looks awesome in that picture
that is nice bonus change
If you just want to see all of the pictures, you can skip to the gallery at the end, but here are a few of the more-interesting photos from media availability.
Denard lines up mostly in the shotgun when the media is allowed to watch, and also gets to wear white pants (an Adidas prototype, not available in maize yet).
Devin lines up mostly under center (though both QBs practice taking snaps under center).
Since the Athletic Department already spoiled the surprise in Tuesday's "Play of the Day" video, I don't feel guilty pointing it out. Yes, that is Mike Martin lined up at rush linebacker, and he sometimes drops into coverage as well.
Not gonna lie, Cam Gordon looks slick in all-whites.
Your starting defense appears to be Roh, Van Bergen, Campbell and Martin on the line, along with Tony Anderson, Carvin Johnson, Kovacs, and Avery in the secondary. The linebackers changed from practice-to-practice, with Cam Gordon the only constant (He's joined by Herron and Mike Jones on this play).
Thomas Gordon's name is spelled wrong on his jersey. That's probably why he's one of the few guys to wear a game jersey in practice (i.e. because it's defective).
Brady Hoke points at things a lot.
Troy Woolfolk back on the field! Here getting a pick in defensive skeleton drills. Looks much happier than he did in bowl practices:
He was also joking around with JT Floyd, his fellow injured DB.
The rest of the photos live in this picture gallery:
looks awesome in that picture
Am I the only one who can't see the gallery?
EDIT: nevermind thanks for fixing
I agree. I think all white actually looks much better than yellow pants.
We don't wear yellow pants. It's maize.
But totally agree the all whites are sick. I would love to see that on the feild.
I have a rule of thumb: any time I see a uniform described as "sick", it's bad. Oregon is "sick." The new black alternates at ASU are "sick." "Sick" sucks, and frankly, so do the white pants.
Before Labor Day?
Totally sick brah!
Come on dude. ASU's all black uniforms are so hard. And all white would be an awesome addition at UM. Ya we are all entitled to our opinions, but if you dont like the ASU all black then i think you might be somewhat "sick". lol ok no I dont think you are sick, but I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
"Hard" is as bad as "sick."
Why are they "hard"? Kuz blakk is wikked badazz?
I gotta tell ya ur probably a lot older than me. Sorry you're having a hard time facing these new age trends.And ya, all black is badass. Michigan's uniforms would also be badass, hard, sick, and whatever other word you hate to see if they went all white. It is no longer 1970. Get used to these uniform changes. Cant wait til Michigan adapts and wears that all white so I can tell everyone how hard and sick it is.
But I have a feeling it actually just means there are more years between us than either of us would care to admit.
Why doesn't every team in the country wear all black uniforms all the time then? Except for road games when they can wear all white. Might as well just get rid of the whole concept of having team colors.
Anyway, I got bad news for ya: One of the nice things about having Coach Manball around means we go back to traditional-looking unis. No sikk rokkin new age duds. The ugly-ass NikeLand** stripes from the road jerseys: gone. I think it's ironic you're so eager to get rid of 1970 that you have a Bo Schembechler/Bear Bryant quote in your sig. How about something a little more 21st century: "It's a war out there and I'm a fuckin' soldier!" Kellen Winslow. Pretty hard! Or is that a sick quote and not a hard one? I'm almost 30 and too old to give a shit.
**Yes I'm aware they're Adidas.
And why exactly do you think Hoke opposes varied jerseys/why do you think Rodriguez intentially meddled with the old ones? I bet you're one of those people who blames Rodriguez for the new press boxes too.
I double-checked and the word "Rodriguez" definitely wasn't in that post. Out of your three assumptions, one is correct. But for the record, I think Adidas offered Michigan those screwy-stripe jerseys because it was a template of theirs (see Arkansas as well) and Rodriguez said "sure, fine, whatever." And I think Hoke got rid of them and had Adidas give us non-screwy-stripe jerseys because it jibes with the message he's been sending since his hire.
about who has the final say about what the uniforms look like.
And are you serious? You think a few stripes on a uniform somehow "jibes" with Hoke's "tough and accountable" pitch? If you aren't 50+ I'll be shocked. Talk about pointlessly stubborn.
A, given your guess on my age I'll take a stab and say you only read just that one post. Guess what: not everyone under 30 has the attention span of a goldfish and demands flashy exciting uniform changes every other year. Some of us like tradition. 2, if you don't think coaches have a ton of influence on uniform design then you don't know how this works. And D, the lack of screwy stripes jibes with Hoke's "we're getting back to Michigan football" pitch.
There's tradition for the sake of tradition and there's tradition for the sake of practicality. If you think simplifying to an all white uniform on occasion would make us OMG OREGINZ then I guess there's no point in arguing with you. You are obviously a very stubborn person. By the way, Hoke's "getting back to Michigan football" meme is so overplayed it's pathetic. We're practicing 50% out of a shotgun with a mobile spread quarterback.
