I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 2 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Karma value
- Rawls (!)
|12 hours 43 min ago||Just came here to make the same request||
His history makes it seem like he's not always awful, but he at least needs a temporary ban until he can get his shit together. He's totally lost it tonight.
|13 hours 11 min ago||All four of you are assholes.||
This is a thread where those of us still feeling the sting of Michigan's disappointing season can come and take solace in the end of OSU's chances at a national title, and pass on some begrudging respect to a team that deserves it. You are the reason the "state of the site" post was necessary. Feel bad about yourselves.
|2 days 3 hours ago||I don't think you and I actually disagree about any of this||
As someone below said, the SEC can be both the best conference in the country and simultaneously overrated. I think you said it perfectly with "... teams that are successful in other conferences would probably be successful if transplanted into the SEC." The difference I see between the SEC and other conferences is that they simply have more of those teams.
The SEC's run of dominance will end at some point, maybe it starts this year with Alabama's loss and the possibility of an ACC/B1G championship game (oh god no please not OSU nonononono), but there is a reason it's gone on so long. The SEC has a really high number of teams that have the talent, history, and prestige to win football games and recruit on a high level. This means that in any given year they have maybe 7 teams with a chance to put it all together and be national championship competetive, while other conferences have maybe 3 or 5. It certainly doesn't mean that all SEC teams are better than all other conference teams, or even anything close to it. They just have more teams playing at a high level than any other conference, at least for the moment.
|2 days 4 hours ago||The point of the Broyles/Johnson example||
I chose these guys in particular because they fit the point very well and hopefully they're players that people on this board are familiar with, what with the Lions and all. Between those two players, one is clearly a Pro Bowl caliber receiver, and the other is just a guy in the NFL. In the league, the difference in talent between those two guys is super obvious, because they're playing at a really high level of competition.
Any player good enough to make it to the NFL is likely to be some level of star in college. At least all-conference level, possibly all-American. So the upgrade from "guy who can play in the NFL" and "guy who can star in the NFL" is minimized at the college level, because both of those guys are better than most of the players they'll face.
The point of all this, if you haven't gotten there already, is that a team with 10 future NFL players in its starting lineup is going to be better than a team with 5 future all-pros and no other NFL caliber players. At least in most instances. The best thing you can have in college football is a large number of good to great players. The number of elite players you have doesn't really matter if the supporting cast isn't there. And you don't measure the supporting cast in pro-bowl appearances, you measure them in the draft.
Another point, all-pro caliber players are exceedingly rare, so small sample sizes make their usefulness as a metric even worse.
|2 days 21 hours ago||I'll toss this in here||
As a Mizzou fan (and therefore a former follower of the Big 12 and Texas A&M to some degree), I feel like I can provide a bit of insight.
In A&M's last few years in the Big 12, they were always talented and threatening but couldn't quite put things together. It reminded me a bit of the 49ers before Harbaugh got there. I would contribute their sudden success in the SEC more to the rise of Sumlin and Manziel than to lack of competition in the SEC.
As for Mizzou, they had a good 5 year run at the end of their Big 12 life, but they've been the very definition of a program on the rise. They started with an innovative and exciting offense, used that to build a pretty good team, and used that to start recruiting defense generally and offensive linemen. Last year was the first year they had all the pieces in place with no gaping hole in their game, and then all of the offensive playmakers got hurt.
This year they got all those guys back and it shows. This Mizzou team is much, much better than the Chase Daniel team that ranked #1 in the nation going into the conference championship or the Blaine Gabbert team that beat Oklahoma and Texas. For the first time ever, they have an offensive line good enough that they can run the ball in the red zone, which has made a huge difference. I remember watching Mizzou games past and it was a forgone conclusion that if they didn't score from more than 20 yards out they'd have to settle for a field goal.
So while the SEC is probably overrated in the media, I don't think the performance of Mizzou and A&M is necessarily a sign of that so much as those teams reaching the potential that was there already. And really, the SEC is still probably the best conference in college football, and the addition of Mizzou and A&M has only made it stronger. Subjectively, there are probably 3-5 really good teams in the SEC, and the other conferences have 2-3 each.
|2 days 22 hours ago||I disagree very strongly here||
The difference between (for example) a Ryan Broyles and a Calvin Johnson is minimized in college, because they're both substantially better than the average competition they're going to face.
