I've got a preferred parking spot? Why didn't anyone tell me?!?!?!
Brian over at MGoBlog wrote a post that bugged me a bit...
Now that you know about it I guess I'm gonna have to stop using it. It's not like they were ticketing me, so I figured it was cool.
Keep that jalopy of yours parked across the street.
There may not be a better term for a crappy car than "jalopy". Srsly.
Does this mean I can have Magnus's spot? I've been good lately.
Magnus, you advertizing genius...
I'm gonna park on top of your car for that Jeep Wrangler comment.
(not my jeep, mines in the avatar)
But I do like your new signature line
What is this comment must be approved bullshit? That's weaksauce, at least on this blog you can write whatever you want, you'll pay the price, but you can do it. Seems like your trying to control what people say and what gets posted, where's my right to FREE SPEECH dammit!
Consider it my banhammer. Personal attacks aren't allowed. Honest criticism will get approved every time.
I thought all those points got you Jessica Alba rights!?! I've been earning all these points for a shorter walk??
I do not think this will cost him much of anything.
I feel dirty when I agree with Magus. I might have to go home at lunch to take a shower.
I agree with this so hard.
Magnus, if you're going to lead an exodus away from MGoBlog, you've really got to get rid of that black background. It hurts my eyes.
I have no fantastical delusions that I'm leading an exodus from MGoBlog.
For the love of all things beautiful, change that damn background. I don't know, make it the "Attractive Michigan girl of the week" picture, or even a damn brick wall, just not that eye-killing black hole. Please. For me.
I love black backgrounds...Its called contrast.
dark background with light text = instafail techcomm classes.
Someone else is familiar with the mystical world of Tech. Comm?
You're saying his background is a black hole?
I like the black background and I like how you pick a RB and argue with everyone else that he should start.
In my dream world - UM has a great season and Vincent Smith and Magnus hug it out.
I would be glad to hug it out with Vincent Smith. I just don't want him to be the starting running back. He can play on third downs, though.
Actually, I think he could be special as a third down back. He seems to have good hands and he is so small that he could sneak out of the backfield and into the flat/wheel route. He is ideally suited for that and Borges probably knows that too.
I want to hear more about your affinity for Mike " I don't know left from right" Cox.
Though "hug it out with myself" has ominous connotations....if you know what I mean....
I'd love to read this but I have other, more pressing threads that require my attention:
- Football Myths
- Vinopal didn't leave because of family issues
- Section 1 = Most pompous, arrogant member?
- Ralph Nader wants to get rid of athletic scholarships
And those are just on PAGE 1.
What's up with people calling out other people today?
Actually, it's Football Myth's.
See Football Myth's thread.
even remotely RR topics to mollify animosity.
Seems to be repeating all the reflexively negative behavior he eplored in the MSM during the RR era. I was a pro-RR guy, but last year we embarassed a lot of bad teams and were equally embarassed by the good ones. Our offense did squat against our best opponents, and the things that did seem to work early in the season, like having Denard take a step and then rifle a quick pass, were not part of our gameplan late in the year. It was frustrating and made no sense.
What bothers me a little about Brian's posts about Hoke's offense is it seems like he hasn't made a lot of effort to actually watch/break down what SDSU did offensively. He constantly cites his concern about Denard being under center, without seeming to understand or acknowledge that SDSU often operated out of the gun last season. His "analysis" seems to be based more on soundbites than actual film review. That's pretty lazy on his part.
Not only that, but the quotes that he takes specifically allude to the fact that we are going to do more than just power running. The quote that started the MANBALL meme specifically says he doesn't want to solely run zone plays because it doesn't prepare the defense for power plays. That implies that he wants to run a lot of different offensive looks to prepare the defense for what it will see on the field, including zone blocking. I try telling Brian this and his response is that teams either zone block or don't, which isn't necessarily true.
This quote says we are going to work on the power run game, then move on to other things. How does that in any way imply that we will be running under center for an entire game? It doesn't. It actually states the exact opposite, which is the part that frustrates me the most about all of this.
But he's right you either Zone Block or you don't. You can't Zone Block and NOT Zone Block. Now, if he means you either run a Zone Blocking scheme 100% of the time or not, he's completely wrong. That wasn't true under Rich or Lloyd.
And lack of football analysis was due to site repairs. But it's been months and the site infrastructure is still a shell of what it used to be. Maybe waiting till after spring ball, but I do wonder what all has been getting done the last few months. Other than the pouting.
That's most of it, no doubt. But, if we're being honest with ourselves, we have to be at least a little worried that the offensive transition is going to have a negative impact on what is an extremely important season. The 2012 schedule is absolutely brutal, and unless we're up to the level of dominating michigan teams of the past, it's hard to see doing any better than 8-4, and even that might be a stretch. Brian's frustration is that we have the talent to win 9-10 games next season, and if we don't due to a desire to return to manball, it might be a 2-3 more years before a season up to Michigan's expectations is even a possibility again. And guess what, that makes us Notre Dame, returning to glory since 2006...
I thought that post was well-written and pretty fair.
Bonus: Commenter 912Jeff might just be the old guy with the mustache that was featured yesterday.
You do know that people can disagree with Brian's opinion, right? This is not a big deal at all.
For what purpose?
Brian wrote a post, Magnus responded. There doesn't have to be a slapfight every time bloggers disagree.
very true, I made my GF read that post because of how witty and interesting it was. I would like to see another one
Why don't YOU respond to it, either here or on there, rather than what seems like "calling your big brother to fight your fight for you"? If you don't agree (which is kinda the impression you're giving), just say and argue why, rather than "tattling".
This sounded unnecessarily hostile, and I don't think that's really your motivations, but that's the only metaphor that seemed to match the impression it gives off.
To me it sounds like he hasn't formulated an opinion of his own and is waiting for Brian to know what he should think.
I completely agree with Magnus. I loved the spread under Rich Rodriguez, and I think it's a great offense, but I really do believe that Denard will actually be MORE effective in an offense that doesn't use him as much. I don't think that the entire reason the offense did great at the start of the year and stalled at the end was due to the defenses getting better; I think Denard got a LOT slower. I think a healthy Denard outruns any defender in the game, and I think he lost that a lot last year. Maybe by taking the load off his shoulders a little bit, you allow him to stretch his effectiveness over the season. I also think that it's not very intelligent to insinuate that the UM O-line is not built for the power game...didn't the entire line average like a 15 pound weight gain from 2009-2010? They were already getting bigger, and another year with them being encouraged to eat everything in sight will only make things better.
I look forward to having a healthy Denard in every game this year, that means a threat on every snap to make something happen. I think he still gets 900yds or rushing it will just come in different ways.
I think Brian is doing a great job of expressing his opinion, Magnus is also. It is not like they are yelling and shouting obscene things at each other, just taking a different opinion on a given subject. This is generally considered a good thing, having some healthy debate is often fun and can help us look at things a bit differently.
Howeva, if anyone has a right to criticize the coaching staff at UM, it would be Brian, since he was the last diehard Rich Rod defender, and isn't engaging in ad hoc attacks, but rather writes from a position of cognitive disagreement.
OMG-someone on the interwebs doesn't agree with what Brian wrote? Because Brian is the writer/creator of this bigger mgoblog should we agree with everything he writes over a smaller site?
I sometimes think Brian expects coaches to be as witty and verbally dexterous as Jon Stewart. That's just not going to happen.
Also, a bitter lesson of the Rodriguez years is that it's important to be a good politician with the media. If making self-depricating jokes and saying the word "tough" a thousand times does the job, then so be it.
I don't think that Jon Stewart is that verbally dexterous, I think he just makes a lot of funny faces that people think are funny when his jokes fail.
Sir, if I could I would slap you with a glove and demand the satisfaction of a duel.
That said, I shall meet you with my flintlock pistol in hand at 1:30 under the clock next to the old church. I likely won't be able to hit you with the gun but I will scare you with a really loud noise.
Jay Leno = Jim Nantz
Hates black people?
I am sorry that Brian just can't seem to get over that fact that he said Hoke had zero chance of being the Michigan coach.
MGoBlog still remains a fantastic site but Brian's editorials post-OSU when he started to come to grip with the fact that RR was dead coach coaching, just come across as petulant.
But I don't think I'm shocking anyone with that stance.
Though when I Googled your site (the links through the App sometimes fail pretty badly), I got this text-
"Mar 24, 2011 … If you have any other pictures of girls wearing Michigan gear, feel free to e- mail me at [email protected]. …"
Somehow I'm guessing that's not the first thing you want referenced on your blog link...
Or maybe you do. In which case- Bravo, sir.
"I am sorry that Brian just can't seem to get over that fact that he said Hoke had zero chance of being the Michigan coach."
I don't think anyone here believes that Brian is that petty. And that's really not what is coming across in his posts, it's more frustration at the MSM's reception of Hoke and the attitudes of those surrounding the program towards him.
Now the merits of those points can be debated (as many have said already, they're a little tired), but I think you're way off-base in your assessment.
Brian and the last of pro-RR's are upset that the media has been pro-Michigan and have given Hoke a honeymoon period. Yes, that strikes me as whining. It also strikes me as strange since one of the arguements for support of RR was that he lost the support of the MSM, hence wasn't given a fair chance. Enjoy the honeymoon period and understand it only lasts until the first loss. Or maybe first lawsuit.
Fair enough. But that's really an entirely different argument from the one I responded to.
I understand the frustration with the media but agree that having them be overly smitten with the coach is far better for the program then being overly critical. Isn't necessarily fair but whining about it isn't productive in any way, which is where I take issue with Brian's posts.
that Brian is that, un-attractive for a guy. Oh wait, you said petty. Never mind.....
with everyone. We are winning a National Champion next year with our toughness and teamwork.
And our family values.
My interpretation of Brain's post was that Hoke is simply framing his language in a way that will appease the fan base. He's basically enacting hegemonic masculinity, while emasculating RichRod's offense. By doing this, he is taking control of the dialogue and therefore garnering support.
This doesn't really change what he'll do on the field. As both Mangus and Brian pointed out, Denard wasn't running out of the Zone Read anyway.
"Hegemonic masculinity". This is why mgoblog houses the most intelligent fan-base on the planet.
The fact that someone thinks the phrase 'hegemonic masculinity' in this context is brilliant actually makes me worry for the ol' MGoBoard's intellectual level.
So, agree to disagree, I guess.
At first I thought this was a snarky parody of high-falutin, academic jargon. Maybe it is, but it might be right too.
Not meant to be snarky.
So what you're saying is Brady Hoke assigns gender roles to football schemes? I can see why he likes the I formation so much...
The dong forest.
A phrase last heard in women's studies & lit crit circles.
Question for trickydick81: how is the coach "enacting" said masculinity? Is that the same as "acting manly" or such?
I fall in line with Judith Butler's theory of identity performance which posits that every behavior we have is somehow influenced by a social script and therefore we are acting out our roles within those scripts. Whether or not someone is conscious of said performance is inconsequential since they have the ability to act a different way.
Hoke is enacting hegemonic masculinity because his rhetoric is wrapped up in the norms of a patriarchal society - one of control and authority. It’s not like Hoke is doing this on purpose, he’s just been enculturated in football, which is the ultimate expression of said masculinity. His public appearances (and probably private too) are wrapped up in the idea that he has to conquer, that he is the leader, that he needs complete control for things to go right.
Of course, no one has a self without fissures, so I don’t really think that Hoke is that one dimensional, but that is what he is displaying to us and probably his players. In the paradigm of football, it's easy to follow hegemonic masculinity to a tee. There are five basic tenants of said identity: (1) psychical force and control, (2) occupational achievement, (3) familial patriarchy, (4) frontiersmanship, and (5) heterosexuality. So, in the case of Hoke, his rhetoric so far has focused on psychical force and control (ie manball, where the fullback literally becomes the phallus and is used to control and conquer the rushing lanes... I mean, we (academics) can make anything into a text to analyze... When presenting this in contrast to zone blocking, then zone blocking becomes about defensiveness, instead of force. You protect your zone, you don't take another's position on the field, and therefore you are feminine (I realize that you could switch the paradigm to make zone blocking masculine, ie controlling one's zone, but Hoke and co. are using this as a talking point)). This manball and phallic battering ram type of football also folds into frontiersmanship.
In Hoke's (or any coach for that matter) hiring press conference we also heard the athletic department praise his occupational achievement and heterosexuality (talking about his wife and kid) and his familial patriarchy, as head of said family. Hoke has continued to intone the themes of familial patriarchy when referencing the players (of course RichRod did this too).
Finally, I think one of the reasons RichRod caught the ire of the local media was because his communication style could be described as feminine (this is not an insult, it’s just a moniker, which was unfortunately coined in the 70s without regard to its automatic lesser positioning it would earn in a patriarchic society just because of its naming) This is his style because many times his logic was inductive and his delivery involved anecdotal evidence instead of a more authoritarian style which is deductive and involves a clearly laid dictum. This can be very effective, especially when things are going well (Bill Clinton is the best example of this) but when things go wrong then you allow for those who are more used to a traditional (masculine) style of discourse to take control of the dialogue.
almost skipped it cuz I am lazy but well worth the read!
thanks for the effort
Or collaborate, as you desire.
Didn't get me laid with anyone in my women's studies classes either. Heh. But at least you found a use for it. I tip my hat.
By 'fall in line' do you mean 'paraphrase in order to impress with my intellectual chops'?
You can have the last laugh if you tell me you have a job, though. I'll be convinced that you were the last person who got in as the identity theory gate was crashing down.
EDIT: Ok, I'll say this knowing that likely no one else on the board cares about this, with the possible exception of trickydick up there. But as a graduate student, I run into people all the time who try to dazzle or overwhelm others by spitting back almost the same exact shit they just read in a book. Often, said shit is laced with impressive-sounding jargon (and usually, it's ultimately traceable back to either Butler or Foucault.) It drives me apeshit.
All I can say is that at some point you're actually going to have to come up with your own ideas. I'm pretty sure the quota for dissertations that take Butler's theory lock, stock, and barrel and apply it to a specific context has been filled some time ago.
/Gets back to life of professional studenting and/or self-pity.
Wow! Didn’t mean to stir up your negative feelings toward your pretentious colleagues. I, in no way was trying to dazzle or claim those thoughts as my own, hence the Judith Butler subject line. I also didn’t want to cite like it was a paper, this is a message board after all.
As to the job comment, I’m a full-time doctoral student, like you. I will though (thanks to you) try to come up with original, dissertation-worthy, thoughts for commenting on this blog! Thanks for that! /s
Give me a break; to imply that I don’t have my own, original thoughts in my scholarship because of one relevant comment on a blog (and a subsequent reply to a question) is crazy. I think, perhaps, you shouldn’t co-mingle me with the people you hate at your school when you know nothing about what I’m studying and researching.
For a second I felt a little bad. Then I realized that you made sure to say 'doctoral student' instead of just plain ol' graduate student. And I remembered that, after all, your original post was indeed pretentious and over-the-top - and on a football message board, as you say.
I don't think you can honestly say that you weren't just trying to show off with that post.
Apparently you think less of people than I do. We've had plenty of intelligent, non-football references on this board (including Foucault, who you seem to hate), so, yes I can say I expected this to be a fruitful post that others would both understand and want to engage with.
I do find it odd that you think I'm so pompous but in your reply post to me you were willing to wager I didn't have a job, and if I did it was because I was somehow grandfathered into it...
I'm done with this, and in the future, if I feel like posting something from my schooling, I will. If you don't want to read it, don't. Seems simple enough.
Save three minutes of your life and ignore this if you are not TrickyDick ...
This is a good tactic: putting yourself forward as the man of the people who merely tried to spark discussion. I think it's utterly disengenuous, though, since I think you were mostly trying to bludgeon people with a mass of stuff that ostensibly sounded super smart. You didn't leave much room for discussion at all with that post - instead, you asserted that you had a handle on what Hoke was really doing, while others did not. This is not democractic. This is didactic.
And you may have misread my comment about having a job, which I admit was worded with the expectation of a rather high level of same-pagedness regarding the academic job market. I thought that, as humanities students, the underlying understanding was that effectively none of us have the reasonable expectation of getting a job - we have, in the words of the Simpsons, made terrible life choices. What I was saying is, "hey, maybe you have a job, in which case feel free to laugh and laugh and laugh at me, who's likely to hit the job market, realize there are three open positions in the country, and start looking for jobs that require the fewest pieces of flair." I think grandfathered is a somewhat inappropriate term to characterize my following sentence (although a rather ironically gendered one) - all I was trying to say is that I think the high tide of identity politics outside the academy and post-modern identity theory within has already been receding for a few years. I think there's a turn toward taking the considerable insights of Butler and others and putting them back into the embodied context of material reality and institutions.
Anyway, I realize I over-reacted in the first place, and I'll admit it was unfair to lump you in with obnoxious AmCiv students on the basis of one post. I still question whether regurgitating Butler like that is useful at all - whether in a seminar or on MGoBlog - and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you may have been showing off, your assertion of high-minded pedagogic purposes notwithstanding.
Out of curiosity - and I'll more than understand if you don't feel like answering this - what exactly are you studying, and who with?
and more about vision setting. Coaches have different core philosophies and it shows through in the way they talk. Usually their purpose is more to influence the thought patterns of recruits and players than fans. They want their players to buy in to their way of thinking. Now, all coaches are tough, and at this level, I'm sure all have great philosophies and strategies. All Michigan coaches aside, it is true that certain coaches do things differently and, having been a coach a number of years myself, some teams focus on "toughness" in practical aspects more than others (especially grueling practices, training in the mental aspect of competition, lots of hitting in practice, etc.).
A player example is some players like hitting more than others. It's often the crazier ones who like the pain because they know they're inflicting the pain. All football players hit. All great football players hit hard. Some come to love it, because they love the pain. I think Hoke is trying to establish a mentality in which the players will love hitting, hurting, and being tougher than other teams. It is possible. Just as Lance Armstrong's physical edge was purely his mental superiority over the competition, it's possible to be tougher and harder hitting than other teams or have a "tough" mentality. It's only talk until they do it. But it's not just talk.
I think what has happened - and Magnus has helped perpetuate this problem - is that people are conflating the arguments over our new offense. Brian NEVER said he's opposed to a pro-style offense, but that he wants to see it use Denard's talents intelligently.
He's simply pointing out that, even without a talented running back, this was the best Michigan run offense in a generation. There is no disputing that. Nor should there be a dispute over the fact that given a talented running back, a kicker of any kind, and a Denard with some experience, the hypothetical would-be 2011 Michigan offense would have been one of the best ever. Those mega-yards would finally start translating into mega-points.
If this offense is merely average, that is a coaching FAIL, because it has the talent, if properly utilized, to be unstoppable. We should expect AT LEAST above average, even with the scheme change, because of who we're returning. We can have a great offense running a "pro style" attack, but only if we do it the right way. I think Borges is probably a smart coach, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
I don't believe that Brian means "We need to run the spread 100% of the time and never take a snap from under center!"
But his comments about our linemen, Vincent Smith, etc. imply (to me) that he doesn't understand the direction of the offense.
Brian has also clearly stated on Sam Webb's radio program that he thinks we must run the spread for a tactical advantage of having the QB as one of the primary rushers in order to make up for recruiting. As he thinks we can't recruit at the level to be a national power without a tactical advantage on offense. It has been pretty clear that this is Brian's opinion after the Hoke hiring.
I hadn't heard/seen that. Michigan has fallen behind a bit in recruiting, but I don't think the recruiting on offense has been the problem (besides a lack of depth on the offensive line).
But he HAS said he's opposed to the pro style, thinks it's the competitive advantage we need, and if we were going to get rid of Rich get another spread guy (or Harbaugh, which, what?).
This amazes me every time. Magnus is responding to things Brian didn't say. The key words are "if".
Brian is saying that if Hoke decided to use fullbacks and the power play exclusively like he is saying on this tour of his and abandon the spread because it is a gimmick than we are screwed and Hoke is a meathead.
HE WILL NOT DO THIS. Why do I know so much?. Magnus just linked to it. He ran a bunch of it at SDS with less talent to even do it. He doesn't believe what he is saying he is selling suites to old fuck s with money for Brandon. You guys both agree. Hoke will install his offense(really Borges offense) and then they will see what plays will work best.
They will determine that 3 WR's and Denard in the shotgun work best.
"Brian is saying that if Hoke decided to use fullbacks and the power play exclusively like he is saying on this tour of his and abandon the spread because it is a gimmick than we are screwed and Hoke is a meathead."
Nowhere did Brian OR Hoke suggest that the power play would be run exclusively. Hoke said that the kids need to learn how to run the power first, and Brian knows that.
Speaking of reading comprehension failures...
Obviously that was an exaggeration no team is going to run the same play over again. I'll go line by line as to not confuse.
1. Hoke has made fun of the spread.
2. If he believes this than he won't run any spread and he's dumb.(Oregon, Auburn, Florida duh) It may not be better but you would have to be pretty dense to not recognize it works.
3. If he hates the spread then Denard will be behind center and the threat of his running game will be reduced.
4. If the threat of his run is reduced it diminishes the effectiveness of the whole offense.
5. Reducing the effectiveness of the offense is bad.
Hoke won't be doing any of this, because he is not that stupid. You already showed this on your blog. There is no point in arguing it anymore. It is all talk for the old blue crowd.
What was the point of Brian writing an "If" post?
And "not spread" does not equal "behind center". There was a shotgun before there was any modern spread.
...Denard could easily be a better player this year than last year, and the offense this year could be better than last year, but (if this does happen) we'll never know if 2011 O-under-Hoke/Borges would be better than 2011 O-under RR/Magee.
If our offense this year isn't as good as last year, well, the defense better make one hell of a jump. If we don't win at least 9 games and make Cap One Bowl or better, the firing of RR was a bad move.
If Brandon forced a defensive staff makeover (which isn't a given since RR may have resigned due to coaching staff autonomy being in the contract, iirc) then imo M wins 10+ games and goes to the BCS b/c our offense (again imo) would've been Oregon-like.
If this didn't happen, then Brandon could've easily hired Hoke one year later. Hoke (as we all know) himself said he would've walked across the country to have this job.
I just don't see how fixing our defensive problems under RR is as easy as waving a magic wand and remaking the defensive coaching staff. I have seen nothing in the way he has worked with the defensive side of the ball that makes it a given that Rich Rod could do this well and plenty that suggests he can't.
IMO we will have a much better defensive staff under Hoke then we could have with some hoped for defensive staff makeover.
I understand the fear of an offensive dropoff, but after our bowl game, my faith in the offensive genius of Rich Rod is just not as strong as some others on the board. Denard had time to heal, he had a full year of starting under his belt, so the first year starter mistakes excuse is not as strong in my mind. The offense we ran in that game didn't seem to be run by a genius. I just don't see the delta on the offense between RR and Hoke being as big as some on this board.
Another way to look at this is, how many coaches could we have hired that would have one at least three games in year one, five years in year two, seven in three and be on a trajectory to do more in year four, IMO many coaches other than RR could have done this, so IMO, his offensive genius is not enough to compensate for his other coaching weaknesses
While I agree with most of everything in this post, I just don't think that Brandon could even entertain keeping RR around for another season as a viable option after our bowl game performance. There was just no way to possibly spin it – a relatively healthy 7-5 team being drubbed so soundly. I didn't like seeing RR get fired, but that is due mostly to his failings as a coach rather than my shattered whimsical day dreams.
Is the Spring Game here yet? Because that will be very telling in where we are at...
Last time I checked, you were allowed to your own opinion. Is Magnus right and Brian wrong, that is for you to decide. I enjoyed both reads.
Brian Cook, he of the biggest Michigan blog out there, has an opinion and someone disagrees!!!! Stop the presses!!!
Big deal. I don't get the whole, "Yeah, Brian is so lame with his arrogant Hoke haterade blah blah blah so <guy who disagrees with him> is my new hero!" crap. Brian has an opinion which you may or may not agree with, and other people - shocker! - have different opinions. Get over it, people.
I liked reading Brian's take just as much as I enjoyed reading Magnus's take, and I happen to agree with one more than the other. However, I don't see why this means one has to be torn down in order to build the other up.
They were both really well written and solidly based. Ultimately we're fortunate to have these resources. I follow Southern Cal a little as my west coast team and their resources are so inferior to what we have online, it is laughable.
We all took it pretty hard when the Boi from Troy hung 'em up.
/Just googled that to see if that blog still existed.
However, I don't see why this means one has to be torn down in order to build the other up
because in Uhmerica there can be only one vialbe perspective else there be a tear in that whole space-time continuum thingamajig.
I am not expert on player positioning, executing plays and all that jazz...but if I'm on 'D' the thought of Denard in shotgun scares me a heck of a lot more then under center (regardless of offense type).
I was at the OSU game in 2009 and the thing i vividly remember (besides Tate imploding) was the fact that I was sooooo relieved when Pryor went under center. When he was in shotgun I was much more concerned. Just seemed like a different player. I could see similar things with Denard.
It's going to be a long offseason....
how about denard may just be an EXTREMELY coachable talented QB who will blow us away with his ability to pick up a well coached pro style offense and throw for 3500 yards and 35 tds this season. He may just end up being a fucking prodigy at throwing the football
what the hell are you people drinking today.
Whatever it is chitown, it's been on tap here for a while...
I understand Magnus' main point (in regards to footbaw), and while he is 100% entitled to it, there's one thing about his post I don't understand. He spent half a paragraph discussing Brian's blogging habits, comment formats, syntaxual conventions etc, which are completely beyond the scope of his original argument. For example, his comment "[Brian] thinks his blog is superior to others" is borderline rude. Which, okay, it's a blog, he's entitled to speak on whatever he wants, but it seemed like an unecessary shot at Brian. I mean no disrespect to Magnus, I'm a frequenter of touchthebanner, but I feel like those few sentences went beyond the realm of gentlemenly blogger disagreement.
I truly did not intend it that way.
My point is simply that Hoke thinks his offense is better than (PICK ONE: triple option, spread, run-n-shoot, single wing, zone read option, etc.). If he didn't think his offense was superior, then he would run something else. And that's why Hoke goes around touting the power run and poopooing zone blocking.
It's just like Brian (or any business owner or boss). Brian thinks his formatting, comments, content, etc. are better than other sports blogs/Michigan blogs/whatever. If he thought that another blog did it better, then he would do it THAT way instead of HIS way. So when he talks to people about blogging, he's going to speak positively about the things he does while criticizing the things that other bloggers do. For example, he might look at my blog and complain about the black background/white text. It's not any different than Hoke saying "Power good, zone bad."
As a wrestling coach there are some situations in which I teach thing A instead of thing B just as a matter of personal preference. Either will work, I like A better, I teach A. I bear no ill will toward B, and don't think less of coaches who implement B instead of A.
Sometimes I teach thing A instead of thing C because I think thing C is poor technique. It might be lazy, sloppy, overly old-fashioned, or just situationally ignorant. I think less of coaches who teach thing C.
Background/font discussions, syntax, and the like seem to me like an A/B discussion.
Manbaw v. That girly spreadish crap seems like an A/C discussion. Unless it is merely coachspeak, the supporters of these positions seem to bear some level of animosity at the very least toward the other system and possibly toward coaches who use that system.
This. It's one think for Hoke to say "My system will be better for this team than the spread". It's another to say "The spread is stupid, ineffective, basketball on grass played by people who are not tough". The first is fine. The second is willfully ignorant. Because Hoke has said disparaging things about the spread in the spirit of the latter statement, it makes people who thought the O looked pretty good last year justifiably suspicious even when he just says the former statement.
Since there are so many ways to effectively skin a cat, one would be wise to avoid saying things along the lines of "only criminally retarded idiots would run that offense"; coach-speak about "best fit for our personnel" and "gives us the best chance to win" would be vastly preferable.
but I just found your blog. Very nice. I agree with you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is an "opinion". Every one has one. I happen to agree with you. Keep writing. It is refreshing to find someone who has "the other" side sometimes. Thanks
Magnus is the Touch the Banner guy?! Awesome!!!
Are you related to His Dudeness?
You actually trademarked "Cowhoke."
Your arrogance is reaching higher levels everyday. You have a serious hatred for Coach Hoke and I doubt it is based on anything tangible. You may need some professional help.
But if this post doesn't give credence to the fact that he still sounds bitter about RR and that he is still angry about Hoke, then I don't know what does. This is the impression that Brian gives off (though not to this guys extent, but to an extent nonetheless), and I really wish it would end.
Is if anyone was so actively rooting against Rich like this, and not just pointing out tangible problems, he would have been banned already...
I have to believe that what you wrote was a (very bad) satire. If not, then wow. Last I checked the program had already been ran into the ground by Hoke's predecessor. My guess is Hoke's record will look significantly better than 15-22 after three years, though, admittedly, his offense will most likely look much less flashy. Oh no!!
Here's what I don't get - if Brian and others hate the idea of this team focusing on power running, why were they so gung ho about hiring Harbaugh?
Definitely that jaw. Oh, and did you see him out there yelling at Tyrod Taylor? Just awesome.
one of two things can happen. hoke can fail and U of M will lose and one faction will get to say I told you so, or hoke will succeed and U of M will win and the other faction will get to say I told you so. Those are literally the only two outcomes. anything written before either of those happen is only filler for blogs
He will do well enough next year that supporters will feel validated by what they see on the field but not good enough that the RR crowd won't believe RR could do better
and I'm breaking a statement just made in my previous post about staying away from RR topics.
But...many statements have implied that Hoke should have a better record for whatever reasons and that he shouldn't receive credit for it when he does.
Here's to hoping our mutual respect for Michigan outweighs our differences.
With Winning better?
And if I had my own blog probably would have made the same remarks. I thought about writing something in the comments refuting Brian the other day, but I feel like I've been doing that a lot lately so I decided to let it go.
I'm glad Magnus said something though, and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that it irks.
This all goes back to the "the 3-3-5 sucks" meme. All these schemes that are run, work. On defense, the 4-3, 3-4, 3-3-5, 4-2-5, etc, work. On offense, Pro, spread-option, spread-pass, power play, etc, they all work too. The concepts may be different, maybe the yards won't be as high, but they are different philosophies. Not every offense needs to run at 1000 mph to be maximized in efficiency. The power run play works, and the plays run off of it work great too. Ask USC, ask Texas why they want to go back to it, ask OSU, etc. As far as the spread, ask Florida, Auburn, and Oregon if they work. All these systems work.
As far as Hoke teaching the Power play, I remember Brian specifically arguing with people who wanted RR to wait to install the read option. The coach needs to teach what he knows and be who he is. If he's fake, especially to the players, he's doomed. If he plans on running the power play, he needs to install it now.
I think the big thing with Brian is that he invested a lot of himself into learning the spread, he committed a lot of himself to trying to prove why Michigan would be better with the spread and not doomed when all the nay-sayers were saying the spread is just a gimmick. I think for Michigan to go back to a non-spread (or backwards in football philosophy as he hints), bugs him, because he invested so much of himself into the other thing. To be a bit bitter makes sense. But in my mind, he should drop it. I don't mind him giving his opinion, but he needs to open up his mind here. I'm still going to read this site, it is my favorite site, but weeding through his opinion about how "MANBALL" is doom gets a bit tiring. And while I'm still going to visit the site, it may not be as often, and I probably won't post as often, because as I said above, it's tough to always be nit-picking as someone and being devil's advocate, especially when that person is the person whose blog your reading.
....when you say things like:
"As far as Hoke teaching the Power play, I remember Brian specifically arguing with people who wanted RR to wait to install the read option. The coach needs to teach what he knows and be who he is. If he's fake, especially to the players, he's doomed. If he plans on running the power play, he needs to install it now."
Hoke is taking over an offense with 9 returning starters, including all skill position starters. RR was starting essentially from scratch. Returning O starters in '08: 1 OL, 1ish WR.
I agree that a coach needs to coach what he knows and know what he coaches, but there's a lot more transitional work to be done now as opposed to '08.
I still think you can run those plays. I still think RR could have run a bit out of the I-form, etc. But as far as what he's coaching, he needed to implement the read-option, he needed to run it in games, because his offense was based around it. If he mixed it up between what he knew and what his players were best at (which is what I hope Hoke does), I think the transistion is better.
This goes more so in the case you mentioned. You have 9 returning starters. You have to get them to execute the power, because that's what a lot of your offense is based around. But you should also mold your offense a bit to adjust to them because they are comfortable with something else. It's a delicate mix, but I think both need to be done.
"...there's a lot more transitional work to be done now as opposed to '08."
I just don't see it that way. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Why is it MORE of a transition to teach established, good players to run an offense...
...than it is to teach not-yet-established, mediocre players to run an offense?
In 2008, Rodriguez was teaching guys like Ortmann, Schilling, Threet, Minor, Moundros, Massey, Savoy, etc. how to go from a pro-style offense to the spread. Some of those guys (Savoy, Massey, etc.) just weren't very good football players, whether they ran spread or pro systems.
In 2011, Hoke is teaching guys like Lewan, Denard, Koger, Stonum, Molk, etc. how to go from a spread offense to a pro-style offense. Many of those guys are good football players and will be able to adjust. Good football players can fit in many systems.
If you really have a problem with that post from Magnus, you take Brian way too seriously
I think Brian's post and comments were justified and that he is at least entitled to his opinion. If it ruffled a few feathers, that's what good writers usually do. As for Magnus, he probably knows more football than all but maybe two or three people here. He is certainly entitled to his opinion.
The last time I checked, forums and blogs were still for exchange of ideas. No matter which side of the fence you inhabit, both opinions were well-conceived and well-written. That is pretty much all anyone has a right to ask of any writer.
It's well thought out enough, and well thought of for someone to go to that effort. Far preferable that someone disagrees with you and thinks up a counterpoint than they don't think your views are worth it, or don't read at all.