Pots, kettles and common sense...
I repeatedly promise myself that I won't get sucked into idiotic on-line arguments, but time after time I fall face-first into one.
This time it's over a post made by Brian over at MGoBlog.
He opines that Chad Henne's resurgence was due entirely to the repair of a mechanical issue in his throwing motion, and dismisses any link to Michael Hart's reappearance as "total fantasy."
This, of course, is stupid.
Yes, it probably had something to do with the change to Henne's throwing motion. I will willingly admit that. Why was it not in the initial article? Because I didn't know about it.
Here's how I write that column every week: I watch the game, taking notes and Tivoing plays when necessary (big runs to see the blocking, sacks to find the breakdown in protection, etc.). Then, immediately after the game (or after the conclusion of whatever interesting games follow the Michigan game), I sit down and write it. The idea being that I don't want others' opinions to impact the piece. I wait to submit it until Sunday, when I can read through the entire Freep sports section and maybe an AP article to see if I missed something particularly noteworthy and get specifics on injuries, etc. Then I send it in. The Freep didn't mention the Henne thing, at least as far as I saw, so therefore I didn't know about it.
Back to the original point, which was Brian's assertion that any link from Henne's improvement to Hart's reemergence is "total fantasy."
I would suggest (call me crazy) that having a strong and dangerous running game that you are clearly willing to rely upon in almost any situation forces the defense to respect that running game a lot more than if you clearly have a "I don't trust these guys to not fumble, god, why do they suck so much" thought bubble over your coaches' head. (Review Wisconsin game tape when Grady/Martin are carrying the ball for examples.)
I would suggest that when the opponent recognizes this willingness to run it, and the abilities of your runner that it forces the opponent to deploy extra resources to prevent you from running it on every play (playing eight or nine guys in the box, which MSU did quite a bit).
I would suggest that this, therefore, opens up the passing game quite a bit, as it leaves your opponent vulnerable to deep passes (as there is often not a safety back there) and especially to play-action.
I would suggest that this, in turn, would lead to receivers getting open, facing less double coverage (and likely less tight coverage since there's no safety help deep), and therefore making it easier to complete passes.
Of course, this chain of supposed-logic is "total fantasy." Because it was just Henne's mechanical issue.
It also had nothing to do with things like MSU's defensive backfield being a steaming pile of crap or the fact that the guy playing opposite Avant can suddenly catch the ball, since it's no longer an injured guy named Steve Breaston.
While I'm being an asshole, let me also ask Pete Holiday (see comments section of same post) if bloggers (and commenters on the same blogs) really had a clue what's really going on, wouldn't they be able to find someone to pay them for what they're doing rather than just doing it as a hobby?
Of course, this is the standard MSM response to blogs, and the mere suggestion drives bloggers to fits of dog-kicking rage. But it's apparently cool to do it the other way.
Frankly, either way, it's a gross oversimplification that really boils down to (wait for it...) douchebaggery on the writer/speaker's part.
In this case, Pete likely has not ever worked as a sportswriter, and therefore doesn't necessarily know that at many schools, as many as seven or eight players can be conducting interviews at the same time, so unless you have seven or eight people from your organization in the interview room (and no one does), you're going to miss things. Maybe the Freep and other media outlets weren't there when Henne explained it. Maybe Henne didn't repeat it when asked a second time. There are a number of possible explanations that go beyond "OMG MSM so lazy!!1111!!! Blogz rule!!11!"
I enjoy Brian's blog (and others) quite a bit, and am constantly trying to find subtle ways to rip off their best material without getting caught.
This is not a dig on blogs. This is a dig on people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
(Angry "you're mean! You hate blogs!" responses in 3... 2...)
P.S. Wouldn't Douchebaggerie be an awesome name for an upscale boutique-style version of The Jerk Store?