The Crappy UMass Performance Was A Good Thing
So I know that we are all somewhat down about the team's performance against a clearly inferior team. Me too - very frustrating to watch our defense get shredded by a cupcake team. Also disappointing that until the 4th quarter, our RBs couldn't really take over the game.
That said, I think that over the course of the season, a game like this will help, and not hurt us. Why? Because our team (in particular our defense) is simply not good enough to win without coming out and playing every game as if it is a crucial, season-on-the-line match up. The defense against ND, while nothing to get excited about, was mediocre. This is their ceiling, but withour offense, a mediocre defense should be enough for us to beat all of the "easy" teams and at least hang with the harder teams such as OSU, Wisco, Iowa and PSU.
Michigan was picked by just about everyone to be a bad team this year. After the 2-0 start against decent teams, and the Denard for Heisman hype, it is always possible for a team - especially a young team - to start buying into its own press. A game like this, where we won by less than a TD, our defense sucked and our special teams were crappy, should help keep the team grounded and hungry. Look at Craig Roh's statement - he acknowledged that they played like crap and vowed never to let it happen again. An admission that Michigan came out soft and an indication that the team gets it.
I would expect to see the team come out fired up next week, (even though it is only Bowling Green), and to carry that intensity into Big Ten play.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
Michigan played like crap against (let's be honest) a solid team. That team was way better than bad FBS teams (anyone out there think Ohio would be umASS)?
The fact that Michigan won while playing that "terribly" should be a point of encouragement.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
I would chide you for your use of "umASS" if I didn't regularly hear Mass. residents referred to as "massholes" over here in New England, even by my fellow Massachussetts friends.
September 20th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
It's still juvenile.
September 20th, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
By that logic being unable to perform when getting an average woman in bed is actually good because it means I'll be better prepared when I get a hottie? Uh....no.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^
I think last year, watching the Indiana game, we knew something wasn't right. The team was banged up already and not playing with the same energy as earlier in the season. The loss of momentum was clear even from our 3rd and 4th wins.
So my main concern for Saturday is that we clog this momentum loss. It's important to come out with energy and build momentum for the Big 10 schedule. We need to be building towards something, not holding onto dear life and coming away with wins.
I think most of us just want to see a team that is more physically mature, who is able to get stronger as the season gets deeper. Again, I don't want to see another Indiana against BG or IU the week after. We need to build towards MSU and beyond.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
I don't disagree. But, I am willing to look at this season as distinct from last season. There are parallels, but that does not mean that the result will be the same. I look at this team and I see things that last year's team did not have - confidence, leadership, maturity, cohesiveness and, well, Denard.
I don't think that this was an issue of loss of momentum. It was a classic trap game - the game came after we bean ND, in ND, with a last minute drive down the field for the win, where our QB broke all sorts of records while amping up his (ridiculously premature) Heisman hype, and we cracked the crankings. In comes . . . FBS UMass. It is normal for a team - especially such a young team - to come out flat. As long as this is a learning experience, and not a pattern, it is a good thing.
Also, I would not want to be the players this week. I bet RR and Barwis are working them (within the confines of NCAA rules, of course!).
September 20th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
I'm not a pessimist. I agree with you this is a different team. Just wanted to articulate the concern and the potential parallel from last year.
Physical and Mental Maturity is the big question in my mind this season. And I hope and believe we are far better prepared for the Big 10 rigors this season.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
If you're going to point to a spot last season where the team maybe packed it in mentally, instead of post-Indiana I think the better example is the pre-BEEF MACHINE Illinois series from the 18-inch line.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
Why was this person negged?
Edit: I look stupid now, but when I posted my comment he was at a -1.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
It was a very flat performance, on defense especially. The defense is not great at this point, but they are not that bad. They exhaled on the same day that UMass had their superbowl, and that was that. I do believe their focus was lacking, but I don't believe for a minute, nor did I at the time, that the game was ever in jeopardy.
Running backs were solid, Junior Hemingway got his feet wet. No injuries.
The game was not representative of what this team will or won't do in Big Ten play, or even next week. It was a stupid game, end of story
September 20th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
Banks was injured, although supposedly not seriously. Agreed with the rest you said.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
Agreed 100 percent.
In college football, flat efforts after back to back big wins, are the norm. Mass is pretty good too. I could see them having a long run in December with the way they run the football.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
Agreed, however FCS teams have proven over the last few years that they are not "cupcake" opponents any longer. Every game is a do or die situation IMO every year for every team. Either way, I think our team learns from their mistakes and carries that on throughout the remainder of the season. 8 - 10 wins this season is a strong possibility if our defense can make stops and allow our offense to just play and not have to be pressured to score every time we have the ball (although that it always what I expect from this high-powered and talented offense).
