Online Now 3218

The Blue Board

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

On this Board 1940
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3185
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

The Official Michigan, MSU, and 1 Random Guy from Arky Thread

  • Peterklima said...

    You're right. Talent means nothing. High rated guys who don't get to play a lot because they are behind historically good players are just like two stars. You can't go off what they showed the last time they played regularly. I wish talent meant something because then maybe teams with top level recruits would have a shot. Remember Alabama is reloading with sophmores who are highly rated. According to you that means nothing. We should roll the Tide, right? If those kids weren't playing as well as the starters last year it means they are not talented. I mean, universally-acclaimed and talented kids playing behind once in a lifetime players means they are really not that talented!!! Right? You fail at logic. Are you the best football debating mind MSU has to offer?

    Okay, highly touted guys means that much? Then MSU should improve at every position this year, b/c every player we lose is being replaced by a higher rated player. That logic makes sense...

    Looking at the videos posted of Gardner, he clearly flashes potential, which is good for UM.

    The difference at Alabama is that Saban has been recruiting highly for years, and has shown the ability to reload at Bama.
    And Rocky has stated multiple times that he views Bama as largely unknown with so many new players coming in.

    You guys gotta remember which people make which arguments, because you're arguing points with people who aren't arguing those points back.

    signature image

    laconophilia is everywhere... http://www.msu-umbig10.com/

    Jandy

  • Ducksworth said...

    A couple things:

    Also, I really like Nick Tompkins. He was severely underrated. But I get your analogy.

    Thank you!

    Nick Tompkins is, far and away, the 2012 recruit I am the most excited about. The kid was playing against one of the toughest conferences in the talent rich state of Georgia, and tore them up. He has 6-8 minute HIGHLIGHT videos for each year he started at RB. And the videos are incredible. I have nooo clue how he wasn't a 4*. It's baffling.

    signature image

    laconophilia is everywhere... http://www.msu-umbig10.com/

    Jandy

  • CWEBB said...

    I agree with you that DG is as much of a question mark as Maxwell though. Although I think he is more talented than Maxwell, when you factor in the athleticism, and the arm strength. We won’t really know till 13 or maybe 14 if that talent translates to success.

    Just curious, but why do you consider DG more talented than Maxwell?

    From my viewpoint, they're both 4* players. But Maxwell beat out another 4* QB in Joe Boisture, IIRC, (prior to Boisture's career ending injury).

    I think DG is very talented, but I feel Maxwell is very talented also. Just curious on what basis you consider DG more talented.

    signature image

    laconophilia is everywhere... http://www.msu-umbig10.com/

    Jandy

  • Jandy said...

    Just curious, but why do you consider DG more talented than Maxwell?

    From my viewpoint, they're both 4* players. But Maxwell beat out another 4* QB in Joe Boisture, IIRC, (prior to Boisture's career ending injury).

    I think DG is very talented, but I feel Maxwell is very talented also. Just curious on what basis you consider DG more talented.

    Because the recruiting services told him that.

    OTPT

  • Peterklima said...

    You're right. Talent means nothing. High rated guys who don't get to play a lot because they are behind historically good players are just like two stars. You can't go off what they showed the last time they played regularly. I wish talent meant something because then maybe teams with top level recruits would have a shot. Remember Alabama is reloading with sophmores who are highly rated. According to you that means nothing. We should roll the Tide, right? If those kids weren't playing as well as the starters last year it means they are not talented. I mean, universally-acclaimed and talented kids playing behind once in a lifetime players means they are really not that talented!!! Right? You fail at logic. Are you the best football debating mind MSU has to offer?

    Talent means a lot.

    Stars ratings, not so much.

    You need to accept that they are not always one and the same.

    My biggest issue with your argument is that you're going off of HS evaluations from 3 years ago and saying that they're conclusive proof that Player X is a great player. You really need to stop with that. Star ratings are fine for an overall glance at a team's talent, but they are no assurance that a certain player will play at that projected level.

    You're essentially missing a step in your analysis, because all you're doing is making excuses for why he hasn't looked like a 4-5 star player yet. He's behind Denard. He was highly rated. Excuse, excuse, excuse.

    I didn't call Gardner a 2-star. I'm saying he hasn't shown that 4/5-star ability yet. This isn't an OL situation where a guy's expected to sit 3-4 years before starting. Gardner's had time in games and has, on a whole, underwhelmed.

    Remember last year how everyone said that Gardner was an EVEN BETTER thrower than Denard?

    Before you insult my football knowledge, consider that you're the one arguing that his accolades as a HS kid going up against other HS kids should trump his college performance to date. And you say I fail at logic?

    This post was edited by SpartanRocky on 3/31/2012 at 1:39 PM

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

    SpartanRocky

  • I still don't understand how Gardner has underwhelmed in games.

    He didn't see enough time in games this year to really make an assessment. He made some good plays and some terrible ones. But he was also running a package, was not running the offense.

    The only game Gardner saw a legitimate amount of action was in his FR year against BG, he hardly underwhelmed.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mriderblue16

  • MrWoodson said...

    It's as convincing as someone saying that Maxwell will be a reasonably successful QB in his first year as a starter. The difference is that Gardner is a backup. Which means Michigan has a two year returning starter coming off an 11-2 season as a starter and a QB the equivalent of MSU's starter as a backup. And a pretty solid RS freshman after that. I would say that's the best QB depth chart in the B10 and one of the best in the country.

    I have no clue what Maxwell will look like this year. I have no clue how good Connor Cook is. Neither have proven anything. MSU's starting QB situation is a question mark.

    I don't get why you guys can't accept that your back-up is unproven. I'm not insulting the guy, just saying that he hasn't shown that "4-star elite QB talent" that I keep hearing about. I don't care what you say about Maxwell, because I know he's in the same boat. That doesn't bother me, it's part of the cycle of college FB.

    The hyperbole with Gardner is pretty ridiculous. He could make major strides and be a great player; no way am I ruling that out. From what I've seen thus far out of him, he has a lot of work to do on that. If he's working regularly with the WR's (which XX said is no longer the case), then that's going to hinder his QB development.

    Put it to you this way: if Shoelaces go down, UM is not going be winning many games with a QB that completes under 48% of his passes and runs for 2.7 YPC.

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

    SpartanRocky

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Put it to you this way: if Shoelaces go down, UM is not going be winning many games with a QB that completes under 48% of his passes and runs for 2.7 YPC.

    He also will be the running the offense, not a package if Shoelace goes down (the sleight of pluralizing Denards nickname is getting old hombre).

    signature image signature image signature image

    mriderblue16

  • Jandy said...

    Thank you!

    Nick Tompkins is, far and away, the 2012 recruit I am the most excited about. The kid was playing against one of the toughest conferences in the talent rich state of Georgia, and tore them up. He has 6-8 minute HIGHLIGHT videos for each year he started at RB. And the videos are incredible. I have nooo clue how he wasn't a 4*. It's baffling.

    because it's against HS competition and it's a highlight tape. Big knock on him is that he runs too high for his frame, and no one's sure if he can keep his speed at 205 (he's 185 right now).

    Hell, I watched White's JUCO DT film and he looked like the next Warren Sapp. lol.

    I'm really trying to keep my analysis to talking about "knowns", aka, players/units who have seen collegiate playing time and separating everything else as "unknown". Unknown doesn't mean a guy/unit is good or bad, we just don't know.

    For instance, MSU's QB/WRs are unknown. UM's DL is unknown, outside of Roh. Let's see how the springs go for both squads, and maybe we'll have a better picture of each. I know Shoelaces showed great improvement in the spring of '10 and he had a fantastic year. You can take something away from the spring games, though not nearly as much as what you get against in-season competition.

    In my opinion, the conclusions you can draw about a guy should be based on on-field performance first and foremost. After that, you can look at spring games/what coaches have said about the guy (like MSU's Calhoun, who the coaches rave about. He's a RS FR and automatically an unknown in my book). Finally, you can look at their HS rankings, but that should really only apply to true FR. Every year a guy spends in college makes those HS rankings less and less relevant.

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

    SpartanRocky

  • mriderblue16 said...

    He also will be the running the offense, not a package if Shoelace goes down (the sleight of pluralizing Denards nickname is getting old hombre).

    I thought his nickname was Shoelaces. It's just "Shoelace"? That's an insult? No insult was intended.

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

    SpartanRocky

  • mriderblue16 said...

    I still don't understand how Gardner has underwhelmed in games.

    He didn't see enough time in games this year to really make an assessment. He made some good plays and some terrible ones. But he was also running a package, was not running the offense.

    The only game Gardner saw a legitimate amount of action was in his FR year against BG, he hardly underwhelmed.

    He played a lot against MSU last year IIRC and he did not play well. He hasn't really been in too many meaningful games besides that and his stats are pretty bad.

    Again, it's too early to judge either way what kind of player he'll be next year when we actually need him.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    I thought his nickname was Shoelaces. It's just "Shoelace"? That's an insult? No insult was intended.

    Nah it's just Shoelace. Never thought of the plural as a flame, though (it would be a pretty weak attempt lol)

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    because it's against HS competition and it's a highlight tape. Big knock on him is that he runs too high for his frame, and no one's sure if he can keep his speed at 205 (he's 185 right now).

    Hell, I watched White's JUCO DT film and he looked like the next Warren Sapp. lol.

