Frustrating critics....
For the greater part of Michigan State week, I've read in multiple articles the idea that Denard will not have as great of success against MSU because it's the first "Real Defense" he and the Wolverine offense will face. Part of the argument is that all of the defenses that Michigan has played up to this point are ranked in the lower echelon of the defensive statistics.
Has anyone writing these articles stopped to consider that the reason why these defenses are ranked so low is BECAUSE of Denard, and not vice-versa? When you give up 500 yards, regardless of if its spread out between players or if a dilithium bomb went off in your stadium, your defensive stats are going to take a hit.
Sorry if this comes across as slappy, but its been irritating from my perspective because I get the feeling that the writers aren't actually watching Michigan they're just looking at numbers and making a sh**ty conclusion.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^
That's how the MSM works. I don't really pay attention to any of it because I know what our team can do and will do. The MSM says whatever they can to make money and have people follow them. I feel your frustration, but like we all said at the beginning of the season it is what happens on the field every Saturday that matters, not what the MSM says will happen. That is the gloriousness of college football.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:46 AM ^
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/denardum-offense-effect-factored-out-opponents-past
But would love to see it in a MSM article. Oh well, we'll just have to beat sparty and wait to hear the same thing for Iowa week.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
Woah woah WOAH Mr. Optimist! The MSM isn't required to do any actual research or "digging" to find out if a claim is true or not. Their job is to present you with a "compelling narrative" in order to "sell" their "product".
Shame on you for thinking the world operates any differently.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:45 AM ^
Possibly. Your homework assignment is to figure out the defenses season stats w/ Michigan's gashing removed. Then you may have some useful data for your argument.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
Yeah, I do that in my weekly diary update of the yardage and score predictor.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^
It's ok, after Denard lights up MSU and their defense drops drastically in the rankings, we can hear the same thing next week...
October 7th, 2010 at 8:47 AM ^
I think your perspective is a bit true to a cetain point. Someone recently posted a diary about this very thing, and it showed that Denard has a little effect on where a defense is ranked. He calculated stats with and without the Michigan Offense numbers involved. We will find out more as the season progresses. MSU, Iowa, Penn State, Wisc and OSU will all show where exactly Denard and our offense is. However, I think MSU is a tad overrated at this point and its very likely they are too overconfident come Saturday. You have heard that Denard on film is way different than Denard on the field. Only time will tell. Denard and the Michigan offense has the supporting cast to put up big numbers on everyone.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
Ranking with UM vs. Without UM
UConn, #51 vs #27
ND, #89 vs #71
BGSU, #119 vs #112
Indiana, #88 vs #51
Seems pretty significant to me
October 7th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^
I think that is somewhat true, although not as much as we'd like.
I've been putting my faith in a different source lately: the fact that Denard was running just fine over Big Ten defenses last year. Last year, he rushed for 351 yards, averaging 5.1 per carry. Much of that came against stalwart defenses like Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin; and, all while he couldn't pass. They knew he was going to run and still could do little to stop him. His average bumped up to 5.8 ypc against those three. Well, guess what? He can pass now too.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^
The not real defense that we shredded, ND, held BC to 10 yards rushing last weekend. Who has sparty held to 10 yards this year? Just saying...
October 7th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
BC really sucks. Va. Tech shut them out the week before.
Still, I agree that the ND defense isn't as bad as people seem to think and their numbers are skewed by their tough schedule and their offense's inability to move the ball consistently.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
No fancy picture or anything, but:
HATERS GONNA HATE
October 7th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
Hey OP -
This ought to be a general rule for everyone who samples the media.
There are thousands of media sources these days. Each source is going to write......something.
If you look hard enough, you are going to find dozens of articles that piss you off.
It's not incumbent on them to change their way of thinking.
It's incumbent on YOU to understand they are just expressing a thought, and if it ticks you off, IGNORE IT.
MICH is 5-0. Stop being so gloomy.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
I just gave you an internet high-five.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
Are these the same Bobbleheads that predicted Miami would walk all over OSU? Or maybe the same Bobbleheads that predicted the Yankees would walk all over the Diamondbacks? Maybe they're the same Bobbleheads that predicted the Phillies would walk all over the Yankees? Hey, maybe tehy are the same bobbleheads that keep saying Notre Dame has national relevance?
October 7th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
Whereas most critics come up a bit short, they're just morons.