With all these numbers and charts and facts and stuff, it's really hard to figure out what your gut feeling is.
A good idea. / Also a good idea. / Not a good idea. (Upchurch)
Before we begin, since this is a Denard/Gardner comparison post, let's get this part out of the way:
Is Gardner a palatable Big Ten QB?
Is Gardner a good QB?
Yes, I really think so.
So even if Denard is 100 percent…
NO!!! Two good starts from our 2013 starting signalcaller, albeit against two of the conference's worst pass defenses, are good things. Let's not ruin them by allowing the kind of people who see the world in Tall-Passer-Lloydball Pearl and Small-Scrambly-Spreadrod Onyx to, you know, start all that again.
But I am interested in knowing just how good Gardner has played. I'm also interested in how everything else about our offense changed when Gardner went in for Denard, and how defenses reacted to it. What did it do to the receiver corps to lose him, and what to the formations and personnel? 2012 is nice and all but I want to know what 2013 is going to look like now! Since this week was a better test and a better performance to the eye than what he did against Minnesota after one week of not being a receiver, I think we need Northwestern data. In fact I was so impatient I decided to not wait for Brian to UFR the offense this week and did it myself…in a mini version.
|5 plays, 13 yards, 13 mins left in the 1st quarter. Score: 0-0|
We establish a few things, like Michigan is going under center, and Northwestern is going to defend that with the 4-3 over, and even 6'4 quarterbacks get batted sometimes. Easy out to Gallon that was still open all day, one batted, one perfect downfield throw on a blitz that was dropped by Jerald Robinson. Northwestern gives up on blitzing for the rest of the day. Michigan gives up on receivers.
Drive 2: Borges makes it rain RPS…
10 plays, 78 yards, 2:30 left in the 1st quarter. Score: 7-0 Michigan.
This is the drive when Michigan started inserting superfluous apostrophes into the snap count (Wilcat's HATE that!). Note the CA on the 32-yard pass to Roundtree. That's close to "MA" since it's behind the receiver, but not so much that it changed Roundtree's momentum when he reached back to get it. Also note that NW's cornerback is awful.
[The rest of the drives, and how this and the other Gardner game compare to the Denard ones, after THE JUMP]
Drive 3: Michigan's first drive of the 2nd quarter.
5 plays, 64 yards. The 1st quarter started after the 3rd and 6 scramble, so 14 mins left in the 2nd quarter. Score: 7-7.
Yet another magnificent scramble on 3rd down. When Michigan next went to shotgun NW opened up the edge and Toussaint hit it for 50 yards...then fumbled.
|O2||1||G||Goal line||2||3||0||Goal line||Run||0||-|
|O2||2||G||Goal line||2||3||0||Goal line||Run||2||-|
10 plays, 37 yards, 6:17 left in the 2nd. Score: 14-7 Michigan.
Four plays in it's a drop by a receiver on a well thrown ball and a fumble after a 50-yard run that's stopping the offense. On this one, after the return turnover, Gardner bailed out the running game a couple of times, then the running game suddenly found its stride inside the 10. The first scramble was an ankle tackle away from breaking big, and the second a Kain Colter special: two LBs and a safety try to converge short of the sticks, and Gardner jukes outside one so the other LB crashes into the first, then jukes back to avoid a safety. Denardian!
|4 plays, 12 yards, Michigan gives the ball back with 1:28 left in the half. Score: 14-7.|
I called it "MA" because it would have taken a pretty ridiculous play to bring this in, but with a guy in his face and little room between a closing defender and a sideline that's also about as DO as it gets. I mean where else can he put this? Next time Michigan touches the ball it's on the M35 with 25 seconds so throw to Jackson not charted, which means when we rejoin the offense in the 3rd quarter M is now down 21-14.
|3 plays, –2 yards, 9:30 left in the 3rd.|
The guh drive. At first I thought he was throwing it into triple-coverage, but now I'm not so sure. I think he tried to hit Roundtree underneath all that coverage, but then his rib cage collapsing made the pass sail. So no X, but gee golly willickers this man does not like taking sacks. OL pass protection is bad but Fitz has been coaching them during the half to scream in on a pass rush since Michigan isn't running on 2nd and 10.
|4 plays, 78 yards, 1:43 left in the 3rd.|
Pretty impressed by how the Northwestern DT recognized and blew up the screen on 2nd and 21, pretty unimpressed by their CB's coverage on 3rd and 17, though you're going to have to decide for yourself where you stand on this being pass interference. You're also going to have to decide for yourself what to do with the one to a Gallon open by several steps down the sideline which arrived at the same time as the safety. I filed "CA-" because that's pretty far downfield and if it'd arrived any earlier or further downfield it would've been DO, and how do you call something in the strike zone 40 yards downfield "Marginal" even if he made it difficult? I was mean on the perfectly thrown incompletion so I'll be nice on the not-perfect 42-yard completion.
Drive 8: This starts at 13:08 in the 4th quarter.
And it ends this way.
|11 plays, 91 yards, 8:45 left in the 4th.|
Down in the 4th quarter and out comes the shotgun. If things followed a typical "wow that was scary" spread-option script this would have been the epic drive emblazoned in memory. This man simply does not like getting sacked. This one was low but that helped Roundtree duck past the filling DB and get the 1st down. Also: Dead On. Dead On. Dead funchbunch on. And then,
Drive 9: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|1 play, 1 interception, 3:37 left in the game.|
You'll have to wait for UFR for Norfleet. This was a young quarterback seeing Cover 2 and getting Cover 3 on a two-MLB blitz. Michigan gets the ball back with just 16 seconds, then…
Drive 10: YEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
|3 plays, 53 yards, clock at 0:02|
Drive 11: BIG TEEEEEHNNNNNNNNNNN!
|O3||2||G||Goal line||2||2||1||Goal line||Run||2||-|
|O1||3||G||Goal line||2||2||1||Goal line||Run||1||-|
|5 plays, 25 yards, Michigan 38, Northwestern 31.|
Got the BR for trying to fit it in a window even the NFL thinks is unsafe but at least he threw it so hard the only hands it touched were a diving Roundtree's. This was the follow-up, a perfect pass that allowed Roundtree to turn upfield and YAC his way to 1st and Goal.
So do it.
Brian normally gives me a chart as a reward for reading all of that.
You read all of that?
As far as he knows…but until I see the chart I really have no idea.
Here's your two QBs—screens removed—over all of 2012 if you count scrambles as positive downfield successes (Legend). (Legend by Upchurch->)
Competition thing bears repeating: Denard's numbers include games against MSU, OSU, and Alabama and even Purdue and Illinois were supposed to have more troublesome secondaries than Minnesota and Northwestern. Still, that is pretty awesome. There's only a year in age that separates the two but in experience it might as well be a generation. So the bad reads are up a bit, but a big difference in the number of inaccurate balls, and way, way, way more likely to scramble.
Both of these DSRs are really, really good.
Brian never counts scrambling.
True or false: Cain Kolter converted a lot of 3rd downs against us.
Yes he ran. A lot. Past dudes we know as fair to excellent tacklers.
It's amazing it's taken us this long to count scrambling as a positive downfield event. Perhaps that's because Mallett would do it for 4 yards on 3rd and 15. And Tate would do it because it has more moxie, and that boy needed no further encouragement. Perhaps this is why Denard doesn't scramble—he doesn't know it can positively effect a passing stat. Boom: going theory.
You're comparing two different offenses.
Rly. Number of plays run from formation, 1st and 10s in parentheses:
In two games Gardner has taken nearly as many snaps under center as Denard has all year. First down formation selection is even more dramatic:
|-||1st Down||2nd Down||3rd Down|
And, related, the type of personnel in on each snap when either guy is taking it:
The obvious: they're not running a spread with Gardner. I don't believe their skill sets are so different that Gardner is a "pro style" QB by any stretch of the imagination. What's going on is the three senior interior OL and in particular the guards are all kind of smaller spread dudes, while the redshirt freshmen and whatnot who will be replacing them may not be. That's more true for Kalis and far less true for presumptive 2013 center and Molk-a-like Jack Miller. It makes sense that what they're teaching Gardner is the offense they'll use with Gardner, and the one they've been trying to sneak in without wasting Denard.
Last thing, just because I can access it: the YPA and YPC for when either QB has been in, with 3rd and 4th downs and 2pt conversions excised. Remember: Minnesota and Northwestern…
|Gardner||12.9 YPA (55%)||4.3 YPC (45%)||8.3|
|Robinson||13.0 YPA (42%)||5.7 YPA (58%)||7.8|
The not obvious: they're calling way more passing plays for Gardner. Even if I limit it to 1st and 10s, cut out 4th quarters, and cut out any plays when the margin is greater than two scores, the tendencies seem to remain about the same: Borges will be nearly 50-50 pass with Devin Gardner under center, but 73% run with Denard.
[UPDATE 1:28 p.m.: The end was cut off.]
Yeah. So a lot of people want to take this and talk about which QB is better. The thing about these conversations is I've always been one to jump right into the muck and try to inform the conversation. Brian can't stand having a Rich Rod conversation—I am still admittedly very intrigued by what he does. Granted when people say "Denard is not a good quarterback" I shake with angar because goddammit look at all the available evidence. Look at the passing chart:
|2011 through MSU||13||66(12)||11(1)||34(1)||17||2||3||10||4||55%|
|2011 after MSU||9||77(9)||7||17||9||6(1)||5(2)||9||5||69%|
You are looking at a guy who is better at sitting in the pocket and throwing the ball to a receiver than John Navarre, and he's neck and neck with Chad Henne except against elite defenses he makes lots of bad reads. Look at Michigan's YPP against anyone else who's been here since 2008 vs. BCS-level competition:
It's not just the board dolts and Sparties who say "Devin is a better quarterback than Denard" which is a very very very different thing than "Denard is not a good quarterback." Just for kicks, here's that YPP for the entire offense vs. only Northwestern and Minnesota squads:
Fairness to Threet and to a lesser degree Sheridan that they got those numbers in a freezing rain storm vs. the Wildcats. But for the careers of Denard and Gardner, these teams have kept a consistent level of mediocre defense. Note that Michigan rolled out the Fritz and Denard Jet formations in these games last year, which are credited to Gardner since he was under center for those. Across the board, the running game goes better when Denard's legs are at least a threat on every play. And when facing incompetent secondaries like these, even without the scramble part of his brain working, Denard gets more yards out of his passing plays.
Denard is the senior quarterback, and while his learning curve was retarded by the coaching/scheme switch and being forced to play early when he needed a redshirt, I think he is clearly, almost un-debatably the better quarterback for Michigan right now.!—more—>
With all these numbers and charts and facts and stuff, it's really hard to figure out what your gut feeling is.
Very subtle. I don't know whether everyone else missed it or just avoided it.
This and bronxblue's post NU take sum it up. Thanks for doing this. I'm really hoping for a Denarding this Saturday... but if not then so be it. Let others prepare for both guys.
The pass to Roudtree in OT may well have been a bad idea, but he put it exactly where it had to be. I haven't seen a UM QB thread a needle like that in ages and Devin did it and it impressed me. Again, he maybe could have found someone else, but the throw was actually DO and Roundtree just didn't come up with it. I have never been as impressed with an incomplete pass in my life. The slow motion replay really helps to see just how good a pass it was, bad read or not.
Even B. Griese seemed impressed while calling the game. He chuckled a bit during the replay and said it was risky "but....almooost there" and then gave a little whistle.
Lol, that was exactly what I said to my Dad. I thought it was picked at first, but apparently that was just pessimism. Like you said, on the replay you could see just how insanely good of a pass that really was, and yes, Roundtree probably should have come up with it. I'll let him slide, though.
Than it actually was. Admittedly if it was a worse throw (or better?) it would have been in a dangerzone in either direction. But he put it somewhere that the only guy who had a chance to catch it (and maybe not much of a chance) was our guy. So either Roundtree makes another great catch (hey, he gave everyone reason to think he might), or it's hitting the turf. Scary throw, but not necessarily a bad decision, and pretty good execution.
