Unverified Voracity Steamy About Many Things Comment Count

Brian

Site note. Had some issues getting and converting the game this week—my UFR process is byzantine—so UFR will be delayed until Thursday/Friday. It's a bye week, be chill.

Reminder. This is what Michigan wore on Saturday:

UM_MSU_Gordon-thumb-300x451-91668[1]

I hadn't seen a good shot of the sleeves, which miraculously manage to make the whole ensemble seem even dumber-looking. If you run across a picture from this game in five years you are going to laugh at the clown uniforms like people laugh at that one year a bunch of teams wore stormtrooper shoulders.

The MZone points at a prescient slippery slope prediction and says get used to it. Michigan's the first team to get their Arena League on twice in one year—even the pro combat victims only have to put up with it once.

How does this happen again? There will be a fuller discussion in the UFR of this, but it is absolutely maddening to see MSU time those double-A-gap blitzes with Molk's head going down and never get a check or read in their face. Molk on this:

"They did jump our snap count," Molk said. "They knew us, they knew how we played and how our plays were going to start."

Michigan State's Trenton Robinson originally told The Wolverine on Saturday his team could anticipate Molk's snaps because he bobbed his head down, then back up before he hiked the ball. …

Molk said Michigan recognized this during the game, but could not adjust because of the crowd at Spartan Stadium.

"Making an adjustment came down to our ability to communicate, and with the crowd noise, it sort of covered that," he said. "It puts us into a tough situation, and something we have to react to, and we weren't ready to react. They got us, no doubt."

During the game? They've done this the last three years! For Michigan to have no answer to the instant A-gap blitz into the fourth quarter is a massive, inexplicable coaching failure. Not once did Michigan block that, not once did they bring Molk's head up to reveal the blitz and then check into another play. There was no one in the center of the field for a dozen snaps and Michigan didn't use this at all.

Upside: At least this blows up the halftime adjustments meme. Downside: it's been replaced with the "Michigan State was tougher" meme, which even Molk is repeating. I guess that's the effect of an offseason in which every other word out of Hoke's mouth was "toughness." I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing MSU outcoach Michigan for the fourth straight year. It's not toughness when no one has an angle to block the same linebacker five times.

Boo-boo, line edition. Via a pouty-looking WCBN sports director hanging out in Sweden:

Taylor Lewan limping around campus with a giant boot on his left foot/ankle. Looks uncomfortable.

Somewhere on the coaching film there is evidence Gholston swept the leg. Of this there can be no doubt.

Obligatory Gholston-Dantonio statement. Anyone who's surprised that MSU is ham-fistedly taking a page from the Gene Smith playbook by declaring Saturday's events an "isolated incident" in an attempt to keep a starter on the field hasn't been paying attention. Dantonio's established a pattern. Ending a kid's hockey career with a sucker punch doesn't get you kicked off the team, every year there's a posse of 20 guys getting together to beat up some engineers, etc. etc. etc. This is the way he wants his program. End of story.

Bielema don't care. I've been annoyed with the program's public reaction to the above, possibly because it seems like they're lying through their teeth for better PR. This doesn't make me right, it just makes me annoyed. In contrast, Bret Bielema is a guy who gets his digs in:

"We'll do our talking with our pads and we'll do it between the whistles."

This is the only guy in the league who was able to call Tressel the asshat he was instead of going with that tragic hero/tragedy business that Carr and Dantonio did or refusing comment like everyone else. He also runs up scores like there's no tomorrow—it's clear he's something of an asshat himself, but these days I'll take any public figure who says what he thinks instead of what someone says he should think because it looks prettier in the paper.

Ain't hearing you about a deranged prosecutor. In the aftermath of the personal-foul-fest over the weeked the WSJ assembled their number-crunching team and came up with a list of the dirtiest rivalries in college football as measured by personal fouls of a late/unnecessary hit variety. A number are expected. One in particular is not:

RIVALRY PER GAME BIGGER OFFENDER
Auburn-Georgia 5.4 Georgia 59%
Duke-North Carolina 5.2 N. Carolina 69%
UCLA-Southern California 4.8 UCLA 54%
N. Mexico-N.Mexico St. 4.6 N. Mexico 65%
Kansas-Missouri 4.2 Missouri 76%
Michigan-Michigan St. 4.0 Michigan St 80%
C. Michigan-W. Michigan 3.8 Western 58%
Brigham Young-Utah 3.6 Utah 61%
NC State-North Carolina 3.4 N. Carolina 59%

All of those are competitive series save North Carolina bludgeoning Duke annually.  Maybe they're just mean dudes at UNC—they're the only team to show up twice.

