Mike Lantry, 1972
|2 weeks 2 days ago||This is completely subjective and pointless to argue about||
Define "sport," go. This thread is basically one long boring argument about semantics. Do judges matter? If something is physically challenging and requires lots of hard work and dedication is it automatically a sport? These questions are pointless. Define "sport" however you want to, it has no impact on the people actually doing it.
As far as this article is concerned, I don't have too much of a problem with it. It seems to me that the authors is less trying to make a semantic point about what is and is not a sport, and rather point out that in the ever more exciting and X-Games-y Winter Olympics, ice dancing is seeming more and more out of place. And I have to say I broadly agree with that point.
Ice Dancing is challenging, physical, requires a lifetime of training, and is excruciatingly boring to watch. I realize that many people will disagree with me on that point, because it is a completely subjective personal opinion, which is exactly what this author was trying to convey. Her personal opinion of ice dancing is that it's boring and anachronistic, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have.
|3 weeks 22 hours ago||Sure||
I guess my point is that there's really nothing stopping Comcast or TWC from doing all of that right now. The merger/takeover will put them in a better bargaining position when they're trying to squeeze money out of Netflix and Google for better bandwidth treatment, but from the consumer perspective it doesn't change much.
Comcast currently has just as much of a stranglehold over its internet-only customers as they will if/when this merger goes through. If they wanted to implement bandwidth caps and block content and all sorts of other terrible things, they could start doing it right now. This merger just takes two smaller regional monopolies and makes one larger regional monopoly. But all of the problems that come with a monopoly are present either way.
And I could be wrong on this, but in the wake of the federal net neutrality ruling I remember some analysts saying that Comcast was on something like a 3 year probationary period after purchasing NBC that would prevent them from violating net neutrality anyway. So maybe it's best that Comcast be as big as possible right now, since they're basically the only ISP that's actually beholden to net neutrality at the moment.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||I like where your head's at||
But I think a better solution is closer to something we already have: the wireless coverage market. Now, not everyone likes their plan with AT&T or Verizon, but if you look at the price of wireless service over the past 10-15 years (very little change, maybe increasing a little) and the level of service offered with each plan (huge, monumental, unbelievable improvement) in that same span, it's impressive. Do the same comparison to cable companies and you'll see rates go up while service provided stays basically the same.
I guess the point here is that in quite a few markets, the best possible thing for consumers is just some good old-fashioned capitalist competition. The issue in the cable world is that there's no real competition for these companies, so they can just do whatever they want. End regional telecom monopolies!
|3 weeks 1 day ago||My initial reaction was similar to the OP's||
But the more I think about it, the less concerned I am that this will have any actual impact on cable and internet service provided by Comcast or TWC.
The AT&T/T-Mobile merger was problematic because those two companies are in direct competition for customer business. If you don't like your cell phone provider, you can switch to a different provider which (a) gives your current provider an incentive to try to keep you and (b) gives all other providers an incentive to try and lure you away.
This is VERY different from how the cable world works, where every cable provider is a government-protected regional monopoly. There is nowhere in this country where a consumer actually has a choice between multiple cable companies, the only choice is cable from the one available provider or not-cable. It's basically what national telephone providers looked like when Bell was first split up. "Oh, we're totally independent companies working for our consumers and fostering competition. This isn't a front for a well-organized oligopoly at all!"
With any luck, the court's recent ruling invalidating the FCC net neutrality rules will actually have a positive impact. It will (hopefully) force the FCC to either re-classify cable broadband providers as the monopolies they are, or even better put an end to the practice of regional cable monopolies all together. I'm not holding my breath for the latter, but the former at least seems likely at this juncture.
And I haven't even gotten into what a ridiculous ripoff channel bundling is yet. As you may have guessed, the shittiness of cable companies is one of my favorite rants. This and how crappy Christopher Columbus was.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah||
Their explanation of their methodology is vague at best. Seems like it's just a completely subjective blend between past recruiting hype and actual performance.
I think a much more interesting list would be underrated recruits who outperformed expectations. But that list would only serve to highlight ESPN recruiting's inaccuracies, so I doubt they'll make it. I'll just chalk this one up to off-season click-bait.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||As a veteran of internet-only entertainment||
The biggest drawback is sports. The only way to get reliable (legal) sports coverage without paying for cable/dish is to have someone give you their login credentials for WatchESPN (only available if you are already paying for a TV package) and also have solid access to the major broadcast networks over-the-air. When I lived in St. Louis this was great, I got tons of broadcast channels and they all came in crystal clear. Now that I'm in Ann Arbor, I get ABC sometimes at best.
Because of all this, I've been resorting to... unauthorized... streaming of football games most of the time. It's a pain in the ass, the picture quality usually isn't the best, the streams sometimes die for no reason in the middle of a game, generally it's not great. But it's a workable solution for times when I can't/don't want to go to a sports bar or something. Also worth noting, you would not be able to access such streams via Roku, you'd need a regular internet browser for that.
My setup is a media PC connected to our living room TV acting as a media server across our home network. I also have a Roku in the bedroom that connects to the media PC to stream content from it (look into Plex Media Server if anyone is interested in setting up something like this, it's awesome). I love this setup, and despite all its faults I will never go back to regular cable. Once I can pay a flat monthly fee for WatchESPN and HBOGO and the like, I will do that immediately, but that could still be quite a ways away.
Good luck, and I hope you join us in internet-only land. The more people who cancel their TV packages, the sooner cable companies and content providers will have to rethink the current model that really has no place in our modern internet-driven society.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||I've always been annoyed by the Hamburgler's timing here||
It feels like that bag is hanging there forever before he grabs it and runs. The guy in the car has to make an effort not to hold his hand out all the way. YOU HAVE ONE JOB HAMBURGLER! GET BETTER.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Question||
I wasn't very active in the days of the old voting system. Would someone care to explain how it worked so we'll be prepared since it's apparently coming back?
|12 weeks 1 day ago||Rose Tyler is the worst||
Rose Tyler is the worst companion of the Doctor ever.
I also can't stand Judd Apatow, anything he's made, and anything that's made in his style.
|12 weeks 1 day ago||What if||
They both suck?
|12 weeks 4 days ago||I wouldn't be surprised if he went in the 1st round this year||
Tim Tebow went in the first round, and he was and is just as unpolished a passer as Miller. And with more and more NFL teams looking for a QB who can run, I bet someone would take a chance on him in the first round. I don't know if he'll ever turn into a great or even solid NFL QB, but with all his athleticism I really think someone's going to take the risk.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||Just came here to make the same request||
His history makes it seem like he's not always awful, but he at least needs a temporary ban until he can get his shit together. He's totally lost it tonight.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||All four of you are assholes.||
This is a thread where those of us still feeling the sting of Michigan's disappointing season can come and take solace in the end of OSU's chances at a national title, and pass on some begrudging respect to a team that deserves it. You are the reason the "state of the site" post was necessary. Feel bad about yourselves.
|13 weeks 59 min ago||I don't think you and I actually disagree about any of this||
As someone below said, the SEC can be both the best conference in the country and simultaneously overrated. I think you said it perfectly with "... teams that are successful in other conferences would probably be successful if transplanted into the SEC." The difference I see between the SEC and other conferences is that they simply have more of those teams.
The SEC's run of dominance will end at some point, maybe it starts this year with Alabama's loss and the possibility of an ACC/B1G championship game (oh god no please not OSU nonononono), but there is a reason it's gone on so long. The SEC has a really high number of teams that have the talent, history, and prestige to win football games and recruit on a high level. This means that in any given year they have maybe 7 teams with a chance to put it all together and be national championship competetive, while other conferences have maybe 3 or 5. It certainly doesn't mean that all SEC teams are better than all other conference teams, or even anything close to it. They just have more teams playing at a high level than any other conference, at least for the moment.
|13 weeks 1 hour ago||The point of the Broyles/Johnson example||
I chose these guys in particular because they fit the point very well and hopefully they're players that people on this board are familiar with, what with the Lions and all. Between those two players, one is clearly a Pro Bowl caliber receiver, and the other is just a guy in the NFL. In the league, the difference in talent between those two guys is super obvious, because they're playing at a really high level of competition.
Any player good enough to make it to the NFL is likely to be some level of star in college. At least all-conference level, possibly all-American. So the upgrade from "guy who can play in the NFL" and "guy who can star in the NFL" is minimized at the college level, because both of those guys are better than most of the players they'll face.
The point of all this, if you haven't gotten there already, is that a team with 10 future NFL players in its starting lineup is going to be better than a team with 5 future all-pros and no other NFL caliber players. At least in most instances. The best thing you can have in college football is a large number of good to great players. The number of elite players you have doesn't really matter if the supporting cast isn't there. And you don't measure the supporting cast in pro-bowl appearances, you measure them in the draft.
Another point, all-pro caliber players are exceedingly rare, so small sample sizes make their usefulness as a metric even worse.
|13 weeks 19 hours ago||I'll toss this in here||
As a Mizzou fan (and therefore a former follower of the Big 12 and Texas A&M to some degree), I feel like I can provide a bit of insight.
In A&M's last few years in the Big 12, they were always talented and threatening but couldn't quite put things together. It reminded me a bit of the 49ers before Harbaugh got there. I would contribute their sudden success in the SEC more to the rise of Sumlin and Manziel than to lack of competition in the SEC.
As for Mizzou, they had a good 5 year run at the end of their Big 12 life, but they've been the very definition of a program on the rise. They started with an innovative and exciting offense, used that to build a pretty good team, and used that to start recruiting defense generally and offensive linemen. Last year was the first year they had all the pieces in place with no gaping hole in their game, and then all of the offensive playmakers got hurt.
This year they got all those guys back and it shows. This Mizzou team is much, much better than the Chase Daniel team that ranked #1 in the nation going into the conference championship or the Blaine Gabbert team that beat Oklahoma and Texas. For the first time ever, they have an offensive line good enough that they can run the ball in the red zone, which has made a huge difference. I remember watching Mizzou games past and it was a forgone conclusion that if they didn't score from more than 20 yards out they'd have to settle for a field goal.
So while the SEC is probably overrated in the media, I don't think the performance of Mizzou and A&M is necessarily a sign of that so much as those teams reaching the potential that was there already. And really, the SEC is still probably the best conference in college football, and the addition of Mizzou and A&M has only made it stronger. Subjectively, there are probably 3-5 really good teams in the SEC, and the other conferences have 2-3 each.
|13 weeks 19 hours ago||I disagree very strongly here||
The difference between (for example) a Ryan Broyles and a Calvin Johnson is minimized in college, because they're both substantially better than the average competition they're going to face.
