UM vs OSU Talent

I didn't realize my favorite cheese has an mgoblog account.

This is why I downvoted the OP. It's one thing if you want to offer a dispassionate consideration of the relative talent levels. But this is just OSU homerism, and it doesn't belong on this board.

I don't understand why it is so popular to label Urban's health issues as a "myth" or an excuse to leave the SEC. Urban's doctors actually diagnosed his condition as "esophageal spasms," which one of the primary symptoms is "heart attack-like pains" according to the Mayo Clinic.

Also, Urban already had a documented case (diagnosed during his days as an asst. coach at Notre Dame) of an arachnoid cyst that gets inflamed when stressed.

QB - WASH - I think DG is a significantly better passer. Miller is a significantly better runner. But both can do well enough what the other is better at. Gardner was asked to make much more complicated reads last year due and under more pressure last year (whereas Miller had all day with the combination of one of the nation's best OL and RBs, not to mention his threat to run). So, from a purely talent standpoint, I believe it's a wash. But Miller can bail you out when in sticky situations, giving him a slight edge for better fit for both programs.

RB - OSU. But this isn't by a whole lot. EE is good but isn't as proven, neither are Ball or Dunn (Ball the one I like better of the two). The fact that OSU was forced to bring slots into the backfield consistently in the "Harvin" role, showed Meyer's lack of faith that any of the current backs can be significant outside threats, and he never showed those same players to be between the tackles threats. This is similar to UM's young backs, and may be because Hyde was a monster between the tackles. OSU probably has an edge here, but it isn't a huge gap.

WR - WASH. You're looking at WRs that are for very different systems, so it's a bit hard to compare. Still, Funchess would be the best outside receiver on OSU's team and probably the best H-back as well. Michigan has a bunch of unproven, straight line WRs with bigger bodies, while OSU has more variety. From a pure receiver standpoint, I like Michigan's players, but from the standpoint of they can hurt you in a greater variety of ways, I like OSU. So wash.

TE - UM (when Butt returns; slight advantage OSU in the meantime). You're not getting off without listing TE, a position that Meyer desperately wants to deploy. OSU's TEs have grown into serviceable players, but they aren't nearly the players Meyer wants at the position. Butt is better than any TE on OSU's roster, but Michigan's lack of depth hurts them. Still, with OSU's TEs being only marginal, Michigan's depth really isn't far behind outside of Butt, if behind at all. Move Funchess back inside in a more spread friendly offense, and it's not even close.

OL - OSU. If we're talking performance, which I am, I'll give OSU the advantage. But if we're talking talent and where I expect these players to be once they grow within the system, then it's very close. OSU has some very good young OL behind their current players, and their current players are performing better than Michigan's right now. But once some of the stuff starts clicking for the young OL at Michigan, that margin of difference will quickly close.

DTs - WASH. I'm splitting this up, because the concepts are quite different. UM's interior DL has plenty of bodies and plenty of talent as soon as Pipkins comes back, and OSU isn't as great on the interior as they are on the edge. I think some of the young players that struggled last year, but show flashes, take a jump as far as strength and technique and this group is even.

DEs - OSU. OSU wins this, it isn't extremely close. That doesn't mean UM is terrible at this position group, they are just average, whereas OSU is great here.

LBs - UM. This Michigan has better talent and more depth going into '14. OSU certainly has some young guys, and the Chef (McMillan) will be good in time. But Freshman over run plays, they get caught with poor technique in the hole, etc. Combine that with the loss of Shazier, who covered up a lot of things for the other LBs, and I think this is UM by a healthy, although not huge margin. Both showed big time struggles in underneath coverage last year, but even there I'd give a slight edge to Michigan, who didn't have the benefit of the great DEs or a lot of experience at DT as of last year.

CBs - WASH. Michigan has plenty of talent at CB, and is probably better in terms of technique. That isn't necessarily saying a whole lot, because OSU also has plenty of talent, but have really struggled at their technique. Call this scheme, coaching, whatever, but it is what it is. OSU's CBs have consistently blown technique and given up easy completions (as evidenced by their last three games last year, two with Roby), whereas Michigan has blown techniques but still challenged passes. So if you're just going by skill or potential, OSU is probably above Michigan, but if you want to discuss performance and include potential, it's a wash.

S - OSU. Michigan has young talent, but they are inexperienced. There is a chance a CB moves back to safety to sure things up a bit, but as is, Michigan is likely stuck with a lot of one-high defenses to make up for that inexperience. Luckily for Michigan, the safeties they have on the roster (outside of Wilson) are good as box safeties, so a one-high look works for them and is easily for young players. The downside is lack of variety. Clark can be more of a multiple type safety, so they have some bodies there as well. All that said, OSU probably has more experience and slightly more athleticism. But again, the technique issues and angles just killed OSU's safeties last year, absolutely killed them. So while the second safety spot for Michigan is a concern and still up in the air, I would not be comfortable by any means with OSU's safety play.

Specialists - WASH. OSU is probably better right now in the return game, both KR and punts. Hagerup can boom them as well as anyone, but is inconsistent. Wile the same. I'd probably take the more consistent kickers of OSU, but if the consistency aspect of either Michigan kicker ticks upward, then that group is quite a good one.

-----

I think OSU is still more talented, in that their Senior and to a lesser degree their Junior classes are deeper and simply better in a lot of areas. I think at the Sophomore and Freshman level, OSU likely only has a very slight lead in terms of athleticism, and coaching, the work players put in, and mentality will really determine which groups turn out better of those two.

But while OSU is a little more talented, give me any team on any day between these two. Not just because it's The Game, but because I don't think the talent levels are all that wide of a margin. Michigan's OL last year was a significant step back, but one of the few games that they performed towards average, they put up 41 points on OSU. Meanwhile, OSU has even more questions on defense. To have the DL they did last year and be so woefully poor in terms of technique and coverage in the back 7 in concerning, particularly with the athletes back there (a few of the better ones they lose).

So you have a lot of people talking "coaching". Yeah, if I had to take either coach based on resume and where they'd likely take a program, it'd be Meyer. But that doesn't mean Hoke can't take a program like Michigan to similar levels as OSU. And as far as on the defensive side, I'd take Michigan's staff with little hesitation.

In the end, the OP isn't terrible with his list by any means, though I disagree with some of it. Either way, I think he does overstate the talent margin. It's more a matter of Michigan's talent maturing and growing and taking the small - albeit not insignificant - steps to getting there.

He heals like Sabertooth and always is able to come back in though.

I think Miller my indeed be a cyborg. If you notice, after every series, he usually gets sit down by 2-3 coaches. I think they are re-programming him or something.