|07/11/2018 - 2:44pm||Can't edit, so I just want…||
Can't edit, so I just want to make clear. Hitler was an awful, awful leader in many ways too.
I think the greater point here is: bringing up Hitler in a positive light is a bad and stupid move, especially when you are trying to inspire a group of people, because any truthful discussion beyond "he was a bad person" requires way more attention to be at all motivational.
|07/11/2018 - 2:39pm||Came to say the same.
Came to say the same.
Though I do think you could argue that in some ways, Hitler was a great leader (he did lead an economically devastated country to fairly high prosperity) in some ways. Highly flawed military leader, possibly the worst moral-leader of all-time. But (unfortunately) was able to convince and inspire ~38% of his country, and convince a large remaining portion of the country to be mostly complacent against his wrong-doing and (reluctantly or not) actually fight for him. The movement and ideology he led spread well beyond German borders too, throughout Europe and even well into the Americas.
Again, terrible, terrible person. His leadership was certainly flawed. I don't say it like that to downplay his atrocities, but to come from his beginnings and from Germany's beginnings in the 30's to what his ideology and party became requires a certain quality in terms of leadership. He was a great political speaker, he did strongly convince people that his ideology was correct, and led a large amount of complacent people to fight the battles for that ideology. Part of that was through fear, but much of it was through agreement. That in no way makes what he did right, in fact just the opposite, he utilized strong leadership to morally corrupt a great deal of people and bring about one of the worst periods in human existance.
The upside of a coach using him in this way, however, is questionable, because the downside and baggage that comes with the claim is so obvious and awful. I would question a coach's (or any leader's) decision to use this example, and would in fact use that as an example of their own questionable leadership skills. When this coach side this, I don't think he was really expecting to have a nuanced, contextual discussion about history, psychology, sociology, and the human condition that probably need to come with it (even the above seems insufficient; a thesis may suffice).
|07/05/2018 - 9:17am||It was retweeted onto my…||
It was retweeted onto my timeline from a well respected OU recruiting person (@BrandonTFB)
"I want #Sooners fans to know that July will be a GREAT month for #OU on recruiting trail. They will definitely make a case for number 1 class by months end, if things happen as planned.
That is all."
That was 16 hr ago, that seems that there is a good chance these are connected.
|07/04/2018 - 3:50am||If Michigan is sufficiently…||
If Michigan is sufficiently high on him (similar to their feel on Gray), you try to get him to delay a decision until the second signing day period and if you miss out on other targets you offer him as another bullet in the chamber at RB/slot/DB.
You don't bank scholarships in this day and age. It doesn't benefit you. If you think he will delay his decision, more than likely you won't get all the guys higher on the board, so you try to get him later.
|06/30/2018 - 1:05pm||Fletcher is a good prospect…||
Fletcher is a good prospect who I would be happy to have in the class. He’s a raw Chris Wormley type. I like who UM is getting at the position including if they get this pick up, but Fletcher, in my mind, may end up one of the best players from the state in this class if he gets coached up
|06/29/2018 - 11:47am||The thing is that OSU didn't…||
The thing is that OSU didn't really lie to him either. They said he had a chance to play as a freshman, which while unlikely, Meyer has done with OL in the past (Michael Jordan, who wasn't as good of an interior prospect, and also from Michigan, started as a true FR).
Here's the thing with recruiting: kids fall in love with some place or a few places. They look for reasons to justify that love and sometimes there isn't a ton of objective logic behind it, but you follow your heart. So things that aren't really lies you start to twist as lies. You start to view your interaction in your own prism relative to the places you like. You hear things in a way that gets misinterpreted because you talk so much with each of these places.
In the end, you go where you're comfortable. That's what Dobbs did. He preferred MSU. And that's fine, good for him to go to the place that he liked best. But then you get these sorts of quotes that are trying to justify "why not them" when really he should be talking about "why them". It doesn't make for as interesting of an article, there is a lot less shot taking, but it is what it is.
|06/26/2018 - 1:55pm||I think Mazi is a NT for…||
I think Mazi is a NT for Michigan more than a 3-tech, personally. He isn't limited to that role because he isn't just a space-eating NT, but hat's because, as you hinted, Don Brown doesn't really utilize that as much. That's why Mone is really more of a role player in certain down/distance/tendency situations. Brown's system is all about getting penetration or setting up other players for penetration with movement/stunts. A guy like Mazi fits much better into that system than a space-eating NT.
|06/26/2018 - 12:16pm||I understand the court…||
I understand the court upholding it based on the argument they had. Theoretically, taking away the year in residence rule would end up gutting lower-level teams or even mid-level teams as soon as the powers had gaps to fill.
I think there could have been a stronger argument made in favor of restricting the "year in residence" rule, particularly for those not on scholarship. If you are a walk-on, and perform well, it seems that "free trade" should allow you to shop scholarship at your current university, or if they do not offer, at other universities willing to effectively pay for your services. I also wonder if there could have been an argument (though not for this case specifically) that the year in residence shouldn't count against your eligibility if you have already taken a redshirt year (it could be argued that it unfairly targets players that are less developed out of high school or something along those lines).
|06/25/2018 - 4:47pm||I think he has to be a 5 in…||
I think he has to be a 5 in today's game. There is really no fit at the 4 for him with his athleticism. I think he can still add a lot of strength, and his post game has improved year-to-year (he played wing in Germany, so he's still pretty raw there, especially because Michigan doesn't emphasize it at all, and the game as a whole is emphasizing it much less).
Like I said, I don't think he'll ever be a great defender, but he can get stronger and work on his defensive IQ and get to a place where he is adequate from a defensive standpoint, and then his feel for the game and shooting ability can overcome average athleticism. There is a path there to success, but it isn't a given.
But I think he's a 5 all the way.
|06/25/2018 - 4:36pm||Yup, Elliot was my first…||
Yup, Elliot was my first comp as well.
|06/25/2018 - 4:30pm||His offensive game is really…||
His offensive game is really well suited for the league. Pick and pop, fills for vacated slashers well, has a good feel for voids in the defense, and improved as a finisher around the rim.
His success really is about his weakness, but his D weakness is still pretty big. Really needs to improve his positioning, and a lot of that comes from what he does off the ball (both on help defense and handling people who post him up prior to the ball being in his hands). Has to get stronger, has to improve his awareness on that side of the ball. I don't think he'll ever be a great defender, but if he can figure that out he can be serviceable and provide a good deal of ability on the offensive end.
|06/25/2018 - 4:26pm||I said it elsewhere, but…||
I said it elsewhere, but Charbonnet has my favorite RB film of a Michigan commit in at least a decade. Better than higher rated guys (including Isaac). He reminds me as a runner of Zeke Elliot. Patient, great lateral ability, but gets up to speed on a dime. I think Elliot is a little stronger behind his pads as a runner (Charbonnet can learn to lower his center of gravity a bit, particularly as a taller runner), but both have similar HS 100 m times as well.
|06/25/2018 - 3:59pm||Haven't posted on RCMB in a…||
Haven't posted on RCMB in a while (since before the Nassar thing), so it wasn't me on there talking to them
I prefer Robinson. I think he has a little better start/stop/start to him. Very low center of gravity, maybe a little more limited as a true receiving option because of his lack of height.
|06/25/2018 - 3:09pm||It's "smaller", especially…||
It's "smaller", especially if you presume that's more of a "high school roster" size.
Most programs are wanting 6'0"+ and around 180-195 lbs coming in (for true size). Turner is an 1"-2" short and probably 10-20 lbs short (and mass doesn't always come as easy for these guys as lineman, as they really have to focus on maintaining athleticism and flexibility on smaller frames).
So he isn't a mini-CB, but he's on the smaller end when it comes to the higher level prospects. There are a few higher level prospects around his size, but they typically have other elite traits in terms of athleticism or technique.
None of this is saying he doesn't have sufficient size to be a very good player, he just will need to be able to make up for it in other ways.
|06/25/2018 - 2:24pm||An important aspect of…||
An important aspect of agility isn't just ability to move laterally, but get back up to speed immediately after. Charbonnet does that extremely well.
FWIW, I'm very high on Charbonnet's film. He may have my favorite RB film of a UM commit in the last decade (including Isaac). He's got to work on lowering his center of gravity a bit, and I'm a little concerned that guys will be able to get into his legs and chop him down, but his agility and ability to get up to speed on a dime, combined with the fact that he demonstrates he can be a physical runner (plus he has good size) make me very high on him.
|06/25/2018 - 2:06pm||Yup, understands angles,…||
Yup, understands angles, physical in closing, and closes fast on the ball. Plays a lot of safety in high school (not completely atypical at that level to get a guy toward the middle of the field to get him more involved). Has to work on his man coverage technique and gets a bit stronger in his upper half. His footwork and hands get him behind in some routes in man coverage, and he's a smaller CB, but he has good closing speed to help make up for it.
Seems like a player a lot of those other teams will push for if they miss on some of the more polished prospects with perhaps a little more natural size. Things to work on, but overall good clay to mold.
|06/25/2018 - 1:31pm||I think you're over-selling…||
I think you're over-selling a bit his quickness and agility. Both are good, but I don't think they are "incredible". He's shifty, he's not Reggie Bush or Charbonnet for that matter. His speed appears similar, good but not great. He reminds me a bit of a poor man's Braxton Miller. He looks like he isn't afraid of contact and can add some mass to his lower half, he's got pretty solid balance. Not a lot to be shown as far as route running. I don't think he would be a bad pickup by any means, But I also understand why he isn't a 4-star.
If he's the type of guy you're filling out the bottom of your recruiting class though, I think he's a good pickup. Has upside and can fit nicely into a role.
|06/24/2018 - 5:22pm||Reese led Florida in tackles…||
Reese led Florida in tackles and 2nd in TFL as a RS FR.
Weaver started 5 games for Pitt as a RS FR.
Falcon was no longer a take when he got injured again.
Enis had off field problems but was a talented RB.
Scott didn’t qualify at Marshall, so that’s also a big reason he wasn’t a take to UM. No saying his play on the field.
Vic was wanted as a LB, no saying how that could have worked out had he started there.
Harding committed to Hoke effectively (day he was fired I believe) when he was a highly regarded prospect; was a mid 4 star at one time.
Richardson made 3 starts as a true Soph at Maryland.
so it seems some were better regarded than their rank
|06/24/2018 - 12:24pm||His Hudl video is more…||
His Hudl video is more representative of the upside the coaches see. He isn’t a great straight line runner and is a bit stiff in his route running, but he does a very good job tracking the ball with his hands and he’s a very willing and physical blocker. Has some things to work on but there is a reason teams like ND, Wisconsin, and MSU offered
|06/22/2018 - 1:41pm||I was talking more as a…||
I was talking more as a classic LB in terms of being undersized, which is likely one of the primary reason he's listed as a safety rather than a LB. As a viper he can get by, I agree with you there, though an inch or two wouldn't hurt him.
As for taking on blocks, he's going to have to learn to do more from a box position. He does a nice job physically a few times, but rarely does he have to engage/disengage etc. Things are going to change for him coming down from the 3rd level vs playing at the LB level.
|06/22/2018 - 12:42pm||He's a bit undersized for LB…||
He's a bit undersized for LB/viper, but I like his game for that position. As a safety, he's a bit stiff, and I can see why his offer sheet is what it is an why baseball was his primary sport. But if he can add some mass and learn to take on blocks, he has the athleticism and mentality for a LB position. The Viper spot in Michigan's D is a good fit for him.
|06/21/2018 - 9:35am||Edwards redshirted his first…||
Edwards redshirted his first year at Minnesota and then showed some flashes in his RS FR year, but was still probably too small. I always thought RB was an odd fit for him at Minnesota due to his size. He started working more as a hybrid slot/RB type in the spring before he left Minnesota, similar to Norfleet at Michigan, which was probably a better fit for him but maybe not enough to get a good number of touches (particularly with the other talent at RB).
He didn't really do much at CMU, but he has some good speed and he's decent in space. If you want to see how Harbaugh would approximately have used Norfleet, a micro-sized change-of-pace RB/slot in Berkley Edwards is pretty close. He has more straight line speed than Norfleet, probably not quite as much shiftiness to him, but has a good makeup for a returner (though kick returns will be relatively negligible given the new rules, IMO)
|06/18/2018 - 4:41pm||"Fully expected this to be a…||
"Fully expected this to be a Maizen/Bluey post to balance out his more negative posts"
- No one ever
|06/13/2018 - 3:22pm||Why not 6, or 7, or even…||
Why not 6, or 7, or even have a limit? The 4 years is supposed to align with the number of years it takes to get a college degree. The original idea behind FR not being eligible is because they needed to focus on school and weren't ready to compete at that level. That isn't always the case anymore, but often still is. So 4 years of actually playing and regularly contributing still seems quite different than just having 5 years.
