Yeah, as good as our O-line classes have been the last two years, we've really only taken two or three tackles. We're still short at that position.
Jabrill Peppers and Juwan Bushell-Beatty set up Michigan visit
Probably more than that though. Magnuson, Braden and LTT are tackles for sure, and Fox and Bars are OT/OG capable. And Kalis and Bosch are both guys who could play tackle if needed.
So saying we've only taken two or three tackles is not true. We've taken at least three, and probably four or five.
Braden is supposedly going to be competing at guard this spring/fall since the two tackle positions are locked up.
Yes, and Magnuson played guard in the AAA game. Most OL are flexible to some extent I'm terms of position. Are you actually saying you don't think Braden should be considered a tackle, or are you arguing without actually disagreeing?
"Magnuson, Braden and LTT are tackles for sure,"
I'm not arguing at all. But is a guy really a tackle if he plays guard? I don't know. It's a very deep question, and I'm not sure if we'll ever truly know the answer.
"It's a very deep question, and I'm not sure if we'll ever truly know the answer."
Ah I see. Sort of like the age old question of how many licks it takes to get to center of a tootsie-pop.
God you're a dick.
You really shouldn't talk to God that way.
If I had been talking to God, I would have used a comma. Aren't you a teacher?
God, you're a dick. See?
Either way, you're wrong. It looks like an interjection to me, which is usually set apart from the rest of the sentence as a parenthetical and using a comma. Whether you're talking to God or using it as interjection, you should probably either use a comma or an exclamation point.
But hey, calling people names is fun, so who cares about grammar?
Hey man, you like to dish it out, you shouldn't have a problem taking it as well. You bring it on yourself.
You'll have a hard time finding an incident where I called someone on this message board a childish name.
Fine, but a childish name is not the only was to insulting. You tend to lean more toward being condescending than outright name calling, but I don't think that's any better.
"You're an idiot."
"This isn't a difficult concept." (or whatever your lines typically are)
The point is, you like to dish it out in your own way, and people come back at you in their own way. All I'm saying is you shouldn't be surprised when people keep on you like that.
Yes. Some people point out when others are incorrect. Others call people names. The internet is just an extension of elementary school, I guess.
I'm fine with it. It's the way the world works. But if you're going to attempt to hurt my feelings by insulting me, you might as well be grammatically correct about it.
Again, it seems that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I think most people consider Schofield a tackle, and he played guard for a whole season just about. Guys can do more than one.
The poster above seemed concerned that we hadn't brought in enough guys to play tackle. If Braden plays guard this year, it won't be because that's where he fits best, but because we have two returning starters at tackle and none at guard.
I would argue that in the last two classes, we have at least 3 guys who project best at tackle, LTT, Magnuson and Braden. Do you disagree with that at all? I also feel that a few of the guys from those classes (one or two of Fox, Bars, Bosch, and Kalis) could play tackle very well if that's asked of them. Do you disagree with that?
Don't get into a philisophical argument about this because it makes you look like a jerk.
All I'm saying is that Braden is playing some guard. It's really not that difficult to grasp. You said he's a tackle "for sure," but he might play guard this season.
See, when you say things like "It's really not that difficult to grasp" people call you names. You bring it on yourself.
Braden in a tackle for sure. it doesn't mean he's only a tackle. Kalis is a guard, for sure. But he could also play tackle. The poster above was discussing who could play tackle for us, and that fact that some of those guys can also play other positions doesn't change it at all.
Is Gardner not a QB now because he has also played WR? Some guys can play more than one spot, it doesn't mean their name should be removed from their primary position though.
If you said "Devin Gardner is a quarterback all the way" while he was playing wide receiver for the first half of the year, it would not have been true. Your definition of "all the way" must be different than mine.
If you said that right now (since he's presumably going to be playing QB from here on out), then you might be accurate.
So it's not difficult to grasp. You're trying to read too much into it and you're creating an argument where there isn't one. The guy who's a "tackle all the way" is playing guard. It's that simple.
I'm not going to "argue" anymore because it's really not worth a hissy fit.
I didn't say "all the way" I said "for sure" as in he can certainly play that position. He was recruited to play that position and most of the talk has been about him being slotted there. Now, like many players, he's able to also play a similar position when the team needs him, but that doen't make him any less of a fit at tackle if he was needed there.
At no point did I say any of these players were tackles exclusively, which is what you seem to be arguing. I was simply listing who can play tackle. Whether or not those guys can play other positions too is immaterial.
"You're trying to read too much into it and you're creating an argument where there isn't one."
quit bickering with people Magnus. You are letting them draw you into ignorant conversations. you know the old saying 'never get into an argument with an idiot, the observer won't know who is who?'... or some shit like that.
I think you bring something to this page, but when you clutter up threads with bickering I think it just hurts your credibility. WolvLA and the other guy who always hate on your are just morons, why waste your time?
Whoa. You better check your facts, jdon. I am almost always the one backing up Magnus, for the record. And this argument was a fine discussion until Magnus drops the "this shouldn't be too hard to understand" lines out there.
That said, please tell me why you think I am a moron, jdon. Are were you just saying that? I'm serious, enlighten me.
Here are 4 reasons I think you're a moron:
1. You attacked Magnus in this thread for arguing about nothing, because he responded to your claim that Braden was a tackle "for sure" (alongside your list of people, not including Braden, who were "OT/OG capable") by suggesting that he's more likely to play guard this year. Think of his first post as moving Braden to the OT/OG capable column, and it'll be clear that there's nothing aggressive in it. At no point during the exchange, which you turned unpleasant by responding defensively, did you seem to have noticed that it's at the very least an especially technical use of language to insist on identifying a player by position if the position is not the one he's going to be playing as he transitions from high school to college.
2. You chose your doctor for his race.
3. You don't know that conducting business with somebody based on their race is problematic.
4. You just used "Are" where you meant "Or". (One of my students did that once in an email, in the course of an exchange about how he was going to have to drop the class due to an inability to complete the 200-level work.)
So basically I'm a moron because you disagree with my politics and because of a typo? That's harsh. That, and that I think Ben Braden is a tackle (like most do).
You must have a lot of morons in your life.
I thought you were a moron before you outed yourself as a racist or picked this stupid fight with Magnus or confused "our" with "are" above. (Speaking of which, is "you disagree with my politics" a typo for "you abhor my racism"? Just checking.) It crystallized somewhere around the time you decided to take great offense on your wife's behalf because I joked (unfunnily, but not very offensively so far as I can tell) that prominent lawyering gigs were not, strictly speaking, proof of intelligence. Your inability to differentiate my comment from something like "your wife is stupid lol"--which, to be clear, I didn't say and don't think--was enough to convince me. But I only promised 4 reasons above, not a complete history.
Nobody is "drawing" Magnus into any Goddamn thing. He goes out of his way to start an argument over semantics or some stupid pretense again and again. He likes to then try to belittle the person he's talking to, and try to "win" the argument through sheer determination to get the last word. It must make him feel superior or he wouldn't engage that crap.
I hate that trait in people, so I call him on it (though only a fraction of the times I see him do it).
But thanks for chiming in.
I see no value in people bickering back in forth over 'what they really mean'...
just my take...
ps. wolvla, sorry I hurt your feelings, I am sure you are not a moron but much rather a genius of untold knowledge/charisma...
Let say Magnus does try to start arguments and win them through 'sheer will'. Why should you engage in arguments with him? I know you may feel like he should be called out on it, but wouldn't it be just as beneficial for you to ignore him as well?
There have been some discussions lately about this 'board' and its race to the lowest common denominator. For my part I think that we are getting to where people 'know' each other and therefore feel like they should support or attack people, which in turn leads to much more bickering and ignorant conversation like the one that you, wolvla, and magnus are a part of right now. No one cares about your pissing contest so cut it out.
And yeah, maybe magnus needs to stop the shameless pleading for viewership, but that is an issue you could raise instead of calling names and bickering...
again, this is but my opinion/observation but I think I am correct in this instance.
That you injected yourself just the same as I did, right? But I should "knock it off". Just cut your losses here.
I don't know anything about Bushell-Beatty, but he could have my athletic ability and I'd give him a scholarship if it meant we'd also get Peppers.
Here are his highlights:
Oh why thank you, kind sir.
That is a large human who is good at moving people.
i want more scouting reports like this^ short, succinct, and informative and im only like 85% serious
...world domination. The buzz around this class is incredible. Hope the sun comes out in Ann Arbor for a few of these visits.
Other O Lineman mentioned with interest are Doles and Bars (interior)- any other tackles besides JBB?
Michigan has offered 14 offensive tackles (a couple of whom could be guards instead):
Does this mean Delany's bold stroke of bringing Rutgers into the Big Ten is starting to pay dividends?
Damn! You beat me to the punch. I was just about to write something along the same lines until I saw your post.
I know this is thread jacking but I just saw on twitter!!!! 2 more season with Devin Gardner at qb
Home seems to be amazing at selling this program when he gets kids on campus. I know most kids are not going to tell you the had a shitty visit, but a lot of them leave raving about their experience. I think thats Super Duper!
Scout is reporting that Peppers and Bushell-Beatty are visiting Michigan and OSU in the same swing. Both schools are in Peppers top 5 according to Scout.
Peppers is a 5-star to Rivals and according to them as OSU, UM, Standford, ND, Bama in his top 5.
Bushell-Beatty holds a UM offer per Scout, but that offer is not listed on Rivals. Rivals lists his best offers as Florida and FSU, but has not assigned a star-grade to him yet.
ESPN and 247 both list Michigan offers for Bushell-Beatty, too.
If both 1/2 commit, Michigan's recruiting goes from being somewhere between 'very good' and 'great' to elite.