Last week, I argued that the State of Michigan's Union was strong.  I watched the Iowa game on television in LA yesterday and found myself pissed off and annoyed in a way that was different from the MSU game last week.  It reminded me of how I felt after last year's ND game -- a big win was in our sights, and we pissed it away because we couldn't hold onto the football.  But I let 24 hours pass in order to clear my head, and have decided that my statement about our team's position remains true.  I articulate the reasons why, and then close with a concern.

1.  GERG is doing his job extremely well.  At the time of his hiring, I questioned the wisdom of bringing in the former head coach of a losing program like Syracuse.  I have since become a believer.  The Michigan defensive line last night was absolutely terrific.  I thought our linebacking was improved over MSU.  Our corner play was, I thought, great.  Obviously, the safety play was terrible, but when you have the always-hustling but not fast walk-on in Kovacs, and a disappearing Boubacar who is necessitating weekly personnel changes, what can you do?  What really impresses me is the defense's ability to come on after an offensive turnover in the red zone and hold them to a field goal.  One obvious point: our ineptitude on third and very long is more than a little weird.  I don't think I've seen Michigan give up conversions on 3rd and 25 in consecutive games.  Still and all -- the takeaway for me is that GERG is dramatically improving our defense and that they played well enough for us to win.

2.  Our offensive line is also improving.  First, hats off to Moosman, who has learned an entirely new position in just three weeks.  I didn't see one errant snap.  When I saw Iowa's defensive line eviscerate Penn State, I thought "Man are we screwed."  I can't say enough about how well the O-Line set up the run game.  If anything, I spent much of the game complaining that we weren't running more.  Two of our scoring drives involved almost solely running -- and the first one (with Tate at the helm) involved a lot of I-formation and other non-spread sets.  The O-Line got it done on the running front, and was passable in pass protection.  Good job.

3.  The team continues to show tremendous heart in hostile environments.  I have never been to Kinnick, but I am told it is an Autzen-like place to play -- very devoted fans, who are loud and really come out for their team.  To see this team, with two frosh QBs, a number of walk-ons, and a number of guys playing out of position, fight and fight and still have a chance to win notwitstanding all that went wrong was, for me, a key sign that Michigan is still Michigan.  We never quit on you and we will fight to the end.

I think you can legitimately chalk this game up to turnovers (although you need to remember that we got a pick 6).  If you view turnovers as something that (with respect to fumbles) is somewhat random and (with respect to picks) is part of Tate's continued learning process, this is one of the better ways to lose a game. 

The takeaway -- this team is better than we hoped, and has a fighting spirit that impresses each week.  I love this team.  For my money, if we play that game ten times, we win 4 or 5 of them.  If we play it at home, I think we win 6.  The Vegas line was clearly way off.

A closing concern.  From my vantage point, it has become faddish on Mgoblog to support Rodriguez no matter what.  Rodriguez critique is typically roundly condemned.  So I will start with my traditional caveats in the hopes of staving off some of the typical pushback: I am a supporter and continue to believe that we were very lucky to luck into a coach this good.

That being said, I have been watching Rodriguez closely and am not impressed with his in game demeanor.  The guy rips into players virtually every time they come off the field.  He was in Forcier's face 3 or 4 times.  You have this nagging sense that Rodriguez's brain is wired to say to himself "Given that I am offensive genius, when things don't work out, it must be someone else's fault."  Ripping Tate a new one repeatedly isn't being a coach -- it's being a brat.  Saying "Tate needs to get that fixed" as you run off the field at the end of the first half when you are referring to a fluke slip of the hand is just petty.  And allowing your fit of pique to lead you to take the ball away from a guy who has led three stunning fourth quarter comebacks is to allow emotion to control over reason.  Through the entire first half, I was begging Rodriguez to run more.  I really questioned the playcalling -- I think you have to dial it back a bit on the road and try to manage the game more.  And no, I am not surprised that we turn the ball over a lot on the road when we have a super-complex offense that requires every player on the team to spend the last ten seconds of the pre-play NOT thinking about what they are going to do, but rather looking over at Rodriguez as he "makes adjustments" to "what he is seeing in the defense."  Lloyd and Bo weren't ones to spare the lash -- but they did it with purpose in specific situations where it was merited.  They didn't do it as a habit to vent stress.  Hell, Bo was too busy shredding the refs to divert precious time to shredding his own players.  I am not yet seeing an on-field leader in Rodriguez.  An offensive coordinator and a brilliant one?  Absolutely.  A head coach?  My jury is still out.