Unverified Voracity Steamy About Many Things
Site note. Had some issues getting and converting the game this week—my UFR process is byzantine—so UFR will be delayed until Thursday/Friday. It's a bye week, be chill.
Reminder. This is what Michigan wore on Saturday:
I hadn't seen a good shot of the sleeves, which miraculously manage to make the whole ensemble seem even dumber-looking. If you run across a picture from this game in five years you are going to laugh at the clown uniforms like people laugh at that one year a bunch of teams wore stormtrooper shoulders.
The MZone points at a prescient slippery slope prediction and says get used to it. Michigan's the first team to get their Arena League on twice in one year—even the pro combat victims only have to put up with it once.
How does this happen again? There will be a fuller discussion in the UFR of this, but it is absolutely maddening to see MSU time those double-A-gap blitzes with Molk's head going down and never get a check or read in their face. Molk on this:
"They did jump our snap count," Molk said. "They knew us, they knew how we played and how our plays were going to start."
Michigan State's Trenton Robinson originally told The Wolverine on Saturday his team could anticipate Molk's snaps because he bobbed his head down, then back up before he hiked the ball. …
Molk said Michigan recognized this during the game, but could not adjust because of the crowd at Spartan Stadium.
"Making an adjustment came down to our ability to communicate, and with the crowd noise, it sort of covered that," he said. "It puts us into a tough situation, and something we have to react to, and we weren't ready to react. They got us, no doubt."
During the game? They've done this the last three years! For Michigan to have no answer to the instant A-gap blitz into the fourth quarter is a massive, inexplicable coaching failure. Not once did Michigan block that, not once did they bring Molk's head up to reveal the blitz and then check into another play. There was no one in the center of the field for a dozen snaps and Michigan didn't use this at all.
Upside: At least this blows up the halftime adjustments meme. Downside: it's been replaced with the "Michigan State was tougher" meme, which even Molk is repeating. I guess that's the effect of an offseason in which every other word out of Hoke's mouth was "toughness." I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing MSU outcoach Michigan for the fourth straight year. It's not toughness when no one has an angle to block the same linebacker five times.
Boo-boo, line edition. Via a pouty-looking WCBN sports director hanging out in Sweden:
Taylor Lewan limping around campus with a giant boot on his left foot/ankle. Looks uncomfortable.
Somewhere on the coaching film there is evidence Gholston swept the leg. Of this there can be no doubt.
Obligatory Gholston-Dantonio statement. Anyone who's surprised that MSU is ham-fistedly taking a page from the Gene Smith playbook by declaring Saturday's events an "isolated incident" in an attempt to keep a starter on the field hasn't been paying attention. Dantonio's established a pattern. Ending a kid's hockey career with a sucker punch doesn't get you kicked off the team, every year there's a posse of 20 guys getting together to beat up some engineers, etc. etc. etc. This is the way he wants his program. End of story.
Bielema don't care. I've been annoyed with the program's public reaction to the above, possibly because it seems like they're lying through their teeth for better PR. This doesn't make me right, it just makes me annoyed. In contrast, Bret Bielema is a guy who gets his digs in:
"We'll do our talking with our pads and we'll do it between the whistles."
This is the only guy in the league who was able to call Tressel the asshat he was instead of going with that tragic hero/tragedy business that Carr and Dantonio did or refusing comment like everyone else. He also runs up scores like there's no tomorrow—it's clear he's something of an asshat himself, but these days I'll take any public figure who says what he thinks instead of what someone says he should think because it looks prettier in the paper.
Ain't hearing you about a deranged prosecutor. In the aftermath of the personal-foul-fest over the weeked the WSJ assembled their number-crunching team and came up with a list of the dirtiest rivalries in college football as measured by personal fouls of a late/unnecessary hit variety. A number are expected. One in particular is not:
RIVALRY | PER GAME | BIGGER OFFENDER |
Auburn-Georgia | 5.4 | Georgia 59% |
Duke-North Carolina | 5.2 | N. Carolina 69% |
UCLA-Southern California | 4.8 | UCLA 54% |
N. Mexico-N.Mexico St. | 4.6 | N. Mexico 65% |
Kansas-Missouri | 4.2 | Missouri 76% |
Michigan-Michigan St. | 4.0 | Michigan St 80% |
C. Michigan-W. Michigan | 3.8 | Western 58% |
Brigham Young-Utah | 3.6 | Utah 61% |
NC State-North Carolina | 3.4 | N. Carolina 59% |
All of those are competitive series save North Carolina bludgeoning Duke annually. Maybe they're just mean dudes at UNC—they're the only team to show up twice.
Of course, this pretends the personal foul stuff is a two way street, which it isn't in certain cases. On a per team basis your winners are:
- UNC (vs Duke)
- MSU
- Missouri
- Georgia
So… yeah, UNC hates Duke a lot. Either that or it's impossible to not get personal fouls for unnecessary roughness when you've got a lot of illegally acquired future NFL players and they've got eleven mewling kittens.
The fresh take NOTline*. Magazine writer Chris Jones came up with a fresh take that really adds to the sporting zeitgeist: you shouldn't say "we" when you are identifying the team you root for because you are not on the team. Awesome, dude. Thanks. For your troubles SBN's Andrew Sharp effectively compares you to Whitney.
Sharp has ten reasons a fan might break out the we but doesn't hit the reason I do it periodically: it is a convenient linguistic trick. If I am discussing the Michigan-Michigan State game and wish to refer to the teams by words shorter to read and type, I can either continually re-introduce the team names and briefly refer to whichever one is the most recent antecedent as "they." That's potentially annoying and confusing. The other option is to dump them entirely in favor of "we" and "they," which clearly indicate who is who while preventing constant repetition of already established facts—that we are indeed talking about Michigan and Michigan State.
It would take a fun-hating mutant whose super power is pedantry to object to this, which is why someone who works for a newspaper or magazine writes this column every three months.
*[BOOM.]
Trouba: pretty good. Hockey 2012 D commit Jacob Trouba is good, first round good. As of late he's pushing his way into the top half of the first round:
Defenseman Jacob Trouba (U-18 U.S. national team development program): He is most likely to land in the top 10 picks and could crack the top five if he keeps progressing. He's 6-1 and 170 pounds, and he can skate well, fire the puck with authority and show a physical presence.
"You hate to say a guy can do it all, but this guy can do it all," said former Calgary Flames general manager Craig Button, an analyst for NHL Network.
Trouba checks in tenth on Button's list of top prospects at TSN; forward commit Boo Nieves is on his watch list. He's seventh to ISS. Nieves also features as a "riser":
Boo Nieves, LW, Kent HS
Nieves has rocketed up the charts after showing off his stuff with USA at the Ivan Hlinka on top of several favorable viewings last season. Nieves is a skilled, offensively productive center who has the potential to grow into his body. He has great hands and displays a real high level of skill. He also has better then average skating, utilizing a smooth stride that provides him with a top gear when required.
He's still not in ISS's top 30.
Comment truth. Let me pull this out from the depths of the game column comment thread:
With our personnel, I think most people would want Rodriguez running the offense. They would just want him to stay far, far away from the defense.
The dirty little secret is this: This game was the cost of doing business, by deciding for a full scale switch from the head coach - who didn't earn himself a 4th year based on results, everyone settle down - on down, rather than just going after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff. Now, in the long term it was probably the right decision, but in the short term, we have set ourselves up for frustration. …
[discussion of last year's game vs this year's game with focus on field position and yardage]
So reality is this: Because Rodriguez was defensively incapable, he lost his job. In turn, Hoke was hired and he brought in Mattison, a guy who has proven - along with having a more experienced secondary - to be one of the best hires in college football. He also brought in Borges, who isn't the proper fit for our offensive talent. It's not his fault and as has been stated, won't be a problem in 2 years time. But this year, we're going to have to suffer through another flawed season, which to me is incredibly frustrating given that a spot in the Big Ten title game is there for the taking.
That is exactly where I'm at. We had to deep-six Rodriguez and the coaching hire appears to be working out about as well as anyone could have hoped, but burning Denard's career in an offense he's not suited for is killing me. Shades of gray exist.
Etc.: Basketball ranked 20th by Rivals. Smart Football on combining quick passes with runs and screens—this is like extending the zone read concept to linebackers downfield. Michigan Monday in case anyone thinks the Sparty == Dirty meme is restricted to homers. Lake the Posts also jumps in with outrage(!).
October 19th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
It's more than loosing a game and a 4th down. It's having 8 months to prepare and getting completely handled when we were on offense-the one part of our team that should be exceling. The offense has gone backwards and we would have won this game with last year's offense.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
Saying crap like we would've won with last year's offense is supremely stupid because from my memory we LOST that game. I guess you didn't want to focus on the first 6 games during those 8 months either?
Try to stay loose even if we happen to LOSE a game.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
If you're going to have the name IvyLeague, you should learn how to spell losing.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^
I wish his comment hadn't been minimized because it's funny and I want everyone to share in the unintentional comedy.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
You can change your settings in "My Account" so that threads show all comments, not just the ones with positive ratings. Check into it, its well worth the effort.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
Cosign. I have mine set up as you suggest, and it makes the board more enjoyable for me. Which is odd, I suppose, but it gives me a full spectrum of comments with the least amount of effort possible (yes, I am too lazy to click on the minimized replies each time). It also allows me to have moments like seeing "IvyLeague" incorrectly spell "losing" as "loosing" and chuckle to myself.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
Are you sure you're from the Ivy League? Becuase it's spelled Losing, not loosing.
Second; we're not spending 8 months to solely prepare for MSU. The coaches had 6 other games to prepare for, and I would rather be 6-1 than 1-6 with our win against MSU. Also are you really surprised about the offensive regression? We basically have all freshman starting again since everyone is in year one of a brand new system. MSU is actually a pretty solid team that played to our weaknesses. Consistency will come, and you shouldn't judge the team/coaching staff based on one game
October 19th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
Good catch, I spelled a word wrong! Go join the protesters outside.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
...is in Belgium in that pic, not Sweden. The flag behind him is the flag of West Flanders (diddly-iddly) and also the license plate on that car in the pic has a "B" on it.
I also realize that this is completely useless information.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
oops didn't see this comment. ALRIGHT we are right. I can confirm. Belgium!
October 19th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
Pedantic nerd, that is! lol
October 19th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
Wasn't he Wiscy's coach when one of his special teams guys tried to twist Stevie Breaston's leg off after the play was dead? I don't recall any suspension / discipline meted out in that instance.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
And he did nothing about that play.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
You're digging up something from 2006 and holding it against him? Name one coach who hasn't had a player do something similiar in the past five years at some point. I'll save you the time, you won't be able to.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
I am generally the get off my porch type, but I like the unis, in particular the arm sleeves
October 19th, 2011 at 1:07 PM ^
That pair of Bielema statements reinforces the sense I have that Wisconsin is currently the premier program of the Big 10, and not just in terms of wins/losses.
They are, in a lot of respects, the closest thing to Bo-era Michigan there is right now.
We'll get there, but it's going to take a little rebuilding first.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
I actually love these jerseys, but I never want us to wear them again since we lost to little brother.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
You never cease to surprise, Brian. When did you learn about this redneck rocker? He's been a favorite of mine for twenty years.
Oh, and +1 to "comment truth" discussion and coastal blue's points. I made a sadder prediction that Denard would be benched by year's end in sacrifice to the pro style approach. Hope I'm wrong, but that game...man.
Teams trump players. It's a reality of football, but it doesn't make it hurt any less.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^
He's known about ol' Robert Earl for awhile now. In fact the R.E.K. story about Willie Nelson's 4th of July picnic formed the central theme of the post-National Championship game hockey column.
Robert Ealr Keen is one of my favorite's too, just wish he would've been at least semi-sober when I saw him live.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
I guess the snap-count thing doesn't make sense to me.
First, I recall us getting them to jump offsides a number of times.
Second, when on the road - isn't the snap always based on a visual cue? (I'm thinking of watching Tom Brady and most QB's ever lift their leg to ask for the ball). I'm assuming Molk's "head bob" was just to look for this. Is their an alternative?
October 19th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
Yep, but most teams also change them up. Tom Brady will lift his leg, see what the defense does, and do it again, and again, the whole offense knows to go on 1 or 2 or 3. We rarely, if ever, went on 2. Some easy ways to change it:
Denard wave, molk head up, 1 count, snap. (the usual)
Denard wave, molk head up, 1 count, 1 count, snap (draw offsides)
Wave, Head, Look again, Wave Head, snap, etc.
Some teams (I first noticed the Colts do it last year) have a guard look back at the QB so the center can keep his head up, then the guard gets the signal from the QB and taps the center
October 19th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
How can the guard tap the center without illegal procudure?
October 19th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
but ya know how before the snap the O-Line all moves around? Pointing at blitzers, communicating, moving around and stuff, they really only have to be "set" for a second before the snap. So the "tap" has the center start his in head "1 and Snap" routine
October 19th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
is changing how quickly he waits before he snaps after looking back. That is how he was being timed...immediately after lifting his head back up he was snapping the ball. Once they defense saw him lift his head they were jumping.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
Yes, there is an alternative.
The center doesn't automatically have to snap the ball as soon as he bobs his head. He can snap it immediately, wait a beat or two, or the quarterback can make a dummy call to throw off the timing of blitzes.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
Maybe you could vary your number of leg lefts (or whatever). I don't know.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:12 PM ^
Bielema could rescue baby seals from a raging inferno and it would not lessen my disdain for him, but I will say that I hope he beats the snot out of MSU this weekend...between the whistles.
That probably speaks more to my shortcomings than to his.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
The under-jersey shirts were Michigan's throwback tribute to the great teams of 1998-99, when a "halo" surrounded Michigan Stadium.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
Section1, I must say that I agree with you. Not only were the uniforms the equivalent of the Halo, they were indeed a throwback to the Halo. As a follow-up on this bit of not-learning-from-the-past, Dave Brandon is going to force John Beilein to wear mock turtlenecks this season.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
generally say 'Michigan', but as is the case for most of us, we attend or attended 'Michigan'. As students or alumni, that allows us to use 'we' in my mind.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
we all knew the day would come where we lost and brian would place the blame on the coaches. but it took him 3 years to realize RR was a terrible coach, coming up with excuses all the while. he said on his podcast that 'last years offense would have won this game'. really?
the same offense that scored a whopping 17 points playing in your beloved RR 'spread and shred? the same offense playing at HOME, against a worse MSU defense not coming off a bye week and playing in near perfect weather conditions?
the coaches get some blame, along with the rest of the offense. i think borges panicked a bit and tried to outcoach the room on the 4th and inches. it happens to everyone. how about giving this staff the same slack you gave the previous one.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
You are such an idiot.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
the reply you have to the truth? go root for pitt if you want last years offense d-bag.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
Why? His post looks pretty spot-on to me.
Brian has shown some serious denial issues about the effectiveness of both Denard and RR's offense last season.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
Did a post just get removed b/c it had a dissenting view? I'm pretty sure the guy talking about the use of "we" wouldn't be called an idiot.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^
What was the post that was taken away, and why did this happen? Is Brian too steamy to let people post comments that piss him off right now?
October 19th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^
A post did get deleted and the site broke. The idiot post is actually replying to an idiot.
Public announcement: if you sign up and your second post is a diatribe about how RR is my binky and your third post is a personal attack, you get banned.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
treat the coaching transitions as if they were made under the same circumstances? They were not.
RR replaced an excellent head coach with the explicit purpose of bringing in a totally different style of offense. He inherited very few returning starters and even fewer players that matched his style of play. Patience is needed and reasonable.
This coaching change was one of choice. In other words, DB thought that Hoke would be an immediate upgrade. Hoke has many excellent returning starters, offensive POY, the weakest Big10 I've seen in years, a really really soft schedule, etc. I don't have patience for Hoke and I wouldn't have had patience if RR had been kept on for a put up or shut up year. Any coach should be able to come in and win 9 games this year given our personnel and lack of competition.
When stuff stalls out this year people are going to be annoyed and rightfully so. If Hoke's staff can't accomplish any more than RR could have accomplished this year, people are going to think hmm why did we go through all this drama again? For the same or worse results? Hoke needs to be better than RR would have been.
October 19th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
Dude...Really?
Signed,
Promote MattMillen
October 19th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Just.... no
Can you explain the defense being about 1000x better than last year? I can tell you if RR was still here, it wouldn't be.
Why did we go through this? Because RR didn't DESERVE a 4th chance, based on team performance as well as off-field issues (Groban sealed it).
Hoke should absolutely not be held to the same standard as RR would have been this year, because he still has to implement his system, which Dave Brandon correctly or incorrectly believes will work out better in the LONG RUN, not this year.