I also don't see a hard-and-fast 4-games as a dog-and-pony show. It mitigates the injury dog-and-pony show they had while still retaining the intent of 5 years to play 4.
|06/13/2018 - 1:42pm||The primary difference is…||
The primary difference is that there are guys that are clearly ready to play on teams, that should play because they are the best at their position. But there are also a large group of players that are borderline. That may have some potential but are still figuring things out and you want to see how he performs first before burning his redshirt (Dymonte Thomas comes to mind). There are some guys you just want to give some experience to see how they handle it and because you have snaps to give in a particular game, but have no intention for them to be regular contributors (Higdon), etc.
So the major difference here is that a player isn't punished for a coach/player seeing how a guy performs in a real game and realizing they aren't ready. Because it isn't always immediately apparent in practice, and it isn't immediately known how some guys will improve (or not) throughout their first year, adjusting to the rigors of college football and class, etc.
|06/08/2018 - 10:16am||We've got no food. We got no…||
We've got no food. We got no jobs. Our pets HEADS ARE FALLIN' OFF!
|06/08/2018 - 10:13am||I remember writing a tweet…||
I remember writing a tweet about how I liked what I saw from Peters in the Rutgers game, but people should be careful not to over-hype him early only to dismiss him when he struggles. That tweet got a lot of "we don't do that", "bad take", etc.
This blog is way too quick to dismiss him. The bowl game was bad, particularly once he started facing pressure (he looked shook from the Wisconsin game still). But the guy still has a lot of potential, and if it clicks and if he gets the ghosts out of his head, he has potential to be a very good QB for Michigan. It may or may not happen, and while not exclusive to UM fans, we are some of the worst group about promoting the QBs we haven't seen over the ones we have.
|05/31/2018 - 2:42pm||Besides Decker, OSU was relatively OG heavy as well||
As was Stanford under Harbaugh. I disagree with you a bit in that I think they have de ent tackle numbers, even if most of them come in the form of “swing” players. But with Harbaugh’s scheme, that isn’t necessarily that off. Sure, they’d love some big time OTs, but short of those guys, I think they got two OTs last year and a few swing guys this year.
|05/22/2018 - 12:39pm||I think the DL recruiting is a little overblown around here||
It would have been nice to get a true NT type in last year's class, but Brown hasn't in the past utilized a ton of mass on the inside (rarely did he have interior DL larger than 300 lbs at BC). Brown likes a lot of movement: line stunts, pressure games, etc. He doesn't need a space eater as often as other defenses do.
Two years ago he got Paea, who could grow into that (if he stays on D). They got Solomon and Dwumfour who can both take up snaps at 3T or NT. They got DIB and Jeter who will be a 3T/Anchor. So two years ago you got three guys that could take snaps at NT, and 4 that could take snaps at 3T, and all are still underclassmen.
Last year, they picked up three "DEs", but almost one of Upshaw, Hutchinson, or Welschof will end up inside (my guess would be Welschof, but hard to say, and will depend on how each reacts to the strength program). Hinton could very likely end up inside at 3T as well. So, yes, it would be nice for them to get an additional guy that can play some NT so they don't go two years without one, I think that's a need, but two true NTs isn't really necessary when they have one guy likely to slide into 3T already. This staff likes big guys that can move, not space eaters, because the goal is to let front attack, not sit and react.
|05/04/2018 - 9:50am||Biggest misses||
Bently from South Carolina did little to impress me and be on this list.
That Deondre Francois from FSU (one of the better returning QBs before getting hurt against Bama in the season opener last year) isn't on the list makes it more invalid than anything else.
|05/04/2018 - 9:46am||Off-season content caveats apply||
But I disrespekt folks on this board are playing is a bit unjustified.
1. Shea hasn't played a whole season worth of games yet in his career. He certainly has showed flashes of greatness, but has been very far from perfect. Him being rated 15 is still mostly based on recruiting rankings. It actually feels like a pretty good spot for him IMO.
