I'm trying not to be reactionary ... but if Forcier was healthy, that was beyond inexcusable.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
I'm trying not to be reactionary ... but if Forcier was healthy, that was beyond inexcusable.
As if it wasn't bad enough Rodriguez was throwing a fit like a spoiled child on the sidelines yelling at his FRESHMAN quarterback ON THE ROAD against #12...Then he puts his running qb in the game with a minute left and no time outs. Absolutely stupid.
I threw a fit when he put Denard in for the first drive. I thought ok, that's fine, but he better not put him in for the next one. I then told my fiancee that we would lose.
you have to understand that even tho you didnt know it for sure when it happened that tate suffered a minor cuncussion. denard had just led the team down the field for a score and had momentum. sure if tate was healthy he should have been in but for the time being d-rob was the righ choice. and one freshman mistake ruined it for them. i wish they would have given denard more time in the first half personally...
I would have been fine had he made his way in earlier in the game. It was just that on his previous drive he threw I think 2-3 passes on curls and cross routes then ran the rest of the time. They ate 4-5 minutes of playtime. With 1:30 left and 56 yards to go to make it within your kicker's range, you need a passer not a runner.
In hindsight, yes, Tate needed to be pulled from the game for medical reasons, but not even RR knew that at the time. I was still upset to see Denard in because I knew he would have to pass and that he was not going to be able to be able to do it the entire way down the field.
You made it into TWiS, you lucky bastard!1!!
Denard just led a TD drive. Keep him in.
He led a TD drive RUSHING the ball with the occasional 5 yard dump off. RR continuously had to tell them to hurry up. Tate led 2 TD drives and has a proven track record.
I agree with that in every other circumstance except the one we just saw.
Denard isn't a real passing threat yet. Running eats the clock, and w/o time outs, there's just not enough time for Denard (at this stage in his development) to stage a successful drive in that situation, whereas Tate, who is an excellent passer gives a chance to win.
Honeslty, I'm wondering if Tate's hand was injured though. That would make sense to me w/ him running out and being pulled back. (If he was injured, thinking he could play, and the coaches disagreeing.)
I'll reserve judgment until we know more about any possible injuries to Tate.
That final drive started on the Mich 17 with 1:30 to go.
DRob played well, but unless he breaks a big run in the chaos, I don't see how he gives us a better chance to manage the clock to get in FG position.
I'm still a RR fan, and this is just a little disagreement. Who knows, maybe Tate was hurt.
FWIW he got 21 yards in 20 seconds and we still had a timeout. At that pace, we could have easily made it into field goal range in time. If he'd made the right read on that last play, we'd picked up a first down and gotten out of bounds easily. That'd have us around the 50 with ~40 seconds left. It's not like he was wasting that much time.
accidental double post
me when we were awarded a fourth timeout?
Whoops, missed us calling that last one. Still, we'd been around the 40-50 yard lines with 40 seconds left. It was more the fact that we were moving the ball fast enough to get in FG range and make it.
Three plays and two in-between snaps. The clock stopped on the first down for the first in-between but ran on the second after Denard was stopped three yds short of the 1st down.
ESPN doesn't break the time down by play, but I bet a good 15-20 seconds ran off between the time Denard was tackled after his run and the snapping of the ball on Mich's final play.
Yeah, I looked back at it after the initial post, see my follow up above for my more important point. We moved the ball quickly enough that we could have made it into field goal range. So saying the running QB was the problem because of time isn't a real solid argument.
If you want to argue something else, sure, but time may not be the strongest argument.
we didn't have any timeouts left on the final drive.
Edit: whoops, beaten to it. Sorry.
to say that because when the game is on the line you dont put in an unproven, only 12 snaps at the most, and a Qb that doesnt maek good decisions to get you in field goal range a perfect example is when he threw the int on the last drive over almost everybodys head and had minor streaking down the field, and odoms open for 15-20 yard gain and stonum open in the corner and your Qb thros it in double coverage that is why you dont keep him in
he hadn't thrown in a while. He looked rattled. Robinson had been moving the ball. I'm pretty agnostic on the decision, but I don't have any problem understanding it.
Robinson had been moving the ball in a drive that seemed to be about ~90% running plays - which eat the clock.
Forcier as of the moment has better passing skills and that is what you typically want moving the ball with under 2 minutes.
I would have preferred Forcier in there. However, I suppose there was still enough time to have Robinson lead a primarily running drive to get into field goal range.
We had to go like 35 yards in a minute. Even with a running qb that's pretty doable. If you want to argue that Forcier is more accurate, I can buy that. But he hadn't looked particularly accurate or comfortable for the past 2 and a half quarters, and Robinson had established something of a rhythm with the offense.
It was 2nd and 3 from the 38 yard line.
There was 46 seconds left and zero timeouts.
Those 35 yards to a field goal could eat up 46 seconds quick if Robinson started getting tackled in bounds short of a first down.
Seems that the best thing to do would be go with the best passer....but who knows, maybe Denard could have ripped off a big run or hit a wide open WR. Maybe Tate throws a pick too... I think the odds would say Forcier would play better in that situation though.
that Forcier was the better passer today?
I think you look at the track record. Sure Robinson hit some wide open WRs on short routes today, but he isn't as polished of a passer yet.
by track record. If you mean "this guy is generally better at throwing the ball, and I think his prior bad decisions and bad throws were aberrations" then I might by that.
If you mean that Tate Forcier is "clutch" and leads big game winning drives, then I've read too much FJM to buy into that.
No, by track record, I mean Statistics.
When there is a 100 point difference in the Passer Rating - yes one QB is more polished passing.
but then there's the other statistic.
8/19 for 94 yards and a pick or whatever Forcier's line was tonight. And that line doesn't really convey that Forcier had looked progressively shakier as the game went on.
Do you honestly think that as of right now, Robinson is a better passer than Forcier and can make all of the wide range of throws that Forcier does and better?
If not, then that is my point. Play the better passer when you need at least 35 yards in 46 seconds with no timeouts.
that at that moment, Robinson gave them a better chance to win the game than Forcier did.
As far as ability to make throws goes, I don't think Forcier has the arm strength to complete the pass Robinson did right before the pick, so I think that cuts both ways.
You don't think that Forcier has the arm strength to throw the ball exactly 31 yards beyond the line of scrimmage?
How many games have you watched this year?
P.S. Even if Forcier doesn't have the arm strength to throw the ball down the field 31 yards (which is laughable), all you need is a QB to throw 1st downs when Iowa is playing deeper....perfect for Forcier.
Edit: My bad I misread your post.
I don't think Robinson has any better velocity on the ball than Forcier. There was nothing about that pass to Odoms that looked amazingly different than what Tate has done.
Of course you could also simply watch them in action, in which case you'd easily conclude that Denard is nowhere close to ready to throw the ball in a situation where the defense is expecting it.
And, as far as the comments above regarding running 35 yards in 40 some seconds, it looked like Rich didn't think we could since he called a pass . . . .
at the 5:00 minute mark?
fact that he is and always will be the better passer and that he would haev seen the 3 open Wr and not thrown it over every michigan players head into double coverage
is that enough evidence for you
The three-play drive took 44 seconds. I would imagine that the time lost on that play was ~20 seconds. Plus, DRob was harried after it and subsequently threw the up-for-grabs INT.
blew that game... no reason to play denard... he can't read a defense. INEXCUSABLE
rich rod did not blow the game. Our 5 TOs did.
but we STILL had a very good shot to get into field goal range. The 5th turnover, a ridiculous pass that should not have been thrown at all, was the result of RR's decision put the guy in there in a situation where he had no chance to succeed.
It was a childish decision to put Denard in. He's just not ready for that situation, but Tate is. This will be remembered as one of the worst coaching decisions of the season.
I don't want to undermine DRob. The guy's out there, working his ass off. Who knows if that was the right decision. Tate could have produced exactly the same end given how he was playing. Heartbreaking end to a game that shows we're on our way.
He performed very well for what he was asked to do.
It's just that asking him to run a clock-managing drive with no timeouts is like asking Shaq to shoot the three for the game.
It doesn't mean that you think Shaq is a bad player.
Um, Denard did just lead them on a TD drive the drive before.
Because Denard led them down for a score to get back in the game, he deserved to be in there.
you might be right. It is. And the team had the best chance to win with a quarteback who can pass.
I'm pretty sure D-Rob can pass. Tate was obviously struggling with making reads, too. It's not like we needed to throw bombs, it was a bad read by Denard, move on. People act as if OMG IF TATE WAS IN WE WOULD OF WON FOR SURE!!!!!!!111, he could of done the same thing.
watched Denard's passes this year you know that he throws more interceptions in a drop back set than completions. He called a dropback pass. He couldn't make the read. He lofted the ball in the air to noone. It was intercepted. No surprise there.
Not saying we would have won, but we sure as hell could have. Looked to me like RR's emotions and pissed off as helledness at Tate was the reason Robinson was in there. It was a bad decision.
or one for every 5.5 attempts. Tate had thrown 3 INTs in 119 attempts, or one for every 39.67 attempts.
The best chance we had with DRob in there was DRob breaking a big run on a chaotic scramble.
have been on rollout passes for less than 10 yards. Every time he's dropped back he looks uncomfortable. He threw a pick vs. ND on a 3rd and 15 on a dropback. I believe he threw one vs. IU also from a dropback set. RR put him in. He then called a dropback. Denard couldn't read the D. He threw a pick.
when you have to throw the ball you play the qb who can throw the ball.
I asked that same question. Sure if we didn't need to hurry I would have been alright with DRob, but when there's not much time left on the clock you have to go with Tate there. Tate is definitely more comfortable throwing the ball in those situations than DRobb, I don't get it at all. I can't believe the turnovers in this game, pretty bad.
we all know that hes not a thrower... forcier was running on the field n then got pulled back... RR should know that hes not ready to put on a gamewinning drive yet...
but... u cant win with 5 turnovers... im suprised we got even close....
He was effective running. You can't run the ball with a minute left.
I'm fine with that decision. He played the one making plays and had the most success. If anything, we should have seen more Denard earlier.
6. Tate is a much better passer than DRob.
7. You are in a situation where you HAVE to pass.
8. They call him "Fourthier" for crying out loud.
Look, you have valid points, but there are points for the other side, as well. I very rarely question a football coach's decision because who the hell am I, but unless it comes out that Forcier was hurt, I would have put him in myself.
Anyway, you live and you learn. Hopefully our team learned from this loss.
Today, Tate was not a better passer, or at least not a better quarterback, than DRob, and not just with the numbers listed in the game. Tate was throwing bombs downfield that were hanging up long enough for WRs to be double covered. His throws in the second half, whether caused by injury or not, were not as crisp. He was making throws downfield when he should have been making passes underneath.
DRob was throwing his usual lasers, which while not usually are a good thing, they got the job done on all but the interception. He had zip on his throws. He offered us the best chance to move the ball at the time. He was passing. He made two great throws to move the ball before that interception. I do not believe for a minute that DRob is a quarterback incapable of passing. As Rodriguez says, he's not just a running guy. He can throw, and he's just needed extra time to learn the system. His throws today show that.
I don't think any of Tate's previous games means he was going to produce in this one. He was playing poorly, he was letting his frustration get to him as evidence of his interaction on the sideline with Rodriguez. Tate didn't have his swagger today. We will never know, but I just didn't feel like he would have done any better.
I hear ya, but remember this too: Tate looked like shit for all of the MSU game, and then look what he did. Of course, this could be argued back and forth ad infinitum, but I have to believe that, in the situation of having less than 2 minutes to march down the field, Tate's skill set and prior experience gives us a better chance to win.
That's all. I'm moving on.
I thought Tate looked fine for most of the MSU game. It was more the blocking up front and his receivers that were the problem on pass plays. Today, Tate was making a lot of poor decisions and throws.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue here. Denard should have ran on that last play...but, you know, true freshman and all...
That was the least disappointing loss in Michigan history. To overcome 5 turnovers like that...whew. I'm actually excited about where this team is headed.
Holy shit...how has a Michigan loss not made me suicidal??
I couldn't agree with you more. After all that and only being down by 2, shiiit. I actually don't even feel bad. Maybe it's the beer.
I just can't get used to it. Nightmares.
What a tough loss, we will have to wait to see what Rich says about putting D Rob in on the last drive. I still think this team is going to be good. Alot of fight in this team. Go Blue
Good points. It's still pretty amazing what this team has shown this year despite the youth/inexperience/unfamiliarity (defense). A game like this hurts - take away just one of those goddamn turnovers and we win. But hey - it's a process. We'll be schooling the rest of the B10 in a year or two. Take that to the bank.
The fact is that based on what Tate has done you can't have him on the sideline. If the Patriots had Mike Vick they wouldn't throw him in there with a minute left...
No shit, because they have Tom fucking Brady. Tate is not Tom Brady. He is a true freshman, who was playing poorly for most of the game. I have nothing against RR putting in DRob. If Tate was hurt, it was obviously the right choice. If he was trying to teach Tate a lesson, hopefully it sinks in.
