MichiganCardinal

I agree to a certain degree. As much as I am not bothered by the play-calling processes of an 0-9-1 team, I think in the postseason meetings that I'm sure the Front Office and ownership will have with Campbell, the process of how Campbell came to be calling plays should be addressed. If he did it to spark a flame in a winless team and there remains confidence in Lynn to be OC, that's fine, whatever. That said, they (being ownership/Spielman) did not hire Campbell to call plays. They clearly hired him to be the leader of men (of which I think he's done a solid job all in all), surrounding himself with people who were experienced on their side of the ball to coach up and oversee that side of the ball. I don't think they will appreciate that being permanently abandoned eight games into a six year contract. I would actually hope it's not something they would allow. If Lynn is not the long-term answer at OC, that's fine too. Relieve him in the offseason and find or promote someone capable of managing both OC duties and play-calling.

I'd like to see him workout, and I think Hutchinson may challenge him for first edge rusher off the board if he does not. My impression has been that Thibodeaux has been playing at less than 100% for much of this season after a high ankle sprain in September, and it would be nice to see what he could do in a fully healthy Pro Day.

Personally, I am stunned. /s

Why does it matter? I'm sure if we are sitting with more talent and still little to no results two or three years from now, Campbell will be replaced. I just don't really care right now if Campbell's, or Lynn's, or whoever's play calling is too conservative. Or too aggressive. The team they're leading is going out there and competing punch for punch with teams they are grossly outmatched talent-wise. I can't complain after tying a fringe playoff team one week and then losing by 3 to another the next week. Not directed at you TP, but I also feel like a lot of people who are upset with Campbell for one thing or another right now would be the same people with their panties in a bunch if we strung together two or three wins late in the season and wind up with the #2 or #3 pick instead of #1.

Great job by coaching to make adjustments and hold the Browns scoreless in the second half.…..

It’s a rules difference between high school, college, and NFL. The former two you’d march that off and it’d be 1&10. NFL is harsher.

Every Sunday this board seems to forget just how bad this roster is. If Boyle showed some ability to throw the ball 30+ yards in the elements and Campbell was still playing dink and dunk football that would be one thing…. The team sucks. The worst complete 53 in the NFL.

In b4 calls 4 Blough

This. Until the playoff expands to a point where guys like Day can’t just ride the coattails of their predecessor’s success, nothing will change between the CFP contenders and the second tier.

Up to 42. Ohio State may be looking to put backups in for the second half.

I won't disagree with the first point, this Ohio State team likely wins the National Championship. I will say that Michigan likely matches up better than MSU with Ohio State generally though, given Michigan's ability to generate pressure on the QB. So it'd be like 28-0 instead of 35. 😉

Ohio State trying to put up a point for every million Tucker got paid.

Up by 28 after 16 minutes. Yeesh.

I'm not sure if this is the case either for general fans, though I know enhanced security did arrive, they have a clear bag policy now. For students, we could dance in and out of the gates all night long, they're so desperate for something of a student section.

I am 26, so you're correct on my experience with SC, but I still think the same could be said for a lot of those programs I named. Texas won at least one NC in every decade until the 90s. Tennessee was strong too, though not quite to the same extent. I also think it is kind of my point that those programs (maybe not Tennessee) are relying on that past success to be a precursor to future success. Because we were good in the 50s-90s and even the early 2000s, we deserve to be good in 2021. At what point does the program need to re-evaluate how they are presenting themselves to the greater high school football community? Part of that is coaching certainly. Regarding the U$C jab, it is not something I think too much about anymore. I started it in a different board I used to frequent that had USC fans in it to get on their nerves, and it's held over as pretty automatic. The irony is definitely rich though. When I was in the Stanford Band (a revelation which will disgust some of you I am sure), we would wave dollar bills in the air to mock their fight song. Speaking for myself, I am a first-generation / low-income student that transferred in from a community college and graduated with a degree in Psychology (where I did quite a bit of research and did not expose myself to even an ounce of that VC culture FWIW)..... I saw the irony dripping from the wallpaper of the mansions some of my classmates were raised in (though they certainly didn't). I still did it though because I enjoyed making the old USC fans mad at a bunch of childhood nonsense. I think it's fair criticism to say that having graduated and grown, it's childish to continue. Not that you said that explicitly, but it would be fair. I'll probably stew on that.

Meh. U$C and Texas both. Why are they any different than Tennessee, Miami, or Nebraska at this point? At what point does "if only the coach was right" become "the program isn't cutting it anymore"

The PAC-12s problem is there is no superpower. SEC has Alabama and a rotating cast, B1G has Ohio State, ACC has Clemson, Big 12 has Oklahoma. It leads to there being a rotating cast of good but not great teams that beat up on each other. Oregon, Washington, U$C, Utah, and Stanford have all been that team over the last decade, but none have stepped up to be the perennial CFP power the conference needs to have to gain true national recognition. The teams aren't bad, it's just none are great and they are all relatively equal, and good 10-2 teams don't have a chance to win anything in the current format.

I was not opposed to the idea of Kyle Pitts because I thought he was a generational talent who we could also utilize as a WR in creative sets. I am generally opposed to picking a TE in the 1st-4th rounds, because no matter how good they are, they are limited in their production value for you compared to other positions. Picking a TE early is a luxury and we are not at the point to be able to take luxury picks.

I like the idea of Thibodeaux "completing" (to a certain degree) the building of the trenches within that inside-out model they are clearly working. He's also the only stud I see in the draft class right now. We will need one starting guard once Vaitai is released, which Evan Brown seems to be auditioning well for in replacement of Ragnow. Otherwise though I'll be pretty happy with both lines at that point assuming Levi and McNeil develop and hold their own. From the second 1st round pick on, you can start looking elsewhere and at skill positions. I don't hate the idea of doubling up on WR if you like the value. Corners, safeties, and linebackers on the defensive side are all needed. After the draft, you can add a middle-tier veteran or two on one or two-year deals in free agency at positions that were neglected two straight drafts, and you'll have a team that should win 6ish games, but that will be primed to really take off in 2023. As far as QB goes, if you don't think Goff can throw the ball or manage a game well enough to get a quality evaluation on these new pieces, I'm not opposed to signing a Winston, Fitzmagic, or Bridgewater for a painful year where $40 million is tied up at the QB position for two bottom-tier QBs. I am staunchly opposed though to forcing the issue on QB and wasting a draft pick on a Davis Mills, Christian Hackenburg, or Paxton Lynch type player we are not sold on as the future, no matter the round.

I think Decker is just misplacing his frustrations. He was 'the guy' on the line, and on the team to a large extent. Then the new regime come in and their first draft pick is a guy who plays your position. Then you get hurt on what was likely a very frustrating injury for many of the same reasons questions were raised, and you can't go for half the season. Then the narrative exiting your first game back is how well that rookie performed in his first game at RT. The fanbase was the easy target for what is likely a lot of internalized frustration over a lot more than what he said.

This, plus the weather forecast for rain/snow mix at 32*... Both teams knew going in it would be a game won (tied) in the trenches and the run game.

A 10-2 Michigan likely goes to the Rose Bowl, where they would stand a good chance of winning against Utah. I understand wanting more, but also..... that's a really good season.

Tucker will follow the money, he's demonstrated that. If LSU will top whatever MSU offers he will leave in a heartbeat. I get why MSU is doing it (they feel like they have to), but I also don't think it's wise of them, as a school or as an athletic program. Even if Tucker stays, I think it is more likely they are looking to buy him out in year three of this massive deal than it is they are winning Big Ten championships. Wise decisions haven't exactly been that school's forte as of late though.

We'll pick which end of the field to defend next week. Should do the trick.

I disagree. If he's performing at this same level next year, I may feel this way about 2023, and may be more on the "let's see (backup)" bus. But I have enough patience to know that we are still filling the crater left behind by Quintricia, let alone to be ready to starting building on top of it.