I've been looking all over the internet and talking to many of my friends but I'm struggling to process the past game.
On the one hand, it's important not to over analyze game 1. Some of the most dissapointing games of the Dantonio era for me have been in the first 4 weeks, where I am hoping we come out and win 100-3 against a MAC team, and of course, we don't.
This is my problem, not Dantonio's. I wish I could give a great anaylsis on why some teams just whoop on teams early and MSU doesn't, but there have been very few games that we've crossed the 40 point threshold while keeping our opponent in single digits, and in reality, that's probably the only way I would be satisfied based on my initial expectations.
On to this game. First half I thought the Defense looked stout. I was initially impressed with Bullough, Copeland, Heath and the D-Line push. Their were holes as the game progressed, and it's hard for me to assess whether these were due to us playing a TON of guys, or because WMU started finding holes. I'm hoping it's the former.
On offense, these RB's will get the job done. Whichever poster it was that said we will miss Jeremy Langford IMO was off base. I think these three will definitely make it happen via committee with London being the leader for now and with Scott looking like there is a high ceiling.
Cook played terrible. His WR's didn't catch the ball to make him look better (including his Roommate) and he was inaccurate when he had a ton of time. I know he's better than that, but he also doesn't feel good about that one so I'd say it's safe to say that game sucked for a 5th year heisman candidate.
WR's played ok. They should have came down with many of those and that ended a lot of drives for us. Arnett pleasantly surprised me for the few plays he made. Maybe he will make a difference this year, still way to early to find out.
---
What do you guys think? I'm having a hard time getting a good feel on this game and I'd love others input. I just feel strange about it.
On the one hand, it's important not to over analyze game 1. Some of the most dissapointing games of the Dantonio era for me have been in the first 4 weeks, where I am hoping we come out and win 100-3 against a MAC team, and of course, we don't.
This is my problem, not Dantonio's. I wish I could give a great anaylsis on why some teams just whoop on teams early and MSU doesn't, but there have been very few games that we've crossed the 40 point threshold while keeping our opponent in single digits, and in reality, that's probably the only way I would be satisfied based on my initial expectations.
On to this game. First half I thought the Defense looked stout. I was initially impressed with Bullough, Copeland, Heath and the D-Line push. Their were holes as the game progressed, and it's hard for me to assess whether these were due to us playing a TON of guys, or because WMU started finding holes. I'm hoping it's the former.
On offense, these RB's will get the job done. Whichever poster it was that said we will miss Jeremy Langford IMO was off base. I think these three will definitely make it happen via committee with London being the leader for now and with Scott looking like there is a high ceiling.
Cook played terrible. His WR's didn't catch the ball to make him look better (including his Roommate) and he was inaccurate when he had a ton of time. I know he's better than that, but he also doesn't feel good about that one so I'd say it's safe to say that game sucked for a 5th year heisman candidate.
WR's played ok. They should have came down with many of those and that ended a lot of drives for us. Arnett pleasantly surprised me for the few plays he made. Maybe he will make a difference this year, still way to early to find out.
---
What do you guys think? I'm having a hard time getting a good feel on this game and I'd love others input. I just feel strange about it.