Yes, shotgun blah blah blah, it doesn't change the fact that "back to Michigan football" is the meme Hoke's been preaching in the press conferences, and if you think it's a coincidence that Hoke's here and the stripes are gone I got a bridge to sell you. I see very clearly the evidence that some things are not going to be changed back as quickly as others, but there are certain things that don't have to wait for a new quarterback.
As for tradition, you'll have to let me know sometime whether it's the sake of tradition or the sake of practicality that you find distasteful. I don't see how your impassioned defense of the white pants is any less stubborn, but hey.
I hate when tradition is carried out "because that's how we do things" rather than for an actual reason. It's the same reason I hate MICHIGAN MAN. I like Hoke because I think he's a good coach.
You don't see how my impassioned defense of a CHANGE is less stubborn than your hatred of something different? What does stubborn mean good sir?
Well, what traditions at Michigan are OK because they don't fall under the banner of "that's how we do things?" It seems to me the team could save a little energy by walking to their sideline instead of sprinting and leaping to touch a banner. Or a little money on helmet costs by having a plain blue one. On the flip side, what purpose would white pants serve that yellow ones don't? You say you like traditions for practicality's sake - what's impractical about having the same color pants for road and home games?
Stubborn, from the dictionary: fixed or set in purpose or opinion. There's nothing about resistance to change. Insisting that people who don't want white pants have the wrong opinion and should give way to change is being just as stubborn as I am. The issue sort of demands it because it's not like there's any grounds for compromise. Either you want to see white pants or you never want to see them.
Whatever. It is very obvious we aren't going to agree; yes practicality was the wrong word, so you got me with semantics.
I'd bet Hoke is thinking primarily about defense when he makes that statement, and to a lesser extent about a certain mentality on offense, rather than specific offensive formations per se.
And I think it's mostly PR and tone-setting he's engaging in, anyhow. Whether it's truly the way he thinks, or whether he's cannily assessing what his base wants to hear and is giving it to them, he knows how to provide the red meat that so many crave. His refusal to say "Ohio State" is, in the eyes of many UM fans, a distinctly different approach to the rivalry compared to RR's allegedly nonchalant views about the Ohio State game. I always thought that was a completely ridiculous criticism of Rodriguez, but the struggles of the team and his subsequent firing have validated the complaint in the eyes of many UM fans that RR just "didn't get" the rivalries. The fact that he had some serious shortcomings as a head coach regarding how to put together a good staff and how to field a competent team were never sufficient to explain the team's struggles, which is why the constant whining about RR not being a true "Michigan Man" etc etc etc never ended. It's just a variation of the endlessly trotted-out "they didn't want it enough" reason for why teams win or lose. It just doesn't satisfy people to say "they just didn't play well enough" or "they just don't match up in talent." A criticism of character seems to be what people need as well, for some reason.
"ZOMG MUST HAVE ZE HOTNESS" and "I don't mind minor change-ups once in a while because I'm not a complete stick in the mud." Not everything has to be Penn State or Oregon.
Did you freak out when we added helmet stickers? How about when we discontinued them? Did you spaz when we changed from white shoes/socks to black? How about the new "high and tight" sleaves? Are those cool with you or do they somehow go against Hoke's "getting back to Michigan football" meme and imply we're soft?
I read all your posts about this subject, and I get the impression you aren't cool at all with any type of change in "tradition", even something that has nothing to do with our traditions, like uniform trim. That's what makes you sound 50. Older people tend to be more set in their ways than younger people. It has nothing to do with attention span, or a "demand" for anything flashy or regular changes, but thanks for playing.
Lol 30 going on 55. All your posts, even though you made some valid points, made me laugh. Really, all this discussion is about uniforms. All white Michigan uniforms would be great. A nice change of pace. They dont have to wear them every game, maybe 1 or 2. But you probably couldnt handle that. I mean, god for bid, if the greatest, most historic program in the country had white pants. They had them before, so what is all this tradition you are talking about? And as far as the all black, yes it is hard, it is tough, it is sick. Never once did I say Michigan, or every team should have them. I simply stated that ASU's all black uniforms were hard. And more and more teams are switching to some type of black uniforms. Michigan would look stupid with an all black uniform. But a team like ASU with 0 tradition, and 0 championships needed something to put some life back into their program. They changed up the uniforms, and added all black. The "kids" love that these days.
So, if you cant handle even the thought of an all white uniform, then I feel bad for you. Im not going to cry if Coach Hoke decides against them, that is fine. I will still love Michigan just as much. Im not even going to sit here and argue with you all day about uniforms. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'll leave it at that.
They had them before, so what is all this tradition you are talking about?
For two years. There's more "tradition" in the screwy Adidas stripes than white pants. I bet even you wouldn't think that just because something happened for a short time sometime back in Michigan football past, that makes it cool to do at any point in the future whenever we want to and say it's OK. Like non-winged helmets. I'd say there must be a pretty good reason we stopped wearing white pants.
