just saying, but Edsall is on CFL now and talked about the RR team comparisons (WV and UM)
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
just saying, but Edsall is on CFL now and talked about the RR team comparisons (WV and UM)
Okay, I read "CFL" as Canadian Football League. Let's try to avoid giving obscure ESPN programs already-taken abbreviations.
As JoeyB was kind enough to point out to me, CFL is an initialism not an abbreviation; nor is it an acronym. Thanks, JoeyB.
That's the Michigan Difference.
Doesn't CFL rhyme with waffle?
Wiki begs to differ. And as the Ray Guy award entry made clear, wiki is always, 100% accurate.
What did he have to say?
I like the history RR has against Edsall and crew, but my one fear is how ground based that success was. Unfortunately, M enters the season with a log jam at running back. Will we have one or two featured guys to lead that attack against UConn? I hope somebody emerges early and the dominance continues.
Assuming they're all healthy, I think any of our RBs can succeed in this game. With our beastly O-line and UConn's struggles against spread running attacks, I think we'll be just fine here.
Minimizing turnovers and solid pass defense will be key, just like last year.
That's a very good point. Not only will the backs be healthy, but the line will be as well. As we saw last year, that will be a huge boost to the offense.
Pssht that's an easy one... the answer is Fitzgerald Toussaint
UConn struggled against good, mobile QB's last year, and obviously they struggled against WVU (especially when RR was there). If our defense doesn't completely poop itself, we should probably win this game.
If we don't turn the ball over, we will be in every game this year; even Ohio State.
I always harp on this but last year we would have gone 10-2 if it weren't for costly turnovers. Wisky and PSU were the only games in which we were legitimately outmatched.
We *could* have gone 10-2.
We could have gone 3-9 if we hadn't pulled out extremely close wins against ND and IU.
Michigan TO margin last year, by my best calculating abilities (including TO on downs, excluding missed field goals):
Illinois: -6?!? (3 fumbles lost, 3 failed 4th down conversions)
Purdue: -1 (including an onside kick recovered by Purdue)
Indiana's the only exception to the rule, and barely. If we can secure the football, we will be great this year.
we also had Mesko not punt the ball and run it for whatever reason practically in our own red zone. That is pretty much a TO.
that was against MSU
Correct, that was against MSU and it was included. A very costly play.
You can't count turnover on downs as a turnover when you're using that number to indicate our "luck" in that game, that's like adding "turnover by foot," you just end up with even more odd numbers. I would say same goes for interceptions, but Phil Steele includes them. If they can hang onto the football they'll win the games they're supposed to.
While the turnover situation looked like a major reason for the loss, OSU's game strategy was ultra-conservative, and made the game appear to be closer than it was. With fewer turnovers, OSU would have opened up their offense. Michigan was overmatched in that game, but OSU's conservative approach made Michigan's defense look better than it really was.
I'm glad there are other people on this board that realize this.
it makes it seem as though ohio st didn't lose to purdue, nearly lose to navy, and struggle offensively throughout the entire season. they weren't an offensive juggernaut that could score whenever they wanted and they weren't moving the ball that well on us in the first half . they didn't move the ball that well for the game. why do you think if we hadn't turned the ball over the would've all of a sudden blown us out? that just doesn't compute
I copy and pasted this information on another thread so I won't do it here, but go look (on ESPN) at their play calling after they went up by 11 in the second half.
Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Scramble, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, Punt
Rush, Rush, Screen Pass, Punt
Or something along those lines. I think they had something like 2 passes after they took the lead. They were perfectly content with sitting at 11 until we showed any sign of being able to score, which we didn't.
That pay calling doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the score or who was dominating. OSUs passing game sucked, their running game worked, which are you going to use? Also, why would they be so content with 11 when they weren't the year before? Pryor missed on multiple deep balls in the second half, they took their shots, it just didn't work
Putting the ball in the air with a young, inaccurate quarterback is a very high-risk-high-reward play, especially on the road. That's why you run the clock out when you are ahead and pass on every down when you are behind. Why take the risk if you think you have the game in hand?
Look, you can choose to believe whatever you want about their playcalling. If you think that 20-something runs plus the occasional deep ball against single coverage is a legitimate offense with the goal of scoring, I think you are being willfully ignorant. That's your prerogative after the last couple of years, I suppose. I just don't think that running on 90% of your plays is anything short of ultra-conservative.
If passing is high risk, so you run, then Michigan holding the ball and scoring a couple more TD's increases M's chances for victory. We saw TP throw. He had one pick, and that screen for a TD. If under more pressure to score in the passing game, there was no evidence in that game that TP could score instead of throwing picks.
They ran all day, just like in 2007, to avoid their own poor QB play. If M hadn't spent the whole game punching itself in the face, their poor QB play would go on display, and then who knows what would happen? You can't argue that Pryor would all of a sudden become a good QB under more pressure as opposed to less.
M gave away ten points in that game, OSU's offense scored twice. If Michigan had avoided all TO's, they probably score about 14 more points, and give up seven less. That's 24-14 M and Pryor has to pull a win from somewhere Tressel clearly doesn't want him to go. I argue that he would not have been able to do it.
Thank you. This needed to be said. OSU didn't run up the score last year because they couldn't. Pryor just doesn't all of the sudden become more accurate when OSU is in a close game. A shitty QB is a shitty QB. They ran the ball because that is what was working. Unless you're argument is that Pryor would have completed every single pass instead of hitting on half of his passes for 67 whopping yards, in which case I will tell you that your argument is not likely valid.
We were essentially shutting down their passing game; it wasn't until they conservatively started running the ball that they pulled away.
And it's Tresselball, what do you expect?
I disagree with this argument for this reason. OSU played conservatively because they were so afraid of turning it over themselves. They would have only opened it up if the game was even or they trailed in the second half. Take away the turnover by Tate on our goal line and the whole complexion of the game changes late. At that point there is no assurance they would have scored at will themselves. In fact they would have been playing tight and you would have seen a real tense finish either way.
Whose argument are you disagreeing with? If I am understanding your point, the guy you responded to was making this same point.
I was disagreeing with the one I replied to but only partly, which is why my subject line specified "somewhat". He made the point that we were overmatched and OSU could have opened it up if they wanted to. I felt we were not that inherently overmatched, and one big turnover by us let the game get away. Our points were similar. He felt Tressel was playing conservatively because he was able to. I felt more that he was afraid of what would happen if he didn't.
Not everything here is a wrong or right, a neg or a pos...sometimes you can disagree and discuss a point.
One big difference in my mind regarding how well (or not) UConn defends the spread is that in this case they've had all pre-season to prep for it, whereas in 2004-2007 they probably only had the usual one week.
I want RR to have some special mojo regarding Edsall but I think UConn is going to bring their best and be really well prepared.
I agree to some extent, but how much do you think the playbook has changed in 3 years? They might be able to defend the zone read, but how many plays are we going to have with 3rd and 4th options that haven't been used yet? Once they come out with the scrape exchange or whatever defense they cook up to stop us, how long is it going to take for the coaches to pull out a new play to completely exploit it?
I think what gives us a big advantage this year is that we should theoretically have 2-3x the playbook available to us than last year so adjustments should easily be made.
of preparation point you just made is a false premise. both teams were in the big east as a result both teams scouted each other in the off-season more than they would their non-conference opponents. plus the two teams played each year from 2004-2007, if there were some adjustment edsall would've made to stop this offense surely we would've seen some of it during one of those years
Teams don't change how long they gameplan for someone based on where the game falls in the regular season, they're working fundamentals in fall camp against base looks they'll see in the coming year, then when game week comes they go into a routine game-week schedule.
Whether UConn is prepared or not, I have a feeling MI is going to come out with no other purpose than to stomp them into the ground. This is a statement game and our guys are ready to 'splode on someone.
UConn will forfeit the game when they see Brock lead the team out of the tunnel. Book it.