I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
|1 day 19 hours ago||I think the real issue was||
I think the real issue was that criticism of Brian went from "I vehemently disagree with your opinions!" to "you are a moron and a bad fan and how dare you write about football anyway, you unathletic nerd!"
|1 day 19 hours ago||He WAS good, and he DID have,||
He WAS good, and he DID have, often, good points, and intelligent discussion.
|1 day 20 hours ago||Analyst Brian could be his||
Analyst Brian could be his current avatar. Fan Brian would need to be that seat-cushion Braveheart.
|1 day 20 hours ago||So wait, who among the pony||
So wait, who among the pony avatars are punished posters, and who are just Brony Michigan fans? I'm confused.
|1 day 20 hours ago||At one point, up votes cost||
At one point, up votes cost the user 1 pt and down votes cost 2. As a result, you didn't moderate unless you really meant it. (I think voting gave you a point though, so up votes were effectively free). It also gave high-point posters more moderation power, which is (usually) a good thing.
|2 days 21 hours ago||That sort of displays the||
That sort of displays the double standard though, doesn't it? On the one hand you've got "I was too drunk to consent to sex" on the other you have "your intoxication does not absolve you of your intent to have sex with that person".
|2 days 21 hours ago||All it proves to me is that||
All it proves to me is that the SEC is better at picking new conference members than the B1G. Mizzou and TAMU or Maryland and Rutgers...
|2 days 23 hours ago||My thought has always been||
My thought has always been that the jerseys should be awarded by the outgoing senior class to the "underclassmen of the year". That way young players are recognized for their hard work and success on the field by their teammates, and everyone who gets a legends jersey wears it for at least two years (unless they leave early for the NFL, but I doubt we'd grumble about the guy wearing the number in that case).
Seems to solve a couple of problems - you avoid the "revolving door" syndrome and you don't have an established senior you know as number X suddenly being number Y. At the same time, you're not giving a legends patch to a freshman just for showing up.
|3 days 13 hours ago||Who wouldn't want to wear||
Who wouldn't want to wear Stevie Y's number?
|3 days 19 hours ago||I think the implied "knock"||
I think the implied "knock" on the players listed is that they weren't seniors in the sugar bowl season, and Brandon implies that Lloyd Carr's last seniors were the key to our 2011 success (and that, basically, nobody could be expected to be successful after they left)
|3 days 20 hours ago||So in your opinion, "did we||
So in your opinion, "did we play well or did our opponent play poorly, or was it equal parts both" is never a valid question? Because that's pretty much all Brian is opining on. OSU was a (positive) outlier in terms of offensive performance this year, and it seems a perfectly reasonable exercise to speculate on why that is and what that means for the future. What the heck else are we supposed to talk about?
|3 days 22 hours ago||I don't think it affects||
I don't think it affects Brian's thesis, which is "At least some of Michigan's success was due to OSU blowing it rather than new offensive wrinkles". That theory seems pretty sound, and reasonably worrisome, despite the not so great analysis Brian linked to.
|3 days 22 hours ago||Yeah that's what I was||
Yeah that's what I was thinking.
And to be clear, I agree with the rest of Brian's criticism of Brandon's statement. It came off as unprofessional and petty (but then again that's par for the course for Brandon, who seems to rule with the ruthlessness of a twirly-mustachioed CEO but the attitude of an aged fraternity brother back on campus trying to relive his glory days).
Seriously, why the hell mention a guy that most fans wished, at least at the time and maybe now, that we'd hired instead of Hoke? So that's dumb, and then backhanded shots at former employees is just bush league.
|3 days 22 hours ago||Wait, how did Brandon whiff||
Wait, how did Brandon whiff on Harbaugh due to THE PROCESS? I thought the nasty rumor was that Brandon wanted RichRod gone in November or earlier but held off THE PROCESS so that Harbaugh could wait till after his bowl game to decide? In other words the search went down the way it did because Brandon whiffed on Harbaugh, not the other way around.
|4 days 14 hours ago||Do these guys realize that we||
Do these guys realize that we were playing mostly 2nd and 3rd stringers Saturday? And our best LB is only like 8 months out from an ACL tear?
|5 days 22 min ago||Obviously I'd prefer we never||
Obviously I'd prefer we never change it, but I agree with you 100%. And to that I'd add, if you're going to do an alternate, don't half ass it. Not half assed: UTL 1. Half assed: 'Bama, last year's bowl. The sugar bowl ones I thought were just nice aways that we ought to use more often.
|5 days 26 min ago||Chrome looks turrible on the||
Chrome looks turrible on the field. Looks like a bunch of dudes with Christmas ornaments for heads.
|5 days 28 min ago||I'd be totally fine with us||
I'd be totally fine with us never having a uniform that could be described as "sick" or "nasty".
|5 days 30 min ago||You know that the "Bando" in||
You know that the "Bando" in his name means he was in the band, right? Pretty sure that gives you a lifetime fan card, and I don't know too many former bandies I'd call "quiet wine and cheese types". Vodka smuggled in sousaphones more likely.
|5 days 3 hours ago||Worth noting that Gallon,||
Worth noting that Gallon, Funchess, and Countess all made he second team all conference. Jibreel Black and Schofield in the honorable mentions.
|5 days 3 hours ago||Well Michigan does have the||
Well Michigan does have the coach of the year trophy named for Bo.
|6 days 18 hours ago||I think Hall ought to be||
I think Hall ought to be suspended for the gesture to the fans. I'd be okay with Wilson and RJS not being suspended, but generally I think taunting the fans AFTER getting tossed (for coming off the bench to brawl) is worth extra punishment vs a heat of the moment scuffle.
|6 days 18 hours ago||Isn't the BWW bowl the first||
Isn't the BWW bowl the first pick after the capital 1 (in other words, pick 2 after the BCS)? Somehow I doubt we go that high. OSU, MSU, Wisconsin, and at least one of Minnesota and Iowa going ahead of us. Maybe our respective performances yesterday jump us over Nebraska.
|1 week 16 hours ago||I also think Gardner rushed||
I also think Gardner rushed it a bit. I know it's supposed to be a quick throw, but he had a bit more time and I think Gallon could have worked open or a running lane could have presented itself. Can't fault the guy too much though given the rest of the game.
|1 week 17 hours ago||It's not PSU winning, it's||
It's not PSU winning, it's Wisky losing.
|1 week 1 day ago||Yeah but it apparently got||
Yeah but it apparently got too close to the sun and disintegrated.
|1 week 3 days ago||You mean the sort of cartoon||
You mean the sort of cartoon character who fires a coach when it's too late for his staff to get other jobs, doesn't send him his bowl ring, and takes a cheap passive aggressive shot at him three years after he fired the guy?
|1 week 3 days ago||It's still a dick move by||
It's still a dick move by Brandon to not mention him but mention Carr. And in keeping with Brandon's petty douchebaggy MO (e.g. never sending RR's staff their Gator Bowl rings).
|1 week 4 days ago||Decent rant Magnus. But is||
Decent rant Magnus. But is asking for the coaches (well, really Al Borges, if we want to go with the board consensus) to get fired really a "quitter's attitude"? Seems to me it's more of a "this team deserves better" attitude. Doesn't affect whether or not it's the "right" opinion, but a real quitter wouldn't give a damn who the coaches are. Someone who cares enough to rant about the coaching is still apparently invested in the team.
|1 week 4 days ago||Sports fandom is inherently||
Sports fandom is inherently irrational. You are after all getting emotionally invested in teenagers tossing around a ball.
|1 week 4 days ago||I think Brian is using Hoke's||
I think Brian is using Hoke's comment as a jumping off point to gripe about DB and the athletic department in general. Sort of a "let's talk about this word, fickle". I stopped reading it as an indictment of Hoke as soon as he got to a table of ticket prices.
|1 week 4 days ago||Last time I checked all the||
Last time I checked all the coaches were employees of the athletic department. When you buy tickets or send a PSD, the check goes to the athletic department. The athletic department sets the prices and the policies, maintains the facilities, and "presents" the game experience. So yeah, I expect the athletic department, and by extension DB its leader, to treat the fans with a little loyalty if they expect it in return.
|1 week 4 days ago||I don't think supporting||
I don't think supporting Michigan football is really like buying a car. Yeah, I think there should be more loyalty to the team of my alma mater than to a car dealer.
|1 week 4 days ago||The point is that loyal fans||
The point is that loyal fans are being asked to cough up an ever larger chunk of their disposable income, to the point where what used to be an easily justified expense is now rising into "tough choices" category. And Dave Brandon has zero problem with that, because he'd rather have wealthy fans than loyal ones. He wants to maximize revenue, and if your particular seat is filled by an ass that paid more, well, that's an unadulterated good. Tickets in your family for years? Too damn bad, watch the game at home, you peon, I've got donors palms to grease.
And I think it's right that he be called out on that.
Maybe fickle fans upset Hoke. He's certainly loyal if anyone is. But he ought to look at his boss before he casts stones.
|1 week 4 days ago||So we should be blindly loyal||
So we should be blindly loyal regardless of whether that loyalty is reciprocated? Because... why exactly?
If we're just revenue, then Michigan football is just a product.
I don't want Michigan football to be just a product, hence I'm mad at DB and the rest of the athletic department. But I'm not going to question the ethics of somebody who says "well, if you're going to treat me like a confidence man treats his mark, I'll treat you with the same loyalty".
|1 week 4 days ago||I think the point is||
I think the point is "personal attack aimed at a player on that player's social media account" is a rather more egregious sin than "Selling a ticket to a game I'm not that excited about on StubHub".
|1 week 4 days ago||I didn't imply that at all.||
I didn't imply that at all. Remember, in this hypothetical I'm Hoke trying to brush off the concern that people aren't showing up. Basically, I'm saying "It's fair for the fans to expect success, I recognize the sacrifices they make to come out and support us, and I'm going to work as hard as I can to be worthy of that support".
Saying "I'm gonna work my butt off" isn't saying "I haven't worked my butt off".
Anyway, either route is better than saying, "well, that's a character flaw of fans that we just have to live with"
|1 week 4 days ago||Congratulations on||
Congratulations on successfully attackeing one of my analogies. But you miss the point. A better anology might be "charging me a Ferrari price for a Chevy, and accusing me of disloyalty if I'm dissappointed".
You see, I don't think "the team doing badly" is the real problem. It's the straw that breaks the camel's back. The real "rusty Chevy" is the game experience, particularly the scheduling. We're seeing less good home games, more cupcakes and annoying one-offs (Appy State). We're adding terrible, nontraditional teams to the conference just to buy TV sets, to the point where the oldest trophy game in football is being replaced by a game against the state university of... New Jersey?
The price keeps going up, and many are going to be priced out in the near future if not this season. When the cost of going is low, yeah, loyalty is going to trump that. But if you have to make real sacrifices to afford your seats, I think it's fair to ask what you're getting in return. So then the question is, "why pay my PSD for next year when next year will probably be lousy, and in a couple years I won't be able to afford the seats anyway?"
The other issue is, yeah, you bought the ticket ahead of time and have now decided not to go. But unlike a lottery ticket, there are a lot of other costs associated with going to a game. So really we're talking about a choice between the extra cost of going to the game and the beenefits of seeing it live vs. the amount you can make by selling your ticket and the experience you can get watching it at home. The sunk cost of having bought the ticket is irrelevant. So it's more like "Selling my ticket to a must-be-present-to-win raffle one state over because the prize went from a Ferrari to a rusty Chevy". How's that?
|1 week 4 days ago||Why shouldn't the fans treat||
Why shouldn't the fans treat this as just a transaction? It's quite clear that that's exactly how Dave Brandon characterizes it.
|1 week 4 days ago||Explain why fickle is bad if||
Explain why fickle is bad if the fans are treated as just a revenue stream? This is a transaction to Dave Brandon, nothing more. Walmart doesn't bitch about fickle customers if people buy their TVs from Amazon, they try to change what they do to sell more TVs.
Don't expect religious loyalty in a capitalist exchange. If you don't want fickle, treat as as more than wallets with meatbags attached.
|1 week 4 days ago||Here's what he could say||
Here's what he could say instead: "Well, I believe Michigan has great, loyal fans - we couldn't do what we do without them. I hope they'll all turn out and give our seniors a great sendoff, I know we'll play our hearts out for them".
Or even better, "Well, the fans are a key part of this program, heck they pay my salary and feed my family. I'm gonna work my ass off to make sure I prepare this team and give those fans something they can be proud to cheer for".
Instead it's "Well, screw those guys, not my problem".
|1 week 4 days ago||A thousand times this. This||
A thousand times this. This is not the NFL. If we were playing in a dilapidated stadium and the players were doing bake sales to raise money for jerseys without holes and new, less rusty scrap metal to bench press, then "we really need to increase revenue this year (and every year in perpetuity)" would be valid.
But when it's "we need to double the PSD and charge you $500 for the privilege of maybe getting the chance to buy overpriced season tickets because Alabama has a waterfall in their locker room and it's just not fair that our field hockey scout team has anything less", it gets a little harder to justify. Michigan athletics are supposed to be about something more than maximizing the salary of the department employees and maximizing the luxuriousness of the facilities for non-revenue sports. I don't think the current leadership really considers that balance.
|1 week 4 days ago||If you sell me a Ferrari, but||
If you sell me a Ferrari, but it turns out it's actually a rusty Chevy with a broken heater and no radio, is it wrong of me to blame you for my not wanting the vehicle anymore? The point is that if you are no longer providing what I originally decided to exchange my money / time / emotions for, it's not "fickle" to want out.
But, but, the TEAM and LOYALTY and OTHER GOOD THINGS WE TELL OURSELVES TO FEEL PART OF SOMETHING BIGGER, you say. You've missed the point of Brian's article. The AD is taking advantage of all of those things, but providing no loyalty in return. We're being played for chumps because the AD knows our emotions will trump our reason and we'll gladly plop down even more money so they can further gild their toilet seats. To the AD, we are just ATMs, and there is no higher goal than to extract the absolute maximum amount of delicious cheddar that we'll force ourselves to cough up out of loyalty.
Brady Hoke makes more in a year than most of us will make in a lifetime, and will continue to do so for the next few years regardless of how well or poorly he does his job (buyout clause). And yet he dares call us "fickle" for considering whether it's worth putting down a week's salary to take a family to a game where we'll probably get beat to hell because he hasn't prepared the team to execute.
So maybe not going to the OSU game, or selling your ticket for half what you paid for it, makes you a fairweather fan. So what? Is loyalty to a generic corporate empire really a virtue worth preserving? The AD no longers treats fans as anything more than revenue streams - why should we reward that with loyalty? If you are being treated as a consumer, there is nothing wrong with acting like one and going elsewhere or staying home when you no longer benefit from the transaction.
Look, I'm exaggerating here somewhat. I still think choosing Michigan over OSU is more meaningful than choosing Coke over Pepsi. But the AD makes that harder and harder every year, and seems intent on reducing the "Michigan Difference" into dollar bills and manufactured "wow moments". Couple that with a deteriorating product, and it gets less and less fun. Again I ask, what is the virtue in loyalty to a brand? Faithfulness to a cheating lover? Honesty to a swindler? At some point a "loyal" customer goes from a virtuous partner to a chump, and Dave Brandon seems hell-bent on riding that line for all it's worth. And now Brady Hoke will call you out for allowing that that line even exists.
|1 week 5 days ago||A good test case for the||
A good test case for the Heinenger Certainty Principle. I like wrestlers on the D-line, hope to see him starring in QB nightmares in a few years!
|2 weeks 15 hours ago||Even allowing that Wisky||
Even allowing that Wisky should have had a chance for a game winning field goal, and assuming they made it, that's still a tight game against the third best team in the B1G. The 12-PAC is a flat out better conference this year, and I don't think it's really arguable.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Don't forget the cheese right||
Don't forget the cheese right up to the edge of the pizza that gets all crispy and caramelized. That's the best part.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Actually it sounds like||
Actually it sounds like you've got it backwards - the case went quiet months ago, and is now getting blown up because of the status of FSU and Jameis.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Well that's good. These days||
Well that's good. These days you can get a pretty respectable "authentic Italian/New York" style pie (very thin crust, lightly topped, cooked fast in a super hot wood or coal fired over) in just about any reasonably large town.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||#RememberThe5||
|2 weeks 3 days ago||I love a thin crust wood||
I love a thin crust wood fired pizza, but now it seems that's all anybody's doing in the "gourmet pizza" game.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Tom Selleck? No. Tom Brady?||
Tom Selleck? No. Tom Brady? Sploosh.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Maxi.||
|2 weeks 3 days ago||I really wish they'd keep||
I really wish they'd keep both accuser and accused anonymous in these cases until somebody gets convicted of something, or at least until it goes to trial.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Could the algebra teacher v.||
Could the algebra teacher v. PDE prof analogy extend to Funk? Lewan has publicly expressed support for the guy, and the Kuglers were apparently impressed. He's recruiting well. But the results on the field are lousy. Could that speak to a super knowledgeable guy that impresses and refines advanced practitioners but struggles to impart the basics to the very raw?
|2 weeks 3 days ago||The "growing pains" argument||
The "growing pains" argument would work better if the 2013 offense actually looked like something building towards a MANBALL future, but it doesn't.
Installing the zone stretch, tackle over, and the pistol do not bring us closer to the supposed downhill power running team we want to be long term. Nor are they stuff that worked in the last two years that are being kept around for the sake of continuity. They are brand new things that don't seem to fit in with the 2011-12 "fusion cuisine" or the long term future of pocket passers and between-the-tackles thumpers.
If we fully committed to the man-up, power run game, we'd still be awful but at least we'd be repping for the future. Instead it looks like Borges really is willing to try anything to get some yards, but as a result we're not particularly good at anything.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I find it interesting and||
I find it interesting and promising that Mattison basically admitted that 1) the Indiana pace was something the d-backs physically could not handle and 2) that he was willing to adjust his philosophy to address that.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I'm not really a Borges fan,||
I'm not really a Borges fan, but I think 25% in the "Borges can't cook fusion cuisine" box is a bit high. I'd probably halve that, and add most of the part I took out to Funk, plus some extra in the 2013 dithering bin (which is really another Borges bin).
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I just don't think you can||
I just don't think you can fairly judge a QB when he's getting sacked 19 times in three games.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Maybe Funk is an extremely||
Maybe Funk is an extremely knowledgeable, articulate guy (hence great recruiter) who just can't teach really young, inexperienced guys very well? Maybe he has great appeal for guys who already mostly "get it" like Lewan and the Kuglers but can't get through to more raw prospects? Like a professor who's brilliant in a grad class but can't "teach down" to a 101 class?
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Hate to break it to you, but||
Hate to break it to you, but the current set of minds has also gotten shut down by MSU and other good teams. We still haven't beat a .500 team on the road, and we haven't scored a TD in regulation since the Indiana game, despite playing two of the weakest defenses in the conference the last two weeks. This offense is GERGian right now.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Eh, I'd rather have a guy in||
Eh, I'd rather have a guy in Maize booing the team in the seat than a guy in red cheering for OSU.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||This is the only (or at least||
This is the only (or at least most) plausible response I've seen.
Unlike many other schools, Michigan has a "College of Engineering" that handles its own admissions. Just because "Michigan" accepts you does not mean you're accepted to the CoE. I have no idea what their standards are for athletes.
In any case, the CoE is no joke, especially for a high school B student, and anybody telling an athlete that it would be anything other than very difficult to succeed there would be lying. I don't think we want Hoke to lie.
On the other hand, Garrett Rivas and Joey Burzynski are two scholarship football players I know of who were/are CoE students, so it's possible. If I were Hoke I'd have had Hand talk to Joey. Don't know if that happened or not.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||None of that is actually||
None of that is actually "known". We know he said he cares a lot about academics, but so do a lot of recruits who end up choosing Alabama (or Ole Miss, or LSU, or wherever) over a "superior" academic insitution (Michigan, or Virginia, or GA Tech, or Stanford, or wherever). "Caring about academics" is not the same thing as going to the top ranked academic school that offers them.
It is also not "known" that Alabama was his choice if he was going for Engineering. He talked a lot about how much he liked it there, and "experts" assumed that, but they also generally predicted he was going to Michigan, so what is really "known"?
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Very cool read, some mod||
Very cool read, some mod ought to give the OP a nice point bump.
A question for him, since he seems a good one to ask: Any chance the coaches are doing a poor job at simulating games in practice? Or more precisely, doing a poor job of practicing in a way that really prepares the players to execute in a game (vs. in a controlled practice setting)? I've observed a few things that might be explained by this theory, and am curious what a guy who played thinks:
i) Head scratching personnel shuffling - you alluded to this in your answer to 1 in the OP. Are we rolling out young "practice warriors" who maybe perform great in drills but break down in the mental game on the field? Is that why we seem to juggle the OL so much? Is that why we played Taco Charlton and burned Bosch's redshirt despite them not appearing to be a major upgrade on actual gameday? Or is that why we played Furman, who is fast as heck (maybe Mattison thought we needed that against an option team) but seems to have made a couple mental errors that the guys he replaced generally havent?
ii) Inability to execute 2 minute drill / general time management issues. Hoke has mentioned that they typically "coach guys up" in between practice reps, rather than the Oregon approach of rep-rep-rep-rep all day. Does rarely practicing at a high tempo hamper our ability to do it on Saturday?
iii) Defensive struggles against tempo - see ii
iv) poor pre-snap communication on both sides of the ball. A lot of guys seem to be struggling with their own assignments, let alone having someone act as a "QB of the defense" (watching Bullogh on MSU made me realize how much Michigan lacks a guy like that). And our actual QB and center seem to struggle at properly ID'ing checks and blocking adjustments. Is it possible to get good at this if the coaches aren't running a simulated game environment in practice? Maybe guys are good at this in theory but are falling apart when presented with the pace of a game.
v) home v. away performance. All of the game vs. practice issues will be intensified on the road, in a hostile environment.
Basically, my thought is that coaches who are used to (or more comfortable with) working with more experienced guys (e.g. Mattison's NFL experience) might be focusing more on refinement, technique, and so on. This is great for perfecting things that people already know the basics of, but maybe some of these young guys really need to practice the intensity, pace, and unpredictability of a game. That's where young guys will struggle the most.
Taylor Lewan doesn't need to be taught how intense and fast the college game is - he knows that, he just needs a guru coming in to make minor adjustments and point out any bad habits. But for Kyle Kalis the game is still moving super fast - he needs all the help he can get to get comfy in that environment, and maybe getting his footwork correct down to the inch is a little less important (or at least the value per minute of practice is less).
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Looks to me like we really||
Looks to me like we really need to throw more out of I-form - we're having success with that, but the pass / throw balance is the most lopsided of our "standard" formations, with one of the worst rushing averages.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Not at all. You need to||
Not at all. You need to disassemble the old outhouse before you can build a new one.
'Bama CivE 350: Static and Dynamic Analysis of Cinderblock Construction
Sample Exam Question: Darrell and JimBob are attempting to modify Darrell's 1968 Camaro. They will support the vehicle using columns of standard cinderblocks. How long before the Camaro sinks into the swamp?
CivE 425: Advanced Single Wide Design: Tornadoes Are Not Your Friend
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Eh, he may well get a paper||
Eh, he may well get a paper that says "engineering" on it. If he ever becomes a licensed civil engineer, then you should definitely eat your words.
Anyway, seems like a good guy and probably has the talent for the League, so he'll be fine.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||(No subject)||
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Clowney, or, you know, Taylor||
Clowney, or, you know, Taylor Lewan...
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Alabama Civil Engineering||
Alabama Civil Engineering 101: Your Ass and a Hole in the Ground: a Quantitative Analysis
CivE 125: Lefty Loosie
CivE 225: Righty Tighty
CivE 220: Basic Outhouse Construction
CivE 320: Advanced Outhouse Construction: The Roof Goes On Top
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Would it be hard? Yes. The||
Would it be hard? Yes. The math and science pre-reqs are no joke, even if you're smart. But it's apparently possible, because several Michigan football players have majored in engineering. Garrett Rivas and Joey Burzynski (a biomed student, fergodsakes) are two recent examples. Yeah, a kicker and a former walkon, but there certainly does not seem to be a hard and fast "no engineers on the football team" rule.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Maize hair, dammit!||
Maize hair, dammit!
|3 weeks 3 days ago||An to be fair to SC, his||
An to be fair to SC, his follow up would be, well yeah, clearly we just need a bigger rock that no paper can hold! Damn the coaches for not making our rock bigger.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Well I don't think this post||
Well I don't think this post was only directed at SC. See in this very comment thread how the "Brian is just a guy that watches football" thing comes up.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||P = m * VSmith^(finger guns)||
P = m * VSmith^(finger guns)
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Well yes, that's why it's||
Well yes, that's why it's Rock-Paper-Scissors. In a vacuum, Rock is a perfectly fine call and can indeed work if properly executed. But if your opponent calls paper, you lose.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Quibble: Brian is not||
Quibble: Brian is not appealing to authority. He is (somewhat snarkily, as is his idiom) launching a pre-emptive strike against the appeal to authority.
There have been a number of posters (I'd say lately, but it's always been true to some degree) who rip into Brian for just being some guy who watches football and assume that because they played a little high school ball they have been inducted to some higher plane of football knowledge that precludes any disagreement from long-haired blogger types. Notably, SC is not in that camp, but they exist.
So rather than deal with the "well how can you disagree with SC, he's a coach" series of comments, Brian strikes with "Well yeah, he's a coach, but in a totally different context and level and neither of us has any actual ability to see into Borges' brain, so either we both have a right to argue about this or neither of us does".
Not an appeal to authority. Basically a mild ad hominem to prevent appeal to authority.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Max protect does nothing to||
Max protect does nothing to cover our main issues of terrible blocking by the interior line. Yeah, you've got more guys in, but we do (or can do) nothing to prevent the defense from bringing in just as many guys. Max protect only helps if you've done other things to keep the defense from blitzing every play, and only if your extra blockers are smart and skilled enough to pick up the extra rushers.
Ultimately, more guys is just more chances for a defender to get through, and less chances for a quick out if one of them does.
The other issue is that frequent max-protect is going to hurt your run game - those defenders in the box to pressure your QB can just as easily stifle your runs.
I think our best bet at this point is to spread the field, with more outlet opportunities for Gardner. Worst case, fewer guys in the box is a better chance for a run play to succeed, and a much higher likelihood of there being a scramble lane open if Gardner decides to tuck it.
Yeah, maybe Gardner can't adjust and might make some bad throws that get caught by the other team. But at some point 0 turnovers are meaningless because not moving the ball at all is essentially a turnover anyway.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||To me the problem is that||
To me the problem is that Brian and SC aren't actually arguing against each other. SC looks at a play and says "here's how this should have gone down". This is good, enlightening, and appreciated.
However, Brian's actual argument is not "this play is turrrrrible and should never be called", it's "here's how the opponent gets to have a much easier job than the offense, and the number of times this happens is too damn high".
Brian says that, SC says "well yeah but if player X had made adjustment Y (see, it's totally simple and only takes 10 diagrams and a couple thousand words to explain), this would have worked". Then SC gets frustrated because rather than debate the content of those diagrams everyone wants to argue "big picture". Repeat ad nauseam.
THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT. SC is right or close to right about the minutiae, but Brian is arguing about the meta. There is no clash, which is why this goes back and forth.
To be fair, I found this a bit too snarky from Brian, and I don't think he gives enough credit to SC for ripping the coaches' inability to teach the kids how to play. But I guess I can see where the frustration is coming from.
I'd actually really like SC to devote a post/diary to "Here is what I think Borges is doing wrong, and here's what I would propose doing differently". He's hinted at a few things and I'm curious about his big picture view of what's broken. But he usually only gives that a quick glance (Brian's "few non-insane points") and then returns to basking in the blocking nuances. I like seeing that, but I'm never going to play competitive football and what I really want to see is smart people arguing about the big picture.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I was going to mention that -||
I was going to mention that - a core of your arguments has been "these are all just tweaks on the same basic concept". While that fact does partially exonerate the play calling, it seems to negate the "Denard held us back" and "RR's recruits aren't built for this system" lines of argument that showed up a lot the last couple years.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Thanks. Hopefully I'm||
Thanks. Hopefully I'm sufficiently "acknowledging" your posts ;).
