I've spent numerous years in and around LA. Lakers fans can be on the level with a Buckeye fan. But let me say that USC fans tend to be pretty cool on the whole. As a tOSU fan you can go to Texas in Austin and throw your crap and weight around. But in LA people don't care for people lost in some need for football superiority bro. They already know they are good and they just kick it and have fun being number one. There's no big struggle just more opportunities to have fun. This seems to be tOSU's biggest achilles heel. In big games on neutral sites, people don't care or understand what planet the average buckeye ascended from. And neither do they ever, ever, ever wanna share his or her plight. My friend said the other day he saw a father son buckstache land at the airport and he said they looked crazy. As though they were going into,"enemy territory." He said they had matching jump suits, matching silver chains and weird glasses on and the TSA people likened them to eastern european junk arms dealers or something wacko. I do not know if they were there early for the game though. We were just talking about ROJO's td the other day and how DE Everson Griffen looked. Everson was in AZ high school when I was out in AZ. I told him if Rich Rodriguez is coaching MI theres an even better chance that people like ROJO stay home and not go to USC. Besides USC is in the ghetto! Nice school, but in the ghetto!My point is, no one really gets it and cares for it, tOSU's madness that is especially on the west coast. tOSU fans love a huge struggle, it's psychological, they have to win on all fronts. But USC just sees it as football game. Almost giving Buckstache nothing to fight for. Like Lt. Dan he's robbed of his glory! Now I don't know USC this year and I really do not know tOSU. Two quality teams and any of the two could win. But in some ways a win could be disaster for tOSU because it will set them up to be number one going into the NC game and another possible loss. I think all of the tOSU faithful would flip with all their returners if they lost another NC game. It's tough to beat a school like USC though because they play to win but don't really need the win and in some wasys don't really care if they do not win. USC has handled their business and is the pinnacle top team in college football since the BCS in my opinion. Them or maybe LSU. tOSU is up there with Texas but to win the PAC-10 I'd have to say USC takes tops in BCS overall. I'd say USC in late surge and the bucks fall.I know there's probably some Wolverines in LA who will read this and say the opposite or USC can suck it. But on the whole I think from the Rose Bowls they were a good opponent and had good carefree fans.
“The Pass” Defending Coach Rodriguez
After hearing all the arguments both ways and having some driving time in the Suburban to think about it, I think I am willing to defend Coach Rodriguez on the decision to call the pass play that led to interception late in the half. A couple of lines of thought sway me in this regard.
What is worse: the coach who gambles and calls the risky play, knowing by this time in the game it is likely that on this day, his freshman QB will not be able to execute the play; or the freshman QB who botches the throw? If he makes the throw and it results in a long yardage reception we all think he is a genius and the QB is on the verge of breaking out [maybe]. If it fails he is the goat.
I wonder if it about cultivating a mindset. Coach Rodriguez has a plan, a certain way he wants to play, a certain mindset he wants his team to be in. The only way to shift from one mindset [run, run, run, just don’t fumble, wind out the clock and play it safe] to a totally new mindset [attack, attack, attack, push, win…it ain’t worth winning if you can’t win big]. You have to make a complete paradigm shift and you can’t look back, especially when half your crew was recruited to play in the old paradigm. How do you send that message? Even if we fail, even if we come away with egg on our face, even if I look bad, we are going to play my new way, end of story.
I also think that Coach Rodriguez is big on his players, on actually coaching them and developing them. I think I remember him saying at one time that one of the things high on his list for recruits is not purported athletic ability, but their teachability and coachability. Will they let me develop them into the players that we can win with? So you push a kid. You trust a kid. If he is the QB you keep the offence simple enough to manage, but you press him to the limits and make him do everything you want him to do, including late half risky passes. You make him stretch himself, even if he falls short. After all Michigan football is all about the young men...right...or is this Nick Saban's Alabama?
