Phil Steele Mag
according to his position rankings, Keith Nichol is not only a top 10 wr in the B10 but better than any of michigans.
http://philsteele.com/Pdf/2010/10PreseasonAllConf/Preseason%20AllBig%20Ten%20Team.pdf
Based on a handful of plays as a WR, that's not really a stretch. For Phil at least...
Look at Kovacs punking all those SS's that were offered schollies. 4th team for a walk on is pretty impressive as a sophmore.
3rd team C David Molk
2nd team OG Stephen Schilling
2nd team KR Darryl Stonum
4th team PR Junior Hemingway
3rd team DL Mike Martin
4th team LB Jonas Mouton, Craig Roh
4th team SS Jordan Kovacs
... in this league I would trade for Mike Martin, period. And there is maybe no OL, not to mention center, that I would trade for David Molk, either.
I feel like Martin kind of dropped off this year, but could that just be because BG was so dominant, and Martin was no longer a true freshman, that his production just seemed less impressive?
No offense intended, but those are pretty ridiculous statements. Objectively, Wisniewski is much better than Molk (so is Brewster, FWIW). Similarly, Martin is a beast but there are other players I'd rather have; Heyward, despite being a DE/DT tweener, would be picked way ahead of Martin.
I've got nothing against having pride in your team, but this is pretty nuts.
... is better than wisniewski, he just can't stay healthy.
...You say I'm being overly biased, then you say you'd rather have an O-state DL ahead of a Michigan one? GTFO.
Find any reputable source that puts Martin ahead of Heyward and I'll gladly buy what you're selling. There's bias, and there's reality.
...that had BG as MVP of the Big Ten, and I wouldn't have traded anyone for him last year. Yet Odrick and Clayborn were rated ahead of him by many last year. Hell, even "Scouts" Inc. had BG rated low until they actually watched him play senior bowl week, while I knew all along he was better than Lamarr Woodley.
There's "reputable" sources such as pre-season magazines written by nerdy sportswriters who have never played or coached the game, and then there are my own two eyes. These eyes are those of a coach of 12 years and I have watched and evaluated countless players. I trust myself over any magazine every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
So you go be that guy who's an O-state fan, comes on a Michigan site, and negs anyone who disagrees with him.
I'll be the guy who trusts my instincts.
You also get to be the guy who says "durr nerdy sportswriters don't know anything durr" which, don't.
I said they don't know the game. They know information about the team, which is their job. Sportwriters and play-by-play people cover the team. Leave the analysis to those who have thoroughly studied and participated in the game.
I guess UFR is useless because Brian has never coached football, then?
I don't agree that analysis should be reserved for ex-players and coaches.
Brian's UFR is (or at least seems to be) careful and thorough analysis. He may or may not be corect, but I'm pretty sure there's a good deal of effort going into it.
Sportswriters, on the other hand, are often guilty of haphazard analysis. Some of them do a great job. Others rely on other people's opinions, or cover too many sports or teams to do a good job for all of the areas they cover. It's often too much to ask a sportswriter to be an expert on all teams in the Big Ten as well as whatever else they may cover (baseball, the NFL, etc.). Wider coverage areas will tend to dilute effort into any specific area.
...simply b/c there's no one else out there grading plays and publishing it on the internet. Now, if an experienced coach graded the film, I would probably trust that over Brian's.
The real point is that for the games I broke down, I only read the UFR to check it for accuracy. To Brian's credit, he has been accurate most of the time. I don't really correct him either since he's pretty accurate and it wouldn't affect the grades that much. Also, the last time I did it was during the 2008 season when he incorrectly blamed an ILB for mis-playing an iso. I pointed it out and caught hell for it. (This was before I posted diaries and anyone knew my work. People were like, "who the f is this guy?")
Furthermore, I know for a fact Brian has actually studied the game. I doubt the same could be said for 99% of sportswriters and broadcasters.
