2012 Football Regular Season in Review Snowflakes
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.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^
I hate these snowflake threads. All they are is bitching, but I am pleasently suprised to read a positive and realistic outlook for once. I still think we are two years away from having the depth and talent across the field that OSU has...Their Scholership situation gives us the perfect avenue to pull ahead of them and to change the long-term trajectory of this series.
Next year, I think 10 wins is realistic, despite the shortcomings. If we can pull a Green and/or Treadwell (looking grim on LT), I think we might be able to expect a lil more if they come in as advertised.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
They were playing a converted fullback at middle linebacker, true freshmen on the d-line, an underclassman at QB, and have all kinds of issues just making a tackle.
Acting like we lost because they are some juggernaut is just silly.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^
Let's also not act like we should have manhandled Braxton Miller simply because he's an underclassman. He hit his receivers and made some nice runs. He was helped out some by bad tackling and bad coverage, but credit him for taking advantage. Sophomore or not, he's one of the most difficult QBs in the country to defend.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:46 AM ^
I don't remember seeing many comments that talked negatively about the defense post-Ohio.....the defense gave up yards but played a solid game considering they were on the field much of the second half. Miller is a beast and a tremendous player. It is OK to hate your enemy, but to not see Miller as a talent is to deny what seems obvious to me. He carried Ohio as much this season as Denard carried us.
I still have a hard time about the absurd play calling and the fact that one of the most excitng and perhaps the speediest player in America was standing on the sidelines for much of the 4th quarter.
I called for a 9-3 season based on schedule. I had the feeling for most of the season that the team had lots of issues, particularly on O and with certain parts of the special teams games. I'm sure personnel had much to do with this, but some of the offensive schemes were poor and fell squarely at the feet of the coaching and play selection.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^
One sad parallel that I make is (or are) the endings of the Notre Dame and Ohio games. With one score and one defensive stop needed in two huge games they fell short. Who among us didn't believe that we had one heroic stop left and one miraculous Denard or Devin play left with three minutes to go?
November 26th, 2012 at 11:48 AM ^
the freshman didn't start on the D-line, even with Simon out, the D didn't start to play well UNTIL that converted fullback started at LB, and the underclassmen at QB had 3x more starts than Gardener. I didn't see anything in the comment above hinting that OSU was a juggernaut, just that they are more a talented/complete team than M at this point.
OSU does currently have a talent edge on M ime -more precisely depth of talent and experience. They still have weaknesses - LB, WR, O-Line, and a RB that truly fits the spread come to mind - and they have not completely addressed these in recruiting to date.
Side note: It really sucks that this loss probably would have felt better if they pwned us instead of being a game that we could have/should have won.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^
This loss would have hurt a lot more if Nebraska had lost to Iowa.
November 27th, 2012 at 1:28 AM ^
Assuming we don't regress largely (mostly talking OL here when we will be looking to break in some talented youth), I do think 10 wins is reasonable.
1) No Alabama, managable nonconference slate.
2) A likely Top 10 ND team visits in Week 2, but will have lost much of the team from their magical run this year. Beat them and that sets the tone for the year.
3) Tougher matchups at home (ND, Neb., OSU); Hoke and Co. have been wonderful at home. Not sure how long we will keep our undefeated in the Big House streak, but you've got to like our chances.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
This team was totally incapable of winning on the road. The real question is what caused this? Commence Borges bitching, but - our playcalling in every one of our road losses was atrocious (Save Nebraska, which, yeah). At ND, running with Denard seems to be working so what do we do? Throw the ball. To the other team. Against Alabama, electing to take the ball out of the hands of our best runner without Toussaint? I won't even get in to the OSU debacle.
The real question is this: is this level of offensive coaching Michigan caliber? And will Hoke's loyalty to Borges override that sentiment?
November 26th, 2012 at 11:21 AM ^
We also played all the best teams on the road this year. I don't see a way you can say anything about winning on the road if you control for quality of opponent.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
But I really think he expects the same from coaching as he does his players. Unfortunately you cant bench a coordinator. I just think we are going to see real offensive talent shy away from us because Borges. I mean if he can't use one the most dangerous offensive weapons in CFB history to his advantage, whats he going to do for them?
Hopefully Hoke see's this as whats best for Michigan here, Can anybody imagine what Cam Cameron could do with these players? Mattison ties with Cameron? Lets use them
November 26th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
I just think we are going to see real offensive talent shy away from us because Borges.
Funny statement seeing that we have a monester OL class and a 5 star QB coming in.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
at skill positions. And if you think Morris is coming because Borges, you are clearly in a world of your own, AKA Wyoming
November 26th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
2013 QB commit Shane Morris says he loves the mind of Al Borges, but for now he's focused on winning a state title at De La Salle. -Chantel Jennings
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Morris has no issues with what-so-ever Borges and your idea of that offensive players could be scared by him (minus super hero Morris) is just a narrative you've built in your own head.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^
"Whatsoever" is one word, not hyphenated.
November 26th, 2012 at 1:07 PM ^
What would you expect him to say? That Borges sucks or something? Get real man, of course he's going to say positive things, he's been recruiting for this team for two years now. I really can't believe that was your argument. The fact that a sports columnist thought it worth getting his comments on Borges should say enough about the reality on the ground...
November 26th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
It seems he knows it's a narrative he built in his own head, considering he used the words "I think."
November 26th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
November 26th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^
November 26th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
No, I live in Laramie Wy.
Who exactly are the two 5 star QB's currently on our roster? Has progess on the cloning Gardner project made that much progress over the holiday weekend?!
November 26th, 2012 at 4:07 PM ^
I consider DXR to be a 5 star given his accomplishments and stats while in college. However, if you look at player quality based upon only pre-season hype (Morris) that has yet to be proven, there is little I can do to help you.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
You touch on throwing against ND, but I'd just like to counterpoint in that once Gardner was starting as QB suddenly Al's love of the deep ball was paying dividends via strikes to Roundtree and Gallon. With Morris on deck for recruitment I see this issue as solving itself via recruitment. Even more so with the two bigger WRs we brought in last year and what we're looking at this year (doubly so if we get Treadwell onboard).
Al's another annoyance is the "Vincent Smith is send in a suicide mission up the guy" play. Once we have the new offensive line fully installed in two seasons (everyone who redshirted this year is in their third year and any talent from the class behind them is in their second year) that play likely starts working since you have Kalis and Kugler opening interior holes.
In a sense the recruitment might solve the play calling. I tend to consider this Borges 2008. Back when we hired RR and the offense flatline everyone said "Give him time to get his guys in, he had a losing season his first year at WVU, Threet isn't a spread QB, etc." This was the year that Borges got to use the "wait for him to get his guys" line.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^
Because I was getting flashbacks of early 2000s "run your head through a brick wall" stubborness. None of us want to go through that again.
November 26th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^
Yeah, I don't want to go 46-16 over 6 years again. That sucked.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^
You know its all relative. 16 losses in 6 years is a lot for a lot of Michigan fans that think they should contend for the national title each year (however unrealistic that believe may or may not be). Sure, the 46-16 record looks pretty but it fails to recognize the fact that a lot of people became unhappy towards the end. That fact has to at least be acknowledged.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:04 PM ^
He said early 2000's. From 2000 to 2004 we went 46-16.
In the modern era of Michigan football, the days since "The Big 2 and Little 8", that's about as good as we've been.
If people are upset we're not Alabama or Carroll's USC, they need to remember something: We never have been.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^
Uh oh, you're countering the company line that Michigan is the bestest, most awesomest college football program of all time and no other program comes close and we're going 12-0 each and every year and fire the HC or OC when we don't because we're Michigan.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:25 PM ^
November 26th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^
Point out where chitownblue2 were he said he was satisfied.
November 26th, 2012 at 3:54 PM ^
"Yeah, I don't want to go 46-16 over 6 years again. That sucked."
Unless my sarcasm meter is set way too high, I take this as being fine with consistent mediocrity.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:22 PM ^
If 46-16 over 5 years is "consistent mediocrity", then Michigan is the mediocrest football program ever since the days of Bump.
It's a 76% win percentage. Bo was at 79% in a conference with much less parity.
Furthermore, "what I accept" is utterly meaningless. I'm just an alumni and a fan. What I will accept means absolutely nothing. I like watching Michigan football - as long as they keep playing, I'll be fine with what they do. Would I prefer them to win? Sure - but I'm not prepared to become Alabama or Oregon to do it.
November 26th, 2012 at 12:42 PM ^
First off, he said "early 2000's". That precludes Appy STate, Oregon, Wisconsin 07 (which is a game we did not even attempt to win, by the way), and a minimum of 5 OSU losses.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
So, losses only count if we try not to lose? Interesting way you see the world... this is the loser mentality that is infecting America. Also, you may recall the first loss to Oregon was 2003... unless that's not early 2000's enough for you. I guess going 2-3 vs OSU is fine too? Enough... you bore me.
You are right about not playing Henne and Hart against Wisky in 2007, that was another huge coaching gaff by Carr. By doing so, he cost us a trip to Pasadena... but then again, why would he want to get curb-stomped by USC again... right?
November 26th, 2012 at 4:05 PM ^
It didn't cost us a trip to Pasadena. Win or lose vs. Wisconsin, the victor of the OSU game was going to the Rose Bowl. Had we won that and lost to OSU, both teams are 7-1 in the B10, and OSU wins the tie-breaker.
See?
November 26th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^
2007:
OSU (7-1) lost to Illinois... played LSU in BCS
ILL: (6-2) Lost to Michigan and Iowa, went to Rose Bowl, lost to USC
MICH: (6-2) Lost to Wisky and OSU
Had UM beat Wisky, we would have gone to Pasadena beacause we would have been 7-1 with a win over ILL.
More of your revisionist history?
November 26th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^
We still finished over Illinois in the standings! What's your fucking point? We were #23 going into the OSU game, and we'd need to be #15, minimum, to qualify for a BCS at large berth. You think a win over Wisconsin would do that?
What revisionist history are you talking about?
November 26th, 2012 at 4:27 PM ^
Illinois went to the Rose Bowl chief. They only went because they had the same conference record as Michihgan (6-2) and the tie-break was the fact that we had been there more recently than they had. We could have beaten Wisky and gone to Pasadena, had Carr actually tried to win that game. Instead, he saved them (Henne/ Hart) for OSU and we lost to the #2 team in the nation. You can't be this dense.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:29 PM ^
We weren't in the top 15! We weren't eligible for the BCS! At large bids aren't based on "who went most recently", you fucking idiot. Illinois was #13 - they were eligible. We were not.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:33 PM ^
UM was BCS #12 when they lost to Wisky. You think they would have dropped below that with a win? Get your facts straight before you call me a "fucking idiot".
November 26th, 2012 at 4:36 PM ^
a win by TKO... inthebluelot.
November 26th, 2012 at 4:42 PM ^
We were not ranked over Illinois at any point after the Appalachian State game, buddy.
Furthermore, if you recall - Henne and Hart weren't even ready to play by OSU (if you look at Henne's fluttering ducks and Hart bowing out), you think they could have gone against Wisconsin?
Your ignorance on the issue, and your manufactured umbrage aren't worth arguing, and your need to be as large a dick as possible makes it even less so.
The original point was that Michigan has not made a serious run at a National Championship in 35 years save 1997 and soooooort of 2006. That's the sort of "mediocrity" you're referring to. It's hardly limited to "the early 2000's". Instead, you've turned it into an argument about the import of the 2007 Wisconsin game which almost literally nobody ever complains about.
November 27th, 2012 at 10:03 AM ^
November 26th, 2012 at 5:00 PM ^
Dude were you not alive in 07? We were putting all of our eggs into the beating OSU basket. We were resting some guys to get ready for the game because that was all that mattered to get to the Rose Bowl...
November 26th, 2012 at 8:47 PM ^
November 26th, 2012 at 11:39 PM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 9:58 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^
So I don't know where you thought I was acting superior to you. I was referring to people who have achieved great success at the top of their profession, but they don't "want it enough" like a badass internet guy like yourself. Not the complete flip flop of "do your best for the kids" you have here. The only things my "points" do, that seem to intimidate you for no logical reason (since you feel the need to bring it up), is they give me a leg up on is remembering what it was like when meme's like UNACCEPTABLE were being laughed off the board for their extreme righteousness simply due to length of time. But you've been a member long enough that you should know that too, so it shouldn't be any advantage.
The only thing keeping you from intellectual debate is yourself.
November 27th, 2012 at 8:12 PM ^
November 28th, 2012 at 12:41 AM ^
November 28th, 2012 at 9:30 AM ^