Demens can't play since he is a liability against the pass?
Sorry if this topic is some thread not specifically titled with this subject.
When I read Spath's mailbag on rivals http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1138681 (sorry it is behind the paywall), I noticed a quote from an insider of his saying Demens is a liability in pass coverage so he only plays goal line defense.
First, I am not sure if that is true or who the insider is. However, I am also not sure Spath would just throw some crap against the wall for the hell of it. Second, what in the name of Sally Jesse Raphael is going on here? If that is remotely true, that is most asinine thing I have ever heard of. Roh is a liability in the passing game, but I wouldn't bench him. I would play him where he is supposed to play, on the line. I must have also missed all those pass breakups and picks from the MLB position to value the contribution there. Maybe opponents just stay away from passing in that part of the field since it is "shut down". WTF?
I would welcome any clarity on the above note from Spath.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^
on MGoBoard (serious, legitimate question)? bc if you're looking for clarity on the above note from Spath you might try emailing Spath.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
I assume the OP is just trying to start a conversation about our MLB position based upon evidence that Spath has given. Additionally, the "clarity" he is looking for is probably in the form of fellow MGoBloggers providing evidence that Demens is, in fact, a liability in the pass coverage and thus enlightening the OP to what Spath is referring to.
I don't speak out often, but in my opinion, your excessive negativity and condescending attitude toward seemingly every board post created in the past month is becoming tiresome.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
i genuinely have no idea who the guy the OP is referring to is. further, given the round of rumors that have gone out and around, this one seems to only bring negativity. saying a player is a liability is really kinda crappy. to then discuss why that might be the case on this board just opens a complaint fest. i do understand the need for dialogue on both ends but as a board poster i don't see what positive can come from people speculating how this might be the case. it seems the OP wants the board to explain why the article was written.
as for negativity, i'm truly not trying to be a prick. i am a sarcastic person at times and can try to make sure genuine questions are clear - my main annoyance can be the pursuit of rumor mongering, though, and that is why i posted what i did
the last thing i want to be doing is bringing frustration to people on the board so i will be more careful. fwiw, that was a very decent way to point out my comment was rude. thanks for showing that politeness
October 13th, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^
Spath writes for the Wolverine and their website.
<br>
<br>How that relates to the points in the discussion is up to you all.
<br>
<br>No dog in "fight".
October 13th, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
but have come to find out that some individuals have accounts on msg boards, etc. for instance Valenti posts on RCMB. i guess i'm so damn sarcastic at times that my real questions come off rude.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
Yes, excessively sarcastic comments are in fact rude and that will naturally affect how anything else you are saying is perceived. At least you recognized it. It would be a positive step if more of the "frequent" posters here did the same.
I add this knowing I risk the wrath of those such as you on the "inside" here but on the whole excessive sarcasm will be seen by the astute reader as a sign of insecurity.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
it's not insecurity, it's "we've been taking bets when the first poster will claim the defense is bad because RR refuses to let them eat Cheerio's and oh wait, yeah, check that thread - someone just did" among myself and others.
misunderstanding or not in this thread, i can acknowledge i've been pretty sarcastic as of late and whether in this thread or in another, it deserved to be said.
October 14th, 2010 at 12:37 AM ^
I won't rest assured one way or another...it was a generalized observation as to the genesis of most sarcasm...especially excessive sarcasm
October 14th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^
If you had it your way there would be two new threads a day. If they all bother you so much, why do you read them? Everytime I click on a new thread, there you are with a comment directed at the OP, or some dumb picture you found/created in photoshop. I get it, you have a lot of points. For those of us bored at work, new threads are welcome. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I know you don't want this board turning into MLive, but the amount of whining and snarkiness that comes from people like you is almost as unbearable.
Done with my rant. Return to regularly scheduled commenting.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
i can tone down the sarcasm. however, i have to read every thread... which leads to more sarcasm... which i am going to try to tone down.
and new threads are fine and encouraged. some threads, unlike this one, are just "not new."
October 13th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
I dont know mgokev, the french are ass holes
October 13th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
I don't know him so I assume any answer I would get would be generic. My hope is that someone on this board would a similar/different point of view to possibly validate. I just read rivals, don't post there.
<br>
October 13th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^
i was a bit aggressive with my question - my apologies. i'm probably quick to assume given the amount of finger pointing as of late and it seemed you wanted the board to speculate as to 'why he sucked' basically.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:57 PM ^
I was under the impression that the whole defense was a liability against the pass. This is great news!!!!!
October 13th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
After seeing what Ezeh has been able to accomplish so far, I say we accept the liability in the pass coverage to have some coverage anywhere. I think we can all agree that the MLB position couldn't get any worse. Right? I hope?
October 13th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Right? It's not like Ezeh turns into fucking Charles Woodson when the QB drops back either. Put in the guy who is good at least some of the time.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
But while Ezeh made some bad plays against the run Saturday, I thought he did a perfectly functional job in coverage
October 14th, 2010 at 1:49 AM ^
Except those bad plays weren't just bad, they were disastrous. He left the middle open on every single run up the middle, hence the reason for those numerous long touchdowns.
October 14th, 2010 at 7:21 AM ^
Ehh. I'm more than willing to assign blame to Ezeh when it's appropriate, but in the long TD run Brian picture paged, it wasn't Ezeh's fault. He had an assignment in the other gap and did that effectively, it was Martin getting beat and Banks lack of backside pursuit that caused the gash.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:02 PM ^
Demens and JB Fitz some reps..Ezeh is really struggling. Would it really hurt to sprinkle them in the games every so often?
October 13th, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
I trust Mouton's instincts in pass coverage, but pass coverage guru Ezeh is not. It is difficult to imagine a significant drop off in coverage when Demens comes in.
Maybe it's just because Demens is an inch shorter than Ezeh, and therefore that much less likely to have the pass deflect off the top of his helmet as he stands motionless in the center of the field?
October 13th, 2010 at 7:22 PM ^
and therefore that much less likely to have the pass deflect off the top of his helmet as he stands motionless in the center of the field?
October 13th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
If it were only a little thing like a helmet extender, Falk would have it out there 5 minutes before anyone knew they needed it.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:06 PM ^
You might as well say that Demens isn't playing since he is a liability against aliens landing at midfield.
If neither thing ever happens how can that be the reason he isn't playing????
#$%@!!
October 13th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^
Heck, I thought that was the reason Michael Cox hasn't seen the field. So those damn aliens are everywhere. Bastards!
October 13th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
AnnArbor.com made mention of it earlier today. So you never know.
Linky: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/slim-chance-martavious-odoms…
October 13th, 2010 at 6:10 PM ^
Saw that. Yikes. Time to get these younger guys playing time. Obi is a lost cause. Should've moved to DE earlier in his career.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
Seriously??
October 13th, 2010 at 7:01 PM ^
I'm not that original.
<br>
October 13th, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^
The only thing that I can think of that would make this make sense is if Demens bites hard on PA, but I'm not sure that Ezeh is much better than that.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
If that's the case, then he has to start against Penn State. If we can't tackle, then at least we can bite.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
What's with Fitzgerlad? He was a pretty highly touted guy coming out of high school and now he's a Junior...just didn't pan out I guess?
October 13th, 2010 at 8:23 PM ^
He's a backup quick/WLB. He should start next year. It's still frustrating that people are saying guys don't pan out because they're not starting by their third year, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:42 PM ^
except for the fact that your Senior LB Obi Ezeh has been completely awful with no signs of improving. Please I need to see Fitzgerald or Demens fail so I have some understanding on why Obi continues to play.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:51 PM ^
He's a backup quick/WLB
Would you have Fitzgerald play over Roh? Over Mouton? I know I wouldn't. Demens/Ezeh is a different story, but he's referring to Fitzgerald. If all goes to plan, Fitzgerald will have learned boat loads from Mouton over the year, and will be a super-beast come next year.
October 13th, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
Can Fitz (a 3rd year highly touted LB) be worse than Ezeh at that position? I'm sure GERG knows a lot better, but damn, I'm just saying....sad.
October 14th, 2010 at 7:07 AM ^
But moving him to MLB just for a couple games hinders his growth as a WLB. If anyone should replace him, it should be Demens
October 14th, 2010 at 12:38 AM ^
But if he's going to be starting next season, he needs to be getting some time now. Besides, you can't have Mouton and Roh playing every snap.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
October 13th, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^
We have a pass defense?
October 13th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
what's "pass coverage" ?
October 13th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
Ezeh at that point was already in the negative for the year. I'm sure it's gonna be much worse after the Sparty wrapup. At the same time Demens was a +1, given it is in limited time. But, my argument was, and is, that he isn't a liability and is young enough to learn.
When I watch Ezeh I see a lineman playing LB. As was mentioned earlier, he might have had a chance at DE if he wasn't already a Sr. Seems like he would do well with being pointed in the right direction and told, "Get 'em"
I don't like to speak badly of these kids, because they really are only kids, but the Ezeh experiment has failed. Blame it on Hopson (I do), blame it on GERG, blame it on whoever...it just hasn't worked out.
October 13th, 2010 at 7:46 PM ^
In all fairness, you should note that Demens has played almost exclusively in goal-line situations. I don't know if you can take a +1 from those situations and infer from that that he'd make a better MLB than Ezeh.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^
i don't like it when people blame a player, saying he's the worst they've seen. well, he's playing, so there can only be worse riding the pine, right? i'll give the coaches that much credit to play the best guys available.
it reminds me of the navarre days. lord knows i wasn't a big navarre fan, but i never blamed him for not being great. it's not his fault he's starting.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
I don't like to see a player singled out either, but I guess I have less sympathy for Seniors. In the same posting I also quoted GERG from preseason where he said Demens was pushing Ezeh for the starting job. Maybe it is like Sheridan who looked great in practice, but in games...not so much?
All I'm saying is that it may be time to give the kid a chance. But, we're only debating this on an internet blog site and none of us are coaches.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:06 PM ^
since we don't get much out of Ezeh in pass coverage how much can it hurt to give someone who plays in attack the run situations. Ezeh doesn't really do well in those situations either.
October 13th, 2010 at 9:25 PM ^
October 13th, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
Maybe, but honestly how can two highly-rated MLB recruits out of high school (who actually played MLB in high school) who have had the privilege and benefit of three years of top tier college coaching not be better at assignment football than Ezeh is now? How is that possible?
October 14th, 2010 at 6:18 AM ^
i have heard that is the case... i was told that demens has all of the talent in the world to be the best LB on the team but he has problems remembering his assignments when he is out there...