Greg Robinson negative observations

Submitted by umichjenks on October 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Wow, where to even begin?

First off, I understand we have played 8 freshmen on defense but here are a few points that made me scream at the tv.

1.  Craig Roh is not a LB.  He does not have flexible hips to turn with anyone that runs a route and just looks out of place.

2.  James Rogers may be one of the worst CBs I've seen.  Every play had him lined up 10 yards off the ball and pointing his hips inside.  Not like it mattered that he had to turn his hips all the way around b/c all they did is run outs and stops versus him; because he was 8 yards off the receiver when he caught the ball.  There is a reason he was a wr, he has worse hips than GERG to play CB.

3.  Why is Terrance Talbot not playing instead of Rogers?  I know he has had limited time out there, but I swear he plays 3 yards off the ball and actually hits his receiver.  This may be b/c of the scheme affected his placement on the wr but you cannot tell me he has not looked better than Rogers.

4.  IF GERG DOES NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE IN ROGERS OR FLOYD AND CHOOSES TO PLAY 10 YARDS OFF ON A 3RD AND 5 THEN PUT IN A FRESHMAN, PERIOD.

5.  I would be so pissed off if I was Martin or Mouton/Kovacs b/c the rest of the D is god awful.

Comments

West Texas Blue

October 2nd, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^

Wow how many Greg Robinson threads are we going to have?

1) Roh experiment has been mixed, but we're running a 3-3-5, so it's gonna be Martin, RVB, and Banks/Sagesse on majority of snaps. 

2) Uh, there's a good reason why James Rogers hasn't played until this year.  Only because we lost Woolfolk is Rogers starting.   We have Rogers, Floyd, and a gazillion freshmen.  Haven't you been paying attention to offseason?

3) Talbott is a true freshman; yeah let's dump a ton of pressure on him.

4) Easy on the caps, son.

5) Thank you Captain Obvious.  D isn't good, ain't going to change this year, and not even Nick Saban could turn this D into a top 25 unit for remainder of season.

VAWolverine

October 2nd, 2010 at 8:08 PM ^

are we going to expect recruits who could not cut it to stand up and assume responsibility instead of blaming the coaching staff? As my late great HS gym teacher told me years ago (who is in the MI HS Coaches hall of Fame) ..."You can't make chicken soup out of chicken shit."

BlueVoix

October 2nd, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^

They weren't good enough...this year.  Isn't that what depth is all about?  Isn't that what we're supposed to do so we don't have only freshmen and sophomores on the two deep?  Or is allowing massive attrition another way for us to find an excuse for piss poor schemes?

MileHighWolverine

October 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 PM ^

was there ever any chance we could have landed an LB or two?  What about next year, are they still allowed to transfer next year and play immediately?  

I know I am dreaming but damn, what would this team look like with decent to above average LB play?  Could you imagine a Teo type player?  

blurg.

mejunglechop

October 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^

Adrian Witty + Demar Dorsey: Not qualifying academically is a (substantial) risk the coaches knew or should have known they were taking when recruiting them.

JT Turner/Brandon Smith: Transferred in the face of major playing time possibly because the didn't get along with the coaches.

Woolkfolk: Injured

Warren: Didn't think he was getting anything out of coaching staff.

Vlad: sophomore on two deep who decided to leave and later says "there's some personal reasons" for it.

CWoodson

October 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^

I know that you consistently research your claims on a Mathlete-type level, but just for fun:

1) Any proof for fact that Turner and Smith were about to play or "possibly ... didn't get along with the coaches"?

2) ANY proof, at all, that Warren didn't think he was getting anything out of the coaching staff?

3) Any proof that Vlad had issues with the coaches, particularly since he praised RichRod effusively on the way out?

You've always been a waste of board space, but this is a particularly high level of baseless speculation and nonsense.  Congrats!

mejunglechop

October 2nd, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^

You're right I'm making things up, as usual:

1) Smith started the Wisconsin game and played against OSU, his last two games. According to practice reports Turner was on the two deep.

2) That's been the word at Scout. He felt like coming back another year wouldn't have made a difference in preparing him for the NFL.

3) http://detnews.com/article/20100909/SPORTS0201/9090475/Vlad-Emilien-seeks--new-start--after-transfer-from-U-M

Thanks for the kind words.

CWoodson

October 2nd, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^

I actually appreciate the response, but it doesn't make you right.

1) No indication Turner was about to play (indeed, just the opposite), or again, that either had issues with the coaches (though I'll admit some issues can fairly be assumed, that =/= "on the coaches").

2) Not making a difference in preparing him could mean literally 1000 things.  He also thought he'd get drafted, so he might not be the best judge of these things.

3) Vlad, again, specifically praises RichRod and talks about personal issues that almost certainly have nothing to do with the coaches in that article.  Adding him to your "coach issues" list is ridiculous.  He was 3rd string, wanted to play, left.  The end.

