|02/16/2018 - 12:47pm||Space Coyote shining a light||
Space Coyote shining a light into the 'Void of Despair' to add some balanced analysis that provides some actual context for the current program narratives?
|02/16/2018 - 12:42pm||Isn't that exactly what happened, though?||
Then the narrative around here became "the offense is too simple/predictable, where's the innovation and misdirection from 2016??? The offense is stale! Burn it to the ground!"
Seems pretty obvious that being forced to play backup quarterbacks and true freshmen wide receivers (and DPJ, as talented as he is, needed a lot of polish) severely limited the playbook this past season.
|09/21/2017 - 10:00pm||I had forgotten about that||
I had forgotten about that game. Now I remember why, and will promptly set about forgetting it again. Those early games that season set the stage for the bench Ruddddock crowd until the light eventually came on.
|09/16/2017 - 4:44pm||Those young weapons don't||
Those young weapons don't seem to be creating much separation, though, and have already dropped a number of passes. It really is on the entire offense--all position groups have been underwhelming. Isaac is the lone bright spot, with flashes from Black.
|09/04/2017 - 10:47pm||"Seems to wilt late in close games"||
2015 Minnesota (game-winning TD drive), 2016 Wisconsin (game-winning TD pass midway through the 4th quarter), 2016 OSU overtime (game-saving TD pass), and heck even the FSU game (though Evans of course notched the go-ahead TD) strongly disagree. Speight has led the team to a late game-tying or game-winning TD in almost 25% of his starts.
Speight's problems have been well-documented, but wilting late in games has not been one of them and is an unfair criticism.
The lack of consistent playmakers is very valid, however. Whenever the team needed a big play from Darboh or whoever last year, it was not to be.
|08/09/2017 - 7:45pm||What this whole debate really||
What this whole debate really boils down is your perspective on how much of Speight's 2016 performance in the Iowa, OSU and FSU games can be attributed to: (1) being a first year starter; (2) a shoulder injury; (3) offensive line and run game issues; and (4) inaccuracy against good opponents. And, given that perspective, your thought on how much Speight can improve with another year of coaching.
And everyone seems to have a slightly different view of where all of that intersects. Which is why we can all debate it to no end. Which is good, because what else is there to do in the offseason?
|08/09/2017 - 7:37pm||Speight's throwing motion||
Speight's throwing motion seemed visibly affected in the OSU game. Throwing deep passes with a broken collarbone or whatever it was is not something most of us would be keen to attempt. Couple that with the complete lack of production from the run game and OSU's defensive line, and it's actually quite easy to understand why Michigan didn't attempt it.
|08/06/2017 - 11:50pm||If not for the refs gifting||
If not for the refs gifting OSU that first down or the Michigan defense stopping that play inches shorter than they did (depending on your view), Speight's touchdown pass on 4th down in OT of the OSU game is Michigan lore.
|05/24/2017 - 1:38pm||Holy apples and oranges||
Holy apples and oranges argument, Batman. You're comparing a composite Top-10 national player to a generic 3-star running back recruit, neither of whom have played a single snap of football at the college level. The question at hand refers to two 5-star recruits, both of whom have played meaningful (if limited) snaps as freshman and therefore we can have more informed opinions about their respective talent levels.
|11/01/2015 - 9:14am||You are imputing something to||
You are imputing something to WD he did not argue. The OP reads more like an FYI. It's other posters who are questioning the decision, not WD.
|11/01/2015 - 8:38am||Kid is a redshirt freshmen||
Kid is a redshirt freshmen who has played fewer than 12 games in his career and is doing, well, THAT.
|11/01/2015 - 1:51am||Obviously, the defense was||
Obviously, the defense was underwhelming. There were a number of 'almost' plays that 'should have been' plays, but the players still need to make those. Cause for pause.
But make no mistake, the players and Harbaugh value the Little Brown Jug, no matter how automatic thegame has seemed in the past.
The Hoke-inflicted PTSD, as you put it, is exactly why winning this game should feel so good. These are the types of demons Michigan needs to exorcise.
|11/01/2015 - 12:32am||This type of attitude after||
This type of attitude after the last decade of Michigan football is baffling. The team just won a rivalry game on the road at night against an emotionally charged opponent who soundly beat Michigan last year. There's nothing "expected" about a win like that.
|11/01/2015 - 12:23am||Speight completed 3 of 6||
Speight completed 3 of 6 passes for 29 yards and 1 (sweet, glorious) TD and engineered 3 drives that spanned about 40 yards total. And you're ready to abandon both a player who had Michigan positioned to beat MSU and Harbaugh's judgment over the course of several months of practice and play. Ok.
Nobody really argues that Rudock is a good QB, and yes, he leaves points on the table. But there's still a reason he's playing.
|10/16/2014 - 9:41pm||In which case it takes our||
In which case it takes our esteemed Athletic Department nearly 3 full days just to acknowledge the elephant-in-the-room word (concussion)? Or it takes the Athletic Department "all day" on Monday to draft a multi-paragraph statement that should have been issued no later than Sunday? Was Shane Morris not evaluated for a concussion in the midst of the media snowstorm after the game? If not, why the heck not? If he was, why was Hoke clueless the following day?
The whole episode was an incomprehensible failure to handle a hot-topic media issue.
|09/18/2014 - 12:32am||Well, sure||
If you consider the traditional stance against doing radio interviews during games. But it should theoretically be possible with the right equipment and headset.
Hey, speaking of headsets, have you heard this thing about Michigan's head coach? There's a rumor going around, I guess...
|09/07/2014 - 2:24pm||Perspective||
Come on, RR obviously wasn't successful at Michigan, but those WVU teams beat good Georgia and Oklahoma teams. And the Big East was much more competitive at that time. And being .500 in the Pac-12 (generally considered the #2 conference) at Arizona of all places is no small feat. And oh, by the way, that Arizona team you're belittling has beaten USC and Oregon the past two years. Which is more impressive than anything Michigan has done in that span.
Let's just focus on fixing our beloved Wolverines. If that's Harbaugh, ok. If that's someone else, ok.
|07/16/2014 - 11:00pm||Goodness||
So much hate for an optional, free night out with the family (or other guests of choosing) on the field of Michigan Stadium.
|02/27/2014 - 11:30pm||The 100-Yard War: Inside the||
The 100-Yard War: Inside the 100-Year-Old Michigan-Ohio State Rivalry (Greg Emmanuel). It was actually required reading for an introductory sports class during my time at Michigan. Quick read, entertaining enough.
|02/23/2014 - 1:11pm||5/10, 14 points, 3 assists, 1||
5/10, 14 points, 3 assists, 1 steal, 0 TO. And you're complaining about people who are excited about this. This board sometimes....
|01/24/2014 - 5:57pm||Not a single person was||
Not a single person was actually making this argument, including the OP who knowingly posted a satirical article.
Time to let it go.
|01/09/2014 - 2:20am||And this line of reasoning||
And this line of reasoning has been duly noted. Thank you. But this particular discussion relates to the strength and conditioning program and that coach's ability to physically develop players. In that context, it's not exactly controversial--or it shouldn't be--to say that younger players are not are strong as older players. You can't turn a freshmen into a senior overnight, no matter who you are.
Now, whether the position/OC/head coaches maximize the available talent and skills on the field? Different question entirely.
|12/01/2013 - 2:30am||Far, far less than 100%?||
Imagine this: You are a young but talented employee at a busines of whatever character you choose. Being young, you are inexperienced and not well schooled on the traits that breed long-term sucess at a high, consistent level. Being talented, you are capable of that same success and show the occasional flash of brilliance that justified your initial employment.
You may not have personally witnessed this, but if not you will.
|09/02/2013 - 10:26pm||Well, Denard turned the ball||
Well, Denard turned the ball over at will against ND last year. At ND. At night. And Michigan still lost by only one score. So there's that.
I think you have some valid concerns about the 2 INTs, but you're going a little far here with the now-or-never angle. It's not like the team has a lot of other options at QB.
|08/30/2013 - 11:43pm||For what it's worth, I did||
For what it's worth, I did get group tickets, was not part of some remarkable group of rich alumni offspring, and scored Row A (front row) tickets my sophomore year. Sometimes you're just lucky.
A year later we managed Row 25 with the same group. And you know what? Those seats were better. A lot of people do not realize just how little you can see from the field.
|07/28/2013 - 10:54pm||So, to recap: You||
So, to recap: You can:
If you argue, you can be ejected. Period. You are whining because you didn't like the call. And maybe it was a bad call. But it's ultimately the player's fault for allowing it to happen. Arguing calls mid at-bat is never wise.
Bottom line: There will always be a gray area for interpretation. Players have to deal with it and fans do, too.
|07/20/2013 - 8:25pm||No cleats?||
Honestly, think this through. Do you know how many more serious ankle injuries there would be if not for cleats? Imagine trying to plant and block in the rain or snow without them (or doing a hundred other things). Good luck. And to my knowledge there's no evidence linking cleats to concussions anyway.
