somehow we're only 124th
- Member for
- 5 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|15 weeks 3 days ago||i guess we||
just flat out disagree here.
I think you're underrating the value of a worthwhile backup, even if he is never used. I mean, in retrospect if in 2011 the Pats knew Brady would be healthy for every game for 3 years and they would never need a decent backup, they wouldn't have taken Mallett but of course that isn't possible. So yes, if you judge the 2011 pick based on the fact that Brady never got hurt it was a bad pick. But that's unfair since there was no way of knowing Brady wouldn't miss a game for 3 years.
As for the out-of-work QBs, a young guy with a cannon and potential is worth more than, like, Shaun Hill because there's at least a chance he can develop into a quality starter if Brady had a major injury. Again, just b/c you never cash in the insurance policy doesn't mean you shouldn't have gotten insurance in the first place.
|15 weeks 5 days ago||true, but...||
you have to have a backup QB, and you'd rather have a decent one. It's like having a home insurance policy you never use - doesn't mean it wasn't worth having insurance just b/c your house never burned down.
I'm sure the Pats think of it as spending a third round pick and cashing it in for 3 years of having a decent backup quarterback (that you thankfully never had to use) PLUS a 6th round pick - better value than plenty of 3rd round picks
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Tanner McEvoy||
First off, great stuff, thanks for all the hard work.
Also, McEvoy is supposedly going to start over Stave for Wisconsin vs. LSU. I know at the top you said if a projected starting QB gets beat out, the assessment transfers to the winner of the starting job; would you change anything in this case given that McEvoy is a different type of player? McEvoy is a converted safety and supposedly a good runner with poor throwing mechanics - my guess is this means very little unnecessary passing with that great OL/RB combo, new WRs and a QB who runs better than he throws...not sure how that would impact your 4 factors, however.
|24 weeks 21 hours ago||you right||
misread the 24/7 site. my bad
|24 weeks 21 hours ago||nah man||
please re-read what was written above. ThadMatta said we would have another *highly-touted* qb lined up to play when Morris would be a 5th year Sr. I said we won't, since Speight wasn't highly-touted, Malzone probably won't be, and deWeaver isn't considered a blue chipper now, though it is still quite early for him.
Neither Thad Matta nor I ever offered an opinion on how good Morris, Speight, Malzone or deWeaver will be (I certainly dont have a clue); no one is saying the star rankings are right or wrong; the debate is about if there will be another highly-touted guy there to play when Morris would have been a 5th year, and I argue there won't, which is not to say we're gonna be terrible b/c there's not 5-star.
Good rant about recruiting rankings though, i guess.
|24 weeks 23 hours ago||sure||
its possible one or both moves up; but my point is the poster acts as if not having Morris in 2017 won't be a big deal b/c we'll have similarly-touted guys behind him. I disagree: Speight isn't, Malzone isnt with 6 months to go, and deWeaver (who would be in only his 2nd season) isn't highly ranked initially (but he's got 18 months, and 2 HS season, to go up....or down).
Regardless, the present evidence implies we will not have some blue-chip waiting in the wings.
|24 weeks 23 hours ago||Chances are||
we will not have some other highly touted QB lined up when Morris would be a 5th year - Speight was a 3-star on the 24/7 Composite rankings, Malzone is a 3-star in those same rankings, and deWeaver wasn't in the initial Scout 300. Maybe one of them will be good but none are highly-touted, especially in comparison to borderline 5-star Morris.
|1 year 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...
|1 year 1 week 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)
|1 year 3 weeks 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?
|1 year 3 weeks 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.
|1 year 7 weeks 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."
|1 year 10 weeks 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.
|1 year 11 weeks ago||Ufer'd||
Can we prounounce "UFR'd" as "Ufer'd"? You can't think about Ufer and stay sad
|1 year 17 weeks 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 45 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.
|2 years 6 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.
|2 years 40 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 45 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?
|3 years 16 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.
|3 years 18 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.
|3 years 28 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.
|3 years 28 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
|3 years 29 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?
|3 years 29 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
|3 years 30 weeks ago||you'll feel awful||
when her family reads that.
if they can, ya know, read
|3 years 32 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 46 weeks ago||can't*||
gotta love the irony
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Obviously||
RoJo. But maybe Tebow. Personally, i think they're both ours
|3 years 46 weeks ago||maybe...||
Worth a shot, but i think you can get arrested for that. Like Larry Harrison