BTN analyst predictions
Didn't see this, but in the article
http://www.freep.com/article/20090816/SPORTS06/908160600/1356/SPORTS/An…-
It states that the analysts think this is "a different program than a year ago" and think that we've been culturally improved yet pick us to go 6-6. If I remember correctly they were predicting Michigan to go 8-4 last year. Funny how they think the team looks better during practices this year and expectations are a lot lower. Goes to show how worthless the predictions are by some of these analysts. I'm a broker and if my recommendations were that far off I'd be out of a job.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
Which could potentially happen, but didn't make any sense considering the fact they were praising Tate the entire time...
August 17th, 2009 at 5:06 PM ^
From everything I've heard Denard is a great athlete and possibly the fastest guy on the field, but Tate is still the more polished QB. The BTN guys kept saying that it's always better to have an explosive player in there, but I disagree. I think its better to have the guy in who can make the throws, which Tate can do while also having an explosive aspect to his game. In the end, I'll back whoever the starter is and I think that the competition will only make each guy better.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:46 PM ^
Exactly. If all we need is an explosive player to play qb then why didn’t we just have Feagin start last year. I agree; we need the better passer in the backfield.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^
The difference is Denard can actually throw and was being recruited at QB by other schools.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:50 PM ^
I'm not saying that Denard can't throw. My arguement is that i'll give up a little bit of explosiveness for some more polished QBing skills. from everything i've heard Tate is the better QB.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:11 PM ^
was recruiting him as a QB, but I don't think there were many. Most wanted him as an athlete or corner, and that's how scouting services were listing him.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
University of Florida is not a "small school in Florida".
August 18th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
I recall that they offered him as an Athlete.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
that we got D-Rob because we offered Witty and Florida did not.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:46 PM ^
DiNardo selected D-Rob as the likely starter because no one could throw well. I think that Griffith and Revsine believed Forcier would start.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
Yes indeed. DiNardo stated that the "best runner" would win the QB job. Then Revsine said that Tate is perfectly suited for the Michigan offense. Blah.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
which I thought was a pretty racy comment to make and then I looked at his coaching record and guess what? He doesn't. He's a fricking idiot and let's leave it at that. There's a reason he not coaching. I thought Revsine and Griffith were very good though.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:46 PM ^
piss poor coach and an even worse analyst.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:47 PM ^
Griffith had said prior to Dinardo's comment that he plays spades.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^
This is what happens when you only give portions of a story. I can live with a guy being a rubbish coach and shit analyst, but racist is where I draw the line. Thanks for clearing up the previous post.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^
The talking heads ... These guys do not know anymore than the fans who really follow the sport .. they talk about football for money .. they are not prophets.
I could not care less what Dumbnardo thinks will happen.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^
I think part of the success of blogs like this one is that many fans do know a lot more about football and really all sports than the writers do. Fans follow their team first and the sport in general; writers usually cover the sport in general and learn about individual teams on a more superficial level.
Since most fans are more interested in "their" teams, local coverage is almost always more fun than national coverage is. I really like their jobs, though; it has to be pretty cool to get paid for touring the Big Ten practices.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:13 PM ^
His ability to evaluating talent along with his coaching abilities is why he is where he is today. A third rate commentator on the BTN.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^
nobody could have seriously predicted 3-9 (except for maybe some angry fans of rival teams).
As a result of that past history, they are saying 6-6. Usually, people guess w/l records (and stock movements) based on the results of the past year, not the past forecast. Expectations are lower simply because we were 3-9.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^
THat show sucked.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^
Have you ever performed an upper-decker anywhere? I am intrigued by this.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:35 PM ^
Unfortunately our friends were on the receiving end, but it was hilarious.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:42 PM ^
According to Denardo we only have more talent then 5 teams on our schedule. Just my opinion but that really shows that they have no clue whats going on in AA and their predictions mean nothing.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:55 PM ^
Actually I'm inclined to agree. We're short on scholarships because of the attrition, and while I think the team is very talented, it's also very young and unproven. Talent to me is proven commodities. Which we're lacking in key places.
Schedule:
Western Michigan
ND > Michigan (I think the Irish are a little better.. don't hate me)
Eastern Michigan
Indiana Michigan
Michigan State = Michigan (I say push here. They're a little better defensively, but I'm waiting to see this new offense)
Iowa > Michigan (Mainly defensively, they're pretty solid)
Delaware Michigan
Penn State > Michigan
Illinois > Michigan (I think this will be a closer game than indicated)
Purdue Michigan
Wisconsin = Michigan (Basically a push.. I don't think they're that good)
Ohio State > Michigan
August 17th, 2009 at 6:13 PM ^
Ummm, no? I don't think anyone thinks Wisconsin has equal talent. Having more/less talent doesn't equate to winning/losing games. We have more "talent" than everyone except OSU. We are young and have little experience in a new offense and defense. That's why we will be average this year, not because we have little talent. If you go by talent, we have better recruits than anyone except OSU. Dinardo is a dumbass.I don't think you could argue Iowa has better talent. Same for Wisconsin and even MSU.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^
This guy to me really seemed like he had no idea what he was talking about on that practice report.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^
Another thing that was surprising about their show, was the thought that Michigan doesn't have a dominant HB. How do you say that with Minor already on preseason watch lists, Brown finally healthy, and a bevy of youth and speed behind them? I'm hoping that statement will turn out to be inaccurate, and just be a symptom of Minor not going full speed with a green jersey the day they were on campus.
August 17th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
I don't think Minor played much if at all that day. He had a big headache.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
as well. Not only do we have 1 dominant back, we have three that IME would start in most other squads in the Big Ten. Maybe they are simply looking at the past and ignoring everything else when making this comment, but Minor, Brown and Shaw are all dominant backs. If healthy they will prove these clowns wrong, have no fear.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
I'm sorry, but if all three of these players were, without question, "dominant backs", their season high wouldn't be 600 yards.