Correction: Jt Floyd playing time
Well hello mgoblog . I am a rookie to the site and kinda new to the game of football ( only been watching for a couple of years )
Anyways i wanna start it of with a question for those who know football more than me ... Last year Michigan got a 4* corner JT Floyd and i was wandering how come nobody mentions him for playing time or anything this year ?!!
February 11th, 2009 at 12:24 PM ^
He was not a very high recruit. He was a 3* by both sites. He wasn't very fast and would need a few years before he was ready to chip in. Plus, he's not that big either. He was considered a good athlete that could chip in but not a immediate impact guy because he didn't star at one position.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
First things first. Edit your thread's title to make it informative. Something like "JT Floyd playing time?" We don't like having to open every thread to find out what's being said or asked.
As to the question, BooBoo and Warren (and Turner) probably have the job locked down. But Floyd will get a shot in practice like everyone else.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
"We don't like having to open every thread to find out what's being said or asked."
Speak for yourself. Some of us don't give a shit about thread titles.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
+1000
Some of us aren't total mgonerds
February 11th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
In his defense, I don't think he meant "all of us," but I am another one of those who doesn't have time to click every forum and if there is a topic in which I'm not interested, I'd prefer to skip over it. Informed titles don't hurt those who don't care, but the lack there of certainly hinders those who do.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
I respect your (and other's) opinion on the matter, and the reasons for that opinion. The issue was decided by Brian, and I respect his decision as well. I simply do not wish to be included as being among those having that particular viewpoint.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
"We" is an acceptable substitution for "the site owner plus the vast majority of its users" when trying to make a small suggestion to a new poster on a fucking message board.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
That's fair, but I can't imagine that you prefer vague headers. If half the blog wants informed headers and the rest are ambivalent, what good does it do to let everyone know that you don't give shit? Aside from starting arguments, of course.
I just don't see any value in letting everyone know that you disagree.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:58 PM ^
Granted, I disagree with the rule, but I don't prefer vague headers any more than I prefer so-called "informative" headers. I simply believe it's an unnecessary rule over what I perceive as a trivial issue.
However, that disagreement was not the crux of my comment. I'm not looking to debate the merits of informative headers. I expressed my thoughts when Brian first raised the matter and the issue is now moot.
What I disagree with is being included in the collective of people that "don't like having to open every thread to find out what's being said or asked." I am not one of those people. The majority may want informative headers and I will respect that. But just because I respect that majority viewpoint does not mean that I want to be associated with that viewpoint.
In the end, Promote RichRod does not speak for this blog, either as the proprietor of the blog or as representative of the entire blog community. He certainly does not speak for me, nor do I want him to.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
you have some issues, dude. Seek help.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
Half of this entire blog has turned into "whine about shit that doesn't even really matter". If you look at half of the diaries and board posts, this is what ends up happening. Can we stop the useless Michigan Fan on Michigan Fan commentor whining about non- issues?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
+infinity, it gets extremely tiresome to see the blue on blue hate going on in here. Gentlemen, this is your refuge, where you know there are other "super fans"(looks at Turbo Cool) and alum of the school that you love, who feel the same way about said school. JUST LIKE YOU! Now I know it is a lot of testosterone floating around here and I understand and appreciate a good pissing match. But I prefer to write my name in the snow of the opposition and by opposition I mean the guys wearing the different color uniforms, say like, da bucknuts (which would be scarlet and gray) and the little brother jan brady syndrome sparties.(green and white) And lest I forget dat damn school in Indiana who's leader, last I heard, ate their schools colors.
Now please can we stop the Maize and Blue on Maize and Blue hate? And remember next time you get the urge to have a pissing match the border to Ohio is a deliberate turn south of here. Aim in that direction. That way when you are done pissing at least your marking new territory
February 11th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
Maybe you should check out the sticky that's been at the top of the board for around a month. A lot of people wanted informative thread titles, Brian agreed, and here we are. When I say "we" I mean the guy that runs this blog and the majority of its users, not every last person here.
Next time I'll be sure to ask what you think before posting anything expressing Brian's wishes.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
I am familiar with Brian's post. I just happen to disagree with it. Maybe you should refer to his post on the matter, and you will see that you and I actually had an exchange in that thread.
In any case, if you mean Brian, then refer to Brian. If you mean many or most, then refer to many or most. Using the pronoun "we" in reference to an otherwise undefined group when addressing someone new to the blog leads the reader to conclude that you mean the blog community as a whole, despite your unexpressed intent.
And as a general rule, I would rather not be included with the likes of you.
Your last word (you know you want it) goes here:
|
|
|
V
February 11th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^
"And as a general rule, I would rather not be included with the likes of you.."
.
.
.
.
Dude - deep breaths. Deeeeeep breaths.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:14 PM ^
Wow. Angry much?
February 11th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
It's just a courtesy thing to have more informative thread titles. It helps people navigate the site better and helps prevent minor heart attacks when you see something like, "Major Decommit!" and then open the thread for it to say, "USC just lost Randell Carroll. Too bad Michigan doesn't have a shot at him".
February 11th, 2009 at 1:36 PM ^
Yes, I'm in the minority, and that's fine. I never really considered the titles much of an issue. See my comment above in response to WolvinLA. It's just not a viewpoint that I subscribe to, and I don't wish to be included in the company of people that do subscribe to that viewpoint.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
to the discussion. With every rule (or norm, before you freak out since it's not an official rule) it is assumed that there are those that disagree with the rule or don't think it is valuable.
Moreover, the rule imposes VERY little of a burden of the OP but apparently is a great benefit to a lot of people - yes, I understand you are not one of them. That being the case, the rule is a good one.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
people take the intertubes way too seriously. They take ownership of it, like some do this blog, and think it's their kid and thus have to protect it. It happens with ALL site. It's quite funny to see these people try to take control. It;s like high school all over again.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^
If I had to bet, I would say you are still in high school.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^
I would say he's high school age. Assuming that he is in high school is risky.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^
Oh no I had to read for 30 seconds and then hit the back button; my day is ruined! I am pretty sure if you have the time to be on this site, you have the time to scim through a post.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
so I can only say that I believe we are actually in agreement. Though my point of contention is actually different than what you are alluding to.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
I think it would be a great idea if you put together a new thread outlining what is appropriate and not appropriate in posting. By putting together a detailed list of how to properly post would help keep this blog in line. And with your legal background, you are the perfect one to set these policies.
I look forward to reading it when you are done and post it.
Thanks!
February 11th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
How about trying to keep it focused on Michigan football/ athletics? I have a seven year old, and I sometimes let him come look at highlight video's etc.. that show up here. I can't tell you how much I want to SMASH the interwebs when I open a thread (like happened a few days ago) and he sees explicit images on a football blog. It's bullshit. You are the only poster on here that I have ever flamed. Several people have asked/ told you (nicely at first) about etiquette on this site, but you seem to think it's funny. I seriously hope you get banned when Brian returns.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
Floyd was reputed to be athletic but very raw. If that's true, then he may need another year or two before he can contribute significantly.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
+1000
Some of us aren't total mgonerds
February 11th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
what position will JT play? Wasn't he recruited to play safety?
February 11th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
His performance as a corner at the Army AA game makes coaches want to play him at corner. Need may put him at safety, but a 6-2 corner that can turn and run with receivers is exciting to have on defense.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
At first I was going to flip out on you for saying that JT Floyd played in the AAA Bowl. Then I realized that you were talking about Justin Turner.
This is why nicknames/abbreviations can be confusing. I believe the previous poster was asking about what position JT Floyd was recruited to play, not JT=Justin Turner.
FLOYD was recruited as an athlete and will probably settle in at corner. He was working at corner last year.
TURNER will probably play slot corner this year, but he could play safety as well. Basically, he'll play whatever position gets him on the field the fastest.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
Turner,JT Floyd was the baller who was being reference.
His play during the AA game was quite entertaining,giving us Michigan fans a glimpse of his talent and the future.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
I welcomed the new guy, referred him to Brian's sticky post and politely asked that he take a simple, small step to improve the blog. I then did my best to respond to the substance of his post. He amended his thread title with no complaint and now people know what the thread is about.
Then people start freaking out on me. Chill the fuck out. I understand a lot of you are in college (or possibly retired) and have a lot of free time, but another good chunk of readers have jobs or otherwise demanding schedules. Being able to only follow the threads that interest you is a good thing.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
We weren't aware you were anointed to enforce Brian's guidelines. Did he give you a deputy blog badge?
February 11th, 2009 at 2:00 PM ^
MGoBlog is very much a self-policing entity. Brian did not give PRR any badge he did not give to the rest of us. I'm guessing Brian hasn't the time nor interest in helping everyone obey the "rules" but many of the regular posters help educate the newbies as to how things work. The smartassness is not helpful nor appreciated.
Also, cut it with the stupid pictures.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
do you have the pic with Nick Cage and his bird hair
February 11th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^
That could include any Nick Cage picture
February 11th, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
Apparently, some folks crave entropy.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
How are you going to win in court when you have to have the last word on everything?
February 11th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
by never appearing in court.
I'm going into corporate law.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:47 PM ^
I'd never hire you to represent me or my company. You may have heard of it? It's called Microsoft.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
since I have no meaningful experience yet and you own a multibillion dollar company.
You would hire the firm I will be at, though.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
Probably not. We have robots handle all the litigation.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^
handle transactional matters! I win!
*gets the last word in*
February 11th, 2009 at 4:07 PM ^
You're almost as bad as Morehead, bro.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^
real low.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:04 PM ^
Corporate law? This whole economic collapse/bailout mess makes just a little more sense now.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
What does this post mean?
February 11th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Floyd will be somewhere between the 3rd and 5th option at CB. Whats going to happen is Floyd, Woolfolk and Turner will battle it out for that 3rd CB position. People just don't expect him to beat out Turner, and if he was as raw as reported a year ago he might have trouble beating out someone like Woolfolk who has a couple years on him at the position.