March 17th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^

I also saw the mistake. It must be a conspiracy because they have UM's ex O staff. Or bad editing with the cut and paste.

Denard Robinson is one of the nation's most explosive players, but can he adapt to a pro-style attack?

Coach: Brady Hoke
Last season: 7-6 overall, 3-5 in Big Ten. Lost 52-14 to Mississippi State in Gator Bowl.
Spring dates: March 19-April 16.

(minimum seven starts last season)

Offense (9): WR Junior Hemingway, TE Kevin Koger, T Taylor Lewan, C David Molk, G Patrick Omameh, QB Denard Robinson, WR Roy Roundtree, TB Vincent Smith, WR Darryl Stonum.
Defense (7): LB Kenny Demens, CB J.T. Floyd, LB Cameron Gordon, SS Jordan Kovacs, NT Mike Martin, E/LB Craig Roh, T/E Ryan Van Bergen.
Special teams (1): P Will Hagerup.



March 17th, 2011 at 9:25 AM ^

Didn't really tell us much more than what we already knew, but a decent read nonetheless. I don't really think the pressure is on Koger, but he will definitely get the ball more, which excites me. Koger is a playmaker and I think if he has a good season, he has the size and ability to be a very good TE, even at the next level.


March 17th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^

Nothing new, but nice to start talking about football.  I agree that Koger is in line to have a big season.  He is a big, athletic TE, and in this new scheme, he has the potential to really make an impact.  Also, for a QB like Denard - who might still be finding his way with the increased amount throwing and learning a new offense - a reliable TE can be his best friend on the field. 

Looking at some of the roster that Dienhart mentions, we really do have a ton of returning talent on offense.  Once Denard adapts to the new scheme, we should be really solid.  I can't imagine that there is a secondary in the country that can adequately cover Stonum, Junior,  and Roundtree (throw in the speedy Grady and the reliable Tay, as well).  If we can just find a RB to emerge as a solid producer, we will be nasty on offense.


March 17th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^

No offense to the OP (as all Michigan Football news is good news to some degree), but I thought that was a typically useless Dienhart article.  All he generally does is regurgitate what's in the college football air.  Tom, please tell me something I don't know.

I thought the only interesting part was the "3 guys to watch" section.

Section 1

March 17th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^

The placement of a Pitt logo might have been the least of the sins.

Dienhart writes this boneheaded, inaccurate drivel:

"Poor on-field play may not have been Rodriguez's biggest sin. Rather, that he got this proud program put on probation (for violating NCAA practice limits) for the first time ever is Rodriguez's most dubious distinction."

Such a statment is what might be expected from any halfassed, ill-informed ignoramus.  Like Tom Dienhart.  The kernel of truth, lurking in bottom of Dienhart's dung-heap of drivel is that a great many stupid people thought, and still think, the same way the Dienhart does.  That Rodriguez's greatest sin was somehow tarnishing Michigan's respectability.  It may even be, that David Brandon had felt that the whole atmosphere, influenced to some degree by Michigan's NCAA investigation and poisonous media, had become just too toxic for Rodriguez to continue.

But the underlying assertion (that Rodriguez ... "got this proud program put on probation...") was all nonsense, as any intelligent and well-informed follower of Michigan football knows.  Personalizing Michigan's NCAA investigation and sanctions as to Rich Rodriguez is, in plain English, a lie.

Section 1

March 17th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^

how easy it would have been, to write about Brady Hoke and the 2011 Wolverines, without mentioning Rich Rodriguez at all.  Or at least, leaving out the rank provocation that is the paragraph that I highlighted.

"Get over it?"  Tell it to Tom Dienhart.


March 17th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^

It would have been extremely easy to do that, but when you're trying to get page hits and R-Rod is still a highly searched name, well, why not mention it? It just seems that you'll never see an absolutely clean break, and for the next several years, anything right or wrong with the Rodriguez era will appear in articles about this program, even if their relevance is questionable. It sells advertising. 

Section 1

March 17th, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^

My "cause" could never be the retention or firing of Coach Rodriguez.  I never had that power.  Not even close.  My only "cause," such as it is, is discrediting Michael Rosenberg and the Free Press.  There's been at least some modest success on that front.

I'm counting you as being in agreement; per your statement that you recognize that the press had been "unfair."


March 17th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^

Anything that is written that is postive about Michigan helps the program.  His superficial POV on RR is typical of someone fairly short-sighted, but most of the media has done that all along.

I just wish writers would stop thinking they have to shit on RR to praise Hoke.  The more they write about the current coach and the less they write about the previous coach, the better off the program will be.  I know writers don't care about their effects on a program, but at least they could stay relevant.  

I just hope Hoke is as good of a leader as he appears to be.  If he is, and he delegates right, the rest will take care of itself.  


March 17th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^

Besides Demens, the guys who will be logging a lot of the time at LB will be involved in a major scrum throughout spring ball and fall camp.  Should be highly competitive.  Jones was a guy I forgot about.  Another contributor out of commission.

Rodriguez' defenses stunk, but he also couldn't catch a break on the injury front.