the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
- Member for
- 3 years 37 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|1 week 11 hours ago||Disagree||
I think you're underplaying the amount of tape the coaches watch. You go off of highlights. I promise you the coaches watch entire games. These game films are not available to us on the internet.
I played college football, and my high school coach sent hundreds of game films to various schools. Some of them were of my poorer performances. Highlight tapes are often used to introduce a kid to a school, but when considering who to offer, the schools watch multiple games. Often in person.
I think you have a fine site, but let's not pretend you watch as much film as coaches do. You don't, because you can't. There's nothing wrong with that.
|1 week 11 hours ago||Argument||
The problem is that you are conflating "national exposure" with "NFL draft".
A player at UM will be on national TV more than one at MSU, and will probably get more publicity, more love from ESPN and so on. This does not mean a lot when considering the NFL draft.
As people have pointed out, Fisher went to CMU.
Te'o was sold as a Heisman candidate and we all were forced to listen to his story every Saturday. He was drafted in the 2nd round despite being the most discussed college football player in the country.
National exposure is not necessarily correlated with NFL draft status. But I think you know that, you're just backpedaling from your first, worse argument.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Braden||
This play is one of the reasons I am so down on Braden's performance. He simply must come off the double team and block the Will. Mistakes like these are precisely why our line was sub-par last year. Unfortunately, experience is the only thing that fixes this. Determining when to come off of a double team is a tough thing to do, as almost every instinct you have is to bury the guy you're on. But this is what makes a good line. This is what is meant by terms like "cohesion" and "gelling".
Braden is supposed to come off and block the Will. Kalis is targeting the Mike, but lost him underneath. This is an RPS deal. Miller is blocking back on the 3, but he ends up on no one as the 3 loops out into Schofield. Ideally, he gets his head on a swivel and gets a piece of the Will, but that is a lot to ask.
Also, Mattison is lying. This is a blitz. What gives it away is the 3 and the E looping out backside. This is exactly what they'd do on a double-a blitz. Either that or the 3 has just played this awfully. He is supposed to crash down hard to where the guard he is covering pulls. A lot of great 3's actually either blow the play up (as its a long way for the C to go without giving up some penetration) or actually hold the pulling guard, disrupting his timing.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Aha||
I didn't realize he was just cleared to play recently. That would explain a bit though.
Still, I think he looked really bad. Even before team period, during the 1 on 1 drills, he looked pretty bad.
I guess the good news is that he's still got time and he has a bit of an excuse with the injury. But I still don't think he'll ever play. He's been passed up by underclassmen.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Not that dire||
I'm just talking about what I saw today. They haven't even been through fall camp, so I'm not remotely near any ledge.
I don't think we suck, as one commenter said. I think our interior line is pretty poor at this juncture, which is fortunately a long time before we play anyone. Defense could be excellent, as could special teams. That alone would make us a pretty good team. Add in a heck of a QB and we could be really good.
For what it's worth, I think Kalis and Braden will end up as great players. They're just not there yet. It's not even surprising; these guys have never taken a real snap. The only guys I have zero confidence in are 58 and 62. I'd be shocked if either ever got meaningful snaps, and took them effectively.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Quick Takes||
I watched offensive line exclusively.
Kalis is our best guard, but he's got some work to do. Looks very much like a redshirt freshman.
Braden looks like Tarzan but played like Jane. He consistently stopped his feet on contact. He was slow out of his stance. He always caught the defender in pass protection rather than punching. He was absolutely undressed on one defensive line stunt. Looks pretty rough.
Magnusson isn't ready. His feet were poor. Very inconsistent pass sets, sometimes too wide, sometimes too narrow. As a run blocker, couldn't get a great read.
Bars looked the worst of any of the redshirt freshman. I think true freshman Bosch looked better, and this is more of an indictment of Bars.
Not much on Tulley-Tillman. #58 will never play for us, I'd guess.
This reads really harsh, but I suppose it should I think we're in some trouble. Man, I wish we had a few upperclassmen so these guys wouldn't have to start.
And Funchess can't block a lick.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||No comparison||
We all love this team, and hope they win a championship. There is, however, no comparison of these two squads in terms of "remarkable".