So, like I trust my opinion about players over some writer, I trust my knowledge of football over Brian's.
is back at guard where he played earlier in his career. He's not even in the equation unless he gets moved back to C out of necessity. So then you have Molk vs. Brewster. For RR's offense, I think Molk's your guy. For power running game, Brewster's probably your guy. Nothing ridiculous about the Molk statement for
.. has no credibility, he's not better than any of our guys, he's not even better than his own teammates. dell had 500 yards last year, cunningham had 650 and neither made this list. keith nichol had 2 catches for 11 yards last year. where did all the love for this guy come from?
LOL. Phil Steele has no credibility. That's a good one.
... i was talking about keith nichols credibility as a reciver, i should have made myself clearer.
In that case, it makes 1000 times more sense.
Not to mention Martin. That guy is a real playmaker.
... already on the list tho, he's first team kick returner.
IMO the turning point in the bowl game for MSU was the dropped pass to Keith Nichol. If they had a true WR in the game there may have been a different outcome.
Last years choice as 1st Team QB was Jucie Williams....
Nichol is not a bad WR, but this seems a bit premature. If he becomes this year's Blair White, then by all means he'll be the best guy at MSU, but Dell and Cunningham are better WRs right now, though Kashawn Martin may become the Breaston of this group and push Nichol to the sidelines.
If the greatest compliment you can muster is "not bad," maybe you're evaluating him improperly to put him ahead of guys with, like, production. Just sayin'.
Everytime I see the name Terry Hawthorne, I cringe and say "WHY!?!?!?"
I will go out on an educated limb and predict that Denard Robinson will most definitely make at least 4th team. He is soon to be a household name in the college football world, drawing far more attention than Pryor even. In fact, the media will take Denard face of sorts of the new program that takes the Big Ten by storm. Believe it.
delusional, almost comical in that statement. Michigan is in big, big trouble if DR starts and plays alot. He is a receiver playing qb.
but until I see Denard do it in a game against a real defense I'll remain a little skeptical. I still have to believe that Tate is the starter until DRob proves it in a game with his arm and decision making. Either way the increased competition we'll have at the position will benefit all three QBs.
I think Denard has improved, but everyone seems to be forgetting that he was leading 1s vs. 2s in the spring game (and that Tate was, I believe, leading 2s vs 1s).
That this can be overstated. Seriously.
first year buying a phil steele, my general thoughts
1) reads like a phone book. hire a f'ing graphic designer!
2) each team's summary retraces every past year for every position, most times until at least 2007. why do i care about who played LB for purdue in 07?
3) he mentions himself about a billion times. i already bought your magazine, enough with the self aggrandizement.
first year buying a phil steele
Obviously.
six of his nine sets of power rankings called for you to like it.
I haven't bought his magazine before but have looked at it and greatly appreciate all the statistical info. That said, it's damn hard to read. It could benefit greatly from a little better organization or having a few more pages to help spread out some of the crammed-in information.
And honestly, while a breakdown of the last few years' stats is great, I'd prefer more educated scouting/analysis about THIS year's players (there's some of that, but I think I'd alter the stats-to-analysis ratio).
It's the best magazine out there right now -- I just think it could be better and easier to read.
I have been told his magazine is great and a good read to help for my entire seasons needs. However, I have never bought one yet. Fellow MGoBloggers, should I go out right now and buy this? Is it going to be worth my money?
I suggest waiting for HTTV 2010 to come out instead. Phil's is a great read if you want everything on everyone. HTTV supports Michigan bloggers who focus on Michigan.
Depends on how well versed you want to be I guess.
I'm looking to get something without the intent of reading anything about Michigan at all. I think I have a fairly good amount of info on Michigan from my own level of following the program and with this here blog. I'm looking for info that I can find useful if say, I'm watching TCU-BYU on a Saturday or something random like that. Phil Steele it is.
Then yes, definitely worth the money.
I will still find myself reading it, and finding new information well after the season. I use it to find out about late round NFL draft picks that I wasn't very familiar with. It is literally the best $8 I spend every year.
Edit- $9