Of course, this pretends the personal foul stuff is a two way street, which it isn't in certain cases. On a per team basis your winners are:

  1. UNC (vs Duke)
  2. MSU
  3. Missouri
  4. Georgia

So… yeah, UNC hates Duke a lot. Either that or it's impossible to not get personal fouls for unnecessary roughness when you've got a lot of illegally acquired future NFL players and they've got eleven mewling kittens.

The fresh take NOTline*. Magazine writer Chris Jones came up with a fresh take that really adds to the sporting zeitgeist: you shouldn't say "we" when you are identifying the team you root for because you are not on the team. Awesome, dude. Thanks. For your troubles SBN's Andrew Sharp effectively compares you to Whitney.

Sharp has ten reasons a fan might break out the we but doesn't hit the reason I do it periodically: it is a convenient linguistic trick. If I am discussing the Michigan-Michigan State game and wish to refer to the teams by words shorter to read and type, I can either continually re-introduce the team names and briefly refer to whichever one is the most recent antecedent as "they." That's potentially annoying and confusing. The other option is to dump them entirely in favor of "we" and "they," which clearly indicate who is who while preventing constant repetition of already established facts—that we are indeed talking about Michigan and Michigan State.

It would take a fun-hating mutant whose super power is pedantry to object to this, which is why someone who works for a newspaper or magazine writes this column every three months.

*[BOOM.]

Trouba: pretty good. Hockey 2012 D commit Jacob Trouba is good, first round good. As of late he's pushing his way into the top half of the first round:

Defenseman Jacob Trouba (U-18 U.S. national team development program): He is most likely to land in the top 10 picks and could crack the top five if he keeps progressing. He's 6-1 and 170 pounds, and he can skate well, fire the puck with authority and show a physical presence.

"You hate to say a guy can do it all, but this guy can do it all," said former Calgary Flames general manager Craig Button, an analyst for NHL Network.

Trouba checks in tenth on Button's list of top prospects at TSN; forward commit Boo Nieves is on his watch list. He's seventh to ISS. Nieves also features as a "riser":

Boo Nieves, LW, Kent HS
Nieves has rocketed up the charts after showing off his stuff with USA at the Ivan Hlinka on top of several favorable viewings last season. Nieves is a skilled, offensively productive center who has the potential to grow into his body. He has great hands and displays a real high level of skill. He also has better then average skating, utilizing a smooth stride that provides him with a top gear when required.

He's still not in ISS's top 30.

Comment truth. Let me pull this out from the depths of the game column comment thread:

With our personnel, I think most people would want Rodriguez running the offense. They would just want him to stay far, far away from the defense.

The dirty little secret is this: This game was the cost of doing business, by deciding for a full scale switch from the head coach - who didn't earn himself a 4th year based on results, everyone settle down -  on down, rather than just going after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff. Now, in the long term it was probably the right decision, but in the short term, we have set ourselves up for frustration. …

[discussion of last year's game vs this year's game with focus on field position and yardage]

So reality is this: Because Rodriguez was defensively incapable, he lost his job. In turn, Hoke was hired and he brought in Mattison, a guy who has proven - along with having a more experienced secondary - to be one of the best hires in college football. He also brought in Borges, who isn't the proper fit for our offensive talent. It's not his fault and as has been stated, won't be a problem in 2 years time. But this year, we're going to have to suffer through another flawed season, which to me is incredibly frustrating given that a spot in the Big Ten title game is there for the taking.

That is exactly where I'm at. We had to deep-six Rodriguez and the coaching hire appears to be working out about as well as anyone could have hoped, but burning Denard's career in an offense he's not suited for is killing me. Shades of gray exist.

Etc.: Basketball ranked 20th by Rivals. Smart Football on combining quick passes with runs and screens—this is like extending the zone read concept to linebackers downfield. Michigan Monday in case anyone thinks the Sparty == Dirty meme is restricted to homers. Lake the Posts also jumps in with outrage(!).

