"It's a lot easier being a drug dealer than an AAU coach" - this guy. Tell me something I don't know. I mean, don't think but have never tried either.
- Member for
- 4 years 51 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|6 min 27 sec ago||I figured it was something||
I figured it was something like that. I graduated, but am not a member of the Alumni Association.
I can't read Twitterese, so was the original tweet from the Alumni Association?
|27 min 15 sec ago||Alumni are graduates, as far||
Alumni are graduates, as far as I know. So, if Henne didn't graduate, he wouldn't be classified an alumnus, which is why the hashtag wouldn't have been appropriate.
I was just asking an honest question while trying to figure out why he wasn't included.
|1 hour 27 min ago||Did he graduate?||
Did he graduate?
|1 hour 29 min ago||Bad title, silly topic, inane||
Bad title, silly topic, inane discussion.
|1 hour 38 min ago||Hoke's job is to the the head||
Hoke's job is to the the head coach of the University of Michigan football team. Winning games is certainly part of his job description, but it is not his sole responsibility. This is not the NFL.
|10 hours 53 min ago||There will be captains. They||
There will be captains. They will be Devin Gardner, Jake Ryan, and either Clark or Morgan.
|17 hours 36 min ago||I'm with Desmond. I honestly||
I'm with Desmond. I honestly think if you give this team a 90s-2000s OL, we would all be expecting to win the B1G and compete for the National Championship. I think we are that talented/experienced everywhere else.
If the OL is merely OK, ranked in the 60s in allowing negative plays and in the 60s in rushing yards, we can win every single game we play.
Our schedule is tough, but NW, OSU and ND have all lost some talent, making our away slate a lot more manageable.
|17 hours 46 min ago||Nussmeier for Coach of the||
Nussmeier for Coach of the Century.
|17 hours 49 min ago||Leaving the Rosenberg stuff||
Leaving the Rosenberg stuff aside for a moment, I can personally vouch for the quality of Brady Hoke's character. He is, simply put, a very good person.
I believe that Michigan will never regret Brady Hoke's tenure, even if he never coaches another game after this season. He has gotten the program back to a level of respectability. He has filled the roster with good kids and good players. He has removed any hint of impropriety; there will be no Stretchgate under Brady Hoke. Michigan has come out of the tailspin.
I hope he wins. I hope he coaches Michigan for a long time. But even if he fails at those goals, he has already succeeded at righting the ship.
|18 hours 17 min ago||Yeah, he only fired him. He||
Yeah, he only fired him. He should have shot him, probably.
|19 hours 42 min ago||I feel the same way. But I'm||
I feel the same way. But I'm not in the coaching fraternity. Are you aware of guys that are so dogmatic or doctrinaire that they'd still go to the side with the numbers, matchups be damned?
Or for a situation that might be applicable this year, do you think we might do something like always check to the 1 tech so as to give Miller help? Or always check to the 3 tech so that Miller is only helping on the 1 on the way up to the second level?
I hate to pick on Miller, but everyone seems to be aghast that he might play, so this seems apropos.
|20 hours 23 min ago||My point is that the OL was a||
My point is that the OL was a far greater concern than DG last year. And so, unless you think the OL has made a quantum leap in performance, they are still a larger concern than DG. Basically, your opinion is one I disagree with, and I don't find it reasonable to say what you did in your OP.
|20 hours 30 min ago||Good luck throwing hot when||
Good luck throwing hot when you don't know which defender to throw hot off of.
|20 hours 34 min ago||The protection is built into||
The protection is built into the play call in almost all instances. The only thing left to do at the line is identify the Mike, thereby letting the line know its responsibility, the RB his, and the QB his. It only takes 1-2 seconds. They aren't drawing stuff up out there on the fly.
I'd like to see us up there earlier, but in regards to your question, there's no real reason to.
|20 hours 43 min ago||It doesn't matter if the Mike||
It doesn't matter if the Mike is coming or not. What matters is that the line knows what to do if he does come. The other LB are the responsibility of other players (RB/FB/TE blocking or QB hot reading). This call gets the offense on the same page. You don't want two guys blocking the Mike and leaving another 2nd level defender free.
EDIT: In this context, its basically like the outfielder calling off the infielder on a pop up. We know who's responsibility the ball is, now it allows the infielder to focus on other responsibilities like what base he has to cover if the guy drops it. Or something.
|20 hours 48 min ago||I don't think anyone is||
I don't think anyone is saying Michigan doesn't identify a Mike. I think a lot of us are considering the notion that perhaps Gardner didn't grasp what the Mike call meant about his protection. Borges might not have hammered it into to his mind.
If its true that Devin never identified the Mike, the most likely result is that he wouldn't know where the likely pressure points would be. It would mean that he was utterly unprepared for hot reads when the defense brought 1 more man than the protection was designed to block. Maybe Borges was of the belief that if they bring one more guy than we can block, I have the QBs to run away from them.
