I see it as a statement that Lewan and Schofield aren't going to let their team get pushed around and intimidated. There are a lot of young players on Michigan's team and the two senior tackles have to set the tone.
The Bullying Meme
As a competitive athlete it damn well should. It questions your toughness which every football player should pride themselves on. We will know the character of this team after this weekend and hopefully it will result in a win.
Not productive. Bullying implies that one person is stronger, older, tougher, taking advantage of someone weaker, frailer, younger. That is not an accurate image anyone at UM wants to associate with MSU. Playing dirty has nothing to do with bullying.
Bullies are actually cowards with terrifying feelings that are buried deep inside and their method of coping is physical confrontation.
Not always man. Some people are just pricks and will confront people their same size as well as smaller prey, but it's only when they confront smaller targets that they are considered bullies.
What is almost always the case is that the bully is physically more imposing, or mentally tougher than his target, otherwise it wouldn't be considered bullying.
If you think big people don't get bullied...
One of the best clips I've seen online was some middle school bully taunting a big, passive looking kid. The kid all of a sudden just smashes the shit out of the bully. I know it's wrong to fist pump when a middle school student gets KO'd, but I'm not the most PC guy out there.
And it was completely awesome and the kid totally earned it.
i saw that one too. it was badass. but then afterwards, some even bigger kid intervened to prevent the kid from completing the ass beating.
Pricks are pricks for a reason. At some level, whether they wanna admit or or not, they're hurt, scared, and/or insecure.
And sometimes the reason is that they are a prick. It's rare. It sucks. But it happens; some people are just born that way.
I remember there was a wave of psychology research looking at bullies and bullying behavior about 5 to 10 years ago (could still be going, it just wasn't my field of interest) that found that the concept of bullying as caused by deep seeded insecurity to be wrong. That most bullies actually act out out of sense of feeling superior to others that, if anything, they feel is somehow going unrecognized or unappreciated. Essentially, the superficial dynamic of the bully feeling bigger and stronger and making those they perceive to be smaller and weaker recognize that difference is pretty accurate.
Take it with a grain of salt, because it's been a while since I read any of that research. But I remember being kind of surprised at the time. It's important to remember that if true, the research is focused on self-perceptions, not any kind of objective or neutral sense of strength or superiority.
Perception is reality.
If a person perceives the world in a certain manner, their actions will reflect that perception. Everyone is different, but in essence each person has thier own reality.
Most of us are better at realizing that our perceptions fail us and that it is ok to accept input from others.
Bullies are trying to impose thier reality onto others.
Absolutely agree. I think sometimes it's hard to remember or even wrap your head around the "each person has their own reality" idea when discussing social behavior and social dynamics.
And from what I remember of the work, the "Bullies are trying to impose their reality onto others" pretty much sums it up perfectly.
Chris Lasch) has made that much more the case. This is a curious outcome of internet democracy and consumerism--people feel their opinion carries as much value as the next person's, whether they are informed/qualified or not. Knowledge is devalued, the idea of value itself devalued, by sheer quantity of info.
There's also recent research that shows most bullies don't see what they do as bullying or themselves as bullies. Additionally, a good percentage of teenagers and young adults don't recognize bullying as such when they see it, but rather as "kidding around." It's difficult to confront a problem when the people doing it don't believe they're doing anything wrong.
I can definitely see that. There's a difference between protecting and sheltering, and I can see there being a lot of difficulting in parsing that out.
I read in some research paper somewhere that little brothers, particularly those with a pathological inferiority complex, have a higher incidence of acting out violently and attempting to be bullies than their more well-adjusted counterparts.
kid plays a role in the social dynamic giving rise to the siuation but none of them, alone, are entirely responsible for the environment created. I think the biggest misperception many people get about "bullying" is that it is like one kid pushing another inside a locker and closing the door until a teacher gets them out. Bullying is systemic and involves not only the participants but those tasked to oversee them. Many times teacher and parents themselves unknowingly ratify or even participate in the system or are sometimes even bullied in a way as well. It creates an environment where no one person is actually doing anything that remarkable but it is still very much happenning, leaving the victim extremely confused as well, ie. "Am I crazy,?" "why is nobody else seeing this?
That's the kind that happens in the workplace regularly. I've seen it myself.