I don't know that "players drafted" is a great metric of conference strenth, but I think pro-bowlers is a terrible one.
|6 days 23 hours ago||I have a lot of begrudging respect for MSU this year||
Of course I want them to resume their eternal place in line behind Michigan in the future, but I think they have a legit top ten team this year. I don't have too much of a problem with them going to the Rose Bowl, because I think they'll represent the B1G at least as well as any other school would (at least from a football standpoint, although their general goonishness seems to be down this year as well).
Given the choice between OSU prolonging their winning streak, winning the Big Ten title and appearing in the national championship game, or MSU taking the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl, I think the choice it obvious. I hope MSU's defense crushes the Buckeyes.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||Like most things in football||
There's a lot of reasons behind it. If DBs and LBs "bite" on a run fake it might help receivers get open. Also if they get so used to run fakes, then might react more slowly the next time you actually run the football. Also, all the stuff Space Coyote (who is way more knowledgeable than me about this kind of thing) said, and some of the things I listed above. That's a whole lot of potential reasons to run play action, and if it succeeds in accomplishing any of those objectives it might be considered a wise move.
The reason I brought this up though was not discuss the merits of PA, how effectively Michigan runs it, or whether they should stop doing it. I just noticed that a lot of people here including, somewhat surprisingly, the actual employed writers for this site have been totally condemning PA calls simply because they didn't accomplish one of the many many thing a PA call can accomplish.
We all agree, no one was "fooled," safties didn't take the "bait," and whatever other phrases have been tossed around about how PA was unhelpful. I'm just surprised that very few of the very knowledgeable people around this blog have even acknowledged that PA can have a purpose other than helping receivers get open.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||Man, everyone's harping on play action.||
It's not my favorite playcall in the world, but this makes 3/3 of Ace, Brian and Seth criticizing the PA playcalls for reasons that aren't necessarily related to why those calls are made in the first place. The way it's been talked about on the front page and on the board makes me think that everyone here expects PA in real life to work like it does in a game of Madden, where the entire defense runs balls-out toward the line of scrimmage and then you can loft an easy TD to an outside receiver.
While this would certainly be a nice result, it's not really what PA is designed to do. Especially in a game like this past one, PA is used to slow down the pass rush from the D-line by making them more conscious of staying in their running lanes. It is also expected to alter the path of blitzing linebackers to bring them closer to the RB, thereby giving the RB a better shot at blocking them.
Now, whether or not PA actually succeeded in doing any of this against MSU is certainly up for debate (it's also usually supposed to have an impact on LBs dropping into coverage, but that very clearly did not happen), and the negative of turning DG's back to the line is a real argument against it. But with all the pretty advanced football knowledge we usually get out of the three gentlemen mentioned above, I kind of expected more relevant criticisms of the PA calls as opposed to the "Nobody was fooled! Safeties didn't bite!" stuff.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||A little too much star gazing in here||
Most of these offerings put Glasgow in an either/or with Kugler, and unmentioned at guard. This leads me to believe that these proposed lineups have been put together based entirely on recruiting profiles as opposed to performance. Yes, Glasgow is a former walk-on, but he's also been the closest thing Michigan has had to a decent interior lineman this year, and by a pretty wide margin. I'd be shocked if he doesn't start until he graduates.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Remember David Brandt?||
Michigan's center on the Single Greatest Collegiate Offensive Line Ever Assembled.
Went undrafted but still started most of his rookie season with Washington, and was in line to be the starter the next year as well before he abruptly retired to return to his hometown and teach. If I remember correctly, he did it because he had a learning disability that he'd managed to overcome and wanted to help other kids through the same process.
Here's an interview Michael Rothstein did with him a while back: http://www.annarbor.com/sports/catching-up-with-former-michigan-offensiv...
|5 weeks 3 hours ago||I'm just going to put this here||
I need to say this otherwise it will just keep eating at me. Funk is the Tony Gibson of this staff.
Many excuses were made for the poor play of the secondary under Tony Gibson, but the fact is not one single player on those teams improved under his coaching. Poor play from upperclassmen forced them to put highly-touted (or even not-so-highly-touted) underclassmen on the field who were clearly overwhelmed. This wouldn't have been too big of an issue, if not for the fact that those underclassmen never got any better as they accumulated experience.
