further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
- Member for
- 3 years 20 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 22 min ago||We must find out!||
This is a job for Bruce Wayne! I mean Batman!
Aw, shit. . .
|1 day 40 min ago||Aquaman's identity is safe||
The fish would never talk.
|1 day 1 hour ago||No||
You know what I like about good people? They do good things because they're good, not because it might eventually become a photo op.
It's nice that our HC is a good guy, but what's more important is that two people in trouble got help when they needed it.
|1 day 1 hour ago||Brady Hoke would've said||
the driver "didn't execute".
/ but would've stopped to help
// sorry, too soon?
|1 day 4 hours ago||AAAAAHHH||
That gif is out of synch, and it's killing my brain, and I think that's on purpose
|1 day 4 hours ago||FYI||
FUKITOL is a suppository.
|1 day 4 hours ago||Uh. . .||
Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus, making it only look like we had a space alien for an AD.
|1 day 16 hours ago||OK||
Your points on usage and charges noted, but I'm just throwing out one example. If the offense shifts its usage of a guy to 100% because his defender can't risk another foul, there's another problem -- I know where the pass is going. That opens up a bunch of other options, but this time I'll be vague because we can go back and forth on strategy all day. Every ploy has a countermeasure. My point is that overplaying is almost without exception a terrible idea, so I'm not sold on the threat of it. If anything, as a coach I'd love nothing better than my opponent throwing their system out the window in favor of predictable ball movement to a guy who may not even be their best scorer.
|1 day 18 hours ago||Breaking point is key||
I think we agree; I just want to emphasize he REALLY needs to be that guy. Almost every offense incorporates the deep threat into their playbook, at least in concept. They don't run go routes all day, but the other stuff (hitches, outs, etc.) are changeups to the ever-constant threat that the guy will just fly downfield.
But while every OC wants a guy who can "take the top off a defense", if the guy can't get behind the free safety with consistency, you've got a "deep threat" that doesn't challenge the integrity of the base defense. The defense won't have to take their DBs out of the run game as long as they make the correct reads. That the WR might run a deep route really doesn't psyche them out of that.
By "breaking point" I mean a crappy blocking receiver needs to literally break the defense. So yeah, we're talking about a Randy Moss or Calvin Johnson type that needs to be double-teamed on every play just to prevent free TDs. Then it doesn't matter if he's the worst blocker in the world because the defense has to play him so tight the DB run fits are useless. But that means Harris is a rare bird, and while I think he could be good, I won't expect that much from him because we're talking once-a-decade talent.
|1 day 20 hours ago||"if you leave the player on||
"if you leave the player on the court, the other team is going to go right after him to get the third foul on him. He knows this, so he backs off and tries not to foul."
I find it difficult to believe this can't be exploited. Overplaying something is a bad idea in any sport, so if a team is going to literally change their offensive mindset to target a player for no other reason than he has 2 fouls, I'd anticipate those drives and not have the guy back off but set his feet in the "virtual layup lane" and start drawing charges. Drives are always a foul risk; it's not like teams wait around for someone to get whistled a couple times to start attacking the paint. Meaning, if the player has to adapt we're just talking about an inherently foul-prone player, which these guys are not. On the other hand, if the refs are so caught up in their own excitement that they start calling fouls in bunches, making the 2-foul guy charge bait a bad idea, then this game is way more broken than I thought.
|1 day 20 hours ago||thing is||
You might be on to something, but I think the downsides outweigh whatever benefit he's expecting.
Even take the worst-case scenario that you play a guy with 2 fouls and he fouls out late. If I'm a reserve coming in with three minutes left and the game on the line, I'm going all-out. If I'm coming in with 12 minutes left in the first, I have no idea how long I'll be out there.
This doesn't mean taking plays off, but some bench players know exactly how long they'll be out there, because their job is to spell some star who's playing 35 minutes. If you stick to that, they can play with unsustainable energy -- tearing up and down the court, diving for loose balls 20 feet away, etc. This is the proverbial "spark off the bench".
