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.
But you can't use that as a reason that UM will be worse than last year because Michigan is not losing him from last year. Sure, Michigan would be better off with Stonum, but that doesn't mean they will drop-off.
This is Michigan, fergodsakes.
The only thing I've really gotten up in arms about is the argument that UM's DL in '12 is going to be as good or better than '11. I don't think they're going to be horrible by any means, but it's hard for me to accept an argument that a group of guys who haven't produced at anything close to a high level are all of a sudden going to be an improvement over a pretty solid group the year before.
The rest of UM's projected improvements I largely agree with. The starting OL should compete with WI for the best in the conference. Depth is an obvious issue, but one that only matters if injuries happen; I'm not going to start predicting injuries. Having an RB who established himself towards the end of last year should bode well for the next year. I suspect the yardage #s for the passing O stay about the same, but that Denard throws fewer INTs. The back-7 should be better, and I look for the secondary to make some more plays on the ball (i.e., INTs go up).
The problem is that the lynch-pin of a D is its DL, and that's the one question mark for UM. If they're as good up front in '12 as they were in '11, UM'd should be better overall. If they take a step back, however, expect the D's performance overall to slip from last year. Now that doesn't mean a campaign where UM is giving up 400 YPG on D and 27 PPG, but given the tougher schedule it could make a difference in the close games. I emphasize "Could", because it's also possible that Denard's improvement, combined with some timely INTs, cover the failings of the DL.
Really I think UM is a fascinating team to watch this year, because I think Borges is out of his comfort zone with Denard as his QB. I'm very interested to see how much he improves this year.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
It may not be a drop-off, but I think it makes it harder for UM to improve in its passing game in 2012. It's line when MSU lost Johnny Adams for the 2009 season; if he didn't come back in 2010, the Spartan secondary would not have been as strong as it was. I think the loss of Stonum lowers the potential overall for UM's pass O this year. That doesn't mean it'll be bad, but Stonum would have given UM 3 SR WRs, similar to MSU this past year, and I'd argue that any 1 of those 3 are better than Nichol . So the depth isn't quite what it could have been; you now have an unproven guy at the #3 spot, instead of someone that was, at the very least, a proven decent Big 10 receiver.
This post was edited by MalibuMan 2 years ago
Fair enough. I think that one main thing that is comforting for Michigan fans about the DL is that there are 3 DL coaches on the staff.
I agree that it would be better to have Stonum. It's just that this guy is arguing that because of the supposed "loss" of Stonum that Michigan will drop-off, which doesn't make sense because Michigan didn't lose him.
There's only so many hours you can spend in practice, and the HC/DC have a lot to worry about aside from the DL. It certainly helps, but I don't think it matters as much as you guys make it sound. MD is a DB coach by trade, but I know he's not out there coaching the position every practice.
From what I have heard Mattison and Hoke both spend a lot of time coaching the DL.
Just saying that it virtually guarantees that the DL will play fundamentally sound.
Damn, things must be pretty bad if they have to take time out of their busy schedules to do that!
Or they understand the importance of line play?
Never said they would be worse..
If you look back at the first post I wrote on that, simply put that UM is losing Hemmingway and Stonum (yes, I know he didn't play in 2011) in the WR crew
But I didn't say anything about UM being worse because of it
Thanks, I forgot. It's the new Sparty math.
Michigan isn't losing Stonum. How many times do I have to say this?
I get it as far as depth. But sometimes it's addition by subtraction. Scum bags drag teams down.
YOUR have been banned from reading and posting on the Michigan Wolverine board.
As long as their full-time position coach knows his stuff, I agree. Like I said, it probably helps; MD is a former DB coach and Narduzzi a LB unit. I'd argue those 2 groups have been among the best at MSU under their tenure.
Probably the #1 guy I want to see on UM's DL is Black. I think he's the lynch-pin of your front 4.
Just taking a lighthearted shot. Hence the .
Just saw a picture of Will Campbell. He looks like he has put in the work this spring. Looks in great shape. I am looking foward to seeing him on the field along with Roh.
This post was edited by WillyWolverine 2 years ago
Kind of sarcasm. Although the MSU game was horrible for Molk and Lewan did well. I won't argue that Lewan was better.
Ah yes.. the awaited arrival of the biggest 5star bust at UM in a long time..
Kevin Grady was worse.
Blah blah blah.
I love good sports arguing, but it just doesn't work unless in person. You guys have way too much time on your hands .
I think the loss of Stonum is really going to hurt Michigan's receiving squad.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports