In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Proven, by production in the past.
Guys who have seen quality minutes in various games but with questions still to answer,
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.
This post was edited by xxmgobluexx 2 years ago
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.
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.
Both were starrting for the second team defense in the spring game, part of the roation this fall.
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.
The University of Michigan Official Athletic Site, partner of CBS College Sports Networks, Inc. The most comprehensive coverage of Michigan Athletics on the web.
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.
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 2 years ago
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
"If you're worried about Wolverine fans, just move to Pasadena. You'll never have to deal with 'em."
In fact, this current conversation is a State fan trying to Convince us who is or isn't a returning contributor.
Ah the irony
Stealing Sparty's recruits and owning them on the field since 1898
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]
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 2 years ago
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:
Good reaction video.
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.
Shouldn't you be saving your tears for the season?
Dude, IU is on fire this year, beating both MSU and Wisconsin
It's boring if all you do is pick the favorites. And, to be sure, there will be upsets. I'm going with those.
Except for UM, of course.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports