Lanknows



Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 234 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: QB update from umbig11 #25900
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Before anybody starts overreacting (again) to Peters they should consider the situation fluid, just like it was when O’Korn was supposedly the best QB on the roster in 2015 or when Peters was the best QB on the roster a few months ago.

    The McCaffrey/Peters debate is mostly academic until Fall 2019 unless something happens to Speight.

    in reply to: QB update from umbig11 #25899
    Lanknows
    Participant

    The year that a Harbaugh recruited QB takes over depends on Speight more than anything else. It’s still 2019 probably.

    McCaffrey passing Peters for now doesn’t change that. Speights being a Heisman finalist would.

    in reply to: QB update from umbig11 #25898
    Lanknows
    Participant

    No

    in reply to: More fall practice notes from umbig11 #25666
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Alternative thought – they improved the same – Higdon is just a better fit to be a primary back in this offense (which demands between the tackles running and consistency).

    in reply to: Some football notes heading in to week 2…. #25546
    Lanknows
    Participant

    A lot of that is scheme though. Counting Peppers in one year and not the other will make a difference. So will blitzing a lot. The 2015 defense was also excellent.

    in reply to: Some football notes heading in to week 2…. #25545
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Very encouraging to hear the Hudson hype. Thanks for sharing. I don’t buy that the LBs will be better w/o Peppers but it’s nice to hear anyway.

    That Evans hasn’t seized the RB job is mildly concerning.

    There’s some guys who have a clear opportunity and high ceiling (Mone, Onwenu, Crawford, McDoom, Long, Hill, Dwumfour, Wheatley) that I hope we soon hear are “taking charge” in the way that Kinnell, Metellus, Hudson, Kemp have done. Of course those guys happen to have only freshman to compete against…

    in reply to: Some recent rumblings #24768
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I was referring to Solomon, but the maturity issues can come up with any freshman.

    in reply to: Some recent rumblings #24759
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Mone really is in a different boat than Kemp and Dwumfour. He’s done it in the past. It’s about taking the next step that the great ones take to be consistent and resilient.

    I agree Dwumfour is a critical player.

    I maintain that the combination of Mattison, size/talent, and a bunch of options (i.e., competition) all but ensures that Michigan will put together a pretty solid group of backups to rotate in.

    in reply to: Some recent rumblings #24758
    Lanknows
    Participant

    The bigger concern to me is maturity. Not necessarily a problem in the long-run but when you’re talking about ability to a different part of the country, transition to college life/freedom, AND eat some humble pie on the gridiron – that’s a lot for some kids to handle. It is likely to take time.

    Mattison will sort out the performance and talent issues, I have no doubt, in the long run. It’s up to the kid to do the things he has to do to take advantage of the opportunity.

    in reply to: Some recent rumblings #24757
    Lanknows
    Participant

    The biggest worry there is Mone. Not too surprising given that Hurst, Gary, and Kemp seemed to be leading in hype through the spring.

    Can’t say I’m surprised by Solomon struggling to transition from HS. Of course there is time to get better.

    Hadn’t heard Furbush to DE since he was a recruit but that’s what many thought. Looks like he can play, but there’s only room for 2 LBs most times. Get your best on the field.

    Great to hear about Dwumfour and Jeter. I’m penciling them into the top 8 for now.

    Thanks for the update!

    in reply to: UM adds Alfonso Smith to the staff #24730
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Turner is Norv’s son? Who is he replacing or is this just a straight addition?

    in reply to: Updated Roster #24729
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Sometimes kids think they can get away with stuff or just don’t have the discipline to not do stuff they want to do at a given moment. From the grown man perspective, it’s baffling, but most of us were there in some form or another as teenagers.

    in reply to: Updated Roster #24720
    Lanknows
    Participant

    The Johnson thing started well over a year ago related to Mitchell. It seems he was given a chance (or a few) to get back in line but it didn’t work out.

    in reply to: Texas OT Brandon Hodges is grad transferring #24705
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Make it so!

    in reply to: MSU Attrition #23934
    Lanknows
    Participant

    what is ‘red lock’?

    in reply to: Athlon Top 25 Released #23790
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Seems a bit QB-centric

    Still think PSU is getting overrated.

    Alabama-FSU is a helluva way to start off the season.

    Lanknows
    Participant

    Please never call this kid an “ex-wolverine”. He’s yet another example of a verbal “commitment” not equating to being a member of team, program, or university. If it was ever the case, it certainly isn’t in this day and age.

    Ex-commit – true. Ex-wolverine – nah.

    in reply to: Recruiting – State of Michigan #23627
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I think the main argument is that it hurts MSU. I personally don’t care very much but it’s comforting when Michigan can get most of the guys they want in-state. Where it matters most is with elite prospects like DPJ.

    Michigan has no real advantage to sell a anonymous 5-star recruit. You want elite academics – play at standard or Notre Dame. Huge rabid fanbase – Texas or Ohio State. Winning/NFL production – Alabama. National prestige – Notre Dame. Weather – USC. etc. So the times when you can have “home” on your side – you want to see that make a difference.

    in reply to: Where We're At – 2017 Offense #23582
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Post-spring I don’t see much change. A few guys have moved up their expectations (e.g., Black, Peters, Kugler, Runyan) and a few guys have been dialed back a bit, but the position groups pretty much are what we expected.

    Need Onwenu and Bredeson to keep getting better.

    in reply to: Where We're At – 2017 Defense #23581
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Post-spring I’d bump the grades a bit – mostly down.

    DL: A to A-. Having Kemp be the only guy that emerged to be really pushing for playing time is not ideal.
    LB: C+ to B-. Bush and McCray seem on track to be plus starters. Depth is iffy but not critical.
    CB/Nickel: C- to D+. Transfer interest and position-switches and luke-warm spring reports make this a worry spot. Desperately need Hill and Long to step up.
    S/Viper: C. Starters on track despite inexperience, but depth is dodgy.

    in reply to: Lots of talent arriving in June #23532
    Lanknows
    Participant

    The future is bright. For 2017:

    -DL contributions are needed and expected. Solomon, Hudson and Vilain immediately enter the mix. We’ll find out how quickly (and if) they can catch up to guys likes Jeter, Marshall, Dwumfour in the battle for backup snaps.

    -LB status is similar to DL with 2 key distinctions: experience is more important and rotation less likely. Michigan needs to develop backups but it doesn’t have to play them much. Expect one freshman to emerge and the others to red-shirt, though LBs often help in special teams.

    -Hawkins as a safety who will also practice at WR and should red-shirt in an ideal world. But his status as a post-grad may make him less inclined to accept that outcome. He could be a special teams contributor a la Dymonte Thomas. He is theoretically behind Glasgow and Woods but could be needed to catch up fast if injuries strike. Guessing he plays.

    -Contributions from freshman OL are not optimal and generally indicative of depth problems. Hopefully they all can red-shirt.

    -WR contributions are probably dependent on a scheme shift to more 4-wide sets. The summer arrivals are going to face an uphill battle to pass Crawford, McDoom, DPJ, Black, etc. Some rumblings Martin may be used for punt returns but that’s not always a job a freshman will be entrusted with.

    -Red-shirting freshman RB is not optimal. You can either play or you can’t and Samuels and Taylor will be given a chance to contribute right away. M has solid depth at RB so it’ll be an uphill battle for both, but if Samuels is a future star expect him to see the field in 2017 in one way or another.

    -McCaffrey should, hopefully, red-shirt like almost any QB should.

    Expected impact players: Robbins, Hudson or Solomon, Villain, Samuels, Hawkins, maybe one of the LBs or WRs.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23490
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Michigan said it. You claimed they didn’t.

    in reply to: Korrin Wiggins – Do we want? #23489
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Yes. No-brainer.

    It doesn’t say anything about our secondary other than what we already know – we are both thin and inexperienced. That’s true at safety and nickel.

    Even if he’s just an insurance policy from throwing true freshman out there, that’s a useful addition to the team.

    My only hope is that he’s not the only grad transfer Michigan is looking at.

    in reply to: Frank Clark lashes out at writer who criticized him #23488
    Lanknows
    Participant

    What a jerk. One of my least favorite ex-wolverines of all time.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23476
    Lanknows
    Participant

    or maybe ever. Even if he blows a knee or gets a brain injury that might not necessarily have been prevented had he not had whatever he had through his time at Michigan.

    I don’t dispute there is ambiguity.

    There is probably a line you don’t cross, but in general I think you have to leave it up to the individual to make their own choices. Pipkins wanted to play, Michigan didn’t let him, so he did it elsewhere and now an NFL team is giving him the chance.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23472
    Lanknows
    Participant

    It was a he said/she said at the time. Now we have a little more information that points to Pipkins being validated.

    I know you don’t agree with me (that it’s suspicious) but undermining my argument as “a theory” is cheap and inaccurate.

    There are concerns about players and recruits being cut from the football program at several levels – in a way that wasn’t there before Harbaugh. This kind of stuff can come back to haunt you in the press and some of it already has.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23471
    Lanknows
    Participant

    It is a smoking gun that a player you claimed had a career-ending injury continues to have a career.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23470
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Pipkins made a claim. He said he was healthy enough to play and he has been. This is not some theory I concocted or a guess. It is a reaction to something a player explicitly said.

    It is exactly the same as what Michigan fans criticized Alabama for – with the same issues of plausible deniability in individual cases vs. probability in numbers. The difference is that Pipkins made the claim. Michigan fans are making the exact same arguments Alabama fans made. This was all above board and if not well that’s football.

    Pipkins position on the depth chart is an opinion – but my opinions on the matter are consistent with yours and the consensus. Pipkins was behind 3 guys who either got drafted or are projected to: Glasgow, Mone, Hurst. He was, at best, the 6th interior DLmen on the team. A team where Taco Charlton and Mo Hurst struggled to earn snaps, even after Bryan Mone was out for the year.

    You’re twisting the facts here and it undermines your argument. When you talk about the injury-ravaged depth chart 6 months after Pipkins left, Michigan being ‘forced’ to give a walk-on a scholarship, and High School recruiting rankings it’s grasping at straws. Very weak straws, I might add.

    Pipkins wasn’t expected to play and everyone knows it. You said it yourself.

    The only thing we don’t know about is the medical staff. Either:
    a) they were legitimately right about Pipkins career being over and Pipkins is taking a dangerous risk by playing OR
    b) they were legitimately wrong about his career being over OR
    c) they were coerced into having that opinion to open up a scholarship.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23453
    Lanknows
    Participant

    It is possible the scenario you outlined was reality and it is possible an alternate scenario was the reality.

    I don’t dispute that a year off could have or was helpful for Pipkins but it’s clear that his career was not over.

    He was pushed into something he did not want to do. Given his relative success and health, the evidence indicates he was right. He’s pursuing a career as a professional which he would not been able to do had he stayed at Michigan.

    Again, we don’t have all the facts — but we do have some significant evidence.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23452
    Lanknows
    Participant

    A medical exemption is given to an athlete who suffers an injury or illness that ends their career. That’s what happened with Dukes and Dawson and that’s what was offered to Pipkins.

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/13154115/ondre-pipkins-says-michigan-wolverines-coach-jim-harbaugh-staff-pressured-quit

    Back when Mgoblog was against these practices (total coincidence that this was before Michigan started doing them) they wrote up the issue thusly:

    The issue with the SEC and Saban and Oversigning is they are forcing kids who with injuries but NOT career ending injuries to take medical EXEMPTIONS (not RS). Saban is ending these kids’ college careers, but still paying their tuition. Essentially he is kicking kids off the team, but sending them on their way with a scholarship… they just are off the football team and can’t play NCAA sports ever again. If you look at the graph below, either Bama had 12x the career ending injuries of every other SEC team, or he’s abusing the system.

    http://mgoblog.com/diaries/medical-redshirt-vs-medical-exemption-overview

    That link says the average is 1 per school. Michigan had at least 2 that summer and tried for at least a third with Pipkins.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23451
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Michigan had 3 guys to rotate at NT and other younger players to develop on top of it. Your depiction of the situation at the time was accurate. I am not sure why you are revising it now.

    The scholarship was rumored to be intended for grad transfer options. Michigan took 2 (that I remember): Rudock and Lyons.

    Samulson, Norfleet and Tulley-Tillman left after Pipkins. The argument that this was a Pipkins for Leisman swap is disingenuous. If anything Leisman took Tuley-Tilman’s scholarship after he was unexpectedly dismissed in September. Obviously these things aren’t usually one for one but Pipkins’ scholarship probably went to somebody like Kerridge or Allen. Rewarding walk-ons has significant value to the program.

    Bottomline there was still roster uncertainty at the time Pipkins was let go — that scholarship was more valuable to the team than Pipkins’ anticipated contribution.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23436
    Lanknows
    Participant

    The idea of coaches making a decision about ‘a medical’ is exactly the point.

    Michigan has prided itself on being objective, independent, scientific and evidence-based in matters of student health. The coaching staff shouldn’t be involved in theory. (See the write-up of the Shane Morris fiasco in Endzone by John Bacon).

    Of course we don’t have all the facts here. But the circumstantial evidence around situations like Newsome and Braden and Canteen and Pipkins indicates that on-field production is playing a big role in these decisions.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23435
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I think we all can see why the team would want Pipkins gone. Scholarships are scarce. He was a Hoke recruit with 1 year left and didn’t look like he was going to play. There was no real benefit to keeping him around (other than insurance) and given off-field speculation it didn’t seem like he was going to be locker room asset if he wasn’t playing.

    What Harbaugh did was entirely logical.

    The question is if it was wrong or even unethical.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23434
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I think Newsome is a case where what is best for the individual is also best for the team. A red-shirt year for recovery is highly likely and pretty clearly in Newsome’s best interest. From the program side, given his talent and potential as a player, it is great if Newsome can return in 2018 with more strength, maturity, leadership and still have sophomore eligibility.

    Pipkins offers a different example, where what is best for the player is not what is best for the team. As you said, we don’t have all the information, but to argue Michigan’s perspective you have to look past their self-interest and assume Pipkins was being reckless with his own health.

    The fact that he played an entire season at another school and is signed to play for an NFL team indicates the argument that his football career was over due to medical issues was not truthful.

    in reply to: Latest on Ondre Pipkins #23432
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Pipkins was let go well before any depth issues were apparent. He left in June. Mone got hurt in Fall camp. The rest of the injuries struck during the season.

    Michigan had extraordinarily good DL depth at the time of the decision. Pipkins was not expected to be a significant contributor as he would have been a backup to Glasgow, Mone, and Hurst at NT or Henry and Godin at DT. Not to mention younger players.

    According to the TTB 2015 Season Countdown: “The nose tackle position seems to be in good hands, but those good hands do not seem to belong to Pipkins.” Pipkins ranked #66 in that countdown, between a 225 freshman DE and walk-on WR who caught 1 pass in his career. Neither played in 2015, which was seemed the likely path for Pipkins as well.

    The injuries that piled up on the interior DL were unfortunate, unlikely, and unforeseeable. Before them, Pipkins was not a useful contributor. As a senior, that made him expendable.

    in reply to: A note on Ben Braden going undrafted #23421
    Lanknows
    Participant
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Good news. As Thunder has argued, there’s a great fit here with Greg Frey turned long/lean prospects into high-caliber OTs.

    in reply to: Maize-N-Brew Practice Notes #23274
    Lanknows
    Participant

    It’s not just under the microphone but nearly every bit of insider info that comes out says Speight is clearly ahead. He’s not just blowing smoke for PR’s sake. Anyway, it’s not like keeping things from the media is going to affect what the players see in practice.

    Harbaugh is to competition as Brown is to aggression.

    He’s been more than happy to keep the QB status up in the air the last few years. No concerns about undermining the leader in those cases. I think if Peters is legitimately pushing Harbaugh this fall he is going to let everyone know. It’s not going to change just because Speight was the starter last year. That’s entirely un-Harbaugh and it’s exactly what people railed about with Hoke and Rodriguez “entitlement”.

    in reply to: A note on Ben Braden going undrafted #23273
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I don’t believe the part about 3rd round, but if Braden is hurt that is very unfortunate. Hopefully he has some insurance coverage and isn’t left without.

    in reply to: Baumgardner's post-spring depth chart #23272
    Lanknows
    Participant

    That said, I’m fine if he does move. By fall we will have an abundance of young LBs for 2 spots and no clear heir (yet) at FB.

    in reply to: Baumgardner's post-spring depth chart #23271
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I’m not trying to get him to FB. I’ve disputed the assumption that he will, in part because he isn’t the right size, and in part because these sort of projections have been wrong before (Shallman, Davis).

    in reply to: Maize-N-Brew Practice Notes #23240
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I’m skeptical of this. MOST (though not all) reports and Harbaugh’s comments indicate Speight is clearly the leader.

    That said I was skeptical that Speight was ascending past O’Korn and that Denard was ascending past Forcier, so I’ve been wrong before.

    in reply to: Baumgardner's post-spring depth chart #23238
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Probably because people have been saying he should move to FB since the day he committed.

    in reply to: So now that we've landed Da Twins… #23010
    Lanknows
    Participant

    That’s not too many. It let’s them red-shirt somebody, which isn’t necessarily ideal, but when you are taking talent below the blue-chip level it’s one way to get ahead.

    Switching between safety and CB may make sense too, though as Thunder has pointed out before it hasn’t been all that common at Michigan lately unless you count Peppers as a CB to S mover.

    in reply to: Brad Hawkins – Safety #22987
    Lanknows
    Participant

    Good news. Though it felt inevitable, it’s nice that they’re not going to mess around too much. Michigan still needs to recruit a couple of potential safety/viper types in the ’18 class.

    in reply to: DTR Confirms UM Will Take Two QB's in 2018 #22958
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I’m all for it, but I suspect they’re telling DTR what they’re telling him because they’re going to recruit a pro style kid.

    in reply to: DTR Confirms UM Will Take Two QB's in 2018 #22953
    Lanknows
    Participant

    That’s called insurance. I would be willing to bet this isn’t the final outcome. Though if it is, I would have no problem with it.

    The nice thing about taking so many recruits in 2016 and 2017 is that there are so few immediate needs in 2018. OL, DB, a TE – if it had to Michigan could probably get by with a 10 person class and still be OK.

    in reply to: QB Battle (Back-ups) #22805
    Lanknows
    Participant

    There are a lot of career backups who are head and shoulders above Malzone, who probably didn’t belong on the roster of a Michigan program. No offense to the kid. Neither do I.

    It’s obviously way too soon to know if Peters will start anytime. Again, Tom Brady. Not only that but look at what we thought of Wilton Speight. Peters is tracking way ahead of most of our recent QBs.

    in reply to: QB Battle (Back-ups) #22803
    Lanknows
    Participant

    You say 3rd or 4th round like that’s a bad thing. That would be great for Speight and for Michigan. Who was the last UM QB to get drafted that high? Have we had anyone who the NFL loved since Harbaugh? (who didn’t play baseball instead?)

    I agree Speight has limited arm strength. I think the rest will improve.

    I agree the drop off from a returning all conference QB will be significant. Going to be a strong backup situation though, comparing to most of our conference and most of our seasons. Wouldn’t you agree?

    in reply to: PFF scouts Channing Stribling #22802
    Lanknows
    Participant

    I certainly do not think of you as a “stats only guy”.

    I think you use stats selectively to back up your opinions (which is fine, stats have to be applied with context and judgement), but where I take umbrage is when they don’t actually back up your point convincingly. LIke when backups have big YPC and so you think they should get more, even though starters have big YPC if you’re comparing the same situation.

    To me that’s like the scene from Endzone (which I’m finally getting around to reading) where Hunter Lochman presents a simple stats story and Proppe stratifies by time of day and quality of opponent. Lochman used stats, he just didn’t use them with much consideration.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 234 total)