Online Now 3197

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 1993
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3431
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Big Ten 2012 Predictions

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Frank Clark had 6 tackles last year (.5 TFL).
    Nathan Brink had 1 TFL, which was also his only tackle on the year.
    Will Campbell had 14 (2.5 TFL).

    All of those guys have seen significant action in 10 or more games; thus, they're fairly proven commodities.

    Clark had 5 tackles and an INT in his first start against Virginia Tech, and played in all 12 regular season games. He's a high-motor guy, and has had a great spring. He set a personal goal of 8 sacks for this season. With his athleticism coming off the end, his goal seems feasible.

    Brink played in 11 games, and started 1. He was a bit banged up last year, but is expected to contribute this season. He's a little undersized 263 lbs. for a defensive tackle, but is a solid tackler.

    Campbell has played in 38 straight games, but needs to put in a consistent effort and show improved technique. He'll get one last year to live up to the hype he received coming out of high school. Last year, he showed improvement as the season progressed. Hopefully, he will continue to work hard in practice and get results.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by ScoutExile on 6/18/2012 at 11:13 AM

    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • Due51 said...

    Clark was a true freshman who ended up starting the bowl game. Will Campbell and Brink had a "fair amount of reps" and project as starters or significant contributors. Maybe not a proven commodity, but they're also not complete unknowns.

    Frankly, what you consider proven or not is inconsequential. These guys are who they are and they'll be expected to continue building off their experience. If they step up, great. If not, bring in the next guy.

    Well it's true that what I think of a guy doesn't affect his play on the field (obviously), but your last line "If they step up, great, if not, bring in the next guy" is different than your original post of "12 proven commodities". I think you know that those guys are far from proven.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • ScoutExile said...

    All of those guys have seen significant action in 10 or more games; thus, they're fairly proven commodities.

    Clark had 5 tackles and an INT in his first start against Virginia Tech, and played in all 12 regular season games. He's a high-motor guy, and has had a great spring. He set a personal goal of 8 sacks for this season. With his athleticism coming off the end, his goal seems feasible.

    Brink played in 11 games, and started 1. He was a bit banged up last year, but is expected to contribute this season. He's a little undersized 263 lbs. for a defensive tackle, but is a solid tackler.

    Campbell has played in 38 straight games, but needs to put in a consistent effort and show improved technique. He'll get one last year to live up to the hype he received coming out of high school. Last year, he showed improvement as the season progressed. Hopefully, he will continue to work hard in practice and get results.

    Uhh, Clark had .5 TFL in the bowl game and that was his only tackle. Are you thinking of someone else, or just making things up? 8 sacks . . . because he said so?

    http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/playerDetail.jsp?yr=2011&org=418&player=5G

    Brink played a bunch . . . but had 1 tackle in 11 games. Solid tackler? What proof do you have of that?

    Campbell has played in a lot of games. He has amassed a whopping 19 tackles in those games, along with 3.5 TFL. The only thing that he's proven is that he's ineffective.

    If I applied the same logic to MSU's defense, I'd say State isn't going to allow a TD all year. I mean, not only do 2 DEs return, but their back-ups had DOUBLE DIGIT tackles and appeared in all the games. I've already pointed out White's production; the other DT spot is filled by Hoover, who looks great coming back from injury. Not only do the 3 starting LBs return, but 4 more who saw "extensive action" and appeared in more than 10 games. Some of them even made a tackle!

    The secondary is going to be crazy-good. I mean, the vacant FS spot is going to be filled by a guy who had 2 INTs last year, so obviously he's awesome. The other 3 spots have starters returning, need I say more?

    Now if I was serious about the foregoing re: MSU, you'd laugh your rear off. This reminds me of tOSU fans who went on and on about how Joel Hale was going to be an absolute beast in 2011. 4 tackles later . . .

    Anyways, I'm curious about which 12 guys you consider proven. Was it just Due51's list, or did you have some other people in mind?

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Well it's true that what I think of a guy doesn't affect his play on the field (obviously), but your last line "If they step up, great, if not, bring in the next guy" is different than your original post of "12 proven commodities". I think you know that those guys are far from proven.

    If you look at the data posted above by Scout Exile, you'll see those 3 have significant experience. Maybe your definition is different, but I'll consider them commodities for the upcoming season.

    With regards to my last sentence, it goes for Denard or anyone else on the field. Perform or get someone else in there. It's the way Bo taught.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MSU isn't a very good football program.. takes year of consistent winning to get to that level. - copemoney 1/22/13

    Due51

  • Rocky, you can cross-examine all you want, it won't change my viewpoint. I watched their tape and read detailed analysis of their performances.

    Peterklima provided some stats on how below average your rushing attack was last year... does that convince YOU that Bell and your OL arent proven?

    signature image signature image signature image

    MSU isn't a very good football program.. takes year of consistent winning to get to that level. - copemoney 1/22/13

    Due51

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Uhh, Clark had .5 TFL in the bowl game and that was his only tackle. Are you thinking of someone else, or just making things up? 8 sacks . . . because he said so?

    http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/playerDetail.jsp?yr=2011&org=418&player=5G

    Brink played a bunch . . . but had 1 tackle in 11 games. Solid tackler? What proof do you have of that?

    Campbell has played in a lot of games. He has amassed a whopping 19 tackles in those games, along with 3.5 TFL. The only thing that he's proven is that he's ineffective.

    If I applied the same logic to MSU's defense, I'd say State isn't going to allow a TD all year. I mean, not only do 2 DEs return, but their back-ups had DOUBLE DIGIT tackles and appeared in all the games. I've already pointed out White's production; the other DT spot is filled by Hoover, who looks great coming back from injury. Not only do the 3 starting LBs return, but 4 more who saw "extensive action" and appeared in more than 10 games. Some of them even made a tackle!

    The secondary is going to be crazy-good. I mean, the vacant FS spot is going to be filled by a guy who had 2 INTs last year, so obviously he's awesome. The other 3 spots have starters returning, need I say more?

    Now if I was serious about the foregoing re: MSU, you'd laugh your rear off. This reminds me of tOSU fans who went on and on about how Joel Hale was going to be an absolute beast in 2011. 4 tackles later . . .

    Anyways, I'm curious about which 12 guys you consider proven. Was it just Due51's list, or did you have some other people in mind?

    Proven, by production in the past.

    SDE, Roh
    WLB, Morgan
    MLB, Demens
    SLB, Ryan
    SLB, Gordon
    CB, Floyd
    CB, Countess
    Nickel, Avery
    SS, Kovacs
    FS, Gordon

    Guys who have seen quality minutes in various games but with questions still to answer,

    DT, Black
    DT, Campbell
    WDE, Beyer
    WDE, Clark
    WLB, Hawthorne
    SS, Robinson

    This is all off the top of my head for the second section.

    And as you have been told, I would rather have those questions than about a QB who has yet to start or throw a meaningful pass to his receivers, who are all question marks also.

    xxmgobluexx ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Uhh, Clark had .5 TFL in the bowl game and that was his only tackle. Are you thinking of someone else, or just making things up? 8 sacks . . . because he said so?

    http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/playerDetail.jsp?yr=2011&org=418&player=5G

    Brink played a bunch . . . but had 1 tackle in 11 games. Solid tackler? What proof do you have of that?

    Campbell has played in a lot of games. He has amassed a whopping 19 tackles in those games, along with 3.5 TFL. The only thing that he's proven is that he's ineffective.

    If I applied the same logic to MSU's defense, I'd say State isn't going to allow a TD all year. I mean, not only do 2 DEs return, but their back-ups had DOUBLE DIGIT tackles and appeared in all the games. I've already pointed out White's production; the other DT spot is filled by Hoover, who looks great coming back from injury. Not only do the 3 starting LBs return, but 4 more who saw "extensive action" and appeared in more than 10 games. Some of them even made a tackle!

