this guy evidently hired to work for AD
|1 year 47 weeks ago||JOE HUDEPOHL.||
Joey Hudepohl. Let's see if anyone has the desire to Google him and figure out why he was supposed to be a Michigan Man. What a shame he went elsewhere.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||UNISCORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!||
Oh, wait, you say you want it moderated? Never mind, and good luck with that.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Thank God it's not up to you, then.||
I'm curious why you seem to think that RichRod's "major" violations are equivalent to Miles' major violations. Also, if you don't care if the next coach likes to screw over 18 year olds and then lie about it*, then I'm very very glad you have absolutely no say in The Process.
*seriously, before you submit another comment go do some research on "oversigning." It is a deeply immoral practice.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||"Didn't have a spotless record." Please elaborate.||
What do you mean when you say RichRod "didn't have a spotless record"? To what are you referring?
And if not having a spotless record harms the coach's media relationship, then Les Miles is a nonstarter.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||You can scroll up a few comments to see evidence||
You know, Boutros, you can scroll up and look at a guy who freely admits that he was only interested in firing RichRod because he thought Harbaugh would be the replacement. I'm not imagining this.
The point of my bitching is not because I want to be lauded as some sort of genius who was "right," and I'm sad to hear you say that about me. The point of my bitching is that I don't want this to happen to the next guy. The next guy should get 5 years, no matter what, and should not be axed after 3 because his rebuilding job was taking too long.
Firing a guy after 3 years is not a good idea, and is a bad precedent. And most relevant to the next guy's tenure, since part of the justification for doing this bad thing was illusory (as first choice replacements tend to be), maybe we should all agree to never do this again. That's my point.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||I never thought this, FTR.||
Speaking for myself, this was absolutely NOT the case and one of the reasons why I wanted to keep RichRod was because I was highly skeptical of Harbaugh's availability and did not want to go through another national coaching search given the performance of the last one.
I think you may have laid out the groups pretty well, and I appreciate your honesty in confessing to belonging to that third group. Having said that, you're absolutely one of the guys I'm sarcastically applauding. I was never comfortable with the implied link between firing RichRod and hiring Harbaugh, and I didn't understand how anyone could think that would go exactly as planned. Programs rarely get their first choice, and if there wasn't a real second choice then "Harbaugh or Bust" was not a good plan.
Well, here we are. And again, I appreciate your honesty, but...you should have supported RichRod more. Oops.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Oh, ok, it's just a coincidence then.||
Fine, if you don't think Harbaugh's asskicking this year provided even the tiniest push of you from "I still believe" to "FIRE RICHROD," well I stand corrected. You're not in that group.
But again, if you think Harbaugh's perceived availability had nothing to do with spurring people on to fire RichRod after only 3 years, I think you're wrong. For just one example, I'd refer you to the "Attention to Detail" post over at Genuinely Sarcastic. That post was all about how bad RichRod is in comparison to Harbaugh. And while I'm too lazy to do the research, I'm assuming based on my vague recollection that there were tons of threads here that were all about replacing RichRod with Harbaugh, and how Harbaugh really really would come, etc. I don't recall a lot of threads discussing a pool of candidates to replace RichRod. It was always get Harbaugh or keep RichRod, in the minds of many people here (including Brain).
At the end of the day, I will always sarcastically applaud a program for firing a guy after only 3 years because, barring some ethical problem, that's not enough time. That's not a good formula for long term success. I'm pretty sure in 2007 most M fans would agree that the head coach deserves more than 3 years, especially if the program is making progress on his watch. I'd like to think most M fans still believe that today, though now I'm not so sure.
If we agree the head coach deserves more than 3 years, and progress was being made...then how did we get here? You may continue to protest my theory that the perceived availability played a part in how we got here, but I disagree. And watching MGo melt down while Harbaugh slips away makes me think I'm closer to the mark than people would rather admit.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Three years in, obliterations would have been normally swallowed||
I disagree with you if you want to imply Harbaugh's availability had nothing to do with firing RichRod. Visualizing getting Harbaugh made people feel a little bit easier/more supportive about firing RichRod after only 3 years. I include you specifically in that group.
Firing a guy after only 3 years who has steadily progressed the team into a winning season just doesn't happen in normal circumstances. Again- coaches normally get more than 3 years.
The perceived availability of Harbaugh was what made these circumstances abnormal, and was thus a catalyst for firing the coach so quickly.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Oh come on. Hire Harbaugh drove the Fire RichRod wagon.||
A lot of people desperately wanted to fire RichRod because they thought M could get Harbaugh. That was a patently stupid idea.
|3 years 49 weeks ago||Yes, clearly FIRE RICHROD was a perfect plan||
I am so happy that the fans who thought firing RichRod automatically meant hiring Harbaugh have been proven right. Clearly, firing RichRod was an excellent plan, because of course he'll be replaced by Harbaugh.
WHAT COULD GO WRONG? NOTHING, THEREFORE FIRE RICHROD.
Thanks, fellow M fans, for contributing to this turmoil and setting a new precedent for firing a guy after only 3 years on the job. Heckuva job, haters.
|3 years 50 weeks ago||I disagree, IME all plans are still intact. Brain's losing it.||
I'm not really sure how Harbaugh not coming to Michigan is some sort of screwup on Michigan's part. Here's my speculation on what Dave Brandon's plans were:
Plan A: fire RichRod, hire Harbaugh, build new harem/pimp crib.
Plan B: "secretly" woo Harbaugh, fail, retain RichRod, buy new riot gear for A2 police.
Plan C (for Catastrophe): fire RichRod, woo Harbaugh and fail, hire someone else, cross fingers & start drinking.
To me, it looks like all plans are still plausible. Even if Harbaugh says no (preferably soon), then Plan B is still in effect. The only problem that might occur is if Brandon officially fires RichRod before locking in Harbaugh (unlikely IME), in which case if Harbaugh says no then Plan C is put in place.
I'm not sure I see any failed 2 inch putt here. Not one month ago we all accepted that it was either RichRod or Harbaugh (do I need to go find Brain's post on that?). That still looks to be the case.
Calm down everyone (and especially you Brain).
|4 years 4 weeks ago||RichRod's not responsible for your real problem||
Aaaaaaand that's why you wrote this stupid post. I'm sorry that your coworkers and neighbors make fun of you for being a Michigan fan, but honestly dude just suck it up. Rich Rodriguez isn't responsible for your personal emotions.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||YEAH WHAT IF SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS THEN WHAT HUH HUH?||
Hypothetical: the band marches out onto State Street in January, the week after the bowl game, playing music that no one can hear because they're too damn quiet. And gets mowed down by a snowplow being driven by Justin Boren. They're all in traction for at least a year.
Now, love me some band, it's stirring and fun and part of college football, but you can't use that as a rationale to have crappy high school stand-ins do music during TV timeouts. You gotta pipe in the music to keep the players pumped. It's a big picture decision, not a band decision. No band is more important than The Team, right?
|4 years 4 weeks ago||The 2006 offense was healthy. That's a better reference IME||
I'm reluctant to trash DeBord because of the injuries in 2007, but the 2006 defense gave the offense plenty of opportunities and plenty of margin of error. I was never very impressed with the 2006 offense.
Competent? Yes. Good? At times. Explosive, chart-busting, exciting/electric/etc.? No, absolutely not.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||I can't hear you because I'm deaf to whining||
I'm sorry, I didn't read your epic comment because all I saw was WAAH WAAH WHY DO PEOPLE NEG ME WAAH WAAH.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||You're proving Brain's point, you know||
Brain's point is that people expressing "concern" about the offense using the somewhat obscure stats from the fp'd diary are operating in bad faith and are really just interested in justifying their belief that RichRod should be fired. You respond by...expressing "concern" about the offense and advocating for firing RichRod.
So, heckuva job you.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||Please stop tempting fate.||
I'm pretty sure a lot of us thought and said this last year. Please don't jinx 2011 and 2012 by saying things like "it can't get any worse." No. It can always get worse, and I don't want to be proved right on this point.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||I don't think this is *generally* true||
Technically you're correct (I personally am an example), but I think in general people who are saying "look look this offense is bad because of blah blah blah" are arguing in bad faith. I don't think Brain has a problem with people suggesting the offense is weak in some areas, but I think he has a very big problem with people who suggest "the offense is bad because they're only 3rd in In-Conference Points Per Drive."
Identifying a flaw in the offense isn't a problem. Taking that flaw as "evidence" to critique RichRod is.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||Out of curiosity, are you located in MI?||
I remember this type of schism in the fanbase back in 2003, but it was mostly based on geography. I went back to Michigan for a buddy's wedding and all the talk was about maybe Lloyd Carr should be fired. I was like WTF?
If you live outside the midwest, you generally don't have the constant discussion about the coach and is he doing a good job and yada fucking yada. It makes you much more sanguine about it all. I'm speculating, of course.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||BUT HE DID X AND THEN I WAS SAD||
BUT HE DID X AND THEN I WAS SAD. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, HE DID X AND I WAS SAD. HE DID X. HOW IS THAT GOING TO MAKE ME HAPPY? DOING X WILL NOT MAKE ME HAPPY. DO Y. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE BEING HAPPY WITH X. HE MAKES ME SAD.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||FWIW, I liked your diary||
I didn't perceive your diary to be a criticism of the offense or of RichRod, so I liked the work you did on it. Brain could be referring to people who used your work as a launching pad for a FIRE RICHROD screed, so perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||I think a public apology would have been better||
I find it fascinating that some people think deleting a tweet is the same as owning up to and apologizing for a mistake (or two mistakes, really). Because if we're all interested in sending the right message to recruits, IME it's a much better/stronger message to say "we're humble and secure enough to admit when we fuck up, and we're sorry."
