Member for

9 years 5 months
Points
40.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
10/21/2017 - 3:23pm We do not want a "low scoring game"

Nice analysis. You conclude, "a low scoring game benefits Michigan."  How does UM not scoring a lot benefit it? Don't we just want a low scoring game by PSU? 

10/25/2016 - 4:18pm Illegal Pick?

Nevermind, read the artcile more closlely, something to do with a three yard downfield blocking rule.  

11/09/2013 - 6:52pm No brainer

to get rid of funk and borges.  

05/21/2013 - 6:55pm I honestly find this analysis

 of his video cruel and uncessary.  school-yard bullying.  

09/20/2012 - 6:07pm olines and denard

watch the link in the Hinton piece re: the 2010 ND game 4th quarter.  the difference in that game wasn't  denard.  it was huge to have molk and schilling on the interior of the line.  

08/04/2012 - 2:34pm double post

sorry

08/04/2012 - 2:33pm i won't participate anymore if it goes to twitter

twitter is for broader comments, not specific play by play of um games.  my followers wouldn't appreciate it.  

02/01/2012 - 12:56am he's not that highly rated

i read that fans would think his senior film is impressive.  you only say that about a sleeper.  

01/23/2012 - 3:05pm these predictions makes sense

i'd pick UM, but stanford is much better academically and are vacting to spots on their offensive line for underclassman who are projected to be top 15 draft picks.  there are plenty of reasons to pick um over stanford, but in terms of recent success of olinemen and academics--two important factors--stanford is the easy choice.  

11/30/2011 - 5:38pm packard house

what's the address of that house on packard mentioned?  just curious, i lived right there...

08/08/2011 - 7:56pm Yes.

Gee is serious.  

03/09/2011 - 10:43am anyone thing tressel might be taking the fall?

a conspiracy theory, i know, but i wouldn't be surprised if tressel did tell the school, but they can't possible admit that otherwise they'll all be out of jobs.  they are now trying to pretend like the punished the wrongdoers and solved the problem, even its likely insitutitional.  

01/20/2011 - 12:16pm they are killing us...

we are eons behind them.  i think its a perception thing, kids see kelly as rising and UM as falling.  

01/19/2011 - 8:03pm So he's not that good...

why did we hire him?  

12/07/2010 - 10:47am Hayden Fry

My understanding is that Snyder's coaching tree starts with Hayden Fry, under whom Snyder got his start.  Fry's coaching tree is truly impressive. 

10/29/2010 - 3:05pm Statement about MRob

The statement about MRob is not a clear position switch.  That'll he'll be playing a little LB suggests is a situational, or tentative switch.  

10/29/2010 - 11:34am 3 lineman?

interesting, how did it work out for them? 

10/20/2010 - 7:01pm Interesting but

you are cherry picking.  I agree, for these guys, ESPN seems to have got it right.  However, each recruiting site evaluates 1000's of kids a year, so your sample size is just not large enough to be meaningful at all.  

10/20/2010 - 6:07pm Add to the penalities

On Iowa's 3rd and 14, where Adam Robinson converted it on a 16 yard run, Van Bergen was blatantly held from making a clear  tackle for a loss.  This missed call was likely a 7, and at least a 4, point swing. 

08/17/2010 - 3:30pm Why pass when you can run?

Why pass when you can run?

01/20/2010 - 4:13pm Lienbackers!

Good analysis. The lack of inside linebackers killed us. In the 3-4 they are so important. We won't win for the next 2-3 years unless we get some guys who can play that position.

11/20/2009 - 4:53pm 30-14

I'd definitely take that score. We'd have to play better then we have been to achieve that.

11/18/2009 - 12:57am Sounds like a good kid

If he's as good as he's ranked, he could be all american in this offense.

11/09/2009 - 9:12pm A lot of coahces are successful for a time, then aren't

Past performance does not mean future success for RR, another blind assumption. I agree that 3 different DC's in 3 years makes a difference. But not all players got worse. And, plenty of players can transition DC's and improve. None of this proves the assumption that so many people make, that youth necessarily will sufficiently improve to make this a good team again. You should go slow because I really don't think you are willing, or able, to actually evaluate my post.

What's up with all the insults here? Man.

Do I need to spout my credentials here to get any respect?

11/09/2009 - 9:09pm nice insult

good one! doesn't disprove my post which obviously got in your head. i know you want to disagree because it makes you feel better to think that the team will automatically age like wine, but my logic is sound Captain! the question was posed and you proved that you cannot, or are not willing to, answer it.

burned.

11/09/2009 - 6:21pm Short-sighted (and incorrect) response...

To sit here and defend the staff based on the assumption that as the team ages, they'll get better as sure as gravity is a mistake. One major assumption of Brian's post is that the young players will improve next year and in the years beyond. But I just don't know if its true. Look at Mouton and Williams. 2 years in a system, 2 years older. They are not much better as far as I can tell. Many players didn't improve much in season last year either. Don't ridicule my post. Obviously, as I stated, players improve. A 22 year old senior is almost always better than an 18 year old freshman. But the question is by how much will younger players improve and why. There needs to be good coaching. And, at some point, players approach their potential. Maybe ours have hit that. Its not a given that players improve into eternity. A lot of great HS players peak young. Many good recruits develop different bodies or lack the skills to make significant gains at the college level. Any player needs good coaching. Its simply not a given that year over year our players will improve. So the suggestion, which was in Brian's post, that RR should be cut slack because his team is "young" doesn't do it for me. He has to prove he and his staff has some talent for improving young talent, and that the talent he recruits is in a position to get SIGNIFICANTLY better. You can assume that like gravity, but I don't think you should.

11/09/2009 - 5:08pm Wait for youth? Let's look into that.

I keep hearing, "its a young team," as the excuse for losing. But who says that a team full of young players necessarily gets much better? Is there evidence for this? At what point do players reach their potential, as juniors, as sophomores? Granted, no question players improve from freshman to sophomore year, but at some point that improvement slows or stops. And if the players are bad now, how much better will they get?

I'm looking for a little more analysis to what I consider to be the most common apology for the Rich Rod regime. You can't just say, well they are young. They might be getting worse. We have some highly recruited players on D right now, so why haven't they improved in 2 years (see Mouton, Williams). Mouton is going backwards! Absent some sort of better analysis, I'm just not buying it that when we get older, we'll be better. In fact, the critique of the coaches is a direct affront to this apology. The argument is that some of these position coaches simply are not making the players much better. So waiting for players to get older, won't make any difference.

10/07/2009 - 11:50am This class will kill us

For the next few years we'll be reeling from the class. I hope we can make up for it.

10/04/2009 - 4:47pm Linebackers!

What we need is some big time, NFL quality linebackers. We have none in the pipe, so we need them this year, which is not going to happen. We also need to ask whether Hopson is a good enough teacher to really improve out ILBs.

10/04/2009 - 4:47pm Linebackers!

What we need is some big time, NFL quality linebackers. We have none in the pipe, so we need them this year, which is not going to happen. We also need to ask whether Hopson is a good enough teacher to really improve out ILBs.