Depth chart for this week

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on

No Drake Johnson.........I has a sad.

Grant Perry may start at flanker. 

right click and view in another tab to see it so you can read it.

MGoBoard
Football

the noid

September 7th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^

I personally would like to see Isaacs start, he had a couple of solid runs and seemed to be the only one out of the three that could consistently hit the hole when there was one.  I think too much stock has been put into Smith's tackle breaking ability.

Joined: 02/12/2013

MGoPoints: 286

klctlc

September 7th, 2015 at 4:08 PM ^

I remember that clearly.  The DE he helped out on was not going to get there anyways, if he waited one second longer to commit he could have picked up blitzer.  Little things. 

I am pretty hard on D. Smith for his running, but he is tough nose kid and 100% effort. If coaches put increased emphasis on blocking, so be it.  

Joined: 09/02/2009

MGoPoints: 2704

Gulo Gulo Luscus

September 7th, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^

I checked this agains the front page post from last week.  Minor changes on offense and special teams, nothing new on defense.  Anything I missed?
 

  • QB: Rudock no longer OR with Morris.
  • WR: Darboh no longer OR with Harris.  Jones added at 3rd (OR Ways).
  • TE: Bunting up from 3rd to 2nd (OR Williams). Jocz added at 3rd (OR Hill).
  • ST: Peppers no longer OR at KR/PR.  Lewis/Thomas instead of Perry/Chesson backing him up.  Allen no longer OR at PK/KO.

Joined: 12/18/2009

MGoPoints: 3909

Duval Wolverine

September 7th, 2015 at 12:30 PM ^

I believe this team learns alot from last week, and plays alot better even though they played well enough to win a close game last week!  Oregon St's QB is quick but at 6'3 185 he is really thin and a couple of big hits and he does not make it to the end of the game.  His back up is about the same size as well.  

Joined: 08/23/2010

MGoPoints: 2982

Trolling

September 7th, 2015 at 1:06 PM ^

What he meant in his comment, which is fairly standard after losses and understood by everyone who aren't assholes, is that the team never gave up and were in the position to pull out a close win had some chance events gone their way (i.e., the onside kick).

Joined: 02/22/2012

MGoPoints: 1528

michgoblue

September 7th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^

I am definitely trying to be an asshole, but i honestly feel that if you watched the game, it wasn't as close as the score indicates.

On offense, we had a ton of trouble moving the ball, has an anemic ground game, a plodding passing game and a QB that looked to lack the ability to win the game akin to "robo-Henne" or even 2011 denard (and who played poorly with several picks). And our OL looked terrible.

On defense, we looked slow, lacked pressure on the QB, couldn't contain when the QB escaped the pocket and didn't cause a single turnover. while we did somewhat shut down Utah's RB, he still hurt us when he acted as a receiving threat.

Now, none of the above is remotely a reason for panic. It is game 1 under a whole new staff against an opponent )on the road) that I think is way better than they are currently given credit for. We will improve and we may improve drastically over the never few weeks. Historically, Jake Rudock has been a very safe QB who doesn't throw many picks. This outing could have just been a matter of him needing to develop chemistry with his receivers (especially perry). Similarly, we won't face many DL as experienced, large and good as Utah for several weeks. And, of receivers (inc. butt) were a pleasant surprise.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: 32160

SalvatoreQuattro

September 7th, 2015 at 1:58 PM ^

Utah's defense didn't generate much pressure, they could not consistently run on Michigan, and had huge holes in their secondary. Their vaunted special teams had no positive impact on the game.

 

I have to wonder what game you were watching because Utah did not look dominate in any aspect of the game. The QB play was the difference. Ours made mistakes whilst theirs did not.

Plodding passing game? If Chesson does not inexplicably slow down UM has at least one long TD. Butt found holes in their secondary. Darboh has several nice runs after the catch. Whilst not explosive Id' hardly call it plodding.

Joined: 11/30/2010

MGoPoints: 78090

wahooverine

September 7th, 2015 at 10:47 PM ^

Utah did not look great because of things that Michigan was doing. We lost by one touchdown and still had chance to win at the end, despite being -3 in turover margin. We outgained them on offense. I think the score indicated things just fine other than the fact that it was a losing score for Michigan.

