The Verdict Is, Unfortunately, In
10/24/2009 – Michigan 10, Penn State 35 – 5-3, 1-3 Big Ten
In my memory I have one hazy previous version of that thing from Saturday: I remember James Whitley was returning punts. He'd put a few on the turf here and there already but people were still in the "that's not enough data" phase and willing to give him a chance. On this day, whatever day it was, it was a little wet and Whitley fumbled. And fumbled again. And fumbled again. He finally got yanked and I think his replacement fumbled. I don't remember the opponent or the final score but I do remember that Michigan fumbled 12 times on the day and the stadium had 110,000 people in it who would have set a world record for most eye-rolls at an event if only someone was tracking it.
I don't know if it's a self-preservation technique for my brain, but Saturday's game is almost as hazy as that decade-old debacle. I have to squint to remember anything more specific than a single play on which a tight end drops a pass that Denard Robinson fumbles to a Penn State player who throws to a ridiculously wide open player that a linebacker is attempting, and failing, to cover. On the extra point, David Moosman snaps it through the endzone or something. I think the brain is attempting to prevent itself from getting bashed against the wall. I think the brain is wise to do this.
As the man says, mama said there'd be days like this.
--------------------------------------------------------------
When Michigan had just beaten Notre Dame and it seemed like the Irish were a team destined for an easy BCS bid instead of one that will win or lose on the last play against anyone except Nevada, hopes bloomed across the Wolverine diaspora. Personally, I remember contemplating an Alamo or Outback with Tim on the giggly post-Notre Dame podcast, and that was an explicitly keep-your-pants on sort of prediction.
How are everyone's pants now? Firmly adhered to various bits of your anatomy, I'm guessing. Stayin' there for at least two weeks. Waiting for Michigan to outgain an opponent in a conference featuring letters other than M, A, and C before relaxing to non-tourniquet levels.
So, yeah, Penn State was kind of a comedown. At this point it's undeniable: Michigan isn't good. Though well removed from the nuclear apocalypse they were last year, this is probably the second- or third-worst team at Michigan in 40 years, give or take a 2005 or 1984. That's disappointing after the mirage of the first few games, but it's not surprising. The reasons why have been detailed in this space and many others, before the season and during it: freshman quarterbacks, new defensive coordinator, terrifying defensive depth chart. Preseason predictions of 7-5 factored in the idea that Rodriguez was a good coach in a big hole.
And though Michigan's on pace to meet those expectations, it was the sort of weekend where I studiously avoid the internet for a day afterwards and am then immediately, repeatedly reminded of why when I break the boycott the day after. Many caps, much emotion, etc. I've got a few emails in the inbox from folks who annoyed the commentariat and got neg-banged under the 20-point threshold at which you can start your own threads, most of which say I can kiss the ass of the user in question*. You've been on the internet. You know. It's always the last thing that happened that will always keep happening forever.
Your personal level of outrage depends on how much blame you apportion to Rodriguez, Carr, Bill Martin (for handing a Carr team to Rodriguez), and/or general bloody-minded fate, and how quickly you think 3-9 turns into a good football team. Ugh. Isn't it tedious to go through this again? Anyone who's read this blog for a while knows it falls—or at least attempts to fall—on the ruthlessly logical side of things, adds this latest game to the pile of data, shifts its opinion a little bit, and continues believing that Rich Rodriguez is a good coach put in a really tough situation.
As Michigan progresses further into the Rodriguez era the amount of blame that can be laid at the feet of people other than the head coach decreases. It's not to the point where much of it is Rodriguez's fault, in my e-pinion. There are many teams that have looked bad with freshman quarterbacks and many more that have looked atrocious starting five underclassmen, one of them a walk-on, on defense. Michigan is in the middle part of the curve here, and if you're pointing to extreme outliers like Paul Johnson and complaining you are purposefully shutting out data that disagrees with your thesis and—well, and here we go again. I argue against the legions of people on the internet who don't like it when Michigan loses and have poor impulse control, the reader agrees for a bit and then gets annoyed that this column is wasting its time on that sort of thing, etc etc etc. We did this last year. A lot.
