spoiler alert: i linked this
- Member for
- 6 years 45 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|12 hours 56 min ago||Looks like Saban is raising the stakes||
Going from throwing strength and conditioning coaches under the bus to assistant coaches.
|15 hours 47 min ago||I've never claimed spelling as a strong suit||
But at least I didn't put Chystler Center, so I got that going.
|15 hours 48 min ago||For the same reason making a statue of JoePa is a risk||
You always run the risk of naming something after someone that is still alive to make you look like an idiot for naming something after them.
|15 hours 50 min ago||The best thing about the Apple comment||
Is that apparently his dad is a retired 5-star chef. Unless he learned absolutely nothing from his dad, which I guess is possible, that comment completely backfired.
|21 hours 4 min ago||I don't mind branding stadiums||
I get it, it's a money making venture. But I do wish they would also give it a standard name. "Commerica" will never have the staying power of "Tiger Stadium" (which was formerly Navin Field and then Briggs Stadium until the 60s, but I digress). Little Caesars Arena will never have the staying power of The Joe Lewis Arena. I like naming these things after things that represent the city and area more than just a single business.
Detroit is lucky enough to have some people/things to aspire to. From the Red Wings, you have Gordie Howe (though generally, naming something after someone not dead is always a huge risk). Heck, call it Red Wings Arena, "Motown" Arena, "Hockeytown" Arena, etc. Even "Illitch" Stadium would bring some lasting power, though be a little narcissistic in this case.
I'd just prefer it also has a name attached to it with staying power. "Michigan Stadium", "Cristler Center", "Yost Arena", "Spartan Stadium", "Breslin Center", "Ohio Stadium", "Rose Bowl", you could advertise on those stadiums all you want, but they have something that unifies them for the people in the area, stays with them, and is stronger than just a brand. WIsh they would at least add that aspect to it as well, because I think that makes them, ultimately, mean a little more to the area than just being about business.
|21 hours 15 min ago||Here's what's missing in this argument||
Illitch could have sold the rights to someone and made money. Or he could use one of his companies to brand the stadium for significantly less than he would be able to at any other point.
The question is, what is the better outcome for Illitch and the Detroit sports teams. All Illitch profit is theoretically available to use to these teams in some way or another, it doesn't matter where it comes from. So if he believes branding the stadium for essentially free with his brand is a better ROI than selling the rights to someone else, then he's making the right decision.
|1 day 14 hours ago||My issue||
Centers around the context that is missing and implied in the title. My example title may not be the best, but there is a clear implication in the provided title.
And absolutely "readers" drive funding. Not directly, but reads is a reflection of interest. Framing this around football is a way of driving interest which drives readers which breeds interest which results in more funding which brings people back to this group because they have done work in this area.
It's not just this article in isolation. It's the bounds and bounds of them. And all say something along the lines of "damage", "impacts", "changes" to the brain that all imply very negative things. But what does it mean? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ gets down played or left out completely. Because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ doesn't bring funding. Destruction, damage, awful outcomes do. You are unlikely to get the research money when you just say "we have this method of measuring this part of the brain", you get research money when you link it to something people care about, and people are more apt to care about it when it's "look how bad it is, we can measure it!" than "we can measure something and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
|1 day 16 hours ago||Lions fan||
Major need is OT. Secondary needs are essentially CB, DL, and ILB and a WR.
Ramsey, Tunsil, and Stanley will be off the board for sure. I doubt Conklin will fall to them but I'd draft him if he did. Beyond that, I wouldn't draft an OT at their spot. I'd think about trading back for Spriggs or looking at the next tier of guys in the 2nd round. They should draft an OT in the first two rounds though. They can't wait until round 3 or after and get a projected LT of the future.
DT depth is great in this draft. I know a few that have the guy out of Louisville going to the Lions, but you can pick up high quality DTs in the middle rounds. I like a guy like Collins out of Nebraska around round 4. But you may be able to grab a guy that falls a bit in round three or later (Johnson, Day, Ridgeway, Henry). So I'd wait until round 4 probably for a DT and still get a quality guy that I think can contribute in the rotation immediately.
I wouldn't mind the Lions going for one of the top flight WRs in round 1 if Conklin is off the board and getting a OT in round 2. They need a guy that can stretch the field, but they have the depth right now to let a guy come along as a WR3 or WR4 and learn how to be an NFL WR. So get a guy with high upside but isn't as polished. Fuller, Coleman, Doctson, possibly Treadwell if they trade back at this spot. If not them, grab that OT and get a WR in the next round, where you can still grab a guy like Boyd, Shephard, or Cooper (I like Miller's upside, but is too similar to what the Lions have). The WR group isn't very deep this year though, a lot of possession guys after that group (or in that group in the case of Thomas), so if you don't grab one of those in round 2, you can slide to later rounds and grab a Carroo or Mitchell for depth later.
I really like Hargraves, but I think he has limited upside as an NFL player. He made up for limited athletic ability with great technique in college. You need both in the NFL. I'd wait until round 2-4 for a CB, and look for a Fuller, Howard, Burns, Alexander type to slip. You can still get solid CB prospects in the middle rounds with guys like Murray, etc.
|1 day 16 hours ago||That's the thing though||
I'm not disagreeing with the research. I'm not disagreeing with making the game safer. I'm not disagreeing with trying to understand the long and short-term effects of these things.
I'm arguing against the way it is being presented. It's being presented as an extreme, rather than the research for understanding and making the game safer that it really is. But that's tame, that's lame, that's just science, and that doesn't sell and provide more funding. The presentation is the "scare tactic", not the actual research (for the most part).
|1 day 17 hours ago||I was just editing my response||
"Measurable effects on brain cells due to non-concussive hits of high-school aged boys" isn't scary. It isn't implicating football as a killing your brain sport. It's still factually correct. But then, how many people would read an article with such a headline? How much more funding would they get? So, let's go with what sells.
The title implies much more than what you're acting like it does, thus the nearly 70+ replies already to this thread with the discussion it's bringing about.
|1 day 17 hours ago||This is my feeling||
The issue for others is that it isn't necessarily backed by data; it's backed by feels. Then we reference increased depression in retired professional athletes, etc. I bet former professional golfers that can no longer play golf because of, say, a back injury, would have a higher rate of depression than most.
I do think there is likely an impact from head injuries. It's the degree of which that are directly from head injuries, and the risk of playing vs the risk of not playing that I'm not certain about. I'm all for making the game safer so that the risk goes down. I'm against making it seem as if we understand the risk and the risk is too high and that by playing, you are going to have problems the rest of your life.
|1 day 17 hours ago||The title of the article||
"Head impacts from single season of high school football produce measurable change in brain cells"
That implies, to most that read it, you are fucking up your brain if you even play a single season of football at the high school level. The text isn't nearly as bad. It's the title that is the scare tactic. Most people that "read" the article and most news outlet that "reference" the article likely won't actually read or reference much of the article itself, they are going to take that title and run with it.
|1 day 17 hours ago||But what does this mean?||
I'm a football guy, so I may be labelled as putting my head in the sand, but we never really seem to get across to what this actually means. These two dozen players, are the worse off throughout life because of this? Are there actually impacts from this or just hypothesis about impacts? How different is it from other people in society at that age? Should we wrap our kids in bubble wrap and not let them go outside?
Someone said above that these articles use a lot of shock and awe and scare tactics, and I agree that they do. I understand that "just because I got spanked doesn't means everyone should." I understand that "just because I used to climb up to the top of 50 foot tall trees doesn't mean that all kids should do that". I understand that "just because I got in fist fights in grades school doesn't mean everyone should." I understand that "just because I played pickup tackle football doesn't mean everyone should." I understand that "just because I didn't wear a seatbelt all the time when I was a kid doesn't mean my kid shouldn't be in a child seat until she's 21 or whatever." But at what point are we doing kids and people and society a disservice? We're trying to argue objective data with subjective benefits, but we really aren't sure how to even quantify the "objective data". But all these new articles come across as knowing just how to do it: and it's all terrible.
