the 3-3-5 rocks!

black's frame ultimately will support the weight of about 270.  He will for sure be a definitive strong side defensive end in the big ten.  Roh is not a strong side defensive end.  dude.  .  We've all seen Roh.  Roh is great but he's getting neutralized. 

they are a problem agreed.  But we have multiple problems and my aim is to point out which problem is worst problem. 

But the opposite of the point you make is the entire point behind my post genius.  The conventional argument, as you aptly point out along with your comrades, is that we run the 3-3-5 to compensate for the woes we have in the defensive backfield.  Check.  But against powerhouse running teams in the big ten the gaping whole we leave in the middle with respect to the run outweighs the risk that the defensive backfield prevents.  Would you rather give up the long pass or would you rather have the other team consistently bend us over and control the line of scrimmage?  If they complete a long pass for a touchdown we get the ball back immediately.  Denard, in most games, can compensate by scoring fast.  However, by leaving a hole in the middle with our band-aid defensive line, the other team controls the clock, and thus our destiny.  So I  would opt for the former situation, where we give up the long pass, but don't give up control of the line of scrimmage, and don't give up time with Denard on the field.  Does this make sense to you? 

 1) started an unnecessary new thread (seriously, I think the "don't make new posts" crowd is way too active and even I can tell this would have been better placed in one of a dozen worthy threads),

 

I agree that starting unnecessary new threads is annoying and I don't like it when other people do this, and I apologize on that point BUT

, In my defense what I am going to say though is that a topic or post that is critical of the 3-3-5, regardless of which thread it is brought up in,  is always greeted with the reply that it should have been brought up in another thread and that it shouldn't be discussed because it has been discussed extensively already. 

Continuing on that line of reasoning, I thought that what we experienced yesterday during the MSU game brought new relevance to the discussion of  the 3-3-5, because yesterday showed us the result of running this scheme against a team who can run the ball, and MSU is really the first good running team we have faced. Up until yesterday, it was arguably "unknown" how the 3-3-5 would fare against a strong running team.  Given this fact, I made a new topic.

2) made your argument with inflammatory, hyperbolic, insulting, and occasionally brah-speak riddled posts,

I don't recall or see anywhere in this thread where I was insulting unless someone insulted me first without a good critique of my argument however terrible it may or may not be.  When someone insults me or just instructs everyone else to negbang me, my first response is to insult them because I'm thinking, that's just what OSU fans tend to do, not Michigan fans.  So I insult them back, at least on mgoboard.  If Lamaar Woodley insulted me, I would thank him and run away. 

brah-speak

I don't see much Brah-speak in my posts, but then again, this is a site dedicated to football.  To the extent that my screenname originates from common law property doctrine, I figure maybe this would absolve me of any dreaded brah-speak were I to have engaged in it  but perhaps i that isn't enough I could also include a link in my signature to The Smiths Best II, which I own, for my own mgoenjoyment.

attacked others when they called you on it

The general import of how I speak on blogs is not to attack people unless I feel like they are tryng to incite the collective community against me without providing any concrete reason of why I am wrong.  If you look up and down this post, where people bring up relevant issues with my argument I respond to them in a cordial manner. 

If you bring up fact a, and fact b, and fact c, I don't respond by calling you an asshole.  I respond with what I think may be a follow up to the argument or a comment on what they said. Where people just call me an idiot and they don't explain why they are the ones who are being inflammatory, I get pissed.  Granted perhaps I should even concede that even these people deserve cordial responses if the topic Ihave raised is already unpopular, but this behaviour is something I have seen all over the place on this board.

Anyway, thank you for at least not being one of the people who just calls me an idiot but brings some substance to your post. . Go blue!

the plane comment was sarcastic but my original post isn't.

I see what you are saying.  But I guess the spirit of my post is saying is that if Campbell seriously isn't ready to play division 1 football at michigan yet, then stick whoever the next true defensive tackle is into the game next to martin with two true strongside defensive ends next to them in situations where you need to control the line of scrimmage.  Personally I think the number 2 defensive tackle is campbell, but if it isn't, then whoever that would be (sagesse maybe).