July 13th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

Michigan hasnt been listed and teams that are ranked worse then UM: emu, wmu, ill, pur, minn, iowa, sdsu...thus we shoud atleast be 7-5

Incredible Hoke

July 13th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^

Am I the only one that's a bit nervous for this game? I'm not saying we're going to lose, but it will definitely be a challenge. SDSU's offense seem's fairly formidable: Senior QB with over 3800 yards last year. Returning RB with over 1500 yards rushing. A fairly inexperienced receiving corps, but seem capable. And a O-Line that seems to have a very good amount of experience. 

Granted, they dont have Al 'Gorgeous' Borges with them or Funk, or Hoke or many of their former coaches, but they have plenty of talent. 

Anyone mind telling me to "chill, bro"?


July 13th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^

The question I have been asking myself recently is: Did Lindley and Hillman make SDSU (and Hoke/Borges) look good or did Hoke and Borges make SDSU (and Lindley/Hillman) look good? I guess we will find out this season.

To address your specific concerns, I think SDSU will probably give UM a decent game but I would be shocked if UM doesn't win by at least 10 points. Remember, our new HC is their old HC and he has the advantage of being intimately familiar with their personnel and , in all likelihood, the defensive scheme they will utilize. SDSU does not have the same advantage and they will be playing on the road.

My way-too-early prediction: UM 35 SDSU 20.


July 13th, 2011 at 4:39 PM ^

Well, Borges was pretty accomplished before he came to SDSU, so I don't think his brief stint there "made" him.  As for Hoke, he came there on the heels of having led Ball State to a 12-win season with a roster completely composed of his own recruits.  I think we're in competent hands.  Hoke has made some quality assistant hires in recent years, though, so SDSU could still be in good shape. 


July 13th, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^

UConn has been an okay program, but I'm worried about SDSU's offense. They put up 35 points on TCU, as well as 385 yards of offense. To put that in perspective, Wisconsin put up 385 yards and 19 points. As to the whole year, TCU gave up, on average, 215 yards per game and 11.41 points.

SDSU has a lethal offense if our defense isn't any better.


July 13th, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^

I know people point to the TCU game as evidence that SDSU's offense did so well against a good defense, but that's not a great example because TCU took a big lead early in that game and most of those yards and points were when TCU had, albeit mistakenly, let SDSU back into the game.  Had TCU not been able to score so many points and blown the game open early, their defense would have help SDSU to far fewer yards and points.  They just didn't need to.

Similarly, SDSU only managed 273 yards against a BYU team that wasn't all that great on defense, though not terrible.  They only put up 323 yards against CSU, who was 104th nationally on defense, and 384 against UNM who was 120th, in a game that was never out of hand. 

Point is, you can point to TCU as a high point, and then also point to these other three as low points.  SDSU's averages were heavily skewed by scoring 48, 48, 47 and 41 against UNLV, Wyoming, Nicholls State and Utah State, respectively.  Take those out and replace them with even good MWC level competition and they were an aboverage offense who threw the ball a lot better than they ran it.  Now the lost all of their WRs, so I guess we'll see what happens.


July 13th, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^

Yea, TCU is obviously the highlight of their season, and they Wisconsin'd them, but OTOH their performance against Navy was also very impressive. I'll admit that I don't know how good Navy was on defense, but SDSU pistol-whipped them on offense.

Like you said, we'll see what happens. I also agree with your sentiment below about getting through anybody else if we can't get through SDSU. Maybe Gerg has just gotten to me...


July 13th, 2011 at 4:31 PM ^

I was pleasantly surprised to read how good the offense was last year. Hoke has been so focused on D and D-line that the O seemed to be an afterthought. Seeing that a QB can put up stats like that under the tutilage of Hoke and Borges makes e feel a lot better about what DR and the rest of the O will be able to do.


July 13th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^

I'm not so sure we can say that even.  WVU's 3-3-5 did a pretty decent job against Ray Rice's Rutgers team as well as Oklahoma when they played.  You sacrafice a bit of size, but if played correctly there are more guys in the box to make the hits.  One could also say that TCU has little defenders, but they're pretty solid.


July 13th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^

I don't mean any 3-3-5.  Some teams have the players and coaching to put together a very good 3-3-5.  However, I don't think SDSU has the talent on defense or experience in that style to be anywhere near WVU under Casteel. 

SDSU has been a very poor recruiting team for the last four years, so talent-wise, these guys had few other good options, with the exception of the young ones that Hoke recruited.  Even they weren't very good, by and large.  But the main thing that stuck out to me reading the preview is their gross lack of size. 

Most teams with 3 man front have very large d-linemen, normal sized LBs and a couple of the safeties that are similar in size to smaller LBs, like we had with Cam Gordon at the end of last year.  Their DLs are 250, 280 and 280.  That's very small for a 3-man front.  Their OLBs are 235 and 220, so their 235 guy is about average but 220 is small.  Their MIKE is 205(!).  I'm not too worried about the corners, but their three safeties are 185, 190 and 195, the 195 guy being the FS. 

Regardless of the defense, this is a team that is undersized at every position, and they aren't going to make up for it with experience because 6 of them are starting for the first time and we're their 4th game. 

Point is, if we can't plow over those guys, we won't plow over anybody.


July 13th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

But will they still be as good without Hoke/Borges? That was the question I posed in my first response. Perhaps Lindley and Hillman merely benefited from playing in Borges' offense; under a new OC they might experience a big drop-off in offensive production. Isn't that what every MGoBlog poster is wringing his/her hands about re: UM's offense this season? Why should the same concerns not apply to SDSU?

Note, I am not saying that SDSU will experinence a dramatic decline in offensive production. I am merely pointing out that their offense might be going through the same growing pains as many people believe ours will. Add in that UM still has BCS caliber players at many/most positions while SDSU does not, the game will be played in AA and Hoke has insider knowledge about his old team that Long does not have about UM and I think it is safe to be optimistic that UM will handle SDSU.