- Member for
- 4 years 39 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Champions of (o'er) the West||
I disagree with Brian that we can't be Champions of the West because of our placement in the Eastern Division. We can be Champions of both; first as Champion of the East having earned the right to play in the Title Game; and second as Champions of (and over) the West, upon beating our Western Division counterpart and winning the Big Ten Title.
To be honest, I think our fight song only makes more sense, now. If our goal is, as Hoke and Co. say it is, year in year out to win Big Ten Titles, then our goal, and now our fight song's meaning, nunc pro tunc, should always be to be Champions of the West.
Or we can change it to "Champions o'er the West".
|13 weeks 4 days ago||I think our Michigan||
I think our Michigan basketball players can absolutely strive to embody each of the qualities on that board, from "toughness" to "smart". The utility of the board clearly relies on the subjective weight each word carries with a particular player, which seems to be quite useful for personal motivation.
No, the words are not all grammatically similar possessable qualities, but who said they have to be? On Michigan's board, each word is unique to a particular player, and each player is only supposed to draw on their word to play with motivated discipline to best help the team.
When Jon Horford is on the floor, the coaches want the word "BELIEF" to flash through his head. Why? So he thinks about: Belief in the system. Belief in his own abilities. Belief that if he does his job, the team will make a play. Belief in his teammates. Perhaps one or more of these has been a weakness of Jon's, but if he's coming to play with that word on his mind, he'll help the team by playing with belief.
On the other hand, when Spike Albrecht is on the floor, the coaches want "SMART" going through his head. Why? So when he's playing point, he thinks about playing smart. Make the smart play. Read the defense, and make the smart pass. Don't try to rely so much on your physical tools, but on the smart coaching you've received.
Spike obviously spells one of the leading candidates for POY on a team seemingly destined to make a tournament run. The team can only get there if the guy running the system plays "SMART."
And so on and so forth. Personally, I love that the coaches had the creativity to put up this board. I love how the players seem to buy in to it. Think about each player and their word, then watch them play. It's effective.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||I appreciate your point, but||
I appreciate your point, but I think either way you look at 2013-2015, these conference divisions are bound to continue re-aligning because my sense is the B1G (like the other super conferences) is not finished expanding. The next few years are the ones where Delaney breaks out the duct tape and makes the thing work until the next model is ready for prime-time. I think a 3 division conference of 5-5-4 teams will work in the interim with a wild-card team for playoffs. Then the B1G can decide if it will stick with 3 divisions, adding 1 more for balance, or if it will add two more teams for a 4 division conference.
Super-conferences; they are the future. I'm absolutely sold on that. But whether NCAA rules prohibit a 4 team intra-conference playoff, that's something I hadn't researched. It's a valid issue to the extent it's an issue. My opinion on that rule, if it exists, is that it will be gone very soon.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Why do we continue to assume||
Why do we continue to assume the B1G will remain a two division conference? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The most sensible thing the conference can do is explore dividing the conference into 3 or 4, picking up two more schools down the eastern seaboard. Make the B1G a mid / north / south conference. Maintaining a two division conference, when a professional model of 3-4 divisions would afford a more lucrative, competitively balanced, and geographically balanced conference, makes NO sense.
The difference between a 2 division conference and a 3-4 division conference is one more playoff game to choose a legitimate conference champion. Cap the conference play at 8 games (3 of which have to be within your division), add 1 to the playoffs, allow 2 inter-conference games to beef up your team's national ranking (likely resulting in less cupcakes), and you have a net game increase of 0. Meanwhile, it would guarantee the conference champion is a legit contender for a BCS bowl. Why isn't this being discussed?
*with 3 divisions, the division champs would be the ones with the best conference records in each division, and the fourth "wild-card" playoff team would be the team with the best overall record. Tie-breaks go the best intra-division record. In any event, I ultimately favor two more teams for a 16 member, 4 division conference. Whether the 4 divisions will be consolidated into 2 "leagues", or whether playoffs will be simply record-based, is a much more interesting conversation than the idea of sticking with 2 bumbling that dilute rivalries, interest, and parity. Isn't it? Am I crazy?
|18 weeks 2 days ago||The #1 HS Receiver is going||
The #1 HS Receiver is going to think about where he has the best opportunity to be a human highlight reel game in and game out. The #1 HS Receiver is also a highly courted 18 year old jock, so if anything softens in that perspective the kid's going to move on.
When Shane Morris was winning summer accolades and Michigan was collecting 4 and 5 star recruits in pairs every other week, Laquon Treadwell saw a future of human highlight reels and alpha athletes surrounding him. Michigan matched his ego. But when Shane went down with mono and the recruiting quieted, so did Treadwell's interest.
Then 8-5 didn't help, either.
It's ok. We're taking a crack at the west-coast offense next year. We'll make it work because Devin Gardner will never be sacked with Lewan protecting his ass. We'll have a couple proven receivers who will make things happen and a couple froshes who will make some highlight reels of their own. Devin will make things happen when plays break down. Shane Morris will work hard to make the 2-deep, and a starting job in 2014 will depend on how hard he works for it.
It may not all fluidly come together right away, but if we stick with the system, I guarantee future #1 receivers won't cool on Michigan like Treadwell did. The allure of the Big House's big stage, and hey - a valuable diploma - will get us another Carter or Howard or Edwards in due time.
Laquon Treadwell has all the blessings in the world to be a fantastic Rebel, Cowboy or Sooner. We've got our Wolverines. That'll do.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||Agree||
Jr. is in position to do whatever he wants. His NBA dad with NBA money and access to GRobIII's NBA dad to give advice; his coaching staff and personal advisors; the ability to play on a top 5 team this year and next that everyone will say is "tims team"; all these things give Jr. an uncommon incentive to stay. The only reason to jump before graduating is to start earning a paycheck, which is weighed against risk of injury. Jr. has enough coaching and advising to know how to reduce the risk of injury and play smart. He doesn't need to start earning a paycheck. If he brings Michigan to a sweet 16 finish this year AND next, he'll be rewarded on draft day; and he'll have a Michigan degree. Tim hardaway jr., who chose to attend a top academic university, who has no insurmountable pressure to jump, who can only improve his collegiate legacy by leading another top team as a senior, SHOULD stay another year.
|18 weeks 4 days ago||Mods, end this.||
There isn't anything left to comment on. This is a massacre, and I feel terrible for those kids in blue and gold. They're out there willing to leave it all on the field, and they have no way of matching up physically or schematically. Continuing the commentary is in poor taste at this point. If ND goes on a 21-0 run, bring the comments back. But this is embarrassing to run up so many comments on a rout that's not even our team.
|19 weeks 1 day ago||Johnny Manziel is the genuine||
Johnny Manziel is the genuine article. Every play has big play potential. He's like Doug Flutie with Barry Sanders ability.
|19 weeks 3 days ago||Agree, Co-Sign, Upvote times a million||
First, I have to say I loved the alt helmets and hope to see more of them. They highlighted the defining characteristic of the Michigan uniform is a bold way. Awesome. I hope we do more of that while leaving the rest of the uniform the hell alone.
Mainly because the uniforms looked like an ugly set of pajamas a small child would wear while watching Barney. We came out looking like a bunch of kids coming up from naptime. The unis were noticeably different, which in a tradition program like ours only begs the question: Why? Why do we need the distraction? If it isn't highlighting any of our traditions or our brand (a'la the helmet), there's no need for it.
The only good that came out of those jerseys is a realization that gimicks are incredibly incredibly lame. The winning team looks cool no matter what. The losing team, when its adorned in cute Adidas pajamas, looks especially uncool.
White away jerseys with blue numbers and letters and a single Block M directly under the collar. No other embellishments (no blue collar, no Ms on the shoulders, no stripes, piping, two-tones stitching, etc.)! Standard maize pants, block M on the hip. Lastly, win the damn game. Done.
I hope DB does a metallic wing on matte helmet next year. I know that sounds like flamebait but I'm serious; drawing more attention to the winged helmet is way cool and less liable to f*** ups than alt jerseys.
|21 weeks 1 day ago||I love the matte blue on the||
I love the matte blue on the helmets. If we could keep the jerseys consistently basic, I'd vote to keep the matte blue/gloss maize helmets for good. They set off the helmet's defining characteristic - the maize wings - in a much stronger starker way. Gloss up the wings, matte down the blue. Phenominal.
It's the constantly evolving and multitudinous jerseys that drive me crazy. We're a tradition program and it's not the time to stop acting like one. I understand that the evolution of athletic gear might mean we have to choose some sort of jazzed up kit, so do the minimum. Nike's flywire metallic stitching at all the seams in the same color as the dominant material would look sharp. No need for any of the distracting two-tone, piping, winged BS on the jerseys.
