|07/14/2018 - 4:07pm||That rationale does to add…||
That rationale does to add up. Why would the promise of starting minutes be convincing only once they get him on campus? Do you think that they did not talk about starting time minutes before he got on campus? Of course they did.
Yet the guy went from 'not sure I will even visit to OSU' to OSU commit just after the visit.
Something happened during the visit that changed everything. And it makes no sense that the thing that happened during the visit was OSU telling him he would start as a freshman. 100 percent certain they had been telling him that since way before the visit
So...what is something that has the power to change a guy's mind that could only happen during a visit but really could not have happened before a visit? Hmmm...
|07/08/2018 - 1:55pm||O.k,, sounds interesting.
O.k,, sounds interesting.
But how do you control for teams that have better passing games in general being the teams that will make more 30+ yard pass attempts (precisely because they have the good QB, receivers, and pass blocking o-line, that makes them comparatively better than other teams at success on that type of play).
IOW, assume that the numbers show that teams that throw more 30+ yard passes in fact do measure out as having higher offensive efficiency.
Is that because they are attempting more 30+ yard passes? Or is that because they had the QB, receiver, o-line combo to make 30+ yard passes a good probability proposition in the first place (which then leads those teams to attempt more 30+ yard passes than average)?
For example, was Michigan's 2017 offense bad (in part) because they did not attempt enough 30+ yard passes?
Or was it bad because they had a problematic o-line, inexperienced receivers that were not good route runners, and questionable QBs (all of which lead the OC to rarely attempt 30+ yard pass plays)?
What is the causal element? Mediocre offensive players (at least mediocre for long passes)? Or the lack of 30+ yard pass attempts?
|07/07/2018 - 2:14pm||Does not matter whether…||
Does not matter whether McNamara moves up in the final recruiting rankings....
The Opening, Elite 11, etc. are just drills and 7 on 7 type stuff. A guy like McNamara can show above his ranking in that setting, yet still not deserve to move up because he does not have 5 star arm strength, size, etc.
The rankings are based in part on educated guesses about a guy's potential ceiling. Guys that performed slightly worse than McNamara at camp drills might still be thought to have higher ceilings if they have a more ideal size and also a stronger arm.
At any rate, being 10th rated QB plus performing above that 10th rating in camps, means he could end up being an incredible QB in college.
Plenty of college QBs have won Heismans or been Heisman finalists even though they were rated 10th or lower as recruits. And plenty of 5 star QB recruits have been merely adequate college QBs.
|07/05/2018 - 10:51pm||That last sentence is why he…||
That last sentence is why he should have chosen Michigan. Not saying he would have received special treatment, but he would have had a serious chance to be THE GUY from day 1.
The way he played out his final choice leading up to signing day could reasonably have been interpreted as trolling Michigan.
I can't say for sure that it was. But if a guy wanted to do a troll job then playing it out like Harris did would be the way to do it. All reports were that Harris told the Michigan staff he was blue, and then he just showed up in Tuscaloosa.
Doesn't matter. The RB position group at Michigan this year is not going to the the difference between 9-3 or 11-1. RB group is strong. The offensive line (really the OTs) and the two safety positions, plus whether Patterson can really run Harbaugh's (revamped?) offense, will determine whether it is 9-3 or Big Ten Champs.
|07/05/2018 - 10:28pm||On the one hand: Soooo many…||
On the one hand: Soooo many players contemplate transfers when they don't get the playing time they were hoping for in their first two years. Most end up sticking. A few transfer. It usually just remains a private rumination. In this case it went public.
On the other hand: Soooo many accurately predicted that if Harris chose Alabama his chance of being the feature back early were much slimmer than at Michigan. So.... Life is full of choices. Choose wisely.
|07/01/2018 - 10:59am||I think you are probably…||
I think you are probably correct.
The formula probably will he particularly inaccurate/unfair as a judge or coaches/teams that are regularly winning 11+ games per year because the expected win % is almost always going to be positive in the very few games those teams end up losing...
|07/01/2018 - 10:54am||Have to disagree with you.
Have to disagree with you.
First, most posters have been willing to criticize Harbaugh when deserved. Not many "Harbaugh can do no wrong" folks left around here.
