Jon Chait says Ezeh should move to DE

Submitted by Magnus on
Jonathan Chait wrote a column for The Wolverine. He explains why he doesn't think Ezeh is cut out for linebacker and then suggests that he should move to DE or Quick. FWIW, he also mentions that this probably won't happen. It's too late for Ezeh to move. He's too small for DE and he would be overwhelmed by offensive linemen. And we already have a good player at Quick in Craig Roh. On top of that, removing him from the middle linebacker competition would leave us with Fitzgerald, Demens, Bell, and Leach to cover those two positions. In other words, one decent player, a former walk-on, a converted safety, and Demens, who's been unable to earn playing time the past couple years, despite the poor ILB play. This would weaken us at one position (MLB) and wouldn't help at any other position because he'd be a second-stringer at best. It's a lose-lose situation. Just keep him at MLB and hope everything clicks. http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1058711

OHbornUMfan

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

Corners: Since converted safeties may not provide blanket coverage, names should imply impending but as yet unseen danger. Phantom and Shadow. (The down-side - if ghosts don't exist, phantoms are a little less scary. And shadows often just follow harmlessly behind you) Ends: They'll be a little undersized, but faster than your average end. Their speed off the edge will be their biggest asset, so the left side end will be Blaze and the right side end will be Warp. (Possible negative fall-out - off-field transgressions with the green or with aberrant behavior have ready-made punny headlines.) Interior Line: More than a little undersized, we'll call these Mighty Mouse and Pathogen. Small but dangerous. Additionally to our advantage, O-linemen have a hard time blocking safeties in space, and I'm sure that blocking them in close quarters could not possibly be any different. Linebackers/Safeties: This group will be interchangeable in allignment, making it hard for the opposing offense to diagnose blocking assignments and coverage schemes. All should have bad-ass names. In the interest of keeping tradition alive, these positions will be named for Wolverines from past years whose names/performances were note-worthy. Plus spinner. Sword Steel Irons Woodley Spinner

Lofter4

March 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^

If some random poster would have suggested that on the board, I'm pretty sure he would have been negged into oblivion. I really don't see how moving Ezeh to the defensive line would do anything but hurt us.

CRex

March 3rd, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^

I think Ezeh should be moved to... ... ... *clutches MGOPoints and whispers* defensive end. (Actually I'm hoping with some dedicated coaching this off season the light bulb will come on and he'll grasp D-Robs system.)

Space Coyote

March 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^

He possibly could have made a good DE but I agree with you, it's too late now and we need the depth at MLB. I would perhaps like to see him blitz more often on passing downs, perhaps off the edge, as he seems to be good when put in that position. Also, he may have made a good DE, but he also showed a lot of promise in his younger years as a developing MLB, so the move wouldn't have made much sense in that case either. I like Ezeh, even if he hasn't lived up to what could have been, and he seems like a good and smart kid. I hope this year he turns a corner and we see his potential as a MLB

Maize and Blue…

March 3rd, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^

in Obi's 4 years that he is in the same system for a second year. I seem to remember him being decent his first year and then regressing. Hopefully, a second year in Gerg's system and improved coaching (no Hopson) will lead to a better year for Ezeh and Mouton.

Don

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

defense of RR and Michigan against shoddy journalism. However, I think he's stepped a bit out of his element here. Having said that, I acknowledge that every time I make a post about sports I'm completely stepping out of my element, too. And I don't even have the talent to write political columns.

BoyBlue

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^

I think general consensus around here sees the D-Line next year with RVB moving to DE, Martin being a 3 tech, Roh staying as the quick, and the nose taken by Campbell and Sagesse. I think moving Ezeh is an interesting possibility. Ezeh, based on all accounts, is a fast and strong athlete but doesn't grasp the mental aspect of the game. A move to the quick may help because it is an easier position to grasp mentally. Ezeh as the quick, Roh to DE, RVB stays at 3 tech, and Martin is the nose. Campbell, Sagesse, and Banks fill in at 3 and nose. Banks plays some DE as well and hopefully Lalota or Jibreel Black help at DE. Suddenly D-line depth is fantastic and walkons aren't relied on so much. Some people may hate this idea because they don't want to move Roh. I think with an extra 15-20 pounds Roh is a great DE. I guess it depends on how different the jobs of the quick and DE are. According to my limited knowledge they are quite similar. For me this hope that "the light will come on" with Ezeh is optimistic, but is very unlikely to happen. What makes people think that after 30 or so starts that at start 31 the "light comes on"? I know the changes in schemes and coaches haven't helped, but LB instincts can't always be coached. Some LBs have it, some don't. I would be more optimistic that Fitzgerald, Demens, or Bell would make that big leap forward at MLB.

Space Coyote

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

In different schemes you are taught to make different reads, you have different responsibilities, and the feel of the game can totally change based on the alignment around you. It’s safe to say that a basic 4-3 under look around the MLB (what Obi first saw) is very different then what is around the MLB in our system now. The MLB is responsible for many parts of the defense often times, knowing gap responsibilities, run/pass responsibilities, isn’t as simple as LB instincts. Suddenly, it becomes very apparent that he is thinking, or actually over-thinking, thus slowing his reaction time and instincts. This is a very likely a possibility behind his regression as of late, and a light could turn on this year, though, admittedly, it won’t turn on from terrible LB to David Harris, but it could easily switch from potential to solid big-ten MLB

Magnus

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

They put Van Bergen on the field at 3-tech because he was one of the four most talented defensive linemen and they wanted to find a spot for him. He produced 5 sacks from DT, which is pretty darn good. But that's not his natural spot. Regardless, you'd be condensing five starter-level players (Van Bergen, Roh, Martin, Sagesse/Campbell, Ezeh) into four defensive line positions. And Kenny Demens is NOT the answer at inside linebacker. I don't know why you'd have more optimism for him (who has never played) than Ezeh (who has played well at times).

BoyBlue

March 3rd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

"Regardless, you'd be condensing five starter-level players (Van Bergen, Roh, Martin, Sagesse/Campbell, Ezeh) into four defensive line positions" That's debatable. We don't know for sure that Campbell/Sagesse are ready for starter level minutes. I sure hope so, but neither of them were commanding more minutes with their performances last year either. I guess my main point is that Ezeh struggled so much that Leach took his job after 30 (or so) straight starts. That is hard for me to forget. To me Ezeh has more upside as a Quick. It depends which of these two choices you prefer: Quick- Roh 3 tech- Martin Nose- Campbell/Sagesse DE- RVB MLB- Ezeh If Campbell is ready and Ezeh turns competent I am all for it. Quick- Ezeh 3 tech- RVB Nose- Martin DE- Roh MLB- Fitz/Leach/Bell/Demens Campbell isn't ready and one of the backup MLB's turns competent. Overall: The lack of a quality MLB can kill a defense. I have more faith in the improvement of Fitz than I do with Ezeh at MLB.

BoyBlue

March 3rd, 2010 at 3:48 PM ^

Yes, he made some plays. But, IIRC, he didn't start nor played starter's minutes in that game. Everyone, including myself, wants him to be a beast this year. Remember that he is very young and to be a starter and a dominator as a true sophomore is difficult to do.

WolvinLA2

March 3rd, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^

Outside of the "Ezeh vs. Fitz/whoever else" debate, the other major thing wrong with your proposed line-up with Ezeh at Quick is that it makes the rest of our DL undersized. A big reason our D front wasn't as good as they will be this year is because of our lack of size up front. MM is small for a NT, RVB is small for a DT, and Roh would be very small for a DE. Conversely, Sagesse and (more so) WC are good sized for NT, MM is great for the DT and RVB for the DE. Roh remains at Quick. With this lineup, our front 3 is about 35lbs bigger per person inside, and just as talented. If you think Fitz is better than Ezeh, then play Fitz and sit Ezeh. Don't make our DL worse becuase you want a different guy at MLB.

Magnus

March 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^

...then what if Fitzgerald gets hurt? We have no depth at ILB. Inside linebacker takes over the title of "Position with the Least Depth" from cornerback last year. These are the scholarship players you'd have to play two ILB positions if Ezeh moved away: Fitzgerald Mouton Demens That's it.

BoyBlue

March 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^

Bell is a ILB too if I remember correctly. Also Leach didn't light the world on fire, but his play was good enough to take Ezeh's job away. ILB Depth: Fitz Mouton Demens Bell Leach I am not saying moving Ezeh has to be done. I am arguing that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the idea. In many ways it makes sense to me.

hausoian

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

I think what people are saying is that Ezeh would do better at DE since there is less reading and less thinking involved. I think moving him to Quick would be a good idea, especially if Roh bulks up enough to become a true DE. Then, you have a guy in Ezeh will legitimate LB experience as well as the pass rushing instincts that he's definitely shown so far. If Ezeh can get up to about 260ish I see no problem in giving it a try.

Magnus

March 3rd, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^

His "pass rushing instincts" have resulted in 3 sacks over 3 years, I believe. He's not exactly Bruce Smith. And rushing the passer from a 3-point stance or a 2-point stance on the line is very different than blitzing the A or B gap from 3 or 4 yards deep.

TESOE

March 3rd, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^

I'm convinced a position change is not value added. We need LBs - moving the player with the most potential out now is desperation. Is this a failure in scheme on GERG's part? Leach wasn't really any better than Ezeh at stopping the run at the line of scrimmage. There was definitely a coaching point being made when Obi was pulled in games last season. I'm just not sure if Obi is being given the right reads. Isn't MLB pretty much a visceral kind of read. Good LBs still get fooled by play action. Ezeh was just holding his ground regardless at times last year. DE would simplify his reads, but that isn't going to solve problems at MLB. (Please let Adam Patterson - step up here if possible.)

dollarbill

March 3rd, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

I would add those to the list of why he cannot play DE, but still do not think he is effective in filling the hole, shedding a blocker, and making the play.