This is the first time we've done it in 2009, eight games in, and that represents progress of a sort. The progress on the field is equally obvious: hack out the game against Baby Seal U and Michigan is averaging 80 more yards per game than they did last year; they've only gotten throttled once. They haven't lost to a 3-9 MAC team. They beat a team with a winning record. They aren't going to be 3-9 themselves. By the standards of Michigan past this is a disaster of a year, but the only relevant team in relation to this one is 2008. This year is not evidence Rodriguez is a bad coach.
*(Seriously, multiple negbang victims have deployed "kiss my ass" in their emails. Does this signify that most of the victims are of a certain age? I can't imagine anyone under 30 telling someone to do that; the kids these days are more likely to break out the heavy artillery. One very tenuous suggestion that the older you are, the less patience you have. Which, obviously.)
BULLETS
- Rodriguez bitches, I've got a few:
I'm fine with deploying Robinson, but Michigan has to be more flexible with him. The difference between second and nine, when a Robinson run is still a plausible threat, and third and nine, when it isn't, is obvious: second down is an open seam that Koger (argh) drops; third down is a horrible interception. Bringing Robinson in is fine—he was effective, the third and long was the result of a penalty and a drop—but once it's a passing down, Forcier's got to come in.
Aigh spike. I thought the running plays that got Michigan down to first and goal were plausible; I was iffy about the call on first and goal, and disliked the second-down call, but understand that at that point you're really operating at speed and split-second decisions aren't always correct. From the three with the clock running and no timeouts my instinct is to pass because one way or the other the clock stops afterwards. After fumbling, though, a spike with 13 seconds left is pretty maddening. If you're going to run the ball, you have to have a pass play ready to go that you can just call.
I still think that Rodriguez's game theory stuff is pretty good, far better than Carr's; at least the mistakes he makes are of the quick-decision, (usually) slightly-too-aggressive variety. He didn't punt from the freakin' 33, as JoePa did Saturday and Carr did plenty.
- Did anyone else have a strangely positive impression of the run game after it was all over? The box score is illuminating: Brown, Minor, and Robinson combine to average 4.3 YPC; Forcier ends up with ten yards on 14 carries because of a lot of sacks. Brown also had a 20 yard run called back for an illegal formation. I'll take that against Penn State; the main problem with the run game this year has been an inability to get Minor and Brown more carries. They should be combining for 35 carries, not 20.
- Bonus: that was accomplished with Molk missing all but three plays.
- Meanwhile, Royster had 100 yards but averaged just 3.1 YPC after his 41-yard opener, which I'm pretty sure will be a huge screwup by Jonas Mouton. That's the defense's MO: pretty good physically, doesn't get pushed around consistently, prone to massive breakdowns.
- I don't think Forcier was nearly as bad as the numbers. He got crushed by drops, which were legion and extremely important. Third and long conversions clattered to the turf after bouncing through people's arms. Those are something close to turnovers in terms of overall negative impact on the game.
- Also close to turnovers: turnovers. Note that this site's suggested that turnovers are largely random but there are two things that consistently cause them: pressure and inexperienced quarterbacks. Michigan's got plenty of the latter. I expected Michigan to move towards the middle this year but remain somewhat negative. They've not done the former. They're 105th in turnover margin at almost –1 per game.
- Obi Ezeh's job might be coming under threat. Multiple times in the second half he was pulled for Fitzgerald, first for just one play and then for a few; each time Hopson pulled him aside and explained various things to him. I don't really blame him for the Quarless touchdown; what the hell was Michigan doing send him in man coverage on Quarless without safety help? Was there supposed to be safety help? I don't know.
- Robinson's tendency to send six or even seven guys on third down is catching up to Michigan. There was the first Moeaki touchdown, on which Iowa had a playcall specifically designed to burn an all-hands blitz, and then there were a couple instances against Penn State where an all-hands blitz was easily anticipated and exploited; Graham Zug was the main beneficiary. That was the main thing that got him open. Careful what you wish for, I guess.
- What in the hell is with Donovan Warren playing ten yards off the line of scrimmage? Penn State had eight free yards whenever they ran a long. I was iffy on Robinson when he was hired. While I'm willing to give them a chance and it's obvious that there's almost no way this defense could be good, stuff like that and the bubble screen mania against Michigan State are really disturbing. I have no idea what you could be running in which it's a good idea to play your top cornerback so far off the LOS that you're giving Penn State second and two.