I don't know that "players drafted" is a great metric of conference strenth, but I think pro-bowlers is a terrible one.
|13 weeks 4 days ago||I have a lot of begrudging respect for MSU this year||
Of course I want them to resume their eternal place in line behind Michigan in the future, but I think they have a legit top ten team this year. I don't have too much of a problem with them going to the Rose Bowl, because I think they'll represent the B1G at least as well as any other school would (at least from a football standpoint, although their general goonishness seems to be down this year as well).
Given the choice between OSU prolonging their winning streak, winning the Big Ten title and appearing in the national championship game, or MSU taking the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl, I think the choice it obvious. I hope MSU's defense crushes the Buckeyes.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Like most things in football||
There's a lot of reasons behind it. If DBs and LBs "bite" on a run fake it might help receivers get open. Also if they get so used to run fakes, then might react more slowly the next time you actually run the football. Also, all the stuff Space Coyote (who is way more knowledgeable than me about this kind of thing) said, and some of the things I listed above. That's a whole lot of potential reasons to run play action, and if it succeeds in accomplishing any of those objectives it might be considered a wise move.
The reason I brought this up though was not discuss the merits of PA, how effectively Michigan runs it, or whether they should stop doing it. I just noticed that a lot of people here including, somewhat surprisingly, the actual employed writers for this site have been totally condemning PA calls simply because they didn't accomplish one of the many many thing a PA call can accomplish.
We all agree, no one was "fooled," safties didn't take the "bait," and whatever other phrases have been tossed around about how PA was unhelpful. I'm just surprised that very few of the very knowledgeable people around this blog have even acknowledged that PA can have a purpose other than helping receivers get open.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Man, everyone's harping on play action.||
It's not my favorite playcall in the world, but this makes 3/3 of Ace, Brian and Seth criticizing the PA playcalls for reasons that aren't necessarily related to why those calls are made in the first place. The way it's been talked about on the front page and on the board makes me think that everyone here expects PA in real life to work like it does in a game of Madden, where the entire defense runs balls-out toward the line of scrimmage and then you can loft an easy TD to an outside receiver.
While this would certainly be a nice result, it's not really what PA is designed to do. Especially in a game like this past one, PA is used to slow down the pass rush from the D-line by making them more conscious of staying in their running lanes. It is also expected to alter the path of blitzing linebackers to bring them closer to the RB, thereby giving the RB a better shot at blocking them.
Now, whether or not PA actually succeeded in doing any of this against MSU is certainly up for debate (it's also usually supposed to have an impact on LBs dropping into coverage, but that very clearly did not happen), and the negative of turning DG's back to the line is a real argument against it. But with all the pretty advanced football knowledge we usually get out of the three gentlemen mentioned above, I kind of expected more relevant criticisms of the PA calls as opposed to the "Nobody was fooled! Safeties didn't bite!" stuff.
|17 weeks 9 hours ago||A little too much star gazing in here||
Most of these offerings put Glasgow in an either/or with Kugler, and unmentioned at guard. This leads me to believe that these proposed lineups have been put together based entirely on recruiting profiles as opposed to performance. Yes, Glasgow is a former walk-on, but he's also been the closest thing Michigan has had to a decent interior lineman this year, and by a pretty wide margin. I'd be shocked if he doesn't start until he graduates.
|17 weeks 1 day ago||Remember David Brandt?||
Michigan's center on the Single Greatest Collegiate Offensive Line Ever Assembled.
Went undrafted but still started most of his rookie season with Washington, and was in line to be the starter the next year as well before he abruptly retired to return to his hometown and teach. If I remember correctly, he did it because he had a learning disability that he'd managed to overcome and wanted to help other kids through the same process.
Here's an interview Michael Rothstein did with him a while back: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/catching-up-with-former-michigan-offensiv...
|17 weeks 5 days ago||I'm just going to put this here||
I need to say this otherwise it will just keep eating at me. Funk is the Tony Gibson of this staff.
Many excuses were made for the poor play of the secondary under Tony Gibson, but the fact is not one single player on those teams improved under his coaching. Poor play from upperclassmen forced them to put highly-touted (or even not-so-highly-touted) underclassmen on the field who were clearly overwhelmed. This wouldn't have been too big of an issue, if not for the fact that those underclassmen never got any better as they accumulated experience.
That is almost exactly the state of the offensive line today. I don't think there's a single lineman from the past three seasons that we can honestly say has "improved." Lewan, Molk, and Schofield all maintained the same relatively high skill level they came in with. Barnum and Omameh regressed if anything. Mealer never grew into a reliable player, nor have Miller or Bryant. We're in a position right now where highly touted and physically gifted Chris Bryant, with 2 years learning the system under his belt, is basically indistinguishable from highly touted and physically gifted Kyle Bosch, with 6 months of learning the system under his belt.
This is a problem with the coaching staff, and if Hoke does nothing to address the issue, then he is as much at fault as RichRod was for Gibson's shortcomings. It's clear that, for whatever reason, this staff can't develop offensive linemen. It might be a strength and conditioning issue, it might be an offensive scheme issue, but most likely it's a position coach issue. Hoke is the man in charge, and he bears the ultimate responsibility for these failings. If he doesn't take any action and these OL problems persist, drastic measures will be called for.
|19 weeks 21 hours ago||I think you're reaching a bit here||
The only point he appears to be making is that he doesn't understand why "swear words" by their general definition are offensive. There was nothing in there about free speech or first amendment rights. Just a guy noting that a particular aspect of this "controversy" doesn't make sense to him (a point which I agree on, by the way). If you want this to turn into a First Amendment debate (and I think it would be a fun and interesting one), you should probably pick a different comment to respond to, otherwise you're just constructing a big-ole straw man.
|19 weeks 21 hours ago||I'm with him on this||
I don't get why swearwords are offensive either. I think that's what makes it an interesting point. disagreements happen all the time, but I just really do not understand why people are offended by standard swear words.
Why is "fuck" really bad and "screw" only kind of bad? Why is "shit" really bad and "crap" only kind of bad? Those pairs of words are basically completely interchangeable in virtually all contexts, yet one of them is universally recognized as inappropriate and one of them is not. Why?
Now I'm not saying we should immediately do away with the idea of swearwords just because I don't understand it, but I am honestly curious if anyone here has actual reasoning as to why some seemingly random words are more offensive than others, outside of "that's just the way it is."
|20 weeks 2 hours ago||Meh||
Honestly this is way less egregious to me than if it had been an intentional play with 11 men, 3 WRs trips left. I mean most of the OPs arguments about how it must have been 10 men were something along the lines of "there's no a way marginally intelligent offense would put a play like this on the field!" Which is true.
Allowing a play to run with 10 guys on the field is a mental lapse that's on par with the delay of game penalties we took: it's a bad management mistake, but it's not necessarily indicative of a larger problem. If this formation had been intentional on the other hand, it would mean that at some point Borges crafted a formation in which there was no one to block the left side of the line and Gallon was covered up and ineligible and thought, "Yeah, this will totally work, no need to build in a check to throw the ball outside, I'm certain a run to the right will go just fine here." The second of those two options is way, way less forgivable to me, so I'm actually glad this thread seems to have reached a consensus that there were only 10 guys on the field. That's actually preferable here.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||I said this in another thread yesterday||
But at this point I don't care how he coaches the rest of the way anymore. He's called fantastic games in the past, with brilliant gameplans and playcalls that play off each other beautifully. He's also called absolute stinkers just as often.
At this point, I really believe that Borges comes up with a fresh gameplan every week and simply has no real idea of whether or not it will work until he puts it on the field. This wouldn't be too terrible if it weren't occurring in conjunction with his utter inability to admit when his gameplan is flawed and move on to something else.
I think this past game is the best possible example of this. He came in with a gameplan of how to get the power running game working. Having never really used this gameplan before, the only indication he had of whether or not it would be effective was his own intuition. After it became incredibly obvious to everyone involved that the gameplan was flawed and the power running game was dead in the water, Borges seems to say "Nah, I'm still pretty sure this is going to work."
As for replacements Cam Cameron was not surprisingly my first thought as well, but you're right he's probably not going anywhere. But honestly I don't really care that much who they look to put in there. Changing coordinators is a lot easier than changing head coaches, especially since Borges isn't really involved in recruiting. They just need to dump him and find a new guy to try out. Maybe an up-and-coming NFL position coach, maybe a lower-level college coordinator, really just someone else.
Borges is clearly not the answer at this point, so the longer we spend with him at the helm, the longer we have to wait until we find a guy that is. Maybe we have to run through a couple OCs before we get there, that's fine. As long as we are trying to get there, and not just settling for good enough.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Fine, if we're going to be serious||
This post in SmartFootball mentions how the ineligible receiver things works on bubble screens:
But as has been mentioned on this site and in a few other places, as long as the linemen stay within a few yards of the LOS, the refs won't call it. I think this was covered extensively in a post by Chris Brown on Grantland regarding Dana Holgorsen's offense, but I can't find it at the moment.
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Did you see the pictures above?||
The line getting too far downfield is not exactly a concern at the moment...
|20 weeks 2 days ago||Guh||
I spent most of the last 2 years deep in Borges-apologist mode. That ended after OSU last year, when the parade of excuses I kept trotting out just no longer held enough weight to excuse what I had seen. Since then I have been mostly neutral and undecided, taking the good games (still love the gameplan and playcalling in the bowl last year) for what they're worth and hoping for better things to come once the right pieces were in the right places.
I think this game has pushed me over the edge. I don't necessarily disagree with the larger strategy. As others have said the punt at the end of regulation was probably the right call, and playing conservative for the FG in OTs 1 and 3 was the right move and probably works 9 times out of 10, we just got unlucky with Gibbons' misses/blocks.
But saying the conservative strategy makes sense is a completely different thing than saying repeatedly running the same utterly futile HB power runs makes sense. This post is the nail in the coffin for me. The only reason you can possibly present to continue running your HB into a never ending wall of bodies is to set the defense up for a counter of some kind. The play highlighted above is THE time to run said counter if you're ever going to do it. Including the safety overhanging the formation, there are 9 guys lined up over 8 guys. The other safety is shaded toward the formation as well, leaving ONE defender lined up over THREE WRs, with only one other defender in position to provide any kind of help.
If you have a counter for this play, if you have the thing that you're "setting the defense up for" by running these futile tackle over HB powers over and over and over again, RIGHT THERE is the time that you run it. By simply pounding pointlessly into the line yet again here, Borges basically admitted that there was no greater purpose to this running scheme and he was just doing it because he thought it would gain yards on its own. And after he received definitive proof that it was not going to gain yards, he assumed that the evidence was wrong, his original plans were infallible, and if he just kept calling this play over and over and over again he'd finally get the fantastic results he'd been so sure would be there from play #1.
In summary, I still don't have much of a qualm with the overall conservative offensive strategy in this game. The problem comes from the plays that were called in an attempt to implement said strategy. I think Borges has a well deserved reputation as a tinkerer, mad scientist, evil genius, whatever you want to call it. However, in the greatest tradition of all of the above descriptions, he has no real idea of whether or not his plans will succeed until he puts them into practice. That's how we end up with OSU 2011, Iowa 2012, and South Carolina 2013, yet still get stuck with MSU 2011, OSU 2012, and PSU 2013.
To me, this is an unacceptable tradeoff. It's taken me a while, but I'm ready to say it: Fire Al Borges.
|20 weeks 6 days ago||I hope you're right,||
But we've though that James Franklin's "lightbulb" turned on after the first few games of every season he's played so far. It's basically impossible to judge Mizzou by their non-conference slate. They play an annual group of cupcakes that would make Wisconsin blush.
|21 weeks 3 days ago||David Moorman||
By bringing up David Moorman, you've just helped me pinpoint exactly what the problem is with Michigan's interior offensive line this year (and last year): Not enough guys named Dave!
Hopefully David Dawson will step up and fix this problem next year, and maybe this David Moorman fellow can help in the same regard a little down the line.
|26 weeks 1 day ago||I can't take personal credit for these||
They're my team names, but I had a much cleverer friend come up with them. Last year: Does Brady have to Hoke a bitch. This year: The Chronicles of Denardia.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||See my post below||
I apologize for flying off the handle there, I try to avoid personal attacks for the most part, and while I still think your comment above was reaching it didn't deserve a comparison to Wolverines Dominate, who I'm still fairly certain is just a troll.
I agree with you to some extent, I think Green showed pretty conclusively that he's going to be a better back than Rawls, but I think based an a super limited sample size Rawls is playing better right now. Green has a burst that is really impressive for his size, he just needs to learn how to use that power to break tackles.
I think Rawls had a very similar thing going on last year. He had size and power, but went down way earlier than he should have because he didn't know how to use them. What I saw from him yesterday suggested to me that maybe the light went on for him. What I saw from Green suggests that he still needs to learn those same skills, but when he does he'll be an outstanding player.
Anyway, I'm gonna head out for a bit and maybe come back to the board in a few days. I think that would be best, both for everyone here and for my own sanity. Gotta keep myself from taking these things too seriously.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||You're probably right||
I participated in a couple of conversations about this in other threads on the board yesterday, but for some reason seeing it get its own thread after all that just made me feel like some combination of this guy:
And this guy:
I think I'm going to take a few days off from reading and commenting on the board, at least until the UFRs go up. I think the lack of game film (other than MGoBlue.com's ridiculously zoomed-in highlights) has made me just get angry in places where I would have previously pointed to video evidence. Damn T3 Media.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||Touting?||
Note how at no point did I insinuate that Rawls should start, or even get any more carries than he got yesterday. But he ran through an arm tackle, which is more than anyone other than Fitz did.
And Norfleet, but I'm assuming he doesn't count.
Also I don't know why I'm arguing with you, you're almost as bad as Wolverines Dominate.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||I just saw this thread on the Android app||
And went and got my computer specifically so I could downvote this thread. This is seriously the stupidest opinion I can recall reading on this board. There is no way in all the world that you reached this conclusion by actually watching people play football yesterday. You're clearly just enamored with recruiting rankings and the stat sheet at the end of the day.
There were two running backs yesterday that showed the ability to either make people miss or run through contact, and they were Fitz Toussaint and (shockingly enough) Thomas Rawls. Derrick Green showed off a ton of potential, but very little actual skill. To call for a major depth chart overhaul (Green seems to be 4th or 5th, based on how the coaches were playing guys) based on 11 garbage time carries against a MAC team is asinine.
I hope for your sake you're drunk or high or have some other excuse for this shameful thread.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||Really?||
I don't know how you reached that conclusion. He was the beneficiary of some of the best blocking the OL managed on the day, misread a few blocks and bounced outside when he should't have, and went down on first contact almost every time.
I think he's going to be a great player when he learns to convert his fantastic size and speed into collegiate-level power running and learns to read and react a little better (no surprise, he's a true freshman after all), but he's not there yet.
Fitz showed me that he's the unquestionable #1 today, and I'm happy about that. Green showed me that he has a ton of potential, and I'm happy about that too. Rawls (!) and Smith both showed that they're no slouches either, so I'd say the RB situation for the next few years is looking pretty good, but anointing Green now is premature.
|26 weeks 5 days ago||Disagree on Green||
While I still think he has a ton of potential, he looked like the #4 option to me today. When he got yards it was because the O-line was opening gaping holes for him, and he got brought down on first contact on every one of his runs, and he usually went down right where he was hit (except for the TD, where he got a little extra push).
I liked what I saw from Smith as a runner better, although he had a bit of "Poor Damn Toussaint" syndrome going on, with guys hitting him in the backfield before he had a chance to get going. But he made some nice cuts and kept his legs driving for a few extra yards on every one of his touches.
The guy who surprised me was Rawls. He didn't touch it much, but he showed a quickness to the hole and a little bit of wiggle that had been completely absent in his game up until now. He also ran through an arm tackle or two, which is something he was always supposed to do but never seemed to get down in the past.
Drake Johnson didn't really get a chance to impress, going down with an injury right before what would have likely been his first featured drive, so maybe he deserves to be in the conversation too. But after this game, based on a very small sample size, the "feature back" depth chart looks to me like:
|27 weeks 5 days ago||Nice try, you almost had me convinced||
For a second there I really considered giving you some honest advise, from one human being to another, on how to be less standoffish and thus actually make a contribution to this board instead of just running around raining on various parades.
|27 weeks 5 days ago||The troll that keeps on trolling||
Every time I see one of your posts it rekindles my internal debate over whether you're a troll or just that big of a douche.
|30 weeks 22 hours ago||Perhaps that was poorly worded||
I'm a programmer, not a writer, so I'm going to use parentheses in an attempt to clarify:
Use (Firefox with Greasemonkey) or (Chrome).
Greasemonkey is an addon for Firefox that allows you to install scripts like the one linked above as mini-addons. Chrome will do this on it's own, but the process is a bit trickier. Link!
Once installed, scripts will run every time you visit a page within one of their "included" domains. The script in question here runs on mgoblog.com, so every time you visit any url in the mgoblog.com domain, it will run. And it will not run on any other sites.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||I'm very late to the party on this||
But if you use Firefox with Greasemonkey or Chrome, you can install this script:
Which fixes pagination on the various sidebar aggregation areas and does a few other things to streamline the site experience.
|33 weeks 3 days ago||I know this probably won't help...||
But I'll try at least:
|34 weeks 1 day ago||2009 Illinois||
I don't think that one yard would have made as much of a difference as we all hope.
2009/2010 Michigan reminded me a lot of some of the 2000s Mizzou teams I had the misfortune of rooting for. Those teams displayed a tendency that we dubbed "The Mizzou Fade," in which Mizzou would shoot out to an early lead, appear to have everything in hand, and then completely blow it in the second half. This came in microcosm and macrocosm versions, as the "good start, terrible finish" tendency was often duplicated across the course of a season as 5 - 1 starts turned into 6 - 6 finishes.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that even with a touchdown to go up 20 - 7, the "Michigan Fade" that was on display pretty consistently in 2009 and 2010 would very likely have still dragged Michigan to a loss in that game.
|36 weeks 1 day ago||Do it for the good of the country||
Seriously, cable companies have been operating for years based on the assumption that regardless of how terrible they are people will still pay them because they have no real alternative.
Cut your TV package, get rid of your landline, and if you live in an apartment or an area where the houses are close together, share a WiFi network with a neighbor. Get one or two subscriptions to online entertainment (Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, etc) and stream sports from wherever you can find them.
The more that people like you do this, the faster the model of government-sanctioned telecom monopolies will come crashing down, which is the single best thing that can happen in entertainment consumption.
|36 weeks 1 day ago||Wow||
I don't know if I've ever seen anyone completely fail to miss a point by such an incredible degree. Well done.
|36 weeks 1 day ago||An additional point you could make||
There's very little "choice" involved with cable companies. They're government-sanctioned monopolies, so there's no competition and they have no incentive to provide customers with a better product or a lower price. They generally offer very little in the way of graduated pricing in order to force people to pay for everything instead of only paying for the things they want.
The only choice you really have is to use them or not use them. If you want to use them, then you have to pay them a ridiculous amount of money. You've chosen not to use them. Excellent choice.
|37 weeks 18 hours ago||I have one problem with the Carr approach||
Namely, taking your starters out of the game when the opponent still has time to came back and win... and then they do. Of course the starters would go back in if it got close again, but sometimes (looking at you 1999 Illinois game) that wasn't enough.
|38 weeks 1 day ago||Most interesting quarterback in the world||
|38 weeks 3 days ago||Got it.||
Thank you. That would have bothered me otherwise.
|38 weeks 3 days ago||I'm so close to this one||
Can you give me a hint? What does the "s" stand for? That's where I lose it. Can you at least tell me what part of speech it is?
|38 weeks 3 days ago||Pride from strange places||
I am surprisingly proud that I figured this out.
|38 weeks 4 days ago||I can relate||
I've lost respect for so many open source projects when I see they've bundled some stupid fucking bloatware into their installer. I know you need to raise money and stuff, but seriously find another fucking way.
Along those lines, bloatware in general. It's not as bad on desktop PCs anymore, but remember back in the day when every PC manufacturer would bundle all sorts of worthess shit into their operating systems? That was terrible. And now Android manufacturers seem to be doing the same goddamned thing. HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING?
I feel like I'm on a roll now so I'm going to keep going. Companies that refuse to learn from the mistakes of companies that came before them. Watching the movie industry follow the same fruitless path of the music industry in their attempts to stop piracy/sharing, and now the book industry is starting in on it the exact same way. DRM DOES NOT WORK! IT HAS NEVER WORKED! There are better ways to go about this.
