David Pollack: Michigan Doesn't have Enough Dynamic Offensive Weapons to Beat Alabama
This morning on Mike&Mike, David Pollack, in discussing the upcoming CFP rankings, was asked which team could theoretically beat Alabama. His reponse when it came to Michigan's chances, was that they did not have enough dynamic threats on offense to challenge Alabama. This seems like extreme SEC based logic, and sounds very much like a man who hasn't spent a lot of time watching Michigan play this year. I'm not going to say we can beat Alabama quite yet, but to say that we don't have the weapons to do so is absurd.
November 7th, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^
Jabrill Peppers. End thread.
November 7th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^
The first team Bama played with a pulse on defense they scored 10 points.
November 7th, 2016 at 3:14 PM ^
You don't think A&M has a pulse?
November 7th, 2016 at 4:24 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 4:31 PM ^
They may have a faint one. Currently #95 in total defense and #25 in scoring defense. But, hey, they're currently #5 in the ultimate luck category (fumbles recovered), so there's that...
November 7th, 2016 at 11:55 AM ^
Anyone can beat anyone in college football. Alabama has had the most talent on itsroster for the last 3 years and have lost games to teams worse than Michigan multiple times. Ya, Alabama might be the best team in College Football right now, but Michigan has better coaching on both sides of the ball and you give these coaches time to prepare and I would favor MIchigan at the end of the year.
I perdonally think Michigan's winning % in bowl games is going to be around 80% under Jim Harbaugh
November 7th, 2016 at 12:02 PM ^
Wait... What makes you think Michigan has better coaching on both sides of the ball?
Are there any indicators of that besides straight homerism?
Come on people.
This isn't NFL Nick Saban vs NFL Jim Harbaugh.
Saban is the best coach in college football followed by Urban Meyer and Jim Harbaugh. Just look at the resumes.
November 7th, 2016 at 12:13 PM ^
Saban is, at minimum, as good as Harbaugh, and on resume better, so...
November 7th, 2016 at 1:46 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 2:09 PM ^
Is one trip to the Superbowl (that they didn't win) really better than 5 total national titles with two different schools? I love Harbaugh but Saban's resume should speak for itself at this point.
November 7th, 2016 at 3:20 PM ^
Harbaugh also has 3 NFC Championship appearances in a row.
November 7th, 2016 at 2:28 PM ^
My head coach can beat up your head coach
November 7th, 2016 at 12:14 PM ^
Saban has the best resume for sure. But if the players on each team were the exact same I would take Harbuagh and Meyer over Saban.
November 7th, 2016 at 8:46 PM ^
Yes, every time. Alabama enjoys some recruiting advantages that many other schools don't, and that makes Saban look better than he is.
And he's elite as it is, so what's better than elite? "Bama over the last half decade. Class by themselves.
Stll, take away those recruiting advantages and the talent mismatches they engender, and Saban isn't better than the other elites. I'd take some other elite coaches over Saban, including Harbaugh, Meyer, and Petersen.
November 7th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
Seems kind of short sighted to base it on resume and say Harbaugh doesn't add up. Are you counting Saban's and Meyer's entire career record vs Harbaugh, or only thier first 10 years - or however long JMFH has been a head coach (which makes it a fair comparison)? And are you saying that because Saban and Meyer are better because they've won a National Championship (largely as a function of being around as HC's longer)?
Either way, that's short sighted. Harbaugh is their equal - based on record and eyesight.
November 7th, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^
Going by your metric... by year 6 of coaching D1 football, Harbaugh is ahead of Saban (MSU stint) and way behind Meyer. Urban had 2 national titles by year 6 with a Fiesta bowl victory at Utah. Harbaugh has an Orange Bowl with a TBD this year.
Going by present time, Harbaugh is even further behind Saban and Meyer.
Obviously, Harbaugh's NFL success and Stanford rebuilding (Remember Saban rebuilt Bama and made LSU what it is today; Urban landed in nice spots at UF after Zook and OSU after Tressel) brings him up quite a bit, but I still believe he has a bit to prove before he's on the same level as the other 2. Beating Urban this year and potentially meeting up with Saban in a National Title game would easily put him up there imo.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:08 PM ^
umm...but Urban Meyer went from Utah to Florida, which although poorly coached, was loaded with talent.
Jim Harbaugh decided to build a program at Stanford. Those two circumstances are much, much different.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:51 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 5:17 PM ^
Urban had only 1 NC (2006) within the first 6 years. He didn't win his second til 2008. Plus you are glossing over the 16 years that Urban was an assistant coach. Yes, Jim was an assistant coach as well for 9 years, but 7 of those were when he was acutally still playing in the NFL.
So that is only 2 years as an assistant, then building a program from scratch (San Diego U - winning 2 titles there), then resurrecting and horrid deadbeat program (Standford) all within 7 years. Then took a NFL tour to go to 3 straight NFC Championship games and 1 Super Bowl.
Urban as accomplished more in college as a head coach, but only after grinding for 16 years as an assistant, then 16 years as a head coach.
All I'll say is that I look forward to what Harbaugh will accomplish over the next 8 years to match the 16 year resume of Urban.
As for Nick, his first 7 years as a Head Coach (after 16 years as an assistant, plus 3 more as a D-coordinator) - 34-24-1 (@ Toledo and Sparty), no championships. Not really setting the couch on fire......
Then started 26-12 at LSU in his first 3 seasons, before winning big. That's 10 years before "accomplishing" something.
His record and accomplishments at 'Bama are great, right guy in the right situation (for those who might not remember, 'Bama was a non-entity in the early '00s burden with sanctions).
Again, I'll enjoy the resume that Harbaugh will build up over the next 8-10 years and let the accomplishments speak for themselves.
November 7th, 2016 at 12:37 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 4:30 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 1:00 PM ^
I'd be more concered about our ability to block their fron 7.
November 7th, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^
ESPN employs a lot of douchebags, but Pollack probably takes the cake (it's close between him and Galloway).
We're going to have 4 senior skill position players drafted. That's not counting new Speight, Chris Evans, McDoom, Crawford, etc.
November 7th, 2016 at 10:45 AM ^
I doubt he knows who Evans, McDoom, and Crawford are. He probably takes casual glances at the depth chart and makes ridiculous assumptions.
November 7th, 2016 at 10:51 AM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 7th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
Best comment of the day. Logged in just to upvote you
November 7th, 2016 at 12:18 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^
If he hasn't been watching the games, it'd be easy to look at the stat sheet and reach the same conclusion. The touches are spread so widely, no single player is putting up huge numbers. Collectively, however, its a different story. If this is how he reached his opinion, it's lazy and uninformed but I can see how he got there.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^
Wasn't that Dinardo's stupid fucking sticking point for a while? We didn't have a clear-cut #1 tailback. That guy's a fucking moron too.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 1:45 PM ^
I saw that too. I like how he contradicted his excuse from a week or two prior (which was I haven't seen film on Michigan, so I don't know) to now - I'd seen them on film, but seeing them live is better. What the hell, dude. Make up your mind. Did you watch them on film or not?
I'd rather watch anyone who knows football and watches all the games comment on them before the dumbass people we're stuck with - Stanley Jackson, Gerry Dinardo, Marcus Ray? I'll admit, I do like Howard Griffith, though.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:49 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^
Well he did go to Georgia so...
November 7th, 2016 at 5:17 PM ^
A lazy opinion can be based on not looking beyond the surface. It's easy to miss things that way.
A stupid opinion is formed by ignoring the facts.
His opinion is both stupid and lazy. Michigan is #3 in scoring, two PPG behind #1 Louisville. That's not adjusted for opponents, which makes our numbers even better. It's obvious this offense has to have playmakers if he'd only look for them. It's not as if anyone is claiming that's being done on the strength of a dominant OL
November 7th, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^
I care this much about david pollack's opinion:
On a scale from Ann Arbor to Mexico
November 7th, 2016 at 11:19 AM ^
way more than I do.
November 7th, 2016 at 12:31 PM ^
opinion.
November 7th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^
Avatar checks out.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:27 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 4:39 PM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 10:43 AM ^
November 7th, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^
Hopefully, Michigan will have the opportunity to prove him wrong in January.
November 7th, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^
I was serious in the other thread when I said ESPN and BTN idiots and their hot takes should be on the Valenti list.
Outsiders, national media who don't follow the teams and actually, you know, watch the games.........shouldn't have a place on this site.
This is the same guy who last week during the CFP show that said Michigan played at Wisconsin. He also said we have only played one team that's any good when we have played and beaten 3 teams in the CFP Top-15.
What else can be said? He's an SEC/ACC lapdog. That's basically all ESPN employs now. I stopped watching college gameday years ago.
November 7th, 2016 at 11:05 AM ^
Yeah, Stanley Jackson said he would take Wisconsins defense over Michigans and they were actually having that debate in their CFF show. I had to laugh at all of it.
November 7th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
He's still bitter he threw the worst pick six in history in 1997 against us.
November 7th, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^
If he can accurately defend that with relevant info, that's fine. Michigan and Wisconsin have one common opponent - MSU, and they did a better job than we did. We can hammer him with advanced stats to counter, but just stating a debatable opinion that doesn't kiss Michigan's ass is fine with me.
It's when these guys can't back it up and don't know the scores and opponents relative to their point that kills them. Some are just plain-old bad at debate.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:13 PM ^
Agree with you point, with one caveat: MSU's performance against us was fueled by the rivalry. You have to take the rivalry and the emphasis MSU puts on that game into account when discussing our performance against MSU versus Wisky's performance against MSU.
November 7th, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^
MSU's performance against us was fueled by the rivalry and egregious amounts of holding.