That is almost exactly the state of the offensive line today. I don't think there's a single lineman from the past three seasons that we can honestly say has "improved." Lewan, Molk, and Schofield all maintained the same relatively high skill level they came in with. Barnum and Omameh regressed if anything. Mealer never grew into a reliable player, nor have Miller or Bryant. We're in a position right now where highly touted and physically gifted Chris Bryant, with 2 years learning the system under his belt, is basically indistinguishable from highly touted and physically gifted Kyle Bosch, with 6 months of learning the system under his belt.
This is a problem with the coaching staff, and if Hoke does nothing to address the issue, then he is as much at fault as RichRod was for Gibson's shortcomings. It's clear that, for whatever reason, this staff can't develop offensive linemen. It might be a strength and conditioning issue, it might be an offensive scheme issue, but most likely it's a position coach issue. Hoke is the man in charge, and he bears the ultimate responsibility for these failings. If he doesn't take any action and these OL problems persist, drastic measures will be called for.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I think you're reaching a bit here||
The only point he appears to be making is that he doesn't understand why "swear words" by their general definition are offensive. There was nothing in there about free speech or first amendment rights. Just a guy noting that a particular aspect of this "controversy" doesn't make sense to him (a point which I agree on, by the way). If you want this to turn into a First Amendment debate (and I think it would be a fun and interesting one), you should probably pick a different comment to respond to, otherwise you're just constructing a big-ole straw man.
|6 weeks 3 days ago||I'm with him on this||
I don't get why swearwords are offensive either. I think that's what makes it an interesting point. disagreements happen all the time, but I just really do not understand why people are offended by standard swear words.
Why is "fuck" really bad and "screw" only kind of bad? Why is "shit" really bad and "crap" only kind of bad? Those pairs of words are basically completely interchangeable in virtually all contexts, yet one of them is universally recognized as inappropriate and one of them is not. Why?
Now I'm not saying we should immediately do away with the idea of swearwords just because I don't understand it, but I am honestly curious if anyone here has actual reasoning as to why some seemingly random words are more offensive than others, outside of "that's just the way it is."
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Meh||
Honestly this is way less egregious to me than if it had been an intentional play with 11 men, 3 WRs trips left. I mean most of the OPs arguments about how it must have been 10 men were something along the lines of "there's no a way marginally intelligent offense would put a play like this on the field!" Which is true.
Allowing a play to run with 10 guys on the field is a mental lapse that's on par with the delay of game penalties we took: it's a bad management mistake, but it's not necessarily indicative of a larger problem. If this formation had been intentional on the other hand, it would mean that at some point Borges crafted a formation in which there was no one to block the left side of the line and Gallon was covered up and ineligible and thought, "Yeah, this will totally work, no need to build in a check to throw the ball outside, I'm certain a run to the right will go just fine here." The second of those two options is way, way less forgivable to me, so I'm actually glad this thread seems to have reached a consensus that there were only 10 guys on the field. That's actually preferable here.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||I said this in another thread yesterday||
But at this point I don't care how he coaches the rest of the way anymore. He's called fantastic games in the past, with brilliant gameplans and playcalls that play off each other beautifully. He's also called absolute stinkers just as often.
At this point, I really believe that Borges comes up with a fresh gameplan every week and simply has no real idea of whether or not it will work until he puts it on the field. This wouldn't be too terrible if it weren't occurring in conjunction with his utter inability to admit when his gameplan is flawed and move on to something else.
I think this past game is the best possible example of this. He came in with a gameplan of how to get the power running game working. Having never really used this gameplan before, the only indication he had of whether or not it would be effective was his own intuition. After it became incredibly obvious to everyone involved that the gameplan was flawed and the power running game was dead in the water, Borges seems to say "Nah, I'm still pretty sure this is going to work."
As for replacements Cam Cameron was not surprisingly my first thought as well, but you're right he's probably not going anywhere. But honestly I don't really care that much who they look to put in there. Changing coordinators is a lot easier than changing head coaches, especially since Borges isn't really involved in recruiting. They just need to dump him and find a new guy to try out. Maybe an up-and-coming NFL position coach, maybe a lower-level college coordinator, really just someone else.