I think your last paragraph is where the frustration from Brian et al comes in. The idea that you have to choose what to sacrifice is spot on. We had a bye week before Minnesota and clearly a large chunk of practice time there was spent on "tackle over". That quickly sputtered out once it was on film, because fundamentally it wasn't that flexible or particularly sound and there was only so much you could do with it. That seems like a poor sacrifice.
Lately we've seen a lot of O-line shuffling from play to play and game to game, basically trying to do with personnel matching what we can't seem to do with talent. That probably doesn't help with cohesion and the ability to adjust - the guys aren't good at one position, now they have to flip around. Probably a questionable sacrifice.
And yes, the key blocking schemes may still be all or mostly "power or zone + some window dressing", but tackle over and the OLine shuffle are complications that take time to learn, time to practice. Window dressing it may be, but it's not free. Sacrifices, as you note.
So that's where I think some of this idea of "we're trying to do to much" comes in. There seem to be places where we've sacrificed practice time to add more stuff to paper over fundamental flaws, when maybe we'd have been better served at addressing the fundamental flaws. Additionally, there seem to be places where "obvious" window dressing is not being used - lack of (or very infrequent) play action from our shotgun run sets, lack of running from our usual play action sets.
Anyway, I think there's room to criticize the choice of sacrifices without devolving into a dead horse beating contest over the individual playcalls or what the definition of "scheme" is.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||My post below showed up||
My post below showed up before this one by you, and here I see I fall into your "called out" category of thinking there's too much in the offense.
I guess the frustration I have is that it seems oh so very easy to utterly destroy Michigan's plays with very little effort by running "simple" stunts, blitzes, and so on, up to and including things that ought to be unsound (e.g. the aggression of NEB in this play that takes away a force player).
It doesn't look like the offense has any ability to run the plays against anything but pure vanilla defense. Anything requiring an adjustment is blown with regularity (of course, vanilla defense succeeeds painfully often too). For whatever reason, we're running plays that no one seems to understand at a level sufficient to do more than sort of go through the motions. Clearly youth plays a big part in that, but something seems very wrong with the ability to teach the "higher level" aspects of the plays that are being run. "Borges doesn't understand the plays he's calling" is a lazy and probably wrong answer, but I hope you can see why it comes up.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||SC, I'm curious what your||
SC, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the overall scheme of the offense, macro level, and how that may or may not contribute to the execution of plays like this. I ask because almost all of the arguments you and the other "Borges Defenders" (for lack of a better term - Borges Tolerators? I dunno.) put forth are of the form "this play is a good play and would have worked if..."
And I really appreciate those contributions, they certainly help a guy like me understand on the micro level what's going on in a given play. But I think you may be missing the forest while defending the trees - in any case Brian et. al are arguing on the macro level while you do more dissection of the individual plays, and as a result your arguments lack a lot of actual clash with each other (the proverbial two ships passing in the night).
So I'd really like your take of the macro level scheme - what you think Borges is going for overall, and whether that makes sense. Maybe you've been uncomfortable with that because it requires more assumptions, I don't know. But here's one vote for hearing your opinion, unfounded or not.
To me, the potential macro issues with this play, which, as you mention, has potential to be good, are as follows:
1) The adjustments/counters in this play are not being taught, and/or are just not in the playbook.
2) The adjustments are being taught/called but are being biffed by the players consistently (and the key here, since we're talking macro, is consistently).
1 is obviously a "scheme" issue, since the ability for the defense to cheat with impunity effectively neuters the play.
But 2 could also be "scheme" in the sense that the coaching/playcalling philosophy seems to be in the "little of this, little of that" school, rather than focusing on getting good at one or two base sets. Obviously youth/inexperience forces you to "shrink the playbook", but the staff's way of doing that seems to be "spend less time teaching adjustments and counters in favor of having more sets". As others have mentioned, it's hard to do "a little" option. Are we not repping enough? What are your thoughts?
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Of course, at least it||
Of course, at least it averaged more than 1YPC.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||At least not from the sort of||
At least not from the sort of JUCOs that field good football teams.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||I want to clarify that I||
I want to clarify that I don't think Norfleet would cure all our woes, and it's entirely possible he's a poor route runner and blocker and that's keeping him benched.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Hell, let's go single wing.||
Hell, let's go single wing. That's real MANBALL.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||But even there, we see||
But even there, we see possibilities missed - we continue to pretend Funchess is a TE and not Megatron-lite, Norfleet sits on the bench, and Dileo gets few targets. Yeah, the last two aren't downfield threats but they could at least occupy a linebacker /hybrid in coverage and serve as a dump off when Gallon an Funchess are bracketed.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||That's basically where I'm||
That's basically where I'm at. I don't think you can build an elite offense given our OL and TE youth, but they should peak above "awful tire fire shitshow against some of the worst defenses in the league".
|3 weeks 5 days ago||My point being that the AD||
My point being that the AD could fairly easily reduce its budget to make tickets more affordable without being particularly austere. Hell, just scheduling a real home and home instead of paying Akron to show up and make us look bad could easily add some real money to the budget.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Why is that the only option?||
Why is that the only option? The AD is consistently running 8 figure surpluses, and that's with the money they're dumping on gold plating the toilet seats in the field hockey locker rooms. Meanwhile, they are charging way more than market value (with increases every year) to their most loyal customers while simultaneously offering a crappy slate of home games. All that, and the team not being very fun to watch could easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
|4 weeks 15 hours ago||What I honestly don't get is||
What I honestly don't get is why Borges was brought along with Hoke in the first place - DB went all out to get an elite DC, and screw the guy hoke had been with the last couple years. Why didn't he do the same thing at OC?
|4 weeks 1 day ago||I don't know if I agree with||
I don't know if I agree with our opinions fully! But you certainly hold them with great enthusiasm! There's something to be said for that I suppose!
|4 weeks 1 day ago||I was going to say this. That||
I was going to say this. That was always the gripe about RR's offense, even in 2010 (but we never score a bajillion points against GOOD defenses!). It's as valid now as it was then (not sure how valid, but whatever).
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I hear you. And I hope you're||
I hear you. And I hope you're right about practice. It's just that we seem to be scrambling to try new things instead of doing any one thing well. Anti-Bo.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Probably true, but a few||
Probably true, but a few assistant coaches and maybe an OC on the hotseat don't create anywhere close to the toxic atmosphere that a lame duck head coach deals with.
I mean, yeah, don't fire everybody after one bad performance, but on the other hand, if coaching is legitimately holding you back and you can survive a change, well, sometimes you've got to make the change. But certainly be cognizant that there are always transition costs I suppose.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I mean, that's great, except||
I mean, that's great, except that right now, Michigan is really bad at blocking. Really bad about running plays that they clearly don't understand fully awake, let alone in their sleep.
"That play would've worked if the dam guard had pulled." That's been pretty much the standard defense of Borges - it's all on the players for being young and messing up.
But if you want to go by the Bo standard, this staff has failed at coaching. Because they don't look like a team that's been drilled to death in the fundamentals that just needs some time before they can grasp the advanced stuff. They look like a team that's trying a bunch of gimmicks and shuffles because they continually fail at the basics.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||So how is your venting about||
So how is your venting about venting helping the situation?
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I'm not saying I'd really||
I'm not saying I'd really like it. Certainly there'd still be griping. Hell I might even participate in it.
But struggling with a purpose I can understand and accept once I shut up my lizard brain and let logic take over. It provides a ray of hope, which is what got me through 2008 - "sure, this offense is terrible, but just wait till we get the players to run it (oh god I was hoping for Pryor, let's ignore that)". With RR, at least on offense, you always had a sense of "this is going somewhere, and could eventually be really good". It was certainly tantalizingly close by year 3 (though by no means perfect).
I don't see that now, and it sucks. It's not like we've got what looks like a brilliantly called pro-style, or West Coast, or spread, or whatever offense that just gets blown up because we've got the 300 lb equivalent of Nick Sheridan on the interior OLine. Instead, it just looks flat discombobulated.
Honestly it sometimes seems like Borges is less of an offensive genius and more of a playbook collector. He's seen so much and studied so long that he can go through the motions of any system, but he can't play chess against the world's Narduzzi's. He's a journeyman, not a virtuoso. That doesn't mean he's a bad coach, per se, but I think Michigan deserves a virtuoso, in fact needs one when the head coach is a defensive minded CEO/cheerleader type rather than an Xs and Os fiend.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I think 2 is valid though,||
I think 2 is valid though, and I'd say it extends to the 2010 class as well. In any case, there were so many holes everywhere on the team that it's tough to fault RR for not prioritizing OL recruiting that wouldn't become an issue for three more years. And I doubt coaches go into recruiting years with the mindset of, "whelp, I'm probably losin' my job next year, better make sure I assume next years class will be awful so I have the roster appropriately stocked for my successor".
|4 weeks 3 days ago||The worst part is the nagging||
The worst part is the nagging feeling that the upside isn't really there. Yeah, the team is young and inexperienced in the worst places. That explains "not very good". That doesn't explain "historically bad".
The 2010 defense was young, inexperienced, and not terribly talented, but the 2011 staff came in and shaped largely the same personnel into something resembling a good team very quickly. That's what great coaching can do - turn lemons into lemonade. The RR/GERG staff turned those same lemons into poop-covered lemons and then set them on fire. Which are we now on offense? It's pretty clear that the offensive staff at best is no 2011 Mattison.
Does anyone really think this offensive staff is making the most of what they have? That this is the best product that could be expected based on the roster? Or even close to the best? Worse, the scheme shuffling makes it seem like we don't have a plan to get anywhere from here. Growing pains I can live with - "we're running power and under center because that's our identity going forward, and we're willing to struggle in the short term for long term gains". Fine, that's a philosophy. But flailing is tough to stomach. The "few plays from here, few plays from there..." with none of the genius set-ups and counters you expect from the top OC's looks suspiciously like flinging crap at the wall and hoping something sticks.
It may well be that the offensive staff is competent. Maybe even "decent B1G level coaches". But does anyone really believe that they are elite? And if not, why are we just okay with that? DB went out and grabbed an elite DC, because that's what Michigan needed. Are we just going to get by with a good-natured but not particularly distinguished journeyman running the offense? Why? To beat the Narduzzi's and Urban's of the B1G, to say nothing of the Saban's of the world, we need elite coaching - how long do we accept a middling guy struggling to overachieve? And that's not even getting into the assistants - maybe Funk's doing a middling job with OL development, but can anyone call it great? This is Michigan, fergodsakes, and we're not supposed to accept greatness only once a decade or so when all the stars align and everyone is a 5th year blue-chip recruit.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||SC, what's your take on the||
SC, what's your take on the blocking scheme issues Brian is confounded by? It seems like "guy forced to make a really hard block because guy who could have made easy block immediately released downfield with nary a chip" has cropped up more than once.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Whoops. I read it as he has||
Whoops. I read it as he has to recall the answer to the question three times during quiz bowl.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Only one? There are many||
Only one? There are many capitals with "e" in them - Phoenix, Tallahassee, Cheyenne, Salem, Montpelier, Providence, Nashville...
|4 weeks 5 days ago||You make many excellent||
You make many excellent points, and the cut of your jib is most pleasing.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||I mostly just disagree that||
I mostly just disagree that there's a hive mind, and if there is, that it's the problem.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||I'd say the front page||
I'd say the front page content is actually better - Seth and Ace are improving as writers, I like the Mathlete's additions, we have a presence at pressers, and we're getting a little of the recruiting interviews that we'd lost since TomVH left. Brian is also learning more about football and the "heart" of the site, the UFRs, are getting more sophisticated as a result. Nowhere else in the Michigan blogosphere can really offer all of that.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Frankly, after the PSU and||
Frankly, after the PSU and State games, we should be wearing those uniforms, because THOSE COLORS DON'T RUN.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||So your argument for this||
So your argument for this being a hive mind is a post about how Gardner is not capable of being a QB, something Brian has never questioned?
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Eh, things got really nasty||
Eh, things got really nasty once the blog staff finally gave up on Rich Rod keeping his job (post Gator Bowl). Patience stopped being a virtue. I'm not saying turning against RR was a bad thing, just that up to that point there was pressure from above against being really nasty about the coaches.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, ask a tough question||
Yeah, ask a tough question and you'll not only still get a crappy answer, but you'll end up covering the game from the John U. Bacon memorial press box (a porta john on the golf course).
|4 weeks 6 days ago||That's probably a good one. I||
That's probably a good one. I never got how dark things were on the board that season given our success. Sucked to lose to PSU and Wisky though.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||I wouldn't take it quite that||
I wouldn't take it quite that far. Hoke is not an idiot, I'm sure he doesn't think this is all his players' fault. And frankly execution, more than play calling or gameplanning, has a lot to do with the results on Saturday - the offensive line is epically bad, "Vince Lombardi couldn't win with that line".
|4 weeks 6 days ago||That's kind of what gets me.||
That's kind of what gets me. Rodriguez was taken to task for blaming the players - but that's exactly what Hoke is doing here, albeit with slightly softer language.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||I think Brian's prediction||
I think Brian's prediction re: pass interference is spot on, but I'd add a corollary: Inevitably, the one time State is called for PI will be the one time it's actually a borderline call, and Sparty will gripe endlessly about the "phantom penalties" against their "lock down corners".
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Losing enthusiasm for a team||
Losing enthusiasm for a team you're a fan of is different from being a "front-runner" fan who was a huge Pats fan a couple years back and is now buying a Manning Broncos jersey.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Regardless of the meta values||
Regardless of the meta values behind it, saying "we" is ultimately a useful shorthand. Typing "Michigan" or "The Wolverines" over and over again is a pain. Saying "M" or "UM" reads like a verbal tic. This is a Michigan blog. If I say "we", you know what I'm talking about.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||After significant success at||
After significant success at Memphis, a hot coach known for excellent recruiting transfers to a historically good SEC school in the process of dumping tons of cash into their facilities, and he starts picking up great recruits. As far as suspicion goes, that's far from a slam dunk.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||That's one line of thought,||
That's one line of thought, but another is that being surrounded by top players will make you look better. And if you're going to be a role player / distributor in the NBA, getting good at that at Kentucky could be a plus.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||As much as we hate him, Coach||
As much as we hate him, Coach K is probably closer to Beilein than Calipari in terms of recruiting - he seems to do more development and team-building, whereas Calipari is happy to load up on one-and-dones and make up with raw talent what he lacks in chemistry/experience.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||Exactly. You'd think Michigan||
Exactly. You'd think Michigan had been dominating Kentucky in recruiting for years and suddenly we lose a strong lean out of the blue. The reality is that really apart from one or two guys, we're still recruiting a talent with hype a notch below the rarefied air where Kentucky operates (Our best players on last year's team, other than McGary, were relatively under the radar recruits). The fact that we're losing recruits to Kentucky instead of Illinois or something is a positive development, but it's still going to be some time (if ever) before Beilein can point at a blue-chipper and say "you're comin' with me".
|5 weeks 2 days ago||This is not at all like Ole||
This is not at all like Ole Miss. Ole Miss went from perennial SEC bottom feeder to suddenly bringing in multiple 5-stars long suspected to be heavy leans elsewhere.
Kentucky basketball, on the other hand, has been doing this for years. Booker is a kid that probably wanted to go to Kentucky for awhile, and jumped on the opportunity. Remember that he was not necessarily Calipari's plan A - so if he's dirty he's clearly not dirty enough to win everybody he wants.
Anyway, doesn't mean he's totally clean, but this isn't really equivalent to the Treadwell situation in suspicion level.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Our D is the key||
I think TOC is right that Gallon will make a big play or two. He just has a knack for getting himself open in the deep field against any honest coverage, and with Funchess roaming around out there it will be tough for State to cheat on Gallon. And as long as Borges unleashes him a few times, Gardner will get some decent yards on the ground.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I dunno, I'd estimate that||
I dunno, I'd estimate that train got at least 10 yards. Probably needs a breather on the sideline though.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Cook is still wildly||
Cook is still wildly inconsistent though - the week before last was the awful MSU/Purdue game, with only one offensive score, and then you've got a great showing against awful Indiana preceded by a middling to poor peformance against maybe decent Iowa.
Actually, if you look at their "every other week" performance, Sparty is "due" for a bad offensive week
/correlation is causation.
Point is, Cook has yet to show that skill and efficiency in a pressure situation. The more we can rattle him, the better.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Eh, I don't think it's a||
Eh, I don't think it's a stretch to consider an essentially garbage time TD against Indiana to be less relevant than performance throughout a competitive game against PSU to Michigan's chances this weekend.
Anyway, the "many of the 27 for 27 runs were run to intentionally burn clock!" argument would only be a strong caveat if we were tearing it up on the ground all game only to run into a wall in OT when PSU knew it was coming. It's not like 27 for 27 started as 14 for 50...
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I'd like to see a bit more of||
I'd like to see a bit more of Mattison's signature creative pressure on Cook, especially early - State's offense is not good, but they have demonstrated that they are capable of executing if Cook has time to throw and the opportunity to get in rhythm. Getting his jersey dirty early would go a long way to discombobulating State and making sure we see the vs. Purdue edition of the offense and not the vs. Illinois version.
We haven't seen much of that so far this year, but hopefully JMFR is back to close enough to 100% for Mattison to confidently dial up a few early blitzes.
The likelihood is that it will be tough going for the Michigan offense, and State's D will probably grab a turnover or two, so it's critical that we dominate the State offense on every "standard" possession.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||27 for 27||
The number of runs may have been inflated by late game clock burning and OT, but it's not like the 14 or so runs before that point were much more successful - "27 for 27" doesn't really misrepresent the overall effectiveness of the RB run game (a bit over 1YPA was about right), it only (arguably) misrepresents how much it was used. And even in "we're definitely running to run out the clock" mode, a good running offense should still be able to break 1YPA.
Anyway, it's relevant here because if we cannot successfully execute under center RB carries against PSU (or UConn, for that matter), we are unlikely to have substantially more success against State's much better defense.