2. Lewerke is far from without flaws, but he was the primary reason MSU did enough to beat Michigan. MSU's OL got destroyed, repeatedly, all year, and particularly against UM, and he made plays to escape the pocket and made some pin perfect passes. He is a very skilled QB that still makes mistakes, yes, but there is a quite obvious case of "only seeing the negatives" of him on this blog. I'm not yet convinced he's a top 10 QB in college football, but he probably isn't far from it.
3. McSorely is tough, because he's had repeated success doing what he does makes it hard to dock him too much. He lost a lot of skill players around him, has a relatively average arm, is a solid but not great runner, but is a pretty solid package. I don't think he's near the best QBs for the NFL, but he is a dangerous player at the college level and I don't see how you could keep him out of the top 10 at this point.
4. Overall, the list is making some aggressive assumptions about improvement, particularly from the two QBs that finished the national championship game (neither of which, based on their play so far, should be ranked as high). Both have a lot of talent, and both could take Sophomore year jumps. Those are the biggest ones that stick out as could be proven right or way off.
|05/01/2018 - 2:19pm||More than any of that||
Early mock drafts are typically awful. They are some combination of high school rating (especially if it isn't at a position that generates a ton of stats) and large stats more than actual production. Not that Gary and Patterson can't be good or won't be early picks, but their 5 stars are helping them get first round hype as much as anything.
|04/30/2018 - 9:30am||He's almost certainly a camp arm||
NFL teams need camp arms for the summer, and so you see a lot of quite marginal QB prospects get signed to camp contracts for a very low pay. Most likely what is happening here.
|04/26/2018 - 1:20pm||Cali is an extreme example, but it isn’t limited to there||
That said, this move is a bit stuck in the past given how much Ford has invested in future technologies including smart cars, hybrids, and electrics are all better to implement with sedans. Gas prices will rise again, the economy won’t be this strong forever, more and more people are moving to cities where parking smaller vehicles is significantly easier. The US sedan industry failed for way too long and allowed the foreign market to overcome it, but they were clawing their way back and were recapturing some of it since the recession. Now they’re giving it up and the long term impact will be significant. Maybe it’s correct, but it isn’t inappropriate to question this massive move from a long term perspective.
|04/26/2018 - 1:09pm||I get gas prices are down so trucks and SUVs are popular again||
But it won’t stay that way forever. Stopping it all together makes it a years process to ramp back up and seems very short sighted, particularly with how popular the Focus and Fushion are, not just for personal use but government and company use.I know it will cost more per part with the elimination of the other sedans, but a slight price increase wouldn’t stop those from being some of the more popular vehicles on the road and would give them much more market flexibility going forward. Seems very odd
|04/20/2018 - 12:47pm||He's a redshirt SO||
The timing makes sense. If he's an NBA player, it's more than likely this year or next for him. And, as everyone has stated, while he has NBA potential, it doesn't appear high enough to draft now and his skill level also doesn't seem to be high enough to draft this year either. So that basically leaves next year, and the older he gets the more the window closes. He gets one free enter and return. So he might as well use it to get a chance to work on his game and get more feedback on his game.
Being 21 already doesn't give him much room for an NBA dream. He can likely go the Euro route, but the NBA window is very limited, particularly for a guy that almost certainly won't be a lottery pick.
|04/17/2018 - 10:58am||Seahawks are attracted to talent||
And don't care about much more. That's why Frank Clark is still on their team despite all his issues (and was drafted high by them, because he does have a lot of talent, and just as much baggage).
It's worked for them in the past. But like with Miami football back in the day, things can snowball very quickly when you operate that way. This story has been repeated again and again. Iowa made a ton of hay taking at-risk guys, and it paid off for them, until it didn't, and then Ferentz had to change too. Seahawks will have to do something similar, because the leadership doesn't seem to be there throughout to maintain the level of play off the field when taking into account all the issues they are starting to face off of it.
|04/17/2018 - 10:52am||If anything||
The recent Mbem-Bosse thread truly demonstrates how McDowell may have never acted this way had he just come to Michigan...
You can blast MSU for a lot of things lately, and it may in fact be true that MSU was a poor environment for him. It may also in fact be true that McDowell has his own issues and was going to have issues wherever he landed.
Maybe Corley doesn't screw up if he goes to Michigan, because he is put in a different situation. Maybe Boubacar Cissoko reaches his potential outside of football if he leaves a lot of his bad influences behind. Certainly, circumstances can change an outcome, but it's often extremely difficult to know what those circumstances are before you're in them. McDowell would have been closer to a lot of his poor influences at Michigan, even if there were other reasons his mom supposedly didn't like him at MSU.
