Angelique: 6-6, starting 0-2. Beat MSU/PSU.
Didn't see this posted (story was posted in DetNews at 1am), but in summary, Angelique has UM starting 0-2 but then beating IU, MSU, @PSU, Illini. Ultimately losing the last three (including @Purdue) and finishing 6-6.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^
I read this. I think PSU and MSU are better than ND, yet we beat both of them but lose to ND in the 2nd week? no way. Every year people drink the ND cool-ade, it's insane.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
I totally agree, it's just weird shit always happens to Michigan there. That and Floyd vs our secondary.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
shades of Henne-Edwards. Tossing balls to Floyd could, just by itself, win ND a few games. Plus our secondary. I still think we win, but can see why she's pessimistic.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
Clausen and Tate are gone. And that entire team was Clausen, Tate, and Floyd. And Clausen was pretty good. I watched those games and like ND
Weis was a bad D coach. OK. He was a good O coach, and their offense was good last year. Now Kelly is going to come in with a new QB, Tate-less, same lackluster RB's, and turn the D around while keeping the O (with a totally new system) humming? Nah...
Maybe I oughta read that diary up there
September 1st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
I usually like her, but today she can Angelique my balls, Capitan. 10-2 bitches.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
when we have to travel to South Bend. We usually make inexplicable mistakes there/get screwed by bad bounces or bad calls. I'm not sure who I think will win that game, but I certainly don't think people are drinking Kool-Aid if they think ND will win. This is not like the years we beat the snot out of Jimmuh or Brady.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
The last few years have been relatively pleasant (excluding '08, which was so ridiculous it became amusing), but there was a long interval (going back to the '70s) where UND seemed to bring out the absolute worst in UMich at the worst times. Generally, this occurred in South Bend.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
I unfortunately tend to think she isn't completely out of her mind actually. Kelly's offense is based around vertical stems. His offense is mostly vertical routes and crossing routes, basically the major weaknesses of the defense we plan to run. While I think having a brand new starter at QB, a new system etc. will see ND likely be worse this year, their offense has a good chance of tearing our defense up as bad or worse than last year. A couple offensive mistakes on the road and we could be in real trouble.
I'm actually far more confident about beating UConn than ND, despite the fact ND might very well be a sub .500 team this year.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
I think we are lucky to have ND early in the season this year. While they should have the talent to be more successful in year one of the conversion to spread, they are still going to be in simplified playbook, learning the new system, new QB mode. I think they should improve as the season goes on IF Kelly can get them to believe and keep fighting (like Charlie never did). (I think our young defense is in the same exact boat.)
I get where Angelique is coming from; especially after Brian's defense posts. I also think if this team loses the first two games, the MSU and PSU wins are not likely. However if we win one or both, then at least PSU is ripe.
Her 6 and 6 could easily be 8 and 4, or 4 and 8.
I am not sleeping well, and my stomach is a complete mess lately. The next 72 hours cannot go fast enough.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
Pam Ward picking our season record, they both know nothing, her only basis for UCONN beating us is they won their bowl game.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
The only thing she has in common with Pam Ward is that she's also a woman. Angelique has been covering Michigan for a long time and is generally very knowledgeable about the program.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
she doesnt know shit about football, just because she doesnt bash Michigan doesnt make her stupid when it comes to her knowledge of football
September 1st, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
It kills me to neg HBK, but...Angelique is legit, sexy boy.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Holy balls. I don't usually neg people, and I wasn't going to neg you until I saw this comment. Then you just had to go and make me do it. Just, wow.
What's next, you're going to tell me blacks don't know a thing about hockey?
September 1st, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
Everyone on this blog negs people for sharing what they think, and if its not liked by the masses you all crucify them for it. I never said she didnt know anything about sports because she is a women.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
What?
I never said she didnt know anything about sports because she is a women.
I mean seriously, what? How can you even claim that? Yeah, okay - you didn't say it, but the implication is there clear as day. To deny it is to deny logic itself which hasn't worked out for anybody in the long run. You wrote, and I quote "this is like Pam Ward picking our season record." The reply following states exactly the problem - the only thing they really have in common for this is that they're women.
You later backtrack and claim below that she doesn't know anything because she hasn't been on a playing field. Had you inserted any other journalist-who-hasn't-played-football's name here, your misogynistic implication of "women don't know shit about footbaw" wouldn't exist, but it does.
In short, herp derp derp footbaw is a man's sport derp.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
it was that got you 800 points.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
"because she is a women"?
really?
September 1st, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
I liked "none of them no shit" much better.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
I don't think people are defending her because "she is a women". People defend her because she's a semi-competent reporter.
For example, I would also defend, oh Joe Posnanski from being compared to Jay Mariotti. It's not because he's a man, it's because he's decent at what he does.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
Angelique is arguably the best journalist that covers Michigan athletics in SE Michigan. You don't know what you're talking about.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
September 1st, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
That was uncalled for.
But since you clearly disagree with my statement, please tell me which reporter or opinionist you'd rather read besides Angelique.
September 1st, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
man you people on this blog need to seriously get some pussy
September 1st, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
Have you ever watched Eastbound & Down? If yes, did you think it was a) funny, or b) just pretty much kickass?
Just wondering.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
You're not suggesting it's satirical, are you?
September 1st, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
"no shit", why don't you put money down in Vegas that they'll be...what...10-2? 9-3? (OH, snap, turnabout!) Because if you're only going out on the line to predict 8-4, or worse, 7-5....then are you really calling her out for a game or two?
September 1st, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
you dont bet on the record you bet on win totals, and yes i would take over 6 wins and win a lot of $$$$
September 1st, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
If only over 6...well, that's saying 7. Calling someone out for predicting one less win than you is monumentally stupid. so how many would you put your money where your mouth is?
September 1st, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
September 1st, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Ok sir negativity, why don't you tell us what our record is going to be?
September 1st, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Anything decent in the Toledo Blade today?
September 1st, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
I agree with 6-6, but the wins and losses? I really doubt we'll beat Penn State on the road and lose to Purdue.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
That's the one that really got to me...that and picking the team to lose to both UConn and ND. However, tempered expectations are preferable to me.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
I could see 6-6 happening, but I would be utterly shocked if this is how it happend. I'm smelling 9-3 around the corner.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
I predict Michigan will win the amount of games that they win this year on the field. I also predict that the national champion will be the one that wins the championship game.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
I could even see a scenario where we lose to UCONN, (gulp). But losing to Purdue and beating Penn State at Happy Valley, (meaning her particular combination of the two)? Uh, no.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
FWIW, I'm absolutely picking us to beat PSU in Happy Valley. It's not like we haven't marched in there before and beaten them, and Penn State will not be that good this year. They won't be bad, but that will be a very winnable game.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
I'm just suggesting that a scenario where we lose to Purdue but beat Penn State in the same season just doesn't seem logical.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
But do you really put stock in the fact that "we have marched" in there before and beaten PSU? I mean, this team has not. Obviously, I do think a culture and tradition of winning can carry over in a program (intangible or not, I think it matters at top programs, even aside from the institutional and recruiting advantages winning brings), but I see zero relevance of the 2006 team beating PSU on the road to the chances of the 2010 team beating PSU on the road.
Alas, I do think this team can win. I just think the squad has to be evaluated independent from past successful Michigan teams - that's always true to some degree, but even moreso given the major changes of the last few years.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
We certainly marched in there in 2008, and put the scare into them before dropping the second half. We can do this. PSU is ripe.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^
Plus, their decision that no team on their schedule this year is worthy of a white out is great bulletin board material. Disrespect is a huge factor in college football. I am picking UofM in that game, too.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^
what this "Angelique character" has to say? The only thing I know about her is that she's a sports writer/journalist/wtfever who always tries to inject controversy into every story involving Michigan. Am I wrong?
September 1st, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^
if anything, she's the most level-headed and objective sportswriter covering Michigan out there.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:16 AM ^
they would put $$$$ on all of the games since they are so knowledgable about what goes on
September 1st, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
September 1st, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
Because obviously if someone is knowledgable about something they absolutely must put money on it to prove they know........
I think I can speak for most here (judging by the responses I have seen anyway) when I say give it a rest.
You basically came out and called one of the few journalists that actually gives UM a fair shake a clown who knows nothing and are now crying because people are defending her. The bottom line is everyone on this board would put far more stock in what she says than anything that you put out on this board.
Sorry, but she has proven that she DOES know a thing or two about football whereas you......have not.
Finally, I am not saying I agree with her. Personally I think we go 9-3 but even people who know something about a sport are wrong once in a while.
September 1st, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
but this is a puzzling season prediction. We lose to UConn based on the fact that they beat South Carolina in a bowl game, and lose to the Irish because they have lost arguably the best quarterback in the NFL draft this past year? Then we beat Penn State in a night road game, with the very informative expanation of "but......"
I don't know about this one. I guess I buy that 6-6 is a possibility, but I doubt very much that this is how it would take shape.