Peppers at 10, which seems low.
- Member for
- 7 years 10 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 day 11 hours ago||Brewer? Yes # of batches?||
Beer Styles: A cherry milk stout is my best. Like to drink Belgians.
Other? I love the engineering side. Made an electric kettle I'm proud of
|5 days 1 hour ago||I wouldn't||
I wouldn't have thought of this, but in hindsight I think she, or her writing, may have kept this movie from being an all time great.
|5 days 1 hour ago||You||
You misread this. Not best. Worst.
|5 days 1 hour ago||Dazed||
Dazed and Confused, Good Will Hunting, Dogma (and other Kevin Smith movies), Argo, The Town, Gone Baby Gone. He might not be Paul Newman or Daniel Day-Lewis, or even a Ryan Gosling, but he's been in some good movies as an actor and has done arguably even better as a director.
|5 days 9 hours ago||Woops||
Thanks. I couldn't remember what came before Abbey Road and I guess I misread the discography when looking it up. I guess order not considered, I'd still rank Sgt. Peppers over the White Album, but the either way you have a great 3-in-a-row excluding yellow submarine.
|5 days 13 hours ago||Re:Beatles||
I'd have to flip the list. Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road, Let It Be
|6 days 4 hours ago||Well||
Well, thank god Hoke bended over backward for him, seeing how critical Shane has been to the program.
|6 days 13 hours ago||Get some||
Get some used irons PW-3. These days golf technology hasn't evolved nearly as much in the past 15 years as it had the 15 years prior to that, so it's easy to find very decent sets for cheap. Make sure your irons have good sized cavities (not blades). Get them regripped if you have to.
Find a used matching 3wood and 5wood. Once again you can find some nice older Callaways or something comparable for cheap. Finally, test out a bunch of used drivers and pick one. Don't spend much on a putter.
At some point adding a sandwedge will be helpful, but sometimes beginners struggle with high lofted clubs around the green.
|1 week 10 hours ago||Because||
Because betting is relative to odds not simply who you think will win it all. As the article notes, we started at 15/1 and now are 7/1, which still isn't quite as good as Bama. The fact that a lot of people put money on us meant they liked our chances relative to the odds.
To illustrate, let's say Bama, OU, Mich are all 5/1 odds but FSU is 30/1. Where do you think the money is going to go? Does that mean people think FSU is the most likely team to win it all? No.
All that said, it's safe to say people think very highly of our chances.
|1 week 3 days ago||Good point||
Been here for exactly 5 seasons
|1 week 3 days ago||I thought||
I thought I might get into Texas football when I came here for grad school. Went to a couple games and realized I just didn't care. Actually found myself rooting for Rice in a game because Sam McGuffie was on their team.
|1 week 3 days ago||I||
I once snuck into the barn when they were slaughtering the spring lambs and they were all screaming. I grabbed one and ran away as fast as I could. But I didn't know where I was going. It was cold, very cold. I thought if I could just save one, but he was so heavy. Eventually the sherriff picked me up and returned the lamb to the rancher. I still wake up some nights and hear them screaming.
|1 week 4 days ago||You're not going to||
You're not going to go wrong pretty much anywhere in Ann Arbor. Burns Park, Angell, Eberwhite, Bach elementary schools will all be in neighborhoods near campus. Wines is pretty close as well and Thurston is close to north campus, if you're an engineer.
|1 week 6 days ago||Sounds like||
Sounds like they had some cancerous players in the locker room that needed to go. Maybe Thad was getting too caught up in stars and not putting enough focus on character, or at least that's what he seemed to be suggesting in not the most eloquent terms. I think he's a good coach and imagine they'll turn it around. Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk.
|2 weeks 6 hours ago||He doesn't get it||
"I don't think there's any head coach at our level that can control everything that happens in this day in time."
