So I decided I wanted to do an in-depth analysis of in-state recruiting to see if I could prove or disprove what people are saying about Dantonio dominating. For the sake of argument, I’m using Rivals rankings and considering 2008 a full year for Rich Rod because he did have to “re-recruit” kids. I’m only going to look at the Top 10 each year. NOTE: I wrote this intro before I started adding up the totals to try and avoid biases. I’m going 10 points for #1, 9 points for #2, ect.
2008 Michigan: 10 for Cissoko, 9 for O’neill (even though he’s gone), 4 for Martin, 3 for Demens.
2008 Michigan State: 6 for Smith, 2 for Hoover, 1 for Burrell
2009 Michigan: 10 for Campbell, 5 for Gordon
2009 Michigan State: 9 for Baker, 8 for Norman, 7 for Maxwell, 4 for Caper, 3 for Sims, 2 for Treadwell, 1 for Gainer
This is 41 points for Michigan, 43 for Michigan State.
I think you can make a good argument as well that a lot of those 43 points Michigan State accumulated was due to kids Michigan did not recruit due to the new system. For instance, reports are that while RR offered Larry Caper, he did not recruit him very hard. The same goes for Dion Sims. As a disclaimer, this is not to say Dantonio isn’t getting some kids RR wanted. I’m sure Rich Rod wanted Baker and Norman, for example.
Now onto 2010 where Michigan is coming off a 3-9 season that is supposed to affect recruiting greatly.
1. William Ghoston, Michigan State: This one was gift wrapped for Dantonio. I would have loved to have him though.
2. Joe Boisture, Michigan State: This is not a kid who fits in Michigan’s system.
3. Dior Mathis, uncommitted: This is a kid we have a shot with, but at a position where it’s not urgent that we land him.
4. Max Bullough, Michigan State: Legacy recruit. This is 2 of the top 3 in-state recruits that are State commits that were gift-wrapped for MD.
5. Devin Gardner, Michigan: According to reports, I’d be surprised if he weren’t at least #2 in-state during the re-ranks.
Those are the only kids I see in the Rivals250. I don’t know what the order of in-state kids would be after that. What I believe will happen here is that we will land Mathis or he will go out-of-state. Gardner will be at least #2 in-state. Two of MSU’s recruits were locks. Yet, Michigan could still end up with 2 of the top 5 with Boisture being the swing guy (a pro style guy who we weren’t recruiting)
Needless to say, I’m not nearly as worried about in-state recruiting as others are. Like many have said over and over, Michigan can merely go out-of-state to get the rest of what we need. And ask yourself this. Did you ever think to yourself “that win over MSU would have been better if a Pennsylvania kid hadn’t thrown a touchdown to an Ohio kid, but rather it was two Michigan kids?” I doubt it.
Happy 4th everyone!!
P.S. for the record, I do think Dantonio is a good coach and that MSU is going to have a solid program...until he leaves for a better job like Saban did ;)
Recently…yesterday, I believe…there appeared little up and down arrows at the side of each post allowing you to vote on whether you like or dislike a particular post. On the surface, this might seem like a good idea; but there are two reasons that come to mind immediately for me as to why this is a bad idea.
I liked the idea of points [did not like that they were not retroactive…it was not fun starting over like a n00b when the 20 point minimum was suddenly imposed] as it forces you to earn your stripes before posting something more substantial.
I very much dislike the voting. The first reason is practical. There is no explanatory post and how it works does not seem altogether clear. It seems that if I write a blog entry, I am getting dinged for every negative vote given in the whole thread. Not cool. Why would I post a diary entry if that were the case? All it takes is one idiot to post a response and, wham, I am losing bunches of points. Or if a thread devolves, the “owner” of the thread bears the brunt of this. I am sure this is correctable, but it seems that this is how it is working at the moment. If this is how it is working, not a good way of doing it.
