Cade “Cyanide” McNamara’s cyan circle
Hello all! Long time reader, first time poster. This may be my last (only) post here for a while. (Still not sure what posts here are deemed relevant or satisfactory as legitimate message board posts after 10 years in this space) This may get me negged to hell, but there seemed to be enough discussion of the Cade “Cyan” topic on this site to create a thread dedicated to this discussion. I am hoping this thread reaches our fearless leaders attention on the blog and we can get some explanation on this Tom foolery! Is Cade booty cheeks in our bloggers eyes? Is this some sort of unspoken reversal jinx ( if so, I know I am ruining everything, sorry!)? Does the cyan circle an every evolving set of rules/ meaning? Please feel free to go at it below!
October 8th, 2021 at 12:30 PM ^
Yes. Best to keep in mind it's just an opinion by a non-coach, non-scout, and could very likely be incorrect. I, too, appreciate the blog's efforts, but remember there could be big errors in the analysis.
October 8th, 2021 at 2:08 PM ^
But Brian and Seth have spent more time watching film than some high school coaches out there do. With the number of years and time they have put into the UFRs I trust their opinions.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:42 PM ^
Thanks. Mertz should have had the cyan ring. I was leading the charge of "Mertz isn't that good" in the offseason then chickened out when I was making the graph because I thought he would make two inch-perfect throws to beat Dax Hill and make me eat it.
He did not make me eat it.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:52 PM ^
You should have told us to expect those two throws. It would have made the game thread more sanguine.
October 8th, 2021 at 1:18 PM ^
This helps a lot - takes the wind out of most of my qualms. Appreciate you being willing to go back-and-forth on this.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:27 PM ^
In fairness, I often read "trouble spot" as "he sucks". I mean, not a bad "he sucks", maybe more like a "he doesn't suck too much".
Nonetheless, I'll agree with the cyan circling because the lack of reads has a very large impact on the running game. I cannot quantify how large, but the eye test says that a few successful keeps will honest-ify the defense so more runs with Corum/Haskins can be more successful.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:55 PM ^
And it's not just the lack of reads in the run game.
Several QB experts who I trust to analyze things correctly have pointed out about a half dozen wide open TD throws he didn't see. Opportunity cost matters.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:56 PM ^
That's fine but Graham Mertz, who came into last week's game leading the nation in TOs and under 5 ypa didn't get the cyan. Was he not a "trouble spot" for the UW offense?
I understand that this is all subjective but this feels based completely on zone reading, which would be fine if the offense was based on running the QB but instead seems like a nice-to-have and ignores his other abilities. Does split zone suffer? Sure. But again, if the standard is "hurts a part of our offense/defense" then these charts need way more cyan.
Anyway, it's a difference of opinion and that's fine but I've not seen or read anything more compelling than "his failures annoy me to a degree that other QB's limitations did not" to justify this mark.
October 8th, 2021 at 1:01 PM ^
"his failures annoy me to a degree that other QB's limitations did not" to justify this mark.
You could give Denard Fucking Robinson a cyan with the same logic that's been used to give Cade a cyan.
October 8th, 2021 at 2:24 PM ^
Yep. RR's passing attack absolutely struggled because Denard couldn't consistently hit throws beyond 10 yards in coverage, which allowed the better defenses to cheat up and slow down the running part of the offense. Shea Patterson struggled in his reads and, as I was told NUMEROUS times here, failed to complete downfield throws to all those super receivers who absolutely went on to dominate in the NFL. Joe Milton couldn't do anything against any team not called Minnesota.
I find myself getting more worked up about this objectively-meaningless distinction because I'm tired of people trying to shit on a perfectly enjoyable season. UM will not go undefeated and Cade McNamara will not win the Heisman - I am comfortable saying that. UM will likely lose a couple of games coming up and McNamara will likely throw some bad picks. But this pathological desire to preemptively bathe in pain of lost opportunities as some lazy coping mechanism is infuriating.
October 8th, 2021 at 2:38 PM ^
bronx you're a great longtime poster and you've got to realize who/what you're reading. This isn't exactly a home to authors who bask in the numbers in the win column. There's obviously a lot of in-depth analysis going on and for them to be rainbows and butterflies about obvious deficiencies just isn't the way it's going to be. This whole debate is a bit of a boredom thread it seems. Most here including authors are likely overall content with the QB play but when UFR time comes, honesty prevails and the run game, coaches fault or not, with him at the helm is hampered by his performance.
October 8th, 2021 at 4:36 PM ^
I'd say that it has more to do with objective analysis and consistency moreso than anything about wins and losses. Cade has played well overall by any objective measure and if you say he's a trouble spot then you need to say the same thing about many other players, both on our team and on others.
There is absolutely no way Cade would be cyan if he were on an opposing team. I. Fact, the FFFF would talk endlessly about how deadly his deep ball is and make him out to be a huge threat to the defense.
October 8th, 2021 at 1:18 PM ^
I accept that one standard should be applied. However, I think it's been made clear that not giving Mertz a cyan was a superstitious error. I can agree that shouldn't happen.
October 8th, 2021 at 2:26 PM ^
Sure, but they also didn't give the cyan to Joe Milton one time last year, or Dylan Morris this year, or Rocky Lombardi, or really anyone. It just feels needlessly critical at this point.
October 8th, 2021 at 1:16 PM ^
Michigan ranks 7th nationally in rushing and your contention is that the pocket passer quarterback is a trouble spot because of his lack of involvement in the run game?
October 8th, 2021 at 1:49 PM ^
So we have a quarterback who can’t read. This really is a problem.
October 8th, 2021 at 1:52 PM ^
Seth, you guys do a great job, and i (and many) appreciate your explanation, but it is still dead wrong. Even if you take that into account, his positives at minimum are plusses that cancel it out to 0 (average). There is no freaking way he should be a trouble spot. And if you think your reasoning does indeed make him a trouble spot, then you have to cyan about 15 other UM players not named Hill or Hutchinson who are severely lacking in one or more phases of their games (WR blocking, a couple TE's running routes/catching, an OLman against above average tackles, a LB against the pass, a corner that never gets his head turned around, another corner horrible in run d, etc...
October 8th, 2021 at 2:10 PM ^
I appreciate your response here. Your points are well-taken on my end, considering what's happened in the last two games (UM out-yarded at home against Rutgers, 2.5 YPC in 44 carries against Wisconsin).
Various folks have brought up McNamara's strengths, but one additional item I would bring up is that this QB-not-running weakness becomes less of a trouble spot if UM is playing McCarthy more in short yardage situations, which they seem to be starting to do.
October 8th, 2021 at 5:44 PM ^
There’s a significant difference between “HAS a trouble spot” vs. “IS a trouble spot.”
My opinion - cyan should indicate IS vs. HAS.
October 8th, 2021 at 5:45 PM ^
waaaaay out over your skis here Seth.
1) If literally the worst rated QB in all of CFB is cyan AND the 30th ranked effeciency QB is also cyan, then cyan has no meaning.
2) re: trouble spot != "he sucks" ... I mean, why are we playing semantics to sugar coat this? this ain't intramurals, brother. We know what the intention is in describing the player using a cyan ring. Call it whatever you want but I know when someone is pissing and calling it rain.
3) the standards are waaaay too high in judging this guys performance. I get it, this is the M starting QB and every little decision he makes that doesn't get 100% of available yards is highlighted in your brain. You're just leaving no room for a plain circle for this player when, if he hit all or most of these missed reads and open receivers, M would be operating the #1 overall offense by a wide margin, scoring 60ppg and waht, 380 Rypg instead of 280 and you'd be talking about a Shield/star for Cade. The flaws in his game can't be judged vs perfection in all respects and it seems he's either star/sheild or cyan.
October 8th, 2021 at 11:57 AM ^
overtaking ass. Michael Bolton and Michael Barrett are both coaching. Keith Jackson is dead. Taco Pants.
