Online Now 1369

The Blue Board

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

Online now 1343
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

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

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Reply

The Official Michigan State and Michigan Thread

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Well, how else do you compare the D's a guy faced between 2 years? The statement was that Cousins didn't look as good this year as he did last year, and I countered that he faced weaker D's in '10 than '11. When you factor in 5 home games in '10 to 3 home/2 road games in '11, I think the argument has merit.

    Fair enough point.

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    Peterklima said... (original post)

    Raw stats are fuzzy. The eye test is something you can go on when the stats are so ridiculously -weighted based on non-conf schedule to this point. This is all a guessing game by us anyway that is only slightly tethered to what will happen.

    My point is just about the MSU team as it LOOKS NOW. Of course they could win every remaining game and be better than last year or lose 5 more games and you would even admit they are worse. Who knows? But, I think they look worse at this point than how they finished last year.

    None of this is accurate science. It is a combo of factors. MSU would have to play the same schedule in the same order to prove anything about this year's team compared to last years. The truth will be known in December, but last year's team was only blowout once in the regular season. This team already has that blowout, so they will have to play great FB to match last year.

    UM's team AT THIS POINT THIS YEAR looks better than last year's finish. We don't know yet, but it appears that way.

    I don't think MSU is THAT much worse and I don't think UM is THAT MUCH better (to last year), but I think they would have been about even last year without DRob panicking and throwing into coverage. (Your DBs should not be in a position to step in front and grab a ball or else it should have not been thrown.)

    You could also argue that if MSU doesn't have 2 defenders taken out by 1 guy @ ND (KR TD), and kicks a field goal at the end of the half instead of an idiotic fake FG call that doesn't happen 99/100 times, MSU loses 24-16 and no one is pointing to that game as a sign of MSU's weakness. I've heard similar arguments about the 438 yards you guys gave up to Northwestern, that a chunk of them came in garbage time. Should MSU's D get credit for a shutout against tOSU, because we gave up a TD with 10 seconds to go in a 2 score game? Does MSU get credit for holding tOSU to 0.9 yards/carry after tOSU ran for over 220 yards and 6 YPC @ Nebraska? I heard all last week that tOSU's O was weak and MSU's D isn't proven . . . then tOSU puts up 27 points in 3 Qs before their QB gets hurt. That same QB was pulled against MSU for ineffective play and finished the day with -27 rushing yards; was over +90 against Nebraska.

    I can see our game on Sat. going either way. I think MSU's D is a bit more stable, and that it's at home should be a nice factor in our favor. I definitely think Michigan's offense is more explosive and your D is opportunistic. My problem with your defense is that it appears when it isn't generating turnovers, it's giving up long drives. They don't necessarily result in scores (9/16 RZ conversions allowed, which is still a high # of RZ opportunities), but to me that's a dangerous trend.

    UM has recovered 10 fumbles on the year (again NCAA, so no WMU stats, sorry), which is #1 in the nation. This may just be me, but fumble recoveries are one of the most random occurrences in football. You can teach your players to strip the ball and hit hard, but in the end the ball has to bounce to one of your guys before an opposing player can get it. I know your D has improved, but averaging 2 fumble recoveries/game makes me feel that your D stats have a higher "luck" factor than MSU's do. I'm not saying your D improvement is solely predicated on luck; far from it. I'm just saying that to get the high scoring D # you have in comparison to the amount of yards/game given up, the lucky bounces of some fumbles are playing a solid part in that. That's not going to be there game to game.

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Well, how else do you compare the D's a guy faced between 2 years? The statement was that Cousins didn't look as good this year as he did last year, and I countered that he faced weaker D's in '10 than '11. When you factor in 5 home games in '10 to 3 home/2 road games in '11, I think the argument has merit.

    You can't. You are using partial year stats against different opponents to prove that the defenses that MSU has faced so far this year are tougher than the ones he faced to the same point last year. You cannot do that. There are too many variables. It is particularly difficult when you use the first half of the season, because the OOC schedules are so wildly different.

    Still, based purely on the eye test, Cousins has not looked as good as I expected this year and his stats are down too. Maybe it is less protection up front or maybe it is lack of production in the running game (allowing opposing defense to focus more on defending the pass), but for whatever reason he just does not look as sharp as he did last year. The same is true of Denard. Whatever the reason - new scheme, working from under center, play calling - his accuracy is off from last year. He has looked better the past two games, but just watching him throw it seems he is not quite as consistently accurate as he was last year. And it has nothing to do with Michigan playing tougher defenses so far this year. He just has not been as sharp.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by MrWoodson 3 years ago

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Yeah but i was also saying that through 5 games, last years schedule was tougher seeing they played Wisconsin and they made it through that schedule 5-0. This year they are 4-1.

    That's the only game that was tougher compared to '11, and it was at home. The argument was about the defenses faced.

    I'd say Youngstown State and Northern Colorado are a wash.

    '10 WMU is better than '11 CMU

    '10 FAU is definitely better than '11 FAU

    @ '11 ND is tougher than '10 ND at Spartan Stadium

    @ '11 tOSU is easier than '10 Wisky at home

    So one game negates the other 4? And we don't know how tOSU will finish; I'd argue that even a tOSU that's weaker on a neutral field is still formidable @ the Shoe. Despite their struggles, I think they boast a stronger D than Wisky last year.

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Well, how else do you compare the D's a guy faced between 2 years? The statement was that Cousins didn't look as good this year as he did last year, and I countered that he faced weaker D's in '10 than '11. When you factor in 5 home games in '10 to 3 home/2 road games in '11, I think the argument has merit.

    First, you only compared OSU and Wisco, not all the teams Cousins faced.

    Second, I already explained the OSU stats this year are unfairly weighted down by playing Akron.

    Third, you can't tell what effect your current lack of a running game has on things. (It might even help your case)

    Whether he is better or not, based on different opponents, is impossible to tell. I think you have to go on LOOK at this point in the season (mostly non-conf schedule).

    I have seen a lot of stats get thrown around year after year. I am a stats fan. I like them. But, I recently realized their limits. stats are based on unequal situations and competition. It is a way to numerically determine something that can not be numerically determined (unless teams play each other like we will see later in the B10 schedule). Regardless, advance stats are much better than raw numbers. While adjusted stats, after a full season and playing similar teams may end up telling us something, it is still not fully accurate. Advance stats now are fuzzy and raw stats right now are even fuzzier.

    Did you know UM was favored by about 4-5 points in last year's MSU/UM game. The stats at this point in the season pointed to a UM victory. At the end of last year, though, the stats became a more accurate reflection of the UM team.

    So, for now stats mean something, but only a little bit. The eye test is important at this stage.

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    MrWoodson said... (original post)

    You can't. You are using partial year stats against different opponents to prove that the defenses that MSU has faced so far this year are tougher than the ones he faced to the same point last year. You cannot do that. There are too many variables. It is particularly difficult when you use the first half of the season, because the OOC schedules are so wildly different.

    Still, based purely on the eye test, Cousins has not looked as good as I expected this year and his stats are down too. Maybe it is less protection up front or maybe it is lack of production in the running game (allowing opposing defense to focus more on defending the pass), but for whatever reason he just does not look as sharp as he did last year. The same is true of Denard. Whatever the reason - new scheme, working from under center, play calling - his accuracy is off from last year. He has looked better the past two games, but just watching him throw it seems he is not quite as consistently accurate as he was last last year. And it has nothing to do with Michigan playing tougher defenses so far this year. He just has not been as sharp.

    Ok . . . . then why can't I say, based on the eye test, that Cousins has faced correspondingly tougher defenses in '11 than he has in '10? Also, the only stat that's down is his total # of TDs. INTs, completion % are the same, and he's thrown for slightly more yards.

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    That's the only game that was tougher compared to '11, and it was at home. The argument was about the defenses faced.

    I'd say Youngstown State and Northern Colorado are a wash.

    '10 WMU is better than '11 CMU

    '10 FAU is definitely better than '11 FAU

    @ '11 ND is tougher than '10 ND at Spartan Stadium

    @ '11 tOSU is easier than '10 Wisky at home

    So one game negates the other 4? And we don't know how tOSU will finish; I'd argue that even a tOSU that's weaker on a neutral field is still formidable @ the Shoe. Despite their struggles, I think they boast a stronger D than Wisky last year.

    If the argument was based on defenses faced only then my bad i was talking about the overall 2010 MSU team vs 2011 MSU team.

    And i still stand by my argument that the 2011 team is just not quite as good through the first 5 games.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Ok . . . . then why can't I say, based on the eye test, that Cousins has faced correspondingly tougher defenses in '11 than he has in '10? Also, the only stat that's down is his total # of TDs. INTs, completion % are the same, and he's thrown for slightly more yards.

    You can say anything you want. But since you didn't play the same five teams last year and this year, the stats really cannot be compared. That is my point. If by the eye test, you think Cousins looks as good or better this year as last year, fine. I don't. In fact, MSU's offense in general has been a bit of a disappointment IMO. Of course, five games is a very small sample size and everything could be different by the end of the season, but given all the offensive weapons you had coming back, I thought your offense would be one of the best in the conference. It just hasn't been thus far.

    Edit: Here is another way to look at it. Notre Dame has played six games so far. In one of those games, MSU put up 13 points against the Domers. That is comparable to what Pitt (12 points) and Purdue (10 points) put up against them. It is far below what Michigan (34 points), South Florida (23 points) and Air Force (33 points) put up against them. I know this is not a perfect way to look at it, but it's at least as fair a way to look at it as you are trying to use. And it shows that MSU's offensive production has been lower than expected and not just because ND has some super awesome brick wall of a defense.

    Edit 2: You can do the same thing with your game against OSU. MSU put up 10 points against OSU, which is fewer points than every team except Akron. Even Colorado (17 points) and Toledo (22 points) put up more points on OSU than MSU did and those games were also in the Shoe.

    This post has been edited 5 times, most recently by MrWoodson 3 years ago

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    You could also argue that if MSU doesn't have 2 defenders taken out by 1 guy @ ND (KR TD), and kicks a field goal at the end of the half instead of an idiotic fake FG call that doesn't happen 99/100 times, MSU loses 24-16 and no one is pointing to that game as a sign of MSU's weakness. I've heard similar arguments about the 438 yards you guys gave up to Northwestern, that a chunk of them came in garbage time. Should MSU's D get credit for a shutout against tOSU, because we gave up a TD with 10 seconds to go in a 2 score game? Does MSU get credit for holding tOSU to 0.9 yards/carry after tOSU ran for over 220 yards and 6 YPC @ Nebraska? I heard all last week that tOSU's O was weak and MSU's D isn't proven . . . then tOSU puts up 27 points in 3 Qs before their QB gets hurt. That same QB was pulled against MSU for ineffective play and finished the day with -27 rushing yards; was over +90 against Nebraska.

    I can see our game on Sat. going either way. I think MSU's D is a bit more stable, and that it's at home should be a nice factor in our favor. I definitely think Michigan's offense is more explosive and your D is opportunistic. My problem with your defense is that it appears when it isn't generating turnovers, it's giving up long drives. They don't necessarily result in scores (9/16 RZ conversions allowed, which is still a high # of RZ opportunities), but to me that's a dangerous trend.

    UM has recovered 10 fumbles on the year (again NCAA, so no WMU stats, sorry), which is #1 in the nation. This may just be me, but fumble recoveries are one of the most random occurrences in football. You can teach your players to strip the ball and hit hard, but in the end the ball has to bounce to one of your guys before an opposing player can get it. I know your D has improved, but averaging 2 fumble recoveries/game makes me feel that your D stats have a higher "luck" factor than MSU's do. I'm not saying your D improvement is solely predicated on luck; far from it. I'm just saying that to get the high scoring D # you have in comparison to the amount of yards/game given up, the lucky bounces of some fumbles are playing a solid part in that. That's not going to be there game to game.

