A note on transfers

When I was a junior in high school, on the first day of school, I got a note in homeroom that requested my presence in one of the counselor's offices. This wasn't my academic counselor, but he was the head coach of the hockey team. The previous year, I had played junior varsity hockey and was essentially on the varsity scout team: I would practice with the varsity squad and was held on retainer lest anything tragic happen to any of the varsity players. I sat down in his office and he made small talk before getting to the real issue, "So we've got a new season coming up now. I presume you'll be playing for us this year?" This was an abrupt invitation to play for the varsity hockey team but my mind had already been made up. "Actually, I think I'm just going to play on a club team out of Dearborn," I told him.

The rationale behind my decision was simple enough: aside from some small sense of vengeance I felt for various friends who the coach had strung along, I knew that I only had two more years of playing organized hockey. If I played varsity for an admittedly sub-par program, it very easily could have ended with an uninspiring recruiting process, followed by passing on a Michigan education in favor of playing four years of college hockey at a small school and still not making it to the pros (shock). When I told my parents the story that night at the dinner table, I told them basically the above, but added that I just didn't feel like working that hard (it's easier to play club hockey where you practice twice a week and never see a weight room) in my final two years. They responded that I shouldn't have said that; it reflected poorly on me. Regardless, this was my reasoning.

Why is any of this important? With the news that Vlad Emilien is leaving Michigan, I'm left contemplating the recent rash of transfers, and more alarmingly, what seem to be other obvious flight risks. I don't know why Emlilien left. Or why Turner or the various others have fled the program. Maybe it's a lack of playing time or just not the right fit. I don't want to project anything on these players. But it seems problematic that they keep leaving. Is it how Rodriguez coaches? Is it a different brand of player that he's recruiting?

Sadly, these aren't questions that I can answer, and they're probably different for each player. The most logical answer is probably that they aren't getting the kind of playing time they think they deserve. But for a program and coach that prides itself on competition and the ability to earn your place on the team, it seems hard to believe that these players are leaving solely because they're not playing. Is Barwis' strength program too difficult to endure when you're relegated behind a few walk ons on the depth chart? Does Rodriquez take out personal gripes against players by sticking them on the bench despite more logical choices (see: Tate sitting against UConn as Devin Gardner frustratingly burns a redshirt).

Whatever the issue, it's tough not to look at Michigan's roster right now and turn the panic level to EXTREME on a few other players not getting the kind of playing time you might expect, most notably: Tate (obviously) and Will Campbell. Panic about others seems misplaced right now, but it's hard not to look over your shoulder for the next sign of discontent.

On a more emotional level, it's difficult not get get upset with the players themselves. If it really is a lack of playing time, you have to ask yourself what makes true sophomores or redshirt freshmen feel entitled to early playing time. It may have been something Rodriquez promised them in the recruiting process; it wouldn't surprise me if Rodriguez, looking at the harrowing secondary depth chart, told Emilien and Turner they'd be on the field early, only to settle for lesser recruits/walk ons who were better prepared at the time. If that's the case, you can only hope that this is a self-remedying problem that will disappear when Michigan's depth is a less terrifying, which isn't going to happen with constant transfers.

Whatever the reasoning, this appears to be a very real problem and one that Rodriguez has brought with him. At this point, you can't place the blame on a few players who have flaked out after being recruited or blame Lloyd Carr recruits that got more than they signed up for. We now once again have to pray for health, which after the UConn game was problematic, and hope that somehow, Michigan's piecemeal defense manages to scrape through the year.

What a Warren-less defense looks like

As everyone now knows, Donovan Warren said that he is "heavily" leaning toward going pro. With the departure of Stevie Brown and Brandon Graham due to graduation, the loss of Warren would mean Michigan loses the three best players off of it's terrible defense from 2009. Ugh. But what does this really mean for the defense going forward?

For much of the year, I wasn't nearly as high on Warren as many around the Michigan blogosphere were. He was a good corner and undeniably our best player in the secondary, but he was never able to truly shut receivers down. Teams threw at Warren less than at other corners, but I think that's as much a function of Michigan's other corners being terribly inept as opposed to brilliance on Warren's behalf. So while Warren's departure--if he decides to go--will have an impact on the defense, I don't think it'll be nearly as catastrophic as some might feel.

But without Warren, Michigan is tossed back into the Horrifying Depth Chart-ness that they inhabited this past year. You can probably expect the corner depth chart to look something like this:

	Left Cornerback	Right Cornerback
1st string	Justin Turner	Troy Woolfolk
2nd string	Cullen Christian	J.T. Floyd
3rd string	Teric Jones	Courtney Avery
4th string	Terrence Talbot	James Rogers

So the depth there doesn't look completely hopeless, but how many of those players would you actually want to see on the field? Three? Pray there are no injuries. Given Rodriguez's decision to redshirt Turner, it's my guess that, at least early in the season, Woolfolk stays at corner and they try to redshirt Cullen. This does however, mean a few other things for the secondary, namely, more Kovacs at safety (and not linebacker, his obvious position) and an unproven Vlad Emilien playing deep. Michigan has Marvin Robinson coming in the 2010 class, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Kovacs move to linebacker and Robinson take over sometime in the Big Ten schedule.

	Free Safety	Strong Safety
1st string	Vlad Emilien	Jordan Kovacs
2nd string	Mike Williams	Marvin Robinson
3rd string	Carvin Johnson (expect redshirt)	Jared Van Slyke

We've seen worse looking depth charts than that, but it's still kind of OMG THEY'RE ALL FRESHMAN AND WALKONS involved.

