alternate headline: man does job
- Member for
- 5 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 20 hours ago||I don't think he will make it||
As others have pointed out above, his career looks like Terrell Davis, but with a less dominant peak (I mean, TDs two peak years are otherworldly) spread over a few more years.
The voters have consistently rejected Davis (albeit after much debate each time) and RB is a position much more prone to short careers than WR. Then you look at his contemporaries - when he comes up for election, he will be compared with people who played twice as long and, if not matching him at his peak, had much more graceful declines.
Whether he should be there depends on how you weigh the various factors - are you a Big Hall person? Do you pick peak performance over sustained excellence? Are you looking for memorable moments? Awesome performances in the clutch?
I would likely not vote for him, largely because he was unable to sustain his early greatness into a sustained run, and he has many contemporaries who were almost as good on any given play but made twice as many.
As to Swann, yes, he's not a 2nd option receiver, but he's not the finest example of a Hall receiver from the three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust days either (Paul Warfield comes to mind as a worthy WR; IIRC he averaged 20 yards a catch ... for his career!). He was a good receiver who didn't get the regular season chances to compare to modern receivers, but shone on the biggest stages when they did throw the ball. And yes, his teammates did get him to those stages.
As to his argument, it's pure BS. It is pointless when talking about Peyton Manning, and it's even more pointless when talking about someone who needs his line to block so his QB can throw him the ball before he gets a chances to show how good he is ... and even that only covers offense, to say nothing about defense or special teams.
|2 days 20 hours ago||It seems shady but actually isn't||
We are hiring these guys to be recruiting assets, and the fact that they have special relationships with certain recruits is part of their resume, in effect.
What would be shady is if we hired them to a do-nothing job or to a job for which they weren't qualified, and then dropped them a year later after getting the recruit. That's the sort of quid pro quo we would be up in arms about.
Partridge and Bush are both qualified and would be hired in many places for the jobs they're doing for us, and Patridge got a promotion to a spot for which there were many qualified candidates. I understand that it can be spun as "we bought a recruit by giving his dad a job", but I don't think in this case there's anything wrong here.
|4 days 21 hours ago||Nice redemption for Schofield after a poor regular season||
He was consistently hammered by Football Outsiders and Broncos fans all year, but turned up his game for the playoffs. Congrats!
|1 week 21 hours ago||Decide what's important||
My wife has certain specific ways she wants some things to be done. If I don't feel strongly about it, of course I'll do it her way - why wouldn't I?
Similarly, I have certain ways I like things to be done, and where she doesn't mind, she does it my way.
On the things we have clashing methods for, and both feel strongly about, we negotiate. Sometimes this negotiation results in one of us realizing the other is right. Sometimes we realize we really don't care. And sometimes we realize that we don't agree, in which case one of us takes that task and does it their way. (The running joke is "I would do that for you, but you'd just have to redo it anyway.")
But really, it's all about figuring out what's important. Sometimes it's not what you think.
|2 weeks 22 hours ago||Communication is key||
And the united front makes it sound like we are doing what we need to on that front.
So, we don't seem to have an ethics problem, we don't seem to have a communication problem (unless we really aren't picking up the damn phone), which leaves a perception problem. That can be handled.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Congratulations||
Do your best to sleep when they do. My wife, in addition to being exhausted, is also a much better napped than I am, so it was easier for her. I had a hard time with that.
When they start eating solid food, try blueberries - worked wonders for us, although there is something very surreal about changing a diaper at 2am that looks like *that* and smells like blueberries :)
|2 weeks 1 day ago||... During the Michigan game, forcing the change||
From the good-luck Michigan outfit to ordinary clothes at halftime of a game we were playing well in.
Why yes, it was a 2008 game, how could you tell? :)
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Dennis Miller's one good bit||
"What is tat, how can I get it, and where do I exchange it for the other thing?"
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Pick up the damn phone indeed||
If communication is occurring but it's not being reported, then we have a perception problem.