Regardless of whether you blame Borges or just terrible O-line play for 27 for 27, it still happened. The fact of the matter is that, against State, Borges really needs to be gameplanning on the assumption that traditional under center run plays are going to be burned downs in the sense that they will put us behind the chains more often than not. Sometimes it's worthwhile to burn downs for some greater good, so I expect to see some of it, but there's no way Michigan will win the game if they rely on it.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I like SC and hope he sticks||
I like SC and hope he sticks around. I've had reasoned back and forths with him where I actually learned something. I agree that he probably just needs to let some of the venting go rather than crusade on every Borges post.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Of course, isn't part of the||
Of course, isn't part of the problem that "up tempo spread" IS our identity (or at least what our players seem best at) but we're trying to assert a very different identity before we are ready for that? (And I note that that's not necessarily bad for the program's long term success)
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Well sure, but pretty much||
Well sure, but pretty much every competitive game can be described by "if a few things had gone differently..." That doesn't change the responsibility of the coaches to prepare players for those situations, nor does it absolve anyone of responsibility for their errors. Just because tempo was not the only thing that went wrong does not mean it's wrong to call out Mattison for not being prepared for tempo.
Your last paragraph is where I think you're overstating (or oversimplifying) Brian's argument. It's not "we huddle on offense, therefore our defense sucks against fast teams". Rather, it's "Our head coach does not fundamentally believe that practicing to play at a high tempo is important (exemplified by, but not limited to, our inability/unwillingness to go high-tempo on offense) and that's part of why we got caught off guard". You may disagree with that argument (it's certainly contentious) but it's a bit more nuanced than I think you're giving it credit for.
Re: analysis, I mostly agree. It's not the be-all, end all of human things (but neither is "they are human" a valid reason to ignore analysis). I'm just glad someone is an analysis junkie to offset some of the "you didn't play, so you just can't understand / it's all about MOMENTUM and BEING CLUTCH" meatheadery, even if it does go too far sometimes.
I don't think no huddle is a miracle cure. But what I (frustratingly) haven't heard from the coaches is a logical explanation for why they do some of the "archaic" things they do. Spread punting and getting to the line fast enough for a sideline check are things that have visible, tangible benefits to college offenses - they aren't the only way of doing things, but you'd like to think the coaches at least understand them and are making an informed decision to go a different direction. Even you admit to liking varied tempo offenses (the NFL certainly does), and I think we can all agree there have been some late game time management head scratchers (e.g. the PSU last drive spike after an OOB play) speaking to a lack of comfort in that mode. And the coaches have been relatively open to a lot of questions, but explanations for those always come back to "that's how we do things", and that's frustrating for the scientific-minded.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Well, when your head coach||
Well, when your head coach flat out says "We don't need to do anything differently to prepare for Indiana's tempo" and then you get torched by Indiana's tempo while your DC flails about wildly in front of hastily procured towels, I think it does speak to leadership that doesn't have a complete grasp on the impact of offensive tempo in modern football. So Brian's explanation (head coach doesn't care about high tempo = we're bad at high tempo) is not particularly implausible.
Here's my grand unified theory on Brian: he fundamentally believes football to be describable via quantitative analysis. He does not like things that are not amenable to analysis. He gets super annoyed when coaches make decisions that not only are not based on analysis, but that directly oppose reasonable results of analysis. To him, "Because that's how we've always done it" (feelingsball) is the worst possible reason to do something. Far from being overly arrogant, I think the stridency of his opinions on things like slow huddles and NFL style punting are more like "If I, a simple sports blogger, can see and understand this, why can't you, who knows so much more than I? Or at least provide me with a rational explanation?"
You may disagree with that line of reasoning, but I for one am glad that people like Brian exist in the sports writing world because prior to the advent of blogs like this one, the fan only got the "feelingsball" take from dumbed down color guys on ESPN.
Anyway, I think you overstate the degree to which Brian ascribes all our problems to huddling up and going slow on offense. Rather, he sees it as a particularly egregious case of doing something the numbers say is bad, and that making a chage could plausibly mitigate some of our other issues. It's not that it's our only problem, it's that it's the lowest hanging fruit.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||This line of thinking would||
This line of thinking would make football very simple, albeit boring.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||"And to the equine mammal you||
"And to the equine mammal you utilize for personal transport!"
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Because we need R rated and||
Because we need R rated and PG-13 and G rated words. You need to be able to have words that mean approximately the same thing but are appropriate in different contexts. The whole point of a swear word is "I feel strongly enough about this that I am willing to risk public censure in expressing my feelings! FUCK!" Or sometimes, "We're such goddamn good buddies that I feel comfortable dropping the pretense of formality around you".
|6 weeks 2 days ago||We will always have swear||
We will always have swear words, because they serve a useful purpose. Making all words equally inoffensive would be like eliminating the exclamation point - you'll lose an important aspect of language.
|6 weeks 2 days ago||Indiana caveats apply, but I||
Indiana caveats apply, but I do think we really saw the value to our young O-Line of giving the D more to worry about, both by running from shotgun and by running more PA on first down.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||So if we were to have Al call||
So if we were to have Al call The Game for OSU, and Urban Meyer call the offense for Michigan... best game ever? More yards than last week?
|6 weeks 3 days ago||A very partial list of good||
A very partial list of good comedies since 2000: American Pie 2, the Cornetto Trilogy, The Hangover, Superbad, Wedding Crashers, the first Meet the Parents, 40 year old virgin, Dodgeball, Talladega Nights, Horrible Bosses, Zombieland, Tropic Thunder, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek, Idiocracy...
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I thought it was best when it||
I thought it was best when it was The Last Samurai.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I have no issue with people||
I have no issue with people who find Anchorman good for a laugh on a lazy Sunday with nothing else on the TV. I wouldn't call it "great" but I can see it being enjoyable.
It's just that many people seem to think it does belong in the same breath, or even beyond, the 4 you mentioned, and quote the damn thing endlessly as if merely repeating "Dorothy Mantooth is a Saint" is an adequate replacement for a sense of humor...
That may be overly harsh, but anyway my point is I just don't seem to get Anchorman on the level that a lot of people apparently do. I don't see how it rates a sequel, but maybe I'll be surprised.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||+1 for Rotten Tomatoes. I've||
+1 for Rotten Tomatoes. I've yet to regret seeing a movie rated "Fresh" on there, and I don't have time to see everything that comes out so that's a win for me. It's also gotten me to watch (and enjoy) a few films I would have looked at and dismissed without thinking (Cabin in the Woods and 21 Jump Street are 2 I can think of off the top of my head).
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I also found Talladega Nights||
I also found Talladega Nights much funnier than Anchorman, and have been roundly ridiculed for it. I thought I was the only one. Thank you, pinkfloyd 2000.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I disagree about The||
I disagree about The Hangover. That was truly hilarious, and I say that as someone who was convinced it would be terrible before I watched it. But whatever, to each their own.
The thing with Avatar is that I would also but it in the "overhyped" rather than "overrated" category. I don't really know anybody for whom Avatar is their favorite film. It got a lot of positive reviews, but even those were mostly "This is a tremendous visual spectacle and technical achievement, but the story is derivative and lame". Which seems to be the prevailing opinion of most people I know, including myself (It is still the only film I thought was honestly improved by 3D).
Anchorman, on the other hand, is flat out worshipped as a paragon of comedy and quoted endlessly by males 25-35 or so. It absolutelty is a "favorite movie" for many. I found it funny, but it's no Blazing Saddles, or even a Caddyshack. It's certainly not something I can watch and rewatch endlessly. Then again my favorite recent comedy is Hot Fuzz, so to some degree Will Farrell (at least in feature length mode) is not really my cup of tea. I do like Talladega Nights more than I should though, so it could be that I'm just weird.
|7 weeks 12 hours ago||Wow, autocorrect. "Rarely",||
Wow, autocorrect. "Rarely", not "rear elf".
|7 weeks 12 hours ago||I wish I could say I didn't||
I wish I could say I didn't feel that way at all, but part of me does.
|7 weeks 13 hours ago||There did seem to be many||
There did seem to be many cases where M was unable to handle IU's tempo. That strikes me as a coaching issue - though maybe a high level one in that it sounds like we rear elf practice at a high tempo and our offense is pretty plodding in terms of lining up for the play.
|7 weeks 13 hours ago||Borges the women's curling||
Borges the women's curling coach hates the free guard zone rule, thinks tap-backs and freezes are "basketball on ice", and usually calls for at least 3 peels every end. He occasionally gets 4 points dropped on him when repeatedly asking his takeout specialist to throw open draws. MANCURLING.
|7 weeks 1 day ago||The guys blowing their||
The guys blowing their assignments have had only one HC.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||The predictability leads to||
The predictability leads to worse things than just the number of players in the box though. It's how aggressive those players are allowed to be.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||So do oregon's helmets say||
So do oregon's helmets say "30 year old women should check for lumps"? No. They say "20 year old football players like to wear hot pink and think boobies are awesome". This stopped being about cancer awhile ago. They really ought to add some work for diabetes and prostate cancer, which are both more likely to directly affect football players and that men are also extreme unaware of and/or unwilling to get tested for.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Obviously huge condolences,||
Obviously huge condolences, and we all hope for the best.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Jesus there is so much||
Jesus there is so much fucking snow in that picture. And those damn rocks? My knees are gonna hurt like hell tomorrow. Damn it all to hell, how are we going to drive gone through that? I bet the heater is broken again.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Or would it be as bad if we||
Or would it be as bad if we hadn't mostly defended RR for years and then watched it go to hell? We looked back and in hindsight saw lots of warning signs that now seem scarily familiar....
|7 weeks 3 days ago||And I should make clear that||
And I should make clear that I'm really appreciative of SC for posting this. Space Coyote is a great contrarian (though he's really not that contrarian, all things considered).
