ADVERTISEMENT

This is an easy MSU/UM game to analyze from my perspective..

Special teams and turnovers...MSU has advantage with TOs, UM with special teams.

If either teams can flip the script (MSU make a game altering STs play or UM beat MSU in turnover margin) it will give them a great shot to win the game.

I have to admit...special teams coverage makes me nervous.
 
Yes...MSU will bring it this week. I pick MSU until proven otherwise. They are rated higher in the polls and are undefeated. The game is on the road. MSU has the better qb. They have the talent to win.

Why is my pick not reasonable? Because you are a fan?
 
Reality Man said:
Yes...MSU will bring it this week. I pick MSU until proven otherwise. They are rated higher in the polls and are undefeated. The game is on the road. MSU has the better qb. They have the talent to win.

Why is my pick not reasonable? Because you are a fan?
Click to expand...
Because you don't seem to be looking at the results on the field. Rankings are irrelevant, but if you care about them, MSU is winning and dropping, while Michigan is rising.

And the game is NOT on the road, it's at Michigan Stadium.
 
PharmD Blue said:
Uh, what? Beyond 7 years ago (which sparty fans do not want to go beyond for some reason) there doesn't seem to be much. Except for a sustained history of mediocrity.
Click to expand...
It was MSU and OSU fighting it out for bragging rights in the '50's and 60's. Two national championships since joining the conference. Hell, MSU has been a member of the Big Ten for close to 7 decades. um has been the better team in four of those decades, and MSU has been the better team in three. As for right now, it's MSU in the 50's and 60's. UM from 1970 to the late 2000's. and MSU from 2008 to present.

It's been a good series. 28-35-2 since 1950, or since MSU joined the conference. What team has beat UM more? OSU and..........

But hey, in 1902, UM did beat MSU 119-0. Ah, the good old days.
 
Last edited:
Michigan and MSU have played literally over a hundred times , I think we've played more than the few years previously mentioned
 
Fails to take into account that MSU's OL is seriously banged up. Bad. How good can Cook be with a banged up OL against our DL.

IMO, Cook will not get his in this game. Prediction - 3 sacks by our DL.

Michigan 24 MSU 14
 
From an MSU reporter/blogger...some excerpts.


This will look really stupid if UM blows MSU out of the water, but I actually think the Spartans match-up relatively well against Michigan’s offense. I think every MSU fan would agree with me when I say I would MUCH rather face a run-heavy team than another spread attack.

If I’m the defensive coordinator (note: I’m not) my gameplan is to make Jake Rudock beat me. With how well Michigan has run the ball, that’s much easier said than done but it’s the only option. I expect them to load the box with eight or nine men, bring lots of A-gap pressure and dare Rudock to try and beat them over the top.
 
Reality Man said:
From an MSU reporter/blogger...some excerpts.


This will look really stupid if UM blows MSU out of the water, but I actually think the Spartans match-up relatively well against Michigan’s offense. I think every MSU fan would agree with me when I say I would MUCH rather face a run-heavy team than another spread attack.

If I’m the defensive coordinator (note: I’m not) my gameplan is to make Jake Rudock beat me. With how well Michigan has run the ball, that’s much easier said than done but it’s the only option. I expect them to load the box with eight or nine men, bring lots of A-gap pressure and dare Rudock to try and beat them over the top.
Click to expand...
Man, now that's a defensive plan I bet no else has even considered. BRILLIANT!
 
SpartanJD said:
Special teams and turnovers...MSU has advantage with TOs, UM with special teams.

If either teams can flip the script (MSU make a game altering STs play or UM beat MSU in turnover margin) it will give them a great shot to win the game.

I have to admit...special teams coverage makes me nervous.
Click to expand...

Opponents have attempted 35 passes of 15 yards or more against Michigan's defense.

They have completed a grand total of three, and five have been intercepted.

That's crazy.

Just another stat that points to how different this Michigan team is under Harbaugh.

Go Blue. Always.
 
rodenya01 said:
Fails to take into account that MSU's OL is seriously banged up. Bad. How good can Cook be with a banged up OL against our DL.

IMO, Cook will not get his in this game. Prediction - 3 sacks by our DL.

Michigan 24 MSU 14
Click to expand...



There are certain variables that favor each side. I think some UM fans are missing the fact that MSU has enough on offense to offset some of the UM advantages on defense. Getting to Cook is clearly critical to offset the experience of Cook.

That being said..what does UM bring to the table to counter a stacked box. Rudock (OP) is going to have to play well. I expect a close hard fought low scoring game. Two teams not willing to make a mistake early. MSU doesn't want to hurt themselves with less than a great UM offense and UM isn't going to want to put there defense in a precarious position.

