- Member for
- 5 years 33 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|11 weeks 7 hours ago||Yep||
Pot is legal here in Washington, but if I smoked it and my employer found out, I could still be fired for it.
|14 weeks 4 days ago||You just may be right||
Hard to replace a shooter like like Stauskas, though. I mean, I know they're out there, and there are other guys on the team who can hit a long jumper, but with Stauskas, you had a little more confidence that he'd make it.
|27 weeks 1 day ago||Thinking the same thing||
Develop talent and it doesn't matter.
Yeah, recruiting matters, but sometimes even top recruits don't pan out the way you hoped they would. And when you don't get the top recruit, you do better with the recruits you did get.
|27 weeks 5 days ago||Could be a long term change||
It's easy to be overly pessimistic in the wake of such a bad loss, but we might be seeing a long term shift to a consistently mediocre team that will show an occasional recrudesence of past greatness some seasons when conditions are just right. I hope I'm wrong.
|34 weeks 5 days ago||A bottle of Chardonnay||
Total U-M stereotype, I know.
|34 weeks 5 days ago||Good point||
I try remind myself that even programs like Alabama and USC had their lean years, too.
|34 weeks 5 days ago||Paradigm shift?||
Maybe that term doesn't fit, but it's the best one I could think of right now. Maybe what we're seeing now is an episode in a longer story of U-M's relative decline in football. Times have changed, the game has changed, and Michigan hasn't yet found a way to adapt. Programs rise and fall. There's a possibility Michigan's entering an epoch/period/era in which the only consistent characteristic is mediocrity with an occasional irruption of talent + coaching that produces a team that's competitive for a Big 10 championship/BCS bowl for a year or two and then returns to a baseline of mediocrity.
I really want to be wrong about this, but even our most beloved institutions are not immune to larger trends/forces coupled with key decisions that didn't go the right way.
|35 weeks 5 days ago||I don't know where to start with this team||
It's hard for me to see what the cause of this team's problems is, aside from the obvious operational aspect: an offensive line that cannot run block or even protect the quarterback all that well. But is it poor coaching, or maybe the talent isn't what we thought it was? Or some of both?
|35 weeks 5 days ago||I feel confident about maybe one win||
I don't expect any more than that, but I very much hope to be wrong.
|38 weeks 5 days ago||Really a total team loss||
Lots of times, you can point to the cause of a loss as being a deficiency in one facet of the game: poor execution, turnovers, a bad play call or other coaching decision. Sometimes it's a bad break and the other team takes advantage.
But there's plenty of causes here: holes in the offensive line, mental mistakes at crucial points in the game, turnovers, overly conservative play calling, players not executing when they need to, e.g., Gibbons, to name a few there. In the end, I have to put most of the responsibility on the coaching, particularly in OT. There were multiple instances where it looked like U-M was just wasting downs. I understand the need for ball security - you don't want to give up a big turnover during OT - but we kept running Fitz when it was clear he wasn't going anywhere. At all. Get the yards - even if you want to kick, make it as easy as possible for your kicker. And who knows? Maybe another opportunity to get a TD will open up.
We'll have to reset some expectations for this team this year. The games against Akron and UConn were maybe more indicative of U-M's problems than we wanted to think. Michigan has been playing with fire all season and now they got burned.
|41 weeks 5 days ago||A win's a win||
But there's some work to be done with this team. Can't turnover the ball like that and expect to keep winning.
|42 weeks 5 days ago||I was at that game||
Stayed for the entire game. But boy, was I an iceblock by the time I got home. Couldn't feel my feet or the back of my neck. Had to thaw in the shower.
|1 year 13 weeks ago||All heart, no shame||
I was so glad to be more than pleasantly surprised at how deep in the tournament this team went. They played the #1 seed as tough or tougher than any other team did and just came up short. Very proud of the boys in Blue tonight.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Love that turnaround jumper||
McGary's offense is just getting better.
|1 year 14 weeks ago||Didn't think we'd pull this one out||
Glad to be wrong.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||D was solid||
The guys moved/rotated well and kept SDSU from getting too many easy inside shots. Left a few guys open, but that happens.
