- Member for
- 6 years 46 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|20 hours 27 min ago||Disagree slightly that he doesn't have back up positions||
These are the types that classically would often get moved down to WDE, which is an option in Browns scheme. He could also flip over to offense and potentially play some type of FB/H/TE. So even if he lacks some LB flexibility, there are other ways he could contribute if MIKE didn't work out.
|1 day 22 hours ago||No, screw that McSomething guy!||
That's where you're wrong McSomething. Let me breakdown the film to show you why...
|1 day 22 hours ago||2b.||
Lambast anyone who posts content about Michigan's primary rivals because it "isn't about Michigan and this is a Michigan blog".
|1 day 22 hours ago||This goes well beyond SEC opposition to satellite camps||
The overuse and continued use of tired jokes is a must around here. Original jokes and comments should be looked down upon as not toeing the line. Brady Hoke clapping. Kork Koupons. [Recruit that once favored Michigan] committing to Michigan. Jorts. All tired jokes that are required to be a certified mgoblog user. I'm sure others can add to this list of required jokes that must be made before you should be allowed to even watch Michigan sports.
|1 day 22 hours ago||Rule 32||
When Space Coyote talks, it is the truth. Just let him believe that. Don't try to debate him. He'll debate you back. It will be long winded. It will be laborious. It will be overly thorough. And he'll just continue doing it. And it will annoy everyone. He's like the movie Avatar. Sure, everyone was kind of impressed at first, it looked nice and legit, but as time went by, people just got more and more annoyed with it until it became a bit of a joke. But don't worry, there will be four sequels. This is his "avatar". So just let him live in his own little world where he performs his own little amateur breakdowns of football and occassionally has some people make fun of him because he does that.
Also, if you bring up Al Borges, prepare thyself. Space Coyote will go all Liam Neeson quote from Taken on you for some reason, probably because he is Al Borges.
Also, he is probably just another WD account. This whole place is actually all WD accounts. WD is in the Matrix, the Matrix is mgoblog, mgoblog is WD. All of it. Except you. You're on the Truman Show, except this version is set in the Matrix, aka mgoblog, aka WD. You have just entered the fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow... It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
|1 day 22 hours ago||Also, I think number 1 has a little more gray area||
I think there is room to be critical of someone's game in an evaluation since, but that must also include things they do well. It's not so much of questioning why they were recruited or offered by Michigan rather than just having a personal evaluation of someone.
I don't mind if someone says "he doesn't look like he has great speed", as long as it isn't "this guy is too fucking slow to play football for michigan and will never get off the bench". There is a difference between thoughtful criticism and being a dick in a hello post, IMO.
|1 day 22 hours ago||You forgot||
Must wear jorts.
|2 days 18 hours ago||Unfulfilled Hype/Injured||
Yes, some of those guys had big potential. Ryan Leaf had big potential. Clarett was a really good college FR, but he wasn't Barry Sanders. Bo Jackson was awesome in college, played well when healthy, and then played baseball. Freddy Adu? Hype.
I dunno, seems kinda like a stupid list to me. But yeah, "60 ESPN experts" I guess were polled, so yeah...
They close the thing with "people that left us wanting more" and I think that's a fair thing for a list to contain. It's just not really what their list contained.
|2 days 18 hours ago||I'm a Beilein supporter, and will continue to be this year||
I'm not on board with "it's a shit show" or on board with being pissed about the Max situation or Spike situation. I think those things can be explained fairly easily. But 3 guys transferring isn't a good thing before they've graduated isn't a good thing and this is what tends to happen when there are internal problems starting to fester. Yes, it could be coincidence, and each thing can be explained in isolation, but all of them together look like a program that is starting to unravel a bit.
Next year will absolutely be critical for the health of the program going forward or if bigger change will be needed.
|2 days 18 hours ago||Did Durkin ever run a 4-3 Under?||
Serious question. Not sure we saw a single 4-3 Under look from Michigan last year.
|2 days 18 hours ago||Harbaugh runs Power||
And is very well known for it. A bunch of other teams also run various forms of power. Harbaugh's use of Power at Michgian is linked under "Man Ball" and is diagramed in the "Classic Power" play, where another team happens to have a clip shown of it.
That does not make an article "clickbait". It makes it an article about football rather than Harbaugh and Michigan football alone (though much of the article still applies to Michigan, what they currently do, and what they've done in the past; Harbaugh has also used some of those variations on Power in his past as well).
|2 days 18 hours ago||He was playing with a hurt shoulder vs Iowa.||
And his OL got destroyed against Bama. His beat up OL similarly got destroyed by Michigan and his run game provided him no favors.
Games not mentioned:
2015: 20/32 for 192 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT vs Oregon
2014: 24/42 for 314 yards, 2 TDs, 2 INTs vs Baylor
2014: 25/45 for 358 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs vs OSU
2014: 29/47 for 343 yards, 2 TDs, 2 INTs vs Oregon
2014: 22/26 for 332 yards, 2 TDs, 1 INT vs Stanford (Rose Bowl)
Those aren't really great numbers in that the completion percentage isn't as high as you'd like, but they aren't "didn't produce". They are solid numbers, which pretty much describes his game to NFL scouts. Solid, but where is the spectacular? He was a late 1st to 3rd round pick, in my opinion, that slipped a little bit (early 4th round) and had some other QBs questionable picked before him).
|2 days 18 hours ago||If Cook was a great prospect||
Then teams don't let him slide 4 rounds because he likes going out. It's not that he was a great prospect with some character concerns. It's that he was a good prospect without a clear path to a high ceiling (i.e. he did a lot of things good in college but few things great, so where is the upside or where are the one or two things we improve to make him great) and a question on character as a reason to let him slide.
It was a whole bunch of things that lead to him going later. Still think he was a better QB prospect then a few of the guys drafted ahead of him.
|3 days 17 hours ago||Joshua Fedd-Jackson||
He's like Fred Jackson, but spelled differently
|3 days 18 hours ago||I think he can fit either spot||
But he has the size and toughness to work at the boundary. Similar to what you could do with Marlon Jackson or Leon Hall (though probably not quite as physical as Jackson, though I think Long could eventually play safety too if he wanted).
|3 days 18 hours ago||I think labeling Jack Allen "decent" is a little disingenuous||
He was one of the best Centers in college football last year, even if his game doesn't translate great to the NFL because he's undersized. Brian seems like an above average B1G OL. And there is another brother coming in. Yes, all those guys besides Brian were not rated highly, but that's a bit beside the point.
2017: They have Jarvis (4*) coming in, who I think is a pretty good interior OL prospect who I wouldn't have minded seeing come to Michigan.
2016: Kenney Lyke (3*) is a solid player. Josh King (top 100) I would have loved to have had come to Michigan. Naquan Jones would have been a nice addition to Michigan's class (besides the academic concerns that almost saw him not go to MSU), especially after Michigan lost the kid from Texas. Panasiuk (4*) is a high floor, limited ceiling DT who has some potential as an interior OL that I also would have liked seeing in Michigan's class given the open spot; he's a lot like Glasgow (Illinois products).
2015: Raequan Williams (4*) was a sought after DT that noteably lacked offers from UM, ND, and OSU, but looked like a good prospect and has been generating favorable practice buzz in his RS year.
2014: Enoch Smith Jr (3*) was an undersized DT still looking to find his way in the rotation. Solid player but with first step and size concerns. I wasn't particularly high on Gianacakos and Morrissey is a tweener prospect that doesn't really fit well with what Michigan is doing.
2013: Demetrius Cooper looks to be a starter for MSU this year. He is in the classic mold of long, undersized DE that bulks up while at MSU and turns into a solid player.
Besudes the MSU guys, ND pulls quite a bit of good talent from the state. Iowa pulled 5* Epenesa. PSU and OSU get in the mix as well (Daniel Joseph, Tuf Borland). There is a some talent near by that is arguably worth targetting in the state, and MSU clearly has a good connection with the Core 6 program. No, it isn't Ohio, or Florida, or Texas, but there are clearly some players there that are worth targeting. I'm not saying a camp is a necessity there, but I don't think it's out of the question either. Then again, most of those kids can make it to Ann Arbor, so that argues that a camp there isn't necessarily needed.
|3 days 18 hours ago||I wouldn't be surprised if neither was redshirted||
Though Hill may struggle to contribute on special teams as much as long. But I would guess if either gets meaningful snaps, it'd likely be Long. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Long will walk in and be a top 3 CB, but they may want to get him into the mix to get his feet wet. Hill may be in the same mold, but my guess is they'd be a little more careful with how often they mix him in.
|3 days 19 hours ago||Both Hill and Lewis will likely play field||
Where they will be tasked with run support much less than the boundary CB. The boundary guy will spend a lot of time with his eyes in the backfield knowing over the top help is closer by. The field guy will likely have a safety filling the alley to his side and will be more prone to be locked in with his receiver. Don't think it'll be a major issue for either if they stick to that position.
|3 days 19 hours ago||Long is more prepared to step in right away||
Hill is more of a project. See: size
|3 days 22 hours ago||Yeah||
Bambi is a solid movie. Probably my favorite feature length film of the early Disney period, though Dumbo has an argument.
|4 days 15 hours ago||Lots of homer picks||
Which is expected on a team oriented blog. But it probably isn't realistic. Most are really picking well above where these guys are currently predicted to go and there will be some other late risers and small school guys jump in there too.
Lewis - late 1st to mid 2 - great short area quickness and very good recovery speed. Plus technique at the point. But really undersized, inconsistent physically (he gets away with both in the college game much more than he will in the NFL) and relies on his hands downfield (legal in college, a knock for scouts though). Polished player that doesn't have a ton of upside relative to the player he currently is.
Butt - 2nd to 3rd - great hands with big time catch radius. Goes and gets the ball. Very polished route runner for the position. Needs to really improve as a blocker as not athlete enough to be optimal H and struggles to get separation consistently in college. Best path is to become every down Y-TE.
Chesson - 3rd to 5th - Really good, not great, straight line speed. Really good acceleration on the snap and can stop and go well. Average but improving route runner. Not very fluid, does move or cut laterally as you'd like. Doesn't have natural hands which leads to ball getting into body at times. Struggles to track the ball a bit in the air.
Wormley - 2-5 - Ideal frame for a 3-4 DE. Very good first step, long arms and good initial punch. Controls single blocks and sheds well at the point of attack. Struggled a bit against elite LTs (Spriggs, Decker). Doesn't have great counter moves. If he doesn't win initial punch he gets sealed too easily. Needs to improve against doubles. Good athlete for size. Has upside. Flashes. Needs some improvement in consistency. Good blocker. Needs to be stronger off LOS.
Glasgow - 4-7 - A bit undersized for the NT position, average length arms. Not great athlete for NFL at position. Very quick off the line though with strong first punch. Wins with his first three steps and initial punch at LOS. If he doesn't get that win though, he will have trouble with athleticism to defeat NFL interior OL. 2 down 3-4 DL is optimal. Likely to have to move off the nose position in NFL. Production at college level doesn't transition as well to pro game.
Taco - 4-7 - Not a great fit for NFL. Tweener. Not a pure edge rusher but not as strong as you'd like to see a SDE or 3-4 DE against interior blocking. Athletic for interior player though. Very long body and arms that control blockers at times. Needs to be more consistent.
Darboh - 5-UDFA - Does more work with route running than with athleticism. Very good hands but struggles a bit to turn hands over on low thrown balls. Similar to MSU WR Aaron Burbridge but without production (he'll have to fight a bunch of other guys for throws/runs with a worse QB than Burbridge had). Possession receiver. Very good blocker for position and strong runner after the catch. More lateral ability than people expect.
Braden - 5-UDFA - huge player that moves bodies when he latches on. Understands pro blocking schemes and has shown improvement in his ability to pull. Not great athlete. Struggles to move laterally at times and late to redirect against blitz. Not great in open space. At times struggles to be low man in the trenches against shorter DTs.
Thomas - 5-UDFA - Great athlete that is still raw. FS type. Not very polished in man coverage, struggles with footwork at times, but makes up for it with speed. Can get going in a hurry. Big body. Can be physical when needed. Needs to improve angles to ball both in pass and run game. Despite experience, still raw.
Smith - 7-UDFA - a coaches player. High effort guy. Very strong through legs with low center of gravity. Good balance and very good blocker. Huge liability athletically. While he has solid hands, won't get separation naturally as route runner and won't do much in open field. Limited vision. Doesn't consistently get skinny in hole. Struggles to accelerate through LOS. Doesn't have break away speed. Won't be able to dominate physically with violence as much as pro. Limited upside but high character player. Will get invited to camp.
Clark - 7-UDFA - great size makes him intriguing prospect. Converted safety. Not very fluid but makes up for it with size. Limited top end speed a concern, makes up for it with length in college but won't be able to in pros. Not great short area quickness. Will want to cover up on boundary. Not as physical as you'd hope with his size. Limited ability to move back to safety.
Magnuson - UDFA - tweener. Not good enough laterally or strong enough to be NFL RT and not squatty or physical enough to be pro interior OL. Will be invited to camp.
Kalis - UDFA - too many mental mistakes. Moves well, does great once latched on. Takes too deep of pills and struggles to identify targets. Gets too caught up with what's in front of him and fails to adjust to work to 2nd level threats. Camp invite.
Stribling - UDFA - another long CB. Decent feet but not great. Needs to improve consistency with eyes. Gets caught with eyes I. Backfield too often and fails to find the ball. Not great athlete.
That's 6 to 11 players drafted. 6 would be t-7 in this years draft. 11 would be 2nd.
|1 week 13 hours ago||Looks like Saban is raising the stakes||
Going from throwing strength and conditioning coaches under the bus to assistant coaches.
|1 week 16 hours ago||I've never claimed spelling as a strong suit||
But at least I didn't put Chystler Center, so I got that going.
|1 week 16 hours 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.
|1 week 16 hours 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.
|1 week 21 hours 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.
|1 week 21 hours 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 week 1 day 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 week 1 day 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 week 1 day 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).