Recent Comments

*A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-A-L-L-I-O-N, I am the stallion mang.

The people of the United States stand for the rule of law and the democratic principles upon which this country was founded. Terrorism, no matter the source or the political motivation, runs contratry to those ideals. Patriotism, or belief in the principles of our society, has everything to do with our response to the Boston incident.

Also, while this appears to be a homegrown incident, we can't at this point rule out AQAP or other foreign groups. You should straighten your understanding of the political philisophy underpinning our country, as well as your understanding of terrorism generally before you make statements like this. 

I'm in 98th percentile on ESPN with my entire Elite Eight intact except for Gonzaga, which puts me in pretty good shape to win my pools.

I just need Michigan to win...

Call me an old-timer (I'm only 26), but I just don't give a damn about playing Maryland even if, as a DC resident, I get to see Michigan once every other year in town.

I just don't care about Maryland or Rutgers, whereas I actually do care about the rich history Michigan has playing teams like Minnesota and Iowa. I like Kinnick Stadium's pink locker room and I like the Jug. 

For example, Maryland fans can't even fill their own basketball arena unless they're playing Duke, where the inferiority complex is even worse than Michigan State fans. Maryland's football stadium will look a lot like Northwestern's when it comes to hosting conference foes since none of them give a damn about Maryland football. They're fair weather fans at best. 

I'm not saying I agree with Jethro, and I understand where the coaches were coming from: you want your best 11 guys on the field and Gardner was a servicable wide receiver. My argument is twofold:

1) The WRs were actually pretty good without Gardner and his presence at wideout didn't really make a difference. 

2) In this conference with a QB like Denard, you have to have two quarterbacks ready to play. Bellomy was not ready and him as QB = automatic loss against any Big Ten team. We were actually moving the ball on Nebraska quite effectively until Denard went out; whether Gardner coming in instead of Bellomy would have resulted in a win is a question mark, but Bellomy's presence guaranteed a loss. With Gardner we have a chance to win the game and head to Indy and possibly Rose Bowl. (This is in a hypothetical world where Gardner was the actual #2 QB all season)

My ultimate point is that Hoke and Borges have NOT earned the right to be unquestionable with respect to decision making at quarterback. I think it's a settled matter that recruiting rankings DO matter, so I can understand why some people would be a little uneasy bringing in a guy like Speight. That said, I will give Hoke the benefit of the doubt since he's obviously a good football coach.

I'd say Gardner's performance the remainder of the season, coupled with the re-emergence of Gallon and Roundtree are evidence that having Gardner ready to play QB was the best option. 

The complaint isn't that they put Bellomy at QB instead of Gardner in the Nebraska game; it's that Gardner wasn't ready to play by design.

What is with that, anyway?

Thank you, Alex. That was quite helpful. 

Actually if you go back and look at it he was set. He beat the guy to the spot. Not to mention that there is nothing in the rule book that says a player's feet can't be moving for it to be a charge. 

I don't know. I live in DC and know a decent amount of Maryland fans. Their biggest rivals, Duke and UNC, don't even know they are rivals. It's like Illinois saying Michigan is their rival in football.

And as far as last night's win, the team didn't even make an attempt to shake hands with the NC State team. And the students rushing the court for beating the 15th ranked team at home? Am I missing something? That's amateur hour in my opinion.

I understand that and, if you re-read my post, I acknowledge that it takes an impressive athlete to deliver a hit like that. It was a good play, but that doesn't crack the top 100 plays he's made if I'm an NFL scout.

If you go to any message board (and even talking heads on radio/TV) other than this one the narrative is that he straight up beat Lewan and that is what separates us mgoblogerati as football enthusiasts from the ignorant masses. I mean people are taking out ad space about it, for crying out loud.

So we're really all upset because the existence of our offensive coordinator is a source of joy for Ohio fans, right?

Except for that time when, as a first year starter, Denard put up better numbers than Miller or Martinez. He also was a 1st team All American.

I hope you played football for UM, because that is the absolute worst reason to go (or not go) to a school otherwise. And the degree is not the bonus. 

See the Michigan teams that got gashed by various spread offenses. We have the ability to pull in guys that have both size and speed, and I believe we are doing just that. Ondre Pipkins is a prime example.

You and I agree that they called a good run blitz. Where we disagree is why it was a good blitz. I am arguing that the guy who blew up the play was able to do so because the defense schematically is not concerned with the outside receivers when we are running an inverted veer/zone read play. Right now the QB's choices are to keep or to give. I'm saying there should be a third, which is a keep/give/screen to the outside. The reason why we are seeing so many guys in the box and so many guys in the backfield is because we are not constraining the defense (specifically CBs and OLBs) with these simple packaged plays. 

To effectively run a spread-option offense, it is imperative to retain the numbers advantage the scheme affords you, provided you have a QB who is an adequate runner. By not threatening the quick-hitting outside throws, we allow CBs and OLBs to blitz us in both running and passing downs.

Concluding, the reason why their run blitz was good is because we allowed it to be. If you go back and look at the play, there was no correct read; denard giving or keeping would have resulted in the play being blown up regardless. And the hypothetical throw that he would have made would have been the wide open screen to the outside, clearly resulting in a first down. Bubble screen should not be thought of as pass plays. They are effectively quick-hitting run plays on the perimeter of the defense. 

You're right. I suppose I (along with the proprietor of this blog) am an idiot for arguing that a "buble screem" should be incorporated into what amounts to an attempt at running a spread option offense with a former all american at quarterback.

So you mean to tell me that when there is an ublocked defender running directly at the mesh point, this is somehow the fault of the players? If you go back and look at the replay on this particular play, which it's obvious you didn't, you will observe three things: 1) the design of the play put denard in an impossible position because by the time he received the snap and was reading the play, there was a Purdue linebacker running directly at the mesh point, and who would have tackled whomever ended up holding on to the ball. 2) The designed unblocked defender was actually the defensive end and not the outside linebacker, so there were actually two unblocked defenders (one by design, the other by "RPS). It is impossible for the offense to win in this situation UNLESS there is a constraint play built in, hence the bubble screen. 3) The bubble screen was wide open and, had it been bult in to this play, would have resulted in a first down at worst.

So you can downvote me and reply with a plattitude, but there is no actual analysis contained in your "come on man" post. 

I'm also a Braves fan and I think the fans were also upset about the interference call from earlier. While that was probably the correct call, I think the larger takeaway from this whole thing is that the new playoff format is horrible for the game. Baseball is not supposed to be played one game at a time, and this latest debacle is one of many reasons why that is the case.

I put this comment in the wrong place; relocated.

We don't know if he has the option to check to another play, let alone a play like a bubble or an immediate throw to the outside receiver. If there is no such check, then this whole argument is irellevant.

I have a hard time believing that Denard has the option to check into all of these plays that we see as being obvious and is just failing to do so. The reads are very basic.

Did everyone miss the part about how he CONSTANTLY had unblocked defenders bearing down on him!? It's impossible for any QB to succeed in that case.

For pete's sake, we were running play action out of formations that we NEVER actually run out of. Do you think that's going to fool anyone!? This is combined with no short outlet in the CERTAINTY of an unblocked man coming down full speed at Denard. Terrible, terrible, terrible play design.

Dude, your work is obviously much appreciated in these parts, but I think most of us aren't really ready for jokes at Denard's expense right now.

This game will not improve unless we stop allowing defenders an untouched passage to Denard. 

I know this is a "cool story bro" post, but I was flying from San Francisco to Detroit 4 years ago, sitting on the window seat of the plane on the left side and the captain got on the intercom and said "for those of you sitting on the left side of the plane, if you look out the window, you're going to see something you'll never forget in about 30 seconds."

About 30 seconds later a B-2 flew directly under our plane in a slow left turn. It's impossible to describe just how close it was, but I could actually see the plane carving its way through the air (if that makes any sense) while filling up my entire window. It was one of those moments that will forever be seared into my mind. Truly breathtaking.

Also, while we're on the general topic of awesomeness, I highy recommend seeing the F-22 in person as well. It's almost like a space ship.

1) This is actually an unknown, and is a highly controversial subject of debate among the fanbase. I will just say that I give UM winning this game a 35% chance with Fitz and a 27% without him; he's a great back.

