- Member for
- 3 years 48 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Current value
|4 days 15 hours ago||My guess||
He eventually occupies the nickel role and plays safety when back in a 4-3. I don't think you'll want to take him off the field if he lives up to the hype. I'm hoping Hill redshirts, because I really like him at SS too.
|4 days 17 hours ago||I love the traditional uniforms as much as anyone here||
But at this point, the constant complaining feels like:
|4 days 17 hours ago||Eh||
OSU has four of the top 7 and 5 of the top 10 in Ohio. They lead of are in the leading group for the other 3 out of the top 7, didn't offer 1 of the top 10 (Watkins, Michigan didn't offer either, went to NW), and only lost Ferns to Michigan. Whereas Michigan offered at least 4 out of the 9 Michigan didn't get in the top 10. So yeah.
|5 days 14 hours ago||Pretty sad||
Two football players that had tons of upside, had tons of potential to better their lives and their family's life, and essentially threw it away.
|5 days 15 hours ago||Wahoo!||
|6 days 13 hours ago||Also ran too high||
He looked kind of like a punter when running the football. Very straight up and down. And at his height, that provided very little protection when he decided to dip his helmets and not his shoulder pads/waist.
|1 week 20 hours ago||He would have been a perfect fit in a 3-3-5||
The move back to a 4-3 hurt his chances, he was much more of an in-box safety. Good luck to him.
|1 week 20 hours ago||Just a small correction||
Jarrod has locked down the FS spot. Gordon will slide over to SS, his more natural position IMO.
|1 week 5 days ago||I would have liked to see them both on the field too||
As I said above, primarily on decoys, but you can only do so much. Borges hardly did any, and that's a valid critisicm, but what many people wanted him to do just wasn't feasible. On play action to Denard, Denard couldn't pick up any blitz, so you're running a huge risk there. The play action wasn't very believable either because Denard still didn't really grasp how to even take a handoff, let alone fake like he did. He struggled catching the ball cleanly, partly from inexperience but probably also because of his arm.
On passes, his routes weren't very good, so you only had a few options: namely fly patterns and patterns out of the backfield, where he still struggled to catch the ball.
I thought 2-4 decoys in the second half would have been nice, but Denard's role was going to be limited.
|1 week 5 days ago||2nd half of OSU game||
4 carries, 5 yards (long of 6 on a 2nd and long play), 1 lost fumble.
Yes, when OSU was still playing Denard honestly, as if he could throw, he did well. When they realized he couldn't throw, they stacked the box and sent defenders blitzing because Denard couldn't pick up anyone.
I would have liked to see Denard used a bit more as a decoy, particularly on fake jet sweeps or the like. But that doesn't give Denard more touches, which was your complaint. OSU was stacking the box and even Michigan's best runner, Denard, couldn't break through in the second half. DG was off that day, but much of the playcalling wasn't poor, it was poorly executed.
|1 week 6 days ago||I agree with this||
And I say that as a big fan of Webber. I don't like what he did to Michigan, I don't like that he never takes any responsibility (even if he has some valid points, he isn't a complete angel here). I think he loves Michigan, he loves the fab 5, but he also just honestly doesn't think he did anything wrong at all. He doesn't like what Michigan and the NCAA did to him, and he'll probably tell what he believes is the complete truth, and that's just the way it is.
|1 week 6 days ago||I love the Borges bashing||
Because, you know, Denard had a functional right (throwing and dominant) arm. Oh, yeah, and Denard also knew how to actually play RB and WR. He knew how to block, how to line up, how to read his blocks, how to take a hand off, how to run a route, all those things because he had like 2.5 weeks of practice to do them in season.
So I understand why it's valid to bash Borges when Borges should have had Denard in on third and long to throw the ball deep, or maybe to be the primary blocking running back, or maybe get great seperation on a deep post, or basically anything that prevented OSU from stacking the box, because Denard was capable of all those things... right.
|2 weeks 7 hours ago||I do think he could be a great special teams player||
He still needs to prove to be useful depth on defense in order to earn a spot on the game squad (with limited numbers, if someone is not quite as good on special teams but can provide more depth on defense, they'll probably take that guy), but if he can do that then I think he will be able to have at least a five year career as a special teams guy and a guy who you can bring in the game in case of emergancy.
I really don't see an issue with him making a practice squad, as I think it's at least worth the risk of keeping him around to see if he can develop into a useful depth guy, and he will work hard every day in practice and give good looks.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||All signs seem to be pointing to OSU on this one||
Hopefully we can get Bars to make up for it. I haven't watched film on Jones, but he appears to be a good recruit.
Too bad for OSU is they're going to have so many blown assignments on the line when they figure out they have two Joneses though. Suckers.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah...||
No offense, but that HR rep you know sounds like a bad HR rep and a bit of a dick. All three of those schools are good schools. They may not be as good as Michigan, but they do have some candidates that are better than the ones you'll get if you only look at Michigan grads.
