Should we move Woolfolk back to safety
So our defense has been falling apart as of late as everyone has noticed. When a good offense does well, we can justify it, but when ILL is tearing us apart, there's something wrong.
So was our D better before when Woolfolk moved back to safety?
I understand if we move him back we'll still have a huge hole at corner, but its the lesser of 2 evils. Do we want a corner who isn't good in coverage or a safety who is constantly out of position?
Just to clarify, I'm not saying this will fix our D...it just might improve it a bit.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:18 AM ^
If the coaches move him back to safety, yes. If they don't, no.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:28 AM ^
I understand what you are going for here. The coaches know more than we do so we should let them do their jobs, I get that. But part of the fun of being a fan, especially a fan on a fan site, is speculating what they could or should do.
The OP was just asking for fellow fan opinions, so to answer the way you did really wasn't responsive. So as I said, I get and even agree with where you are coming from in principle, but as long as we fans realize nothing we say matters and it is just for fun to speculate, then I say speculate away. Just don't take yourself to seriously and your comments will be O.K.
That being said, I think it would help. You could put him back at deep safety and put Kovacks up at the line. Pretty much anything to get Williams off the field I am in favor of. He is personally responsible for several big plays and arguable at least one game (Iowa).
November 5th, 2009 at 9:36 AM ^
and let us take this philosophy ever further...
1.) If Tate Forcier decides to throw a pass into triple coverage and it gets intercepted, it was still the correct decision, because Tate knows more about playing QB than we do.
2.) We should never question if Obi Ezeh is out of position, because he knows more about playing linebacker than we do. He is always exactly where he should be.
3.) If Matt Millen decides to draft WRs with his first round pick 3 out of 4 years we should be happy, because Matt Millen knows more about putting together an NFL roster than we do.
4.) If Microsoft comes out with a seriously flawed operating system, we should not question it, because they know more about computer programming than we do.
5.) If the United States decides to invade another country we should not quesion the motives, because the powers that be know more about diplomacy and national security than we do.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
As someone who coached in the past, whenever I got the question of why a certain player wasn't playing I would say, "because they haven't earned it in practice." I would guess this is a similar situation.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
single personnel decision you made in your coaching career correct?
No one is saying (or at least no one should be saying) that they are more qualified to make personnel decisions than the coaching staff. What they are saying is that nobody is perfect, and that we, as fans and people who dedicate a significant portion of our lives to watching and discussing Michigan football, have earned the right to speculate about something that we care deeply about.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:23 AM ^
Could you tone down the narcissism just a bit?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
you should re-consult your dictionary on that one.
Narcissim would be me saying that because I watch games and play Madden I am more qualified to make personnel decisions that the coaching staff, which is not at all what I said.
In my opinion, my saying that by virtue of being a fan I should be allowed to come into an internet chat room and discuss my thoughts on Michigan football would not be narcissistic.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
If the United States decides to invade another country and a republican is president dont question it but if obama is president there is something unsavory going on
November 5th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
No politix please kthanx!
November 5th, 2009 at 8:39 AM ^
I think we pick our poison with Woolfolk; either we use him as a (so far) shut-down corner and get our safeties burned, or we use him as a safety and have JT Floyd get burned. Either way, it works out the same to me.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:41 AM ^
You can't tell me the idea of getting Williams off the field isn't tempting
November 5th, 2009 at 8:45 AM ^
Starting JT Floyd isn't tempting either.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^
is i agree i would put floyd at corner and woolfork at safty. Michael williams is just awful. He lost contain every freaking time they ran an outside play, it was terriable
November 5th, 2009 at 10:00 AM ^
not to be a spelling nazi,
but i'm pretty sure it's "Woolfolk" -
in spelling and pronunciation.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
I've watched a bunch of games on TV this year, and I'm pretty sure it's "Wool-FORK" like the utensil.
I haven't figured out why it should be pronounced differently than his dad pronounced the same last name back in the day, but TV announcers get a pronunciation guide for every player, so how could they be getting it wrong and we be getting it right? Right?
I mean, they're TV announcers. That can't be an easy job to get. They have to at least be competent enough to be able to read a sheet of paper they are given before every game, right?
(attn replyers: sarcasm)
November 5th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
Also another prevalent mistake is pronouncing Moosman, "Moose-man". C'mon people it's not like he's a moose! What do you think he has antlers or something? Be serious. No. "Moss-man".
November 5th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
that is what I get for trying to hurry and post before the boss looked my way opps
November 5th, 2009 at 8:45 AM ^
He is right that Michigan did better when Woolfolk was at safety and Michigan was being burned at corner; however, there is a causation issue. Whether the defensive alignment or the more difficult Big Ten Play or something else explains the decline is all speculation. I have been very pleased with Woolfolk's play at corner. I think he has been better than Warren for the last couple games, although he may be getting more safety help.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:01 AM ^
Maybe Stevie Brown would like another crack at safety?
November 5th, 2009 at 9:24 AM ^
I was actually just thinking this this morning. Stevie Brown may not have been a good safety but he's definitely a lot better at dropping into a deep zone then either option we're using right now. With another year under his belt and some time to learn the position better he may actually be good at it.
So maybe moving Kovacs up to his Stevie Brown's position, moving Mike Williams back to Strong Safety and Stevie Brown back to free safety isn't a bad idea.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:38 AM ^
Kovacs can't get out and cover slot receivers like Stevie does from his SAM positions though. Plus, Stevie hasn't played Safety at all in our current defensive system. Asking him to move back there after a year away would be even more disastrous than what we have now.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^
Given the few things that have gone well for Michigan this year, why should we even think about touching one of those.
Stevie Brown stays like before.
I don't even want this idea floating around, because it starts making sense intellectually and then causes massive destruction when it fails. Stevie Brown spent three seasons as a guaranteed 14 points for the opponent. Now he's one of three competent players after the defensive line.
Stevie Brown stays like before.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
Free Safety is one of the hardest positions to learn how to play because there are little intricacies that can easily be the difference between an incomplete pass and a touchdown, but once you learn it doesn't change much. Once you learn how to maintain deep contain and progression of reads and when to watch the QB and when to watch receivers going downfield, playing the position really doesn't change much. At this point it may take him a couple days to shake the instinct to run down field immediately but learning the system shouldn't be hard for him.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:13 AM ^
I honestly think we may be better off with Woolfolk at Safety. If he is there we have two positions (S and CB) who are half-competently staffed. To me, that's better than having one position, corner, fully staffed while leaving the most potentially crippling spot, safety, a frustrating mess.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^
I think Woolfolk is a better CB than S. Obviously Floyd couldn't be worse than Williams. Either way, we will be picked apart.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:38 AM ^
consider just moving everyone other than Brandon Graham and Mike Martin to safety, and play the 2-0-9. If Graham and Martin can't make a TFL or Sack, at least we will be assured of tackling someone before they reach the end zone.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:09 AM ^
Has anyone made a cloning machine yet? Maybe we could use it on Donovan Warren, make a nice clone of him to play the other side, then we could move Woolfolk back to safety. While we are at it, please clone Brandon Graham.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^
be Woodson for defense and Long for offense.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:40 AM ^
We could just clone Tom Harmon (sp?), he was a true two way player
November 5th, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^
Woodson and Long might be a bit old to play college still. But hey, in my theoretical cloning world, I'm sure we could make younger clones :)
November 5th, 2009 at 10:24 AM ^
I don't think our defense has really gotten any worse with Woolfolk at corner. I know statistics don't mean everything, but we gave up 490 total yards to Notre Dame, 467 total yards to Indiana, and 417 total yards to MSU with Woolfolk at safety. Since he's moved, we've given up 376 total yards to Iowa, 396 to Penn State, and 500 to Illinois.
I guess we have given up a few more points since Woolfolk moved, but our defense is pretty bad either way
November 5th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
You need two good corners against a team with a decent passing attack and a dangerous second WR such as ND. We might have been a bit better off with Woolfolk at safety against Illinois, who is more of a threat to get an occasional breakaway run than to methodically pick on a weak CB.
I don't blame the coaches for starting Cissoko against ND, as at the time he still looked like a viable starter.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
While I am not one to second-guess a coaching staff, I do think they need to make a decision either way about Woolfolk. Either line him up at Safety or at CB, but at this point I think it would bring a bit of continuity to the defense to know where guys are going to line up every week. Given, I never coached or played football beyond Pop Warner, so I'm not that knowledgeable about the intricacies of the UM team. Of course, I'm also an anonymous Internet blogger, so the coaches best heed my words lest they want me to make snide comments if the team loses this week!
November 5th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
Here's my figuring:
Defense 1:
Defense 2:
So what's worse -- a slight overall downgrade based on Woolfolk being a better corner than a safety, or having both safety positions filled by ineptitude?
To bring it back to my "Masters Thesis" analogy, would you like your ship-sinking iceburg hole on the starboard side, or the port side?
| Graham | Martin | RVB | Roh |
|---|---|---|---|
| A+ | B+ | B | B- |
| Brown | Ezeh | Mouton |
|---|---|---|
| B | C- | C |
| Warren | Kovacs/Williams | Woolfolk | Floyd | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | FAIL | B- | FAIL |
| Graham | Martin | RVB | Roh |
|---|---|---|---|
| A+ | B+ | B | B- |
| Brown | Ezeh | Mouton |
|---|---|---|
| B | C- | C |
| Warren | Williams | Kovacs | Woolfolk | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | BRAIN-MELTING FAIL | FAIL | B |
November 5th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
With Woolfolk at safety we cut down, drastically, on the other teams ability to get big play after big play after big play thus forcing them to grind it out and anything that allows the D-line more opportunities to wreak havoc in the backfield has to be viewed as a gain.
With Woolfolk at safety we have the potential to be a "bend but don't break" defense - with him at CB our defense has (nerd warning) no plastic deformation region - we either stay in the elastic region or we go straight to fracture, no plasticity whatsoever.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
I would be interested to see Floyd at free Safety or maybe Turner, but I would keep Woolfolk at corner. The only pass I can remember him getting beat on was that insane over the shoulder pass from Juice which I don't blame him for.