Does anyone remember Beilein sitting Manny Harris last season in overtime? Remember everyone bitching about it? Remember Manny playing really well over the future games? Maybe these coaches know how to motivate their players and know who to play when.
Tate was making TERRIBLE passing decisions. In your scenario... if Tom Brady's not getting it done, why not throw in Vick?
Maybe because one of those guys has been able to lead a team on a drive in the final minutes of the game and the other hasn't? It's really the only thing I've questioned all night. Maybe Tate was hurt, but if he wasn't then it was a questionable call. I didn't agree with it before the INT, and I'm not going to say "Hey they know better!" after what we all saw.
Look, I was surprised when I saw Robinson out there for the final drive. I was also confused at first... but thinking about it, despite my disappointment with the outcome, I think it was the best decision. For whatever reason, Tate wasn't getting it done tonight. OK so he had gotten it done before but uh... you know those are different games, in different situations, right? If you want to predict how something is going to go, it's best to look at the most recent evidence. You don't try to figure out the weather for today by looking at what the weather was like three weeks ago. Tate vs. ND =/= Tate vs. MSU =/= Tate vs. Iowa. He was clearly rattled tonight, was making highly risky passing decisions, and his hand looked hurt as well.
At that point, the Mich offense had managed a meager 90 yds of total offense. Nothing in the first 55 minutes was predictive of the two TDs to come.
DRob came into that game earlier and was just as ineffective if not worse. DRob comes into this game and leads us to a touchdown. Very different circumstances.
Tate was not good in this game. RR gave him a lot of chances to improve but he didn't. Denard deserved a chance after playing well on the previous drive. Denard could have run the ball on that last drive for huge chunks of yards.
Also, we all seem to have a tendency to ignore Tate's MANY throws that are nearly intercepted. He's taken a lot of chances and managed to pull out some great plays. But those aren't chances he should be taking.
Forcier finished 8 of 19 for 94 yards and an interception. I don't think he had it in him tonight.
You have no timeouts. You have a minute left. You have to get at least 50 yards.
Do you think you can run for 50 yards? Mmmmm . . . the odds are pretty pretty small, ya think.
I like Denard. I think some day, with some practice, he could be an adequate quarterback. But, to date he has show little to no capacity to throw a pass other than a 7 yard rollout. Not dissin' Denard here, either. I really like him as a player, but he's extraordinarily inexperienced and a very very raw passer.
So, if you want to WIN the game, the decision not to play your passing quarterback, or Death, is absolutelyfuckinstupidperiod. I really can't believe he even did it.
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME... Forcier gives you the best chance to win there.
Except in this case, he didn't.
Based on what logic? You would have to base that conclusion on Tate's performances in past games and completely disregard his poor performance tonight. Bad thinking.
onto the field, with RR holding him back = he should be the guy. Call me a sap.
you play the guy who you think gives you the best chance to win the game, not the guy who most wants to run out on the field.
I played keeper on the soccer team in high school, and in one game my teammate accidentally kicked me in the side of the head as I dove for the ball. I got knocked the fuck out, and had a moderate concussion.
One of the first things I did once I could mostly stand up straight on the sideline was to start jogging back to the goal. In the middle of the game. Without a substitution. The coach had to pull me back to the sideline, and a few minutes later I tried it again.
I knew something struck me as funny when Tate did that ... he looked more confused than determined, now that I think about it. So anyway, my point is that he might have been gung-ho to get back on the field, like I was, but the actual running on the field part probably had more to do with his synapses being wonky.
I think it was the right call.
Tate hadn't been effective, and DR just drove them for a TD. DR's throwing abilities aside, he provided something that Tate didn't tonight and that was confidence. I have to believe the rest of the offence would believe they were going to score with DR given how the game had gone.
No different than choosing goalies in hockey. If the backup gets hot, then you run him until he isn't (Varlamov for the Caps in the playoffs last year.)
It didn't work tonight but I still feel that Denard being out there was a better choice given how the game had gone than Tate.
I can understand RR. Forcier had made a lot of questionable throws already - some which probably should've been intercepted.
Nevertheless - 5 TOs = not likely to win the game. :/
Denard played well at the end of the game, and he started off the drive well. Given Tate's struggles, and the fact that Denard could get us into FG range with one quick run, I do not think that it was a horrible decision. I hope that we see a lot more of him against Delaware St next week, because we should be able to cruise.
