Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 3 years 7 weeks
|51 weeks 22 hours ago||^^^^ This||
As a legit site, most networks don't block it (unless you work for the devil and your network blocks all sports). BTN2Go seems to have a decent amount of listed providers.
|2 years 43 weeks ago||Caracjous and Eat Your Wheaties||
Are both correct. There is no judgement to be made if the ball is contacted by a player in foul territory in the air- automatic foul ball. If a player hit a hooking line drive over, say, third base, and the third basemen dove to try to catch it (in foul territory) but the ball glanced off of his glove, it would be an obvious foul ball. The ruling is the same even though the ball started in fair territory (on the ground) but hopped into foul before crossing the base. I also coached HS baseball for a few years and probably would've pulled a Lou Piniella on that play.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Absolutley right.||
Denard will be most effective when the D can't scheme around stopping his running ability. That first TD against Western is a great example. He dropped the ball and made something happen because they had no idea who he was. Obviously teams know he's a gamebreaker now, but if teams first respect his ability to throw the ball, and scheme around that, he'll be able to find openings when receivers aren't open to take off. He should still be able to run the ball 10-12 times a game, and be effective if team's don't know when, or how, it's coming.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Progress or...||
the process? Which is better?
|3 years 6 weeks ago||True, but...||
3-3-5 is dirty word around here. That label had to go with RR. Whether we still employ the D from time to time is irrelevant- don't get caught up in the semantics. Changing the culture is Hoke's first task. Bringing in Mattison has dramatically shifted the way our D is viewed, thus bringing Mr. Optimism back to the party.
|3 years 6 weeks ago||Nothing snarky?||
Not even to the OP regarding his subject? You're losing your touch. Oh well, today is a good day anyway.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||They are...||
judging, watching. Look at the baby, look at the baby.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||A little late to the party||
I realize I'm a little (or a lot) late to this thread. In fact, as you can tell, I'm popping my posting cherry. Like many other new posters, I've been a loyal reader of this blog for years. I've never felt the need to post because most of the time others have posted thoughts that mirrored my own. However, I was compelled to create a log-in to reply to the OP.
I certainly fit the under 200 point profile. However, I've grown disenchanted with the sentiment that anyone under a certain amount of points can't have a valid opinion, or is dismissed simply because they are a newer user to the site. Everyone who knows that this is the best place for information on all things Blue. The divsion over RR in the Michigan community clearly spilled into the MGocommunity so much so that we still have a great divide here, even after the coaching situation has been settled. That divide seems to have morphed into a new MGoaddict vs. veteran MGoaddicts, when in reality, we all have the same disease. I realize that MGopoints are a badge of honor, I just don't enjoy reading the jaded comments of some of the seasoned vets strictly on the basis of points. I realize that OP was only referring to the influx of newbies that backed Hoke, but the basis was conducive to my point.
Now, on to the actual topic (not that I've stepped down from my soapbox) of unmitigated Hokelove. I'm not a Hokemaniac by definition. Am I ok with the hire? Yes. Was I prepared for this hire? I guess. Although Brian's disdain for Hoke has been widely documented (thus I don't feel the need to link it), I heard right after the bust that Hoke would be the hire by a former Detroit radio personality. And no, I don't have any connections or claim to be an inisder. I'm just the principal of a school that this fella's child attends and we occassionally talk UM football. Did I put a lot of credence in what he said? Not really. I was holding out for a big name. However, as more and more of the process revealed itself, the scenario became much more likely and ultimately to fruition. I was not alone in holding out for a big name (or keeping RR) and Michigan needed this to be a success, for no other reason than to galvonize the fan base:
You're right. I would venture to think that a lot of the attention was orchestrated by the PR staff. Michigan will always be Michigan. But that last three years have done a lot of damage to the image. Perception is important. The self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of this Hoke love may just help mitigate some of the pain of the last three years- even it is just for show. Attitude and morale is high right now, at least from what I've read, and that it is the first step in restoring Michigan football to their righftul place atop the B1G... that and talent.