You'll not I'm not irrationally defending anybody, and I think not realizing Dorsey/Witty would be difficult/impossible to get admitted is on the coaches.  But I'm not willing to make every ridiculous assumption that suggests the coaches of this 5-0 team are incompetent either.  I hope you can enjoy wins someday.

mejunglechop

October 3rd, 2010 at 12:09 AM ^

Also, I'm not saying that our depth issues are all Rodriguez's fault. I do think it's highly likely, though, that he's earned some of the blame. How much? Our information is too murky to say.

None of the data points here are definitive and can be argued either way (I could argue all of them, including Vlad thing, but won't). Bliang asked "How come none of that is put on the coaching staff?" Erikindayton's response was that coaches couldn't add players during the season and a bunch of players left- ignoring Rodriguez's potential agency in it.

My list was simply to show the problems with that.

re:I hope you can enjoy wins someday.

I can, I just tend to look at games comprehensively. I'm glad we won, but it's hard watching your defense give up 480 yards passing to Indiana.

chimmychonga

October 2nd, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^

I really think the problem is that those players did not seperated themselves from the rest. I think (I don't know) that no one really did significantly better consistantly enough through the offseason and now it's showing. Cam Gordon for example has great moments, and then he has horrible moments. Kovacs I swear is my hero. He's not physically gifted with speed and height but he is the best tackler out of our secondary and linebackers. It's not good when our LB's can't make a tackle half the time. But they are doing their best. I certainly can't do better. I'm just a fan of the team I love.

kalamazoo

October 2nd, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^

The defense has injuries and young freshmen players so I just think this is like the offense 2 yrs ago - it just takes time to get the right recruits (some good freshmen already here) now that the defensive coordinator is no longer changing.  Hard to be patient but I for one will be excited and hopeful about a better defense in August 2011 just like I was for our offense this year.  Freshmen in secondary will be sophomores and Martin, Roh, others will still be here.

But Kovacs! Seriously, where would we be had we not found him?  He had the most tackles on the team last year (maybe up there this year too?) and stripped and recovered a fumble this year...he's competent, even if there is the occasional mistake.  Thank you Rod for holding walk-on competitions.

harmon40

October 3rd, 2010 at 1:26 AM ^

You can't throw your JV out there against everyone else's varsity and expect to get great results. The coaches are therefore in the unenviable position of having to choose how they want to try and cover for their weaknesses, knowing that they have more weaknesses than strengths. For the rest of this year, that's reality.
<br>
<br>On the whole, I think we should all be very pleased with the progress overall. The offense has made the leap; the defense will sadly not be making the leap in the same season as the offense but just imagine what happens when they do. The offense scores quickly, the defense gets it back, the offense scores again, repeat until rout is complete.
<br>
<br>This year is fun but even brighter days lay ahead.

mrider

October 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^

Only complaint I have is never playing man coverage. Why not throw the offenses a wrench every once in a while and play man. Blitzing today worked well, Chappel just was gutty as hell out there.

burntorangeblue

October 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^

from this very site?  Every stastical evaluation pointed to this exact result.  Exactly.  I don't get the meltdown.  Step back from the ledge or go to the rivals board.

Erik_in_Dayton

October 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

This kid has done everything the coaches have asked of him.  He's made a few plays this year, he's never hung his head, and he's never made excuses.  Would I like to see Donovan Warren out there instead?  Sure, but there is no point in attacking Rogers or any other players. 

qed

October 2nd, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

1.  I think we did well against the run despite looking for only pass.  We were rarely fooled.

2.  We tackled reasonably well.

3.  We gave too much buffer to the receivers but hardly ever were people just wide open.  On a couple of occasions, but not very often.

4.  Their 5 receiver sets really forced us to play a lot of frosh corners at the same time.  No one was lost and everyone tackled well.

5.  We converged on balls after caught pretty well.

6.  Floyd looked good.

I think we need to find a play maker at cornerback.  I think if player emerges in the next few weeks (Avery?) maybe we will be serviceable back there.  The problem is that rarely were passes broken up even when corners were there.

Magnum P.I.

October 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^

I honestly don't know if I agree with this, especially after seeing our defense out on the field for over 40 minutes today. UMass and Indiana gamed planned well to know that we'll give up the 12 yard out all day. All day. And that has led to serious skews in time of possession.

I'm to the point where I think we'd be better served to play more aggressively in the secondary and maybe get a PBU or turnover once in awhile. We're hemorraging yards anyway, might as well take some chances and get the defense some rest.

West Texas Blue

October 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^

"I'm to the point where I think we'd be better served to play more aggressively in the secondary and maybe get a PBU or turnover once in awhile"

Dude, are you watching the games? We had several picks in ND game, a pick in BGSU game, and a pick in today's game.  We're forcing turnovers a hell of alot more than last year.  This is a bend but don't break defense, and everyone just needs to accept the fact.  Next year hope for an average D, and then in 2012 everything coming together for a top 25-30 unit.

Magnum P.I.

October 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 PM ^

No need to get worked up. We just gave up 35 first downs today and they possessed the ball for 41 minutes. I don't know what the answer is but it's demoralizing for the team and the defense to keep seeing the opponent move the chains at will.

Also, why is the defense going to be top 25 in two years?