- Member for
- 1 year 42 weeks
|6 weeks 3 days ago||Desmond catch||
Michigan-Notre Dame 1991. First Home game, freshman year. Hard to start off any better than that.
|43 weeks 6 days ago||Losing games solves nothing||
The fact that I'm not a frequent commenter doesn't mean I'm not on here 30 times a day.
No, I'm not going to try to mount a massive defense of Al Borges--the playcalling has been incredibly frustrating at times, and it is hard to imagine how our offense could be much worse than it has over the last 3 weeks. Having said that, there is no doubting the fact that the O-line play we are seeing is among the worst we've ever seen. We might be able to blame Funk for that, but probably not Borges. So, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that it's hard to get a grasp on what he can or can't do until we have an offensive line that is moderately competent in place, giving him the freedom to call the plays he wants with some confidence that they have a chance at success. Now, I'm sure you (and many others) would disagree with me. But if I'm thinking that Borges might possibly deserve a year (maybe even 2) to show what he can do under those circumstances, then I think you can be resonably sure that Hoke does too, and my guess is that Brandon is giving Hoke a pretty good deal of independence.
So if there's little reason to believe that Borges is getting fired in the off-season (and there really is), then the only thing that changes if we lose the next 3 games instead of winning them is that we look like even more of a laughingstock than we already do. 3 wins, and a 10-3 season might just get recruits excited again, and reunite a fan base that appears ready to go back into cannibal mode.
I'll take the wins, if the football gods will give them to us.
|43 weeks 6 days ago||Ummmm....||
This may well be the dumbest thread ever.
|45 weeks 1 day ago||Competition?||
You may want to go back and have a look at the games we lost last year and the rankings of those teams. Other than Nebraska it's a pretty stout list.
|45 weeks 4 days ago||Erroneous||
1997 Starting O-Line:
Not even close. With 3 members (including the 2 sophs) who went on to major NFL careers. Do you have a rational comparison you wish to make?
|45 weeks 4 days ago||twisting facts?||
Yeah, let's not actually look at details, let's just scream about how much things suck!!!
Of the teams on this list only UCLA (which, wow!--2 true freshmen), and maybe LSU and Baylor can legitimately be said to match our level of inexperience on the line--in addition to which, the fact that our redshirt sophomore is a walkon should be noted as well. As was said earlier, this is a case where the aggregate numbers do not tell the story. To mock the idea that we have youth (and youth playing out of position) on the interior line as a fairly legit reason why our line might be struggling so severely is utterly ridiculous.
If there's no improvement next year, and if we're not a solid to great line by 2015, I'll go get my pitchfork out of storage and join you in the lynch mob. Until then, let's take a deep breath and accept that not recruiting offensive linemen for three years has consequences.
|51 weeks 4 days ago||Socratic Method at its finest||
'You've never played football, so you're not allowed to criticise.' A knockout blow of an argument. I don't see how Brian recovers from this one. Perhaps he should shut down the blog.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Wasn't '95 Marian Wright Edelman||
Bit confused here. I graduated in 95 (highlight was clearly Juwan coming back to graduate), and I don't remember Guisewite. Our speaker was Marian Wright Edelman.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Self-correction||
I'm glad they listened to me...well before i thought to say anything. perhaps I need to click that Moe's banner a bit more often.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Adidas-wear||
Googly eyes notwithstanding, can we get us some old-school style adidas wear (in much better colors, of course) like the one Pitino has on? The old adidas logo is so much cooler than the new one, and that is a sweet track suit. Again, in the wrong colors, but still.
|1 year 27 weeks ago||Personnel matters too||
Anyone wishing that Debord had really opened up the offense in 1997 is forgetting that the offense was not designed for (nor did it have the players for) a vertical attack. The OL was fantastic, but beyond that this was not a high-powered offense full of stars. Griese was an excellent game manager who made few mistakes, but also rarely did anything spectacular and didn't have great arm strength or accuracy. And beyond Streets and Tuman (and the fact that our TE was basically option 1a is telling), we had very little on offense. In fact, the reason Woodson got his opportunity on offense, no matter how good he was (and he was freakin' awesome), was because we needed the help.
I'm not gonna claim to be a massive fan of some of our more conservative offenses (and often they could have been much more creative), but it's not always entirely up to the OC.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Wrong we.||
In this case, by "we", I meant Northern Ireland. Do try to keep up.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Pardon me, sir.||
We haven't even offered Harris.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Talent =/= better team||
I think I keep ending up responding to your posts not because you're totally wrong, but because you are so adamant about points that are very much debatable.
Yes, you're quite right, the Fab Five rarely ran away with a game, and they lost far more than they should have (thus their failure to win a B1G title). This had nothing to do with talent, little to do with point guard play, but yes, everything to do with coaching. And not even in-game coaching. The Fab Five were undisciplined and would lose focus for stretches of games. Usually their talent made up for that, sometimes it couldn't.