|1 year 15 weeks ago||Impressive team play||
I'll be honest - after the Big Ten tournament loss I wasn't feeling all that confident about the first round (though I didn't put it that tactfully). It was great to see how the rest of the guys stepped up when Burke had an off night. McGary in particular, considering this was only like, what, his third start all season?
|1 year 16 weeks ago||I don't disagree||
Oh, I'm not saying you want Burke handling the ball all of the time. Just the opposite. You do need to spread it around - and that's precisely the rub. Burke is so good with the ball that sometimes the rest of the team falls into this pattern of leaving it him to take over games. You can only do that so much.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||It does seem to be a pattern||
...over the last few weeks (in the losses, at least). That's how having a player with Burke's gifts on a young team can be a double-edged sword- the rest of the team falls back into letting Burke take over. Sure, you want a guy like him handling the ball, but a team like U-M that hasn't yet developed a really strong inside presence depends that much more on moving the ball around.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||You know what? You're right.||
I'm sorry for what I wrote upthread. I should have thought more carefully before I wrote it. I am genuinely concerned about the team's chances in the NCAAs, but I could have stated that much better than I did. I've been following this team nearly all of my life, so I'm not a fair-weather fan at all. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have made that comment.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||I'm not taking glee at all||
I'm frustrated. I want the team to do well, but there's some serious problems they need to fix.
Maybe I'm venting too soon. I don't mind being called on that.
|1 year 16 weeks ago||Significant chance||
Really, would a 4 seed be a surprise?
|1 year 16 weeks ago||I'm calling first round upset||
U-M will be lucky to get a 4 seed, and they'll be in serious danger of an upset no matter what seed they get, based on how they've played in the last few weeks.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||Need to be honest, though||
No, this team doesn't suck. They wouldn't be in the top ten if they did. But they've got some key problems that they are going to need to overcome if they expect to win the Big Ten tournament and go deep into the NCAAs. It's not wrong to point that out.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||I agree||
That's the point I'm trying to make - perhaps I'm not making it very well. When you put Denard in, you know he's looking to run, particularly if he's at QB. Okay, so you put Denard in at RB. Again, the play is a run, unless it's a fake or using Denard as a decoy. If he's not going to run, then that means someone else has to be back there to protect Devin, because Denard's not a blocker and he's already playing with an injury.
Now maybe that's a weak point to make, but I'm not being dense. I know what people are arguing for when they say Denard should have been in more. That's all.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||I'm not saying Borges bears no responsibility||
I'm just saying it's not all on him.
Regarding injuries, my point is that while it would have been good to have Denard and Devin on the field at the same time more, you can't just plug in Denard anywhere. He's not going to throw, so you know he's going to run. Maybe he doesn't run, but then he needs to block, which puts him at risk.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||This is how I see it||
I think it's fair to question some of Borges' decisions, but I think that perhaps his options weren't as expansive as we might think. He has to put the right players on the field, but he can't play too fast and loose with them and make them more vulnerable to injuries or to exacerbating the injuries they already have.
|1 year 32 weeks ago||I wouldn't say huge disappointment||
Certainly not a failure. I expect Hoke to say that the team will settle for nothing less than a Big Ten championship, but as a fan, this season has gone pretty much along the lines I expected it to. Sure, I'm disappointed about the loss to OSU and I can already hear Buckeyes fans saying that Urban Meyer will rip off ten wins in a row against U-M. But I don't think that will happen. 8-4 isn't a stellar record, but it's a winning record that will put us in a decent bowl against opposition that, at this point, U-M will have a better chance against. When your 4 losses are to teams with a combined 2 losses, and two of those teams have a very real chance at the national championship (and perhaps even a third team if not for sanctions against them), it's not like you can say U-M didn't come to play against teams they should have beaten.
I can't say a whole lot about the playcalling in the second half, at least not anything more than what's already been said. But Borges isn't going anywhere and Hoke is getting his players. This team has been getting better and will continue to get better.
|1 year 33 weeks ago||Les Miles...||
...now with more homophobia!
|1 year 37 weeks ago||I was at that game||
Felt like a block of ice when I got home and had to warm up in the shower.