Magnus gives dire warning about the running game?
http://touch-the-banner.com/2017-season-countdown-11-chris-evans/
Magnus predicts that Evans will wind up as the team's leading rusher. No problems so far.
BUT, he also predicts that Evans will have WORSE numbers than he did last year (when he had 88 rushes for 614 yards)! Meaning our leading rusher will only have about 600 yards.
Is this an indictment on the offensive line, or is there something else afoot? Either way, hold me.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:48 PM ^
Did you comment on his site? He's pretty good about responding.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:00 PM ^
Yeah, but then I'd have to sign up and . . . stuff . . . so to answer your question, no I did not.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:49 PM ^
It's a prediction. We have a deep RB corps. There appears to be an increase in focus on the empty set short passing game. And we have serious questions on the OL.
I'm not going to read too much into the prediction, other than that Magnus thinks we won't have a back that's the big feature guy.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:21 PM ^
I take this to mean Magnus thinks we will have 4 RBs run for exactly 610 yards, for a total of 2440 yards of RB production. Damn good!
August 21st, 2017 at 4:00 PM ^
I think he means that Khalid Hill will score 800 touchdowns, each from 1 yard out, accounting for the lost yardage from Smith.
August 21st, 2017 at 5:51 PM ^
I saw a study of elite teams in the past 10-15 years. The numbers showed that most elite rushing teams approach or exceed 3,000 rushing yards per season.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:50 PM ^
I think it means the other RB's will be fairly productive.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^
FTR, he pegs Higdon at 440 yards (about what he got last year) and Isaac at 400 (also about what he got last year).
So he thinks we'll get about the same production out of our 2-4 backs from last year, and we're not replacing Smith's numbers.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:44 PM ^
So, Walker is going to run for 800 yards. What's the problem?
EDIT: or maybe you mean McDOOOOOOMED for another 350 in jets.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^
Or he thinks our passing game is going to be lethal, with running game getting less yards. That's my bet.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:27 PM ^
That would be acceptable.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:59 PM ^
Fewer.
August 21st, 2017 at 3:09 PM ^
Goddamnit Davos. You just learned how to read, now you're giving me English lessons?
August 21st, 2017 at 3:26 PM ^
Good grammar is essential, Robin.
August 21st, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^
The yards are not really individual, they are parts of an amount, specifically the total distance he ran. Same reason age and money use less rather than fewer (less than 30 years old, less than $50, less than five miles).
August 21st, 2017 at 5:03 PM ^
I don't think this is correct. Once you apply units it becomes a counting number and you use fewer. E.G. I have less money but I have fewer dollars or I have less yardage but I have fewer yards. Easy way to figure it out is if you ask how much or how many? How many yards vs. how much yards?
August 22nd, 2017 at 1:28 AM ^
See my explanation below Chuck Norris. It's more than just whether the item is countable.
August 22nd, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
Okay, I concede. English is weird. I'm an engineer so I'm allowed to take pride in being wrong about English.
August 21st, 2017 at 5:23 PM ^
Yards are a distinct, countable amount. You're actually wrong in some of your examples as well. It's "less time" (since time is an abstract amount) but "fewer hours/minutes/years/etc."
August 22nd, 2017 at 11:29 AM ^
Time, distance, and money are sort of exceptions to the countable rule; really, a better way to think of the rule is that for fewer to apply, the thing being measured should be both countable and discrete--three cups of coffee in separate mugs are discrete and separate and thus get fewer, while three cups of flour together in a canister are not discrete and separate and get less. The way I think it makes sense to think about this is that if I say less than 100 years, I'm really saying any amount of time less than that--not that it would be exactly 99 years or another countable number of years, like fewer would imply.
The strangest one to me is less than $50, but it is less, even though money is discrete once you get to the penny (for most uses). But fewer only applies in a situation like when you have fewer than 50 one dollar bills.
Best explanation at Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/fewer-vs-less
Despite the rule, less used of things that are countable is standard in many contexts, and in fact is more likely than fewer in a few common constructions, especially ones involving distances (as in "less than three miles"), sums of money (as in "less than twenty dollars"), units of time and weight (as in "less than five years" and "less than ten ounces"), and statistical enumerations (as in "less than 50,000 people")—all things which are often thought of as amounts rather than numbers.
A few other sources with similar explanations, just to prove it's not only M-W:
Old AP style guide online: http://www.mdjwebcontent.com/tj/2006_APSTYLEBOOK.pdf
GrammarBook.com: http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/fewer-v-less/
August 21st, 2017 at 9:02 PM ^
Yardage. You must be thinking of yardage.
August 21st, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
But I thought Speight was still going to be the starter?
August 21st, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^
I have a hard time believing we wont have at the very least a decent rush attack this year. We have 3-4 guys with different skill sets (not counting our FBs) to throw in there and I have to believe 1-2 have a great year. Its possible he meant Evans wouldnt be able to keep up with the 7ypc pace he was on last year. Im still optimistic with the group as a whole.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:51 PM ^
It means it's Magnus' opinion
August 21st, 2017 at 2:12 PM ^
how you can say whatever you want these days and no matter how stupid it may sound or how unlikely, you can always say "it`s just my opinion". nice to know there are so many people out there that all ready know what is going to happen. very precise. i wonder what they will be eating for breakfast on those days? oh, thats right he already knows.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:39 PM ^
I don't think this is a "these days" phenomonon. The saying "opinions are like assholes" has been around for a long time...
August 21st, 2017 at 3:22 PM ^
How does anyone lick an opinion? It just doesn't add up...
August 21st, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^
If they have baby wipes on the back of the toilet you know it's fair game...
August 21st, 2017 at 4:33 PM ^
I don't get I.............. oh lol!! Cause it's clean. Nice.
August 21st, 2017 at 5:32 PM ^
Giggity Giggity
August 21st, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^
Dire warning at all. Combined with recent rumblings from camp I take that to mean Isaac and Higdon will get more carries and yards
Actually Thunder wrote that, not Magnus. Although they might be the the same person.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^
It is the same person.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^
Magnus is Sungam.
August 21st, 2017 at 2:47 PM ^
Too soon after Viserion, Night King. You bastage.
August 21st, 2017 at 3:43 PM ^
crazy shit, man
August 21st, 2017 at 4:53 PM ^
Take credit for your actions. When you say "crazy shit, man" it's as if you had nothing to do with it.
August 21st, 2017 at 3:04 PM ^
Say...
Is he also Discuss Man?
August 21st, 2017 at 2:41 PM ^
Finkle is Einhorn
August 21st, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^
"Laces Out Bitches!"
August 21st, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^
It is a prediction. What is the issue here? We all know we will have at least 3 running backs get a ton of carries this year.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^
I feel like he is talking about Evans having less yards/carry. 614 on 88 carries is absurdly high, and as the #1 back he will get many more carries not in garbage time which will cause a regression.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:57 PM ^
It says 110 carries, 600 yards, 6 tds. OP can't read or Mangus changed it.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
Touissant ran for over 600 yards in 2013 behind arguably the worst offensive line in the history of Michigan football. This year's OL will be considerably better than that one. And far better coached.
Agree to disagree, Magnus. I don't think this team will be a worldbeater on the ground but I have a hard time believing that our leading rusher will have only 600 yards to his name.
August 21st, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
Here's our rushing stats from 1997. No real dominant player but if memory serves things worked out pretty good that year.
Rushing | Receiving | Scrimmage | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rk | Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Plays | Yds | Avg | TD |
1 | Chris Howard | 180 | 868 | 4.8 | 7 | 35 | 263 | 7.5 | 1 | 215 | 1131 | 5.3 | 8 |
2 | Anthony Thomas | 130 | 529 | 4.1 | 5 | 21 | 205 | 9.8 | 0 | 151 | 734 | 4.9 | 5 |
3 | Chris Floyd | 59 | 262 | 4.4 | 2 | 7 | 83 | 11.9 | 0 | 66 | 345 | 5.2 | 2 |
August 21st, 2017 at 2:00 PM ^
Evans and friends will add plenty of receiving yards
August 21st, 2017 at 2:46 PM ^
we started the season #11 in the AP poll, had a head coach in his third season, started the season against a team which had won a NC within the last 10 yrs, and I was an age divisible by 20.
Im not sayin' but Im just sayin