Nothing says "I'd rather duck the issue" more than deleting a tweet and pretending it didn't happen and hoping no one notices and then having your quasi-boss blow up at people who do notice and take exception to it. But, that's just epinion.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||You know, you're right. YOUR DREAM IS ALIVE!||
Seriously, if you want to suggest that Dave Brandon will fire a coach after only three years and after his first bowl game (all while returning almost everybody for year 4), then go ahead. Personally, that doesn't strike me as a reasonable projection of the future. To me that seems more like wishful thinking.
But whatever, if you want to continue to wish for someone else and refuse to get the eff on board with the current coach of the team you love, then I can't stop you. Continue pining away for that NFL Farm Team that is JUST AROUND THE CORNER, if you must.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||I'm struggling to understand how Tom's fuckup is Scorn's fault||
Fine, you have a problem with UniScorn and the discourse there, and for some bizarre reason people complain to you about it. I'm sorry that you receive complaints and I disagree with your assessment of our discourse there, but whatever.
I still fail to see how this makes somebody "unqualified" to criticize Tom's indefensible behavior. Recall that's the origin of the argument here. Jamie Mac called him out for it, and you responded by flaming UniScorn and the WLA. I fail to see the logic.
You want to claim it's "hypocritical" of Jamie Mac (or me or chitown) to criticize Tom for being a dick to the kids? Even you concede that we're supportive of the kids (even on the dreadful, awful, no good horrible UniScorn), so aren't we just being consistent? How is it hypocritical to call someone out for being a dick to the kids when we're always supportive of the kids?
We're assholes to Tom (and Magnus and God knows how many other people), fine. I don't think that makes it ok for Tom to be an asshole to Gallon and Gibbons, and I don't know how that prevents Jamie Mac or anyone else from pointing that out. Wrong is wrong.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||Dear Moron(s):||
To all the people who are desperately seeking legitimate ways to express "concern" over RichRod even though he has met expectations while simultaneously fielding a secondary literally full of HS kids:
RICH RODRIGUEZ IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. YOUR BELOVED NFL FARM SYSTEM IS NOT COMING BACK. DEAL WITH IT.
Sane Michigan Fans
|4 years 4 weeks ago||So in your world, 110,000 people thinking it = OK to print, rly?||
1. Let's establish the fact that you have a dog in this fight. Tom generates content for your site, of the news-ish variety, and thus you have a stake in defending his reputation. You are not a neutral arbiter on what is and what is not acceptable behavior by Tom.
2. What is or is not said in a memory-free zone (i.e. UniScorn) has to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm pretty sure 90% of the things we say on the Scorn we would never say anywhere else because on the Scorn it's not permanent. It frees up (or uglies, if you will) our discourse.
3. You don't see me talking shit about players on my twitter account, partially because I know that stuff is (at least partially) permanent and I shouldn't be putting things on my permanent record when I'm emotional. I'm pretty sure you don't do it either, for a similar reason. Yet...you cannot say the same for Tom. If you want to pretend that's a meaningless distinction between the behavior of me, you, most people and Tom, that's your right. But, IME the fact that Tom is so loose with his words on something that has a bit of a permanent record is at the very least an indication of poor judgment.
4. Say what you will about the WLA, but we're pretty consistent on being supportive of the kids, on the Scorn, on Twitter, on MGo, pretty much everywhere. Occasionally one or more of us will stray but we police ourselves pretty well on supporting the kids.
Tom showed poor judgment in his tweeting, and in addition was ugly towards the kids. Twice. As a contributor to your site, that should concern you more than whatever is said on the Scorn.
|4 years 4 weeks ago||Grilled Apple Curry Chicken||
|4 years 4 weeks ago||This is a joke, right? Please tell me this is a joke.||
|4 years 6 weeks ago||Regardless of outcome, I hate Danny Hope. What an asshole.||
Ever since last year's postgame handshake where Danny Hope "introduced" RichRod to the Purdue player that got suspended for a late hit, I've hated that fucker and that fucker's moustache.
Fuck you Danny Hope. Regardless of how the game turns out, you're still an asshole that deserves to eat shit and die.
|4 years 6 weeks ago||I don't know. Maybe work on the basics.||
When tackling, coverage, zone spacing, and making reads are consistent problems, then I don't think scheme is going to help any of that. I guess I would work on those fundamentals before I worried too much about scheme.
I understand the coaches worry about too many tackling drills resulting in injury. But A) we're getting pretty injured anyway, and B) fuck it we're going into the 9th game, fundamentals have to be a priority. Focus on teaching the basics, because they're sorely lacking in that department and nothing else will improve until that improves.
Other than that, I don't know that there's anything a DC can really do at this point.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Yep. Does anyone else run/know the 3-3-5?||
I really don't think Casteel is likely, for exactly the reasons laid out by the OP. So...do any other DCs with established track records know or run the 3-3-5?
A brief bit of unverified googling brings this up:
San Diego State DC Rocky Long (the inventor...?)
UTEP DC Osia Lewis
Wake Forest DC Brad Lambert
Florida DC Teryl Austin (sort of, he's a multiple guy)
Marshall DC Chris Rippon (maybe?)
Louisiana-Monroe DC Troy Reffett
...and I'm tired of googling.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Co-signed. And your avatar pic looks like a guy I knew. Weird.||
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Casteel offers best chance at smooth/effective transition||
1. RichRod is, for better or worse, committed to running a "base" 3-3-5 scheme*. Argue all you want about whether this is good or bad, but the bottom line is this is the scheme RichRod wants and it's his call (for now).
2. He is now on his second defensive coordinator that doesn't know and/or like that scheme. Results from forcing a DC to run this have been obvious and disastrous.
3. Because of 1 and 2, the quickest and easiest route to improving this defense therefore lies in getting a guy that knows the 3-3-5 scheme. Casteel is an obvious choice for that. There may be other guys out there that know this scheme, but Casteel's history with RichRod and the rest of the defensive staff is a plus because then we know we won't have another Shafer personality conflict.
I don't think anyone should get their hopes up for Casteel. He said no the last time, and if Uncle Stew is sacked he may very well be a candidate to replace him. It's an intriguing possibility, but not a likely one IME.
I don't mind being committed to the 3-3-5. I like the additional flexibility it allows in recruiting. The problem is that so few defensive coaches know it, that committing to it means you're picking your staff from a very, very small pool of candidates.
Having said all that, a lot of the problems I see on defense are basic things, like tackling and coverage. A good DC with his own staff could/should improve that regardless of the scheme. I'd be open to a new guy cleaning house, even though that won't be a panacea.
(*yeah, I know the defense is actually multiple, but from a personnel & recruiting standpoint this is a 3-3-5 defense. That's the "base.")
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Confession: I'm intrigued||
I usually recipe post threads that speculate on replacing Gerg, but...oooh, the poster is so seductive in laying out how this might happen. I gotta admit, I'd be tempted to take a guy who has FAR more experience running a 3-3-5 scheme and we already know Casteel and RichRod have good chemistry and yeah that transition would be pretty smooth and...
NO. I WILL NOT BE TEMPTED. GERG'S HAIR IS FANTASTIC I WILL NEVER LET HIM GO.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||I'm noticing that you're quick to criticize, slow to suggest||
I've noticed a couple people ask you who should have been FS instead of Cam Gordon. I've also noticed you studiously avoid answering that question. I wonder if we wandered over to Touch The Boner whether we would find a post where you actually offer an alternative to Cam Gordon. Oh sure, now you say Carvin Johnson should have been the guy, but...really? You've been saying all along that a true freshman should have started FS three weeks after he arrived on campus? I'd be curious to see where you said that.
(Also, I think that would have been a stupid idea- starting a true freshman with zero game experience and only a few weeks of practice is FAR worse than starting a true freshman with several games of experience and months of practice. That you can't see or admit this is really quite telling.)
Guys that are so quick to criticize and are noticeably slow to suggest are guys that are just generally not very helpful or productive. Just an observation.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Gamblers always remember their wins and forget their losses||
When Magnus offers up 10-20 suggestions a week, and 8 week laters one of the coaches "follows" his advice, apparently that means MAGNUS WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG.
(Cue Magnus talking about Brandon Minor, and conveniently forgetting his advice on Denard)
|4 years 7 weeks ago||When you offer 1000 suggestions, how many should be listened to?||
I find it interesting that as a coach, you seem to give no thought to the idea that kids progress and improve over time. And by "interesting," I mean "horrifying."
Since you insist this was a good idea months ago, then it follows that you obviously see no value in: giving Cam Gordon the opportunity to improve and learn at FS; giving Johnson the opportunity to improve and learn at Hybrid; giving both Gordon and Johnson more practice time to learn new positions. No, for you, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MONTHS AGO BECAUSE THEY ARE LOST CAUSES WHERE THEY ARE AND THEY CAN'T HACK IT BLER BLER BLER. Wonderful, dude. Truly inspirational.
As a coach who is so dismissive of giving kids opportunities to learn and grow, you should be ashamed of yourself. You have obviously missed one of the biggest joys, if not the biggest joy of coaching: seeing kids seize opportunities to improve and become more capable in their sport.
Thank God you were never my coach, and thank God you'll never coach any of my kids.
|4 years 7 weeks ago||Oh, you don't understand? I can help you out.||
You don't understand what they're doing? An assist:
A) They're trying to win football games.
B) They have tons more experience and knowledge than you do.
C) They have tons more player information than you do.
D) Therefore, if you "don't understand" what they're doing, chances are the problem is with you, not with them.
I hope that helps.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Yeah, but you don't watch the games, so whatever||
You didn't watch the UConn game, so I'm not sure why your opinion on what should or should not have been done in the UConn game is relevant.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||I don't have what you're looking for||
Last year I watched him work with the kids on the sidelines. After giving up huge plays, Gerg would always calmly talk to them and be positive. He was never full of spit and anger. At least, it appeared that way to me. That's why I think he's a good coach- he's more focused on teaching over the long term than he is on the appearance of teaching in the short term. Remember, these are kids we're talking about, not an NFL farm team. A good coach is going to have to get the kids to want to do what he's asking.
