You boldfaced the wrong part of the quote.
10/2/2010 – Michigan 42, Indiana 35 – 5-0, 1-0
When you want to watch ESPNU in Sedona, Arizona, you go to this place called "Sticks and Steaks." To get there you drive past a massive tourist art complex with a faux-native name, a sign exhorting you take advantage of Angel Lightfoot's magic healing crystal expertise, and an enormous, profligate fountain in the middle of the damn desert. Whatever Sedona's purpose was when someone said "screw it" and set up camp in 1902 is gone, replaced by a talent for taking money that was jammed into old ladies' bank accounts and circulating it through the economy again.
Inside this place you'll find TVs, horse betting, and a motley collection of people who would rather be home for three and a half hours on Saturday. In front of me there were a couple peeved Texas fans watching their team get punked by Oklahoma. Behind me there was a Wisconsin guy who asked if I was wearing my lucky Michigan tie. (I wasn't: I'd neglected to bring one and had to drive back to the next town over and stop at their outlet strip mall to get one.) A couple of old women who didn't care about football ate there; as they left one of them said they'd gone to Indiana and was surprised the game was even that close.
I think it was an attempt to comfort me, as I'd spent the hour they were there pulling my hair back over my skull and swearing under my breath. Sometimes not so under my breath, too. I said something about how IU's quarterback was outlandishly good and hoped it was true.
I do not have to tell you this but I will anyway: that game was bizarre.
In the aftermath it stands as a tribute to how useless time of possession is. Michigan's put-upon defense actually got better in the second half of their 98-play version of Ishtar, and it turns out that a touchdown scored in three plays is worth just as much as a touchdown scored in 14. We have sufficient evidence now to declare this finding statistically significant. So that's nice.
In progress it felt like dying from a thousand paper cuts only to be brought back with the crashing thunder of paddles, conscious and fully aware you were about to do it all over again. The opponent holding the ball for 42 minutes might not mean much statistically, but it does make most of the game an agonizing slog.
As a result, records were set across the Michigan fanbase for "most muted response to a 70-yard touchdown." Such a thing wouldn't have been possible even four years ago. I remember thinking to myself "that's 25% of the points we need to win" after the first drive of the '06 Ohio State game, and I was delighted through a whole commercial break. I grew up with angry cold Midwestern football where touchdowns were hard-earned things only somewhat less rare than goals in soccer. Each one was a major step towards your goal, and punting a guy down inside their ten was tantamount to getting the ball back on the fifty.
Now a touchdown is just holding serve. When Denard fumbled the snap on the one I thought "this is going to be a 99-yard touchdown drive," and then it was a 99-yard touchdown drive. It's disorienting, and as Indiana is driving down the field again you can't even figure out who to scream at because no one's in the same zip code as the receiver, and you hate everything about everything because this is MICHIGAN we don't do things like this.
On the other hand, "this is MICHIGAN" also applies to an offense that could end up loaded with NFL talent and still come nowhere near this one. Michigan still has Denard and its blitzkrieg of an offensive line and a bunch of wide-receivers who draw straws to determine who gets this week's monster day. One day when the defense is capable of covering guys here and there, Michigan will club people. At the moment it's about having the ball last.
I got somewhat demonstrative during all of this, which is why the Wisconsin guy asked me about my tie and the Indiana woman offered a ham-fisted attempt at comfort. People found me entertaining as I alternated between brief flashes of happiness and long stretches of sports Tourette's, I guess. I probably would have too.
As I was leaving this other guy who I hadn't even noticed added his bit, jovially saying "Hey, you survived." I had. They had, unlike Texas or Wisconsin or Indiana. The Texas folk hadn't even made it past halftime. The fiancée, still able to engage in small talk beyond grunts and squeaks, asked who he was rooting for. He said "USC, but they don't play yet." When they did, they lost to Washington for the second straight year. There are worse things than getting bombed for 480 yards by Ben Chappell even if it doesn't feel like it at the time.
Stop it. I've defended the three man rush but good lord you have got to be kidding me. I defended the 3-3-5 but that's when I thought it would be used to create a wide variety of four-and-five man fronts with unpredictable blitzing. Michigan probably rushed more than three guys 10% of the time in the second half, and when they did that it was four. I can't support having Craig Roh and using him in zone coverage on every snap.
What's worse was the inane substitution pattern. Every Indiana run in the second half was a wasted down, and probably would have been a wasted down even if you replaced Banks with Roh and brought in a cornerback. One of this defense's few assets is the pass rushing ability of the outside linebackers, but Michigan is going out of its way to avoid using it.
Stop it, but the clock. I would have thrown a shoe at the TV if Michigan had botched time management at the end of the half like Indiana did. How do you get inside the 20 on that drive with a minute or so on the clock and end up with four seconds on third and goal? Indiana let the clock run from 13 seconds to 9 after a first and goal play before calling timeout, which meant they'd just blown an opportunity to run a fourth down. They got the TD anyway, but that was a sequence worthy of Les Miles.
Speaking of decisions like going for it on third there…
How Denard Robinson is like multi-way callers in a limit hold-em game. There is a phenomenon in limit hold-em called "schooling" where a bunch of weak players who call a lot of hands they should ditch accidentally make their play close to right, frustrating more experienced players with a strong hand they'd like to get heads up with.
I think about this every time an opposing coach defies his inner Lovie Smith and goes for it on a fourth-and-Romer down against Michigan or eschews a half-ending field goal attempt in an effort to score the seven it's obvious they'll need to keep up with Denard. Michigan has now faced 15 fourth down attempts on the season, which is double the next-highest total in the Big Ten and triple the average*. They've converted nine of these, turning a bunch of drives that would have been punts or field goal attempts against a less terrifying offense into touchdowns.
The difference is that the coaches' decisions are statistically correct, not just less wrong. Which is not so good for Michigan. Bill Lynch did manage to punt from the Michigan 42 on fourth and short, which just goes to show that it is the nature of all coaches to play it safe. I'm hoping as we get into the stodgy section of the schedule we'll see more insane decisions to punt when Michigan scrapes together a stop. Someone can tell Mark Dantonio and Kirk Ferentz and Joe Paterno that they should go for it, but what are the chances they listen? Maybe 40%?
*(FWIW, I disagree with the author's assertion that the reason Michigan's opponents are exceeding their yardage season averages when they play M is because Michigan is the "red-letter" game on the schedule. It's just because Michigan's defense sucks.)
Same thing on our side of the ball. Michigan should have gone for it on fourth and one in the second half; instead they sent Forcier out to pooch it. I'm fine with the pooch punting in general, as it's impossible to return or even catch one. Michigan netted 39 yards on Forcier's attempt, which would be good for 23rd nationally as a season-long average.
But punting in that situation? No thanks. When your offense is tearing through the opposition like M's offense was that Mathlete chart about correct decisions swings way towards going for it there.
Part of the problem may be the apparent lack of faith in Michigan's bigger backs. Cox didn't appear at all and Hopkins was just used as a blocker; when Vincent Smith is your best TB option (blocking or running) short yardage is less of a certainty. I'm still not a fan of Smith this year despite the long run against IU. He didn't have to do anything except run through a gaping void and run through an attempt to tackle him from behind. He's reliable, but having him at tailback is like having Greg Mathews on punt returns.
It could not be clearer that Michigan doesn't need much time to score.
But what the Wolverines do need is the ability to keep their defense off the field. This defense is young, and it's still learning, and without the Michigan offense, its flaws would be that much more evident.
The Daily's Joe Stapleton also offered something along those lines.
Anyone who's read this blog for longer than a couple weeks knows the general outline of what's to come but whatever here goes: a touchdown is worth seven points no matter how long it takes to score, and having an offense that rips down the field in three or four plays against Indiana is not a bad thing. Against better defenses those opportunities will be much rarer. And what is Denard supposed to do, anyway? Kneel down at the 20?
It's the defense's job to get off the field. The offense is a thing to score points with. Was it good that Roy Roundtree got caught at the three? Not so much. If Michigan wants to bring TOP closer to even they'll have to get much better or blitz like madmen, but since that's a stupid goal to have they should only do the latter if it also makes it more likely they'll get stops.
Slight mitigation. One effect of Michigan's rapid-fire touchdown drives was to inflate Indiana's opportunities. Both teams had twelve bonafide drives in the game. That's 50% more than the opener against UConn; Michigan would have expected to give up 23 points if they'd faced eight IU drives. Which is still terrible, but maybe slightly less so than it seemed.
I was in transit yesterday so no VOAV; apologies. Here's the Michigan defense highlight reel:
Something slightly longer from WH:
In non-video items: a serendipitous sideline photo gallery. Michigan's ridiculous "on pace for" numbers. Mike DeSimone has resumed his incredibly useful photo collecting. Wow, Les Miles. Wow Denard from the Indy Star:
There are certain moments that reveal a potential Heisman Trophy winner's essence, and that came on that final five-play, 73-yard game-winning drive that sealed the 42-35 victory.
"Shoelace'' has got my Heisman vote, and it would take an act of God to make me change my mind.
ESPN's Heisman watch says it's "Robinson and everyone else":
Now it's just getting ridiculous. I mean, at some point shouldn't we stop being amazed? We've seen it for five weeks now. Shouldn't we be used to it? I'm talking, of course, about Michigan QB Denard Robinson, and the answer is no. We haven't seen this type of college football playmaker since … Barry Sanders?
Postgame GERG-RR stills from MVictors are… not so happy. Ace asks if we're jaded already. I'll talk about this more in a bit but despite the stuff about the three-man rush above, complaints like those of BWS…
The real story is that Greg Robinson's defensive schemes do not work. No longer is this a question of defensive talent or improper personnel. No, sadly, this is far more systematic: Greg Robinson's schemes Do Not Work.
I've been advocating a man coverage package for the last three weeks. Robinson has shown it sparingly. Not that I'm more qualified to run this defense, but Robinson's inability--or maybe stubbornness--to show new looks is far and away the most disappointing aspect of this season. Play after play (and now game after game), teams are running quick slants and seven-yard hitch routes and absolutely shredding Michigan's defense. And it's not that the defense looks athletically overmatched. They look unprepared and poorly coached.
…are kind of ridiculous. James Rogers cannot change direction. Jordan Kovacs cannot cover people man to man. There are massive personnel deficiencies that need covering up.
You boldfaced the wrong part of the quote.
And as we all know, no one complains about criticism of Vincent Smith on the boards, they only complain when people second-guess Rodriguez's decision to start him over Michael Cox.
That's irrelevent to what Magnus has been arguing here, and on his blog - that Cox should play over Smith.
I'm unaware of ANYONE who thinks Smith is the 2nd coming of Slaton, Hart, Perry, Thomas, Devine, or anyone of that sort.
Speaking only for myself, I object to the "bashing" because Smith plays for one simple reason: Rodriguez thinks he's one of the two best options we have. So...I don't see the point in complaining about him - he's what we have, you may as well cheer for him.
So...I don't see the point in complaining about him - he's what we have, you may as well cheer for him.
I don't get the implicit assumption that critiquing a player's performance on a message board after the game -- and concluding that he hasn't performed well -- is in any way inconsistent with cheering and rooting for him.
As for what's the "point" of criticizing him, if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, there's no point in anything we say on these boards -- it doesn't make a difference. Talking sports is an inherently useless activity. You can't just choose the positions you don't approve of as "pointless."
Magnus does not just critique Smith's performance. He continually critiques the decision to put Smith in the game. This sort of "I know better than the coach" shit is the worst of armchair analysis, especially because it's based on nothing.
As for discussing sports on the internet - of course it's pointless. Everyone here is killing time at work. Yet somehow, plently of people find things to talk about other than complaining about coaching decisions in a game we won.
It's not just about Magnus -- he's not the only one who critiques Smith's performance. Anyone who says something negative about him -- even things a lot milder than what Brian said -- get's lambasted on the boards.
WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY?
I responded, specifically, to Magnus, about things that Magnus, specifically, has written and said. You're talking about a meta-MGo phenomenon. I can only speak for my own fucking conduct.
I got into a fight with you, IIRC, because your argument was the incredibly insipid statement of "it would be nice if we had someone better". OF COURSE IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A BETTER PLAYER. THANKS.
ME SPEAK IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE ME ANGRY!!!!
Get off it, and stop hiding in semantics. You neg and whine about anyone who has the gall to say something negative about the team, even when those criticisms are arguably legitimate. You're incapable of just disagreeing with someone without getting personal. It's quite annoying.
(I'm done with this topic now, so feel free to have the last word).
I agree that getting negbanged on MGo is a totally big thing to complain about, forever. Never let this go, Fuzzy Dunlop. Fight the power.
I'm just wondering if this "waaaaah people negged me waaaah" thing is exclusive to talking on the internet about MICH football, or if this is how you are about everything. Please advice.
I do cheer for him. I was excited when he burst through the line for that 56-yarder. I cheer for every Michigan player.
That doesn't mean I think every Michigan player is good. I want James Rogers to make 15 interceptions this year and be a superstar...but I also know that a) he's not very good and b) there's nobody behind him. "A" is pretty much true for Vincent Smith, but "B" is a different story.
Part of the problem may be the apparent lack of faith in Michigan's bigger backs. Cox didn't appear at all and Hopkins was just used as a blocker; when Vincent Smith is your best TB option (blocking or running) short yardage is less of a certainty. I'm still not a fan of Smith this year despite the long run against IU
As far as I can see, Brain isn't questioning RichRod for using Vincent Smith on short yardage, he's just lamenting that Vincent Smith was the best option on short yardage against Indiana. Do you see the difference?
It was even partially in your block quote, but you and chitownblue2 chose to gloss over it.
I'm still not a fan of Smith this year despite the long run against IU. He didn't have to do anything except run through a gaping void and run through an attempt to tackle him from behind. He's reliable, but having him at tailback is like having Greg Mathews on punt returns.
Reading is a key to participate in online discussions like this. You should try it.
Brian's argument is "I don't love Smith, but he's the best we got, especially without Shaw."
Your argument is "Cox should play instead."
These are different.
So Brian's not a fan . . . and there are other backs who have performed well . . . but we shouldn't give anyone else a shot.
Yeah, that makes sense.
If you read what he wrote to mean "We should play other guys", you're ventroliquizing,
And similarly to ventroliquizing, there is definitely something up his ass.
No. Although I like Michael Cox, my argument isn't that he should play instead. My argument is that Vincent Smith should not be getting starter-level carries or leading the tailbacks in number of rushes. Michael Shaw has been healthy for every game except IU, and both Smith and Shaw had 44 carries going into this past week's game.
I also would like to see Cox and Hopkins get more carries (both have been healthy), and I wouldn't mind if Toussaint got a few more carries as well when healthy.
I'm not satisfied with the 3.9 yards a carry that Smith had going into this past weekend. It's not that crazy to think that another back could do more...especially when other backs ARE doing more whenever they get the chance.
but i always rationalize poor performances by saying "maybe they weren't showing much, saving the effective fancy stuff for later in the schedule."
try it - please!
also - am i the only one nervous about what happned with lewan at the end of the game? RR sure was mad and pam wouldn't say what happened. i hope he didn't punch a cock or shove or ref. would suck if he had to sit out a game. we will find out in the presser i s'pose, but if anyone was there saw what happened, let us know!
I believe this is what happened:
Not "punching a cock", but still looks pretty despicable. I hope not to see this again from a Michigan Man. I've heard rumors that Indiana #44 was doing things like holding Lewan after the whistle or outside the sidelines on the previous plays, but it's no excuse.
If the next action was a stomp, and the official saw it, I'd be surprised if Lewan wasn't ejected. Hopefully, it was a glancing blow/partial trip and there will be no further reprecussions.
In the tweetstream of The Daily's Nicole Auerbach, Lewan said that it looked worse than it was. He was trying to get over to where the team was celebrating and the Indiana player grabbed his foot and was trying to twist it. What the officials saw was him trying to get free and looking like he was about to stomp the prone player.
The fact that Lewan is starting this week, in my mind, means that the staff accepted this explanation and it is similar to what they saw on the coach's film.
That guy was pissing me off the whole quarter, and he had it coming to him, so I tried to step on his nuts.
yeah, sure he would absolutely share those thoughts.
I don't expect young men in the heat of a game to tell the truth about their true feelings afterwards unless they are held accountable. Lewan is too important to the team not to give pause to any coach when something like that happens, to give him the benefit of the doubt. But let's not assume he's telling the goshdarned honest truth here.
he was just trying to get to Denard and his foot was tangled "or grabbed" by the guy on the ground. Take that for what its worth.
Yeah, except that in that photo, he's clearly looking straight down at the defender on the ground. He knows he's there, and he's not stepping over him. Meanwhile, the defender's hands look to be making a "stop" gesture, not moving towards grabbing his foot.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be the court's chief prosecutor or anything. I don't really know what happened. I just prefer to root for the "good" guys. Which is why I like rooting for Michigan and don't like to see this.
if the guy had just grabbed his foot before that picture was taken, that would explain why Lewan is looking down, and why the guy is making a stop gesture -- as in, "stop, don't retaliate against me grabbing your foot." In other words, that picture alone tells us nothing about what was going on before or after.
4). Credit to whomever said it in the LiveBlog/CiL, but in watching the highlights from 2007 MIchigan/Michigan State, the Denard to Junior hookup on the last drive did look like a carbon copy of Henne to Manningham (except for the touchdown part.) Kudos.
In reading Brian's posts, think about how many negs he would receive if he posted some of his points, verbatim, on the board under a fake name. By my count, he's be at -1837 from this article alone.
Someone tell Brian that a win is a win, and that he needs to "support the team!", stat.
However, given the nature of MGoBoard, he would likely get more tl;dr's and "Cool Story, Bro"s as those would earn the posters MGoPoints, whereas the negs would take them away.
Besides, if Brian is the one who gets to be contrarian I'm fine with it, he brings data.
Wouldn't work. If people didn't catch on from the writing style of his first recap, they'd damn well know by the time he posted his second UFR.
1. Grab a box of tissues*
2. Take one or two out of the box.
3. Apply to the ocular region of the face.
4. Reapply as necessary.
*a roll of toilet paper can work too, just pull off a few sheets.
Please stop e-stalking me, it's getting disturbing.
I'd shy away from wild blitzing as well (insert long-winded comment about the defensive deficencies) however, rushing four isn't actually blitzing and would seem to be a better strategy for using a guy like Craig Roh. I also have no issue playing two deep coverage consistently (insert comment about slow walk-on safeties) etc, but with that little bit of safety help over the top you'd like to see guys put a little more pressure on the WR's. About 40 of Chappell's completions were fairly routine throws to wide open guys sitting in a zone. I noticed Alabama playing zone against Florida, (insert rabble, rabble, Alabama has way more talent etc) however, the corners were active in the zones making good reads as it related to guys in their area. I'd like to see more of that from Michigan DB's. Not an increase in talent, but more awareness/aggessivness in the zones. That is all.
Roh is awful in zone coverage, he can't move well enough to run with Big 10 receivers.
This is the first week I've been angry at GERG, FWIW. When you have A) a double team on all your pass-rushers except Banksagesse, 2) one and sometimes two IU linemen standing around doing absolutely nothing, and D) no pressure on the quarterback whatsoever, doesn't that tell you that you can afford to commit one more guy to the pass rush on a regular basis?? This infuriated me.
The only reasoning I can see is that GERG figured the DBs are so unbelievably bad and the IU receivers are so good that they all needed double-teaming and/or a lot of people in zone coverage. This is potentially understandable. I still wanted another pass-rusher, though.
I really think the staff is trying to force teams to execute all the way down the field, with the hope that Michigan's offense is going to be able to hold serve enough to win because most college quarterbacks can't execute that well. The only problem with adding more pass rushers is that the secondary is now responsible for larger areas of the field. As frustrating as watching all three pass rushers get double teamed is, it's better than watching the 50+ yard touchdowns that became commonplace the past couple of years.
Maybe Avery, Christian, or Talbott can improve enough to pass Rogers by week 8 or so, and the staff can start getting more creative.
I do not have to tell you this but I will anyway: that game was bizarre.
In many ways it was a clone of the ND game:
With this defense, if Michigan is going to win any more games, it'll be in small variations of this pattern: trade TDs for three quarters and then: Denard.
I think there will be a couple variations. There will be the games we win handily where the opposing offense gives us a few presents and our offensive doesn't slow down (like UConn and hopefully MSU/OSU) and then there will be the game that we should/could win where our defense plays just as bad and our offense suffers an uncharacteristic turnover at the worst possible time (hopefully not against MSU/OSU)
Indiana didn't beat us deep twice with long passes because of defensive breakdowns. That is a big, big deal.
Yeah the complaint about needing to play man to man is just crazy. James Rogers, Thomas Gordon, Carvin Johnson, Jordan Kovacs, Cameron Gordon, and the onslaught of freshmen are not currently capable of playing good man to man defense. Going to that is asking to get burned for TDs. JT Floyd is the only current player I would even moderately trust in man coverage. Sometimes people just complain to complain, rather than actually analyze the personnel.
actually did a better job of covering with a 3 man rush rather than 4/5 man rush. I would bet that in UFR, 3 man rush is going to show up better than 4/5 man rush and even blitzing.
Roll back Denard's game winning TD run. Pretty nice block that Vincent threw that got him to the endzone. Not a pretty nice block for a small guy or pretty nice block for a running back but just a damn fine block for anyone big, small, or whatever.
So, anyway, that was good and I liked it.
It's the defense's job to get off the field. The offense is a thing to score points with.
I get that we have deficiencies in our secondary, and that we have to play "bend but don't break," give receivers a cushion, etc., etc.
But I don't understand why, when we have them at third and sixteen deep in their own territory, we play so far off the receiver that he passes the first down marker and our corner is still 10 yards off of him. That was just crazy to me. At some point, don't we have to say "either we're stopping them on this play or they're marching down the field, so play them tight"? In that situation, I'd rather take the risk that they complete a bomb than gift them a first down and third and really long in their own territory.
I generally avoid criticizing schemes because I'm aware of my own limitations, but if someone could explain to me what the fuck GERG was thinking there, it would hopefully set my mind a bit at ease.
I think your error might be in thinking what you see happen is what the defensive coordinator designed to happen. There is an element of execution.
I seriously doubt that Coach Robinson instructed his DBs to remain 10 yards deeper than their reciever at all times. I also doubt that he was actually 10 yards away from the reciever when they were 16 yards down the field but whatev.
I suspect that the reciever ran a nice route and got the DB to turn his hips (maybe because the DB was over worried about the deep ball.) Once the DB turned his hips he was unable to respond to the out cut the WR ran.
It's not as if the reciever said "I'm going to run to the sticks and turn left" and the DB said "OK, I will stay yards away the entire time." It only seems like that's what happpened but that is not reality.
10 yards might be a slight exaggeration, but my recollection of the play was that he was so far off of the guy even after the receiver passed the sticks that the only explanation was that he was giving the receiver an enormous cushion. I imagine we'll see a breakdown of the play during UFR.
I think that the most frustrating thing about the ten yard cushion is just the lack of adjustment. I understand that this cushion might be smarter in long yard situations, but on a 3rd and 3, it just seems pointless. I understand we have a young secondary, but is GERG just showing a lack of confidence in the DB's?
I think that was the calmest I've ever felt during a shootout. When our Offense got the ball back with 1:15 left to go, I thought "Oh yeah. Denard's got this."
The Defense? League best passing offense vs league worst passing defense. We all knew that was going to suck. Knowing that doesn't make it any less painful though.
I actually was surprised how much pressure we were able to get with a three man rush, considering how much I generally hate a three man rush.
Look on the bright side, though: those young corners are definitely getting their reps in. That's a good thing, right?
An assemblage of thoughts about assorted issues defense related.
1. I think you have to treat most games this year like basketball. When the other guy has good players, they will score (and figuratively score, in the sense of "gain yards"). No one bitches about how horrible Beilein as a defensive coach just because MSU scores points; it's just the way things go in basketball.
Notice that when the other team isn't very good (UConn with Frazer; BGSU with their pu pu platter of an offense), they don't score very many points. Good quarterbacks and good schemes (UMass and IU; ND with Crist) score on us. That will not change no matter what schemes GERG installs (and please don't change now cough cough Justin Siller cough cough).
2. This board would be less MLive-y if people would phrase their complaints like "I am frustrated about how many points we give up and although I know there is a risk, I would like to see us play less soft zone/blitz more/use Roh differently/etc."
Here is the truth, and I am sorry to have to break it to you this way, but here goes: GERG knows a lot about defensive football. RichRod probably knows less, but enough to sign off on a basic defensive strategy. You, Mr. Random Internet Man, know fuck all about football (unless your last name is Simmons, Sharik, whatever Magnus's last name is, and a handful of others).
Oh shit, here come the caps:
IF THERE WAS A BETTER DEFENSIVE SCHEME AVAILABLE FOR OUR PERSONNEL DON'T YOU THINK gerg WOULD HAVE INSTALLED IT???
3. Now then. One thing I hope is that we are 15% sandbagging, so that we will see a little more aggression, blitz-wise, against MSU, Iowa, and OSU. The rest are either bad at offensive football, in which case see UConn/BGSU strategy (PSU, UI, and PU), or sufficiently run-heavy (Wisconsin) that we shouldn't have to worry too much about the blitz schemes.