Something interesting hit me from Nick B's open forum earlier...

Someone asked the question, "Assuming Jabrill is every bit the superstar forecasted for him, how will his presence affect Matty's defense as a whole?"

Nick's reply:  If Michigan can find a legitimate shutdown corner who can play on an island, it changes everything for Mattison. Everything. We've been at a point in football for a long time now where elite corners are the most valuable piece of any defense. They're hard to find, but when you do get your hands on one, it makes every other part of your defense better.

Check out his last sentence. I realized he could have provided the answer to a question I had for a long time, after our '97 NC...how could a defense returning NINE starters come back and be embarassed so miserably in their first two games (20-36 at ND, 280 Irish rushing yards, and 28-38 at home vs. Donovan Mac and Syracuse, in a game in which they could have hung FIFTY on us)?

His answer: Woodson's departure.  We all said, for the longest time, he could take half the field in the secondary...and it was damned near true (witness his game-saving INTs vs. OSU and Wazzu). With him gone, perhaps, to paraphrase Nick, "It made every other part of our defense worse."  (Of course it also didn't help that the other missing element of our '97 defense was its top pass rusher, Glen Steele).

Thoughts?

Reagrdless, assuming there is at least some truth to Nick's assertion, let's hope Jabrill can become that man in the years ahead (if not the year---singular---ahead).

Totally agree that the dominant corner has a huge impact on the rest of the defense. However have never understood the half the field thing. If the opponent sent 2 or even 3 receivers to Woodson's side, he could defend all 3 of them?

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

Totally agree that the dominant corner has a huge impact on the rest of the defense. However have never understood the half the field thing. If the opponent sent 2 or even 3 receivers to Woodson's side, he could defend all 3 of them?

'shoes

Kind of.
1. He can shut down his guy with lock-down coverage.
2. He can leave his man if he sees the ball thrown and sometimes make a play on it.
3. Once another receiver catches the ball, Woodson can shed his man and make the tackle
4. Elite corners can also stop runs.









Neither of those plays had any business being made by Woodson. Plays like that are what people refer to when they say "shut down half of the field". My advice is to take it figuratively and not literally.

I always took it to mean that the offensive coordinator wouldn't even look to run a play to his side of the field.

Thus, he shut down 1/2 the field.

Good point about it being figurative. Otherwise we could have just put him on one side and put the other 10 guys on the other side.

joe wrote:

I always took it to mean that the offensive coordinator wouldn't even look to run a play to his side of the field.

Thus, he shut down 1/2 the field.

^^^ Exactly this ^^^

with half the field (or at least a large portion of it) being a non option it clearly makes things easier on a D.

Remember last year with our O line struggles we were forced to line up certain ways on offense and that basically told the opposing D that we were going to run the ball and where.

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

joe wrote:

I always took it to mean that the offensive coordinator wouldn't even look to run a play to his side of the field.

Thus, he shut down 1/2 the field.

^^^ Exactly this ^^^

with half the field (or at least a large portion of it) being a non option it clearly makes things easier on a D.

Remember last year with our O line struggles we were forced to line up certain ways on offense and that basically told the opposing D that we were going to run the ball and where.

But while that may have often (not always) been true, we still had other players on his side of the field, so he wasn't shutting it down by himself.

When people say a basketball shooter is "on fire" does it mean he has flames coming out of his ass? When a batter is said to have "smoked" a ball, does it mean he put the ball in a pipe and lit up?

Taking things so literal is lame and I'd expect a better understanding of addages from anyone who follows sports.

There is a difference between a metaphor and a description of accomplishment or prowess. I understand that there are exaggerations in sport and life all of the time, but the "half the field" thing is an extreme one and a lazy (and inaccurate) shorthand for saying that a dominant corner positively impacts not just his assignment on the play but makes it easier for others to meet their assignments (true but not as colorful as "he shut down half the field.")

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

There is a difference between a metaphor and a description of accomplishment or prowess. I understand that there are exaggerations in sport and life all of the time, but the "half the field" thing is an extreme one and a lazy (and inaccurate) shorthand for saying that a dominant corner positively impacts not just his assignment on the play but makes it easier for others to meet their assignments (true but not as colorful as "he shut down half the field.")

'shoes

Honestly shoes, I think you are way over thinking it. When Woodson was at UM, QB's rarely threw the ball to his side of the field, and almost never to the man he was covering. "Taking away half the field" refers to the QB not even looking at that side when dropping back to pass.

Fish- I get it and you're right I've slipped into argumentative mode. No more on this subject from me.

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

There is a difference between a metaphor and a description of accomplishment or prowess. I understand that there are exaggerations in sport and life all of the time, but the "half the field" thing is an extreme one and a lazy (and inaccurate) shorthand for saying that a dominant corner positively impacts not just his assignment on the play but makes it easier for others to meet their assignments (true but not as colorful as "he shut down half the field.")

'shoes

This is no metaphor shoes....



this is a scientific fact

wshoes wrote:

There is a difference between a metaphor and a description of accomplishment or prowess. I understand that there are exaggerations in sport and life all of the time, but the "half the field" thing is an extreme one and a lazy (and inaccurate) shorthand for saying that a dominant corner positively impacts not just his assignment on the play but makes it easier for others to meet their assignments (true but not as colorful as "he shut down half the field.")

'shoes

Full-court press.... does that mean the every inch of the court is being defended? Extreme exaggeration and a lazy shorthand?
Keep your eye on the ball.... does that mean that your eye literally has to be on the ball? Extreme exaggeration and a lazy shorthand?
When a player is on 1st, but leads off, we still say "runner on first". Extreme exaggeration and a lazy shorthand?


There are hundreds of sports sayings and idioms that are not meant to be taken literal. When you start taking them literal and saying "nuh uh!" you sound like my girlfriend who asked me what a "2-point convergence" was.

^he admitted he was wrong. Not good enough?