    The secondary is going to be crazy-good. I mean, the vacant FS spot is going to be filled by a guy who had 2 INTs last year, so obviously he's awesome. The other 3 spots have starters returning, need I say more?

    Now if I was serious about the foregoing re: MSU, you'd laugh your rear off. This reminds me of tOSU fans who went on and on about how Joel Hale was going to be an absolute beast in 2011. 4 tackles later . . .

    Anyways, I'm curious about which 12 guys you consider proven. Was it just Due51's list, or did you have some other people in mind?

    Nm

    This post was edited by xxmgobluexx on 6/18/2012 at 11:44 AM

    xxmgobluexx ●

  • Due51 said...

    If you look at the data posted above by Scout Exile, you'll see those 3 have significant experience. Maybe your definition is different, but I'll consider them commodities for the upcoming season.

    With regards to my last sentence, it goes for Denard or anyone else on the field. Perform or get someone else in there. It's the way Bo taught.

    It just seems to me that they need to do more than show up on the dress list for games. Appearing in games could be 2 snaps, or mostly special teams. Either situation really doesn't tell you what you can reasonably expect out of the player this coming year. That's my definition of a "proven" commodity: someone that you can reasonably predict what their production will be in that coming year. For instance, Toussaint, Robinson, Demens, Ryan, Roh, etc. Basically it's returning starters or back-ups who saw extended PT (nickelback, D-package on 3rd down, 3rd down RB, etc.).

    I certainly understand you guys being hopeful about a guy like Clark, who sounds like he's been great in practice and the coaches really like him. State's heard similar things about DE's Heath and Calhoun. I guess it's hard to pin down what you can actually expect out of him though. In the context of what we know and what we don't know about each team in the Big 10, I have a hard time accepting that all 3 new starters on UM's DL are per se proven commodities . . . though I think Black is starting over Brink, right?

    FWIW, any word on Ash or Washington? Those guys were a pair of 4-stars that should be making their move up the depth chart.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • Due51 said...

    Rocky, you can cross-examine all you want, it won't change my viewpoint. I watched their tape and read detailed analysis of their performances.

    Peterklima provided some stats on how below average your rushing attack was last year... does that convince YOU that Bell and your OL arent proven?

    I think Bell is proven, but it takes more than 1 RB to have a great rushing attack (see Iowa last year; Coker had 1300+ yards, but on a whole, their running game was worse than MSU's).

    I also think that, unlike the gentlemen you mentioned, the returning OL actually started multiple games and have already started their way up the learning curve.

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    FWIW, any word on Ash or Washington? Those guys were a pair of 4-stars that should be making their move up the depth chart.

    Both were starrting for the second team defense in the spring game, part of the roation this fall.

    xxmgobluexx ●

  • Rocky, that website's wrong about Clark. 5 tackles, 1 TFL, 1 INT was his stat line. Look at Mgoblue.

    If you're still not convinced, and want to count, the Sugar Bowl video is enclosed.

    On Brink, that's just my observation from seeing a couple practices, the spring game, and all 13 games last season. If you don't trust my opinion, Brady Hoke calls Brink a "very good technician." Greg Mattison said, "[Brink] shows that want-to, that toughness, and that’s what we want. What we need is 11 guys playing with the attitude he’s shown.”

    Rocky, I understand you're not obsessively following our team, but we're going to have a talented (and deep) defense this season.

    Frank Clark Profile - MGOBLUE.COM - University of Michigan Official Athletic Site

    The University of Michigan Official Athletic Site, partner of CBS College Sports Networks, Inc. The most comprehensive coverage of Michigan Athletics on the web.

    www.mgoblue.com

    Walk-on Nathan Brink's toughness earns him first-team reps on the Michigan football team's defensive line

    http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/walk-on-nathan-brink-toughness-first-team-reps-michigan-football/

    www.annarbor.com

    Michigan's Will Heininger, Nathan Brink injured, could hurt DL depth in Sugar Bowl | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

    Reserve defensive lineman Nathan Brink is injured and will miss the game, coach Brady Hoke said today, and defensive lineman Will Heininger is questionable with a foot injury.

    www.freep.com
    Play

    2012 Sugar Bowl: Michigan vs. Virginia Tech

    http://mgovideo.com

    http://www.youtube.com/v/QOtHLqbmBX4
    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • SpartanRocky said...