Even if the players are fouling, it makes sense to keep the best ones out there rather than throw a game just for some disciplinary action.
|1 day 21 hours ago||On that||
Thing is, Borges adapted his scheme to make some use of Denard, even if it was far more frustrating than RichRod's wide-open spread. Borges was, for better or worse, a "win now" OC who'd debut tackle over to steamroll Minnesota then have no tricks left in the bag against Michigan State. So with Mattison fixing the defense, some lucky breaks (our fumble recovery rate that season was unreal) and RichRod leaving behind a mature offense for Borges to play with, everything came together in 2011. The problem was that Borges mortgaged his long-term plans to win the next game, and that eventually cost him his job. When Nuss arrived the offense was in terrible shape.
Early reports are that Harbaugh is taking the opposite approach and implementing his system from day one. This isn't the rebuilding project that was Stanford, and it's not like these guys haven't run Power before, but there will be some growing pains. How far we go depends in large part on how smoothly those kinks get worked out. I think Harbaugh is willing to lose a few early games if it's necessary to build sustained success, the question is whether or not that'll actually be necessary. I don't know.
|1 day 21 hours ago||Eh||
"the late sixties were not much fun to be a Michigan fan, with no postseason appearances from the big three from 66 to the 1970 Rose Bowl."
It's not like anyone back then wasn't stoned, anyway.
|1 day 22 hours ago||If he's rail-thin there's the||
If he's rail-thin there's the issue of durability, but I think it's more a concern with run blocking. Weight isn't everything in the backfield (just ask Jeremy Gallon), but lanky guys generally aren't good blockers, and Michigan likes them run-blocking WRs. Funchess had the size, if not the inclination. Otherwise I think there's a breaking point where a "skinny burner" needs to really take the top off a defense to stay on the field if he's a liability on 50-60% of the plays.
Meaning, assuming he's a non-factor on run plays, if as a deep threat he basically only justifies the presence of a deep safety, it's back to the gym for Drake. If the guy's such a terror that the defense panics into bracketing him every time he runs a post route, fine, because that's every bit as good as throwing the CB into the turf. Is Harris that guy? I dunno, I'm just saying if he wants to see the field at his current weight, that's what he needs to be -- a DC-terrorizing, true playmaking deep threat.
|1 day 22 hours ago||pass rush||
I'm not too concerned about pass rush, because our secondary is shaping up to be pretty darn good. Sacks are exciting, but it's possible to read too much into them. Some college players generate a ton of sacks but do so by playing undiscipined defense; we don't want to give that up. Don't get me wrong; it'd be nice to have a pass rusher who wreaks havoc, but I'd be fine without one if the defense still manages to not make anything easy.
The plays that turn my hair grey are the ones where the pass rush is so feeble that the QB just sits back and waits for a receiver to break open -- then we can talk about pass rush. But when it comes to pass defense, I prefer to see a QB run out of options more than run out of time. I've seen sacks followed up by 20-yard conversions because the OC found which zone was being vacated on the blitz or which player abandoned his assignment or whatever. But it's really fun to see a QB check his first target, covered, second target, covered, look to run, gaps filled and edges held, then the DTs start to break free so they make that "WTF do I do now" head-wiggle before throwing it away. That tells me, and the QB, that the defense wasn't overplaying or taking risks yet the offense might as well have just spiked the ball.
We're thin at DE so I wouldn't hold out hope we discover a terrorizing pass rush by September. But if we at least get a disciplined D-line and the back seven shape up the way I expect, we CAN shut down QBs with what we have. It'll look different but it's no less demoralizing to opponents.
|1 week 1 day ago||chant||
I'm not ready for the "who's got it better than us" chant. Things are moving in the right direction but we were 5-7 last season, suffered an ND-MSU-OSU sweep and many of Brandon's ideas are still lingering like a fart that just won't go away. We'll get there but at least right now, a lot of programs pretty clearly have it better than us.
|1 week 1 day ago||(not really)||
BiSB: [BiSB is driving through South Bend and sends his regards]
|1 week 1 day ago||I don't necessarily think||
I don't necessarily think it's a memorable saying in the poetic sense, but when I heard his rally cry during the mic'd up Orange Bowl, despite my maize & blue blood I got goose bumps. The platitudes are your standard HC fare, but dang, that delivery was riveting:
"Play for each other. Play for a championship. Play to win. . . PLAY LIKE A CARDINAL!"
He gon' get our Wolverines AMPED, yo.
|1 week 1 day ago||You're conflating||
You're conflating the ethics of how to answer this with whether or not it's a reasonable question in the first place. I'd be more inclined to agree with you on the latter; yes, when you're coaching a team of about 100 or so players (including walk-ons I'm not sure how big these teams really get), "good" can get really subjective. While that's neither here nor there, I think we can both agree this isn't a question on a level of importance where we can argue any further without looking like idiots. :P
|1 week 1 day ago||FWIW||
No. I said upthread I don't have a dog in this fight, but you putting it this way changed my mind. There were several other reasons, at least for me, why Hoke's refusal to answer questions about injuries was a matter of relevance.
1) They claimed Gibbons was injured when he was about to be expelled for sexual assault.
2) A pattern of fielding players who were clearly injured and hiding/denying it.
So in one case they said someone was injured when they knew he wasn't, and in others, they knew a player was injured, played him anyway and hid it. The latter is more justified (anyone who thinks targeting doesn't exist is a fool); I get it, though they took it to the level of insulting. But when reality casts doubt on your answers, people start doubting them too. I can only speak for myself, but I wanted to know if Gardner, Funchess or Peppers were going to play not because of the outcome of the game -- I do care about that, but not quite so much that I'd compromise a player's long-term health and I was concerned they were undermining that. So yeah. . . once I noticed they were fielding players who clearly shouldn't be out there, the non-answers stopped being acceptable.
As far as Harbaugh giving the same non-answers, there's a particular reason why I find it OK for now -- he hasn't earned that mistrust. At least, not here, and in that context there's little upside to injury questions. If we have no reason to doubt his management of player health, revealing injuries only helps opponents prepare. But IF Harbaugh does something to warrant scrutiny, then -- and the "hypocrisy" crowd may want to be sitting down for this -- his answers will deserve additional scrutiny. If someone has evidence he can't be trusted with the players, that could change my mind because I happen to think context matters. After all, when it was revealed Hoke WAS mismanaging his players' health it became a catalyst for Brandon's resignation. That's a greatly preferred outcome to pleasing a few people here who expect consistent behavior regardless of circumstance.
|1 week 1 day ago||Why not?||
I've heard coaches say that before. Strangely it seems more common in basketball, but sometimes a coach wants the players to know he doesn't feel they're putting in acceptable effort. Now, I happen to think that's not an issue with Michigan's players, but that's also kind of why I didn't accept Hoke's answer anyway. That's like you're in a car crash and go, "Well, the car ran fine. . ." Um, OK, so what was the problem then?
|1 week 1 day ago||The answers you're referring||
The answers you're referring to are more in the context of his hiring, and Hackett was asked those questions. If you've got doubts, now is a little late to be having them. Again, this is the same for every job, ever. People research your background and ask questions before you're hired, then you get a Honeymoon period to get into things, then the questions return if you're screwing things up.
But as for coaches not owing people a damn thing. . . whoa.
|1 week 1 day ago||inane questions vs. injury questions||
People point out awful questions at EVERY presser. So in that context it's the exact opposite of hypocrisy on your terms because that's one area where MGoBlog's behavior IS consistent.
"The difference is that one was losing and the other is in the Honeymoon period. It's hypocrisy, whether you want to try to avoid being called that or not."
Hypocrisy implies that the losing didn't matter, because the definition of hypocrisy entails inconsistent behavior in similar situations. Considering it's football, I don't think a Honeymoon period and a tailspin are similar situations. I'll just have to disagree on that.
