that's unfortunate, but at least the interest is there on both sides
- Member for
- 6 years 30 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 2 days ago||Lavert Hill||
It sounds like it might be Lavert Hill flipping from his Penn State verbal. There is a lot of smoke on 247 about it. I know there are a lot of mixed feelings about Gregg Henson on this board, but he recently posted on his blog that Hill was flipping to UM as well. We'll see.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||No clue. If he is, I am||
No clue. If he is, I am sorry. I ran across this on the 247 board.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||One more question: Do you||
One more question: Do you know how long games typically stay up on BTN2GO? I am assuming they take the games down after a short period of time.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Thanks||
Thanks for the helpful info; I appreciate it.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Work||
I was working, and I am pleasantly surprised to hear that we put up a fight. I know, my expectations and standards are pretty low at this point....
|2 years 4 weeks ago||I'm not sure how one can be a||
I'm not sure how one can be a genuine fan of a team without getting emotionally involved in some way. If there is such a thing as emotionally-detached fandom, I don't really want anything to do with it. Sports are emotional. Athletes play with emotion and fans reciprocate that emotion. Also, following a team involves a sense of vicariousness, which I think is pretty natural. Fans identify with the teams that they follow. When our teams lose, we get upset or sad or whatever. I also think that the "bragging rights" thing that you mentioned is a part of being a sports fan as well. I couldn't really imagine sports without opposing fan bases. rivalries between fan bases is one of the things that makes following sports really fun.
Of course, you can have all of these things and still be "classy" at the same time. Based on my experience, Michigan fans do tend to be a little classier than opposing fans. They also tend to be more articulate, which I appreciate. At the end of the day, fans are human, and they will act like it from time to time.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||"being great on offense and||
"being great on offense and not turning the ball over" actually require skill, which this team obviously has. Rebounding, on the other hand, doesn't really require skill. It is basically something that any given team can do. Identify your man, put a body on him, and box him out. You don't have to be an athletic freak to do this, even though we have some athletic freaks on the team. You don't even have to be taller than the player you are defending. If you box your opponent out, even if he is taller than you, it will be difficult for him to get a rebound over you without fouling.
I don't expect this team to be "great" at rebounding, but I do think that it is reasonable to expect them to hold their own on the glass, which they have not been able to do against decent to good Big Ten teams. Because this is not really a matter of skill, there isn't much of an excuse for it. It would be unreasonable for me to expect an unskilled team to all of a sudden become skilled, but this is a totally different issue. This team has so much potential. It's simply frustrating to watch them lose games that they would win easily if only they could rebound--a thing that doesn't take much skill to do.
|2 years 4 weeks ago||Not trying to be mean, but I||
Not trying to be mean, but I don't really understand your logic here. fixating on missed free-throws at the end of a game is also a "what if" scenario. My point is that if we are going to play the "what if" game, then our focus should be on the rebounding rather than missed free-throws since the rebounding issue has basically been a common denominator in all of our losses this year. On the other hand, poor free-throw shooting hasn't been a huge problem in our losses. Focusing solely on the things that take place at the very end of a game is a pretty impulsive thing to do. If you look at the big picture, rebounding is the main problem, and it is going to continue to be the main problem going forward. When opposing teams consistently get 2-3 shot attemps on one offensive possession and you only get one shot attempt on most of your possessions, you are going to have an incredibly difficult time winning. We do a lot of things well, but the rebounding issue basically negates all of it.
|2 years 5 weeks ago||I disagree with both of you guys||
It is easy to fixate on the things that take place at the very end of a game, but we simply would have never been in that situation had we rebounded better throughout the entire ballgame. Look at it this way: Had we kept up with Indiana on the boards, we probably would have won this game by 10-15 points. Those free throws at the end should have been meaningless potential points tagged on to a double digit victory. It's not poor free-throw shooting that's going to potentially kill us in the tournament, it's our inability to rebound the basketball with consistency. In my opinion, it's the primary thing that is preventing this team from being elite.
|2 years 5 weeks ago||Well, not sure if this has||
Well, not sure if this has anything to do with it, but one team (Florida) actually knows how to box out and rebound, while the other team (Michigan) can't quite figure it out. If you can't rebound, you definitely do not deserve to be ranked in the top five of any rating system since the inability to rebound negates everything that a team does well. A team that can't rebound is susceptible to losing to any given team at any given time. Sorry for the negativity. I am proud of this team, but they simply do not deserve a top five ranking from anybody.
|2 years 5 weeks ago||A young Dirk Nowitski?||
I'll take one of those.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||Thanks||
I actually did not know that that option existed. So that was a misunderstanding on my part. Nevertheless, I do think that people often get negged unjustifiably here. Overall, I think that people are simply too liberal with the downvote button. The fact that my last post got negged is a perfect example. I didn't say anything neg worthy in that post. I was simply voicing my subjective opinion, and someone decided to subjectively neg my subjective opinion. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion, does not mean that you should neg their comment. For instance, I personally disagree with you in terms of posts not getting negged unjustifiably here, but I have no desire and no reason to neg you.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||That is not necessarily true||
That is not necessarily true though. If you get negged, your comment basically gets wiped out from the thread and people have to go out of their way to see it. Hence, getting negged renders you incapable of actually contributing to the community in a meaningful way. Plus, this board is extremely peer pressure-oriented, to the extent that getting negged invariably influences the opinions of others. When someone gets negged once, they are usually negged a 2nd and 3rd time by default. So, on this particular site, it does matter.
Anyways, I'm not trying to get into an argument. So I will let it go.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||Sorry||
it is simply my biggest pet peeve with this board. Not that people can neg, but the various reasons why people neg, which are often highly subjective. It is the main reason why I don't post here very often; it is a huge detractor, even for a person who has been following this site for over four years--like me.
|2 years 7 weeks ago||List of 15-25 recruits that we have a decent chance with||
I believe the "M Block" has a list like this, as well as Steve from 247. Also, if you go to the 2014 recruiting thread at 247, a bunch of people have posted the kind of lists that you are looking for.
Finally, had I, or anyone who is not a regular poster here, created this thread, I would have been negged -100.
|2 years 8 weeks ago||Here is the problem:||
It seems like everyone is having the game of their lives against us these days. OSU played out of their minds against us and so did MSU. There seems to be a trend here. The reason why teams are playing so well against us is because our defense is bad--plain and simple. Teams seem to play their best games offensively against us because we can't guard the perimeter, we let people freely drive down the lane all day, and we don't contest shots very well, giving players open looks again and again.
|2 years 9 weeks ago||I couldn't imagine this game||
I couldn't imagine this game being a positive for Drake Harris. If I were coach Hoke, I would be extremely embarrassed right now. I am extremely embarrassed right now!
|2 years 9 weeks ago||Fuck yes! We needed this.||
Fuck yes! We needed this. Suck on that, Urban!!
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Wow||
If true, what a horrible way for Floyd to end his career at Michigan.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Don't Get It||
I don't get it. Why not slot receiver or running back? It seems like a waste. We have pretty good depth at corner, and our starters are both really young (Blake and Raymon).
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Yes||
I don't really get it. WR is the one area that we have not recruited well. I don't mean any disrespect to the receivers that have been recruited in the last few classes, but we have not been able to reel in any bue chip players at this position. We are loaded everywhere else, but dynamic wideouts are lacking. More often than not, if you want to be an elite team, you need to be able to strecth the field vertically. This is Michigan. Why can't we garner interest from 4 and 5 star receivers? Honest question.
|2 years 24 weeks ago||Ignore||
|2 years 24 weeks ago||WTF?||
I am sorry, but this post is fucking moronic! The loss last night had absolutely nothing to do with Borges. The people on this board who have perpetuated this nonsensical idea are insane. We were first and ten inside the fifteen when Denard got injured. I have no reason to believe that we were not going to score a touchdown had he been in the game to finish that drive. Nebraska then turned the ball over in their own zone with about a minute left before halftime. Again, had Denard been healthy, I am quite confident we would have been able to put some more points on the board in that situation. Thus, with a healthy Denard, we go into the half up 13-7.
We were moving the ball pretty consistently in the first half. If anything, we were controlling time of possession and were in a possition to steadily wear down their defense in the second half. Outside of one possession, our defensive was playing extremely well and, with Denard in the game, we were winning the battle up front on both sides of the ball. Also, contrary to popular opinion on this board, our gameplan was NOT hyper-conservative in the first half; I thought we were doing a pretty good job mixing things up. It is not Borges' fault that our receivers dropped 500 passes in this game! That first bomb to Roundtree should have been caught, and the second bomb to Roundtree should have been caught as well.
If Denard did not get hurt, I honestly believe that this would have been a 10-17 point victory for us. We would have worn down their defense and our defense would have stayed fresh. We also would not have had the turnovers in the second half. WE DID NOT LOSE THIS GAME BECAUSE OF BORGES, WE LOST IT BECAUSE DENARD GOT INJURED AND OUR RECEIVERS DON'T HAVE HANDS.
You can bitch all you want about Hoke and Borges not playing Gardner instead of Bellomy in the second half. Fine. But when was the last time you attended practice? For all we know, Bellomy might be the better quarterback right now. Bellomy might be throwing the ball really well in practice. Also, maybe our receivers really suck, and we need all the help that we can get at that position. Even though Gardner isn't very good at receiver, maybe the coaches felt that it would be too detrimental to the receiving core to move Gardner to quarterback.
*sorry for typos and misspellings . I don't have spell-check.*
|2 years 25 weeks ago||OSU Game||
If we beat Nebraska, the OSU game may not have any impact on our Big Ten championship aspirations. I wonder if this will have any affect on the game from a psychological standpoint.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Reply||
"I doubt that they even really game-planned for WKU"
Do you seriously believe this? There are only 12-13 games in their season. You really think that they didn't bother to game-plan for WKU? Does Saban take you as a coach who would come into a game unprepared? I doubt it. Yes, I am sure these stats are not as alarming as they may imply. However, I think they might give us at least some glimpse into the fact that our defensive line is shaky at best.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Disagree||
I really doubt that this is how coaches think. The media and fans buy into the hype, coaches usually don't. There are only a few games in a college football season. Thus, coaches take EVERY game seriously, specially a guy like Saban.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||I Agree||
Absolutely! I am not suggesting that we are going to end up losing the rest of our games this year. I still think we have a shot at winning the Big Ten, which, as you alluded to, sucks this year. Both of our lines are what concerns me, but every Big Ten team seems to have major concerns somewhere. Yeah, the future is extremely bright. We just need to keep the recruiting momentum going.
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Reply||
This CAN be true but not always. Consistency plays a big role in determining these kinds of things. In other words, the fact that our defensive line got gashed in two straight games may mean that there is at least some connection between Alabama's poor rushing performance today and our extremely poor defensive line play in general.
Let me say it like this: in 2010, if our offense continued to play poory throughout the year and EMU's offense continued to play decent throughout the year, then the conclusion that "EMU's offense was more potent than ours" would probably be true. The fact that we ended up averaging 33 ppg that year is the only thing that makes your example an abberation.
Because our front played so poorly today, the stats that I cited become much more relevant. Of course, it has only been two games. So we will see if anything changes in the next couple weeks....
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Also...||
Also, we also sacked McCarron a few times, and Alabama also played their backups against us. So how are these stats relevant?
|2 years 31 weeks ago||Not Freaking Out||
I am not freaking out actually. I just thought that this was a very interesting and pertinent stat. I fully expected our defensive line to be the weakness of our team coming into the year. Although, I will admit that I am somewhat surprised that we gave up around three times the amount of rushing yards to Alabama that Western Kentucky did.
Also, your justification for why Alabama ran significantly worse against Western Kentucky is incoherent. You note that all of their backs averaged 4 yards a carry. Didn't they average around 6 yards a carry against us? This is Western Kentucky we are talking about... The other stats that you note don't change the fact that they only averaged 3.3 yards a carry when they ran the football, starters or not.