'Better talent across the board based on building a balanced 5 man team' is a totally meaningless phrase. You want to say this is a more cohesive team, fine (although cohesion wasn't really the FF's problem either). I think you also forget just how good Jimmy King was in college. Remember the UCLA game in 93? King won that game almost by himself. Stauskas is really really good, but I'm not ready to call him more talented than King yet. So that's 4 of the starting 5. I'm willing to give you Morgan (or McGary) over Jackson. But there's no math in which 1 out of 5 equals 'better talent across the board', and you'd have to demonstrate some serious bench superiority (which I don't think you can) to begin to make a case for overall team talent.
This team is awesome, and it is fantastic that we're able to watch them and call them our own. But let's try and take a deep breath and take a step back before saying that they're clearly (and its the certainty with which you keep declaring this that's rubbing me wrong) better than the Fab Five.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||My sophomore year.||
We were drunk and delirious, standing on the steps of the Union after the game, watching the beautiful chaos below. Good times.
Two days later, not so much.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Whoa there||
That's an awfully cavalier dismissal of Jalen Rose. OK, I can see an argument of Jalen was somewhere between a PG and an SG while Burke is a clear natural PG, but if you asked me to choose between them, that is a very tough call, and I'd probably end up taking Jalen.
Also, if these teams were actually to play each other, C-Webb and Juwan would make things very very difficult down low. No way McGary and Morgan could contain them.
You're definitely right on teh coach though. They came because Fisher would let them play their game and not get in their way, but they never reached their full potential arguably because Fisher let them play their game and never tried to get in their way when they might have needed it.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||It was more than drugs||
I love LT (Giants fan here), but he was convicted of statutory rape a few years ago for having sex with an underage hooker. He said that she said she was 19, but no one will ever know if that was true, and there was some reason to believe that he had specifically sought out an underage girl.
Maybe the more interesting question here is whether these football players can use ECT as an excuse for things like this in the future.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||It is important to be committed||
I, on the other hand, have committed to the University of Michigan, and I remain very deeply committed. Of course, I am 40 yrs. old and would be rather useless on a football field, but that's beside the point.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||2nd tier rival?||
I guess I see what you mean about Minny. But respecting the history of a rivalry doesn't necessarily make it a current rival. At the very least there is a massive gap between the rivalries we have with the top 3 on that list and Minny. Minnesota would need a period of sustained success (seems unlikely) and even then I find it hard to imagine getting as worked up for that game as the others (although maybe when ND goes away Minnesota will replace them in our hearts).
As for MSU, I can imagine that being more pronounced if you remain a Michigan resident after graduating, but other than this recent stretch (where if we didn't finally beat them this year, things were gonna start getting really messy), for the most part I know few people who care anywhere near as much about the MSU game as about the ND game (and the fact that the MSU game is a conference game makes that fact even more significant.
And yes, Denard in a Mets jersey and Wright in Michigan blue is an image to cherish. I have it as my avi just so I have an excuse to look at it occasionally.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Minnesota?||
Is the Jug the only reason the Golden Gophers are on this list? Minnesota isn't strong enough to be a real rival for us, nor have I ever seen anything like the hate for Minnesota amongst Michigan fans as that for OSU, ND, and MSU. I'd even say Wisconsin is closer to a real rivalry than Minnesota.
Also, your statement that Brian should consider how Sparty hates us before putting ND in front of them doesn't make sense. That makes us a bigger rival for them, not them a bigger rival for us.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||T for Tremendous||
Come on, that was a textbook technical. The rim is not a chin-up bar.
Having said that, definitely awesome.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||OL--scheme change?||
Isn't some of the issue on the OL that RR both recruited and trained for OL who were slightly lighter and more mobile for the zone-blocking scheme, and now we're trying to get some of these guys to pretend that they're Wisconsin-esque big lugs meant mostly just to push the other guy backwards on every play for all intents and purposes?
And this isn't a knock against RR btw, just an argument that we've talked so much about how Denard has had to adjust and now the transition to a more integrated passing offense with Devin being difficult in some ways, and I think you can say that the line has to undergo a similar transition, and it's the toughest thing to change because it takes OL longer to become play-ready, so we're first seeing Hoke's guys next year maybe.
|1 year 41 weeks ago||Hoke is the Ubermensch||
Thus Spake Shannonthustra
|1 year 42 weeks ago||UNC||
I have a friend in Chapel Hill who says that a B1G move is being talked about all over campus. Then again, at this point that may be true of half the campuses in America.
|1 year 42 weeks ago||good, but...||
Wouldn't it have to be boo-boot...or perhaps boo-boo-boot?