- Member for
- 2 years 49 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|18 hours 43 min ago||o god||
Are you saying they're going for a massive fart attack? Someone warn Hoke!
|22 hours 45 min ago||Key matchup redux||
Beyer vs. Utah's RT. Beyer's always been solid if unspectacular, but in the clips their RT looked sloooooow. But Utah has a running QB and a dangerous receiver and Frank Clark needs help. It's go time for Beyer.
|1 day 3 hours ago||ahh, four curls||
That was the pass play I used to beat late-season defenses in Tecmo Super Bowl when they get crazy aggressive. Of course, the reasons had nothing to do with sound football. The screen size was limited so it was the only way you could see who was covered.
|1 day 6 hours ago||Weird||
Utah offense = at least good
Utah defense = meh
Michigan offense = meh
Michigan defense = at least good
This game could go any which way.
|2 days 3 hours ago||Ew||
Thursday Recruitin' needs to take a hot shower.
|2 days 21 hours ago||NO||
NO NO NO NO NO THE SCORE WAS NOT 31-0 BRIAN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING
|2 days 21 hours ago||Caveat||
"seemed to put a lot of guys in man coverage who weren't very good at man coverage"
Well that's reassuring.
|2 days 22 hours ago||Correct||
Non-profits are subject to regulations, so yes, the most obvious tricks are limited. They don't necessarily use obvious tricks. But we're not going to turn MGoBlog into an accounting forum. I only found it pertinent because the same "non-profit" complaints are leveled at the NCAA. Their "non-profit" status has little to do with how they operate overall; it's just that both use accounting tricks to structure themselves a certain way for tax purposes, structures defined by legislation making this a political -- and we'll stop there again.
We can hate them for plenty of reasons a lot closer to football, is my point.
|3 days 3 hours ago||Accounting 101||
Because they don't make a profit. It's that simple.
"Profit" is a bearded guy on a hill making predictions about -- OK, sorry, that wasn't funny. "Profit" is what money you have left over when you deduct expenses from revenue; after taxes it's the money that goes to the owners/investors. This is a very specific thing. There are notoriously elaborate ways businesses go out of their way to look unprofitable, but here's the easiest way -- if you own a business, you're the investor AND CEO, so you just pay yourself whatever you need in "bonuses" to ensure you're always losing money. So, this isn't hard. All the high-ups in the NFL are obscenely rich, but the NFL itself does not make money. Ergo, non-profit. Size is irrelevant.
This is really an anti-trust issue, or a tax code issue (because SOMEONE'S getting all that money), which is rather wibbly-wobbly in terms of how you approach it. No one likes monopolies or taxes but we can't get rid of them either. This is as far as I can go without making this political, because the only answers to how society tackles taxes or monopolies is politics. We will stop there. Just want to clarify the whole "non-profit" thing.
/ late father was a CPA, wife is a CPA, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night or something
|3 days 19 hours ago||Come to think of it||
The role reversal between Devin Funchess and Jehu Chesson has been a weird tale. The TE converted to WR, and now the WR lining up as a quasi-TE. I wonder how we would've fared if the coaches read these kids earlier?
You can coach technique, but you can't coach the desire to destroy people.
Chesson the Destroyer uber alles.
P.S. Chesson is becoming every bit the monster JMFR is, but the kicker is they're both very well-spoken off the field.
|3 days 21 hours ago||There's the rub||
The problem with young players isn't that they don't get better. The problem is that they get better in games where you'd prefer the load be carried by 4th- and 5th-year players who've left little room for improvement because they already know what they're doing.
I like what I see in the sense that I like seeing a festering wound finally stop oozing pus and turn into a weeping scab. I'd rather it not be there at all but at least it's progressing in the right direction. Three weeks in and we've yet to see any sort of dramatic regression like we saw by same time last year where our tailbacks got a whopping 74 rushing yards and our D coughed up 418 yards against Akron. We haven't seen the dramatic otherworldly production of Borges' best either, but I'll take it. Yes, we were 3-0 same time last year, but the Akron win was downright Pyrrhic.
Now we just gotta fix our QB. The pick wasn't completely DG's fault but he's still staring down receivers like a creepy Sting song.
|4 days 4 hours ago||Yes||
It's possible, but it's riskier. Of course my underlying case got blown up so I don't have much left to defend, but I'm not making an "all or nothing" case. Hoke may be stubborn but I don't think it's the stubbornness itself that's driving this. Either it's way down on his list of priorities (let's get 100+ yards tailback rushing against a bona fide FBS defense first) or he wants the option of an easier fake punt (that he never actually uses), but the point I'm making here is that he's not going to reveal his real reasons in a presser.
|4 days 4 hours ago||Argh||
You're right; I'm confusing punts with field goals. So there goes my evidence.