Joined: 11/14/2011

MGoPoints: 6799

michgoblue

September 7th, 2015 at 4:14 PM ^

I am not sure that we disagree as much as you seem to think. I said that our receivers were a nice surprise. But, what I meant by plodding passing game was that at no point did I feel as if we were consistently moving the ball down the field through the air. What we got just felt like a huge struggle and there was no consistent movement of the chains. Sure, there was the pass that ALMOST connected with Chessen, but that's my point - it didn't connect. As for the QB play, again, you are right that this was the difference, but I noted that in my past paragraph. Jake will not throw 4 picks a game, so that should improve. But, for now, we just didn't look good.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: 32160

michgoblue

September 7th, 2015 at 4:18 PM ^

There are many instances where a game ends with a score that is fairly close but the game was out of hand for pretty much the entire game. Garbage time points count in the score, but don't change the fact that a game was a blowout. Not saying that this was the case form our game, but saying that the score is all that determines how close a game was throughout is a silly simplification.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: 32160

Leonhall

September 7th, 2015 at 5:40 PM ^

you are off on your interpretation of the game. We aren't going to win the national championship this year, but we are far from being horrible. I think the game was better than your interepretation.

Joined: 06/14/2012

MGoPoints: 16430

growler4

September 7th, 2015 at 2:42 PM ^

For the most part, I think you're spot on.

There are some who believe that Harbaugh & Co. would work instant magic with this roster because Hoke, Funk, et. al. could not coach. Of course, that opinion was largely held by those who had never played or coached...

We were never in control of the game, played from behind, and it felt as if the D had to have a big stop throughout the game to keep us close. Yet, that's ok. This was week one in a work of progress against a good Utah team playing at home. When you take off the khaki-colored glasses, none of this came as a shock.

We have a good and largely experienced coaching staff. I expect them to get a lot out of the players they largely inherited and I'll be looking for improvement. I plan to enjoy the season, especially given my modest expectations.

 

Joined: 11/24/2014

MGoPoints: 1692

joeyb

September 7th, 2015 at 4:52 PM ^

I was at the game and haven't watched any replays yet, so my perspective might be a bit off.

However, I saw us get manhandled in the first half and then have 2 consistent drives in the second half that ended with a missed FG and a Touchdown. On our third drive, we were moving down the field again, down by 7, when the pick 6 happened. That one play completely changed the outlook on the game for me. Before, I thought we were about to tie the game and our defense was starting to take over, so we were going to eek out a win. After, I thought the game was pretty much over. But then, we were still moving down the field and scored.

Really, it was the tale of two halves. Had we played like two halves like the first, the game looks like last year. Had we played two halves like the second, we come away with a comfortable win. I think the two teams were pretty evenly matched; I just think that Utah played way more consistently.

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845

sum1valiant

September 7th, 2015 at 8:02 PM ^

The game was exactly as close as the score indicates.  Um outgained Utah by ~25 yards, held one of the better runningbacks in the country in check for the most part, allowed zero sacks, won the time of possession battle, and committed less penalties.  The difference in the game was turnovers.  The last of which was the difference in the overall score and the one that did Michigan in, despite winning most other aspects of the game.  But objectivity is dumb anyway.   

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 13025

MichiganUte

September 8th, 2015 at 12:04 AM ^

The turnovers were the difference in the game. 

However, even with the turnover differential going Utah's way in this one, I don't think that Jake Rudock will be a turnover machine week in and week out. 

As someone who lives in SLC and follows both Pac 12 and Big Ten football, I believe that Utah is better than most of the teams on Michigan's schedule. They are clearly behind two (Ohio St and Mich St) but I would give Utah the edge on any of the others. 

All in all, I believe that Michigan is an improved team this year. They won't win the Big Ten but they will win enough games to go to a bowl.

Joined: 12/09/2009

MGoPoints: 87

Franz Schubert

September 7th, 2015 at 1:08 PM ^

Was awful. On the 3rd down QB keeper, Braden was pushed all the way back and stepped on Rudocks foot. I previously thought he slipped but it was Braden getting submarined as the culprit. Wonder if Dawson might warrant a chance?

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453