toss up...which would you choose?
i admit that emotionally...i'm way too invested in michigan football. i was on the phone with my girlfriend after the game, and she asked me what was wrong as she could tell i was out of sorts. i explained to her that michigan lost, and she replied, "oh, is that all?!" a loss seems to linger until the next day when i become rational again.
similarly, when she called me late friday night, i was elated and she asked why. i told her that a stud recruit commited to michigan...and she replied, "oh, is that all?!"
so to put this weekend in perspective i'll ask you guys which you would have preferred friday morning:
dee hart commits to alabama and we beat sparty
or
dee hart commits to us and we lose to sparty?
October 10th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
You can replace recruits. You can't replace wins. Love Dee, but I'd take the win every single time.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^
not agree with you more on this. Take the win.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
It's all about the wins.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
reality gave us something else.
What would have happened if Germany invaded Britan on the ground and not the air?
These questions drive me nuts.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
to get from germany to england on the ground...
October 10th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
now technically that would be underground...
October 10th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
Land invasion? 1066? Battle of Hastings? Battle of Britain was aerial, etc.
We reversed it and landed at Normandy, etc.
Ground forces, not air force, etc.
I'll assume you know the rest.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
can't I have my cake and eat it to? I want the recruit and the win. Is that so wrong? If that is wrong than I do not want to be right.
October 10th, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
and I'd throw in an extra whoopie session on top of it.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
bring recruits. But then again, recruits bring wins. In this case, I'd take the win.
October 10th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
well selected avatar +1 to you
October 10th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
I am thrilled with Dee Hart, however, had we won yesterday that would have most likely meant that our team, which is the youngest in the BigTen, is growing up. That seems more valuable than a "prospect".
October 10th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
I really thought this was leading to a question about your GF.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
The Win. Regardless of his potential there's no telling if Hart will pan out or not or what that would mean to the program in the future anyway.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
October 10th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
Easily the win. Unfortunately, the choice has already been made.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
We used to get both the win and the recruit. Here's to those glory days returning so we don't have to fight for crumbs. That being said, to answer your question, it is really a philosophical one, a perplexing dilemma as unanswerable as " what came first, the chicken or the egg"
Or what came first....The collapse of Michigan football or the loss to Appy State....
One argument would suggest, "If you build it they will come"...Win games and recruiting will take care of itself.
The flip side suggests that wins come through talent. "Recruiting is the lifeblood" of college football, gather them up and the wins will follow.
I'll take both the recruit and the win.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
October 10th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?" isn't an unsolvable philosophical dilemma. Evolution. Through an understanding of evolution, we know that egg-laying species long precede, by millions of years, the bird that we call the chicken. The egg came first.
Apply that metaphor to football however you see fit.
October 10th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
Okay, hot shot. Which came first: an animal that lays eggs or an egg?
October 10th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^
the process of fertilization and eventually species that lay eggs is basically an evolutionary offshoot of the prokaryotic process of budding. Beyond that we are starting get into a regime of research that has many competing theories and hypotheses.
October 10th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
I take my original post back. I want both again and I hope it happens really soon. A win next week against a solid Iowa team would make me feel a lot better. Not that I am completely down or anything, I just want to stop my thoughts of this being similar to last year sooner, rather than later.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
win, we snake oil Dee hart later in the season after we beat Ohio State
October 10th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
Which would you choose: losing to MSU or banging Pam Ward with the lights on?
<br>
<br>
October 10th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
Ask WolvinLA2. He's done both.
October 11th, 2010 at 8:15 AM ^
Can I close my eyes and put ear plugs in?
October 10th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
I have to go against the grain. I know its important to win. That said, I'm taking a program-level type perspective here that spans multiple seasons. Honestly, if we are going to beat Alabama in 2012, we need players on both side of the ball. Dee is an important piece. Let's face it, as a program, we haven't had playmakers. Denard and Dee are playmakers. Now, we just need playmakers on the D.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
Let's face it, as a program, we haven't had playmakers.Michigan has had 3 Heisman trophy winners. Usually, Heismen trophy winners are also playmakers. In fact, if I remember correctly all Charles Woodson did was, "make plays, baby."
October 10th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
Let me be more specific:
Since 2007, Michigan hasn't had the playmakers. Admittedly, there was talent on 2007 that didn't show up for whatever reason. But, honestly, Denard is the closest thing to a playmaker that we've had since C. Woodson. I hope Dee is in this mode. We need guys that can take it to take it to the house, make the big catch, sack the QB, swat down the pass, and block that kick. These are the guys that are required to win games. There are still too few playmakers on this Michigan team. The offense had a tough time yesterday - people were out sync and Denard tightened up and forced throws. If he had an additional playmaker on the offense and the D had a shut down corner and an "in the face" DE, we'd be right there. We are still 4-6 starters away from competing with the top of the Bg 10.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
But, honestly, Denard is the closest thing to a playmaker that we've had since C. Woodson.
Braylon Edwards wasn't a playmaker to you? Mike Hart, our all time leading rusher, not a playmaker? Chris Perry, the Doak Walker winner in 2003, surely made no plays. Chad Henne, who won 32 regular season games as a started, was not a playmaker? Tom Brady?
October 10th, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^
Sir, your order of Thorazine is filled. Please pick it up at the pharmacy.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^
Dump her.
October 10th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^
my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.
October 10th, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^
I can't believe you're even asking this. I am very happy to have Hart, but this isn't even debatable.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^
Dee may flame out - but I'm not going to go for a one game win over a top recruit until we are a top program again. Here are several reasons:
- We weren't likely going to win a Nat'l or Big Ten Championship this year
- We could use a #1 all purpose RB (I believe he is very, very good from his videos) worth the difference in several future close wins we would not otherwise have won (so trading 1 loss now for 1-2 wins a year for 3 years = 6 wins where Dee is the reason why we won - don't hurt me for making this up, but think he can really help us),
- He helps keep the pipeline connection to the FL schools (Dee said he partially came since Ricardo was here...perhaps others will say the same thing about Dee)
This reminds me of a study I read about recently that was akin to "If you received $100 6 months from now, would you take it or would you wait for 12 months from now when it is worth a guaranteed $150?" The majority says: May as well leave it in...I'll take the $150 12 months from now.
Then the study phase 2 asks, "Would you take this $100 in my hand now or wait for 6 months to get a guaranteed $150?" The majority change their tune and say: I'll take the $100 now (aka - the win)...leaving the 50% 6 month return on the table. If you don't think much of Dee, then sure, take the win.
October 10th, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^
I'd ditch the girl and go after her friend. "Is that all"...she doesn't get it and never will. Next thing you know she'll be planning your beautiful fall wedding on the weekend of the Michigan State game, and you'll spend the two games before that making table favors and developing seating charts. Get out while you can.
October 11th, 2010 at 2:19 AM ^
With GO GREEN GO WHITE for hours on Saturday. The walk out of the Big House I could have cried.
Sorry Dee
October 11th, 2010 at 2:28 AM ^
Damn this is toughy, I absolutely love Dee but at the same time a win over Sparty seems a lot more appealing to me, especially after Saturady's results. We could always recruit someone else if we couldn't secure his services and a win over Sparty is invaluable imo, especially after them now taking 3 in a row....embarrassing.