    I'm really trying to keep my analysis to talking about "knowns", aka, players/units who have seen collegiate playing time and separating everything else as "unknown". Unknown doesn't mean a guy/unit is good or bad, we just don't know.

    For instance, MSU's QB/WRs are unknown. UM's DL is unknown, outside of Roh. Let's see how the springs go for both squads, and maybe we'll have a better picture of each. I know Shoelaces showed great improvement in the spring of '10 and he had a fantastic year. You can take something away from the spring games, though not nearly as much as what you get against in-season competition.

    In my opinion, the conclusions you can draw about a guy should be based on on-field performance first and foremost. After that, you can look at spring games/what coaches have said about the guy (like MSU's Calhoun, who the coaches rave about. He's a RS FR and automatically an unknown in my book). Finally, you can look at their HS rankings, but that should really only apply to true FR. Every year a guy spends in college makes those HS rankings less and less relevant.

    Spring games are always tough for me. If there's a huge sack on defense, you don't know whether to be excited about the defensive line or worried about the offensive line. If there's an 80 yard pass, you don't know whether it's YAY WRS or AHHH CB.

    I'll obviously still go and analyze it to death, but there's many ways to interpret Spring Games.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth ●

  • Ducksworth said...

    He played a lot against MSU last year IIRC and he did not play well. He hasn't really been in too many meaningful games besides that and his stats are pretty bad.

    Again, it's too early to judge either way what kind of player he'll be next year when we actually need him.

    At MSU he came in after Denard was stinking up the place. Kind of hard to judge a player (one way or other) if they haven't started a game or thrown more than 10 passes in one game.

    He's had some great plays, he's had some horrible ones, just like you would expect from a young guy.

    Just wondering how has he "underwhelmed"?

    signature image signature image signature image

    mriderblue16

  • mriderblue16 said...

    At MSU he came in after Denard was stinking up the place. Kind of hard to judge a player (one way or other) if they haven't started a game or thrown more than 10 passes in one game.

    He's had some great plays, he's had some horrible ones, just like you would expect from a young guy.

    Just wondering how has he "underwhelmed"?

    That's why I said it's too early to judge him either way. But he has underwhelmed if you look at his stats (something like 40% completion and 2 ypc)

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth ●

  • Ducksworth said...

    That's why I said it's too early to judge him either way. But he has underwhelmed if you look at his stats (something like 40% completion and 2 ypc)

    I'm with mrider on this one. The guy threw 23 passes last year and 33 for his entire college career. Has completed 54.5 percent for his career playing in 2 different systems in 2 years. It is really ridiculous to use his stats to say anything about Devin at this point. It makes more sense to look at certain situations such as the Illinois TD pass when the game was still in doubt or how well he performs in practice to see how Devin is progressing.

    signature image signature image signature image

    WillyWolverine ●

  • Did a Michigan FAN really just get annoyed by someone calling Denard, Shoelaces? Lol.

    OTPT

  • Jandy said...

    Just curious, but why do you consider DG more talented than Maxwell?

    From my viewpoint, they're both 4* players. But Maxwell beat out another 4* QB in Joe Boisture, IIRC, (prior to Boisture's career ending injury).

    I think DG is very talented, but I feel Maxwell is very talented also. Just curious on what basis you consider DG more talented.

    I have seen Gardner play and you can see his talent on plays. I confess I have not seen Maxwell play. I never opined about his talent though.

    That said. Since we are not scouts I think that we can rely on professional talent evaluators and coaches though. Gardner was highly regarded across the board. He held offers from LSU, Notre Dame and many other schools (including State). I would say that it is safe to assume he has some talent.

    Maxwell ranked high with one service, but not the rest. He had no other offers as far as I can find. He said that aside from State he was receiving interest from Central, Western and Northwestern. He visied NW and was told that 4 or 5 offers ahead of him and he went home and chose State (according to an online article). It is hard to tell though because he committed early and was a lifelong Spartan fan. So, to sum up, there is not a lot out there about his talent level.

    Regardless, I never said Gardner had more or less talent than Maxwell. I think gardner has talent though. And, he has some experience. Even if Maxwell matches him in talent (and experience), then is it safe to say that heading into the season MSU's starting QB is on par with Michigan's back up QB?

    Peterklima ●

  • Peterklima said...

    I have seen Gardner play and you can see his talent on plays. I confess I have not seen Maxwell play. I never opined about his talent though.

    That said. Since we are not scouts I think that we can rely on professional talent evaluators and coaches though. Gardner was highly regarded across the board. He held offers from LSU, Notre Dame and many other schools (including State). I would say that it is safe to assume he has some talent.

