ESPN has Michigan as a Breakout in 2012
I know there are a lot of bad articles submitted everyday, but I need to submit this as a finalist as the worst article of the year. I saw the headline and was intrigued and even more so when I saw Michigan on there. "2012 Breakout Teams- Michigan"
The article highlights
1. The spread is a gimmick and Michigan doesn't need it
2. Hoke is recruiting like a mother in the trenches
3. The schedule is tough in 2012.
Let's analyze.
1. We can and have debated the merits of #1 forever, but the fact is we still run it 70-80% of the time and will probably continue to do so in 2012.
2. Yes, but this will have little impact in 2012 and in fact we will be weakened in 2012 losing Martin, RVB and Molk which he doesn't mention
3. Yes, which is why we probably won't break out in 2012
Not sure if an intern cut and pasted an incorrect title and headline or the editor cut out all of Huards "insight", but this is comically bad.
I mean talk about Denards progress with Borges, Toussiant, 4 of 5 lineman returning, back 7 on defense, Mattison. You can at least make a decent argument on while we could be good next year, but his article is basically telling us why to have hope for a 2014 break out year.
Complete Debacle
I just cut out the Mich part
"Michigan's goal is to get bigger and more physical at four spots -- offensive line, defensive line, linebacker and wide receiver," says Luginbill. "They have really loaded up at the linebacker and defensive front spots. They want to have a Stanford- or Alabama-like mentality when it comes to physicality." The Wolverines currently have ESPN's sixth-ranked class.
A brutal schedule looms for the Wolverines in 2012: Alabama in Arlington, Texas, to open the season, and road games against Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State. However, Hoke can build some very positive momentum for next season if his team can beat the Buckeyes this weekend and earn a BCS at-large bid. As good as that accomplishment would be, bigger and better things await Michigan in 2012.
[ED:BISB - Too much paywalled content. Trimmed back]
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
GO BLUE!!
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
Can I get a link to the full article?
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
You did it on a paywalled article?
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
It's less than 20% of the article
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
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?
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:35 PM ^
righteous ass when people are posting illegal links to live streams of games here...get a life mgocop
November 23rd, 2011 at 7:33 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^
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).
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:47 PM ^
Why wait unitl 2012! We are break out THIS YEAR!
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^
Missed it by 1 year, ESPN.
Edit: I type too slow.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
Article saying Michigan will be good next year = problem?
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^
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?
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 9:13 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
Honestly, they were saying we had a brutal schedule this year, so who cares what they say. I see 3 tough games, Alabama, at ND, and MSU. 1 is neutral site, 1 is away, and 1 is at home.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
The article suggests that we are better off with Brady Hoke than Rich Rodriguez. To Ziff72, them's fighting words.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
Ziff's original post here began with a defense of RichRod's performance against Nebraska, claiming that we only lost 59-6 to Nebraska because fans were complaining that RR had an accent and Lloyd Carr didn't motivate the players. He was writing how the scoring offense is just about to turn the corner, that our defense was soft only because they were young, that we'd be competitive in the B1G in 2012 and that we could possibly win four B1G next year...if things go right and RichRod is given a new 20 year contract to prove the haters wrong.
Then, he walked out of his cave on a Japanese island, was entirely confused and posted the bizarre OP we see above.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:15 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:57 PM ^
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?
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
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.
<br>
<br>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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
to top 20 in defense in just a year, what will Mattison do with another entire offseason?
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
Van Burgen = Martin.
Well, not really. Still, thanks for pointing that out.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:00 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^
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.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
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
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
Yep. I misspoke and you are correct. What I meant was that losing Molk will be huge.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
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.