You've spelled "whither" wrong two times in one day now. It's whither.

that Thomas Gordon's UM career is withering.

Sometimes brian confuses me.  When talking about what borges can do about creating downfield passing for denard he argues that borges should construct the passing to create people downfield who are “witheringly wide-open”… moments after saying that denard missing a witheringly wide-open roundtree downfield is just because “denard doesn’t have that in the wheelhouse.”

?

Next year vs BAMA is probably going to be our most mismatched non-conference game ever....it will be on the same level of UM v FSU or it will look like UM v Oregon in 2007 (that wasn't a mismatch as much as it was a Lloyd Carr hangover after a loss to App St. with a team that could have competed for an NC). It looks like Bama is obviously showing no signs of slowing down next year whether they lose Richardson or not (their backup looks good too), and they have absolutely dominant lines while we are going to lose our 2 best DL's, our midseason All-American Center, and returning a pretty non-physical O-line. Our only hope in being legiteamently competetive in the Bama game is if we add a good amount of weight and muslce mass to our Offensive and defensive fronts, and if our defese sees even more improvement from last year (which it very well may). I'm just scared Denard is going to get knocked out for a good portion of the season in the first game because Bama has a great chance of making his day absolutely miserable. I'm legitamently worried we will not get a single offensive yard, but hopefully I am setting myself up to be somewhat pleased with our competitiveness.

As for everything else...Brian, you complain too much and you bring down the entire fan base. It is constant complaining like this that infuriates a fan base to make us fire our coaches, and sure as hell don't want to be the next Notre Dame. Give us some more positive media and talk about how this is the same group of guys that luckily went 7-6 last year, and our defense is the same one that gave up about 500 yards a game. We are a much improved team, and honestly our offense last year against good defensive talent wasn't much better last year. We tended to score a lot of our points in the 4th quarter when we were forced to come back. And we absolutley sucked the last 3 years inside the 20's and we could not create turnovers. Say some positive things such as "we still have Denard, and our staff is smart and is going to realize that running him as a dropback passer most of the game, and throwing his rhythm off by putting DG in is a problem that doesn't go to Denard's Strengths" or " our defense leaves us in position to win every game in the B1G schedule". Look at our recruiting...we have a lot to look forward to. Don't start complaining constantly about our new coach just yet. Brady Hoke has every reason to be the coach at Michigan right now.

Yes I know that we have our hands full the next few weeks with these defenses...but have some positive things to say so that our fan base isn't calling for Hoke's head 9 games into his tenure. I know you might be right on many of your points, but be positive about a team with a first year coach that has definitely exceeded most expectations.....also remember that we are without Darryl Stonum this year.

It's so awkward to listen to Brian talk about Denard when he's offered the chance to say anything remotely critical. He doesn't seem capable of doing it. If you are excusing not hitting a receiver who's open downfield by literally 10-15 yards because that pass is "not in his wheelhouse," it kind of contradicts your position that he is this huge star.

Also interesting that Brian cited the pre-desperation yardage in this game yet last year against Wisconsin (a game with a far worse deficit), he told us all to shut up because yards were yards.

It's like every post complains about something different!

Michigan Fans: Incoherent Arguments are what we do.

And everyone needs to relax. Borges called a few terrible games, and Brady better pop that headset on and let Denard take over with his legs. That will open up some of the easy passes Denard can make. Illinois had a bye week, could be tough, want to see Countess matched up with Jenkins everywhere on the field rather than letting them choose what side of the field to put their #1 WR on. Michigan and Nebraska match up pretty evenly, although we don't have anyone comparable to Burkhead. If offense is efficient and D can force a turnover, we get the W. Ohio has a great defense that will totally shut down our offense. They are strongest on the DL and weakest in the secondary, Denard please learn how to throw, especially on the run. Their offense is coming together. Can't let Braxton or Boom get big gains. Have to get pressure to affect throws and play solid in the defensive backfield.

9-3 Outback or Capital One......10-3

     I get the whole loyalty to Rodriguez thing, but when you look at the overwhelming negativity of Brian's comments, you have to wonder if maybe he doesn't actively WANT Michigan to become Notre Dame. 

      It started with him getting info that Hoke had the inside track at the job, and developed with Brian doing everything he could to undermine the hire, and now to fracture the fan base.

     The unfortunate thing for Brian is, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.  Someone help me out with this--what defense with a pulse did Denard have success against under Rodriguez?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?

     And if you want to talk about the team as a whole...The point differential 2011-2010 is up to 120 pts.  The imrovement of the defense in particular has been nothing short of miraculous.

     Add in a recruiting class that may finish as the top in the nation, and Hoke's shocking ability to NOT embarrass the program in a new and exciting way every week, and it becomes a little more obvious what Brian is trying to do.

     My only question is...why?

Let's see, Iowa's last play was Coker rushing left ofr -1 yard on 3rd and one.  The play clock is what, 40 seconds?  And our last four shot at the endzone took place with 16 seconds. We got the ball back with 2:22 left. Take another 40 seconds off that, and we run out of time at Iowa's 32.

Edit:  Apparently Hoke called it for a different reason, but the logic still stands, even if he didn't use it. But I can see where the idea that it was a problem came from.

Sorry to be a stickler, but I hope this adds to the thinking.

On the decision when to go for 2 when you need 15 points:  Brian is not making a game theory argument.  The argument that you want to go for 2 first b/c it maximizes information is made without reference to an opponent's reaction function.  This argument is then the province of dynamic optimization.

The argument that more information is better in this case is incomplete in two ways.  It would be fine, if for instance, the decision does not affect subsequent probabilities and reactions, but one can argue it does.

1.  The argument is incomplete because it seems to rely on the unstated assumption that the probability of making a 2 point attempt is the same if made early or late.  It also seems to assume that the probability of making the second touchdown is indepenedent of what happens on the extra point.  One could argue that by getting the game down to a one-score game could demoralize  the opponent and makes the 2nd touchdown and 2-point conversion subsequently more likely due to momentum or whatever.  The informational advantage to the team behind might not be great b/c if it misses, the rest is irrelevant b/c they're too disappointed.  Now, I actually am skeptical of "mometum" and easy psych arguments, but it still needs to be addressed to complete the argument.  This could be addressed one way or the other empirically.

2.  It's actually more obvious that the original argument isn't part of game theory b/c it ignores a possibly important element.  Yes, by going for 2, a team increases its information.  But, it simultaneously gives the opponent information too.  And, b/c this is a zero-sum game, the relevant question is which informational advantage is greater?  Yeah, maybe you think the leader is going to run three times and punt regardless, so his additional information is not valuable, but once again, the simple argument needs to be developed.