blueblueblue

December 16th, 2012 at 12:59 PM ^

The issue is that you actually think you are protecting someone. A lowly thread on a Saturday night on one blog speculating about adults who play on a college team with national recognition means very very little. But if you want to feel like you are actually protecting football players who need protecting from nameless commenters on a blog thread, then by all means stop discussion. 

MilkSteak

December 16th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^

Exactly. This thread should be locked as well due to the speculation based on the ambiguity of of "violation of team rules."

The board is for breaking news and discussion on breaking news. If someone has been hearing rumors of players being suspended it should be a place where others can offer the information they have either refuting or supporting the rumors. Killing the discussion by locking every negative thread defeats the purpose of the board. We can take care of flamebait posts by downvoting. 

Edit: I get why Justin locked it, but I think we need a more concrete policy on thread locking.

MGoStrength

December 16th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^

On the one hand I like the idea of protecting people's reputation.  It's sort of in line with innocent until proven guilty.  A false accusation can make you guilty in public opinion, and that is not fair.  But, on the other hand what you just said reminds me these are adults.  We have a tendency to repeat on this board that these are just "kids" or "college kids".  It's one thing to reference recruits in that way becsause they are 16-18 year olds that live at home with mom and dad.  But, once you hit 18 and move out and live away from home and become a college student you are an adult.  Granted, there is a transition in learning to be responsible for your actions.  But, part of that learning process means dealing with the consequences of your behavior, including negative consequences, which in this case is partly being talked about on MGoBlog.  So, thank you for reminding me that 18-22 year-olds and college students in general are adults, not kids.

a2bluefan

December 16th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^

interesting.... one of A2.com's lead sports stories is about two more South Carolina players being suspended (WR D.L. Moore, and OL Kyle Harris)... no mention of the UM players... yet.

 

EDIT:  Nevermind.... it showed up while I was typing this.

JimBobTressel

December 16th, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^

so they all got busted for doing the same thing at the same time? Whatever Will, Brandin and JT's Excellent Adventure was, I hope it was legal

a2bluefan

December 16th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^

There's no indication they were all doing the same thing. Hoke (annarbor.com):

"It is an honor to play football for the University of Michigan, and we have high standards and expectations for everyone that represents our program," coach Brady Hoke in a statement. "These young men used poor judgment in each circumstance, and these suspensions are teaching moments for our team."

mgobeast19

December 16th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^

our coaches are not messing around. courtney avery and raymon taylor probaly will be the starters. next year will probaly be blake countess and a freshman or avery

Section 1

December 16th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^

...in anouncing the move of Dennis Norfleet to CB.  Obviously, Hoke knew that there was going to be a big hole at CB.  But rather than wait until the news of Floyd's suspension broke, he announces it early.  So that essentially Norfleet gets his own day in relation to the position switch, and that fire burns itself out, and then only later everybody can say, 'Aha!; so that's why he did it!'

If Hoke has waited until Floyd was announced as gone, and then later said, 'And so now we are switching Norfleet to that position,' it taints everybody in a way that he avoided.  The other CB's on the depth chart would have looked bad.  Norfleet would have looked even more like a panic option.

Don't get me wrong; the facts are the facts and they are all pretty obviously linked.  We all can make a pretty clear guess about what is going on.  But I still think this was a model of p.r. cleverness. 

Magnus

December 16th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^

How about that JT Floyd, guys?  Is it finally okay for me to criticize him, after he's been burned all year and now gets suspended before his final college game?

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

December 16th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

Not only burned, but horrific run support for 3/4th of the season (late recognition, weak on squeezing point-of-attack, spotty tackling). I'm baffled by him manning the spot 95% of the time - backups must be even less capable.

I would reserve the castigation for off-field as this is the only character issue I know about. Feel free to over-ride with more info.

MilkSteak

December 16th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^

Shouldn't you be praising him now for removing himself from the field?

