Brian over at MGoBlog wrote a post that bugged me a bit...
I am hoping Brian responds directly to this much like he did to Maze and Brew. This will surely cost Magnus his MGoBlog preferred parking spot.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
I've got a preferred parking spot? Why didn't anyone tell me?!?!?!
March 25th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
Now that you know about it I guess I'm gonna have to stop using it. It's not like they were ticketing me, so I figured it was cool.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^
Becasue nobody wants to see this thing parked in front.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
Keep that jalopy of yours parked across the street.
There may not be a better term for a crappy car than "jalopy". Srsly.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
Does this mean I can have Magnus's spot? I've been good lately.
Magnus, you advertizing genius...
I'm gonna park on top of your car for that Jeep Wrangler comment.
(not my jeep, mines in the avatar)
But I do like your new signature line
What is this comment must be approved bullshit? That's weaksauce, at least on this blog you can write whatever you want, you'll pay the price, but you can do it. Seems like your trying to control what people say and what gets posted, where's my right to FREE SPEECH dammit!
Consider it my banhammer. Personal attacks aren't allowed. Honest criticism will get approved every time.
I thought all those points got you Jessica Alba rights!?! I've been earning all these points for a shorter walk??
March 25th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
I do not think this will cost him much of anything.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
I feel dirty when I agree with Magus. I might have to go home at lunch to take a shower.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
I agree with this so hard.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
Magnus, if you're going to lead an exodus away from MGoBlog, you've really got to get rid of that black background. It hurts my eyes.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:51 AM ^
I have no fantastical delusions that I'm leading an exodus from MGoBlog.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
For the love of all things beautiful, change that damn background. I don't know, make it the "Attractive Michigan girl of the week" picture, or even a damn brick wall, just not that eye-killing black hole. Please. For me.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
None the less the black background does suck.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:16 AM ^
Dually noted.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
I love black backgrounds...Its called contrast.
dark background with light text = instafail techcomm classes.
Someone else is familiar with the mystical world of Tech. Comm?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
Well played.
You're saying his background is a black hole?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
I like the black background and I like how you pick a RB and argue with everyone else that he should start.
In my dream world - UM has a great season and Vincent Smith and Magnus hug it out.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
I would be glad to hug it out with Vincent Smith. I just don't want him to be the starting running back. He can play on third downs, though.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
Actually, I think he could be special as a third down back. He seems to have good hands and he is so small that he could sneak out of the backfield and into the flat/wheel route. He is ideally suited for that and Borges probably knows that too.
I want to hear more about your affinity for Mike " I don't know left from right" Cox.
Or would he rather see Hoke fail and hug it out with himself?
Though "hug it out with myself" has ominous connotations....if you know what I mean....
March 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
I'd love to read this but I have other, more pressing threads that require my attention:
- Football Myths
- Vinopal didn't leave because of family issues
- Section 1 = Most pompous, arrogant member?
- Ralph Nader wants to get rid of athletic scholarships
And those are just on PAGE 1.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
What's up with people calling out other people today?
March 25th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
Actually, it's Football Myth's.
Huh? The plural is myths, as written.
See Football Myth's thread.
Got it, sorry. I just read through that lovely post.
Man, the RR crowd is up in arms these days.
even remotely RR topics to mollify animosity.
Jack Sharp?
March 25th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
out on Hoke a little bit, which he shouldn't do. His frustration seems to be born from the hypocracy of the administrators, media, and fans surrounding Hoke, not Hoke himself.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
Seems to be repeating all the reflexively negative behavior he eplored in the MSM during the RR era. I was a pro-RR guy, but last year we embarassed a lot of bad teams and were equally embarassed by the good ones. Our offense did squat against our best opponents, and the things that did seem to work early in the season, like having Denard take a step and then rifle a quick pass, were not part of our gameplan late in the year. It was frustrating and made no sense.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
What bothers me a little about Brian's posts about Hoke's offense is it seems like he hasn't made a lot of effort to actually watch/break down what SDSU did offensively. He constantly cites his concern about Denard being under center, without seeming to understand or acknowledge that SDSU often operated out of the gun last season. His "analysis" seems to be based more on soundbites than actual film review. That's pretty lazy on his part.
Not only that, but the quotes that he takes specifically allude to the fact that we are going to do more than just power running. The quote that started the MANBALL meme specifically says he doesn't want to solely run zone plays because it doesn't prepare the defense for power plays. That implies that he wants to run a lot of different offensive looks to prepare the defense for what it will see on the field, including zone blocking. I try telling Brian this and his response is that teams either zone block or don't, which isn't necessarily true.
This quote says we are going to work on the power run game, then move on to other things. How does that in any way imply that we will be running under center for an entire game? It doesn't. It actually states the exact opposite, which is the part that frustrates me the most about all of this.
But he's right you either Zone Block or you don't. You can't Zone Block and NOT Zone Block. Now, if he means you either run a Zone Blocking scheme 100% of the time or not, he's completely wrong. That wasn't true under Rich or Lloyd.
And lack of football analysis was due to site repairs. But it's been months and the site infrastructure is still a shell of what it used to be. Maybe waiting till after spring ball, but I do wonder what all has been getting done the last few months. Other than the pouting.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
That's most of it, no doubt. But, if we're being honest with ourselves, we have to be at least a little worried that the offensive transition is going to have a negative impact on what is an extremely important season. The 2012 schedule is absolutely brutal, and unless we're up to the level of dominating michigan teams of the past, it's hard to see doing any better than 8-4, and even that might be a stretch. Brian's frustration is that we have the talent to win 9-10 games next season, and if we don't due to a desire to return to manball, it might be a 2-3 more years before a season up to Michigan's expectations is even a possibility again. And guess what, that makes us Notre Dame, returning to glory since 2006...
March 25th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
I spelled hypocrisy wrong, and for that I am sorry.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
That was . . . random.
Anyone else notice an epidemic of people on this site spelling hypocrisy as hipocracy?
do no harm?
March 25th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
What the fuck is going on here? Is it bring your kid to work week and everyone is letting their kids post for them on the mgoboard?
My solution is to pee in some butts