Does Kovacs start the first series?

[Guest]

...as does Kovacs.

Kovacs has a history of blown plays.

Didn't Kovacs finish second in the league last year in tackles ? At least he seems to get to the ball and make plays.

 

[dannydiggler]

This is a quote from Hoke yesterday the 18th.. "I would say probably 2 or 3" starting positions on defense are set by now. Woolfolk and Martin have had nice camps, and Kovacs has had a nice camp. The other positions aren't quite settled.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Question answered. This is from the mgoblog summary of Hoke's recent press conf:

I would say probably 2 or 3" starting positions on defense are set by now. Woolfolk and Martin have had nice camps, and Kovacs has had a nice camp. The other positions aren't quite settled.

NOOOOOOO, the season is lost now - or at least whenever something bad happens I will blame Kovacs and grumble in my seat.

 

[dannydiggler]

He's one of the only experienced players we have on defense... He's just not as athletic as most and is very smart. Ill take him over Marvin and Furman any day. He's always in the right spot.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Danny Diggler[/color]]He's one of the only experienced players we have on defense... He's just not as athletic as most and is very smart. Ill take him over Marvin and Furman any day. He's always in the right spot.

Here's how I look at it, I'd rather the more athletic, younger and greater potential for a player go in there and be in the wrong spot, learn from it, and cause a TD than watch Kovacs be in the right spot, outran or out-moved, and cause a TD.

 

[alonzomoseley]

I agree with everything except calling him a "bad athlete." When I was in high school I started in varsity football, basketball, and baseball for two years and therefore consider myself a good athlete, but I never sniffed college athletics. The fact that he's a contributing player for Michigan means he would most likely run circles around me (and everyone else on this board for that matter).[/quote]

That's the standard for judging Kovacs athletic ability?

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

I agree with everything except calling him a "bad athlete." When I was in high school I started in varsity football, basketball, and baseball for two years and therefore consider myself a good athlete, but I never sniffed college athletics. The fact that he's a contributing player for Michigan means he would most likely run circles around me (and everyone else on this board for that matter).

That's the standard for judging Kovacs athletic ability?[/quote]

That's a defining statement to clarify the difference between "bad" and "not top caliber." Rather easy to understand, I thought.

 

[alonzomoseley]

I agree with everything except calling him a "bad athlete." When I was in high school I started in varsity football, basketball, and baseball for two years and therefore consider myself a good athlete, but I never sniffed college athletics. The fact that he's a contributing player for Michigan means he would most likely run circles around me (and everyone else on this board for that matter).

That's the standard for judging Kovacs athletic ability?

That's a defining statement to clarify the difference between "bad" and "not top caliber." Rather easy to understand, I thought.[/quote]

Because it really sounded to me like, "I was a good athlete in high school. Kovacs can run circles around me. Therefore Kovacs is good enough to start for Michigan." It doesn't account for the fact that the least talented guy on Michigan's roster would run circles around all of us.

 

[hungry]

That's the standard for judging Kovacs athletic ability?

That's a defining statement to clarify the difference between "bad" and "not top caliber." Rather easy to understand, I thought.

Because it really sounded to me like, "I was a good athlete in high school. Kovacs can run circles around me. Therefore Kovacs is good enough to start for Michigan." It doesn't account for the fact that the least talented guy on Michigan's roster would run circles around all of us.[/quote]

Weird! It didn't sound like that at all to me. Sounds to me that GBiA is just saying that Kovacs is a pretty good athlete. IF Mattison says he's a starter for Michigan, then he's good enough to start at Michigan.

This is all a stupid conversation, because some idiot wanted somebody with better star rankings in high school to start over someone that is obviously a better college football player.

 

[alonzomoseley]

That's a defining statement to clarify the difference between "bad" and "not top caliber." Rather easy to understand, I thought.

Because it really sounded to me like, "I was a good athlete in high school. Kovacs can run circles around me. Therefore Kovacs is good enough to start for Michigan." It doesn't account for the fact that the least talented guy on Michigan's roster would run circles around all of us.

Weird! It didn't sound like that at all to me. Sounds to me that GBiA is just saying that Kovacs is a pretty good athlete. IF Mattison says he's a starter for Michigan, then he's good enough to start at Michigan.

This is all a stupid conversation, because some idiot wanted somebody with better star rankings in high school to start over someone that is obviously a better college football player.[/quote]

On the defensive side, its certainly a plus to have both superior athleticism and whatever you call that quality that allows you to understand your responsibilities and be where you are supposed to be. But if you can't have both (and I think that we can agree that while Kovacs is a better athlete than most or all of us on this board, he's not a superior athlete), on the defensive side I would take the unnamed quality.

 

[alonzomoseley]

Kovacs last year: 116 tackles (just one fewer than Mouton) and 8.5 TFL. I don't care how many stars they gave that guy in high school, he can play on my team any day.