- Not that anyone affiliated with Penn State will notice, but they were the recipient of some questionable calls. Didn't matter, obviously.
- Cissoko returned and Michigan showed its first semblance of a situational substitution all year: on obvious passing downs he would replace Williams and Woolfolk would drop back to safety.
- Speaking of Williams: he's basically the only scholarship player left at safety, and I know he was a four-star but you can't just point to one high-rated recruit and claim things should be better; recruits don't always pan out. To really be assured of talent at a position you need two or three high-rated guys, or at least veterans.
- The play on which Donovan Warren was shoved into Junior Hemingway needs to be a penalty. As we saw, it's dangerous as hell. Kick catch interference should extend to people you're blocking into the returner.
I was actually coming here because I really like Brian's football analysis and was hoping to see some serious discussion of the game (got SOME, just not as much as usual) and also an opinion about where PSU was good and where they weren't. You see, getting opinions on your own performance from your own fans is kind of stupid - leading to base homerism. I'd rather hear what the other guys have to say - and in this case, I got nothing but "we beat ourselves" which was very disappointing.
So, no, not looking for validation, but you guys are, in this one way, pretty darn special - in that you seemingly can't give credit at all when you got your ass thoroughly whooped, unlike even the ridiculous homers at BSD who for the most part credited Iowa when they took it to us.
This is astounding. You went on a single thread on another team's blog and the posters on that single thread didn't spend enough time detailing all of the ways in which your team was better than the other team? You are "disappointed" to find that the posters on the other team's blog spent more time noting how their f'd up than crediting your team's brilliance?
How is this possible? Do you frequent a special corner of the internets where partisans discuss in sober terms the reasons for their lives not turning out the way they had hoped? Are you an inveterate whiner? Are you Nell?
Just sayin'.
Compare/contrast, again, to the megahomers at PSU's BSD, who somehow manage to talk about the Iowa game while, and here's the important part, BOTH talking about what PSU did bad AND mentioning that Iowa played a hell of a game and is a much better team. Not just the one.
The last part, here, on mgoblog, you know, the blog of the guys who are supposed to be the least delusional in the Big Ten, was lacking until very recently, and produced ONLY as part of an effort to attack the messenger. Go back and read this thread, in chronological order, if you don't believe me.
Or wallow in your own crapulence. Either way.
Why does anyone have to say how much better penn state played on saturday? We watched the game everybody did. You dont see posts here saying LOLZ If Big Blue put DENARD in the WHOLE TIME he would have ran all OVER PENN STATE CAUSE they suck!!!1!!#!!#W!11!
That's a delusional post, analyzing your teams flaws isnt discrediting the other team. Nowhere has anyone said how penn state wasnt good or didnt play well.
Why is it "stupid" for Michigan fans to seek out the thoughts and opinions of other Michigan fans about our team's performance? That's pretty much what we do around here, I think. Would you rather have us break down PSU's performance based on a sample size of 1? Also, the comments on this blog in the aftermath of this weekend's game pretty much disprove your thesis about "base homerism," don't they -- I haven't seen a lot of folks sugarcoating Michigan's performance.
Anyway, I suggest you come back for the UFR, which is likely the most discussion you'll get about PSU's performance. Even then, you might be disappointed -- we're more concerned around here with the next game on the schedule, and discussions about PSU's greatness don't really shed much light on that. See you next year.
Mike, coming from a fanbase that clings to 2 seconds in 2005, a questionable sideline call in 2002; and coming from a blog that honestly writes that PSU will "have to overcome the refs" against Michigan...you're complaining about sour grapes?
Further, you're building an enormous strawman here. Nobody said that Michigan lost because of referees - your defense pounded the shit out of us. Pointing out that the one play that caused the blocker/returner collision is a possibly dirty play doesn't invalidate the fact that PSU was the much better team. But that said - how could you watch that game and NOT think that Michigan was murdering itself? I don't think we would have won even if we hadn't, but when the team, as they've done frequently, turns the ball over like nuts, fails to make tackles, and drops 7 passes, how can Brian claim that Michigan played well with a straight face? You guys won. You outplayed us. Your defensive tackles destroyed our offensive line. Happy?
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
Getting there. If in 2002 and 2005, UM had beaten PSU by a couple of touchdowns, your analogy might have some applicability here.
