landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
- Member for
- 4 years 38 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Most of the comments may trend negative||
But I appreciate this series every year. Saves me trying to do my own research on every other B1G team.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||I don't understand the appeal of North Dakota in the conference.||
Never mind the public relations baggage (which is significant and from what I can tell is deserved), what's the commonality? They're practically as far away again as Minnesota, and nobody, as far as I can tell, likes them.
Do we really want them around just to have them on the scheduleregularly on the assumption we'll win most of the time?
Also Brian made a pretty convincing argument that the 7-team conference is a good idea. If we're adding anybody else, it should be because a current conference member picks up the sport.
Yeah, yeah, they travel well and they've got fans. Maybe that's paramount in people's minds after the B1G tournament disaster. But the first gif to hand, even for Brian trying to make the case, is one of mutual bird-flipping. What about this suggests conference mates?
|28 weeks 6 days ago||My thought on the PI thing||
With the rise of Sparty-esque "hold and interfere subtly all the time and take your lumps a couple times a game when you get caught defense", I'd expect the proportion of bad calls to actually rise, because you end up with refs knowing there's going to be shenanigans there sometimes and sort of guessing when it's actually happening. Fairly or unfairly, our D has got the reputation this year of being that sort of defense, so I think we're picking up a lot of those WTF flags. Would be interesting to get a completely disinterested party (say, a UCF fan - they've got nothing to play for and no real relationship to M) to go through game tape with a super-detailed approach and find out (a) what's being called that shouldn't and (b) if/where the defense is getting away with stuff.
|30 weeks 23 hours ago||For this once||
I want to give it to the other team and award it to the Jerrysota flag run-out GIF. Because Kill is a pretty good dude who doesn't deserve this nonsense, and hey, we won, we can be magnamonious about it.
(But I'd have voted for Chesson #1 under normal conditions.)
|30 weeks 5 days ago||FWIW||
Minnesota fans I've talked to have seemed to think the offense and especially Leidner have improved dramatically since Northwestern. How much of that is simply not playing Northwestern's apparently mostly legit defense (and therefore, how much not-better they may look against Michigan's very legit defense) I'm not sure.
|31 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, but the explanation doesn't wash.||
It adds to the appearance of subjectivity when the explanation of selection is based on "the things I saw and thought I saw" (so, Seth's using his feelings/judgment) and "the things people were talking about.... the plays people bitched about" (implied: "people" means "Michigan fans"). Either one or both together mean we can expect a "Michigan bias" in the selection of plays reviewed even if his analysis of the plays is 100% correct (which I'd be prepared to grant, at least for the sake of argument).
And thus even if Seth's "Sparty homer" check (and which is it, is that a reliable check or should we never take Spartan fans seriously?) agreed with his judgment, the selections still questionable.
And even if the selection were fine, and even if the analysis is 100% correct, the EV is being abused by simply summing these abstracted numbers. It could just be a too-simplistic model (as Seth mentions at the end when he discusses why the last play shouldn't be included), but the caveats, I feel, aren't big enough.
|31 weeks 6 days ago||I'm more thinking of, okay, why these 21 plays?||
You're essentially excerpting some relatively small percentage and saying, "Yeah, this really is everything that mattered". Also I'm not sure where your %called numbers are coming from: that could distort the results pretty badly one way or another and it sounds like they're pretty subjective. And finally, piling up those EVs without regard to time seems implausible.
Part of its comparison to my own feelings, where I didn't feel during the game that the reffing was or ended up particularly biased: sloppy, and I didn't like the way the "targeting" play was called, but that was the only thing that stood out to me.