Comments

BraveWolverine730

October 19th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

Yes because the respective defenses completely put the offenses in identical situations the last two years.  Now the fact that last year's defesne couldn't do what this year's could is a very good argument as to why Rodriguez should have(and was) fired, but it tells us nothing about how good his offense was with respect to this one. 

Wolverrrrrrroudy

October 20th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^

That is counterintuitive.  Last year our defense let them score at will, we had more possessions and less points when adjusting for home field.  So last year our Defensive incapability gave us more possessions of the football and we still couldn't do much. 

Am I the only one that remembers our offense being unproductive against the better teams last season?

BraveWolverine730

October 19th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

I guess I just interpreted that comment completely differently than you.  The main points were that we a)Had to fire Rodriguez and b)Because of that, this offense is suboptimal to what it would have been with Rodriguez.  I think you're just focusing on the 2nd point(Because it is the crux of the argumen), but the 1st is really important as well.  The point is that it's "The cost of doing business", but it was a necessary cost. It sucks now, but in two years when we're crushing Penn St in the B1G championship game, it won't be so bad. 

El Jeffe

October 19th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^

To me, the first sentence of that post was just kind of a hypothetical that wasn't meant to be taken seriously. IME, the money sentences from that post were these:

 

The dirty little secret is this: This game was the cost of doing business, by deciding for a full scale switch from the head coach - who didn't earn himself a 4th year based on results, everyone settle down -  on down, rather than just going after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff. Now, in the long term it was probably the right decision, but in the short term, we have set ourselves up for frustration.

It's important for people to remember that we expected some backsliding on offense. It was inevitable. Even if you're one of the looneys who think that Michigan's offense wasn't that great last year because Wisconsin, it still doesn't really make sense that a brand new OC with little experience running the offense that RR recruited for would have as much success as the (counterfactual and hypothetical) RR-run offense of this year.

So the point is that there was a cost to Brandon's decision. It likely will be a cost we will bear for 2-3 years, just as we bore the cost of RR's installation of the spread for 2-3 years. The big difference is that by all appearances, the defense will not be a smoking dismembered corpse in 2-3 years, as it was with RR/GERG. And yet, there are still costs to Brandon's decision.

STW P. Brabbs

October 19th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not, but the clear implication of that quote is that it was possible to "just go ... after the massive problem that was the defensive coordinator and staff."  And that, instead, a decision was made for "a full-scale switch."  

Which I think is mistaken.  You can disagree with that, sure, but I don't see how you're disagreeing with my reading of the comment itself. 

I do agree that there's going to be some growing pains on offense, of course - and I would suggest that Borges deserves a bit of slack for trying to adapt to the situation as best he can.

Ed Shuttlesworth

October 19th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^

I love the blithe, unexamined -- and utterly unproven -- assumptions that: (1) Hoke's W-L record this year would have been, definitionally, RR's floor; and (2) Denard's performance this year would have been, definitionally, his floor under RR.

It's as if no coach who has done a shitty job for three years ever does a shitty job, or regresses, in year 4. (**)  This is not a talented team.  It could have easily regressed.

Denard doesn't pass well enough to build a program around in 2011.  Simple as that.  We're making do with his limitations as best we can.

I'm a Michigan grad.  Michigan is rightly "we" to me if I so choose.  The Tigers, Lions, NY Rangers, etc. aren't. 

The uniforms are Dave Brandon's baby, and the same lack of taste he's shown presiding over the Athletic Department shows in the uniforms.

(**) Insightful and objective observers should note here that Rich Rodriguez's defense regressed for three straight years.

NiMRODPi

October 19th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^

"That is exactly where I'm at. We had to deep-six Rodriguez and the coaching hire appears to be working out about as well as anyone could have hoped, but burning Denard's career in an offense he's not suited for is killing me...."

The constant between last year MSU and this year MSU is Denard. Denard killed drives last year, he killed them this year. While I agree with Brian that Denard was made for Rodriguez's offense, isn't it clear that what killed us then kills us now? Defense was in shambles last year, no question. But look back at that MSU game last year.

Our two touchdown drives we started at at least the 40. We punted four times, missed a field goal, threw three picks, two of which were on drives that had already gone over 50 yards and in the red zone. Divorcing myself from my love of Denard, it becomes obvious that the spread works for him because his weakest aspect isn't manifest until we hit the red zone. The obvious open man, once compacted in the red zone, becomes not so open. Those holes slowly start to resemble creases. The bodies fly around and Denard throws balls WELL behind reasonably open receivers. I am still haunted by Roundtree and Stonum being glaringly open in the endzone.

