no, YOU'RE off topic
- Member for
- 4 years 51 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 year 3 weeks ago||Wow||
Wow. I, like I'm sure most of the people here, never saw this coming this year. Really liked the guy, but this is a great sign that Hoke is willing to make the tough choices to make his team better. I guess that assumes that it was Hoke's choice rather than Brandon foreshadowing it by leaving Borges out of his blog post a few months back, but I think that's too much tea leaf reading without more so I will assume it was Hoke.
This is, of course, only good if we get someone better, but I am hopeful for now.
|1 year 47 weeks ago||great line||
"Burke is both awesome at basketball and extremely protective of my emotions." One of the best sentences yet written on this blog.
|1 year 48 weeks ago||reorganize based on the importance of the position per Walsh||
First, really good post and I enjoyed reading it. When I got to the guard position though, I thought that the post could have been improved significantly by going through the positions based on the order of importance from Walsh's perspective. He talks about guards, not quarterbacks or others, as the ones you style your offense around. Starting this with guards, instead of our usual progression through the offensive positions based on skill first, blockers last, would have challenged me to think more flexibly (clearly?) on how a Walsh offense should be constructed and the priorities for doing so.
|1 year 51 weeks ago||VLC||
Any VLC high quality streams available?
|2 years 16 weeks ago||Score||
|2 years 18 weeks ago||ND-Stanford||
As an ND Law alum I can tell you that the reason I have always heard for Stanford being important is that ND wants to have a game in California every year. The USC/Stanford games are set up to alternate years (crazy idea, amirite?) so the Irish play in California every year. This is important both for the big local alumni base out there, and for CA/west coast recruiting.
There could certainly be other reasons, but that's the one I hear most frequently.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||correct prediction||
UM 41 - Air Force 17
UM 41 - UMass 10
|2 years 41 weeks ago||"typo" typo||
Ironic that in the course of your discussion on typos, "typo" was the only word misspelled.
It's nice to get a glimpse of the editing process at MgoBlog.
|3 years 2 weeks ago||Ex post facto||
I can't imagine them applying any rules like this retroactively. A punishment needs to be set before the crime is committed, that's just basic fairness. The first program to get hit with these is going to have quite a shock though. We'll probably see a lot more of the Ohio defense of blaming a rogue coach and players to save the university as a whole.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||posted from iPhone||
That's still better than virginia tech's schedule.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Competitors want a rematch||
I usually agree with Brian (why else would I read the site so often?), but here he has missed the boat. When I saw we had rescheduled them I was pumped, excited. It was time to start erasing that defeat, time for a rematch. If you're a competitor and someone beats you, you want a rematch to crush them, then you want another one to crush them again, and ten more to prove that it was a fluke that first time. It never truely erases the first defeat, but it sure feels good.
I hope we schedule them every year for the next 50 and make them regret that they even won that first one. If you're a program with pride, that's what you want to do, wipe out everyone who's ever beaten you, especially when they had no business doing so.
|3 years 34 weeks ago||kickoffs||
Minor correction Brian, that Schiano proposal was to eliminate kickoffs because of how dangerous they are, not punts. I think it's pretty interesting in good matchups, but just think of the carnage that would ensue with a buzzsaw like Oregon against the tasty 1-AA cupcakes on the schedule. Though, that was already pretty bad anyway...
|3 years 50 weeks ago||APR||
Have these schools taken an APR hit from kids leaving? Anybody know where that kind of info is?
|4 years 9 weeks ago||Undefeated dream season of 1992 FTW!||
"Cannibalism may be fun for the short term, but in isolation it’s not a viable long-term survival strategy. "
My favorite line form Mgoblog in some time...well done.
|4 years 10 weeks ago||awesome as usual||
Great work man, keep it up!
|4 years 20 weeks ago||gotcha||
I gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I hope your series continues.
|4 years 20 weeks ago||nice detail points, but||
nice points here, I learned a lot from your expertise, keep it coming. That said, you could learn from one of your own lessons and stay focused on your point, which was teaching film editing basics, not bashing catholics. Cheap shots aren't appreciated on the field, and they're not appreciated here. Stay classy MGauxBleu.
|4 years 20 weeks ago||be patient||
The UFRs will come, all in due time. The people need hope and laughs these days, and this was awesome....poor mike williams...
|4 years 21 weeks ago||yes||
Please, for the love of God, stop speculating on this subject. We need all the wings we can get.
|4 years 21 weeks ago||super stuff||
I don't put too much stock in these numbers, but I'll take all the reassurance I can get at this point! I did think the number of factors in Michigan's favor was interesting, but none of those factors will be playing DB for us on Saturday. Still, reasons to hope! Go Blue!
|4 years 22 weeks ago||Ha||
Nice. I am definitely going to say "Z you" to someone today...
|4 years 22 weeks ago||good thoughts||
A lot of reasonable thoughts here, although I thought it was strange that you discounted the "weakest link" argument so strongly. I remember a couple front-page articles and diaries from last year about the importance of the defense's weakest-link and how it seriously dragged down the rest of the defense. Just from a common-sense look at it this makes sense, because the offense can hide its weaknesses through play-calling while the defense can't hide its weaknesses to the same extent and must react to the offense.
I had had some hope for this defense that every position group would be competent/average, but the attrition at CB has made me doubt that hope.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||general agreement, but||
I generally agree with your thoughts, but I disagree that it's going to be time to do anything about it after this season either way. I am of the "old," perhaps never-existing, school that says that coaches should get five years unless they murder someone. This is not reality, but only my view of how it should be. If they were good enough to hire them, I think it is a disservice to your school, the coach, and the long-term health of the program to get a nervous trigger-finger. If coaches know they will have 5 years they will build for the long-term, and short-term hiccups--like injuries, weird transfers, bad luck--will probably wash out. I think five years gives you a reasonable amount of data to make a decision on a coach, and less than that is selling everyone short.
So, yes, I think this season is mostly on RR, although the defensive depth situation is still in recovery mode from Carr's classes, as we saw from those exhaustive diaries. But even if it's all on RR, I'm not calling for his head even with a bad season, e.g. 3-9. I don't expect most will agree with me, but there it is.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||Well done sir||
Very well done.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||Oh man, that part was so||
Oh man, that part was so good, holy cow I was laughing so hard.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||dominos||
I thought I was going to be tired of the dominos lines by the second one, but they were killer. GERG and the hair, oh, so good.
Oh, I needed this today....
|4 years 23 weeks ago||DAMN IT||
Again, Damn it. Sigh.
That said, only silver linings I see in this are Woolfolk maybe coming back, as mentioned above, and all this bad news just before the season lowering everyone outside the program's expectations for the season. I am one of those people who think that a coach deserves 5 years unless he kills someone, so I will be glad if the lowered exterior expectations will make it more likely that RR is retained after a middling year. Given the absurd and obvious attrition at this position group, most of which he had no control over, any rational observer is going to expect a poor season, and will therefore not be as angry if that's what happens. For an extreme example, look at Oklahoma last year.
Obviously the most important thing is for Woolfolk to get healthy for the long-term, as in the rest of his life. I hope the reports are exaggerated and we find out he'll be fine in a month or two. 17 days would be even better, but I'd take a month at this point, for sure.
|4 years 23 weeks ago||awesome||
That Coner finish was classic.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||here's one||
Yep, bring on the ulcers.
|4 years 24 weeks ago||The last line...||
My thoughts exactly.
I guess I need to stop reading this blog at work so I don't swear out loud in the office anymore...