Scott Frost is the saltiest man on the planet

Submitted by Maizen on

Frost doubles down: "We out-hit them in the first half and I thought we out-hit them in the second half. ... I thought we won that battle."

— Nick Baumgardner (@nickbaumgardner) September 10, 2016

Scott Frost: "It's rare when you come into Michigan and rush for 300 yards on them. They had to run a fly sweep in the 4th to get to 100"

— Nick Baumgardner (@nickbaumgardner) September 10, 2016

UCF coach Scott Frost: "We came in here and outhit those guys today. There's no doubt which team was hitting harder"

— Steve Lorenz (@TremendousUM) September 10, 2016
MGoBoard

BigBlue02

September 10th, 2016 at 6:33 PM ^

They do play against stacked boxes. When they do, they don't run with as much success, pass more, and probably win big. You know, exactly like us. That doesn't mean their offensive line and RB were outplayed, it just means they took advantage of what the other team gave them. You know, like us

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: -1003

RedGreene

September 10th, 2016 at 6:33 PM ^

Shut your little whore mouth. They stacked the box so Michigan passed for over 300 yards. Does it really matter how we got 400 yards? What if we rushed for 300 and passed for 100? Who the hell cares when you beat a team 51-14. Frost is still a whiny, little birch after all of these years.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: -109

grumbler

September 10th, 2016 at 6:35 PM ^

So you are saying they out-schemed Harbaugh in the running game?

I refuse to accept that Michigan lost to OSU last year by a near-identical score just because Harbaugh was too stupid to put 8-9 men in the box, or that this year he couldn't figure out that he needed more than 5-7 blockers.

The O-line struggled in this game, and not because they were badly outnumbered all the time.  UCF had some gambles that paid off, but, on the typical rushing attempt, the lack of Michigan success seemed more on Michigan than on UCF. 

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14173

bcnihao

September 10th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^

In last year's game against OSU, Durkin was surprisingly reluctant to bring up a safety in run support.  Then when he finally did, OSU completed a long TD pass.  It was a case of pick your poison. 

Having Glasgow available for that game would have made some difference, but (in all likelihood) not enough to change the outcome.

Joined: 10/05/2015

MGoPoints: 5351

Mr Miggle

September 10th, 2016 at 6:10 PM ^

The better team rarely dominates every play. They had one long TD and a few other good plays on offense.  We had a lot more big plays and a lot fewer negative ones. We were the only team that could sustain drives.

They loaded up against the run and dared us to throw. Not a bad strategy for them considering the passing game with an inexperienced QB is much higher variance. Instead of crediting Speight for beating his gameplan, he makes a silly remark about our running stats. Someone only reading his comments might think we were lucky to win.

Maybe the comments were meant to pump us his team. If so, that's fine, but he still comes off as a bad loser.

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47770

Parkinen

September 10th, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^

Let's assume his observation is accurate. First, probably a bit difficult for Michigan to get veins in their teeth playing Central Florida, a team which was 0-12 last year. That's just human nature. Secondly, watch out when this talented group decides to that the opposition deserves their A game.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/09/2013

MGoPoints: 2047

Ronnie Kaye

September 10th, 2016 at 6:50 PM ^

Oh my god, stop it. No one is saying that. Michigan was clearly the better team as they destroyed UCF in the passing game and on special teams. I'm merely saying that teams that lose by 37 generally don't double up the winning team on YPC (unless that winning team runs an Air Raid offense or something). Thus, a game that was played closer than the final score. Why is that so offensive to you?

Joined: 05/09/2015

MGoPoints: 104

marti221

September 10th, 2016 at 6:11 PM ^

Game never felt close, but it certainly felt like we both shouldn't be giving up these constant lanes to QBs when over pursuing the QB (I have faith this with be worked out, but we've all seen what happens when it doesn't). The OL was just plain bad. Especially run blocking. That's something that is a serious concern.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 04/21/2010

MGoPoints: 4791

UM Fan from Sydney

September 10th, 2016 at 6:25 PM ^

LOL. OK...

The offense was on point and the defense surrendered fourteen points. Your expectations must be through the roof, which is fine because mine are, too, but beating a team 51-14 is by no means a poor performance. We destroyed them. Speight was terrific.

Joined: 09/17/2015

MGoPoints: 58075

UM Fan from Sydney

September 10th, 2016 at 5:41 PM ^

Imagine if hits is what wins ball games.

Also, we didn't rush a lot because Speight was too busy throwing darts and scoring touchdowns.

Joined: 09/17/2015

MGoPoints: 58075

991GT3

September 10th, 2016 at 5:41 PM ^

but let's be honest, it did appear they owned the line of scrimmage. But for our talent in the skill positions, this game could have been close.

Joined: 12/14/2013

MGoPoints: 1133

WolvinLA2

September 10th, 2016 at 5:47 PM ^

They didn't "own the line of scrimmage." They certainly didn't when we were on defense, and they stacked the box on D. Sure, you're going to stop teams running when you give yourself a numbers advantage, but giving up 312 yards and 4TDs passing is the result. Let's chill a little bit.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58189

Wolverine Devotee

September 10th, 2016 at 5:42 PM ^

51-14

You can block us on Twitter all you want, but your Scut Farkus looking ass just got spanked.

Have mama send out an email defending this one.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 31528