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Eh you're the one who said||
Eh you're the one who said echo chamber on this thread but honestly everyone here has been pretty good. So I'm sorry if it came off as targeted at you.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Hey, be nice||
I mean, I'm sure he's not a currently fucking fuck, but suggesting he's a fuck that's never fucked (not that there's anything fucking wrong with that) is pretty fucking fucked up, don't you think?
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Thanks SC. I think we've had||
Thanks SC. I think we've had some civil (and for me anyway, enlightening) conversations here, so hopefully you do to.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||I think contra makes a good||
I think contra makes a good point though that it's not just the numbers in the box that hurt us, but how aggressively the LBs /safeties are allowed to play because they don't have to fear a quick outside pass. It's a lot harder to combo block when the second level guys are crashing hard and are on top of the play before the line can get off their first level blocks.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||The first few responses were||
The first few responses were "why wouldn't anyone want to stand", "student section" and "Fraser's pub". That's a little dickish for an honest question. The responses got a little better after that, but at the time that's what I was responding to.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||I dunno man, the "execution||
I dunno man, the "execution is the only big problem" was much easier to swallow after OSU 2012 and Akron.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||I'd buy the "smart Borges||
I'd buy the "smart Borges theory" if we were spending the game grinding out 2-3 yards a carry from iso, power, and other man-blocked interior runs. That's what predictability in the name of maximizing game reps for our future identity would look like.
But we aren't - we added a lot of new stuff (zone stretch, pistol, "tackle over") that doesn't directly apply to the BIG TEHN POWAH MANBALLLLL model. Why do that, unless you're flailing to find an identity that you've yet to nail down?
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Thank you for continuing to||
Thank you for continuing to patiently participate in the discussion ;) Your reasonability is an asset to the blog and helps hotheads like me learn something. In particular, you're right that we probably ought to stop saying "bubble screen" when we really mean something else (but thematically similar).
Anyway, I'm curious if you think Al is doing what he really wants to do here, or if he's in a GERG situation. On the one hand we know he doesn't like running the QB, and we see him moving away from that. On the other, we see the addition of a meager pistol package and the zone stretch for this season - things that don't really speak to a specific identity. We don't seem to have "deeply" installed much of anything, by which I mean we seem to have a breadth of looks and formations with only a couple plays we consistently run from each - to me that doesn't speak to a guy who's installing his own system that he understands intimately. What do you think he's thinking?
The reality is that our traditional run game really is historically bad on the level of the 2010 defense, and everyone seemed to agree that required a coaching change. So what are your thoughts? I certainly don't think out offensive talent is inferior to our defensive talent in 2010.
To me, the best solution would be to come out in more 3 and 4 receiver sets, whether in shotgun or under center. Borges seems to have recognized that our TEs and interior line are not ready for prime time, but his solution (tackle over) is limited and easily schemed for. To me, we've got a couple of good options for low risk "long handoffs" that are being criminally underused: Dileo and Norfleet. Dileo in particular is also a great asset for 0-15 yard passes - sure hands and a knack for getting open, even if he'll never be a deep threat. Gallon is also underrated in space. Even if you target them only a few times a game, they are dangerous enough that the D needs to account for them - that's basically a guaranteed block, something our TEs can't seem to deliver. At the very least, forcing the D into a nickel package will soften the interior run defense.
As far as coaching, I just don't think Funk is getting it done. The linemen are failing at the basics. Yeah, they're young, but even allowing for that they don't seem to be performing as if they've been receiving world class coaching. If we're going to carry the 2010 analogy, it was really poor fundamentals that were to me the biggest knock on GERG. Those improved massively in 2011, and we reaped the benefits.
I also am not impressed with Al as a QB coach. Maybe he's got too much on his plate. We never saw much improvement out of Denard, and Devin seems to have plateaued - he's still making poor decisions consistently. I think Devin could really benefit from a dedicated coach who could focus on the mental aspects of his game, and a double-duty OC doesn't seem like the best solution.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||So do you think GERG could||
So do you think GERG could have "explained" his defenses? If yes, then what's the value in that? If no, what convinces you that Borges is so much better? Just because a coach is thinking doesn't mean they are doing so effectively.
Anyway, substantively you're right, but I still struggle to find an example of a team that calls so many basic runs so predictably to such minimal effect. We're basically dead last in FBS in tackles for loss allowed - that's a massive coaching failure, and at some point whether it's scheme or execution starts to become academic because one man is ultimately responsible for both.
We're bad at runs that ought to work. That's your main point, and I understand and respect that. But I still have a beef with Borges because the zone stretch is something that we installed this year, we are demonstrably bad at it, and yet we keep running it double digit times a game. We supposedly want to move to a more man-blocked, power based running scheme, and we seem to have the (young, inexperienced) bodies to run it, so why tack on a zone package in year 3 and make it your base run? It a head scratcher to me - why don't we focus more on our supposed long term scheme? If we're going to bash into a wall, might as well make it a learning experience.
And you hit on a second problem I have - predictable first down play calling. Sure, our pass/run split may have been okay, but the alignments of the D, plus my own lying eyes, speak to easily predictable calls that the defense can cheat on with no threat of a counter or misdirection. Result: we're always behind the chains. Yeah, perfect blocking should still get you 5 yards but that hardly means you've done all you can to put your players in a position to succeed. Under center runs are fine (though statistically less effective for us, but whatever), but that doesn't mean we should watch them fail 20 times a game and just throw up our hands and say "must be the players fault, nothing we can do".
What really scares me is the return of the Carr era dichotomy between an effective "scoring offense" that takes risks, uses misdirection, and trusts it's seniors to execute, and a turtle offense designed to minimize risk (at the expense of yards) that always seems to let the opponent back in the game. Seriously, if Borges had called the entire game like the 3rd and early 4th quarter I'd have very few complaints. Hell, if he'd called any OT like the 3rd quarter we probably would have won.
P.S. - Gardner has poor ball security? Man, somebody ought to give his QB coach a dressing down...
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Wow guys, way to be dicks to||
Wow guys, way to be dicks to somebody trying to take their disabled friend to a game.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Sure, but a) lack of||
Sure, but a) lack of execution is ultimately Borges' fault anyway and b) I can see "we need to execute" being plan a, but if you do something 30 times a game and it only works once or twice, that tells me you either have a poor game plan or are poorly preparing for your game plan.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Okay I'll buy that - but||
Okay I'll buy that - but wouldn't you agree that taking the yards from the bubble screen against that defensive look would be a lot easier than asking this team to block perfectly against a D that knows exactly what's coming?
At the very least, throwing that bubble a couple times a game gets one of the safeties out of the box and increases the upside of your zone stretch - instead of perfect blocking getting you 5 yards, it gets you 10.
What I see often is, even if the line blocks well, there's a free hitter only a couple yards deep. Spreading things out a bit with some throws would help this.
As I said earlier, I can understand running to set up the pass, but the best case scenario of doing that is exactly what we see in these pictures: a stacked box with WRs 1 on 1 against soft coverage for easy yards and the possibility of busting a big play. So let's take advantage of that!
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Is GERG a moron? Is Charlie||
Is GERG a moron? Is Charlie Weis a moron? Is Lane Kiffin a moron? I doubt it, they're just bad coaches.
So maybe Borges is just a not so good coach who's moderate success to this point was propped up by good talent and/or a great detail-oriented head coach. We don't have the former yet and Hoke is a defense-oriented "Feelingsball" manager, not an Xs and Os wonk. Borges has seen enough football to pick up decent bits and pieces from a lot of systems, but that doesn't mean he knows them deeply, the way RR knows the spread or Mike Leach knows the Air Raid.
Of course, the scarier possibility is that Borges really is a good coach (for a West Coast offense), and Hoke is forcing MANBALL on him. Much like GERG being forced to run the 3-3-5, he's out of his element and flailing.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Of course, our noodle-armed||
Of course, our noodle-armed backup QB was deemed worthy of, and prepared for, that role by Al Borges, our QB coach.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||This was the great pain of||
This was the great pain of the late Carr years - we looked brilliant when the game was close, and then turtled with any sort of lead. It got to the point where I felt better starting the 4th quarter down 7 than up 10.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||There's a difference between||
There's a difference between calling plays (Peyton) and calling audibles and hot routes (basically every pro QB). Many QBs are expected to call hot routes in the face of tipped blitzes, basically telling their WR to go to the spot the blitzer is vacating - this check would be no more complicated than that, actually much less.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Well then I guess we better||
Well then I guess we better just run to set up the punt. No sense risking turning the ball over now when you know our shaky kicker and lousy punt coverage can move the other team back between 0 and 40 yards three plays from now.
Snark aside if one of the defenders can intercept a screen pass to Gallon out of that defensive alignment, he is a god and we should bow to him. The INT against Akron came out of great LB play from a receiver starting near center field. The bubbles that are wide open in the picture pages are a whole different animal.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Your theory is basically 1)||
Your theory is basically 1) we're young and 2) we're doing more MANBALL to transition to it, and we're just having growing pains for the sake of the long term.
I'm asking this truthfully - if your part 2 is correct, how has our "scheme" changed this year, and how has that change been necessitated by our long term planning? The changes I've seen implemented this year:
1) More zone stretch running. Not MANBALL.
2) We added the pistol. Not MANBALL.
3) Tackle over. Sort of MANBALL, but gimmicky, unsustainable MANBALL.
4) More under-center, play action, and I-form. MANBALL.