The merits and downsides discussed here are certainly valid; I just think he still likes having that card to play. But I suppose this is now reduced to a wild guess.
|4 days 5 hours ago||My own theory||
I actually think Hoke doesn't want to give up the possibility of a punt fake. He's historically not been shy about faking punts in the 4th-and-medium range and is willing to pay the price in punt returns. Sure you lose about 15 yards of field position but we've also won a couple key games on fake punts.
Thing is, even after he's established as a risk-taker he won't out-and-out say that he wants to retain the ability to fake punts in a presser. The "I'm just not comfortable with it" is convincing as a non-explanation because he's building up a reputation for being "old school" even though we're rolling out shotgun 3-wides and last year's MSU defense.
|4 days 22 hours ago||To heck with Hoke; get me||
To heck with Hoke; get me Mattison. He's candid without giving away too much.
And for what it's worth I don't care about Hoke's pressers either way. I'm fine with him stonewalling the press. He's being judged entirely on his coaching, which as far as I'm concerned is in a "show me" state.
|5 days 1 hour ago||Yeah but it's not like we're||
Yeah but it's not like we're going to use one scheme all the time, right? I like Mattison's flexibility. They've repped man for the past 8 months but they ran zone all last year so this is a far cry from a Cheesecake Factory D. If Cover 4 breaks down I don't see us sticking with it the whole game. And having multiple coverages gives opposing teams something to think about as well, hopefully well enough that we don't need to run any of them perfectly all the time.
|5 days 1 hour ago||Good to be the King||
For eff's sake what the guys around here get away with is ridiculous. If I posted a pic of a fake butt I'd be insta-banned
|5 days 2 hours ago||Grenada redux||
Agreed. That punt -- and the game overall -- was Michigan's Grenada, sloppy because it could afford to be. The TD that put Michigan back up 17-10 basically established to me that NTM wasn't in the game. It wasn't some Hail Mary flea flicker that worked because the DB fell down; UM marched across the field and punched it in. NTM only got 10 points due to some terrible luck on Michigan's part and a clever pop-up kickoff that didn't work again. UM derped the 4th-and-1 but it was a possession they didn't desperately need unless it was, as you say, a rivarly game. Not against a team that had to play out of its mind just to get first downs.
But the offense had been suffering from terrible luck, so I agree that the punt was just an "eff it, it's almost halftime and the D is in control" moment. The context is everything. Was it badly executed? Sure. I know there are some around here that insist "great teams always play perfectly" but that's just not true. I was there the year UM won its last national championship and there were plenty of derpa-derp moments. What made them great is that they made those moments not matter.
And this time, they made that 2nd quarter not matter. They probably could've run up the score in the 4th but they were doing just fine running around, over and through NTM's defense. This team still has a long way to go, but my gosh it's looking cohesive for the first time in years.
Frankly, I've never seen a fan base more upset about a 24-point blowout. We didn't look anywhere near this in control against Akron or Connecticut.
|6 days 2 hours ago||I'm being conservative||
If not for the FG they would've had one kickoff all game so you're right, but I want to give NTM due credit for causing confusion with a short kickoff. It was right where it needed to be to exploit inexperience on special teams. Besides, you'll note I only spotted UM a TD and a FG for the two possessions we lost to fluke turnovers. If it's not 27-7 at the half it's 31-7 and I'm STILL giving them the ambush kickoff. Otherwise the score could be as lopsided as 38-0 at the half and neither team does anything particularly differently. NTM got dominated.
Suffice to say, it's the second week in a row UM has been uncharacteristically unlucky, and that's the thing about luck -- it doesn't follow a pattern. You don't have one bad week then a good one; you can have several bad weeks in a row. This was even unluckier than ND because there "luck" was really a matter of the tailbacks missing holes all day. This time the difference between a kinda-sorta game and a full-on blowout was a bunch of turnovers no one should be upset about because they weren't caused by bad execution.
|6 days 3 hours ago||Yeah but c'mon, man||
Two of those three turnovers were flukes. Gardner's pick was tipped at the line and still fell through the receiver's hands. Darboh's "fumble" only happened because his knee hit the ground. The special teams fumble was the only "can't have that happen" moment and led to NTM's only TD, but keep that in there and with the way UM was moving the ball all day the final score should be (conservatively) something like 44-7, including 27-7 at the half.
Miami was never really in this game. The defense played at a high level all day. My only worry is that Gardner's still disturbingly shaky. Otherwise this was basically Michigan's Grenada -- it was a bit sloppy but the underlying factors were solid enough that the outcome was never in doubt. Anyone thinking NTM was going to sustain their extremely lucky scoring binge from the 2nd quarter needs to understand regression to the mean. Once luck stopped being a factor, UM cruised to a 24-point lead.
