Quick thoughts from a Spartan fan
I'm not gloating nor flaming--those of you who have seen me post here know that. Regardless, here are my thoughts (from the other side) regarding the game:
- Very impressed with the progress your defense has made. Still not great by any means, but what I saw was MILES ahead of what you had the past few years.
- The wind meant both teams had to change their game-plans significantly, and MSU certainly adjusted better on offense thanks to a more physical O-line.
- Devin Gardner is a better passer than Denard Robinson, although Robinson was easily the best athlete on the field.
- Your O-line did not handle Worthy well at all, and it seems like our entire D-line anticipated your snap count every time.
- Travis Jackson (a RS freshman) did a very nice job on Mike Martin... this was honestly the biggest surprise of the game for me.
- William Gholston should be suspended--more so for the helmet twist than the punch. The punch was a "heat of the moment" type thing after Lewan facemasked him and pinned his face to the ground, while the helmet twist was an unnecessary and dangerous play that I don't like to see out of anyone.
- That being said (re: Gholston), your team did not at all capitalize on the ridiculous amounts of penalty yards that we gifted you. The stalled drives after our defense kept them alive with dumb penalties were crucial.
- I do believe that the better team won, and I know I will get negged for that.
Good luck going forward. I know we'll need a bit of luck to even stay in the game with Wisconsin.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
I can't argue with any of that.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
I think we should start another thread to discuss whether Devin is a better QB than Denard.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
And then another complaining that there are too many threads.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^
I agree with you especially on the point of us not taking advantage of the penalties. You guys can't take 150 yrds of penalties against Wisconsin. They will make you pay for it.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
Except for the snap count thing. We nailed your snap counters a few times. MSU was the better team. Gholston needs to be jailed. It seems the Spartan coaching staff is calling for that level of violence. That is the root of the problem.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
I think his point on the snap count was vital. Sam Webb said after the game that it was a problem Michigan never corrected all afternoon.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:30 AM ^
Dantonio even said in the week leading up to last weekend's game that they were going to hit Denard repeatedly.
This conduct and intensity shouldn't surprise anyone. This happens every year. And every year Michigan fans complain about it... win or lose. I'm just glad that UM players haven't resorted to such dirty play, even in these lean years.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^
there was one dirty play... the late hits and what not come one its football you take your chances when you get them.. they were more physical than michigan.. its football a physical game. stop your crying and pray that our defense starts to get nasty like it was in 06 when they would knock you out...
October 17th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
My only question is how come the inmates couldn't clean up the trash flying around the field?
October 17th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
The wind was insane, and anyone who was in the stands can confirm that. What you saw was all the hot dog wrappers and popcorn bags. Looked like crap, but it wasn't like we were throwing trash on the field like West Virginia fans.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^
They were all in the locker room celebrating.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
is obvious that the better team won. I certainly hope you don't get negged for sharing that opinion with the rest of the rational football-watching world. Michigan is on its way up, but right now MSU is just flat out the better team. I personally think that trend stops next year, when Cousins graduates and U of M gets the game at home.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
Both teams lose key players, but MSU w/out Cousins won't be able to beat Michigan in Ann Arbor. In the years after that, M's superior recruiting (coupled with those recruits having multiple years in the same systems) will carry the day.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
....because Cousins made all the plays that made a difference Saturday. I felt the same way but we are both very wrong. MSU is stronger and deeper and that doesn't change in one year.
Our offense is not improving and there are no playmakers on the way. The physicality is not going to change it one year.......it will change in three recruiting classes.
Cousins was the last reason we lost and his play regressed...............and we never touched him.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:48 AM ^
Remember that MSU is in its fifth year under Dantonio. Michigan is in its first under Hoke, obviously. Both lose key players going into next year, but Michigan's growth should be greater than MSU's. I think you saw a lot of players on Michigan's side on Saturday who just didn't know what they were supposed to be doing on given plays, especially Denard and receivers. Also, the QB is the most important player on the field. Losing Cousins and Cunningham ought to leave MSU with a very pedestrian passing game next year. Denard, meanwhile, should make a significant improvement in his second year in Borges's system. Michigan isn't going to a powerhouse next year, but they'll beat MSU.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
This was the only silver lining I could find on Saturday. Michigan still has the look of a team building, whereas MSU definately has reached a plateau performance-wise and Michigan was still in a position of pull out this win until late in the game. MSU was the better team on Saturday, but not by much and the pendulum is swinging back to Ann Arbor. I see lots of Saturdays of scowling Dantonio in the future.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
The good news, in a sense, is that this is the nadir of the M-MSU rivalry for Michigan (or maybe last year was). It's going to get better from here on out.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
The only concern I have going forwad is MSU is very young on an already pretty good defense. Bullough is young. Rush is young. They are adding LT and Pittman to the mix next year. The defense isn't going away. All those new OL recruits, and the addition of Bryant and Miller into the mix can't happen soon enough.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
As time goes by, Michigan players will know more and more what Hoke (& really, what Borges, Mattison, and all the position coaches) want of them.
I find it interesting that the coaches have consistently said, "Michigan is not where a Michigan team should be. We're not a good team. We're overrated. Denard isn't passing the way he should yet. The receivers aren't running the right routes. The defense isn't reading opposing offense schemes well enough yet." We aren't listening to the coaches. Hoke will speak up when the team really deserves praise.
October 17th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
If you're confident that "superior recruiting" will carry the day, I urge you to look at the past four years of recruiting rankings, then do a double take at the result on the field Saturday.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:47 AM ^
Point seven (capitalizing on penalty yards) was the story of the game, I think. That was a situation where, if we had been able to make you pay, the game would have been very different.
As far as the better team winning, you certainly played better, no arguments about that.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
I would gladly have taken all of MSU's personal fouls if Michigan had capitalized on them. I don't mind saying that that game left a bitter, bitter taste.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
Definately should have capitalized on the penalties since they gave us over 100 yards worth and should have never ran a fake on 4th down and 2 foot to go! I think if we convert that it changes the complection of the game.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
this.
I didn't get that play call at all. At that down and distance you lay out your QB every time and 99 times out of a 100 they get it.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
No one understands that call. IMO it cost us the game. You have a fantastic running qb and you throw, on 4th and short, on a ridiculously windy day, on a day when your QB is having a horrible day passing.
Even if you didn't think DRob can sneak the ball, put Gardener in who IIRC is 6ft4 and 200+ pounds and have him sneak it in.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
I think it cost us the game too, it shifted the momentum tremendously and totally pissed me off! I don't see why it was called and I don't see how Denard could not have checked out of that when he saw the blitz tipping off. There have been a few times I have questioned Borges this year, but that one took the cake!
October 17th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
I am in no means defending the call, but the coaches must not have felt great about the chances of pushing it in from there even with a fresh set of downs. It was, after all, the second consequtive set of downs that ended in an attempted 4 th down conversion.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
just one thing to consider: the most famous play in Michigan Stadium history was a 4th and inches play that did work. I still disagree with the call like (apparently) everyone else, however it seems like one of those things that makes you a genius if it works and a dolt if it doesn't.
Maybe the wind conditions should have ruled this decision out, however so close to the end zone any pass likely would have been a laser - the very pass at which Denard excels.
October 17th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
And of course, if we'd have gotten stuffed, everyone would be complaining about what a "predictable" call we made. It's always the result that counts.
The playcall was more of a gamble that I would have liked, but it would have worked if Brandon Moore hadn't whiffed on the blitzing corner. He was supposed to block and release, but ended up caught between two defenders, blocking no one.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
No problem with your post. One thing - Denard is a better passer than he has shown vs MSU. But he is having many more problems than he did last year (for whatever reason). Honestly, DR had probably his worst game in 1 1/2 years. But certainly some of the credit goes to MSU for that.
I do think Ghoulston deserves to be suspended at least one game for EACH of the incidents. Yes the punch was not premeditated like the helmet twist and he was not thrown out (which I can't understand). So he should get one for the punch and at least one for the twist.
And I would agree that the better team won. I do think that UM had a great opportunity to win but DR could not take advantage of some wide open receivers and thus the offense stalled. I have no problem with how the UM defense played.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
Your comments seem very valid. What is missing is something about Dantonio's conduct, or lack thereof. I sincerely believe that had Hoke witnessed the cheap shots Gholston was guilty of from a Michigan player, he would have been out of the game or worse. MSU was the better team Saturday.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
is now even more glaring. The Big Ten is giving him a chance right now. Dantonio pulls the trigger and suspends him for Wisky and Gholston may get out of this with a one gamer. If he waits much longer State is going to lose him for mutiple games.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
I'm sure Wisconsin (or another future oponent of the Spartans will).
October 17th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
A question on legalities. If neither MSU nor B1G take definitive action and Gholston goes on to pull a similar stunt against a future opponent resulting in an injury (God forbid). Would MSU or the B1G be at risk for losing a lawsuit because there is a pattern of dangerous and inappropriate behavior and they failed to take action to correct such behavior?
October 17th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
would we not see that in college hockey? I do think the MSU coaches are guilty. Gholston, when questioned about his dirty play said: "The coaches told us to play with reckless abandonment." I think he meant to say reckless abandon, but we get the point.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^
No question the better team won, and I believe your points to be spot on. I would also comment that I don't think Michigan did itself any favors with its offensive coaching - both play selection, and strategy (Re: Robinson/Gardner). Regardless, I don't see UM winning that game. Sparty was too strong off the line on both sides of the ball.
That being said, good luck against Wisky. Sparty will need all the breaks to pull that one off..
October 17th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
Well said, and I appreciate the sane members of all our rival fan bases. Love a reasonable, rational view from an outsiders perspective.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
If I could type actual applause into this I would. Both for the OP & for you.
I'm glad you (Gebe659) are rational, logical, not angry, and good mannered about it. It didn't come across like you're trying to rub it in, and I've dealt 10-1 with Spartan fans defending Gholston (including 3/4 of my Sparty-fan family (3 brothers & my dad (who graduated from MSU))). <--- Try to beat that many parenthesis! Anyways, I love rational discussion because I grew up near Lansing with a Sparty family & am used to mindless, incoherent shouting instead of thoughtful disagreement and debate.
Good job to you as well, brose. This is exactly the way I feel. Nice work.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
C'mon, give us a little credit- those are basically all true statements (except for #4).
Honest question: how do you and other rational Sparty fans feel about Dantonio today? Any mixed feelings, or do the ends justify the means?
October 17th, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
Thanks for not being the guy who called for our heads on poles outside of your stadium, and threatened our women and children. Your analysis is appreciated.
October 17th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
That was me, and what was said was two referneces: one was the ancient Spartans with heads on spikes. The other was in reference to the viral internet video where the guy came out of his house saying, "hide your wives, hide your...." I apologize if you felt I was advocating violence against women. That was certainly not my intent. Again, please except my apology.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
On all counts.
I wish Denard would have a clock in his head, when it goes off, take off. He seems to be forcing himself to stay in the pocket when the play isn't there and he could easily take off for a big gain.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
this has been my issue with denard all year.. so many times he just stands in the pocket with 30 yards in front of him and then he throws up a prayer or get's sacked instead of running.. it makes no sense..
I just really think he is trying to prove so badly he can be a passer, when he needs to just take off.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Well stated and as much as I hate to say this the better team did win.
<br>
<br>Btw, I keep hearing on WTKA, Gholston tried to break TL's arm. I've seen videos of his other fouls is there a video of this one that's been posted?
October 17th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
Never mind I missed the Video posted earlier in another thread
October 17th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
If that is the case regarding Gholston, I would expect the conference to levy a 3 game suspension. In the past, the conference has suspended players for much less - hit with forearm, kneeing a player, Mouton's punch vs ND in '09. I would expect one game for each incident would be appropriate as the helmet twist, punch, and attempted arm break are outside of the game. One could argue that the late hits, roughing the passers, etc are a part of the game.
I think what makes the matters worse for Gholston are Narduzzi's public comments that the Spartans try to play "60 minutes of unnecessary roughness. I'm just happy it didn't get called on every snap."
To the OP: what are your thoughts on the matter and what would be an appropriate response by MSU toward Gholston and Narduzzi? Also, what would be an appropriate response by the conference should no action be taken by MSU?
October 17th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
Dantonio is obviously okay with Narduzzi's comments (and their dumbass safety threatening Wilson). There's no way a coach at this level would let people under him say those things, and not say anything to counter himself, if he disagreed with them. If Dantonio had a problem with those statements, I think we'd know by now.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
On the internet? Wow... you must be new here.
Hard to argue with any of it, though. See you next year.
(Though would it kill you to add a second bathroom to your stadium?)
October 17th, 2011 at 5:15 PM ^
I totally agree with the stadium--we have a concete block house for a stadium. The restrooms are nasty, and I have a bigger TV than our scoreboard.