BTN Practice Visit Twitter Dump Comment Count

Brian

The Big Ten Network stopped by a Michigan practice and did their usual suite of impressions that may or may not mean anything. They totally could mean something and it's the preseason so you'll jump on the barest morsel of information, so here they are.

This year the quantity and quality of the observations are significantly reduced, FWIW. Last year there was a fourth guy (Griffith, I think) tweeting stuff and it seemed like they got more information out of it. UPDATE: Okay, Griffith was there. He updated later than everyone else; I've added them in.

Non-Informational

Along with a shot of the new "The Team The Team The Team" entrance, Brent Yarina provides this shot of another portion of the hallway:

michigan-natlchamps

The crew also hit up Maize and Blue Deli but did not spawn a war on the message board by expressing a preference for it over Zingerman's.

Players Of Note

Dave Revsine Robinson is the one guy who can beat you. D Gardner is also really impressive. D Morgan, Q Washington stood out among young defenders.

4 hours ago Favorite Retweet

Hurrah positive Quinton Washington mention. Also, leave Desmond Morgan alone: he is not a fullback yet.

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac - Good day today Smith,Gallon,Cox,Countess,Grady,Shaw,Wilkins,Ash,Black,Schofield , Washington,Lewan,Watson,Koger,Eddins

Okay, that's like half the team, including Steve Watson—who is never going to play—doghouse member Kenny Wilkins, and walk-on (and not even the hyped walk-on) Chris Eddins. At least you see Washington there too.

Howard Griffith@BTN_Michigan Other freshman that will see playing time CB Blake Countess, CB Raymon Taylor, LB Desmond Morgan, DE Brennen Beyer

5 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

There Is No Running Back

Dave Revsine Borges said he hasn't had a clear stand-out at RB. Wants to try to find one - but he hasn't emerged. Lots of options there, though.

Gerry DiNardo UM Practice - No veteran running back has really separated himself from the pack. Rawls has had a great camp and may be in the mix.

Howard Griffith@BTN_Michigan RB's haven't separated them self from the pack Smith, Shaw,Cox, Toussaint, but an keep & eye on Rawls. #GoBlue

Fluffy Bits

Dave Revsine Mattison talked about decision to leave Ravens - said he loves developing kids - taking them from freshman yr to making the NFL.

Dave Revsine Just leaving Michigan practice. The staff is really impressive - a lot of teaching and a lot of feedback in the practice.

Pro Style Transition Promises And Fear

Dave Revsine Borges made it clear he is going to try to utilize all of D Robinson's skills - even if it means running stuff that he doesn't typically run

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac -Integrating two different off may be much more difficult than I first thought. It's will be a challenge and interesting to watch

That's ominous. Grab-baggin' it?

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac - Regardless of what the Michigan O will look like Denard looks like a vet and has great body language. He was a lot of fun on set

Gerry DiNardo Doesn't Actually Watch Football Games

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac-Teams in the B1G that run the ball the best do a certain blocking drill. UM did it today - entire team playing with better leverage

This isn't entirely clear but his previous tweet is about how practice is very different so the implication is that Michigan did not do this blocking drill a year ago. Michigan led the league in YPC one year ago even though they played with turrible leverage and ran like 70% of the time.

UPDATE: there's a story that makes this clear, with Griffith talking about this same mysterious drill:

"One of the things I hadn’t seen in a (Michigan) practice recently is when you see one of the best running teams in the league and the drills they do; I saw those drills at Michigan. That’s an indication they’re going in the right direction.”

This quote will be fun when Michigan's YPC drops by a yard this year. I mean, no one thinks Rodriguez didn't need to go but the least you can give the guy is he knows how to put together a rushing offense.

Gerry DiNardo Puts Together Lists Of Words

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac - Defense will improve significantly - because of offense scheme, coaching emphasis, simplicity, different packages, and pressure.

So, that's everything. Including "offensive scheme." Also including both "simplicity" and "different packages." I wouldn't be surprised if DiNardo believes that few possessions == good defense. He is very old and a terrible football coach. It seems like DiNardo hated Rodriguez; before he even got to practice he was talking about how you have to run the I-form to play defense.

Por ejemplo:

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac- No surprise prac was much different than recent past.More emphasis on Kick Game (Brady coached it),emphasis on D (Brady coached it)

Our defensive head coach coached the defense. Last year our offensive head coach coached the offense. This year Brady Hoke, who knows jack about kicking, is looking at the people kicking the ball.

WTF, Gerry DiNardo?

Gerry DiNardo UM Prac-defending I form w/o a dynamic TB & no designed QB run plays is a problem.OSU has done it the last 3 yrs. & struggled vs the best D.

Either DiNardo meant "O" at the end or he meant "running" at the beginning. It seems like the former from the context, which means he thinks Michigan running the I-Form is dumb, except it makes the defense better… except it makes the offense worse… this is how you have a losing record at LSU.

Comments

BlueVoix

August 19th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^

In regards to lower YPC in Big Ten games, yes.  Against ND, UMass, and BG, Michigan had YPCs of 7.02, 6.76, and 8.32 respectively.  That's pretty ridiculous.  Th eproblem of course, is that, save for the ridiculous Indiana game (10.61 YPC wha), Michigan only once went over 5 YPC for the rest of the season, against Penn State (5.55).  The low point was then, weirdly, Purdue (3.67) and not weirdly, Miss. State (3.52).  Rodriguez and Co. only attempted 25 runs in that game, however, compared to the 55 in Purdue.

PurpleStuff

August 19th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

In 2007, Michigan averaged 0.6 ypc against Ohio State.  1.9 ypc against Wisconsin.  2.5 ypc against Illinois, and 3.0 against Penn State (the other teams in the top half of the Big Ten that year).  They hit well over 6 ypc against Minnesota and Eastern.  The 2010 offense wasn't unique in that the team ran the ball much more effectively against bad teams than against good ones.  Overall though, they were ridiculously effective on the ground (1.6 ypc better, 1,000 extra yards, and 15 extra TDs in comparison to 2007).

BlueVoix

August 19th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^

Nope, not at all an outlier.  Every team in the country does this, unless you are Eastern.  In which case, poor you, pray for Ron English to leave.  

I think the other thing breaking down YPC and offense per play can do is to show which games the turnovers and the defense took a probable victory and turned it into aargh.

bronxblue

August 19th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

I agree that running over mediocre opponents boosts one's rushing stats, but that is true for every team in America.  If you factor out the MAC-rifices-type games, I'm guessing most teams' YPC goes down.  The fact remains that despite having a first-year QB and some less-than-stellar RBs, UM had one of the best rushing offenses in the country.  I do think that the numbers last year hid a bit of mediocrity when it came against elite squads, but at the same time this team did not struggle last year because of the offense.  And while a slight drop in YPC probably doesn't mean a drop in overall offensive effectiveness, if UM tries to line up and run over teams with vanilla sets they are going to be hammered, and that could be for a couple of seasons. 

Blue in Seattle

August 19th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

You need intelligent people trained in communicating to be good reporters.  Coaches and players aren't necessarily good analysts just because they've done it before.  Yes twitter imposes a limit on what you can type, but that doesn't mean you should tweet something incomprehensible.  I don't know if "blue tie talking head" is actually a trained reporter, but he doesn't look like a coach or a player.  Compare how understandable his tweets are to the other two.

On a side note, where do most people read their twitter streams?  Are you really getting these things over SMS, or do you all have smartphones and it's just data through the browser?  I'm just wondering if there really is any revenue bump from getting people to read twitter.  I don't doubt that it can be informative, if used correctly, just wondering if it actually makes someone any money?

 

joeyb

August 19th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

Denard had 6.6 YPC because he usually had an extra blocker. The rest of the team averaged 4.7 YPC even when you take out the DE that stayed back to cover Denard on the Read Option.  That would be good for 4th in the B1G.

I think Gerry DiNardo is an idiot just as much as the next guy, but to use the YPC to show that our team was the most effective at blocking is a little misleading.

PurpleStuff

August 19th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

Tate and Devin bring down the YPC in your number.  Here is what the backs did last year (includes Teric Jones, doesn't include Kelvin Grady).

265 attempts

1,304 yards

4.92 ypc

19 TD

That is basically Mike Hart in terms of ypc (5.0 for his career) and as many rushing TDs as the entire team averaged during Hart's time in Ann Arbor (18 per season).

And of course that doesn't count the leading rusher in the Big Ten.  Pretty good for a team playing a freshman at arguably the most important position on the line.  With 4 starters back on the line and (hopefully) better health from the backs (Shaw, Fitz, and Smith were all banged up most of last year) they are going to squash people in the running game this year.

joeyb

August 19th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

That's still 4th in the B1G and that's without taking into account 9 blockers vs. 10 defenders after you take the DE out of the play with Denard on the Read Option plays, which most teams don't do.

I'm not saying they weren't good; I'm just saying they weren't the best in the B1G.

PurpleStuff

August 19th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^

I definitely don't think we had the best group in the conference last year.  I do think there is very a good chance we'll have the best one this year, though. 

Just an aside on the zone read thing, though.  I got the impression that teams began just crashing down on the backs and saying "We're going to force Denard to take it every single time so we can hit him."  Especially as the season progressed.  Not sure if that was the case or if there were just blocking/execution/better defense issues, but it seemed like the backs couldn't get much momentum because teams wanted to force Denard to beat them on every play.

Blue in Yarmouth

August 22nd, 2011 at 8:19 AM ^

due to the fact that we ran the read option about 0.1% of the time last year. What we ran was a ball fake, but in almost every instance it was a designed run to either the RB or QB. My point is it doesn't reduce the team to 10 blockers when it is a designed run (unless the playcall was just lucky). 

Further, even if we DID run the read option you can't discount the numbers because of it. What, because we ran a specific system the numbers don't count? Honestly, I was ready for RR to leave as well but the lengths people will go to discredit and disgrace the guy never ceases to amaze me. 

joeyb

August 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

That's the whole philosophy of the spread and the read option. Spreading the field forces the opponent to reduce the number of people in the box. Once they only have 6 in the box, the numbers are considered in your favor even if you only have 5 blockers because you take one guy out of the play with the read. The non-ball-carrier essentially becomes the 6th blocker. You don't have to believe me, but I'd suggest you lookup the videos on youtube of RR explaining how the play works.

I'm not saying the numbers don't count; I'm saying that they don't directly compare. The reason the system worked is because you give yourself an extra blocker. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's a great idea. What I am pointing out is that by changing the number of blockers for the runner adds an extra variable to the equation which makes a direct comparison of numbers more difficult than before.

Atlanta_Blue

August 19th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

I don't particularly like this guy - def a mediocre coach - but in the last three season previews he's said- 2008: this team will be bad.  2009: better O but still a bad D; Denard is better than Tate; 2010: Good O, but D still bad.  Now what part of those assessments was incorrect?

bronxblue

August 19th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

My issue with those assessments are that they lack any real substance.  Tate was definitely a better QB than Denard for 2009, and everything else was pretty obvious when the defensive is lining up with walk-ons and underclassmen at most positions.  Looking at the depth chart and recent rankings would have told you that. 

Wave83

August 19th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

I agree about DiNardo in 2009.  He said at the beginning of the season that Denard would have the starting job by the end of the season.   I thought he was crazy.  He was wrong on the timing, but by 2010, it was clear that Denard was the star.  I think his big picture observations are worth paying attention to.  His small talk and tweets can be ignored.

BlueMars24

August 19th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

Anyone have any idea what drills they're talking about for the running backs?? Curious what drills everyone things are the best ever.

Also, nice link to the freep without linking to the freep...rick rolled... kinda.

bronxblue

August 19th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^

This is DiNardo's career record, and that includes taking a good LSU team to 10 wins and then cratering them to 2-8 3 seasons later.  Beyond his time at LSU, the guy never had a winning record, and underperformed even by Indiana's standards.  Just a waste of space on BTN, and really diminishes the credibility of the program.  Well, along with the announcr they have from Northwestern who was abysmal during last year's Purdue game.

BRCE

August 19th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^

The national championships list -- why? It is not a big source of pride given how scarce the case has been in the last 60 years and we didn't even win all of those (pre-AP titles are notoriously shady as is our claim to '47 by winning what was announced as a totally unofficial poll).

I'd much rather have a Rose Bowl list or something like that.

 

Bando Calrissian

August 19th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^

Pretty sure the Big 10 championship mural is on the other side of the hall...

And NC's are NC's.  People who bitch about us bragging about things that are worth bragging about are usually posting at the RCMB and root for the other guys.  I for one welcome our new National Championship bragging overlord.

BRCE

August 19th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

All NCs are not created equal, which is why Yale is not considered to have the tradition of an elite program anymore. The system of determining such things was half-assed to say the least before the advent of the AP poll and, even then, Michigan is stretching the truth.



If one of our rivals did the same thing and we didn't, we would be mocking it just as it might be over on the RCMB or wherever. There is no question about that.

I mock OSU fans who claim 1970 (part of a three-way split in a title from an afterthought foundation) so at least I'm consistent.

Bando Calrissian

August 19th, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^

The difference is that Michigan has always claimed those National Championships.  OSU only snuck in 1970 about 40 years too late.  Which is why they got mocked for it.  

And Yale isn't an elite program anymore because of a little thing called football scholarships and forced irrelevancy within the college football world.  Which isn't comparable to Michigan in the least.  Same thing happened to Chicago.  And when you go to their campus, they're still displaying the first-ever Heisman Trophy and a huge case full of hardware in the lobby of their athletics/fitness facility.  

Flaunt it if you've got it.  And we do.  So we do.

BRCE

August 19th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^

Only snuck in 40 years too late? Explain.

I have absolutely no problem flaunting a Heisman Trophy. They give out one of those a year and there is never a dispute on who , you know, won the thing.

The problem with your "flaunt it if you've got it" theory is that whether you've actually got it or not is quite debatable. 1947 is a perfect example. Michigan won a poll run by the AP who made it explicitly clear that it was unofficial and would not be the poll of record. Michigan claims it anyway. See, we don't "have" it to begin with.

Bando Calrissian

August 19th, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^

Michigan has claimed that national championship since 1948.  And, funny, no one ever calls us to task for it.

As for how Ohio State has recognized 1970, if memory serves, it all of the sudden showed up in the Horseshoe post-renovation, to the puzzlement of many, as they hadn't put anything up of the sort pretty much ever.  So that's why they get slammed for it.  All of the sudden, nearly 4 decades later, you decide to claim a championship?

Again, I say flaunt it if you got it.  And we have 'em.  So we do.  I don't understand why you're so intent on slamming the football legacy and tradition of the -school you cheer for.-

BRCE

August 20th, 2011 at 2:24 AM ^

I'm not slamming the legacy and tradition - I am pointing out facts.

The value you place on "claimed" championships with the justification that it was claimed right away is simply absurd. If Michigan claimed they won the 2008 National Championship but made the claim within a year, would you be OK with it?

Here's a criteria: If an outside institution awards you a trophy that says "National Championship" on it, you won a NC. This would put Michigan's total at two (1948, 1997).

M-Wolverine

August 22nd, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^

Then you're going to have to increase the amount of National Championships for everyone. Because there are lots of institutions that do so.  In fact, back to the point that major organizations have retroactively rewarded those pre-UPI championships. So there is a bit of "consensus".  So your definition makes your point wrong.  Unless you're talking "trophy" as a qualifier...because what does that entail? The handing of corn to small children?  A certificate?  Seems pretty arbitrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

El Jeffe

August 19th, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^

I maintain that there is no possible way to definitively parse this statement of DiNardo's:

defending I form w/o a dynamic TB & no designed QB run plays is a problem.

 

Franz Schubert

August 19th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^

Dinardo is saying that the defense is not being prepared for the season going against our offenses I formation. Hes saying because we lack a dynamic tailback, and we are not running designed runs for QB, that the defese is not seeing what they need to in order to get prepared.

 

M-Wolverine

August 19th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^

All the Big Ten media guys have read the press conference from this week, and DiNardo is an idiot.

Got it.

(sigh, why are we all posting on here when we could be getting paid big bucks to say even slightly less stupid things on tv)

micheal honcho

August 19th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

Did someone say Desmond Morgan was getting some time?? I assume @ linbacker right?

I picked him as my sleeper star of the 2011 class so I'm hoping he proves me right.

Anyone know what his # is??

MGoShoe

August 19th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

...the avowed idiots everyone says they are (and I'm not saying they aren't), what's the point of attempting to use their tweets to construct some sort of cogent analysis?

Even if you get the construction correct, the analysis is BS.

I propose a thread on Monday that takes the analysis and deconstructs it into posts of 140 characters or fewer.