Mailbag: Vintage Punt/Counterpunt, Hurst Bowl, Patterson Transfer, Getting Served Comment Count

Brian

UMvsOSU Program 1997 - Cover

Vintage Punt/Counterpunt.

I found my copy of the free game program from The Game 20 years ago in a box of old school stuff. Thought you guys might enjoy the Punt / Counterpunt column from that day.

Go Blue!

UMvsOSU Program 1997 - Punt-CP

Here's a zoomed in version.

UMvsOSU Program 1997 - Punt-CP

UMvsOSU Program 1997 - Punt-CP

Thanks to Nick and Ken for being a formative part of my fandom.

Hurst take.

If Hurst is worried about getting injured and the NFL draft. Lloyds of London will insure him for injury for the one game.

So you're asking Mo Hurst to literally pay for the privilege of playing in a football game that is mostly interesting because it will feature Ryan Nanni as a bloomin' onion? Nah.

I'd be vaguely upset if Hurst wasn't going to play in a New Year's Six game but more or less understand. The Outback Bowl? Hurst going in the top ten of the draft is probably more helpful to the program in the long term than whatever bonus chance he provides of beating South Carolina.

If you want players to compete in dink bowl games, there's an easy way to do so: pay them and sign them to a contract that says "you play in bowl games."

Recruiting is DISAPPOINT.

Is it fair to say, absent a change in trajectory, that '18 recruiting heads toward at best "unexciting", possibly even "disappointing"? I guess I have grown quite used to having a consensus top 100 'bell cow' (I loved it when K Jackson used to call FB players bell cows) at basically every position group, and a difference-maker (DPJ - Solomon) for each unit. Is that a reasonable standard, or is that Osu/Bama, which I don't think is realistic until we experience some playoff success and maybe never, given relative boundary-pushing of three programs. (Although the rush to Oxford has me questioning my prejudices.)    

Thanks, dirk

I'd say unexciting is about right. Michigan's sole composite top 100 prospect right now, Otis Reese, is pretty wobbly. That's a comedown from Harbaugh's first two full efforts, which delivered guys like Rashan Gary, Donovan Peoples-Jones, Aubrey Solomon, and Cesar Ruiz—amongst many others.

There are a lot of reasons for this: it's a severely down year in-state; Michigan had to hire yet another recruiting director; playing time is hard to sell when you return a zillion starters. And, yes, Michigan is working uphill for a lot of guys because they don't have a bagman network—at least that's what I've heard from guys close to the program for years. 

But the class is still 11th and should add a couple additional big fish to finish. Adding the three Ole Miss players also helps fill scholarships with talented players. And this looks like a blip. Michigan already has two five-star-ish DEs in the 2019 class plus top 100 guard Nolan Rumler and four-star LB Charles Thomas. I expect Michigan to bounce back to their previous level in 2019 now that they've got what looks like a solid recruiting infrastructure that isn't going to take a position coaching job next year.

Patterson feels.

Brian/Ace,

I am sure if I posted this as a thread I would be down voted as a babe in the woods and comments of “this is what it takes to beat OSU and Alabama” would rain down from the heavens.  But i have to say, going after Peterson when you have two VERY good QBs that harbaugh recruited in the stable feels very unmichigan.  What say you?

Thank you again for all you do and next year, please think of adding Boston to your season preview tour.  We would love to host!

Best,
Quinn

I don't think taking a transfer is a problem. Players at the same position as that guy might be a little cheesed off, but I'm sure Harbaugh didn't promise them they'd get to start. Because that's crazy. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. If Patterson does come in and start—which is not a foregone conclusion—because he's the best option, that's a negative for the other quarterbacks but a positive for the rest of the team.

Michigan doesn't take JUCOs because they can't get them through admissions, and I guess that's the reason taking a transfer seems weird? I find this take baffling. Recruiting kids in college isn't any different than recruiting them in high school. And if a school that was flagrantly buying guys out from under Michigan's nose suffers as a result, all the better.

I GET EMAILS.

So, as a lawyer I got to thinking, .Maybe a lawsuit for violating the Constitutions First Amendmenment protection of Free Speech is in order. Maybe Ill win maybe I wont Probably will) but even if not , it wont cost me one nickle. However you will need a battery of lawyers to deal the various and numerous motions I could file.  Hope you have deep pockets.

Expect to be served

Matt Mann

This gentleman was upset that I shut the comments down and has challenged me to a dance-off.

ASSEMBLE YOUR CREW, SIR.

Comments

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

ST3

December 8th, 2017 at 3:10 PM ^

I think he was just saying the poster should be hooked up like a human battery, "The Matrix" style, so he wouldn't be "breathing."