This has gone a little more off-base than I'd originally planned, but switching back toward the original point, people who think that computers are magical, indecipherable back boxes and that because I do something related to computers for a job I must be able to solve all the problems they're having. Seriously, all I do is this: http://xkcd.com/627/. If you can't do that yourself, it's not because you're "computer illiterate," it's because you're dumb.
|41 weeks 3 days ago||Bonus in that 2003 Purdue Michigan Replay||
At around 5:25, freshman Lamarr Woodley flies into the backfield and forces Kyle Orton to dodge and make a hurried pass that is intercepted just outside the endzone by freshman Leon Hall.
|41 weeks 3 days ago||This is awesome||
We couldn't possibly heap enough praise onto this piece. A one-on-one with Michigan's offensive coordinator to discuss the detailed minutia of how this football team works. I hope there are many more parts to this series. And maybe this series could lead to similar ones with other assistant coaches? Man, this is just such good stuff, I don't want it to ever end.
|41 weeks 6 days ago||I looked through the website||
Can't really tell exactly what it is they do... Could one of you maybe provide a little insight there? What role might there be for a web developer?
|41 weeks 6 days ago||We're trying to avoid this||
Because we're a one-car-household right now and we'd like to stay that way. the hope is to get somewhere near an AATA bus line so she can take the bus to campus.
|42 weeks 43 min ago||Lots||
I'm getting my website put back together, it's been in a little bit of disrepair over the last few years because I haven't needed it. The blog is still a pretty good representation of what I can do (even though there's probably only a dozen or so posts), but the home page and work experience sections are basically empty right now. It should be running full steam within a week or two:
Like I said above, I really love writing code and solving complex problems, and I don't want to end up in a glorified data entry position which has happened before.
Thanks for taking an interest, I appreciate it.
|42 weeks 58 min ago||Yup, tried that||
It was the first choice. There's still a small chance it will work out, but unlikely. My boss's boss's boss's boss is talking to HR about it today, but the word that's trickled back to me is that there would be some tax issues that will likely prevent it from happening.
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||Thanks||
I actually work for a University now, on the team responsible for primary development of hundreds of the University's public-facing websites. It sounds like this "central web development service" might be something similar? Do you have any more information about this? A quick Googling didn't turn up much.
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||Thanks||
Do you know of any companies that rent said duplexes?
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||I don't have a set number in mind||
But one problem is I'm a little spoiled by the extemely low cost of living in St. Louis. Right now we have a 650ft2 one-bedroom in a fantastic area of St. Louis City and we pay $600/month, which I'm aware is not something we'll be able to even approach in Ann Arbor if we want to be close to campus/downtown.
I've seen a couple outliers with pretty good location for $700 - $750, but they of course have their drawbacks as well (usually size). I'd like to stay under $800 if possible.
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||Thank you||
This is a ton of useful information. That property company is one I haven't seen yet, so I'll look through their stuff and see if I can find something.
Mostly I just want to do development. I love writing code and solving complex problems. I've had jobs before that look promising and then turn out to be glorified content entry, and I want to make sure I don't end up in that situation again.
One of the first things I did when we decided on the move to Ann Arbor was read that "where to eat" piece. There is one apartment we're looking at right now that is absurdly tiny but also 2 blocks from Frita Batidos, so that's one for the "pro" column.
We don't know our exact move-in date yet, it kind of depends on where/when I find a job. Latest will probably be mid-August. When is student move-in?
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||Hmm...||
Interesting idea, and while that certainly is a simple fix, I have a feeling it would just turn out as exchanging one form of stress for another.
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||Thanks||
I've never heard of this site before. I already see a couple things that look promising.
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||I know||
But it's an admin/sales office. Unless that changed really recently, there's either no or very few actual development jobs there.
|42 weeks 1 hour ago||I think we'll be back eventually||
The fiancé grew up in St. Louis, and she's much more attached to it than I am to Michigan (the state, that is). Also I've really enjoyed my time in this city, so I wouldn't be surprised if we came back here and settled down after the grad school thing is done.
I am excited to have more options than Buffalo Wild Wings when a game is on BTN though...
|43 weeks 3 days ago||This was my initial reaction||
But reading more of the stories which make references to lots of false reports in the past that would get the families' hopes up, I imagine frantic calls to 911 claiming to be one of these 3 girls might not have been that uncommon of an event. You can't expect a person to instantly realize that this one is the real thing when there have been a bunch of false positives in the past.
The dispatcher comes off as a little bit of a douche, but as long as they (he? she? I can't really tell from the voice) did their job and made sure the police got there as quickly as possible I don't think they should lose their job.
|43 weeks 6 days ago||I use a few||
I've actually done some relatively recent research into this, because my fiancé and I decided that we should start doing finances like grown-ups and stop putting everything on our debit cards. We got a few rewards cards between us that we use for different things. A lot of cards are doing targeted rewards now, so you can get more back by using certain cards for specific things instead of one card for everything.
AmEx Blue Cash Preferred
This is my favorite, because its returns are highest on gas and groceries, which are huge recurring purchases. It does 6% back on groceries and 3% back on gas.
Chase Amazon Visa
Pretty much any "stuff" I buy is online, and usually through Amazon. This card does 3% back on any Amazon purchases, and rewards can be applied directly to future Amazon purchases.
The drawback with this one is it uses Citi's "Thank You Points" system, which kind of sucks, but if you always redeem for gift cards or loan payments they work out to the same '1 point == 1 cent' that makes for good return value. That said, this card does 5 points/dollar on restaurant purchases, so if you eat out a lot, this is a good one.
Capital One Venture
The one in all the commercials! This is our fallback card for buying things that don't fall into any of the above categories. It doesn't do any targeted rewards that I'm aware of, but it does 2% back on everything. Most rewards cards do 1% back as their catch-all, so this card basically doubles that.
|44 weeks 3 days ago||Well played sir.||
Reminds me of a friend of mine who once responded to being called immature with "I know you are, but what am I?"
|44 weeks 3 days ago||This is wildly inaccurate||
If YouTube was still a startup they would have no resources to fight copyright claims, and would have to pull videos even more often than they do now. As it is, Google has used its clout to get some copyright holders to allow videos to stay up in exchange for a percentage of ad revenues. This DOES NOT happen if YouTube is still a small company.
Also remember that before Google bought YouTube there was very little copyrighted content on it. Back in those days it was still serving its original purpose, which was essentially a dump for home videos and the like.
|44 weeks 3 days ago||I'm suppressing a Journalism rant here||
Showing "both sides" of an issue (any issue) in no way makes coverage fair, balanced, acceptable, appropriate, or any other adjective you might want to use. Usually issues have way more than two sides. Having some guy spout his opinion, and then having some second guy spout a disagreeing opinion does not make everything OK. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This is not personally directed at you, I just quiver every time I see Crossfire-style "debate" treated as news and/or journalism.
|44 weeks 3 days ago||If that's worth noting||
Then I have to come at you from the other end of the cynicism spectrum and suggest that maybe this is increasing his chances of staying in the NBA.
34-year-old career backups aren't exactly a hot commodity, and now he's got a name and publicity that some team owners are going to want to attach themselves to.
Let me clarify here that I am NOT suggesting that this was a factor in his decision to come out, just that if we're considering the implications on his playing career, we should consider them from both sides.
|44 weeks 3 days ago||Yeah, it's a big deal||
This is the first active professional athlete in one of the four major sports to come out. Retired players have come out in the past, and have often been met with hatred and vitriol by their former teammates and colleagues. Jason Collins is the first person to expose himself to that risk from current teammates and colleagues.
I'm glad that you (and hopefully others) have lived in such a way that this seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill event. But if you need to see some examples of what Collins and any other players considering similar action might be up against, look at the reaction when John Amaehci came out a few years ago.
The most prominent reaction came from a man Michigan fans should know pretty well, Tim Hardaway Sr., who said "I hate gay people" and claimed that if he was aware of a gay teammate he would try to get them fired. He's since apologized and ended up becoming quite involved in the promotion of gay rights, but that's the kind of reaction Collins will be receiving from at least some subset of current NBA players.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||By the way,||
Just found this article about the fallout from the Feminist Wire piece, and it confirms the author is a rape victim.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||Not "should", but certainly will||
This is a serious psychologically damaging event. Obviously it shouldn't prejudice a person against an entire group they identify their assailant as a part of, but it will. Pretty much every time. Logic and reason are notoriously terrible at overcoming visceral fear and emotion in situations like this.
I would also argue that in the mind of a victim, the several cases she cites of unethical behavior going unpunished could easily represent evidence that the university essentially sanctioned her assault. To you and I this may seem like a clear misreading of the facts, but (unless you have something you'd like to share) we're not victims of sexual assault.
The main thing I would try to get across to you is that you shouldn't assume that if you were faced with this situation you would be able to handle it any more reasonably than she did. She's just another human being trying to cope with a terrible situation. She's now the laughingstock of the internet, and I don't think she deserves that.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||You've missed my point entirely.||
Imagine for a second that you're a victim of sexual assault, and because your assailant is a member of a sports team you forever associate that sports team with your experience. Then that sports team redesigns their logo with the purpose of making it more "aggressive." I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a severe emotional reaction in that situation, and that is what we're seeing in this piece.
She's not trying to promote a rational point that logos promote rape, she's drawing an emotional connection between UConn athletics and her own experience and trying to put that connection into words. That is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, and I don't fault her in the least for turning out a disjointed, unclear series of comments.
Again, IF she was sexually assaulted by a UConn athlete, then I think this piece is part of her personal attempt to cope and come to terms with her experience. And if that's the case, then regardless of its content or how incoherent it seems, I salute her for the bravery it takes to put such a difficult thing into words and post it for the world to see.
|44 weeks 6 days ago||Hmm...||
First, this is a very poorly written piece that does a terrible job of expressing coherent thoughts. As some have mentioned above, I think the author's point is largely that the university should not be spending its resources on re-branding and should instead focus on addressing serious problems in its athletic culture.
However, the reason I felt compelled to post here is that I think there might be a meaning to the last paragraph that we're not picking up on. I think her "real life Husky" line (note the capital "H") is a reference to a specific UConn athlete, and given the context probably one who assaulted/attempted to assault the author.
If that's the case, it changes the whole meaning of the piece (at least in my mind) from misguided rant to coping mechanism. I can't fault a victim of assault/sexual assault for having a knee-jerk reaction to something that reminds them of their experience, and the over-emotional, poorly presented argument in this piece reads exactly like that type of reaction.
