Mailbag: Scrimmages, GA Strategy, Big WRs, Cute Comment Count

Brian

101709_SPT_UMvDelaware_MRM

this would have been far less awful to behold if it was officially an exhibition

brian,

i seem to remember that rodriguez had some idea about doing spring game scrimmage with d2 or d3 schools. after this year's boring spring game, is doing something like that becoming more appealing to either fans or dave brandon types? bring on slippery rock!

trppwlbrnID

RR's idea was actually to have a preseason game a la the NFL against a I-AA team to kick off the year a week early. It was his third-best idea ever, just behind inventing the zone read and recruiting Denard. I liked that idea for a lot of reasons:

  • More football.
  • …but of the sort that doesn't significantly increase injury risk since most starters will exit after a couple series.
  • Fewer bodybag games, nationwide.
  • An opportunity to have an interesting nonconference game along with ten conference games and still have seven home dates.

Excepting that one year the Mott Scrimmage was all punting drills I've happily paid near-game prices to watch Michigan practice. Maybe this makes me a freak. Even if it does, an annual exhibition game is more interesting stuff to watch because it gives teams an extra slot with which to schedule an actual opponent. If your objection is "you're adding more games and not paying these guys," I am with you on that.

That doesn't fix spring. Hoke has expressed a desire to have an actual game a la MSU, OSU, and ND, but he hasn't had the roster to do so—and neither did Rodriguez. Next year, you'd hope.

Dear Brian,

I'd like to hear your opinion as to what time you think students will need to show in order to get great sideline seats (sections 26-27, rows 30-50) for premium games like Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Ohio in 2013. I'm a rising senior and I've shown up 45 minutes to an hour early for every game over the past three years, and up until this year's basketball season, I would have thought an hour would probably be enough time to secure a pretty good spot in GA football seating. But after showing up to the Ohio basketball game this year at 4:20 pm (9pm start time) and seeing that there were already 1500-2000 students ahead of me, I'm less optimistic about the situation. Ditto for the NCG viewing (by the time they started letting people in there were at least 4000 people in a line that stretched from Crisler all the way through the parking lot, around Keech, and up to Main).

For basketball, it seems like all of a sudden it has become "cool" to show up to premium games outrageously early even for fans who couldn't name a single player on the basketball team (seriously). It's about to become "cool" to show up to football games outrageously early too. I only see two semi-plausible arguments as to why the lines won't be as bad.

1. There's no clear border between good seats and bad seats for football. In basketball, there's a pretty big drop-off if you don't get in the Maize Rage, so there's a lot of pressure to get those first 500 spots.

I'm not so confident with this one. It's not as if we don't know where the good seats are in the football student section. People are going to want to be in the first 5 rows all around, as well as sections 26 and 27. Those will fill up fast. Show up less than three hours early for UTL or the Ohio game and you will be in the corner or the end zone.

2. There's pretty much no pre-gaming tradition for basketball games.
For this one, it seems to me like a pretty big assumption that all the people who were pre-gaming up until halfway through the first quarter will continue to do so now that there is a competition for seats. The game has been changed. People will go to great lengths to make sure they get better seats than everyone else at a marquee event. It confers a feeling of superiority, whether or not the person actually cares more about the event than everyone else.

Sincerely,
Alex

I guess it depends on what your definition of "good seats" is. Personally, I think you have to be nuts to want to sit in the first ten rows, especially in the endzone. The worst seats I ever had were on a trip to Iowa: temporary bleachers actually on the field. I had no idea what was going on most plays until I saw it on the replay boards. 

Others disagree; those will go quickly. From my experiences at other stadiums with GA student seating, if you're in the stadium 45 minutes before gametime you'll have your pick of seats outside the might-hug-Devin zone. I've been to plenty of Michigan State-Michigan games at Spartan Stadium where the student section is half-full 15 minutes before kickoff. When I went to the UGA-Tennessee game last year, Georgia students filed in at a desultory pace. The number of seats that are at least okay is an order of magnitude higher, so I do think that cliff you reference is a major control on fan insanity.

Another you don't mention is the average level of commitment of a football ticket holder versus a basketball or hockey one. Football has 10x the number of students that either of those sports do, and many of them get tickets not because they're hardcore sports fans but because it's part of the college experience to show up in the second quarter with HOTTT on your ass barely able to walk. (I was even more curmudgeonly about these people when I was in college, thank you very much.) A lot of people aren't going to care much about where they sit.

I'm confident that anyone who gets to the stadium when I do will be able to pick damn near any seat they want outside of the first ten rows. If Michigan's taking on OSU to go 12-0… I still think you're good, actually. If 50% of students aren't showing up on time, do they really care enough to secure better seats for themselves? By definition they don't really care about what they're watching. They're going to feel superior anyway. Their ass is HOTTT.

Brian,

I heard Hecklinski quoted as saying the speed in a WR is over-rated. Michigan's prototype now seems seems to be 6-3 strong WR with fair speed while OSU prototype is 5-11 inch burner. To me, I would rather have the burner. I do understand it is a different offense with need for blocking more important with pro style offense, but I cannot believe speed in a WR that you are hoping to stretch the field is unimportant in any offense.

Peter F

It's not necessarily the case that big receivers have to be slow. The fastest guys in the world seem about evenly split between outside receivers (Usain Bolt, for one) and slots. Michigan's brought in a couple of guys—Jehu Chesson and Drake Harris—that are both large and very fast. Most of the top receivers in any given year will be both large and fast, and Michigan will take those guys when they can get 'em.

When they can't, like most people most of the time, Michigan will take large over quick. Those guys stretch the defense in a different way: by being just too damn big for cornerbacks to consistently cover one-on-one. As long as they're quick enough to get on the right side of a cornerback, those midgets can have all the recovery speed they want, it's not going to help. Despite being just 6'1", Junior Hemingway was an excellent example of this style of deep threat. Notre Dame's been running them out for years: Michael Floyd—yeesh, that guy—Jeff Samardzija, hell, Tyler Eifert. None of those guys were close to burners, but they certainly stretched the field anyway.

Michigan does give something up in the quicks department by going this route. They're not going to be a great WR screen team. Al Borges is fine with this. He hates throwing behind the line of scrimmage. He also loves the deep ball. I mean, come on, this is Al Borges we're talking about, the offensive coordinator who wants to call a 30 yard pass every down.

Title: Dave Brandon run for Senate?

Me: Go away!
DB: "Go away?"
[DB laughs as I begin crying]
Me: I hate you, I hate you.
DB: Where would you be without me, dollar, dollar? I saved us! It was me! We survived because of me!
Me: [stops crying] Not anymore.
DB: What did you say?
Me: Hoke looks after us now. We don't need you anymore.
DB: What?
Me: Leave now, and never come back!
DB: No!
Me: Leave now, and never come back!
[DB screams in frustration]
Me: LEAVE! NOW! AND NEVER COME BACK!
[DB is silent]
Me: [looks around] We told him to go away... and away he goes, Precious! Gone, gone, gone! Michigan is free!

Sincerely,

Brian Hale

No comment.

Hey Brian,

It's been three and a half years since you posted a pic of my son as a 7 WEEK old in a post.

I made a "vine" of him Tuesday. He's keeping up with this "Mgoblog's biggest fan" moniker at the ripe old age of almost four.

Go Blue,

Rob Nakfoor

Your head might explode if you turn the sound on here.

Comments

UMaD

April 30th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^

Tacopants is a QB problem, not a receiver problem because QBs aren't throwing the ball to a hole in the air, they're targeting to a player.

Anyway, you still have to get to that spot as the WR.  If we were magically turning our fast guys into tall and fast guys, great, but sometimes that's not the choice.

snarling wolverine

May 1st, 2013 at 5:35 AM ^

Actually, QBs do often throw to a spot on the field rather than specifically aim it at the WR.  If WR runs his route properly, he should run it down.  That's why you hear the announcer talk about "miscommunication" when passes are badly incomplete - either the QB didn't throw it where he was supposed to or the WR didn't run the right route.

 

M-Wolverine

April 30th, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^

But every receiver in the NFL may not be 6'8", but they'd prefer it if they were. That's like turning it around and saying if it worked that fast guys always got open, everyone in the NFL would be a track guy rather than a football player.

A super fast or skilled guy can go ahead of a taller guy, but the NFL wants taller guys.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-position/dt-by-position-input:wr

And when you get past the guys who can do it all into the later rounds, the NFL would rather take a chance on a tall guy than a short guy.

WolvinLA2

April 30th, 2013 at 8:36 PM ^

Look at the top WRs in the NFL and tell me how tall they are.  

Sure, there are some Steve Smith types who aren't very tall, but that's the exception, not the rule.  No one is saying they need to be 6'5", but 6'3" and pretty fast is better than 5'11" and really fast, IMO.  Having one or two of the smaller speedsters on your team isn't a bad thing, but that shouldn't be the bulk of your receivers.  

ForeverVoyaging

April 30th, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^

In an alternate universe where basketball is never invented, WRs would probably be 6'5" - 6'8" and LeBron James would be the most dominant receiver in the NFL. The problem is that most high school athletes who are fast, athletic, and 6'4" or taller would much rather play a sport with higher compensation and less risk of injury.

WolvinLA2

May 1st, 2013 at 1:02 AM ^

Exactly.  And to continue with your line of thinking, I offer a basketball analogy.  Just because there aren't a ton of 6'7" WRs doesn't prove that it's not very good to be tall any more than the fact that there aren't many 6'7" PGs prove the same.  

A WR needs to do many things, and some of those things become difficult if you get too big.  Although blazing speed isn't necessary, a certain level of agility is certainly necessary and that becomes very difficult to find in guys 6'5" and above (there are only so many Calvin Johnsons, after all).  Just because there aren't 7'0" WRs doesn't mean height isn't very important.  There aren't many 6'7" PGs out there, but that doesn't mean that height isn't very important (otherwise the NBA would be littered with 5'8" guys who could pass really well).  

I looked at the top WRs last season.  Of the top 20 in yards, only 3 of them were under 6'0" (Welker, Smith and Lance Moore) whereas 9 of them were 6'3" and above (13 if you lower it to 6'2" and above).  There are lots and lots of really fast 5'10" guys out there, and if speed were more important than height, you'd see a lot more of those guys.  

lunchboxthegoat

April 30th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^

I don't know shit about shit (and continually prove this on internet message boards) but to me take the big guy who can run really good routes (or learn to), has good hands, and is athletic enough to get separation from coverage. Those guys are 1,000x more valuable than burners. If you find a guy who has all four, you've got a future HOFer...but they're exceedingly rare. Jerry Rice wasn't fast but he had the other three things and he's (maybe) the greatest football player of all time. 

jmblue

April 30th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^

Fewer bodybag games, nationwide
I'm skeptical about this. I think a lot of schools schedule those games for the simple fact that they're easy wins. This is definitely the case for programs that typically struggle to become bowl-eligible, like Purdue. Even at better schools, a lot of coaches want no part of a difficult nonconference game that could kill their national title hopes in September.

kyeblue

April 30th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^

and more of Gallon and Dileo type, to go along with big targets. They make the game faster and QB can dump the ball sooner, and put more stress on the defense. The slow big target works only if QB have enough time to launch the ball and delivery it accurately when a defensive end or LB on his face.

That said, people favor big target and Wes Welker went undrafted.

Indonacious

April 30th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^

Gallon sure, but I don't really equate dileo with "speed". He runs great routes and seems to understand how to get open in space and position himself to gain yards after the catch but he's hardly the home run threat that you make him out to be in contrast with other wrs we have recruited.

Jeff09

April 30th, 2013 at 8:14 PM ^

To Brian's big WR point: you don't need great speed to get separation, great route running can do this as well. Gallon is quick but he's not obscenely fast, yet how many times have we seen him juke a guy out of his shorts to get wide open? A moderately fast big guy who runs extremely crisp routes will get more separation than a track star who runs poor routes, as corners tend to be pretty fast as well.

M-Dog

April 30th, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^

Does the NCAA even allow a scrimmage between two different programs outside of the regular season?

If not, one interesting option might be to have a "fall" game that is like the Spring game, but is held the Saturday before the regular season starts.  It would generate a lot of interest (that means revenue Dave!) due to its timing and the weather.  It would give the players a simulated game experience and be a nice way to wrap up the end of practice.  Injuries would be minimized since your own guys won't be trying to tear your head off.