Second, the metric does not merely "cast [Harbaugh] in a slightly negative light." It ranks him among the worst coaches in CFB.
So...a bunch of posters who have been willing to criticize JH when deserved are now criticizing Connelly when deserved.
|07/01/2018 - 10:45am||The metric is obviously…||
The metric is obviously flawed.
But given the way it is described (amount below expected win rate given a range of in-game metrics), Michigan 2017, and to a lesser extent 2016, is going to measure out as hugely under performing.
A team with a great D that gets lots of stops, 3-outs, etc., and puts the offense in lots of good field position situations, an extra offensive possession or two per game, etc., coupled with an offense that fails to score much off the way above average number of good situations, describes Michigan perfectly ever since the loss at Iowa in 2016.
IOW, if you have an offense that is bad and fails to score much off of all of the great situations your top 5 D generates, then your will win games at a rate way below the expected win rate given all of those great situations for your offense...and look really bad under the formula the metric uses.
On the eyeball test Michigan has been a huge under-performer since Iowa 2016. Much of that is down to QB problems in 2017. But we all saw plenty of terrible offensive game plans and situational play calling in 2017 too. Former issue is probably fixed with Patterson. Latter issue? We will see if the coaching staff changes fix it in September.
|06/29/2018 - 9:39pm||You thought posh = polish?
You thought posh = polish?
See, the new site IS harder to read.
|06/29/2018 - 9:13pm||Also...what happened to the…||
Also...what happened to the sign out and sign it thing. Gone. Oh well.
|06/29/2018 - 9:10pm||Threads are harder to follow…||
Threads are harder to follow/read. Therefore I spend less time at MGoBlog.
Still check out stuff with some frequency to see if there is anything important that happened (commits etc.).
Just spend less time sticking around and reading through all of the comments on the threads.
|06/29/2018 - 8:26am||Part of the formula for…||
Part of the formula for Harbaugh to get Michigan to be a serious playoff contender most years, does in fact require that he gets 3 stars that 'over-perform' their 247 (or whatever) ranking.
Why? Simply because until M is a serious playoff contender most years M won't have a luxury of easily getting most guys at the very top of their board (mostly 4 and 5 star guys) by selling past results and, therefore, easily pulling 4 and 5 stars (as Alabama and OSU now can).
So if Harbaugh has a really good eye for identifying which 3 stars are in fact better prospects than the other 3 stars.... He needs to be able to do that to meet the goal.
At the same time, the formula ALSO does really require landing a few guys that end up being All-American level players. You really do need some Gary, Peppers, Patterson type guys (plus a healthy number of 4 stars, plus some 3 stars that are really better than most other 3 stars) to seriously compete with OSU and Alabama.
|06/21/2018 - 12:07pm||Blue end zones caused this.||
Blue end zones caused this.
|06/19/2018 - 1:52pm||Not sure why he is getting…||
Not sure why he is getting down voted on the font issue.
So he does not like the font. Big deal.
What, is that like the greatest font ever known to man? Anyone who disfavors that font is automatically an idiot?
Geez. People are down for defending their favorite font today, I guess.
One thing...why doesn't the University just settle on one font and use it uniformly? Can't really think of any good reason to use several slightly different fonts.
|06/18/2018 - 5:32pm||The turf looks like a shag…||
The turf looks like a shag carpet from the 70s.
|06/13/2018 - 11:32pm||I guess the percent of OOS…||
I guess the percent of OOS students is high, but....
1. Undergrad acceptance rate for OOS applicants in much lower than for in-state applicants.
2. The fact that Michigan has so many graduate students really boosts the overall campus-wide percentage of OOS students (though the percent of even undergrad OOS students is not low).
|06/13/2018 - 9:26pm||Isn't the appropriation from…||
Isn't the appropriation from the state legislature substantially less than 10% of the the University's annual budget?
These days the 'public' elites actually get a really small portion of their annual budgets from their respective states.
|06/13/2018 - 3:34pm||Old version was better. Old…||
Old version was better. Old version was easier to read. The layout on version 3.0 is...not good at all.
I do admit that the old version did look very outdated and that an update was needed. But that is no excuse for fumbling the update.
On the upside, I am going to choose to be a believer on the promise that the new version will not crash in high traffic moments...
|06/11/2018 - 11:12pm||Not sure if this counts as a…||
Not sure if this counts as a bug, but the board threads are much harder to follow/read.
The layout rendering (spacing, lines, colorway, relative font sizes, relative size of reply button, etc.) makes the actual content of the comments sort of get lost on the screen.
The eye is drawn everywhere but the actual comment of a post to the lines, large up/down/reply buttons, italicized and blue colored date/time line. The all white background may have something to do with this also.
The threads render better and are somewhat easier to read on a phone than on the laptop version, but even there it is still not great.
One issue with the mobile version is that one has to scroll way down to get the the board.
|06/02/2018 - 9:17pm||If FSU||
has good QB play this year, they will absolutley win more than 5 games.
They had far worse QB problems last year than Michigan. In know, I know. That seems impossible. But it is true.
|06/01/2018 - 3:27pm||Hornibrook is better.||
|06/01/2018 - 1:12pm||Top in Big 10 in 2017 or in 2018?||
McSorley, Barrett (for that system he was very good), Hornibrook, and Nate Stanley were better. That would put Lewerke at 5th. And what about Clayton Thorson?
|05/30/2018 - 3:22pm||I was not blaming||
Just making the point that it is wrong to compare 2017 to the last two years of Hoke. The end of the Hoke tenure was far worse than 2017.
|05/30/2018 - 3:16pm||Rather than resign...||
a guy in Izzo's spot should take an NBA job. Sort of the Pete Carroll move when the facts came out at USC.
In the alternative, even if Izzo were sure that his days are numbered (and I doubt they are numbered, but if they were...), just deny and refuse to resign in order to negotiate a better exit package payoff.
But with Engler running the show, both Izzo and Dantonia are not going anywhere.
|05/30/2018 - 10:44am||Offensive holding||
by OL is no longer a rule in college football.
Except when it is called Michigan late in the 4th quarter in Columbus in 2016 to nullify a Michigan big gain for a 1st down that would have reduced OSU's win probability to 3%.
|05/30/2018 - 10:32am||Once again, I mostly...||
Except for the very last part where you say JH has to win this year.
I still think that even if 2018 ends 9-3, it is not curtains for Michigan or JH.
A program like Michigan or Penn State can go for long periods of underachievment and with just 1 or 2 years of special seasons, the whole thing becomes an elite program again. Penn State was down for a long, long time. But once they had that 1 special year, the recruiting went up to a much higher level. Did not matter than it took a decade for that one special year to arrive.
If Michigan wins the Big Ten this year, the chain will catch and the motor will spin up.
But the same thing would happen if Michigan has a special year in 2019, or in 2020... There is no magic time limit. If it does not happen in year 4, but does happen in year 6, once it happens the program gets supercharged. This only applies at places that have advantages (tradition, faculities, huge stadium, etc.) like Michigan, Penn State, USC...Texas...
Consider Texas. Long time of far worse underperformance than Michigan. But once they have that 1 special year (this year, 3 years from now, whenever), the chain catches and their recruiting gets supercharged and the whole thing moves back to an elite level.
In other words, Michigan doing the Lloyd Carr thing (9-3) for the next two years would not really prevent the program from having that special year thereafter, and then the consequent recruiting boost.
I do agree, however, that the way the roster lines up, 2018 is a really good opportunity for JH to have that special year that ends upn propelling Michigan to an elite level for years to come.
|05/29/2018 - 9:14pm||Well...||
in fact the situiation before Harbaugh was 5-7 and Hoke 'not fully aware.'
And Michigan could not even make it competive against Minnesota at home.
So...2016 was literally 1 inch from being 'the season.' 2017 was frustrating. But TBH (time before Harbaugh) was grim.
|05/29/2018 - 9:13pm||Double post...||
...I blame Verizon... Or Putin... Or something...
|05/29/2018 - 9:06pm||Well...||
in fact the situiation before Harbauch was 5-7 and Hoke 'not fully aware.'
And Michigan could not even make it competive against Minnesota at home.
So...2016 was literally 1 inch from being 'the season.' 2017 was frustrating. But TBH (time before Harbaugh) was grim.
|05/29/2018 - 8:45pm||I mostly agree, but...||
...just to take the other side, consider Penn State.