In short, I sincerely hope that if the author of this piece IS a victim of sexual assault that she is receiving support and help in response to her letter as opposed to scorn.
|46 weeks 3 days ago||It's possible||
The site is currently using gzip compression to serve files, and I never checked it before today so this could be a fairly recent development, and it's possible that it's the cause of your problem.
My first word of advice, and I say this as a web developer who is forced to spend way more of my time than I should compensating for the shortcomings of outdated browsers, is find a way to use a better browser. If this is a work computer you have no control over, well that sucks for you. If this is a home computer, UPGRADE. This is just the beginning of a whole slew of problems you'll be experiencing as the world stops caring enough to develop for your platform.
Since you're using Tiger, I assume the machine has the old Apple PowerPC processor as opposed to an Intel x86, which already means that no one has created a new piece of software for your system in at least 3 years. Move on. Just get a netbook or something, seriously, anything that runs a modern processor and operating system.
OK, now that I'm done lecturing, this link might be able to help you:
Essentially this process configures your browser so that when it makes a request to a server it specifies that it cannot accept compressed files. Hopefully then the server will send your browser an uncompressed version, and hopefully that will solve your problem (for now, until something worse crops up because of your ancient browser).
|47 weeks 46 min ago||Mark May is probably right about McCoy||
If we assume Sam Bradford is the #1 QB out of the 2010 draft class, who's #2 if not McCoy? Tim Tebow? Jimmy Clausen? John Skelton? Mike Kafka?
|47 weeks 2 days ago||I'm getting the same thing||
But as Schembo said, I don't have to re-log in. As soon as I click on a thread or post, all of my user info is back and I appear to be logged in. Seems to be an issue with the home page specifically.
|47 weeks 2 days ago||Fair enough||
There seems to be a sentiment from a lot of people in this thread (including/especially the OP) that they were drawing too much attention to themselves. I assumed your post was in agreement with that idea, a point on which I appear to have been mistaken. Apologies.
|47 weeks 3 days ago||I don't get this argument||
How exactly were they trying to steal the spotlight for themselves? I noticed two moments in game coverage that featured the Fab 5. One of them was the pregame shot of Chris Webber actively avoiding the spotlight so that he could get into the game just to watch and be a fan. The other was a singe shot of the other four in the crowd, just being there and being fans. Seriously, how do you look at Jalen Rose wearing a giant foam wolverine hat and cheering his heart out as "drawing attention" to himself? What did Juwan, Jimmy, or Ray do to draw attention to themselves? Where is this coming from?
|47 weeks 3 days ago||"Just watch like every other fan"||
You mean like stand with their friends in the stands, wear their team colors, cheer in support, root for their team, and maybe wave if the camera gets pointed at them? Like, exactly what they did?
If you want to get angry about the attention the 5 are getting, don't be mad at them. They just wanted to go to a game and root for their team in the most exciting moment this program has experienced in 20 years. They were not hogging spotlight, and the attention paid to them was the same filler that gets paid to parents and other famous alumni during slow moments in game coverage.
You could make a case that Jalen was putting himself in the spotlight, but I think that's an inaccurate assessment as well. The guy has a job as a sports analyst, of course they're going to ask him about this team. What do you want him to do? He could refuse to answer completely, or maybe quit his job, but I think either of those things would have been much more attention grabbing and distracting. And when he did answer, he was very deferential to the current team, and I think he did a great job of keeping the spotlight pointed in the right direction.
|47 weeks 3 days ago||Yes, but why do you think we||
Yes, but why do you think we consider those the most egregious calls? I would wager that it has an awful lot to do with the fact that those were the ones that went against our team.
McGary's kicked ball was way more obvious than the missed goaltend, and he commited at least two obvious fouls after he picked up his fourth that just weren't called.
The two calls against Burke were bad, but the call that sent Spike to the line for the first time looked like an awfully clean play. And Hardaway spent the whole game shoving Louiville around with his elbow and never got called for it.
The refs were terrible, but they were terrible in the same way the refs at the 2005 Alamo Bowl were terrible. If we had won last night Louisville fans would be claiming that the refs screwed them, and we'd all be saying that it was called badly for everyone so no one gained an advantage.
|47 weeks 4 days ago||Guh.||
I hope everyone in here is aware that there is NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between posts like this and the ones we use to make fun of the MSU fan base for being obsessed with Michigan. As long as we're all clear on that, I'll just get out of here without further comment.
|48 weeks 12 hours ago||WHAT THE HELL MAN!||
Beat Louisville? WE ARE NOT THERE YET!
|48 weeks 1 day ago||I doubt it's a conscious thing||
You're certainly not wrong, the writing style of pretty much everyone on this blog tends toward Brian's to some degree. I just doubt that's a conscious choice on the part of the writers so much as it is being influenced by a respected source. They respect and enjoy Brian's writing (as do I), and they start to subtly emulate it in their own style.
I think Seth even talked about this in a Dear Diary a few weeks ago after there was a full board post accusing him of being a Brian-knock-off. When you find a style that moves you, your own style is going to be affected.
|48 weeks 1 day ago||I think we're mostly on the same page||
I was trying hard to avoid playing the Penn State card too, but in the respect you mention it does lend itself pretty well to this story.
But to play devil's advocate a bit, why does the public backlash matter if not for money? If the whole world got mad at Rutgers for not firing Rice, but then still gave them TV contracts and still went to their school and still watched their games, would Rutgers have made the same move? I think you could make a compelling argument that the most destructive aspect of the public backlash would have been financial loss.
|48 weeks 1 day ago||I have to kind of agree with Rovell||
The Rice thing was brought to the attention of the Rutgers higher-ups in December and all they did was suspend the guy for 3 games. The only think that has changed since then is this video going public instead of just going to the AD.
Rutgers has basically shown they were unwilling to fire a guy for behaving as terribly as Rice did, and only became willing to do so when the public caught wind and they were threatened with public backlash. Classy move there. Big Ten!
|48 weeks 1 day ago||I have to agree here||
The Spike steal and layup felt like it put the game away. Florida was rallying and our offense was stagnant, then McGary gets something going and we're starting to feel OK. Florida tries to keep the tempo up, get the ball in quick, and answer with some offense of their own, when suddenly Spike takes every last breath of wind out of their sails.
It's amazing watching that whole GIF. You see Spike start to trot up the floor with everyone else, and then the moment just takes him and he knows exactly what he's going to do and exactly where he needs to be. If you watch the replay angle you can see just how good of a job he did hiding behind Wilbekin, keeping that guy right between himself and the inbounder until the last moment.
I'm really starting to like Spike. I know there'll be tons of competition the next few years, but I think we'll be seeing a lot more of him.
|1 year 1 week ago||I did the homemade alcohol stove too||
I worked at a sign shop at the time, and used them for the materials to make the stand and windscreen. If you've got a Signs By Tomorrow or something similar nearby, you can probably get a 6x18 length of aluminum for the windscreen and a cheap wire stand (usually used for corrogated plastic yard signs) that you can bend into a pot stand for a couple bucks.
If you're looking for another handy, relativly cheap DIY backpacking project, I suggest the walking stick stool:
It doesn't make the sturdiest walking stick in the world, but it's super worth it to have a comfortable stool to sit on at the end of the day. And since you'd probably be carrying walking stick anyway, it doesn't really add any weight.
|1 year 2 weeks ago||Actually||
I believe it's the team's own winning percentage at 25%
Still an unbelievably simple and unreliable metric.
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Agreed||
The arm strength he displays in his highlight videos is less than impressive, but if you watch his feet and hips when he throws the ball, he's not putting anything behind it. If the staff can teach this kid to use his feet properly, he could end up having a very strong arm.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||I actually have to agree, at least in principle.||
Just straight up getting rid of field goals without replacing them with something seems like a bad idea, but I'm generally pro reducing the importance of the kicker as much as possible. I mean really, the fact that so many games come down to what amounts to random chance bouncing off the the foot of some guy who hasn't really done anything up until that point is kind of ridiculous.
I think there needs to be some way for a team to elect a lower scoring option on 4th down, but it should be an offense vs. defense play, not a kicker vs. probability match up. Something along the lines of moving the ball 3/4 of the way from the line of scrimmage to the goal line. You get one play to score a touchdown, if you score you get 3 points, otherwise the opposing teams takes over at the original line of scrimmage. Obviously not perfect, but still better than field goals.
This is how I felt when the idea of replacing the onside kick with what amounted to a long 4th down play run from the kicking team's 30 yard line. Every opportunity to replace one-off unpracticed luck-of-the-draw special teams plays with actual offense vs. defense football is a good thing.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||Want any help?||
I'm a .NET and web developer mostly, but I've been wanting more and more to try Android development. If you're willing to share your source code, I'd love to dig into it a bit.
I've got a couple ideas for the MGoApp that I've implemented in other languages (specifically converting plain text and line breaks to HTML formatting), and I think the same principles could probably be applied to the app relatively simply.
|1 year 5 weeks ago||I know I'm going to get negged for this, but...||
I know I'm going to get negged for this, but...
|1 year 6 weeks ago||It's from Wikipedia||
Which is also the first place I went to check on that highly doubious acronym claim. Some things are just too cool to be true.
|1 year 9 weeks ago||I feel like I'm missing something here||
Outback bowl ...
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Depends on what you want||
The Transformer is going to give you an experience that more closely resembles using a computer, but with a touchscreen. If you plan to use it to write a decent amount, it's got a pretty sizable advantage with a pretty good built in productivity suite and the keyboard attachment.
If you want a cool touchscreen device for fun and recreation, the Nexus is a good way to go, as would a Kindle Fire or iPad. Those are all very similar devices, so I'd recommend going to an electronics store and playing with them all to see which you're more comfortable with.
What may also be worth a look is a Microsoft Surface. The RT is basically like the ones just mentioned except that it has a USB-host port, which is nice. The Surface Pro that's coming out in a few months will essentially be a full fledged Windows computer in a tablet form, which is awesome, and likely to be expensive.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||At CB...||
Avery has shifted outside a couple times this year in response to minor injuries, and instead of moving a new CB in at nickel, they shifted T. Gordon down and brought in Wilson. I'd expect that's what we'll see again, and while not ideal I don't think it's too much of a downgrade.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Norfleet||
Reading Hoke's explanation makes me feel a little better about the Norfleet move. Sounds like they're still going to give him a chance to show that he can contribute on offense, but just want to get him on the field in some capacity as soon/often as possible.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Hey Magnus||
Magnus, if you're out there, was this one of the guys you had heard rumors about transferring as mentioned in an earlier thread?
|1 year 11 weeks ago||I use an ad blocker too, but I||
I use an ad blocker too, but I turn it off for this site because I would like for Brian to get money and keep this thing going. It's pretty easy to set an exception on most ad blockers, you should do it for sites that you want to support (like this one).
|1 year 11 weeks ago||You need to find a way to||
You need to find a way to make your predictions crazy and improbable like Brian does with the football previews. I realize this is not easy given the difference in prediction format, but I'm sure you can come up with something.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Same. I get these all the||
Same. I get these all the time. And I've never search for or purchased a funny t-shirt, so I have no idea where this comes from.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Note: This survey uses||
|1 year 11 weeks ago||I voted for East/West. I||
I voted for East/West. I think inner/outer would be better for Michigan (and everyone else in the "inner" division that never has to travel very far), but I think East/West is a better move from a conference standpoint, avoiding traveling between the East coast and Nebraska as much as possible.
