I really like Boubacar Cissoko. Prior to this season I had no opinion on him, but now I really like him. I like him and am rooting hard for him the rest of the season because his name has the word “boob” in it because he has already demonstrated one of the most-treasured of attributes in football and in life- the ability to deal with and overcome adversity.

Adversity comes in many forms, and he is certainly not the only player on the Michigan team that has faced it (see: Mealer, Elliott). However, when adversity arrives on a player’s doorstep as FIRST HALF FAILURE and that failure becomes visible to many, many people as an unfair and premature judgment of “I don’t think Cissoko is any good, injured shoulder or not”….well, I can’t help but root for the guy, if only to make the people who make those judgments EAT IT.

We’ve all had rough days and we’ve all been put in impossible situations. Our beloved Michigan players are no different, and I love to see these kids grow up in front of our eyes and become MEN. That is something I can and will root for every damn Saturday in the fall. So with that in mind, let’s look at what Boubacar Cissoko dealt with this past weekend, how he responded to it, and then offer a hearty “FUCK YOU” to the haters among our fanbase.

PART 1: FACING ADVERSITY

We begin with some very simple points:

1. Boubacar Cissoko, when compared to Michael Floyd and Golden Tate, is NOT physically gifted. He is shorter than them, he is lighter than them, he is most likely not as strong as them. Floyd and Tate offered a severe matchup problem for Cissoko, and for receivers with the size and bulk of Floyd/Tate that will most likely always be the case. It is unlikely Cissoko will magically grow six inches in height and gain fifty pounds in bulk- Barwis can only do so much here. To penalize Cissoko because he wasn’t born with as many physical gifts as the receivers lining up opposite him is tremendously unfair.

2. Boubacar Cissoko, when compared to Michael Floyd and Golden Tate, does not have much experience. Against Notre Dame, Cissoko was essentially playing only his third college game ever. Yes, he technically played a few snaps here and there in 2008, but what little playing time he got added up to little more than a game (maybe). On the other hand, Golden Tate is a senior with 3 years of starting experience, and Michael Floyd has had 7+ games of starting experience going back to last year. So in addition to a physical matchup problem, Cissoko also offered a significant mental matchup problem. And again- blaming someone for essentially being born later (i.e. being younger) than the receivers lining up opposite him is tremendously unfair.

3. Boubacar Cissoko was most likely asked to sacrifice some of his coverage abilities in order to support an overall defensive gameplan. Based on last year and Week 1 of this year, the Michigan defense had shown a propensity to give up looooong pass plays ending in touchdowns. If you’re the defensive coordinator, knowing that your secondary is somewhat vulnerable to the deep ball, and knowing that you have some talent on the d-line, wouldn’t you rather play with a softer coverage? Wouldn’t you rather try and make Notre Dame march the field in bits and pieces and increase the number of chances for your d-line to score a sack or a fumble? If this was the plan, wouldn’t Cissoko be bailing early and often into deeper coverages, in order to protect against deep balls? Isn’t that what we saw? You cannot blame Cissoko for following the gameplan, and further you cannot blame the defensive coordinator for developing a gameplan that acknowledges the reality of these matchup problems and simply aims to mitigate them.

4. Boubacar Cissoko is hurt. Have we forgotten last year? As a reminder, many people (myself and Brian included) wondered aloud “why hasn’t Donovan Warren improved?” Only a season later do we find out that Warren was injured and it seriously affected his game performances. This time we at least know that Cissoko has hurt his shoulder, but somehow we’re supposed to think it’s not affecting his game performances? If history has taught us anything here, it’s that a lot of these injuries are more serious than the coaches or players are letting on, and they inevitably affect game performance.

5. Notre Dame’s passing offense is good, and good passing offenses will almost always make secondaries look bad. I know we don’t want to hear this, and I hate hate hate saying it, but- Jimmah! has turned a corner and become proficient, that offensive line has finally become competent, and both those receivers and the tight end will be playing on Sundays. By many measures (Completion %, Yards Per Attempt, Yards Per Completion, Sacks, Total Passing Yards, etc.), this Notre Dame passing offense is legit and is markedly better than anything seen from ND the past two years. You cannot “demand” or expect your college secondary to shut down an offense that is “in rhythm,” and also largely composed of NFL talent. You just can’t.

PART 2: OVERCOMING ADVERSITY
So, with all those factors going against Cissoko, and with the results basically going to plan in the first half of play (i.e. a burnt to a crisp Boubacar Cissoko), how did Cissoko respond? Well, let’s consult Brian’s second half UFR to see (emphasis mine):

• Cissoko, petrified, is ten yards deep and moving backwards at the snap; “duh” read for ND. (result 9 yd pass)
• Cissoko is running with Tate along the sideline, looking for the ball. It falls incomplete, and the guy staring right at it says incomplete. Five seconds later the back judge, who was 30 yards away, throws a flag. This is super ticky-tack, because Cissoko is arm-fighting with Tate. (result penalty 15 yd)
• I still fail to see why the coverage is shaded towards Warren all day and Cissoko is just left to rot against Floyd. This is way open but it’s hard to blame a guy on an island with Mike Floyd. (result 12 yd pass)
• This appears to be on Floyd for being a wuss, as Michigan drops Mouton into a zone over the slant and he just pulls up on it instead of take a chance of getting lit up. As a result, it goes directly to Cissoko, who drops it. I won’t minus him but here’s a stern look. (result incomplete near int)
• Well-executed in front of Cissoko and behind Herron in what looks like zone. This is the “headless Graham” play, which does not get flagged. (result 10 yd pass)
• Just a straight fly Cissoko gets smoked on. Tate catches it but it pops out when he hits the ground for an incompletion. Roh would have gotten to Clausen on the backside if not for the LT holding him around the corner. On replay it looks like Cissoko may have had some small impact on the drop so I’ll bump him up. (result incomplete)
• Easy pitch and catch in front of that guy again, and this time it’s not even one of the big stars, it’s a freshman. Blitz came but Clausen was clean. (result 8 yd pass)
• All, all, all day as Michigan rushes three and drops a couple DEs, including Graham, into coverage. Doesn’t matter. Tate gets Cissoko to turn his hips and then breaks off a hitch just past the sticks; Cissoko recovers and actually makes his best break on the ball of the day, coming an inch away from getting a PBU. He doesn’t, and he doesn’t make a tackle, and Tate walks into the endzone. (result 21 yd TD)
• Just chuckin’ it deep on Cissoko again; this time he’s actually got good position and can get himself between Floyd and his route, which he does… and then flagrantly bumps him, drawing a flag that’s deserved, then waved off because the throw was yards out of bounds. Michigan sent a blitz and this is another Jimmah chuck special. (result incomplete)
• Blitz gets Ezeh through clean and Graham beats his guy. Jimmah: chuck. Cissoko is in good position; the ball drags Floyd out of the endzone with help from Cissoko. We should just be sending guys in waves. (result incomplete)
• Bring the house and Clausen throws it wide. This one, I think, is on Jimmah. Cissoko beat…on third and ten in this situation when you know Michigan is bringing the house. That’s just dumb. (result incomplete)

In the second half, this small, inexperienced, injured, and (most likely) gameplan-following cornerback facing off against NFL talent was thrown at eleven times, and had the following results: sixty yards of offense for a 5.4 Yards Per Attempt, six incompletions, 1 touchdown, 1 near interception, 1 ticky-tacky pass interference call, and 1-2 pass breakups. You’ll also note that the last three times Cissoko was thrown at were all incompletions.

Strictly on results we may argue whether this constitutes “good” play by Cissoko, but I think we can agree that this is not catastrophic or Johnny Sears-like (CAW!). And in context of everything else, I think we can all agree that Cissoko improved in the second half- in other words, he successfully responded to adversity.

SUMMARY: YOU MAY CALL HIM MISTER CISSOKO FROM NOW ON

Five very good reasons to tone down the expectations on Cissoko’s performance going into the Notre Dame game, and eleven examples of Cissoko managing to deal with and even overcome the problems that arose. All in all, a day of facing and successfully responding to adversity. A day where a coach and fan should feel happy with Cissoko, because: the gameplan was followed; the gameplan succeeded; Cissoko didn’t jeopardize the gameplan with catastrophically bad play; and Cissoko can and will improve off of this challenging day.

And this is what is pooped out of the Defensive UFR:

“I don’t think Cissoko is any good, injured shoulder or not.”

Well, right back at you Brian- I don’t think “judgment” like that is any good, partial retraction or not. That is an unfair and extremely premature assessment of a 19 year old who has a lot of time left in his career, an injury to overcome, and better techniques that he most likely will learn as this and future seasons go along. That assessment of Cissoko sucks ass.

And excuse me, misopogon, you had something to say about second year cornerbacks? (paraphrase)

I compared the tackle stats of entire careers of previous cornerbacks to the tackle stats of a cornerback who has played a mere two games into his sophomore year. Then I projected that out to 2 years into the future based on nothing more than my gut. But I have charts!

Well, gee that’s fucking great. And by “fucking great,” I mean “fucking useless.”

Now as I said, Brian has somewhat backed away from his original asshattery…somewhat. But I think it’s important to understand one of the reasons why Brian was an asshat on Cissoko to begin with- his “results-based charting” philosophy. I understand why Brian likes to chart out a player’s performance based on results and ignore context, but you can only go so far on this analysis. A results-based charting philosophy will never take into account the expectation of a matchup, will never judge a player based on effort or technique, will unfairly trash players put in bad situations, and finally, will not reward players for responding to a problem. While analysis strictly based on “outcomes” is nice, I prefer analysis that delves far more deeply into “process.”

This is why the reactions and analyses from coaches (such as gsimmons85 and Steve Sharik) will always be vastly different from what Brian sees- coaches understand that the game and the players are organic, fluid entities that constantly change. The injured, inexperienced, and small Boubacar Cissoko is not someone to hand out (-1, -1) to all freaking day long- he is a kid that can and should be worked with over time to develop into a serviceable or even a lockdown corner.

There are limitations to any kind of analysis done on paper without context. While it may help to review what exactly happened, no one should EVER be so cocksure on this paper analysis as to project on whether a young kid will be “any good” or not. This is not and never will be ok. Brian (and misopogon and all you BooBoo haters out there), Boubacar Cissoko has worked hard to overcome the challenges he’s faced and will continue to face. And taking everything into account, his results on the field demand your respect. YOU MAY CALL HIM MISTER CISSOKO, from now on, thank you very much.

BOOM FISK’D