- Member for
- 4 years 33 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|16 weeks 6 days ago||deja vu||
This is reminescent of another similar "Stay Tuned for Important Announcement" From the Astrophysics community a few months back and then the next day it was like "never mind''.
I can't remember the specifics. Hope this is something really cool this time. The multiverse theory makes my tummy queezy, so I hope it's not that.
|31 weeks 5 days ago||Aboslutely||
Absolutely the right call.
Best case scenario in OT short of a turnover was keeping pace with them and having to go for two in third OT anyway. Better to go then while their defense is realing and we have the Mo. Odds are we would be big underdogs in OT scenario.
|33 weeks 1 day ago||Let's look at the other side of the coin again||
Given that the argument that the statistical odds of Michigan this season picking up the first down are considerably less than the average 30% is undeniable, given the weather conditions, and other factors already discussed, the odds of wining the game if we score a touchdown are also likely much greater than the 70% given by Mathalete.
Also does anyone remember if the ball was between or on the hashes? I don't remember. Very short field goals are much more difficult from the hash marks because of the angle. Is it possible that the coaches know that Gibbons may have trouble on short angle kicks from one side or the other?
|33 weeks 3 days ago||Agree with call||
While, like seemingly everyone else I hated the play call. I agree with Hoke and Mathalete.
Most of the critics on this post are basing their arguments on Michigans offensive ineptitude - and I can't take exception to that. However they are not looking at the other side of the coin. Consider the following keeping in mind that if we get the touchdown we very likely win the game but if we fail:
(1) Michigan's defense was playing well and with the weather conditions NW's offense hadn't been moving the ball much better than we had.
(2) They were going into the wind and pinned deep in their own territory if we don't make it, are likely to be conservative and are unlikely to string together more than 1 or 2 first downs if that.
(3) given the above and 2 time outs we are likely to get the ball back with plenty of time.
(4) their punter was horrible especially punting into the win. So, given assumption (2) if we fail we likely get the ball back with excellent field position, and with the wind at our backs only needing maybe 1 pass completion to get into field goal range.
(5) As a general principal I always believe that given a decent chance one should always play for the win on the road and for a tie to go to over time at home. (caveat about NW not being a real road game perhaps applies).
(6) If we tie the game NW gest the ball back on the 25 with lots of time and a great field goal kicker, even given major wind problems. I think NW's odds of moving down and getting the field goal they need are much, much better than getting a touchdown if they are down by 4.
|36 weeks 2 days ago||No and No||
Absolutely not. Sparty has probably the best defence in the country this year. Even when we were at our peak it was always tough playing in EL, probably losing about every other time there. One loss on the road to a good team says nothing about the long term direction of the program.
|40 weeks 1 day ago||Awesome!||
Nothing to contribute, but this thread is awesome. Sombody should do a poll for the board to vote for worst trophy, but it's impossible to choose.
|40 weeks 3 days ago||Michigan 41||
Michigan 41 - Minni -17
|1 year 18 weeks ago||Wow!||
Thanks for sharing that!
|1 year 20 weeks ago||great interconference rivalries||
There are some great interconference rivalries in college sports. In football UM-ND, USC-ND, Texas-OU pre expansion. How about Kentucky/Louisville in hoops? I'm sure they're more. These games are often more "special" in their own way than conference games.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||fair catch rules||
I don't believe the fair catch rule has changed since I started watching footbal as a kid in the early 70's.
If anything, punters might have stronger legs making it more likely to outkick the coverage and set up longer returns. On the other hand the spread punt formation in the last few years may be bringing average returns down.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Anthony Carter||
BTW the first time Anthony Carter touched the football at Michigan in his first game as a true freshman he returned a punt to the house for a TD.
This was back in the day when there was no coverage of recruting and I had never even heard of the guy. He comes on the field wearing #1 and I'm like holy crap this guy must be good, Bo's never let anyone have #1 before. He fields the punt and Boom!
|1 year 32 weeks ago||Horrible.||
I don't like to carp after a loss and I've generally been supportive of Borges, but I have to say that was some of the worst playing calling I've ever seen in the second half of the game.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||don't have the precise numbers, but||
He needs something on the order of 150 yards in the bowl game.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||But,||
It could be worse. Some thought we should hire Firentz to replace RR.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||No||
Not unless there are any breweries in Maryland that I've never heard of.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Who else but||
There are even x's and o's in his name for godsakes.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||Too many points?||
I'm tempted to hedge my emotional investment and take NW and 11 points. Northwestern isn't bad. I think we'll win but it might be closer than that.
|1 year 35 weeks ago||Woody at 74 MSC||
I think it was that 74 game at MSC, I was watching on TV - does anyone else remember this - They caught this on TV - the MSC "students" rushed the field after the victory and one of them ran up behind Woody as he was walking off the field and put his arm around Woody's shoulder. Woody punched the kid right in the face. The anouncers didn't notice it or it least didn't say anything about it. I thought it was hilarious and confirmed my low opinion of Woody even though I was still in high school at the time.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||Furthermore||
Here's another important factor: If I get two drinks for a touchdown but I only get to drink once for a field goal, then I go definately go for the touchdown every time.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||On the whether on to go for it from 3 question:||
I think there is an additional factor to consider in this situation. Is the ball on the hash or in the middle of the field? Because of the severe angle making a field goal from the 3 yard line with the ball on the hash is more difficult than the near certainty of making it if the ball is centered between the goal posts like and extra point.
Since the worst case scenario is missing the field goal and giving the opponent the ball on the 20 only needing a field goal to tie, I would lean toward going for the touchdown if the ball is on the hashmarks. If the ball is in the middle of the field it's probably smarter to kick it.
|1 year 37 weeks ago||UM Wins||
Michigan (U of) 34
|1 year 37 weeks ago||How about.....||
Norfleet with 2 punt return touchdowns and a couple of hundred rushing yards?
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Affect of Rain:||
Players will get wet
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Rain will hold the score down||
M - 38
I - 6
In the rain
That "I" is illinois, not me playing the Wolverines all by myself. That score would be more lopsided.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||M 31 PU 17||
M - 31
|1 year 41 weeks ago||POTW in waiting sez...||
M - 37
ND - 27
|1 year 43 weeks ago||Book it||
M 51 - AF 24
M 58 - UMass 13
|1 year 44 weeks ago||Belch||
How many votes can I trade for beer? Oh...never mind.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||Answers||
1. Personally I'm not expecting much from Rawls. He hasn't shown a lot yet in limited carries. The senior has some good juke but no power and not a lot of speed. He'll pick up some yards; he's also an excellent receiver out of the back field and pass blocker.
2. I'll say this, Robinson always seems faster in the first couple of games of the season before he gets nicked up. Watch out!
4. I don't think we have a LB "situation", but as we do have a WR situation you will be hurt less by your DBs than we will be our DL.
5. Can't answer before seeing them play.
6. Yes. You have a great D, but Yes.
7. I like our new C, he should be decent. Played quite well at G last season before injury. Moves well
8. Not really, the starters are all veterans, more worried about being somewhat undersized and backups inexperience.
9. Yes definately but they'll need to give your receivers some cushion.
10. Ask our DC, he's a lot smarter than I am. I'd say "some" (?)
11. You seem to labouring under the same underestimation that a lot of opposing fans have of Denard's talents. His problem has been inconsistency, he will fall into a slump for a quarter or a half, where his mechanics slip away from him, and he does not look good. As time has gone on these periods have been farther and farther apart. When he is on, he is really, really good. I expect that he has continued to improve in the off season and these regressive periods will be fewer and farther between. I espect that with his expereince he will be in the top 10 in the nation in passing effeciency this year. You heard it here first. IF he is throwing well, it's very hard to stop our offense, no matter how good you are.
12. Yes definately, although some of them will be true freshman.
13. I don't feel too good about this. We will rotate our DL so they are fresh in the 4th, but I fear there is a big drop off when the subs are in.
14. Your welcome ?
Good luck on Saturday. (But not too much)
|1 year 45 weeks ago||Nick Try?||
How much have you been drinking? Not enough I'll wager.