The upshot is this: Warren is going to be a loss, but probably not a significant one. The secondary gets a little younger and a little less experienced than they otherwise would've been. That's about it. Warren wasn't an interception machine last year (he led the team with four for the entire season), and his production started to dwindle as the season went on. Woolfolk will likely take over as the most effective corner--he was nearing it toward the end of 2009--and Michigan will just have to roll the dice with the young'uns. It's going to be very touch and go early, but if some of these young, guru-approved recruits start to pan out early, the loss of Warren will be minimal.

The Jordan Kovacs problem

It has been said that I’ve been a little too harsh on freshman walk-on starting safety Jordan Kovacs. Just writing that string of adjectives before his name makes my brain hurt. But I stick by evaluation of Kovacs and will do you one better: Kovacs is to Michigan 2009 what Threetidan was to Michigan 2008.

Hear me out: Threetidan’s impact on the team last year was statistically and empirically obvious. Twelve INTs to only 11 TDs, under 50% completion percentage, immobile quarterbacks trying to fit into a system they had never played and weren’t physically equipped for. It was a horrorshow. And everyone knew it because on every single snap, one of the two unfortunate quarterbacks touched the ball and had to fumble it or hand it off or throw it into the arms of an opposing linebackers or whatever it was they did with the football last year. Their effect was obvious because of how critical that position is offense.

Kovacs’ lack of production and D-1 talent is a little more concealed because of the position he plays. But, if there were a position on the defense that’s as critical to the relative success or failure of the unit in the same way as the quarterback is on offense, it would be safety. Not that your safety should make a play on the ball every time he’s on the field, but being the last line of defense means that any time something goes wrong, or any time a safety screws up his own assignment it’s a massive failure and potential game-changing play.

Of course, a lot of blame gets unnecessarily put on Theetidan and probably Kovacs for the problems each unit experienced. The interceptions weren’t overwhelming and Theetidan wasn’t always the one fumbling, much like Kovacs isn’t always the one that’s missing tackles or not jumping on loose balls or allowing 80 yard runs. There was an obvious lack of production from Threetidan that did cause a lot of trouble last year, and Kovacs presents the same problem on defense this year.

Kovacs, and to a large extent Michigan’s awful linebacker core, have given opposing teams a blueprint of how to beat this defense: Play action pulls Kovacs and the linebackers away, and a pass to a running back or tight end on the opposite side of the field will be wide open. We saw it against Iowa and Penn State and Purdue and probably Illinois (a game which I still haven’t watched and refuse to do so). The mere presence of Kovacs on the field presents a gaping hole in the defense and an obvious weak spot for opposing offenses to attack.

Like Cissoko before him, Kovacs is so deficient at his position, that Greg Robinson actually has to change his formations and personnel to try and reconcile his lack of production (e.g., Donovan Warren essentially playing safety in a cover-2 to try and mitigate the long touchdown). Rich Rodriguez refused to change his system to cater to the players and talent he had last year and was ripped by a number of local and national publications. What Robinson is proving with this defense is you can’t make lemonade with walnuts.

A common refrain is that Kovacs is good as a run stopper--something that may eventually see him move to linebacker, about more which later--but how is this A) something used as the only defensible trait of a starting safety and B) not something taken into account by other coaches. The Kovacs as good run stopper meme exists in a vacuum. When put in context, it becomes, “OK, duh. Now what?” Kovacs is a good run stopper because he sells out on the run on every play. That’s why play action is so dangerous for Michigan: Kovacs doesn’t read plays, he plays against the run. Every coach that has scouted Michigan this year knows it and has exploited this. I shudder to think how Terrelle Pryor is going to beat us on this play.

Just as harmful as Kovacs’ on-field problems, though, is the fact that Vlad Emilien is riding the pine, save for special teams, and has blown his redshirt. Unless the coaches believe that Kovacs has the upside to turn into a long-term answer at the safety position--something that his lack of any recruiting profile and status as a walk-on firmly argues against--leaving Kovacs on the field is doing nothing but taking away from valuable playing time from Emilien. Given the current state of the depth chart at safety, this is a serious problem.

There’s been speculation that Kovacs is being primed to take over Stevie Brown’s position next year in the wake of his graduation, but I frankly could not think of a worse position for Kovacs. Brown is responsible for making quick reads, needs extreme athleticism, and most damning for Kovacs, is put into man coverage any time opposing teams bring out more than two wide receivers. Putting Kovacs here would be a massacre. He simply cannot play that position.

Kovacs is a nice kid and a good story, and just like Nick Sheridan, I harbor no ill will toward him. That’s not to say that I am particularly pleased with how he plays football nor do I want him to be anywhere Michigan’s starting lineup.  Vlad Emilien was a 4-star, stud safety recruit who’s blown his redshirt and sitting behind a player that, in the coming years, will probably never see significant playing time. If we put Emilien in the game, what’s the worse that can happen? He plays like Jordan Kovacs? I suppose at this point, we have to ask what exactly Kovacs is bringing to the table. When it’s all said and done, his negatives far outweigh his positives, and furthermore, he’s having an effect on the long-term growth of a player that we’re kind of counting on.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Kovacs will improve with an offseason in the S&C program and will eventually turn into a serviceable safety or linebacker or wherever he ends up. I don’t like being wrong and I don’t think I am here either. I’ve seen the movie: Even Rudy only gets two plays.