This offense is going to be a problem

Submitted by Wolverine Abroad on October 8th, 2023 at 3:24 AM

Watched the game last night and I was impressed by the whole team, but one thing stood out to me .. JJ's intelligent reads and decision making.

I am glad they are opening up the game for him and letting him run a little more.

I tried to look this up, but I can't recall a UM QB rushing for 2 TD's in a game since Denard. But JJ is a different kind of QB to shoelace who ran much more. JJ picks his spots.

Opposing teams are going to struggle to prepare for the things they are seeing this year.

Also CJ and Roman are becoming clutch, not just when they are open, but in contested balls too, which I can't recall since like Braylon or older. . Darboh and Jehu could be clutch but don't recall them being reliable on contested catches.... Our TEs had to make the hard catches, now it's our WR's.

MGoBoard

Football

JJ Mcarthy 2 rushing TDs WR contested catches

djmagic

October 8th, 2023 at 11:38 AM ^

I'm a firm believer in the notion that 'context matters'. but i can believe that while also thinking it's a bit ridiculous that many people on this board want to insist that that term means something different here than on most of the rest of the internet, insofar as message board parlance is concerned.

that my post got negged is comical to me. snowflakes gonna snowflake, I suppose.

Joined: 09/06/2010

MGoPoints: 2354

It'sGreatToBe

October 8th, 2023 at 1:39 PM ^

djmagic -- it sounds like you're unaware, but there's pretty clear guidance posted at the end of OT season (and that is stickied at the top of the board you're reading) that explains what a "snowflake" thread is. Snowflakes are described in the very first rule:

[W]e have some excellent football minds on the board and I really don’t want their contributions to be buried by your two paragraphs which amount to “that was awesome” or “that sucked” or what-have-you.

OP's post was highly generalized post-game musings about positive offensive developments that are the subject of discussion in almost every single podcast, UFR, FFFF, preview, etc. on this board ("is JJ making his reads? did we use his legs early to maximize effect? are our WRs catching what they should?"). It was textbook snowflake content, and if you read the Minnesota Snowflakes: The Offense thread there's already a bunch of almost identical commentary on JJ's running (even including JJ vs. Denard discussion!), balls being caught / dropped, etc.

By contrast, people are generally fine with more detailed analysis that is specific, nuanced, and/or provides value to other readers on the board (as described here):

The Snowflake Rule will apply after games, but we will weigh threads individually and those which provide, for example, detailed analysis of a single series or play or video analysis will probably stay.

For example, unique and/or otherwise useful threads like these and these that aren't essentially recitations of "our offense looked good" and the like.

Candidly, I usually never care about these since the moms clean it up fairly quickly (and I've certainly never commented on it before), but someone asked the question as to why it's being downvoted and I provided an explanation. Complain about this not mirroring your own definition of "snowflakes" all you'd like, but the concept is quite straightforward and really not that hard to understand. I hope that explanation helps.

Joined: 09/28/2014

MGoPoints: 394

djmagic

October 9th, 2023 at 12:56 PM ^

I appreciate the information. i have never read most of the sticky'd threads on this board.

i still think that the term 'snowflake', while maybe having a specific meaning/application regarding comments about Michigan football things on this board, means something entirely different to most people who use message boards. but that's neither here nor there at this point. a lot of people act like snowflakes here, and that's fine.

my bigger point of contention is that there is an attitude on this board that seems to prioritize petty grievances and minor inconveniences; but that attitude appears fostered and coddled by the moderators, so there's not much I can do about it except observe it out loud, and shake my fake-angry fist at the sky.

perhaps I've been spoiled by spending too much time in more abrasive, less regulated forums. Oh well. I still love MGoBlog and most of what the site has to offer, I just take issue with some of the message board dynamics and will voice that from time to time. If I get downvoted for it, so be it. I saw someone with -9million votes the other day, so it's clear that said downvotes don't amount to much. I will repeat what I've said in other threads though, which is that this board would benefit greatly from the addition of "ignore user" and "ignore thread" features, which would then hopefully cut down on the whiny bullshit from people who get irritated by various things.

GO BLUE.

Joined: 09/06/2010

MGoPoints: 2354