Jim Miller: Former MSU QB, Current MSU DB
Former MSU QB Jim Miller lends us his peculiar brand of football wisdom in this pathetic blog post over at Spartans Sports Netwok dot com.
After Michigan squeaked by beating Indiana - who dominated all statistical categories and the game for that matter - Jerry [Hanlon] chalked it up as a team doing enough to win! Since when has Michigan reduced itself to doing just enough to get a win versus an opponent they should have dominated? Mediocrity has never been the mantra of such a storied program, but evidently it is now the standard.
But wait, there's more:
Michigan does not have the players to win the physical battles that they once dominated traditionally. Name me one Michigan defender who is dominant? Name me one offensive lineman? Name me a running back? Oh, my bad, that would be their quarterback Deanard Robinson! Michigan expects a beat down and Michigan State is more than willing to give it!
Yes, what else Jimmy?
Defensively, everyone has been asking me how do you defend Denard Robinson? He is a tremendous player, but he is just one player to defend. I believe his Heisman hopes come to a crashing halt this weekend. Somebody will always have Denard accounted for and they are all guys that can run. They outweigh Denard and all MSU defenders who have the opportunity, will be instructed to deliver punishment. Denard is frail at 180 lbs. You slow players like him down by physical abuse.
And finally:
You have to be a complete team to compete in the Big Ten! You have to be a tough team to compete in the Big Ten! You have to be a dominant team to win the Big Ten! Helpful reminders from "Big Brother" to Michigan about straying from their roots as a football program will be on display Saturday.
Wow. Just wow.
October 7th, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^
whoever has the team's/coaches emails, get this sent out...STAT!!
October 7th, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
THis bozo won't even have the decency to retract the crow from his teeth next week.
October 7th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
October 7th, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
Now I want to vomit
October 7th, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
October 7th, 2010 at 8:38 PM ^
In case anyone was wondering if this game had national interest, let me assure you, it does. The sports talk radio show I listen to while driving home is syndicated, but they usually focus on the LA scene. Today, they had 15 minutes with Jim Miller. Yes, TJM. At the end, I was covering my ears, screaming, "NO MORE! NO MORE! STOP THE INSANITY!!!"
Among the many bizarre things Miller said, were these gems:
When asked about former Spartan RB Blake Ezor, Miller responded that Ezor is working for UPS. No offense to any UPS workers out there, you do great work, but the joke about how do you get the Spartan off your porch popped into my mind, except instead of "pay for the pizza," you, "sign for the package." Yes, future and current sparties, that's what you have to look forward to, trading in your green and white uniforms for the brown shorts.
Doozy #2, when asked about RichRod, he responded by saying, "yeah, we went through that with John L. Smith. I don't see it as a good fit for Michigan. If he doesn't beat OSU this year or next he'll be gone." First of all, JOHN L. SMITH?!? Excuse me, he's so anonymous he needs to be identified by his middle initial. RichRod doesn't even need his full last name. How many BCS bowls did John L. go to before or during his run at State? (But yeah, I kinda hope we beat OSU this year and next.)
Finally, he expects state to win by at least 2 TDs because, "they are more balanced." Um, Jim, state's defense and offense is balanced in not being Dilithium-powered. I'll take our unbalanced He16man candidate over your balanced mediocrity any day.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^
The words escape me. Wait...I found them:
October 7th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^
And kinda drunk, so I sent Jim a little email. Enjoy:
- David Molk, C: Possibly the Michigan Offensive Player of the Year outside of Denard, this man could be the sole reason for a huge turnaround in our offensive production. His absence in 2009 was felt dramatically and almost comically when his replacement had worse timing with the quarterback than the timekeeper at Spartan Stadium (see: 2001). This led to a slew of botched snaps and fumbles that cost us valuable yards, drives, and points, but with Molk back on the line, Denard has seen amazing protection and perfect snaps, allowing him the time needed to decimate defenses with his legs and his arm as well.
- Michael Shaw, RB: 5.6 YPC and 5 touchdowns, not to mention one of Denard's main blockers on passing downs, picking up blitzing linebackers and safeties and allowing Denard to make fools of the secondary.
- Mike Martin, DT: Splits double teams like a hot knife through butter, causing opposing quarterbacks to rush passes or throw the ball away instead of taking a lick from this beast (6-2, 299 lbs; 505 lb. bench press and 700 lb. squat). So far this year, he's forced a fumble and has two sacks, and you better believe he'll have many more as the year progresses.
- David Molk, C: Possibly the Michigan Offensive Player of the Year outside of Denard, this man could be the sole reason for a huge turnaround in our offensive production. His absence in 2009 was felt dramatically and almost comically when his replacement had worse timing with the quarterback than the timekeeper at Spartan Stadium (see: 2001). This led to a slew of botched snaps and fumbles that cost us valuable yards, drives, and points, but with Molk back on the line, Denard has seen amazing protection and perfect snaps, allowing him the time needed to decimate defenses with his legs and his arm as well.
- Michael Shaw, RB: 5.6 YPC and 5 touchdowns, not to mention one of Denard's main blockers on passing downs, picking up blitzing linebackers and safeties and allowing Denard to make fools of the secondary.
- Mike Martin, DT: Splits double teams like a hot knife through butter, causing opposing quarterbacks to rush passes or throw the ball away instead of taking a lick from this beast (6-2, 299 lbs; 505 lb. bench press and 700 lb. squat). So far this year, he's forced a fumble and has two sacks, and you better believe he'll have many more as the year progresses.
- David Molk, C: Possibly the Michigan Offensive Player of the Year outside of Denard, this man could be the sole reason for a huge turnaround in our offensive production. His absence in 2009 was felt dramatically and almost comically when his replacement had worse timing with the quarterback than the timekeeper at Spartan Stadium (see: 2001). This led to a slew of botched snaps and fumbles that cost us valuable yards, drives, and points, but with Molk back on the line, Denard has seen amazing protection and perfect snaps, allowing him the time needed to decimate defenses with his legs and his arm as well.
- Michael Shaw, RB: 5.6 YPC and 5 touchdowns, not to mention one of Denard's main blockers on passing downs, picking up blitzing linebackers and safeties and allowing Denard to make fools of the secondary.
- Mike Martin, DT: Splits double teams like a hot knife through butter, causing opposing quarterbacks to rush passes or throw the ball away instead of taking a lick from this beast (6-2, 299 lbs; 505 lb. bench press and 700 lb. squat). So far this year, he's forced a fumble and has two sacks, and you better believe he'll have many more as the year progresses.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:30 PM ^
I see that Jim Miller, in addition to graduating from MSU, also graduated from the Elaine Benes School For Haphazard Use Of Exclamation Points.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
You have to be a complete team to compete in the Big Ten! You have to be a tough team to compete in the Big Ten! You have to be a dominant team to win the Big Ten!
A Sparty lecturing Wolverines on how to win in the Big Ten?
October 7th, 2010 at 11:16 PM ^
Quick follow up to that. Valenti today said again that he doesn't care how it happens, but he just wants to take his Dad to see State play in the Rose Bowl before he dies. His dad is 50. Maybe Mike should start worrying about seeing that himself.
I think UM has been to the Rose Bowl more times in the 2000's than State has in their entire existence. And the 2000's have been the worst decade in UM football since the 60's.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
MSU has to deal with death Roh and Mike Martin! GO blue!
October 8th, 2010 at 6:56 AM ^
WHOOOO CAAAAAARES
October 8th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^
What exactly is wrong with these quotes?
Quote #1 is accurate.
Quote #2's sole inaccuracy is that we DO have a dominant defensive lineman (Mike Martin). Otherwise, we have a bunch of solid offensive linemen.
Quote #3 is just his fanaticism taking over and believing that MSU can stop Denard. Your opinion may differ, but obviously most MSU fans hope/believe this.
Quote #4 is pretty accurate, too. He says you need a complete team to win the Big Ten. Does anyone think Michigan - with its kicking woes and defensive deficiencies - is the best team in the Big Ten this year?
So out of four block quotes, he made one [essentially] factual misstatement and the rest were his unproven opinions.
Big deal.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
Quote #1 is accurate. No it's not. Indiana didn't dominate all statistically categories (they were pretty even...the only one they dominated was time of possession), an didn't dominate the game. After their first TD they never again had the lead. Indiana isn't a horrible Indiana team, so we shouldn't have dominated them, and we didn't always dominate every bad team we've ever played. So you are inaccurate.
Quote #2. While it could be argued the nebulous definition of "dominant", it may be possibly accurate, but it is in no way whatsoever a predictor of outcome. (I mean, since the article is talking about how MSU will dominate Michigan...who on MSU is "dominant"?)
Quote #3. Already acknowledged as an Opinion.
Quote #4 is pretty accurate, too. You like to cherry pick the parts of the quote that work to your advantage, no? And you misquoted him to boot. He doesn't say you need a complete team to win the Big Ten. He says you need a complete team to compete in the Big Ten (and you need a tough one). Lots of teams compete and do well in the Big Ten that aren't complete. Heck, there's probably not a team outside of Ohio State that could even try arguing they're complete. MSU certainly isn't. Their secondary blows. Yet all the rest of the teams are certainly going to compete in the Big Ten. Some at a high level. He says you have to have a DOMINANT team to win the Big Ten. Which if your point is, he's right, well, duh. I'm glad we can all agree the team that dominates the Big Ten is the team that wins the Big Ten. (Don't you kinda have to? If you lose a lot of games in the Big Ten, do you generally win it??)
And you kinda ignored the rest of the article that wasn't quoted (link), like him saying MSU is going to run for 400 yards, and throw for 300. I think we'll give up a lot, but I'll take bets that it won't be that much. (All while controlling the clock too! That should be a good trick of time and physics).
We could lose the game...but the reasoning for it here is outrageous. And leads one to believe you wanted to be contrary before you even thought about what he said.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
Quote #1: Indiana dominated in first downs, time of possession, and passing yardage. True, that's not all categories, but his point is more that "Michigan has fallen to the point that 'doing just enough to win against Indiana' is more or less an acceptable level of play."
Quote #2: The quote isn't about MSU being dominant. It's saying that U-M doesn't have dominant players at OL, DL, and RB, which as I said, is pretty accurate except for Mike Martin. Omameh, Schilling, and Dorrestein are solid but not necessarily spectacular. Molk doesn't seem to be moving as well as he did at the beginning of last year, although he's still solid. The closest thing to a dominant player is Taylor Lewan, but I only say that because he's going to be dominant in another year or two; right now he's just solid like the rest.
Quote #4: I'm sorry I misquoted him. He said "compete in the Big Ten" rather than "win the Big Ten." Which is essentially the same thing. Technically, Purdue and Illinois "compete" in the Big Ten. The implication here is that he doesn't think Michigan can be one of those top two or three teams in the conference because of their poor defense and special teams. And most teams who finish in the top two or three of the conference do indeed have solid play on at least two of the three phases. So, as I said, his quote is still accurate. Our defense and special teams are atrocious.
The main point is that people on this board have a tendency to overreact to some truly inconsequential, meaningless statements by media and opposing fans. Jim Miller might be a moron and a douchebag, I guess, but not because he thinks MSU is going to win on Saturday. That's just his opinion about a football game in which he's not participating. Why get worked up about it?
October 8th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^
Quote #1 - time of possession and first downs are completely linked. I counter with "total points"...which is the real point of offense. Passing yards vs. rushing yards. To dominate you have to dominate in at least a vast majority of categories, not be even or be better in one or two. And I hardly think the win vs. Indiana was taken as "acceptable" (no one complained all week, eh?), but certainly winning was nice. We can think of lots of times, even in the glory days of past, where we've lost to teams as bad as Indiana. The idea that we have only played close games vs. so-so teams recently isn't accurate.
Quote #2 - the whole point of the article is why MSU is going to beat Michigan (and it seems, handedly). So you can say Michigan doesn't have any dominant players...but if you can't counter with some on MSU, that makes for an even match up, not one where MSU is going to have their way. It's like you want to say his individual point is accurate, even though it doesn't work at all as a point for his overall argument.
Quote #3 - compete and winning aren't the same thing at all. And I'm not even taking it as competing meaning "just go out there and play and try to win". I'm sure Minnesota is doing that...but I don't think they're going to have much success. Competing means having a chance to win every game they play. Michigan probably has that, maybe outside of OSU. Our FG kicking is bad, but the rest isn't a disaster. Punting is getting better, Punt returns aren't all that common with spread punting anymore, KO returns have been ok, even though we haven't broken one yet, and we have let a lot of big returns happen. So, since you're counting the whole 1/3 unit, it has been average maybe slightly below, but not a disaster. But you can find flaws with any of the team you think have a legit shot at the Big Ten title (outside of what I said before in OSU, who may not have a GLARING weakness). I mean, I'm sure Wisconsin would have sounded really completely, but they've lost one and won one by one. They're not a flawless world-beater, and they may be the second best team in the conference.
And your argument wasn't - why get worked up about it? Heck, if you had shown how his argument was baseless, you could have made a better case of it not being something to get worked up over. It was "he's right". And in any case, it's part of a rivalry. Trash talk, going back and forth. If it doesn't matter that much....why bother replying that it doesn't matter that much?
October 8th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
Ah, good one. You zinged me with the whole "Michigan dominated in total points" comment. I hadn't realized that Michigan actually won the game...by 7 points...with 17 seconds left. Yep, it sure was a dominant performance on the ol' scoreboard.
Quote #2 was accurate (except, as I said, for the Mike Martin thing). You're mistaking my comment that "Quote #2 is accurate" for a quote from an alternate universe where I might have said "Quote #2 is solid supporting evidence for his overall argument." I did not say that. You're putting words in my mouth.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the connotation of "compete."
And your argument wasn't - why get worked up about it?
If you look back at my original post, it ended with the statement "Big deal." If you didn't interpret that as "Why get worked up about it?" then I don't know what to tell you. Where I come from, "big deal" is a sarcastic comment for when things get blown out of proportion.
Anyway, this dumb argument has devolved into something even dumber, so I'm not going to bother continuing.
Enjoy the game tomorrow!
October 8th, 2010 at 6:36 PM ^
My head hurts.