Isn't it perhaps not the offense he is ill-suited for, but the position in general? Sitting back and giving the offense with Denard the hardly scientific "eye-test", when we aren't trouncing overmatched teams, it more resembles the wildcat.

I have some ambivalence because I love the guy, and he stayed when many would have left. But at what point are we not only hurting the team as a whole but also NOT preparing him for the NFL? Isn't he owed at least that much, even if it is against his current personal inclinations? Denard is supremely gifted, he could be many things in the scheme of football.

JeepinBen

October 19th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

Denard has won 2 games for us by himself this year. We don't beat ND last year or this year without him. HE THREW FOR MORE YARDS AS A SOPHOMORE THAN HENNE. Why does no one want him to play QB?

Ya know who sucks at throwing? Tebow. Ya know who won a lot in college and was (over) drafted in the 1st round? Tebow. Now take Tebow, make him about twice as fast, lose 40lbs and you have Denard. Good lord. This debate is ridiculous. I'm not saying Denard is going to be an NFL QB, but why would you take your best player of the last 2 years and move him!??!?!

NiMRODPi

October 19th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

Good point on ND last year, he did quite well that game and lead a heart-pumping drive down the field. Great memory there.

I wouldn't say that about this year though. He came out on the right side of 50/50 balls this year I would say. Also Tebow in college only threw 15 INTs his entire career. 67.1% completion on his career. I also agree he was overdrafted at QB. But he could be nothing else other than a Tight End. Do you think Denard's skills don't transfer to any other position? I'm not saying we definitely SHOULD move him, but like you said and I agree, his athelticability is amazing. He could play other positions too and play them well I bet.

I will gladly be wrong and have Denard dominate the rest of the season though. :)

funkywolve

October 19th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^

Tebow had Percy Harvin, who is the Percy Harvin compliment for Denard?

Which when RR was here we kept asking when is Steve Slaton going to show up to compliment Denard.

I'm pretty sure one of Tebow's TE's is in the NFL now playing and doing pretty good for the Patriots.  I'll be surprised if any of UM's current TE's make it to the nfl and have the same success as the Florida one.

El Jeffe

October 19th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

This seems as good a time as any to point out that if you're interested in comparing Michigan's offense under RR/Magee to Michigan's offense under Hoke/Borges, there are only two relevant comparisons:

  1. Michigan's actual offense last year with the counterfactual offense of Borges running his offense LAST YEAR, and
  2. Michigan's actual offense last year with the counterfactual offense of RR running his offense THIS YEAR.

This is what is known as the fundamental problem of causal inference, because one of the two quantities you need to know the "effect" of RR or Borges is always unobserved.

The same problem works for the defense. For all our tongue-bathing of Mattison, most of it justifiable IME, it is important to remember that comparing this year's defense to last year's defense and concluding that Mattison is the overwhelming cause of the upgrade misses the fact that the relevant comparison would be between a Mattison-led defense this year and a GERG-led defense this year (*shudder*). I wouldn't wish that on anyone but MSU and OSU, but still.

MishaM

October 19th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

The worst thing about Michigan losing is that half the people of the board jump on here to complain that Brian is not covering Brady Hoke with enough of his saliva to run most of his interior plumbing for a week.  Coaches were outcoached.  Team was outplayed.  Uniforms looked awful.  Regroup, rethink, and get healthy.  The way the schedule plays out this year, a  chance for the division title is still very much possible. 

Or you know... complain about the lack of Brady Hoke tongue baths instead.

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2011 at 5:26 PM ^

That the worst thing about losing would be everyone would suddenly jump off the bandwagon, and start lamenting about "what might have been under Rich", and blaming the coaches for everything because St. Denard can do no wrong.

I'll say though, other than a few people who basically haven't said anything for months and jumped back in with "I KNEW this sucked/was wrong/should have kept", and a little subtle lamenting, it's been at least more fair minded than I thought it would be.  Though it is Wednesday....not sure it was so true on Saturday.

