Please God, let me be dead wrong about Michigan football 2010...
I am a RichRod defender. I think he's a great football coach who has succeeded in every place that he's ever been. That other coaches consult with him when they want to know something about the spread is a testament to his standing in the CF coaching community. I also think he's done a good job of recruiting players who fit his system, and that many of them are destined for exciting moments in their winged helmets in the years ahead.
I still have a very bad feeling about this year.
I know, I shouldn't be thinking like this when it's spring, and we should all be optimistic and supportive. But I just can't help it.
I like Tate Forcier and think he shows a lot of promise, but even if he shows improvement he'll still be only a sophomore. It's sobering that there are no sr. or jr. QB's on the roster.
I like that we picked up some very promising playmakers at D-back, but they will all be freshmen. I like that Justin Turner is expected to make an impact this year, but he will be a redshirt freshman.
I like that our O-line will be deeper this year, but I feel uneasy that the optimism is based on the fact that our redshirt freshmen are at last ready to see the field.
I like our freshmen WR's. But they are, after all, freshmen, and I don't like that we have only 3 non-freshman WR's on the team.
I like that we picked up Josh Furman from Maryland, but I'm worried sick that our LB problems will take years to really fix, given that we need to bring more of them in, and that even when we do they won't likely be able to help significantly right away.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
I think that last year's pattern of promising starts and horrid finishes was due to our lack of depth and the fact that we were essentially playing our JV against everyone else's varsity. I'm worried that in 2010, we still will be.
That leads me to my deeper fear: that RichRod really is a great football coach, but could be gone before he really has a chance to re-stock the pond. In CF, you can't re-stock the pond overnight. Even when you bring in the right players, under normal conditions they don't normally make an impact until their third year in the system (one year to redshirt, another year to work their way into the system) unless they are superstuds, a la Charles Woodson or Chad Henne. And even when a lad is a superstud who can't be kept off the field, there is still a big difference between a) inserting an exciting freshman into a lineup of veterans, and b) depending on underclassmen for half of the starting positions on the field (with no real depth to back them up, to boot).
I'm sorry for being such a downer. I love Michigan football and I would be thrilled to eat my words in the fall and exult, "I was wrong! I was wrong! Oh, thank you God, I was so, so wrong..."
I long to see a RichRod-coached Michigan team that starts jrs and srs on both sides of the ball, with adequate depth behind them, and on which no player has played in anything other than the spread offense at the college level. But that would be 2012...and he may not have that long if it doesn't go well this year.
What do you all think? Please help - I really want to be wrong on this and if there is solid reason for optimism, it would make spring a lot less gloomy for at least one Wolverine fan...
Thanks,
Harmon40
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^
in terms of inspiring confidence for the future involve how Tate played in the clutch against ND, Indiana, and the last drive of regulation against MSU. The moments where he looked like a true freshman appeared to be correctible by coaching. He could really break out this year, and if he does...
The OSU game, for example. Sure he committed a boatload of TO's however he also kept OSU's offense off the field for most of the game. Anyone notice how the D stayed fresh for the whole game?
March 21st, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
Think about the other side:
Last year, we had next to no depth at DB and O-line. We started two freshman quarterbacks. We fielded two pieces of glass as senior running backs. Our linebackers basically didn't exist and our deep players couldn't catch their breath, let alone opposing tailbacks.
And yet look how many games we won and SHOULD HAVE won. I think that a W is a W in most situations, but not as a gauge of exactly how well a team's season went. We should have beaten MSU (even though we didn't deserve it). We should have beaten Iowa. We should have beaten Purdue. We should have beaten Ohio State. We didn't even play two of the weakest Big Ten teams. Coming within a play or two of beating all of those teams shows that we were more or less a middling Big Ten power.
Let's look at another team with a lot of close calls: this year's MSU basketball team. How many F-ing times have they escaped by a point or two at the last second? Us? Penn State? Maryland today? How many more? If they had ended up on the other side of that slim margin, they wouldn't even be a talking point.
I appreciate your lucidity, but I think you fail to grasp how significant the improvement from 2008 to 2009 exactly was and how many more holes are about to be plugged.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^
We were within a play or 2 of losing to ND and Indiana but I know what you're getting at. As long as there is some kind of improvement before next season, we should be able to put away teams that we played close last season.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
"We didn't even play two of the weakest Big Ten teams"
i dont know what you mean by this, considering how we tied with indiana at the bottom of the big ten, right behind illinois. we played both of those teams, and obviously could not play ourselves - thats 2 of the worse 3 teams right there.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
say with a straight face that we would have DEFINITELY fared worse if we played Northwestern and Minnesota? Northwestern had some big-play guys, but I was speaking mostly of Minnesota, whose number we've had for years, even with Nick Sheridan.
Unfortunately I think Northwestern's offense would have stomped us last year...
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
again, dont know what you're talking about here. as already mentioned, northwestern with their spread attack passing game would have obliterated our secondary and minnesota, well who could predict what would of happened.
the bottom line, neither of those teams were the "two worst teams" in the big 10, as you said. that was my point.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:14 PM ^
Coming within a play or two of beating all of those teams shows that we were more or less a middling Big Ten power.
