Mike Lantry, 1972
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I assume girls are also||
I assume girls are also eligible for this position?
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Seems like every other game||
Seems like every other game at this point the other team has had a guy on fire/having a career game against us. Yogi, Marble, now Kaminski. This isn't a coincidence - this team just isn't very good defensively.
Combine that with poor shooting, carelessness on offense, and not showing up the first half...well there you go. Hopefully we can get things turned around come tournament time, but who knows.
|5 weeks 17 hours ago||If you go down the line of||
If you go down the line of matchups, I think the margin is pretty small.
Burke > Walton - this is the biggest mismatch in my opinion
THJ > LeVert - THJ wasn't always "on," so it's feasible that LeVert could outplay him on a given day
`13 Stauskas < `14 Stauskas - This is a huge mismatch. Stauskas of this year would destroy Stauskas of yesteryear.
`13 GR3 < `14 GR3 - While he is periodically absent, there's no question this year's version is better.
McGary > Horgan - This would be a pretty significant mismatch for most anyone, but I think Horgan could hold their own against Mitch on most days.
Frankly I'd give the game to whichever team was playing at home. Not sure last year's team would be able to come out of a hostile 2014 Crisler environment with a win.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I use it almost exclusively||
I use it almost exclusively as a means to stay aware of current events and to make sure that I don't miss content on sites I follow. But I guess staying informed in real time and ensuring I'm never bored on the Internet has no objective value.
You don't have to tweet with your twitter account and you're not forced to follow any account you deem unworthy. Perhaps the twitter bubble you created for yourself was composed mostly of petty morons.
|8 weeks 2 days ago||I second this. The mods for||
I second this. The mods for Skyrim vastly improve an already great game.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||I think it's reasonable to||
I think it's reasonable to conclude that Hoke is squarely on the hot seat right now, pending of course the results of next season.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||I could have been clearer||
I could have been clearer here, but I am not making the argument that the spread offense is superior to pro-style in terms of on-the-field success, but saying that for non-experts it's not surprising to express preference for something that is more clearly understood.
If the "flaw" to which you are refering is the predictability of play calling in a run-to-spread attack, I don't think it's a flaw because the source of that predictability is the alignment of the defense and not whatever play the offense is in when they get to the LOS. Basically you can have a pretty good idea of what's about to happen when you see where the defense is the weakest.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||I'm pretty sure the term||
I'm pretty sure the term "manball" was created as a way to describe Brady Hoke's attitude toward how "real football" should be played, and was never intended to describe a scheme or even evaluate its effectiveness. And it was coined prior to Hoke coaching a game here.
Hoke believes (or at least has stated as much) that spread offenses are not physical enough to adequately prepare a defense. As you've pointed out, however, the offense we run doesn't reflect what Hoke stated publicly upon his hire, so he's obviously flexible.
Have you ever considered the fact that the reason why so many people (me included) like the spread offense is because it's conceptually very simple? I can look at the K-State offense and tell you what's going to happen pre-snap at a pretty good success rate. I understand Rodriguez's offense.
I have to admit I have no idea what Al Borges is trying to accomplish, other than throwing a bunch of different formations at people and trying to create breakdowns in the secondary. I suppose there would be a running game involved in an ideal world but we have yet to see one that really works for reasons you've covered ad nausem.
|11 weeks 5 days ago||Forgot the /s, but figured||
Forgot the /s, but figured it'd be obvious given BOB
|11 weeks 5 days ago||Yeah they'd never hire an||
Yeah they'd never hire an assistant with no HC experience.
|12 weeks 20 hours ago||Or when you decide to||
Or when you decide to celebrate Christmas at the in-law's house you just get coal.
|12 weeks 2 days ago||That is not logical.||
That is not logical.
|13 weeks 18 hours ago||This is tremendous news.||
This is tremendous news. Thanks for everything you do, Brian.
|14 weeks 23 hours ago||I would like some of whatever||
I would like some of whatever it is you're smoking. Prolific? LOLOLOLOL
|14 weeks 2 days ago||I'm not sure what benefit a||
I'm not sure what benefit a UFR would bring at this point, since the same thing happens every week. I can do a quick summary of the would-be UFR:
Defense: Good and getting better each week, but still inconsistent at times. Secondary rotations are puzzling. Got worn out in the 4th quarter due to offensive ineptitude.
Offense: a morass; a complete failure from the top-down; the source of all things depressing; evidence that Michigan will not compete for B1G titles, let alone be relevant nationally for years to come.
|14 weeks 4 days ago||I've only been a Michigan fan||
I've only been a Michigan fan since 2004, my freshman year. Suffice it to say 2011 is my only taste of victory, though the entire 2006 season was quite a time to be on campus. It's hard to describe the electricity in the air over the course of the season, and the surreal feeling that washed over campus as word of Bo's passing spread. 2006 was basically a slow, steady build into a crescendo during Ohio State week (they were still Ohio State back then). The entire season was really about the epic showdown everyone wanted to see at the end, and we got that. Too bad it didn't turn out for the best.
|16 weeks 16 hours ago||For some reason I've reached||
For some reason I've reached the point where this post has caused uncontrollable laughter by me.
|16 weeks 1 day ago||He outright said that the||
He outright said that the longevity of the coaching staff was a major factor, so once I heard that I knew it wasn't going to be Michigan. True or not, the perception that Hoke is the long-term guy at Michigan is very much in question. At least relative to Saban and Bama.
|17 weeks 15 hours ago||Obligatory question about||
Obligatory question about streaming the game...doesn't seem likely, does it?
|17 weeks 2 days ago||:(||
|17 weeks 2 days ago||I think my post has finally||
I think my post has finally come full circle with this comment. mGrowOld, I'm clearly a couple of decades behind you, but we're on the same page emotionally when it comes to this team. Frankly, I can trace my mental state of being back to the moment Bellomy took the field in Lincoln; we are lost.
I won't ever be able to not watch Michigan, but I'm glad I've reached a spot where I can digest our football games without having outcomes affect me one way or another. The most upsetting thing about all of this is that I am not upset.
|17 weeks 2 days ago||I don't understand why this||
I don't understand why this season has numbed me. Every game feels more like a task that I must do. I emoted nothing positive nor negative while watching the MSU game.
We're objectively a better team than even RR's 2010 team, yet I've never felt this feeling of pervasive apathy and aloofness.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||Oh for Pete's sake people,||
Oh for Pete's sake people, it's DOMINANT not dominate.
|19 weeks 5 days ago||Troll||
Wow you're just a total asshole, aren't you? Given the participation by so many people here, it seems this thread isn't so ridiculous after all.
|20 weeks 3 days ago||I think you literally don't||
I think you literally don't understand what literally means. Literally.
Also, the tone of mgoblog has been fairly consistent over the course of the season. Our offense is an abomination, and there is not rational excuse for what we're seeing. This line is worse than the 2008 line. Perhaps the comments have reached a "spartan level of atrociousness" because the offense has reached (and arguably surpassed) a spartan level of atrociousness.
|20 weeks 4 days ago||Internet awkwardness! *walks||
Internet awkwardness! *walks out of room*
|20 weeks 6 days ago||I think we're overlooking||
I think we're overlooking just how little talent this PSU team has.
|21 weeks 5 days ago||I think we should just have||
I think we should just have robots play the sport and computers officiate it. After all, all of us watch college football to experience perfection by players, coaches, and officials!
|22 weeks 6 days ago||Part of that is that Ohio hit||
Part of that is that Ohio hit a couple of deep passes, forcing them to play off a bit
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Easy there, fuzzy little||
Easy there, fuzzy little man-peach.
|24 weeks 2 days ago||This is all part of our||
This is all part of our effort to build THE BRAND
|24 weeks 6 days ago||Your internet tone suggests||
Your internet tone suggests you are a huge douche, who's also amazingly immune to irony. Good for you.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I think it's pretty clear||
I think it's pretty clear there is a significant difference between the two blogs. Seth gave a detailed and honest analysis to their questions, while their dude didn't play ball. Not that I'm surprised.
To hell with Notre Dame!
|26 weeks 4 days ago||I agree with this, though I||
I agree with this, though I hate to admit it. I am definitely a fan of the spread offense because it allows you to line up, see how the defense aligns, and then call a play based on that. With that said, you can execute that strategy without being abusive. We did the same thing under Rodriguez, but we weren't really an "up-temo" team compared to most spread offenses.
It's hard to write the rules to allow offenses to execute that strategy, but without being abusive by not allowing defenses to dictating to the officials the pace of the game. I think the NFL has it right in how they handle tempo.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||Our interior offensive line||
Our interior offensive line clearly has some work to do. It seemed to me that we ran a lot of zone blocking early, and then started getting into pulling later. Had mixed results with both. We were pulling the tackles a lot too, with mixed results too.
Last year's line was consistently bad. I think this year's line will be good, but inconsistent. Notre Dame will be a great early test, though I'm not terribly optimistic.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||I respectfully request that||
I respectfully request that you never use "nite" again. It is the worst.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||A lot of football recruits||
A lot of football recruits come from backgrounds where there wasn't much parenting, which is clearly the case with Hernandez. I'm obviously not justifying anything, but it's important to understand that a lot of guys playing FBS football come from difficult circumstances.
|27 weeks 5 days ago||That game crushed my||
That game crushed my soul-dong so much. I still believe we'd have been in the Rose Bowl had DG been ready to play.
|28 weeks 1 day ago||Seriously, man. I don't get||
Seriously, man. I don't get it either. Football needs to happen soon.
|29 weeks 1 day ago||Definition from official MLB||
Definition from official MLB rules:
"The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."
The thing is that, with the strike zone, a "bad call" is more about whether or not the strike zone is consistent. Different umpires have different strike zones, and players adjust to that. As long as balls and strikes are called consistently over the course of an entire game, then everyone is happy.
Now, please explain to me how you would institute an automated system that could reliably adjudicate balls and strikes based on the above definition that the players would themselves accept, keeping in mind that all these guys grew up with real life, and far less competent humans as umpires.