I am postulating the mind of the coach and may be totally out to lunch, but everything Coach Rodriguez has show us thus far makes me think it is not far off the mark. I just think that Coach is too smart a man, too conscious of what his team and his freshman QB is capable of, not to have at least suspected the play would turn out badly. Ergo, it was an intentional learning/evaluation situation.
As for the fans wanting run, run, run, in my church leadership tenure, I encountered again and again where people would vote for changing an existing program or an old way of doing things and then when the change was enacted they would start wining and moaning if there were any teething problems. “This is not what I voted for.” “If this is what its going to be like, we would be better off going back to what was.” Change is painful. Get over it. Period. Let me say it again: change is painful. Get over it. Coach Rodriguez has done this before and knows what needs to be done. If anything, this, as much as the spread offence, has become his calling card. He has done it in the past. He is doing it now. Change is painful, deal with it.
Why I Want USC to Beat the Buckeyes This Coming Saturday
On an ordinary day if I did not have an allegiance to either of the teams playing, it would seem that you would pick Big Ten over all the others. Frankly, I think too much is made of this whole Big Ten or SEC or Pac Ten pride thing. In the case of the Buckeyes, I cheered Florida on when they beat them both times, in football and basketball.
Just think, if OSU beats USC people might have a reason to lay some regaining of respectability for the Big Ten at the feet of OSU, however small that gain. And being the selfish type, I want that glory to come to us, the Maize and Blue. I want people looking at the Big Ten to see Michigan again rising high and leading the way as the others in the conference rise with us, yet clearly in the position of following our lead. The only way that this can happen is if OSU keeps falling on their faces and choking on the big game as they have done in the last two years [even though Tressel’s BCS record is 3-2, if I remember correctly]. Then Michigan can step in and lead the conference back to glory with OSU clearly looking up to us to show them the way…and that is why I want OSU to lose Saturday.
Another good reason(s) to cheer for USC this Saturday.
Living in London, ON, few here care whether Michigan wins or loses. I got a big Miami fan in my office, but he is from that area. We talk college football whenever we get the chance. So I have always put football in perspective by taking care of work/career/family business before football...but if everything else is taken care of...unless it has to do with the game...I don't want to hear it. I am on football time now!
Every school's got their share of assholes, but I agree with your assessment of SC kids. I have a lot of friends who are SC grads and they cheer with me for Michigan and I cheer with them for SC. Unless we're playing each other, of course.
Everyones so relaxed out there. You have the stars, the beaches, the women, etc. The fans follow footbal but they don't live by it like the Midwest. What the hell is in the midwest other than sports? USC loses and you and friends go to the beach and party. Michigan, tOSU, NEB, etc loses and you go to the bar and get drunk and complain about your team, their team, and the refs. Its just a whole nother world out there.
While "offenCe" isn't technically a misspelling (I don't believe) it isn't the typical variant when used to describe a football offenSe. This is the nth diary to use the odd alternate spelling. Am I missing some inside joke or something? It always causes me to stumble when reading over it.
Yes, I suppose I have issues. (But it did take me about ten diaries to actually post something and ask.)
It's a Canadian thing. Just like "colour" "neighbour" and a whole host of other minor spelling adjustments. Blame it on Webster, of Webster's Dictionary, who, if I remember the story correctly, "simplified" a lot of spellings for his American readership.
Yeah I think the only two schools on the east coast who are comparable to what USC is or has going on are....Michigan and Miami......The University of Miami in Florida that is. Those two schools have the tradtion academically and in Football to one day compete again with all that USC has to offer. You know and maybe Notre Dame if they can ever rebuild their monster. One day my girlfriend calls me up, she was waitressing in Tempe AZ, and she goes,"Busy day but there's like this bus load of weirdos here." I was like,"Oh man that sucks what is it like a weird convention or something?Some riverboat gambling tour thing or..." She goes,"I dunno really what their deal is or where they are from but they are druuuuunk, all dressed in like red and silver and are yelling at people who arent like them I guess you cold say." I just go,"Ohhhhhhhh I think I know who has graced your presence today. Do you see or hear the phrase Buckeye or Gator?" She goes,"Yes! Yes that is it they are all called Buckeyes, well, whatever that is. What is that, a Buckeye?" It is just another story in a long list for the fans of tOSU. IF I PLAYED FOR tOSU I'D BE EMBARRASSED WATCHING MY FANS WALK AROUND LA ACTING THE FOOL. Like a kid taking his alcoholic dad on a field trip. I am definitely cheering for SC.
I hate USC and their home-field advantage at the Rose Bowl (ironically enough since it's UCLA's field, but whatever), but their fans were classy when I went to the 07 Rose Bowl. I think it's just tradition to hate them in some ways. I kind of view them as an honorary rival since we've played them so many times, or at least it seems that way. Hell, we might have even played UCLA or Washington more than USC. I kind of want OSU to win just to set up the parallels to 1969, even though we are going to lose.
Anyways, I'm really looking forward to the Miami game. This is the tuneup the team needs, assuming they can pull out a win.
They are playing the game, on the 13th and it is at the Coliseum not the Rose Bowl. I was reading once where a player, I forget what team, was saying why he thought playing in Los Angeles was tough. He said(PARAPHRASED) you land and get off the plane, go to your room and all is well. You do a run through at a high school and then go back and rest. Th next morning you drive through LA and see the exit ramps like Santa Monica and Hollywood and then you hit the Coliseum. It's at that point you realize what a cool football environment it is. Youre stoked, you know your fans are. There's pretty woman and celebrities and then a good, quality opponent in USC. What you do not realize though is this your last meal before the slaughter so to speak. You find yourself passive, almost in awe. And then when they start whooping your ass, you feel as if all of your football dreams are being crushed all at once. The fallout is horrific of a loss there. The less you take with you into the stadium,mentally, the better off you'll be.
When teams travel there, a lot of the youngsters try to hard. They get the whole Hollywood thing in their brain and it really does nothing for their game prep or performance. I am talking teams outside of the PAC-10. Do they put their pants on one leg at a time? Yes. Do they date woman who are different from the ones in your twon? No. You have to remind your guys of that when you go there. As Obi Ezeh said the other day,"It's just football."
The pass before half was ok. I liked the call in theory. Was it reasonable? I do not know. It was RR's call. He wanted to win, bravo. George bernard Shaw once wrrote,"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world:the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I think that play call is summed up by that. Either way you pay a price. The question most asked was was it the right time to be unreasonable? Or is there ever a right time to be unreasonable? Tough to answer.
I agree with much of what you say, but I think Rodriguez called the pass not to "send a message" or anything like that - but because he was trying to win the football game. In my mind, roughly 100% of what a coach does is with the intention of winning, not playing mind gaems.
I disagree. I don't think RR was trying to either win/score or send a message. I think he has an inexperienced team - he needs every down he has to get them experience (especially the QBs and especially if our run game isn't good).
Sheridan learned more throwing that pick than he would have handing it off for three FB dives and a punt. And everyone's been cramming this schtik about RR needing to appreciate Michigan tradition (code for beating Ohio State) down RR's neck. He's going to take his chances now for learning reasons, so we have a shot against teams like MSU and OSU.
This isn't the NFL preseason. Rich Rodriguez wants to win games, period. Nobody's thinking about teaching their QB a lesson late in the first half of a game down by five. That's ridiculous. You honestly think Rod is standing on the sidelines thinking to himself, "Well, this is probably the best play strategy-wise but I don't think Nick's going to learn anything from a draw up the middle that gains 15 yards. Fuck it, let's throw deep."???
No. How was RR trying to "make the world adapt to him"? He was trying to fucking score. He wasn't "making a point" or "breaking with tradition". He had the ball with more than a minute left and three timeouts. He was trying to score.
That is it...and that IS the break from tradition...when all the rest of us have come to expect us to run, run, run...go safely to the locker room and re-group for the next half.
I think it bodes well for the future...and likely this will not be the last time when people will want the safe path, common sense will call for the safe path, but our coach will go for the strike and the jugular...and I am sure this will not be the last time it costs us.
There's a quote and in the quote it says the word progress. Progress can be defined a lot of ways in Football. Progress is gaining positive yardage which leads to better field position. Which one hopes allows them to score in some way. Either a touchdown or a field goal. Football, much like that quote I posted, is pretty straight forward. Trying to score in that situation could be labled as foolish, all things considered or now being reconsidered. Bravo to having the balls to try!
I think in my post I said enough. He did what he felt was right. Period. I can live with an interception or a loss. It's easy, you just stop caring! lol. Nick Sheridan and Rich Rodriguez's choice in pass plays does nothing for my mutual funds/stock investments ,401k, or anything tangible or real. It is however quite a fun debacle to dissect. It is true in that INT Sheridan and RR learned alot. A lot about each other lol. When I used the word tradition I can with the utmost certainty say,"Lloyd 4/5 times would not have made that call!" Traidtion is what's been done. I am ok with letting what's been done, BE DONE. I liked the call. Some, Rosenberg, Green, all of SECTION 5 I was in.......can say,"WTF! Why did he throw that. Tell me he audibled and RR did not call that." I shouted out and clapped,"GREAT EFFING CALL DUDE LOVED IT!" And I meant it :)
Football coaches try to win. He called the play because he felt it would help him score. Which would help him win. This "teaching lesson" shit is Bill Simmons psychology mumbo jumo horseshit.
I will concede the point...Coach Rodriguez wants to win games...but I also know he is building something bigger than one game...he is building a winning program...neither you nor I know the mind of the coach, but likely it is something of a both/and rather than and either/or...as in "Lets take the deap strike, if he makes it awesome, and if he doessn't lets hope he learns something..." or something along those lines.
If it is all about simply winning all the time, why do coaches put in the backups and the 2nd stringers when they have a big cushion lead or are impossibly behind? Program development and learning reps. Nothing like game time experience.
"If it is all about simply winning all the time, why do coaches put in
the backups and the 2nd stringers when they have a big cushion lead or
are impossibly behind? "
Because the game has already been won or lost, obviously. There is no more "winning" left to do that day. This isn't complicated.
I think you missunderstand me...and some of the larger ethos of the college game...of course coaches want to win and do what they can to win, using the best plays and the best players for each opponent and each situation. But one of the things that makes college football special is that it is not an either/or environment where it is win at all costs, win or else. There are other considerations, and this is what seperates coaches, programs and schools. By its nature, college football is a constant juggling of the desire to win football games, ensuring that young men meet academic standards and graduate, growing the character of young men, protecting the reputation of the program, developing players because of the constant turnover every four or less years, and the need to protect and rehabilitate players from injury. Granted, on game day the desire to win is usually at the top of the hierarchy of values, but is not necessarily the only consideration, and given where our program is at this point, I would argue that developing and growing players into the kind of men that he can win with in the long term is as important winning now. I am sure that Coach wants to win now, but he has to have his eye on the big picture as we are in a 2-3 year program building.
You play. To win. The Game.
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME
You don't play it to just play it. That's the great thing about sports:
you play to win, and I don't care if you don't have any wins.
play to win. When you start tellin' me it doesn't matter, then retire.
Get out! 'Cause it matters."
College football hasn't been about anything other than winning since the 1940s, and if you think different, I suggest you open your eyes sometime. If it was about molding young men and blah blah blah, Lloyd wouldn't have retired, because it wouldn't matter if he was winning or not. But winning matters. Coaches want to win. Players want to win. This is not a difficult concept.
Of course you play to win...again...you miss the point...let me give a recent item from the front page of this fine blog to make my point:
"That Clearinghouse issue Marcus Witherspoon had did not go away; he isn’t going to be on the team this year or any other, it seems."
How many gifted athletes never get the chance to play because they cannot cut it academically? Why do graduation rates matter? Why does the overall academic success of a program matter?
Even from a football perspective, take the debate over at tOSU over whether Tressel ran Bennie Wells too much, subjecting him to injury. Yes, you need to do what you need to do to win, but sometimes the best player is not the best player. If a guy is a 15 carry a game guy and you run him 18 times and he pulls something and you lose him for the season, what then of WIN, WIN, WIN. This game is always about ballancing a set of comprimises that give you the best opportunity to win now and win consistently. This is what building a program is about. You put enough pieces in place so that you can overcome all the excegencies created by academics, athlete durability, player turnover and so forth.
No, my friend, you miss the point.
Going for a TD at the end of the 1st half is not some sort of grand building block in a scheme to build character, send a message to fans, and break from tradition.
No, it is simply a desire to get into scoring position, to score points, and win the game.
You and Ellipses Man have the same problem - arguing these vague, grandiose points that don't really relate to the matter at hand. How the hell do graduation rates matter in terms of a playcall at the end of the 1st half? They don't.
You said RR called the play for these immeasurable notions like tradition and message. I said he called it because he wanted to win the game and felt that was a good option. You are the one missing the point when you bring in 'Spoon, grad rates, Beanie Wells, tradition, and academics.
Execution is the difference between a bad call and a good one. At least he had faith in the QB. I was in section 5 so I could see the coverage he(Sheridan) was throwing into. I think there were basically two different defenders that could've picked that pass off. Not entirely sure on that though. INT's are not good for playing time. You force the coaches hand to play someone else. Some would say,"Duh." But if you did a blind,"taste test," of 5 coaches who are ranked 1-5 this week in the ap poll. And you showed them the stats of both QB's from Michigans game and asked them this," what's worse coach, incompletions or interceptions?" I would be willing to bet most would say that Threets incompletions benefited no one. But INT's and fumbles kill your drives, completely shift momentum(take the crowd out), and of course give the other team the ball. I would be willing to bet all 5 would say INT's are worse. If these coaches did not see the game and only saw the stat sheet they might ask this to determine who played better. They'd want to know if Sheridan's INT came on a hail mary at the end of the game? It did not. They would probably ask what the yards after catch stat was for each throw? And then they'd ask if Threet's imcompletion rate was due to him throwing balls that no one could catch to avoid the INT's. and the other big one is to avoid the SACK. For instance Threet's incomplete pass that resulted in an interference call and a subsequent first down was because of a well placed incompletion. He threw it to a point no one could catch it BUT a pass interference call MIGHT be called. Thats good football and good coaching. Even if it was unintentional or even if Threet thought Odoms could catch it. Those are not measurable, debatable stats but to a coach who likes to take shots and be aggressive(and to any coach whose been grilled by the media and chat boards about being OVERLY aggressive), a QB who knows how to not throw interceptions while still trying to make something happen is the warm fuzzy for any coach out there. And I would argue that drop back passers who cannot scramble, i.e. our QB's, that can make interfernce calls happen is as good as a scrambling stat. At this point the moto has to be,"WHATEVER WORKS."
My heart leapt within me when my 2 year old daughter greeted me last Saturday morning in a little Michigan jersey instead of a cheerleader outfit! She was able to sit with me in my new jersey for almost the entire first series!
BUT ACADEMIC ISSUES ARE NOT IN PLAY WHEN RICH RODRIGUEZ CALLED THE PASS WITH SHERIDAN. Nor are graduation rates.
Where is the compromise? You stated that the decision to pass was based on a desire to "send a message" or "teach a lesson" or shit like that. No, we said, it's because he thought thay play call gave him the opportunity to win.
Then, you shift the target - "But winning isn't everything! What about graduation rates! Marques Slocum! Witherspoon! Growing character!". Yeah, Rodriguez is concerned with that. BUT NOT WHEN HE CALLED THE SHERIDAN PASS. When a coach calls a play it's because it helps him win - not because it helps the graduation rate.
I can't believe someone can be so obtuse.
I don't disagree with you that most on field decisions are made with the goal of winning the football game, and frankly I like the idea that Coach Rodriguez is willing to keep pressing, keep fighting, keep taking risks to get his team back into the game even when one might be tempted to run, run, run, punt and go to the locker room to regroup. I like what I see. I like the agressive approach to play calling. I like what I see in Coach Rodriguez. In hindsight, I think it was a good call, on various levels.
My point, though, is that these in game decisions happen with a larger context of program and the game itself. In the case of Michigan Football we are in a building process with a new coach who brings a new system/philosophy with him. I have a hard time beleiving that the necessities of program are completely forgotten the moment that he steps onto the field turf. Frankly, we are not in a place where we can expect to win. We are not ready to win, as evidenced by last Saturday. Coach Rodriguez has to develop his players such that they are at a level where they can reasonably be expected to win. Even though the Coach himself has said that he hates losing, and I am sure that he calls plays and expects his players to execute to win, we are in a position right now where our games are as much training as they are competition. He does not have the luxury of giving freshmen players game time experience after having run up the score. These freshmen are being thrown into the deep end and told to win races when they barely know how to swim.
I may be obtuse, and as much as the moment of the game and desire to win is primary, I have a hard time thinking that at this moment in the process of building a program, that experience, learning and training are not a part of the game plan as well when the team hits the field.
There's always more than one reason for making a choice. The end state or reason that is over arching and impossible to argue against though,"You do things to win." Just as you get a girls number to ______. Just as you get a degree in hopes of getting a job in hopes of making money. Or maybe you got a degree to just study because you like to study. There may be more abstract reasons for choices but in football the simplest answer is usually closest to center. Like said earlier, I liked the call, who cares whether it was picked off. Good call in my opinion.
It is more likely that in the heat of the game, decisions are made with the goal giving your team the best chance to win...it is when you step back and look at the "meta-issues" that there are other concerns...
It is a Jungian thing...part of what inflences our decisions go beyond merely the necessities of the moment, they include such things as pesonality and even cultural archetypes or symbols. Why do you think that people were upset by the call to throw? It seemed to volate a "Michigan" cultural archetype, an archetype that guides decision making. An equally valid argument could be made from two [or more] different football "minsets" as to what is the best game time decision with the goal of giving your team the best shot of winning in this moment.
Actually when I was in school, I had an epiphany...I came to see that my university time was giving me the opportunity to get a great education, gave me access to great minds from which to learn and a great library from which to read. I figured it was more important to get an education that it was to get a degree [although I have one of those].
And not everyone gets a girl's number with the primary goal of getting into her pants...sometimes a differing set of values dictates a different set of goals on the playing field...but hey I assume that these things are lost on someone whose only goal is to "score" and "get a job."
In my opinion, when I saw Nick throw the pic, I sort of had a gut feeling as to why it was called. So on the way out of the stadium(my compadres needed some shade)for the half I was asked by friends why they called that play and threw that pic. With people whizzing by and me daydreaming of some Stucchi's Ice cream I offered up something like this for a reply:
Your defense just gave up like 300 some odd yards, IN ONE HALF of FOOTBALL. Youre the head coach and down by 5. Do you see this changing or do you envision they will shore up and hold them? Probably not. If you cycle it through, given the current facts(1.Your defense is a sieve and 2.everyone will expect you sit on the ball and not throw it), you need to take that shot and throw it. For three reasons:
1. The long term goal is TO WIN THE GAME!
2. The short term goal is give yourself some momentum heading into half. Which in turn lends itself to winning the game.
3. Is to possibly get a field goal to just STAY IN THE GAME, IN HOPES OF WINNING IT.
You can bust out a bunch of philosophical terms such as fallacies of presumption, complex questions, informal fallacies but all in all when you deduce it down......dude was trying to win the game. We cann all go read and study thin slicing and read Gladwell's Blink until our eyes fall out. Dude was doing what he thought would win the game.
I give up.
You constantly shift, contort, and re-word your argument so that it no longer even vaguely resembles what you originally wrote.
Does that mean I win....after all...its all about winning :-)
Chuckles...arguing is a sport...and one the game gets going...its hard not to play to win...even if that means trying to come at the same point from multiple angles, blah, blah, blah...
We are all in agreement that UMFootballCrazy and Ellipses Man are the same person, right? Same style of writing (incoherent, pompous, rambling) - Same opinions - Showing up to defend each other...I mean, it's obvious. Can I get an IP check here?
The same person?
We are not the same person. What about the game this saturday? Will it be Steven "Imcomplete" Threet or Nick"Dont call me" Sheridan starting? And will Austin "Taco" Panter play more pre game daughtry? And what's up with the M-I-C-H-I-G-A-N cheer? Where does the N disappear and go in this cheer? Will we see more Walken?And what about the baton twirler????? I think the Wolverine Liberation Army should handle all media and control every inch of the pregame. They should hire Director Zhang Yimou and do an interpretive dance ensemble piece showcasing the years of struggle under carr. Yimou did a fantasic job with the 2008 Beijing Opening Ceremonies. They should set the piece to,"Strangelove," by Depeche Mode and have Dex and the Baton Twirler guy showcase their skills. I'm sure Costas/Lauer and Joshua Ramo could give the WLA all the background verbage they wanted. I could hear Ramo now,"this piece here showcases the bloggers frustration with carr and co. and it's symbolized by the great leap forward for the WLA and it's very own Cultural Revolution. And here comes the lone baton twirler again showing the soul of the WLA and it's army of genius." Costas would be like,"I really like this Depeche Mode song to the twirling and the synchronized almost robotic like movements of the WLA dance corp."
The WLA really really likes Coach Carr, so I'm forced once again to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.
Ok well not to be taken seriously either way. Remind me Dex to tell you my Lloyd Carr story this saturday. It will be less than 2 or 3 minutes or whatever. So anyhow I say a big old phat W is on the agenda this saturday which will lead us into the 13th and NOTRE DAME! I am thinking of going to the USC tOSU game that saturday. Seeing tOSU fans in LA is too tempting. I think MI goes 2-0 in the next few weeks............
Anyone who thinks that a coach in a game down 5 points is trying to do anything other than win is fooling only themselves.
Someone made a point that if was about winning, only the starters would play. a valid point only if you don't have any ability to think at any depth. And depth is key. If you run the same 11 guys out every play, by the end of the game, they will be worthless.
RR used more players in the defensive front 7 than I have ever seen during a Michigan game. Result (when combined with Barwis), our defensive front 7, in particular our DL, looked fresh and in complete control of the LOS.
All coaches desire to win during the games, some just take different approaches. Carr always believed that he had the best team on the field and tried to eliminate the variability to enhance the likelihood of victory. A logical approach given the talent he had for most of his tenure. RR looks at the offense he has and realizes that every point is going to be sacred, so he must try to maximize the point potential of every possession. A very logical approach given the current state of the offense.
To assume that anyone knows what a coach is thinking other than tending to the task at hand, and on Saturday that task is winning, is foolish. And then regurgitating that philosophy ad nauseum to everyone else is foolish and, more importantly, annoying to everyone else.
I can appreciate how you feel mjvancam, but sometimes these things take on a life of their own. The funny thing is, I don't disagree with you. I guess it is sometimes about being heard and understood. I simply was making the point, and ended up trying to make it in a number of different ways, attacking it from different avenues, that in addition to winning the game, there are are other concerns that influence play call and personel use. That is all. In my original post, I postulated that perhaps one thing that was going on was that Coach Rodriguez was going to establish with his players and with his fans a certain philosophy of play that is aggressive and willing to take risks in order to win the game. I did not think it was that hard to understand. Perhaps the education at Michigan is starting to slip.
and I am walking away with the same opinion I had when I left it the last time: it will be very difficult for any thread on MGoBlog to top the amount of retarded in this thread, ever.
This is one for the archives.