So only 4 is really something that's moving us toward the supposed long term goal. And even #4 is something we started in 2011. We're doing it in games more, but they were teaching it in practice. And it's not like they've eliminated many of the spread plays - we just use them less often. So next year, we have to change the system AGAIN - will we deploy the same excuses?
So we're not really establishing the long term system, and we're not really playing with only what the current players are best at. We're doing a sort of bastardized thing that, to my eye, is the worst of both worlds: A little bit of power, a little bit of spread, a little bit of zone, but without the fully implemented systems that make those schemes effective. Frankly, I'd rather we just go full pro-style and have growing pains, as long as we actually were going full pro-style, with all the counters, audibles, etc. that that entails.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Yes, you do lose something||
Yes, you do lose something when you switch OCs - but if the problem is that we lack a coherent "identity" (the "he had to adjust for Denard" argument is often deployed), isn't the best time to make a change now, before we establish an "identity" as an incoherent offense with poor fundamentals?
|7 weeks 4 days ago||For one thing, 14 points came||
For one thing, 14 points came off of deep bombs to Funchess.
For another, most of the offense's points came when Al wasn't doing this - we actually opened things up quite a bit in the second half, and then sort of explicably stopped when we went to bleed clock mode, and then inexplicably did not open up again in OT.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Fair enough, but the answer||
Fair enough, but the answer to "I'm worried the QB will check too much" is not "never ever check". The point I was going for is that eventually the checks will stop working, but only when the defense stops overplaying the run (and then you don't need to check). It's a learning process for the QB, certainly, but he's never going to learn if you never let him check.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Which part of accomodating||
Which part of accomodating the semi-spread requires the O-line to be taught poor technique and targeting for both zone blocking AND man blocking (note that most good teams run some of both)? We do more zone blocking than we did a year ago - how does that play into a transition to "manball"?
The reality is that the job of the O-line is not that different in spread running. Optioning off 1 guy doesn't negate the need for the OL's to open a hole. You still need to find the right guy and move him effectively. Pass protection has even fewer differences, but we're poor at that too. We're failing at the basics, not 400 level "pro-style" concepts - we don't get push, we let defenders off blocks too easily, we don't communicate and adjust effectively to slants and stunts. All of those concepts ought to carry over from the RR system.
And all of the talk of "identity" is dumb, because no other teams run into a 9 man front repeatedly to no effect as often as we do. It doesn't happen - hence the worst RB game ever. That isn't an identity. A sea slug has a more flexible identity - at least if you drop a rock in front of it, it will eventually go around. If there's a tuba player that only ever plays one note, and plays that one note off key, no one says, "wow, what a great identity he's establishing!" There are not good pro teams that do this - they punish defenses that overplay. There might be some bad high school teams that do it, I guess. But we aren't seeing "pro-style". We're seeing "let's do something we're bad at 30 times a game to set up.... well nothing really".
|7 weeks 4 days ago||It probably gets Touissant||
It probably gets Touissant used to getting beat to hell 3 yards behind the LOS, so I guess that helps. Practice like you play!
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Other than Molk, our current||
Other than Molk, our current guys OUGHT to be an upgrade. That they are not, and are not even showing flashes of being so, is damning.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||But the issue highlighted||
But the issue highlighted here is not "system". It's just being dumb. There's nothing wrong with being a power run team, and we have the bodies coming in to run it. But we're doing it very, very poorly. One poster mentioned that they had this check in HIGH SCHOOL. Does Gardner make poor decision sometimes? Yes. But he graduated Michigan in 3 years while playing QB - all indications are that he's a very sharp guy. All of the QB coaches (and Peyton Manning) he worked with this summer raved about his skill and coachability. A smart guy with his insane physical tools ought to be able to make checks like that a year into his career as a D1 starter - of course, that assumes he's being competently coached.
It is the height of lunacy to run into a stacked box when there is no possible way to avoid at least 1 and often 2 unblocked defenders even if you block perfectly, which we don't yet have the skill to do (and may never have, given how our OL appears to be poorly coached).
We don't need a spread guy. We just need a pro-style guy that's willing to take what the defense (and his talent on the field) gives. That does not appear to be Hoke/Borges.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Your talk of Carr whipping it||
Your talk of Carr whipping it out made me giggle. I am not ashamed.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||The funny thing is, the whole||
The funny thing is, the whole point of "running to set up the pass" is to get the defense to do EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING, namely, overplay the run. YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED IN SETTING UP THE PASS. Now PASS IT, fergodsakes.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Well that plus the apparent||
Well that plus the apparent alternative is "Pretend AJ Williams is a Left Tackle and get Gardner blindsided a couple times a game". I'm sure that's great for Devin's health...
|7 weeks 5 days ago||I think "giving the QB too||
I think "giving the QB too much freedom" is self correcting for simple checks like that though. If the QB goes to that check too often, the defense will start cheating on it - which will open up the run game you're trying to establish. Win-win.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||That's all well and good, but||
That's all well and good, but this is year 3 - can we honestly say this offense is close to being good at power running, smashmouth stuff like we supposedly want to be? Can we even say that we've significantly improved toward that since 2011? Gardner can throw much better than Denard, but other than that, we're no better at MANBALL than Rich Rod's offenses.
By comparison, 2010 was by no means a perfect offense, but it was much closer to being a good spread offense, and you could see the pieces starting to come together.
The offense looks much more like the GERG defenses with better individual talent bailing us out - confusion, poor technique, no identity, head scratching schemes that seem designed to fail but are used frequently.
I think Funk needs to go, and I think Borges needs to be relieved of QB coaching duties and given direction to find an identity that works with what we have.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Heiko should take that||
Heiko should take that picture to the next Borges presser and ask "Why do you think running into this defense 30 times is a better idea than throwing to your barely covered senior WR and asking him to gain a few yards?"
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Sure our blockers look||
Sure our blockers look confused and are playing with poor technique, and we're running into stacked boxes that consistently outnumber our blockers. But Hoke is very confident in our OL coaching and our playcaller, so I don't see why everyone is freaking out. Trust the coaches!
|7 weeks 5 days ago||That's the thing though, it's||
That's the thing though, it's the OT where we're really concerned about the conservatism. I see milking the clock at the end of regulation, but in OT there's no clock to milk. That's where it looked like they didn't trust Devin to make a play - not at all in the first OT, and not on 3rd and 1 in the 3rd OT.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||The downside of that is an||
The downside of that is an incompletion costs you 40 seconds off the clock. So you do need to keep it on the ground. Losing yardage (through the Fitz run on 3rd down and the delay of game) is what killed us.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||The trouble with that line of||
The trouble with that line of thinking is that running ineffectively on 1st down probably makes your interceptions worse - your QB is going to be in more positions where he HAS to throw, and trying to force throws into tight spots in obvious passing downs is where a lot of QBs get into trouble. If you get 3-5 yards by any means on 1st down, the playbook is wide open and the defense can't cheat on the QB.
1st and 10 also allows more of your easy throws - screens, dumpoffs, etc., that are less likely to be picked off (yes I know we managed to throw a pick six on a screen).
|7 weeks 6 days ago||That's the part I wish||
That's the part I wish Mathlete delved into more - yes, the chances of a team going 80 yards to score in 57 seconds with no TOs is very low. But how much lower is it than going 65 yards? I see three scenarios:
Best (reasonable) case punt: downed inside the 10.
Worst (reasonable) case punt: touchback (what actually happened).
Worst (reasonable) case field goal: miss, PSU gets ball on 35.
What are the win % in each scenario? Only if scenario 3 - scenario 1 > field goal percentage does it make sense to punt. You may have to consider all "2 minute drill" TD attempts to get a reasonable sample size.
Bonus: How much did we sacrifice in FG % by boneheadedly taking the delay penalty?
Hold us Mathlete!
|8 weeks 10 hours ago||That's all about the game||
That's all about the game clock though. Not an issue in OT. When Sumlin does that after he's already missed to game winning FGs and the clock is no an issue, you'll have a point.
|8 weeks 11 hours ago||I will say for the record||
I will say for the record that I'm mostly annoyed at the first OT and the punt from the 35, set up by a delay of game with a TO in hand. Yeah, you expect Gibbons to hit the 33 yarder, but you also should trust Gardner to make a couple throws when he has been all 2nd half.
|8 weeks 12 hours ago||Prior to the 33 yarder, we||
Prior to the 33 yarder, we ran Fitz into a wall on 3rd and 1. Play action probably gets a TD there because PSU saw it coming a mile away. Prior to that, we ran Fitz into a wall 3 times to try a 40 yarder.
|8 weeks 13 hours ago||What bugged me was that||
What bugged me was that Borges DID adapt, for most of the second half. Much more passing, more opportunities for Devin to run. This worked. Great adjustment, great recovery by Gardner.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||Actually to me the Alan||
Actually to me the Alan Branch hit looked pretty clean. At least as clean as that Clowney hit. Morelli got concussed from the back of his head whacking the turf, probably not from Branch's hit.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||Fun fact: the term "balls||
Fun fact: the term "balls out" does not refer to genitals (or at least it didn't used to)
|8 weeks 2 days ago||Thanks for all your great||
Thanks for all your great posts. I'm glad we have a superfan on the site to work hard so I don't have to. Hopefully you'll get a chance to see Generation this summer in ASC!
|8 weeks 2 days ago||Is it though? Basically||
Is it though? Basically you've got Gardner playing poorly in:
|8 weeks 2 days ago||Not sure #5 ought to be||
Not sure #5 ought to be celebrated - a) the guy to the first down, and b) that's probably an ejection for targeting.