As for the injuries, I might concede a point there (not sure why his dodging Houma's injury is suddenly acceptable), but I don't have a dog in that fight. Because while that is hypocritical, I don't consider questions about injuries to be inane. Inappropriate perhaps, maybe counterproductive, but unavoidable and at least it's a question of substance.
|1 week 1 day ago||This is not a crime!||
If Hoke went 8-0 2/3rds of the way into the season we wouldn't need answers.
And there's no crime in wanting answers in a situation where anyone who cares about the results wants answers.
What, are we supposed to be dicks to someone who's delivering good results? That usually doesn't go well.
|1 week 1 day ago||I'm really getting sick of this||
It's not hypocrisy. The situations are different. No one's going to take a HC to task for non-answers on what's effectively his first day as a coach. Same with Hoke. We accepted non-answers when we expected non-answers. We started wanting answers when (gasp!) we needed answers.
THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS IN ANY JOB WHATSOEVER. If nothing's going wrong, people generally don't ask questions. (Unless you've ever worked for a Japanese company like I have, in which case I pity your miserable existence.) They start pushing for answers when there's a reason to need accountability. My manager doesn't ask me questions when my customers are all happy; that changes when one of them blows up. No one asks a security guard shit when he's just watching people enter and exit the building right up until a bunch of guys with guns show up at which point he's expected to remember every last detail. This may or may not be fair, but FFS no one here is doing anything differently than in any other circumstance that goes from good to bad. And while complacency is a dangerous game, at least ethically, they're right.
That this is called "twisting" and "hypocrisy" grinds my gears. It's completely failing to take the change in situation into account. A HUGE change in situation. What, is our conduct NOT supposed to change when everything's falling apart? Hoke's answers never changed and that, THAT was the problem. You may be able to blow off others when things are going well but if they're storming at you, society expects YOUR attitude to change. I'm OK with terse non-answers now. If Harbaugh starts losing games in bunches and getting pummeled by our rivals even after four years, yes I will stop accepting terse non-answers because I'm not Dave effin' Brandon.
|1 week 1 day ago||MGoQuestion||
Looking forward to the first UFR-based MGoQuestion. It's not hard to predict a HC giving non-answers to inane questions right after his first practice at Michigan ever, but reactions to MGoQuestions are far more varied. Some like Mattison and Borges seem to really appreciate an actual scheme question for a change; I think Nuss gave them the ol' non-answer treatment and Hoke kinda wavered in the middle. I wanna see how the High Functioning Lunatic and his posse react.
|1 week 1 day ago||Straw man much?||
This is definitely Harbaugh's version of Ft. Schembechler, but he has a point -- he's exactly one practice in so this is as meaningless as pressers get. I confess I watched it anyway because I'm a lunatic, but I wasn't expecting solid answers this early on.
Hoke's "they practiced well" wasn't controversial for being a non-answer. It's that he kept trotting it out even after beatdowns and the season was in a death spiral.
|1 week 2 days ago||NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE||
But seriously, on the upside, I expect any bad weight to get corrected. The February weights are just a starting point; they can look very different in six months.
|1 week 2 days ago||When it comes to ball carriers||
Weight =/= power. When I'm looking for a short-yardage back I want excellent balance (not going down on first contact), low form, lower body power and leg churn. From there, extra weight is a bonus. Michigan over the last way too many years had too many "bruisers" that looked the part but stopped cold at the LoS by a filling safety. Huge guys built low to the ground that can't get past the LoS because a 200-pound DB is in the way. It was frustrating to watch once and I feel like it's a bad movie played out on repeat since the departure of Hart.
His lack of speed limits his ceiling but I like Smith's second efforts and I'll be watching to see if Isaac can finally give us that combination of burst, vision and effort. I also thought Green's effort improved somewhat over last season but will he pick up from there? I'm holding my breath.
|1 week 2 days ago||AND||
They're getting LAAAARRRRGER