My second and most important reason for disliking the voting, is its anonymity. It is one thing to disagree with or dislike something I have to say and then take the time to stand behind your opinion by posting a reply. Some people can be lightning rods, offering the contrarian opinion. Even if that contrary position is well thought out, a person can be blackballed without anyone having to stand up and own up to their dislike for the opinion. It also lends itself to a mob mentality and clique behaviour. The thought of someone being “punished” for something they say and never knowing who it was who voted against them, and those who give the “thumbs down” never having to own up to their negative opinion strikes me as a fundamentally bad idea. A person should have the right to face their accusers. I think there will also be the popularity vote, that is, the guys who are part of the “in” crowd getting undeserved positive votes.
Now, if you were to have positive votes only, in that you could add a “thumbs up” to a particularly good post, I might be in favour of that. But I believe that in the end, the best way to police abusive posters is to report them and if you have a critique you should man up and post it with your name behind it, report it to Brian for follow up and if you won’t do either of those two things, frankly you don’t deserve to have your opinion heard, let alone be give the opportunity to give an anonymous and repercussion free “thumbs down.”
For an attosecond, I thought the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire would make good raw material for the following Sparty discussion and a clever title to a diary entry. Then I instantly apologized to my computer screen. Rome fell because it was once great. The Spartan “fall” I am going to discuss is akin to drunk trying to pull himself up only to immediately face plant again.
We have a great pleasure before us, Wolverine fans: years of Sparty anguish.
Here is the Sparty problem in a nutshell: their frame of reference is that failure is an event measured in geological time. What they fail to understand is that Michigan failure will be measured in Planck time. They had an aberrant year or two in the 60s that they ferociously cling to, like an abused Lena clinging insanely to Thomas Covenant after she had grown old. Now, the Sparty faithful see Michigan reeling from the events of last season and, bolstered by an uptick in recruiting that is being hailed in the local press, believe in their heart of hearts that MSU an UM are in the process of trading places and that Michigan's fall will be long and low.
The problem is that they’ve ridden a dinosaur to a horse race. Not the freaky fast, velociraptor type of dinosaur, but a stegosaur, I think. (Given the brain size of the stegosaurus, I think the comparison is a double winner!) It actually is named a Dantoniosaur, and it fundamentally lacks the reflexes necessary to succeed in a Holocene football age. I actually think that Dantonio would have been a damn good coach about 20 years ago. He espouses smashmouth football and power running, but today he is a pale reflection of Jim Tressel; all the stodginess of Tressel without the periodic flash of creativity to keep everyone other than the SEC in a low state of fear. The only solution to his Dantoniosaur-ness is to recruit top ten talent, and that just ain’t gonna happen.
Here’s where Michigan sips from the cup of schadenfreude (it’s a shame such a cool word has become clichéd). The Dantoniosaur should bring enough to the game to stay around for a long time, a la John Cooper. And against Lloyd Carr, I think he would have had success, nipping just enough out of our 2 out of 3 winning rate to irritate. But Rodriguez is a whole different animal, and a warm-blooded one at that. Once he gets his wits and his system and his players fine tuned, cold-blooded MSU will represent at most a speed bump, and those extra four star players that have suddenly appeared in their Christmas stocking will melt away.
Each year, they’ll be good enough to thump the chest a bit. And 4 out of 5 times, RR will go Oklahoma on them. I can’t wait!
As we sit in the doldrums deep in the middle of the off-season, it is time to ask larger questions in regards to how our obsession with our team manifests itself.
To whit, my question:
What is the purpose, the meaning, of our fan obsession with trying to anticipate what the coaches [and AD/GM’s] are going to do in terms of recruiting, training, scheme, personal decisions and play calling; or after the fact, analyzing those same decisions to mete out praise or criticism?
To be blunt, I find much of this type of fan-based discussion is utterly meaningless, in that it has absolutely no impact on the program. Really, it does not matter what we think. Perhaps if criticism reaches a critical mass or we are a deep pocketed booster, it may affect changes in the program; but for the most part unless we are a player, coach, GM/athletic director, none of what we say has any impact on the program...zero. Let us say that your every opinion is correct in regards to every recruit [whether they will succeed or wash out], our recruiting needs, the recruiting process, in regards to every decision about coaching style, training, scheme and play calling were correct; other than your ability to perhaps make a descent living being an “analyst,” what difference does it make?
The answer is “none.” The vast preponderance of everything we say in regards to our team has absolutely zero impact on the outcome of how our team does. We effect no changes. We make no decisions that impact the future of the program. So even if we know better, even if we are smarter than every other fan out there, even if we are smarter than the coaches themselves, even if we can assert our opinions with flawless logic backed up with unimpeachable evidence and are consistently correct, what in the end is the point, the meaning, of those opinions if they make no difference to the actual program?
First of all, and perhaps the most important and noble reason, is that all of this analysis and opining about our beloved team has the effect of continually stoking our passion for the sport and the team we all love. In the end all of this talk is not really about the team, per se, it is about us and our love, our passion and our devotion for the team. In that sense it is a solipsist endeavor: it is us talking about ourselves and the things we are passionate about. The team is merely the vehicle for us to stoke our passions, it is incidental to the thing of real importance here: our passion(s).
Secondly, and this is the sad underside of this sort of passionate fan arena, is that outlets such as this are a way for us to bolster and puff our tender, fragile egos. He who can bluster the best and loudest, he who can put down the “idiots” and “n00bs” with the most style and panache, gains a “rep” and a following and by continually using bullying behaviors these blowhards can keep themselves at the top of this heap. They are often protected by the anonymity that the web provides and many, if not most, would never talk or behave in the way they do on these boards in real life. I do grant that for the most part the discussion boards on this web site do seem to bring a degree of civility not present on other boards, which should be commended. That said, there is a “hierarchy” even here and this blog readership has its petty tyrants.
In the end, whether you are here to stoke your passion for the team, or you are here to bolster your ego and build your “rep,” in the end all of this is really about us. The team is merely vehicle that we use feed our own needs, and this blog with its social network provides a convenient place for us “gather” and meet those needs.
Full disclosure - this meanders. I’m posting as a diary since, at it essence, this is a fans’ wrestling over how deeply coaches can/should engage in the ‘chess match’ of this sport. Coaches are praised or scored based on the ability to minimize weakness and accentuate strengths. A special ire defends in those situations where a weakness is obvious to all, and (to the casual or untrained observer at least) no schematic/personal adjustments are made in response.
And by chess match, I'm not thinking of the analysis of coaching moves and decisions with a more game theory approach that (oversimplification coming) evaluates from a statistical probability and risk reward perspective. I'm thinking more of how coaches more their pieces, or don't move them, around the board to create or react to match-ups and relative strength of personal.
M faces a common defensive conundrum this year, maximizing the impact of a talented pass rusher surrounded by an otherwise pedestrian unit. Conventional sportscasting wisdom is that you move him around so the defense can’t zero in with double teams. Despite what could be all evidence to the contrary, I promise we’ll see the BG graphic flashed during introductions, and an announcer will tell us, "Michigan is going to try and move him around and let him get after the quarter back."
In my personal football watching experience, this seemly obvious theory craps out more often than not. For every Lawrence Taylor there’s a handful of Jeon Kearses who follow a gangbusters season with a mediocre one, prompting promises to move him around so the offense can’t key on him, which quickly fail and are scraped by the by the coaching staff.
BG is the unquestioned lynch-pin of the defense. The good news is that you couldn’t ask for a better lynch-pin than a pass rushing DE who can hold the point against the run. But preview after preview will tell you that defenses will double and triple (seriously? Triple? Me thinks not) BG to contain him.
This spawned my original question, "So what’s the best way to exploit an offense doubling the DE on passing downs?" If teams are bound and determined to double BG it stands to reason that should create consistent blocking weaknesses such that proper exploitation of the doubles themselves would have equal or greater effect than a singled up BG.
After some thought I abandoned this question, as the obvious answer is, "Depends on how they’re doubling him." I assume most offensive coaches won’t go into the M game planning that they’re going to put a TE to his, slide protection, or keep a back in all day. They’ll get the tackle help in a variety of ways.
Its then up to Greg Robinson or whoever to adapt and adjust on the fly. That is what we expect, right? Watching film to ID how the opposition’s coaches deal with similar problems against past opponents, evaluating that against how he’s being attacked in-game out of certain personal groupings/down and distance, then calling whatever is appropriate to take advantage of the extra attention (rush straight up, run a stunt, bring a delayed blitz behind him or on the other side of the guard to BG’s side, flooding BG’s side with more rushers than they can defense, flooding the other side with rushers, etc.).
But to what degree can coaches make consistently accurate pre-snap forecasts based on that data, and do so fast enough to dial up the proper defensive call and deploy corresponding personal?
Should we expect coaches to be that good? I say “no.”
So we’re back to the alternatives of a) gambling on moving BG around and being aggressive (ARRRHHH) to force their hand, or b) leaving BG at his position, don’t fuck with it too much, and hope the players around him can be taught to identify how he’s being attacked in situations and take advantage accordingly.
For my money, I think you’ve got to leave him be and hope he plays well enough to force those doubles. You evaluate the opponents history and what they’re doing in game, then try to make that perfect call once or twice a half where you ID a tendency early in the play clock and sell out to attack it. I would also say that in certain games, you flip-flop sides with BG for a game or a second half to try and murder a weak tackle.
Wow, that was a lot of words to get to that suggestion.
Elon J. Farnsworth was born in the Wolverine State in 1837. As a young man growing up he always dreamed of joining the cavalry and fighting on the frontier - making gallant charges like the ones he read about in the Napoleonic Wars, but his parents steered him away from that dream. Farnsworth thus chose to attend the University of Michigan.
At UofM, Farnsworth joined the fraternity Chi Psi. One night a drinking party got out of hand and a fellow student was thrown out of a window. The death forced the university to expel the fraternity. So much for the past as a golden era of innocence. Although not having a direct hand in the incident, Farnsworth made the best of the situation. Now an adult and free from his parent's wishes he could pursue his dreams.
He packed up and left Michigan, fostering his cavalry skills as a civilian forager for the army. He later officially joined the army and served in the Utah War, putting down a Mormon uprising out west. After wards, he served as a scout and a Buffalo hunter to the US forts in Colorado.
Then came 1861 and the firing on Fort Sumter. The start of the Civil War. Throughout the early stages of the war he served with distinction and bravery - rising in rank.
On July 1st 1863, a small Pennsylvania town was turned upside down for 3 days as thousands of lives were lost in what would be the bloodiest battle of America's bloodiest war.
Farnsworth's unit arrived to the battle late and performed flanking movements with his cavalry. On the night of July 2nd, he and his men were positioned near the notorious deadly Wheatfield that some soldiers claimed changed hands up to 11 times during the fighting. That night, they could hear the screams from the severely wounded men caught in no-man's land between the Union and Confederate lines. These men were wounded too badly to crawl back to their lines or defend themselves from the pigs in the field that were eating them alive. Hearing their screams gave men nightmares for the rest of their lives.
On July 3rd, the Confederates launched a massive assault across an open field that was beaten back, essentially sealing the victory for the Union in the Battle of Gettysburg. During the tense silence after the failed Confederate attack Farnsworth was ordered to take his cavalry across a field with high grasses hiding boulders strewn about, which would be hard for the horses to navigate through and attack a prepared confederate position. What happens next will come from Henry C. Parsons' words:
"In a moment, Farnsworth rode up. Kilpatrick impetuously repeated the order. Farnsworth, who was a tall man with military bearing, received the order in silence. It was repeated. Farnsworth spoke with emotion: 'General, do you mean it? Shall I throw my handful of men over rough ground, through timber, against a brigade of infantry?'
"Kilpatrick said: 'A handful! You have the four best regiments in the army!' Farnsworth answered: You forget, the first Michigan is detached, the 5th New York you have sent beyond call, and I have nothing left but the 1st Vermont and the 1st West Virginia, regiments fought half to pieces. They are too good men to kill.' Kilpatrick turned, greatly excited and said: 'Do you refuse to obey my orders? If you are afraid to lead the charge, I will lead it.'
"Farnsworth rose in his stirrups and leaned forward, with his sabre half-drawn; he looked magnificent in his passion and cried: 'Take that back!' Kilpatrick rose defiantly, but repentingly said: 'I did not mean it; forget it.' For a moment, nothing was said. (Then) Farnsworth spoke: 'General, if you order the charge I will lead it, but you must take the awful responsibility.' I did not hear the low conversation that followed, but as Farnsworth turned away, he said: 'I will obey your order.' They shook hands and parted in silence. I recall the two young generals at that moment in the shadow of the oaks and against the sunlight, Kilpatrick with his fine gestures, his blond beard, his soft hat turned up jauntily and his face lighted with the joy that always came into it when the charge was sounded. Farnsworth- heavy browed, stern and pale but riding with conscious strength and consecration… two men opposite in every line of character, but both born to desperate daring.
"The direction of our guns was changed… (and) the artillery duel began. A shell shrieked down the line of my front company a few feet above their heads, covering them with leaves and branches. We rode out in columns of fours with drawn sabres. After giving the order to me, General Farnsworth took his place at the head of the 3rd Battalion.
"As the 1st Battalion rode through the line of our dismounted skirmishers who were falling back, they cried to us to halt. As we passed out from the cover of the woods, the 1st West Virginia were falling back in disorder on our left. A frantic horse with one leg torn off by a cannon ball rushed towards us for protection. We rode rapidly to the left and then to the right, across a depression at the left of a stone wall. The sun was blinding and Captain (Oliver T.) Cushman, who rode at my right, shaded his eyes and cried: 'An ambuscade!' We were immediately upon the enemy, and the deadly (Confederate) volley was fired, but it passed over our heads. It was the most concentrated volley I ever heard. Taken by surprise, they had shot over us. With the head of the column we cleared the fence at the right and formed under cover of a hill. The 3rd Battalion under Major (William) Wells, a young officer who bore a charmed life and was destined to pass through many daring encounters… moved out in splendid form to the left of the 1st Battalion, and swept in a great circle to the right around the front of the hill and across our path, then guiding to the left across the valley and up the side of the hill at the base of Round Top. Upon this hill was a field enclosed with heavy stone walls. They charged along the wall and between it and the mountain directly in the rear of several Confederate regiments in position and between them and the 4th Alabama. It was a swift… charge over rocks, through timber, under close enfilading fire. The rush was the war of a hurricane. The direction towards Devil's Den. At the foot of the declivity the column turned left, rode close to a battery, receiving the fire of its support, and swept across the open field and upon the rear of the Texas skirmish line. Farnsworth's horse had fallen; a trooper sprang from the saddle, gave the General his horse and escaped on foot. Captain Cushman and a few others with Farnsworth turned back. The 1st Battalion was again in motion. The enemy's sharpshooters appeared in the rocks above us and opened fire. We rode obliquely up the hill in the direction of Wells, then wheeling to the left between the picket line and the wall. From this point, part of my men turned back with prisoners. The head of the column leapt the wall, into the open field. Farnsworth, seeing the horsemen, raised his sabre and charged as if with an army. At almost the same moment his followers and what remained of the 1st Battalion cut their way through the 15th Alabama, which was wheeling into position at a run and offered little resistance. We charged in the same direction but on opposite sides of the wall that parallels Round Top and within two hundred paces of each other.
"Sergeant (George H.) Duncan, a black-eyed, red-cheeked boy, splendidly mounted, standing in his stirrups, flew past me with his sabre raised and shouted: 'Captain, I'm with you!' and threw up his left hand and fell. My horse recoiled over his dead body, my men swept past and I was a moment alone on the field. The enemy ran up crying 'Surrender!' as if they did not want to shoot me, but as I raised my sabre a gun was planted against my breast and fired; my horse was struck at the same moment and broke frantically through the men, over the wall and down the hill. Corporal Waller overtook me from the left and riding close supported me on my horse. As we rode on he told me how Farnsworth and Cushman fell together.
"I doubt if an order was given beyond the waving of a sabre after the first (order). The officers rode at the front and the men followed and as the officers fell the men pressed on more furiously. In that charge the private in the last file rode as proudly as the General. Farnsworth fell in the enemy's lines with his sabre raised, dead with five wounds, and received a tribute for gallantry from the enemy that his superiors refused. There was no encouragement of on looking armies, no cheer, no bravado. There was consecration and each man felt as he tightened his sabre belt that he was summoned to a ride of death."
Elon Farnsworth died 146 years ago July 3rd for his country.
I hope some of you enjoyed my diary entry, I am packing for a vacation so I don't have time to make it better. Have a great Fourth everyone.