    MSU does not get "credit" for a shutout. UM has to keep all the NW yards on its books.

    Of course, the MSU game was in doubt at the time the shutout was lost. It was not garbage time.

    As for the randomness and luck in fumbles, I wonder if that is right. RichRods teams almost always lost that battle to recover balls. And they were the same players for the most part. I know fumbles can be randon year-toyear, but I wonder how much these factors play into the numbers:

    1. An aggressive defense causes more fumbles and forced fumbles are easier for a Defense to recover.

    2. More defensive players "flying to the ball" means more people around to recover fumbles. That has improved for Michigan.

    3. A number of Michigan fumbles recovered were QB drops in the shotgun formation. Better chance to recover.

    4. Kick return fumbles are pretty hard to recover (by the return team) and we have not had those this year.

    So while it can be a random factor, I think it can be influenced by a team's characteristics/style of play.

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Ok . . . . then why can't I say, based on the eye test, that Cousins has faced correspondingly tougher defenses in '11 than he has in '10? Also, the only stat that's down is his total # of TDs. INTs, completion % are the same, and he's thrown for slightly more yards.

    This is ludicrous(speed)! I'm sure there is a correlation to Cousins production and his offensive line play. When they play well he will play well. Simple. No? Any ways I'm hoping our defensive line can help facilitate a regression of MSU's offensive line play.

    signature image signature image signature image

    What you eat, don't make me shit.

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    Peterklima said... (original post)

    MSU does not get "credit" for a shutout. UM has to keep all the NW yards on its books.

    Of course, the MSU game was in doubt at the time the shutout was lost. It was not garbage time.

    As for the randomness and luck in fumbles, I wonder if that is right. RichRods teams almost always lost that battle to recover balls. And they were the same players for the most part. I know fumbles can be randon year-toyear, but I wonder how much these factors play into the numbers:

    1. An aggressive defense causes more fumbles and forced fumbles are easier for a Defense to recover.

    2. More defensive players "flying to the ball" means more people around to recover fumbles. That has improved for Michigan.

    3. A number of Michigan fumbles recovered were QB drops in the shotgun formation. Better chance to recover.

    4. Kick return fumbles are pretty hard to recover (by the return team) and we have not had those this year.

    So while it can be a random factor, I think it can be influenced by a team's characteristics/style of play.

    I agree that a more aggressive, "swarming" D will improve your chances of a forced fumble/recovery, but I still hold that there is a more random factor in it than interceptions. Still, I see a lot of teams that just seem to have the bounces go their way (think Hart's fumble recovery and run for a 1st down in '07) for an entire season, or have the bounces not go their way.

    I'm making the argument that your rate of fumble recoveries should go down, but to be fair, UM is in line for a good turnover turnaround; -32 net TOs in RichRod's 3 seasons. So though it seems that through the lens of the first 6 games, UM's fumble recoveries seem 'too good to be true/sustainable', I also have to consider that in the bigger picture this may not be true; these bounces could well go your way the rest of the year and not be out of line with the greater statistical picture.

    Certainly something to keep in mind as we watch on Saturday.

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

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    This is ludicrous(speed)! I'm sure there is a correlation to Cousins production and his offensive line play. When they play well he will play well. Simple. No? Any ways I'm hoping our defensive line can help facilitate a regression of MSU's offensive line play.

    I agree with that, and the OL through 5 games has been much worse in '11 than in '10. If anything, that probably weighs in favor of Cousins playing pretty well this season.

    The line play is going to be huge in this game, as it usually is. MSU's D-line may be the best single unit of the 4 (MSU OL/DL, UM OL/DL), but MSU's O-line is certainly the worst (going off what we've seen thus far) unit of the 4 as well.

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    I agree that a more aggressive, "swarming" D will improve your chances of a forced fumble/recovery, but I still hold that there is a more random factor in it than interceptions. Still, I see a lot of teams that just seem to have the bounces go their way (think Hart's fumble recovery and run for a 1st down in '07) for an entire season, or have the bounces not go their way.

    I'm making the argument that your rate of fumble recoveries should go down, but to be fair, UM is in line for a good turnover turnaround; -32 net TOs in RichRod's 3 seasons. So though it seems that through the lens of the first 6 games, UM's fumble recoveries seem 'too good to be true/sustainable', I also have to consider that in the bigger picture this may not be true; these bounces could well go your way the rest of the year and not be out of line with the greater statistical picture.

    Certainly something to keep in mind as we watch on Saturday.

    Not only would it make up for last year, but it really isn't random.

    We are not talking about dropping a ball at the 50 and giving it to the team whose side of the field it lands on. It is not a coin toss. Fumbles definitely depend on how and when the fumble happens.

    INTs are more based on performance (or lack thereof by an opponent), but fumbles are not really random.

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    Peterklima said... (original post)

    Not only would it make up for last year, but it really isn't random.

    We are not talking about dropping a ball at the 50 and giving it to the team whose side of the field it lands on. It is not a coin toss. Fumbles definitely depend on how and when the fumble happens.

    INTs are more based on performance (or lack thereof by an opponent), but fumbles are not really random.

    I guess I look at it this way. For a fumble to occur, the offensive player must start out with possession of the ball, then lose possession. For an INT, the ball is already free in the air, already out of possession of a player's hands. What I'm trying to say is that there's no guarantee that an offensive player is going to lose possession of the ball once they have it, but that there will be multiple opportunities for interceptions in any and all games, in the sense that the ball is up for grabs every time its in the air.

    Hard hitting and teaching players how to strip the football helps, but I feel that there are a lot more factors that go into a fumble than an INT. Maybe "random" isn't the right word, but rather, "harder to come by consistently".

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    I guess I look at it this way. For a fumble to occur, the offensive player must start out with possession of the ball, then lose possession. For an INT, the ball is already free in the air, already out of possession of a player's hands. What I'm trying to say is that there's no guarantee that an offensive player is going to lose possession of the ball once they have it, but that there will be multiple opportunities for interceptions in any and all games, in the sense that the ball is up for grabs every time its in the air.

    Hard hitting and teaching players how to strip the football helps, but I feel that there are a lot more factors that go into a fumble than an INT. Maybe "random" isn't the right word, but rather, "harder to come by consistently".

    I have to find the article, but someone had stats to back up what you are saying. I think his final conclusion that fumbles were mostly random.

    signature image signature image
  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    Change of gears here (and I'm having fun with the fumble discussion), what happened to your RBs against Northwestern? Did your OL just have a series of brain-farts, or was Northwestern doing something particularly funky on D?

    Last year they trotted out a 5-2 under which gave us all sorts of trouble. I only watched your game once, so I'd appreciate any further insight. I saw a lot of minimal gains from Toussaint; far from what he was doing before hand.

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Change of gears here (and I'm having fun with the fumble discussion), what happened to your RBs against Northwestern? Did your OL just have a series of brain-farts, or was Northwestern doing something particularly funky on D?

    Last year they trotted out a 5-2 under which gave us all sorts of trouble. I only watched your game once, so I'd appreciate any further insight. I saw a lot of minimal gains from Toussaint; far from what he was doing before hand.

    I don't know exactly what they were doing, but it seems they were stacking the middle. Michigan couldn't run between the tackles all night. The only way they got any yards were plays to the outside.

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Change of gears here (and I'm having fun with the fumble discussion), what happened to your RBs against Northwestern? Did your OL just have a series of brain-farts, or was Northwestern doing something particularly funky on D?

    Last year they trotted out a 5-2 under which gave us all sorts of trouble. I only watched your game once, so I'd appreciate any further insight. I saw a lot of minimal gains from Toussaint; far from what he was doing before hand.

    I am not entirely sure on this. I will say that Toussaint didn't seem to run as hard against NW as he has been the prior couple of weeks. There were a couple of plays where he got tackled by one guy where i felt like he had been running through that tackle.

    I do give NW a lot of credit for stopping our running game. I would be more inclined to say it was our RB's if they did not hold Denard to way under his yards per carry average as well. Our O line looked bad but i think NW was selling out to stop the run on early downs. We had a lot of negative or gains for very little on early downs. We did seem to do well on 3rd down running for the game though. We were like 14 for 17 on 3rd down and we were 6 of 8 throwing for 6 first downs, So we were 8 for 9 for first downs running the ball on 3rd down. We also were 1 for 1 on 4th down.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Not at all. You guys should be 8-4 if the wheels fall off, and I think I'm going to be eating some crow in regards to my records predictions with xxmgobluexx. At this point I had you guys at 5-1, then a slide to be started by MSU, a W to Purdue, and then you losing out. Regardless of the outcome of our game, I think you beat Purdue and Iowa; the @ IL game I predicted as a trap game L, now it may just end up being an L to a good team on the road.

    In reality, I don't think there's a team on your schedule that you can't beat in a single game scenario. I don't think you'll go 12-0, but 9-3 (5-3)? I could definitely see that. Your back 6 is definitely tougher than your first 6 games; 3 home vs. 3 road games, and the only sure W will be IL. As long as your coaches make the adjustments they've been making, and Robinson doesn't get hurt, I have a hard time seeing you losing more than 3 games from here on out, and maybe even that's a stretch. I don't see a sure loss on your schedule.

    Preseason I said 7-5, +/- 1 game.

    An MSU L to UM this Sat. would make it hard to finish 9-3, but not impossible. Wisky is better than I thought they'd be (and I thought they'd be a top 15 team this year), but Nebraska and Iowa both look vulnerable. I'm much more worried about playing powerful Ds on the road that powerful Os, and both Nebraska and Iowa do not look like vintage NU/Iowa teams defensively. It also depends where those teams are at in their seasons when we play them.

    I expect sure Ws over Minny, IU and Northwestern, so I'd say 7-5 is the floor for MSU right now.

    Good post, basically agree. IF, IF, UM wins Saturday, I think 10-2 is achievable- right now I'm at 9-3.

    I did think MSU had a shot at falling to 7-5, but beating OSU and Nebraska not looking that good has me thinking 8-4 is probably the floor.

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    I am not entirely sure on this. I will say that Toussaint didn't seem to run as hard against NW as he has been the prior couple of weeks. There were a couple of plays where he got tackled by one guy where i felt like he had been running through that tackle.

    I do give NW a lot of credit for stopping our running game. I would be more inclined to say it was our RB's if they did not hold Denard to way under his yards per carry average as well. Our O line looked bad but i think NW was selling out to stop the run on early downs. We had a lot of negative or gains for very little on early downs. We did seem to do well on 3rd down running for the game though. We were like 14 for 17 on 3rd down and we were 6 of 8 throwing for 6 first downs, So we were 8 for 9 for first downs running the ball on 3rd down. We also were 1 for 1 on 4th down.

    Saw that 3rd down stat. Mind-boggling-ly efficient.

    Your guys may be a little tired; this will be your 7th straight game and 2nd straight road game. I know MSU wore down a bit last year (10 straight games before a bye), especially Bell, who wasn't used to the load we gave him early on (well, and he bruised both his shoulders in back to back weeks). It's not that someone is hiding a major injury, it's just the bumps and bruises that has a guy losing a quarter or half step, or maybe makes him hesitate to make a cut that he would've made without thinking. This is pure conjecture, because I don't have inside knowledge of the health of your team. I'm just thinking of reasons outside of poor OL play/strong DL play that would cause the drop in running efficiency.

    Didn't you guys have an OL injury or other shuffling going on against Minny or something like that?

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

  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    Big M said... (original post)

    Good post, basically agree. IF, IF, UM wins Saturday, I think 10-2 is achievable- right now I'm at 9-3.

    I did think MSU had a shot at falling to 7-5, but beating OSU and Nebraska not looking that good has me thinking 8-4 is probably the floor.

    I felt that in the 5 years or so, MSU and UM would clash with the Legends title on the line.

    I honestly didn't expect it to be this season. lol

    Though I predicted 9+ Ws for Iowa and under 9 Ws for both PSU and UM (that's my debate with xxmgobluexx, I have to call him a genius in an open thread if 2 of the 3 happen: Iowa under 9 wins, PSU and UM each 9 or more), I'm more than glad to be wrong about Iowa and PSU, especially if that means Iowa is out of contention for our division and PSU hands Nebraska a 2nd L.

    Ultimately, I want MSU to gain national exposure, and having our rivalry mean more and more each year means more exposure for MSU. UM would obviously get the same, but you already have a national name. Would really enjoy if, after this year, our teams continued to meet with no more than 1 loss each, and preferably unbeaten in conference play.

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

  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Saw that 3rd down stat. Mind-boggling-ly efficient.

    Your guys may be a little tired; this will be your 7th straight game and 2nd straight road game. I know MSU wore down a bit last year (10 straight games before a bye), especially Bell, who wasn't used to the load we gave him early on (well, and he bruised both his shoulders in back to back weeks). It's not that someone is hiding a major injury, it's just the bumps and bruises that has a guy losing a quarter or half step, or maybe makes him hesitate to make a cut that he would've made without thinking. This is pure conjecture, because I don't have inside knowledge of the health of your team. I'm just thinking of reasons outside of poor OL play/strong DL play that would cause the drop in running efficiency.

    Didn't you guys have an OL injury or other shuffling going on against Minny or something like that?

    Barnum our LG has been out but i am not sure how much of a drop off there is from Barnum and his replacement Scofield. I have thought that Scofield has played pretty well so far.

    I really think NW came in with the idea that they were going to make Denard beat them with his arm and it worked for a half considering he threw the 3 pics. But fortunately he also threw 2 tds as well in the first half and in the second half didn't throw any pics.

    This post was edited by WillyWolverine 3 years ago

    signature image signature image signature image
  • SpartanRocky said... (original post)

    Saw that 3rd down stat. Mind-boggling-ly efficient.

    Your guys may be a little tired; this will be your 7th straight game and 2nd straight road game. I know MSU wore down a bit last year (10 straight games before a bye), especially Bell, who wasn't used to the load we gave him early on (well, and he bruised both his shoulders in back to back weeks). It's not that someone is hiding a major injury, it's just the bumps and bruises that has a guy losing a quarter or half step, or maybe makes him hesitate to make a cut that he would've made without thinking. This is pure conjecture, because I don't have inside knowledge of the health of your team. I'm just thinking of reasons outside of poor OL play/strong DL play that would cause the drop in running efficiency.

    Didn't you guys have an OL injury or other shuffling going on against Minny or something like that?

    We had our LG (Ricky Barnum) go out with an injury, don't know exactly what, but it wasn't serious. RS. Soph. Michael Schofield took his place (who has played well in his place), that is the entirety of our OL problems.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • SpartanTailgate

    SpartanRocky

    Hoffelcopter said... (original post)

    We had our LG (Ricky Barnum) go out with an injury, don't know exactly what, but it wasn't serious. RS. Soph. Michael Schofield took his place (who has played well in his place), that is the entirety of our OL problems.

    I'm envious of you in that regard.

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

  • SpartanTailgate

    steveschneider

    Hello friends, busy day today. I'll have to catch up on all the football discussions later. Just dropping by to say howdy.

    signature image