Borges is clearly not the answer at this point, so the longer we spend with him at the helm, the longer we have to wait until we find a guy that is. Maybe we have to run through a couple OCs before we get there, that's fine. As long as we are trying to get there, and not just settling for good enough.
|7 weeks 4 days ago||Fine, if we're going to be serious||
This post in SmartFootball mentions how the ineligible receiver things works on bubble screens:
But as has been mentioned on this site and in a few other places, as long as the linemen stay within a few yards of the LOS, the refs won't call it. I think this was covered extensively in a post by Chris Brown on Grantland regarding Dana Holgorsen's offense, but I can't find it at the moment.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Did you see the pictures above?||
The line getting too far downfield is not exactly a concern at the moment...
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Guh||
I spent most of the last 2 years deep in Borges-apologist mode. That ended after OSU last year, when the parade of excuses I kept trotting out just no longer held enough weight to excuse what I had seen. Since then I have been mostly neutral and undecided, taking the good games (still love the gameplan and playcalling in the bowl last year) for what they're worth and hoping for better things to come once the right pieces were in the right places.
I think this game has pushed me over the edge. I don't necessarily disagree with the larger strategy. As others have said the punt at the end of regulation was probably the right call, and playing conservative for the FG in OTs 1 and 3 was the right move and probably works 9 times out of 10, we just got unlucky with Gibbons' misses/blocks.
But saying the conservative strategy makes sense is a completely different thing than saying repeatedly running the same utterly futile HB power runs makes sense. This post is the nail in the coffin for me. The only reason you can possibly present to continue running your HB into a never ending wall of bodies is to set the defense up for a counter of some kind. The play highlighted above is THE time to run said counter if you're ever going to do it. Including the safety overhanging the formation, there are 9 guys lined up over 8 guys. The other safety is shaded toward the formation as well, leaving ONE defender lined up over THREE WRs, with only one other defender in position to provide any kind of help.
If you have a counter for this play, if you have the thing that you're "setting the defense up for" by running these futile tackle over HB powers over and over and over again, RIGHT THERE is the time that you run it. By simply pounding pointlessly into the line yet again here, Borges basically admitted that there was no greater purpose to this running scheme and he was just doing it because he thought it would gain yards on its own. And after he received definitive proof that it was not going to gain yards, he assumed that the evidence was wrong, his original plans were infallible, and if he just kept calling this play over and over and over again he'd finally get the fantastic results he'd been so sure would be there from play #1.
In summary, I still don't have much of a qualm with the overall conservative offensive strategy in this game. The problem comes from the plays that were called in an attempt to implement said strategy. I think Borges has a well deserved reputation as a tinkerer, mad scientist, evil genius, whatever you want to call it. However, in the greatest tradition of all of the above descriptions, he has no real idea of whether or not his plans will succeed until he puts them into practice. That's how we end up with OSU 2011, Iowa 2012, and South Carolina 2013, yet still get stuck with MSU 2011, OSU 2012, and PSU 2013.
To me, this is an unacceptable tradeoff. It's taken me a while, but I'm ready to say it: Fire Al Borges.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||I hope you're right,||
But we've though that James Franklin's "lightbulb" turned on after the first few games of every season he's played so far. It's basically impossible to judge Mizzou by their non-conference slate. They play an annual group of cupcakes that would make Wisconsin blush.
|8 weeks 5 days ago||David Moorman||
By bringing up David Moorman, you've just helped me pinpoint exactly what the problem is with Michigan's interior offensive line this year (and last year): Not enough guys named Dave!
Hopefully David Dawson will step up and fix this problem next year, and maybe this David Moorman fellow can help in the same regard a little down the line.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||I can't take personal credit for these||
They're my team names, but I had a much cleverer friend come up with them. Last year: Does Brady have to Hoke a bitch. This year: The Chronicles of Denardia.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||See my post below||
I apologize for flying off the handle there, I try to avoid personal attacks for the most part, and while I still think your comment above was reaching it didn't deserve a comparison to Wolverines Dominate, who I'm still fairly certain is just a troll.