At one point it looked like the wheels were falling off. There was serious talk about Franklin being dismissed. His assistants were leaving for other schools (at Tennessee no less!).
And then he made an OC hire (which seemed crazy at the time becasue who hires their OC from Fordham?) that ended up being a perfect match for McSorely's skill set, and...suddenly 'Franklin is better than Harbaugh' hot takes are everywhere.
Point being... These things can turn around fast, and they can even turn around when people think the wheels have come off.
While winning the Big Ten this year would super-charge the Harbaugh era, even a 9-3 regular season this year will not mean that the Harbaugh era will never get to the top.
Took Mork a long time to get it together at MSU. Took Dabo a long time at Clemson. It is not always like Pete Carrol at USC.
|05/29/2018 - 5:46pm||On MSU....||
Why refuse to ever say that MSU is overrated in a pre-season poll?
Too much receny bias for my taste.
Sure they won about 5 more games than expected last year.
But the year before they were 3-9.
MSU winning the Big Ten in 2018 would be far more of a surprise/overachievment than what they did in 2017.
They will be solid (as they were in 2017), but they just do not have the top to bottom roster (or depth) to come close to the MSU teams that Dantonia got to the Big 10 CCG and/or the playoff.
MSU's D right now is just not even close to the better units they have fielded in the past. And the offense is decent but not reallly at all scarry.
|05/29/2018 - 5:36pm||Also,||
Lewerke was pretty good in 2017.
Not saying he is an outstanding college QB or that he is All Big Ten material. But he was pretty good for MSU in most games. In comparison in 2016 MSU had real problems at the QB position and they ended 3-9.
Just shows how good (even if not great) QB play is huge.
|05/29/2018 - 5:31pm||Not really.||
Did you already forget 3-9 in 2016?
And the reality is that 2018 MSU team is not really going to be near the level of the two or three best teams they have had since Dantoni arrived.
If they end the year in the top 10 it will be due to some some combo of their favorable schedule and lots of luck (which they had plenty of in 2017).
|05/29/2018 - 2:31pm||Hypothesis:||
Playing at MSU and at OSU is not much tougher thna playing them in Ann Arbor. Rivalry game factor (or whatever) results in less home field advantage than normal for OSU and MSU when Michigan plays them in Columbus and E.L. (Not counting officating, just the stadium atmosphere, etc.)
But playing Penn State at night on the road is a tough road game atmosphere, sort of like when Michigan goes to play at Iowa at night.
|05/22/2018 - 10:22pm||Just becasue the 2 point||
conversion did not work does not mean it was the wrong call.
It was the right call.
But the ref missed the totally obvious pass interference/trip of Desmond Howard. Can't blame Moeller for an unbelievably bad officiating screw job.
|05/21/2018 - 3:59pm||Jim Harbaugh||
JH will silence the doubters that have emerged (mostly in the national press and/or rival fan bases) with a great coaching performance that will deliver huge results this year.
JH will finally have the overall personnel (mostly) that he needs, a great QB room, an overall improved staff, and a maturing team with lots of returning starts.
|05/14/2018 - 1:53pm||Hmmm...||
How much SAT/ACT gender imbalance is there in the top 15% of the distribution?
Are you saying hat within the top 15% of SAT/ACT scores that the population is 75% female? That cannot be correct.
Top 30 universities are admitting very strong SAT/ACT and GPA applicants.
I am aware that many universities are looking to keep gender balance close to equal and, therefore, it can be slightly easier to get admitted for males. But only slightly.
As you have worked in admissions, did university counsel ever look into whether a gender preference violates with the Constitution?
Also, doesn't it depend on the program within the university? The gender imbalance in some units be predominantly male, right?
|05/04/2018 - 7:40am||Maybe Meyer noticed||
that Penn State's offense was more effective against Brown's Michigan D than OSU's offense because Penn State has a serious passing threat in addition to the running game (Barkely). So he wants to be able to pass as well as Penn State does with McSorley. Incorporate some of the kinds o things Penn State does on offense.
Remains to be sees, however, if McSorely's passing numbers will drop with the loss of Barkely.
|05/03/2018 - 2:32pm||Complex offense||
has plusses and minuses. True that if you a complex system it is tougher on a young roster. But the complexity we saw in 2016 in fact was simplified A LOT for the young 2016 group. The complexity issue was not the root problem last year. The root problems were staff dysfunction, youth, QB play.
I am open to the idea that a good part of the o-line problem in 2017 was due to a kind of 'complexity' in terms of terminology, trying to do both gap and man schemes, different coaches for interior vs. TE/OTs, etc.
But 'complexity' in terms of play calls, formations, pre-snap read and shifts, etc.--sorry but I am not convinced that was a major source of the problem in 2017.
And you still have not really answered my points. 1. The more 'complex' offense in 2016 was comparitively much better. 2. The most complex offensive game plan of 2017 (OSU game) was the best game plan of the year.
JH is not going to get OSU level talent (at least not every recruiting cycle) until he starts beating OSU/makes the playoff at least once. And until he can match OSU on talent, he is going to have to have an offense that can bridge a (hopefully not huge) talent gap by doing more with less. He is going to have to win the chess match against OSU's DC. Hard to do that with a simple play book.
Again, with a Patterson level QB in 2017, M's game plan against OSU wins by 10.
And OSU's sucess with a 'simple' offense? OSU has done it with superior talent. And even Meyer knows that his offense has to evolve and become more 'complex' (Wilson hire). In fact OSU's simple offense was held in check by M's D in both '16 and '17 games until late. Eventually too many 3 and outs by M's offense eventually lead to...we all know what happened.
As for Ole' Miss having a simple offense... Maybe. But they also had Patterson (and some pretty good receivers). I wonder if they would have been an even better offense with a bit of the 2016 Michigan offense 'complexity.'
|05/03/2018 - 12:05pm||But||
don't grad transfers usually win the job becasue they almost always intentionally pick a school that has weak comptition/talent at the QB position?
I mean that is why a program is looking for a grad transfer QB in the first place. And most grad transfer QB's (including Rudock) are looking for a 'likely to be the starter' situation.
Seems that the prior experience of grad transfers is a weaker cause than the lack of great QBs already on roster that explains why grad transfers usually end up winning the starting job.
|05/03/2018 - 11:56am||OSU game plan||
was by far the best offensive game plan of 2017.
JH and staff knew that asking O'Korn's to execute that game plan was asking him to perform as well as he did against Purdue.
O'Korn was inaccurate a lot and threw a terriible pick late. But it was still the best plan/best chance to beat OSU. Better than just asking O'Korn to do nothing and thinking that running all day was going to work.
|05/03/2018 - 11:46am||2016...||
Of course it was not an outstanding offense by S&P+ metrics. But 40+ ppg is still a Michigan record and lead the Big Ten.
And it was done with Speight as QB and a supporting cast that had no real super stars. That is why I said give me the 2016 offense with Patterson as QB. Put it this way: The 2016 'complex' offense, but with a Patterson level QB, makes the playoff fo sure. Narrow Iowa and OSU loses would have been 10+ point wins.
A simple offense is not the way for M to have a top 20 offense.
You really think JH will have a better offense this year is he goes back to the Lloyd Carr 8 plays in the playbook (at least actually used in games) approach? That is a great way to squander Patterson's talent.
True that the 40 ppg in 2016 had a big variance, with lots of points scored against average and bad opponents. 2016 offense was not great against Iowa and against OSU. But it is not the fault of 'complexity' that Speight was generally inaccurate and threw picks against Iowa, pick 6 against OSU, and fumbled at the 1 against OSU.
Again, complexity was not the among the main causes of the terrible 2017 offense.
|05/03/2018 - 10:09am||Hold on there||
It is not really a valid argument to observe two things happening at the same time and then conclude that one caused the other.
The 'play codes' were complex. The offense was bad.
You are really quick to conclude that the former was an substantial cause of the latter.
But based on...what?
Offense was really great at scoring in 2016. And the 'play codes' were just as complex as in 2017.
Moreover, there are plenty of schools using big cards with pictures on them that have bad offensive production.
|05/03/2018 - 9:57am||The argument against||
offensive "complexity" is being overblown by some in this thread.
The offense in 2016 (the year Michigan set a school record and lead the Big Ten in average per game scoring) was more complex in 2016 than in 2017.
2016 had a lot more pre-snap shifts, number of creative plays installed each week for specific opponents, greater variety of offensive sets and plays, etc., than we saw in 2017.