It would seem that in this debate, you don't have the easier side after all.
|29 weeks 1 day ago||I consider myself somewhat of||
I consider myself somewhat of a purist and, while not thrilled about replay, I can live with it.
|29 weeks 4 days ago||I'm not sure his||
I'm not sure his participation in this piece really changes that. This project - prima facie, at least - seems to be a legitimate journalistic endeavour, seeking to document the personal aspect of the arduous recruiting process experienced by such a highly-coveted prospects like Hand.
If the trailer is an accurate depiction of the series, I think this will be less about HYPE and more about the pressure associated with the spotlight being shined on recruits who don't seek it out.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||You worry too much about||
You worry too much about things of little consequence. That doesn't seem healthy.
|31 weeks 1 day ago||Oregon vs. Trash Tornado||
Having been at both The Horror and the ensuing Oregon beat down, I can tell you that the Oregon game was FAR worse psychologically than the Trash Tornado. It's the only game I couldn't bear to finish watching, which I'm not proud to admit.
|31 weeks 4 days ago||We're talking about the||
We're talking about the school and fan base that honored Jim Tressel at halftime during a season where, had he not been a complete sleazeball, they would've played for a national championship.
And then they went out and got 12-0 rings made. Completely absurd.
|31 weeks 4 days ago||Everything about this - from||
Everything about this - from the bracelet to the 11W description - is a perfect example of why Ohio is Ohio.
BONUS bonus: the comments are fantastic.
|31 weeks 4 days ago||So I suppose the Wall Street||
So I suppose the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are also off-limits? I just don't understand the notion that just because something is published in a publication with a poltical lean automatically means it's not worth reading, or that the article itself is even political.
It's clear that anyone who has issues with this post hasn't even attempted to read the essay, which is an excerpt from a book published by an academic.
There is no way the OP can be construed as being in violation of board policy since 1) the post itself isn't political (it's about sports and schadenfreude, two topics we hold dear) and 2) even the political part of the essay is an academic discussion.
It'd be tragic (and a little ironic) if a perfectly innocuous OP, calling for a bit of intellectual discussion on schadenfreude in sports, got locked because posters made it about poltiics and refused to actually read the damn thing and have an interesting discussion. Truly would be demonstrative of where this board has gone since the haloscan days.
|31 weeks 5 days ago||Not that anyone cares here,||
Not that anyone cares here, but the author is a psychologist who published a book on this topic. There is discussion of politics in the last third of the article, but it doesn't seem to be slanted in one way or another. Believe it or not it's possible to discuss politics from a purely academic standpoint.
Either way, it's completely reasonable by the OP to ask people to look at the sports-related portions of the essay (which is at least 2/3rds of it) and ignore the rest. Especially when the "rest" isn't even controversial.
|35 weeks 3 days ago||I'm afraid not. I've been||
I'm afraid not. I've been around these parts since the haloscan days making the same arguments. Frankly, I don't even know who that dude is except that he's apparently been banned a few times.
EDIT: Now I get it. It's the "Ghost of..." dude. Clearly my <500 points since day zero on this site indicate my level of awareness.
|35 weeks 3 days ago||Since you and I appear to be||
EDIT: Apparently Ferbert got banned. I will now prepare to experience the full brunt of the TL;DR crowd.
Since you and I appear to be continually negged anyway, I see no reason not to respond.
1) Since each recruit is a different human being, their decision models are unique. I think that about clears that up.
2) I don't see much difference in WR recruiting under Hoke when compared to RR or even late Carr. Sure, we had some great receivers under Carr but their rankings as recruits weren't much different than what we're getting now. I will concede that WR recruiting is a concern of mine, but I think it's too early. My argument that we've landed elite talent under Hoke still stands (Harris, Darboh, even Funchess and Butt would count here considering the system change).
3) My argument here is that he is inappropriately implying that Artavis Scott isn't able to sort out the signal from the noise. The poster explicitly compares his own individual memories as a Michigan fan to what he assumes Scott is looking at in making his selection of school. I am saying that you should give the recruit the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume he's a moron.
4) I was perhaps a bit unclear here. I'm simply saying that any recruit has a much better understanding of how their own life will be impacted than any fan could. I don't think that we as fans can claim to have any "inside" knowledge when it comes to this stuff. EIther way, this isn't really that important of a point.
5) My argument here really isn't about exposure or touches, but about the way each WR position is conceptualized in the offenses. I think it's obvious that the coaches sell the role of the position very differently, but the skillset may not be all that different. Either way, my point is that receivers coming out of high school can be sold in different ways on this.
6) Don't worry, there's no need to spend 15 minutes to explain the difference. I presume the reason why you have such a bad reputation around here is that you start talking to people personally and not about what they're arguing. I'll ignore that whole part.