This is the first time in this entire thread that anybody has said PSU was the much better team. How many comments in now? Brian still hasn't said it, and obviously doesn't believe it either (unless it's by subtraction, i.e. "PSU is the much better team because of how bad I now know we are").
Again, compare/contrast to how the inveterate homers at BSD handled the Iowa loss.
If you truly want folks around here to acknowledge how much better PSU is or how they manhandled Michigan, you're sure going about it the wrong way. If you've been on MGoBlog for more than 5 minutes, you surely know that complaints of mistreatment or bad behavior by others (e.g., why did I get negbanged for that?!?!?) don't tend to produce the desired result. Whatever I might think about PSU's performance, I sure ain't gonna tell you now! Childish? You betcha! It's the Internet!
Just a little weird complaining about how no one will validate your team's win? Leaving aside the debate surrounding the nature of MGoBlog's collective response to the game: why the shit do you care whether anonymous people from a blog devoted to a different college football team aren't super nice to your favorite team? Why does validation from the Michigan fan base matter to you at all?
Go to threaded view. Find the comment to which I first responded. There's your answer.
Well, if you're looking for a Michigan online forum to be a beacon of rationality, or ANY college football forum, for that matter, I'd suggest you're looking in the wrong place, Mike. Your tinfoil hat readers think the evil Big 10 refs want to screw over the hated...JoPa? Ours think that Lloyd Carr is trying to flouridate our water supply. Take it with a grain of salt.
Also, Brian's immediate post-game columns often aren't nut-and-bolt break-downs, but an emotional response. I'm sure that when you read the UFR, you'll see plenty of "Odrick kicks Huyge's ass" littered all over the place.
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
One thing you need to remember. There are a lot of very rational posters that avoid this board like the fucking plague for a few days after a loss like this because of all the dumb shit the MGoIdiots and Trolls post. I waited until Sunday night or Monday to read most of the nonsense, and even then I know which idiots are bitching to bitch and which people have valid responses and criticisms.
PSU curbstomped us. Straight up beat Michigan's ass. Is that what you want to hear? I'll admit it.
Here's a video replication of what it looked like. (Note - this is the scene from American History X, don't watch it if you get queasy over shit like this)
Just because there aren't a number of posters saying that we got flat out beat doesn't mean that people don't feel that way.
I thought we were all hoping for/predicting a 6-6 to 8-4 record for this year. I think we're still on pace for that. There really haven't been any surprises--the D probably isn't going to be very good and we are young on O. There's a reason teams don't like to start true frosh QB's (we all knew that here) and we're being reminded of it. I was very disappointed with Sat because I thought it would be RichRod's signature B10 win. I don't like that we've lost our last 3 B10 games but we are still in process of a young team learning about competing in this conference. The coaches aren't idiots and see these guys practice everyday. Can we just enjoy the last 4 (hopefully 5 with a bowl game) games and look forward to a good recruiting class?
2010 = Year of Justification and Redemption!
NO FLY ZONE!!!
I totally agree with the comment that it needs to be a penalty to block a player into the kick returner on a punt. I really thought it was a penalty. At first, i thought Warren and Hemingway were toast. This alrady has enough defensive holes to fill.
I may get totally bashed on this, but I think DRob needs to sit and watch the remainder of the season, or at least be in for only a very certain set of running plays. As much as people seem to dislike Nick Sheridan, I think he at least knows the offense and could manage a game if needed.
If my memory serves me right, the turning point of this game WAS NOT the safety. It was DRob's stupid read on the inteception. I sat in the endzone behind him on Saturday (Section 12, row 13. I saw the PSU player and wondered how he didn't. Anyway, that was the turning point. The Michigan D actually stopped PSU and JoePa punted. I would have punted there too -- got a great defense and you pin a young offense in the hole. Plus, no one talks about the weather. The weather sucked. That whole series was a disaster waiting to happen.
I thought if they scored 7 instead of 3 right before half, thing may have turned around. But alas, no.
Let's just hope they can pull one out against the Illini. Illinois has to be thinking this is their "get well week".
You made Clark look good.
Michigan is an idea in search of a subject.
At some point this blog might start studying what makes a football team good, and it's not doing really, really well against Connecticut.
Mr. Boh knows ...