If communications isn't occurring or isn't effective, we have a different problem.
Figuring out which recruits had communication issues and which are perception issues is the first step in figuring out what we have to fix.
Based on the evidence to date, we don't have an ethics problem (we're not booting players on the team without degrees, we're not making people take gray shirts after they're on campus, we're not making recruits already on campus try out for the team or take a medical, etc.). I don't have a problem with saying "unless your grades change a lot you won't get an offer" or "we're still recruiting your position and have limited scholarships" or "you have to do X, Y and Z to keep your offer" as long as it is crystal clear to both parties what we're agreeing to. (I don't like it but it is not against the rules or unfair enough for me to not accept it as an adequate way for Michigan to do business.)
Just tell people where they stand. The earlier the better.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||It's all about the communication||
So far, we don't know what recruits were told and when critical information was provided. For example, if Harbaugh told Swenson "keeping your offer is contingent upon camping somewhere we can evaluate you in person or us having a spot" last year, that seems aboveboard.
There are a bunch of ways this could have gone down I'd be OK with. There are also a bunch of ways it could have gone down I would not be OK with.
I'm not saying that Harbaugh shouldn't offer guys that aren't his first choice and might get squeezed out. I am saying that they should make it clear that what they're saying is "We are offering you a scholarship. We're not done recruiting, so the situation may change. If it does, we will tell you. If we need you to do something to keep that offer, we will tell you that too."
The "don't talk and hope they get the message" does not work for me.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Udeze could be a pretty good hire for them||
He wrecked us in the Rose Bowl and was a cinch for a long pro career but health derailed that. He certainly has a rep/track record he could use to recruit.
If his previous coaching stops (while not full-time) have let him figure out how to turn his collegiate success into teachable skills - and it's not like he's being asked to coach the defense, only the position he played - this could work out well.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Lots of assumptions here||
I would be ok with this if, for example, Harbaugh had told him "I reaffirm your earlier offer, and here's what I expect from you to keep it" last year, and he had not met those goals. Then we're being upfront with him about what we expect.
I would be ok with this if he didn't make the academic cut (although that doesn't seem to be an issue here). We can't know that until late in the game.
I would be uncomfortable with Harbaugh telling him "our class has changed a lot in 9 months, you should take a hard look at it and decide what you want to do" (about the politest way to say you're likely to ride the bench) last year. I would not like it but would accept it.
I would not accept it if Harbaugh told him this month that he would not get an LOI and/or told him he was being switched to a preferred walk-on, without a lot of prior communication about what was happening and a clear plan as to what he could do to change that.
I would definitely not accept it if Harbaugh told him he's not getting an LOI because we offered too many people. That is the definition of oversigning and I don't want our coach doing that.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Congratulations||
My first comment is have patience. There will be moments where you feel like everything needs to happen all at once - kid screaming, you're exhausted, etc. Above all else, parenting needs patience.
There are almost as many ways to be a good parent as there are kids. What works for someone else may not work for you. Listen to your doctor but remember if it works for you and doesn't hurt anyone, it's just fine.
Absolutely check your employer's family leave policy and figure out how to get the most out of it. You can probably do most of that now.
Check out life insurance and the 529 plan (I too am using Utah's despite living in California). They are both good deals if you can budget for them.
The sleep thing is an example of the bigger picture - you will have to make time for all the things your child needs because they will need them on their schedule not yours. If the kid sleeps through football games all the better, but don't count on it.
Good luck and enjoy the ride!
|4 weeks 2 days ago||Darn - some NFL team is going to get very lucky||
especially it's one who can take a quick, penetrating DT and refine his technique. Their gain is definitely our loss. Good luck in the league!
|4 weeks 3 days ago||As long as the public gets their share of tax revenue||
and isn't paying for the stadiums, I won't care.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||He is certainly a historically great coach||
We can argue about how he did, but building the Alabama Death Machine in this era is a historically impressive achievement. His next NCAA violation will be his first. The only indication of chicanery is the oversigning and liberal use of medical scholarships, but while that's distasteful, it doesnt deter the players it should be harming.
Greatest ever is likely difficult to judge, given Fielding Yost, Bear Bryant, Bo, Switzer and a host of other program builders, but he's in the conversation. Here's hoping Harbaugh is there too, and that right soon.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||I got to see him once in concert||
He was awesome. Hail to Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars!
Oh, and for those who might have forgotten(1):
You remind me of the Babe.
The Babe with the Power.
The Power of Hoodoo.
Remind me of the Babe ...
1. David Bowie played The Goblin King in The Labyrinth.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I will be fascinated to see how we manage this||
I believe that (as others have stated above) we can't pull any kicker/punter scholarships except Allen's as they are on the four-year guaranteed versions. Allen is a key contributor and pulling his scholarship could backfire spectacularly in many ways.
The fifth-year seniors who I would judge most likely to get the firm handshake are at positions of need, as are some of the medical rumors.
Mostly I hope that any medical scholarships are of the Austin Hatch variety and not the Ondre Pipkins variety.
I would be absolutely against pulling scholarships from players with eligibility remaining. That's not the Michigan way and is counterproductive in the long run.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||I'm indifferent to Caldwell||
First task is to get a GM who assembles a good scout department. Then let them bring talent in, and work the cap to give us room to keep the ones that pan out.
I don't see any indication that the current staff is holding back the current talent, and it doesn't seem likely that the Stafford/Megatron window will stay open long enough for a talent influx to get them deep into the playoffs unless Aaron Rodgers is about to decline sharply. Hence the Lions should focus on fixing the foundations while the current team plays the long odds with their explosive QB/WR duo.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||9-4||
With either a bowl win against a second-tier opponent or a loss against an elite team, pretty in line with Moonlight Graham above. I saw no way we'd beat OSU and wasn't convinced MSU would be as bad as everyone thought, and figured one of Utah/PSU would break badly for us.
I was wrong - even with the OSU stomping we are ahead of where I thought we'd be. Go Blue!
|6 weeks 14 hours ago||We can haz nice things!||
Michigan seemed to be on their heels on D early, but stuffing the fake FG and then getting the end zone pick were key. Then the offense just kept rolling, and they were mixing runs and passes, the line was getting blocks, opening holes and giving Rudock time and scrambling lanes. The Chesson stop and go was awesome - he was open for miles. Rudock fit the TD to Perry through a very narrow window and generally was at the top of his game.
I will say that was a sweet play Nuss dialed up for their TD - fake confusion, direct snap, reverse pitch and a run-pass option finishing with a TD toss to the QB. Still, Michigan didn't need trickeration today - they dominated the line of scrimmage on offense and on defense in the second half. Just a bravura performance, and a near perfect game in all three phases.
A great finish to the season and start to the year. Go Blue!
|6 weeks 14 hours ago||I was at that Rose Bowl||
The USC line was living in our backfield. Navarre wasn't mobile, but that wasn't the issue - Udezi dominated our line damn near every play. He turned in one of the best defensive performances I've ever seen live.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||That Darboh catch photo is exquisite||
A near-perfect picture of an incredible catch. Keep it up!
|9 weeks 4 days ago||And if you've ever had a beer, you've made the same poor choice||
You just skated on the consequences, because your body isn't wired the way some people's are.
If you played football while under 18, you have also made a poor choice. Once hopes you have also skated on the consequences, rather than being one of those people who has spinal stenosis or other undiagnosed conditions which make their risk for severe consequences much higher than others.
My point isn't to say that substance abuse and addiction aren't devastating problems for some people. Nor am I saying that people shouldn't take responsibility for their own state and can make whatever choices they wish.
My point is twofold:
1. The law does and should take nuance into account here: there's a difference between getting fired for showing up to work drunk, and getting fired for going to your boss and saying "I have a problem that I need time to resolve; what can we work out here?".
2. You can't always observe consequences and pass judgement on the choices that led there. Sometimes all roads lead to Rome; sometimes they all lead to ruin.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||If you read the post to the end ...||
You might have seen the part where I explicitly drew a distinction between showing up to work drunk and attempting to arrange for rehab and getting fired.
You also might have noticed that the part you're getting heckled for - your high horse - isn't this specific instance, but your continued insistence that "You don't get addicted by nature. You get addicted by making poor choices." ...
You appear to believe that addiction is a moral issue, or one of will, that a sufficiently strong person can wish away. The truth is far more complicated - like many things, there is lots of gray here.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||You don't get to pick your parents||
Contrary to your high horse, it is possible to be born with a substance abuse issue and/or addiction. For some heartbreaking experiences, read up on fetal alcohol syndrome.
It is also possible to have a previously undiagnosed dependency such that conduct which is reasonable for anyone else (say, having a single beer at home) is hideously dangerous for you ... and you don't know it.
Because the law actually acknowledges these nuances, it is written to cover all these cases, and explicitly draws a distinction between ongoing poor choices (i.e. Drinking and driving) and managing your addiction.
Addiction is not always a result of poor choices.
Now, as others have pointed out, there's a difference between a coach going to his employer and saying "I have to take a leave of absence to go to rehab" and USC saying "you're fired", versus him showing up to work drunk multiple times. The latter case is not reasonable for his employer to accommodate and hence is not protected. Which one applies here is what the court case is about.
And as for those arguing this kills his career - sure seems like it was already dead. Maybe it's the difference between special assistant in the NFL in ten years or not, but he wasn't getting another head coaching job for a long time.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||This season went a game better than I predicted||
And played out more like I'd hoped than as I'd feared. The ending is still bittersweet, and it's ... incongruous ... that The Game supposed to be the closest in four years was the one that wasn't close at all in the 2nd half.
We pulled out every trick on offense - there was a middle screen, a few good fakes, lots of Peppers - but scheme will not trump talent for long. One thing I noticed was that OSU rarely missed tackles - we couldn't break a really long play, despite a few chances, because OSU always mitigated the damage. And eventually Bosa crushed us - that interception was a superb play from a great player.
And Elliot is a monster. In a reversal of form, we were the ones bouncing off an RB and missing tackles, and when we adjusted, Barrett simply kept and trucked us himself. Their weak RT wasn't an issue - they either gave him help or ran away from him.
It is written above, and I'm sure the coaches will hammer it home - this was the difference between a pretty good team and a playoff contender. That is where we need to go, and despite today's result it is within our reach.
|11 weeks 10 hours ago||Hail!||
Very nice piece. Keep the recorder in your pocket, and keep up the good work!
|11 weeks 5 days ago||A little surprised that he thought Joe Bolden had a good game||
And "another" good game at that. For someone who seemingly says what he thinks and chooses his words carefully, that's either an uncharacteristic throwaway line, an attempt to prop up a weak link, or the UFRs are misunderstanding who is supposed to do what.
|11 weeks 6 days ago||The call against Chesson was just wrong||
He hit him in the arm and drove him past the receiver; great block.
The holding on Henry was legit just rarely called; he grabbed the guys jersey with a closed hand. What I don't understand is why it (seemingly) only gets called against us.
The PI on Peppers was not that bad though. Yes, the WR pushed off, but while the ball was in the air Peppers got shoulder-to-shoulder contact and threw him off stride on a catchable ball. If the ball hadn't been thrown it was have been ignored; if they had just hand-fought I don't think they would have called it (as they really didn't call it all day). Just bad timing, and they will never call the WR on that push off unless he slings the guy into the bleachers, and sometimes not even then.
The targeting call was overblown as well. I didn't see him launching or driving through Rudock, and they did call roughing the passer as they should have. On the flip side, I have no idea what is targeting and what isn't - the delayed blitz sack of Rudock by an LB seemed far more brutal. The only thing that kept the guys helmet off of Rudock's chin was the ball!