk at CB
Obviously Woolfolk at CB has been an upgrade over Cissoko and Floyd, but we are giving up more big plays than when he was at safety. So the argument is then: is his move to CB a net win or loss and I have to say loss. If we are going to give up a wide open receiver across the middle every time or play our CBs so far off the WR that a 7 yard out is automatic, what's the point? We might as well put Floyd at CB and continue to give up the easy passes (since we are obviously incapable of stopping them) and at least minimize the dong punch.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^
I know the coaches like Woolfolk at CB as matchups, but I think the D as a whole would be better served with Woolfolk in the deep safety role, moving Kovacs back to run stopping safety, and taking our chances with Floyd at CB (maybe we could actually play a real 2-deep then?). Next week vs Wisconsin, we need a solid run stopping safety and a safety to cover the play action deep ball. Right now, the configuration is not conducive to that as Williams is getting toasted as the run stopping safety and his deep cover skills are costing us.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
He needs to stay at DB and let Emilien get some PT. They are ruining his freshman year by not letting him play. Luckily Wisconsin's offense is nothing new so UM should be able to bend but not break this weekend. We lack depth all over the place and there is really no way to fix this mess this year.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
He's already at DB, but thanks for the insight.
Who gives a damn if they're "ruining Emilien's freshman year by not letting him play"? WTF does that have anything to do with it? I thought the point was to win games, not make individual players happy.
If Emilien were better than anyone on defense, he'd be playing.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
What would be your idea then? He is a good football player that is not seeing the field, so why burn his redshirt? There are two games left and this is not working. Fitzgerald and Leach finally got alot of playing time and it seemed to have worked better than Ezeh and Mouton.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
Did you decide he was a good football player by looking at his high school film and watching him destroy kids who weren't as talented as him? Or did you decide he was a good football player by watching him get torched by Carlos Brown in the spring game? Or are you convinced he's good football player because he missed his senior year due to ACL surgery and is reportedly still feeling the lingering effects of the injury?
My "idea" is to not play a true freshman coming off an injury when a redshirt sophomore and a redshirt freshman can't get it done.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
I understand what you are saying I just think that it would not hurt anything to try and get him on the field. With two games left they need to do something to help Kovacs and Williams. Maybe moving Woolfolk back to safety is not a bad idead. Maybe Floyd can do a good job at CB. It is just a frustrating mess. I guess you are right.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
Seriously, just stop. This has been said over and over, but if Emilien (or freakin' Rita Rogriguez for that matter!!!!) was an improvement over what's currently out there, the coaches would play them. They want to win worse than you do. Their careers are riding it. So please, give them the benefit of the doubt that they are playing the players that give them the best chance to win. Please give it a rest and please give Magnus a rest. Owning you all day on the board is probably getting tiresome.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
Rumor is that Emilien's knee has been acting up, and that's why we have not seen him lately.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
I'm very interested to see this week's UFR -- it was hard from our seats to know where blame was on a number of big plays.
I think Kovacs and Williams are better off rotating at Strong Safety, and having the speedy Woolfolk at Free Safety. Williams was a much better player when he had someone behind him, and Kovacs as your last resort is useless -- he's better at supporting the run than running guys down.
Williams should be used in clear passing downs. He is still really terrible at getting his head around or getting position, but he at least has been able to get himself in the right spot -- Kovacs can't stay with his man.
If we're going to have a gaping hole, I'd prefer it be at short-side cornerback than the Ace safety. For now, Floyd's your man.
The rest of this season is about damage mitigation. Wisconsin and Ohio State will come out expecting to throw, probably on the rollout. I don't expect to get anything close to shored up, but if we're to have a chance of winning either game, the defense has to at least give the O a chance.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
The rest of the season is about mitigation of damage, and take our chances with the offense trying to outscore the opponent. Wisconsin I don't know b/c I don't know that much about Tolzien, but with Pryor, his accuracy is his biggest weakness, so let's put him in the situation of having to complete 12-15 bubble screens / quick outs / quick slants during the game and making right reads instead of tempting him to throw deep against an inadequate centerfielder. I'll take my chances with Floyd at CB and tempting fate to have Tolzien and Pryor try and beat us by death with a thousand cuts.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
Having Woolfok at Safety and Floyd at CB is better than the mess we have now with two safeties that can't cover, can't take proper pursuit angles, and generally vie for the distinction of whose toast is burned more often. Wasn't Williams a little better as a SS early in the season with Woolfolk behind him at FS? I know BooBoo was getting torched repeatedly back then, but it seemed to be a little better than the crazy missed assignments we have now. Seems like alot of players on the D are trying to do so much that they put themselves out of position alot. Everyone needs to understand and carry out their assignments and trust that their teammates will do the same.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
Mouton will probably get another chance at LB his senior year, but if he's clearly behind Fitzgerald next year and none of the other safeties step up, maybe we move him back out to Brown's SLB position or Williams' SS position in the box. Mouton looked pretty decent as a 4-3 WLB towards the end of last year, but he really really sucks as an ILB in this defense. He's pretty athletic, probably the biggest disappointment on D relative to expectations. Williams and Kovacs are both pretty slow, so I don't think we lose athleticism if Mouton moves out and/or back.
Ezeh just doesn't have the read, react, or cover skills to be a LB. He has good size though, so I'm hoping he moves down to the line. He's a decent athlete, and Graham leaves a huge hole at DE. If Sagesse or Campbell look like starters in the fall, I like Van Bergen moving to power DE in base D situations with Ezeh pushing Van Bergen back to DT on passing downs.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
Mouton is already too big and slow to be an effective safety, and his coverage skills are part of what is getting us into this situation. The only real debate at this time in the season would be to put Woolfolk back at S (with a Williams / Kovac rotation at the other S) to hopefully prevent the big plays with the trade-off being Floyd at CB giving up thousands of paper cuts.
Put another way:
Can we survive the constant blood drippings of multiple paper cuts in a room with an out of control copier, or do we wrap ourselves in bubble wrap even though there's a machete armed serial killer taking whacks at us that might lop off our head/aarm/genitalia before Brandon Graham has a chance to reload the shotgun?
November 8th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
Mouton is no slower than Kovacs or Williams. He could probably lean down to 220 in the off-season if he switched positions. Obviously the ideal situation would be for one of the athletic projects to step up and beat out the safeties we have now, but Mouton. Mouton was burned in coverage on the wheel route because his read was wrong and he didn't even try to cover, not because he lacked the athleticism to chase down the RB. Playing SS in the box on the weak side is going to be much more similar to playing 4-3 WLB, which Mouton did fairly effectively at times last year, than playing ILB in what is basically a 4-2-5.
I'm not saying it would definitely work, but I'd rather see him have an opportunity to succeed next year than rot on the bench at a position where he's proven to be in effective.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:38 PM ^
If we have to move Mouton to safety next year, we have major problems. Why not Vlad, M Rob, Turner, or someone else with some speed?
November 8th, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^
The fact that you think Mouton is no slower than Mike Williams speaks volumes.
Please revoke your own posting privileges for the remainder of the day.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
as to the overall team D when Woolfolk was at safety was with boo boo at corner, so it's sort of tough to determine how the team would do if you put Woolfolk back at safety
we don't really know how Floyd would do on an extended run starting at corner. if he's considerably worse than Cissoko, then you might wind up even worse than now.
it really is a matter of a dike, holes, and fingers...(insert joke)
November 8th, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^
That's fair. But we did see Cissoko get benched a couple times for Floyd.
I personally look at the Notre Dame game where Cissoko got absolutely owned (which didn't stop him from trash talking), and we gave up pass plays of 37 yards, 33 yards, and a couple 20 yarders. Sure that sounds terrible but at least we didn't give up any gigantic touchdowns. Plus, we were going up against arguably the best WR tandem in the country with a pretty solid QB throwing balls to them. I bet they score 49 + with Williams and Kovacs at safeties.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^
While it's true that we didn't give up any huge TD passes against ND, our safeties had little to do with that. Pretty much every deep pass ND attempted came in single coverage. Our safeties were non-factors. At any rate, ND finished with 490 yards and 34 points, so we can't really call it a strong defensive outing.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
I guess my point is: while statistically we had very similar days on defense vs. Purdue and Notre Dame we actually gave up 4 fewer points to a certainly superior offense with Woolfolk at safety. Those 4 points were the difference between winning and losing yesterday.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
Woolfolk and Kovacs at Safety. At least Woolfolk has speed back there if it's needed. Kovacs can tackle. M Williams can step in for Kovacs on some plays. Floyd to CB. Ezeh back in for Wiscy as well.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
Emilien's redshirt has been burnt. He played at least 1 play against Indiana after someone in the secondary went down with an injury (can't remember who right now). I'd say give him some PT. It can't get any worse than what we've seen lately. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^
I agree with moving Woolfolk back to strong safety, even though he's a better cornerback than all but Warren.
