that is nice bonus change
- Member for
- 2 years 38 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 hours 9 min ago||I think you're over-thinking||
I think you're over-thinking Hoke's comments. He's praising the HS coach because it's a good thing to do for relationship / recruiting purposes, and he's indirectly praising Cole for taking the coaching as a HS student. For Hoke to really praise Funk at this point would imply a lot of work needed doing, which would defeat the purpose of the praise to the HS coach and to Cole himself.
|5 hours 55 min ago||This brings up a question ...||
This brings up a question ... has Nussmeier ever mentioned Funk (or any of his position coaches) in his press conferences?
I can't recall. Hoke and Mattison definitely mention position coaches quite frequently. It could be that Nussmeier is just not one to mention names.
|7 hours 59 min ago||This article is fantastic.||
This article is fantastic. Freakin' fantastic. I'm a football X's and O's wannabe ... and analysis writeups like this are just great. Love it! Thanks!!
|8 hours 9 min ago||Agree ... hat tip to||
Agree ... hat tip to Appalachian State for showing up and playing hard.
Re: the pointing ... I'm guessing it's a bit of self-reference, a bit for the RBs and WRs, and a bit to signal to the D.
|8 hours 12 min ago||MIKE||
Love the Gardner "MIKE" picture ... it bristles with football energy.
|1 day 5 hours ago||I watched the Taco Charleton||
I watched the Taco Charleton broadcast loop several times ... that was great! More of that, please ... every game!
|1 day 5 hours ago||Extrapolation from a single||
Extrapolation from a single data point has never once let me down! :-)
|1 day 5 hours ago||I think he clearly has the||
I think he clearly has the ability to be exactly that. We'll see if it works out that way or not.
Agree whole-hearedly ... he has the ability to be an absolute nightmare for opposing defenses. The season will bear it out.
If he's double/triple covered every game and other WRs have equally as good stats as a result, does that mean he wasn't as good?
If he's double/triple covered then the other receivers should have stellar years. If not, then there's a bigger problem.
Funchess's stats might not be eye-popping with double/triple coverage, but to be the "best ever" will mean despite the double/triple he has to have some pretty memorable play in there.
This is not diminishing Funchess at all ... I love the guy's game ... it just that I'm a bit protective of the "best ever" tag since I go back to the days of Jim Smith, Anthony Carter and Desmond Howard. They did remarkable things with guys all over them.
|1 day 5 hours ago||Again, it's a subjective||
Again, it's a subjective thing to say, but I certainly don't mind a QB having that level of confidence in a WR. It's nice to see really.
Certainly a nice thing to see ... but I think the flip-side of this is our natural pins-and-needles recollection of last year post-ND. Then it was juggernaut in motion ... only to run into the Akron Zips, who injected a little ... reality ... into things.
So while I like Gardner's confidence in Funchess, and I think Funchess does indeed have tremendous abilities ... my preference would be for a more quiet, determined, workmanlike attitude at this juncture of the season. But that's just me.
|1 day 6 hours ago||If this is just post-game||
If this is just post-game exhuberance, then okay.
If this is early-onset overconfidence ... then yellow warning lights are flashing.
Funchess is good, no doubt. But "best ever" is a damn tall mountain to climb.
|1 day 6 hours ago||Maybe ... but it's hard to||
Maybe ... but it's hard to see how the coaches could justify moving Robinson out of QB role, given the 2011 results. The howls of outrage would have been deafening.
If Robinson as QB is a given in 2012, then I wish Borges would have fully shelved his West Coast penchant and used Robinson more to his strengths. He did at times, then he'd go back to his preferred playbook to no particular success.
2013 was a mess ... that's for sure. In some ways it reminded me of 2010.
|1 day 6 hours ago||Change||
"My primary worry about Brady Hoke is that he's stuck on a vision of 1990s Michigan in a world that's evolved past that. There was no sign of that Saturday."
I think he was stuck, to some degree, in a vision of 1990's Michigan when he first started.
I think 2012 started to change that. I think he clung to it a bit in 2013. Then he gave it up.
Out goes Borges (a man more stuck than Hoke), and in comes Nussmeier ... a young, energentic OC who barely remembers the 1990's.
A big chunk of my spread zealotry has been the fact that Michigan has made it look unstoppable from the drop.
That was then, this is now ... I think the newness of the spread offense is faded and defenses have caught up. That's not to say the alternative is I-formation off-tackle play after play, but it does mean the spread of the mid-2000's is no longer as formidible as it was then. The interesting question to my mind is whether the mid-2000's spread architects are evolving. We'll see this year with UofA. UNLV was not much of an opponent.
|1 day 9 hours ago||Shotgun vs. Under Center||
Last year I would grit my teeth and cover my eyes every time I'd see Gardner go under center ... it almost invariably led to some loss-of-yards play. So I wondered ... what did the Appalachian State game look like in terms of shotgun vs. under center?
Gardner Shotgun ........ 23 snaps ... 54% Under Center ... 19 snaps ... 46% Morris Shotgun ........ 7 snaps ... 50% Under Center ... 7 snaps ... 50%
Fairly balanced ... but to my eye Gardner looked -- what? -- more comfortable under center?
I wonder whether my thinking Gardner is more comfortable is reality, or just wishful thinking?
|2 days 7 hours ago||In one of the "countdown to||
In one of the "countdown to kickoff" videos there was a clip of Nussmeir coaching Gardner on throwing "over" linebackers rather than trying to throw "through" them.
I'm no QB coach, but I suspect that's a sign of skill maturation ... knowing when to zip it vs. when to lift it over with some touch.
|1 week 6 days ago||This is an interesting||
This is an interesting question.
On the offense -- the FB position has gone down the memory hole. Nothing.
On the defense -- Taco Charleton.
An element of this is the "shadow effect" ... who is not being talked about because someone else is being talked about a lot. Not sure how much that's affecting things, though.
|2 weeks 3 hours ago||I'm no lawyer -- and||
I'm no lawyer -- and certainly not a lawyer for the NCAA -- but I have to believe just the promise of future payment is a violation. Otherwise, there'd be an ocean of money in accounts held for the day top recruits leave their schools.
|2 weeks 6 hours ago||>> what would you rather||
>> what would you rather have? Mobile or pocket passer?
All else equal, then of course you want the mobile. That's not even a debate.
The key is the "all else equal" qualifier.
What would you rather have -- a pocket passer who has an uncanny ability to read defenses and possesses pinpoint accuracy, or a mobile QB who opts to run too often and makes bad pass decisions? Well, the pocket passer, of course.
A QB needs to be mobile enough to evade pressure and pose a credible running threat. Beyond that, passing skills and football intelligence is far, far more valuable.
|2 weeks 6 hours ago||I agree ... I never felt||
I agree ... I never felt dislike for Miller personally. I always thought he seemed a good young man and a very good football player.
What I liked was the way he seemed to mature and improve as a QB year to year. He was getting scary-good at resisting the urge to run, and to become more of a finesse passer. Lots of really athletic QBs never make the transition, but Miller was one who seemed to be making great strides in that direction.
|2 weeks 9 hours ago||Sure ... in a perfect world||
Sure ... in a perfect world I'd have Tom Brady in his prime ... except he's also the size of Ben Roethlisberger's size, Cam Newton's arm, and had the elusive quickness of Denard Robinson.
But if we're talking relative tradeoffs, then Football Intelligence > Arm Strength.
|2 weeks 9 hours ago||Agree 100%||
Spot on ... it's about what's between the ears more than what's in the arm.
The higher you go in terms of competition, the more important this becomes.
It's why, as you say, Brady and Montana did so well.
It's why Russell Wilson has a ring. He's smart enough to use his brain first, then his legs.
It's in the same category as what Desmond Howard said about athletic quarterbacks -- it's important for really athletic quarterbacks to be a good quarterback first, then be athletic.
I hope Speight does well. He seems a good kid.
|2 weeks 11 hours ago||Agree||
I agree ... I've long viewed Manziel as a crap shoot in the NFL.
Some (Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio) were high on him by association -- "Russell Wilson has similar build / style and he won a Super Bowl; ergo, Manziel can do it as well." I think Jon Gruden was also positive on Manziel.
The difference is Wilson is a smart, level-headed young man. Manziel not as much yet. Perhaps he'll settle down, though early evidence of that is inconclusive.
His hot-dogging at Texas A&M was entertaining for college football, but I never saw it playing well in the NFL. The defenses are too good ... his room for improvisation much less.
I think in the NFL the QB role is more about smart execution first, then athleticism. In college a QB can get by on athleticism. Not in the NFL ... the QB there better have the proper mind for the game to succeed.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Borges||
I've wondered the same ... I can find nothing about where he is or what he's doing.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Quick v Fast||
>> So many people do not understand the difference between Quickness and Fast.
There are different flavors of this -- quick on the first step; quick transition from one speed to another; quick in changing directions.
Barry Sanders was quick in all three ... dude was crazy quick on his first step, could lope along and then kick to a higher gear in a flash, and change direction in a flash.
Denard Robinson's first step was not quite so quick as his second and beyond. If he got a step or two under him then he was in top gear and gone. But if a defense could get him contained and at a stand-still, then his ability to accelerate out of the containment was a bit limited. I'm thinking of the Mississippi State game in particular here. Heaven help the defensive player who let him get a step or two in some direction, however.
I think receivers who are quick in changing gears can get that momentary separation. A QB that has protection (*ahem* ... OL?) and knows his receiver's ability to separate can make hay with that all day long.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Trial by Fire||
This was my sense as well -- if the D is being super-aggressive then the OL is getting a trial by fire. Perhaps -- full hope engaged here -- perhaps what we're hearing about the OL is a result of this. When the dust settles we'll have our best 5 OL on the field that can handle such an aggressive D.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Agree||
I'm in my mid-50's ... I've been watching Michigan football since 1973. I'm okay with the uniforms. Don't hate them, don't love them ... I'm okay with them. Beats the hell out of those awful throwback-to-the-40's uniforms.
I agree with slimj091's point above -- these uniforms are neither an assault on tradition, nor the game-changer for recruits. It's a relatively small datapoint in the shadow of the key thing, which is having a winning program.
Michigan's tradition is not based on just the classic home uniform. That classic home uniform is held dear because many of us recall the glory days when Michigan would maul opponents at home in those uniforms. It's not the uniform, per se; it's the winning associated with the uniform.
Go ahead and wear the all-blue uniform for the PSU game. But more importantly, go out and dominate PSU in that game.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Buy a set of tires there and||
Buy a set of tires there and it pays for the annual membership.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||:-)||
That made me laugh out loud. Bravo! :-)
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Hey, this is cool ...||
Hey, this is cool ... purchased e-version ... am starting to read it.
Because I'm a documentation geek, I'm curious -- what software do you use to create the layout of the book?
|3 weeks 5 days ago||I see the point you're||
I see the point you're making. And in one of the clips of Braden it seemed to me he just pushed the blocking dummy rather than getting under and rolling it up. As I posted elsewhere, maybe it was late and Braden was just worn out (no excuse), or perhaps even that the drill was staged for the camera and Braden was just going through the motions.
What I don't know is how significant this one clip of Braden is. I don't know what, if anything, we can conclude from it.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||From cfbstats.com ...||
From cfbstats.com ... Norfleet returned 40 kickoffs for an average of 23.45 yards. He has 8 for 30+ yards and 1 for 40+ yards. Nothing 50 or more yards. He was tied for 7th in the country.
That means he had 31 for somewhere between 0 and 29 yards; 8 for 30 - 39; 1 for 40 - 49. With an average of 23.45, the math suggests he must have a bunch down around 20 yards.
So you're saying he's getting through the first, but his straight-line speed problem is hampering his ability to get past the last wave? Or are you suggesting he's being caught from behind?
I'm honestly trying to figure this out ... I'm replaying best I can the various kickoffs and what I recall is he comes tearing out of the endzone and is typically met somewhere around the 20, where he picks up a few more before being taken down. I think I recall his one long run and in that case he was angled out of bounds or taken down from behind.