- Member for
- 4 years 38 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 hours 11 min ago||2003 achieved some things||
2003 achieved some things (beating Ohio State, prominently) that 2006 did not, but is there any real argument that they're actually better? That team lost three games. They were clearly outmatched in the Rose Bowl against USC, which contrasted with the 2006 team in that poor gameplanning and coaching wasn't as obvious an issue. They were sabotaged by horrible special teams and underperformed their talent level. And, unlike 2006, they lost a couple of road games that they absolutely should have won.
I liked that 2003 team but 3 losses with that roster is a crime. 2006 at least won the games that it was supposed to win handily.
|2 hours 23 min ago||Choose a quarterback: QB A:||
Choose a quarterback:
QB A: 183 of 293, 62.5 completion percentage, 2375 yards, 8.1 y/a, 17 tds, 6 ints, 145.6 rating
QB B: 203 of 328, 61.9 completeion percentage, 2508 yards, 7.6 y/a, 22 tds, 8 ints, 143.4 rating
Pretty close, right? QB A is Wilton Speight so far this year, 11 games played. QB B is Chad Henne in 2006.
Ironically you give this year's passing game skill positions way too much credit. Darboh-Chesson-Perry is just not in the same league as Manningham-Breaston-Arrington. So there is quite a contrast there. There is no significant breathing space between Henne that year and Speight this year.
|2 hours 30 min ago||You think that we will lose||
You think that we will lose most of our key players from this season's team that lost to OSU, while they bring almost everybody back, but we'll improve more than they will? I cannot take whatever it is you imbibing.
Your lack of understanding about the issues we face next year appears to be directly related to your lack of knowledge of what the roster looks like last year.
You say you would take Harbaugh's dudes over Hoke's guys any day. Well, that's the point--the guys that Hoke recruited to be junior and seniors this year aren't going to fill out the roster of a championship-contending team. So we're left with Harbaugh's guys, mostly freshman and sophomores.
Teams that play lots of freshman and sophomores usually have a hard time.
|2 hours 35 min ago||He doesn't fit neatly in the||
He doesn't fit neatly in the secondary and played LB for most of this season. I think he defies categorization.
He was brilliant and was the key player that allowed this defense to be as good as it was in the scheme it played. His hybrid position was important but also kept him from really loading up on counting stats, though, which a lot of people can't look past.
I don't think you can compare him with a guy like Ty Law. They didn't play anything remotely close to the same position. He's not really comparable with other OLBs, either. I think it's even harder than usual to make this kind of comparison.
|2 hours 40 min ago||There's a difference between||
There's a difference between scoring a lot and being explosive. This offense scored a lot, especially against inferior competition. Rarely, however, did they rip down the field in three plays, or get a brilliant play from an athlete to score a 70-yard TD (that Pepper run at Rutgers is the only play of this type I can remember, and that turned into a Hill vulture TD).
Michigan only rarely connected downfield, generally doing it just enough to gain the defense's respect, except in the two losses and the Colorado game. They weren't fielding a bunch of guys that were TD threats every time they touched the ball.
We thought Peppers or Evans could be that kind of guy, but it never really panned out that way. And that was a problem in games against Iowa and Ohio State where an athlete making just one huge play for us could have turned the game.
One big play late in either of those games and we're in the playoff. But we didn't have the explosiveness to do it.
|2 hours 45 min ago||The field in Pasadena was||
The field in Pasadena was fine. The 06 defense didn't get jobbed by the field; they got torched by the two best opponents they faced.
|2 hours 49 min ago||I would like to think that||
I would like to think that you're right, but we thought exactly the same thing after 2012 and the 2013 line was one of the worst units fielded in the history of the program.
We have better coaches now, yes, but we're talking about patching up the line with a combination of Hoke recruits that couldn't see the field in the past four years and true freshmen. I think cynicism is warranted. Also, Cole's performance this year was disappointing.
I worry less about the passing game weapons. Darboh was good but not elite, and Chesson was just a guy this year. Butt was terrific but never really changed any games. We know we have athletes coming up behind these guys, especially if we land DPJ. Couple that with a reasonable hope for improvement under center and we may be close to replacing the capability of the skill positions quicker than we'd expect.
If the line can block for them.
|2 hours 53 min ago||I think you're wrong here.||
I think you're wrong here. You're extrapolating from rumors of practice performances that O'Korn was outperforming Rudock in practice. We have no real evidence that this is really true.
And you're imputing a mentality on the coaches that they have actively demonstrated to be false, the idea that a guy who is superior in practice will not play because he's young.
Everything Harbaugh has demonstrated both in the way he speaks and the players he puts on the field demonstrates that the best player will play. If Peters out-competes Speight, he will start. The question entirely hinges upon whether or not Peters is good enough to be better.
|3 hours 21 min ago||I can't render a full verdict||
I can't render a full verdict on 2016 vs. 2006 until the bowl game. 2006 felt like a great season, even with the loss to OSU, until the USC disaster. USC didn't just beat Michigan in that game: They exposed the program past and future.
What they exposed is that Michigan was good at accruing talent and putting it on the field, but it did not know how to use the talent it had and wasn't that great at developing guys who weren't blue chips.
Michigan had the talent to compete with USC in that game. Chad Henne? Mario Manningham? Steve Breaston? Just as much passing game talent as USC had. But Michigan refused to use it, an issue visible even at the time if you review Brian's frustrated offensive UFRs from that year. Run-run-pass. Run-run-pass. As long as the game was close, the Carr-Debord dynasty saw no reason to change what wasn't working.
So that bowl game changed my opinion; I must reserve judgement until I see what Michigan does against a talented Florida State team that seems like a great matchup for us. If we win, I think this team must be considered better than 2006. Unlike 2006, the great defense did not let us down against Ohio State. Unlike 2006, Michigan did not squander copious offensive talent with poor gameplans and meh coaching. Instead, Michigan turned a 3-star redshirt sophomore QB, a couple of off-the-pile receivers, a mediocre offensive line, and a mixed stable of running backs into a capable offense that was nearly good enough to propel us to the national title.
2016 is less talented overall than 2006 (more on defense, must less on offense) but has much better coaching.
Next year? You don't replace generationally great players on defense and a host of other important starters and not feel it. What is good is that there is athleticism ready to step in, and Don Brown's teams usually have a second year "bump" as they learn the system. Hopefully those two factors help mitigate the losses.
But I would be very surprised if Michigan made a top four of the playoff committee at any time next season.
|1 day 4 hours ago||Ran for almost 4,000 yards in||
Ran for almost 4,000 yards in his career including a couple of thousand yard seasons.
|2 days 22 min ago||Offense wasn't really our||
Offense wasn't really our problem against OSU, and Bass would not have miraculously given Mike Debord the guts to actually play aggressively when run-run-pass didn't work against USC or (inevitably) Florida.
I think he would've made a huge difference in 2008, though. Could've transformed RR's career. For better or for worse.
|2 days 38 min ago||Nah. He liked downfield||
Nah. He liked downfield blocking, but you don't pass up top recruits for 2 or 3 star types just because they can block. He just wasn't good at recruiting playmakers.
|2 days 40 min ago||Avant was that high? I don't||
Avant was that high? I don't remember that.
Regardless, all those guys delivered on the hype.
|2 days 43 min ago||Me too. Sad face.||
Me too. Sad face.
|2 days 51 min ago||Disagree here. Harbaugh is||
Disagree here. Harbaugh is teaching consistency and professionalism. Doing your job, competing hard. It's the philosophy that Saban uses at Bama. Also places like Clemson. It's the philosophy that Carroll built at USC. It's the philosophy that got him within a play of a Super Bowl title.
It's possible the team is wearing down late in the season, but it's not the philosophy that's doing it.
|2 days 55 min ago||Fair.||
|2 days 56 min ago||Defense in particular will||
Defense in particular will take a step back. Two generational guys and a number of other guys that are Greats in the annals of the program. You can't just replace Lewis and Peppers with anybody, no matter how much talent is in the pipeline.
The anxiety about the offense relates to: 1. The OL, which was a weakness and now loses guys; 2. The fact that we've seen guys who MAY develop into reliable players but have not yet proven that they will.
|2 days 1 hour ago||(Also Braylon was not a||
(Also Braylon was not a highly ranked recruit, we forget what a surprise his development was).
|2 days 1 hour ago||They were good, Darboh in||
They were good, Darboh in particular, but not elite. You've forgotten what elite receiver play looks like. Which, you know, makes sense given what we're discussing here.
|2 days 1 hour ago||And QB recruiting and even RB||
And QB recruiting and even RB and OL recruiting. Is there a single top 100 Hoke offensive recruit that has lived up to their ranking?
|2 days 1 hour ago||Hard to tell what they will||
Hard to tell what they will do. The OL is a real worry, as it was this year. But there's reason for optimism.
|2 days 1 hour ago||His connection with Gardner,||
His connection with Gardner, from the day Gardner started at QB, was magical. Incredible route-runner.
|2 days 1 hour ago||2003 was the year we got||
2003 was the year we got Breaston, isn't it?
Bad breaks with guys like Harris (injury) and Stonum ("issues") make our recruiting look worse than it otherwise could be. But Hoke really recruited poorly and it shows. The only game-changing type prospects he landed in the passing game were Morris and Harris. As it happens, neither has panned out. But you can't assume they will, and there was no solid backup plan. We are fortunate Chesson and Darboh developed as well as they did. I've discussed some of Chesson's shortcomings, but he has never been anything other than a pleasant surprise based on the capabilities he has demonstrated.
Hard to overstate how important this recruiting class is. Hoke just couldn't recruit gamebreakers on offense and it showed this year. Combine Harbaugh's coaching with legit talent and look out.
|2 days 1 hour ago||They were practicing less||
They were practicing less late in the year. Considerably less intense if I read correctly.
|2 days 1 hour ago||I want to neg you for griping||
I want to neg you for griping about negs (just make your argument and own it) but Harbaugh himself observed conditioning was an issue after Iowa (I think) and I tend to agree that the team seemed to wear down late. I don't hold this against the D, which was great in both losses and only relented late after repeated offensive failures, but the team as a whole seemed to decline. MSU is an example of this, too, IMO.
|2 days 1 hour ago||It has been a concern from||
It has been a concern from early in the season that the OL could be a liability in key games against great DLs. I had basically accepted that we had basically no chance against Bama if we made it that far; the OL kept us from making it that far earlier than that.
|3 days 17 hours ago||That was true every year of||
That was true every year of the Lloyd Carr era. They still had much more impressive running attacks in other years. And Thomas was good, but not great that year, as you would expect from a freshman playing behind a polished senior.
|3 days 17 hours ago||McMurtry and Chris Calloway.||
McMurtry and Chris Calloway. Yeah, great players. I checked their stats today, they were... less impressive than I remember.
Which is not a knock on them. It is entirely a function of the changing state of the game, especially the contrast between Bo and the modern era. Their stats don't look impressive because we are used to seeing stats from teams that pass 40 times a game. In their era, they were very good.
|3 days 20 hours ago||Agree 100%.||
|3 days 20 hours ago||What do you mean by "less||
What do you mean by "less functional?" I love its features and functions and will continue to use it for the forseeable future. If you're just referring to software that runs on it, well, yes, there are compromises there, but also certain applications available that don't have good Windows alternatives.
The computers themselves cost a lot, yes, but for those who value the hardware and OS it is worthwile to them. I am just plain more comfortable and more productive on a Mac laptop than on a Windows laptop.
I have, however, gone the PC route for a "power" computer, since upgrading the hardware of a Mac can only occur at the time you order and is ridiculously expensive. And Windows 10 is fine on it.
EDIT: And because I can't stop talking, some further elaboration on this: Technology has advanced so much that consumer hardware is just ridiculously juiced right now. Incredible hard drive space, solid state drives, RAM at prices that used to be unthinkable. A computer with 16+ gigs of RAM, a decent SSD for OS and key apps, and a big honking regular hard drive with incredible space can run incredibly smoothly and near-instantaneously fast and is a joy to use on any current OS.
The problem is that these features all cost tons of money on a Mac, and you need to choose it up front because the hardware is not upgradeable. This has always been an issue, but IMO with the accessibility of SSDs and other features the upside for better hardware is now much higher. My Windows PC loads in seconds, and the difference in starting up Word on my work Mac and my home PC is shocking.
And Windows is catching up to Mac in usability. Yay competition.