I wish they would have never stopped wearing them. My point was that it has been done before, albeit a short period of time. So what would be the damage if they brought them back 30+ years later? Please dont compare the winged helmets to white pants. Winged helmets=Michigan. White pants would just be a nice switch up on occasion. Nothing against the Maize pants, but come on, just because it is Michigan, does not mean we cant get a pair of white or even blue pants for a game. Guarentee you most of the players on the team would LOVE to wear all white and describe them as hard, or sick. Still cant believe you are only 30. You sound like you should have grandkids by now. lol
"team like ASU with 0 tradition, and 0 championships needed something to put some life back into their program."
If the people running the show at Arizona State agree with you that changing to "sick" all-black unis will by itself put "life" into their program, they are even further off from achieving that "life" than they were already. Their decision is symptomatic of an athletic department that's flailing blindly about for answers, and instead of hiring the best coaches they can, they settle on cosmetics. That's what Michigan State does, the same MSU program with their new helmets and logo that recently got their asses handed to them by a program that has one of the least changed uniforms in all of college football over the last 50 years, Alabama.
"They had them before, so what is all this tradition you are talking about?"
You say "they had them before" as though it amounted to something other than a tiny percentage of the games we've played.
Just starting from 1950, Michigan has played 683 games. They've worn white pants for exactly 5 of those games. They've worn maize pants in over 99% of the games. That's the tradition I'm talking about.
I agree that using "tradition" as an all-purpose reason to refuse change forever is taking it too far, but it does mean that you should have some damn good reasons for making significant changes to something that's very important to lots of fans, and to the players as well. Change for change's own sake isn't, or shouldn't be, enough.
Wow, really? You got all black uniforms=winning championships from that post? You are worse than the other guy. I simply meant that a program like ASU is creating some buzz for their program by getting new uniforms. How you equate that with the notion that I somehow said that is how you win championshis is absurd. Michigan is a program who does not need to creat a "buzz". It is simply wearing a different color of pants for a road game or two. You guys act like it is the end of the Michigan program if they were to wear white pants. Seriously, lighten up. I dont care if they wore maize pants for 99% of games. My point is that they wore all white for 1%, so why not try them out again?
You are talking about Michigan St getting thumped by a team that hasnt changed their uniforms. What the hell does that mean? MSU has whooped us 3 years in a row, and we also got out asses beat in a bowl game? Where is the relevance in that? Since Bama hasnt changed their uniforms in 50 years and has some recent success, that means Michigan should never wear white pants? Not sure where you are getting at. This whole arguement is about a team wearing white pants for maybe a game or two at most? Why does this idea have you guys all fired up? Tell me you would be that upset IF they wore all white ONE FUCKING GAME? Come on.
Cosign. I thought the white pants were a bad decision back in 1975, and making that change today would still be a bad decision.
Given Hoke's constant references to tradition, I'd be very surprised if we make any major changes in the unis. What changes there are will be to minor details, which has been going on for many years.
No, we wear yellow pants. Our school color is maize, but our pants are not.
RABBLE RABBLE TRUDITION when we haven't been wearing our school colors for a long time. I'm an alum of this university; I know what our colors are.
Edit: The tone of this message was directed more at the RAWR OUTRAGE people.
There is NO "big" in Go Blue !
Go Blue !
but they don't look that good with the white away jerseys.
White or blue pants would look much better with the away jerseys.
Denard looks pretty good in those sexy white pants. Penn State, eat your heart out.
Consider me in the pro-all-white group (yikes, that would sound really bad out of context). I've always thought the Longhorns' white uniforms looked great, and I definitely think Michigan's looks awesome, as well.
keep one of the option reads himself.
I remember someone saying they'd love to have eleven Mike Martins sometime in 2009. That someone might have been right.
this fotos are old.
These photos are old.
If those are the game jerseys that Gordon and Floyd are wearing, that would mean the maize panels are gone! Hooray!
Hooray indeed. If those are new white road jerseys for wear this fall, I love what I see. Getting rid of the stupid futuristic crap littering the jersey = epic, epic win. Block M above the name is cool too.
It's tough to see, but it also looks like the Adidas logo has been moved from on top of the numbers to the base of the collar. I like the move, but I wish there was a little maize M there instead.
In the first one. Creates room for comparison, no?
But the Thriller intro is a dead giveaway.
The all white is unreal, it's also excellent to see woolfolk playing. The potential effect of his return has been extremely underrated by the media IMO.
I think Mattison may be using Martin on some pass plays like the Lions used Suh at LB last year.
The interesting comparison is that when Roh was in this spot everyone went ARGH! The coaches are stupid, put him on the line. With the respect Mattison has it's AHA! Evil Genius. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
We'll see how it turns out. Finding creative ways to use your best player is always something to look at, but there are plusses and minuses to trying to do too much vs letting teams gameplan him out of the game.
Where we are at as a defense with limited differnce makers, I think getting the most out of Martin is a good gamble..
Last year Mike Martin dropped back into coverage a couple times, and on those occasions, he did pretty well.
Well, first off, it was ROH, not the fans, who told the coaches they were stupid and he should be on the line.
Second of all, this coaching staff seems to have a handle on who can do what, and then letting those players do "what" to the best of their abilities.
You can think back to 2010 and decide for yourself whether GERG 1.0 did the same.