I think there's a good chance that Hoke actually will outperform what RR would have done anyway, but your reasoning is just short-sighted and stupid.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
Hiring Hoke is going to completely blow up when we never win a BCS game. This is probably gonig to turn out to be Lloyd Carr 2.0. I hope this doesn't happen but right now that's what it's looking like.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
So, we lost one game in Hoke's first year...
Our defense is vastly improved...
Our recruiting is outstanding...
And you say that we'll never win a BCS game...
And you say that this will be Carr 2.0...
You mean the same Lloyd Carr who won a National Championship?
October 19th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^
Carr won a shit ton of games here, and is a hall of fame coach. Oh, and he won one of those national title things. Lloyd Carr 2.0 sounds ok to me, as long as we have some creative playcalling thrown in.
October 20th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
You mean the same LC who won a National Championship by winning the Rose Bowl and the coach who beat Alabama in the Orange Bowl? That Lloyd Carr?
October 19th, 2011 at 3:16 PM ^
1000x better? Interesting. I'd say it appears better than last year so far, but will wait until the end of the year to make that judgment. Mainly because I'm not a fucking idiot. Also, how much can be attributed to returning a shitload of young starters and playing terrible offenses that have shot themselves in the face over and over? How do we know whoever RR would have replaced GERG with would not be able to have achieved a similar level of play? We don't know yet you are more than content to make these extrapolations halfway through the season and call me stupid. Hilarious.
Likewise, the offense appears to be worse. Again, we will need to wait until the end of the season to be sure. Under RR the offense very likely would have improved from last year or at least not go backwards. Almost everyone returned, after all. Does this outweigh the possible improvement in the defense? That's right - we don't know yet.
My point was that DB took a gamble and threw away a relatively known quantity for a new coach that was not a slam dunk hire with the information available to us at the time (neg me if you want, truth hurts though). He should be asked to perform at a similar or better level in the short term otherwise the switch makes no sense and hurts the program.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^
I love how assumptions that support our argument are true but ones that don't are just assumptions.
And I think Brandon replaced Rich because he was a known quantity. What he had shown so far here was not in his favor. So you projecting greatness for Rich here is just as much as an assumption as doing the same for Hoke. Except Hoke hasn't even had the chance to stink at Michigan yet.
If you think Brandon made the change to win a couple more games this year, you don't understand. He did it to build a strong defense, and recruit better (the latter of which might not even be all Rich's fault, but the ugly state of the program in January going forward). So far, we're doing that. He wasn't worried about this year...he was worried about the next decade. He may be wrong; but no less than you might be. But your concern of the short term wasn't his; he's thinking long term.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
what I wrote; it would be helpful. I said that the offense under RR would LIKELY be improved or STAY AT THE SAME level. That's called an assumption. It is backed up with good reasons - more time in the same system, all the same coaches, almost all the same personnel, same playbook, same coaches, much easier schedule, all our opponents appear to have regressed, etc. If you disagree with this assumption (I don't think anyone has even atempted to do so) I'd love to hear it.
I also never "projected greatness" for RR. Seriously, you just made that shit up. I said offense likely same or better and defense was largely unknown but not out of the realm of possibility that it improves to the level it has so far under Hoke. Again, I gave good reasons for this assumption and said no one knows for sure.
"Except Hoke hasn't had the chance to stink at Michigan yet." What? My entire post was dedicated to saying let's wait and see how Hoke does and evaluate his progress at the end of the year. No idea what you are talking about here.
I'm glad you have direct insight into DB's thought processes too. Sounds an awful lot like an assumption...though you stated it as fact and said I don't understand. Most normal people would expect an elective coaching change where something like 20 starters return to result in improved performance under the new coach in the short term. That's outlandish, I know.
October 19th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
Let me get this straight..... I can't compare this year's defense with last year's until the year is complete? OK, fine.
But you think a coach should be judged by his first year as compared to the previous coach's hypothetical 4th year?
Maybe we should judge Hoke in his 3rd year against Rich Rod in his 3rd year..... That would make more sense to me.
October 19th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^
That would be the dumbest analysis considering what RRod had to go through and what Hoke has been handed on a plater. Seriously, if Hoke can't get it done with 20 starters returning this is an obvious sign of trouble.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:00 PM ^
Think about what you just said. Hoke won't have 20 returning starters (probably) in his third year. RR started in a low place, Hoke in a higher one, but this difference should be almost negated by the 3rd year.
Comments