October 8th, 2021 at 11:59 AM ^
Is there any voracity to the idea Cade may be benched...for Michael Barrett?
October 8th, 2021 at 12:29 PM ^
Whoa nellie, you may be onto something! I heard Keith Jackson talking about it just yesterday!!
October 8th, 2021 at 12:37 PM ^
This rumor is unverified...
October 8th, 2021 at 11:59 AM ^
I had similar feelings about this. He may not be a "dangerman", but he's certainly a weapon if you ask me. His deep ball has been fantastic (when's the last time we had this?), he knows the offense very well, and throws to the correct receiver almost every time. Also, knock on wood, zero career turnovers thus far! He does have shortcomings in the ground game, but it seems the coaching staff is finding ways around this i.e. getting McCarthy in for some plays.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:01 PM ^
+1 solely for using "booty cheeks". Must be the overtaking ass factor.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:01 PM ^
One can only hope that when Cade puts his hands under center it'll be Cyanide Nebraska...oh wait is that the girl in the (six thousand disparate) Urban Meyer threads?
My confusion can be cleared up by a UM romp tomorrow night.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:07 PM ^
I've seen other people tilt at the windmill/mind-borg of the intelligentsia of these writers. It never ends well. They don't want the opinions of us plebes, we are just a revenue stream.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:13 PM ^
Point Taken. I am unworthy ?
October 8th, 2021 at 12:50 PM ^
From Seth’s point of you - you (presumably) come here because you value the coverage and analysis done by the MGoStaff. Whether you agree with the cyan or not, he provided documentation backed by evidence for why he believes Cade should have one. Is that him “not wanting your opinion” or simply sticking by the analysis he spent hours working on?
October 8th, 2021 at 1:58 PM ^
Seth replied, himself, right above your post, with an explanation of his thinking and a mea culpa about not cyan'ing Mertz last week. This is an aggressively bad take.
October 8th, 2021 at 2:40 PM ^
Yes this post is a bit of a lazy cheap shot.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:13 PM ^
Strangely mesmerizing, in a nightmarish sort of way.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:16 PM ^
Agreed. The natural ability of her doughy, undefined chest-neck-head region to spontaneously grow an infinite number of heads is hypnotic...
October 8th, 2021 at 12:28 PM ^
Boys will be boys!
October 8th, 2021 at 12:32 PM ^
It's like watching fractals continually self-generate. I should get some edibles.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:15 PM ^
I’ll take Cade over our recent past. I also believe he will continue to improve for as long as he can hold onto the starting job. He’s got some skills that we’ve missed dearly these past few years (I.e hitting the deep balls!!!, limiting turnovers, avoiding needless sacks, etc).
He does not appear to be good at reading the end, and his speed is what it is…non-existent. That being said, he’s still better than our last few options at QB.
Not sure how long he can hold JJ off, but I’m hoping for his best until that day comes.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:33 PM ^
To me his biggest strength and what has made the offense so good this year is his ability to correctly execute run or pass on each play in a way that punishes the defense for overplaying the run.
Almost every pass he throws (minus bomb to Johnson in double coverage against Wisconsin) has been a good decision. Open receivers short, 1-on-1 opportunities down the field, crossing routes. We have not seen this level of decision making in a long time, and it makes the offense go.
Not bad for a guy with 6 starts. A little more experience to eliminate some of the jitters, and I think we have a star in the making.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:57 PM ^
I agree. If he can hold JJ off, I think he becomes a very good college QB. He’s got a lot of eligibility left, so it could be a long road filled with great success and possibly a humbling passing of the torch. The combo of timing and JJ’s natural abilities could make for an awkward finish with some glorious moments along the way.
Hoping for the best for and from both these fine young men!
October 8th, 2021 at 12:31 PM ^
As a nickname, Cyanide McNamara has a nice ring.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:36 PM ^
As you noted, this has been extensively discussed in the FFFF thread. Why you felt the need to create another thread to discuss it again is beyond my understanding. But maybe I’m just obtuse.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:46 PM ^
I felt that it was dominating the discussion on that post. The post really had nothing to do with Cyan Cade. Therefore, I felt it would be productive to create a separate space where people could talk about it. Maybe, I should create a Cyan Cade blog?