    I have a hard time accepting that all 3 new starters on UM's DL are per se proven commodities . . . though I think Black is starting over Brink, right?

    That's fine, you don't have to; however, our d-line is much more athletic than last season. Our linebacking corps is the deepest it's been in the past 5 years, and we finally have an experienced secondary. Our D is going to be solid.

    Black is starting over Brink. Brink is still a bit undersized.

    This post was edited by ScoutExile on 6/18/2012 at 12:04 PM

    signature image

    ScoutExile

  • ScoutExile said...

    That's fine, you don't have to; however, our d-line is much more athletic this season. Black is starting over Brink. Brink is still a bit undersized.

    Every single Big Ten related thread on the blue board turns into Michigan fans trying to convince the rest of the world how good they are..it's disgusting. Next subject please

    OTPT

  • SpartanRocky said...

    It just seems to me that they need to do more than show up on the dress list for games. Appearing in games could be 2 snaps, or mostly special teams.

    roflmao. Ok

    signature image signature image signature image

    MSU isn't a very good football program.. takes year of consistent winning to get to that level. - copemoney 1/22/13

    Due51

  • OTPT said...

    Every single Big Ten related thread on the blue board turns into Michigan fans trying to convince the rest of the world how good they are..it's disgusting. Next subject please

    dramaqueen

    xxmgobluexx ●

  • OTPT said...

    Every single Big Ten related thread on the blue board turns into Michigan fans trying to convince the rest of the world how good they are..it's disgusting. Next subject please

    In fact, this current conversation is a State fan trying to Convince us who is or isn't a returning contributor.

    Reading comprehension fail

    signature image signature image signature image

    MSU isn't a very good football program.. takes year of consistent winning to get to that level. - copemoney 1/22/13

    Due51

  • OTPT said...

    Every single Big Ten related thread on the blue board turns into Michigan fans trying to convince the rest of the world how good they are..it's disgusting. Next subject please

    Ah the irony lol

    signature image signature image signature image

    Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898

    msucantmakebcs

  • LEGENDS DIVISION
    Michigan 11-1 (8-0) [Losses: Bama]
    Nebraska 9-3 (5-3) [Losses: Wisky, OSU, UM]
    Michigan State 5-7 (3-5) [Losses: BSU, ND, OSU, IU, UM, Wisky, Nebraska]
    Iowa 6-6 (3-5) [Losses: Iowa State, MSU, PSU, NW, UM, Nebraksa]
    Northwestern 7-5 (3-5) [Losses: PSU, Minny, Nebraska, UM, MSU]
    Minnesota 6-6 (2-6) [Losses: Iowa, Wisky, UM, Illinois, Nebraska, MSU]

    LEADERS DIVISION
    Wisconsin 11-1 (7-1) [Losses: IU]
    Ohio State 8-4 (6-2) [Losses: UCF, Cal, Wisky, UM]
    Illinois 8-4 (4-4) [Losses: Wisky, UM, OSU, NW]
    Penn State 6-6 (3-5) [Losses: UVA. Illinois, OSU, Purdue, Nebraska, Wisky]
    Purdue 6-6 (2-6) [Losses: UM, Wisky, OSU, Minny, Iowa, Illinois]
    Indiana 5-7 (2-6) [Losses: NW, OSU, Navy, Illinois, Iowa, PSU, Purdue]

    ** UM defeats Wisky in BTCG **

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MrWoodson on 6/18/2012 at 12:43 PM