I also don't think the competitive balance is too bad in East/West, especially if Penn State and MSU fall off a bit as expected in the coming years, and extra especially if Wisconsin can keep going as a perrenial conference contender.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||I don't know about that. The||
I don't know about that. The Rams really like Rodger Saffold at LT, he's just been hurt for a good portion of the year. That team desperatly needs help at the offensive skill positions, so I'd expect to see them go that route.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Certainly can't blame Garmon||
Certainly can't blame Garmon for this call. He clearly knows the score, and is trying to get out of Iowa before permanent damage is done.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||It's technically pronounced||
It's technically pronounced "jif" because the guy who developed the file format says that's how it should be pronounced.
Personally I don't care what he says, it looks like hard-G GIF to me.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||You're absolutly right, which||
You're absolutly right, which is why when public information regarding the identity of the accused is posted I will not argue. But what we have here is not public information, it is a rumor on a comment board.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Not at all. In fact, in most||
Not at all. In fact, in most cases like this the victim's identity is also protected, and I don't know enough about this case to know why it's different here. And if a protected victim's identity were revealed in rumormongering on this site, I would fight just as hard to get it removed.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||And the player is only||
And the player is only implicated by a random commenter. And he's disputed by another guy two comments later.
The point is, the accusation is far from official. I'd like to think that this site would not spread unfounded criminal rumors about student athletes. Direct people to go to Google and find it for themselves? Sure. But I'm not comfortable with the name being posted here.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||I would like to request that||
I would like to request that a mod please delete this post. The link he posted only includes speculation, and the player he metions has never been formally implecated.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Since charges were never||
Since charges were never filed, we do not have names.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||I can't fault the university||
I can't fault the university itself too much for not acting on these accusations, but that's only because the investigation mentioned appears to have been so mis-managed that it didn't turn up evidence where it likely should have.
The thing about this story that really makes my stomach turn is the reported flood of text messages from teammates of the accused to alleged victims warning them not to go to the police. My jaded self is prepared to accept that there are some evil people that will commit rape and sexual assualt, but that there's also a great number of people who would willfully cover up such an act is still sickening.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||While presumption of||
While presumption of innocence is a big deal in a case like this (see: Duke Lacrosse), I don't think it's a problem with this author or article.
The author doesn't name the accused assailants, nor does she name any individuals (investigators, university officials, teammates) who could be associated with these crimes. By not targeting any individual, I think the author is trying to point out some fundamental flaws in the way we think about sports as a culture, rather than trying to assign guilt.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Going to Georgia...||
The most remarkable thing about you standing in the doorway is that it's you, and that you're standing in the doorway.
Anyone? Anyone? Eh?
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Robert Mays wrote this||
I once carried him home after he did 16 shots in half an hour when he was a freshman at Mizzou. Having successful friends is weird.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||And then he'll get tackled||
And then he'll get tackled after a gain of 7 yards and all of the opposing team's drives will start inside the Ravens 40. This would not be a good strategy.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||This proposal is essentially||
This proposal is essentially the same as an onside kick. The only difference is now you're asking your offense to do something improbable and difficult (or your defense to stop it) as opposed to your kicker and special teams.
I'm all for this idea, but it strikes me as one of those "this is way too good of an idea for it to actually happen" kind of things.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||O$U, M$U, and the NC$$ are||
O$U, M$U, and the NC$$ are all in cahoots with Nick Satan and Urban Liar. They pretend to come down hard on State Penn and the University of Spoiled Children, but we know that they're all just stinky cheaters!
Seriously though: http://mgoblog.com/content/official-mgoblog-pet-peeve-list
As soon as I see "O$U," it is impossible for me to imagine you as anything other than a whiny 13-year-old, and I can't take anything you say seriously.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||This has to be the most||
This has to be the most pining for radio that I've ever seen take place on the Internet. Especially for a site that makes fun of newspapers and bundled cable as much as we do. Radio is dead, it has no money, no audience, and no appeal.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||I read that not as him||
I read that not as him accusing you of being political, but prefacing his stated dislike of that show with a "sorry that this comment borders on politics" disclaimer.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||As was pointed out by some||
As was pointed out by some other posters when Reschke was first offered, it may have something to do with cultivating relationships with HS coaches and programs. Reschke is a better example of this than Finley, but it could hold true nonetheless.
HS coaches could look at the lack of a scholarship offer to a player they consider deserving as an insult or a snub. If you want to get back in with another of their players in a few years, they might be less than inviting.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||This is pretty much the only||
This is pretty much the only desirable option at this point. Then at least we get our Big 10 back.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||This exactly.||
The conference does not care about actual exposure or winning the hearts and minds of fans. They just want money, and there are enough GT fans that they'll probably get it.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||Sure they are||
But that doesn't really matter with the reasoning here. The goal is to introduce BTN to as many major markets as possible. It doesn't matter that GT plays second fiddle to UGA, they still have enough fans to get on TV, and that is really all anyone cares about.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||More Daves!||
This is great news. The Michigan football I know and love is built around interior offensive linemen named Dave. Daves Brandt, Baas, Pearson, Petruziello, Moosman, and Molk would be happy to hear this.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I'm glad you go out of your||
I'm glad you go out of your way to "nofollow" freep links. It's the little things.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Seems like a Spencer Brinton||
Seems like a Spencer Brinton type move if the coaches are really pursuing it. Hoping he never has to play, but a good depth addition for a couple years before more fresh recruits show up.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I'm with you that with Smith||
I'm with you that with Smith already on board Isaac would be a better addition than Green given the different skill set he brings to the table. But as far as big plays and long runs are concerned, I haven't been that impressed with Isaac's tape either. He scores on a whole lot of long runs, but they all follow the same pattern:
He has definitely shown more elusiveness than Green, who seems to freeze up like a block of stone when he tries to juke, but it's hard to tell anything other than top-end speed from Isaac's tape. The offense he plays in just doesn't require him to read many holes or beat many guys at the second level.
Of course, this is all gleaned from highlight videos, which may or may not be of any actual use, but if I had just one RB out of M's targets this year, it would probably be Smith.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I'd rather Alabama than A&M,||
I'd rather Alabama than A&M, but that's about it. Alabama in the Capitol One Bowl might be suffering from a bit of the same "I wish we were playing for the MNC" hangover that caused them to lose against Utah a couple years ago. That to me makes them less scary than A&M. But that's about the only SEC team they're less scary than.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||I'll second this||
I'm doing my best to internalize my bad mood and not take it out on my fiancé over petty little things that in a rational world would not bother me.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||C'mon man||
With so much ammo to actually bitch about Meyer, we don't need to blatantly fabricate evidence.
Meyer was clearly ignoring the reporter shoving a microphone into his face for as long as he could. He was obviously searching the crowd for the Michigan coaching staff, and broke off the interview mid-sentence when he saw Greg Mattison. Both sides showed excellent sportsmanship at the end of the game. No need to break out that tired old trope here.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||It looked like they were||
It looked like they were trying to find each other, and then Meyer got mobbed by fans rushing the field and Hoke's police escort ushered him out for safety.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I think this makes even less||
I think this makes even less sense to me now than it did before, and that wasn't much.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Honestly my only goal with||
Honestly my only goal with this was to get someone to read the "Meanwhile, in the mid-majors" sentance in the Batman scene-change voice.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This is great news for him.||
This is great news for him. Imagine, he could have ended up playing runningback at Iowa. That is not a good career move.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||If you win, that will be the||
If you win, that will be the saddest t-shirt ever.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||29-24 good guys.||
29-24 good guys.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Thanks. I do find this||
Thanks. I do find this surprising, and it certainly has an affect on the timeframe of what I was talking about, but I don't think it changes the overall point that much.
Mostly, I have to assume that if ESPN is able to get away with charging so much more than pretty much any other channel, then the percentage of current cable subscribers who would subscribe to ESPN directly is very high. I make this assumption because if it was untrue, cable providers would simply refuse to pay that fee and not carry ESPN. Presumably there would be a major revolt from a high percentage of cable subscribers if this happened.
If the percentage of subscribers who would pay for ESPN directly is as high as 50%, then ESPN would have to charge $10/month to individuals to make up the difference. Doesn't sound as nice as $5-$6/month, but it's still awfully reasonable.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Does ESPN actually get||
Does ESPN actually get $5/cable subscriber? Where's your source for this? I would be shocked if it was true.
If basic cable costs $60/month and provides 60 channels, that's $1/channel if every last cent of the subscriber fees went directly to the content providers. But of course, a huge chunk of that money goes to support the cable company's infrastructure and profits.
So let's be extremely generous and say that only 50% of subscriber fees go back to the cable company, and the rest gets distributed to the content providers. That leaves an average of $0.50/subscriber for each channel. Of course, some channels may demand more than others, so in this scenario it's possible to assume that ESPN gets upwards of $1/subscriber from cable companies.
If 1 out of 6 people who subscribes to basic cable would be willing to pay for ESPN directly (I used your $5 -> $30 to set this up, but honestly I think the number would be higher than 1 in 6), ESPN would have to charge $6/month to make up the difference if the entire cable/satellite system were to fold altogether.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I think you're absolutely||
I think you're absolutely correct here. For some reason this idea of 16 team conferences being an inevitable endgame has entered everyone's heads and they're approaching this whole thing with an "adapt or die" mentality that doesn't really make much sense.
There is no discernible reason that a 16 team conference would be any more stable/profitable/successful than 12 teams, 10 teams, or 20 teams. It's just a number, it doesn't make anything any better.
If the Big Ten stayed at 12 teams and everyone else expanded to 16, there is not a single reason in the whole wide world to believe that the Big Ten would have become irrelevant.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||The point you make about||
The point you make about internet streaming is extremely important and almost completely overlooked.
In fact, BTN, the NFL Network, and others are already making money in regard to online streaming subscriptions. Specifically, they're being paid a ton of money by DirecTV and a host of cable companies to NOT offer such subscriptions. The technology is there, the demand is there, but the old guard of gatekeepers knows a threat when they see one and are doing everything in their power to slow the inevitable advance.
You can see this effect on HULU and WatchESPN as well. If you want access to all of the WatchESPN programming, you need to log in with your cable provider account, and essentially prove that you get ESPN anyway. So you're cutting out the market of people who don't want to pay for cable, but still want to watch ESPN.
On HULU, you can still watch their programming without logging in with your cable provider info, but you have to wait a week longer than those who get the channels on TV anyway. Again, the gatekeepers here are trying to keep internet streaming from becoming more convenient than cable, unless you pay for cable anyway.
Obviously this is an unsustainable model. You can't base your revenue strategy on making some third party pay you to not provide a product that your customers want. We are not far from a world where you can pay a monthly fee directly to content providers for complete access to their content online. I would not be surprised to see ESPN implement something like this within the next year or two.
Once that line has been crossed, there will be absolutely no advantage to "expanding the footprint" or "cultivating new markets" for BTN. The only thing that will matter is increasing the total number of Big Ten fans who are individually willing to pay for BTN's content. Maryland and Rutgers come into the Big Ten with two of the smallest fan bases in the conference (according to the Nate Silver post on the board), and will hardly make a dent in BTN revenue once the sift described above occurs.
To sum up, there is nothing about this expansion that is good. Even the one thing that seems like it might be good is not going to be good anymore in 10 years.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I'm glad it's not my job to make that call||
I'm very glad that it's a legitimate question at this point.
Before Iowa, I would have said Denard at QB, same offense we were running before Nebraska. After the last game, things are looking a little different.
First of all, Denard hasn't had much time practicing at QB of late. He was almost completely out of practice for two weeks, and his practice last week was limited, at least as far as passing is concerned. This would make it harder for him to step in and pilot the offense as he has in the past.
Second, Devin has really impressed me with his accuracy lately. Competion caveats are warrented, but he's looked really good.
And lastly, the offense they cooked up last week with Devin and Denard lining up all over the field was absolutly tantalising. If I knew that both QBs were 100% going into The Game, and for some reason I was in charge of dictating Michigan's offensive game plan (let's all hope this never happens), I'd base the offense around what we saw against Iowa, with more time for Denard at QB, even throwing some passes.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This thread is predicated on||
This thread is predicated on the hypothetical proposition that Denard will be 100%. That's what makes the question interesting.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I think 16 teams could work||
I think 16 teams could work better than 14 if you do it right.
First, 4 divisions of 4 teams. Every year the division 1 winner plays the division 2 winner, same thing with divisions 3 and 4. Winners of those games play in the conference championship.
Keep the 8 game conference schedule. You play everyone in your division once, and get one protected non-division game. This means 4 games per year are unchangeable, leaving 4 games remaining and 11 teams to fill them. This works out to playing the other teams once every 2.75 years, where our current 12 team model has us playing cross division opponents once every 2.5 years, and the 14 team model is once every 6 years.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Yup. To Rutgers once every||
Yup. To Rutgers once every 12, and to Maryland once every 12.
Other than OSU, Michigan will play the leaders division teams once every 6 years each. That totally makes them in the same conference.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This reminds me of that||
This reminds me of that puzzle where three guys pay the waiter too much, and his boss tells him to give some money back, but he keeps some for himself, and then at the end there's a missing dollar for some reason.
Essentially I'm saying your attempts at math are nonsense.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||That's exactly how the SEC is||
That's exactly how the SEC is doing it right now.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Well, it seems like he two||
Well, it seems like the two factions supporting this move were people hoping the divisions would get an overhaul and east-coasters who wanted to get Michigan games in their neighborhood. This ought to piss off both of them.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I always thought it was funny||
I always thought it was funny that slogan came from an anti-littering campaign.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||That's only if they end up in||
That's only if they end up in the same division. Otherwise it's once every 12 years, at least if the SEC's current 14 team model is used.
They'll play each other once every 6 years. Less often than Michigan plays each of the directional Michigans. Totally the same conference though.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I'm more or less with you. I||
I'm more or less with you. I don't like the outlook for the MNC game, but I'll never stop rooting for the top ranked teams to lose (unless they're my teams, obviously). Ridiculous upsets late in the year are the best thing about college football.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This is exactly how I've felt||
This is exactly how I've felt about mid-level SEC teams for a while. They get credit for beating quality competition, but that "quality competition" is just other mid-level SEC teams. It's a vicious cycle of overrated crap.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||That is an excellent point. I||
That is an excellent point. I immediately concede.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I wouldn't say it has no||
I wouldn't say it has no impact. Maybe not a huge one, but a big enough one to make a second NT a luxury instead of a need.
If Q-Wash couldn't play, then they'd need one of the 2012 NTs or Ash to be ready to start by next year. Banking on a true sophomore NT to be ready is risky, so taking two and hoping one of them pans out would be a good move.
With Q-Wash playing well, you don't have to count on the 2012 NTs until they're juniors, and (hopefully) much more dependable. And by then you'll also have any 2013 players (Hurst, I know they said they're looking at him as a 3, but I think there's a good chance he ends up at the 1) in their sophomore year as well.
This is probably loaded with hindsight bias, and not actually the thought process of the coaches, but hey, I like speculating.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||This would make sense. I kind||
This would make sense. I kind of got the impression that they didn't take him because he only wanted to come to Michigan out of desperation, and they didn't think he'd stay committed.
At the time, I really wanted Michigan to take two 1-tech nose tackles, but now that I see what maybe the coaches have been seeing in Q-Wash all along, I understand why they only went after one.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Despite the announcers'||
Despite the announcers' confusion, that play was "just" a double reverse. Smith takes the pitch on a sweep, pitches to Gallon on the reverse, and Gallon pitches to Denard for the double reverse.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Triple reverse||
As crazy as that play looked, I'm pretty sure it was just a regular old double reverse.
It starts out as a sweep to the left with Smith. Smith then piches to Gallon for what would be a reverse. Gallon then pitches to Robinson for the double reverse.
Michigan used to do this all the time. The reverses and the QB throwback screen were about all the fun things the offense would do in the Lloyd years. The team would run a single-reverse in just about every game, and then usually once a year they'd mix it up and go with the double reverse.
I remember this happening specifically against Wisconsin in the Ron Dayne game. We'd been running the reverse with David Terrell all year, and in that game we started Marcus Knight on the reverse and he pitched it to Terrell who took it in for a TD.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||The only difference between||
The only difference between the SEC and everyone else is that they save one cupcake for late in the year and everyone else gets them all out of the way early. It makes absolutely no difference in overall schedule strength.
When we were playing UMass, Florida was playing Texas A&M. Now we're playing conference games and they get Eastern-Northwest-State-Tech-College. It all evens out.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I think this is his GOGOGO||
I think this is his GOGOGO factor that Brian's talked so much about coming back to haunt him. He's got great anticipation in the run game, but he bites pretty hard on play-action and route fakes.
Give him some more coaching, I think he'll get past those issues and turn into a great player.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||I'm curious about this as well.||
If Gallon's return this past game moved the win odds from 5% to 9% as the post specifies, wouldn't that mean Michigan overcame 5% odds? Shouldn't this just be charted from the low point of each game, or is there another method here that I'm missing?
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Bandwidth suggestion:||
Use the lightbox plugin you're currently using for YouTube videos. Link to each .gif file, and give that link a rel="lightbox" attribute. We click the link, the .gif pops up in a lightbox.
If you want to see what this would look like, run the following script from your browser's developer tools (Firebug, etc):
Then check out the linked GIFs at the end of the post.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||How can we get video that||
How can we get video that includes the first few moments of these pressers? Can someone take a bootleg cell phone video or something? Seriously, I want to see this.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||I believe the trick is you||
I believe the trick is you have to use the "old" embed code from YouTube. I have no idea why this is the case, but I think I've seen that around here.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||I'm no offensive guru by any means,||
But if I were to venture a guess I'd say that audibles in a West Coast Offense are limited because so much of the scheme relies on route combinations and timing. It's hard to switch one receiver to a hot route that exploits a blitz without disrupting the protection scheme or other routes in the package.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||I can understand why some||
I can understand why some people are going to have this sort of reaction to this game. Doesn't make it any more correct, but it's understandable.
First off, it's Minnesota. Sure, they're better this year than they were last year, but it's still unclear how much this performance means.
Second, I think you could make a pretty solid argument that Borges is more comfortable calling a game with Gardner at QB than with Denard. That doesn't mean the Gardner offense is actually better, it just looks more polished because it's in the OC's comfort zone.
Third, regardless of caveats, this was an outstanding game for DG. I've been irrationally high on Gardner since he came on in garbage time against Bowling Green in 2010, and it's great to have a reason to be rationally high on him now. I'm hoping harder than ever that his medical redshirt comes through and we get 2 years of DG starting.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||I don't know if it's a fair||
I don't know if it's a fair comparison. All of Devin's play last year came off the bench when he'd spent the week as the #2 QB. Gameplanning as the #2 QB, taking snaps as the #2 QB, etc.
This game, he spent the week as the #1 guy essentially. That can make a huge difference. The offensive gameplan this week was built around Gardner, instead of being built around Denard and then adjusted mid-game to deal with Gardner.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Michigan 44, Minnesota 13||
Michigan 44, Minnesota 13
|1 year 18 weeks ago||My issue isn't with Bellomy||
My issue isn't with Bellomy winning the job, I think that's certainly possible. What shouldn't be possible is a coaching staff foregoing a senior backup QB in favor of a true freshman who will not practice with the team until fall camp.
Gardner has to be a QB through fall camp, even if he is the #2. If Morris plays well through camp, they might move him back, but there is just no way that they commit to him at WR before then.
Plus it would be a remarkably stupid idea to risk Morris's RS year to get one year of WR play out Gardner. Though this staff has played a little fast and lose with redshirts so I suppose it's possible.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Do you have any idea how||
Do you have any idea how complicated and difficult it is to run an offense? Having fuzzy memories of what you're supposed to be doing is not enough. Not to mention the fact that he wouldn't have gameplanned to face a defense as a QB in weeks. He'd have walked out there, looked at the D, and had no idea what he was seeing.
