fair point that
You seek a great fortune, you wolverines who are now in chains.
You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first... first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril. Mm-hmm.
You shall see thangs, wonderful to tell.
You shall see a... a noodle... in front of the big house, ha.
And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the obstacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
So Dave Brandon interviewed Sumlin, but wanted a "Michigan man" and we got Hoke. Starts around the 39 minute mark.
My friends down here in the SEC give me loads of crap but even I found this hilarious.
*Sorry if it's already been posted.
We know how badly UofM needs DBs over the next few years. One of the popular sports cliches I hear about DBs when they drop an interception is "that's why the play on defense".
So, I was just wondering, how well do WRs translate to the defensive side of the ball? I know we have a few former WRs in the defensive backfield, but I was curious if there would be any benefit to recruit WRs as DBs over the long term.
I would assume the cliche is over simplified (I'm guessing DBs probably need to be more explosive for the "react" part. They probably need to be more physical to initiate contact, etc). But, our WRs are pretty physical in their own right.
If the difference between a WR and a DB is truly how good their hands are, then wouldn't it benefit us to recruit WRs as DBs? Just something I was curious about. Our coaches seem to be good evaluators of WR character/talent and I just thought if we could bottle that, and simply flip them to the other side of the ball, maybe it would make us better off?