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    LEGENDS DIVISION
    Michigan 11-1 (8-0) [Losses: Bama]
    Nebraska 9-3 (5-3) [Losses: Wisky, OSU, UM]
    Michigan State 5-7 (3-5) [Losses: BSU, ND, OSU, IU, UM, Wisky, Nebraska]
    Iowa 6-6 (3-5) [Losses: Iowa State, MSU, PSU, NW, UM, Nebraksa]
    Northwestern 7-5 (3-5) [Losses: PSU, Minny, Nebraska, UM, MSU]
    Minnesota 6-6 (2-6) [Losses: Iowa, Wisky, UM, Illinois, Nebraska, MSU]

    LEADERS DIVISION
    Wisconsin 11-1 (7-1) [Losses: IU]
    Ohio State 8-4 (6-2) [Losses: UCF, Cal, Wisky, UM]
    Illinois 8-4 (4-4) [Losses: Wisky, UM, OSU, NW]
    Penn State 6-6 (3-5) [Losses: UVA. Illinois, OSU, Purdue, Nebraska, Wisky]
    Purdue 6-6 (2-6) [Losses: UM, Wisky, OSU, Minny, Iowa, Illinois]
    Indiana 5-7 (2-6) [Losses: NW, OSU, Navy, Illinois, Iowa, PSU, Purdue]

    ** UM defeats Wisky in BTCG **

    Sandy vagina.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Now knowing what 1995 is like all over again! Thank you 247 technology!!

    InTenSity ●

  • I'm really not going to get involved in this thread because I can't take the Michigan bashing (my heart is sensitive)

    but I'd like the chance to respond to the OP:

    Play

    Everything that guy just said

    Good reaction video.

    http://www.youtube.com/v/zRFI-Xrg1XI
    signature image

    nowayman

  • InTenSity said...

    Sandy vagina.

    In his head a little bit. Lol.

    OTPT

  • OTPT said...

    In his head a little bit. Lol.

    A Sparty posts a thread asking for season projections. A bunch of people post their projections without incident. I post mine and two Sparty trolls pop up within minutes and call me grade school level names. And you're in my head? Yeah, ok.

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    A Sparty posts a thread asking for season projections. A bunch of people post their projections without incident. I post mine and two Sparty trolls pop up within minutes and call me grade school level names. And you're in my head? Yeah, ok.

    cry

    signature image signature image signature image

    Now knowing what 1995 is like all over again! Thank you 247 technology!!

    InTenSity ●

  • InTenSity said...

    cry

    Shouldn't you be saving your tears for the season?

    MrWoodson ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    LEGENDS DIVISION Michigan 11-1 (8-0) [Losses: Bama] Nebraska 9-3 (5-3) [Losses: Wisky, OSU, UM] Michigan State 5-7 (3-5) [Losses: BSU, ND, OSU, IU, UM, Wisky, Nebraska] Iowa 6-6 (3-5) [Losses: Iowa State, MSU, PSU, NW, UM, Nebraksa] Northwestern 7-5 (3-5) [Losses: PSU, Minny, Nebraska, UM, MSU] Minnesota 6-6 (2-6) [Losses: Iowa, Wisky, UM, Illinois, Nebraska, MSU]

    LEADERS DIVISION Wisconsin 11-1 (7-1) [Losses: IU] Ohio State 8-4 (6-2) [Losses: UCF, Cal, Wisky, UM] Illinois 8-4 (4-4) [Losses: Wisky, UM, OSU, NW] Penn State 6-6 (3-5) [Losses: UVA. Illinois, OSU, Purdue, Nebraska, Wisky] Purdue 6-6 (2-6) [Losses: UM, Wisky, OSU, Minny, Iowa, Illinois] Indiana 5-7 (2-6) [Losses: NW, OSU, Navy, Illinois, Iowa, PSU, Purdue]

    ** UM defeats Wisky in BTCG **

    Dude, IU is on fire this year, beating both MSU and Wisconsin lol

    Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.

    SpartanRocky ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports