things go poorly
- Member for
- 4 years 43 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|18 hours 11 min ago||Calm down Beavis!Touched a||
Calm down Beavis!
Touched a nerve huh?
I actually thought my comment was kinda whitty -- obviously you didn't.
I nominate you Captain of the "Internet Penis Police," do I hear a second?!?
|1 day 3 hours ago||The question is -- did his||
The question is -- did his tactic work?
I've got a little over a 7" penis (at least the last time I measured...but the fatter I get the smaller it gets sadly) -- so using the transitive theory, while employing the same tactic, I should succeed at half the rate.
DC hear I come!
Wait, I wonder if there's a geographical bias? And now that I'm 40, and he was likely 20, does that mean I divide my theoretical success rate in half again?
Forget it, I'll see how my wife responds to Mutumbo's Gambit -- if it bumps me up from once a month to twice, I'm 100% better off, right?
|1 day 3 hours ago||The meme makes no sense.||
The meme makes no sense. I mean, it's not like there somewhere else that one might f%#¥ her.
Oh wait ... What?!?
Memes are stupid, especially this one.
|2 days 8 hours ago||For a true comparison one||
For a true comparison one would have to know just what the state of the Stanford pipeline was when Harbaugh took over. It's easy to assume, well, it's Stanford, how good could it have been. But, the pipeline of which I speak is more than just the recruiting rankings -- rankings do play a role, for sure, but retention and the ability to red-shirt is far more significant IMO.
As I said elsewhere, this is why the SEC's oversigning policy is such an advantage. They get 5 classes ever 4 years, thus have the ability to red-shirt more players, and a great deal of their attrition is of the intentional sort to make way for a new crop of incoming players -- Michigan does not do this.
"Year 4 I'd expect us to be competitive in every game and by Year 5 to be dominating at least by this data."
As I said above, yes, Hoke is just beginning year 4 by the calander, but in regards to the rebuilding of the pipeline, he's really only just beginning year 3. Further, Michigan was turned over to RR with a 25 scholarship play deficite, and those numbers were not rectified when Hoke took over. Again, I wonder if the same is true for Stanford. Michigan suffered amazing attrition/lack of retention from 2005 forward. The decimated class of 2005 reared it's ugly head in 2008 and 2009, and the 2010 and 2011 classes (from which Michigan only still has10 players) did very little to solve the issue.
The good news is that the 2012 and 2013 classes we big, ranked high, and (so far) the rentention levels of both have been excellent. If Hoke is able to maintain the level of both recruiting and retention, the pipeline issue should be totally solved by the end of 2016.
|2 days 8 hours ago||I agree that development is||
I agree that development is the key, but IMO, development is directly related to stability/continuity.
Gardner, as I detailed, is a perfect example. He started under RR's spread, moved to Borges' Denard Fusion, then player WR, then QB under Borges' chaotic "mad scientist" 2013 scheme, and now under Nuss' scheme. By constrast, every player that has come up in the MSU system under Dantonio during that time (and despite a lackluster start) has had the same message from day #1 until today.
Someone else, in another thread, aptly pointed out that continuity, and "waiting one's turn" behind experienced upperclassmen is akin to having peer-coaches to bring along the younger players at a position level. When young guys are pressed into action, they're only able to rely upon the coaches and have to learn a lot of lessons the "hard way."
Despite what people think, development is happened at Michigan, it's just that the instability/change and the lack of "waiting one's turn" detract from the overall level of that development to some extent.
|2 days 11 hours ago||Nice diary Ron. I will say||
Nice diary Ron.
I will say that I was one of the guys who really supported RR, and felt like the roster issues that he inherited were very difficult (at best) and the much of the ire people felt towards him would have been mitigated if they actually accepted the fact that the cupboard was totally bare. Further, I felt that being Michigna's first coach from the "outside" since 1969 was never going to be easy, and it was made all the more difficult by utter ineptitude that the 2008 team displayed.
As someone aptly pointed out above: football is NOT easy. Whatsmore, winning football with consitency -- despite all the inherent turnover -- is even MORE difficult. Frankly, Michigan fans were spoiled rotten by the 38 years of realtively consistent winning football. I know that I sound a bit like a broken record (what the hell is a "record" anyway, I've forgotten) but consisten winning football is nearly completely dependant up the pipeline coming into the program and then the consistency of the message that the players receive.
I think this is something that many fans, especially the mosty disgruntled ones, overlook. Currently Michigan has players, like Gardner who started under RR's system, then switched to Borges' system, changed positions, and now is, once again, having to lean a new system under Nuss. Gardner's career is a microcosom of the instablility and near continual change that Michigan has gone through since 2008 -- 38 years of calm, consitency, followed by 7 years of near perpetual change.
IMO, to reopen and reestablish a solid and productive "pipeline" is something that takes 4-6 years. I know there are going to people that freak out about this number, and think that I am "giving the coaching staff a free pass," or "accepting mediocrity," but nothing could be farther from the truth. College football has changed, we now have a playoff system, and all a team has to do to have a shot at playing in the NC Game is to be in the top 4 by the end of the season. Tall order, I know, and I know there are lots of pissed fans on here that want to scream, "but we have no shot at being in the top 4 ... " and the like.
I realize that it feels that we have a long way to go right now. But, I firmly believe that if Michigan is ever going to be consistently winning the Big10 (something that we will almost certainly have to do to be in the top 4) it will only be able to do so if it reestablishes its pipeline. If one accepts that a broken pipeline takes 4-6 years to full rebuild (you're free to disagree, of course) then we're not even 2/3 of the way there yet. The length of time that it takes is directly proportional to the how stopped up the pipeline was, and for how long it remained broken.
From my estimation (which involved poring over recruiting class numbers and details, along with rosters) Michigan pipeline began to show some serious "clogging" in 2005. So for 4 years the clog festered (remember Tressle putting a "lock box on Ohio recruiting?" and guys like Ted Ginn Sr. making the statements about development of players under Carr?) and then Michigan handed the program over to RR. Unfortunately, the unclogging procress -- which should have begun in 2008 -- really didn't start in full until 2012 due to the truncated 2011 RR/Hoke class of that year. So, by my estimating (FWIW), that means Michigan's pipeline should be full repared in 2016, and it could drag out until 2018 -- although, with the high level of recruiting Hoke & Co. are doing, I don't think so.
I know many of you will freak out about my theory and its dates. But, to me, Michigan although Hoke is in his 4th year as HC of Michigan, the rebuilding of the pipeline (which is what is causing the problems, IMO) is only its 3rd year, with it's 4th year being the 2014 recruiting class.
Patience my Maize and Blue brethren, we'll be rewarded.
Bring it on guys, I welcome the debate. But, if you come at me with "you're nuts" and "gimme a break" I am not going to respond.
|4 days 9 hours ago||I was glad to see Green's||
I was glad to see Green's vision improved, and that Butt was able to pick up where he left off.
Watching Shane's delivery is impressive -- especially when comparing it to DG's.
I am not on the "Bench DG, Start Shane" bandwagon, but DG's mechanics seem to have regressed despite Nuss's coaching -- those two passes to Butt were scary bad mechanically. I was also impressed with Shane's wheels on that zone-read he ran, and again, something is wrong with the way DG is running the ball -- it's like he's not attacking the defense, he's just running scared. He seems to take an odd angle on his designed runs, not going straight up the field, but at a oblique angle. I don't know the proper football terms, but it's odd to me.
Glad we got the win, and that the OL started opening holes -- finally.
|4 days 13 hours ago||Nothing except a downvote||
Nothing but a downvote huh Bloomington?
Wasn't it you saying I had no balls in another thread?
Here, thanks to Raoul finding the quote, is evidence proving the point I've been adding this "Hoke won't talk about injuries" debate. I've said this every time it's come up. People are freaking out and the quote above is from September 26th, 2012 -- over 2 years ago!
He won't discuss injuries because it aids the gamblers -- very simple.
Can we put this issue to bed please?
|4 days 14 hours ago||Thanks Raoul! Vindication?||
Vindication? Whatcha think now Bloomington?
I never called anyone a "bitch," I said they were "bitching." Subtle nuance, I know, and not surprising that it would go over your head.
|4 days 15 hours ago||I am befuddled by this||
I am befuddled by this constant discussion of Hoke not discussing injuries with the media. I am 100% positive, but cannot find the link, that Hoke discussed his policy in 2011 in one of his first pressers as Michigan's HC. He said that discussing injuries only aids Vegas, and he doesn't think that is something that is good for CFB.
Please, someone help me find the link/transscript so that everyone in here that bitches about this nonstop will STFU!
|4 days 16 hours ago||I agree 100% with this||
I agree 100% with this one.
I was really hoping to see Michigan go all "hockey" on that d bag ND play that put a completely uncalled for cheapshot on DG, but it seemed that nobody cared in the least. I was furious, especially after I watched the replay -- not sure why that jackass wasn't ejected.
|5 days 11 hours ago||When I commented on letting||
When I commented on letting the "dust settle" I was specifically talking about returning the roster to its historical norms, and we're not there yet. That's all.
The sunk cost fallicy applies, per your definition, when there is no hope of success in the furure. That is not the case here where their is plenty of hope that things will get better.
Obviously you disagree with me, and that is the crux of this debate.
|5 days 13 hours ago||So if Michigan botched the||
So if Michigan botched the last two transitions, why not let all the dust settle from the most recent transition, i.e., get the roster back to its "historical norm", before undertaking another transition? Even the best transitions have some degree of fallout, so maybe it's best to wait until the program could withstand a bit of a hit without sending it into another tailspin.
|5 days 15 hours ago||First it's hard to take||
First it's hard to take someone serious who posts "Hahhhhhhaahhahahha..."
Secondly, my point was that nobody will ever know what would have happened should those coaches remained at ND because they didn't. You assume that it's delusional, but in actual fact, you have no idea. I wasn't saying it would have been so, I was saying maybe.
So many assume they're right and use spurious evidence that cannot be proved either way to try to prove their case.
|5 days 18 hours ago||State St. have you joined the||
State St. have you joined the Messianic cult too? Will you forever be worshipping guys like Harbaugh (and now Franklin), and continually wringing your hands and lamenting how Michigan missed out, so sure that THEY are the one whose return woul carry Michigan into a new golden age?
Franklin has coached 2 games at PSU and you're already handing him the B10Championship -- amazing.
|6 days 3 hours ago||And I suppose that YOU||
And I suppose that you consider YOURSELF the arbiter of record equality -- how convenient for your argument.
|6 days 3 hours ago||Thanks, I think -- that's a||
Thanks, I think -- that's a compliment, right?
|6 days 3 hours ago||Funk has a job because he's a||
Funk has a job because he's a good OL coach. The OL is improving, and the UFR from ND bore that out. You can shout about it, but it's happening and will continue to though out the season. Yes, I honestly believe that he's not the issue with the OL, if he were, he'd have been let to with Borges.
|6 days 3 hours ago||"Why are we the only place||
"Why are we the only place where it takes years to finally get things right."
I don't think that we are the only place, it's just that you're more sensative to it because its now happening in your place, and not some program that could care less about. But, since you're asking, I think Michigan has a very unique set of circumstances that all these other program don't share. There are only a few programs that are equal to Michigan in terms of the longevity of a controlling regime: PSU, FSU, and Nebraska are the only ones that I can come up with.
Personally, as I've said elsewhere, I think that Michigan was due for a change about 10 years ago. That would have been the right time to "start over," to "clean house," and to "bring in new blood." But, for whatever reason, Michigan didn't do any of these things. Instead, Michigan stayed with the same old regime, and as it turns out things had be come complacent, and really began slide at the tail end of the regime's watch. Then RR, and well here we are.
I know many want to discount the "RR Effect" but let's say, for the sake of argument, that RR's 2010 was "normal" in terms of talent, numbers by position group (meaning there were actuall more than 0 OLinemen), and that the retention level was "normal" and not off the chart bad. Now lets say, for the sake of argument, that very same thing about the 2011 class. What would Michigan's team look like?
Michigan signed 27 players in 2010, and only 2 players from that class remain -- DG and JMFR. Michigan signed 20 in 2011, and only 8 remain -- Bellomy, Beyer, Clark, Countess, Miller, Morgan, Taylor, and Wile.
There are your 4th and 5th year players all 10 of them when Michigan started with 47. So, there or no 5th year guys on the OL -- where as BC had 5 5th year OLinemen starting the other night vs. Pitt -- and only 1 4th year guy whom many in here call out as having "no business playing on Michigan." Well, I hate to break it to you guys, there aren't very many other choices save the younger guys.
Do all these other programs whose rebuild your wring your hands and compare to Michigan's have the same issues? I don't know. But what I do know is that Michigan has these issues, and they're not "excuses," they're liabilities that were born from instability and transition.
|6 days 3 hours ago||Well said Reader! To add to||
Well said Reader!
To add to your point. There are only 2 guys on the roster that RR recruited in total -- DG and JMFR. Further, there are only 8 guys on the roster who are Seniors -- with Clark, Miller, Beyer, and Wile bring the major contributors. So, if those guys "haven't developed" as the poster above says, maybe it has as much to do with them being few in number as anything else. As I said elsewhere in this thread, every player is basically a crap shoot -- some seeming can't miss guys do, while others that weren't expected to do much become stars. When your short numbers you have to play who you have even if they've peaked out and aren't getting any better. Numbers give you a better chance of finding the guys that can develop.
|6 days 4 hours ago||It was almost inevitable that||
It was almost inevitable that he was going to get worse because: 1) he had 11 wins in year 1; and, 2) the roster had serious holes at key points that were time bombs that wouldn't explode until his 2nd and 3rd seasons.
It's all right there and easy to find: 47 recruits from 2010 and 2011 and only 10 are on the roster today. You understand how the recruiting and development cycle plays out right? As it turns out, this exact same issue hit Michigan with the 2005 recruiting class. I don't recall the numbers but by 2009 Michigan's roster was nearly completely devoid of 5th year players.
That's why oversigning gave the SEC such a huge advantage -- they basically got 5 full classes every 4 years. This lets programs redshirt the vast majority of their players, pick out the truely "college ready" freshmen, and thus have near endless stream of physically mature players. Michigan can't do this, and to make matters even worse, they're still not even able to redshirt players at the "normal" rate as compared to other programs.
That is the the "stability" of which I speak, and it is NOT found through perpetual hiring and firing of coaching staffs. Again, we're just now getting back to that level of depth where most guys, except the most talented, will likely redshirt, but we're still playing a true freshmen OLineman in Cole. Now, he might have been a rare exception and come in so ready that he beat everyone out -- those do happen from time to time -- but what's more telling is that that we have no 5th year OLinemen, and only one 4th year OLineman starting. I venture to guess no matter how good Cole is he'd RS in a historically normal roster environment.
As I've said a hundred times in here, it's the pipeline that makes the all difference, because it's very hard to predict who is going to be good and who is not. If you've got a constant flow, your chances of having to start a young guy, or a guy that isn't very good because there is nobody else, are significantly diminished.
Michigan hasn't had that luxury in nearly a decade, and that fact seems completely lost (or ignored) to the "Fire Hoke Now!" crowd. To me, it has more to do with rebuilding a winning tradition than X's & O's, motivation, or whether or not your coach gives injury reports, wears a head set, or what his record was before he arrived.
Even Nuss commented on how green Michigan was in his first post game presser. He was used to the complete opposite scenario in which if a young guy played it was because he was the bomb, not because he had to.
|6 days 6 hours ago||I don't know, and no matter||
I don't know, and no matter how angrily you write it, neither do you. It never happened. It never happened, so it's nothing but speculation. Maybe Tyrone W. was right on the cusp, or maybe Charlie was, who knows and who the heck cares?
Too bad ND didn't have you to scream, "Do NOT fuck it up AGAIN!!" because that seems to be all you think it takes to get a decision correct. Do you have any idea how naive that sounds? Again, holding up ND's time in the abyss is directly refuting the argument you espouse. They got on the coaching carrousel and even hired a guy who use a fake resume. Do you think they were trying to fuck up? No, of course they weren't. They gave into the demands of irrational people who also were espousing: "it's not working, cut your losses and run to the next guy. He's bound to be the next Lou/Ara/Rock!"
If what you're saying is true, and Michigan has botched its only two coaching changes since 1969, why are you so convinced that they won't botch the next one as well? Oh wait, because you screamed, "do NOT fuck it up AGAIN!"
Just like traders say all the time, sometimes doing NOTHING is the hardest thing of all. But that takes discipline and patience, something many lack. If change is warranted, the evidence will become clear when the time is right.
I know you want heads to roll. I get it. But, I think the last thing Michigan needs is more uncertainty and change at this juncture.
|6 days 8 hours ago||I yelled at the TV too||
I yelled at the TV too Rockin'!
For all the shit that the OL has been given it certainly looked to me that (most of the time) they were giving adequate holes for the RB's, but they RB just didn't know where to run -- and THIS play is one of the worst I have EVER seen.
No only does he completely miss the hole, but watch it again (if you can stomach it) and stop it just a fraction before the handoff. You'll see that the hole is ALREADY gaping wide, and then a fraction after the handoff is complete Green's right knee is in the air because he's making his cut. It's almost as if there an invisible ND DL penetrating through the Michigan line, and Green is reacting to him by jump-cutting to his right. WTF?
Sadly, this is something that I saw Fitz do way too often. This is a perfect example of a play where the RB is going straigh ahead at 100 mph, and woe be to that ND safety that is the only one who would have had any chance at him.
I've seen this play so many times in watching teams with great RB's like Georgia and Alabame. That RB hits that hole without even the slightest bit of hesitation. Good lord this is baffling.
|6 days 8 hours ago||I know right? Unless I am||
I know right? Unless I am not reading his post right, it sure seems to me that he posted the perfect counter-argument to his argument. Odd, to say the least.
|6 days 8 hours ago||"...why do they seem to not||
"...why do they seem to not get any closer [to winning a B10Championship] every year?"
The Big 10 season hasn't started yet, so unless I am missing something, Michigan has the same chance of winning as every other team does this season.
Winning any championship isn't the easiest thing in the world, as there can only be one champion as you know. Maybe your perception is being colored by your rage.
They took a bad beat from a good/decent team, but that game has no bearing on the B10Championship. It has some bearing on the NC, but I'd be willing to bet that if Michigan won out from here, beating MSU, OSU, and winning the B10C, they'd be included in the 4 teams -- maybe, maybe not.
The point is, everything is "all talk" until you do it, but that doesn't mean you should just stop talking about it. The goal of the program is to win the B10C, do that, and everything else will take care of itself.
One's goal is to make $1MM a year, but for they past 3 years they've made $800K, $500K, and $450K, are they "all talk" because they say their goal is to make $1MM? Are they all talk because they say that not meeting their goal is "unacceptable?" Failure is just as viable an outcome as success, and just because one has failed doesn't mean that they'll continue to fail, neither does success automatically guarantee more success.
It's like your making the assumption that because they've not done it yet they cannot possibly find it unacceptable, because if they did find it unacceptable, they would have done it. Should they fall on their swords out of shame? I just don't understand your "all or nothing" mentality.
|6 days 9 hours ago||I don't think anyone is happy||
I don't think anyone is happy being mediocre, least of all me -- I absolutely hate losing. For me, the issue is largely one concerning whether the potential upside is outweighed by the potential downside. Further, the issue is whether there is a candiate that is that "sure fire" hire that is more than likely going to be able to: 1) retain the roster and incoming recruiting class; 2) maintain high-level recruiting; and, 3) take the team to a higer level.
So, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Hoke isn't getting it done at the end of 2014, and that there is "sure fire" guy our there -- like Jim Harbaugh -- that is not only available, but willing to take the job. At that point, I would say make the change, write all the checks that need to be written and make it happen. In such an instance, I think the potential downside risks are outweighed by the potential upside -- i.e., good investment.
But, guys like Harbaugh aren't just sitting around waiting for the Michigan job to open up (although, someone claiming to be JH's friend and neighbor says that he's "considering it" -- whatever that means). They're off either coaching their own elite programs (Saban, Miles, etc.) or they're in the NFL.
So, if the candidate pool is filled mostly with pipe dreams and "up-and-comers," well then the equation changes. Now, not only does the potential downside increase (players leave en mass, recruiting falls off, etc.), but the potential upside decreases and "go or no-go" meter is a lot closer to neural. If Michigan were to jump then it would be much more of a "hit and hope" mentality, and personally, I don't think that is what the program needs right now.
Yeah, I know, I hear you, the program needs to WIN! But, as I have stated umteen times in here, we basically had the same regime in control of the football program for almost four decades. No serious transitions, no scandals, no major dips in recruiting. Then (for a variety of reasons) the floor started to slope down and the ceiling seemed to droop, Carr retired, RR is hired and the entire house collapses. RR starts to try to rebuild the house, with his kind of players, then he's gone, and the whole "rebuild" process begins again. Is starting yet another potentially painful rebuild absolutely necessary?
Personally, I don't think it is -- at least not yet. I think stability is what we need right now. Yes, winning provides more stability than losing, obviously. But, if we're losing because of the recent instability, well the the Rx is fairly clear -- at least to me.
Now, I know a lot of people in here think that we're losing because of Hoke, and that the recently unprecendented (for Michigan) instability is nothing but an excuse. Ok fine, but I would hate to see Michigan start over again, only to collectively say, "well what do you know, the new guy is struggling a bit too, maybe it was instability all along." Then what do you do? Do you let him stay, despite being mediocre, or do you fire him too, thus add even more instability. You see my point? Probably not, but you cannot say I've not tried to make it clear.
Making these decisions and assessments is hard, and I think the study aptly points the to the fact that firing isn't always a good choice.
|6 days 12 hours ago||I am not sure you're reading||
I am not sure you're reading what I wrote correctly. What I was trying to say is that knowing that Michigan has won 42 B10Championships, and having it as a stated goal every season, is NOT a negative thing as the poster I was responding to implied.
My point was that every player on the team and every coach, trainer, and staff member desperately wants to make that number 43, as soon as possible, and that not winning it is unacceptable.
Or something like that.
|6 days 12 hours ago||Awesome avatar! I was||
I was fortunate enough to play the UMGC this summer when I visited AA for the first time since 2000. I was very impressed with the continuing rennovations and how they've opened up the sight lines on the course. I remember when you couldn't see anything of the campus, and now from any highpoint looking back north is stunning. I brought my camera and snapped pics looking back from #2 green, #3 tee, #10 green, #14 green and tee, #15 tee, and all the way down #18 -- no doubt UMGC is one of the greatest "in-town" courses in the US, with a layout that rivals any in the world. I love the cluster of tees and greens in the center of the course.
|6 days 15 hours ago||I am not a "loyalist to||
I am not a "loyalist to garbage," I am a loyalist to Michigan. Hoke is the coach of Michigan, therefore I support him.
Where did I say that I don't want to compete for NC's and "we'll get 'em next time?" But, the funny thing is, there IS "always next year," and many of the issues that we're facing (like a young, inexperienced OL) will be less of an issue every year -- so there's that.
I am as frustrated as the rest of the fanbase about the lack of performance that we're seeing from the program thus far. Further, if the next 10 games are turn out to be as bad as many people think, then I'll be right there with you asking for someone else to be brought in. But, I just don't think there's a whole lot to be gained by freaking out, over-analyzing every word, and continually looking at other programs and pineing for something different.
But, that being said, 10 games is a lot, and I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. 2011 showed me a lot about what Hoke & Co. can do with kids that most Michigan fans pretty much wrote of. There are some oddities right now, some growing pains, and some areas of concern, but I think they'll get them work out. If they don't, we'll have someone new. It's just the constant bitching and whining that is insufferable. We're where we are for a myriad of reasons, its not ALL "Hoke sucks." That's overly simplistic.
|6 days 18 hours ago||I see your points, and||
I see your points, and apprecite you adding to the discussion here.
However, you kind of diminished your own argument when you stated, "...this covers different eras and different recruiting circumstances..." -- to me, it's not an "apples to apples" comparison. Further, none of the other coaches who's records your detail had anything remotely resembling the roster circumstances that Hoke inhereted.