a terrible blight on our fine country
A week ago after the SDSU win, my wife and I went over to one of her friend's houses and there were a group of guys that kept saying a lot of irrational things. I tried to argue them on much of it, but I got bored and didn't want to be the guy always arguing everything that was said. How do you guys handle such situations?
I am sure I will meet these gentlemen again, is it worth arguing/discussing things with them? Or is it better to just ignore?
More info...the following things were said that I felt irrational....
1) Denard Robinson is deliberately missing open WRs so the coaches will let him run more.
2) Benard (yes with a B) Robinson wouldn't even be a QB on any other BigTen team and should be moved to RB since we have zero good RBs.
3) Lloyd Carr was a horrible coach and any coach with his players over the years would have won a national title at least 3 to 5 times!!!
4) Hoke will never win in a blowout, because he was mentored by Carr who never won in a blowout. (I wonder what he is thinking now)
5) If Michigan was any good they would have blown out SDSU.
6) Carr always put in too many back ups.
7) Carr would rarely pass, it was always 3 yards and a cloud of dust, he needed to pass like Purude did when they were good.
8) Mike Martin should be benched for not living up to his potential.
9) Tom Brady was always a back up and Henson and Navarre started over him - further proof that Carr was bad (this is 100% BS and Navarre wasn't even there at the same time)
UM -5 (opened at -6)
Nebrasker -10 over Ohio
ND -15.5 over Air Force
Penn State -2 over Iowa
Illinois -16 over Indiana
After yesterday's play...rank the B1G teams 1-12.
Burst of Impetus
* This is the section where I discuss turnovers and other momentum changing plays. There was one burst of impetus in this game. Minnesota kicked off to start the game. That's it. They were never in it. I bet that "adjusted winning percentage" diary shows us pegged at 100% for the duration.
* For those that care, the turnovers were Mich: 0, Minn: 2. It's always nice to win the turnover battle, even if the team you are playing would be in danger of being relegated FROM the MAC. Notice, I wrote "from" and not "to". I think Minnesota would have trouble competing in the MAC this year and would be relegated to some FCS conference. I understand their starting QB was out, but they didn't do anything right all day.
Trash Cans Full of Dirt
* Craig Roh had a nice tackle early in the game for no gain. Later in the game, he had a tackle for a loss of 1 yard. The difference between these two tackles? One yard. He also gets credit in the box score for the latter, but not the former. When the box score starts including advanced defensive statistical metrics, I'd like to see them have TFNGs, for tackle for no gain. They are almost as important as the TFL, and way more important than the TWDF (tackle way down field.)
* The leading tacklers were Roh, Demens, and Countess with 5 each. That is such a wonderful sentence to write. The defense was only on the field for 47 plays. That's what happens when you hold a team to 0 for 11 on 3rd down conversions.
* 25 players showed up in the defensive stats section. Black, Van Bergen, and Ryan each recorded a sack. That's one less than we had so far this season. I know we played a couple run teams, but I like when the pressure leads to sacks as well as hurried throws.
Hexadecimal Points (HT: Number 7)
* Our helmets have wings! They also have numbers! If RR was still the coach, I shudder to think of the resulting outrage. It would certainly bring down the interwebz. I'm going to give Brady a pass on this because apparently the players asked for it, and it's their team.
* I would love to see 7A on Hawthorne's helmet. That's how he's listed in the defensive stats. M. Cavanaugh also shows up as 2H.
San Diego 49ers
* Our wide receivers have stats this week. Whoo-hoo! Hemingway had 5 catches and Gallon had 4.
* When Chris Martin of B1G Network fame tried to describe Denard, he said the best way to categorize him was "filthy." We finally got the game in which Denard's carries were limited. He rushed only 6 times for 51 yards. He made us all breathe a little more easily by going 15-19 through the air. (That sound you just heard was the rest of the B1G cursing.)
* Vincent Smith was also filthy, with a TD running, receiving, and throwing. He was named the Hardest Working Player," by the B1G Network. (For some reason, this reminds me of the old "Taco Bell Unsung Player Award" they used to have during Pistons broadcasts. It rotated between Rodman and Salley, until they were both Sung Players.) In my opinion, the hardest working man was Michael Schofield. Due to our lack of depth along the O-Line, he played the whole way. I think he must have had 20 more snaps than anyone else. That is a hard working player. I thought that the way we controlled the ball, we must have run 100 plays like Indiana did to us last year. Nope, only 73. Lots of runs keeps the clock moving. Still, yeoman work by Schofield. (Yeoman, that's a good thing, right?)
Rittenberg, in ESPN and his "five things we learned this week" column, has #1 as "Wisconsin is the conference's best team and Wilson it's best player." Also gives our defense kudos in #5, (alongside unfortunately, also praising State).
I haven't watched more than a quarter or two of Wisconsin, but to those of you who have: would you agree with the statement on Wilson?
Jake Ryan and Scott McVey played side by side at Cleveland's St. Ignatious H.S. as LBs - Jake usually played outside while Scott usually played inside. As you are aware Jake is a Wolverine and Scott is a Buckeye. There has been quite a bit of discussion as to which player was actually better in H.S. I think Scott missed a number of games to injury as a senior while Jake had a fairly decent senior season. We all know Jake is begining to shine here at Michigan along with our defense in general, but I'm not sure how Scott is fitting in at OSU (I've only seen bits and peices of their games). Question is who do you think may have the better career in college?