I am hoping Brian responds directly to this much like he did to Maze and Brew. This will surely cost Magnus his MGoBlog preferred parking spot.
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Brian over at MGoBlog wrote a post that bugged me a bit...
March 25th, 2011 at 10:38 AM
#1
Brian over at MGoBlog wrote a post that bugged me a bit...
March 25th, 2011 at 10:41 AM
#2
I've got a preferred parking
I've got a preferred parking spot? Why didn't anyone tell me?!?!?!
March 25th, 2011 at 10:44 AM
#3
Now that you know about it I
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM
#4
Keep
Keep that jalopy of yours parked across the street.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:19 PM
#5
There may not be a better
There may not be a better term for a crappy car than "jalopy". Srsly.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:14 PM
#6
Does this mean I can have
Does this mean I can have Magnus's spot? I've been good lately.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:02 PM
#7
Magnus, you advertizing
Magnus, you advertizing genius...
March 25th, 2011 at 1:37 PM
#8
You better park in your spot
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
March 25th, 2011 at 8:07 PM
#9
What is this comment
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!
March 25th, 2011 at 8:13 PM
#10
Consider it my banhammer.
Consider it my banhammer. Personal attacks aren't allowed. Honest criticism will get approved every time.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:54 PM
#11
A $&@#% parking spot?!?!
I thought all those points got you Jessica Alba rights!?! I've been earning all these points for a shorter walk??
March 25th, 2011 at 10:42 AM
#12
A lot of us agree with Magnus
I do not think this will cost him much of anything.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:45 AM
#13
I feel dirty when I agree
I feel dirty when I agree with Magus. I might have to go home at lunch to take a shower.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:56 AM
#14
I agree with this so hard.
I agree with this so hard.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM
#15
Magnus, if you're going to
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:51 AM
#16
I have no fantastical
I have no fantastical delusions that I'm leading an exodus from MGoBlog.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:55 AM
#17
For the love of all things
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:16 AM
#18
Dually noted.
Dually noted.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:17 AM
#19
screw those guys...
I love black backgrounds...Its called contrast.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
#20
dark background with light
dark background with light text = instafail techcomm classes.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:20 PM
#21
Someone else is familiar with
Someone else is familiar with the mystical world of Tech. Comm?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:18 AM
#22
I see what you did there
Well played.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:55 PM
#23
Suck
You're saying his background is a black hole?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
#24
I like the black background
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 AM
#25
I would be glad to 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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:53 PM
#26
Actually, I think he could be
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:44 PM
#27
I want to hear more about
I want to hear more about your affinity for Mike " I don't know left from right" Cox.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:57 PM
#28
That is the question
Though "hug it out with myself" has ominous connotations....if you know what I mean....
March 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM
#29
I'd love to read this but I
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:59 AM
#30
What's up with people calling
What's up with people calling out other people today?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:26 AM
#31
Football Myth's
Actually, it's Football Myth's.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:36 PM
#32
Inside joke
See Football Myth's thread.
March 25th, 2011 at 3:41 PM
#33
Best to avoid
even remotely RR topics to mollify animosity.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:58 AM
#34
Brian
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:24 PM
#35
What bothers me a little
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:05 PM
#36
Not only that, but the quotes
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:00 PM
#37
I agree
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:03 PM
#38
At first I thought the short content
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 AM
#39
That's most of it, no doubt.
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...
March 25th, 2011 at 10:50 AM
#42
Magnus fans
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:51 AM
#43
You do know that people can
You do know that people can disagree with Brian's opinion, right? This is not a big deal at all.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:58 AM
#44
For what purpose?
Brian
For what purpose?
Brian wrote a post, Magnus responded. There doesn't have to be a slapfight every time bloggers disagree.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:24 PM
#45
very true, I made my GF read
very true, I made my GF read that post because of how witty and interesting it was. I would like to see another one
March 25th, 2011 at 9:11 PM
#46
Here's an idea
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 9:02 AM
#47
Seriously
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:51 AM
#48
I completely agree with
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:02 AM
#49
I agree
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 AM
#50
Howeva, if anyone has a right
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 AM
#51
OMG-someone on the interwebs
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?
---Brainwashed
March 25th, 2011 at 11:00 AM
#52
I thought that was well thought out
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:00 AM
#53
I don't think that Jon
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:09 AM
#54
Attack Jon Stewart?
Sir, if I could I would slap you with a glove and demand the satisfaction of a duel.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:15 PM
#55
I prefer Colbert too, to be honest
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:43 PM
#56
Jon Stewart = Gus Johnson
Jay Leno = Jim Nantz
March 25th, 2011 at 9:13 PM
#57
Jay Leno
Hates black people?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:03 AM
#58
nice work Magnus
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM
#59
Thanks.
Thanks.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:17 PM
#60
I liked it too
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:15 AM
#61
"I am sorry that Brian just
"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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:19 PM
#62
the whining about the MSM
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:15 AM
#63
Fair enough. But that's
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:23 PM
#64
Hey, I don't think..
that Brian is that, un-attractive for a guy. Oh wait, you said petty. Never mind.....
March 25th, 2011 at 11:10 AM
#65
I agree to disagree
with everyone. We are winning a National Champion next year with our toughness and teamwork.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:51 PM
#66
And our family values.