We don't play UConn 'til next year. Move along please.
Edit: damn, dude above beat me to it. Still, go away.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
little tiffs on here but you are a fucking asshole & an idiot. Move along sir, move along...
Did you honestly come on another team's blog to chide its bloggers for not serving a more productive purpose? Yikes.
Also, what on earth does your second point mean?
Despite these things, I am glad you're here. Your avatar reminds me that I haven't skullfucked an Italian in a while.
You assert national relevance and sports-commentary brilliance -- and then say, "Leave us alone, you mean person." Note: UM says it's important and unique, and it's bloggers go on, and on, and on, about how it's unique.
Anyway, your program is under NCAA investigation, the coach (with a 7-figure W-2) has a negative net worth, a pending bank fraud case, you got beat by 25 by PSU at home, and you're still trying to play a 175 lb. QB in an option-run game. So you get huffy and aggressive about unsupportive comments. Sure.
Mr. Boh knows ...
This is getting less understandable by the minute. What, in your view, ought we do, given the facts you present in your second paragraph?
By the way, I never told you to leave. I just mocked you for coming here, which isn't even the blog of the team your team just played. You're an Iowa fan, right?
Anyway, you're a curiosity. What is it you're looking for? Iowa is having a great year and has already done two things UM couldn't--beat PSU and MSU. You should be happy and proud.
Ferentz would have been a disaster. Too much emphasis on discipline, strength, composure, and control. Remember? It was all entirely clear, how bad a coach he is, here.
Mr. Boh knows ...
Discipline? Like when he tried to cover up a rape? Ah yes, that discipline.
But Falcon Seven, I'm decoupaging! If I leave now, it may bubble!
We need to ride the running game a lot more than we are doing. Minor and Brown were for the most part really good yesterday, they just need to get the ball a lot more than they are getting.
Brandon Smith was pretty awful at kick coverage yesterday. I'm not sure how he's been the rest of the year, because it's much easier to tell when you're looking from the end zone ... but I don' think his overall ungainliness when changing direction and inability to keep outside contain bode well for his future as a linebacker. Anyone with more educated thoughts about this?
Living in PSU territory I've had to listen to Daryll Clark breaking down the game every :30 on local radio. He sorta laughs as he talks about Michigan's coverage and I'm looking for the audio to post on here.
He says...We knew they were going to run basically two coverages and we practiced for them all week. We knew they would run a lot of 2-deep with the safeties split REALLY wide which would open up the middle.
We've got a bad AND predictable defense.
............
Our helmets have wings
Just ask USC.
Eh, Clark is talking to a rather partisan crowd and is probably playing it up a bit. Iowa basically runs the same defense against every team, yet Clark threw a couple of picks and looked lost out there. I'm sure PSU knew what they were going to run; Iowa just ran it better than UM did. In this day and age, every team should "know" what the other team is going to do on offense and defense - there might be a few wrinkles here or there, but for the most part it is the same base coverages. Clark may need to brush up on its radio tact a bit, but when you throw for a career high in TDs, I guess you can gloat a bit.
Is this just sensitivity/homerism to be bothered by that? Clark's gloating comments irk me. It's unseemly, to smugly describe how easy we made it for them. I don't care if it's true; I thought the norm was to make up some gentlemanly b.s. about how your well-and-truly beaten opponent posed a challenge to your team in some way.
Funny, I was looking for just one place where Brian indicated that Penn State had a very good team (better than he thought, perhaps) and didn't find one. A couple of commenters got to it, eventually, but most of y'all still think you owned the win by birthright but just choked against your other little brother.
We will henceforth devote this Michigan blog exclusively to all things glorious about PSU.
"You guys were b - b - b - b - b"
"Ah, screw it. You only won because we played poorly!"
You see how me and RUTS talked about Iowa up there? That's how you talk about teams that line up and beat you - teams that are better than you thought they were; teams that played better than you did (no, not just because you choked). Seems like the Michigan Man could use a refresher on the Man part.
Or, like, hey the Penn State "Man" (ha, I had a hard time getting that one out) could learn not to troll on a blog after a big win.
But Falcon Seven, I'm decoupaging! If I leave now, it may bubble!
He seems to be saying that Penn State won due to Michigan's ineptness -- why can't we say the same?
The MOST you could say about Clark's comments is that he was attributing some of our success on offense to your ineptness. The defense was responsible for quite a bit of the win as well, in case you didn't notice while focusing on all the things you did wrong.
Oddly enough, we are focusing here, at this Michigan blog, on things that Michigan did wrong (and right). No doubt you can direct me to a PSU blog where I can read a thorough and fascinating discussion about what teams other than PSU are doing right and wrong. Heck, there's probably a whole section of their board devoted to tips-of-the-hat to the fine play of other teams. Since you've got that covered, we can devote our attention -- again, at this Michigan blog -- to what our team is doing.
Doesn't it seem just a tad bit "little brother"-ish to come looking for validation of your team's performance at another school's blog?
Take-home message from Clark's comments -- he's nothing special, and thrives only against the most predictable and error-ridden defenses. Funny, you'd think he'd want to give himself some credit, rather than attributing his success to the other guy's f***-ups. Maybe we should admire his modesty?
I want sick-nasty angry players with a coordinator that knows how to use them effectively. That's all I ask. Please please plase!!!
I want to trick-or-treat in a neighborhood where the houses give out sick-nasty angry linebackers and safeties.
One of these clouds must have a Maize and Blue lining ...
mirrors one of Brian's. When we stick with the running game, we magically have a pretty good offense. I wish RR would ride Minor and Brown, and to a lesser extent Forcier and DRob, until we are forced to punt. I think we need to do this on at least two or three possessions per game. It wouldn't bother me one bit if we ran on 3rd and 10. Next season, it might bother me. However, this season we need to go with what works.
I'm gonna take two weeks off, and then quit.
It drives me crazy that Minor and Brown (or Shaw) don't get more carries. Forcier ran the ball 14 times against MSU. Brown and Minor combined for 10 carries in that game. Are you kidding? I agree with Brian that Michigan's primary RB's need to get the ball 35 times per game.
like that one magnificent 4th quarter Iowa drive.
M'Dog
He's not 100%, the game is lost, what was the point of having him in at the very end? Maybe I could see keeping him in for game experience if he was healthy; maybe. But he's hurting and exposed. He took one hit towards the end that I'm sure didn't help matters. I think that this should also be noted as a bad coaching decision.
Stymie2000
Am I remembering incorrectly, or was the play prior to the spike (the one where Tate fumbled) supposed to be a pass play? Not that there aren't grounds to criticize what went down in the last series of plays before the half, but I don't think they were running the ball at that point. Whatever the prior play call, however, I agree that it should have been possible to take a shot at the end zone on third down, rather than spiking the ball, but I assume the coaches thought Tate was too discombobulated at that point (having just fumbled) to run a real play.
msu in the last 16 seconds of the 4th Q. Another play for the end zone could and should have been attempted but the offense was clearly scatter brained.
Thought we were discussing the Michigan/PSU game?
[edit -- oh, sorry, I see your point -- Iowa had enough time, why didn't we?]
For whatever reason, this post had a little bit more of "the sky is falling" than I would have hoped, Brian.
Molk injury is rough, though. Damn... Moosman and Tate better get together on the shotgun snap. I don't want to see one more fuck up on that all season (it's quickly becoming last season's "catch the damn ball!!!" on special teams).
http://sportsdrill.blogspot.com/
I think on the Quarless touchdown, there was supposed to be safety help but the safety (Kovacs, I think) moved outside when he saw the receiver take off running downfield and didn't expect the tight end to be the guy streaking deep instead. I remember the announcers pointing out the cover 2, and in the replay, the safety was drifting outside and by the time he saw where the deep man was going, he was ten yards away, moving toward the line, and about level with Quarless. Can't fault Ezeh, he sprinted downfield as best he could but he's a linebacker.
Blogging the once-resurgent Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com.
"This year is not evidence Rodriguez is a bad coach."
Everything relevant is evidence. More is required before an accurate assessment can be made.
The opener's opening kickoff gave me great hope, as the kids were running and tackling, instead of loping and grabbing. But there remain problems.
Having only (not very good) television coverage to see, it is hard to tell whether some of the passing problems are failure of receivers to break open, or, worse, receivers running wrong patterns which cause them to be bunched in areas with many defenders. Too many times it looks like two M receivers are in each other's zones, bring defenders with them. Receivers who get open quickly make QBs and OLs look better; QBs who are outstanding make WRs and OLs look better; top-flight OLs can make QBs and WRs look better. It is synergistic. I rely on the blogger to inform me, either by looking at film or asking the coaches.