It's not about controlling everything, it's about being responsible for the culture of your program. That should be all the more apparent with Baylor and PSU headlines.
|2 weeks 6 hours ago||Fewer||
Fewer than Kelvin Grady.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Watc||
Watc you didn't get about it?
|5 weeks 7 hours ago||Come on man||
Don't try to put words in my mouth. Literally no one in this entire thread is saying the issue is solely due to talent. It is a mathematical certainty, however, that our talent pool is diminished because of our cultural focus on other sports, so to claim our mediocrity has 0% to do with potential talent never trying seriously at soccer or even having exposure to soccer is either disingenuous or ignorant.
|5 weeks 11 hours ago||Spatial intelligence||
I'll say he probably has the best spatial intelligence of any soccer player, which I consider to be an athletic measure. Reminds me of Wayne Gretzky. Reminds me of Magic Johnson.
People in this thread want soccer skills to be so unique, but they aren't. Trapping a long ball doesn't take more or less skill than making a 3 pointer. Dribbling a soccer ball doesn't take more skill than dribbling a basketball. Understanding of spacing isn't more important for Bobby Wood than it is for Danny Amendola or Darren Helm. Eye-foot coordination isn't more important for a soccer player than eye-hand coordination for a baseball player. And so on.
|5 weeks 12 hours ago||Don't disagree||
I don't disagree with any of this, but I think it's important to note that youth soccer, while very big in suburbia, is still not penetrating equally across all socio-economic divides. You mentioning the $2-3 k a year being a perfect example.
So I do think it is an opportunity problem for big chunks of our population.
|5 weeks 12 hours ago||Why is it||
Why is it 100% coaching and 0% talent? Who is creating this dichotomy? I'm not arguing against the importance of coaching and better youth soccer instruction, but it is impossible to argue against numbers.
If you have X number of kids and half of them are never exposed to soccer or were gently pushed toward other sports, you just cut your talent pool in half. For a country like Argentina, you don't have to even consider whether the kids will get a fair shake at showing their mettle on a soccer field. In the US, there's a good chance that a great soccer player got so little exposure that their talents were never developed/recognized. Whether or not that player is LeBron James or Adrian Peterson is not the point. The point is our theoretical talent base is much much bigger than our practical one.
So when someone says, how can the US have so many people and be so mediocre at soccer, well, part of the reason is that our population misrepresents our practical talent pool.
|5 weeks 12 hours ago||You're warping||
You're warping my argument.
People in this thread are essentially saying that NBA stars are only good because of freak athleticism and their skills wouldn't translate to soccer, which may be somewhat true in cases like a Russell Westbrook. There are many NBA athletes or NCAA Div 1 basketball players that did not make it based off freak athleticism. They made it because they are freaskishly good at everything else that makes one good at sports. Things like endurance, coordination, understanding of the game, quick thinking, honed a particular skill, basically all of the things people are listing as being so unique to soccer.
So no, you're not just missing out on a couple Zardes 2.0's, you miss out on every type of player when kids aren't exposed to soccer to begin with. Of course, you need coaching to then develop that talent, but once again, that's a separate issue for US soccer.
|5 weeks 12 hours ago||Everyone||
Everyone in this thread is equating athlete with essentially 40 times and verticals. Being good, or even wordclass, at a sport has a lot more to do with the other aspects of athleticism that are harder to measure. These traits, which people refer to as kinesthetic intelligence (as I referred to in another post), is what makes one person good at every sport they pick up, whether it's ping pong, golf, soccer, or basketball.
So we aren't just missing out on freak athletes, like say a Russell Westbrook, we're missing out on the bulk of the entire talent pool whether they are freak athletes, masterly skilled players (Curry) or all-around playmakers who seem better than they should be (Steve Nash types).
I'm not arguing that we need more Zardeses. I'm saying there our country size does not reflect our soccer talent pool compared to other countries because our best athletes (not just in raw measureables) play other sports.
The quality of youth instruction is of course important as well, but that wasn't the argument at hand here.
|5 weeks 12 hours ago||Football||
Football I can agree with, at least for certain positions. Basketball no. Skill is incredibly important to basketball in a similar way to soccer. So is quick thinking, spatial awareness, vision, etc., i.e., everything that goes into what people refer to as kinesthetic intelligence, which is not the same as raw athleticism.
And of course if you put some random athlete on a soccer field who has never played before they aren't going to impress. The point is, nearly all of our best talent, whether athletic freaks or just all-around excellent athletes end up focusing on other sports. Even if they do play soccer as a kid, they are probably getting mediocre instruction and less time on the field than international counterparts.
|5 weeks 13 hours ago||Who are these experts?||
Athletic people are good at sports. Athleticism is also not just fast or jumps high. It's coordination, spatial awareness, etc. Didn't you ever have the friend who was good at every sport? It's like how Harbaugh looks for QBs that were also stars of their baseball squad or what not. Look at Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, etc.
Maybe Lebron would suck at soccer. Maybe his athleticism wouldn't translate. But when our best athletes are almost all choosing to focus on basketball, football, baseball, hell even hockey in the north, over soccer, it's ludicrious to suggest that that isn't a disadvantage for the US vs. nations where it's soccer and then everything else.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||I think||
I think his point wasn't so much that they wouldn't care but more the communication part. We care about discovering all sorts of unintelligent life forms on earth, so that's likely not it. The problem is, how could we ever have meaningful communication with a worm. Worms aren't even all that different from us genetically (something like 70% of the same genome). So consider how different some other form of life would be, and how completely improbably it would be that our intellects would be remotely on the same page. This is a pretty good response to the Fermi Paradox people are pointing out in this thread as well.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||True||
True, we're going to miss out on some gimmees at home. But, if the goal is to win the B10, as opposed to say just making the tourney and going 10-8 in conference, I think your road schedule is crucial. If you're competing for a title, you should be winning at home whether it's NW or it's IU.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||The ever||
The Dave Brandon Ever After Trophy: A giant macaroni noodle.
|7 weeks 1 day ago||No||
No, it was not "one big outside shot." He was 39% from 3 starting February.
I saw a kid who tried too hard when he was on the floor, likely because he was fighting for minutes and due to Beilein's unpredictable substituion patterns. He also made some passes that only Walton or Spike were capable of. The problem was for every great pass, he'd force one and turn it over.
His biggest strength goes unnoticed to many and especially to stats: defense. You can look to the Purdue game we lost in the BTT, where Swanigan couldn't do a thing when Kam was in the game.
Kam's biggest limitation, certainly within the framework of Beilein's offense, was his ball handling. Maybe Bacari will be able to better leverage Kam's strengths and minimize the impact of his weaknesses. Regardless, no one can look at the wing/forward depth chart next year and say we are better off without him.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||It's a projection||
No one is saying we are better than OSU, just that we project to be pretty damn good this year. It'd be ridiculous to go around bragging about a #3 preseason ranking, but it's hard to argue against it.
We project to have the likely the best or certainly the deepest DL. I doubt you'll find a better set of starting corners. Two safeties who have seen significant playing time, one of whom has potential to be a big time play maker. While uncertainty looms at LB, the unit wasn't good this year and we have Peppers plus healthy McCray and incoming Bush. I can see a talented freshmen like Bush actually contributing because frankly a lot may not be asked of the linebackers this year with the strength of the DL.
On offense, we have an OL that projects to be solid, two very solid+ WRs, a ridiculous TE group, options at RB and then there's QB. This team doesn't need a JT Barrett or Deshaun Watson. While there is uncertainty the options don't seem scary, maybe even arguably exciting, especially considering who is coaching them. If O'Korn is too mistake prone, it seems reasonable based off spring to think Speight could be a good game manager. Even in absolute disaster scenarios, you have Morris and Peters.
Projections are projections, so sure they don't mean much. At the same time, there is a strong argument for top 5 projection.