And as another poster astutely observed, the rest of your proposed "rule changes" basically gut the game and leave you with flag football. A hit can't cause an incompletion? How do you even enforce that? Who's to say whether the ball would have been caught or dropped? An interval between a catch and permitted tackling? Throw the ball to the sticks and let receivers gain automatic first downs because the defense is standing there stupid. That's not exciting; it's immensely frustrating. Nor can I remember a player sustaining a head injury while scrambling for a fumble.
Lastly, making helmets smaller is not at all an intuitive solution. It might make players less likely to lead with their heads--I don't know--but it could also increase the chance of a head injury for inadvertent collisions--which are going to happen no matter what.
|06/30/2013 - 12:50pm||Because--and this may be||
Because--and this may be shocking to you--the coaches sometimes know in advance where recruits are going to commit. It's not exactly a coincidence that everyone recently predicted Scott to Clemson. Don't you think, just maybe, the coaches know something to which we are not 100% privy?
|03/11/2013 - 12:43am||Your negative Nancy shtick is||
Your negative Nancy shtick is truly getting old. Kindly refer to your previous post and point out, oh where, it refers only to last-minute victories against GOOD teams. It's not even a defensible retort really, since you're the one who brought up this year's PSU basketball game, and I highly doubt you would tout them as a "quality" team. Viva revisionist arguments, I guess.
|02/13/2013 - 11:54pm||Protip: You are devaluing||
Protip: You are devaluing the word "epic." Data sugests there is virtually no advantage to fouling in that situation (as discussed ad nauseum earlier). Hardly epic. Falling behind big in the first half to talented teams on their court? Happens all the time, even to good teams. Not epic. Making a huge comeback only to lose steam after finally pulling even (Indiana, OSU)? Also not uncommon. And not epic.
|01/01/2013 - 9:05pm||"It's not good playcalling if||
"It's not good playcalling if your players aren't capable of executing the scheme."
So, just because a play doesn't work (you know, that one time) means that the players are incapable of running it? It must be a joy to watch games with you.
Michigan's defense overachieved relative to personnel this year: there was no consistent pass rush from the front four, the safeties were solid but unspectacular, and Michigan fans everywhere were praying for just basic competence out of the DTs. Not to mention the absence of Countess, the team's best cornerback, practically from the season's first snap.
And here you are claiming that Mattison put the players in a position to fail. Fascinating.
|11/19/2012 - 11:20pm||Ok, when did we all become a||
Ok, when did we all become a bunch of whiny ninnies?
|11/17/2012 - 2:48pm||Your approach is terrible and||
Your approach is terrible and not even reasonable. Denard Robinson is not Tom Brady. Nobody disputes this. Denard Robinson is not a good pure passing quarterback. Nobody disputes this.
But Roy Roundtree did just fine in 2010 (72 receptions) with Denard at the helm. So you need something other than "Roy Roundtree is catching more passes" to back up your argument.
And if you anticipate "butthurt" and feel the need to drop that gif, well, there's probably no help for you.
|11/10/2012 - 11:58pm||Not saying you're||
Not saying you're automatically wrong, but you're making a huge assumption that someone is a diehard just because they are on a waiting list. Example: I might join a class waitlist because it fits my schedule better or any number of reasons that may have nothing to do with my educational interests.
Remember, many of the same alumni who are frequently chastised for not being louder were once on a wait list, too.
And, now that I think of it, how are you even defining "die hard"? Is it sometime who shows up on time? Is there a requisite amount of cheering that must be done? If you wear something other than maize or blue to a late November game, are you disqualified? (I'm posting on a Michigan blog at 10:30 on a Saturday night. So you know where I'm at.)
[EDIT: This should be in response to Blazefire. That's what I get as a frequent reader but infrequent contributor]
|11/10/2012 - 11:56pm||The content of your post is||
The content of your post is hilariously in contrast to your "tradition" avatar. Just an fyi.
|11/10/2012 - 11:24pm||An obligation? No. Just no.||
An obligation? No. Just no. I would love to believe in a world where only the most dedicated, fanatical fans get tickets, attend the games, and cheer appropriately loudly. But tradition does not equate to an obligation. Not even close. At least, not in the way you mean.
|11/10/2012 - 11:13pm||I do not buy this. As others||
I do not buy this. As others have mentioned, this is a fairly recent development. Yes, there will always be latecomers. But the blatantly empty swathes of bleachers are an unwelcome and relatively new phenomenon, in my opinion.