So when it comes to style points on the field (and on the racks at Moe's), we should just be Alabama and Penn State but better. Our jerseys have always, and always will, look best when they're starkly basic. That's how it is with tradition. Away unis should be white with blue numbers, stitched with maize, little bitty Block M on the collar. Maize pants. Blue block M on the right hip. Done. Aside from stitching, no other embellishment. Matte helmets all around.
Last point: we all know that even the ugliest jerseys will fly off the racks so long as the teams playing in them win games. That's what I hate most about overly marketed 'legacy' or one-off jerseys. It means we need a sales gimick. It shows no faith in the power of winning to sell your program's merch. At worst, it shows no faith in the team.
|21 weeks 4 days ago||EDIT-DELETE||
|22 weeks 2 days ago||IMHO, it's worth an extra football game.||
Honestly, I think maintaining the same 8-9 conference games would work. Intra-conference divisions are pretty arbitrary. They simply ensure a set number of division champions, based on nothing but who has the best conference record per division. If you add one or 2 wild cards (teams with best records outside the champs), you can ensure legitimacy with respect to the ultimate goal of a valid conference "champion". The best way to accomplish that, in my opinion, is to adopt a professional playoff model. The net cost is adding one to two playoff games prior to the championship.
Doesn't the end result justify two extra games? Right now we have two arbitrary and boring divisions. Divide by 3 or 4 instead of 2 and maybe it's establishes a competitive balance.
I'll concede 4 divisions may be too much. Let's discuss 3 divisions with a wild card (best record outside division champs). That adds a single game prior to the championship. You add better competitive balance per division. It makes the intra-divisional rivalries more "personal".
I have to think it's the way to go.
EDIT: Admittedly, I misunderstood the current divisons +1 concept to mean adding additional divisions. Like Brian, I would oppose maintaining the same arbitrary divisions only to add rutgers or maryland in each. The problem with the competitive balance, IMHO, is continuing to define it among two large arbitrary divisions.
|22 weeks 2 days ago||3 to 4 Divisions is a Good Idea||
I disagree with your premise that adding divisions to the Conference should be avoided. I favor 3 (if not 4) division conferences. My reasoning is I can see what the major conferences are attempting to do: legitimize interest in each conference as if they were stand-alone mini leagues. Honestly, I think it's a desirable outcome.
If each conference is going to to have its own TV network, then there has to be ensured a legitimate interest in each conference as a product. By adopting a professional league model as to each (with 3 - 4 divisions apiece), you create divisional rivalries, ensure competitive fairness in the playoffs (league champs based on conference records per division, 1-2 wild card teams based on total records), and ensure the end "Conference Champ" is deserving of the title.
This in turn is the best approach to ensure interest at the Bowl level, which is moving toward becoming a final tournament of champions (at least the BCS Bowls).
Maintaining two divisions in ever expanding conferences reduces competitive balance and interest. Think about the NFL, if the AFC and NFC were not further reduced into divisions. Or the MLB. NBA. NHL. It's a good idea.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||Guy Fieri should buy that||
Guy Fieri should buy that place. They're a match made in grease-pit heaven.
|23 weeks 3 days ago||If McGary is playing less||
If McGary is playing less forcefully because he's in the process of learning to control his body - put another way - if he's consciously making an effort to learn how to control his spacing and his explosiveness - then he's simply learning to play smart basketball. That would be an indication of a guy limiting foul trouble, which is not only good for him but good for the team. There's definitely reason to be happy about that.
But let's also admit that Mitch's minutes are limited for a reason; and right now, the coaches want him in there only 10-15 (as opposed to Blake's immediate 25+). 15 minutes capped means the coaches want Mitch to play smarter, and to show signs he's learning week in and week out. As a fan, you have to just root for Mitch to play up to the coaches expectations.
Then, if Mitch eventually plays as a guy who can control tempo, drawing defenders to himself and then throwing it down in their faces; I'm telling you right now, that guy will not come out after 10-15 minutes. That guy is gonna be left in to win Michigan a lot of games.
The bottom-line here is that Mitch has to be both smart AND forceful, not one or the other. Blake Griffin was both, very early. Mitch is a work in process, and showing signs of learning to be effective at the NCAA level. He has the size and potential to be very effective. I'm rooting for him.
|23 weeks 3 days ago||At first my response was||
At first my response was this: if the question is whether I'd rather have a strong smart big (a'la Blake Griffin) or a smart big who doesn't utilize his strength, your question's a no-brainer. But then you hint at a mental or "Xs&Os" weakness in Blake Griffin's game, ostensibly a weakness that Mitch McGary doesn't have. Tell me what you're talking about, and I'll answer that question.
But then I thought, maybe a better comparison is simply to compare Oklahoma freshman Blake Griffin to Mitch to see what's up. Here's a LINK to Blake's freshman season stats. Immediate first impression: Blake's usage began at over 25 minutes a game. Mitch hovers 10-15 minutes.
So Blake started his career at Oklahoma as Oklahoma's #1 guy. Everyone knew it, and he thrived under that pressure. His freshman numbers are crazy; his field goal percentage compared to his usage rate are beast-mode, never let your foot off the pedal, never stop scoring, never stop rebounding, score at will, rebound at will. That's not really Mitch McGary at this point, and perhaps the comparison is just unfair because of it.
But as for arguing around the typical disclaimers (system, roles, early in the year): what would have happened if Mitch McGary played for Oklahoma in 2007-2008? Could Mitch have thrived as Blake did? Could Mitch have...wait for it...given that Oklahoma squad a better edge to win more games? And conversely, what would happen if we plugged 2007-2008 Blake Griffin into Michigan's current offense? Would Michigan be better or worse?
My gut-check answer: Michigan would be better with freshman Blake Griffin than with freshman Mitch McGary. The possibility of Burke to Griffin any given play would make playing Michigan unfair considering the available weapons we have. McGary on Oklahoma's 2007-2008 squad would put an onus on the other guys that wasn't there before. McGary at his best would still position Oklahoma to win games, absolutely. But 4 other guys would have to play very well, too.
|23 weeks 3 days ago||New Orleans Pelicans is||
New Orleans Pelicans is hardly unique. That was the name of their MLB team into the 1940s. You can buy Cooperstown classics replica jerseys and hats. A lot of people do. I'd guess a lot of fans in N'awlins will embrace this reimagining of an old franchise name anew. I think it's cool, and hope they do go retro with the logo and alt designs. Google "new Orleans pelicans" baseball to see what I mean.
|24 weeks 5 days ago||I think Borges is as good an||
I think Borges is as good an offensive mind as you can get. He's just never been 'in the game' from his 1000 foot perch. He should've been on the field this year, with the other coaches, with the players. Id bet on him playing chess to the extent his pieces move like they should. But when they don't, and Borges isn't in synch with the guys on the field, it's a disaster. He wasn't in synch with the team in the second half on Saturday, it cost us the game.
|25 weeks 3 days ago||Also Pitt, can't forget Pitt!||
Also Pitt, can't forget Pitt! UConn is the strong market pick, but Pitt has both basketball and football, and creates must-see match ups with PSU...
|25 weeks 3 days ago||The crazy thing is now, just||
The crazy thing is now, just about any two east coast schools with resources to be competitive in 2 of either basketball, football or hockey make this expansion insanely well worth it.
Georgetown, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Virginia, VaTech, Georgia Tech, FSU, Clemson.
Any two of those will provide fair enough B1G scheduling in the 3 major sports to increase cable revenues drastically. I think the discussion for mgoblog should be which two do we prefer. My hat is in the ring for a UNC/Duke package deal.
From a markets standpoint following Maryland/Rutgers, UConn and Boston College would be a fair play. But so is Syracuse/Pitt. FSU/Clemson would be an unexpected BCS coup, considering eastern expansion sets the stage for 2 basketball, not football, schools.
Then again, the state of Virginia is ripe and a solid bet assuming the DC market will eat it up along with Maryland.
Then again, what do we make of Maryland? They had long existing rivalries worth preserving in the state of North Carolina. Can the B1G preserve them? We certainly have the most lucrative appeal, these days.
So many directions Delaney can go and still hit a bullseye no matter what. Rutgers sets up the market, Maryland sets a stage for interesting match ups and regional allegiances within the new B1G footprint, and we can only wait with bated breath for the two Crown Jewels to arrive of this B1G eastern expansion.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||Maryland and Rutgers are||
Maryland and Rutgers are obviously "market moves", opening up the DC, NY and Philly markets for exploitation. It's genius because it's less about the attraction of the schools themselves, and more about the market their footprints provide access to. While the schools' alumni bases create instant consumership for the BTN, the market expands next to sports bars and restaurants assuming the conference brand provides must-see TV. All that will take is providing tournament basketball matchups on BTN.
We're looking at two more unnamed schools who will be the jewels of the B1G on the east-coast (after PSU). UNC and Duke as a package? Cuse and Pitt? UConn?
Any permutation of those teams will light up the BTN in east-coast market sports-bars and households. It's that simple.
It's not about catering to alumni bases and their football fans anymore. On the east-coast, college basketball is king; the footprint is set, and the money piles are lined up for two more teams. I am genuinely excited to see what big fishes get reeled in for Michigan to play at Crisler (and to a lesser extent, at the Big House).
|25 weeks 4 days ago||Umm. I guess I care, a||
I guess I care, a little, that the conference is setting itself up to be the most attractive bet for major basketball powers as they abandon the ACC and Big East. It's still a big "if" with no guarantees, but IF teams like UNC, Duke, Syracuse and Pitt are looking around, the B1G has to look like the best landing spot right now.
Also, I kind of like watching the savvy business moves and seeing things happen that can likely create a competitive and entertaining Titan Conference across the two major sports.
People who are excited about the prospect of UNC, Duke, 'Cuse and Pitt playing B1G basketball, LAX, football and baseball might care. The hypothetical match-ups and potential new rivalries are intriguing and fun to think about, for people like me. For people like you, not so much.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||^^THIS^^||
Never lose sight of the fact it's only dilution from the B1G business perspective if it dilutes each colleges's network share. These moves expand the market, and have the likelihood of making the brand must-see-TV across at least two sports. Take home in the short-term won't be diluted much. These moves make the future a cash-cow.
Think about it. Maryland by itself is not must-see TV. Maryland football vs. Michigan at the Big House? Only Michigan alums are buying a B1G package to see that. Rutgers football vs. MSU? Again, only Rutgers alums are paying a subscription fee to watch that. But what if Rutgers and Maryland were playing new and established B1G basketball powers? That would definitely light up the BTN in CT, DC and NY, right?!
Delaney will add a couple east-coast basketball powers to the mix before all is said and done. The NCAA Tourney is the most lucrative cable-television event out there, not BCS football.
So I'm looking at you 'Cuse, UNC, Pitt, and Duke. You're the univiersities that best fit the B1G's academic and athletic profile. For a basketball fan, which NY, CT and DC are full of, you'd all be must-see TV. So, two of you, come on down! Merry Christmas, BTN shareholders!
|25 weeks 4 days ago||New York||
I'll raise my hand to put in my 2 cents. My sense is New York, as a cable demographic, will never be interested enough in college football to make a B1G's east-coast expansion on that basis correlate to additional network purchases.
New York is a basketball market. If the B1G wants New York's coveted subscribership, it will target basketball powers (and LAX; we actually watch that on TV here). Maryland makes sense from that perspective. Rutgers? A wash for now.
RIght now, Delaney has to be looking at highly competitive basketball schools with football programs that'll at least beat Indiana, Purdue or Minnesota enough to keep butts in seats.
UNC and Duke would be a coup for such a vision. But UNC and 'Cuse would also drive the money making machine Delaney envisions' both schools with monied and mobile alumni. 'Cuse to the B1G might also have the added benefit of reinvigorating an old football power.
I can imagine a B1G that pits UNC hoops vs. Michigan. 'Cuse vs. Michigan State. Belein vs. Boeheim. Izzo vs. Williams. Only on the B1G Network.
New York will buy that.
Jim Delaney, all I want for Christmas is UNC and 'Cuse. I just bought a new 50" flat-screen. Basketball is my sport. I'll buy your network if you get that done.
|25 weeks 4 days ago||Guhhhhhh. This sums up my||
Guhhhhhh. This sums up my feelings on Delaney's "Go East, Old Fart" mentality. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8654190/on-urban-meyer-ohio-state-wi...
|25 weeks 5 days ago||Two more teams will come||
Two more teams will come after this for the inevitable 16 team "power" conference status. Who will it be? Virginia and Virginia Tech? 'Cuse and Georgia Tech? Both Techs? Virginia and 'Cuse? Is there a permutation anyone actually likes?
I dislike both teams we're taking in Maryland and Rutgers. They do nothing for my sense of creating a more competitive conference. This only gives off the sense of dilution. Didn't everyone agree the B1G Kool-aid tasted fine with Nebraska? Stop adding water!
As a native New Yorker now living in CT, neither of these teams will influence my decision to (or not to) purchase the Big Ten network. In fact, they make me less inclined to do so. Before, the Big Ten at least seemed a little bit exclusive. Now, it's a crap "uber"conference with, more-often-than-not, crappy weekly match-ups.
All I know is that the inclusion of these two new teams is terrible for Penn State, which used to own both Maryland and Rutgers heads-up for recruits (given the draw of playing on the Big Ten stage). So now this new "power" conference allignment also weakens the "attractive" eastern Big Ten school to create weak-sauce parity. Guhhhhh.
Can OSU, Michigan and Nebraska join the Big 12? That would be cool with me.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||If you want to read some more...||
Neil Snow's picture hangs in the game room at the Alpha Delta Phi chapter house, 556 S. State Street. Brothers of the house can read some more of his personal correspondence, which should still be secured in our chapter room. Snow's letters were always well-reasoned, full of subtle humor, but most of all fraternal. I used to enjoy reading his undergraduate correspondence from the chapter, along with other letters by such Alphas as Harry B. Hutchins (former law school and university President) and William R. Day (former Supreme Court justice).
|29 weeks 1 day ago||I fear no Cornhuskers||
Our defense is probably the best in the Big Ten right now. We gave up 25 to a gimmick our second game of the season, and 41 to Ala-fucking-bama. Since then? We've given up no more than 13 points in any game, including that certain night game at ND, where ND's desperate need to win level was a definitive ten.
So, can we please be serious for a second? ND > Nebraska. I'll give you that Nebraska runs something closer to Air Force and their 25 points of offense than anything we've seen since. I don't care, Martinez will be bottled up. Nebraska doesn't cut block like Air Force does. Nebraska is not Air Force. We've improved astronomically since Air Force, and every game thereafter. We can game-plan effectively for Nebraska, and I'm beyond confident that G. Mattison will have done that in spades. Our defense only gets better; it's a trend at this point.
Why do you foresee a giant step backward? FEI? I agree with the commenter who posed the question: why do you mock FEI when it's good for us, and preach it when it's bad? If predictions can mean anything objective, I'll grant that Nebraska's option offense should work to a degree, but our LBs and DEs will ALSO BE ALL OVER THAT SHIT. How scared are we supposed to be of the BIG PLAY, when the BIG PLAY is all Nebraska has going for it?
Parse any Mattison interview since day one, and he preaches constantly about keeping the ball in front and between the hashes. If he does one thing, it's to create defenses that don't give up the big play.
Michigan 27-23 in a game that's really not as close as the score. Just as likely, Blue wins 27-16.
|29 weeks 2 days ago||To hell with FEI!!! We||
To hell with FEI!!! We haven't given up more than 13 points in our last 5 games, and we've only played 7. We're improving every game defensively.
We gave up 25 to an Air Force team in our second game of the season, which is a game you can't conclusively rely on stats. Alabama proves nothing except we weren't a NC team out of the gate. But neither is Nebraska; not out of the gate, not now!
I think Michigan will look like the clear better team, but I don't think we're going to Lincoln to blow the Huskers out. Wolverines win 27-23 in a game that's not as close as the score appears. Just as likely, Michigan wins 27-16.
|29 weeks 4 days ago||After watching this, my sense||
After watching this, my sense is that:
(1) Most of MSU's big defensive plays were caused by guys going COMPLETELY and preposterously unblocked (Barnum and Fitz seemed two biggest culprits, but Mealer had a couple derps);
(2) to the extent Borges called quick slants and drags to exploit MSU's man defense in the middle of the field, those routes weren't Denard's first reads (and I don't really understand why);
(3) against man defense, my sense was the receivers did not get into their defenders enough before making their cuts (it seemed a lot of good play-calling led to nothing because the receivers dallied into defenders instead of aggressively geting separation);
(4) Borges should take some blame for selling out run and pass based on predicability caused by the team's first motion after the snap;
(5) Instead of losing obvious yards on the ground based on coverage at the LOS, Denard should have known to audible to an extended out route when MSU loaded the box with three deep (not sure if that's on Denard for not audibling or on Borges for not developing plays to audible);
(6) Fitz is pretty horrible at selling fake hand-offs; and
(7) Devin and Jeremy are NOT threats, which had a lot to do with M's inability to sustain momentum during drives.