Thanks Tom for answering the question
December 31st, 2008 at 12:48 AM ^
better yet...wut are the chances of us taking a quality db recruit and developing him into a quality db that actually meets his potential (unlike trent, warren to this point, and almost every safety weve ever had)
December 31st, 2008 at 12:52 AM ^
I think it may be a bit unfair to classify Warren as a bust. If you look at a lot of the coverage, it just seemed like our safeties were in awful positions. Warren still seems like he materialize into our next good corner. I am hoping that we get someone to go along side of him at least for his last year and have two pretty good shut down corners. That was the key to the 97 defense. Charles Woodson took away one half of the field; so the db's could concentrate on the other half. There were a lot of coverage sacks that year. It would be nice to see some semblance of that again in a couple of years.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:57 AM ^
I don't think we'll ever see another DB shut down an entire side of the field. Offenses have evolved quite a bit since 1997 so it requires a lot more than one guy to play lockdown. Not to mention, Woodson was special, very special. I agree with you on Warren though, he's still an all-American in the making IMO.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:01 AM ^
I think that if you are afraid of a DB then you won't test that side of the field, regardless how evolved the offense has gotten. You'll still throw away from a potential pic. But you do make a good point, alot of who we may have considered good in the past would get exposed by some of these offenses they are running.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:19 AM ^
Yea, mainly my point is that most teams aren't coming at you with just one or two outside WRs. Because one DB can only cover one guy, and not four, this seems like a more recent problem for DBs and they aren't able to make as much of an impact as they used to. Secondaries are tested a lot more with the growing use of slot receivers and multiple uses of RBs out of the backfield (this isn't so much of a DBs problem as it is an LBs but the point about complexity still stands).
Of course this may just be my perception of the growing use of multiple WR sets rather than reality, but it sure does seem much more difficult to defend against the pass than it used to.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:33 AM ^
Good point. I agree. But if you got yourself good corners, thy are more iffy on that throwing thing. But with the ever evolving passing game it does become more difficult.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:25 AM ^
I think "shutting down a side of the field" is more an expression than an actual defensive reality.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:16 PM ^
All Big 10 performers on that defense:
Charles Woodson (all american)
Glenn Steele (all american)
Sam Sword (2nd team all american)
Marcus Ray (2nd team all american)
Rob Renes
Dhani Jones
Andre Weathers (2nd team)
James Hall (8.5 sacks) and Josh Williams (7 sacks) were not recognized.
Steele, Hall, and Williams were top-flight college pass-rushers, and, if anything, they forced a lot of quick throws more than reaping "coverage sacks" (as the next year would prove that Andre Weathers couldn't cover a stone). Weather owes his recognition probably 50% to Woodson (he always had help from double coverage, as Woodson was on an island) and 50% on a phenomenal pass rush.
My point, is that the defense in 1997 had LOTS going for it aside from Woodson.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:28 PM ^
Ahhh....that is what I basically said. That the coverage for the db's was able to focus on the other side of the field because teams were going to throw away from Woodson. Henceforth, resulting in the secondary not over extended itself. And yes, there was alot of coverage sacks. That is not to diminish what the D-Line accomplished; nor is it to say that Woodson was the only good thing going for the defense. But, you take Woodson off the team and it becomes the difference between the 06 defense and the 97's. If you don't believe what I am saying, Lloyd Carr, after the Ohio State game, the next year said that he didn't think that a team could miss one player as much as they missed Woodson. Like it or not, that dude is stand alone superbad! Just think what could have happened if he played his senior year.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:32 PM ^
"If you don't believe what I am saying, Lloyd Carr, after the Ohio State game, the next year said that he didn't think that a team could miss one player as much as they missed Woodson."
I humbly submit the difference between Nick Sheridan and Terrelle Pryor as a counterpoint to Lloyd's comment.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:39 PM ^
Don't know what ya got till it's gone.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:53 PM ^
I love Cinderella.