Fundamentals are not what I would hope to see. The receivers too often fail to catch with their hands, too often start running before securing the ball, too often wait for the ball to get to them instead of going for it (yes, I know there are situations where that might cost an important two feet or even two yards). The tacklers too often reach out to grab at instead of running all the way to the ball carrier, and too often drop to their knees prior to contact. These are coaching issues. One of the toughest things for young players is to understand that they no longer are head and shoulders better than the other players on the field, and that they must do it right in order to succeed against the better athletes they are now facing. And it is coaching that has to get that across to them. Woodley didn't seem to get that point until his final season. When Tom Brady first got a lot of playing time, he struggled with getting the ball to the RBs on handoffs. Forcier and Robinson from time to time attempt what they could get away with in HS, and, while that is understandable, it is also why they sometimes make what look to us like silly plays.
There are too many penalties of the type that should never happen. Lining up incorrectly should not happen, and certainly no individual player should be penalized for that more than once. But Ortmann has been called for being off the LOS at least 3 times that I saw, and I don't watch 100% of 100% of the games. Holding penalties on running plays, especially in the red zone ( I haven't this year seen Michigan get one in a goal line situation, but Iowa did against MSU), are inexcusable. All the player needs do is not reach around behind the defender, or, easier yet, close his fists. I know even in the NFL there are dummies who block in the back on kicks, but, again, those are inexcusable.
As for recruiting issues, what you recruit isn't always what you end up with, for good or ill. Dave Gallagher was supposed to be a LB and almost didn't get a scholarship. Randy Logan came as an offensive player. Jay Riemersma for two or three years rode the bench as an aspiring QB. Ian Gold was listed as a RB for at least one, and probably two years. Rich Strenger came as a TE, was behind Parris and Muransky until he was in his last year of eligibility, and was All Big 10 OT and went to the Lions where he started for several years. And there are many others.
IMO where Lloyd was failing as things went on was he endured asistant coaches who were ineffective teachers (Andy Moeller as an OL coach leaps to the front) out of loyalty (or nepotism). Along those lines, I also noticed a lot of Detroit Catholic Central (where I went before Brian was born) kids on the roster, but, in fairness, some of them may have been walkons. And Joe Sgroi became a very good LS. Carr, as you may know, nearly became DCC's coach before coming to UM, and his son Jason went there, too. But loyalty in college football is important, so kids who take until their 3d and 4th, and sometimes 5th years, to develop (e.g., Strenger) stay and do the hard work necessary to do that developing, instead of leaving for perceived greener pastures. Or quitting.
What it is starting to look like to me is that RR is very clever at devising offensive schemes, but maybe not so good at developing players, except perhaps spread QBs and slot receivers. As such, he is going to have to get some top-flight position coaches. There are also weather issues. West Virginia is not all that much balmier than Ann Arbor, but it looks like we are coming out of the cycle of mild autumns we have enjoyed the past several years, and returning to colder, wetter weather. Michigan's four seasons really are (1) nearly winter, (2) winter, (3) still winter, and (4) road construction. And while the Big 10 may be full of "frauds", they are still frauds (especially, MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin) who are physically punishing, more so than many other places. But RR does look ambitious and willing to work hard, and he will probably get better as he learns.
Oh, final thought. On the play Moosman snapped it out of the endzone, his apparent assignment was a reach block on a DL in a 3 technique. Isn't that an unusual risk on a play from one's own goal line?
jim48315
that someone else calls out RR's assistants. I think they must be awful. In general.
I thought so after last year, and I have to continue to believe the same thing now. I would have loved to have seen the assistants stay the same with a new HQ when Lloyd left.
Wasting away in Ohio, a Wolverine in a sea of red and grey
I didn't see you make any mention of Craig Roh, who appears to have been benched somewhat as the game progressed. He appeared to have been mostly neutralized, or else he wasn't part of the defensive scheme in the second half.
Roh's been a really great freshman for much of the year. On Satruday, he just looked like a freshman to me. Saturday might have been the general 2009 low point for our freshman starters and two-deep players.