Mike Lantry, 1972
- Member for
- 5 years 6 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|11 weeks 3 days ago||B1G Overview||
I was going to suggest the B1G recruiting recap idea before i saw you're already on top of it. It's easy enough to look at the numbers from 24/7 Composite, but a little more analysis would be much appreciated! Perhaps even a little blurb on the class from the mgoblog-counterpart website contributors for each respective team if they are willing, sort of like VEQ...
|12 weeks 6 days ago||wait a minute...||
M-Wolverine had a dog as his avatar...you're M-Dog with a wolverine as your avatar...Imposter!
(don't ban me)
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Agree, but...||
Agree with your second paragraph - Hoke is not the reason for all of the bad things about the department, he does things the right way, and he would be here with or without the money. However, isn't it easy to understand why people who shell out those hundreds, even thousands, of dollars, as well as immeasurable emotion, to support the program are upset that the product is inexplicably regressing, and worse, the man in charge of that product is then insulting the loyalty of said customers?
|14 weeks 2 days ago||Fickle||
"Fickle" is defined by Webster as "marked by lack of steadfastness, constancy, or stability : given to erratic changeableness." That is the wrong word, as the Michigan faithful have been steadfast for decade upon decade. Hoke is likely simply upset that his seniors will play The Game in a scarlet Michigan Stadium, and I bet that's the mindset through which he is viewing the situation. Thousands of his team's fans would rather save $50 or so to not sit in the cold and, presumably, watch his team get demolished. If you presented it to him in that way, if you asked him if he thinks a "true fan" would pay the $50 to watch this game, I bet he would answer it differently. I think it is a matter of perspective and frustration, not a case of him actually disliking a "fickle" fanbase. Naturally, i can't back this up with anything but speculation, and I understand why the anger is boiling over from the fanbase, but I think it was simply a poorly-chosen word.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||Doubt it||
I see your point, but i really don't think you will see Morgan and Horford on the floor together on a consistent basis. They will likely platoon at the 5, with Robinson playing most of his minutes at the 4. If you're ever going to see 2 bigs out there, it might be Donnal at the 4 with Morgan/Horford if Donnal can play his way into substantial PT. The only way they will run any Morgon/Horford at 4/5 is if they want to practice the 2-big look in anticipation of McGary's return, but that will likely only happen in garbage minutes, not when the game is on the line.
Simply put, playing Horford/Morgan at the 4 directly takes minutes away from Stauskus or Irvin, or Levert, which significantly diminishes the offense's shooting threat and ability to spread the floor. I do not think JB would want to do that in order to "muscle teams around a little."
|21 weeks 1 day ago||Kerridge||
Unmentoined in the discussion but I'm sure he'll get a +1 at least - in both Power Picture Pages, Kerridge throws a helluva block. He meets the LB in the hole and just owns him.
|22 weeks 1 day ago||Ufer'd||
Can we prounounce "UFR'd" as "Ufer'd"? You can't think about Ufer and stay sad
|28 weeks 2 days ago||Color||
First off, great stuff. Abosultely love your work.
I had a thought about using color differently. Jeff M has a couple interesting ideas above, but my initial reaction was it would be nice to visualize just how much the factors displayed in the chart (adj 3rd down conversion, early conversion %, and avg third down distance) impact the overall quality of an offense. Perhaps using your preferred method of rating an entire offense. (F +/-, your own metrics, whatever) to differentiate from best all the way to worst in a sliding scale ('Scarlet = Bad' through purple all the way up to 'Blue = Good'?).
Naturally, you would expect more blue in the top right, and scarlet in the bottom left, but it still might be interesting to see.
|1 year 4 weeks ago||Borges' style||
What you're saying makes sense, but I think it's important to remember that Borges has repeatedly stressed that he wants a workhorse back. One guy getting 25 carries every Saturday. So I think this battle will be more of a winner-takes-all competition. For my money, I'd say Green is most likely to win it, but Fitz and Smith also in the running (get it?).
I don't expect to ever see Rawls in a crucial spot again, to be honest, and i doubt Drake Johnson will really be in the conversation either. Not saying it's a sure thing, but when you consider his lack of recruiting hype and lack of insider practice hype, i just think it's unlikely.
Furthermore, i'd expect to see Shallman end up in a fullback/H-back type role and Hayes as slot reciever. Norfleet? Well, i like the kid's burst but i'm just not sure where he fits in for Borges' system. You'd hope a coach would find ways to get his most explosive guys the ball, but to be honest we've already seen that Borges isn't the most creative guy in that regard (see: Denard in the Ohio game).
As i write this, though, I'm thinking we aren't giving Fitz enough credit. He was a darn good runner in 2011 and i think 2013's O-Line will be more like 2011's than 2012's. And while that knee injury was brutal, it's become almost fightening how quickly and effectively top athletes can recover from knee injuries these days.
All told, i think Green, Smith or Fitz will win the battle outright by B1G play, Hayes and/or Norfleet will get some 3rd and long PT, and everyone else will be relegated to minor support roles.
|1 year 17 weeks ago||gotta hope||
to see Kalis in there at a guard spot...so if Lewan's back and Miller adds enough weight to start at C, i think it might be a battle between JoeyB and Magnusson (and Bryant? seems doubtful) for the last spot, with Schofield starting at either G or T, depeneding on if they like JoeyB or Magnusson more.
|1 year 51 weeks ago||Both, I think||
I'm pretty sure M's poor reb% has a lot to do with beilein's style. reb% is tired directly to style of play, specifically with regards to the fast break. If you crash the offensive glass, you're more susceptible to giving up fb points. And if you crash the boards on d, it's tougher to get points in transition.
So I think beilein see's that, with our small lineups, we're not going to be great on the glass anyways, so we might as well surrender some rebounding chances in exchange for winning the transition game
|2 years 4 weeks ago||+0.12||
Did anyone else notice that OSU's avg ranking is exactly 0.12 higher than M for all 4 services? Furthermore, should i be embarassed that i noticed something so pointless?
|2 years 27 weeks ago||Eh||
What's funny is his reasoning; this is probably the most favorable schedule we have seen in a while. We might only win 5, but it won't be due to an unusually tough schedule.
|2 years 29 weeks ago||PSU||
Reminds me of penn st last year. It seems like they had about a half dozen commits until very late in the process. They ended up only signing 16 total and finished 35th nationally according to rivals. That put them 6th in the B1G, 7th including ND. I'm guessing the low number was due to just not having many scholarships to give, and it's possible nebraska is in the same boat this year.
|2 years 39 weeks ago||looks like||
even without the things you mentioned above, BH and co. have done a pretty good job of recruiting. i don' t think a maize jersey with stripes on the shoulders and a beaver on the front is going to make many HS kids change their minds.
and who knows, maybe if we don't conform to the newly-popular night games/cool jerzeyz/rawk music, we can draw some recruits by pointing out how old school we are. i don't think the traditions at michigan are a huge hinderance on our recruiting potential.
|2 years 39 weeks ago||i don't know...||
maybe this is how it starts? can we expect there to be a home game like this every year? DB hasn't promised otherwise.
And if we desperately had to wear a "throwback" (even tho, as mentioned, we already wear throwbacks) why couldn't it have been on the road? i just don't like the idea of messing w/ the home jerseys
|2 years 40 weeks ago||real quick||
JC3, who is the OL from Colorado that seemed really interested in Mich? i know we were targeting 2 (at least) from CO, but one seemed very interested
thanks, and do you see us landing him if we go after him hard?
|2 years 40 weeks ago||Early evaluation||
the town i'm from once had a great Little league baseball program, and that directly lead to a great varsity program. Lately, the little league has collapsed b/c dads have decided to put together the best possible travel teams (at age 8 or so) and travel instead of play LL, which takes the best talent from the system next thing you konw there are 2 or 3 teams playing travel and no LL, whereas there used to be 6-8 teams per age group.
This has actually really hurt at the HS level b/c so many kids quit early since they aren't "elite" at age 8. some of these kids may have developed into quality varsity players, but now if you're not the best at 8 you don't really have a chance to play on a travel team, so you can't play at 12, so you can't play at 16.
Idk how many here have read Gladwell's "Outliers", but it tackles the oddity that almost all top Canadian hockey players at age 18 were born in Jan-March, which he attributes to the fact that travel squads are chosen at age 5 where a couple of months of development is a huge deal. a similar thing seems to be happening in my town's baseball program
To tie it into the original post, i agree that competition is important when it comes to youth programs, but i also think its not only excessive, but also bad for a program, when there is too much emphasis placed on performance at too young of an age. it takes years to develop athletically, and you never know who will develop into a quality player, and what dominant 8 year old will fall off by age 15
|2 years 41 weeks ago||you'll feel awful||
when her family reads that.
if they can, ya know, read
|2 years 43 weeks ago||But...||
he will be facing a double team every play, right? He's playing the 1 tech, nose, while BWC is slated to start at the 3 tech. This means Martin will be shaded to one side or the other of the center, and will likely have to take on 2 blockers, at least to start each play, before one peels off for a linebacker.
obviously this is over-simplifying the situation, and they have shown in spring ball that they want to move MM around a bit, but for the most part i expect him to be taking on double teams fairly often if he plays the 1 tech as we suspect he will. this is ok for Mich, b/c he has shown he's a beast at splitting double teams, but it might not be great for his NFL prospects since i would think he will be a 3 tech in the pros. That said, i expect him to be a very good NFL player as well.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||can't*||
gotta love the irony
|3 years 5 weeks ago||Obviously||
RoJo. But maybe Tebow. Personally, i think they're both ours
|3 years 5 weeks ago||maybe...||
Worth a shot, but i think you can get arrested for that. Like Larry Harrison
|3 years 5 weeks ago||Pretty sure||
The HS coach he was/is living with got a job with the MSU Athletic Dept. Can't see that guy even letting Mattison in the house, given that his employment is directly tied to delivering the goods. But it's ok, Dantonio is a great guy. Just ask the Freep.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||I noticed||
Tim lists DL, TE and FB as the final positions that could use another commitment in this class. Personally, i would think OL would be the top remaining positional priority, besides perhaps TE.
This year's class boasts 1 (Posada) and maybe a 2nd (Miller is listed at DE on rivals, C on scout), if you consider Fisher and Bryant unlikely to become Blue, which seems to be the at least possible, and perhaps likely. Last year M landed only Pace, and with BWC and Q Washington both likely to stick with defense, we're left with Lewan and Schofield in the 09 class on the O-Line. That's anywhere from 4 to 7 upperclass offensive linemen, barring injuries, in 2013, more likely in the lower range, and I would have to think Lewan would be an NFL early-exit risk.
Probably too late for the new staff to do much about it if Bryant and Fisher head elsewhere, but i think it is certainly a concern.
|3 years 10 weeks ago||well||
i don't think there's any doubt Schefter could be considered a prominent football expert. maybe not an expert on michigan football's current coaching conundrum, but who is? (DB, i know, and he's not talking)
Schefter did go on the record saying he has "heard" JH is headed to AA. That's all. No one, not Schefter, not Laveranues, not me, is saying it's a done deal or even close to it. No one is sure.
All I'm saying is if Adam Schefter says on ESPN that he hears JH is headed to AA, it is WORTH POSTING. not worth believing as gospel, nor even worth taking as a crucial bit of info, but it is WORTH POSTING and i don't blame Mr. Laveraneus for doing so
|3 years 10 weeks ago||yea||
schefter was asked if Harbaugh/Luck to Carolina was a package deal and he just said "the word i hear is that Harbaugh is headed to AA".
He didn't say a deal was in the works or anything; it was more just saying Carolina probably won't be landing JH and Luck....wasn't intended as CFB news by any means i would think
|3 years 10 weeks ago||but||
isn't it worth posting when a prominent expert mentions his sources say Michigan will have a new head coach? laveranues didn't say it's a done deal, he's just mentioning that it was said, which i think is worth posting.
|3 years 12 weeks ago||Up and Down||
*Team Def rankings in YPG allowed
2001 (first SB championship): 25th
2002 (2nd SB): 23rd
2004 (3rd SB): 9th
2007 (lost SB): 4th
Now: 31st, not including today's game