I agree with you to some extent, I think Green showed pretty conclusively that he's going to be a better back than Rawls, but I think based an a super limited sample size Rawls is playing better right now. Green has a burst that is really impressive for his size, he just needs to learn how to use that power to break tackles.
I think Rawls had a very similar thing going on last year. He had size and power, but went down way earlier than he should have because he didn't know how to use them. What I saw from him yesterday suggested to me that maybe the light went on for him. What I saw from Green suggests that he still needs to learn those same skills, but when he does he'll be an outstanding player.
Anyway, I'm gonna head out for a bit and maybe come back to the board in a few days. I think that would be best, both for everyone here and for my own sanity. Gotta keep myself from taking these things too seriously.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||You're probably right||
I participated in a couple of conversations about this in other threads on the board yesterday, but for some reason seeing it get its own thread after all that just made me feel like some combination of this guy:
And this guy:
I think I'm going to take a few days off from reading and commenting on the board, at least until the UFRs go up. I think the lack of game film (other than MGoBlue.com's ridiculously zoomed-in highlights) has made me just get angry in places where I would have previously pointed to video evidence. Damn T3 Media.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||Touting?||
Note how at no point did I insinuate that Rawls should start, or even get any more carries than he got yesterday. But he ran through an arm tackle, which is more than anyone other than Fitz did.
And Norfleet, but I'm assuming he doesn't count.
Also I don't know why I'm arguing with you, you're almost as bad as Wolverines Dominate.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||I just saw this thread on the Android app||
And went and got my computer specifically so I could downvote this thread. This is seriously the stupidest opinion I can recall reading on this board. There is no way in all the world that you reached this conclusion by actually watching people play football yesterday. You're clearly just enamored with recruiting rankings and the stat sheet at the end of the day.
There were two running backs yesterday that showed the ability to either make people miss or run through contact, and they were Fitz Toussaint and (shockingly enough) Thomas Rawls. Derrick Green showed off a ton of potential, but very little actual skill. To call for a major depth chart overhaul (Green seems to be 4th or 5th, based on how the coaches were playing guys) based on 11 garbage time carries against a MAC team is asinine.
I hope for your sake you're drunk or high or have some other excuse for this shameful thread.
|14 weeks 18 hours ago||Really?||
I don't know how you reached that conclusion. He was the beneficiary of some of the best blocking the OL managed on the day, misread a few blocks and bounced outside when he should't have, and went down on first contact almost every time.
I think he's going to be a great player when he learns to convert his fantastic size and speed into collegiate-level power running and learns to read and react a little better (no surprise, he's a true freshman after all), but he's not there yet.
Fitz showed me that he's the unquestionable #1 today, and I'm happy about that. Green showed me that he has a ton of potential, and I'm happy about that too. Rawls (!) and Smith both showed that they're no slouches either, so I'd say the RB situation for the next few years is looking pretty good, but anointing Green now is premature.
|14 weeks 19 hours ago||Disagree on Green||
While I still think he has a ton of potential, he looked like the #4 option to me today. When he got yards it was because the O-line was opening gaping holes for him, and he got brought down on first contact on every one of his runs, and he usually went down right where he was hit (except for the TD, where he got a little extra push).
I liked what I saw from Smith as a runner better, although he had a bit of "Poor Damn Toussaint" syndrome going on, with guys hitting him in the backfield before he had a chance to get going. But he made some nice cuts and kept his legs driving for a few extra yards on every one of his touches.
The guy who surprised me was Rawls. He didn't touch it much, but he showed a quickness to the hole and a little bit of wiggle that had been completely absent in his game up until now. He also ran through an arm tackle or two, which is something he was always supposed to do but never seemed to get down in the past.
Drake Johnson didn't really get a chance to impress, going down with an injury right before what would have likely been his first featured drive, so maybe he deserves to be in the conversation too. But after this game, based on a very small sample size, the "feature back" depth chart looks to me like:
|15 weeks 15 hours ago||Nice try, you almost had me convinced||
For a second there I really considered giving you some honest advise, from one human being to another, on how to be less standoffish and thus actually make a contribution to this board instead of just running around raining on various parades.
|15 weeks 15 hours ago||The troll that keeps on trolling||
Every time I see one of your posts it rekindles my internal debate over whether you're a troll or just that big of a douche.