October 26th, 2013 at 5:38 PM ^

He is a sophomore who had a very bad game.  Like all sophomores.  3 of the past 4 games (against 2 bad defenses of course) he has had very good games (Ind, Iowa, Ill).   He is halfway decent.  He need not be great.  He rarely turns the ball over.  I think he has 2 INT all year.  And today's fumble.   He does not suck - he is decent and that is all they need.  Stop being in denial.


October 26th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^

I'm done gentlemen.  I can't take watching MSU win.

Next Saturday can't come soon enough.  It'll be a good test for us, but frankly, they don't scare me at all.  Can't wait.

Magnum P.I.

October 26th, 2013 at 5:33 PM ^

Michigan State is good. I can't believe it, but their program is in a better place than ours right now. All things considered, they have a top three football program in the conference the last five years, with no indication that will change. We can't say that. 

Magnum P.I.

October 26th, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

Yeah, we'll see. I hate it, but Dantonio, while an ass of a human being, is a great coach. He has a clear idea of the team he wants to be and executes it very well. I thought they got lucky with a few diamonds in the rough with Bullough, Worthy, Rush, Dennard, etc. But, by all indications they will continue turning three-starts into All-Conference defenders. Calhoun is evidence that it's systemic and not flukey. They're not going away once Bullough, Dennard, and Lewis graduate.

snarling wolverine

October 26th, 2013 at 5:55 PM ^

They lose a lot of senior defenders and quite possibly also their DC after this year, as well as most of their OL, so it's anyone's guess where they'll go from here.  

MSU definitely benefitted from our RichRod experiement, and they've been more stable than we have - that's pretty clear.  They don't have 61 scholarship underclassmen out of 85 like we currently do.  But that's going to change.  In the future we're going to have a lot of talent and a lot of experience.  And even now, I think we'll beat these guys next week and finish ahead of them.




October 26th, 2013 at 5:59 PM ^

I'm not buying your premise about the two programs. I understand it is the natural condition for the Michigan fan to perceive that the program is invariably "regressing" or somehow limited. That said, the home team is still 6-1, is still recruiting better athletes (understanding this is Hoke's second full recruiting class) and still has the usual advantages re: Big House etc. 

One of these two programs has more recently (I mean ever) played in a BCS bowl. We'll also learn a lot about that team when Narduzzi leaves to be HC at UConn or Temple or somewhere soon.

Magnum P.I.

October 26th, 2013 at 6:18 PM ^

I hope you're right. This season has been really tough for me, though, because it has dispelled both the narrative that Hoke can do no wrong and the narrative that MSU's window has closed. I'm glad we're 6-1, but there is no denying that we've regressed in every facet of the game this year. Meanwhile, MSU's season last year is looking more like an aberration rather than the beginning of a fall back to mediocrity.


October 26th, 2013 at 11:34 PM ^

Here's the thing, it's a return to Lloyd era Michigan/Sparty where the top end for Michigan State is going to be 8-4 or 9-3 to 2025 (they might get 10-2/9-3 this year and the opportunity for a horrific killing again vs. anyone from the SEC). So that's your Sparty ceiling. Periodically they will beat the big brother but mostly not. This was Lloyd. 

Michigan, on the other hand will have a base of 8-4 and a ceiling of 12-0 or at least 4 team/8 team playoff contention. The difference in recruiting will show with players like Morris, Hand, Peppers, Mone, Ross, Ojemudia, our entire OLine class from last year etc. 

Both teams can have success but the ceiling is different.


October 26th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^


The emphasis on winning mythical recruiting championships when your team has had a 9 loss season, a 5 loss season, 6 loss season, and a 7 loss season in the past 6 years is laughable.  Who the f** cares.  Win me some fucking games on the road against Big 10 competition that is good (Brady doesnt have a singular big road win in 3 years - and no I dont count neutral Sugar Bowl), win a fucking Big 10 championship sometime in a decade. 


October 26th, 2013 at 6:23 PM ^

People who deny the impact of recruiting as the so-called "February Championship" are limited in their analysis of any program. I'll take my chances with years of 4 and 5 star athletes vs. Sparty and we'll win a hell of a lot more than we lose. This recipe, recruiting in volume high ceiling and high rated players, is basically what Saban, Carroll, Les Miles, Urban at Florida and Mack Brown have made work for the majority of National titles over the past decade. 

Hell, Lloyd made that work in 97. I'll take my chances with Hoke and his recruiting philosophy. We should win games (6-1) but we'll lose games as the team matures. Sparty apologists might check Mark D's home record from last year before considering that the sky is falling.



