Recent Comments

No doubt we'll do right by the people in this disaster, but I fear we won't do enough to limit the impacts of the next one

Disagrree - sure. Downvote, that is the sign of an insecure, smallminded person

Heaven forbid one suggests we do more than donate and pray and actually try to do things to minimize tge devastation of future disasters. If it doesn't fit in my worldview, it must be downvoted and labeled as flamebait.

But it would cross the no politics rule. There is lots more you can do than just pray and donate.

I'd much rather have an e-version than a hardcopy

If the big ten didn't do what everyone wanted them to do? And that would have given you more hope they'd get it right the third time around?

And just leave his dad out of it all together

Way to show support for someone who's just signed up to put in four years to help make our team better

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-26/news/bs-md-bloomberg-hopkins...

NM

Whining

Posed in the wrong place

Some of you are amazing with your moderation

Love the way people on this blog moderate

And I've been accused on this very blog of having no sense of humor, but isn't the comment, "hey look an airplane" mocking people who like flyovers? I guess it could be sarcasm, but I don't think the poster you are ridiculing is ridiculous for taking it at its word that the commenter who said both, "flyovers are stupid" and "hey look, an airplane." may in fact actually think that flyovers are stupid.

BSB - so far this column has been well worth it - I'm interested in seeing how long you'll be able to keep it funny and fresh.

On the one hand, it seems like it coild quickly become repetitive, on the other, twitter is the kind of medium where it could be the gift that keeps on giving

So far, I think this column is a good reply to the recent pist critisizing front page content. Good luck with it.

There's plenty of good about this blog and its his baby, so he does get to make the rules. I have been reading it for a long time and its not like this is a recurring issue. Frankly its in large part because of the othe thread that got taken down that I made the point.

Making the value judgement that it is a, "scare tactic" is where it becomes political.

The fact that you and I both disagree on that point demonstrates that it is political. The earlier post and ensuing lockdown demonstrates that its political.

All I'm trying to point out is the hypococy of not allowing politcs on the blog unless Brian feels its ok.

How do you have a rule about no talk of politics, delete a thread about flyovers because it got to political, then on the same day, make political comments on that same topic? Does that make it fair game to comment on your political opinion about the cutting of flyovers being, "scare tactics."?

To the job. If she was hired in part because she speaks spanish because part of her job function is to speak Spanish that is a personally reasonable requirement. Since being straight is not in fact a prerequisite for being a football player, I don't see how your comparison is remotely relevant.

Too much well thought out dissent gets moderated out as flamebait, trolling, off topic or redundant

I think he's just saying that the lifestyle that college basketball players lead doesn't equate to the lifestyle of most people truly in poverty. You can certainly want more than food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, but you don't really need it. That having been said, given what schools get from them, I'd say the schools are getting a pretty good deal

If this reply is worthy of downvoting, how isn't the stuff above it?

Not sure what to say in here that won't be reflexively downvoted

I disagree - but I get it. As for the rest - Many of the responses that have not been downvoted, ridiculed were pretty dickish in their own right.

Some of my responses - still don't see why they should be downvoted. Disagreed with fine, but only downvoted if the same criteria is used for many of the other posts in this reply.

But, I guess in addition to having no sense of humor, I am also slow

I get why I rubbed Dutch the wrong way, but I have been surprised at the level of anger my posts on this have generated in others

Enjoy paying for the extra gas

As a fanbase that prides itself on being the leaders and best, I believe that this joke could have been written in a way that does not perpetuate the common confusion that climate change or global warming which many scientists believe is caused by among other things burning fossil fuels with depletion of stratospheric ozone which is caused by the release of CFCs which are used in refridgerants and certain other consumer products.

Two potential alternative formations:

In related news, scientists are investigating whether the recent cooling of Nik Stauskos demonstrates that global warming isn't happening.

Alternatively - if the ozone hole is shrinking, does that mean Greg Robinson is no longer using all of his hair products?

While I realize that many/most/all of you think I am being irationally stubborn to keep responding and that except for the fact that it is directly related to another post on this blog, is quite off topic of the blog itself, I would greatly appreciate the courtesy of you either not downvoting this response or of also downvoting many of the comments that to me seem more ridiculous than any of my other replies that have been downvoted.

I also apologize for my apparent lack of a sense of humor.

Go Blue

Thank you all for your consideration. Go Blue

The joke could have been made just as well being scientifically correct. It wouldn't have been harder or made it more or less funny. I believe in the phrase, "the leaders and best". As such, I don't see why It is so wrong to comment on something unnecceasily scientifically wrong. I expect that ignorance on many other websites, one of the things I like about yhis blog is that generally you don't need to expect that ignorance.

No doubt that this will get downvoted and ridiculed, but I didn't say anything poltical. All I was talking about was the scientific difference between climate change and the ozone hole. I haven't even made claims about whether the science was right or wrong, just about the difference in the basic theories.

Further, feel free to credit me, but I'm pretty sure I didn't coin the term inartful all on my own

And I have no idea if you are smarter than me or not, I don't even know you.

Witness the joke that started the thread in the first place. No need to be scientifically literate, when you try to connect the ozone hole to a certain hole in Columbus.

However, when you are making an actual joke about the scientific causes, it seems kinda silly to me to do so in a way that exposes your scientific illiteracy. If you understood the issues, there are many ways that could have been done. Could have used examples like hairspray that are actually relevant or could have riffed off the ozone joke to make a climate change joke.

For instance, in related news, scientists are investigating whether the way Nik Stauskis's shooting has cooled conclusively signals an end to global warming concerns.

Think you should go home and set your house on fire?

What causes the ozone hole? I think you are confusing global warming and the ozone hole.

Is Burzynski also a possibility at center? While I know that Miller is still only a redshirt freshman who will gain more size and strength, center was a real weakness this year and he wasn't good enough to compete which suggests Hoke and company will be looking at all possibilities next year.

As you point out, Borges seems to be a better OC with Devin at the helm than with Denard. If the question were Denard with an OC that maximized what an offense could do with his skills vs Devin and an OC that maximized the offense for him, Denard is a much easier choice. Unfortunately I don't think those are the two options on the table.

Further, while Denard has won a bunch of big games out home, he hasn't faired nearly as well on the road. Unfortunately, given our weaker o-line, The fact that it is an away game and the way that Borges has been calling games with Denard this year, I am not hopeful that even if he were 100 percent healthy, it is realistic to exspect a game like he had lost year. 2012 Denard vs Notre Dame was certainly nothing like 2011 Denard vs Notre Dame.

I'm glad its not my decision to make, but it just doesn't seem as black and white to me who the clearcut better qb for this team is as it appears it is to many others on this board.

I'd also remind folks that many people on this board thought it was a no brainer that Hoke was a bad choice for head coach, so it seems clear to me that it might be wise to be a little bit humble when acting like a decision is a no brainer.

http://www.usada.org/about

I'm not sure which one of is it is, but I think one of us has a very skewed viewpoint of how much people care about the band.

Possible conversations about the band I could see

Possible opening: So, there's a big comtreversy in Ann Arbor about whether David Brandon should have paid for the band to come down here

Possible replies - shows you how far this program has come in two years, they don't have to worry about a coaching contreversy, the only worries are, should they spend half a million dollars on the band

Or:

I imagine that contreversy will die down when Denard takes one to the house.

First - thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Second, can anyone respond to the band's relationship to the athletic department? Does the athletic department have any financial responsibility to ensure that the band plays at a certain number of games? It is not clear to me why DB not budgetting for the band is poor planning. If he hadn't budhetted for the football teams travel, I would be quite concerned, but it is not clear to me why it should be the athletic departments responsibility. If they want to go - let em pay for it.

While the offense was going to have problems whoever coached in 2008, a better defense was possible and would have helped.

After the job Martin did with RR, I have trouble crediting

Prior to the 2011 season, he convinced many people that Hoke wasn't the right guy for the job, the offense would regress significantly and the defense had little hope of being better than average.



On defense, we should be as good as last year if not better at 8 of 11 positions. While we could have the same defensive bacfield as last year, I think Countess still has plenty of upside. There will also be real competition to take Floyd's spot.



Our starting linebackers could be the same, but even if they are, Morgan also likely continues to have significant upside and we're likely to have much stronger depth.



On DL, I think Roh also has room to grow. He rest of the DL has lots of question marks, but I think at least one of Washington or Campbell will step up. Washington in particular is a newbie to the DL and it isn't surprising that it is taking some time for him to step up. I also have alot of faith in Mattisonn's ability to get the most out of our strengths and to be able to minimize the impact of our weaknesses.



That said, Alabama scares the heck lut of me. That's gonna be a heck of a test for a new center and a rebuilt offensive line. I hope Hoke ia hard at work figuring out a magic thought for Khoury to use when he snaps as well as brunettes worked on Gibbons kicks.

