Verdict on Stevie?
September 5th, 2009 at 7:10 PM ^
I haven't seen the game yet, but everything I read seemed positive.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:12 PM ^
One thing is for sure; he's MUCH better suited at his current position than he was at safety.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:13 PM ^
He looked good there imo (not an expert). I think it's a perfect fit against the Notre Dame pass offense. It's exciting, great speed to blitz/ cover a slot, without all the nerves of having him as our last line of defense.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:18 PM ^
is great. he has enough athletic ability to make plays where he is now. he can rely more on his instincts than having to analyze the play which plays to his strengths.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
but initial results appear to be encouraging.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^
i didn't see him do anything great, but he played solidly as far as i could tell.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:22 PM ^
He forced the fumble, but we need to see how he reacts when he actually has to face some O lineman
September 5th, 2009 at 7:22 PM ^
I thought he played solidly guarding the flat, oftentimes lining up with his back almost to the QB. He played well. Wonderful day, but to point out something that concerns me - the deep touchdown pass. Woolfork cannot get scorched like that over the top, especially against Western Michigan.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:50 PM ^
His name is WoolFOLK
September 5th, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^
And wasn't it Floyd who was beat, not Woolfolk?
September 6th, 2009 at 1:13 AM ^
They both got beat. Woolfolk was supposed to help and got sucked in. Floyd somehow got smoked. The Western guy must have made some sort of move because Floyd was giving him a huge cushion off the line. They never showed the full route on replay.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^
There were no receivers underneath. Woolfolk did not get deep enough on that play. Floyd beaten, too. That's why you have a FS playing deep.
Don't understand the beg points for the OP. He didn't say anything wrong, at least in what I read above.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
was supposed to help Floyd over the top and Floyd was supposed to cover the sideline as well as the flat but once Floyd see that Woolfolk got sucked in, he went after Nunez.
It's on Woolfolk.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
Woolfolk didn't really get sucked in. He just didn't break out of his backpedal quickly enough. Also, I didn't really see any receivers in the flat on Floyd's side. If there weren't any receivers there, Floyd should have been gaining depth anyway. Unless there was a guy underneath him, both are at fault.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^
It appears to be either a Cover 2 or Cover 4. Woolfolk did get sucked in
September 6th, 2009 at 5:05 PM ^
I didn't see Woolfolk bite on the run fake or move down on any other WR - because there was none in the middle. He didn't move toward the LOS, as far as I could see, but he did not get deep enough. He should always be deeper than the deepest offensive player in the coverage. In this, he failed. Saying he got 'sucked in' implies, to me at least, that he either bit on the run fake or moved down on an underneath receiver.
Floyd got toasted, too, though at least he was outside of the WR. If he sat on a dig or thought somebody might be in the flat, that could explain it, but it was a poor play by him, too. Yet, that happens - and should be expected to on occasion. It's the whole reason to have a safety deep.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
I don't have the inclination to sift through the highlights and look for the clip, but keep in mind that "I was at the game" is probably not a great defense for analysis of a long opponent touchdown. Fans at the game often have bad angles and are far away. And on a long WMU pass, I'm guessing fans weren't privy to several replays.
"I was at the game" is good if you're talking about chants from the student section or something that happened on the sideline. It's not typically the best way to offer game analysis.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^
He'll be alright. Good pursuit, a head for the ball, and no longer a threat to take bad angles to the ball as the last line of defense.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:29 PM ^
The UFR will not be kind to him. Brown contributed, from what I can tell.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:54 PM ^
I thought he was playing CB.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:55 PM ^
Floyd lined up at CB. but i agree, he did not have a good game and UFR will reflect that. we'll need a third CB to step up against ND.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
Floyd looked lost; WMU was obviously going after him.
Woolfolk made a big error on the TD.
Warren was a very sure tackler, but looked only ok in coverage.
Cissoko looked good when out there, but who knows how bad that injury is.
Both Warren and Cissoko are small; Michael Floyd and Golden Tate are not. And Clausen is better than Hiller.