Jokes aside just about every corner we've had in the past 5 years have been getting burned a decent amount outside of Donovan Warren (ARGH MORGAN TRENT) . I don't really consider JT Floyd worse than the other guys we've put out there and I definitely see him as the best option out there. 

Seth

December 16th, 2012 at 12:39 PM ^

When we don't know what he was suspended for?

He did pretty well last year against some tough receivers and survived this year for whatever reason until Ohio State. He's never going to be an elite athlete and turned into a pretty effective player after three years of being coached by Gibson. What do you want to criticize? That he's not an NFL player? We knew that. We also knew that after trying literally everything else that the 2009 defensive backfield should have always been him opposite Warren as the corners.

There wasn't a moment in his career, including the Outback Bowl this year, that I didn't think Michigan would be better off without J.T. Floyd. Criticise him for whatever; as he won't play for Michigan again I'm comfortable saying on the whole I was glad to have had him.

Magnus

December 16th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^

Is there something that he could have been suspended for that should be defended?

I don't necessarily think there would have been a better option this year.  Unfortunately, we're thin at cornerback.  But that doesn't mean he's beyond criticism.  I took heat regularly for pointing out his weaknesses, his unwillingness to tackle, his lack of speed, etc.

This year it seems like everyone's come around to the idea that, yeah, maybe he's not so good.  But based on that one nice interception he made last year against Illinois, I had to sit through several months of people trying to tell me that I was wrong.  Well, he still isn't very good, and now he's suspended.

I would never say that I wish he would have gone somewhere else or anything like that, but I am certainly looking forward to the day when Michigan can once against put two guys on the field whose abilities are superior to those of Floyd.

Seattle Maize

December 16th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^

I think Taylor will be better next year than Floyd has ever been. Taylor seems to have the speed/athleticism neccesary and is also physical. Like you pointed out, Floyd is very un physical and not very fast. I remember multiple plays this year when he literally ran away from blocks - I think we will be better next year.

RationalBuckeye

December 16th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

Just out curiosity, how do you feel about the backups? Let's just assume that the 2013 class doesn't bring in any "start immediately" studs (because that's rare).

You've got Hollowell and Richardson, and then Avery and now Norfleet, most notably. If something like this year's events happen, assuming Countess and Taylor are starting, do you feel good about one of those guys stepping up? Obviously it's early to get a feel for how guys are gonna show next year, but I'm just looking to get a feel for the consensus.

wolverinenyc

December 16th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^

It's one thing to acknowledge that a player has weaknesses. It's something different to continually bash said player and point out those weaknesses week in and week out. Kid has worked hard here and seems to have made the most out of what he had to offer. He made a bad decision and that will end his career at Michigan on a bad note but no, it's not now ok for you to bash him. He has been punished.

chitownblue2

December 16th, 2012 at 2:00 PM ^

stop being a fucking asshole. You're actually happy Floyd fucked up so you can be proven right (as if his suspension justifies your view of his play), which is all you ever care about.

What a shit stain you can be.

Magnus

December 16th, 2012 at 2:17 PM ^

Who said I'm happy?  I'm annoyed that these three got suspended.  All I'm saying is that I criticized him for his poor play and took crap for it, and this year . . . he still hasn't been very good and got suspended.

But I guess you can just sit there and call me names without acknowledging the actual point of my statements.

chitownblue2

December 16th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^

You took criticism! THIS ISN'T FUCKING ABOUT YOU. It's about JT Floyd - not some grudge some amateur Meril Hoge has been nursing because people disagree with him. Who are you, Skip Bayless?

Nobody gives a fuck how Floyds suspension impacts an argument you had about his play. And you taking a moment to gloat about being "right" (even though this has nothing tomdo with his play), does indicate some happiness, yes.

Magnus

December 16th, 2012 at 2:50 PM ^

My point is that his career is finished at Michigan, and he never turned into the guy that many people on here kept telling me that he would be.

It really has nothing to do with his character.  I am not happy.  I would always rather Michigan players/teams have success than for me to be right, since I'm an alum and fan of Michigan.

If you think I'm happy, that really has no bearing on me.  You don't know me and can't judge my emotional state from your computer in Chicago (or at least that's where I assume you are).

M-Wolverine

December 16th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^

You basically say "because he got in trouble am I now right he was a sucky player?"

That there's absolutely no logical connection between the two is a glaring weakness in your reasoning; and the fact you even try to make the connection makes it look like gloating.

M-Wolverine

December 17th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^

It's probably a problem with the author, not the reader.

But lets look at it...

 

How about that JT Floyd, guys? Is it finally okay for me to criticize him, after he's been burned all year and now gets suspended before his final college game?

First "How about that JT Floyd, guys?", said in a jocular, sarcastic way, making fun of his situation.

"Is it finally ok for me to criticize..." the I told you so part, showing that you're glad to be right as you make fun of the player's bad decisions.  Imparting that you're glad he did something stupid, just so you could be right.

"after being burned all year and now getting suspended before his final college game", which shows logical discord.  "Now that he also did something stupid, am I right for saying he played badly?"  There's no connection.  There are guys who never do anything wrong who play badly, and guys who are great players who screw up all the time. If you were wrong before, JT doing this doesn't make him a worse player. And if you were right, had he not gotten in trouble you wouldn't have been any less right. It's HA, he's a screw up, so he must have been a bad player. What?

The only purpose of it is if you're trying to gloat about "being right", because there's absolutely no if A and then B = C in the statement or happenings. So you're either trying to justify your point, or just making a ridculously stupid analysis. I didn't think you were that stupid, so I went for the former. 

Magnus

December 17th, 2012 at 11:46 AM ^

Then maybe it's a problem with the way I wrote it.  Regardless, it's not what some people think it is.

I see the connection.  If you don't, you don't.  Oh well.

I've expounded on my intention elsewhere in this post, so I won't explain it again here.

Anyway, I'm obviously a huge Michigan fan and do not enjoy when Michigan loses.  I would rather be wrong about a player and have him turn into a superstar, instead of being right and having him cost us games/points.  I would think that the fact that I post here so much and have a vested interest in Michigan doing well that this stance would be obvious, but I guess I'll just have to post more and make it even more obvious that I'm rooting for the program...

M-Wolverine

December 17th, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^

And the meaning of the post might be different than it came off to some.

But the one thing I don't get - is what was the meaning and intent of the original post, if not to gloat due to some player's...misfortune? Stupidity?  There was a reason to hit reply, type, and send. I just don't see any other one.

ChopBlock

December 16th, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^

Magnus, you're a very valuable and informative poster around here, but I have to agree that you're wrong on this one.

You've previously criticized JT Floyd for not being very good at cornerback. And I think you're more or less right about that. But you can't say "HA! I told you so!" about this, because the reason you were down on Floyd previously had absolutely no relevance to any possible character issues. So go ahead and criticize his play on the field. And once we have a few more details, you might be right to criticize his character (or at least his judgment) as well. But the two don't connect, and it's disingenuous to pretend that this somehow conforms what you've said all along.

That being said, your football analysis is always interesting and worth checking out. Cheers.

Magnus

December 17th, 2012 at 8:11 AM ^

My point is:

He's not very good.

Now his career is over.

He never got very good, so is it okay for me to criticize him now that he doesn't play for Michigan anymore?

If that didn't come across in the first post, then so be it.  But I'm certainly not happy that he (and the other two guys) got suspended, because that obviously lowers our chances of winning the game.

Anyway, I'm glad you appreciate my football analysis.

ChopBlock

December 17th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^

Honestly, I have trouble buying that. The way your OP read (before people started calling you out for it) was straight-up gleeful. Now maybe that was just a really inept piece of communication, but to me and everybody else on this thread, it looked, walked, and quacked like a duck. We all have to take our lumps sometimes, even if we're always right about everything and we're just poor, misunderstood souls.