October 26th, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^

Because Alabama wins all the time with inferior talent? Saying "wins" matter but not recruiting is myopic. You don't have to be an elite recruiter to remain competitive, but you can't keep recruiting a bunch of mediocre talent and stay competitive every season. If you do, you'll ping pong around like some teams do season to season.


October 26th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^

Yep and using the extreme example always is the way to argue.  If you are not top 3 recruiting every year you cannot be a successful program.  Check out Wisconsin's, Oregon's and Stanford's recruiting rankings the past 5-6 years - UM beats them every year.  Now check out the records.

I am not arguing you dont need good recruits - that is a silly argument.  I am arguing with people who cling to these recruiting rankings in lieu of .... oh I dont know, winning a lot on the field and having a team that is a realistic BCS level team every year.  Our recruiting rankings would indicate we should be there - the evidence on the field year in and year out says otherwise.   You need not have Alabama recruits to have a top notch program and UM has zero excuses - other than one year we had a class outside of the top 20 in the past 5 years, we've consistently been between 5 and 20 type classes for a very long time and a bunch of 3-4 loss seasons for the past 20 years, before it got even worse lately.   MSU recruits 30th-40th most years as an aside, but again we should not even be at a point we are having a valid argument vs MSU in this sport.  It is pathetic.


October 26th, 2013 at 6:09 PM ^

Oregon #10, #9, #16, #22 ranked recruting classes.  They aren't a very good example for your recruitng doesn't matter theory.  Oh and theri junior and senior classes were both ranked above Michigan's from those 2 years.  So in that regard you are just plain wrong.


October 26th, 2013 at 6:14 PM ^

YOu are the only person on this thread who said recruiting doesnt matter.  I said losers cling to recruiting rankings rather than the only thing that matters - wins and losses.  I could care less about recruiting national championships.  GReat you picked out Oregon - look at the other 2 I named.  Also look at Oregon 6-7-8 years ago when they were still doing great and before they got the recent bump up in recruiting rankings.   If you are arguing UM has lived up to its recruiting rankings the past 10-15 years, I'd love to hear your argument - we have been chronic underachievers.  And in all thsoe years people like you waved the recruiting flag and say "we're doing great! #7 class! #9 class"

And for your Oregon situation, UM has had very equal class rankings and look at how UM program has done those 5 years versus Oregon with the same type of classes. 


October 26th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^

Recruiting rankings (Rivals):

2007: Oregon 11, UM 12

2008: Oregon 19, UM 10

2009: Oregon 32, UM 8

2010: Oregon 13, UM 20

2011: Oregon 9, UM 21

2012: Oregon 16, UM 7

2013: Oregon 22, UM 5

Oregon has "beat" us in recruiting twice in the past 7 years.  The 2 programs are not even close right now in what they put on the field.  Why?

Stanford has has one top 20 class in this time frame (2012).  They are a very similar program with similar academic standards - better product on the field. Why? Stanford's class in 2013 is #63 and 2012 was #5.... 2008 was #50.  Outside of those anamolies (sp?) they are generally in the 20s every year.  Michigan beats them by 10+ spots almost every year.  Wisconsin is generally in the 30s ... etc.


October 26th, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^

Toss out the year by year win or losses in February recruiting.  A person would look at those numbers and at worst say Oregon recruits similar to UM.  Not much better, not much worse.  The product on the field? Night and day.  WE HAVE NO EXCUSES.*

*Our 2010 and 2011 classes are way below the rankings.  The 2011 class does not have 1 offensive starter - probably the only team in the country who has ZERO starters from the 2011 class on offense (it did well for our defense however).  The 2010 class we know the issues.

The larger point is based on our championships of February we have no business not being a BCS level type team year in and year out.   The same February championships people crow about on these boards when we suffer through another 3-4-5 loss season and tell us "just wait 2 more years".  They are not "waiting 2 more years" every year in Columbus.  I am not saying recruiting doesnt matter - any team in the top 10-15 yearly should be at the 2 loss type of level max.  If you do more than that, you are an underachiever versus all the raw talent you are given.  UM gets too much talent for all these excuses to be thrown around the board. 

ND Sux

October 26th, 2013 at 5:39 PM ^

Their program is not in a better place.  I wouldn't trade our current players for their band of personal foul specialists, nor would I trade our coaches or facilities for theirs, the recruits we have coming in.  Everything we have is better than theirs right now except the current defense, and ours isn't horrible.  In a few more years, they won't even have that.