Caesar

April 6th, 2017 at 4:29 AM ^

I know he's talking about the kid's athletic ability, but the idea of likening a young black kid to a subservient animal performing tricks for the amusement of his masters doesn't sit well with me. 

I realize this is probably unpopular and going to get negged to hell, but I felt compelled to write it.

jabberwock

April 6th, 2017 at 7:51 AM ^

because you have your own perspective and are entitled to your opnion.

But I think you have to consider the perspective of who made the quote too.

Personlly, I hear "frisbee catching dog" and i think of an amazing athlete that is fast, graceful, and never fucking misses.  They're awesome and amazing and I wish I had a fraction of that talent.

I've also trained dogs to do a bit of that and i know the relationship is 100% about love & respect.

funkywolve

April 5th, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^

if this ends up being more of a reload instead of a rebuild year.  I am/was figuring 2017 to be the last hurdle until Harbaugh had the battleship constructed.  2018 should have a boatload of returning players and then 2019 will pretty much be all Harbaugh recruits on the roster.

SpikeFan2016

April 5th, 2017 at 8:45 PM ^

Me too!

 

I'm approaching 2017 in the following way: as long as we win 8/9 games and beat Michigan State in The Big House, the year can be classified as a fine season. We need to win at least 5 games at home (MSU, Minnesota, Rutgers, Cincy, Air Force are all games we absolutely should win in Ann Arbor). I also think we should be expected to beat Maryland, Purdue and Indiana on the road. As long as we win those 8 games, it can't be a failure of a season. If we drop one or two of those AND fail to pull off any of the marquee games, it wouldn't be a good look.

 

However, I can't call it a true success unless we beat Ohio State in Ann Arbor, because 0-3 and a 6 game losing streak is unbearable. Yet, I'm not necessarily expecting us to win. Ugh. 

coldnjl

April 5th, 2017 at 7:10 PM ^

I don't know how connected umbig11 is or how good his info is, but I do understand peoples hesitancy to trust unverified rumors coming out of a pretty tight ship...remember Maizeman from the old scout board? He was an insider....until he wasn't...nothing wrong with a healthy and respectable suspicion

Mr. Yost

April 5th, 2017 at 7:57 PM ^

Not really. I don't expect anyone to name sources.

It was just about the way the info was presented. And truth be told...umbig11's info is often correct, but he's been off more than once. So just because at the time I didn't know his (legitimacy? - stuggling for the proper word), doesn't mean I was 100% off. I was 100% off in how I responded that night, but there was some truth in there.

Truth be told, UMBig11 is the only reason I think Jon Runyan has any shot at significant minutes. He's hyped him up and I trust the track record so I've gone with it, but I haven't seen anything or heard anything other than his message board posts to believe he's truly the #3 interior OL. 

...but because UMBig11 said it, you'll see Runyan right there as the backup LG and RG on my random depth charts. But truthfully, he's the only info I have when it comes to that player.

Anyway, no, it wasn't about sources...it was simply the way the thread was presented. I felt there's a responsibility share your credentials in some way, shape, or form - I've seen people do it plenty of times without revealing their identity, role, or position. I didn't articulate that properly, but again, it had nothing to do with sources.

Mr. Yost

April 5th, 2017 at 11:03 PM ^

I'm sorry but comparing umbig11 then to Sam or Steve is ridiculous. You're absolutely correct in what your saying, but it's either irrelevant (because you weren't comparing and just chiming in with a random fact) or an insane comparison.

pescadero

April 6th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^

I'm sure umbig11 is a tangential program hanger on.

 

"Insiders" are:

 

Team members

Coaches

Athletic Director

AD employees DIRECTLY involved with the FB program speaking on the subject they're involved in.

 

The end.

 

That is the entirety of the list of insiders.

Players friends? Not insiders. Players parents/family members? Not insiders. AD employees that don't work with FB team? Not insiders. Reporters, n amtter how well connected? Not insiders.

 

 

Magnus

April 6th, 2017 at 1:52 PM ^

This is all semantics. Regardless, not many players, athletic directors, etc. are participating on message boards. There are others with connections who don't fall in those categories. If pescadero doesn't consider those other people to be insiders, oh well. 

pescadero

April 6th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^

Yes - it is semantics. You know... the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

 

Not only do I not consider them insiders, neither does the definition of "insider"

insider - member of any group of people of limited number and generally restricted access.

 

 

Magnus

April 6th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^

Right. And by your strict definition, for example, John U. Bacon is not an "insider," even when he spent/spends hours in meetings, at coaches' houses, at practices, etc. Because any ol' Michigan fan could have written "Three and Out."

You are generally a contrarian - especially when interacting with me - and I take your comments here with a huge grain of salt.

You might think you sound intelligent when discussing the definition of "semantics" or "insider," but you generally just come off as being petty and biased, for whatever reason. Plenty of people appreciate the information provided, but here comes pescadero - in the midst of 100 other voices - who has to regale us with his specific, definitive interpretation of the word "insider." Thank you for enlightening us.

1VaBlue1

April 6th, 2017 at 8:35 AM ^

"I was 100% off in how I responded that night, but there was some truth in there."

So which is it - were you 100% off, or were you speaking some truth?  It doesn't work both ways...

Having witnessed your meltdown myself, I'd say you were 100% off and earned your epically large negbang!

Mr. Yost

April 5th, 2017 at 7:37 PM ^

No. That is not what happened at all.

But I'm happy to see the story has grown over the months.

If you recall correctly, the rant (and yes, admittedly, it was a rant) was about how the info was presented. It had nothing to do with the content. So where Speight comes up is beyond me.

ADKGoBlue

April 5th, 2017 at 6:00 PM ^

Pumped for his analysis on the defense. I have heard that Ambry Thomas is supposed to become a real star (Come to think of it, that might have been umbig11's words from another TTB post)

lhglrkwg

April 5th, 2017 at 6:05 PM ^

I thought he was getting a gig with rivals or scout...

also, this is a BOLD claim.

 

The defense is solid and I do not expect a drop off from last year
I'm not ready to drink that koolaid yet