I'm not sure what your argument is. I said in response that WR recruits will not be looking at our offense over the past 2 years, or even Denard's performance under Hoke. I referenced the 2010 season as the most comparable offense to Clemson merely to show that there really isn't a comparison that any recruit should make; essentially I am arguing that Denard's performance under Hoke is not only irrellevant, but also that no recruit would even consider it as such.
|35 weeks 3 days ago||1) We aren't dealing with||
1) We aren't dealing with average high school kids; we're dealing with elite athletes who have unique decision models when it comes to making an epically important decision. To assume their decision comes down to ESPN highlight reels of the most recent two seasons is ridiculous.
2) The change in offense hasn't hampered this coaching staff when it comes to recruiting at literally every position. We've at this point landed elite talent at every position on offense.
3) You assume that a recruit is making a decision based on a highlight reel they've composed in their mind over the past season or two. This is patently absurd. The elite ones especially have a lot of people in their ear.
4) Artavis Scott isn't exactly an "outsider" like you claim since he's been in direct conversation with the coaching staff. This means you've not only mischaracterized his role in the recruiting process, but you you also think you're some kind of "insider" having followed this football program.
5) Clemson and Michigan run different systems on offense, so the role of a WR in each is quite different. Unless you think Scott is a moron, he understands this.
6) When Michigan was running the offense Denard was recruited for, and which Clemson runs presently, Denard was an ALL AMERICAN. I don't think this is lost on high school recruits, and I certainly don't think they are under the impression the offense they saw the last two seasons is going to be the way forward.
The next time you're "just saying" something in a post, you might want to put a modicum of thought into it. Scott just felt more comfortable at Clemson, so that's where he will go. The recruiting results under Hoke would seem to indicate that the majority of the elite athletes we recruit end up putting on the helmet.
|36 weeks 5 days ago||Well, one of them plays QB||
Well, one of them plays QB and the other plays CB. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.
|40 weeks 1 day ago||It's just one extra||
It's just one extra keystroke!
|40 weeks 5 days ago||Can we ban this guy please?||
Can we ban this guy please?
|41 weeks 1 day ago||I think DS9 is clearly the||
I think DS9 is clearly the best series of them all. TNG was very episodic and excellent on its own merits, whereas DS9 was an entire (and epic!) story arc that took place over seven seasons. I think the fact that DS9 is "parked" near Bajor allows the show to dig very deep into issues and subject matter. In this sense there was a lot more political intrigue with so many moving parts, characters and factions with different goals and interests.
|41 weeks 1 day ago||You wouldn't be lost, though||
You wouldn't be lost, though I'd recommend at least seeing the first reboot movie (2009). At most you'll be missing out on a lot of canonical references, but that's not vital to your enjoying the movie.
As a pretty die hard Trek fan, I think it's definitely worth seeing.
|41 weeks 1 day ago||This is almost as cool as the||
This is almost as cool as the time Captain Pic...Patrick Stewart conducted the band at halftime during the 2006 Ball State game.
|41 weeks 4 days ago||(No subject)|
|42 weeks 1 day ago||I can't imagine any baseball||
I can't imagine any baseball player worth his salt would want to spend his college career playing on a turf field. I suppose we'll see how this all works out...
|44 weeks 2 days ago||*||
*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.
|45 weeks 2 days ago||I hear they're working a JDDM||
I hear they're working a JDDM -Joint Direct Donut Munitions to deliver them laser guided.
|46 weeks 2 days ago||The people of the United||
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.
|48 weeks 6 days ago||Ok, that's hilarious.||
Ok, that's hilarious.
|49 weeks 3 days ago||I'm in 98th percentile on||
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...
|49 weeks 3 days ago||Oh what a surprise, a Clowney||
Oh what a surprise, a Clowney reference in a basketball article.
|50 weeks 3 days ago||Call me an old-timer (I'm||
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.
|51 weeks 17 hours ago||This should probably be in||
This should probably be in the rant thread.
|51 weeks 3 days ago||I'm not saying I agree with||
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.
|51 weeks 3 days ago||I understand that, and it was||
I understand that, and it was ultimately their decision to make. I think hindsight has borne out that the WR corps was just fine without Gardner and that Bellomy was not a viable option at QB. As Magnus pointed out, the admittedly small sample size of Bellomy scrimmage/game action has not shown he is capable of running this offense.
Put another way: what game might Michigan had lost with Gardner not playing WR? What game might Michigan had won with Gardner playing QB? These are counterfactuals to be sure, but from a risk/reward standpoint I think they are valid.
|51 weeks 4 days ago||I'd say Gardner's performance||
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.
|51 weeks 4 days ago||If there's one bone to pick||
If there's one bone to pick with this coaching staff, it's their handling of the QB position. Denard regressed under Borges (due to scheme, coaching, or whatever - it happened and wasn't related to injury). They thought Bellomy was actually a viable option.
Recruiting rankings are not the final word by any means, but as has been mentioned before, this staff has not earned the "trust without skepticism" status many people commenting here have given them when it comes to quarterback.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||What is with that, anyway?||
What is with that, anyway?
|1 year 2 weeks ago||You're right that if we're||
You're right that if we're trying to weigh the factors that have led to our atrocious defense, it's really hard to figure out how much youth, leadership, coaching, fatigue, scheme, etc. contribute to the outcome.
I do agree that defense at this level is complex, but we're not even executing simple things at this point. We look lost out there, and we don't seem to be playing with any sort of confidence or intensity. I'm just not so sure that youth alone (they all have plenty of experience at this point) can account for missed assignments and late rotations, particularly against a team like Penn State.
Hopefully this time off will allow the team to work on fundamentals and figure out a way to stop the slide. Even with our youth, this team should be better than Northwestern defensively.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Thank you, Alex. That was||
Thank you, Alex. That was quite helpful.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Understandable. FWIW I don't||
Understandable. FWIW I don't think the event itself is at all political, and I'm not even sure why it's called the congressional breakast. Hence the reason why I started the thread.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Actually if you go back and||
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.
|1 year 6 weeks ago||You could at least change the||
You could at least change the tag at the bottom.
|1 year 7 weeks ago||I don't know. I live in DC||
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.
|1 year 7 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|1 year 7 weeks ago||I understand that and, if you||
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.
|1 year 7 weeks ago||The whole thing that's||
The whole thing that's frustrating about THE HIT (OMG) is that it wasn't really the result of anything impressive that Clowney did. There was a communication error at the line where Kwitiakowski thought he and Lewan were to combo block the guy but instead it was supposed to be just him (an arguably ill-advised assignment).
So Clowney was essentially unblocked due to a missed assignment and, being large and strong, put a big hit on a guy in the backfield who had just received the handoff. Sure it looked gnarly, but it's not at all a great play by Clowney's part.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||So we're really all upset||
So we're really all upset because the existence of our offensive coordinator is a source of joy for Ohio fans, right?
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Well this is disappointing.||
Well this is disappointing.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Except for that time when, as||
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.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I'm not sure what you've seen||
I'm not sure what you've seen that gives you confidence we can beat them next year.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I hope you played football||
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.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||(No subject)|
|1 year 20 weeks ago||See the Michigan teams that||
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.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I think he's talking about||
I think he's talking about the line relative to what the coaching staff wants to be able to d in the future. This is an above average line, but it's still not that great when it comes to executing the type of (POWER/MANBALL) running game this staff wants to get to. At leat that's how I interpreted it.
Also, your avatar is brilliant. Who is that?
|1 year 21 weeks ago||You and I agree that they||
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.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||First of all, I am not the||
First of all, I am not the one calling people idiots, which seems highly disrespectful. I suppose it's the Internet and all pretense of decency is lost, but I hope you don't say such things to acquaintences in the real world. At least I can take some solace in the fact that, based on your posting history, you tend to call a lot of people idiots/morons/etc. simply because they disagree with your opinions, which are always cogent and expressed in a respectful and coherent fashion.
Second, the OP asked people their thoughts on the game and I simply offered an analysis of the worst play of the game for us. I think that's fair game, particularly since I expressed this in a perfectly reasonable and respectful fashion.
Finally, if you want to offer an actual counter-argument to the one I made about how poor play design led directly to a turnover, I'm ready to listen. Maybe I've been around this blog too long. It used to be that respectfully presented arguments about scheme were treated with actual discussion, as opposed to name calling and an outright refusal to acknowledge that people can respectfully disagree.
The most entertaining part of this little exchange is that you're making a parody of yourself and don't even realize.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||You're right. I suppose I||
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.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Unless you demonstrate that||
Unless you demonstrate that it is a base play of your offense, in which case they would have to respect it every single down. Respecting it every down means you don't have unblocked defenders run blitzing and blowing up plays in the backfield. It'd also mean more production from Fitz.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||So you mean to tell me that||
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.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||A major negative is the||
A major negative is the fumble that was caused by scheme and scheme only. We are still not requiring the defense to respect the possiblity of a bubble screen on every read-option play, so they can just blitz the OLB at the mesh point and have a low risk/high reward outcome.
Any sort of packaged play where the D is required to respect the receivers on the outside would both prevent this sort of blitizing and open up running lanes for Fitz. Yet we continue to do this.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I'm also a Braves fan and I||
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.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||I couldn't find a place to||
I couldn't find a place to put this in the whole Yeoman debate, but here it is:
This was an historically bad call for at least two reasons:
1) the rule calls that an infielder must be able to make the play in routine fashion (I believe the rule uses "ordinary" but it basically the same thing). When an infielder is that deep in the outfielder and there is a communication error, there is NOTHING routine about that play.
2) The infield fly should be called IMMEDIATELY. This is to allow the defense to play the ball appropriately and also to limit the bounds of the play; if it is unclear whether or not the infield fly rule is applicapble immediately after the ball is batted, then it is not supposed to be ruled as such. The fact that it is required to be declared immediately is designed as a check against such egregiously bad calls as this one.
And to add, I have been trained as an umpire and I played 2B and SS for a total of 14 years. That is not a routine play. The ball was batted into what is essentially no man's land. These are major league baseball players having trouble judging the location of the ball and trouble communicating who should field it.
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Dude, you can keep arguing||
I put this comment in the wrong place; relocated.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Agreed. I don't understand||
Agreed. I don't understand what is so "epic" about a bunch of hillbillies singing a song. Is it because they all know the words?
There is a lot that is special about college football, but this isn't it.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||We don't know if he has the||
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.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Please...no.||
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Did everyone miss the part||
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.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||I think a lot of it had to do||
I think a lot of it had to do with the constraint-drive nature of RR's offense. Plays were often packaged where Denard could give, keep, or throw the bubble based on reads; these packaged plays don't seem to be in Borges' offense.
When you don't keep the defense honest by having constraints on plays, they can more easily "build a fence" because they don't have to worry about being "wrong" by the design of the play. This is why Brian has been harping on the bubble screen. We're using it now, but it doesn't appear to be a read that we're making on a down-by-down basis, which allows the defense to build a fence.
So basically this is an argument about offensive philosophy. RR's offense is designed to make the defense wrong on every play by packaged plays and constraints; Borges's offense doesn't do this. This is basically a "try to score every play" offense versus a "let's just do things that work and let us hang on to the ball." Both can be effective, but we don't have the personnel to run the philosophy this staff prefers, so it seems like we're stuck with an uncomfortable reality for the rest of this year and likely into 2014.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Dude, your work is obviously||
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.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Please just go away.||
Please just go away.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||This game will not improve||
This game will not improve unless we stop allowing defenders an untouched passage to Denard.
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Yeah man||
|1 year 25 weeks ago||Cool story bro post||
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 year 25 weeks ago||I recall a play that we ran||
I recall a play that we ran in the CapOne bowl against Florida that was a throwback screen to Jake Long out of a similar formation. He was uncovered and there wasn't a penalty on the play. Lewan and Long both wore 77 - have the eligibility rules changed since then?
|1 year 27 weeks ago||I'll play ball||
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.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||As a Missourian (and UM grad)||
As a Missourian (and UM grad) who has had extensive exposure to both groups, the southern accent is far, far worse in terms of first impressions. Vowel shifts are one thing, but being at times unintelligible is entirely different.
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Yes.||
|1 year 31 weeks ago||I understand where you're||
I understand where you're coming from, and think it's unreasonable to think that news organizations should refrain from reporting events as they happen. The result has been, at least for me, an avoidance of national news outlets in favor of googling specific subjects of interst in google news ("israel AND iran" if anyone's interested in the most important news story right now).
The problem is that I enjoy watching competition as it unfolds, and the reporting by national outlets has me avoiding them like the plague. The ideal soluton would be for the national media to offer sanitized websites: www.nytimes.com/nolympics
The demand it seems is for is a modicum of decency by Americans on social media as well as some accommodation from the national media.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||FWIW, "he" is actually a she.||
FWIW, "he" is actually a she. Just saying.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||DUNE DUNE DUNE||
I can't believe nobody has mentioned DUNE! Seriously, "Dune" by Frank Herbert is an epic book and anyone who calls themself a sci-fi fan should read it. Frankly, even people who aren't probably should. You will not be disappointed.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Except Emmert said that it||
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.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Remarks like this can be||
Remarks like this can be interpreted as being unnecessarily political.
With that said, I think "more bureaucracy" (as if there exists some universal sliding scale) would have done Penn State a lot of good since the Freeh report argues that there was not a proper system of oversight in place between the board of trustees and the university leadership. Often time, bureaucratic systems and processes exist to hold people and institutions to account.
As for the "sovereign rights" of the schools, that makes no sense whatsoever. Most member institutions are PUBLIC and therefore have sovereignty over nothing.
As people have said, this may not be such a bad thing if it adds an additional layer of oversight to prevent the worst of the worst from happening. At least then there is another mechanism through which whistleblowers and concerned people can report what they've witnessed.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||Lagunitas Undercover||
double post. guess this means I need to double fist on the beers.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||Lagunitas Undercover||
Lagunitas Undercover Investigation Shutdown. I buy any Lagunitas that I haven't had before, and this one doesn't disappoint.
BONUS: 9.8% ABV
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Dude, while I do agree that||
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 year 41 weeks ago||I have to go into work||
I have to go into work because the [redacted] might [redacted] and that would not be a good thing for any of us, especially considering the ongoing [redacted].
|1 year 41 weeks ago||1. Point-a-minute level 2.||
1. Point-a-minute level
2. Mad Magician level
|1 year 43 weeks ago||I got Jeter with the last||
I got Jeter with the last pick in the draft. He's cooled off some, but he's proven to be a fantastic value pick. My pitching has been inconsistent as I have Lincicum and Ubaldo. Fortunately I have Verlander and managed to get Darvish in the late rounds.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Of course, somebody beats me||
Of course, somebody beats me to it. It's CSont'e York.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Don't forget the Royals.||
Don't forget the Royals.
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Dude, Brandon Minor was one||
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.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||I agree that the numbers||
I agree that the numbers suggest the bottom fell out, but a lot of that had to do with our terrible recruiting in the waning Carr years. Including this most recent draft, we simply have not had the elite talent on hand to compete for B1G championships.
If you're suggesting that the bottom did indeed fall out, you need to expand the timeframe beyond just those three seasons.
|1 year 44 weeks ago||I hardly think 3 seasons||
I hardly think 3 seasons during which we increased the talent level and saw major facilities improvements amounts to "the bottom falling out"
|1 year 44 weeks ago||That was terrible.||
That was terrible.
EDIT: And the more I think about it, the fact that you took the time to post an unentertaining, creativity-lacking video from FIVE YEARS AGO is also terrible. Do you realize what would happen if things like this became standard practice!?
"OMGLOL: 1YR L8R NOTRE LAME SUXORZ MARIO MANNING HAMFTW"
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Wasn't Denard slotted as the||
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.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||I'm pretty sure that is||
I'm pretty sure that is frowned upon by the NCAA
|1 year 45 weeks ago||I'm curious to whom you're||
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.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||I'm not saying it's||
I'm not saying it's impossible, as I included a close victory as a possiblity, but I just don't see us having the horses to pull this one out. Since this is being labeled by His Excellency, the Athletic Department as a major branding opportunity, there is potential that the whole thing backfires since the outcomes are slanted against us.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||While Brian didn't explicitly||
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.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||This should go on pranksters (SNL skit)|
|1 year 46 weeks ago||Not to nitpick, but I'm||
Not to nitpick, but I'm almost certain that's the T-38 trainer jet used by NASA.
|1 year 46 weeks ago||The Washington Post has a||
The Washington Post has a pretty good gallery. Currently trending on twitter as #spottheshuttle
|1 year 46 weeks ago||We all wake up the next||
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?
|1 year 48 weeks ago||I think the offensive line||
I think the offensive line blocking (actual zone blocking) improved dramatically in '12 over '11, and the running feels a lot more natural.
For this year I hope they continue to build on that and have OL who actually know their assignments and get to the 2nd level when they should. A lot of guys online have figured out how to trick your OL into missing their assignments, and it's rather obnoxious.
The primary reason I'm looking forward to this year is that it will be the first time Michigan will be rated highly in a long time, and as someone who refuses to play as anyone but Michigan online, this will translate to a dramatic improvement in my record. Or so I hope.
|1 year 48 weeks ago||Yours only get batted down? I||
Yours only get batted down? I have freaking OLBs transport themselves 10 yards in an instant, leap up and grab one-handed interceptions.
|1 year 49 weeks ago||I'M IN A GLASS CAGE OF||
I'M IN A GLASS CAGE OF EMOTION!!
|1 year 49 weeks ago||What?||
|1 year 50 weeks ago||The first time I saw it was||
The first time I saw it was actually a Family Guy rendition of it, but searching for that I came across this version, which must be the original. I actually don't know where it's from, but thought it was appropriate.
EDIT: Judging by your avatar, I assume you're also in the camp that we need MOAR F-22s?
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Oh Reginald|
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Morgan||
will start next year
|1 year 50 weeks ago||I disagree that this is an||
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.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Don't get me wrong, I really||
Don't get me wrong, I really like Morgan; the kid plays hard and is a physical presence in the paint. I just don't think it is a given that he will be the starter for the majority of the season, and expect that someone making a blanket statement should back it up with some kind of analysis. Morgan is a good player, but he is very limited in what he brings to the floor and guys like McGary and Horford will challenge him for minutes.
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Your analysis is exceptional||
Your analysis is exceptional
|1 year 50 weeks ago||Who let the bots out?||
Who let the bots out?
|1 year 51 weeks ago||And especially not their||
And especially not their college basketball acumen.
|1 year 52 weeks ago||Michigan State?||
EDIT in light of ChiBlue's post: mine was supposed to be sarcastic
|2 years 2 days ago||Does anyone know why MSU is||
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?
|2 years 5 days ago||You either really appreciate||
You either really appreciate baseball and its tradition, or you really hate it. I'm not sure which.
|2 years 1 week ago||The core problem in need of||
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.
|2 years 1 week ago||Only if you believe mine was||
Only if you believe mine was too
|2 years 1 week ago||Dude, put down the tinfoil||
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.
|2 years 1 week ago||You can say that about any||
You can say that about any offense, period. Elite defenses will slow ANY offense down; that is why they are elite.
|2 years 1 week ago||If I recall, this whole||
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.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||Right...||
so shouldn't Michigan athletes, more than anyone else, refrain from insulting Michigan athletics? Especially a coach whose staff frequently attended baseball games and cheered them on?
|2 years 2 weeks ago||I took Bacon's class my||
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.
|2 years 2 weeks ago||I think this thread proves||
I think this thread proves posbangs were never about the points, but about the the warm fuzzy feeling you get when total strangers laud you with imaginary points after a tremendous series of events.
And the best part is: it's totally reasonable!
|2 years 3 weeks ago||I can even tell you that it||
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!
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Dude, it wasn't the coaching.||
Dude, it wasn't the coaching. You can complain all you want about the coaching staff under RR, but Bruce Tall was an excellent coach. He had THREE defenislve line coaches this past year and still only contributed marginally. Please dispense with the revisionist history.
|2 years 5 weeks ago||Homeland is pretty good, so||
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"
|2 years 6 weeks ago||Please, no.||
|2 years 7 weeks ago||Sports Illustrated gives you answers||
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...
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Unpossible - Ohio bowl ban =||
Unpossible - Ohio bowl ban = no BIG CG appearance allowed.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||I see what you did there...||
I see what you did there...
|2 years 8 weeks ago||I see what you did there...||
I see what you did there...
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Rich Rodriguez is SOOOO||
Rich Rodriguez is SOOOO relevant!
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Yeah, but that's mostly due||
Yeah, but that's mostly due to youth and inexperience. Our secondary was bad under RR despite being veteran-laden.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||There is a difference between||
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.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Dude, a state of the art||
Dude, a state of the art weight room is not a benefit to Rich Rodriguez - it is an investment for the University of Michigan that is, and will continue to pay dividends in player development and recruiting. We had a bunch of old equipment sitting around that did not satisfy the requirements for the new, much-lauded, strength and conditioning staff. And that's not to mention that a coaching contract is OVER TIME, whereas the $1 million upgrade is a ONE TIME investment.
For fuck's sake, of ALL the decisions RR made, complaining about this one is just plain ignorant.
Why can people on this board just LET IT GO!?
|2 years 9 weeks ago||I love sports science.||
I love sports science. Impressive stuff.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Not sure if serious...||
Not sure if serious...
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Man, after the past 10 years,||
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.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Oooh, that's giving ME a||
Oooh, that's giving ME a clue.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||Yes, I think you're right||
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!).
|2 years 10 weeks ago||You're forgetting one of the||
You're forgetting one of the main points of the article, which is that certain prestigious public universities have historically been tools of social mobility because the public funding that subsidizes them enables the attendance of those who would not normally be able to afford to do so.
If the choice facing Michigan and its students is between accepting federal and state funding, and therefore allowing people to attend a school that would normally be out of their reach, and not accepting any funding whatsoever in order to be "independent," I think anyone here who attended the University would chose the former every time.
It's also important to remember that Michigan is a research institution as well. Comparing it to a small liberal arts school is hardly relevant.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||If I'm not mistaken, Crisler||
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.
|2 years 10 weeks ago||I was once told that I sport||
I was once told that I sport impressive stuff. Science.
|2 years 11 weeks ago||Someone's grumpy today...||
Someone's grumpy today...
|2 years 11 weeks ago||It's hard to say what the||
It's hard to say what the ROK's contingency plans are, but I doubt letting a flood of refugees cross the DMZ is a part of any of them. That would be massively destablizing for both states.
I think the plans of the interested parties - US, ROK, PRC - is to take a "wait and see" approach.
|2 years 12 weeks ago||I think the issue many of us||
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.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||I don't know why Dantonio||
I don't know why Dantonio would leave when he's treated like a diety in East Lansing. All you have to do is listen to the guy to understand that he is a strange, smug, and egotistical man. He LOVES the way he is treated by all the sparties.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||I'm confused...I thought the||
I'm confused...I thought the spread couldn't work in the Big Ten.
|2 years 14 weeks ago||He's saying that we will need||
He's saying that we will need to execute more constraint plays against Ohio's defense, which is better than Nebraska's, in order to prevent them from cheating on certain plays.
EDIT: I need to learn the difference between "who" and "what". I too am confused by this "Ohio State" Brian is talking about.
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Back in my day (2004-8) we||
Back in my day (2004-8) we crammed people in AND the top rows were full. And didn't they widen the seats anyway?
|2 years 15 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|2 years 15 weeks ago||You do realize that you can||
You do realize that you can run the play clock down without a huddle, right?
|2 years 15 weeks ago||Did you watch the previous 2||
Did you watch the previous 2 teams to play in the national title game?
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Yeah, his assistants were||
Yeah, his assistants were treated so well too!
|2 years 16 weeks ago||So, there's this book that||
So, there's this book that came out a few weeks ago...
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Seconded. Last week I found||
Seconded. Last week I found rage I didn't know I had because of that man.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||There is no chance in hell RR||
There is no chance in hell RR would accept a job as OC when his record as a HC, even despite his 3 seasons at Michigan, is excellent.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Except for the fact that no||
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.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||It's not that MOAR RUNZ is||
It's not that MOAR RUNZ is the solution people are proposing. I, for one, would like to see our OL asked to execute a blocking scheme that they can actually execute. Right now we've managed to take the most productive run offense we've had in a generation and shelve it because it's not manly enough.
I agree with your overall assessment of Borges - it's unreasonable to ask him to be RR. I'm not so sure it's unreasonable to ask him to use blocking schemes that fit our linemen and not have Denard have nearly 40 pass attempts in a game.
|2 years 18 weeks ago||What the f*ck is the||
What the f*ck is the Internet?
|2 years 18 weeks ago||Cool!||
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I find your language||
I find your language offensive.