I get parents being worried about their kids playing football. I loved football growing up. I learned a lot from football. I believe it's the best game in the world. I believe it helped me both physically and mentally and made me much of the man I am today. I believe it played, along with other sports, a significant role in my successes and how I've handled my failures. I've noticed a lot of people around me in my profession (aerospace engineering) that struggle socially, that struggle handling denial and failure, that aren't sure how to move on from either failure or success. At the same time (warning, not so humble brag coming), my boss and bosses boss and those around them have repeatedly praised since the day I started my (sample size of one) confidence, ability to present information, and ability to lead. That's something a lot of the people around me don't have experience with. And yes, there are tons of ways to learn those things, there are tons of ways to be competitive, but at some point as humans we aren't meant to just sit around and not twiddle our thumbs because my may get arthritis from doing it.
Football is dangerous, "contact sports" are dangerous, running is dangerous, walking is bad on your knees, whole milk is too fattening, skim milk leads to obesity, so on and so forth and so on and so forth. This isn't a sample size of one. Millions of kids have grown up playing football and been perfectly fine on the other end. I'd argue they were better off for it. Would we be a superior super-race if none of them played football? I highly doubt it. I'd argue we'd be a worse society without football and other sports. But that's subjective, and doesn't stur up the scariness that these articles do.
I'm all for making the game safer. I'm all for understanding how to do the things we do safer. But to scare it away completely seems misguided. It seems we're taking a small sample size, indicating that it has some form of impact, and assuming the worst. Weight lifting breaks down muscle. The muscle has a way of rebounding to grow stronger. The body has this amazing ability to adapt to its surroundings and environments to protect itself, and sometimes to come out the other end more protected against those bad things than it otherwise would. Maybe we don't need to spend out whole lives protecting ourselves from fear and bad things and prepare ourselves to deal with fear and bad things so that we can come out of it better than how we entered it.
This isn't a cry for fewer research. Not at all. But the way in which we are framing it. We frame it as this sort of scare tactic, which it shouldn't be.
|2 days 15 hours ago||These guys have a wealth of information at their disposal||
Former players and coaches and scouts and stats, stats, stats. They have all the highlights, All-22, inside access to basically all sports and at least to some degree, the ability to get it with any athlete in the world. ESPN just put together a great piece on Tiger Woods. Unfortunately, that's not what they show. Instead, there are bidding wars for Skip Bayless. That shows where we are as a society. We'd rather have fewer of the former and more of the latter.
|2 days 18 hours ago||If QB situation works out like that||
I don't think Denver would take Cook in the first round. There is a huge gap between Cook and Prescott, who most seem to think is the next QB. A team could likely trade back and get Cook in mid-2nd.
A little surprised to see Apple going so high. He's a solid player, but I wouldn't have him in the first half of the 1st round.
Some really high ceiling WRs going late in the first. Treadwell to Minnesota. Coleman at 24. In a league that puts a high value on WR, I would be shocked if they didn't run off the board earlier as teams really try to get in on the top flight group.
Hackenberg early 2nd... no.
Spiggs could be a nice pick in the 2nd. Bit of a steal there.
I really didn't see Ward as a round 2 pick out of Illinois. I guess I didn't watch a ton of tape on him, but I didn't see that out of him. I guess people are projecting with him vs his team as a whole.
Jaylon Smith was a first round talent. He's not going round 2 with his injury. Some team will take a risk on him, but the injury was really bad.
I don't think Vannet is a round 3 TE. He's a second half of the draft type of pick, IMO.
I just keep on getting surprised by the depth at DT and OL in this draft. Some really solid players going deep in this draft.
Curroo could be a steal for someone in round 4.
I don't see Henry lasting until round 5, but with the DT depth it'll depend on how teams prioritize those guys. Speaking of which, Sheldon Day in round 5? I know there are some injury concerns, but that makes no sense to me. Guy should be going round 3 at least, IMO. Bit surprised Heath is as high as he is on this list. He's a tweener, and doesn't have near the athletic upside as LT from the same MSU team (who is going later than him).
Josh Ferguson could make someone really happy as a third down back. He seems like a Pats RB all the way, but could fit in well with Green Bay as well. Really good receiving RB.
Shocked they have Stave being drafted. Shocked. Rudock would likely start as a QB3 in Baltimore. Would be a bit surprised by that pick, not necessarily the spot, but to Baltimore.
Corey Davis from WMU should get drafted.
|2 days 20 hours ago||Pearson comes down in run support||
But I don't think he accounts for an interior gap here. He's there as an extra defender. The MIKE shouldn't be relying on him here to make a playside interior run fit, which would be a very difficult play for the safety to make. Pearson is more there if the play bounces outside to the alley.
It does seem like there is an alignment issue on the defense. There really aren't enough bodies aligned to strength (4.5 defenders for 5 blockers)
|2 days 20 hours ago||Depth signing||
One place where I'm pretty sure the Eagles are relatively solid is on the DL. Fletcher is quite good. Allen is a solid blocker eating backup. I believe Logan was solid for them (Eagles fans can correct me if I'm wrong). I'd expect Martin to be Logan's backup, or at least I figure that's where the Eagles want him. He was pretty far down the Titans depth chart last year after promising early seasons with them.
|2 days 20 hours ago||A few things||
Some have pointed out the Friday night at 6 PM vs Saturday at noon.
The weather in EL this past weekend was also near perfect.
Lastly, I don't see anything about his comment as "disrespekt". It was easily MSU's best spring game attendence. That's because they have been a winning program. People come out for a program that wins. That's what he's saying.
Dantonio takes a lot of troll shots at UM. This wasn't one of them. If you're arguing anything, it's the writer implying context that isn't there. Dantonio's quote is about MSU fans attending the MSU spring game and has nothing to do with Michigan's spring game.
This post is more "Michigan fan disrespekt!" than anything.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Michigan had a ton of awful penalties last year||
It wasn't that there was a lot of holds or PIs or flags where you're trying to make a play. It was just way, way too many pre-snap penalties. False start, snap infraction, into the neutral zone. Lack of focus flags that shouldn't happen. It's not an issue of talent, that is to say. So they should be able to improve quite a bit even in one year.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Agree with all of this||
Mone does a good job keeping the MIKE clean and allowing him to be in a position to make a play. He also gives up some ground (he's getting doubled, it's a tough job) that allows this cutback to work faster. He made one good play and countered it with a bit of poor play (though not blown off the ball by any means).
The biggest mistake the MIKE makes is that he loses sight of the ball. He's actually in decent position to shed the blocker either side when JBB finally gets out to him. But he gets too focused on the block and loses the ball, then actually fights playside away from the ball. Gotta have eyes on the ball.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Glasgow isn't faultless||
But he has help inside (notice he's rolling to the center of the field). Peppers has help on the pass route. He can stay on the outside hip of Wheatley if he releases into a route. He just gets blown up here (he gets sealed inside once the ball cuts back). It's ok, Peppers isn't perfect. He's still got things to work on with his run fits.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Great post Seth||
This is one of my favorite things that Harbaugh does when he utilizes three backs in his offense. Makes it extremely hard on the defense's keys. And I always enjoy getting technical about OL footwork.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Correct||
The MIKE has two gaps to account for, one on the front side, one on the backside. He chose to attack the front side, as that's what Brown is teaching. LINK
Hitting the cutback is one of the methods to counter act this sort of defense. It's actually the subject of a post I'm writing up now, that includes things like pulling an OG on PA, boot action, false pulls, and pulling without pulling. This play just happens to have a pull without a pull (H accounts for the pulling OG) and finds the cut back from an aggressive backside LB.
|2 days 21 hours ago||He was blown off the ball||
Yes, he needs to respect a pass route, but once it was clear run and Wheatley was blocking, Peppers still got pushed back and struggled to get off the block. That's a bit to be expect for an undersized LB going up against a huge TE.
Also, Peppers should have forced the ball back inside. He had outside leverage all the way on this play. He needed to get outside Wheatley and force the play back to his Rover (Glasgow). Wheatley killed on this play.
|2 days 21 hours ago||That's a pre-snap blitz call||
Bush is blitzing here. He will blitz a lot. It may be a formation check when the H motions across the formation, but it's not a read from Bush that results in him shooting the gap.
The MIKE doesn't do great here, but there are two issues that really let this play go. Seth pointed out Cole getting solid push on Mone (with the help from JBB). That extra yard allows for a fluid cut back. If that's a stalemate, Ty has to cut laterally instead of diagonal, and the defense can react.
Second, Pliska dominates Godin and seals him on the backside. If Godin gets into a straight up position, where he can two gap a bit, even if he doesn't make the play, he slows the play down.
Then, if Peppers doesn't get destroyed on the LOS, he can flow to the play.
Lastly, Jordan Glasgow is lost in his pursuit angle as a safety (and Peppers is essentially pushed back into him, Wheatley is blocking two guys with one). This is a terrible job letting an 8 yard gain turn into a huge gain. I really wish they would have pulled Glasgow on board with being a FB from the get go. I think he has the athleticism, frame, and mental capacity for that position. I don't think the same can really be said for safety. But he's a walk-on, he's meeting expectations for a walk-on, just not the ones his brothers set.
So yeah, there are multiple issues on the defense. The MIKE doesn't do great. He's the most obvious thing to point out. But there are other areas here where the offense whoops the defense or the defense does a poor job.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Think this about sums it up||
MIKE has to account for two gaps, one playside, one on the backside. He's aggressive crashing to the front side of the play trying to beat the combo from reaching him. Ty sees it, cuts it back where there isn't a defender to account for him.
Against a standard Over front (Michigan is running an Over front, but the LBs are aligned more like an Under front), the backside LB will be there to fill that backside gap, so the play is frontside, as you noted.
|3 days 19 hours ago||Stumbled upon UFRs||
I had a common interest in that type of information. I didn't know of anyone else doing anything similar. And off it went from there. The start of "Picture Pages" only made me read more.
|1 week 17 hours ago||Nothing like Leaf||
Leaf had a ton of physical tools. Leaf had an amazing arm. Leaf was also much more of a hot head. Cook may be off-putting, but his personality isn't like Leaf's, and his arm isn't like Leaf's either.
|1 week 17 hours ago||I actually don't think it's accuracy that is the primary issue||
His accuracy isn't great, but for the most part I think it's as good as the other QBs. Especially his down field accuracy. I think the completion percentage is a reflection of another issue, in that the MSU staff has simplified the playbook such that he doesn't go through a lot of progressions meaning most of his passes are down the sideline or quick, easy reads, rather than scanning a defense, making a decision, and getting it to the third or fourth guy in the progression if needed. He didn't show the ability to work over the middle or check down a lot, and with MSU's offense, the most likely reason that is, in my mind, is a limitation in his game that their coaches realized and didn't ask him to do.
His mechanics do get wonky, particularly when he gets off his mark and works further in the progression, so we've seen evidence of that. He also gets lazy at times on short passes. But when he puts it all together, he shows very good accuracy. The question is, can he actually put it together enough to read and execute against NFL defenses. Honestly, I think that is a more valid question than anything, because he's shown evidence of struggling a bit in that regard when I've watched him, particularly against "multiple" defenses.
|1 week 17 hours ago||I think there is just something different about his personality||
That scouts can't seem to really connect with, and I think to an extent, his teammates don't connect with. Don't get me wrong, I don't think his teammates hate him, which some scouts seem to be trying to say, but it doesn't seem like they love him either. Just a different kind of guy I guess.
But like one of the people said, "he wins." If people don't rally around him off the football field but do on the football field, it really shouldn't be as much of an issue as it is. Yes, there may be something to it about a QB being a leader or this and that, but it seems to me it's being overblown. I'm not sure I've ever seen so many articles about "well, we don't really know anything about this guy, no criminal history, no public fights, but he wasn't a captain, soo.... we're going to assume he has a crappy personality."
Really what it seems to me is that nothing about his film really jumps off the page (outside his quick release) to scouts, and there are a few flaws, but not enough for scouts to rally around. So they are looking for other things to justify where they have him on their board or passing on him incase a bunch of above average qualities but no great qualities results in him being a better QB than the QB they take. They need justification for why they took their guy over this guy, instead of just saying they were higher on one QB and not on Cook. It's a lot of intangible jargon.