If I am MSU...I want a 4th quarter game with a experienced qb and figure out how Durkin is going to run his schemes.
 
detroitjohn said:
^^^^^
Seume's still working out his reading comprehension and contextualization skills issues...
Click to expand...
Just stated the series started over a hundred years ago, I read just fine or did you just want to be a pain in the rear, sorry I didn't include the post I was referring too
 
Last edited:
seume said:
Just stated the series started over a hundred years ago, I read just fine or did you just want to be a pain in the rear, sorry I didn't include the post I was referring too
Click to expand...
I assumed you hadn't read the thread and poked a stick at you. The Sparties here have selective-historical-series memory disorder.
 
detroitjohn said:
And so do we, one your school would love to have, and it damn sure didn't end in the 70s like you've repeatedly claimed.
Click to expand...
Hey, the BigTen SUCKED in the 70's. I was far more impressed with what UM did in the 80's and 90's. In other words, I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about.
 
Have you been posting drunk the last two weeks? Morgan Stanley business must be going well for you to be so unaware of what you're writing on this board and on Northwestern's, or was it someone else posting under your moniker about how shitty UM was after the 70s (which apparently you've now come around on)? Btw, MSU SUCKED in the 70s, UM was awesome, that was when we barely bothered to play our first string after halftime against you guys. Well, actually the 80s and 90s were frequently also awesome on that score, bitch slapping MSU was a sport in itself.

Check the record, we were close to a number of MNCs that decade (71, 73, 76, 77, 78), but of course since every win by UM was against horrible teams and every loss against the true powers, you'll discount it. Like I said in other posts, grab a history book and bone up on Michigan football...
 
I don't see how sparty is going to win, they barely win against these teams they play.when you are the no. 2 team in the country you better play like it, this is going to be the best def. that they have played all year , are they going to pull a rabbit out there ass, I don't think so blue 31 msu 13.
 
Reality Man said:
From an MSU reporter/blogger...some excerpts.


This will look really stupid if UM blows MSU out of the water, but I actually think the Spartans match-up relatively well against Michigan’s offense. I think every MSU fan would agree with me when I say I would MUCH rather face a run-heavy team than another spread attack.

If I’m the defensive coordinator (note: I’m not) my gameplan is to make Jake Rudock beat me. With how well Michigan has run the ball, that’s much easier said than done but it’s the only option. I expect them to load the box with eight or nine men, bring lots of A-gap pressure and dare Rudock to try and beat them over the top.
Click to expand...

If MSU stacks the box with 8/9 men those awful MSU corners will be on an island in either Cover 1 or Cover 0 situations. The flaw with this thinking is that Rudock necessarily has to beat those corners over the top to be effective. UM can run short and intermediate routes vs man coverage and still be effective. Rudock can play game manager vs that type of defensive approach and still beat MSU. We haven't even discussed throwing to Butt and the other TEs or RBs out of the backfield.

One thing I know for sure, Michigan will not be at a deficient in the coaching department in this matchup. I have full confidence that this staff will find a way to run the ball and pass when necessary vs MSU.
 
detroitjohn said:
Have you been posting drunk the last two weeks? Morgan Stanley business must be going well for you to be so unaware of what you're writing on this board and on Northwestern's, or was it someone else posting under your moniker about how shitty UM was after the 70s (which apparently you've now come around on)? Btw, MSU SUCKED in the 70s, UM was awesome, that was when we barely bothered to play our first string after halftime against you guys. Well, actually the 80s and 90s were frequently also awesome on that score, bitch slapping MSU was a sport in itself.

Check the record, we were close to a number of MNCs that decade (71, 73, 76, 77, 78), but of course since every win by UM was against horrible teams and every loss against the true powers, you'll discount it. Like I said in other posts, grab a history book and bone up on Michigan football...
Click to expand...
Funny you mention how MSU sucked in the 70's. You're right. They had a .51 winning percentage. Horrible. BUT, it was good for 3rd best in the conference behind OSU and UM. I believe the rest of the conference had a .38 winning percentage. Check the numbers if you want. The bottom 7 teams in the conference had 57 out of 70 losing seasons. The Big Ten SUCKED IN THE 70's. BTW, what was UM's bowl record in the 70's? 0-7, but oh yeah, your boys were so close to MNC's. UM's record v ranked teams wasn't much better that decade.

I have more respect for what UM did in the 80's and 90's.
 
eric2015 said:
Funny you mention how MSU sucked in the 70's. You're right. They had a .51 winning percentage. Horrible. BUT, it was good for 3rd best in the conference behind OSU and UM. I believe the rest of the conference had a .38 winning percentage. Check the numbers if you want. The bottom 7 teams in the conference had 57 out of 70 losing seasons. The Big Ten SUCKED IN THE 70's. BTW, what was UM's bowl record in the 70's? 0-7, but oh yeah, your boys were so close to MNC's. UM's record v ranked teams wasn't much better that decade.

