I GET IT
- Member for
- 5 years 23 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 5 days ago||Obviously not. But that's||
Obviously not. But that's not what happened here, according to her. By her account she clearly indicated that she did not consent.
|1 week 6 days ago||I never underestimate the||
I never underestimate the insanity of coaching changes, but I find this one especially implasuble. Aside from a change in salary, how would the Texas job possibly be any better than the Alabama job?
|1 week 6 days ago||Except it looks identical to||
Except it looks identical to the block O
|1 week 6 days ago||Come on man. This guy was a||
Come on man. This guy was a key component of a team that made the national championship game last year. Just becase he's struggling a little bit without a distributor like Trey does not mean he has a "total lack of desire."
Let's not forget that GRIII left millions of dollars on the table to come back to play for M. Cut the guy some slack. We've lost a few games with our extremely young team--it does not mean that any of the players are lacking desire.
|1 week 6 days ago||I wondered the same thing at||
I wondered the same thing at first--Mora played there.
|2 weeks 11 hours ago||I agree, and I think one of||
I agree, and I think one of the main reasons for the blog is to speculate as to why things turn out the way they do. There's just an incredible amount of chutzpah, though, and it's often based on pretty implausible and overly simplistic concepts. For an author group as sophisticated as this one, who spend most of their time trying to get to the bottom of why the team is good or bad, I'm just surprised people are so willing to think Borges is just plain dumb or incredibly stubborn.
|2 weeks 11 hours ago||Seth, I love this blog and||
Seth, I love this blog and the analysis in these types of posts are incredibly helpful to my understanding of football, but to say something like "borges doesn't get constraint theory" strikes me as so implausible that I can't believe it's so frequently said around here by guys as smart as you, Brian, and the rest.
Analysis like this, while insightful to a bunch of amateurs like us, is surely football 101 at every level from JV on up. Borges absolutely gets constraint theory. Now, maybe he doesn't want to run his constraints the same way a spread team does. Or maybe he wants to focus on repping variety more than base plays with simple, clear constraints. Maybe these preferences lead to a less efficient offense, or maybe there are one of a million other factors occuring that are affecting the quality of the offense. But aren't these things much more likely than a highly-paid, incredibly experience OC simply not understanding basic concepts of football?
I'm not a Borges fan, and I'm concerned about his upside, but it's incredible how much we try to simplify things around here. I think we all need to take a step back and realize that we have no real clue what the offense's problems are, or why Borges chooses to do the things he does. To suggest so confidently that our problems are because Borges doesn't understand these incredibly basic concepts is so far out there, I can't belive it's constantly parroted on this blog.
|2 weeks 18 hours ago||Do we even know for certain||
Do we even know for certain that Borges will be back? I feel like we're taking a lot of stock in a press conference question from right after a heartbreaking loss in the biggest game of the year, before any evaluation has been done. And Hoke was pretty guarded in his language. I don't think staff shakeups are likely, but I don't think this one quote forecloses their possibility
|2 weeks 3 days ago||It's amazing that you can||
It's amazing that you can take the first half of this game and somehow be completely negative. Only on this blog.
|3 weeks 14 hours ago||So, you want to fire Borges||
So, you want to fire Borges because his offense at Michigan isn't performing well, and you want to hire Loeffler but don't want to hear about how his offense at VaTech isn't performing well.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||It's almost impossible to||
It's almost impossible to know, since modern recruiting rankings didn't exist until 2002ish.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||I agree with all that too,||
I agree with all that too, but I did throw the term fairweather fan out there to people who decided to sell their OSU tickets or refuse to watch the game next weekend. Can't get much more fairweather than that.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Most of you guys are a total||
Most of you guys are a total embarassment. Watch the game, support the team. End of story. This thread defines the term "fairweather fan."
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Cool, thanks--obviously can't||
Cool, thanks--obviously can't take too much from a small sample, but that's encouraging.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Right, the point I was trying||
Right, the point I was trying to make is that if recruiting stars are less predictive for linemen than for other positions, a recruiting class with, say, 6 five star linemen and 6 three-star defensive players is probably not actually as good as a class with 6 five-star defensive players and 6 three-star offensive linemen, even though the overall rankings would be the same.
Obviously, more stars is generally better, but classes filled with highly-ranking offensive linemen may be overrated if linemen are harder to project.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||That's helpful, thanks! The||
That's helpful, thanks! The sample might not be big enough to answer this follow-up, but I've often wondered whether high recruiting rankings are less predictive of future success for offensive linemen than for other positions, since they are notoriously difficult to scout. If so, it unfortuantely takes some of the luster off of Hoke's recruiting success, since we've been disproportionately successful on offensive line recruits (at least that's my sense).
|4 weeks 16 hours ago||You're a "veteran" with all||
You're a "veteran" with all 637 of your points? I have about the same number, and have been following this blog since 2005, and I don't pretend to be doing anything more than enjoying the free content that Brian spends countless hours producing.
In what other instances did Brian "not do his homework"? Was it when he reviewed every snap of every damn Michigan game so he could do his best to give you some insight on the quality of our team? Again, I don't have a problem with you saying you think he's wrong, or even that he should research more carefully. It's the tone you take, as if you suggest he somehow failed you, when he doesn't owe you a single thing.
|4 weeks 17 hours ago||I think you made your point||
I think you made your point the first time.
|4 weeks 17 hours ago||Come on man. Brian built||
Come on man. Brian built this place from the ground up and puts out the best Michigan content on the internet FOR FREE. Criticize all you want, but don't give him that condescending tone. He's calling it like he sees it. He made a mistake, and fixed it.
|4 weeks 22 hours ago||I'm cultivating mass||
|4 weeks 1 day ago||Whoa||
That table is pretty badass.
|4 weeks 1 day ago||I would definitely want the||
I would definitely want the ball in Gardner's hands, just not that same rollout to the right--it seems like we go to that in every single fourth and short situation.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Maybe--I was really just||
Maybe--I was really just trying to point out that it's not like Stanford was in some great position at the time we hired RR; I disagree with the "why would he leave that?" part of your statement.
I remain skeptical that all that other stuff would have really deterred him from coming all that much, but who knows.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Harbaugh had just gone 4-8 at||
Harbaugh had just gone 4-8 at Stanford that year. You think he wouldn't leave his for his alma mater, the winningest college football program of all time?
|4 weeks 4 days ago||Care to elaborate?||
Care to elaborate?
|4 weeks 5 days ago||They had some lean years in||
They had some lean years in the late 80s/early 90s, but not quite wander-in-the-desert years like the other bigtime programs have gone through. But still, I agree--everyone is vulnerable.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||That's helpful--thanks.||
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Guess what, guys. This||
Guess what, guys. This happens to pretty much everyone, OSU unfortunately excepted. Texas was medicore for 10 years before Mack Brown. Alabama was awful before Saban. USC was bad before Carroll. We've had a bad stretch, but our time will come.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||As much as Pryor was an||
As much as Pryor was an idiot, he was an excellent college QB. I very strongly doubt RR is gone after three years if Pryor came to UM.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Professor Prepuces, this is||
Professor Prepuces, this is maybe the most condescending, asshole post I have ever read on this site, and that's saying something. SC is one of the very, VERY few people keeping this board readable and adding value. I have no problem with you disagreeing with him and criticizing his post. I have a huge problem with you lecturing him on how "you're trying to help him," poor, lost Space Coyote, after he spent hours breaking down a play and helping us all understand the nuance of the offense.