Woolfolk hypothetical
Pretty simple question - if Woolfolk somehow healed and was unquestionably 100% (yes, I realize this is highly unlikely, it's a hypo) in time for the game/s listed below, would you use him?
- bowl game only
- OSU + bowl game
- Wisc + OSU + bowl game
I go back and forth on this one. 3 would be awfully tempting, especially if we are in contention for the b10 title (not holding my breath). I always want to throw everything at OSU hoping for a win, but TWolf could be a huge advantage going into next year. OTOH, transitioning him back in next year could be slightly awkward - do we simply replace Rogers at CB? Put him deep and sit Cam for a year? Thoughts?
September 27th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
Need him next year for a full season at full strength.
Either to play CB or, if others step up, to play Safety, allowing Cam Gordon to move to Mouton's LB spot.
A bigger issue to transition him in would come at the end of this year than next year.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
I agree. I'd rather have him for all 12+1 games next year than to waste a year of his eligibility on one or two games at the end of this year.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
Don't you mean 12 + 1 (Big Ten Title Game) + 1?
Sorry couldn't resist.
September 27th, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
I blanked for a minute there. Thanks, and +1 to you! (no pun intended)
September 27th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
September 27th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about ?
Setting logic aside, Rod sat a 12 game starter from last year, you think he will have a problem bringing Twolf back ?!?
September 27th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
I think what he is saying about Rogers is that we replace him next year with Troy since he will be gone and not with a freshman (sophomore next year, Talbot, Avery, Christian). Not saying put Rogers farther back on the depth chart.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
This is what I meant. Thought it was pretty obvious. Why are people so fast on the OMG UR STUPID trigger? Oh, right. It's the internet.
September 27th, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
Ha ya some people just flip out. I got your back P RR.
September 27th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
In Rod I Trust has been quick to jump all over me before as well.
September 27th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^
Tourettes that is magnified by the hypnotic effect of his avatar.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
he'll be fortunate to get his pre-injury form back by next fall camp.
September 27th, 2010 at 11:59 PM ^
I was thinking the same thing. I am kind of surprised more people are not questioning if he can make it back next year. That is a pretty rough injury, I hope it does not turn out like Antonio Bass.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
September 27th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
September 27th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
Woolfolk has too much potential to help the team in the coming years to sacrifice a year of eligibility on a couple of games. He'll be with a stronger defensive unit next year anyway. GO BLUE!!
September 27th, 2010 at 2:22 PM ^
I hope Woolfolk plays FS in 2011. Let one of C. Christian, T. Talbott or C. Avery take over for the departed Rogers and move C. Gordon closer to the LOS as a Bandit/Spur or WLB. Last but not least, recruit a good FS prospect (could Walls be the guy?) this cycle (2011), let him RS and then take over for Woolfolk in 2012.
September 27th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^
September 27th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
This sounds about perfect to me
EDIT: replying to idea of Woolfolk at FS and moving Cam to Spur/Bandit in 2011
September 27th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
1) It's better for him to play a full year to get a better shot at the NFL
2) Even if he's better, he'll unlikely be 100% for the 2-3 games this year (although you may argue that he's better at 80% than our other secondary members at 100%).
September 27th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
the hypo intended to control for questions about his health (yes, unrealistic). It boils down to - "if Woolfolk could come back at 100% sometime late this season, would you play him at the expense of losing him next year, which projects to be a huge year for UM? If so, how many games would he have to come back for to make it worth your while?"
September 27th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
If his goal is to get to the NFL, there's no way he plays the last one or two games of the season. It'd be a waste of his talent and potential. I haven't heard anything to indicate there's any way he'd be 100% by the end of the season, and it'd be incredibly selfish of us to want him to throw away a full year to showcase his talents just because he might make a difference in one game.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
2011 is your answer
September 27th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^
Yes if we're undefeated. Otherwise, no.
September 27th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
why do people keep asking hypotheticals that can't happen?
September 27th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
"Woolfolk hypothetical." You probably had a pretty good idea of what the thread would be about, yet here you are.
September 27th, 2010 at 3:01 PM ^
Even if he were 100 percent recovered from a health standpoint, it is not worth burning the redshirt to get back a Woolfolk who has had zero practice and zero game action.
In any event, as hypotheticals go this one is pretty remote.
September 27th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
Hypothetically I would rather clone Charles Woodson twice and have the NCAA rule that clones get 4 years of eligibility so that we could have Woodson^2 as our starting corners.
But seriously there is no way he would be able to not only recover but also keep his conditioning to compete against guys who have played the entire season. Barwis is good but what you are suggesting is magic, IMO...
September 27th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
I would like to see him playing as much as anyone else, but even if he got back to 100% health, he would most likely not be 100% playing right away. He hasn't gotten any reps because of his injury, so we'd be getting a healthy but most likely rusty Woolfolk.
Also if you break it into simple math, 12+1+1(possibly the B10 championship game) = 13 or 14, which is greater than 3. Plus if there was a year to have him, it would be next year because that is the year I expect the team to really break out (not that this year's over yet).
September 27th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
Would have to say 100% no way to this one. Can't see him being ready this year, and he would be rusty in any event. We want his redshirt so he can play all next year, when this defense should really mature into something special.
Just picture the depth we will have.
September 27th, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
Who is Woolfolk? You guys must be talking about Trey Woorflock, right?
September 27th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
You don't risk his NFL future, the 2011 season, further injury, etc. by rushing him back.
In 2011 I'd love to see Woolfolk at deep safety and Gordon move to Kovaks spot. Then I am intrigued with Brian's idea of moving Kovacs to MLB. I like Gordon, but I think Woolfolk at deep safety would be great and I think there will be enough depth/experience from the freshmen to cover the other corner spot opposite Floyd.
But then again, this is the Rodriguez era where anything is possible.
September 27th, 2010 at 7:59 PM ^
13 games > 3 games
That is all.
September 27th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
I'd like to see a 100% Woolfolk next season opposite JT Floyd, with a Soph Cam Gordon, and a JR Jordan Kovacs patroling the secondary. That, theoretically, could turn our secondary from a point of weakness, into a strength.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^
I'd rather see some safeties who can, you know, run. Cam Gordon needs to find a new position ASAP (not this year, obviously). His lack of speed has been apparent over the first four games, and we haven't even hit the tough part of the schedule yet.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
if he played in a Bowl, but nothing else? Frequently players play a game or two at the start of the season, get hurt, and get an injury redshirt. Given the bowl games, aside from the BCS Championship game are quasi-exhibitions, it would seem logical that you could still get an injury redshirt if you only played in the bowl. But, before the negging begins, I have no idea what the answer is -- and I recognize that ascribing a logical response to any rule of the NCAA is a dangerous proposition.