Good show this week. But, we'll have to see some improvements next week, or I don't think it'll end the same way.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:41 PM ^
Notice that the tackling (including Brown's) was very, very good, unlike last year.
Just 1 blown play at safety. Any chance that the Notre Dame coaches noticed that?
September 5th, 2009 at 9:49 PM ^
I didn't see any broken tackles by WMU. And lots of great one on one tackling. Good swarming to the ball as well. I think we didn't see much of Stevie Brown because he took away the short to intermediate stuff over the middle. The only thing they could hit consistenlty were quick slants, which are very hard to defend anyway.
Not everything a guy does shows up in the box score or on the TV screen.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:37 PM ^
The GERG defence was incredible in terms of tacklng. The play that I thought emphacized it the most was a quick pass to a reciever with Boo-Boo covering. He judt stayed there and dared the reciever to movefirst instead of him overpursuing the WR and missing the tackle like what probably would have happened last year.
September 5th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^
dancing in my head.
Good fundamentals and an intimidating defense. Quick and swarming.
Barwis!
Wow
[And yeah, I know it was "only" Western Michigan; but we lost to Toledo last year!]
September 5th, 2009 at 10:52 PM ^
Bo Jackson, talking about playing Michigan in the bowl game said something like, "they had a bunch of small quick white guys who hit like hell". I have never seen the quote for myself, a friend told me he read it in Bo Jackson's book. You are right on about Bo's defenses, they got after it.
September 5th, 2009 at 11:01 PM ^
WE LOST THAT FUCKING GAME!
September 5th, 2009 at 11:11 PM ^
That Auburn game and the game against Oklahoma featuring the Selmon brothers were games our O was just overmatched. I think Leach was a Freshman when we played Oklahoma and we just couldn't get anything going. But the D, the D, got after em.
September 5th, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
That Sugar Bowl game against Auburn I do recall, losing 9-7! I do think Michigan was the better team that game, but not in the score/end result.
The Oklahoma Orange Bowl in 1976(14-6 ? ), not so much.
September 5th, 2009 at 11:32 PM ^
You forgot the lesser known Selmon, Lucious. There were 3 of them. You may be right about being better than Auburn. We had a first quarter TD and never scored again. Auburn only managed 3 field goals.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:47 PM ^
..to redemption. Brown looked good and appeared to provide leadership. It would be nice to see Stevie have a great year.
September 5th, 2009 at 7:51 PM ^
Played well. Never going to be the "star" his early recruiting might have hinted at, but he was solid. It brought back bad memories, though, to see the one WMU score.
September 5th, 2009 at 8:09 PM ^
bad memories of stevie brown? that play wasn't his fault at all, jt floyd is just too slow to cover anybody
September 5th, 2009 at 10:31 PM ^
Stevie seemed to play well today, from what I could tell. Didn't seem to get obviously burned.
The thing I was most impressed with overall was tackling. Very few attempted arm tackles.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
Brown played pretty well. I didn't see him do anything that looked significantly out of place.
I haven't seen the TD play again, but it looked like they were playing cover 2 with man underneath. Woolfolk got caught sleeping and lost his cushion on Nunez. Floyd wasn't anywhere to be seen. They obviously both messed up, but at least Woolfolk has the speed to make up for some mistakes (not this one, but future ones). If we had any depth at corner, I think Floyd would be playing safety.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
He's only had 2+ weeks of practice, but we need him as the 3rd corner. I hope one more week allows him to do that. ND receivers are big and good.
September 6th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
I think it's only a matter of time until Turner pulls ahead of Floyd.
September 6th, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
Did anyone else think S. Brown looked tiny compared to every other LB in the game? I don't think it's a knock on his playing ability, he just looked pint size when lined up next to the DL and even our other LBs.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
Not really. He's listed at 211 and he definitely looked bigger than he did last year (when he was about 205). Mouton is only 228. Ezeh is really the only monstrous LB we have on the team.