And our family values.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:10 AM
#67
They're both right...
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM
#68
"Hegemonic masculinity".
"Hegemonic masculinity". This is why mgoblog houses the most intelligent fan-base on the planet.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:24 PM
#69
Huh
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:33 AM
#70
At first I thought this was a
At first I thought this was a snarky parody of high-falutin, academic jargon. Maybe it is, but it might be right too.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:51 PM
#71
Not snarky
Not meant to be snarky.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:34 AM
#72
So what you're saying is
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...
/s
March 25th, 2011 at 9:18 PM
#73
Ah, NOW I understand
The dong forest.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:36 AM
#74
Hegemonic masculinity
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?
March 25th, 2011 at 1:49 PM
#75
Judith Butler
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.
/academic crap
March 25th, 2011 at 2:34 PM
#76
now this is a great post
almost skipped it cuz I am lazy but well worth the read!
thanks for the effort
March 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM
#77
Win.
Or collaborate, as you desire.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:21 PM
#78
Yeah, learning that stuff
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:44 PM
#79
By 'fall in line' do you mean
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 2:30 PM
#80
STW
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.
/rant
March 26th, 2011 at 4:12 PM
#81
Co-mingle?
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 7:00 PM
#82
Apparently
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.
March 28th, 2011 at 10:51 AM
#83
It'd be nice to email this directly ...
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?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:59 AM
#84
I think it's less of a marketing thing for hoke
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
#85
I think what has happened -
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
#86
I don't believe that Brian
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 9:10 AM
#87
recruiting
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:45 AM
#88
interesting
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).
March 25th, 2011 at 9:24 PM
#89
Maybe not that post
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?).
March 25th, 2011 at 11:25 AM
#90
Reading Comprehension
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:18 PM
#91
"Brian is saying that if Hoke
"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...
March 25th, 2011 at 1:03 PM
#92
Obvious
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.
Fin.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:27 PM
#93
If there was no point or belief
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:26 AM
#94
The thing is...
...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.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:49 PM
#95
Defense staff makeover
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
March 26th, 2011 at 4:28 PM
#96
While I agree with most of
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 AM
#97
Hey?
Is the Spring Game here yet? Because that will be very telling in where we are at...
March 25th, 2011 at 11:37 AM
#98
2 Opinions
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:42 AM
#99
OH NOES!!!!
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:51 AM
#100
They were both really well
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:37 PM
#101
Well, you know
We all took it pretty hard when the Boi from Troy hung 'em up.
/Just googled that to see if that blog still existed.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:29 PM
#102
However, I don't see why this
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:59 AM
#103
Denard under center
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:11 PM
#104
It's going to be a long
It's going to be a long offseason....
March 25th, 2011 at 12:31 PM
#105
how about denard may just be
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
March 25th, 2011 at 12:35 PM
#106
what the hell are you people
what the hell are you people drinking today.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:26 PM
#107
Whatever it is chitown, it's
Whatever it is chitown, it's been on tap here for a while...
March 25th, 2011 at 12:51 PM
#108
beenplumb
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 1:24 PM
#109
I truly did not intend it
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."
March 25th, 2011 at 1:40 PM
#110
I would respectfully disagree.
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:59 PM
#111
This. It's one think for Hoke
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 8:56 AM
#112
I agree with you.
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:23 PM
#113
Im sorry
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
LW
March 25th, 2011 at 12:55 PM
#114
So
Magnus is the Touch the Banner guy?! Awesome!!!
March 25th, 2011 at 1:00 PM
#115
(No Subject)
Are you related to His Dudeness?
March 25th, 2011 at 2:13 PM
#116
Seriously
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 3:05 PM
#117
I'm still not sure Brian intends to be so Hoke negative
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:34 PM
#118
The way it does
Is if anyone was so actively rooting against Rich like this, and not just pointing out tangible problems, he would have been banned already...
March 25th, 2011 at 3:26 PM
#119
I have to believe that what
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!!
March 25th, 2011 at 1:37 PM
#120
Here's what I don't get - if
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?
March 26th, 2011 at 4:37 PM
#121
That jaw...
Definitely that jaw. Oh, and did you see him out there yelling at Tyrod Taylor? Just awesome.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:17 PM
#122
one of two things can
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
March 25th, 2011 at 2:51 PM
#123
Option 3 - and what I think is most likely
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
March 25th, 2011 at 4:35 PM
#124
Unfortunately,
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:35 PM
#125
Well, isn't "I told you so"
With Winning better?
March 25th, 2011 at 3:00 PM
#126
I agree with what Magnus wrote
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.
March 25th, 2011 at 3:13 PM
#127
One little thing you and Magnus are conveniently forgetting...
....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.
March 25th, 2011 at 3:21 PM
#128
I think the transition can be handled better than in 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.
March 25th, 2011 at 4:44 PM
#129
"...there's a lot more
"...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.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:14 PM
#130
If you really have a problem
If you really have a problem with that post from Magnus, you take Brian way too seriously
March 26th, 2011 at 12:15 AM
#131
I agree with Brian on this one...
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.
March 26th, 2011 at 4:02 PM
#132
If writing creates disagreement and debate
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.
