Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Deleterious

Michigan State vs #7 Michigan - 10/7/17

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Of course the turnovers were a big deal. But you also can’t just ignore them. OKorn has a tendency to force things. But they also had plenty of opportunities to score points and they ended up with only two scoring drives and seven punts on drives that didn’t end in turnovers. 

I am not saying that the MSU offense would have scored easily by running a more agressive offense. But they didn’t try to do too much because they didn’t have to, and that makes things a lot easier on a defense when you can commit to stopping an offense that is in conservative clock killing mode, especially given the playing conditions. 

It isn’t as easy as saying that without some of the turnovers Michigan surely takes care of business. They did little to show that they could move the ball when they weren’t turning it over. 

The offense sucks. 

Five turnovers vs zero and almost any team will lose to another.  I'm not sure how that is controversial. 

The seven punts, while not ideal, were done with confidence in the defense.  Also not sure how that isn't easy to see in Harbaugh's game plan. 

To not come up with one TO in a monsoon game is a fluke. 

Great win for MSU, but to discount the rest of Michigan's season because of it is emotional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LooseGoose said:

Is a college OL starting 2 seniors, a junior and 2 sophomores really considered too young?

As noted above MSU was starting 1 senior, 2 Sophomores and 2 true freshmen.

 

I'm more referring to the fact that most of the OL talent is too young to even play much. Cole (Sr) is a great senior for sure, but Kugler (Sr) would not be starting next year even if he came back, and Ulizio (RS So) probably won't start either.

The 2 true sophomores are good now but they'll be better.

This game is done, so I don't really care about MSU anymore nor do I wish to make comparisons. I could honestly name 3 players, Scott Bacchia Lewerke. So if you want to get into a comparison you're asking the wrong person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mickeyb105 said:

Five turnovers vs zero and almost any team will lose to another.  I'm not sure how that is controversial. 

The seven punts, while not ideal, were done with confidence in the defense.  Also not sure how that isn't easy to see in Harbaugh's game plan. 

To not come up with one TO in a monsoon game is a fluke. 

Great win for MSU, but to discount the rest of Michigan's season because of it is emotional. 

There is absolutely nothing controversial about saying that a -5 turnover margin will almost always equal defeat. 

My point is that if you take away some of the turnovers because you want to call them a fluke, there is still a very good chance that they still lose that game. I would have felt a lot better about their chances if they managed to do something with the other drives where they didn’t turn the ball over, but they didn’t. 

I also don’t think the failure to come up with a turnover is a fluke. Stop calling it a monsoon game. The rain didn’t arrive until the third quarter and the hard rain didn’t even last that long. 

I don’t think it’s controversial to discount the rest of the season. The offense has looked bad all year, and now the starting quarterback is a guy that likes taking sacks and running backward and throwing into double coverage. 

There is little to support a 10-2 record at this point other than hope. 

I haven’t seen anything from this offense on the field that would lead me to think that they can win at Wisconsin or at PSU or at home against OSU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

I'm more referring to the fact that most of the OL talent is too young to even play much. Cole (Sr) is a great senior for sure, but Kugler (Sr) would not be starting next year even if he came back, and Ulizio (RS So) probably won't start either.

The 2 true sophomores are good now but they'll be better.

This game is done, so I don't really care about MSU anymore nor do I wish to make comparisons. I could honestly name 3 players, Scott Bacchia Lewerke. So if you want to get into a comparison you're asking the wrong person.

If the younger players are more talented they should be playing.   The 2 true freshmen starting for MSU are doing so over older, more experienced players.  I don't think there is a "too young" thing in CFB anymore or if UM is imposing that it's self destructive.   Play your best players and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LooseGoose said:

If the younger players are more talented they should be playing.   The 2 true freshmen starting for MSU are doing so over older, more experienced players.  I don't think there is a "too young" thing in CFB anymore or if UM is imposing that it's self destructive.   Play your best players and go from there.

They're not their best players right now. They need to build strength, etc.

I'm not saying their super awesome recruits either, just that they should be better next year than Kugler, Ulizio are now.

Props to MSU for what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think MSU is onto anything revolutionary regarding their young offensive line. It’s not like that line is any good either. Lucky for MSU, you don’t need to have a good line to kill the clock when you are up 11 and 4 points and the opposing team is incapable of sustaining any drives. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note. I said to myself at the time that kicking the extra point to make it a four point game was a mistake. It would have been nice to be within 3 during the second half. We had that first down on the MSU 40  in the second half where the drive ended with OKorn being sacked in Michigan territory. Had we been within 3, I think we could have played for a FG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Stop calling it a monsoon game. The rain didn’t arrive until the third quarter and the hard rain didn’t even last that long. 

 

Uh huh.

858846198-michigan-state-v-michigan.jpg.

1 hour ago, Shelton said:

I also don’t think the failure to come up with a turnover is a fluke.

In those conditions, against Michigan's defense, I strongly disagree that a 5:0 turnover ratio is any kind of normal.  The game was a fluke, time to move on.  The downfiled fumble by McEwan was Techmo Bowl-level ridiculous.   How often have you ever seen that happen with a Michigan team, a receiver fumbling after a long gain?  Isaac isn't a fumbler, either, but he's the resident home run hitter and he gets benched because of a fumble.

1 hour ago, Shelton said:

 

I don’t think it’s controversial to discount the rest of the season. The offense has looked bad all year, and now the starting quarterback is a guy that likes taking sacks and running backward and throwing into double coverage. 

There is little to support a 10-2 record at this point other than hope. 

I haven’t seen anything from this offense on the field that would lead me to think that they can win at Wisconsin or at PSU or at home against OSU. 

The Michigan fan base is so fickle.  They complain about Speight staying in the pocket too long and absorbing hits, but then turnaround and complain about O'Korn being flushed too easily.  And people wonder why the Michigan  fanbase is hated throughout the B1G.

Michigan was a borderline top-10 team going into the season, and they'll remain a borderline top-10 team through bowl season.  The defense provides all the support I need, and Harbaugh's staff is good enough to make necessary adjustments to grind out 9-10 wins with a bad OL.  If Isaac is loses his spot as the lead back because of the fumble, and doesn't get it back for the last few games, then I do think the offense has a hard time beating those defenses.

Why are you hyping Wisconsin?  Exactly who have they beaten?  What strong defenses have they played against?  I guess I can see PSU, but they are a healthy two steps behind OSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That picture confirms that it was raining when it was taken. You watched the game, I presume. You know the rain started in the middle of third and let up considerably midway through the fourth. 

2. I never said -5 turnovers was normal. I said it wasn’t a fluke that we didn’t get any of our own. Teams get zero turnovers in a game often. And it’s even harder to get them when the opponent can sit on the ball and kill clock. Turning it over five times is definitely a fluke. But that doesn’t mean the game can be written off as a fluke. It’s likely that Michigan would have put more points on the board if they hadn’t turned the ball over five times. They definitely had an effect. But we just don’t know how the game would have gone. Maybe each of those possessions end up with punts a couple plays later. Maybe MSU plays differently if the game is tied or closer or they are trailing and we still lose. My main point is that the offense looked very bad even if you ignore the turnovers. 

3. I don’t think the fan base is any more fickle than any other fanbase. 

4. I think Michigan has been overrated all year, and I don’t see them as a borderline top ten team. 

5. I’m not hyping Wisconsin. I’m saying Michigan is not a good football team and that a road game at Wisconsin is probably a loss because Michigan is not good. I also think PSU and OSU are better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shelton said:

1. That picture confirms that it was raining when it was taken. You watched the game, I presume. You know the rain started in the middle of third and let up considerably midway through the fourth. 

2. I never said -5 turnovers was normal. I said it wasn’t a fluke that we didn’t get any of our own. Teams get zero turnovers in a game often. And it’s even harder to get them when the opponent can sit on the ball and kill clock. Turning it over five times is definitely a fluke. But that doesn’t mean the game can be written off as a fluke. It’s likely that Michigan would have put more points on the board if they hadn’t turned the ball over five times. They definitely had an effect. But we just don’t know how the game would have gone. Maybe each of those possessions end up with punts a couple plays later. Maybe MSU plays differently if the game is tied or closer or they are trailing and we still lose. My main point is that the offense looked very bad even if you ignore the turnovers. 

3. I don’t think the fan base is any more fickle than any other fanbase. 

4. I think Michigan has been overrated all year, and I don’t see them as a borderline top ten team. 

5. I’m not hyping Wisconsin. I’m saying Michigan is not a good football team and that a road game at Wisconsin is probably a loss because Michigan is not good. I also think PSU and OSU are better. 

1.  It was windy AF throughout the game, and along with the rain it was certainly a factor in IRT holding onto the ball whether it be via running with it, receiving it or taking it via snap.  

3.  I firmly disagree that Michigan didn't get any turnovers given the weather and how good the defense is.  Part of why the offense played bad was because the turnovers short-circuited drives.  It also allowed State to put 9 men in the box because they knew Michigan wouldn't risk anymore turnovers via air.  Once an offense gets that predictable, of course it is going to be bad unless they have a distinct disadvantage like 50 lbs per man across the OL, CBs that run 4.8 40s, or something of that nature.

3.  Michigan fan base is more fickle because they expect Alabama players and results while maintaining strong academic standards (and morals).  Fans of the SEC schools, OSU, FSU and USC don't care about the kids as long as they are the best college football players around.

4.  The coaches poll disagreed with your evaluation, gonna have to side with them this time.

5.  Michigan (4-1) is now ranked #16 in the Coach's Poll, and is 1-1 when playing ranked opponents.  UF dropped from 20 to outside of the Top 25 this week after losing to LSU, a rivalry held in similar esteem to Michigan-MSU within the region.  PSU and Wisconsin have played mostly bad teams with bad defenses.  

When you say Michigan is not a good football team, what exactly does that mean?  Is it akin to eating at Longhorn Steakhouse and saying, "This is not a good steak" because you think all steak should be at least as good as Capital Grill?  Is it like eating the cheapest steak at Capital Grill and saying, "This is not a good steak" because you only like to eat steak at Michael Symon's restaurants?

Michigan went a long time without winning an NC, and it has been two decades since the did finally win one.  The fans have seen bad football under RR, and middling football--by in large--under Hoke.  Harbaugh is 2-0 vs UF, both firmly away games and on big stages.  The loss to FSU was a big bowl game to most of college football, but you remarked you probably wouldn't even watch it the week of the game as if it were the Blue Bonnet Bowl--this is pretty much the thesis statement that speaks to how fickle Michigan fans are.  Since when is any team's fans too proud to watch the Orange Bowl against a hot FSU team?

At what point is the steak good enough?  Is it only about the NC?  Is the B1G title finally good enough?  If that is the bar for acceptable, then I guess I'm doing it wrong.  I like watching the team grow through the year, deal with adversity and appreciate their hard work at the end of the season.  The RR experiment showed us how dangerous a sense of entitlement to playing in a bowl can be, and I absolutely don't take it for grated anymore.  FSU fans are learning how fragile it all is as well with Francois injured and losing to a hated rival in the final minute on Saturday.  "Fire Jimbo!" rolls freely off tounges here in Tallahassee--WTF?  I don't have much respect for Jimbo, but there is a ton of talent on his team and the guy won an NC not that long ago.  He just couldn't get great QBs to commit behind Francois, because everyone wants to play immediately.  Instant gratification, gotta love 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Who is the Drizzle? said:

Regarding your final point, I wasn't addressing you directly, I didn't remember you talking or not talking about tight ends. But I don't think the short passing game works when you have no deep threat. Too easy to take away while simultaneously taking away the run. Basically you just activate your safeties. That's just my opinion, I don't really want to get into it.

I understand your point, but the success of the TEs against Purdue was discussed quite a bit by folks in that GT, and there wasn't much of a deep threat in that game.  Don't know why that package disappeared when the short game was needed most against MSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

I understand your point, but the success of the TEs against Purdue was discussed quite a bit by folks in that GT, and there wasn't much of a deep threat in that game.  Don't know why that package disappeared when the short game was needed most against MSU.

purdue's defense sucks. msu's defense is very very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what?  Every aspect of the offense sucked against MSU.  There's no reason to believe that a TE package would have been worse than the extreme **** show they put out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sabretooth said:

So what?  Every aspect of the offense sucked against MSU.  There's no reason to believe that a TE package would have been worse than the extreme **** show they put out there.

k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mickeyb105 said:

1.  It was windy AF throughout the game, and along with the rain it was certainly a factor in IRT holding onto the ball whether it be via running with it, receiving it or taking it via snap.  

3.  I firmly disagree that Michigan didn't get any turnovers given the weather and how good the defense is.  Part of why the offense played bad was because the turnovers short-circuited drives.  It also allowed State to put 9 men in the box because they knew Michigan wouldn't risk anymore turnovers via air.  Once an offense gets that predictable, of course it is going to be bad unless they have a distinct disadvantage like 50 lbs per man across the OL, CBs that run 4.8 40s, or something of that nature.

3.  Michigan fan base is more fickle because they expect Alabama players and results while maintaining strong academic standards (and morals).  Fans of the SEC schools, OSU, FSU and USC don't care about the kids as long as they are the best college football players around.

4.  The coaches poll disagreed with your evaluation, gonna have to side with them this time.

5.  Michigan (4-1) is now ranked #16 in the Coach's Poll, and is 1-1 when playing ranked opponents.  UF dropped from 20 to outside of the Top 25 this week after losing to LSU, a rivalry held in similar esteem to Michigan-MSU within the region.  PSU and Wisconsin have played mostly bad teams with bad defenses.  

When you say Michigan is not a good football team, what exactly does that mean?  Is it akin to eating at Longhorn Steakhouse and saying, "This is not a good steak" because you think all steak should be at least as good as Capital Grill?  Is it like eating the cheapest steak at Capital Grill and saying, "This is not a good steak" because you only like to eat steak at Michael Symon's restaurants?

Michigan went a long time without winning an NC, and it has been two decades since the did finally win one.  The fans have seen bad football under RR, and middling football--by in large--under Hoke.  Harbaugh is 2-0 vs UF, both firmly away games and on big stages.  The loss to FSU was a big bowl game to most of college football, but you remarked you probably wouldn't even watch it the week of the game as if it were the Blue Bonnet Bowl--this is pretty much the thesis statement that speaks to how fickle Michigan fans are.  Since when is any team's fans too proud to watch the Orange Bowl against a hot FSU team?

At what point is the steak good enough?  Is it only about the NC?  Is the B1G title finally good enough?  If that is the bar for acceptable, then I guess I'm doing it wrong.  I like watching the team grow through the year, deal with adversity and appreciate their hard work at the end of the season.  The RR experiment showed us how dangerous a sense of entitlement to playing in a bowl can be, and I absolutely don't take it for grated anymore.  FSU fans are learning how fragile it all is as well with Francois injured and losing to a hated rival in the final minute on Saturday.  "Fire Jimbo!" rolls freely off tounges here in Tallahassee--WTF?  I don't have much respect for Jimbo, but there is a ton of talent on his team and the guy won an NC not that long ago.  He just couldn't get great QBs to commit behind Francois, because everyone wants to play immediately.  Instant gratification, gotta love 2017.

k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. I’m fairly certain I never remarked that I wouldn’t watch the orange bowl. I have only missed one Michigan game since I enrolled in the fall of 97, and it was because my DVR screwed up recording some game in 2004 (don’t remember which). I can’t imagine ever saying I wouldn’t watch the orange bowl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shelton said:

Wait a minute. I’m fairly certain I never remarked that I wouldn’t watch the orange bowl. I have only missed one Michigan game since I enrolled in the fall of 97, and it was because my DVR screwed up recording some game in 2004 (don’t remember which). I can’t imagine ever saying I wouldn’t watch the orange bowl. 

You're right, it was the quote above your post in that thread that said it.

Instead, you offered this (which is likely why I lumped it in with Sagnam's post).

Quote

Order of anticipation level

osu

msu

wisc

hawaii

orange bowl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mickeyb105 said:

You're right, it was the quote above your post in that thread that said it.

Instead, you offered this (which is likely why I lumped it in with Sagnam's post).

 

Is there something wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Is there something wrong with that?

As long as you enjoy the way you follow your team, that's all that matters.

Enjoy your Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mickeyb105 said:

As long as you enjoy the way you follow your team, that's all that matters.

Enjoy your Wednesday.

Gee thanks, Mickey. That’s nice to say but I don’t really believe you. You did apparently feel the need to go back to a 9 month old bowl game thread to try and put words in mouth. You’ve been doing that throughout this thread, mischaracterizing a number of my points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do you, Sheldon.  

That you were so unenthusiastic about watching the Orange Bowl is what stuck with me, if not the exact text of it.  If you can't get up for Michigan to play Florida St. last year (which was a really good game, BTW, decided by one point) because it isn't good enough, then that is solid grumpfart territory.  

You say Michigan "is not a good football team" and I happen to disagree with it, like I do several things you have said in this thread.   

I'm OK moving past this thread and on to the next thing we will either agree or disagree on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mickeyb105 said:

You do you, Sheldon.  

That you were so unenthusiastic about watching the Orange Bowl is what stuck with me, if not the exact text of it.  If you can't get up for Michigan to play Florida St. last year (which was a really good game, BTW, decided by one point) because it isn't good enough, then that is solid grumpfart territory.  

You say Michigan "is not a good football team" and I happen to disagree with it, like I do several things you have said in this thread.   

I'm OK moving past this thread and on to the next thing we will either agree or disagree on.

 

Heh. It’s fine. I don’t know what it means to “get up” for a game. I mean, I wasn’t obsessing over the lead up to the game. I feel that way about almost all bowl games. I think they are fun to watch, because I like watching college football, but they definitely fall into the exhibition category for me. Winning or losing means nothing. The team that plays in the game ceases to exist at the end of it, win or lose. Does that mean it isn’t good enough? I don’t know. 

But yeah, I’m more excited for a season opener or a midseason game against a good team or rival when a big ten or national championship is on the line. Winning one of those championships is a significant achievement. Winning a bowl game doesn’t really move the needle. It’s one game. 

As for whether this is a good football team, that’s obviously kind of a subjective thing. No need to agree or disagree on any of this. I don’t think a good football team throws three interceptions and scores only 10 points against a bad MSU team. I don’t think a good football team has an offensive line and receivers that are as bad as we have seen in years. That doesn’t mean that they can’t improve this year. And it doesn’t mean their future outlook is bad. 

I personally don’t put much stock into early season polls. We will know by the end of the season whether this is a borderline top 10 team or just a generic top 25 team. If they finish 10-2, that would be great. I have a hard time seeing that happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shelton said:

Heh. It’s fine. I don’t know what it means to “get up” for a game. I mean, I wasn’t obsessing over the lead up to the game. I feel that way about almost all bowl games. I think they are fun to watch, because I like watching college football, but they definitely fall into the exhibition category for me. Winning or losing means nothing. The team that plays in the game ceases to exist at the end of it, win or lose. Does that mean it isn’t good enough? I don’t know. 

But yeah, I’m more excited for a season opener or a midseason game against a good team or rival when a big ten or national championship is on the line. Winning one of those championships is a significant achievement. Winning a bowl game doesn’t really move the needle. It’s one game. 

As for whether this is a good football team, that’s obviously kind of a subjective thing. No need to agree or disagree on any of this. I don’t think a good football team throws three interceptions and scores only 10 points against a bad MSU team. I don’t think a good football team has an offensive line and receivers that are as bad as we have seen in years. That doesn’t mean that they can’t improve this year. And it doesn’t mean their future outlook is bad. 

I personally don’t put much stock into early season polls. We will know by the end of the season whether this is a borderline top 10 team or just a generic top 25 team. If they finish 10-2, that would be great. I have a hard time seeing that happen. 

K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×