The first thing I look at in the hiring process is what these people have accomplished, how much work experience they have, letters of rec, research, extracurriculars, and then maybe gpa and school. I'm not going to throw out someone who had a 3.7 at MSU and has already done research, had a couple internships, has great letters of rec, and look at a 3.2 student at UM who has only the fact that he was in a frat on his resume, because I've known too many good and great workers/employees from God-knows-where University to be arrogant enough to throw something out just because of school allegiance.
Maybe you were joking, but I just found that sentence baffling and terrible if true. If all else was equal, I'd hire the Michigan guy, if the OSU guy was better qualified, I'd hire him.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I've also had this experience||
And it apparently wasn't because I had boring or bad answers, because I was offered the job. But to a degree there is a weird double standard in which anyone in the "higher" or "hire" position are allowed to be on their phones while talking to you, but the other is not.
I held off a very long time on getting a smart phone because I already spend so much time on a computer. I have one now, but I try to leave it at my desk whenever I step away to do things or talk to people. My biggest issue is when I'm trying to remember something, like a stat or an example, and I try to quickly google it on my phone. I'd be better off messing up the example a little, but have gotten too comfortable with my phone and others using their phone. It's difficult not to just pull it out sometimes around work or between interviews (back when I was doing that). I've had to resist doing that and keep it in the pocket in those instanses, only to see the person interviewing me or talking to me check their phone periodically, quickly "shoot back an e-mail" or something else.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Oh yeah!||
Come look me and the eye and say that buddy! Oh yeah, you can't, 'cause I'll be checking mgoblog for your reply. Sucker.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I think Marshall is a high ceiling guy||
Good athlete, but like you said, that's all you can take. His technique isn't much to write home about, but he has a good, quick first step, and keeps linemen off of him on his speed rush. Outside of that, he doesn't really use his hands much and has a lot to work on against the run. But the potential is there, particularly to be a pass rush guy off the edge.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Who throws a shoe? Honestly|
|2 weeks 2 days ago||The scholarship does apply to grad school||
Lots of guys, especially 5th year seniors, start grad work on scholarship. I'm guessing the athletic department pays for it just as they pay out of state tuition for all players.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Technically you are correct||
But the way that it will work is that the CB will see the #2 go deep. The CB needs to cover his deep responsibility first and foremost (he's looking for verts at this point). In that time he will be sinking still, which will cover the immediate corner in time for the safety to recover. When he finds #1 (assuming that a smash concept has been used), he will break back on him.
The big advantage of this is that it covers any sort of double vertical route and then allows the CB to aggressively break on any route by #2 into the flat. The safety has to be fast because he's not going to have the outside receiver bracketed if #2 goes into the flat, so he knows right away he has to get to the sideline, meaning he doesn't have middle of the field responsibilities. That's my understand of how it works anyway.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||What will happen on a smash route||
The corner still has to sink because your making sure your note giving up the corner route. This is really intended to prevent plays deep, but it gives players the opportunity to play very aggressive and trick the QB into throwing into something he thinks he's seeing, but isn't really.
Once the safety recovers onto the corner route, the CB will snap back down onto #1. The OLB will most likely cover into the flat a bit more than he would in a typical cover 2, making this a fairly immediate catch and tackle.
To run this offense, you need very fast and atheletic safeties. They need to be able to cover ground and not get beat on double moves back to the inside (fake the corner route, run a post). CB will be responsible for setting the edge (#2 will most likely down block, meaning the CB will have cover 2 run responsibilities). On crossing route by #2 will be called out and passed on to the LBs, CB will cover #1 like man, safety will look for anything coming from the other side of the field (deep cross, LBs will take anything shallow coming from the other side) and slide to double #1 over the top.
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Their cover 4||
MSU runs a cover 4 that tends to look a bit like man because they press on the outside. This is great in college, particularly in a B1G without great QBs, because it takes away a lot of the quick game and screen game in the flats and forces QBs to try to hit WRs over the top near the corner. This is a big reason why teams aren't successful consistently against State, but they do occassionally give up big plays on the outside when safeties are caught peaking or sneaking up or corners simply get burned. This is another reason why State has regularly recruited and played tall CBs.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||As far as what's going on||
I don't really know who made it public, Purdue or the player (this may be a response by Purdue, or some sort of attempt to quell backlash if the player leaked it to papers and tried to make Purdue look shady), but I really don't have a problem with Purdue telling someone to pay for school that isn't fulfilling the obligation he made in return for getting free tuition. He wants Purdue to pay for his schooling so he can play somewhere else.
Yes, player welfare, caring about your students, that's all fine and dandy and nice in a hypothetical world, but it just doesn't make much sense here other than maybe it would look good to future recruits. But I don't see many guys helping out their soon-to-be-ex-girlfriends find a new boyfriend.
Now if he was planning on playing basketball at Purdue, he would have school paid for. If he finished in four years he would have had school paid for. If he wants to transfer and play a graduate year elsewhere, he's perfectly able, he just has to graduate. And to graduate he either had to do so in four years and gotten a free-ride due to his ability to play a sport, or he could get four years paid for and have to pay for one summer semester, which compared to my college funding, seems like a wonderful idea still. Then he can get one year of graduate school paid for whereever he ends up. Not too bad.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||About point number 1||
I trust everything Morgan Freeman says. How could you not trust that sweet, sweet voice?
|3 weeks 6 days ago||As with anything in the current political climate||
Budget is always going to be a key, if not the key issue. From my understanding, NERVA was very expensive, and I mean very expensive with respect to all space things, and even expensive in regards all the other things that Nixon administration cut.
Also, I think the radiation problem is a bigger issue actually in space, less so on Mars itself (where they could do something like you say). As you said though, main obstacle for everything is politics and money. Any realistic venture to Mars is most likely going to be internationally funded, even if performed by a commercial company.
As far as the facilities in the desert, I'm sure those have long since been moth-balled. Like many of NASA's facilities, at this point it would cost just as much, if not more, to bring those facilities back up to working condition than it would to start over. It's sad (and some would say short-sighted) that NASA hasn't really had the funding to maintain some of their world class facilities that are capable of great things (I'm hoping this isn't seen as too politic, especially seeing as space has rarely been much less of a party issue than a state-to-state issue, if it is, sorry).
|3 weeks 6 days ago||I also don't really think warp drive is realistic||
At least not until the distant future. Tons of glaring questions are still evident (same can be said with using anti-matter, which some have proposed, when we can barely make any now with massive facilities).
I do think radiation is significantly more of a problem then you are giving it credit for. Scientists in that field seem to be a bit stumped, and whoever figures that out will become a very big name in the space science field.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||You are right and wrong||
The propulsion system itself if very light, significantly lighter then a tank full of chemical. let alone three tanks. However, the radiation shield that is thought to be needed is extremely heavy. Obviously, lead isn't a realistic option, as it's way to heavy. The solution most talked about is water, but carrying a bunch of water and surrounding the crew with it is extremely heavy as well. And it's difficult to convince people it can also be used for drinking water.
Now there are those that say the radiation from the sun makes the radiation from the propulsion system nearly insignificant (with a much smaller shield). That doesn't necessarily mean it makes it good enough though. And that's the big issue.
Now the public fear of using nuclear systems in event of a crash are pretty unfounded. They would be contained fairly easily in such a way as they wouldn't react under those circumstances. But that doesn't mean the fear (and therefore political fear) don't exist.
In my opinion, nuclear has a clear future in unmanned missions in the relatively near future (in the cases in which time is a significant factor, otherwise electric is a cheaper and capable, although slower, method of propulsion which is greatly understood and tested). It will take a bit longer to do anything for manned missions.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||I agree with you||
Which is unfortunate, not because I agree with you, but because I think Gordon has by far more upside at SS. I think if he has a future in the game (which isn't outside the realm of possibility) it will be at SS, as he doesn't have the speed for FS, but is big enough and aggressive enough to play SS to a better degree. But Wilson simply hasn't looked ready to play FS, let alone play SS when the positions get switched. But the same can be said for Robinson when he's playing SS and strength changes.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||We could "efficiently" get there||
Yes, to a degree, we could efficiently get there. Nuclear is probably the near future of space travel, especially for manned missions. Electric propulsion has great specific impulse (think along the lines of MPG for space craft) but poor thrust. Chemical has relatively terrible specific impulse, so unless we went full bore it would be completely unrealistic. As a propulsion system, Nuclear is a great mix of both. But other issues are abundant. Potential solutions such as Nuclear fusion, and further out Quantum Vacuum Plasma thrusters and warp drive (yes, I said warp drive) would be the true revolutions to space travel, whereas nuclear is just a stepping stone as a propulsion system alone.
But that only accounts for getting there, which really isn't even much of an issue compared to biological and psychological factors. Radiation is still an unsolved problem outside of just launching tons of water into space to use as a shield (which is completely unrealistic). Astronauts still sleep at most on the order of 4 hours a night, and sleep deprivation is huge. Other psychological factors studied by the Russians ended up going terribly, including accusations of sexual abuse, violence, etc (couldn't find a source quickly).
So we are still a long ways off from truly being able to approach this issue. The fact that NASA has been sending people to the ISS for so long (people have lived in space for essentially 20 years now, how crazy is that) but such little biological and psychological results have been distributed publically is a real shame. More man hours need to be spent on these issues, but without the results it is difficult for other people to approach the problems. More needs to be done in these regards, not to mention many other things (do you have a centrifuge? Even with all working out astronauts do, way to much bone/muscle loss is still seen; etc).