Putting Gardner out there would have been stupid. It wouldn't have worked, and Bellomy almost certainly gave us the best chance to win. Seriously, we might as well be arguing that the coaches should have put Gallon in at QB.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Are you completely insane?||
Are you completely insane? You realize that if they made the switch to WR permanent, the coaches would be commiting to carrying exactly one (!!!!!) scholarship QB through Spring practice.
They would be making the uninformed decision that not only is Russell Bellomy ready to start, but that untested, unpracticed, yet-to-arrice-on-campus, true-freshman Shane Morris was ready to be the #2 QB! That is insane!
There is absolutly no way DG is primarily a receiver next year. It was risky when they did it this year, it would be downright stupid next year.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Yup. Came to the comments to||
Yup. Came to the comments to just to post this. I think I still have the picture from the lead story in the AA News from the next day, it's just Brabbs being engulfed by students. 5 minutes of Googleing couldn't turn up that exact picture, but I did find a some other photographic evidnece:
I don't know when it became a repeated tradition, but this was the first time I saw it happen.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||I used to agree||
And then the OK State tipped INT happened a few years ago. I want Woodson's play to be better, but I just don't think it was.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||I think you missed a few||
Not to nit-pick. A couple in the play descriptions looks like they got missed.
Don't know what you're using to find/tag all these videos, but if you run this jQuery selector:
From Firebug or Chrome Dev tools it will give you a nice list of all non-lightboxed youtube video links.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Win Percentage Calculator||
As I said above, super awesome. One oddity, since it's a Google Doc, multiple people can edit it at the same time, and that gets a little funky.
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Broken Link||
The link to the Win Percentage Calculator is broken. Looks like you left out the colon after "https" so it reads "https//docs.google" when it should be "https://docs.google"
That calculator is incredibly awesome by the way. I have a feeling that I'm going to be spending a lot of time on Saturdays compulsively entering data to see everyone's chances in every game I watch. Thanks for that.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Anyone know what the OL||
Anyone know what the OL situation looks like in this year's draft compared to next year's? Amount of competition could play a role in whether he decideds to stay or go.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||That last question reminds me||
That last question reminds me of something I saw/heard a few years ago in the NFL. First, some background:
The St. Louis Rams were trying to defend against a comeback from someone (don't remember who, don't remember the score), and that team was driving the field, and got into field goal range. They spiked the ball with less than 10 seconds left, but they didn't have 7 guys on the line so they got hit with an illegal formation penalty. This did NOT result in a 10 second runoff as a false start would have, and they were able to kick the field goal and win.
After the game, the Rams coach (Scott Linehan I think) was furious that illegal formation did not incur a 10 second runoff (this rule may have changed since then, don't know), and he proposed one of the greatest clock saving techniques I've ever heard. He never had the balls to run it, but it would have been awesome.
After a big play late in the game, instead of having your whole team try to get to the ball and get set, have your two fastest players (Linehan used Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce as examples) run to the spot, and have one of them snap it to the other. Clock stops on the illegal formation penalty, but there's no runoff, so you can get the rest of the team to the line and set up your play. You lose 5 yards, but gain precious seconds.
Obviously this would only be valuable in the NFL where the clock doesn't stop on 1st down. My biggest disappointments in the Linehan era for the Rams are never seeing him try this, and retroactively accepting a penalty to prevent Neil Rackers from attempting a 70+ yard free-kick field goal after a fair-catch on a Rams punt. That would have been awesome too.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||37-24 Michigan||
|1 year 19 weeks ago||This is more or less the impression I get||
After the ND debacle the offensive mindset seems to be "We're going to do what we do best, and dare you to stop it." It's worked so far, but it's frustrating to watch against a team that can actually stop it.
I don't think the issue is that Borges is terrible at watching film and game planning, because we've seen him come up with some pretty good game plans that counter what the opposing defense does best (I would count 2011 MSU and 2012 ND here), it's just that those tend to be game plans that this offense is not capable of executing well.
I think Borges knows how to run the offense that gets the most out of these players. I also think Borges knows how to create a game plan that attacks an opponent's weak spots. But I don't think he's very good at combining the two. Until the last few weeks, he seemed to default to "game plan" mode and the team suffered for it when they couldn't execute. The MSU game suggests that the offense is now defaulting to "base package" mode, and while that makes it one-dimensional, it gets the job done and is much less likely to backfire.
There are still some serious issues with the way this offense operates. Having a "We are clearly running on this play" receiver or a "We are clearly passing on this play" tight end is a very bad thing. Having no discernible system to check out of bad matchups could cause serious problems. If the team takes care of business the next few weeks, and these issues are fixed just in time to surprise an unprepared OSU team, all will be forgiven.
I can dream, can't I?
|1 year 19 weeks ago||I've heard this argument before||
And it would hold more weight if it weren't for the fact that those back rows do fill up (at least substantially more than they're filled at kickoff), it just takes until well into the 1st quarter for that to happen.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Thanks||
I'm probably taking too much pride out of a complement from what amounts to a random internet stranger, but thanks, I appreciate it.
I think it's possible that it looked more confusing at the game than it did on TV. It looked to me like the ref spotted the ball and made the signal to start the clock before the clock started. Maybe the chains weren't completely set at that point, but that may be a common practice, I'm not sure.
I really think those 10 seconds were just the Michigan offense not snapping the ball when they had the chance. They've been doing that in their hurry-up all year (and last year if I recall). They hurry to get to the line, and then take a full, normal snap count before they snap the ball. I would be more upset about that, but it all worked out today, so I'm happy.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||They sold out on the run last||
They sold out on the run last year too. And Notre Dame sold out on the run earlier this season. Michigan stopped running in those games. Michigan lost, because the passing game is unreliable.
And then everyone ran back to this board and complaned about Michigan abandoning the run game.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||I could be wrong||
I'll have to wait for the full game videos to come out, but I remember seeing the chain gang move, and looking at the clock an noticing it not ticking.
Clearly not too big of a deal at this point. We had 8 whole seconds to spare!
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Guh, more of this? Really?||
Copied from other thread:
This is getting ridiculous. Borges tries to throw and it's "OMG! Run the ball, that's the only way to win with Denard!" Then when he sticks to the bread and butter running game and a good defense shuts it down, it's "Where's the counter-punch, Borges?"
We need to face facts as a fan base. With Denard at the helm, this is a one dimensional offense. If we try to open up the passing game, we become extremely vulnerable to mistakes and negative plays. If we stick to the running game regardless of what the defense shows, we risk being shut down.
This was not a great game for this offense. There may be another game like this. But just because this offense puts up 45 on Illinois and Purdue, it does not mean that they should be doing it every game, and the only reason they wouldn't is coaching mistakes.
Enjoy the Denard offense for what it is. It may be the most exciting offense this school will ever see, but that does not mean it's the best.
To your specific concerns. Get Funchess involved? How 'bout trying to use his height in an endzode fade? Oh, maybe we did that but his ball skills are still too raw and Denard's touch is less than perfect. Funchess will be great someday, right now, he's good.
Unstoppable throwback screen? I counted at least 2 of them in this game, the second got blown up for no gain. Another screen got blown up for no gain as well.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||...um, they did...||
Stop the clock that is. Events transpired as such:
1. Denard reaches for the first down. Officials on the field signal first down. The clock stops, the chains move.
2. After the chains are set, the clock begins to run and Michigan prepares to run a play. This process takes 10 seconds.
3. Booth signals for review. Clock stops and play stops.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Said this earlier in this thread...||
But it bears repeating. Watch the replay on that 3rd & 22. Jackson is super-duper open between 3 MSU defenders. Like broken-coverage level open. Denard just missed on the throw. Wasn't a bad read, wasn't a bad decision to throw, just a bad pass.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Thank you!||
This is getting ridiculous. Borges tries to throw and it's "OMG! Run the ball, that's the only way to win with Denard!" Then when he sticks to the bread and butter running game and a good defense shuts it down, it's "Where's the counter-punch, Borges?"
We need to face facts as a fan base. With Denard at the helm, this is a one dimensional offense. If we try to open up the passing game, we become extremely vulnerable to mistakes and negative plays. If we stick to the running game regardless of what the defense shows, we risk being shut down.
This was not a great game for this offense. There may be another game like this. But just because this offense puts up 45 on Illinois and Purdue, it does not mean that they should be doing it every game, and the only reason they wouldn't is coaching mistakes.
Enjoy the Denard offense for what it is. It may be the most exciting offense this school will ever see, but that does not mean it's the best.
[EDIT: Replied to a comment that doesn't appear to exist anymore. Maybe the user got banned for some reason? The comment itself was pretty measured and well-reasoned.]
|1 year 19 weeks ago||3rd & 22 was not a bad decision||
Watch the replay. Jackson was excruciatingly open on that play. Denard made the right call to throw it to him, he just delivered an absolutely terrible pass.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Meh.||
I see your point, but it's a personal preference thing. I still stick with "That school in Ohio," just because that's what I like. It's all about building up your own anticipation for the rivalry. We do it because it's fun, not because we're zombie-like Hoke minions.
Although we are also zombie-like Hoke minions...
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Michigan 13 MSU 11 Michigan||
Michigan 13 MSU 11
Michigan gains 232 yards rushing
|1 year 21 weeks ago||If we can count transfers...||
Ryan Mundy? Would certainly help shore up the DB situation.
This is actually somthing that I used to do all the time. If I remember correctly, right around the time of Brady's NFL emergence Michigan could have fileded a pretty good team. I think the weak spot then was safety (surprise), and I remember slotting DeWayne Patmon in there because he was on a practice squad somewhere.
Right now, OL depth seems a bit of a problem, as do DBs, but we could assemble one hell of a starting front-7.
Also, as others have mentioned, the lack of RB doesn't really scare me. That position (especially in the NFL) is more and more becoming a collection of interchangeable guys who you run until their legs collapse underneath them.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||I would neg you for this||
Not because I necessarily disagree with anything you said, but because I can't stand the psuedo courageous "I know I'm going to get negged for this, but..." schtick. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't try to put yourself in a preemptive victim role to make your dissenters look like bullies.
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Why not come out and say that to begin with||
To be fair, they haven't come out and said anything. The news is being broken by the kid himself after talking to the coaches. Unless there's something out there that this article failed to mention, OU has made no official statement on the matter. I'll withhold judgement until they do.
I do agree that the Letter of Intent shouldn't matter. We're talking about a moral obligation here, not a technical one.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||This this this,||
A thousand times this!
Can we institute the "snowflake" rule on Denard passing 2010 vs. 2012?