Could it be that the Michigan lawyers didn't let him? I look at all the times that the Michigan lawyers gagged RR and it seems that similar logic would have applied here.

I've seen

1. Telling players he'd sign transfer papers - clearly none of us know his actual motivations, but I lean much more to he did it for the good of players he recruited who might want to leave. If he truly wanted to undermine RR, I personaaly think he would have been much more discreet.

2. Not speaking up during the Free Press fiasco - first, he had no first hand knowledge of what happened, so what could he have said? Second, given the Conservative nature of U of M lawers portrayed in 3 and Out, would they have let him talk?

3. General lack of support for RR - I go back to The point that Bacon says that Carr recomended hiring Labide and Draper. This seems to suggest that Carr and RR had additional discussions. It would have been useful for Bacon and RR to talk about what happened in those discussions as it might provide useful insight into what had happened to sour their relationship.

4. Carr was being paid by the athletic department and he should have done more. Martin was being paid too and he was Carr's boss. How do we know that Carr wasn't doing exactly what his boss asked?

I see how some could have wanted Carr to do more and better than he did, but I don't see a massive conspiracy to screw RR, I see a burnt out, frustrated old man collecting his pay check and keeping his head down. Sad - yes, disappointing - yes, worthy of hate? I don't think so.

Thanks for all the feedback.  (that isn't sarcasm).  

Some have suggested that this issue has been beat to death and asked why would I bring it up now.  It was the harsh comments on the following thread from last week that made me want to right this post.

\http://mgoblog.com/diaries/eat-dinner-coach-carr-coach-hoke-dhani-jones-and-mike-martin

While I get that many/most people have made their minds up on this, when I look at Carr in relation to many other college coaches (Tressel, Paterno and Kelly all come to mind), I fail to see anything that Carr has done that rises to that level.   It's alot easier to find the rules to being a MIchigan Man to be black and white when  you're not really in position to actually do much to influence MIchigan football.   For instance, on the question of should Carr have let his players know that he'd sign transfer papers.  It's easy to say sitting on the sidelines that he should have made them deal with RR, but, since he actually sat in these kids homes, told their parents he'd look out for them, maybe  he felt he needed to give them the option to move on.  I see how you could disagree and think this was the wrong choice, but to rise to the level of being a traitorous choice?

I also think that when you look at through the lense of a guy that wanted to retire before the 2007 season, you see that Carr himself was also screwed by some of the same people that screwed RR.  I would also argue that since he's given so much more to Michigan footballl and since he doesn't havve a professional route to repair that by wining somewhere else, he may in fact have been screwed more.  If after suffering through the 2007 season, then watching Martin completely screw up the transition, Carr felt bitter and didn't handle it that well, is that really traitorous, or just a human failing on Carr's part?

Despite the fact that I personally think that RR could have handled things much better and I'm disappointed by his three year tenure, I still would be happy for the guy to succeed.  I guess I just don't see how given the information that we have at hand, people could have managed to develop such a hatred for a guy like Coach Carr who has done alot of good things.

Did he make a big deal out of it before or after je wasn't granted a full release? Maybe he did have a conversation wiith Dooley In which he did say the things you suggested. Maybe it was Dooley's unwillingness to grant a full telease that led to him making a bigger issue out of the health concerns?

The Freep stuff caused a ton of bad press for the University - clearly it needed to be unleasehed upon. The story aboutMichigan in the press now is very positive with regards to the football team - why would Brandon possibly want to do anything to make it about Bacon's book? The only one who would benefit from that is Bacon himself.



Brandon has already won the media battle with regards to firing RR and hiring. The only people who care about this debate are on this blog.

Is it really surprising that when you here Rich Rod's side of the firing, it isn't kind to the guy who did the firing?



As Bacon pointed out, even if you think that Brandon had his mind made up before the bowl game, everything he did makes perfect sense from the perspective of putting Michigan first.



Other than the ring thing, what exactly did Brandon do wrong?

The way to squeak out probably more than one extra win was actually focus on the defense. And yes, I get that our offense was thin, but no points againt Toledo in the second half, that's an offensive genius?

Do you really think doing an interview with Carr or anyone else would have removed all of the biases inherent in spending days with RR over a three year period?



I do not mean this as a critisism to Bacon, because I liked the book, but it is hard to imagine how one could spend three years with a team and not be influenced by it. The book is what it is, a story about a football coach told largely from his perspective. That in itself doesn't make it good or bad, but it certainly doesn't make it unbiased. If you told the story of the civil war after spending a year with General Lee and his troops, do you think you'd get the same story as if you'd spent it with General Grant? Would that change if you then went and interviewed the opposing general?

If it is true that Carr really wanted to leave after the 2006 season, maybe he feels that he eas promised things in return for staying in 2007

Thanks

I'm sure your grandkids will be overjoyed to know that on one of the biggest threats to our planet, the best you could do was make smarmy comments about Al Gore

While listing on the ESA is nice lip service, it's senseless unless we do something about climate change



http://my-iguru.com/ipad/ipad-hints-tips/ipad-cut-copy-paste.php

My point was - reprimand could cover a wide range, in my mond some of it reasonable - hey, as a team leader, can you help us as we try to solve this moving forward - mentioning it in the press isn't helpful. What would be the problem with such a conversation? On the other hand, if there was more admonishment probably not a good thing. From the sentence, I have no idea. From all of Van Bergen's subsequent actions, it doesn't seem like it was that big a deal.



Bacon also passed along the, Carr doesn't make players go to class during rivalry week with no attribution and people have refuted that.



Just because Bacon chose to write abou it in one way, doesn't mean that is how it happened

Hiring and firing a coach at a high profile institution like Michigan is no easy task. There are lots of hard decisions. The end result turned out quite well. What series of decisions would have made folks on this board so much happier? (if he had fired RR before the bowl game, it is very easy to see how things could have turned out much worse. RR could have taken another job and taken Denard with him, the seniors would likely have been dragged through more of a media circus, if Hoke had been brought in for the bowl game, he likely would have had a bad defeat to deal with to start his career. How would any of these things been good?



With regards to Les Miles - given the fact that Mary Sue Coleman was personally involved in discussions with him last time around, maybe, just maybe she told Brandon that while she understood his reservations, she felt she owed it to Miles to have Brandon give him a chance.



There is so much that we don't know about the process that we don't know and I just don't understand why you choose with no real basis in fact to decidethat all of Brandon's motices were so slimy?

I am so sick of all the RR apologist whining. Contol what you can control and don't worry about all the rest. He was the head coach, not the offensive coordinator. Had he taken care of the defense, his record would have been better and he could have dealt with all the external problems better

While yhe Freep stuff hurt and Martin was ridicuosly unhelpful, with a decent defefense, RR would have had enough wins to stay

If RR had gotten anything out of that defense, we could have had a better record in 08. If he'd managed 6-6, his climb all the way up to 7 wins in 2010 wouldn't have looked nearly as impressive

Frankly, my biggest problem with all the praise of RR is that it comes from many of the same people who incessantly blame Loyd for all of RR's problems. While RR clearly had challenges on offense, most of his failings on D (and I'd argue special twams) were of hos own making. If rR had a competent D during his tenure, we wouldn't have fallen so far. I don't get why I need to praise someone for fixing problems that were in large part their own fault.

While last years average numbers look great, the average for the last three games looked pretty bad - this year the story is quite different, the offense has performed much better in the last three games.

We scored 7 points against Ohio State last year - how is that the defenses fault? This year the offense also had the pressure of having to score almost every serious against Ohio State and somehow they managed to score 40 points (ok 38 if you take away the safety). 38 points would have won the Ohio State game last year

It jjust proves that the 2007 team was quite senior laden

Your comment on Moore seems like speculation?

I think it starts to show, that even with all of the other issues, a decent defense would have made a world of difference. Looking at this in an incredibly oversimplified way (I'd be interested in knowing if the stat geniuses on this site have a better way to do this) you can start to quantify the impacts that a better defense would have had.



If you assume that a good defensive coordinator could have allowed the same number of points per game as the worst Michigan defense in terms of points per game (2004 at 23.2) then assumed each team on the schedule scored that many fewer points and adjustbthe win/loss record, you start to see the impact. In 2008, that means teams would have scored on average 5.7 points less, enough for victories over Utah and Toledo, a 5-7 record. In 2009, 4.3 points less a game equals wins over Iowa and Purdue and a 7-5 record. In 2010, the 12 point differential nets wins over Iowa and Penn State and 9-4.



If Instead of the worst defense 98-2007, we assume an average defense, things get even better. A 9.3 point differential in 2008 adds wins over Purdue and Northwestern. With a 7-5 record, the bowl streak and the winning record streaks stay alive. A 7.9 point differential gets us the elusive win over Michigan State and an 8-4 record. An average defense doesn't net us any more wins in 2010.

Frustrating sometimes and could be better, but still, not bad. I'm not sure if you've blacked it out or something, but there were lots of periods last year when our offense turned the ball over or stalled in the red zone.



I'm not saying that there hasn't been some regression, but this offense is actually pretty good (not great mind you, but pretty good)

I don't understand why there is so much negativity about this offense. If I understand, the conventional wisdom of this blog is that FEI is a good way to measure the offense. Aren't we like 17? Granted, not as good as last years 2, but really, doesn't seem that bad

This is not at all a slam on Bacon. I think it is a very good book and would totally recomend i. However, Bacon spent most of three years surrounded by one side of the story and many people on the other side of the story generally didn't talk to him.



Can people honestly rad that book and not find some big missing pieces? How exactly did things go from Loyd calling RR about the job to him not supporting him. Might that little missing piece help a bit?

Many people on this board tout how good the offense was last year and how even though it is good this year, there is no way it wouldn't have been better this year with RR. I am just musing about whether that is an actual fact. Lots of facts are trotted out about how good the offense was last year with a first year quarterback. I am merely pointing out that with a full season under his belt, we scored less and had less yards than other teams averaged against Mississippi State. I am wondering why this should lead me to believe that we would have gotten so much better this year

It is often suggestedbthat with another years improvement, we would have seen even more improvement from RR's offense, so staying the same is really falling back. While I get the theory, shouldn't you also be able to see that effect within a season? Shouldn't The offense at the end of the season have been better than the offense at the begining of the season?



Mississippi State gave up 19.8 points and 356.8 yards a game last year. We scored 14 and had 342 yards of offense. If we were on a trajectory for offensive greatness under RR, shouldn't we have done better?

There is a lot of anger at Carr and some at Brandon that I just don't get. There are at least 4 people/goups who I'd give more resposibility for RR's problems



Martin - not only did he screw RR, but he probably screwed Carr too. If he'd let Carr leave when he wanted too, Carr wouldn't have the Horror on his record (and Michigan might not either. Given the demands of the position, it isn't surprisiing that both recruiting and preperations suffered a bit in 2007. In a job where you are probably falling behind putting in 12 hour days, a coach that isn't all in isn't good for him or the school.



The Freep - what more needs to be said



Parts of the Michigan Compliance staff - wow, what were rhey thinkin



RR himself

- 2008 - to a large extent I think his belief that his system takes years to get in place was a self- fulfilling prophecy - when a bunch of seniors feel that you are really playing for the future, is it surprising they aren't all in?

- the defense - despite all the other setbacks, if his defense had merely met expectations, I think he'd still be here. It is shocking how little thought went into his DC pick, not pnce, but twice. And how did Gerg stick around for 2010?

If you run 9 times for 1 yard and 1 time for 91 yards, you average 10 yards a run. This is very different than running 10 times for 10 yards a pop. In the second case, you'd be an idiot not to keep running, in the first case, i'd rather remove the outlier and not assume I'd be getting 10 yards a pop. I haven't taken stats 600 so my thinking may be wrong.

I don't see how people who have so much faith that the offense would have been better at scoring reconcile that with the Mississippi State game. At that point, Denard had a full year of experience under his belt and we had a ton of time to prepare, but still, we saw the same old same old - can't score against a decent defense.



Unless RR was better than Borgess at teaching Denard to throw downfield, I think we'd still be having problems scoring against good teams.

I think it's a two way street. On defense, RR couldn't get his own staff together, it's alot harder to have players be loyal to a system when the staff isn't. On offense, it was pretty clear that RR was sacrificing 2008 for future years - in many ways it makes sense, but it isn't neccessarily the best way tonget players with one year left to buy in.



In terms of proving that the players wouldn't have done better in a different system? You say it wasn't possible because we didn't have the players and give Threet as an example. Maybe the different coordinators and systems he went through had something to do with that.



It's conjecture on my part that others could have managed the transition better, but it seems equally conjecture to say they couldn't.

Given the fact that BWC seems to be making progress, some of the SDE recruits will probably be big enough to play DT as true frosh and players like wilkins, I see how you can feel ok at the 3 tech, but tbe NT position is really scary. You pretty much have to assume that either a true frosh or a guy who isn't getting much time now is the starter and that the backup has similar experience. Another option with a DT who could play either interior spot would be hepful.



Speaking of which, it would be wonderful if anyone in the Pipkins, Goudin, Wormley, Strobel group was going to be enrolling early.

Right now we've got no sure starters. We can hope BWC steps up. We can hope that Washington or Ash step up. We can hope several freshman are ready to start playing significant minutes and we can hope there are no unexspected bad surprises with injuries, attrition or committments. That is an awful lot of hoping. I'd feel better with another very good option at DT

One thing I am excited about is that we are not jjust hoping that because Mattison is Mattison and Hoke poops gold, there will be continued improvement. There are actual roster related reasons to believe more improvement is possible.



Secondary

- still have not seen what kind of an impact Woolfolk can make, hopefully he can avoid further injury and we will see more from him

- nickelback - seems to be an area where experimentation is still going on, maybe one of the freshman will step up

- d-line - if they start getting more pressure, that can only help the secondary



Linebackers

- While Hawthorne and Ryan have really stepped up, we still haven't gotten to see Cameron Gordon. He could further solidify this unit



D-line

- it's a great sign to see Roh stepping up. Hopefully he is over whatever ailed him and he'll continue to contribute as the competition gets tougher

- think we all are excited about what it would mean if BWC continues to step up



Field position

- while I can't think of roster reasons that the kickoff units will improve, Hagerup is certainly likely to help improve field position on punts

But Borgess is still learning how to best call a game with the players we have. Luckily the schedule sets up to give him some time to do that, and he got some good luck in his earlly hard test against Notre Dame. I am hopeful that this offense will really be clicking by the time we play Michigan State

Our problem isn't I vs gun, it is finding any way to get someone other than Denard to get some yardage

I though this was the most useful in terms of actually introducing facts into the debate

Can one of the many people on this aite who are so sure that RR is an offensive genius explain to me Mississippi State?

Start with see points 1 and 4 - while we don't know enough to know it's gonna turn out real well, we don't know enough that it won't.



We're 2 and 0 with a very reasonable path to 5-0. The team and coaches have an opportunity to work on the things that need fixing - and all seem to be on the same page that there are plenty of them.



This all says to me, lets rehash tis conversation in four more weeks when we have more data.



Until I see otherwise, I'm gonna continue to enjoy the glow of Saturday's game and optimistically believe.



1. On special teams

- we got better between weeks one and two and can continue to do so.



2. On defense

- our linebackers aren't bad (and not just Demens)

- maybe BWC isn't a total bust

- Mattison is as good as advertised



3. On offense

- Hemmingway can be a very good WR

- a healthy Vincent Smith is pretty darn good

- Borgess is trying to adjust to Denard's unique talents

Brian has been putting forthbthis manball strawman since last January. it's inconsistent with what Borgess has done in the past and what he has constantly said he'd do.

But I am glad that I went to a school that had a great ath

Etic department and didn't use my tuition dollars to finance it

You think that the whole Rich Rod era was hanled well? How about the basketball coaching circus? I'd much rather play Appalacian State then have to go through all of that again. I am not saying Brandoon is perfect, but if the worst thing to gripe about is Appalachian State, I'm pretty happy. I am curios, who is the athletic department we should aspire too?

Why are people shocked that when you hire someone to run a $100 million a year operation, they manage it more like a businessman than a fan. One of the things that I personally take pride in as a Michigan fan and alum is that we have an athletic department that is in the black. I'm also excited that we have an AD who seems extremely engaged in supporting his coaches. While Hoke himself deserves plenty of credit, I believe Brandon does too. I know that many people here hated the proccess, but I think Brandon handled it in a way that provided Hoke the best chance of success. Because of the way it was handled, secind guessing related to Harbaugh has been minimized, I suspect that Brandon has also helped with the support from ex-players, alum and the media. I care much more about that then I do about a 2014 non- conference game

I am all for a good walk on story, but I'd feel much better to hear about what a good job Washington and Ash are doing. If a 260 lb walkon is really competing for time, we clearly have a depth problem.

If I could +1 from the mobile App, I would

I think there is a wide range of what could have happened under RR. While I think eveyone would agree expectations for the offense should have been higher under RR, there are lots of unknowns about where we would be on defense. How good a defensive coordinator would RR be able to hire? Would there have been transfers? Would RR's recruiting class have suffered after the loss? It is not as simple as - more experienced defense = better. We'll never know - but 10+ wins hardly seems a certainty to me

Read the next paragraph



Or more simply



Brian has concerns about Hoke/manball, he likes RR's spread



When he writes about them he gets lots of hits and makes more money then when he doesn't get as many hits



When he's trying to put out lots of content, why not return to an old standard that he knows will get lots of hits



If manball writeups only got single digit hits rather than triple digit hits, I bet we'd see lots less of them



Seeing Brian's love of analysis, I bet he has lots of stats about what works and what doesn't. I don't see what is wrong with that or why it is offensive. That having been said, I've never met the guy, so what do I know

But it seems like JB has amped up his efforts to pull in a 2012 recruit. With that as my starting assumption, I was trying to figure out why. I'll be the first to admit, either the starting assumption or the conclusions I'm drawing could be wildly off base

If Trey is doing as well this summer as some have reported, maybe JB is thinking he loses him after 12/13. With a very good point gaurd, a scorer at the two, and solid/experienced players at the 4/5, coupled with some likely impact freshmen, maybe he sees a chance for a big year and wants to do all he can to see we have the horses to take advantage.

I think we'll see lots of handoffs - not to be vanilla, but to see if we can get our running game going. I think we'll see lots of Denard under center, not to be vanilla, but to establish he can do it. I think it's way to late to hide the fact that Denard is anything but vanilla, but that if we can start to establish that he can do the vanilla stuff, to make everything else that more effective.



I exspect that we see some broken plays where Denard runs and I hope we see some passing plays where they give Denard a little room to run and he takes it. If that all happens, ND will have plenty to think about

Didn't suggest I was better than anyone. Just said if checking on a bunch of recruits made someone the busiest of any of us on this site, I'm not real impressed with what everyone is doing with their degree

I'm hoping for a nymber of multi-year starters out of this class



Defense

- Countess

- Beyer

- one of the linebackers (I know we've got a great class, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of these guys makes some noise - my moneys on Morgan)

- same with the Db's



Special teams

- Wile



Offense

- Barnett

- Rawls or Hayes

- One of the o-lineman, we're all drooling over next years class, but Bryant's no slouch and Miller seems to be a likely center candidate

This phrase often comes up in discussions of recruiting strategies, position changes. I'm not a big fan of it because, what's the point of a board like this if not to debate some of there decisions. That having been said - if there is one group you would think this group would be on top of, it would be the defensive line.



Assuming that this year, they really have no choice to go with what they've got, starting next year, their recruiting can start to have a real impact.



For this year, I think we'd agree that there are three definate starters, and a presumed fourth.



definite starters

NT - Martin

WDE - Roh

SDE - RVB



Likely

DT - Campbell



On backups



WDE - Black

SDE - Henninger

DT and NT - Washington

NT - Ash



Of those - Black is probably the only one who inspires real confidence if he has to play for extended time



After that it gets real iffy, any other backups are likely at least a year away - Rock, Wilkins, Beyer, Heitzman



With no serious injuries and real progress fron either Campbell or Washington and things could work out, but a serious injury to Martin or RVB and things get scary quickly.



Next year, question marks grow



We should be in good shape at the WDE position - Roh starts and hopefully Beyer and Heitzman have bulked up enough to be backups, true freshman with potential but probably not enough size



After that, lots of guesswork



SDE - Black fights it out with Wormley, Godin and Strobel



DT - hopefully Campbell is a proven starter, backups at least one of the true freshman - I think for next year Godin is most likely since he's closest to the right weight, Rock and Wilkins if they can bulk up



NT - Washington, hopefully Pipkins and Ash



You can see it working out - but it really does suggest the coaches are pretty confident that Campbell and Washington will work out - almost everyone here has said it, but it would be really nice to see O'brien in that DT rotation in case no one else has bulked up to backup Campbell. It would also be nice because for every Martin that shows a true freshman can walk in and be an important part of the rotation, there is a Campbell that shows they can't

Over three years, I think it is a much bigger issue. If, for instance, Gardner had a career ending injury in spring practice next year, we'd have Robinson, Bellamy. While we'd probably start recruiting a second qb for 2013, I'd much rather have a redshirt three star already on the bench, then hope for a second 4 or 5 star who might be ready to play without redshirting.



While I understand it is a low probability event, it is one with pretty high consequences.



For that matter, plenty of 4 and 5 star qb's flameout. In my mind, using the scholarship on a decent 3 star is well worth the tradeoff.