Shows that you are delusional.
We ended up right where we deserved to be.
I do think we'll do better this year.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
Statistically, we were much higher than the bottom feeders and far more productive than teams like Wisconsin in certain aspects (passing). The Illinois game was a flat-out disaster, but with Forcier having a passer rating of about 150 against Wisco and Roundtree putting up disgusting numbers in four games, not to mention Graham, it's pretty clear that coming through in the clutch and choking under pressure were bigger factors than raw talent and ability.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:12 AM ^
you just said refuted, or proved anything.
You want to play with statistics? Did you not watch any of the games last year?
It wasn't always yakety sax, but yeah we shared the cellar with Indiana; the last place team, a team we had to come from behind to pull out a win against.
Your last sentence is complete idiocy. it's pretty clear that coming through in the clutch and choking under pressure were bigger factors than raw talent and ability.
So raw talent and ability THAT FUCKING CHOKES IN THE CLUTCH & UNDER PRESSURE means we're "middle of the pack"?
A few players having above average numbers in a few games means about jack shit in a team sport. We were mostly bad last year, and it wasn't all bad luck. I can handle it, why can't you?
Maybe you should start looking at the positive aspects of this year instead of fantasizing about a past that never was.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^
of a major asshole, please. I don't know what your fucking problem is.
My original post was the sole purpose of drawing distinctions between 2008 and 2009. I observed two different football teams. Did you?
So if MSU BBall ended up a point behind instead of ahead in like 10 of their games this year, your opinion of them take a 180 degree shift from the way you think of them now?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^
Depends on what you were watching.
Did you see the team that couldn't gain one yard against Illinois and then completely melted down in the second half?
Or were you watching the Delaware State game and thinking, "HELLZ yeah, we ROCK!"?
why did you choose to use DS as a example instead of ND? Just wondering.
But they finished 6-6.
.........and they still would have stomped Delaware State.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 AM ^
it's not about a point here and a point there. It's about wins & losses. I understand that there is a difference between barely losing a game and getting pwned.
Do I think we improved from 2008 to 2009? Of course we improved. . . but not by THAT much.
We slid in some areas, and improved in others; and do you know how much we improved? I can tell you exactly . . . 2 wins worth. Nothing more, nothing less.
We looked great against ND, we sqeaked by the doormat known as Indiana. We lost a close one to Iowa, and we shit the bed at Illinois. rinse & repeat.
I apologize for coming off so harsh, but this is about the 12th post since the season ended that has someone saying "We were so much better than our record" or "if Molk had been healthy we would have gone 12-0!" (an exaggeration). I'm CAUTIOUSLY optimistic about 2010, but I want to stay clear-headed about where we've come from.
I will now stop drinking and go to sleep on the floor.
and maybe another reason for optimism is RichRod's history of coaching up diamonds in the rough. I wonder if there are any surprises in store for 2010 regarding players that we're not even talking about who break out unexpectedly.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:29 PM ^
Considering that the season doesn't begin for another 6 months, you aren't doing yourself any favors with the glass half-empty mentality. Yes there are question marks, but the team should also have more all-around talent.
Food for thought: How many games did we lose solely because of our secondary last year? This year, we will have four blue-chip guys back there. This alone is a reason to be optimistic.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^
They are all young, though. We can have all blue chip guys back there but if they're freshman then how will that help?
March 21st, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
Because last year we were playing with walk-on freshman back there.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^
Rationalize it any way you like. A freshman secondary is nothing to look forward to.
March 21st, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
I'm very much looking forward to Demar Dorsey in our secondary, even if he is a freshman.
You and the rest of the offenses in the Big Ten have something in common then.
So you would rather see TJ Floyd and Mike Williams in the secondary? That's what I thought....
With the 4-2-5 Magnus keeps talking about, Mike Williams probably will be in the starting line-up as the spur. Not to go off advertising for Magnus or anything, but read it, it's quality.
http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-will-michigans-defense-…
March 25th, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
I hope you run into Demar in a dark alley n piss him off. See if you're looking forward to seeing him then.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:31 AM ^
I'd be more worried sitting in my house at night seeing as how he'd probably break in. Don't forget your football gloves, Demar!
Is a freshman or two playing in the secondary ideal? Of course not. But it will probably be our best chance at success.
I look forward to seeing a combination of our young guys getting thrown into the fire and making plays. It can't be alot worse than last year, and we get to see the freshman progress.
is our best chance for success is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm glad that we picked up some solid D-backs, but however talented they are, it's going to take them time to learn the college game - and grow into college bodies.
"Better than last year" does not equal "good"
March 21st, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^
Tate may be a sophomore in eligibility but by the time next season starts, he'll have started 12 games. Most sophomores have nowhere near that kind of experience. He'll also have gone through an extra spring camp. Moreover, he'll likely face stiffer competition for the job than he did last season, as Denard should be more polished and Gardner is very talented. Tate will have to be on his game to win the job.
At OL, having redshirt freshmen in the two-deep is normal nowadays. At least it beats having to move a defensive tackle in midseason (and starting him!).
At WR, I count four non-frosh: Hemingway, Odoms, Stonum and Roundtree. Is that really a low number? I think it's about normal. If we start a TE (and I imagine we will - I think Koger is ready to break out), then only three WRs will start, anyway.
At LB, I'm hoping that a second year under Robinson will cause the lightbulb to come on for Ezeh and Mouton (hey, it's happened before). At DB, well, I'm just hoping for the best.
Actually though,you're right about QB. There is some uncertainty there, however Tate showed great flashes last year, Denard will be frightening if he learns the passing game, and Devin is a legit blue-chipper.
I'm hoping we can keep Tate upright all year so we can redshirt Devin.
Don't slots count as receivers? Slot and outside WR really aren't that different.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
not to mention there were so many close games that were only lost because of freshman mistakes. The entire MSU game could have went better if we had a HEALTHY, experienced quarterback. Iowa could have been won.
All of these nail biters that we couldn't finish last year will be back this year. And with a healthy (big factor), experienced Forcier I see us being able to win the games we were supposed to win. And even pull off some upsets.
Edit: You also failed to realize the fact that Fitz Touissant is going to go in this season and break at least 24 ankles.
My point: All the talent our team has you have to be ready to see someone have a breakout year. (pretty likely in our backfield)
With youth, comes the chance to breakout explosively. In my eyes.
Focus on how great you'll feel if you're wrong.
And also focus on getting laid more often. Because we all should be focusing more on that. It'll help take the edge off until September.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
We have a lot of talent committing to Michigan, but they all seem to be freshmen when they get here... What's the deal with that?
yes I know that we can't recruit ready-made upperclassmen to play at Michigan. My point is simply that it's not good to depend on too many underclassmen at starting positions, for reasons mentioned.
traditionally not recruited JC players! techniqually we could recruit ready made upperclassmen!
March 21st, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
How good are the surgeons at UofM? The only worry I forsee is Molk's knee repair. Of course on the other side of the ball, Martin's shoulder surgery is just as important. None of us can tell what the future will bring, but barring injuries, this should be a somewhat improved team especially if Smith's knee is of no concern to him, that Denard and Tay get some open turf in front of them often.
We've heard the reports of the simplified defensive schemes and this should greatly help the underclassman with their defensive assignments.
It will be interesting to see if one of the big backs steps up and makes his claim to fame as a Michigan go-to-guy. Certainly Michigan has the talent to score even more points against everyone than they did last year (and I'm not going to mention Hemmingway's shoulder repair.)
As an eternal optimist, I'm sure it's going to be moderately to much better this year than last. In order to give you all a chance to ding me, I'm going to close with this one final question. Why Sam?
March 21st, 2010 at 11:24 PM ^
No sense making such a pessimistic prediction. Our freshmen of '09 have a full season under their belt and that maturity will go along way in winning some of the close big 10 games during the 2010 season. I don't expect the team to fold as much this season after a big mistake as they did last season. I'm hoping for a 6-6 to 8-4 season and a bowl trip. May be I'm in the minority but I think RR should be given through the 2011 season no matter his record in 2010. This was not the typically talented and deep UM team when RR took over, and the rebuilding will take time!
agree about giving RichRod a 4th year no matter what. Give him a chance to coach the talent that he has brought in.
RichRod should stay on through 2011 one way or the other. They've got the right guy, he and his staff just need time.
one more to the minority. and if we can add one win, that is what you call a winning streak boys!
March 21st, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
Otherwise, I'll be following MGoForensics by the beginning of November.
Repeat these words: "A college football team is a very complex emotional machine with many complex parts, with a complex path to success"
This is not to say our analysis is useless, but it's something I tell myself when I don't want to believe the bad thoughts I'm thinking.
Personally though, I'm optimistic for next year.
The otehr thread has better reasons.
...but you are definitely "dead wrong about Michigan Football 2010."
HOLD ONTO THE G*DD*MN BALL!
In 2009, UofM was -12 in TO margin and finished 5-7, change that number to, say, +4 and the 2009 record is probably 8-4.
If UofM has a positive TO margin in 2010 they will finish at least 7-5. If they have a very good TO margin, say, +10 or more they should finish 9-3.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
mojo on the football field this year. Look at all that has gone wrong the last few years and you'd have to think things start to tilt back in our favor. That's not to say things still couldn't go horribly wrong, but I am cautiously optimistic we get to 8 wins this year. And I am REALLY hoping 1 of those wins is against Sparty.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
talk about 'what if' this person goes down, or injuries happen to this group on the field? well i say GO BLUE and, what if there are no significant injuries this year. each year teams make it through without significant injury maybe this is our year? that being said what our beloved wolverines have in the cupboard (even on defense) is an exciting prospect to me! 'what if' the freshman and or underclassmen in general do not play like underclassmen and overachieve on expectations. it happens each year somewhere in college football, maybe us this year!