The idea that complexity on offense is inherently bad and/or cannot work in college is wrong. A more complex offense worked in 2016. The most complex offensive game plan of 2017--the OSU game--was also the best offensive game plan of the year.
The real problems in 2017 were coaching staff dysfunction, youth, and less than outstanding QB play that could not paper over the youth and staff dysfuncution problems.
To the extent that Warinner can somewhat simplify the blocking calls, terminology, and assignments, for the o-line, that is fine. Just having one person in charge of o-line coaching itself will make things easier to understand, install, and execute.
But if people want to see JH abandon the concept of a playbook that is complex enough to keep opposing Ds unable to guess what is coming, then you are solving the wrong problem.
I mean really, who would not want to see the 'complexity' of the 2016 offense, but with Patterson as QB? Bring me that.
|04/30/2018 - 7:09pm||I guess I just disagree||
to my eyes Patterson is very much in control of himself, not 'high-risk.'
Much more controlled and within himself in the way he plays than was Forcier.
It sells Patterson short to say he is just a better version of Forcier. He's better all right. But way more than just an upgraded Forcier.
|04/30/2018 - 2:30pm||Sure, of course he||
was a freshman. But that is not the only reason he did that stuff.
He started as a freshman because (1) he did in fact have huge talent and (2) RRod did not have an upperclass QB that could play in his offense.
And so, of course, Forcier made 'freshman mistakes.' But in was way beyond that. There is a reason that he washed out at San Jose State too.
He had great arm talent, pretty good accuracy, nice mobility. But both during and well beyond his freshman year he just did not have the head to get a whole lot out of his talent as a starting college QB.
|04/30/2018 - 2:25pm||Yeah,||
I agree that is what Brian meant.
My disagreement, however, is based on the idea that there is no real way to separate Forcier's on-field and off-field performance.
Same factors that caused the 'off-field' issues also really kept him from playing well 'on-field.' Can't relly separate the two.
And you say Forcier only threw 10 INTs. But his TD/INT ratio was 17/14. Not good at all. And that is not because Foricer lacked 'talent.' He was accurate and has a good arm. But he played QB sort of the same way he did life--erratic, not in control, not thinking fully through the consequenes.
And that is why I think it is unfair to classify Patterson as just a 5 star version of the high 4 star Forcier.
|04/30/2018 - 2:15pm||Forcier was a high||
four star, right? Top 150 recruit.
Maybe I did not make it clear. But I think the Patterson will be much better than Forcier. Just that the difference will be mostly down to being better at the mental side of life/the game.
Forcier had tons of talent, as does Patterson.
But Patterson has got the grey matter part more in order, so he can get the most out of his talent, where Forcier never did.
|04/30/2018 - 2:07pm||Of course it is a playing style||
But I don't agree that it was a good comparison.
If he had said "think Forcier's arm and accuracy, but with the right mental approach and decision-making" then I would buy it.
Forcier had lots of talent. Nice arm. Accurate. High 4 star. Top 150 HS recruit.
But he just did not have it together mentally to live up to his considerable talent as a college QB.
It was not lack of talent that held back Forcier. It was just his head was not in the right place to do what he had to do to (1) be a starting college QB or (2) stay eligible. I mean he washed out at San Jose State. And that did not happen becasue he lacked talent.
Not every talented player has it together mentally at 18 or 19 to really pull it off. Hope Forcier has that part of things figured out now.
|04/30/2018 - 1:55pm||Well...||
...here is why I reject the Forcier-Patterson comparison.
Forcier was a talented thrower, for sure. Nice arm. Good accuracy.
But he was not really great at the position because...the exact same mentality that got Forcier into academic trouble (etc.) is also the thing that really hurt his play on the field.
People on the board are wrongly creating a dichotomy between Forcier as QB and Forcier the guy with 'off field issues.'
No. They cannot be separated.
Both Forcier's off field issues and his QB play (17 TD/14 INT ratio) were a result of the same thing--his mental makeup. He approached life the same way he approached playing QB. Cannot separate the two. One in the same.
Patterson is an entirely different kind of QB. Much more in control and a much better decision maker. Patterson (at least I think) has a very different mental approach to life (and, therefore, to the game) than Forcier.