I have more respect for what UM did in the 80's and 90's.
Click to expand...
Because the conference mediocre, UM and OSU kicked everyone's ass, but UM lost very close Rose Bowls that were essentially home games annually for USC and Stanford, it doesn't count. Leveraging your same reasoning you must also think that MSU's success against a mediocre BIG these past couple years doesn't really count. OSU rescued a moribund league by winning last year. Oh of course MSU won their bowl games so that's what REALLY counts.

Your selective argumentation, trying to pull out what "matters" and then proving your case, is not an argument it's an intellectual facade. You don't know who UM played in the 70s besides what you Googled so what do you actually know about their bowl losses; you contradict yourself saying one day that the 70s was the last time they were good, when I correct you that they were good for 25 years after the 70s, you simply move on forgetting you ever said anything. My conclusion you simply don't know football and you've shown this repeatedly in your posts and maybe have memory issues about your own posts.
 
Last edited:
detroitjohn said:
Because the conference was horrible, UM kicked everyone's ass, but lost very close Rose Bowls that were home games annually for USC and Stanford, it doesn't count. Leveraging your same reasoning you must also think that MSU's success against a mediocre BIG these past couple years doesn't really count. OSU rescued a moribund league by winning last year.
Click to expand...
MSU played 8 bowl teams last year. UM was lucky to play one team with a winning record other than OSU in the 70's.

BTW, you do realize the Big Ten had a good bowl season last year, right? Also, the Big Ten has the best winning % of the major conferences this season.

In the 70's, there was UM, OSU and a probation shackled, mediocre MSU team. The rest of the teams in the conference were just plain bad. The Big Ten had a lot of 0-3 win teams that decade. The conference is much more competitive today. You can't argue against that. Well, I guess you can, but you would be on the losing side of the debate.
 
dantoio_zps5gd0gonj.jpg


Dantonio in his post game presser.
 
eric2015 said:
MSU played 8 bowl teams last year. UM was lucky to play one team with a winning record other than OSU in the 70's.

BTW, you do realize the Big Ten had a good bowl season last year, right? Also, the Big Ten has the best winning % of the major conferences this season.

In the 70's, there was UM, OSU and a probation shackled, mediocre MSU team. The rest of the teams in the conference were just plain bad. The Big Ten had a lot of 0-3 win teams that decade. The conference is much more competitive today. You can't argue against that. Well, I guess you can, but you would be on the losing side of the debate.
Click to expand...
I've concluded you don't know how to read, thanks, I'm not wasting any more time on you and your tail-chasing banality. GO BLUE!
 
detroitjohn said:
I've concluded you don't know how to read, thanks, I'm not wasting any more time on you and your tail-chasing banality. GO BLUE!
Click to expand...
Right. You just refuse to admit I'm right. See ya.

BTW, I just noticed that you've posted 3647 times here and have a whopping 11 likes.

I'm just here messing around and picked up 14.

You need to improve the content of your posts.
 
Last edited:
detroitjohn said:
I don't regret or take back a word. UM did most of what I hoped they would and should have come out with a 2 pt victory save a once-in-a-lifetime fluke play.
Click to expand...
230 yards of offense is what you wanted? 62 yards rushing? At home? Against a D that was missing two starting CB's a starting safety and a starting LB?

Great game, but if it wasn't for special teams (yes, 1/3 of the game), MSU wins this one comfortably.

Once again, great game and see you next year in East Lansing.
 
Not to mention the fabled 12 second forward progress call.....

eric2015 said:
230 yards of offense is what you wanted? 62 yards rushing? At home? Against a D that was missing two starting CB's a starting safety and a starting LB?

Great game, but if it wasn't for special teams (yes, 1/3 of the game), MSU wins this one comfortably.

Once again, great game and see you next year in East Lansing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

buttaball

Michigan Football's 2024 Season Opponents, In retrospect

Replies
2
Views
488
The Den
Mgoblu87
Mgoblu87
buttaball

THE Ohio State University Portal and Paid Returnees Outcomes thread.

Replies
6
Views
855
The Den
skahty
skahty
jvf19

Very Apparent Early On That This Was Going to be a Close Game

Replies
0
Views
238
The Den
jvf19
jvf19
9

Some thoughts about game yesterday and future . . .

Replies
0
Views
338
The Den
92Wolv
9
ThoseWhoMay

#23 Michigans #11 Wisconsin Let's Take a Look

Replies
27
Views
1K
The Den
Fritzie
Fritzie
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back