Can you give examples of all the deep balls Threet has completed this year? Thanks.
anything that forces him to throw the ball between 5 and 10 years would be long
there was a pass to hemingway in the utah game, to odoms in the miami game(7 or 8 yards and he ran forever), today to minor, and there were a few more.
And now how many that he has NOT completed?
"You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." -Wayne Gretzky
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
like throwing the bubble screen that we can't seem to block for?
I don't recall seeing many bubble screens today or last week. In fact, I remember massive bitching last week that we DIDN'T call enough bubble screens.
Where they don't have interceptions.
But perhaps he should consider a new sport. I'll mention that next time I see him on campus.
they don't have interceptions in hockey?!?!?!? i'm pretty sure they are MUCH more previlant in hockey. when't the last time you're seen a game?
".....60% of the time it works, every time. "
-Brian Fantana "Anchor Man"
The title of this post is very misleading. (Schadenfreude is German for "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.")
yeah i looked the word up too when brian started his series for aol, but in it he's giving an over view of people freaking out because their team lost...like my post
Correct use of the term would be looking at the situation at Auburn or Wisconson for comfort. Both of those teams were supposed to be great (on paper) and have thus far been failures.
You might have noticed that by now.
what about my statements are not intellectual?
Every point you makes seems to contradict the last
"OMG, why isn't RR adapting to his players by running <some other offense>"
"Hey, has anyone noticed that our quarterbacks can't throw the ball, run the ball, or hand off the ball?"
Which offense would Threet and our O line magically be good at? Pro style? Throw long bombs either 20 yards from the receiver or directly to an opposing cornerback?
"OMG, fire Shafer!"
"I get that our defense gave up only 3 points on a legit drive and 3 points on a short field, and that they were on the field constantly due to the inability of the offense to get in rhythm"
Clearly you don't get it. Otherwise you'd realize that 6 points is a good defensive performance.
As for Notre Dame 2007, you are stupid. Notre Dame was getting blown out in every game. Their losses were for by an average of like 28 points.
Basically, you are the lowest common denominator of Michigan fan. If you want to critique this team, please come up with an argument that is at least coherent.
And get a dictionary before you use words like Schadenfreude. Unless you took pleasure in this loss, which doesn't seem to be what you're saying.
I think you may have missed something, like the post...
rich said that he adapts his offense to fit the players...i didn't say that
our qb's can run and hand off the ball...i don't remember those arguments
i never said anything about changing the offense, just tweeking it, obviously we're not good at it as is
sort of agreeing with someone who wants to get rid of the guy is an "OMG"?
i'll give you the fact that the defense is on the field a lot because our offense can't string a few first downs together, but they can't get 3 and outs against a terrible mac team either
"i get that we only have up 6 point on defense and one was playing with a short field, but our defense doesn’t wake up
until the other team has driven 30 or 40 yards. " i'm pretty sure that's what i said ;)
in 2007 notre dame had 3 wins, about what we'll have at the end of the season. you don't get extra wins for only losing by 3 every game. also they averaged losing by 21 points (i know math is hard)
i know i typed a lot of words in my first post, but before flaming it (like i said people would), please read it :-)
Sorry Gater, Maracle's dead-on. The defense giving up 6 points total, while being on the field for the majority is a solid performance, 3 and outs or not.
I'll take giving up 6 points with no 3 and outs over giving up 30, chock full of 3 and outs, any day.
Everyone is saying the buzz words "changes" "new coaching staff" "next year" He should be able to beat a 1 win (now 2!!) MAC team with what he has. Even if they don't know the system well enough the skill difference should create an advantage.
Like Weis said "then we'll listen to Michigan have all their excuses as they come
running in and saying how they have a new coaching staff and there's
changes." I keep hearing the excuses about the coaching staff being new, which we would need if we could just win a few games.
Have you noticed the "talent level" of our offensive line? See this:
Our talent there is not much better than a good MAC class. That horrible 2004 class with low star OL was a gamble that we could develop them. That gamble was lost. I say gamble because most OL recruits don't get many stars because we know little about them by watching their games. Only the TRUE standouts get extra stars. So we took a few low star guys, they got extra stars for picking up a Michigan offer, so instead of being 2* guys they got a 3rd *. Go figure they ended up not being so good. I'm half worried about the freshmen right now.
At Georgia Tech, Threet couldn't even beat out the backup to Reggie Ball for the starting job. If this kid played a little bit closer to his supposed 4* potential, we would probably be in a bit better position right now. As it is, we can't throw downfield. We can barely throw short routes because there is no deep threat and the accuracy problem. I blame the lack of having a competent quarterback than I do coaching.
Uhh, the fact that Reggie Ball, as a 4th year senior, was ahead of Steven Threet, a freshman, isn't exactly surprising. A better question is why would a coach that actually played Reggie Ball ever be considered a good judge of talent?
The offense stinks. It's not the "system" it's not "WTF we should throw more"...it's the players. They are GREEN. Is anyone, HONESTLY surprised at this? They put up a whopping 10 points. Meanwhile the D was great, considering the fact that they have to back up those sad sacks on O. If we had anything close to a real offense (again not the system or playcalling) this game would have been 35-0.