I have friends who are bullies
of their own story.
with that. I think it is a learned response to social pressures, one past down from parents/caretakers. The bully him or herself may not feel consciously or even subconsciously inferior to the victim, but they are coping with their own insecurities and inadequacies through bullying the same way that they saw their parent(s) do it with others(and the bully as well). In that way, the bullies are doing to the victims what the parents did or are doing to the bully.
Just passing along some empirical research I remember reading a few years back. I found it interesting particularly because it goes against what has become the prevailing popular understanding of the motivations underlying bullying behavior. And it's also interesting because it paints a simpler portrait of the behavior (motivations are what they appear to be, there is no deep-seeded ulterior subconscious motivation), and it is also one that is generally more cynical and less comforting from a social standpoint (i.e., there is no, "the bully is secretly really unhappy" message).
I don't know the state of the research today, not my expertise, but not agreeing with research doesn't somehow make it not true. In the words of Neil Degrasse Tyson, "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it." (Though, that does seem to ignore the self-correcting nature of the scientific method, but that's a whole other discussion.)
not disagreeing that the research was conducted or that the result were what they were, only that I am not quite sure the research proves or disproves what it purports to. No, I don't believe bullies are more unhappy or that they have more substantial deep seeded demons than anybody else, just that they deal with the ones they do have, in part, through bullying. Some people keep demons away through acheivement, some drink, some gamble, Tiger Woods does whatever the hell that was, and bullies bully. Bullying does not reflect the presence of demons but instead a malignant way of dealing with them.
Bullies can be tall, short, thin, bigger. come in all shapes and sizes. Bullies are the worst. Beat the Bullies!!
won't have any effect. The "bullying" talk is not coming from the players but is a media driven "angle" they are taking on the game. Lewan is answering stupid questions with vanilla soundbites, that is all. Not one player on Michigan's team said a word about State's physicallity in 2011. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Hoke said "it is football" and Denard did not even acknowledge what happenned. I was not pissed in 2011 because the team got "bullied," this is not 6th grade, State can take as many 15 yard personal fouls as they like, thanks "Bullies."
This team does not care about 2011, and quite frankly, they can bully all they want. it is the scoreboard that matters. They are not even really related.
In 2011 we lost and the press, always looking for angles to explain what happened, came up with the "bullying" one because of all the thuggery and personal fouls by MSU. If we had won, the bullying angle wouldn't even have come up.
M is going to win.
I'm sick of the talk of people even entertaining the thought of a loss.
It's Michigan. Nobody is good enough to even strike any fear into us. That's how it should be.
Even last year before the Cowboys Classic, I believed in my team and program.
I guaranteed a M win this season after we beat them last year. I think their defense is good, but not the best in the country. They have played some awful offenses this year, which pad their stats. Their offense is also bad. I'd feel better if the game were in Ann Arbor, but I still think M wins this game. I really hope some M fans bring another "bow down, little brother" sign to show the country after M wins.
How do the Akron, UCONN and PSU debacles enter your equation.
When you try to prop one seriously flawed team over another.
Like the way you think.
Many things with our proud program lately are not as they "should be."
I hope they at least match MSU's intensity, but do we want to see a throat-punch for a throat-punch on Saturday? Is that what Wojo is getting at? I'm not sure. As the rushing game generally dictates the winner of this game, I'm more concerned with the offense and how we're going to get positive yards on the ground. Is there any chance we'll be going pass-first on Saturday?
MSU = Debo
Michigan = Craig
What you got on my 40 homie?
I love the picture and your signature, ryanfourmayor.
It took me a second to figure out the sig, but then I LOL'd
I ventured over to old RCMB a few minutes ago to try to get the vibe. Things are getting ugly over there right now in terms of the tone of the posting. That place is always a dump truck but it is really an impressive display of douchbaggery right now.
They banned me from the RCMB. I wasn't even being mean when posting, they just don't want M fans on their forum. It's probably for the better.
Ha, don't do that to yourself. I imagine they're going to beat us 41-0. Gardner will have 7 ints. So on and so on.
And our players will get herpes
They are some CLASSY folks over there.
The Washington Post picked it up as well actually - HERE
“They bullied us,” offensive tackle Taylor Lewan recalled Monday. “That’s tough for me to admit because I don’t like getting bullied.”
Michigan offensive tackle Michael Schofield was asked what seniors say to younger teammates to get them ready for what they will face on the field at Spartan Stadium. “Sixty minutes of unnecessary roughness,” he said.
is a Narduzzi quote.
Well, the comforting thing I saw last week, when the unnecessary roughness was called in the end zone for the hit on Gardner - half the o-line was in the face of the guy who hit Gardner. Gallon pulled them off, but that guy was informed he went too far and there would be no more of it.
It's going to be rough going at Staae this weekend, but I think Lewan and Schofield will have the o-line ready to set the "Tom"-foolery straight.
I also think our defense is constructed for State and Wisconsin - not Indiana - so they will have a better game.
Now, if Devin can just be ND Devin ...
Thank you for that pun. I love how they actually refer to Lewan as "Grand Wizard" over that. Talk about desperately clutching at straws for something that just isn't there. MSU fans really have gotten pathetic.
MSU fans being pathetic isn't really a new development, is it?
That's what made the 2011 game so frustrating. State repeatedly tried to injure Denard, and our guys did nothing.
2012 was different: there were M players around every pile, pulling people off, everyone was looking out for each other and so on. It will be the same this year.
Used the full quote-
“Oh yeah, we talk about it all the time,” senior offensive tackle Michael Schofield said. “The way they described it was 60 minutes of unnecessary roughness, and that’s pretty much how we describe it.”
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131029/SPORTS0201/310290027#ixzz2j8...
I like it. There are only 28 guys that were on that team in 2011 that are still playing for UM. That means there are a slew of guys that are thinking "I'm not going to let anyone bully me". Having a guy like Lewan and Schoffield say "it happened to us, don't let it happen to you" is going to serve its purpose. Let's the young kids know that MSU is tough and they better be ready, and at the same time, let them know there is payback for UM.
EDIT: I also love how no one at UM is talking about last year's win. It's all about revenge for 2011. "We're not done yet..."
Personaly I'd like to see Lewan stop saying stuff like this in public. I know he was just answering a quesion here but its not the first time he has said stuff along these lines.
I have no problem with WHAT he says, I'd just rather him do it behind closed doors and not in public.
I remember last year after the oline got pushed around the first few games he came out talking about how things are going to change and they are going to be more physical and went on to talk about the Michgan oline tradition. And I loved what he said but nothing really changed last year (or this year for that matter).
After the Akron game he made the comments about how embarassing it was and how it won't happen again. Only to have it happen again the next week.
Now this talk about not being bullied by MSU again.
Again I agree with everything he says but after awhile it just becomes empty rhetoric. Just go prove it on the field. He's not obligated to give the media any of this material.
I agree. Enough is enough. Let's play football. Last years game was completely a normal football game to me. The 2011 game was ridiculous but if a team wants to take 200 penalty yards and look like idiots with no guidance , so be it. I think Saturday we see two teams playing for a division title, every snap counts. There won't be time to give things away via penalties.
Talk is cheap.
let's see it.
100% agree. I know he is trying to be a leader but save it for your team behind closed doors. I remember all the incidents you mentioned and nothing changed. There is only so much "toughness" that is going to be matched when you have 23 year old Tyler Hoover playing 18/19 year old Bosch. And there is only so much OL improvement you are going to have between week 3 and 4 or week 8 and 9 when you had all spring, summer to improve. It is what it is now - there will be adversity... the most important toughness will be Devin's mental. I was upset with how he seemed defalted at points in the Akron and Uconn games after mistakes. He seemed better in the PSU game but only after halftime - I'd like to see him immediately forget the mistake and move on, we cannot give away 4-5 drives in a row waiting for a halftime break if there is an issue in the middle of first quarter etc.
Didn't seem to get pushed around. Should be better.
To run the ball down there throats and I want absolutely no penalties doing it. Now I don't think we can run down their throats completely but do think we will keep them off balance and run enough to expose them. Play man and well throw high to fun chess and find Gallon in space. I'm also comfortable setting the staee personal foul over/under at 3 and taking the over.
Michigan 34-27. I think the magic number is 28. Tough for us to get there but I think that puts too much pressure on their offense to match.
I'll settle for heaving the ball down their throats, but yeah, it would be nice to just send Sparty packing by a nice comfortable margin.
One would think that it should, and I'd much rather hear this sort of talk than something lighter, but after Lewan called the Akron win "embarrassing" and then we came out against UConn looking the way we did, it's not always the case that the rhetoric leads to on-field performance.
As I said though, being aggressive and tough starts with (IMO) thinking and speaking that way.
Just because I love Key and Peele.
Because in Narduzzi's mind, you're either a bully, a toady, or one of the nameless rabble of victims:
This whole idea of toughness as defined by "running the ball down their throat" drives me nuts. Like it somehow more manly to run the ball into a brick wall of defenders for -2 yards instead of swinging it outside to a wide out for an easy 7 yards.
Somebody should poll the Penn State players which team they thought was "tougher". The one that ran the ball straight at them for negative yards (and scored 40 in basically 5.25 quarters of play) or the one that ran bubble screen after bubble screen and scored 63 in 3.5 quarters.
I know which team they'll answer was smarter.
want to beat them at their game, or ours? (Agreeing with you here. . . )
Being good at running the ball up the gut makes a team tough. Against PSU we tried to be tough but failed because we are not tough, and apparently Borges didn't figure that part out during the first 5 games and in the first half of that one. Since then, we looked semi-tough against Indiana, so obviously Borges will spend the entire day attacking MSU up the middle.
I'm all for the occasional mea culpa, but saying "we were bullied" makes Michigan sound like a directional school. It is certainly giving Sparty fans a lot of reason to laugh at the Wolverines and at us for being their fans.
Hopefully, the maize and blue get this year's version of the "last laugh" on Saturday.
Agreed, from a PR perspective. Using the word "bully" makes us sound like victims... damn all that. Gotta take the noble path -- call them out for being dishonorable goons, fine, but saying they "bully" us around just makes them sound stronger.
Howeva, perhaps Lewan really knew what he was doing, chosing this lingo that makes us sound weak, for the purpose of lighting a proverbial fire under the team's proverbial ass, to use the parlance of our times.
After the MSU basketball game at Crisler, I remember a quote from Trey about knowing that Sparty would try to bully the team.
Personally, I feel like football is just a dirty game, but MSU players seem to go too far with the unnecessary roughness at times. And Michigan isn't the only fan base to complain about their style of play.
None of it matters. The word "bullying" strikes a chord with a lot of people now. Michigan has to overcome the "unnecessary roughness", facemasks, holding and pass interference, and just play football.
In my opinion, there's really no excuse why Michigan football, which has recruited at a level superior to MSU for many, many years, should be losing football games to MSU on a regular basis. Now there are very good reasons for those past 4 losses and the one butt-hair win like last year, but there's really no excuse for it.
That all said, I can dislike Dantonio all I want, but I think MSU football is in a far better state now than it ever achieved under far better coaches like Darryl Rodgers, George Perles and Nick Saban.
I think MSU's days of beating Michigan on the regular are over though, probably starting next year.
But mark my words, Spartan fans will no doubt surf these 4 or 5 "dominating" wins over Michigan for the next half century.
I can see the Lewan 15 yard penalty from here.
At least his 15 yarders are for suplexing dudes at the whistle and not choking or punching guys on the ground.
Taylor, just pick a good time...like if it's 3rd and 15 around their 40. I'll take 4th and 30 from our 45 if it means you get to get your rocks off for a play.
The RCMB has pinned Lewan as a racist, bully and dirty... I am waiting for them to pin the word "murderer" on him. But that message board is like middle school so.. you know its expected.
That place is where brain cells go to die.
I actually get a kick out of reading the RCMB once in a while. I mean, any thread you click on somehow ties Michigan into the conversation. With that said though, the difference in intellectual aptitude between the RCMB and MGoBlog is simply staggering. And to think, the entire community on that message board takes pride in that they are supposedly all "college educated," MSU alumni...
I think this is all terribly overblown.
1. Has everyone forgotten that Michigan beat State 13-10 last year in a physical game that is exactly the type that now it is widely believed Michigan cannot play, yet alone win?
2. What happened in the 2011 game was not bullying, but Sparty, Gholston especially, engaged in Buckeye-level cheapshots that would make George Perles blush.
3. The best team, not the toughest team, or by extension the team that takes the most cheap shots, usually wins this game. I think it's great that Sparty's head is swelling right now. See, Sparty has never lacked for confidence. Stupid and cocky is the mark of a true Sparty. The truth is that this is an evenly matched game, as Michigan has the playmakers to offset what Sparty does on defense, and as a team Michigan has a higher ceiling. Anyone who is confident in winning a close game is a fool. (See Jeff Seidel's article where he is "98.2%" certain that State will win by 3.)
4. There is more upside than downside risk for Michigan in this game, so let's relax. Losing this game is not going to ruin the season. Sparty is favored, and if Michigan loses a close game so be it. After the UCONN game it was clear to me this was a Gator Bowl team. If you want to talk about frustration due to the lack of progress the program has made this year, your case is already made with the Akron, UCONN, and Penn State games. But it is likely central Florida for the Holidays either way.
that's a good one... I like it. "Yet alone" sounds like it almost means something, even. Put it up there with "could care less," "irregardless," and "for all intensive purposes."
It is clear that State is in Michigan's heads. That is the very reason you play a physically intimidating style of defense. As a defensive back in my playing days I purposely honed a reputation as a fearless, no-regard-for-personal-safety hitter. I wanted opponents to think that I was a little bit nutso. I hit a receiver at every opportunity on every single play as if I were trying to run through him. This resulted in many a dropped pass as the receiver turned to locate me before securing the pass so that he could brace for the contact. Because he knew it was coming. I had more than my share of opponents carted off the field. Call it dirty if you wish.
Really good defenses have a twelveth man on the field. His name is intimidation. Those of you old enough to have witnessed the 1997 Michigan defense firsthand know very well what I am talking about. That defense delivered blows that stopped play while bodies were carted off the field on numerous occasions. How ironic that Michigan State has now adopted this style of defense.
The very reason you play a physically punishing style is so that your opponent cannot concentrate solely on offensive execution. He must also factor in self preservation.
I loved that Michigan 1997 defense. This 2013 Indiana offense would have been completely out of rhythm against that defense. There would have been hits that made us cringe. There would have been receivers short-arming passes. There would have been receivers starting fist fights out of frustration. What there would not have been is receivers snatching balls away from DBs.
Until Michigan plays defense like that again, we will wait for another national championship.
I don't recall Charles Woodson trying to twist anybody's neck after a tackle.... just saying...
I agree that the Spartans are coached for '60 minutes of unnecesarry roughness' whereas the 1997 team was coached to 'lay the wood'. This is by no means 'apples to apples'. That said, you can be physically intimidating without being dirty. The rules allow for physical intimidation without the Spartans brand of thugery. Our defense can certainly stand to be more physical. I don't recall the last time a Michigan DB laid an impressive stick. Too often I see them pass up the opportunity to make a hit.
The hit voted most ferocious in college football belongs to the 1997 Michigan football squad.
"1997 What hit could possibly top this list after the collisions you've just seen? How about a hit that immediately ended the careers of both players involved? Michigan safety Daydrion Taylor hit Penn State tight end Bob Stephenson so hard on the final play of the first quarter in the teams' 1997 game in Happy Valley that it horrifyingly knocked both players out. Stephenson was later diagnosed with a Grade 3 concussion, while Taylor underwent neck fusion surgery. Our choice for the Biggest Hit in College Football History is so legendary that the Big Ten Network did a feature on it last fall on the 15-year anniversary of the play, showing the permanent effect it had on both Taylor's and Stephenson's lives. We're just glad neither player was permanently injured during a hit that looked like two freight trains colliding."
And quite possibly the weakest scheme in the proud history of UofM football.
And during the week of the #6 rated rivalry game, er...non-rival game. This is too much. What happened to you guys?
Try scheming O and D game plans, and leave influencing the refs/media to bush-league teams.
Was that really Lewan's statement? Was that a Brandon script, or was that actually Lewan offering the now-popular bullying line? Lewan is a victim of bullying? Can't believe Lewan was actually the spokesman to start this tactic. Anyone realize how absurd that is?
So UofM is being bullied by MSU? Any idea'r how hilarious that is? Could anyone imagine Bo saying that OSU/Hayes is bullying UofM? Even if MSU gets a couple cheap call against them as a result of this campaign, any long-time UofM fan has to feel embarrassed with this strategy. Lewan is being bullied. Honestly, I want to hear more. I want to read more. Bullied? Ha!!! Wow. Bullied by "little brother". This is too funny.
I never thought I'd see the day when UofM football would go to the recess lady about being bullied...by their non-rival little brother. This is too much:)
Can we PLEASE cut the "non-rival" shit? That is one of the most blatant straw men I have ever heard. I don't know any Michigan fans who don't consider MSU a rival. The few that I've ever heard say it did so solely because there were Sparties present and they thought it would get their collective goat...which it often does.
As for Lewan, I don't know what article you read, but the one I read told me he was referring to the fact that they were generally intimidated and manhandled in the trenches by MSU two years ago. But go ahead and make it "whining", I guess, if that serves your purpose.
I'm just skywriting "GO GREEN" over the Mgoblog site.