But to act like he would have been a Rhodes Scholar because he went to UM is just being blinded. This guy had issues at MSU, he had issues after he left MSU (when this accident happened). He ended up doing him and his family no favors, which is a damn shame, in my opinion, because he had a ton of talent.
|04/17/2018 - 10:42am||I like your last idea quite a bit||
I think a major flow problem towards the end of games in the 3 major sports (baseball, football, and basketball) is really impacting things. It happens more towards the end of seasons, but the basketball foul rule, the baseball changing of relievers every batter, expanded reviews towards the end of the games in football and basketball, all hurt the product on the field to a degree.
I also think limiting the reliever options (force them to face a couple batters or get a couple outs) would also (perhaps articifially) result in more runs/comebacks. People want runs, that means not having the perfect pitching matchup. That means someone who isn't on has to stay out there and tough it out. Could make end of games more interesting.
|04/17/2018 - 10:37am||Baseball is a bit different||
Because it's deliberate pace is also part of the feature. So I get to a degree having a "pitch clock", and part of that may help, but you also don't want to fundamentally change the game. It isn't intended to be a fast paced game, don't shoe horn it into trying to be one, because then it will be the worst of both worlds.
Those are more focused on fixing sports for those in attendance rather than the sport itself. But I don't personally feel like any of the sports need major overhauls in game play for me to enjoy them, it's how they are structured within TV that makes it difficult to justify some of the time/money. And the overall cost, as I discussed above.
|04/17/2018 - 10:30am||People are getting priced out for attendance||
Tickets for tonight's game against the Orioles are like $16 for upper deck way down the baseline. To even get into the lower deck, you are looking at $26 a ticket. And before someone starts, I know you can buy tickets and move down during the game, but that's not the overall point.
Put people in the seats. It may not be the way to make the most immediate profit, but it brings a family to the game. RIght now, a family of 3 is going to the game for ~$70 once you factor in parking and no food and the cheapest seats. A family of 4, with parking and some food in lower level seats and you're looking at over $150, which is going to keep a lot of people away because a lot of people aren't just going to pick up and go and drop that kind of money when one of their kids may throw a huge fit in the 2nd inning.
Let people buy tickets for a crappy team and have their family have good seats to watch. And let them grab a meal affordably so the kids are happy. Now you have a happy family having a good time and enjoying a game together, even on a cold, crappy night. You start selling packages for <$50 all included, you will see attendance go back up.
And that's just for baseball. Can do similar things for bad NBA teams and hockey teams (yay Detroit!). Football is just going to suffer. All sports are getting priced out for attending in person, and football is the worst because of the limited number of games. Reducing prices may not turn the most immediate profit, but in 20 years when the kids of today are adults and only a limited number of kids of the thrill of tradition and tailgating and seeing games with their family and all the rest don't have that so don't really care about going to the games or not (or may have those traditions, but those traditions were always at home in front of the TV), then who was to blame?
|04/16/2018 - 2:08pm||Other than the Iowa QB who ended up their punter||
I don't think that's a fair description of what Carr did or what Bacon said he did. Carr offered to sign transfer papers if any of the players wanted to come speak to him about transferring. But he wasn't just going to sign papers. He wasn't encouraging players to transfer. He was willing to talk with them about it, why they may want to transfer, and if they really wanted out, he wasn't going to stop them. Carr genuinelly cared about his players, I don't blame him for that part of the saga.
As for being around the program once Rich Rod took over, I think it's pretty layered. But 1) I don't think Carr wanted to hang over the program, particularly when it wasn't a guy from his tree because he understood the next guy needed to own the program for it to be success; 2) after lobbying for Rich Rod, I personally don't think he really liked Rich Rod, particularly after Rich Rod said some fairly critical things about Carr's program. So I don't think he was going to be particularly around anyway (Carr had a lot of interests outside coaching), and then basically determined he was going to stay completely out of it once he felt slighted.
|04/12/2018 - 9:41am||Situations dictate a lot as well||
Moeller was terrible at Illinois. He was pretty good at Michigan. Pete Carroll was mediocre in New York and New England, but has been a great coach since. Bill Walsh is known as one of the great coaches of all time, was relatively successful in his first stint as Stanford head coach, but could be seen as downright bad in his second stint.
