Did anyone have an '09 Illinois flashback with Roundtree getting tackles at the one?
October 4th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^
Aside from everyone, I don't think anyone did.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
This might get ugly, friend. It's been discussed at length, probably best in this thread.
And, for the record, yes. I also breathe oxygen and eat food to survive.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
October 4th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
On Friday I wrote:
Fear/Paranoia -1. For this year's team coming back versus ND after an equally devistating play and for nerd-chic, finger-staches and togetherness.
I think us not folding like cheap lawn furniture ala Illinois '09 is pretty good evidence that this team has the fortitude that '09's team lacked for the most part.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
I'm going to take the high road, and refrain from insults. Yes, everybody realized it, the mods on the live blog had to delete hundreds of people saying the same thing. In several post game threads this was discussed, including a funny one about if that happens again, we should just be awarded a TD for effort. So, not only is this more or less a repost, it's also really not the kind of stuff that needs its own thread.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
But, watching the game, my thought was that this game could have been Illinois all over again.
Turn over at the 1 and then the other team drives the length of the field and scores. The difference is our offense this year was able to respond and the defense was able to keep fighting. The defense wasn't pretty. It was sort of like the portion of the Rocky movies where Rocky is getting clubbed but refuses to stay down. (Note: unlike Rocky II - IV, the defense never knocked IU out, more like Rocky I, just hung on until the bitter end and refused to be knocked out). Last year, in the Illinois game, it seemed like the wheels came off on both offense and defense after the stop on the 1.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
Damm, sorry! Must have missed all that content referencing this. Need to spend more time on Mgoblog on the weekends.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
After Roundtree fell short of the goal line, all of us at the bar started drinking heavily so that we couldn't remember or talk coherently about the Illinois game of 2009.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
Yes.
That is all.
(Throws up in trash can.)
October 4th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
I know everyone is comparing it to the Illinois game, but I don't think that's fair. Against Illionis, Roundtree had a free path to the endzone and simply got caught.
This time, Roundtree had to do some cutbacks to get away from defenders (and might have even bumped into one of his own blockers), slowing him down a bit. I thought this was actually a pretty good run, not nearly as worrisome as last year.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
As noted, this Roundtree "close but not cigar" reception, while similar in that he went 60+ yards and didn't score, was markedly different in that against IU, he was not caught from behind in a footrace. He really maximized this year's catch through multiple tacklers to be everything he could.
Hemingway's catch on the 2nd play of the 2nd half reminded me of Roundtree vs the Illini in that Junior was about to be caught from behind, but by doing some effective zig-zagging, he did not. Hemingway's play made me smile b/c more than just being a TD, it seemd someone had learned from Roundtree's "mistake"of just basically taking a straight line last year -- and thus proved this year's team is better and will not go 5-7 again.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
Pretty sure every M fan had that same thought after IU recovered the fumble at the 1. Like others have said, it's already been discussed ad-nauseum on Saturday and the days after.
Yes, it looked similiar.
Thankfully it won't be remembered the same way.
Bottom line: 5-0
October 4th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
Pre-tackle, no (in case anyone gives @#$% about that part). I heard about it before watching the highlights and, no, I did not have a flashback. In the Illinois game it was much more of a pure foot race. On Saturday, there were a lot more players cluttering the race course.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
A lot about this season should remind you of last year.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
RR called timeout on the next first and goal to set up the tightend dropoff on second down after considering how important it was to score at that point, Hemnigway took a half step left near the goal line to avoid the chasing defender on his touchdown to avoid setting up a goal line situation, and RR came out in a spread on first and goal from the 4 at the end of the game instead of foolishly messing around with the I.
Growing pains. And they are growing.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
Yes.
It was also a flashback when Rodriguez chose our weakest (in strength, not talent) running back to try to plow 2 yards for a touchdown.
Good call, Coach. Maybe we can send Greg Banks on a fly pattern or start Terrence Robinson at defensive tackle next week, too.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
Do you need a hug?
I thought the same thing and got really scared after the fumble.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
Yes, I need a hug.
But not from you. Can you arrange for Halle Berry?
October 4th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Seriously, you're not as good a coach as RichRod. You never will be. Deal with it and move on, and stop trying to convince the world of your brilliance.
October 4th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
Your comments are completely irrelevant.
Do you think Vincent Smith should be our goal line running back? And not, say, Stephen Hopkins or Michael Cox or John McColgan or Mark Moundros (not to mention Shaw and Toussaint, who were both out hurt)?
October 4th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
I think RichRod had his reasons for having Vincent Smith in as the goal line RB against Indiana, and I assume they were good ones.
I don't see these RBs every day in practice, and neither do you. Thus, I assume that RichRod knows more than you and I do. So I accept his decision, unlike you.
That you can't accept RichRod knows more than you about the RBs is the height of arrogance and folly, IME.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
In other words, the coaches are always right. They should never be questioned.
Right? So you never get frustrated with certain playcalls, personnel decisions, etc.? Everything that Rodriguez does is the right decision?
October 4th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
What I said:
I don't see these RBs every day in practice, and neither do you. Thus, I assume that RichRod knows more than you and I do. So I accept his decision, unlike you.
What you heard:
In other words, the coaches are always right. They should never be questioned.
Um, "always being right" is not the same as "always having more information than you or me." RichRod always has and always will have more information than you or me about the RBs. Or the quarterbacks. Or the wide receivers. Always he will have more information than you or me. Using hindsight to question a decision is pointless, so I won't get into whether a given decision ends up being "right" or "wrong." The only issue is whether he made the best decision given the information available to him.
From that perspective the question is, do I feel justified in arguing the decision of someone who always has and always will have more information than me? For me the answer is NO. For you the answer is, obviously, YES.
And I reiterate that attitude is the height of arrogance and folly.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
So your point is that Rich Rodriguez has more information than me because he's at practice every day?
Wow. I feel enlightened now. You really put me in my place.
October 4th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
LIke Denard, Magnus, you are setting records every week. Denard? Offense. You? Douchebaggery.
How about your call to move Denard to WR?
October 4th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^
When did I call for Denard to move to WR? Oh yeah...I didn't.
Also, calling names on the internet? You must be proud.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:24 PM ^
I was very careful not to call you a douchebag. Please review my post. I said you were setting records for douchebaggery. That implies that the douchebaggery is temporary, at least at the time of this writing.
I'll need more time to research the posts where you called for the Denard position switch.
Edit:
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/devin-gardner-very-very-good?page=1
This is what will probably happen:
Tate will remain the starter in 2010.
Denard will remain the backup in 2010 but will play some in the slot or at running back.
Gardner will redshirt in 2010.
Tate will continue to start in 2011.
Denard will switch positions to full-time receiver or running back for 2011.
Gardner will be a redshirt freshman backup quarterback in 2011.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
Oh, so I said Denard should "probably" be the backup QB in 2010 and would "probably" move to wide receiver in 2011.
I'm sorry...where did I call for him to move to wide receiver? I think it's pretty clear that I was calling for him to remain at quarterback up to this point.
But you got me. I figured that a 45% passer would be the backup QB, not the starter. That's clearly the same as saying "MOVE HIM TO WIDE RECEIVER!"
October 4th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
Vincent Smith has been used on first-and-goal a number of times this season. He had two such TDs a week earlier against BGSU. If you're confident that your offensive line can get a good push, it really doesn't matter whom you choose to carry the ball. You just don't want a guy who makes a lot of mistakes. Smith takes good care of the ball and rarely loses yardage. That makes him a solid choice.
Are you really going to bash the staff for not playing a freshman who just fumbled (Hopkins) or a soph with a history of missing assignments (Cox) instead of a guy who's been there (and delivered) many times before?
October 4th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
He gets touchdowns when the offensive line gets a good push. In other words, he scores goal line touchdowns when the hole is wide enough that Pat Massey could score touchdowns. But he can't CREATE on his own or PUSH the pile, which is what you want on the goal line.
And yes, I'm going to bash the staff for not putting in Cox or Hopkins. Or Moundros or McColgan. Somebody who can run through a tackle on the goal line. Virtually no coach in the country would use a 5'6", 180 lb. tailback as their goal line/short yardage back. Smith couldn't get 2 yards on the goal line, and he couldn't get 1 or 2 yards when Forcier came in after Denard's injury.
I'm pretty confident that Smith isn't the best option when trying to ram the ball up in there. But the coaches are always right, so I guess I shouldn't criticize. They're beyond reproach, right?
October 4th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
Your use of hindsight is remarkably accurate.
Other points - You want a back coming off of the bench cold, coming in on the goal line? That doesn't sound like a great strategy either. I keep thinking of Will Carr and Purdue.
But in your defense, I wonder why RR didn't just call the touchdown play.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
Your use of hindsight is remarkably accurate.
I'm sorry I wasn't present for the Live Blog, so I could announce my disappointment in using Vincent Smith as it happened. I haven't been harping against the extensive use of Vincent Smith this season at all, so yeah, I must just be using hindsight...
You want a back coming off of the bench cold, coming in on the goal line?