    Maxwell ranked high with one service, but not the rest. He had no other offers as far as I can find. He said that aside from State he was receiving interest from Central, Western and Northwestern. He visied NW and was told that 4 or 5 offers ahead of him and he went home and chose State (according to an online article). It is hard to tell though because he committed early and was a lifelong Spartan fan. So, to sum up, there is not a lot out there about his talent level.

    Regardless, I never said Gardner had more or less talent than Maxwell. I think gardner has talent though. And, he has some experience. Even if Maxwell matches him in talent (and experience), then is it safe to say that heading into the season MSU's starting QB is on par with Michigan's back up QB?

    You play the recruiting services game lol. Except for the truly elite, stand out players these people dont know jack for the most part.

    This post was edited by ErnieMcCracken on 3/31/2012 at 2:32 PM

    ErnieMcCracken ●

  • SpartanRocky said...

    Talent means a lot.

    Stars ratings, not so much.

    You need to accept that they are not always one and the same.

    My biggest issue with your argument is that you're going off of HS evaluations from 3 years ago and saying that they're conclusive proof that Player X is a great player. You really need to stop with that. Star ratings are fine for an overall glance at a team's talent, but they are no assurance that a certain player will play at that projected level.

    You're essentially missing a step in your analysis, because all you're doing is making excuses for why he hasn't looked like a 4-5 star player yet. He's behind Denard. He was highly rated. Excuse, excuse, excuse.

    I didn't call Gardner a 2-star. I'm saying he hasn't shown that 4/5-star ability yet. This isn't an OL situation where a guy's expected to sit 3-4 years before starting. Gardner's had time in games and has, on a whole, underwhelmed.

    Remember last year how everyone said that Gardner was an EVEN BETTER thrower than Denard?

    Before you insult my football knowledge, consider that you're the one arguing that his accolades as a HS kid going up against other HS kids should trump his college performance to date. And you say I fail at logic?

    So, if the Patriots drafted Andrew Luck and he sat on the bench behind Tom Brady for two years, then you would call into question his talent?

    This isn't about excuses. There isn't a QB in the B10 that would have seen the field much with Denard in front of him. You may feel the talent evaluations of Gardner by recruiting services and coaches around the country from a couple years ago are "stale," but are you saying hey were wrong if the player never got a chance to prove himself? I think they can be relied upon until it is proven the guy is not panning out. Sitting behind Denard is no proof.

    You say your biggest issue with my argument is that I am saying that his HS evaluations are "conclusive proof that he is a great player." In other words, your biggest issue is something I have never argued (and no one has). I say it means that you can assume he is still highly talented.

    Gardner has a lot of talent and a little experience. That is better than most backup QBs.

    So keep pretending I am saying there is conclusive proof that Gardner is a great player. No one is fooled into thinking I said that. Gardner's body of work in college is "INC" if anything. That doesn't mean he lost all that talent because he couldn't get more snaps behind Denard. Don't try to drift away from your argument (that he is not highly talented) to something no one is arguing (that he is already a great player) in a retreat to seem reasonable. That is sloppy logic and arguing IMO.

    I said Gardner s highly talented and has some experience. I think that is different than having Connor Cook as a back-up. I think Gardner is possibly the best back-up QB in the B10 because of those factors. Go ahead and ignore my argument and say Gardner "hasn't proven to be a great player yet" because you were wrong in addressing my argument.

    You can also claim that HS ratings of talent lose all meaning if the kid is stuck behind a hall of fame player. But, that makes no sense. Once again, not logical.

    Peterklima ●

  • OTPT said...

    Did a Michigan FAN really just get annoyed by someone calling Denard, Shoelaces? Lol.

    His nickname is Shoelace, not Shoelaces. I didn't get annoyed, just said the sleight was getting old.

    And Rocky pretending like he thought his nickname was Shoelaces is BS IMO. The guy claims to watch many of Michigan's games, announcers never call him Shoelaces.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mriderblue16

  • I thought it was shoelaces also. They never say he does not tie his shoelace.

    ErnieMcCracken ●

  • FWIW, there's a pretty entertaining thread going on about the Australian Power lifter. There's a dude with an Australian IP posting as him, so that's fun.

    We need some games. What do you guys think about having scrimmages with other teams rather than spring games?

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

    SpartanRocky

  • ErnieMcCracken said...

    You play the recruiting services game lol. Except for the truly elite, stand out players these people dont know jack for the most part.

    The services prove to be somewhat accurate. I am considering his offers too.

    Peterklima ●

  • mriderblue16 said...

    His nickname is Shoelace, not Shoelaces. I didn't get annoyed, just said the sleight was getting old.

    And Rocky pretending like he thought his nickname was Shoelaces is BS IMO. The guy claims to watch many of Michigan's games, announcers never call him Shoelaces.

    Hahahahaha. Shoelace, shoelaces, who gives a shit?

    Harry Callahan ●

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports