Rob Smith "Martinez as fast as Denard"
September 5th, 2011 at 3:55 PM ^
Lou Holtz also just said that he wasn't impressed with Michigan's performance against Western, but was impressed with Notre Dame's performance???!!!!!
September 5th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
Lou is usually so objective when it comes to Notre Dame.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
"Lou is such an objective observer about ND, particularly when playing against the USF team coached by his son Skip."
Anyway; so who is Rob Smith? I saw the thread title, and I immediately started wondering which collegiate defensive team or players had faced both Taylor Martinez and Denard Robinson. Common opponents, or possible transfers. I quit wondering when I realized that "Rob Smith" is a writer. (And there is no common opponent between Martinez and Robinson that I am aware of.)
September 5th, 2011 at 7:11 PM ^
I think he is the lead singer of the band called The Cure. There is a great South Park episode where he battled Barbara Streisand.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
Just when I thought Lou Holtz could not sound any less intelligent he pleasantly surprises me again!
September 5th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
To be fair, ND thoroughly dominated USF despite the final score. They shot themselves in the foot 3 times in the red zone.
Any logical Michigan would agree that Western put up a way closer fight than the final score indicated.
Now I wouldn't say that ND was more impressive, but I would say that Michigan shouldn't get too much credit for that win, just like credit shouldn't be taken away from ND because of that loss.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
The three redzone trips would have ended in FG attempts if they didn't turn the ball over. I wouldn't say they dominated anytihng. Floyd and Wood did look good though.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:17 PM ^
OK, but you turn just one of those redzone trips into a FG and the game goes into overtime...Maybe thoroughly dominated was overstating it, but I'm just as anxious about their passing game as I was last week.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
Maybe. But that assumes a lot. Particularly, it assumes that USF would have played the same soft defense on ND's last possession when they scored a touchdown with :21 left if USF was up by 7 rather than 10. I don't give ND the benefit of every doubt. If they made fewer mistakes, the rest of the game would have been played differently. Maybe they would have won, maybe they wouldn't have, we'll never know. USF did what they had to do and played to win rather than pad stats.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^
was also returned for a TD. It's not normal to come out -7 in three trips to the red zone and I certainly wouldn't bank on that happening again Saturday.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^
I agree. By my estimation, if ND didn't turn the ball over in the first half, the score probably would have been 6 - 6 at half time. USF "earned" two of their field goals, even if you take away the one that came after the muffed punt. The second half would have been played completely differently because USF woudn't have been nursing a 16 point lead. It would have been a closer game and I'm sure that the stats would have been much closer also.
Plus, One of ND's red zone appearances came after USF jumped offsides on a ND FG attempt, giving ND a fresh set of downs. I don't know how you would want to recalculate the game if you took away USF's unforced errors as well, but in this hypothetical world that people are living in where ND dominated the game, you could argue that they didn't even earn that redzone appearance.
I'm just saying that the stats are misleading. If ND didn't make the mistakes they made, the game would have been close.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
Scoreboard. That is all.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
chance of making it 41-10 when the game got called. Michigan was taking control of the game before the second delay and the margin probally would have been greater than 34-10 had the rest of the game been played. Did I think Michigan was overly impressive? Not really, they have room for improvement, but there is no way anybody could argue that a team that was favored and lost was somehow more impressive regardless of what the total yards were.
Mistakes are part of a team's performance as well, and Notre Dame made plenty of those. Anybody who tries to argue that ND was impressive is essentially saying that mistakes don't matter. Also it seems like people don't want to give Michigan credit for forcing the two turnovers that resulted in td's. They forced both of those with good defensive plays, Western didn't hand those td's to them.
Robert Smith saying Martinez is as fast as Denard is ridiculous, but it's not worth getting that bent out of shape about. I think everybody knows how false that statement is. Somebody else mentioned it, but most of the college football anaylists on ESPN are terrible, so anything they say doesn't really shock me. Nobody should take what they say too seriously. Desmond and Herbstreit are the the only two anaylists on ESPN that are decent.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^
One year Michigan won their first 2 games against Vanderbilt and CMU
The Vandy score was 27-7 and the CMU score was 41-17 (34-10 after the third quarter).
This was the beginning of the 2006 season, the best Michigan team since probably the `97 team. CMU also had Dan Lefevour, a very high quality quarterback that would have started on most Big 6 teams (there was also a rain suspension in that game too, weird).
Now, I am not saying this team will go to the Rose Bowl because the defense was 100x better on that team, but they too had a pretty inauspicious start and ended up being a great team. I still think the 2011 team will have a good season and we should stop worrying.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^
Desmond's arguably the most worthless analyst (if he's even considered an analyst) on ESPN.
<br>
<br>He's probably not the best guy to represent Michigan's educational superiority.
<br>
<br>
<br>
September 5th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^
don't think that Western put up "a way closer fight than the final score would indicate." I do remember our offense not turning the ball over, not having any penalties, being very efficient in the run game and the pass game, and our defense having two forced turnover TDs and nearly decapitating the opposing QB to tune of a 34(41 at least)-10 victory.
All of this not impressive shit that I am hearing is pissing me off. They did not go out and win the Super Bowl, I get it. But since nearly everybody considered Western to be a "good test" before the game, why isn't a beat down of Western a solid performance.
Michigan looked better, a lot better, than they have in 3 years, and you had to be blind not to see it. They are going to take it to ND.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
Do you really think Michigan played better against Western than they have in any game in the past 3 years? Really?
We were up against Western 31-0 at the half in 2009 and cruised to a 31-7 win. David freaking Cone played.
I think you're a bit hyperbolic about a decent performance against a very shaky team.
September 5th, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^
David Cone didn't play until late in the 4th quarter, so that's not a fair point. We appeared to have Saturday's game well in hand when it was called. Denard was probably going to be pulled in the 4th quarter.
Overall, no, it wasn't as dominating as the 2009 WMU game, but I think this WMU team is better than that one. I thought it was a very good offensive and defensive performance, but special teams were not good.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
What I've learned over the past 3 years is that statistical domination does not equal wins. I hope they get 500 yards on our defense next week and we cause 3 red zone turnovers and we win the game. The only stat that matters is the final score, there are no what ifs.
September 6th, 2011 at 1:46 AM ^
"Any logical Michigan would agree that Western put up a way closer fight than the final score indicated."
I saw Western put up a good fight in the first quarter and UM start dominating at an increasing rate after that. I thought the final score was a pretty good indicator of how things went. NTM we looked poised to score when the game was delayed (then called) and clearly had the (ever increasing) momentum.
Unless you're in the "lucky... right place/right time" camp on the two defensive TDs. I personally chalk that up as the result of pressure we were consistently getting on Carder. A gameplan that was working and players making plays isn't "luck" in my book.
If you're talking about yardage...
Scoring twice on defense meant giving the ball to their offense consecutively... Twice. That can tend to skew the stats.
I didn't watch much of the ND game. Maybe 15-20 minutes (5 minutes at a time). But what I did see didn't look anything like "thorough domination" and I didn't even see the turnovers.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:56 PM ^
Could really care less to begin with....much less what is said by some OSU blowhard. As long as Denard gets the job done and Martinez doesn't, I could care less if he is a full second faster than 16.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
I couldn't agree more. My first thought when I saw this post was "and this is important because...?". If this were track and not football, I would get it. However, we know Denard has way more going for him than just speed, which in itself is still fantastic.
September 5th, 2011 at 6:46 PM ^
It is important because it's insulting that we don't get respect. And someone had to point out how idiotic that statement was. Just like you lay on your horn when someone is driving 70 in the fast lane, to tell them they are doing something stupid.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
People shouldn't get so bent out of shape but what some random talking head says. Every stupid thing some TV pundit says isn't threadworthy.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
also run track like Denard?
September 5th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
Have you watched Martinez play?
<br>
<br>He looks as fast as Robinson does on the football field.
September 5th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
Let's be honest, and imma give you that look....
September 5th, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^
I love these GIFs. They work in so many different threads.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^
But if you already have expended all of your remaining give-a-shits, how could your give a fuck-o-meter rise very high? I am confused.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
Somebody said something mean about Michhh on TV, better head over to MGo and alert the masses.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
September 5th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
2 21 98
September 5th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
ESPN has some of the worst college football analyst and to us that is what we are stuck with and its awful. Listening to Craig James this weekend blew.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
Hey, look at the positive. At least CRAIG JAMES DID not KILL FIVE HOOKERS THIS WEEKEND!
September 5th, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^
Don't be so sure...
September 5th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
Who cares?
September 5th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
I do. Obviously winning is more important and this is a rather trivial thing but for some reason it matters to me.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
at top end Martinez pulls away from the secondary, but the diffeence is DR is much quicker, the first 2-3 steps DR has is lightning.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
Look at drob's 100 meter time's. It's not close. Drob is quicker , faster, and more ellusive. Also, drob does'nt take calls from his dad at halftime of game's. Drob even come's out of the locker room faster.
<br>
September 5th, 2011 at 4:06 PM ^
ND turned it over a lot on a rainy afternoon in which they played 2 QBs. They did double the USF in total yards. I feel like a lot of michigan fans who don't know anything and just look at the scores of games aren't understanding that Notre Dame is actually a pretty good team. Michigan gave up almost 300 yards to Western Michigan in 3 quarters. ND has a similar offense as WMU, plus they have a running game and more talent on both sides of the ball. I'm not saying MIchigan will lose, but it will probably be a very close game, and Stonum will be missed.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
The big question is whether or not ND's turnover margin was a crazy anomaly or symptomatic of offensive issues. They probably won't turn the ball over 5 times on Saturday, but if it's symptomatic, they clearly have execution problems.
Notre Dame doesn't have a running game. They haven't for many years. They've had a few decent running backs, and Cierre Wood is okay, but that's different than having a good running game.
When you talk about people who "don't know anything," it's probably a good idea to not make the same mistake and only look at yardage totals while ignoring everything else.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^
C'mon man. Don't you know that turnovers are completely random?
September 5th, 2011 at 4:29 PM ^
I wouldn't say I ignored everything else. Maybe I overlooked the fact that they had a lot of penalties, but that is about it. It's hard to not look at the yardage totals when they are so uneven and the team with twice the amount of yards still lost. And I never said they had a "good" running game, but they do have the semblance of one. Wood and Gray aren't great (or even always effective) but they still can't be ignored. And I'm not saying I dissected the ND game, but taking a look at the box score stats and yardage totals is a lot more than many others who have strong (and baseless) opinions on ND. So unless you ran some intense statistical analysis or have some inside information on the first game ND played, then I really don't think you can tell me I also ignored "everything else".
September 5th, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^
Look at your first comment. You tried to rationalize the turnovers, then blathered about three things:
1) "running game" (P.S. Cierre Wood is okay, Jonas Gray is borderline terrible)
2) "more talent on both sides of the ball" (by what measure?)
3) yardage totals. The majority of your comment was about this in particular.
So what exactly did you do? You made two useless speculations and focused solely on the yardage totals as a statistic while excusing turnovers (and their potential role as a symptom), ignoring numbers like third down conversions (ND was 5/14), ignoring penalties (ND had 8), and completely disregarding the actual score of the game.
We had two blocked field goals in The Horror. Does that excuse that loss? A good team isn't judged by how many stars are on the field. A good team is judged by how they play on Saturday.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:42 PM ^
After the first drive, their run game was effectively contained by USF in the second drive. The punt sucked, too.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
"I feel like a lot of michigan fans who don't know anything and just look at the scores of games"
Yeah! GREAT POINT! I'm tired of all the Michigan fans on this blog who are drawn in by Brian and everyone else's nuanced analysis but still only look at the scores of games. They suck.
September 5th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^
Is that the guy who sits in between Kirk and Desmond and doesn't usually say anything? If so, he should keep doing that and shut the hell up.
September 5th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^
Reese Davis