The question I may not want answered: "Can anyone win with this team?"
I just have this nagging question after this last three game slide and wonder if anyone could win with this team as it is currently assembled? I am not talking about winning 7 games, duh, but being able to win a conference or 9-10 games.
I am not trying to be a doom-saying person, but if you assume the following
- The coaches put forth earnest effort to coach
- The players played their hardest for their coach
- We were as close to full strength as other teams this late in the year
It just makes me wonder about our ability to be successful any time in the near future after just getting successively mauled by Wisc, OSU and MSST since the gap still seems considerable for us to make the jump. Maybe the ceiling on this team is literally 7 games and mid-bottom of the conference, we have seemingly morphed into Indiana.
As scary as this sounds, in a way I almost hope that either the coaches were delinquent in their responsibilities to game plan (possible) or players just gave up (doesn't seem as evident) just so we have "reason" to explain their performance. Without that explanation, I am left with the hope that dramatic improvement, which was not evident from game 1 to game 13, somehow happens over the spring/summer which will enable us to actually be a contender next year. As it stands, that seems like a big ask for anyone to be able to accomplish. Looking for some wisdom from the board here.
EDIT: Apologies for poor wording. I am asking about the talent level team as it is currently assembled via the recruiting classes of the last few years. Could anyone do better with our current players than a 7-6 record? We seem undersized in many areas without having elite speed to make up for the size differential. If you say "yes", then it is the coach's fault. If you say "no", then we will require more than just this new recruiting class to bridge the gap.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
Que?
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Can anyone with this team what? (regarding your title)
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
Ah yes, the "blame it on the players" post. Classy.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
i couldn't figure out the title. does it mean he wants anyone with the team canned?
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
I'm not 100 percent sure what the OP was trying to say, but I think he said either the general suck of the team is because of the coaches or the players. I read the question of 'can anyone win with this team?' as 'maybe the players suck and it's not the coaches'.
Sorry if I read something the wrong way OP.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
OP was pushing the fact perhaps nobody could have done better with this roster
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
I interpretted it as a "these players are worthless, the sky is falling, and we should leave the B1G for the Mountain West conference" thread.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
We'd have to play Hoke every year then. The additional Hoke talk might blow the boards up.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
Well played sir.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
cio che?
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
Don't pay attention to Manuel, he's from Barcelona.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
I know "this is Michigan" and Craig James thinks we can just get a bunch of 5 star guys, but keep in mind just how young this team, especially on defense, really is. As assembled, I think 7 or 8 wins was about the ceiling for this team. Given the resonable expectations for young players improving, this team should continue climbing next year.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
ESPN would put Craig James in a darkened shed and throw away the key
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
It is so easy to underestimate the role of youth in college football. M has been playing with a lot of freshmen and sophomores this year which means that we have basically been fielding a JV team versus Varsity squads of OSU & Wisconsin. Another year and I think we will see a leap of progress as this disadvantage dries up.
With the constraints of college athletics (studies/class requirements, young physically developing men, limit of 4-5 seasons, etc), it's worth remembering that in some respects M football is much closer in spirit to your high school football team than it is the NFL.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^
there were actually quite a few upperclassmen who saw the field for the defense: Banks, Ezeh, Fitzgerald, Mike Martin, Mounton, Patterson, James Rogers, Sagesse, Van Bergen. Floyd and Kovacs were both red shirt sophomores.
8 of the top 11 tacklers (use 11 cause there was a two tie for tenth place in tackles) on the team this year come from the list of players above.
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/010111aab.html
After Jonas Mouton who led the team in tackles, the next four leading tacklers are Kovacs (sophomore), Demens (sophomore), C. Gordon (freshman), Floyd (sophomore who missed 4 games), then comes Obi Ezeh, then comes Craig Roh (sophomore), then comes the quartet of Rogers, Banks, RVB, Martin, then comes a trio of freshmen (Avery, Vinopal, T. Gordon).
Of the top 15 tacklers on the team, more than half (8) are underclassmen. I don't know where the hell you got the numbers you did from, but they aren't true.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:17 PM ^
Craig James just can't figure out where all the money is going. I mean, with 113,000 butts in the seats every saturday, all the boosters, tv revenue and licensed merch, why can't we afford to buy all the 5 star guys we want?
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
Pat, I'd like to buy a verb.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
it's a deep, meta-philosophical question about the meaning of meaning.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
is that there never was a question...The team is. There is nothing more.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^
can with this team.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
...who DID with this team, but I'm not naming names.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
Please identify the verb in this sentence:
Very little thought this thread's title.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^
Very little, thought this thread's title.
sentient thread titles are lazy thinkers.
January 3rd, 2011 at 6:05 PM ^
I am intrigued by your avatar and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
Is this what Tron was about?
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
Yes. This is the absolute ceiling. Time has stopped in Ann Arbor. No one will grow and develop further.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
I'm not sure, but I think he meant this 2010 season.
If I were to answer, I'd say 9 wins were possible. I don't believe Penn State was a better team, and then you only needed to steal one from the Iowa/MSU/Wisc./OSU slate. With better defensive coaching, I think that 9-3 was the absolute ceiling.
Edit: Nevermind, I think he's talking about next year. With the current roster, and an offensive system that takes advantage of Denard's skills, I think 9 wins should be the floor for what to expect.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
A coach whose staff emphasizes the fundamentals, in all three phases of the game, will succeed here. A coach who relies on schemes to mask his fundamental deficiencies will not.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
FWIW, you can have fundamentals in any scheme. In fact, the pro-style and 4-3 are "schemes" in the sense of the word. Wanna try again?
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:07 PM ^
Actually what I think jmblue is saying (not that he can't speak for himself), is that this Michigan team is not fundamentally sound. If so, jm is right. We don't tackle well, we don't kick well, we don't catch the ball well, we don't hang on to the ball well, we don't even line up correctly on a consistant basis.
When your team plays like that, the spread isn't enough, the 3-3-5 is no solution either.
If your team is fundamentally sound, just about any scheme will work.
Our guys need to be taught how to tackle, block, catch, hold the ball, line up, kick, throw, move on the snap, etc. Until they are, the improvement so many think we are going to show because the players are a year older and more "experienced" shall prove elusive.
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
I agree with you on all points but what he said was "A coach who relies on schemes to mask his fundamental deficiencies will not."
I read that to mean that RR can't coach good football fundamentals and is using his spread offense and 3-3-5 to mask the fact that he can't coach those. Smith is too small to be an every down Big 10 back. How many fumbles did he have this year?
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
Both of you interpreted it correctly. I hope our next coach stresses the fundamentals, because that doesn't seem to have happened under this staff.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
Wait. I can answer your question. The missing word is . . . . . win?
Serious answer:
Yes. We have a great QB. Unfortunately, that QB is still raw. Despite 2 years in the system, Denard still has machanical issues, decision-making issues and defense reading issues. Part of this is on the coaches. Part of this is experience. We have great wide-outs. Stonum, Hemmingway, Roy Roundtree, Tay, Grady - these are seriously talented guys. We have a strong, returning O-line. We have a stable of RBs - I would hope that a coach should be able to find at least 1 amongst the back that can do more than gain 1 yard on first down.
As for the defense, we were destined to be bad this year, but there is no excuse for being THIS bad. Even young, lower-talent kids can be coached up. I didn't see any coaching up.
So yes, we can be good again with this group, but in my opinion we need new leadership to get there.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
I agree with your points about DR being a very great talent albeit with issues(Mechanics, decisions, defense reading) but as far as the other items, I agree that the WR/SR's are very talented and have a lot of potential, but they are still making far too many mistakes to be considered great. Our best receiver this year, Roundtree, dropped a lot of passes this year, many at key moments of the game. None of the other guys showed the consistency to be considered great yet. don't get me wrong, im not bad mouthing them. I'm saying they are young, talented and inconsistent. The same goes for the RBs. we have several backs with good potential but none has been able to take the reigns at a position we have been desperate for a playmaker at. the door has clearly been open for one of these guys to become "The Guy" but none of them have. There have been flashes of talent. i know there have been lots of injuries and whatnot but again, talent, potential, inconsistency.
The D was destined to have a rough year I agree and I also agree that you'd expect some sort of growth and improvement along the way and there simply was not enough. I do think there is talent there and that these kids will be much improved next year. how much? i don't know. I'm not a coach but i will point out that I was one of those people who thought DR did not have a future at QB here at michigan. Boy am I glad to say that I was wrong about that one. My point is that when you watch him play from last year there was very little improvement when he saw the field from the first game to the last. He worked hard in the off season and became the starter and played well even with his particular issues. hopefully we will see the same growth and development on the D next year regardless of who is the coach.
My answer to the OP is I just dont know. I'd like to believe that it was very possible to win with what we have but I have never seen a team have as many true freshmen play on D as we had. I havent researched it or anything and I know we are not the first team to have a young D. I'm just saying playing w a D as young as this, especially in the backfield, is NEVER a recipe for success. Putting that much pressure on your offense to score early and often cannot be good either. so, i just dont know....ughhh...
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
} ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ZA ~ L G ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Z̙̜̝̞̟̠� �̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌� �̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚� �# O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠� �̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌� �̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ # ̎̏̐̑ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ A̎̏̐̑L̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉G̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉◊ख़҉̵̞� � ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝ ͡҉O҉ ̵̡̢̢̛̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟ ̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎ ̏̐̑̒̓ ̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̕̚̕ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ͡ ͡҉҉ C̓̔̿̿̿̕̚۩◊} O҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠� �̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌� �̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚� � M͡҉ E҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ S~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Z̙̜̝̞̟̠� �̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌� �̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚� �# ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ # ̎̏̐̑ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ A̎̏̐̑L̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉G̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉◊ख़҉̵̞� � ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝ ͡҉O҉ ̵̡̢̢̛̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟ ̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎ ̏̐̑̒̓ ̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̕̚̕ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ͡ ͡҉҉ ̓̔̿̿̿̕̚۩◊THEHIV EMINDISEATINGMYSOUL} ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Z̙̜̝̞̟̠� �̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌� �̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚� �# ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ # ̎̏̐̑ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ A̎̏̐̑L̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉G̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉◊ख़҉̵̞� � ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝ ͡҉ZALGOO҉ ̵IS̡̢̢̛The̛̛̖̗̘̙Cha otic̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟ ̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓ ̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̕̚̕ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ͡ ͡҉҉ ̓̔̿̿̿̕̚۩◊} Hivemind҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝ ̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕ ̚̕̚͡ ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Z̙̜̝̞̟̠� �̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌� �̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚� �# ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ҉҉ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ # ̎̏̐̑ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ͡҉҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ A̎̏̐̑L̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉G̔̕̚̕̚҉ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ ̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍ ̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚͡ ͡҉҉ ̕̚̕̚ ̔̕̚̕̚҉◊ख़҉̵̞� � ̒̓̔̕̚ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̕̚̕̚ ̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝ ͡҉O҉ ̵̡̢̢̛̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟ ̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎ ̏̐̑̒̓ ̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̕̚̕ ̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̕̚ ͡ ͡҉҉ ̓̔̿̿̿̕̚۩◊
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
Wow the first thing I see is a bacon cheeseburger. But I guess everyone sees different things.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
I broke my media 48hr media ban to post this. You sir are an idiot. This team returns 22 starters. Players tend to get better year to year.
I'm going back under the covers.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
I can't imagine what it's like under those covers after 48 hours of drinking and soiling yourself. But I guess wallowing in your own feces is better than the living hell I am putting myself through by reading CC posts and watching ESPN.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
...than the rest of the B10, who will also be "improving with age" right along with us?
From a purely philosophical perspective, this is RR's team now. If RR can't win big games with them, chances are no one else would be able to either.
January 3rd, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
That requires one major assumption: that this staff is coaching these guys as well as any staff ever could.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
OHH OHH! It's a Mad Lib. I'll give it a go.
"Can anyone POOP with this team?"
I love this game!
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
Charlie Weis could definitely poop with this team.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^
no way. he is that fat b/c he DOESN'T poop. fat charlie can never poop.
January 3rd, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
He needs to take the Activia Challenge.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
I don't want anyone to answer that question because it would mean that person is a raving lunatic.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
Well, I do respect you for having the guts to ask a tough question. I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone ask that question before.
I'd be more interested in winning next year. While the offense obviously wasn't as good as advertised, with further Denard improvement and one running back emerging, it could be a great offense next year. It's also quite possible for the defense to make a massive leap forward to mediocre. There's no need to be fatalistic just yet...
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
ok, verb and qualifiers with this team.