Yeah, nobody's ever heard of a "short yardage" or "goal line" running back before. This idea has never been used in the past. I know it's a novel concept, but I really think NFL coaches should consider my innovative idea.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
I agree that the conventional thinking would be to have a bigger back in on the goal line. However, I find it hard to believe that Rodriguez would simply be using Smith in an attempt to prove a point. Perhaps Smith has shown in practice that he is the best back in finding a crease, getting into the end zone, etc. Either Smith has demonstrated these skills, or Rodriguez realizes that Smith's ball security, or some other skill outweighs the added power of a Hopkins/Cox.
Magnus, I'm curious as to your thinking regarding possible motives for Rodriguez using Smith.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
I think sometimes he overvalues "his guy" or the guy who "doesn't miss assignments." Oh, Mike Cox missed an assignment this week? Well, then he definitely can't line up in the I-formation and run through the B gap!
Sometimes guys have a certain value, or they do certain things well. Cox, Hopkins, etc. don't have to know the ENTIRE playbook perfectly in order to score from the 2-yard line.
October 4th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^
The established goal line RB is?
Hopkins? Fumbled in the previous week. Cox? Maybe, but I think it is arrogant to assume that you know more than the coaches. You don't attend practices, I think that has been established. Many observers have stated that Cox has fumbling issues.
The go to RB at the goal line has been Shaw then Smith. Shaw wasn't available Saturday, you'll see that when you watch the game.
Promise me that you won't go directly to the NFL. I think you should start in the college game. Georgia is looking promising, throw your hat into the ring.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^
Good God, this "You don't agree with the coaches, so you must think you know more than them" meme is retarded. It's so asinine that I don't even know how to refute it.
I hope you never question anyone in power (the President, your boss, a football coach, etc.). Because if you do, you'll be an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than everyone. The nerve!
October 4th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
Smith couldn't get 2 yards on the goal line
They ran 1 play that was blown dead on a defensive penalty and then Denard/Molk botched the exchange.
October 4th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^
If I'm following Magnus's logic, Smith somehow caused that botched exchange.
October 4th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
He'll make judgements based on the box score, without having seen parts of the game. I'm not kidding. He's admitted this.
And I think he just got caught doing it again.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
Yeesh, I missed the first 1.5 quarters of the UConn game, and that's it. In my recap of the game, I admitted such and said, "These are my observations from the 2.5 quarters I saw." I've seen every snap of every game since. I haven't made any judgments based on the box scores alone.
Keep making stuff up, cfaller96. It serves you well. It's the internet, where facts don't matter!
October 4th, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
The play wasn't blown dead.
Michigan snapped the ball, and Vincent Smith was stopped for a minimal gain.
There was an ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION penalty on the defense, which does not require blowing the play dead.
Half the distance to the goal, repeat 1st down.
October 4th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
And yes, I'm going to bash the staff for not putting in Cox or Hopkins.
Of course you will. But a reasonable person wouldn't. RR went with his only experienced back - and he wasn't stopped, he never carried the ball (we fumbled on first and goal).
October 4th, 2010 at 10:42 PM ^
You've GOT to be kidding me. When you speak from such a level of authority, you ought to make sure you're correct.
We ran the ball on 1st-and-GL. Smith was stopped after a minimal gain. A penalty was called because Indiana had 12 men on the field.
1st down was repeated due to the enforcement of the penalty.
THEN the snap was fumbled.
But yeah, you're right. They never handed off the ball to Smith, and he was never stuffed. It was a figment of my imagination, and the official website's play-by-play chart is lying to save my ass. (Hint: Look toward the bottom of p. 7 on the pdf.)
October 4th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
With Illinois, we had 4 chances to score from the 1 and just got outplayed on the line. To me, that is much more demoralizing than making a simple, garden-variety mistake in the center-QB exchange. Sure, this one was bad and came at a terrible time, but mistakes are bound to happen.
Also, I have much more faith in this 2010 team than the 2009 team to bounce back from mistakes and execution errors. We lost very few people and everyone else has returned a year more mature.
October 4th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
Yes. Exactly.
October 4th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
No, I got a flashback when we scored with under a minute and almost picked it off AGAIN to seal the victory.
October 4th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
Michigan didn't play Illinois in 2009.
See? Just look at this....
October 4th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^
Where I used that particular bit of technology.
I, uh, don't actually remember when I would have used it. Say, when did Henne graduate?
October 4th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
Thought the exact same thing that something would happen. Yet if shaw was there im sure he would of just jumped over the pile or plowed through it. I don't get why we can't use our bigger backs for anything like we did against ND, but we couldn't use it in the same situation against a shittier D line?