ESPN has Michigan as a Breakout in 2012
Can I get a link to the full article?
It's paywalled but her you go.
You did it on a paywalled article?
It's less than 20% of the article
It's the entire portion relevant to a discrete subject matter.
Let's just say that, if ESPN wanted to sue you for copyright infringement, they'd have you dead to rights.
Who is being over the top dramatic now?
It's less than 20% of the article. Didn't Brian go thru this with his play clips already?
Not remotely comparable. Fair use is a balancing test, and 20% is way more than sufficient to find infringement, particularly when you copied a discrete portion of the article in its entirety. You think you could get away with posting 2 chapters of a 10 chapter book on the internet?
Also, let's just say that the level of analysis you provide is relatively minimal compared to the amount that you copied -- Brian's UFRs are quite different.
Of course you're not going to get sued for copyright infringement over something so minor, but infringe you did. And setting aside the legalities, this site frowns on extensive posting of paywalled articles. You done fucked up -- no big deal if you acknowledge it and move on, but the defensiveness is a tad annoying.
righteous ass when people are posting illegal links to live streams of games here...get a life mgocop
It is a long article and he posted enough of it to bring it to peoples attention, nothing more. If anything his post will result in increased traffic for that site. Ziff is a respected posted, chill.
The way the schedule is, we have a waaaaay better chance at big years in odd years (Nebraska, OSU, ND all at home) as opposed to even years (the opposite). Next year with the Alabama opener I think 10-2 would be a huge success, anything more would be a damn miracle (considering the loss of Molk and both DTs in particular).
Why wait unitl 2012! We are break out THIS YEAR!
Missed it by 1 year, ESPN.
Edit: I type too slow.
Article saying Michigan will be good next year = problem?
Agree, I'm confused. Why couldn't next year be a breakout year? We get a lot of our offensive line back (besides Molk), Denard, Devin, Touissant, Roundtree, Stonum, Dileo, Gallon, and most of our other RBs. We have Avery, Floyd, Countess, Roh, Heininger, Demens, Morgan, Ryan, and Thomas back on the defensive side. I know we have some holes, but I'm not sure why that makes this article the worst ever?
Did you read the article?
The reason they have us for a breakout is because we are getting back to power football(not next year), Hoke's OL and DL recruiting(not helping much next year) and we have a brutal schedule in 2012(no help next year)
Your points make sense the article does not. If you read the post I already pointed out a reason for optimism in 2012.
Ok well let's start with point 3. I think the point he is emphasizing is that even though the schedule is tougher, there will be more "marquee" games in hostile environments, which if won will be an improvement from this year to last.
Point 2, I think there are a few OL and DL that could have a significant impact on our next year's team because they are skilled enough (Pipkins, Wormley, Kalis, and Garnett, if he commits). Also, I think our LB recruits could also contribute significantly next year as well.
For the first point, honestly we might be getting more back to power football next year. With a year under the belt, I do see Borges instilling more power offense into our playbooks.
The Alabama game is going to be tough. I was looking at their roster on Rivals and they seem to lose a fair amount of talent, but return 4/5 of the offensive line and their QBs will have another year under their belt. Depending on the acurracy of Rivals and if Hightower returns, the Tide seem to lose about 1/3 to 1/2 of their starting defense. Still going to be an incrediblely difficult first game.
I think you overestimate the ability for the freshman Oline and Dline to contribute next year, particularly the Oline. Kalis (and even including Garnett if he commits which I wouldn't consider likely) is more a guard and with 3 seniors at the Guard spots I doubt any guards contribute next year. On the Dline, I think you are correct in considering Pipkins an immediate contributor, but we won't know until he shows up how good he will be. Wormley still needs work and form Ace (and other scouting reports) it would seem Stroble and Godin are more likely to contribute immediately.
I also think you overestimate the amount of power that will get added next year. Granted there will be more, but considering our Oline will still be better at zone blocking, our Fitz would probably excel in a zone blocking scheme, and we do not know how Denard will progress, I think we will still be closer to the spread than a pro offense.
This article just seems really poorly written. On a sidenote, if we get to 10-2 that would be awesome.
P.S. As mentioned by others, unless they consider breakout in the terms of national championship context, we kind of have been breaking out the last couple of weeks.
I agree about the Bama game, although they will be an incredibly young team with unproven talent on both sides of the offense (assuming that most of the juniors that are highly valued do go pro). Kirkpatrick, Barron, Hightower, and Richardson will all most likely be gone (I feel like I am forgetting a few other big names as well) and while they have talent to replace those spots, those are some big shoes to fill.
Exactly on Bama. I just assumed Richardson will leave and Hightower will probably also. Don't know about Kirkpatrick but he seems like he could be good enough to leave. I know Bama has the ability to reload which will make the game tough next year, not to say that we don't have a legitimate chance at winning.
Don't know why my comment was negged (not saying you, Dkeesy, negged it). Oline and Dline tend to require more time to develop prospects and it doesn't seem that we will be adding significantly more power or I-form to the offense as we have been using it less as this season has gone on. With the pieces we have it seems we might need to wait another year before the offense makes a significant stride towards a more pro style offense.
Also, I was just commenting that the OP seemed to be right in that this is just another article that sports writers put out there to get hits and put bread on the table that really lacks foundation, insight, and a thorough analysis.
I agree it takes more time to develop linemen, but most of the reports I've read on Kalis (and garnett) say how they are college ready and can fit right into rotations. And as for dline development, I gotta think we have one of the best staffs in the nation for both evaluating and developing dlinemen. And yea I definitely didn't neg you, not my style. I appreciate intelligent conversation and different perspectives.
My biggest concern with next season is on the defensive line. I feel that a lot of times this season, we haven't needed the DBs to be spectacular because Mike Marting and Van Bergen were tearing up the line. Will Campbell really hasn't proven himself as a dominant lineman yet, and Ondre Pipkins will only be a freshman. Personally, I can see the defense taking a small step back after this season simply because the line will be taking a step back.
But that's just like, my opinion man.
I just pointed out reasons why Michigan could be good in 2012. The 3 reasons he points out we'll be better in 2012 make no sense.
I'm sure you knew that already, but you were compelled to get in a snark comment on my thread to keep your streak up.
Why do you care? What's the point of the thread? Is there some need to take apart faulty reasoning that says we're going to be good?
I opened the thread thinking it was going to be a positive one, like, hey, ESPN thinks we're up and coming and going to make noise next year. Instead, it's a thread on why they're wrong that we'll be good next year. On a Michigan blog. SAYWHAT?
What it really looks like is your streak of finding some post every day to say why we're not as good as people say we are, and a need to vigorously tear down anything that says the way the current guys are doing things is good, if it in turn makes that last guys look like they were doing anything wrong. But I'm sure you aready knew that.
The article suggests that we are better off with Brady Hoke than Rich Rodriguez. To Ziff72, them's fighting words.
I'll give you points for originality.
I did post that we were going to win the Big Ten in 2011 with RR and with Hoke for the last 2 years in multiple posts, so I was kinda right in the end.
Trash Tornado and stupid hail mary sunk me.
Is there some need to take apart faulty reasoning that says we're going to be good?
Isn't this blog built upon taking apart faulty reasoning and analyzing things from an objectionable viewpoint???
What is wrong with posting this article, correctly pointing out that their reasons are faulty, and then offering up different, more viable reasons M could be in a good place next year?
to take apart faulty reasoning that says we're going to be good seems a lot less like a cry for truth and accuracy, and more a desire to right some injustice of media coverage making us look TOO good now, in an attempt to avenge those slighted in the past. And again, the feeling that it might be unfair that we've had negative treatment in the past, yet positive treatment now is well and good; the need to "equalize" it as a Michigan fan doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I was accused of being too positive when RR was here and too negative when he's gone so that labels me a RR apologist.
I find that humorous because I don't stump for any coach I just try to point out the insanity of college fans. I'm just trying to look underneath the idiotic themes that the MSM seems to want to dish out.
When people went after Lloyd's head I defended him with his track record.
When people went after RR I pointed out the lack of talent or youth on the team.
Now were riding high and people are in love with Hoke and that's great I like him too, but not to try and examine why we are what we are defeats the point of the blog.
I think you are reading into way too much.
Holy smokes that was a complicated post.
I don't know why my post was tagged as "flamebait" unless I stepped into a pissing contest. Maybe I did. It seems the OP has a certain habit you mention.
But my point stands - we should not instantly disregard faulty logic since said faulty logic benefits us. I'm not one to care what the media says or believe in vendettas, or whatnot. The media does what's profitable to itself. If they give Michigan praise with fault, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. It doesn't make us any less of a Michigan fan.
I actually wasn't even on after that post...think it was my last one before I headed out. It was a fair question. Thought I'd answer it. I didn't even neg Ziff for his response to me...that's why I posted in the first place. But yeah, there might be crossfire out there.
Still don't see the need to deconstruct positive press as well as refuting the negative, but I probably would have let it slide if there wasn't a pattern.
There's nothing wrong with reasonably critiquing an article. But going ridiculously overboard over an innocuous blurb that says good things about us because you don't agree with the precise reasoning is a little odd.
I mean, saying that this article should be a "finalist as the worst article of the year" is the most hyperbolic, outrageous, offensive statement I've ever seen on the internet, and is a justification for severe restrictions on free speech. (see what I did there?)
Basically, the magnitude of OP's adverse reaction to this article indicates that he's really bothered by something other than ESPN's analysis, if you get my drift.
It's an article about Michigan. That's why I posted it because people on this blog like to read stuff about their school.
Obviously my like of RR has tainted anything I will ever posted in your eyes because to find RR or Hoke bias in this post is tinfoil hat stuff. I've moved on, you are the one who is defensive.
I post all the positives heading into next year, I point out Hoke is killing the recruiting.
It is amazing the bias you have. Again for the record.
1. RR and his scheme have nothing to do with our success in 12
2. OL and DL recruiting will have very little effect on 2012 record.
3. We broke out this year so if the schedule is harder(everyone agrees) How will that help us break out again?
To recap my post
Article is stupid, Michigan has a lot of positves going into next year, but we need to find some interior line help to help against a tough schedule.
I think they will be good next year. And I don't see the argument against the spread. successful teams are not married to any particular offensive scheme because they usually have a defense that can stop other offenses. Nor do I see why good line play is exclusive of the spread....it all starts with blocking.
With a good chunk of the defense returning next year....it should be good.
In a small way, I think this year is a a bit of a breakout year. We just beat a ranked team late in the season (there's something for the "Remember When?" thread) and we've gotten better with each game in some way. I foresee this trend continuing into next year even with the tougher schedule, although perhaps the record may not show it necessarily (I hope it does, of course). We lose both DTs, but the returning talent should be able to at least cover some with another year in the system and refined technique.
to top 20 in defense in just a year, what will Mattison do with another entire offseason?
That is one of the reasons I still like where we could be headed in 2012. We lose RVB and Van Bergen, but the backfield will have more experience. We could still be serviceable up front really. I think the O-Line could at least maintain if Khoury proves to be a good replacement for Molk.
Van Burgen = Martin.
Well, not really. Still, thanks for pointing that out.
Develop viable replacements to MM and RVB, hopefully.
Please don't tell me you're already setting yourself up with expectations that the defense will grow next year at the rate it has this year.
That we hang around in the Top 25 in total defense personally. You can't make a bigger jump than has already been made, I think. It's small refinements, time in the system and recruiting from here onwards, I think.
These are my hopes as well. For the increase in rankings to be similar next year, we'd have to have a top 5 defense, which won't happen.
But if we can slightly increase in a few areas, then we are probably in good shape.
Maybe he made a mistake and meant our basketball team would have a breakout 2012?
More serious though, 10-2 would be a huge year for us next year with our schedule. The only thing I could see to make this make sense is if he means we have a solid chance at winning the B1G and whatever our final record, thats better than this year. Maybe our tough OOC schedule will whip our team into playing shape early and we dominate the conference. Heres hoping. I definitely peg 2013 as our breakout year.
Besides Alabama, who do we really play? ND? They lose Floyd, who's 90% of the offense, and find ways to lose games. MSU? Without Cousins? Please. Nebraska? Look at this past weekend? OSU? Best case scenario, they're instilling a brand new offense while staring down a bowl ban. Next year will be a break out year. Don't count us out against Alabama either. They lose a lot of key players and we return almost everyone except Martin and Van Bergen. If Campbell steps up, we could be pretty damn good.
You are probably underselling how big a deal losing Martin and Van Bergen will be. More importantly the team also loses Molk (this loss cannot be understated), Koger, and Huyge from the offensive line.
Don't you mean overstated in regards to Molk? It was neat seeing Big Will and Q Washington getting extended PT vs Nebraska. They have a chance to be good together next year. They are much bigger than Van Bergen and Martin. Much bigger
Yep. I misspoke and you are correct. What I meant was that losing Molk will be huge.
Those are certainly significant losses. On the other hand, all teams lose players -- most teams don't return nearly as many starters as we'll be returning next year.
If Khoury can do a decent job replacing Molk, our offensive line may be just as good due as a result of the additional year of experience at the other spots.
Losing Martin and Van Bergeren sucks and our defensive line will certainly take a hit, but our linebackers and secondary should be much better. Is that enough to cancel out the loss on defensive line? Who knows. But it's far from certain that we'll be worse off next year.
You just gave nearly the same reasonable analysis I gave in the OP. Why would you bag on the post?
Well first, these are two separate issues. What I posted about our chances of being good next year has nothing to do with the quality of the ESPN article.
Second, as I said above, I have no problem with a reasonable criticism of the ESPN article -- it was a bit simplistic, but that's to be expected when the writer doesn't live and breathe Michigan football the way we do. If I was "bagging" on anything it was that you went overboard in attacking an innocuous, albeit simplistic article.
It seemed like you were going out of your way to find something on ESPN to get pissed off about.
No worries, let's not fight. It's Ohio week. Happy thanksgiving, beat the Buckeyes.
Sparty is pretty high on that Andrew Maxwell kid. He is a sophomore that was a top 150 recruit. He is definitely higher rated than Cousins was coming out of high school. Hopefully he's worse than Cousins, only time will tell.
I think Junior Hemingway will be a loss worth mentioning, he isn't what makes or breaks this offense, but he does reel in some big catches.
If only RVB and Martin had one more year. I think the team next year would be a legitimate National Championship contender, no question. Not saying that it can't be the case now but we will just wait to see how the interior dline steps up.
Can you "Breakout" from going 10-2 and playing in a BCS game? Don't you have to start from a littel furthat back in the pack to breakout?
if you win a MNF
This was the breakout year. We broke out from 7-5 with no big wins and many blowout losses to, hopefully, 11-2 / 10-3 and a BCS bowl.
the defensive jump and team record alone show that this is a breakout year. We are a tough rivalry loss and a blown call away from being considered for top 5 in the country with a new coaching staff.
Blake Countess=Charles Woodson 2.0
Charles Woodson = Blake Countess 1.0
Every game I have to remind myself he's a freshman.
will be as good as this year.