Regarding the run/pass split, do we think it stays 50/50 even after we get a competent power running game?
Borges uses plays to set-up plays. He feels out defenses with each playcall, and is always attempting to determine how they'll react to what he calls. He wants to keep the defense off balance, and in order to do that, you need to have a relatively even run/pass ratio. My guess is, for the forseseeable future (starting in 2013), we'll have season totals close to 50/50, assuming we're winning 8 or more games each season.
That said, there will be games where we fall behind and pass more. And games where we're ahead and run more. And games where the pass is just working better, so we do more of it. But I think the season totals under Gorgeous Al will be close to 50/50.
I'm just not sure it happens next year. Unless the young O-Line really steps up in their first years starting we might still struggle to run and have to pass to open it up more. Once their road graders we'll get that balance. But I think the last couple of weeks show that Borges is less about MANBALL and more a modern passing game.
Agreed that Borges would love to see 50/50 split where he can use power runs to set up passing packages. But don't forget Hoke really likes power running on its own merits. Right now, the offense has to go pass-heavy with Gardner in due to the interior O-line's struggles and the fact that our best runner is out of the game. But I suspect once Hoke has the O-line he wants to have, the balance will remain tilted in favor of the run, regardless of what kind of QB we have. The type and skillset of QB will undoubtedly determine the types of run and pass plays used, but I suspect it won't dramatically shift the balance.
If they can get it such that Denard is healthy enough to make an appearance in the next two weeks, opposing defenses in Iowa and Ohio are going to have some serious problems preparing for Michigan. I love me some Denard and hope that he is healthy enough to take 100% of the snaps on Saturday and next week. He shouldn't end his career at Michigan on the sidelines. That said, I do feel much more comfortable about the QB position without him than I did a few weeks ago and the horizon that is next year definitely looks a lot less horrible than it did when we saw Bellomy (no offense to that kid, but it was what it was).
Even if Denard is unable to play the next couple weeks ( I hope he is, we will never see another like him again) it is still the threat of Denard they have to play for. I might be wrong but I think Denard is way more hurt then they are letting on. I think the plan han been all Devin and it might be for the rest of the season. But Hoke is using Denard history to scare the crap out of his opponents that they have to face Dilethium level 10 Denard. Then the hae to spend time preparing for Devin who is playing a completly different style and can really hurt them with his arm and still comes witht he a Dilethium level of 7 or 8.
This can't be fun for Iowa or Ohio. Hoke is the ultimate troll if this is what he is relly doing.
The weird fact that Garner does "worse" than Robinson in both Pass and Run but better on the total is called Simpson's paradox in the statistical literature. As you note, it arises when there are sharply different weightings between the categories. Gardner passes more than Robinson.
|Gardner||12.9 YPA (55%)||4.3 YPC (45%)||8.3|
|Robinson||13.0 YPA (42%)||5.7 YPA (58%)||7.8|
(legitimately) questioning Denard and/or the coaching staff and its decisions on this blog often results in negative points from a number of MGoBloggers. I'll personally give you a +1 but just saying. I posted one forum post questioning a coaching decision re: Gardner and I went from 400 MGoblog points to my current -9668 (I guess some MGoBloggers were so appalled/insulted by my incendiary post). Attemps at a reasoned discussion regarding knucklehead decision on part of the coaching staff, in particular with respect to Gardner, get often downgraded. Then again, less so now perhaps, now that Gardner is actually proving himself.
PS Sorry, I cannot give you a +1. My ability to do so has been taken away in light of my current point total....
I wasn't the moderator that took your points but the whole issue (as Seth summarizes in his first paragraph) is that the discussion you reference has been had over and over and over and over and over and over (get the point?). It has now been ruled to be beating a dead horse and the collective "we" are sick of reading the personal opinions on the topic. Continue to hash going forward at your own risk.
I posted my forum topic (I am not Blue Blue Blue) right after the Nebraska game....so no, it was not discussed "over and over and over and over and over and over". It was pertinent and on point. I just happened to question the coaching staff's decision not to (at least attempt to) put Gardner in for a series or two in the Nebraska game when Bellomy looked so f-ing inept. I think your typical "don't talk shit about the coaching staff" homers decided to down-vote me (I have no idea how I managed to rack up -9600. I did not realize that there were so many MGoBloggers? Can someone dock me a 1000 points at a time?) The user "Blue Blue Blue" has a -999612, simply because of several posts criticizing the staff.
Who would do such a thing...
There are other sites (i.e. Touch the Banner, Tremendous, Maize 'n' Brew, etc.) which have very good content, thoughtful/insightful discussions (big fan of Touch the Banner...great analysis), good recruiting info, and allow people to have a candid discussion about Michigan football (among other sports) without getting -999999999 points and banned from posting content/sharing thoughts. MGoBlog is turning to an ESPN message board. You post something unpopular and/or something "controversial" and you get flamebait, trolling, etc. followed by a comment "you're an idiot".
I guess Roll Damn Tide isn't the only one with multiple identities around here . . . .
and the analysis/posts Magnus provides....but I am not Magnus =)....although, I am thinking about just opening a new MGoBlog account, an easy way to clean the record of -9600 =)....so I can post more "obvious/stupid/whiny/bitchy" posts (to borrow from M-Wolverine). Not hard to open a junk email account/alias =).
I give you TheLastHoke's wise words-
"This fallacious idea needs to die.
I was around in the long long ago, when the voting system actually meant something. People with unpopular opinions might have seen a few downvotes thrown their way, but no one was ever negbombed or silenced for having an unpopular opinion, and they aren't now either.
The occasions when posters with a dissenting opinion get negbombed are as follows:
*When they're being dicks about their unpopular opinion.
*When they whine about the "hive mind" being against them.
*When they whine about MGoPoints.
*When they exhibit a martyr complex with regard to their opinion ("I know I'm going to be negged for this, but it needs to be said..." "I'm going to educate all of you fools who just don't want to accept the TRUTH!"* Dahblue is a prime example of a poster who continuously does this.).
So it basically comes down to "don't be a dick" or self important, and you'll do just fine. People are more than willing to upvote unpopular or dissenting opinions, especially when they are well thought out and/or have some sort of statistical backing.
The problem is when people with obvious/stupid/whiny/bitchy opinions think that they're being victimized by downvotes because their posts go against the hive mind, when in reality, they're being downvoted because they have obvious/stupid/whiny/bitchy opinions. 99% of negbombings based on the poster having an unpopular opinion fall into this category."
*Emphasis mine. (Didn't blockquote because it messes up the spacing too much)
board. MGoBlog was, for years, THE source for me for Michigan sports. Lately, especially in light of recent activity, I have been exploring other sites, which are just as good, if not better in some respects. It seems that the Mods have allowed the masses to go willy nilly and one cannot have a candid discussion about Michigan football (among other sports) without getting -999999999 points and banned from posting content/sharing thoughts. Check out other sites like Touch the Banner, Tremendous, Maize 'n' Brew, etc.
This is an interesting claim because "the masses" cannot neg you anymore. That accumulating points system has not been in place for at least a year. Instead, it was one of the mods that sent you to Bolivia. Like I mentioned above, I was not the moderator that did it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you were reprimanded for acting like an idiot (for lack of a better, less offensive word). Opposing viewpoints are always welcome, just not when they are expressed with an intent to offend or start a flamewar (or are simply flamebait in and of themselves). Also, as M-Wolverine noted above, if you thumb your nose in the moderators' faces that also tends to spark a not-so-friendly reaction. Just some food for thought.
FWIW - I bet Brian is happy that you also frequent other sites as well. In fact, Brian includes links to all of those and more that you mentioned on the front page (see middle of left column).
Inflamatory. I simply posted a forum topic asking whether the staff should have perhaps given Devin a shot in light of how poorly Bellomy was playing. This went up right after the Nebraska game, so it was pertinent and was not discussed over and over again. I then asked about Devin's potential going forward, including into next season. The post seemed reasonable. It did not need any charts/graphs. It was simple. Bellomy just laid a big f-ing egg. Devin was a top rated high school QB, with a stronger arm, quicker legs, etc. and I thought that, perhaps, in light of that, the staff should have given Devin a go, even if he had not practiced at QB in a while. One or two series could not have killed us. I think he would have been at least as effective as Bellomy, even with lack of practice. Anywho, that was my post in a nutshell. It certainly did not warrant -9600 points.
Like I said, I wasn't involved and I apologize if the "idiot" tag I used was allegedly unwarranted. I was mostly trying to provide some color with respect to how we go about giving out vouchers to Bolivia. I have a sneaking suspicion that your voucher was somehow earned but I'll keep my nose out of it since I was not there.
I don't think I did it either, but the reference on your neg says "No picking fights. Points back in a month" and in the mod thread it seems Zone Left removed something called "Should Gardner Still be a Receiver" at about that time. The thread was deleted instead of unpublished so I have no idea what you said.
Anyway, apparently by 12/3 you'll be back to wherever you were before, and from the other posts I've seen from you I doubt there will be any problem after that. If you remember exactly what the thread was, and why ZL thought you were picking a fight I'd be happy to review it.
I appreciate it. I do not think I was picking a fight but, I guess, that is a matter of opinion. No need to review it. I will actually be out of the country (going to Peru and Bolivia, believe it or not =)) through early January, at which point (it sounds like) I will have all my accolades back.....
Wow. Okay, I guess literally enjoy your trip to Bolivia, and then whatever it was all is forgiven.
Whatever you feel about this site I recommend reading those three. There's some honest disagreement at various levels, and they all do different things. TTB=program insider, epic football knowledge; MnB=Kind of homerist MGoBlog that tends to get posts that used to be our best diaries and I am very jealous of; Tremendous=Recruiting-focused, has done a good job of following the TomVH model and building his own brand. Mad respect.
Also Genuinely Sarcastic, Burgeoning Wolverine Star, Hoover Street Rag, and MVictors should be part of your regular diet.
You started out a post basically saying "I know this is going to cause a shitstorm, so let me do it." Not only was there no charts, there was no analysis whatsoever. Just "hey, let's have this argument again."
Was this post a great idea? Maybe not. But you're definitely "whining about the hive mind being against them."
i did not start out my post saying "I know this is going to cause a shitstorm, so let me do it." I simply posted a forum topic asking whether the staff should have perhaps given Devin a shot in light of how poorly Bellomy was playing. This went up right after the Nebraska game. It was not discussed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I then asked about Devin's potential going forward, including into next season. The post seemed reasonable. It did not need any charts/graphs. It was simple. Bellomy just laid a big f-ing egg. Devin was a top rated high school QB, with a stronger arm, quicker legs, etc. Perhaps the staff should have given Devin a go, even if he had not practiced at QB in a while. One or two series could not have killed us. I think he would have been at least as effective as Bellomy, even with lack of practice. Anywho, that was my post in a nutshell. It certainly did not warrant -9600 points.
It's sometimes hard to tell with the way the posts go down the page, so I understand. I responded to that one because I remember what he posted, and could say why I thought it got yanked. Yours I don't. If you want me to venture a guess I'd say it was probably a lot less calm and reasoned than you remember it (if you're still saying Bellomy f-ing laid an egg, I doubt you were MORE considerate the night of); and I have greater doubt that you reacted to mods and posters reacting to your post with rational, unemotional, arrogant free posts. Because that's what usually gets one bombed. And looking at your past posts you seem to like inflammatory language about things you feel strongly about and carry some grudges. So I wouldn't be shocked if it all went down that smoothly that night. But sounds like it was lost to the Internet ether.
But even so as Seth shows so well if you feel the need to say "neg away" you're showing you know it's a bad idea to post it, which either means you're being an idiot or a dick to do it anyway.
Contributor? CONTRIBUTOR? Partner. Associate editor. Business Manager. Publisher. Vice President of Something or other. ALL THE POWER!!!
Because it's now unpublished I'm happy to share what you wrote:
Somebody is inevitably going to add the Denard vs Devin (who should start) post, so I will be the first to post what you all know you were thinking about...Neg bomb away,
Yes, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why Devin is a better fit for the offense, more efficient, a better all around QB, etc. And of course you want you best players on the field at all times. But before we start with the ridiculous debate which is already posted on ESPN here , let's remember...Devin has two starts and wins against a very bad Big Ten team and a decent Big Ten team. These are not world beaters we have played the last two weeks.
I really hope and do believe that Devin's ceiling is higher than Denard's at QB, especially in the Borges offense and with some more snaps and practice time. However, you do not replace a healthy Denard (and all he has done and meant for this program over the past 3 seasons) in his last home game and last start against OSU. If Devin was clearly the better option then you can can start him, but wouldn't he have already been starting if he was the better QB? I have faith the coaches assessed this situation very closely over the past two years, and I doubt Devin has morphed into Tom Brady the last couple weeks.
Topic is now locked which I think is crazy because if there was ever a time when this debate was relevant it is now that Gardner has actually had a couple of successful starts. It's like there are two things we can not discuss on here as they will inevitably cause a shit storm...
RR's tenure and Denard's ability at QB.
Content-wise, no problem. I'd "Normal" vote it if you didn't have "Don't shoot the messenger" stuff in there.
The reason it was taken down is there was already several threads, on the board and on the front page, where this debate was taking place. This wasn't a "you're bombed to Bolivia" kind of removal--just a "stop restarting the debate without more information" and "this is redundant" and most of all "without information people are getting into black-and-white debates involving poop names for Rich Rod every time we bring this up" removal. Please don't take it personally.
This post is something anyone could have written if they took the time to make a database of UFRs and self-UFR the Northwestern game and chop pieces of video and upload them which I just learned is not quick. It was about 10 hours starting with a database that needed Minnesota added to it--i was in a position to put that kind of time in because MGoBlog is my full-time living. You or anyone else could have done the same as a diary and I would have front-paged in a heartbeat. The conclusion isn't what mattters, and the messenger certainly isn't what matters; the data matter.
The difference between saying "lets debate this" in a thread and "here's a lot of new information that can shed light into this debate" is big, because without data all of the Denard-Devin conversations have been discolored by confirmation biases.
Also I don't know how else to say this but please go easy on certain mods who've been thanklessly doing this stuff for us for free while some pretty hard things have been going on in their lives.
points? Fine, if you think it was redundant. I posted literally right after the Nebraska game, so I thought it was pertinent. I was not trying to be snark. I certainly do not see how the MGoBoard thread I started could be perceived as "idotic" and some of the other colorful (yet unwarranted) comments it received. I certainly do not see how it got -9600 points. That was my point all throughout the comments I have left on this thread. I (along with some other people who got dinged to the South Pole) started, what seemed like a pertinent and reasonable, thread. The mods found it redundant. Fine, take it down but to ding me -9600 because you (a mod, not you per se) personally find it redudant and/or somehow assinine, idiotic, etc. seems unfair. As I said, I can see where a person starts a thread that has personal attacks, uses profanities, racist comments, etc., but to get dinged for, what is arguably, a pertinent thread (perhaps not as detailed as Brian's) is, as I said, not fair.
Sure -- just responded to your other comment above: http://mgoblog.com/content/hokepoints-difference-devin-makes#comment-179....
BTW, pet peeve: Asinine doesn't mean what you think it means. Yes it means acting like an ass, but not like an asshole--like a donkey. As in being ridiculous. It's more like "stop horsing around!"
Learn new things every day =)
How did you make a post about Gardner playing 2 games as starter after the Nebraska game? Did you have a time machine?
......I had extensive training with Miss "I can tell you your future" Cleo.
"The problem is when people with obvious/stupid/whiny/bitchy opinions think that they're being victimized by downvotes because their posts go against the hive mind, when in reality, they're being downvoted because they have obvious/stupid/whiny/bitchy opinions."
They are "obvious"..."whiny"...."stupid"..."bitchy"? Says who? The same whiny bitches that down-vote them? All opinions are equal but some (especially those approved and/or posted by mods) are more equal than others.
You're right in that some opinions are move favored than others just because they are supported by the masses but, eventually, all opinions are equal in that no one wants to hear any of them anymore on certain topics (case in point: Devin vs. Denard). But M-Wolverine is basically correct in that the vast majority of people that feel aggrieved are the same ones that cannot understand what everyone else sees clearly, which is that their opinions either lacked any kind of support or are obvious or that they express them poorly. We moderators are obviously human and make mistakes - sometimes obvious ones that we wish we could have back - but I think we're fairly reasonable and generally fair. (Although, that is my opinion, which could be considered as lacking support and expressed poorly so maybe I should neg myself? Sh-t. I'm so confused now.)
obvious ones that we wish we could have back - but I think we're fairly reasonable and generally fair."
Could you then restore my points, or at least set them to 0?
Negative ghost-rider. The pattern is full.
I was trying to kindly say that you were sent to Bolivia for a reason that I do not know because I was not online at that time and that I probably would have done the same thing because what you did was probably deserving of punishment. Plus, I'd never undo what another moderator has done. I'm not an appellate judge.
I feel like living under Uncle Dzhugashvili
I BREAK YOU
I was quoting someone who gave a great list/example of all the reasons people really get bombed. Not picking the particular reason that yours was. I highlighted the one part I did is because most of the time when people feel their nonexistent rights are being abused it's because they're condescendingly telling us how they're right and if we disagree it's because we can't handle the truth. I wouldn't be shocked at all if yours was along those lines.
And the votes tell you how whiny/bitchy thy are, because the majority tells you how they come across. Because all opinions aren't equal. Some are reasonable and well thought out, and some are fucking stupid. They don't have equal value from existing. Doesn't mean the majority is always right. But on a Michigan blog should you be constructive and have some good evidence behind criticism or analysis of Michigan coaches and players? You bet. Because if you used to question Rich Rod you'd get bombed (when you could REALLY get negged), and if you want to rip Hoke, you'll get the same. (GERG and Borges are open game though). Because Michigan fans are going to be naturally defensive of Michigan guys. If you can't accept that this type of thing probably isn't going to work out for you.
Yes, I will be that guy. Like I said all day yesterday to my friends, I think Devin is a better Quarterback than Denard. I think that he has better QB instincts and brings more to the table physically as a QB due to his height etc.
Do I think he should start over Denard if Denard is healthy moving forward? No. I think Denard gives us a better chance to win right now due to his experience.
But I REALLY wish the staff would've had the foresight and switched their roles on the team, i.e., groomed Devin for the starting spot this year (or even last) and put Denard in a WR/RB/Percy Harvin type role.
Would've loved to see that.
Just my .02 - I might be wrong and I acknowledge that, but love what Devin brings to the table and am excited for next year.
I don't think most rational human beings would argue that Denard is a better QB than Devin. He's not. He is, however, one of the best runners in college football history, and has made enough plays in enough games to warrant keeping his starting job as QBRB for his final three/four games, as you said.
What I don't agree with--and what would not have worked--is the idea of moving Denard to WR. It's a great idea in theory, but Denard doesn't want to play WR, and is the undisputed leader of our team. You can't move your team leader to WR, especially when everyone knows he doesn't want to play WR.
The coaches did the right thing. We badly needed another WR, and Devin has the tools to be an effective WR. Let's not forget that Denard was moving the offense very well agasint Nebraska before the freak injury, and if we had won that game, we'd almost certainly be looking at B1G championship and a Rose Bowl appearrance, because Wisconsin isn't very good.
I really don't think Denard would have lost to NW or Minny.
But in theory, hell yes I agree with you...in a video game world I'd love to see Denard in the slot/Harvin role.
In 2009, Denard briefly played both WR and RB, in addition to QB. His preference definitely was QB but he was not adamant about it. I'm pretty sure he would have accepted a position switch for the good of the team. But that all went out the window after his 2010 season. At that point there was no going back - he was a QB.