As a freshman in 2003, I remember having ample company in the student section. In Row 92. And not just for the Ohio State game.
|10/30/2012 - 11:31pm||And now...||
I'm afraid we've swung too much in the other direction. Let's be objectively honest: It's not unreasonable to expect any quarterback, even a redshirt freshman with more than a year in the system, to throw fewer than 3 interceptions, complete more than 3 out of 16 passes, or average more than 2.4 yards per pass. In one half.
Look, nobody should personally attack any player for any reason. But to suggest that Bellomy's performance (emphasis on performance) was anthing other than terrible is, quite simply, untrue. Yes, it was at Nebraska. Yes, there were lights and much drunken debauchery in the stands. Yes, Denard, of dilithium, was unexpectedly hurt. But Nebraska isn't the '85 Bears (or insert your preferred impenetrable NFL defense)
It's ok to expect a modicum of mediocrity even under the circumstances. It just didn't happen. That doesn't mean hope is lost for Bellomy's future, and it doesn't mean that he was put in the absolute best position to succeed on Saturday.
He played poorly, and I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it. But in any event, I'm glad that Taylor Lewan is standing up for him. That's leadership.
|10/28/2012 - 9:47am||Ah, the||
Ah, the you're-so-old-and-still-live-with-your-parents quip. Very creative, you are.
|10/27/2012 - 11:30pm||Yeah, and let's blame them||
Yeah, and let's blame them for that drive that started around the Michigan 5 yard line because of Belomy INT #1 or 2 (I honestly cant remember). How dare Nebraska get a field goal there!
|10/08/2012 - 8:28am||This sort of logic rarely||
This sort of logic rarely translates well to college football. Not saying it's impossible, but extrapolating from one team's output in one half is unreliable. Even if it's Indiana.
|09/03/2012 - 8:25am||You shouldn't put your||
You shouldn't put your starting CB as a gunner when you lack proven depth at the position. There's no upside. At best, Countess is going to be, what, marginally better than another scholarship player on punt coverage?
Most people here aren't questioning the practice of putting starters on ST generally, but Countess is a key defensive player at a position of need. Hoke is not above reproach simply because he led the team to a Sugar Bowl victory. This just seems like a common-sense thing to avoid.
|09/02/2012 - 7:53am||It's Denard's running ability||
It's Denard's running ability that gets those receivers open in the first place. That's the trade-off with Denard. His running ability opens passing lanes that sometimes he can't take advantage of. Which is exactly what happened last night.
Denard had a bad game against one of the best defenses in the country. He won't be the first or the last. Heck, it'll be interesting to see how many teams score two touchdowns against Alabama's defense this year.
But after the last two years, and OSU last year, people are seriously calling for the backup? Holy hell.
|06/22/2012 - 1:07am||Who is to say what Lebron's||
Who is to say what Lebron's "ultimate goal" should be? Lebron isn't obligated to adhere to some fans' notion of greatness just because, well, they think he should. He should use his talent in whatever manner he sees fit. This will sound corny, but heck, it's his life. Why should he sacrifice his happiness just to satisfy those who think he should behave in a certain way?
Your goal in his situation might be X. Lebron's goal might be Y. And that's ok.
It's perfectly fine to be disappointed by his decision, but I always felt that the vitriol was ridiculously overboard.
|06/01/2012 - 10:34pm||And there are plenty of kids||
And there are plenty of kids offered by those schools who are offered by Michigan. If Michigan restricted itself to offering only those players who are sought after by "elite" programs, we'd hardly have enough players to field a team of starters right now. If that.
|06/01/2012 - 10:20pm||Painted my face to watch The||
Painted my face to watch The Game in 2006... in my apartment. It seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. But then I made the mistake of telling some friends.
|04/23/2012 - 7:24pm||The 100-Yard War: Inside the 100-Year Old||
The 100-Yard War: Inside the 100-Year Old Michigan-Ohio State Football Rivalry by Greg Emmanuel (book). Might be a little much for Wednesday, but a good read nonetheless.
|04/23/2012 - 12:35am||But if the Mgoblog community||
But if the Mgoblog community influences that poster to make a better--or more informed--life decision, isn't that a good thing? More than worth however much time you spent reading a thread you hated/didn't care about. Nobody forced you to read the ensuing "treatises."
Some people were interested, it's the off-season, and there's not a whole lot going on. That's the whole point of "OT."
|03/11/2012 - 11:34pm||Darn, the one time I choose||
Darn, the one time I choose to step up on behalf on grammar nerds everywhere, and pop culture fails me. Or I failed pop culture. Either way, I suck.
|03/11/2012 - 11:14pm||Your use of "of" is just||
Your use of "of" is just wrong. And your post is non-sensical.
I'm sorry, everyone. I just couldn't let that one stand.