|09/08/2013 - 5:26pm||Texas receiving more votes||
Texas receiving more votes than BYU, and USC ahead of Washington State?
|05/13/2013 - 5:06pm||It's a quote from Austin||
It's a quote from Austin Powers in Goldmember
|04/27/2013 - 5:09am||The news that she is being||
The news that she is being threatened for expressing her opinion is absolutely disgusting. The responses she received say a lot more about this issue than the contents of her letter.
|04/26/2013 - 3:02am||I guess good news for all of||
I guess good news for all of the Lions fans here, but sad for the Bears fans, Emery seems completely incapable of understanding how to work the draft. Back to back years reaching on 1st round picks. I cannot comprehend how you could evaluate players in a way that leads to those decisions. They admitted that if Long was available at 20, that they were going to pick him there.
Seriously??? So the fact that Floyd, Eifert, Trufant, and Ogletree were all still available doesn't make you pause and reconsider your decision? You value Long (and mcclellin last year) so much more than every other player that you won't risk missing him if you trade back? And I would have a very hard time believing that there weren't trade options available with those players still on the board. ...Even if you lose a bit of value on the pick value chart, it doesn't matter since the player you are picking is very likely still available at the end of the 1st, so you are better off maximizing the value of your pick!
We really could have used some extra mid round picks to try to find some players to help rebuild the defense. We need LB help immediately (and this pretty much locks us into trying to get one in the 2nd round), and DT and CB will both be big issues next year.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Long is a 24 year old guard with 5 starts in college, and who had to leave Florida State for academic reasons after his freshman year. I will admit, I really wanted Long (or Warford from UK or Barret Jones) but with a pick in the 40-50 range (like, idk, the 50th pick that we already have).
Alright, I'm done ranting; I really hope Long pans out. It would be great to actually have some protection for Cutler. Now back to discussing Ansah.
|04/25/2013 - 8:44pm||Raiders really could not get||
Raiders really could not get more for the 3rd pick than the 12th and 42nd? ... Thats not close to equal on the pick value chart.
|04/25/2013 - 8:12pm||As long as the bears do not||
As long as the bears do not take manti teo with their first pick, things will be okay.
I think they should take a CB or DT if they have to stay at 20. I would love it if they could trade back to get better value on maybe a late first / early 2nd pick, but I think a lot of teams want to move back.
This is definitely the year to start rebuilding the defense. It would be worthwhile to get as many 2/3 round picks as we can. We would have a year to evaluate/develop them before deciding what to do with the defense. Our long-term options at LB, CB, and DT definitely need some attention this draft. But obviously if a good olinemen is available, we still need a lot of help there.
|04/23/2013 - 7:01pm||Oh, I didn't mean that||
Oh, I didn't mean that comparison as school types. I meant that LT is Hinsdale Central's biggest rival. From Central's perspective that comparison works really well. Hinsdale South is the Michigan State rivalry in that analogy.
|04/23/2013 - 6:19pm||LT : Ohio State :: Hinsdale||
LT : Ohio State :: Hinsdale Central : Michigan
|04/23/2013 - 6:17pm||What, you don't like that||
What, you don't like that picture of Ian at the top? Go Devils! Congrats Ian!
|04/23/2013 - 5:16pm||Awesome, it's great to||
Awesome, it's great to welcome a fellow Hinsdale Central student to Michigan!!! Can't wait to see you in maize and blue Ian, and good luck next year as well!
|04/22/2013 - 11:47pm||Not sure I agree, this really seems like the Big 12 north||
While there are always major fluctuations in team strength over time, there are a number of teams that have been consistently better. The SEC has a number of those teams in each division so it is not a problem for them.
The big problem with the Big 12 north was that you had so many teams together that did not have a history of success. While it was likely that they would have decent runs (like Colorado and Kansas State in the late 90's and early 2000's) the division is going to lack depth.
In the final 7 years, the Big 12 North had 7 total top 4 conference finishes.
With the way OSU and Michigan have been recruiting, this allignment seems to have a lot of potential for a repeat of this kind of split. We need sustained success from several teams in the west for this to work. Otherwise the Big 10 West will definitely be a repeat of the Big 12 North.
|04/22/2013 - 6:10pm||Well I'm dumb. I forgot that||
Well I'm dumb. I forgot that OU is not an AAU member. So I guess I'll try to be happy with playing MSU OSU and PSU each year.
and still feeling bad for nebraska.
|04/22/2013 - 5:39pm||Two title games is a pretty||
Two title games is a pretty small sample size, especially when the presumed Big 2 were both undergoing regime changes (as well as sanctions). And while Wisconsin has been strong these past few years, they just lost their head coach so their future is uncertain.
Ohio State seems poised for a long run of success, and Michigan seems like the team that is poised to challenge them every year. That's not to say that the west won't produce a competitive champion most years. Were just going to have to live with this setup, and hopefully Iowa and Wisconsin with Nebraska will keep that division relevant.
|04/22/2013 - 4:53pm||That's true, there is||
That's true, there is absolutely no chance that it happens. Texas does not need us, and OU wouldn't leave Texas (and I doubt they would leave OSU). And if they were to leave, it would likely be to the Pac12 or SEC.
But I really doubt that we would have become a third-tier conference. We are definitely behind the SEC now, but these moves won't change that. It is not as if we are that far behind (if at all, we are already ahead financially) the Big 12 and Pac 12 with the group we have now. This move might help financially in the short term, but ultimately I feel like these moves brought us closer to the level of the ACC.
And irrelevance seems a bit drastic. Do you really think that Michigan would become irrelevant if the Big 10 did not expand? But ultimately the schools don't care about what I think, and I assume they will decide to expand again if they see an opportunity to make more money.
I feel worse for Nebraska. They leave the Big 12 north, and then get stuck in the Big 10 west. In this reallignment they traded annual games with Michigan, PSU, and MSU for Wisconsin, Illinois, and Purdue. I don't think that there was a better way to split the current group, but that is just another reason that they should not have expanded. Will anyone outside of the midwest care at all about the Big Ten west? .... therefore the dream that we can add Texas and OU. or at least OU and someone else. ... anyone else. A Big 10 west with OU and Nebraska is a lot better than right now.
|04/22/2013 - 3:33pm||Until the big ten actually||
Until the big ten actually expands to 16 with two more east coast schools, I'm still holding on to my delusion that the real plan is to convince OU and UT to join.
I can just see it now, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas back together, facing off in a championship game against Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State. That has to be the real plan. Anything else would just be a mistake. ... like adding Maryland and Rutgers... or naming the divisions Leaders and Legends. Obviously we would have a better plan than that.
|03/19/2013 - 7:09pm||I haven't seen them mentioned||
I haven't seen them mentioned yet, I have bucknell through to the sweet 16 beating butler and marquette. ...and I have Michigan beating KU, Florida, IU, and Duke.
|03/18/2013 - 4:48pm||it would be better if they||
it would be better if they actually randomized the games in each round. it didnt take long to figure out that the games were just being listed in order.
|03/05/2013 - 11:04pm||Or we can just root for||
Or we can just root for Illinois to knock them off.
|02/05/2013 - 4:51pm||Why is Mike Martin listed||
Why is Mike Martin listed under Great College Player, Some NFL, rather than being listed as In the NFL? I know he is only one year in, but he's still playing.
|01/29/2013 - 2:33am||It is because Pollspeak seems||
It is because Pollspeak lists 66 voters right now. Paul Klee is in their voter database but he does not seem to currently have an AP vote. His data from 2011-2012 is all there and seems pretty much normal.
|01/25/2013 - 7:58pm||Same thing I said in the||
Same thing I said in the Staples article discussion, I think Denard also can be compared to Jamaal Charles and CJ Spiller. Charles especially seems like a good comparison. Watching his college and pro highlights he certainly seems to look pretty similar to Denard when he's running, and this draft analysis for Charles sounds a lot like how I would view Denard right now.
Obviously Charles had the advantage of playing rb while in college, and even then he was just a 3rd round pick. But I think I would be comfortable spending a 4th round pick to get Denard to be that type of running back. 10-16 touches plus a valuable 2nd option if / when your 1st rb option gets dinged up seems like a worthwhile investment. I just wish Denard was working on learning to pass block, and maybe adding 5 lbs to show scouts that he can be that second rb option, while style keeping his playmaker speed.
|01/24/2013 - 6:09pm||To further expand, as a Bears||
To further expand, as a Bears fan, I've painfully watched Devin Hesters attempted transition to wr. I could easily see Denard struggling in the same way Devin has, his playmaking ability doesn't mean much when his route running/pass catching are below average. I would be upset if the Bears drafted Denard to be their new "playmaker" project, especially if that pick was anywhere before the 5th round. It seems like the transition to wr creates a lot more risk to his potential success.
On the other hand, at 196 lbs, Denard already has the size and speed to play runningback. If I was picking Denard, I would be looking to create the type of combination that the Bills had with Jackson/Spiller this year, or that the Chiefs have had with Jamaal Charles and either Thomas Jones/Peyton Hillis/Larry Johnson. I know the runningbacks I've listed have had injury problems, but it seems like in the NFL these days it is important to have 2/3 vialbe options at runningback, and I'd happily take Denard somewhere in the 3rd round if that was how I planned to utilize him.
I really want to see Denard succeed in the NFL, but I don't think that receiver is the safest choice for him.
|01/24/2013 - 4:33pm||While I understand the||
While I understand the rationale for comparing Denard to Harvin, what is the benefit for Denard to try to become a receiver instead of a runningback? Is there something about Denard's running style that NFL scouts dislike? I would think that he would compare favorably with backs like CJ Spiller, Chris Johnson, and Jahvid Best (at least when he was coming out of college). Wouldn't it be easier for Denard to learn to pass block, rather than having to learn route running / pass catching? I feel like the assumption that Denard can make the transition to WR simply because he is an amazing athlete underestimates the difficulty of learning the skills to be an NFL receiver.