September 20th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
Good things:
- We won
- Lessons learned - we will get better off this
September 20th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
That was a perfect (and much more succinct) summary of what I was trying to get at. We won the game, and hopefully learned a less that will carry us into Big Ten play.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
It wasn't a good thing or a bad thing. It was just a "thing". Team performance isn't a static, unchanging quality, and teams don't churn out the same performance every game - they just don't. I know everyone wants to pick through the bones of this performance, but it's not, at this point, more indicative of anything than the last two prior games.
I've seen Big 10 Champion Michigan teams trail San Diego State at home in the 4th quarter. This shit happens. Until they go out and make this level of performance consistent, this is just a game we managed to pull out despite not playing that well.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
This game reminded me of the 2006 Ball State game. Everyone kept waiting for BS to go away and they just didn't.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
Wait, I thought there were only two choices.
- OMGDENARDZ!!!1!!1!!!
- UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!!11!!!!
September 20th, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^
Good point. Although Saturday, FIRE GERG AFTER WE KILL HIM seemed to be a popular third option.
September 20th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
I consider FIRE GERG AFTER WE KILL HIM to be a sub-category of UNACCEPTABLE!!!!1!!11!, but yes, that was certainly a popular sentiment.
September 20th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
A man literally screamed, at the top of his lungs, "UN-AC-CEPT-A-BLE!" after UMass's last two TDs. Exactly what he sought to accomplish through this (other than get everyone to look at him like a freak) is unclear.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
It will help keep them focused. Defense has potential, but a lot of work to do. I just hope they get to a good place over the next two games.
The few mistakes at the end of the game made the game close, when it shouldn't have been.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^
with a win and a chance to address the issues.
We will see this UMass game plan again and again this season as we play safe to protect the secondary and opponantes seek to keep the UM offense off the field.
We will improve if the secondary gets a bit healthier and gets better so we won't have to protect them as much.
That said, the DLs and LBs must keep contain and get some kind of presuure on the QB.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
The 2004 team was never the same after the momentum killing, hang on for dear life 24-21 win over San Diego State. Or that 2006 game against Vandy, who unlike Umass, actually had the ball once in the fourth quarter with a chance to take the lead.
Those teams never were able to regain their footing after a bad win. We are so flipping fawked, might as well turn the blog pink and fill it with kittens.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^
Vandy was the opener that year. Are you thinking of Ball State?
September 20th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
No, I am thinking Vandy, who had the ball once in the fourth quarter, down just 13-7 in that opener.
I have no idea how in the world the 2006 team overcame that performance in the opener. Combined with the BSU performance later in the year, I am sure the '06 squad went 6-6, right?
September 20th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
They overcame it with a beast named Alan Branch, that's how!
September 20th, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^
I guess you have a point, if winning 7 straight constitues "never [being] able to regain their footing"
September 20th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
There may have been some sarcasm in the post that you missed.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
I wrote my post based on memory, then looked up the 2004 schedule & results just to verify that I remembered that season correctly, then saved my post. Of course, by then then additional comments had been posted making clear that the original post about 2004 San Diego State was actually supposed to have been about 2006 Vanderbilt, and thus that the poster had been joking. Unfortunately I could not then delete my response, so I guess I'll just have to take the negs. Oh well!
September 20th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
+1 for owning up. :-)
September 20th, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
Jamiemac,
Had a question for you regarding to your post on point spreads last week. Thought you'd be more likely to see it here. Last season, after Tate's first couple of games and the win over Nore Dame, did you see any shift in point spreads (indicative of more people wanting to bet on Michigan) similar to what you saw last week? I'm wondering if people just like betting on Michigan when they think the team is good, or whether the shift this year is truly Denard-based.
Thanks!
September 20th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
I was amused by the ESPN crawler line re: Michigan escaping (or whatever it was). The game definately closer than I would have thought and maybe even closer than it should have been, but UMass never had possession with a chance to go ahead in the second half.
The D was bad but I was more disappointed in the offense not being able to hold the ball for more than three minutes in the fourth quarter. The Hagerup oopsie was not sexy either. The O could have done more to help the D, no doubt.
Ah well, on to the next one.
September 20th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
I am way more distraught at what happened in Tempe over the weekend, than what happened in Ann Arbor.
No Sugarcoat
September 20th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
one onside kick or one botched snap from losing to a 31 point underdog meets my expectation for escaping but hey i know it was all about your poor playing and nothing about an O Line that dominated.
September 21st, 2010 at 12:47 AM ^
Here's the story you'll tell your kids: "...and there was this one time where we almost beat Michigan, and then I totally went on one of their message boards to tell them how we almost beat them. It was so cool". Enjoy your moral victory that isn't one, champ.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
Really? Leaving aside the offensive performers on those two squads, here's who we had on defense:
2004 - Woods, Watson, Woodley, Harris, Jackson, Hall, Mundy, Shazor
2006 - Woodley, Branch, Taylor, Crable, Harris, Burgess, Hall, Mundy, Adams, Trent
Even if you assume that MM and Craig Roh are equivalent to Woods/Watson/Woodley/Branch/Taylor, the difference in LB and secondary talent—and experience—speaks for itself. A large number of these guys have played in the NFL, some currently at a high level. It's hard to envision very many of our current defensive players at the next level; either they're too green to know yet, or they've had three or more years and have shown very little.
September 20th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
Don, that is kind of my point
The 2004 and 2006 teams were light years better than the 2010 team should be. Yet, those teams laced with studs on both sides of the ball almost lost to teams that perennially are at the bottom or are in last place of their respective leagues. And that doesnt even mention the '06 squad almost losing a 4-win Ball State team.
So, the foe is similar. But Michigan is not. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
Yet, people are not just surprised, they are downright pissed and shocked and ANGAR about what went down on Saturday. Whatever. I've seen better Michigan teams struggle with worse foes.
Should be a good, hard week of practice. They've come back to earth after a pair of amazing wins. And we've seen teams lose a game like that all over the place so far this season. Win. And move on.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
No, not UMASS.
September 20th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^
against MSU, OSU & Wisky. One of them I wanna beat because I am tired of their chest puffing & tired of their sorry ass less than mediocre team beating us, and the other two because I feel they are our biggest & best competition of the year & have no chance at winning unless the D shows up with it's best offering.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
A close game allows us to thin the herd - that bandwagon was getting pretty crowded.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^
Rich Rod talked last week about "being good enough to play poorly and still win".
I think that needs to be qualified by the level of competition.
We were good enough to play UMass poorly and still win (and perhaps BG next week) but we're not at the level where we can play the Illinois, Purdues, and MSUs of the world poorly and win.
For me it's the definition of the difference between a 6-7 win team and a 8+ win team.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
Mike Martin is a great player. Seriously, he makes HALF the plays on defnse. He is Michigan's only great player on defense. Roh isn't there yet, he still needs to gain more bulk and power.
If Martin gets injured, I shudder to think how bad the defense will be.
Banks is a pretty good player. he made a number of solid, tenacious plays.
Van Bergen needs to step it up. He's been invisible.
Thomas Gordon is pretty good.
Mouton still runs himself out of too many damn plays.
Obi Ezeh is terrible. Sorry. Watch the game again and do nothing but watch Obi. Not only does he react slowly, but he misses tackles and can't shed a block to save his life. Its to the point where I'm starting to question his desire. He plays soft. And that isn't GERG's fault. The most troubling thing is...there isn't ANYBODY better than this guy? Demens? Anyone?
September 20th, 2010 at 12:03 PM ^
Ezeh was not the problem; loss of outside containment was the biggest problem. Mouton's mistakes were killers. On 4th and 10, he sucked inside and allowed the QB to roll out on a naked bootleg and buy unlimited time to find a reciever. Mouton also was burned around end on a 10 yard touchdown run in the first half. He was not the only player who lost containment as Roh, Kovacs and others did as well. I do not believe we ever contained the naked bootleg.
September 20th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^
Mouton had a bad, bad game. He took terrible pursuit angles. It was disheartening after his strong ND performance. (But that ND performance does show he is capable of playing better.)
September 20th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
Clearly they are halfway there: the offense lost focus and still put up 42 points and over 500 yards. The defense lost focus and... sucked. But there is hope that at least they are moving in the direction of the elite teams who can lose focus after huge, emotional victories and still come away with solid wins against crappy teams.
September 20th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^
A win is a win. We need 3 more for Bowl Eligibility, and that's fine by me. Get them how you take them for now. Then take them however you want to later.
September 20th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
we don't play to become qualified to receive a corporate check. we play to get into the final 16 and then we play for the NCAA Championship just like every school, in every NCAA sport, at every level except the charade of bowl football.
September 20th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
Good for you.
September 21st, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
Why is this emphasized in bold as if the lack of an playoff in FBS football is somehow Michigan's fault?
Also, why do you even post on this site?