I see the board is entering total fucking freakout/meltdown mode.
See y'all Monday, when I can tolerate threads again.
are reaching... You play the best throwing quarterback .... D-Rob has completed 40% of his passes this year with 4ints and 0 tds. No Excuse!
No, you play the guy who can get first downs. Tonight, Tate was having a hard time getting anything going. One step, one little opening and Denard gets 10+ yards with his feet.
Can we finally acknowledge that denard is not a qb? He is a damn good athlete, but he can't read a defense and lead a comeback. He is an athlete, just like pryor. I love the kid, but he's not a qb
couldnt agree more
No true freshman QB has ever had difficulty reading coverage and none, and I mean fucking none, have ever thrown a crucial late INT. Denard IS a quarterback that gets less reps in practice and less downs in the game and he throws an INT. Holy shit, call the pigskin police. He had the hot hand, RR went with him, he made some good plays and one bad play and we lost the game. The End. Deal with it, there are some questions like "Why can our young quarterbacks play like seasoned veterans all the time?" And when the answer is simply, "because they are young," and we lose a game you want them to change positions. Slot reciever? Fine, just don't move him to CB when he drops a pass.
You're right, after reading that again it came off bad, not I wanted to say.
I should have added a yet. At this point in his career, he does not have enough experience to lead a drive that requires throwing every play. I'm not saying that he never will, but right now he's just not there yet.
I have nothing against the kid though, and I feel horribly for him. He was put into a bad situation and he is just a freshman. I hope he doesn't put this loss on himself, because it wasn't his fault.
Junior Hemingway stopped his route, that's the only reason it looked like a horrible pass. It had nothing to do with reading a defense.
I thought he played well tonight. If we had more time and he could just have played for 1st downs, then he may have very well won the game for us.
Tate wasn't getting the job done. Denard was. Next case.
Maybe you should stay away from the computer until tomorrow if you're going to blame the coach for horrible turnovers and calls that made sense; Tate hadn't done well at all up to when Denard went in; therefore, RRod looked elsewhere.
My feeling is that RichRod had successfully made his point by benching Tate the previous drive. Denard also helped to make that point by executing a very nice TD drive.
However, with the point already made, and needing a quick drive to FG range, Tate should have been given an opportunity to to reprise his role as comeback kid, or at least redeem himself for the coach.
I think RichRod took the lesson a little too far, and it may have cost us a shot at a game winning FG.
I am impressed that we were still in the game despite the 5-1 turnover differential. This team can be great with a little more experience.
I got labeled a "troll" by the everyday forum last week after I questioned the play calling versus MSU. So I again, regardless of Tate's struggles throughout the game, have to question Rodriguez placing Robinson into the game when you are going to have to throw the ball downfield? Tate has been great in these situations all year long yet he is not in the game? Maybe if Michigan wouldn't run that counter tray every other 1st down, Tate wouldn't have been subjected to so many obvious passing downs. I have to question Rodriguez's decision not to have Tate in the game when it mattered the most, I do not object to sitting him as Michigan had time on the clock, and Denard's running ability lead to a touchdown. I know 5 turnover's ultimately lead to the loss but at the end I go with Tate, lets put some blame on McGee's continued conservative game plan, I think Rodriguez has a lot of questions to answer, this was a winnable game, versus a not very impressive Hawkeye team....
Tate Forcier is 71/119 passing for 894 yards and 9 TDs
Denard is 4/11 for 57 yards and no TDs.
I am not a Big 10 caliber head coach, but I am puzzled and frustrated.
And Tate got the start. He had many drives in which to work and was generally ineffective.
I honestly agree with keeping Denard in the game on the final drive.
For one, as fans we don't know the entire situation. Perhaps Tate was injured and could not play.
For two, We needed a change of pace on offense, which is what D-Rob offered us.
For three, He led us to a TD on the previous series!! The offense was in a groove at that point and we needed to keep it moving.
Fourth and final, we only needed a Fieldgoal to win. Not a TD.
situation comment. Assuming that Denard was not our only healthy qb, thought, I just can't see it.
This is two games in a row where turnovers have killed us, but we still had chances to win. With turnovers lost, the liklihood of winning this game was razor thin. I just think the razor thin possibility was there, and RR threw it away (literally and figuratively) with that decision.