I admit that's not tangible, nor can it be empirically proven. Which is why I'm willing to admit that time could reveal me to be wrong and Gerg to be bad. But without that time, no judgment either way can be proven right or wrong.
The examples you point to do not include an entire coaching transition. The rosters on those defenses were not depleted. To combine both a program transition and a depleted roster is always going to be death. I am not going to advocate more turmoil to a roster that is already young, thin, and only moderately talented. Just because it worked a couple times at a couple programs doesn't mean it will happen that way this time. And, there's no need to take that risk- as long as the kids are being developed (and we won't really know that for another year), then there is no reason to risk stopping the progress.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||What part of "BE PATIENT" do you not understand?||
Look, I know that sounds dickish, because I guess it is dickish. But whatever- how many times must we say BE PATIENT before people understand we're not saying GERG IS AWESOME...? How many times? 100? 1000? How many more "OMG what's wrong with the defense?" threads must we endure before people wise up to the reality of the roster?
I have no idea if Gerg is any good (though my opinion right now is that he is). But I think it is FAR more important for the Michigan defense to have some stability and continuity. The reason why this defense sucks in the first place is because there's been so much turmoil there*- give Gerg a chance is all any of us are saying. He may blow that chance, agreed. But now is not the time to make that judgment. Now is the time to rebuild the roster, and that can't happen if the DC is being fired every 2-3 years.
*and yes, I realize that some of that turmoil is RichRod's fault. I believe firing Shafer after only one year was RichRod's one and only true mistake so far. Then again, it was his call so eh we just gotta roll with it.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Desire for PT == Impatience...? Maybe?||
You're pointing out guys who were with the program for 2 years or less (Donovan Warren is an exception because apparently he was never going to stay 4 years).
It's possible what we're witnessing is a bit of impatience from the players themselves. They come in expecting to play right away, don't win playing time, and decide to leave because they're unsure they'll ever get PT. I don't know if this is RichRod's fault for overselling their chances, the kids for not being mature/resilient enough to handle having to earn PT, both, or neither.
Regardless, as leery as I am about the attrition, I won't get overly concerned with it until it becomes a pattern over more than 2 years. If we're still seeing ridiculous (Artis Chambers, Marell Evans, srsly?) transfers into next year and beyond, then I'll start to wonder just what the hell RichRod is doing to these kids.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Funny how the Gerg haters go silent on posts like this.||
Brain does interesting analysis, finds an astounding comparison, and presents a logical conclusion that says (again) "BE PATIENT WITH THE DEFENSE." And all the Gerg and RichRod haters go strangely silent. Funny how that works.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Pumpkin Whoopie Pies||
|4 years 9 weeks ago||No, he didn't have to. Do you know the story? You don't, do you?||
Brandon spoke to the recruits this past weekend. He didn't have to do that.
Unprompted, Brandon unequivocally stated that RichRod's going to be here for a long time. He didn't have to do that.
Oh, and this wasn't in public.
I really don't get how Dave Brandon going out of his way to tell recruits that RichRod is safe can somehow be interpreted as him being "forced" to do this, and it's kind of weird that you're asserting Michigan's AD is lying.
He didn't have to do any of this, but he did. It seems like the only people who are interpreting this as nothing are people who want it to mean nothing. Good luck with that.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||I don't know what you're looking for, but I hope you find it.||
If you want to be a pessimist and insist that DOOM is around the corner, well, then good luck I guess. I don't know what you're getting from Michigan football if 5-1 is worse than 4-2 and it's all just worse worse worse blah blah blah blah. Whatever.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||It sounds like you *want* failure.||
I have never seen someone so contort an AD's (semi)public statement of support for a head coach to mean...nothing. We can only go on what Dave Brandon says, but you want to extrapolate it to represent what he can or cannot imagine. It's almost as if you don't want that public statement of support to mean anything.
I wonder why.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||You *do* realize that a lot of these guys are Carr recruits?||
A lot of this defense is still made up of Lloyd Carr recruits. Or did you think RichRod recruited Obi Ezeh?
|4 years 9 weeks ago||See below for response.||
Lloyd's not coming back. Get over it.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Wow. Did you just get a colon exam or something?||
You really need to relax. When you start thinking that Having Fun == Not Caring, then you need to take a deep breath.
Everybody here cares about M football. Just because someone is interested in enjoying the games doesn't mean he doesn't care. And I'm very depressed that I have to explain that.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||STOP HAVING FUN. DON'T YOU SEE THE DOOM AROUND THE CORNER?||
FUN IS FOR PUSSIES. DEPRESSION IS FOR REAL MEN.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||I TOTALLY E-GREE. WATCHING JAMES SHOULD *NEVER* BE FUN.||
I totally agree that outcomes are the ONLY thing that matter when it comes to these james. Seeing kids play their hearts out and sometimes pleasantly surprise coaches and fans with their progress and improvement? FUCK THAT, IT'S ALL ABOUT WINNING AND LOSING BABY. After all, everybody knows that after a loss the size of fans' penises get a little smaller and their lives are a little more miserable. That's why winning matters. Fuck all this "have fun" shit. I mean come on, what do you think this is- the NFL?
|4 years 9 weeks ago||They're not meant to be a joke, primarily.||
Recipes are meant to be an appropriate response to something. Generally I only do them for threads, but occasionally comments will go so far off the deep end that they beg for a recipe.
If they get a laugh, then great. But the primary purpose is to let the poster (or commenter) know that I think s/he is so far off base that it doesn't deserve a serious response.
You need to let go of this notion that every comment/thread deserves a serious response.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Dave Brandon disagrees with you.||
I never said "he only has to improve by one win every year to keep his job." What I said was he has to show tangible progress this year, which at minimum means 6 wins.
...is just delusional. We just heard a report that David Brandon is telling recruits RichRod does NOT have a minimum # wins in order to keep his job, and he WILL be here for a long time. When it comes to assertions about RichRod's job security, I'll believe Brandon before I ever believe you.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Uh, yeah, his point is that THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE BLER BLER BLER||
If people can't root for progress and improvement, then I think they're going to be very unhappy with M for awhile. If he can't accept that 7-5 or 8-4 would be a tremendous success, then yeah he absolutely should go root for somebody else. He's not just being critical, he's being unrealistic and unfairly negative.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Do you honestly think a serious answer would make a difference?||
The guy said that he thinks this team is worse than 2009's team. I mean, do you really believe a well-reasoned response is going to have any impact on this guy? Come on, he's out of his mind with negativity, and nothing's going to get through to him.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Considering your insanity, just chew on this: 5-1>4-2||
I think you're crazy and I don't think you pay attention to anything, but even in your dull and stupid world surely you'd have to admit that Michigan starting 5-1 is better than Michigan starting 4-2.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Ha Ha no they weren't. They were 4-2. You're such a dick.||
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Butter Tart Muffins||
|4 years 9 weeks ago||As an example||
For example, if ekartash had posted any of his comments here in an actual thread, he would have been recipe'd. Bad faith, overly negative, overly stupid, and/or overly pointless threads will get recipe'd. Some people at MGo don't like it because, well, sometimes they or their buddies get recipe'd.
You were close, but it seemed like you're coming from a position of optimism, so I let it go. Stay tuned, though- there is always an idiot with the ability to create a thread.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Then go root for another team||
If you can't tolerate having to endure a few rebuilding years and being forced to be happy about 7-5 or 8-4, then go away.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||You're crazy.||
You are out of your mind if you truly believe this.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Name them.||
Well, then why don't you name them?
|4 years 9 weeks ago||I dare you to BOO a 7-5/8-4 finish.||
If Michigan finishes at 7-5 or 8-4, I dare you to put up a post declaring it UNACCEPTABLE.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Eh, it seemed like the OP wrote in good faith.||
If you post in good faith and you're not egregiously stupid, then there will be no recipe.
It seems like the poster is trying to build up the importance of Iowa because he thinks it'll be a win.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||I love how some people are douchebags. Wait, no I don't.||
I love how some people think being optimistic and encouraged by progress is a moral failing. And by "love," I mean "go the fuck away and cheer for somebody else please."
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Jesus Christ, no. 6-6 is still the minimum goal.||
This team needs to show progress, which essentially means 6 wins and a bowl. Losing to Iowa doesn't doom those chances.
Stop moving the goalposts. If M loses to the top three or four teams in the conference (OSU, MSU, Iowa, Wisky), then it will still be a successful season.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||I like how you threw Stevie Brown in there.||
Before last season, Stevie Brown was considered a bust and a liability. The fact that he turned into a productive player is a credit to the coaches.
You didn't realize that, did you?
|4 years 9 weeks ago||O rly? ADs speak to recruits all the time, do they?||
Dave Brandon did not have to speak to all the recruits in this past weekend, and he did not have to mention RichRod's job security. Yet he did do those two things.
It's not "AD speak" if ADs normally don't do this.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||You haven't looked at the rosters, have you?||
You should really study the depth chart in any given year before you assume that everything was hunkydory before RichRod got here. That 2007 9-4 team had an incredibly mediocre defense (App St? Oregon?), and an offense that literally disappeared after that season.
So when RichRod started out he had a very mediocre defense, nothing on offense, and no backups to speak of on either side of the ball. That is where he started. 2 years later, we have depth and talent on offense, and a young, thin, and still not talented defense.
"Getting back to where we were before" is only a meaningful standard if you understand where we actually were before, as opposed to where we were before in your dreams.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||He didn't have to do this, you know.||
I don't get this "what else is he going to say?" meme. Brandon went out of his way to personally speak to the recruits. And he explicitly told them that RichRod is going to be here for a long time.
He didn't have to do that. But somehow in your mind "didn't have to do that" is equal to "he had no choice." This is very weird thinking.
|4 years 9 weeks ago||So, now that RichRod is safe, you must move on to a new target.||
All I saw in your comment was "WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH MY BLOODLUST MUST BE SATED WAAAAAH WAAAAAAH"
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Um, nothing? He could say nothing. Did that occur to you?||
Brandon made a special effort to speak to the recruits in this weekend. He could have not done that, or he could have still spoken to them by talking up M without even addressing RichRod's job security.
But he didn't do that. He made a special effort to tell recruits that RichRod is going to be here for a long time.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Because posts like this haven't been overdone?||
Sometimes it takes a porst like this to get the MGoCrowd to STOP ASKING WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE DEFENSE. This was needed, IME.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||I agree. Cam Gordon has potential at S, IME.||
Cam Gordon is a redshirt freshman, and as a result is being a little exposed. He'll be fine. He's not as slow as people think, and his tackling and angles will improve.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||They *can't* do (much) live tackling drills, FYI||
The coaches have said a couple times that because of the depth chart they can't do too many live tackling drills during the week because they can't risk injuring anyone. I really wish this was talked about more.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||There are actually a lot of possibilities here.||
Just off the top of my head:
...and I'm sure there are a bunch I'm missing. There is depth here, I believe, so I'm not that worried.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||WHAT WHAT WHAT? JT Floyd would like a word with you, sir.||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||You tied in cooking w/o a recipe. Well played, good sir.||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Post and poster have been validated with this comment.||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||YES, THIS QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN ASKED.||
I think the porster is spot on and this is an extremely compelling thread. Thank God somebody thought to ask the MGoCrowd what they think is wrong with the defense. This post will NOT get recipe'd because my God what a unique question
|4 years 10 weeks ago||WE MUST BE SERIOUS WHEN SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS BUTTHURT!||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||I think this passage summed up your post pretty well||
So, you don't see a lack of experience and/or talent, except where you do. Got it. Oh, and, what do others think?
If there was a serious question in there, then I missed the serious aspect to it. Come on.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Slow Cooker Swiss Steak||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Double Layer Pumpkin Cheesecake||
|4 years 10 weeks ago||Over The Top Nachos||
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Pretty sure either one would succeed. Epinion.||
Under those circumstances, I feel equally confident that both Henne and Denard could drive down the field and get a touchdown. WE JUST SAW Denard do close to that and in less time, for crying out loud.
Just epinion, but I feel that Denard would leave less time on the clock than Henne. And, well, I prefer that. So I guess I'd go with Denard.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||So now it's a 42 second drill against the #3 team?||
You realize you've changed your criteria, don't you? It started off as "he has to show he can engineer a 2 minute drill," now it's "he has to show that he could completely duplicate the heroics of that one guy in that one game many many years ago." Which is, of course, impossible.
Changing the criteria is a symptom of somebody who has made a decision on a guy, but is struggling to justify that decision because the facts don't support it. Chad Henne did not engineer 2 game winning drives within his first 5 starts. Does that mean anything? Eh, probably not, but I'm not the one trying to claim a hyperspecific set of criteria is somehow useful- you are.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Then what *does* make it a "2 minute drill?"||
Engineering 2 game-winning drives to end games (in only 5 games no less) somehow doesn't cut it with you, because A) one of them was within 3 minutes instead of 2 (which LOL), and B) the other drive doesn't count because...just because. I love that last- a completed pass to the goalline with only a few seconds left in the game in your mind only counts if it "looks" right, and, well, that pass thrown by the black QB just doesn't quite "look" right, now does it?
I have news for you: the NFL offense that Michigan used to run is gone. It's not coming back. Deal with it.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||The Stupid, It Burns||
I don't think I can take much more of this. Friendly advice, joeyb- stop talking. For your own good. Please.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Well, it's either retarded or racist. Pick one.||
Your "criteria" for measuring a QB are either too subjective to confirm/refute (making your favoritism towards whitey kinda suspicious), or your "criteria" actually make Denard look like a very, very, very good QB (making your denial of Denard's greatness a product of your stupidity).
I'm not sure which you are. To a certain extent I don't care, except that I think you're wasting pixels that could be better used for pron. Please stop.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Maybe you should ask to see Denard's birth certificate.||
I heard from Fox News that Denard was born in Kenya, and therefore he is INELIGIBLE to be a good QB. Makes you wonder just what exactly RichRod is covering up by keeping Tate on the bench, huh?
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Rainbow Clown Cake||
|4 years 11 weeks ago||I think it's super important that you never let this go.||
I agree that getting negbanged on MGo is a totally big thing to complain about, forever. Never let this go, Fuzzy Dunlop. Fight the power.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Is it M football, or are you a whiny pussy about everything?||
I'm just wondering if this "waaaaah people negged me waaaah" thing is exclusive to talking on the internet about MICH football, or if this is how you are about everything. Please advice.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||No, Magnus sometimes doesn't watch the games.||
He'll make judgements based on the box score, without having seen parts of the game. I'm not kidding. He's admitted this.
And I think he just got caught doing it again.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||2 INTs in 5 games? FIRE CAMERON GORDON!||
Your "concern" is duly noted, poster.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Instructions on how to wipe your tears away from your face||
1. Grab a box of tissues*
2. Take one or two out of the box.
3. Apply to the ocular region of the face.
4. Reapply as necessary.
*a roll of toilet paper can work too, just pull off a few sheets.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||READING COMPREHENSION IS FUN!||
What I said:
What you heard:
Um, "always being right" is not the same as "always having more information than you or me." RichRod always has and always will have more information than you or me about the RBs. Or the quarterbacks. Or the wide receivers. Always he will have more information than you or me. Using hindsight to question a decision is pointless, so I won't get into whether a given decision ends up being "right" or "wrong." The only issue is whether he made the best decision given the information available to him.
From that perspective the question is, do I feel justified in arguing the decision of someone who always has and always will have more information than me? For me the answer is NO. For you the answer is, obviously, YES.
And I reiterate that attitude is the height of arrogance and folly.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Uh, Brain's not questioning RichRod's decisions, Thunderbunny||
As far as I can see, Brain isn't questioning RichRod for using Vincent Smith on short yardage, he's just lamenting that Vincent Smith was the best option on short yardage against Indiana. Do you see the difference?
|4 years 11 weeks ago||I think RichRod makes better decisions than you.||
I think RichRod had his reasons for having Vincent Smith in as the goal line RB against Indiana, and I assume they were good ones.
I don't see these RBs every day in practice, and neither do you. Thus, I assume that RichRod knows more than you and I do. So I accept his decision, unlike you.
That you can't accept RichRod knows more than you about the RBs is the height of arrogance and folly, IME.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||FIRE RICHROD HIRE THUNDERBUNNY||
Seriously, you're not as good a coach as RichRod. You never will be. Deal with it and move on, and stop trying to convince the world of your brilliance.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||On defense, hair must be the focus.||
Hair is what makes a defense not only effective, but full of swagger and bounce. Let's run down the list:
DC Gerg: pert, sheen, and vitality. HAIR OF A CHAMPION.
JT Floyd: dreadlocks. HAIR OF A CHAMPION.
Jordan Kovacs: crewcut. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Mike Martin: close-cropped, curly. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Craig Roh: sexy eyebrows, hair is a little limp. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Jonas Mouton: close-cropped, buzzcut. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Obi Ezeh: meh. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
James Rogers: crewcut. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Cameron Gordon: fluffy, but nondescript. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Carvin Johnson: mystery. PROBABLY NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Ryan Van Bergen: crewcut. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS.
Gregaldo Bangesse: half crewcut, half nondescript fluffyness. NEEDS MOAR DREADLOCKS x 2.
Now, there's how you transform a defense into a championship defense. BOOM PROBLEM SOLVE'D.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||It's true, Bloomington is much more hostile than South Bend||
I get where you're coming from*, but eeeeeeehh, it's not like IU's stadium is a Pit of Despair for road teams. And MICH has already shown the ability to win on the road.
(*BTW, 9 points?!?!? 9!?!? CW is 3 points for the home team.)
|4 years 11 weeks ago||This is the fun part of Magnus||
The fun part of dealing with Magnus is that he's so stubborn about his beliefs that you can present facts to him and he'll ignore them, thus exposing himself as an ass.
Uh, playing Denard for 60+ plays a game is bound to get him dinged up. I think what you mean to say is "Denard running the ball 30 times a game is bound to get him dinged up <i>more than a normal QB</i>."
But in fact, there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. Once again Magnus clings to his gut, the facts be damned.
|4 years 11 weeks ago||Oh Goody, Magnus has joined in.||
Prove that last. Show me evidence that a QB who runs a lot is statistically more likely to get hurt than a QB who runs less. (Hint: an MGoDiarist has a running study, and I believe s/he has yet to find a statistically significant increase in risk for the running QB).
And if you can't prove that "the more he runs, the more likely it is that [he gets] a major injury," then your first assertion is actually counterproductive, as far as the offense is concerned.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||The thing I find interesting...||
I find it interesting that while the OP will respond to my (and others') half-assed responses to nitpick and correct and whatnot, this well-reasoned and well-written response is ignored by the OP. He'd rather correct the little things wrong in other meh posts rather than wholeheartedly debate with someone who has demonstrated a good faith response.
Perhaps that means the OP 1) isn't really willing to consider the possibility that he is wrong, 2) is overly negative, and therefore 3) is kind of a dick. Just thinking out loud here.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||The revised assertion still stands, BTW.||
Purdue 2009 was the first BCS team that Michigan outgained. The second to last game of 2009 was when that happened.
UConn 2010 was the first BCS team that Michigan outgained. The first game of 2010 was when that happened.
This year really is different and better. Be happy about that.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Just what were you expecting with this post?||
Seriously, did you honestly expect the crowd to say "oh look this guy thinks our superexciting and statistically dominant offense has room to improve and would like us to NOT be so excited about the offense WHAT A GREAT IDEA I LOVE CONSCIOUSLY NOT BEING OPTIMISTIC AND EXCITED I LOVE WAITING FOR BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN!"...?
Stubbornly pessimistic people are no fun. You have every right to be stubbornly pessimistic, just don't expect praise for it.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Thank you for the correction. Yes, that's what I meant.||
I apologize for not being clear in my original assertion: yes, I meant outgaining BCS teams. That didn't happen until the second to last game in 2009, whereas it happened in the first game in 2010. To dismiss this difference is to be consciously pessimistic.
I'm not counting the Hail Mary yards ND put up at the end. OMG ND OUTGAINED US WHICH MEANS THE OFFENSE SEWKS!
This is getting ridiculous.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Repeating a downthread comment for truth||
This. Right now the burden should be on a team to show that this offense can be stopped. Each week is a new opportunity for a defense to stop MICH, and so far it hasn't happened.
There is always uncertainty about a unit's "true" capabilities. Always. So while it may not mean much that MICH is statistically one of the best offenses right now, it is EQUALLY meaningless to point out that we don't truly "know" as much we need to about this offense.
This week it's "we haven't started conference play." Next week it'll be "that was just Indiana." And the week after that it'll be "Sparty's defense isn't very good." And on and on and on.
I will remind the poster, though, that there is at least one meaningful fact that gives confidence to the idea that the 2010 offense is better than (and not much like) the 2009 offense: 2009 Purdue was the first game MICH outgained an opponent, whereas 2010 UConn (aka the first damn game) was the first and it has continued on in the next three games. This is different. Really it is.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||And the pistol will "fix" this how?||
I'm wondering when a statement like this would not apply. I think you could say this every year, for every offense, forever. It is a meaningless statement.
Again, I'm wondering when this would not apply, and why this means anything. Remember the OP is using an assertion like this to justify radically changing the offensive scheme. I'm wondering why more practice reps and game time in the existing offense won't accomplish the same thing.
The poster had a shitty idea that used weaselly and thus meaningless observations to try and justify his shitty idea, and you're still defending this shitty idea. Sometimes the world is confusing.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Why does that matter?||
I'm trying to figure out why it's sooooo effing important to get the ball out of the hands of the most exciting player MICH has seen in years.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||There is this phrase that is coming to mind right now...||
It's called "technically true, but collectively nonsense." I hate using it because the person that coined it is a moron and it makes me feel like one too, but here I go...
I think if one put in enough modifiers and disclaimers into a "concern," then you could argue that the "concern" is technically accurate. Okay, "only the RBs" and "only at times" may be true...and that means what, precisely? Collectively, what is the concern being expressed here? That the offense isn't doing well? Really?
Keep in mind the goal of any offense is to move the ball and score points. If that is being achieved, should we really care how it's being achieved?
I don't think so, but some people disagree. Some people seem to accept as given that if Denard accounts for a large percentage of an offense that is one of the best (if not THE best) in the nation, then something is wrong. I don't get that, and I would appreciate it if someone would explain it to me.
The reality is the offense is moving the ball and scoring points lots, and is doing it by running lots. Reality disagrees with the general concern that something needs to be "fixed" with this offense.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Also, where are the UMass and BGSU stats?||
If we're going to be honest about reality, I am wondering why your reality excludes the 2 most recent games MICH has played. Just curious.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||And this matters because...?||
Look I'm all for allowing the "Denard doesn't count as a RB" technicality, but to what end? If Michigan is putting up huge numbers on the ground, what does it matter whether the RBs are only getting a few of those yards?
Denard is putting up these numbers within the offense. The results are not a fluke. Quit pretending otherwise.
OMG DENARD ROBINSON IS ACCOUNTING FOR TOO MUCH OF A GOOD OFFENSE SOMETHING MUST BE WROOOOOOOOONG!!!
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Seriously, this is just HOT ASS||
Reality disagrees with you.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Creamy Chicken on Linguine||
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Hey. You. Yes, you. Fuck you.||
That didn't sound sarcastic, so kindly go fuck yourself.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||That was the *second* nail in the coffin. The first is REDACTED||
I tried finding the video where at the end of a tied basketball game the clock ticks down and Pam Ward says "and this game is OVER...no...I'm sorry, we're going to overtime. OVERTIME it is!" What.the.hell.
It's been erased from the internet, apparently. Not even Awful Announcing has it anymore. I don't know what happened to it.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Meatloaf Cordon Bleu||
|4 years 12 weeks ago||BUT HAVE YOU SEEN HIS HAIR?!?! OMG!!!1!!||
HE HAS THE HAIR OF A WINNER I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY. THE FLUFF, THE BOUNCE, THE SHEEN, THE VITALITY...THOSE WHO GROOM WILL BE CHAMPIONS!!!!!
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Gerg's hair. He's the genius of the operation anyway.||
If we can't keep Gerg, then I think we should at least keep his hair.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||4th Down Offense is more important this season, IME||
I think given how awful the kicking game is this season it's more important for the team to practice converting 4th downs rather than the kickers to practice converting field goals. Reasonable people can disagree on this, but I don't have a problem giving the offense more practice on 4th downs. They're going to need to get used to that.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Tate didn't come in for Denard. This is how stupid you are.||
Everyone else has taken care of the substance of your post, but when you say things like
I feel like you need to stay away from sharp knives. And dull knives.
|4 years 12 weeks ago||I disagree. The guy earned the scorn. He deserves it.||
|4 years 12 weeks ago||Tell me more about the gritty intangibles and headiness etc.||
I am wondering how stupid you are. Can you please quantify your stupidity by elaborating on your unimaginably stupid comment? It would also help if you used more vague/intangible descriptors in order to cover over your secret preference for white QBs.
P.S. Did you hear our president is actually Kenyan and we have yet to see his birth certificate? OMG!
|4 years 14 weeks ago||Uh, you do realize he's still young/inexperienced, right?||
Denard is awesome, stipulated. But he's got so much room to improve. He needs as much game experience as possible making reads and adjustments. It's not about padding stats, it's about giving him as many opportunities to learn as possible before the conference season starts.
At the very least, keep him in for the first half, and make sure the exotic areas of the playbook are explored. He needs to keep learning and growing.
|4 years 17 weeks ago||The physical is not as rigorous as we think||
The physical for an athlete is pretty basic and is just provided as a precaution. It is not designed to find stuff.
And IIRC, an eye exam is not part of it.
So, to answer your question: no. It's up to coaches and teammates to notice the symptoms of poor eyesight, and then it's up to the athlete to get it checked out and taken care of.
|4 years 18 weeks ago||Brian, where's your Jozy Altidore tag?||
I humbly submit Jozy Altidore as a viable candidate at CB. That is all.
|4 years 19 weeks ago||Welcome to M fandom, where news--->doom||
Many other fanbases have commented on the weirdly depressing relationship M fans have with the team (which BTW preceded The Horror, 3-9, etc.).
Most other fanbases aren't like this. We're a kooky emo bunch.
|4 years 19 weeks ago||I'm not numb yet, unfortunately||
And to think I was actually feeling quite serene about this upcoming season. Every effing time I click over to MGo and I see yet another transfer/quit I just look up to the Big Guy In The Sky and say "REALLY? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?"
I suppose in the short term this doesn't mean much, but I would like to go 3 (or even 6) months without a 3+* recruit transferring or quitting. I would like that to happen, along with unicorns for my birthday.
|4 years 19 weeks ago||I guessed I picked the wrong week to quit||
I guessed I picked the wrong week to quit drinking, sniffing glue, smoking, and having anger sex. Yes, I did all of those things, 3-9 and 5-7 consecutively will do that to me. WHAT?
|4 years 26 weeks ago||America: doin' it Puritan Style since 1776!||
...where it's just so hard to finish the job, we do it Puritan style: ugly effort.
I just finished the Baroque Cycle, and this made me LOL.
"America: Doin' It Puritan Style" should be Stanzi's new campaign slogan.
|4 years 42 weeks ago||You didn't read my post. That's ok, though.||
No. What I'm saying is (and I went into it in detail in the post I wrote a long time ago) is that "everybody does it" is an explanation for why everything is voluntary. There seems to be this misconception that "voluntary" is some sort of loophole that everybody uses to get around practice restrictions. This is not true- the voluntary aspect of training is necessarily a part of every college athlete's experience. "Everybody does it" is an explanation for why all these hours are voluntary, and not "voluntary." Bando doesn't seem to get that. Maybe you don't either, I can't tell.
On the contrary, the original Freep article expressed Grave Concerns about the amount of practice M players were putting in. Parents expressed concern about it taking time away from schoolwork, and anonymous players were quoted saying they frequently fell asleep in class. That looks like a lot of concern to me.
You should perhaps go back and reread the article. To a former college athlete, nothing there was surprising or alarming. To an uninformed fan/reader, however, it probably looked like RichRod was running a Win At All Costs regime. There is no strawman here- the Freep expressed concern (and prematurely passed judgment), and attempted to pass those concerns and judgments along to readers.
I never said any such thing (strawman?), and this isn't what happened at M (strawman?). The NCAA has guidelines that determine whether a practice is voluntary or mandatory. As we just learned, Michigan's practice schedules are not abnormal in any sense or in any kind of consistent violation. Michigan coaches do require players to be at practice, but only for 20 hours a week during the season. Beyond that it's voluntary, and it's up to the coaches to make sure they meet those voluntary guidelines (which it appears they accidentally didn't do early in the RichRod era).
The only problem I see is in how the QC staff were operating, and how they may have (accidentally IMO) thrown a whole bunch of voluntary hours onto the mandatory side of the ledger. These are not black and white issues, however, and some of these guidelines are ever changing- accidents will happen. That is not cause for some M fans to show their moral superiority by expressing OUTRAGE that RichRod "didn't follow the rules." Bando is pretty clearly doing that, and it's tiresome.
Getting back to the original article, the original point, and the original concern about "everybody does it," however: all those hours cited by the Freep actually were voluntary in the eyes of the NCAA. Period.
This is what I've been saying all along- succeeding in high level sports demands a lot of work, regardless of what the coaches do and what the NCAA says you can do. So of course this is going to end up being voluntary, not "voluntary." Further, this "everybody does it" competitive pressure directly contributes to the nature of a lot of these practice hours- increased competitive pressures will lead to increased volunteerism. Thus, you cannot separate "everybody does it" from analyzing how these practices will be classified by the NCAA.
So I return again to some people's misconception that this voluntary classification is somehow a loophole in the rules. It is not, and "everybody does it" is an integral part of that truth.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Um, M did follow the rules.||
From what I've seen:
A) there is no excessive practice violation (because I'm assuming the debate over how to count stretching will eventually vindicate M)
If you want to call that "breaking the rules," then fine. At this point I don't care. But if you want to imply that there was something wrong or unethical about what M did here, well, you're just wrong.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||You totally missed the point.||
I think you totally missed my point, both in my piece and in my original response here. Direct quote from my piece: "this isn’t a defense of whatever’s been going on in the offseason because "everybody does it." This is a defense because "everybody wants to do it, and thus no one can stop it."
I was responding to your whine that "everybody does it" isn't a valid defense for what went on here. That's way too simplistic a viewpoint, because with regards to practice, everybody does it. There is nothing wrong or unethical about practicing a sport. That's how you get good. Everybody knows this, which is again why everybody does it.
Regarding the violations, if everybody wants to do more practice (in part because everybody else is doing it oops there I go again), then in some way shape or form these extra hours are voluntary and are not a violation. This is pretty much exactly what we learned at the presser (depending on how one defines stretching).
You've changed your argument midstream. You started by saying "please stop saying 'everybody does it'", but now that I've pointed out that there's nothing wrong with the fact that everybody does it, you're saying "if they broke the rules then it's unethical." But the fact that everybody does it makes everything voluntary which makes it not against the rules which makes it not unethical. Round and round we go.
There is nothing inherently unethical about practicing a lot, which is the whole point of this faux scandal. Everybody does it.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Can we really cut it with the||
Can we really cut it with the "Everyone else has a marching band!" argument? It's like getting a speeding ticket and saying it's OK because you were driving 80 and someone blew by you at 95 right before you got pulled over.
We're Michigan. We should expect MORE from our gameday experience than a bunch of fucking horns at halftime.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||First, we must address the ethics here.||
Before we can engage in any discussion on what is "bad" or "not bad" in terms of NCAA violations, I think we first have to come to agreement on what are "ethical" and "unethical" activities inside a football program.
Nothing I've seen since Day 1 of the Freep Jihad constitutes unethical activities, on the part of RichRod, his staff, or the Program. Period. So if these violations are not unethical, and the violations themselves are minor in quantity and in nature, then...this isn't bad.
People need to calm down, nothing is going to happen here.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Please read this.||
Warning: I am about to shamelessly shill something I wrote.
Bando, before we go any further, please read this first. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Now, if you still think there is something unethical about practicing in excess of NCAA guidelines, I am ready to have that debate. Anytime.
Seriously, kids volunteering to do more is NOT like breaking the law and endangering other citizens. Back off.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||I disagree that the Freep will benefit from this.||
In a way, you just contradicted yourself- many Michigan fans are/were, after all, subscribers to the Freep.
The Freep will only get a circulation boost if their biased anti-UM coverage manages to lure previous non-subscribers in while simultaneously managing to convince Michigan fans to not drop their subscriptions. And this has to happen over the long term- if in 2-3 years the Freep's subscriber base is less than it was when they wrote their story, then there was no boost.
I speculate this is a bad bet for the Freep, and one they don't even realize they're making. IMO long term the Freep's credibility took a hit. A newspaper cannot maintain its business long term without simultaneous maintaining its credibility. Just an awful gamble by the Freep.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||The NCAA will agree, trust me. This is a can of worms.||
If excessive voluntary practice ends up being a "major" violation in the eyes of the NCAA, you have no idea how earth-shattering that will be. It would fundamentally change college athletics, as kids already spend many, many hours in voluntary practice time per week (for football it's 25 hours BTW). There is no way in hell the NCAA will want to open that can of worms, nor should they- competitive college athletics (in almost every sport) demands that level of time commitment. If they crack down on this, they will fundamentally degrade their product forever.
M will propose some extremely minor corrections (e.g. more restricted practice schedules), the NCAA will agree, and everyone will move on...except Sharp and Rosenberg, who are lying douchebags.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||I disagree. IMO it sounds like a rough transition.||
To me it sounds like Compliance was operating off of some offseason assumptions developed during the Carr era, and caught on too late that RichRod was doing things differently. Note the allegation period starts in freaking January 2008, right after he was hired.
RichRod comes in, hands out offseason workout routines with undoubtedly new/different stuff to the kids, and has some assistants help instruct them on how to do it. Compliance realizes, too late, that having those assistants guiding the kids may constitute "mandatory" workouts, and then tries to get a handle on it. And ends up as a minor bureaucratic clusterf**k for awhile, but eventually gets straightened out.
Meanwhile, some kids have not taken to this new workout regime. They bristle at the presence of staff at these workouts (that I baselessly speculate they probably blew off in years past) and start heading for the exits. At some point one of them realizes that the presence of staff is in some way not kosher, and on their way out the door tells somebody outside the Program. Chaos ensues.
This is all speculation on my part. But IMO it fits. If we apply the term "rough transition" to not just the kids, but also the support and admin staff, then I think this all starts to make a little more sense.
|4 years 43 weeks ago||If QC staff is there and active, then it may not be so voluntary||
I speculate this is just poorly worded. I think this allegation deals with the idea that M reported these athletes' activities as voluntary, even though QC staff were present and active in the workouts.
This is an extraordinarily gray area. I'm not an expert, but...I think technically it's not just that QC staff are present, but are present and influencing the voluntary workouts (this is why references are made to instruction on technique, exercises, etc.). You could have QC staff present at a voluntary workout, and as long as they're not participating in any way, it's still voluntary.
(Note: this is not as theoretical as it may sound- a staff member for a swim program, for example, might have his office space at the pool, which is the only place a swimmer's voluntary workout could occur. As long as he just plays sudoku while the workout is going on, then it's still voluntary.)
|4 years 43 weeks ago||That's completely voluntary.||
That's completely voluntary. Nobody is being forced to get playing time. They can choose to earn playing time, or not. There is nothing involuntary about anything there.
Here, let me demonstrate:
Is it your contention that in the above sentence, people are being "forced" to be thin, and thus are not allowed to eat Krispy Kreme Glazed Fruit Pies?
|4 years 43 weeks ago||Brian, let's be clear about something...||
I know some people may think this is nitpicky, but I don't care- voluntary practice is NOT a loophole, but a way of life for athletes in competitive collegiate programs. It is voluntary, not "voluntary." The NCAA practice minimums have been and always will be too low (if for no other reason than to err on the side of safety and academics), so any kid who is driven to be the best- in other words, any scholarship athlete at any Top 25 program- is going to volunteer, yes, VOLUNTEER to do more.
Voluntary hours are not an "end-around," they are simply the only way athletes achieve their goals. Please stop making it sound more skeevy than it actually is.
|4 years 44 weeks ago||I would prefer to see him move down to OLB, but...||
I'd like to see Kovacs move down to OLB, because I think he's a good tackler and he's athletic enough to be able to handle RBs and TEs (as opposed to WRs).
Of course I say this without knowing how hard it is to move someone down from S to LB, so this could be the stupidest idea ever.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Please show me how...||
Irish, this has been dealt with. To save you time, here's Brian's money passage dealing with it (emphasis and additions mine):
Your argument sounds an awful lot like Rosenberg's, i.e. that Rodriguez should assume every HS kid and coach is lying about the past and thus RichRod "could have known" that a given kid was going to be a problem. That's stupendously unrealistic.
I'd love to hear how you think Rodriguez "could have known" about Feagin's past if his own HS coach says there's nothing there and the kid admits to some issues that didn't amount to anything which in fact didn't amount to anything. How those facts lead you to a conclusion that Feagin was "a risk" or something, I'd love to hear.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Marvin Robinson's going to be a LB, I think...||
Technically Marvin Robinson is a safety, but I think all the scouts and coaches evaluated him based on his ability to move down to OLB. I wouldn't count him in the secondary.
Then again, I don't follow this stuff closely, so maybe you're right.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Let's be clear||
If Dorsey had committed to MSU there would not have been one fucking peep from the Freep or Sharp about it. The double standard is screaming and angering.
Regardless, the Freep will be bankrupt in 5 years or less and Sharp and Rosenberg will be struggling to keep a job. Fuck 'em.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||You really don't understand the problem, do you?||
You do understand that the biggest problem we have with this is not necessarily with MSU or Dantonio, but with the Freep's explicit double standard in its reporting on troubled athletes, right? Please tell me you're not this dumb.
Nobody rational, here or on any other fanblog, is going to pretend that every team member is a saint and every team member of the opposition is a devil. There's good and bad everywhere, and it's all in how the coach deals with it. Everybody (rational) here understands that, and there's nothing in the comments here to suggest otherwise.
But you can't tell me with a straight face the Freep understands the above. That's the problem. This is a conscious decision by the Freep to hold RichRod and Michigan to a different, higher, and arguably unreasonable standard than it holds Dantonio and MSU. Dorsey is the latest example, and there are plenty others.
I'm wondering what kind of thrill travels up your leg when you argue in bad faith, as you've been doing on this thread all freaking day. Could you describe that feeling to me, and why you like it?
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Agitprop also makes sweet love to barn animals during the day.||
That's another explanation for this "contradiction."
|4 years 45 weeks ago||I'm pretty sure the answer is yes...||
If we want to compare Feagin and Winston (which is far more apt), then I think that Dantonio letting Winston back on the team pretty clearly implies that Feagin would have been let back on the team as well.
Equivocating on the two offenses isn't necessary, but I'll do it anyway- if violent assault isn't a dismissable offense, then I fail to see how committing fraud is. Feagin would have been welcomed back to the MSU football team.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Irish, let's be clear about something...||
Those "decision-making issues" you speak of were not known and could not have been known by RichRod (or IIRC Feagin's high school coach).
I'm not going to defend Feagin and his troubles. But let's not pretend that those troubles were predictable by RichRod. They were not- his records were sealed, and nobody had knowledge of nor access to those records.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Yes, but...||
It's good that you broke up the issue into two questions:
Q1: Doesn't the fact that Winston spent time in jail mean that he paid his dues?
Yes, and with "paying his dues" comes rewards- not being physically confined, ability to pursue an education, careeer, etc. In short, in exchange for "paying his dues," Winston was given back his "freedom."
Q2: And if he paid his dues, shouldn't he be allowed to play football again?
Not necessarily. Playing football is a privilege, not a right. And this is a school program, not an employer, so the standards applied are always going to be coach- and university-dependent. Theoretically, a kid could get kicked off the team for much less than a criminal conviction.
Remember that "paying your dues" simply means you get to reenter society. It does NOT mean you get to reenter society AND get back everything you had before you "paid your dues." There are consequences to convictions.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||FTR, "spent time in jail" =/= "criminal"||
I don't think it necessarily means anything one way or another if a kid "spent time in jail." You can "spend time in jail" without actually being a "convicted criminal."
Sometimes we are uncomfortable with these distinctions, but no matter- nuance is what separates us from the
|4 years 45 weeks ago||Dorsey is not "an admitted criminal." Please stop.||
You really need to stop characterizing Dorsey as a criminal. He is not. Go get a dictionary.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||This is either libel or slander, I''m not sure (IANAL)||
Agitprop, you need to walk this back, because Demar Dorsey is not a "criminal" in any sense of the word.
By equating him with a guy who actually is a criminal, well that's character defamation of some sort. I can never remember whether the internet constitutes spoken defamation ("slander") or written defamation ("libel"), so I'll leave it up to the lawyers here to figure just how you've defamed the character of a teenager. But congrats on being "that guy."
|4 years 45 weeks ago||You've got to be kidding me.||
I hate people who think that contrarianism (i.e. being contrarian just for the sake of it) is some sort of virtue, as if being an obtuse douchebag entitles them to sit on a pedestal and look down at the rest just because we've taken a side (and are angry about it too, heavens to murgatroyd!).
But to answer your question would be to accept the premise of your question (that the Glenn Winston and Demar Dorsey situations are similar/the same), which I don't. And Clarence Beeks below explains why:
The kind of ignorance it takes for you to equate "convicted adult criminal" and "juvenile not convicted of anything" has to be willful, IMO. Stupid like that doesn't happen by accident, you worked hard to be this stupid. Heckuva job.
|4 years 45 weeks ago||I'm co-signing and reposting this.||
|4 years 48 weeks ago||Somebody at ILM or Weta has too much time on his hands||
Not one, but two ridonkulous videos about a bear with a proclivity towards blowing s--t up with a hockey stick? Someone in Hollywood's digital effects sector is bored.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Still waiting for those answers.||
Tell you what: since you can't post, early next week I'll post a diary asking these very same questions so that all the haters can come in and explain how, with the roster that RichRod inherited, 7-8 wins per season right away was the reasonably minimum expectation. I can't wait to see all the willful ignorance concentrated in one thread.
In the meantime, you should take this opportunity to think about what a minimum 7-8 win roster looks like to you, in terms of * rankings, experience, etc.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||In a word, NO.||
That's not just below those predictions, but quite far below them. Wouldn't that be the very definition of "unexpected?"
Quite simply, no. One more time- "not predicting" and "not unexpected" are not mutually exclusive. You can predict something but not feel very confident in that prediction, so that when things don't turn out the way you predicted you're not surprised.
I don't know why "not unexpected" is continually challenged with examples of predictions. The two concepts don't necessarily contradict each other. Why is this so hard to understand?
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Shorter M-go-french...||
I don't like cherrypicking stats because that can be misleading. Now, watch me cherrypick some stats.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Unanswered questions...||
Let's review the questions that are still on the table:
1. What rate of progress should you reasonably expect? Seriously- starting from scratch on offense and dealing with serious depth problems on defense, how much time do you think it should take to turn that ship around?
2. Referring to the "big picture," do you really think the future is going to be the same or worse than it is now, given what you see on the roster and what you've seen on the field? Be honest.
and since I suspect this is the core disagreement we have (as it always ends up being with RichRod critics), perhaps you should answer this question first:
3. How much talent and experience is required on the 2 deep (on both sides) for Michigan to have a reasonable chance to win 7-8 games? Be specific. Did RichRod have that requisite talent and experience when he walked in? Did he have that this year?
I'd love to see you work through the logic on these questions.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||I happen to look good in a dress.||
Speak for yourself, Clarkie. I look quite fetching in a dress, and my garters and panties and whatnot always turn heads.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||I'd love to see a link of that...||
Again, you seem to think that a prediction is binary, without context or nuance. I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that Brian said something along the lines of "I fully expect Michigan to win a minimum of 7 games in 2008 anything less is a disappointment," and "I fully expect Michigan to win a minimum of 7 games in 2009 anything less is a disappointment."
This wasn't desired or predicted, but neither was it unexpected. You seem to think that "not unexpected" and "not predicted" are mutually exclusive. That's incredibly dumb.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Look at the links and response above. nt||
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Look at the links and response above. nt||
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Obviously, you want links. Here are some links.||
Before the 2008 season began, Brian wrote Stalactite of Fear. Passage (emphasis mine):
Immediately after the Utah game, Brian wrote Under Construction. Passage (emphasis mine):
I think you look at predictions as binary, i.e. "if Brian predicts 7-5 then he has 100% confidence in that prediction and anything short of that is unexpected/unacceptable/tragedy/etc.
That's simply not true. Again- none of us had any idea how this was going to go, but it wasn't entirely unexpected that this wasn't going to start well.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||This was a rebuilding job from the beginning.||
Is this what any of us really expected? At any time in the RR regime? Ever? Saying there is improvement is like saying Jennifer Granholm brought in good high paying green tech jobs to the state of Michigan. It's a true statement on its face, but, in fact, meaningless and worse, ignoring that whole big picture thing.
Well, this wasn't unexpected, not by me, Brian, or a lot of other people. Honestly, before the 2008 season began none of us had a clue how it was going to turn out, because A) there were almost literally no returning offensive starters on which to base expectations, and B) the defense had been shitty/inconsistent the previous year. So with the benefit of hindsight, we see that A) the offense needed a complete overhaul, more so after transfers and injuries, and B) the defense had zero depth, little talent, and little development.
With all that in mind, what rate of progress should you reasonably expect? Seriously- starting from scratch on offense and dealing with serious depth problems on defense, how much time do you think it should take to turn that ship around?
If you thought the program was humming along at peak efficiency when RichRod came in, then of course this has been an UNACCEPTABLE!! shock and disappointment to you, and more progress was expected. But for those clear-eyed fans who saw The Horror as merely a continuation of a disturbing trend at M understood that RichRod would need time and space to rebuild the program.
This program was in desperate need of a change, and some people were/are just unwilling to accept that. So be it- there will always be people who deny facts and reality simply because it undermines their faith in something. The world is flat, evolution is just a theory, global warming is a myth, M always has enough talent to win 8+ games, etc.
You speak of the big picture, yet strangely you ignore the future in this "big picture" of yours. That's an odd way to look at things. Do you really think the future is going to be the same or worse than it is now, given what you see on the roster and what you've seen on the field? Be honest.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Oh, Brian. So naive and yet so brave...||
This is all good info and somewhat enlightening, but this isn't going to change anyone's minds. The core disagreement remains- if you thought there was talent on the roster (on both sides) when RichRod came in, then you want RichRod gone yesterday.
Everything spawns from that initial article of faith. Any "progress" shown so far is simply a lackluster return to where M should have been to begin with (because again, M had enough talent to win a lot more games).
There is, IME, no spanning this gap. No amount of retrospective recruiting analyses will sway the irrational critics because, remember, it's an article of faith that's driving their thinking to begin with. Faith-based reasoning cannot be dislodged with facts, evidence, and logic, and so this post (while enjoyable and informative) will do nothing to shut the haters up.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Devil's advocate...||
With that said the thesis of Brian's post is old news. Rosenberg is biased = old news. Winston and Feagin incidents = old news. The Freep is doing what it can to exploit situations to save itself = old news. D'Antonio is a douche = old news.
Agree with everything up there. But you're ignoring the fact that there has been a development in most/all of those "old news" storylines. In other words, when a new, more damning piece of evidence appears and makes your "old" case even stronger, well how can you ignore that?
The Potluck Assault is a de facto "new" piece of news, and the Rosenberg bias was made new when Rosenberg opined on that "new" news.
I understand and will grudgingly admit that maybe this whole storyline shouldn't get much more play, but let's not pretend that there is "nothing new here." Things did happen recently, and those things did impact old stories.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Maybe a little more nuance is needed.||
I don't mean that I expect injuries to go away, I'm just hoping that the rash of injuries goes away. Every team goes through bad seasons with injuries, but you would hope that (like turnovers) that you revert to the mean the next season.
Perhaps this is unrealistic, or perhaps because the team is so thin and inexperienced it magnifies the damage of each and every injury. I don't know.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Yes, but the injury rates have disappointed.||
I love Barwis and I think he deserves the hype, FWIW. But...
I am bitterly and (perhaps unrealistically) disappointed that the injury rates have not gone down yet. It's not just the obvious guys like Brown and Minor, who I don't blame Barwis for. It's all the others- Forcier, Shaw, Threet, Odoms, Hemingway, Stonum, Omameh, etc.
It's not just that injuries happen, that I understand. I was hoping that injuries wouldn't linger like they did under Gittleson (e.g. 2005), and I haven't seen improvement there yet. I'm a little concerned that for two years of the Barwis show seemingly every damn game somebody got dinged and then stayed that way for the rest of the season. Maybe this is unfair, I don't know.
S&C has dramatically improved, IME, and overall Barwis deserves the hype. The fitness, speed, and strength of the players is at the very least no longer a liability, and pro players coming back to work with him is a very big deal.
I just wish the injury bug would go away.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Matt Taibbi had a haiku about this...||
Matt Taibbi's haiku on the media, I've altered it slightly for the topic at hand:
Journos are pussies
|5 years 2 weeks ago||How about "he's a careerist whore"...?||
My own theory is that Rosenberg sees bashing U-M as an opportunity for him to get ahead in his chosen profession. Or, more cynically, he's a typical modern journalist- willing to sacrifice everything in order to make his job easier and/or more profitable.
I think Rosenberg has made a mistake, FWIW. Over the long term his reputation will be shit and ESPN won't view him as indispensable. He will be gone and forgotten within a decade, IME.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||So IYE, Rosenberg Criticism == Dantonio Criticism. Thank you.||
I wonder if Doctor Worm realizes that by immediately coming to the defense of Dantonio in a post that criticized Rosenberg, that he ironically proves the point that Rosenberg is incredibly biased about the two coaches.
THANK YOU DOCTOR WORM FOR PROVING BRIAN'S POINT NOW GO AWAY.
|5 years 2 weeks ago||Everyone deserves a second chance, except...||
According to Sparty/Rosenberg, everyone deserves a second chance except:
- Justin Feagin
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Fuck you.||
Hey Old School...fuck you buddy. Fuck your fucking attitude and just please go dunk your fucking head in a fucking piss trough.
Also: fuck, you, and fuck you.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Coal Spoon. Take the good with the bad.||
RichRod is a guy that is always angling and scrapping for points and big plays. He will never turtle, no matter the situation.
In general, I like that attitude, but this is the downside. He sometimes gets greedy and takes an unnecessary risk. You take the good with the bad, and you learn to live with it.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Co-signed. I see potential there.||
I once heard Michael Irvin in an interview describe the value of experience and familiarity within a given system/playcall. He said (paraphrase) "it's the difference between knowing what to do, and how to do it."
Brandon Smith is probably trying like hell just to know what to do. In the years to come he'll hopefully polish his game to the point that he'll get beyond that and work on how to do it. There is physical talent there, and so there should be room for improvement. Be patient.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Steve, what's the psychology here?||
I appreciate the breakdown of the who and what went wrong on this play, but I'm interested to see the why as well. Ezeh seems tentative and indecisive...why? What's the hangup here?
I'd be really interested to hear a coach talk about how they communicate with defensive players to get them be more "instinctive" and decisive on plays. What could be going on behind the scenes that has Ezeh possibly cowed?
|5 years 4 weeks ago||Did you even read the diary?||
Please show us all the evidence to support your assertion that "better defensive coaches would have produced a better defense, this year and last year."
Look at the depth chart. Then, look at how many coordinators M has had in the last 5 years. If you're not willing to cut the coaches some slack when they literally don't have the players (please look at the safety depth chart again), then I don't think there's anything RichRod can do that will satisfy you. Please go root for Texas or Florida or something.
When the weather becomes fair again here at M, I'm sure we'll see you again.
|5 years 4 weeks ago||The core disagreement||
For those who still want to criticize the coaching staff, I challenge you to find one example of a team with a more depleted depth chart that had success...
That's just it, that's the core of the disagreement. A lot of M fans absolutely refuse to admit how bad the depth chart on defense is. They're willing to admit that M is a little "down" talentwise, but they absolutely refuse to believe that M is right now regularly operating at a talent deficiency against most of the Big Ten. That's just unpossible to them, and so they reject it out of hand without looking at the facts.
Faith-based reasoning exists in the sports world too, so if you can figure out a way to get people to abandon it, let me know.
|5 years 5 weeks ago||Pretty much OT and late but for the record...||
I just want to put down for the record, for like the 10th time, that clarkiefromcanada was mercilessly abused by me during
Once again, clarkiefromcanada- thanks for keeping the faith and go blue.
|5 years 5 weeks ago||Oh.My.God...Yes. THE KNOWLEDGE has returned||
This is just awesome. THE KNOWLEDGE has become such a self-parody that I can't help but laugh at this post. Welcome back, THE KNOWLEDGE.
|5 years 5 weeks ago||Apple Butter Pumpkin Pie||
* 1 cup canned pumpkin puree
1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Welcome to the internet, pansy||
If you're so troubled by someone on the internet calling you an insane douchebag, then I suggest you do one of the following:
1. Stop being an insane douchebag.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||You're high.||
I would expect a wash or minimal net loss. We are still (despite the terrible piped-in music and losing team) Michigan. There are plenty of uncommitted studs (or those being recruited by Miles, Kelly, etc.) who would follow.
That passage is such delusional crap, and it's at the heart of why you think it would be no big deal to drop a coach a mere two years into his tenure. "A wash or minimal net loss" are you out of your fucking mind?
Wait, I think I know the answer. Yes, you are out of your fucking mind.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||5>3. Therefore, progress.||
Math is useful, perhaps you should brush up.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||2009 = 1st Solid Year of Improvement||
If you agree with Brian's assertion that 2008 was unavoidable (and I do), then progress must be measured after that season. This year was an improvement from last year, and presuming next year is better than this year then that makes 2 solid years of improvement, a bowl game, etc. Which is enough for me to extend his contract and keep the progress coming.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||tl;dr is my bag, baby.||
Seriously, ask around and everyone will tell you that I try and win arguments by overwhelming you with my massive tl;dr comments. Utilizing large volumes of words is the only way I know to compensate for my incredibly disappointing 2 inch penis.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||It's not ok to be dahblue||
All of dahblue's comments baffle me. Is he not of sound mind? Does it not bother people that he is subjecting us to some of the worst comments in MGo's history? I am not ok with that. I am not ok with insane blathering. I do not blame Brian for "dahblue being an insane douchebag." I did not expect the most eloquent comments ever, but nor did I expect pointless bitching about all of the losses, piped-in music, and vague insults about the slotbacks with dreads. It's all wrong. None of it is worthy of MGoBlog.
I don't believe dahblue needs another comment to prove anything. He's proven that he doesn't understand the greatest college sports blog on the entire internet.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||The t-shirt for that would be sooooo NSFW.||
Raging Cox FTW.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||His HS coach said Cissoko "blew it."||
This was a situation that was brewing for some time, and it's reasonable to believe that another coach may have managed to get through to him, and gotten him to go to class, and keep his grades up.
I can't believe I have to point this out, but Cissoko is responsible for what Cissoko did or didn't do. Isn't the college experience part of the process of becoming a responsible adult? Yet you want to continue to coddle a kid who wasn't doing the work, on or off the field?
Cissoko's HS coach said "he blew it," and you hear nothing but silence from Cissoko. There is no dispute from anyone with knowledge that Cissoko was the one who put himself in that situation. Yet somehow you want to leave open the possibility that RichRod is to blame for not handling this better. Yeah, that's reasonable.
You would fail as a college coach, no sugarcoat.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Roster issues go much, much further than Mallett and Arrington||
When Brian refers to roster issues, I assume he's talking about the following:
1. Little to no offensive line talent
Everything listed above are issues that RichRod inherited. He did not cause any of those issues, and note that none of those issues involve Mallett's transfer. There is a lot more going on here than just that.
Now, we can yell at RichRod for apparently not making inroads on solving issues 3-5 because of his hiring/firing of Shafer and his hiring of Hopson. Fine, he lost a year on fixing the defense and BOOOOOOO. But you're a fool if you think those issues were going to be magically solved in a year or two even if RichRod had hired Will boommotherf--ker! Muschamp. Even with a great DC and staff continuity on defense, we'd still have these problems at safety and linebacker. Those problems will be solved after 2-3 years of good recruiting and solid development. This isn't going away overnight.
What part of "we're in a hole and it's going to take time to get out" do you not understand?
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Um, it is different.||
Our legal system = if bhallpm anally rapes farm animals then arrest and incarcerate him
Me = arrest and incarcerate bhallpm because he anally rapes farm animals
Radically different statements, I'm sure you'd agree.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Do you need evidence of gravity too?||
But who says that a team full of young players necessarily gets much better? Is there evidence for this?
Um, I'm pretty sure, without looking anything up, that every single young player on a team improves as he gets older. So it follows that if you have a disproportionate # of young players on your roster, that a disproportionate part of your entire team will improve as that disproportionate group of youngsters gets older. Am I going too fast for you?
We have some highly recruited players on D right now, so why haven't they improved in 2 years (see Mouton, Williams)?
WRT to highly rated D recruits not being good, this is another thing that I'm pretty sure of without looking anything up- sometimes highly-rated recruits are busts. That's why coaches generally don't bet an entire position on just one or two highly-rated recruits. Read Misopogon's post again. It's not just quality, but quantity as well. M has been struggling with defensive recruiting since 2005 (i.e. since well before RichRod got here).
Also, though I doubt there's empirical evidence of this, you greatly increase your chances of having recruits go bust if you change your coordinators a lot. On defense, M has had 4 defensive coordinators in 5 years. If you want to criticize RichRod for the hiring/firing of Scott Shafer, knock yourself out because I and many others won't disagree with you. But at the end of the day, the problems you see with the defensive personnel are connected to things that have been happening for years. The blame can and should be spread around to all the people involved in those years.
I'm looking for a little more analysis to what I consider to be the most common apology for the Rich Rod regime. You can't just say, well they are young.
I think you need to reread the post. Several times. Do you see those bolded parts? Do you see how there's several bolded parts, i.e. not just one "well they are young" statement? Reading comprehension is fun! I don't think "well they are young" is the crux of this post, but again that's because I actually read and understood the post. I'm weird like that.
|5 years 6 weeks ago||Should read DIS-E-GREE.||
I am CHECKING YOUR SPELLING just for the purposes of BEING AN E-DICK.