CB - Warren
CB - Floyd
SS - Woolfolk
FS - Kovacs
November 8th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
Yeah I think what you laid out works best. At least Woolfolk has the speed to limit some of the big plays although they will still happen. I almost wish Stevie Brown and Kovacs could change spots but I know thats not realistic and then kills us at LB and covering slot receivers. Plus Kovacs probably doesn't know that position either.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^
I agree. The play of our safeties was terrible in the Purdue game.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^
I'd swap Kovacs and Woolfolk. Kovacs's so-so speed hurts him more at FS than at SS.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
In this defense, the deep safety in the base defense is the SS. The guy who plays near the line of scrimmage is the FS, or weak safety.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
With the exception of the relatively low possibility that we make the Pizza Bowl, this season is dead. That does not mean that we put in all the freshman and kill any chance of winning, but we should keep our players at the positions that they will play next season unless they are filled by seniors.
Here's a look at the set of logical possibilities (forgive me if I miss someone here) for next season's defensive lineup:
DE: Roh/Lalota/Patterson/other
DT: Van Bergen/Campbell
DT: Martin
Deathbacker: Roh/Herron/other
ILB: Ezeh/Mouton/Fitzgerald/Leach/Hawthorne/Smith/Demens/etc.
ILB: See above
OLB: Williams/M. Robinson/Herron/Bell/Watson/Kovacs/etc.
CB 1: Warren/Woolfolk
CB 2: Woolfolk/Turner/Floyd/Jones/freshman
Nickleback: Floyd/Jones/freshman
FS: Emilien/Turner/Floyd/Gordon/Bell/etc.
SS: Kovacs/Emilien/M. Robinson/Floyd/Bell/Gordon/etc.
Looking at this list, I see both promise and problems. I am concerned with replacing Graham because we will automatically downgrade at DE and the seemingly best replacement (Roh) would have to leave a position at which he has performed admirably all year. We are set at DT and have some reasonably good options at deathbacker. The linebackers are a mess, with a huge upcoming competition at both ILB and OLB. The ILB competition is more worrisome because nobody has performed well there at all this season and unless we see great improvement there over the offseason, we will suck royally at that position. The OLB will also feature a competition, although it looks like Mike Williams might be able to do what Brown did and convert well into his role. Cornerback is a mess if Warren leaves, although if Turner turns out to be as good as advertised, it might not be terrible. And if any true freshman are ready, we'll be able to play nicklebacks to counter 4 and 5 WR looks.
This brings us to safety, where we are probably going to suck again next year unless Emilien or someone currently not playing can step up. Notice that I would like Floyd to get a shot at safety, I took Williams off the depth chart there completely (God help us if he's there next year), and I leave Kovacs there to duke it out with a number of options, most notably Marvin Robinson. We may move Turner to play FS if Warren stays, but we are probably can count on another bad year of play there.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^
Another vote for the OP here. I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that our deep middle is far worse right now than it was when Williams was at safety. Conversely our CB play is better IMO than it was. So to choose between two bitch -slaps, I'll take getting slapped on the corner.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
This defense is getting into the habit of giving up 500 yds/game. That's unacceptable, if you're IU, or Northwestern or Minnesota. It's hallucinogenic if you are Michigan.
This defense has holes; we all know it. But a defense that features Donovan Warren, Brandon Graham, Mike Martin, Ryan Van Bergen, Stevie Brown and Troy Woolfolk (six guys; that's just about one-half of a defensive squad, right there) shouldn't be this flailingly bad.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^
I think you answered your own question. We have half of a good defense. Or probably more like 7/11. Unfortunately, the missing pieces are the guys who usually stand in the way of offensive players running for a great distance toward the end zone.
November 8th, 2009 at 5:06 PM ^
Do you live in a world where burglars always break into the houses with the best security? Where bullies always pick on the biggest guy in the school?
I don't.
I live in a world where people attack weaknesses. If I'm an opposing coach, I'm not going to throw at Donovan Warren and Troy Woolfolk. I'm going to throw at Steve Brown and Jordan Kovacs. I'm going to run the ball at Ryan Van Bergen, not Brandon Graham.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
I agree with moving Woolfolk to safety and hopefully not dying a slow death due to JT Floyd playing the other corner.
Also Johnathan Chait agrees with you guys.
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1013325