We still played hard, and a decent game. I expected to lose by a couple of pointsgoing in. From that perspective it's hard to complain about the way we kept in it.
But, it was a poor decision that cost us the opportunity to move the ball into field goal range. For that, he should be criticized -- but he certainly did not lose the game by himself.
He was one bad read away from putting us in FG range.
Missed Odoms wide open...
This one hurts.
They're freshman qb's, surrounded by mostly freshman and sophomores. It was a tough game to watch them "grow". Hopefully, Tate will redeem himself next week, and we'll continue improving.
Hemingway quit running on the route. So even though he missed an open Odoms underneath that pick wasn't entirely his fault.
comment about Hemmingway is not accurate.
I thought Herbstreit mentioned that the WR quit moving on the play.
Edit: So I watched the highlight of the play and Hemingway definitely pulled up on his route.
I liked the change of pace he provided on the previous drive, but Tate's skill set gives Michigan the best chance to win under the circumstances--little time, no timeouts, obvious passing situation. I don't like that decision. With the four turnovers prior to the final drive I'm not sure we "deserved" to win that one. Man does Minor run hard.
If it is true that Tate was hurt, then I'm fine with Denard being in. If Tate was reasonably healthy, then put in Tate and take a chance. Yes, Forcier was not playing well, but Robinson basically ran the ball the entire last drive and the Iowa defense gave it to them because it ran the clock down. You need to pass in that situation, and Robinson was simply not ready.
If you have followed Michigan the first five games, you know what the right call should have been. The whole team lost this game, it wasn't one play at the end, but that was certainly a time for Tate Forcier to be in the game. There was no way Denard gave us the best chance to win, and all of you know it. I would throw Tate Forcier out there no matter how well he was playing. When you have a young QB like that, one great way to F up his confidence is to bench him during the time he's at his best. The loss was not Rich Rod's fault, but he didn't make the right choices to get us the best chance to win. Period.
Denard was 3/4 for 30 yards and an INT.
Tate was 8/19 for 94 yards and an INT.
Listen, guys - Tate isn't Jesus. I know this is going to hit some of you pretty hard, because I realized it mid-way through the Indiana game and it hit me pretty hard too. But that's the fact. He's a freshman. He makes bad decisions. He mismanages games. He throws stupid picks.
Rodriguez faced a pretty big problem going into our second to last drive. You have two QBs. One has played like trash but has a great track record for the season so far. One hasn't played. You need points, so you go with the latter. When he finally cracks the game open, where do you go from there? It's easy in hindsight, but it's not as easy as you all make it out to be.
Nobody said Tate was a savior, but "halfway through the Indiana game" he led the team on two 4th-quarter drives to take the lead, then nearly won the next week in a driving rain against MSU while being down in the 4th quarter. Sure he's a freshman, but one who is a heck of a lot better than he has any right to be. And for as bad as he looked this game, he still led this team to 21 points (and probably more if Minor hadn't fumbled). So while I agree with RR's decision to give it to Robinson on the 2nd to last drive, I do have an issue with him being the man on the last drive save for an injury.
for disagreeing... most of you obviously have never played a down of football
You should have to take a football IQ test to post...
Denard was 3/4 for 30 yards and an INT.
Tate was 8/19 for 94 yards and an INT.
What the frick are you talking about?
lucky charms has 110 calories in a serving
special k has 120 calories in a serving
see how that doesn't work, I gave numbers but didn't tell you anything else pertaining to them.
Not sure the point here. If you are making a point against OP, then I see it. If you are actually arguing that Robinson should have been out there at the end of the game because both guys ended up with an INT, then we have an argument.
Edit: Just saw farther down. I agree.
You guys act like shit. We had a chance to win and are competitive this year.
Young team and we will be awesome next year
but Denard is awesome and if you don't love him after his reaction, and if you don't love Moose for his consolation, then you suck
Maybe this loss can help us slough off some of our new bandwagon fairweather fans we seem to have picked up. This is not a blog for OMG RR INEXCUSABLE comments. We'll all be better off if you leave and go root for the flavor of the month teams.
New to the blog, I've been watching M football since the Bo years. Let's not rag RR, he did what he thought was the right thing to do given the game situation. RR is building a team that will be very competitive and very exciting!
What would everyone be saying if Denard didn't throw the pass and ran for gobs of yards or even a TD, he had the opportunity? M will be great in the near future, let's not make it any harder on the Coaches or Players by bitching about something we have no control over.