And finally, complaining about the refs seems like a lame way to try to get over a gut-punch of a loss, anyway. Especially when we've got a clear colossal screw-up all of our own without trying to find anything else to blame it on.
|32 weeks 24 min ago||I'm sort of curious what a similar column would look like...||
if done by a Sparty homer. Your number is so high the only reasonable assumption is that there's a methodology problem somewhere. My suspicion is that that problem is "pissed about the loss and not really being objective".
|34 weeks 5 days ago||I don't know what to make of Maryland's QBs.||
I didn't know they'd brought in Garman - he was a starter (!) for a while for Oklahoma State, and seemed to be one of those inconsistent-but-dynamic types. I'd have thought that made him better than Rowe almost automatically, but what do I know? I'd expect Saturday to feature a lot of handoffs, regardless.
|35 weeks 6 days ago||A meh day from the offense.||
I suppose if I were going to try to put a positive spin on this, I would say that instead of deciding to run up the score (or whatever) by gashing UNLV with outside runs until they did something, the staff said, "Eh, we're winning", and brought out some of the formations/plays they want to have and ran them "live fire"? But if that was the thinking, then it's slightly worrying that they didn't succeed much.
|43 weeks 3 days ago||I'm always conflicted.||
On the one hand, "illegal man downfield" is one of the dumbest rules in sports. On the other hand, it's applied wildly inconsistently, and consistent calling would be better than that.
|44 weeks 5 days ago||What would be helpful||
Can we get a link to a spreadsheet arranged by position - a "depth chart" as it were? So that we can see at a glance e.g. that Ace doesn't have a QB yet (I assume he's assuming that he can pick up QB Indiana in the later rounds) or how the lines are filling out, without having to check through the list to see what position everybody is?
|44 weeks 6 days ago||I'm happy to see this come back.||
After the backlash last year I wasn't sure the proprietors would run it again. Though there's nothing else to talk about at the moment.
|46 weeks 4 days ago||"Maize" isn't really a helpful name to try to determine color.||
Actual maize (corn, the stuff you eat) a more or less pastel yellow (unless dried), which, ick. I don't think anybody's advocating for that right now.
I think the yellow-yellow ("highlighter" or adidas look) actually looks better objectively, but the orange-yellow is far more distinctive and looks just fine.
I really don't much care about the exact shade of yellow. "Maize" (yellow or yellow-ish) and (dark) "blue" is hard to mess up too badly no matter the exact shades; it's the helmet that's distinctive.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||I ...don't hate them?||
The shorts could be better. But the top is great.
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Is there a part 3 coming?||
I ask because there's one apparent glaring fault highlighted by the statistics, which is that Kaep's YPP fell every year under Harbaugh. The NFL-writer-narrative this year was that Harbaugh was "breaking" Kaepernick by insisting on [exact problem not clear], but that seems unlikely given his track record; my instinct is to look for a decline/other problems in the surrounding "pieces" of the team, but (a) I don't know how to go about analyzing that, (b) anyway I barely watched the 49ers this past season, and (c) obviously no position exists in a vacuum.
One concerning interpretation might be that NFL defenses are starting to figure out Harbaugh's "system", if it's fair to say he has a system, and under that interpretation we want to ask whether college guys will do the same. (As a sort of flip side of this argument I'd point to MSU's emerging defensive issues this past season.) I'm not sure whether this adds weight to the argument or is a reason for dismissing it, but Seattle, St. Louis, and Arizona are all at least characterized as "defensive" teams right now.
Of course "struggles vs. really good defenses" isn't exactly a valid criticism of any offensive scheme - no one's claiming Oregon's offense is suddenly in trouble. But I'm curious what you think here. Especially since we're playing MSU and Ohio State every year!
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Well, sure.||
That Iowa and Tennessee (say) were playing in last year instead of Directional State and U of State-Nowheresville is a problem. But that's execution of format, not directly the fault of the format (except that it apparently was spit out by the computers giving the overal #1 the theoretical weakest schedule? I'm not entirely sure how it should work mathematically; common sense says, if you've got four play-ins, they should be for the 4 16 spots.)
|1 year 29 weeks ago||Eh||
68 makes no sense, but 65 made even less sense even from the "publicity stunt" point of view.
Okay, refine that a little bit. If the tournament were really seeded 1-64, then a play-in for the 64 spot, and the 64 spot only, is still silly but is justifiable. As it is, the Big Dance is (except for the "overall #1 spot) basically 4 tournaments seeded 1-16, in both the public mind and reality, so it makes more sense to have either 4 play-in games, or none. (I prefer none.)
|1 year 30 weeks ago||My line of thought||
After the Notre Dame game, my operative theory became that Nussmeier had come in this Spring, looked at what he had, and said to himself, "Self, this is going to take a while," and so went into the year coaching "for next year". Hoke is Brandon's guy, Brandon didn't look nearly so shaky then; it seemed plausible that, say, an 8-4 year with obvious "progress" (whatever that means) would buy Hoke at least 2015. Especially with a win over MSU or OSU.