October 8th, 2021 at 12:39 PM ^
I think it's fine to have questions around McNamara but it feels needlessly nit-picking/immovable opinions and not up-to-date takes.
Anyway, if telling everyone McNamara is bad keeps UM winning so be it; I'd rather that outcome replace the bullshit BPONE that previously occupied that space.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:40 PM ^
I have to agree with the OP, but only because of the transitive property. If Graham Mertz didn't get cyaned, Cade shouldn't get cyaned. One QB is way better than the other, but the cyan says otherwise.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:45 PM ^
FFFF charts are not transitive. It's relative to the team. If you're facing Michigan's offense, what's the weak spot?
Honestly I didn't think mertz was good, and it was a chicken decision not to cyan him because I thought we were going to lose the game and I would get mocked for it. I also didn't think Wisconsin would need any more than they got out of him. Michigan's line performance was a huge surprise to me. I hope yesterday's UFR made it clear that I am substantially up on our DL.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:53 PM ^
I get the point, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And Cade is one of the "weakest" parts of our offense. The OL is good and the rest of the skill position players are outpacing expectations. I guess I am just hung up on the wording of it. I don't consider Cade to be a below average QB in the Big Ten. And to get the cyan, it seems like you should be in the bottom half category.
Thanks for responding and keeping the discussion active. Much appreciated.
October 8th, 2021 at 1:24 PM ^
Michigan’s weak spot on offense is the wide receiver group. They are pedestrian. They may improve and be better next year, but right now, Cade is making lemonade out of lemons. Seth continues to hold Cade responsible for the failed wheel route to Edwards when all he had to do was catch the ball at shoulder level instead of waiting for it to drop into his hands at waist level. WR is a “make a play” position. How often have we seen WRs help out Cade by high pointing a ball, or catching something 12 inches from dead on?
Cade is producing numbers (157.9 QBR) comparable to Patterson’s best season (151.5 at Ole Miss), the Rudock season (141.5, with 9 INTs) and Devin’s best passing season (161.7). He’s doing this without Ronnie Bell. Wilson coming back to catch that underthrown ball against Wisconsin is the first time a WR came down with a 50-50 ball. Seriously, our WRs are at best succeeding 25% of the time on 50-50 balls.
October 8th, 2021 at 3:00 PM ^
If this is the standard, shouldn't there be at least one cyan on every unit of every team? And if that's not the case, the basis for assigning a cyan is transitive, or at least general to the league, because you're making the decision that there's some threshold of competence that makes it wrong to label a player a trouble spot even if he's the most problematic player on the team - which to me is sensible. For instance, in OSU's offense, Stroud is probably the weak spot, but I doubt anyone would seriously consider assigning the leading passer in the B1G a cyan.
Of course, it's not *that* big a deal, but the reaction of the board demonstrates that when you assign a player a cyan it's considered a very negative designation. If that's the case, and you don't want to have to give out at least one cyan on every unit, there should be some standard, consistently applied. Otherwise, as in the case of McNamara, it looks like a somewhat capricious swipe at the particular player, which I don't really think you want to do.
October 8th, 2021 at 12:45 PM ^
I want to say "who cares?", but clearly a lot of y'all really, really do.
1. Alex doesn't make the Mich part of the chart, so please actually read his FFFF. They're good!
2. It literally doesn't matter who is cyan/starred. Heck, maybe Cade reads MGoBlog (lol) and is pissed, so he'll work harder (He's definitely not self-motivated. Nope. He needs that Sparty Disrepkt to reach his full potential.)
3. I personally don't think the Cyan is justified, but I also know almost nothing about football schematics, so I'm probably wrong. Seth is great and knows WAY more about this than us plebs do. Entertaining an opinion that's contrary to your own won't actually hurt you and might even make you smarter. (Unless we're talking politics, of course. Then, primal reactionary rage is always a necessary and sufficient response.)