TrppWlbrnID

October 20th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

that on the list of rivalries and nasty penalties, the one team that idolizes a violent society and plays clips from a torture porn movie during its games has the highest percentage all to themselves. of the average of 4 of these a game, MSU gets 3.2, meaning that over the course of 5 years, UM gets 4 such penalty while MSU gets 16.

for serious.

gbdub

October 19th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

The unis were a doubling down on the UTL jersey, which I already thought was too busy. The MSU game uni had too many colors, too many elements, and too many fonts. Seriously, how many fonts are on the bloody thing? Between the modern block M, the Victors Valiant, the old-timey jersey numbers, and the 60s era rounded helmet numbers, all the text is just a hodge podge of assorted gibberish. And there are color blocks of varying width all over the place. That's what makes them look clown like - there is just far too much going on. Any one of elements on its own would be fine, but they don't come together to form a united whole.

oriental andrew

October 19th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^

the Uni-Watch blog guy LOVES our (oops, I mean The University of Michigan football team's) "legacy" road unis...

http://www.uni-watch.com/2011/10/16/hail-to-the-conquring-spartans/

 

Counterbalancing my reduced grade of “B” for the Spartans is an “A+” (with a bullet) for the Wolverines getup. If this was a one-shot (and I hope it isn’t), it’d still be an A+, but I would love for them to make it a part of their regular rotation. My only qualm is not with the uni itself, but just where exactly do they get the elements from (it’s supposedly celebrating the 132 year history of the football program). To my mind, it’s not really a fauxback or even a mashup — but that’s just semantics. Whatever you want to call it, it’s fantastic. Well done, Michigan (and adidas), well done.

 

And without even a hint of sarcasm.

Ed Shuttlesworth

October 19th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^

"Toughness" probably does have too much tof a moralizing tinge, so suffice it to say that  Michigan State is bigger, more physical, and better equipped to run, pass, defend the run, and defend the pass in those kind of elements than Michigan.

Michigan State didn't spend last year, the offseason, and this year waiting around for Rich Rodriguez's team to "improve" and go past them.  The other teams try to get better, too.

jaws4141

October 19th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^

I can't wait for the tougher players that Hoke recruits to begin playing. Rodriguez recruited choir boys. The Spartans manhandled us. Hopefully it won't take Hoke long to clean up the rr mess.

Sugaloaf

October 19th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^

Apparently when Brian said it would take a "fun-hating mutant whose super power is pedantry to object to this", he was not referring to himself or his opinion of the legacy all-white unis. 

I must admit, on this blog (which I love, and thx Brian) there are times I get confused  about where the line between Fun and Serious exists.

 

 

M Fanfare

October 19th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^

Those uniforms resemble the "winner" of one of those internet Alternate Uniforms threads made by someone who has no concept of tradition or good fashion sense.

Bravo, Dave Brandon, bravo.

Ed Shuttlesworth

October 19th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^

RR was incapable of making proper decisions regarding his defensive staff.  He fired (scapegoated) a good/excellent DC after a year, and hired a crony joke for years 2 and 3.  If he'd been given a Year 4 and allowed to clean house on defense, he may have hired another joke.

Never, ever assume things can't get worse.

Ed Shuttlesworth

October 19th, 2011 at 4:54 PM ^

Bringing back a 6-18 in the B1G coach and having half his staff picked by the Athletic Director is an idea that is beyond ridiculous.  The program would have descended to the level of a national punch line.

It's hard to imagine seriously suggesting such a thing and it's hard to believe it was seriously suggested.

Brown Bear

October 19th, 2011 at 8:53 PM ^

might be best suited to run this offense. But RR also struggled against top tier B1G teams as well with HIS offense. We didnt have the players with RR to succeed on offense in B1G play and it looks as if we still don't for the most part. Hopefully we continue to improve and prove this thought wrong so not to struggle entirely until coach Hokes recruits get in and make an impact.

buddhafrog

October 19th, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^

I love the uniforms!  I'm out of the closet and now feel so free.  It's so hard on this forum to like "In the Big House" or these sort-of-throwbacks, but I do, I do.

I predict there are others out there.

 

Drbogue

October 20th, 2011 at 6:31 AM ^

This "giant boot" is most likely a CAM
<br>Walker. It looks almost like a ski boot. The purpose is to immobilize the ankle but allow you to walk. Likely an ankle sprain, but CAMs will allow one to avoid crutches which although effective and screw up other joints.