There are wrong situations, circumstances, and times for basically every coach. Belichick was solid in Cleveland and not given enough time (and had ownership issues, etc.), but wasn't great. Saban picked up MSU eventually, but had to take a ton of at-risk players to do so, and still left frustrated that the president, in the late 90s, said "No football coach will ever make more money than the president of this university". Meyer, who has basically had immediate success at every stop, even had the WTF 2010 Florida team.
It goes back to finding the right coach, not necessarily the best coach or the splashiest coach. Rich Rod is still a solid coach, not without faults, but a solid coaching mind (if the game hadn't already started to catch up to him at that time). He was never going to be the right fit. It wasn't just scheme, it was personality, it was a lot of things. And then he quickened the failure by not helping himself.
I still think Ron English would have stubbornly maintained the ship and Michigan would have had a bunch of 7-9 win seasons and would have been mediocre. Some fans would take that in retrospect, but if Rich Rod wouldn't have happened, people would have been calling for English in 3 years too. DeBord wasn't getting the job. Hoke was still way too young. Harbaugh still hadn't risen enough and had pissed too many people off. So unless it was Cam Cameron coming fresh off a 1-15 season with the Dolphins, the hire was going to be an outside hire. Who would have been the right fit? That's hard to say.
|04/12/2018 - 8:27am||His dad was also a pretty successful coach||
And while Sheridan was quite a bad player for Michigan, most of that had to do with his actual physical ability, not his understanding of the game, scheme, and techniques. Many, many coaches were pretty awful players. Bill Belichick basically played Center, because in his mind, it was the only way a short, small, relatively unathletic (but smart) kid could have any success. His destination was always coaching too.
|04/10/2018 - 2:50pm||You are very much strawmanning this argument||
I’ve repeatedly said he will get drafted late first to early second. I’ve repeatedly said I think he’s a good pospect. I generally think combine results are over rated but serve a purpose. You are acting like I said he did bad and won’t do well in the NFL. I’m not strictly maintaining my line of thinking, I’m reporting what I’ve read, what you have repeated but are ignoring (guess it doesn't count if you didn't bold it, you keep ignoring the fact that I've brought it up, now, repeatedly), and how the numbers actually compare to other high level DTs in this draft. And don't just say "you shouldn't be comparing to Donald" despite them playing at similar size and with similar styles, I also put Payne up there, who is a very different type of DT, and significantly larger.
Two different coaching staffs (and two of the best DL coaches) kept him around 280 (when they made many surrounding players significantly bigger). Maybe he can add weight and maintain his athleticism, that would be great for him. But if he can't he should keep playing at 280, the point being that the additional 10 lbs don't make up for hurting his overall athleticism. Given his pro day performance, he didn't put up "impressive" athletic numbers for his position given his draft range and size, regardless of how you splice it. I've given my evidence, I've compared the results, I've pointed you in the direction of others with similar opinion (which you supposedly reviewed, who knows who), and all you've done is provide a single quote that generally falls in line with my argument. And I'm the one stubbornly sticking to my line of thinking?
|04/10/2018 - 2:03pm||If you didn't see it labeled anything other than "impressive"||
Then you haven't really been looking.
The part of the article you quoted, but failed to bold, for instance: "However, his results in events like broad jump, short shuttle, and 3-cone drill would have placed him in the middle, or a little below middle, of the combine DTs".
Other places called his overall performance "middling". Draft Twitter, which if you follow the correct people, generally thought the performance was fine but they weren't blown away. His hand-timed 40 likely isn't that fast, because hand-timed is generally faster. So he's left with some good results, and some very middling results, for an undersized DT that relies heavily on athleticism to overcome his lack of size.
Hurst is often compared to Donald as a benchmark, because their styles are similar, even if Donald is an extremely high benchmark to compare to. Nevertheless:
Hurst - Donald - Payne:
Bench: 29 - 35 - 27
40: 4.97 - 4.65 - 4.95
Vertical: 31" - 32" - 28.5"
Broad Jump: 8'8" - 9'8" - 8'11"
3-Cone: 7.74 - 7.11 - 7.58
Short Shuttle: 4.62 - 4.39 - 4.71
Arm: 32" - 33" - 33"
Weight: 292 - 284 - 311
For an undersized DT, Hurst's pro day wasn't bad, but it certainly wasn't great either (and the difference between Hurst and Donald is significant, not just marginal). It was in between. It was fine. It didn't move him up or down really. Athletically, he was much more closer to maybe a little below Da'Ron Payne, who is nearly 20 lbs heavier and more scheme flexible.
So if you only read "impressive", you are reading flawed articles or reading into it what you want. Hurst is a late 1st to early 2nd type pick, with great film, some size concerns, and at least at 292 lbs, not great athleticism.
|04/10/2018 - 12:32pm||His (hand-timed) 40 would have been 4th||
His vertical 5th. Those are good results. He's seen as an undersized DT, and at 290, is still undersized. That his other drills were middle of the pack or worse for all DTs at the combine isn't great, especially when you're undersized for the position. You can't just ignore those because he was top of hsi group for a 40 time, which has limited importance for a DT (his splits are much more important), and vertical (which is good to see, but somewhat expected given his weight). You also can't just ignore all the other drills that happened (it's not all running drills).
He had a generally "meh" performance, which is why he's still predicted late first or early 2nd. It wasn't a bad performance, just generally average. I'm telling you, scouts love his tape, if he would have put up a good showing, he would have moved to the early to middle of the first. It is what it is. There is speculation his additional mass hurt his generally "meh" performance. And if that is accurate, he should go back to his natural playing weight, that he essentially played at for four years at Michigan (almost certainly for a reason).
I like Hurst, I like his as a prospect. I'm just telling you how his pro day was actually perceived. It wasn't perceived as great just because of two drills.
If he's more athletic at 280 than 290, he should play at 280, because his tape shows really well at that playing weight. Not sure how it got turned into something more than that comment.
|04/10/2018 - 12:14pm||Donald is the exception, not the rule||
And Donald was ridiculously productive in college, well beyond what even Hurst has done.
Look, if Hurst wasn't as talented as he was, at his size (he's also shorter than Donald, though I'm not sure how arm length compares which is much more important than height, but often correlates), there is no way he would be a potential first round pick. That speaks to his tape and his talent. But he's still undersized. It's still a legit concern and criticism, even if he has other talents to overcome it. If Donald could do what he does at 300 lbs, he'd be even better. He'd be able to do even more that you could ask out of a DT. Donald was a great talent, high production, and is in a perfect scheme for him. But he will face the same questions if he enters free agency because his size may limit his scheme fit, and that's even after being ridiculously productive at the NFL level.
So yes, Hurst can play at 280, and in fact, I'd rather he play at 280 than 290 if that extra 10 lbs impacts his strengths, because it's his strengths that make him such an appealing talent; he isn't better off marginalizing those strengths to slightly improve other parts of his game. Michael Bennett in Seattle also showed you could be even more undersized and extremely effective on the inside (both at 3T and NT; though he moved all over, including outside, but was also 270). It's not impossible, but it doesn't make it not a legit criticism or concern.
|04/10/2018 - 11:57am||I mean, you answered it in your own quote||
His (hand-timed) 40 was good, as was his vertical, but he underperformed ("middle, or a little below middle") in other drills, including one that is primarily measured for explosiveness. The drills you expect your undersized DT to be good at, he wasn't necessarily good at.
He's fine, he's still a late 1st to early 2nd pick most likely. But these drills combined with his performance in other drills were not as strong as anticipated by many scouts. And many that viewed him as a high 1st rounder were unispired by the performance. It wasn't a bad performance that will tank him, it just wasn't outstanding, like his tape shows.
If he can gain weight and maintain his athleticism and effort, then great, he should try to get up to 300 lbs (or at least 295). But I question that's the case, because a) his frame isn't necessarily great for a bunch more weight; b) he never did in the last three years at Michigan, likely for a reason.
|04/10/2018 - 11:37am||He was weighed at the combine||
I'm well aware he didn't participate at the combine, but his pro day wasn't up to expectations. His times weren't up to expectations. He looked more sluggish than he does on tape. It is speculated that the extra weight may have been part of the problem, because he wasn't at his true playing weight. But his pro day performance (in runs and in drills), for whatever reason (weight, the heart issue causing him to be out of shape, etc.) was much more "meh" than expected given how explosive he is on tape.