Michigan has looked fine against bad teams. That's a minimum competence and wasn't there last year (see: UConn). Against good teams - even decent teams - it's been a struggle. The offense to me this year looks like it knows what it's trying to do and can't - missed holes, dropped passes, wild throws, poor blocking, goofy turnovers, the works. The big red flag exception is the Minnesota game, of course, when ... I don't have an explanation. But this is an at least slightly better thing than last year's team which often looked like it didn't know what it was trying to do even when it was working. (And then there were the Notre Dame and OSU games, which... I also don't have an explanation for, but in a good way.)
I have no idea how to try to sift out who's responsible for what problems at this point. I look at the team and my gut feel is that with another year Nussmeier's offense would be at least back to decent even with a new QB, just from familiarity, repetition, and some experience on the line. It was garbage time, sure, but (at least with the rose-colored glasses) the mere fact of a touchdown against MSU is a tiny positive progress.
But I don't think we can keep Hoke, as he's shown no ability to improve a team - the opposite, rather: we need to get rid of him. So it's new coach, new coordinators, new QB, new everything next year, and that's also going to be a pain.
|1 year 31 weeks ago||Okay, thanks.||
Looking at it more carefully, I think where I was confused was that I was assuming the Z was on the LoS - I never realized the "exactly seven" rule.
So if I'm reading it right now, the LT is eligible (except for his number) by being on the end of the line, and the X ditto on the other "end" (which is really out past the hash), the Z is eligible because he's in the "backfield" slightly off the LoS (despite being out wide (until he comes in motion)), the Y (as lined up) would never be eligible regardless of motion, and the "center" of the line for counting purposes is actually the RG?
|1 year 31 weeks ago||So this is where my ignorance shows.||
Not having played football myself, I never can keep receiving eligibility straight. But I thought it had something to do with distance (by bodies, not space?) from the ball - anyway, I can't figure out why on that first play diagrammed the Y is ineligible but the LT is (apparently, by color) eligible. I thought it should be the other way around, but I trust Seth to not have screwed that up. What am I missing?
|1 year 38 weeks ago||Point of Order||
That's Vad Lee, JMU and former Georgia Tech QB. He didn't look so hot at GT, either; I'm putting that percentage chance Gardner's better at well over 70%.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||Little-noted artistic detail||
In "Run blocking!", the streamer on the FG pole blows out marking right where #4 just ran.
It's the details that make things great.
|1 year 39 weeks ago||I was getting all excited with the position player previews||
Now I'm worried again. If Glasgow comes back at center and is good, and the freshman is competent, and Braden's taken a step forward, ... it could be almost-good. I feel like the pass pro might actually be okay; still worried about the running game. Hopefully The Nuss has actually simplified it and we'll be doing 2-3 things pretty okay instead of gameplan roulette.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||This was somehow worse than the defense UFR.||
21-7 and somehow we found a way to lose.
|1 year 40 weeks ago||One thing I will miss from Borges' offense||
Is the stacks. When the offense really got going, they worked really nicely, and were fun to watch.
I don't know enough about football to know whether they'd be compatible with what Nussmeier's doing, let alone whether he's likely to use them or any similar concepts.
|1 year 45 weeks ago||As a Hillsdale alum||
Hillsdale basketball is usually a mediocre to occasionally kind of good D-II program. The game should be a laugher.
|1 year 48 weeks ago||Yeah, and||
I'm going to go ahead and guess you weren't that excited about beating VT in the Sugar Bowl either, because just another bowl game win isn't a "special accomplishment" for Michigan (regardless of, you know, the actual state of the program).
|2 years 8 weeks ago||There's a certain tragic irony||
For Michigan to lose a nail-biter on a last-second three.
Great season, Blue, see you next year.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Even if Dakich never played a minute||
He'd be worth keeping around.