Who knows? We don't, were just talking about what a Mike call is and why its important and how fun talking football can be and so on.
|20 hours 55 min ago||This is entirely possible and||
This is entirely possible and probably what happened. But someone still had to identify Mike in order to set the OLs calls.
A philosophical question: Is a numerical advantage on one side of the line worth it if calling it that way leaves AJ Williams alone on Frank Clark, or Jack Miller alone on Mike Martin?
I'd like to articulate this more clearly by drawing up, or even talking through, a hypothetical situation, but I have a bad back that isn't allowing me to think of much else right now.
|21 hours 17 min ago||This article is wonderful and||
This article is wonderful and I want to marry mgoblog so much right now, BUT
It doesn't deal with the run game at all. Every play in the run game also starts with a Mike call. In the old days, we used to also differentiate between the Mike in an over front or a stack and the Mac is an under front or 3-4 or nickel or what have you. The blocking schemes for the same run are different depending on the defensive alignment, and the quickest way to screw that up is calling out the wrong Mike or incorrectly calling him a Mac or whatever.
I have no imaging skills and would be too stupid to embed it even if I did, but I would love a quick rundown of, say, how we'd block inside zone against an over vs under front or how we'd decide which side to run an inside zone check-with-me.
|21 hours 40 min ago||That's pretty damn close to||
That's pretty damn close to what you'd hear.
The thing that makes this an even stupider exercise is that the real answer would be something along the lines of, "Do you think I like having fewer than five guys who are capable of playing at a Big Ten level. Never in my coaching career have I fielded a line bereft of any seniors and featuring only 1 junior."
|21 hours 45 min ago||No. Execution is a code word||
No. Execution is a code word meaning, "not my fault, the players screwed me". Didn't you read mgoblog last season?
|21 hours 48 min ago||Yes. Not only was he poor in||
Yes. Not only was he poor in four whole games last year, he doesn't have that many stars on his Rivals page. We can forgive a guy for playing poorly in 13 games if he has 5 stars.
|1 day 8 hours ago||That's certainly an opinion||
That's certainly an opinion that one might hold. But one could argue that the OL was responsible for all 6 losses and a few near misses, while Gardner was responsible for 6 wins and almost singlehandedly willed us to win the OSU game.
One could see Morris beating Central and no one else.
|1 day 11 hours ago||I mean this with only minimal||
I mean this with only minimal sarcasm:
Devin Gardner is a saint.
If you thought last year was bad, image where we would have been without Gardner. We probably go down as the worst Michigan team ever, winning 2 games or so. Every win we had was because of Devin Gardner's play. Sure, his errors made Akron and UConn close and might have cost us the Penn State game, but he single handedly beat ND and was responsible for every good thing our offense did.
|1 day 11 hours ago||The only thing made obvious||
The only thing made obvious from that quote is that one's eyes aren't capable of seeing every position on the field. And perhaps that one's brain is incapable of processing all of that even if the eyes could.
He is going to watch film.
If the receivers were the worst part of our team, his eyes would probably go there. But, perhaps coincidentally, the interior of the line is where our biggest weakness was last season. And it also allows him to watch the two youngest players in the defensive front.
Keep trying. You'll come up with something to support your belief eventually.
|1 day 11 hours ago||By the same token, I am 99%||
By the same token, I am 99% sure I saw some run checks, and even some damn good ones. This quote just made me doubt that for a second.
I think the most likely scenario is this is a misquote, or I'm reading it wrong, or Devin just slipped with his usage. But I like to play Devil's Advocate.
|1 day 12 hours ago||I agree on all counts. I was||
I agree on all counts. I was just putting a big if out there.
And this is why no one should ever give a substantive answer to the media.
|1 day 12 hours ago||Precisely what I was talking||
Precisely what I was talking about. The new and unknown is always better. You can project your hopes onto it.
You're just smarter than me and articulated it better than I did.
|1 day 12 hours ago||Hoke was a linebacker.You||
Hoke was a linebacker.
|1 day 12 hours ago||If he means he's not calling||
If he means he's not calling out the Mike, no biggie. Anyone can do that.
If it means he didn't know how to identify one, then any notion that the QB had any run check options is is bunk. And that is bad for an offense.
|1 day 12 hours ago||If this is a matter of the QB||
If this is a matter of the QB calling out the Mike, its a non-issue. But if it is about him not identifying one, even to himself, then this is a travesty against the sport.
Lets say you've got an ISO check with me. How does the QB make that decision? Just run to either the 3 or 1 every time? The QB has to know how the line is going to block it, but he wouldn't be able to know without identifying the Mike.
It's weird, because one scenario is no biggie and the other is quite a biggie.