"It's a lot easier being a drug dealer than an AAU coach" - this guy. Tell me something I don't know. I mean, don't think but have never tried either.
Ohio fan blog "The Ozone" has Michigan Monday vs. Nebraska up this evening.
It is depressing to read, but interestingly, Gerdeman isn't too harsh. In fact, his opinion is that Michigan probably would have won if Denard had been healthy the whole game. A few quotes:
Despite his struggles, we shouldn't put all of Michigan's offensive failures on Bellomy. While he was healthy, Denard Robinson led five drives and Michigan averaged 29 yards of total offense on those drives, which lead to six total points.
Those numbers with Robinson throughout an entire game probably would have been enough to get the win for the Wolverines, because they likely wouldn't have included three interceptions.
I tend to agree. We live and die with Denard this year. Gerdeman closes with that thought:
Which is the real Michigan offense? The one against Illinois and Purdue, or the one against Michigan State? The answer is neither. The real Michigan offense is Denard Robinson, and how well he performs depends solely upon how good the defense is that he is facing that given week.
There is no "Michigan offense". It's just "Denard". For better or for worse.
What can you say? If Denard is healthy, we could win the rest of our games. If he is out, we'll probably struggle in the rest of our games.
Here are some other bullets:
- Michigan has a severe lack of QB depth. (duh, but yeah.)
- Michigan has a severe lack of QB preparedness.
- People who think Devin is the answer are in la la land. The coaches would have had Devin in the rotation if he was a good option at QB.
- Having said that, Devin will return to QB in the Spring (see depth above.)
- Gerdeman is a broken record re: Fitz and the rushing.
- The OL didn't get much of a push to help Fitz (not that it would have mattered.)
- The defense once again was stellar, and did enough for Michigan to win.
You can read Gerdeman or not. The lack of offensive playmakers, both RB & WR, leave Denard terribly exposed. It has been this way for a long time, but there's nothing to be done for it this year. If Denard stays healthy, I suppose we could win the rest of our games. I wish I was happier about this, but Michigan sure seems awfully vulnerable right now.
The Ozone, one of the Ohio blogs covering the Buckeyes, has up their weekly column analyzing the Michigan game.
You can read it yourself . . . Gerdeman really isn't too snarky. The upshot of his analysis is that you can't really tell a lot from the Alabama game about how Michigan will do this year.
A few bullets
- Although he'd never admit it publicly, Hoke knew this game was close to a lost cause, with the offensive game plan, and with Michigan's player personnel, including Denard.
- Fitz might have helped, but ultimately wouldn't have made a difference in the final outcome.
- More running plays for Denard wouldn't have helped, and might have gotten him killed.
- Neither Rawls nor Smith impressed: Toussaint is the best back.
- (not said, but an observation: we need Green, and need to recruit another feature back or two for the 2014 class.)
- Gardner may have potential, but he needs to improve a lot: 1 out of 8 is terrible.
- Even given the deficiencies on the DL, the LB play leaves something to be desired.
- Special teams was the main bright spot, between Hagerup's punts, Wile's kickoffs, and Norfleet's kickoff returns.
If you are a football junkie, Gerdeman's weekly "Michigan Monday" column can give you a bit of a fix from a somewhat neutral outside perspective while you're waiting for Brian's UFR. While the analysis is not perfect, it is analysis, unlike many of pieces found in the MSM.