[Husker] Michigan v Huskers

[jonlists at cbsol.com]

Living in Big Ten-land.... you get a lot of Big Ten coverage. Michigan is 
a different team than last year because: 

- Mike Hart is healthy. The guy is an excellent running back. He may go 
another five years without fumbling, or until they play Ohio State, 
whichever comes first. 

- Michigan didn't have Manningham last year. Their big play threat was 
Breaston. Manningham is injured now, and you can see that their offense 
isn't scoring as much without him over the last few games. Breaston is 
still there, but not as productive down the field as Manningham has been. 

- Injuries. I forget how many injuries the Wolverines had last year, but 
there were quite a few, offensive and defensive line. 

- Attitude. By the time they'd gotten to us, their season was shot. They 
were emotionally spent, and they didn't want that game as badly as we did. 
Plus, we played well, we were excited to be there. It was a huge step up 
for us, a big letdown for them. Last year, Michigan was expected to be a 
top ten team. They weren't. 

---- We had injuries to both Bowman and Fluellen. Fluellen had a lot of 
speed, something we could have used in these games. It took Bowman a while 
to adjust, just as it's taken Jones a while - you can't just plug in a guy 
and expect the same level of performance. What's scarier than a secondary 
with Grixby is a secondary without Grixby. 

The key here is - you can't just plug a guy into your offense or defense 
and expect something great to happen, regardless of position. Sometimes it 
does (Colt McCoy), but those are the exceptions. Unfortunately, those are 
the ones that everyone uses as an example. 

Jon Johnston
http://www.cornnation.com

husker-bounces at tssi.com wrote on 10/31/2006 01:10:50 PM:

> For anybody feeling defensive, this is not an attack on anybody's 
position.
> This is a question I've wondered for some time. The recent discussions
> finally prompted me to ask.
> 
> Nebraska beat Michigan in the bowl. We had a lot of returning players on
> both sides of the ball including a senior qb and several top defensive
> stars. I don't follow Michigan closely enough to know how many starters 
they
> returned, but I wonder why they are so much better then we are this 
year.
> (I'll toss out one answer to my own question: the injury to Bowman is 
that
> big). Still, seems like a stretch to be that much worse with the loss of 
one
> player, especially when we had another top JC db coming in to help out.
> 
> One of the reasons I ask is because there seems to be this vague 
timetable
> rationale about rebuilding the program (from a 10-3 team) to a 
championship
> contender. Seems like we were right there with Michigan a year ago and 
they
> are number two, now, contending for the national title, and that's why a 
lot
> of people are upset. I know the argument about transitioning from option
> offense athletes to the WCO system, but, again, we had made the 
transition
> by the bowl game, and should only be better with another Spring and Fall 
and
> half a season, too.
> 
> Don't misinterpret this as an argument for firing Callahan. I think that
> would be premature. We should have given Solich more than a year after 
he
> installed his new staff and recruiters, and we need to give Callahan 
more
> time, too. But we need to think about holding Pedersen accountable. He 
said
> he would not tolerate mediocrity, implying that 10-3 is mediocre. So 
what's
> the timetable, chief?
> 
> Alan Siporin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker