Mike Lantry, 1972
blue in dc
- Member for
- 3 years 6 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 1 day ago||Loved his comment re: my job||
Is to put the o-line in the position to succeed.
|1 week 3 days ago||Can't wait to hear why this is a bad thing||
Had to push Gardner to come back to soon because Shane is a flop? Oh no, Shane won't get enough reps now? How is Nuss possibly going to find time to coach three qb's? (S)
|1 week 4 days ago||Nothing against Brian||
But I think I'll trust Mattison's instincts on this one.
|1 week 4 days ago||I don't understand||
It seems like you are saying that change in reaction to rhings not working is reactionary and therefore bad? Is it better to not react?
|1 week 4 days ago||Milker at center?||
If anyone else is going to take the center job, I suspect it will be Kugler
|1 week 4 days ago||Don't see the coaching changes as that dramatic||
If you start with the idea that you don't want Hoke to be a position coach, you have to do something with the defensive line. If you don't want Mattison coaching four positions and you have a guy with many years of experience coaching d-line, you think, I'll move Smith to defensive line. You also think, I was planning on doing some things differently with my linebackers to become more aggressive and my d-coordinator was actually an NFL linebacker coach, moving him to linebacker could make sense.
Now comes my one challenge, one of my best recruiters was already coaching one of the linebackers, do I keep him there, or does it make more sense to move him somewhere else? If you are comfortable with Mattison coaching all of the linebackers, it's a waste of a coaching position to have him stay coaching a single linebacker position.
The one defensive position you are now uncomfortable with is Dbacks where you have one coach, coaching five positions, but Manning doesn't have experience with d-backs. Should I fire him and hire a second experienced d-backs coach? Well, I really like the job he's been doing recruiting, so I don't want to get rid of him. Also, the guy who used to coach all five d-back positions is still here and could act as a mentor. There's a bit of risk, but big picture, when I factor in both day to day coaching and recruiting, I am comfortable taking that risk.
Other than cb's, nothing drastic and all very logically. At cb's, a calculated risk, but Manning isn't an unknown quantity, so Hoke/Mattison are taking that risk with much more knowledge at there disposal.
|1 week 4 days ago||Very excited you've joined the staff||
Any chance we'll see an oofer boatd under useful stuff compiling key information on offers in one place? Used to be one of my favorite parts of Mgoblog.
|1 week 5 days ago||Seemed well thought out to me||
It seems like they are trying to do a number of things:
1. dL has been a weak link. Part of this may have been having two, part time coaches rather than one full time coach. The DL was part of Mark Smith's responsibility for 14 years at Indiana State doesn't seem to be switching to an unqualified or inexperienced D-line coach
2. It seems that part of the adjustments that Mattison would like to make to address the teams spread problems involves using the linebackers differently. Mattison did coach linebackers in the NFL for a year so he appears to have some qualifications. It may make sense therefore for him to focus on linebackers since he is both qualified and has a vision for some changes there.
3. Mallory is still coaching safeties, so this isn't a big move. If there seems to be a suggestion that anyone isn't doing a good enough job, this seems it, snce Mallory is the only person taking what appears to be a reduction in responsibilities. I wonder if he' is either taking on other, or retaing some responsibilities that ate not clear from his title? For instance, maybe he'll be doing some mentoring of Manning at the cornerback coaching spot or he'll be taking on a bigger role coaching coverage teams?
4. Manning to cornerbaks. This is the one that seems the most out of the blue. However, if they really want Mattison to coach linebackers, and they think Manning is a very strong recruiter, maybe it's worth taking a chance, especially if Mallory will be looking over his shoulder?
As for Ryan and Morgan, they are both in their fourth year with Mattison. If he has a different vision for how he wants to utilize his linebackers, he is working with alot of info about these particular players. I don't think Given his resume that Mattison is likely to be feeling desparate and that this is probably a plan he's given alot of thought too.
It''s funny, I have almost the exact opposite reaction that Brian did. Given the amount of experience the team has coming back, it would have been easy to stand pat and say, we're going to get better just with more experience. Instead, I think Mattison sat down and said, What can I do to maximize tge potential of this defense. I think that these changes are not a sign of desperation but are instead a sign that next year's D is going to be alot more aggressive.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Wasn't Fox recruited as a tackle?||
I assume the fact that Dawson is getting a shot at tackle means the coaches are in fact more comfortable with some combination of: Kalis, Bosch, Glasgow and Kugler inside than they are with Magnuson and Braden at tackle?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Seems like a strange argument||
If Glasgow is better than Miller, he should play. If Miller isn't good enough to beat him out, the problem iis not recruiting better players than Miller.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Seems like a positive philisophical change||
They recognized a weakness and moved to address it. That's good, isn't it?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Which means more hope at tackle than I thought||
Thanks. I really was questioning whether Braden was someone we should consider in the mix at tackle given his OG struggles. Sounds like jury is still out, but we shouldn't view the failed OG experiment as a reason for pessimism.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Mental challenges||
I thought you wete refering to a loss of confidence - that is why I thought a change would help.
Sounds like you more meant picking up schemes. I see why its not as obvious that a change would help there.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||If Kalis's problems were mostly mental||
Then a reset on the offensive coordinator could be a really good thing for him.
It also seems that if folks around him can improve, that could help Glasgow a great deal at center. Both lacking chemistry (and probably faith) in his linemates seem like it would exacerbate any weaknesses that Glasgow did have.
It seems like there are reasonable arguments that the middle of the line could really improve. At the same we should expect the tackles to take a step back. The real question is, can the interior step up more than the tackles regress. On top of that, can Nuss scheme around weaknesses.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||What do you think about Braden?||
Is the fact that he couldn't hack it at guard any sort of sign about his potential at tackle?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||If you acknowledge that he might be a good player or productive?||
Why wouldn't you want him to start? While it shouldn't be an every day occurance, walkons can step up. Eric Mayes, Shawn Humrick, Jordan Kovacs, should none of them have gotten a chance?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Is that based on the midseason snap snafu's?||
Or even later in the year did you see him as a liability at center? I thoght at guard he played as well as anyone else we through out there. Since he was the only one other than Lewan or Schofield to play every game, it seems many other players were more patches than Glasgow was.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Yet another mistake on my part||
I meant Guard.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Doesn't mean as strong as Molk||
I think assuming that Glasgow or Kugler being better than Glasgow last year and Mealer isn't a big reach. I think that by the end of the year, Glasgow was not a bad center
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Thanks||
That wa actually what I was tryong to get at in an obviously to long winded way. Clearly the line as a whole was a disaster last year, but since we did see a fair amount of at least some of the pkayers who are competing for positions this year, are there any insights to be gleaned?
Glasgow would be my number one example. Clearly he struggled with the switch to center, but my sense is, that by the end of the year he had signifigcantly improved. Since there are no real stats to check that against and no UFRs for a number of later games, I was hoping that some of the folks on the forum with more ability to evaluate individual offensive linemen might have some insights.
Obviously that is either not an interesting question/topic, my formatting fiasco de-railed the conversation or there were other flaws beyond the formatting in my post.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Sorry about the formatting||
Apparently if one cuts and pastes from pages on an I-Pad, paragraph formatting doesn't get carried through. Next time I'll use the preview feature before hitting save.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Doublepost||
|2 weeks 2 days ago||It will be very interesting to see what the line looks||
I am hopeful that we'll see an offensive coordinator that realizes you need to adjust for an inexperienced offensive line and that they (and thus Funk), will look much better this year
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Mallory||
Seems to me like he actually had the biggest drop in responsibility? He moves from coaching 4/5 positions to coaching 2?
Smith both takes on more positions and seems to be moving to shore up a position group that has been underperforming. Manning also takes on more resposibility.
For a guy that seemed to be eager to move on to a head coaching gig, this seems like a step back unless it includes other responsibilities that would better prepare him for a head coaching job?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Don't want to get in the way of a good narative||
But wasn't senior James Rogers part of the secondary?
|5 weeks 5 hours ago||Thanks||
For taking the time to look at the statistics. There are no easy answers. Solutions are probably a mix of many different things, almost all of which will likely get politizied by multiple groups.
|5 weeks 10 hours ago||My only point was only about homicides||
And you seem to agree on the stats with that. If in another context (say workplace accidents), there was a factor that contributed to only 1.2 percent of injuries, but it contributed to 69 percent of deaths, would you think that the cause of 69 percent of deaths might be worth a bit more attention?
|5 weeks 11 hours ago||United States - look at FBI crime stats||
Sorry I was not precise enough. I mean US homicides.
|5 weeks 11 hours ago||Why?||
The weapon in more han 2/3 of murders is a gun
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Much more likely than my crazy alternative||
Which I arrived at by listing questions about either, things that have been reported that make little sense or other generally unknown (and likely to remain so) facts.
Why did Gibbons wave his right to appeal?
My general sense is that when someone waves their right to appeal, that by giving something up, they get something in return. Is it possible that Gibbons expulsion was part of a larger bargain maybe one that included an agreement from the university not to publicize the punishment in anyway? (Possibly including any discussions related to why he was not playing in the bowl game).
Who restarted the investigation?
It is really hard for me to understand why anyone high in the University's administration would have thought that a good idea. The Washtenaw News article hardly seems like it was high enough profile to warrant reopening the case. It's hard to see how one would not have predicted the negative press associated with resolving a case like this four years late and at the same time the defendant's athletic eligibility had run out.
Are other old cases being re-opened?
If so, under what criteria, if not, then why this one?
Who is supplying the Daily their information?
Why are the University's explanations so lame?
My (obviously completely unsubstantiated) theory.
Someone fairly low in the university food chain who felt that Gibbons deserved to be punished used the Washtenaw News story to re-open the case. By the time that higher ups found out about it, enough of a paper trail had been created that it would have been hard to make a finding of anything but a violation. At the same time, Gibbons pursues legal action because the University has unilaterally retro-actively applied a new procedure to him that hasn't been applied to anyone else. (Assuming this is the case because the university has no interest in the headaches associated with any of the old cases).
Neither side is interested in publicity, but the University feels it can't back down on some punishment because of the paper trail. A deal is struck. Gibbons gets to complete his classes, but the University can't wait until after the term ends to expel Gibbons, because there is no reason for him to return. Thus the December 20th expulsion. The only loose end is how to explain the bowl game absence, thus the lame, "family issues" excuse.
Almost everyone involved, breathes a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, the person who originally reopened the case is pissed that because there is no publicity about the expulsion. Thus the leaks to the Daily begin.