Image result for the matrix battery human

robpollard

December 8th, 2017 at 1:22 PM ^

...to take Patterson, but it would make me question Harbaugh's recruiting / QB development. Both Peters and McCaffrey were highly-ranked recruits and top targets selected amongst those recruits specifically by Harbaugh. By 2018, he'll have had more than a year to develop them.

My expectations for Harbaugh is that one of them would be a top-tier QB by their second year (i.e., in the mix for All B1G). That's a high expectation, but that's why he's getting paid close to $10 million.

If Patterson is brought in, it means to me that Harbaugh is more than a little unsure that *both* Peters or McCaffrey is ready to be a legit, Henne-level starter. And that's concerning.

 

dragonchild

December 8th, 2017 at 1:33 PM ^

but I paused on "two VERY good QBs". . . they both have high ceilings but they're both quite unproven.  Peters only proved (so far) he's better than O'Korn, which. . . yeah, okay.

I think you misunderstand Harbaugh's responsibility, though.  His job isn't to make each QB a success; his job is to give each QB an opportunity to succeed and lead the program to success.  But predicting QB development is very tricky, so how did your $10 million man do it?

He didn't.

He went full volume, bringing in every QB he could find to compete with Morris and Speight.  And so far, only one -- Rudock -- was molded into something draftable.  Maybe bringing in a bunch of guys is precisely how you go about finding a good QB.

And if bringing in Patterson drives off one recruit or other because they think QB is a position of royalty instead of a meritocracy, good riddance.  We need competition; it's not like Shane Morris getting the red carpet turned out well for him.

robpollard

December 8th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^

Weird way to put it.

And the Shane Morris comparison doesn't fit like you think -- Morris was not really a top-flight recruit, which was one of (many) marks against Hoke. Peters and McCaffrey are Harbaugh's guys. Which is my point -- he personally selected, and trained these two. If they're not ready, why?

Remember, we've constantly heard about UM's offense that it takes "time to learn" and that it affected the production of everyone from Rudock to DPJ in their first year in the offense. As physically talented as Shea Patterson is, do we expect him to be some kind of savant in that he will be able to pick up Harbaugh's offense and operate at a high-level from Game 1 (which we'll need, playing ND)?

EGD

December 8th, 2017 at 2:42 PM ^

I personally think Peters is more likely to start in 2018 than Patterson, both because Peters has a significant head start in knowing the offense and also because I am not convinced Patterson is as good as some people around here are suggesting.  

That being said, Michigan is more likely to get championship level QB play from a group comprised of Peters, McCaffrey, and Patterson than from a group comprised only of Peters and McCaffrey.  I think that has to be how Harbaugh is looking at it.  And that is true no matter how well Peters and McCaffrey are developing.

There is a famous logic problem on point here.  The gist of it is that people read a paragraph about a person, which shows that she is kind of a progressive, social-justice activist type, and then people are asked to choose one statement from a list of things that potentially describe her.  There is one choice that is something like "Ann is a librarian" and then a second choice that is like "Ann is a librarian and a social activist."  People often choose the second statement because they presume at least the second part is probably true, based on what they read.  But from a logical standpoint, it is always more likely that Ann is a librarian than that Ann is both a librarian and a social activist.

Certainly with something like the Patterson transfer you have personality dynamics and other intangible things like that in play, so it's not a perfect analogy.  But the countours of the situation are the same: A+B+C will always add up to at least the same as A+B alone, and probably more.

Maynard

December 8th, 2017 at 3:09 PM ^

What if A and B were two elements that were okay to mix together but A+B+C mixed together causes an explosion? Then the outcome of A+B+C would be more but not better right?

I'm just fucking with ya. It's gibberish. These are QBs we are talking about, not a logic problem. And Patterson is good. Maybe he will start. Maybe he won't. We don't know.

EGD

December 8th, 2017 at 3:31 PM ^

Right, I just think the logic supplies a framework for making the decision.  Obviously there is more to it.  But it seems to me that Harbaugh is starting from the premise that 3 promising QBs > 2 promising QBs.  That's an implicit rejection of the method suggested in the post above mine, which I paraphrase as "we already have two promising QBs, what do we need a third for?"

Maynard

December 8th, 2017 at 3:39 PM ^

Correct. But I look at it as not so much 3>2 but more so that we for sure have 1 but maybe have 2. Bringing in a known commodity who is solid makes it that we for sure have 2 and possibly have 3.

He is just making sure. And also, he likes the upside of what Patterson brings. I think Harbaugh believes that Patterson increases the chances of winning the Big Ten and getting to a playoff. That's basically it.

tkokena1

December 8th, 2017 at 1:31 PM ^

I think expectations for Peters would definitely be all B1G next year, but does having another high level QB who is a year ahead of him really hurt? If Peters beats out Patterson, then great, we know Peters is legit. If Patterson wins, then you get one to two more years of grooming McCaffery and Peters (assuming Peters doesn't transfer, McCaffery is 2 years behind Patterson, so I think he'd stay regardless) and then you unleash a string of high NFL draft picks. I don't really see a downside and this year proved having 3 good QBs is definitely a plus. 

robpollard

December 8th, 2017 at 1:46 PM ^

I've said this in other posts, but no one has been able to show me a program that has 3, young, already redshirted, top-tier recruit QBs on the roster. It doesn't happen.

I'm not basing this on any inside knowledge, but if Patterson wins the job, one of the remaining two will leave -- likely Peters, as he has less time to waste and will have been passed over twice in a public way.

Having three QBs that aren't true freshmen would be great. I'd love it; you never know how many can get injured. But since no other program has it, I'm going to operate under the assumption that Michigan hasn't cracked some code to have it on our roster.

tkokena1

December 8th, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^

but the 2018 winner would either be the QB again in 2019 or they would go to the NFL and the other would have another shot at the job. Assuming Peters doesn't leave until after the season, everyone would  have a pretty good idea of whether or not Patterson would be leaving. 

Plus, for 2019 we would presumably have Patterson or Peters, McCaffery, Milton, and Doyle all on scholarship and ready to go after redshirting. A depth chart with 4 RS FR or older QBs that were all relatively highly regarded would work out well.

You're basically swapping Peters for Patterson and saying let the best man win and the other isn't needed becuase of McCaffery and recruiting. Why not have 3 QBs compete to start for the next 2 years instead of 2? After that, it would not make much of a difference anyway. 

robpollard

December 8th, 2017 at 3:14 PM ^

"Joe Burrow's uncertain future at Ohio State, and the transfer conversation that was always coming."

http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2017/12/joe_burrow_on_his_uncertain_fu.html

Plus, Joe Burrow was not nearly as highly ranked as Patterson, Peters or McCaffrey. 

- Patterson: 4
- Peters: 61
- McCaffrey: 123
- Burrow: 280

Burrow is more like Malzone (in terms of recruiting profile), than he is either of those 3.

robpollard

December 8th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^

Again, it has been said ever since Harbaugh got here that it takes time to learn his offense - whether you're an experienced player (e.g., Rudock) or inexperienced player (e.g., Peters and DPJ). Why, all of a sudden, does that not apply to Patterson?

If Patterson wins the job, you'd still have to assume a lower ceiling than you'd like (especially early in the season, e.g., against Notre Dame) because he is in a brand new system. Along with the fact the "WE NEED 3 QBs OF DEPTH!!" scenario is extremely unlikely to happen, that doesn't seem great to me.

Maynard

December 8th, 2017 at 3:35 PM ^

Valid concersn for sure. I don't expect a low ceiling for Patterson though. Some guys have better instincts than others naturally so as long as he knows the plays and formations he will be fine. But if for some reason he doesn't have it or can't get it down in time, then there is a good chance he wouldn't be the starter anyway.

The argument from me isn't we need three QB depth. I don't believe that. I think we need two that can win games. And we have one, possibly two. Bringing in another one that is even more talented than the two we have is good. In my opinion it only increases the chances of having two.

 

AZBlue

December 8th, 2017 at 3:30 PM ^

This move is about depth and winning for 2018. There is no sane reason Peters will transfer prior to 2019 when he should be able to do a 2-yr grad transfer as an EE. If he goes that route it will mean Patterson didn’t go pro early OR he is clearly behind DMC at that point.

Even if both Peters and Patterson were to leave after 2018 we would still be left with a RS Soph DMC and 2xRS Frosh backups plus at least one 2019 recruit — which is still better than we currently have going into next year IMO.

unWavering

December 8th, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^

OR, it could mean that Harbaugh is doing everything within his power to ensure that a viable QB will be on the roster next year.  Even if he feels pretty good about one of Peters/McCaffrey being 'the guy,' why not take on another solid QB with playing experience?  

He's giving his team the best chance to win.

BuckNekked

December 8th, 2017 at 4:55 PM ^

I find this attitude beyond perplexing and more than a little snowflake,safe roomish. Using Henne level starter isnt setting the bar very high if you ask me. Maybe Peters and McCaffrey are Henne level but Harbaugh is looking for better than that. I know I am because Henne didnt win shit.

Gitback

December 8th, 2017 at 1:25 PM ^

so this "lawyer" thinks he has a Constitutionally protected free speech right to post whatever he wants on your PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED blog?

Matt Mann folks.  Hire him.  

Kevin13

December 8th, 2017 at 1:26 PM ^

you say pay him and have him sign a contract. In a way hasn't he already? He signed a LOI 5 years ago to play football games at UM and in doing so he's given free tuition, room and board, stipens and plenty of apparel. In a way shouldn't that bind him to play in football games for UM?

I understand why he wouldn't, but I don't like the trend that is starting with guys opting out of playing bowl games. Don't like the excuse of it's a meaningless game. The game still means a lot to the University, the coaches, fans and other players on the team who would love to win. A bowl victory over an SEC team just helps with recruiting and pride in the program as it adds another trophy.

I just feel the more this happens it will eventually expand to regular season games when players will just say well, we can't make the playoffs or win our conference so why play in the last game or two they are meaningless.  Every game you play counts and everyone on the team should work hard to help the team win every game on the schedule. They are given plenty to play the game of football and while they are still enrolled at the school, they should play all the games.

Pepto Bismol

December 8th, 2017 at 2:30 PM ^

How much do scholarship Michigan football players pay for room and board and tuition?  Is it $0?  Then that's why he said it's free.  Read his post again and try to find a more trivial and inane point to debate.  That's my challenge to you.  I don't think you can do it.

 

Mo Hurst has an agreement with Michigan to play football in exchange for his tuition being covered.  I have nothing against Hurst. I understand his dilemma.  But that doesn't change the fact that he (or anybody else) is (potentially) reneging on his agreement with the school.  He doesn't need to receive a W-2 from the university or sign an additional contract, but far be it from Brian to pass up a fringe opportunity to mindlessly grind his "pay players" axe.

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

Aero01

December 8th, 2017 at 2:46 PM ^

I don't think that's how the contract works though.  I beleive that the school essentially gives you the scholarship upfront each year and as long as you don't violate it's terms, you get to keep it.  I found the following example online that indicates that aid can be reduced or cancelled if "I voluntarily withdraw from the sport for personal reasons prior to the first competition in my sport".  I'm sure there are people on this board who have received a scholarship that could speak to whether or not this is accurate.

https://www.athleticscholarships.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Example…

Pepto Bismol

December 8th, 2017 at 3:49 PM ^

Interesting, but this is a new phenomenon.  It's just beginning and not yet drastically impacting teams or games.  If guys take this to the next level and start voluntarily skipping conference games or bowls that the hive doesn't consider so "meaningless" (and I agree with Kevin13 that it will happen in years to come), then I expect that clause will be addressed and rewritten.   

In reply to by Pepto Bismol

Maynard

December 8th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^

Not how it works. And also, he could just come down with the flu if he wanted and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it, so bringing up any kind of "contract" is stupid in the first place. There is no forcing him to play and no way he can renege on it under those circumstances.

ST3

December 8th, 2017 at 3:18 PM ^

In addition to, "free tuition, room and board, stipens {SIC} and plenty of apparel" I think you left out another benefit - FREE COACHING! This coaching is preparing him for the workplace when he graduates. My wife signed my son up for some private baseball coaching lessons (pitching and hitting.) It was $50/hr. The football players are getting 20 hours per week during the season from elite coaches. How much is that worth over the course of 4 years? Pay the players? Yeah, maybe so, but it's not like they are getting nothing in return as it stands now.

Monocle Smile

December 8th, 2017 at 3:30 PM ^

That is because your son is not making money for anyone else by playing baseball. The entire line of argumentation for paying players stems from the fact that other people are making obscene amounts of money off their backs, and you are apparently ignoring this.

ST3

December 8th, 2017 at 4:27 PM ^

The University of Michigan makes obscene amounts of money doing research off the backs of GSRA's that get paid 1/5 of what they could get on the open market. Why is that so? It's because a GSRA is basically an apprenticeship, same as college sports or a trade. Prove you are worth the salary before cashing in. That's capitalism. The players are being compensated. I have not argued if it's fair or not, I am merely pointing out that they are receiving numerous non-cash benefits, one of which includes coaching. The same thing occurs for student-students. Professors teach them a, hopefully, marketable skill. Student-athletes are getting academic and athletic training for free. Are you ignoring that?

ST3

December 8th, 2017 at 5:22 PM ^

In private industry, it is the company that profits off your inventions. The inventor gets bupkis, but they have a nice item to bring up during their performance appraisal. Are you comparing getting a patent to a player winning the Heisman, or something like that.

Maize4Life

December 8th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^

I guess I have a contrary view and will be probably be booed but Im never a fan of shutting down folks who may have a different opinion than I do..Seems like everyone is so quick to do that these days but thats just me

ToledoWolverine

December 8th, 2017 at 2:37 PM ^

This lawyer/telephone tough guy is angry because the comments got shut off. It’s a free site and it’s Brian’s site. He can do to it what he damn well pleases. There are many times I wonder why he even bothers, just because of guys like that and their sense of entitlement.