I am kind of sick of Michigan taking way too long to settle down (or not settling down at all) and want to scream "PLAY AS GOOD AS YOU ARE ALREADY", but we knew going in this would happen. The offense absolutely needs the defense to carry them as they work out the kinks, and today's result was a controlled victory even despite the weird 2nd quarter.
|1 week 3 days ago||RE: Unstoppable INT god Gardner||
DG's issues were by far the biggest shock, and most worrying development from this year's game. The O-line exceeded my expectations. Granted those expectations were down around my shoelaces, but I'll take it. The D was far shakier than I thought but settled down within the game and showed what they can do. We got whipped but we do got something here.
But DG is a senior QB working with a QB's coach. At the very least you'd think the one thing Nuss could do is cut down on Gardner's turnovers. He had four! Holy raptors. We can't have that happen again, but I really wonder what Nuss is gonna do. I won't say "welp that's it" because this is Nuss' forte so if anyone in the league is well-equipped to address this issue it's Nuss, but what can he do in a week that a full offseason couldn't fix? I don't think cutting down on turnovers is a matter of a few inspirational phrases. I just don't know.
|1 week 3 days ago||Optimism optional||
I don't even think everyone's suggesting optimism, just reason. The first front page entry following the game was literally an image of a tire fire. The closer people looked at the numbers, though, the calmer everyone got. People are still plenty disappointed and trying to make the coaches nervous and I'm all for that, but what changed everyone's mindset wasn't blind faith; it was analysis. A team that gets almost 300 yards while holding a home team with a mobile QB to 54 yards rushing isn't a tire fire so much as a solid building where someone inexplicably flushed a grenade into the septic tank. The diarrhea makeover stinks enough to knock you over but there's no lasting damage if you quickly hose it down instead of just giving up.
|1 week 4 days ago||Thing is||
They played zone last year so this is one of those rare occasions where they actually had that at their disposal. I know they wanted to stay in man but I hope they use both the rest of the season because whatever they were doing to ND in the second half WORKED.
In the second half ND had a TD gifted by a BS call on JMFR and bupkus. They were completely shut down. It's a shame it didn't happen fast enough but MGoBlog likes to complain about halftime adjustments and they really adjusted this time. If the offense could get anything going this could've been a game, but as soon as they started taking risks it blew up in their faces.
I'm not worried about the defense either. ND got lucky with some amazing plays and penalties at the perfect moments to extend the few drives they strung together, and Mattison is right to take heat for the result, but good lord look at how many times ND couldn't even move the ball 20 yards. If they can do that more consistently this defense will be every bit as good as advertised. Mattison's job depends on that "if", but I believe him when he said the team played hard. I was seeing those guys flying around the field on the 4th quarter well after the outcome had been decided. In a way it was heartbreaking.
|1 week 4 days ago||oh FFS||
"why does a HC that was never a coordinator and had a sub .500 career coaching record get multiple reboots and the benefit of time without having a history to justify that trust, but a HC (RR) with a proven track record is broomed out the door."
BECAUSE PEOPLE LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES GODDAMMIT.
Seriously, enough with this already. RichRod's time was mishandled but absolutely nothing can be done about this now. By this logic we should fire every single HC after three years just to be fair to RichRod.
|1 week 4 days ago||With you there 100%||
I know this game was a disaster but I saw the beginnings of a long-term plan. A sound one, worth waiting for. I understand Borges did his best to get the team wins but it just wasn't sustainable over a season, let alone long-term. This one is more like a blue-chip stock -- it grows sloooowly, even regresses, while other stocks are jumping (up AND down) like grasshoppers so most people lose patience with it, but those who stick with it get better consistency and eventually better returns.
Borges asked for patience that I personally feel wasn't a reasonable request for what he was doing. Patience doesn't really apply for a scheme-of-the-week approach. Nuss really does need patience because eventually those 1-2 yard runs with the occasional negative will become 4-5 yard runs with the occasional big play, but it'll take several years to get there as the O-line develops technique to handle every sort of front, play, angle and move in existence. The challenge is comparable to learning a foreign language. The difference is, those techniques actually exist within IZ and its constraints.
If Michigan bails on this plan now it'll be the dumbest thing for the program in the last twenty years -- yes, even dumber than hanging on to Carr too long or firing RRod. I've only seen two games but I can see what Nuss is doing here and for the first time in a decade it's sustainable. Unfortunately it's just going to look awful for at least half a season; he may run out of time and there's nothing we can do about it.
|1 week 4 days ago||As said elsewhere||
This is way, way premature. We are only in the second game of a new system. The first road game. The first quality opponent.
Miscommunication would be every bit a disaster as a bad read, and away crowds are loud for the visiting offense, so -- especially with everyone still learning the system -- it's likely they put a premium on getting everyone on the same page even if it took an extra 5-10 seconds to do it. Should it have been better? Sure. Could it have been better? That's hard to tell.
We'll find out the answer this season as the offense gets more comfortable with the playcalling. It's a valid question, but this discussion is easily a half a dozen games too early.
|1 week 4 days ago||It means something this time though||
When Borges talked of execution, it rang hollow because they repped nothing with enough consistency for execution to be a valid excuse. Execution is the one thing you DON'T get with a Cheesecake Factory offense. If I ever hear Borges talk of "execution" again I'll stab my eardrums with a rusty screwdriver, but with a constraint-oriented offense, execution actually matters.
This is the opposite of a gimmick offense. It's not dead in the water as soon as it's on tape, but it probably has very few trick plays as almost all the time is dedicated to repping the base. Experience, and by extension execution, is the difference between laughable and unstoppable. This is what we wanted, but IZ + inexperience means it's easy for an opposing DC to play it straight and force the offense to rely on consistency it just doesn't have. I think Kelly got outlandishly lucky in how effective that was, but basically we said, "We're an IZ-based West Coast offense!" and ND countered with "show me".
This time, execution matters. That doesn't exonerate the OC but don't confuse Borges' lip service with a fundamental requirement of playing inside zone.
|1 week 4 days ago||I can try to answer that||
Of the coaches, Nuss is more Hoke in his non-answers than Mattison's candid delivery so I'm not sure asking would've done much. Though I do like how MGoBlog uses questions to deliver messages so it would've been nice to see.
Anyway, while I'm not Space Coyote I don't think three-step drops are just something you do. The blocking and routes are all executed at a very timed sequence since there's literally no time to progress through reads. The QB basically throws to a spot, sometimes even blind, and the wideout has to get there at the exact right moment, with the OC counting on a reactive defense not able to jump the spot. You can do that with even an inexperienced team if that's what they are, but it takes a ton of reps that this team is probably spending on mastering inside zone. Second, I don't think Gardner is a three-step-drop QB. Three step drops require pinpoint accuracy on short passes and Gardner has always been inconsistent. An erratic QB with a young receiver corps in a new system trying timed routes against Kelly's defense? Four turnovers would've been a good day. I think they did pretty well given what they had.
As for not throwing downfield, I suspect Gardner's hiding an injury but it could also just be that Nuss schemed it that way. He's never going to say so but I doubt Nuss expected the pass pro to hold up as well as they did. He probably budgeted 2-3 seconds for Gardner to get the ball out, with no time to look downfield. I think he was extremely careful to avoid negative yardage plays, so Nuss likely prepared a simplistic scheme that (in hindsight) made the ND defense's job easy. For the most part he did, but that basically limited Michian to short yardage plays that they couldn't consistently execute. This made the drives more prone to sputtering.
Overall I feel Nuss was conservative on avoiding negative plays and aggressive on short yardage to get the offense into a rhythm. I would've preferred they adjust in the second half with more downfield throws to Funchess but unleashing the dragon inherently carries the risk of drive-killing picks which. . . happened anyway, but if the picks happened downfield it's not like Nuss would've looked much better -- we'd still have gotten shut out. He gambled, got unlucky and it backfired in the worst possible way. The result was a decent amount of yards and zero points, but despite the result I think I understand what he was trying to do. I just think Kelly quickly figured it out.
The thing about this new offense is that it doesn't have a deep well of tricks like Borges'. Borges' offense was fundamentally unsound but at any point it could unleash a WTF play that gets someone strolling into the end zone untouched. Nuss is more of a constraint-oriented offense that promises long-term consistency -- remember, that's what we demanded -- but early on it means a coach like Kelly can reverse-engineer the scheme and bottle it up. By my estimation it took all of two drives. Nuss did a good job keeping Kelly from overplaying anything but the simplicity allowed Kelly to just contain it and force the inexperienced line to execute consistently -- the one thing they can't yet do. It was the perfect riposte to Nuss' gameplan. Game, set, match.
If the offense continues to improve, doing that won't be so easy.
|1 week 4 days ago||First question||
"Can you talk about some of the positives you took away after watching the film?"
Wow, talk about trying to make a guy uncomfortable out of the gate.
|1 week 4 days ago||Bosch||
Bosch is a multinational engineering and electronics company and the world's largest auto parts supplier, consistently raising the standards in quietness, efficiency and integrated design. If you watched the ND game at home or in South Bend, chances are you used Bosch parts. Bosch is proud to bring you every soul-crushing interception, every punt and every opposing touchdown with the crystal clarity that has characterised Bosch quality for over 125 years.
Bosch. Invented for life.