The Fab Five were a cultural phenomenon. They are the reason I still wear black Nike socks to shoot around. They took the college basketball world by storm. The current outfit is a good basketball team that is playing very well.
The Fab Five made it to the Finals as a group of freshman, and as a 6-seed. This group has more experience and a better seed.
This team might achieve more, but I don't think it is better, nor do I think its achievements would be as remarkable.
|8 weeks 2 days ago||I agree that such||
I agree that such expectations were silly, but I think they were still out there, in large numbers.
People always like to project greatness onto underclassmen who perform well, and I remember a lot of people saying Countess was to be our best defender. The reason I remember this is because I, like you, thought it was a stretch.
In regards to Jake Ryan, he was clearly going to be our best player, and one of the best in the B1G. His ability to chase down plays while being blocked is the best I have ever seen from one of our guys. He ignores would be blockers in the way that very few collegiate players do. This is a big loss.
But the expectation is for the position. Just as Raymon Taylor stepped up last season, I expect Cam Gordon to as well.
|8 weeks 2 days ago||The expectation is for the position.||
The expectation is for the position.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Waiting for a Hello post||
I don't really take any pleasure in the State schadenfreude. I'm just happy because at this juncture, we look like a lock for a top tier in-state player at a position of weakness.
I don't really follow recruiting at all, but I will actually be awaiting this Hello post.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||Scouting report||
Magnus says he'll need to work on staying low. He looks like a back-bender not a knee-bender.
Mr. Rager says Magnus is an asshole who's not qualified to make judgments on mods.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Yes||
We were late. Of course we were furious at the report. We thought our coach was cheating.
And a lot of us still are late to the party. Until now, I didn't realize that the freshmen were ambushed at media day. I sort of assumed that they were requested by the Freep and OK'd by the department for an interview.
But, like you said, the damage had been done. Our program, and Coach Rod, were already tainted.
But he still managed to lose at a furious pace before, during, and after the Freep hit. Let's not forget that. Nor should we use the Freep hit as an excuse for our on field failures.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Personally||
When the Freep piece came out, I wanted Rod skinned alive. He was the coach, he broke the rules, he was dragging our program throught the mud.
I only found out much later how much of it was bullshit. As it stands, I hate Rosenberg. I still prefer the Freep to the News, though.
And, I know we've talked about this before, but despite the fact that the report was bullshit, I (partially) blame Rod for its existence. Something like that could never have come out in Bo's time, or Lloyd's, for that matter. The players had too much respect for/fear of their coaches. And the freshmen whose quotes were butchered wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the media. And the media wouldn't have been after them to begin with. Let it be clear that I think the blame on Rod is only a small percentage, but it is there nonetheless.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Right.||
I suppose this is where we disagree. I think Rod's job was to win games, regardless of extenuating circumstances (which we agree were mostly undeserved and certainly very damaging). I'd have liked him to have an easier road, but he didn't. He lost a lot. I don't really know what you think his job was, considering you don't see him as a failure here.
I guess the best way to put it is that I am certain that a coach like Bo would have come in and immediately righted the ship. Even if Bump was against him (please don't read this as a belief that Carr was against Rod), the players were reluctant to buy in, the fanbase hated the idea of an unknown outsider coaching their program, etc. I just cannot see anything other than success in the face of failure and against long odds. Right or wrong, this is what I've come to expect from our program.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Still not funny||
I think if Rod cured cancer, people would greatly, wholeheartedly, unequivocally feel that he is a hell of a scientist. But, people would also lament the job he did as head coach of the Michigan football team.
And I don't think the thing to take away is that winning is the only thing that matters. We want a clean program. Hell, we demand it. It's not like he was replaced by Tressel. Hoke has shown the ability to win and, perhaps as importantly, to do it cleanly. The right way. The Michigan way.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Bo||
There is no doubt Bo would have condemned the treatment Rod got publicly. But I imagine Bo also letting Rod know - behind closed doors, of course - in no uncertain terms that his handling of the media was pitiful and detrimental to the program and that his record was not good enough. I'd venture to say that Bo would have let Rod know that Michigan is entitled to better results. In fact, I've heard Bo say exactly that to his teams.
