Hey fellas,
Coach Rod highlighted one of our major needs as being at safety. However, a look at the roster makes it appears as though we have a bunch, with the most promising being Stevie Brown (hopefully much improved), Mike Williams (a talented up-and-comer), and Brandon Smith (who I know nothing about, but was a 3-star on rivals).
Do you think the talent we hauled in at safety (Vlad, Mike Jones) is sufficient? Are we not deep enough at safety? I thought we were in good shape, not in desperate need. I would have thought the need would be much more desperate at linebacker. What do you guys think?
-Greg
------------------------------------
Thanks for the question.
Safety play is one of the things we are most interested in observing this spring. One of the areas we think needs the most improvement is the tendency of the defense to give up big plays. Nothing help achieve this more than improved safety play. Through graduations and defections, Michigan is very thin at safety. With only three returning -- only two with actual game experience -- it is definitely a big concern.
Michigan did sign four players who are listed as safeties. In our opinion, only two will probably line up at that position, Gordan and Emilien. Emilien, who has the most experience at safety, would be mostly likely to get early playing time, but it's not certain. Bell will be interesting to watch. He played safety in high school, and played it well. After watching his All-Star Game performance, we are leaning towards seeing more as a linebacker. Jones we see 100% as a linebacker. Even in high school, he spent most of his time, at least during his highlight film time, close to line of scrimmage.
Thanks for stopping by http://gobluemichiganwolverine.blogspot.com/
If you have any questions please e-mail erocwolverine@gmail.com
Written by CoachBt and ErocWolverine
9 comments:
Rivals has Brandon Smith as a four star and with a rating of 5.9, not a three star
A comment on the poll you're running (and BTW, it's poorly phrased to the point that I don't think a lot of people understand what the hell you're asking). If I understand the question, it is essentially "do you want us to give you insider info or do you want us to be like everyone else?"
But...the decision to publish something is not really up to the readers, is it? If you've got "insider" sources at the AD feeding you info, then it is YOUR decision to publish. The consequences of that decision will be impacted by how the readers react and whether your sources keep feeding you info, but regardless the decision is still yours alone.
The dilemma you face is what every person faces when he has a source that wishes to remain anonymous. You should realize, however, that anonymous sourcing is inherently dangerous and unreliable, because:
A) the author with the source might not have a strict policy of corroborating the source before publishing;
B) the source might have an agenda with the limited information he/she is doling out, and the author doesn't know/recognize it;
C) the author AND the source might have a shared agenda that the author is not sharing with the readers;
D) the information might be unintentionally damaging to the source, and/or the author;
E) the presumed friendly relationship between author and source will prevent any "punishment" of the source for inaccurate info.
In general I believe that if anonymous sourcing can't be corroborated it shouldn't be printed...EVER. I believe this is Brian's policy at MGoBlog. Not coincidentally, when he publishes, people trust that the information is reliable. We know his policy, we've seen his policy in action, and as a result he has earned our trust.
And unless you are willing to do something similar, (i.e. be explicitly clear about your anonymous source policy and rigorously adhere to it), then you will NEVER garner the trust that you think you deserve. There is no way around that.
Anonymous:
Well we don't correct the e-mailers ... we try and do our best to give our opinions on the topic that he asked not what star a player was 1-2 years ago.
The problem is that we are thin on experience at safety. That is for sure.
cfaller96:
Your right maybe it should have been do you want "inside info" that we trust or do you just want player evaluations / commentary.
I will put my sources against anybodies out there and trust them very much.
cfaller96:
Come on ... now your going a little far here aren't you. i could have easily made this statement in DEC, JAN or even early FEB, but waited till afterwards when it didn't turn into a problem.
You mention Brian and his site ... which I like a lot, but he is wrong just about as much as he is right. Also who says my contacts aren't more than one person or that they are people that just wants the truth out there for Michigan fans?
Why does everybody have to have an agenda?
It is funny when these same peope give me good information that I share people do not have a problem with it and get excited about it, but when they don't like it they act like the world is going to come to an end.
So another words when the sources are on good things print it, but when they are not then keep it quiet.
Eroc, you are missing my point. I am not saying that you absolutely must have the same policy that Brian has on anonymous sources. I am saying whatever your policy is, you should make it clear to your readers, and then rigorously adhere to it.
Your sources are fantastically reliable, in your opinion. Fine, great. So, since they're so reliable, is your policy to always disseminate what they tell you? No? Then what is your policy? Where do you draw the line?
Personally, I don't care much for the insider stuff, because I don't think it matters. But I acknowledge that others do like that stuff, and they at least deserve a clear policy on when you do and do not disseminate what your anonymous sources tell you. Otherwise, you're essentially asking your readers to trust you implicitly and blindly.
"So another words when the sources are on good things print it, but when they are not then keep it quiet."
I think you've summed up quite well what "insider" junkies want, which is probably yet another reason why polling your readers on this is a bad idea. Ultimately, it's your decision, not theirs.
my b, my inner perfectionist took over, great blog, love reading it
cfaller96:
Understand you now ... Thanks for the reply.
Cfaller, isn't that the point of Eroc's poll? To help him determine where he should "draw the line?" The poll is his way to help shape his policy whether or not it's explicitly stated or meets your self-proclaimed high standards.
Post a Comment