2) I don't think Shoelace will simply "run around" any defense. What it will come down to is if we will be able to keep your defense honest, which will require an offseason leap by Denard, a well-schemed approached, and some of our receivers to show up. I'm actually optimistic on this front, but the lack of access by anyone to fall camp makes this a substantial question mark.

3) In an odd sort of way, I'd say this is 50/50 based on press conference rhetoric alone.

4) I don't think that's the right question. The question should be the matchup between your unproven secondary and our semi-proven passing game. Personally, I think this is a wash, but I have a gut feeling that the combination of Denard's 2nd year in this offense and the talent of our WRs will surprise some people. Whether that surprise comes in game one or game 4 is up for debate.

5) We don't expect a jump, necessarily. The only certainty is that the back seven will have the carry the load early in the season. The consensus among our group is that we have coaches that can flat out coach the defensive front. We will be much better on the line 8 games in than we will be in game one.

6) Yes. I know you folks think the world of your D, but we're returning a relatively more proven OL than your front 7. You have a talent advantage, sure, but we have a great OL coming in, combine with a senior, game changing QB. I think this is a case where experience is an advantage to us.

7) He's not the Rimington award winner that Molk was, but he'll be fine against elite DLs like yours. In terms of the actual matchup, I'd say it's 55/45 on a given play since the offense has an inherent advantage of moving first.

8) No. We have a great group of guys there and a great coaching staff. Our LBs are solid.

9) Absolutely. You guys have some talent, but the deep secondary (which I define as the FS and 2 CBs) are experienced and talented. This is actually the one matchup that I think clearly favors us.

10) For this specific game, I'd say that we'll be required to leave our CBs on an island more than we would like given your OL. With that said, our secondary will be very good over the course of the season and we're not going face a passing offense that will truly challenge them .

11) This is, again, an unknown. History suggests there will be some improvement, but it's hard to truly quantify this improvement. There are just too many variables. 

12) This is not reliably answerable. The WR position is the 2nd biggest question mark we have behind our DL. We have talent there, but it's unproven. For this group to succeed, it will require an improvement by Denard in the short/intermediate passing game as well as an emergence of a true deep threat. I'm hoping Devin Gardner turns in to an Übermensch. 

13) This is the biggest question. I am personally not optimistic, but if there is any coaching staff that can make this happen on game 1 against the best college OL in a decade, it's this one. Reasonable UM fans should just hope for a stalemate and count on our excellent back seven to hold things down.

With that said, I think for us to win this game, we will need to play a near perfect game, while you guys commit 1-2 costly errors. It will be very significant if Fitz plays or not.

Yes.

FWIW, "he" is actually a she. Just saying.

Except Emmert said that it would be the Death Penalty for more than one season, as well as scholarship reductions, etc. He was very clear that it would not be just the death penalty.

double post. guess this means I need to double fist on the beers.

Dude, while I do agree that the RHCP will never be as epic as they were with Frusciante, I don't think it's fair to characterize the early 90s as their prime. A lot of people think they "sold out" or "went mainstream" with Frusciante's return and the release of Californication, but I don't agree with that at all. If anything, the band grew up in many ways, and that maturity is reflected in their music. The band itself said at the time that they think Stadium Arcadium is the album they are most proud of, and I can't necessarily disagree with them on that.

1. Point-a-minute level

2. Mad Magician level

Of course, somebody beats me to it. It's CSont'e York.

Dude, Brandon Minor was one of the best backs we've had in a while; his problem was that he was plagued by injuries. The dude was an absolute beast and was excellent running in a zone blocking scheme.

I hardly think 3 seasons during which we increased the talent level and saw major facilities improvements amounts to "the bottom falling out"

Wasn't Denard slotted as the #3-4 receiver if he left this year? I'd have a hard time seeing someone with his level of athleticism slipping below the 1st round.

I'm curious to whom you're referring as "Rush", because if it's who I think it is, I suspect your 关系 is about to take a major hit.

While Brian didn't explicitly say it, we can all agree that we're not likely to win this game. Of all the programs we could be facing, we're facing the one that gets 5 recruiting classes for every 4 that we get.

To me this seems like a high-risk, high-reward type of game. There are three realistic outcomes for this game:

1) we win close, which would be the biggest win for Michigan (and the B1G) in a long time;

2) we lose close, earning is some respect, but will not change the SEC > everyone narrative;

3) we lose big, "proving" to all the haters in the B1G and elsewhere that UM isn't one of the "big boys."

Given their significant talent and numbers advantage and our depth issues in key areas, anything but a blowout should be considered a bullet dodged. 2 out of the 3 possible outcomes are not favorable, and the potential for a national debacle is certainly there.

Not to nitpick, but I'm almost certain that's the T-38 trainer jet used by NASA.

We all wake up the next morning and find out the Soviet Union was the real victor of the Cold War and now the only option for breakfast is Borscht?

Yours only get batted down? I have freaking OLBs transport themselves 10 yards in an instant, leap up and grab one-handed interceptions.

What?

I disagree that this is an improvement. It used to be first-come, first-served, meaning that if you were savvy enough to get your packet in early in the day, you'd be rewarded with tickets to the game you preferred.

Now it's completely random where you land in the lottery and, as they say, there's no benefit to expending the effort to get tickets to the game you want.

Your analysis is exceptional

And especially not their college basketball acumen.

Does anyone know why MSU is listed as an autobid on this bracket? Is this because they're the #1 seed in the B1G tournament?

The core problem in need of resolution is how to balance inclusiveness and exclusiveness. In my opinion, your proposal is a great way to ensure that everyone who should be inducted gets in, while at the same time making inductions highly selective.

One thing we'd have to address is to set the total number of inductees correctly, taking into consideration the number of sports we're working with.

Dude, put down the tinfoil hat...

I highly doubt that mgoblog is the target of some sort of covert operation in which Alabama has planted a seemingly bengn operative whose goal is to win our hearts, collect intelligence on Michigan football, and sow dissention among the ranks of the Internet presence of the Michigan fanbase.

If this thread has shown anything, even the so-called "experts" that post on these boards do not approach the level of significance to be targets of the Alabama intelligence agencies.

If they were smart they'd recruit one of the lower level staff members - grad assistants, quality control coaches, etc. - who has access to the vital information they seek: game plans, playbooks, personnel assessments. They'd probably try to leverage a desperate financial situation, since we all know these guys are the ones who work for pennies, but have access to family jewels. Failing that, the long hours and limited interaction with the ladies might leave them susceptible to the old fashioned honey trap.

If I recall, this whole matter took place in the days of Canham, where the AD was making a concerted effort to market UM athletics, and doing some branding stuff as well. It's possible that this was an arrangement Canham made where we licensed the use of the M for a period of time, after which they no longer had to pay royalties.

I took Bacon's class my senior year (2008 - already feel old), and he claimed that Mizzou had to pay royalties to the UM AD for use of the block M for a period of tine, as it is the same one. I don't know the details, and my google searches haven't turned up much, but it'd be interesting to know the actual story behind the Mizzou/Michigan block M. As a Missourian, I've withheld discussion on this issue until I have solid evidence, but it's been elusive.

I can even tell you that it went online sometime around 3-4AM, as I was pulling an all-nighter writing a political philosophy paper and joined as soon as I saw it with the hope that there was some kind of award for being the first to join.

To the fraternity!

Homeland is pretty good, so long as you suspend your disbelief that the CIA is operating on US soil. Rather than the CIA, I imagine Danes is working for the  a "generic secret government agency that combines foreign intelligence collection and domestic surveillance and law enforcement"

This is a 2009 survey of B1G fan bases that has a lot of information. One guess who is universally viewed as the rudest fan base...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/specials/fansurvey/2009/big10.html

I see what you did there...

Rich Rodriguez is SOOOO relevant!

There is a difference between being unwilling and unable to pay for something. Michigan had the resources to do both, but elected not to out of misguided arrogance. These are all counterfactuals that have no relevance to the main issue, which is that it is not RR's fault that the AD was unwilling to give any of his assistants contracts; for Casteel, unlike the others, this was the dealbreaker.

Remember: the strength staff spends MORE time with the players than the football staff does. RR said that Barwis is a key component of his entire football program. All you have to do is listen to RR talk about Barwis, and Barwis about RR to understand that they share a vision of what a football program should be like.

He did not believe Casteel was as important to the program as a whole. Maybe in hindsight he would change things, but my argument, and the one Bacon made, is that this was a choice that he should not have been forced to make in the first place. Suggestions like skimming of 300k for a weight room upgrade, or asking him to pay Casteel out of his own pocket don't address any of the key problems: no contract for Casteel, and a meager pay raise.

I love sports science. Impressive stuff.

Man, after the past 10 years, you'd think we'd show a little humility when it comes to our bowl game performance.

I agree, I think we win this game, but we need to bring some levity to the conversation.

Yes, I think you're right that discussing this issue further would cross The Line. I think all of us in this forum can at least agree that a successful education system is a key component of a succesful civilization; how we achieve that success is not as important as its achievement.

The poltiical argument is about the how and not the end-goal itself (at least I hope so!).

If I'm not mistaken, Crisler was the one who brought them to Princeton, and then took them with him when he moved. Apparently you could do that sort of thing back then.

Someone's grumpy today...

I think the issue many of us have taken is that it is downright disrespectful to the players who were brought to Michigan by RR, and who busted their asses to be good players for Michigan. Many of those players have a huge amount of respect for RR.

Is Desmond saying it was a mistake for them to commit to Michigan with him as its head coach? I hope not. I hope he's not in the same crowd of people were were telling recruits not to go play for Michigan because of RR being its head coach.

I'm confused...I thought the spread couldn't work in the Big Ten.

Back in my day (2004-8) we crammed people in AND the top rows were full. And didn't they widen the seats anyway?

You do realize that you can run the play clock down without a huddle, right?

Yeah, his assistants were treated so well too!

Seconded. Last week I found rage I didn't know I had because of that man.

Except for the fact that no big time programs are at the stage where they're looking for a coach. Whether people around here believe it or not, RR is widely regarded in coaching circles, and will have no problem landing in a BCS conference. Will it be a program on par with the Alabamas (where he was offered to coach) USCs and Michigans? Probably not, but he'll land somewhere and do just fine.

What the f*ck is the Internet?

I find your language offensive.

Something tells me they'll just be satisfied with beating us 4 straight years...

McSorley's Irish Pale Ale - apparently they're selling it in 6 packs now.

Personally, I'm going to RABBLE if that happens.

You just couldn't avoid taking a pot shot at Rodriguez, could you? Of all the things RR said, telling fans to get a life (in that context) was one of the most reasonable.

733

I thought I read/heard somewhere that he originally wanted to call it "Third and Long", but the publisher wanted to change it. I wish I could remember where - might have been a WTKA interview.

While Rumsey may be a bit abrasive, and perhaps somewhat uninformed, I hardly think questioning why we were still running Denard with such a big lead is out of bounds.

I think at this point you and I are entering the realm of a "heated agreement," because I really do agree with most of what you have said. The point that I want to make is that if we are really going to be in the shotgun this much, then we need to use more of the playbook from last year for it to be effective. Last year, even with Denard's injuries and the struggles we had against good defenses (which ANY offense will have), we were still amazingly productive.

Even when our offense was "bad" last year, we were at least functional. It seems we are relying on the jump ball significantly more than we were last year, and I believe this is because we have abandoned much of the short passing game we were using in favor of intermediate routes.

While that's certainly true, our running game itself was excellent. That's because we weren't asking the offensive line to block in ways they really aren't capable of doing.

New Belgium just made it here to DC, so I'm enjoying some Fat Tire on this hallowed eve.

There are so many fantastic parts of this video, but my favorite is the consecutive onlsaught of guitar, sax, and keyboard solos.

The honorable mention goes to the (EDIT: husky) girl who looks like she's about to throw a bottle of chemicals into a "HOT HOT HOT" fire.

In all fairness, we have enough talent to win 10 games this year if the ball bounces our way a couple of times. Will that happen? Probably not, but this is an 8 win team at minimum.

Can you say the same thing about the talent Lloyd Carr delivered in 2008?

No, and that's where it should stay.

Your Star Trek knowledge is worthy of song.

In DC (technically NoVA) also, and I just read that it was the largest ever recorded in DC. Definitely wasn't expecting that today.

Maybe it's my maize-colored goggles, but I think there is no question at all that Denard is on a different plane of existence in terms of speed, and especially agility. He has a stronger arm and is (reportedly) making significant strides in terms of accuracy. We've seen some very nice deep balls and touch passes from him in the limited practice video available, and all reports indicate his timing is coming along quite well.

This whole Denard vs. "T-Magic" (which is a horrible nickname) thing feels very contrived by the media. Looking at the stats, it's not even a comparison:

Denard - Passing: 149.58 rating, 62.5% completion pct., 18/10 TD/INT, 198 yds/gm

Rushing: 6.65/carry, 14 TD, 131 yds/gm

Martinez - Passing: 138.78, 59.2%, 10/7, 125 yds/gm

Rusing: 5.96/carry, 12 TD, 74 yds/gm

Denard had a total of 4272 yards, an average of 328.6/game; Martinez totaled 2596 at 199/game. Once again, not even close.

And while they were both injured, Denard clearly showed more toughness since they both played in all 13 games.

And let's not forge all of the "elite" defenses in the Big 12.

These are fair points, but Minor was reportedly suffering from a case of the fumbles in fall camp early in that season. I completely agree that Minor was the best back we've had (imagine him and Denard in the same backfield!), but he, like everyone it seems, was injured a lot. McGuffie was obviously not ready to play, but his issues were between his ears rather than physical ability. He showed flashes of being the perfect back for what RR wants.

Shaw and Toussaint have been habitually banged up, as was Carlos Brown. Cox (reportedly) has been very inconsistent, showing flashes of ability mixed in with not knowing where to be or what to do on any given play. Smith is obviously not a Michigan-caliber back, but like Kovacs, seems to do all of the little things right that makes him hard to completely displace.

Aside from Smith, all of these guys have (or had) the ability to be THE guy if they can stay healthy and be consistent, but the simple truth is that none of them have been able to do that. In my e-pinion, that leaves any coaching staff without an obvious choice. Rumblings from the current staff have basically reflected this, and that's even when everyone is healthy!

Agreed - I've been prognosticating that "this is the year Fitz FINALLY breaks out" for the past couple of seasons, and I don't plan on changing that.

It's worth noting that there was a significant contingent of OSU and Big Ten folks in general who thought RR was going to be wildly successful in the conference and then started referring to him as "Dick Rod" and ranting about how he's such a terrible person for the way he left WVU.

I think the real difference between Hoke and RR is that Hoke is talking more publicly about Ohio and is doing some chest thumping on Michigan's behalf, which RR obviously did not do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKkli8M_0Q&feature=player_embedded

One time I had too many hertz in my frontside bus, so I used a router and transported them through the L1 cache and now everyone is happy. Hope that helps.

Please tell me I'm missing something here................(/s).............................

While his writing skills might need some work, I don't think the analysis is all that bad. We're not going to be favored in any of the games that he predicted us to lose.

The reality is that it never should have been said in the first place; I recognize you've agreed with that much.

The problem is that the majority of people on mgoblog and, I'm sure, who follow 11W are guys. And anyone who's ever hung out with a group of guys can accurately interpret what was meant by 11W's post, overt or otherwise. We all know (and hopefully cringe) when our friends say ignorant, homophobic shit. Hell, I'm sure none of us are model citizens in that respect.

However, to imply that something must be explicitly stated in order for it to qualify as immoral or unjust is dangerous. We're not idiots here. When your friend (insert bro here) is making fun of you, and says that you and (insert your bro-friend here) went out on a nice little trip to a restaurant together and shared a desert (they're expensive in DC!), he's probably not making a comment on your taste in cuisine.

The point is that it is more frequent for people to be subtle in their attacks against gay people than for them to be overt. In an odd sort of way, I guess that's progress. I'm just saying that you shouldn't continue to pretend that what 11W was anyhting less than a subtle, ignorant form of discrimination.

That Oregon beatdown still haunts my dreams.

Between this and the ESPN traditions poll, I think the mgocommunity has figured out how to win the Internet.

LSU Freek is amazing. The clothing colors from that scene match perfectly the colors of the 4 schools that will benefit the most from the OSU implosion.

Guess what's for dinner the next couple of weeks: Cobra.