2012 Football Regular Season in Review Snowflakes

Submitted by reshp1 on

Now we've had a couple days to hopefully calm down and regain some perspective after the OSU loss, I thought we could take a look back at the season in its entirety and collect thoughts and comments here. 

Here's the 2012 prediction thread

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/2012-season-record-prediction-thread

The median prediction seemed to be 9-3.

In retrospect, thinking we'd beat Alabama was extremely optimistic, we just aren't at that psuedo-pro level of talent yet. But the other three losses were very winnable except for one fatal flaw in each. Notre Dame may have been the heartbreaker of the year. We were outplaying, even dominating them in most aspects but just couldn't get out of our own way. In the end, 6 turnovers sealed our fate.

The story of Nebraska was, of course, Denard's injury. We seemed to have decent control of the game until Bellomy was forced into a role he clearly wasn't ready for. 

Ohio.... well, you know what happened.

On the positive side, beating Sparty and Iowa each ended embarrassing losing streaks. Gardner's emergence as a solid option has single-handedly reversed the outlook for 2013. Despite some slips here and there, it's pretty clear that the defense was no fluke and these coaches can turn out a stout defense even without elite talent.

The thing that struck me was how this season was a mirror to 2011. We won most of the close ones in 2011, we lost most of the close ones in 2012. 2011 the defense overacheived, 2012 the offense underacheived. We beat ND and Ohio in 2011 and lost to Sparty, in 2012 we beat Sparty but lost to ND and Ohio. One constant seems to be that we don't travel that well. That maybe the underlying story of 2012, all our tough games were on the road and we weren't able to win any of them.

Despite the some of the disappointment, I'm looking forward to one last game with (a hopefully healthy) Denard and these seniors.

 

 

 

 

MGoBoard
Football

The Baughz

November 26th, 2012 at 12:23 PM ^

Ya it did suck. Thats almost 3 losses a year. You must be one of those fans thats ok with mediocrity. Ill get negged for saying it like last time, but we are a mediocre program and will be until we can find an OC who knows how to call plays in tight games.

Joined: 10/08/2010

MGoPoints: 31923

the unsilent m…

November 26th, 2012 at 5:08 PM ^

Perhaps if we would not have been so stubborn about doing certain things on the field, we could have gone 54-8, or even better.  Regardless of where you are on the suck-o-meter,  THAT, would have sucked less.  Guaranteed.

Joined: 09/22/2012

MGoPoints: 172

Soulfire21

November 27th, 2012 at 1:31 AM ^

While I mostly agree, consider:

Our 4 losses are to teams a combined 45-3, including the two teams likely playing for the national championship, No. 4 OSU (AP Poll), and probably Big Ten Champ Nebraska.  We had them all on the raod.

Borges' playcalling on the road is suspect, and I was incensed after the OSU game, but he really does deserve some time here.  He hasn't been able to implement exactly what he wants because of personnel issues.  We ran one coach off without letting him put his system in place, now we don't need to be making such hasty decisions now.  That said, I do feel 2013 is a huge barometer year for Borges/our offense.  Gardner will be the more QB-type Borges wants, our OL won't have to change their blocking techniques as much (assuming we decrease our spread elements), etc.

Joined: 03/18/2010

MGoPoints: 22716

hart20

November 26th, 2012 at 11:17 AM ^

People tend to forget that. We were much closer to 6-6 than 11-1. Other snowflakes? Our OL is terrible, our clock management is terrible, our special teams is terrible, our RBs were below average, Denard never took the next step as a QB, JMFR is a beast, our defense is amazing, we have some pretty good DL for next season, pass defense is off the charts, I hate Ohio, I hate Urban Meyer, I hate ND, and Gardner is like Vince Young but stronger, faster, taller, a better passer, and has better hair and better style and more theoretical Heismans. Also, iPad formatting is terrible and running LiveBlogs is pretty fun and infinitely terrifying at the same time. I think that pretty much covers it.

Joined: 05/25/2011

MGoPoints: 5692

ish

November 26th, 2012 at 11:16 AM ^

i think the bottom line is that we played roughly to our talent - we won the games where we were favored and lost the ones in which we were an underdog.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 17413

Young John Beilein

November 26th, 2012 at 11:30 AM ^

This point has not been stressed enough in my opinion.  I think it is indicative of good coaching.  The guys showed up and played roughly to their ability.  That meant clubbing baby seals, and struggling (but fighting) against good teams.  I'm glad we did not have a letdown against any clearly inferior teams and once the talent develops, we will be winning championships.

Joined: 02/28/2012

MGoPoints: 1533

reshp1

November 26th, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^

Good point, I forgot to mention that in my original post. We didn't have a let down game (although NW was close, even though they are also a decent team) but didn't quite have the magic to take down the tougher opponents especially on the road.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

massblue

November 26th, 2012 at 11:16 AM ^

factor in college football.  ND could've easily lost 3-4 games this year and OSU could have lost 1-3 games.  If we could replay the year, UM could end up with 1 to 6 losses.  MSU and NW could have been losses. This means any prediction about future and any review of the year should take that into account.  We need to look at the progress the team is making.  In that regard the grade is B+.  We made great progress on defense and it is safe to say we will be better next year.  We did not improve on offense and there are reasons to believe that we would be worse next year. 

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 10396

Moonlight Graham

November 26th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^

It may be redundant, but the OP rightfully tags it as a snowflake thread. I like the way this one contrasted the last two seasons. I suppose they aren't "mirror" images of each other ... maybe antitheses? At any rate (here we go, let it snow), this coaching staff and program are headed in the right direction, and there really are no "mysteries" as to how they can take it to the next level. Continue recruiting well for depth; find ways to galvanize the approach on the road (something to do with reducing turnovers perhaps?) although next season's road sked is easier; and find a more consistent and effective offensive identity. Keep doing what you're doing on defense. Special teams? This is another area where there have GOT to be a few points to be gained. Did we attempt one single punt or FG fake this season? And there has yet to be a kick return TD in the Hoke era. 

Final snowflake thought for 2012 regular season. Dang, do Notre Dame, Ohio and Nebraska all look a lot like M did last year, catching some breaks here, making some plays there. I'm sure their fanbases were all grumbling about us in the same "lucky SOB's" vein in 2011. So be it. That's college football. 

Joined: 09/12/2011

MGoPoints: 7559

Jkidd49

November 26th, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^

but Iowa and MSU happen to be god awful this year so winning those two games , to me, is fairly meaningless.  I can't help but worry about the dark cloud that is this teams offensive inability to be flexible with personel, tendancies, formations, etc.

Joined: 01/30/2012

MGoPoints: 5147

ChuckieWoodson

November 26th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

You could also say that ND's win against us and Pitt were meaningless as well, right?  But, they're in the NCG.  Every year, a team is going to have close games.  Sure there's a bit of luck involved (thanks Pitt kicker) but thats the way it goes.  I really hate it when people start marginalizing wins and losses because they were "close".  Especially since (and I'm guilty of this too) typically we only look at the ones we lost closesly and not the one's we won closely as you pointed out.

If Michigan was 12-0 - we'd be rationalizing it and certainly not saying they shouldn't be.  People forget, 1997 despite the team being amazing - they "barely" beat Iowa, OSU and WS.

Joined: 01/13/2012

MGoPoints: 26222

turtleboy

November 26th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^

I think he's just saying that we didn't beat great teams in those two wins. He was speaking to the quality of our opponents. Talking about good wins against good teams versus teams we should've beaten. While we had embarrasing losing streaks against both teams, and beating them was certainly important, neither was a statement win from the football perspective, only the rivalry perspective.

Joined: 04/22/2011

MGoPoints: 35130

CRex

November 26th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^

Indeed, I think people need to talk themselves off the ledge.  We entered the season with severe offensive line problems when you consider how guys who should be on the depth chart had eaten themselves off the team (Posada) or been flipped to D Line after recuiting issues (Q Wash, although I have no issues with Q Wash's DT play).  Bryant who was either solid depth or pushing for a starting gig depending on which rumor you like, injured himself in camp.  In some alternate universe Michigan fielded a line with an interior or Washington, Barnum, and Omameh where things went well.  

Alamaba was a loss, period.  Our young players on defense weren't far enough yet that we could rotate them in and give the starters breathers.  Shit happened and it was ugly.

Notre Dame.  You live by Denard, you die by Denard.  Borges deserves some heat for that Vincent Smith pass, but when Denard makes that many mistakes you are screwed period.

Nebraska.  I think the Denard injury cost us that game.  In hindsight maybe we should have put Gardner in, but I think we should remember that it took Gardner some time to really settle in once he had the start.  Crap interior line play meant the Nebraska LBs would have been all over Gardner just like they were Bellomy.  Maybe Gardner generates more offense, but I'm sketpical that gives us a win.

tOSU:  Well we adjusted ourselves right out of a win there at half time.  Borges needs to get grill at the presser for this.

The issue I keep coming back to is the interior line.  I give the players credit.  Mealer went out there every play and delivered a perfect snap despite the fact he knew some large DT was going to trample him a moment later.  He basically settled down in front of the freight train and took one for the team almost every play.  Our guards tried, but they never ended up that great on pulls.  They had flashes of brillance, but those were coupled with blocks getting missed, and Vincent Smith having to desperately chip block someone in the backfield (with bad things happening when Smith missed that block).  

That said at the end of the day, 8-4 and 9-3 were the two most common projections and look where we are.  We were competitive in every game aside from Alabama.  Nebraska was a one point game until Denard went out and then shit went off the rails of course.

I think next year might be more of the same. We'll be fielding a line where at best Schofield and Lewan are the only two who have played together in games.  Bryant and Miller have time in the system but have never played on a line in a game, after that hello redshirt freshman and walk ons.  I foresee some scary games against strong front sevens next year.  On the plus side though Gardner is mobile and we can always move the pocket to buy time.   

I know after 2008 to 2010 it is hard to hear the words, but the team is rebuilding and this time seems to be doing better.  Talent recruitment is up, the defense is improved, we can kickj FGs again.  As for the offense, lets see where we are next year with a year of Devin stability and get a feel for the trajectory of the offense.  Next year we'll have the talent, with the caveat a lot of it is coming off of redshirts, so I want to see what gets installed and get a feel for where we are heading.  We're at the stage where the offense needs to stabilize and I'd like to see some improvements in kick coverage and punt returns.  

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 9010

profitgoblue

November 26th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^

The thing that interests me most is that it appears as though Borges has had two bad games in each of the two years.  Last year it was MSU and Iowa.  This year it was Nebraska and OSU.  Its almost as if he overthinks things sometimes.  (FYI - This is not a "Borges sucks" post, I just thought it was interesting to point out.)

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 19559

david from wyoming

November 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^

I have always thought that every NFL coachs over-thinks everything. It's a broad statement and I toss it out more as a conversation starter than anything, however, I think you are on to something here (since Borges=over-thinking backs up my thesis).

Hindsight is wonderful for analysis of small sample size events. We get to say a few play calls were bad out of ~40 in a game. Moreso, we do it in a total vacucum the next day or week.

 

Joined: 03/15/2009

MGoPoints: 2981

CRex

November 26th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^

Also I think with play calling, the grass always look greener on the other side of the fence for OCs.  You see their good calls on SportsCenter, you don't see that they send the tiny little runningback up the middle to die just as often as the guy currently cashing your team's paycheck.  It is always a fine line to walk been stability/installing a system and going after some hot new name who is stringing together an awesome highlight reel on ESPN.  

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 9010

Bosch

November 26th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^

Maybe have DG ready to play?  Doesn't fall completely on him but, as OC, it seems to me that he would have advocated for that option considering what he was looking at for back up in the very likely case that Denard had to miss some snaps at some point over the course of the season.

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8194

Jinjooappa

November 26th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^

It's got to be tough preparing one, let alone three, qb's in the short amount of prep time. I think it's really hard to blame Borges for not having the 3rd string qb ready to play.

Having said that, I'll concede that he should've been more prepared for the possibility that a backup qb would need to play. I'm not certain, but wasn't Denard's elbow injured before the Nebraska game? Also, he should've recognized that Devin was/is a better qb than Russell.

Now that I think about it, I guess it is all Borges' fault!

Joined: 07/13/2012

MGoPoints: 250

michfan6060

November 26th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^

After drinking record amounts of booze from 2008-2010, I thoroughly enjoyed 2011 where I was able to drink a moderate amount of alchohol. Unfortunately this season resulted in me drinking far more alcohol than I ever thought I was going to have to in the preseason. Maybe we can shock an SEC team and have a pretty good year.

Joined: 01/22/2011

MGoPoints: 1479

Gameboy

November 26th, 2012 at 11:30 AM ^

I really don't see anything different from last year to this year other than the fact that there were slightly more tougher road games this year (and we lost all of them - pretty much like last year). Hopefully, we can get better enough to win on the road next year.

Joined: 11/28/2010

MGoPoints: 9656

UofM Die Hard …

November 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^

write up. I dont know what to think about Borges, sometimes I feel with the talent coming in his play calling will look much better and sometimes I think he just isnt a good OC when its crunch time.  I think Hoke rides out with him though. 

 

Mattison is a genious and our defense is going to be scary in the coming years. Hail Mattison.

 

Tough  loss to Ohio but I think a solid season given the brutal schedule we had.  

 

 

Joined: 03/10/2011

MGoPoints: 18387

Jkidd49

November 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^

as i would have been livid with another MSU loss, but in terms of quality wins i don't count MSU.  Personally rewarding, absolutely, but they stunk this year so i don't count it as a quality win.

Joined: 01/30/2012

MGoPoints: 5147

chitownblue2

November 26th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^

We had a tough schedule, and we knew we had a paper-thin OL.

Losing Molk seemed to hurt much much more than I expected, which was possibly naive. The thinness off the OL meant we really had no options when the guys we had didn't work out. I think the OL was responsible for a bunch of our offensive struggles all year.

Losing our best player for 3.5 games and having him as a shade of himself for 2 more hurt badly.

Losing our best CB after about 10 minutes hurt, though I think Taylor played admirably.

All in all, looking at all that, it went about as well as I'd think it would.

If I have a major gripe, it's not the play-calling, or even the OL coaching (if you only have 5 viable players on the roster, it's a tough situation), but the use of Gardner. I think our WR corps turned out to be not quite as poor as we thought, so I wonder if it was necessary to essentially burn his shot of coming in relief for Denard to get him to mediocrely play receiver. That Nebraska game is probably winnable without that decision to shift him, and we win that, the OSU game is irrelevent in the Big Ten Championship picture.

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7178

funkywolve

November 26th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^

Agree but I wonder if that's because of their performance the last 4 games of the year with Gardner at QB.  Their production seemed sporadic at best with Denard throwing to them and it seemd like a common thread on this blog was the wr's were to small, can't get separation, etc. 

 

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 20263

profitgoblue

November 26th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^

Aside from Alabama and the several rivalry away games, did you really think the schedule was tough when we looked at it before the start of the season?  I assumed ND, Iowa, MSU, and Nebraska would be above-average and that OSU would be reeling after being put on probation.  If anything, I thought the consensus was that Michigan had a decent schedule setup to win a BCS-worthy number of games.

Also, I guess I never really realized that the OL was going to struggle as much as it did later in the season.  You probably could see it more clearly, that losing Molk would have a great effect, but I assumed they would be strong and the running game (other than Denard) would be better than terrible.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 19559

Duval Wolverine

November 26th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^

The thing Im most impressed about this team is the way we could compete with every team on our schedule besides the first game...some better decisions and/or other things going our way and this team could have gone 11-1.  The defense looks pretty good despite not having the elite level talent.  Jake Ryan looks like the only guy that will be a all big ten selection.  With guys, like Quinton Washington, Thomas Gordon, Raymon Taylor, Jibreel Black, Jake Ryan, and Frank Clark, our defense has a chance to be as good if not better than 2012.  Young talent guys like Joe Bolden, James Ross, Jarrod Wilson,and Ondre Pipkins also will increase competition and help improve the defense.  On offense for next year I think the two biggest question marks are offensive line and Wide receiver.  I believe our Running backs are capable of being productive and even good if we have improved run blocking.  And the Emergence of Devin Gardner will keep teams from loading the box against the run.  The biggest thing I notice with Devin Gardner is his hesitiation at time when releasing the ball.  With more experience I believe he will be more confident in throwing the ball before the wide out makes his break and will decrease the chance of DBs breaking on a late thrown ball.  Gardner's ability to extend plays, will also help receivers get open.  

Joined: 08/23/2010

MGoPoints: 2982

PurpleStuff

November 26th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^

Weird season, crazy schedule where we play three of the top four teams in the country, all away from home. 

For all the complaining about the state of the team and the many mishaps along the way, all we needed was one TD drive in the 2nd half against ND, Nebraska, and OSU.  Three makes for an incredible season, two for a really good one, and even just one would have made the year feel like less of a kick in the balls.

We got none and have to wait until next year.  The team is strong, the competition won't be as tough, and good things will happen.  Just sucks having to wait all year to see it.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

evenyoubrutus

November 26th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^

Here is my snowflake after "calming down":

You know that feeling that lingers a few minutes post blunt-force trauma to the testicles? the one that moves up into the gut and just sits there, making you want to die just to make it stop?  I have felt that constantly since Saturday.

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178424