This is all assuming that Rod would have been hired while Bo was alive. I don't think that is true. I think we'd have had Hoke earlier, or perhaps another program insider.
Section 1, we've had this discussion before. It was all about the record. Rod didn't deliver. True, he was hamstrung. But, and you must admit this, he failed.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||Funny?||
The difference in reception = the difference in wins.
Hoke has won 19 games over two years to Rod's 8.
Hoke has also been better at all other aspects of being a head coach; alumni relations, press conferences, recruiting, hiring coaches, you name it.
But make no mistake, if his record was as abysmal as Rod's, all of that would be for naught. We would be calling for his head, just like some of us are with Borges.
|17 weeks 3 days ago||Moeller||
Yeah, fuck you Baltimore Ravens. Ray Rice had 1143 rushing yards and 4.4 YPR. Flacco was sacked the 20th most of 32 teams, despite being one of the least mobile of NFL QBs. Their line is pretty good.
Moeller was a very good coach at Michigan. His lines were always good, often times better. What are you talking about?
|18 weeks 1 day ago||Yes, but||
I agree with most of your points, but I have to say that I think the line will probably be rounding into shape around November. I think the early part of the season will see them struggle mightily.
Miller has no game experience, so it will be interesting to see how correct his line calls will be. Mealer wasn't a horrible blocker this season, but he was sub-par with his calls. The bad news: it can be worse. Let's hope that's not the case.
Bryant is entering his third year, but he has no game experience. And, frankly, he has had relatively few practice reps. He missed all year with a major injury, so he didn't even run with the twos. Most of his practice reps came a year ago on the scout team. Those guys aren't even coached up that well during the season. Also, he's coming off an injury, and as a guy with a history of weight problems, he could come back too big.
Kalis is even more raw. He is the most physically gifted of the three and will be fine by season's end, but I expect him to look pretty bad early on. This would be ok if he were working next to either a more seasoned or larger center. But Miller is smallish and will need his help on the nose quite often, we won't be able to hide him as much.
This is all assuming Bryant can play, which is not something I'm sure about. The coaches wanting to bring in 6 guys means that they either think so highly of one that they plan to not redshirt him, thereby not having too many guys in one class, creating a logjam and potentially forcing one out the door, or they are really unsure about a current player. Bryant could be that guy, if for no other reason than injury.
|18 weeks 4 days ago||17-13 Notre Dame||
17-13 Notre Dame
|19 weeks 3 days ago||Thanks||
So it was clearly an MA. I think this is a good call, as it allows for a better angle on the 2nd level. And with Clowney busting upfield, Kwiatkowski should be eating a rib dinner right now. All he's gotta do is drive him into the wash and the back should have a huge hole (assuming the pulling guard can get around the penetration).
It led to a fumble and ultimately a score, but the far more impressive play came later when Clowney simply abused Lewan and blasted the ball carrier. This one was just a case of a free runner. Anyone could have made that play. The most impressive thing was how he palmed the fumbled ball.
Again, not RPS. In the least.
|19 weeks 3 days ago||Not even close.||
The play was a power to the left side. Lewan wasn't pulling, he was blocking down. This was not RPS. At all. Not one bit. It was a missed assignment (Kwiatkowski not blocking down) or a missed man 9Kwiatkowski not blocking down fast enough). I'd say this has next to nothing to do with either coordinator. It was a perfect mix of a missed block and a great defensive get-off.
Again, not RPS in the least. This must be understood.
|21 weeks 6 days ago||Ok||
1. Norfleet has shown nothing at RB. We won't miss any production, we'll just have one less guy to pin all of our unrealistic hope on.
2. He has shown no ability to catch the ball. He may have it, but we don't know. So, why should he be a slot? Our best passing offenses featured guys like 6'1" Steve Breaston in the slot. Just because a man is small does not make him a good slot.
3. He has shown no ability, nor is he likely to possess said ability, to block. This would be a knock on him at RB and WR.
4. If his physical profile is OK to fit in as a slot, his profile is OK to cover the slot. why worried that he's small? More to the point, how can the same people complain that he's not moving to slot AND insist he's too small to be a nickel? For the record, I think he will probably never be a factor at either position. See #6.
5. Our RB depth is not a problem numbers-wise, the problem is quality. He couldn't crack the depth chart this year; he was almost certain to move further down behind the freshman coming in, particularly if we land Green, who could be a four year starter.
6. This move does not in any way affect Norfleet's true position, which is return man. Even when he signed, we were told he would primarily be a returner. Why are we so up in arms?
7. A lot of guys wanted to see him as a "part of the offense". That's fine, but these people are probably the same ones who would complain every time a play broke down that "hey, Borges, way to be creative. Norfleet was in the game, of course it's gonna be the jet sweep or a fake off of that. Any defensive coordinator could plan for that." You can't have it both ways. You either want a real offense with cohesion, or you want a bundle of tricks that lack any real flow.
|23 weeks 4 days ago||Depends||
It depends on how I'm feeling that day. I think Backus was made to look better than he was because of who he was playing next to. For 4 years, he lined up with the greatest lineman Michigan has ever had and one of the greatest players to ever play his position, Steve Hutchinson. But Backus and Pape were similiar: almost no MAs, almost no MMs, far fewer penalties than Lewan. I think Pape was the better pass protector, while they were pretty even in the run game. And I have a lot of respect for Pape because, as his lack of an NFL career shows, he was not a great athlete, just a great technician and a smart player. But, long story short, it could go either way.
|25 weeks 1 day ago||Many||
|27 weeks 4 days ago||A guess||
This is just a guess, but could it be that we are running primarily to the right side because of Denard's injury? His right side is facing traffic when we run left.
I think the bigger problem is probably that Omameh has never been a good pulling guard and Barnum just isn't very good at the point of attack.
And for the record, Lewan is no Jake Long. Frankly, he's not even a Tony Pape. He's more of a Backus/Stenavich. Good, occasionally great, but not a dominator.
|28 weeks 1 day ago||Are you sure?||
Are you sure I claimed to be an expert? Reread the thread.
|28 weeks 1 day ago||Exactly||
That's exactly the key. You wrote that you didn't know if the problems were because of execution or play design or what, but I think you know damn well that no offensive coordinator draws up plays with free backers in the hole. If you thought Borges was that inept, you'd be calling for his head, and rightfully so. The problem is that you carry a lot of cache, and when you suggest such a thing, a lot of the readers who don't understand the game start to believe it. As for the other plays, you seem to be right on.
|28 weeks 2 days ago||I didn't tell anyone to shut||
I didn't tell anyone to shut up. I originally stated my distaste for novices (chill out, it's not a pejorative, it's just true) to complain about play design. What I left out is that this bothers me most when no alternative is given, nor is it coupled with any sort of material discussion. "Borges sucks" doesn't count.
If you want to complain about play design, for heaven's sake, give the board an alternative. Read a few things, go to some clinics, sit in on some high school practices, but try to learn. It would really help the level of discourse on this board, which is by almost all accounts the best of its kind.
I was a dick in a few of my later responses, but that is because some guys attacked me without once engaging with the topic at hand. There was nothing wrong with the design of the play. If you think there is, tell me why, in the same manner I explained there wasn't. Maybe you think the ISO is aimed at the Sam, not the Mike.
I guess what I'm saying is that despite all of your hand-wringing about my posts, you have added nothing to the discussion.
I'll look at the end-around play later. I'm going to a party. Tomorrow maybe. My first hunch is that the play isn't poorly designed, it is just the old problem of 11-10 because the QB isn't a blocker. Most plays are designed to get the back to the 2nd level, at which point he will have to make a safety miss. Don't quote me til tomorrow though, after I've had a chance to look at the play.
|28 weeks 2 days ago||Never||
Denard has never, at any point in his playing Michigan career, been a good scrambler. Or any sort of scrambler at all. He's always been a great runner on designed plays, but never a scrambler.
But I do share your negative view on him in the pocket. My biggest complaint about Borges is the almost total lack of three-step drop quick throws. This would hide Denard's tendency of making terrible reads by basically eliminating them.
For the record, I never saw Denard as Troy Smith. Much more of a Pat White runner/short-tosser.