Football, Im not so dissapointed
with how our season turned out. I was watching highlights of the 2004 and 2007 Rose Bowls and couldn't help but think, "how the fuck are we getting outplayed by these assholes? They can't be that much more talented than us, can they?" So, although we are relegated to watching every other team and their brother play in a bowl game while we sulk in our recliners posting on MGoBoard, at least we have the future to behold.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^
in 2007 if Lloyd Carr had just made ONE adjustment by the beginning of the 3rd quarter, we would have won. It's called the SHOTGUN.
January 1st, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
People are forgetting Carr stepped down because we were tired of 3 and 4 lose seasons. We werent getting better with him here. UM had to think outside the box and get a coach that will take us to that next step!! Yes we will have to take a few steps back first BUT our future is brighter with Rich Rod than it was with Carr!!
January 1st, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
Right. The shotgun would have won that game for us. You're right. It's blindingly obvious to you, but not to a guy who spent 40 years coaching football.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:39 AM ^
I can't help but wonder what would have been the results of the Rose Bowl in 2005 had we played Cal instead of VY and Texas
January 1st, 2009 at 1:48 AM ^
Someone posted once saying that he had inside info that Carr was seriously considering retiring if we'd won that game. Then we lost on the last play and it seemed to re-trigger Carr's competitive streak, and he hung on for a few more years. If this was the case (no way of knowing for sure, obviously), how would the last four years have gone? It's a pretty wild hypothetical.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
I remember hearing the rumor that he would've retired after the 2007 Rose Bowl had we beaten USC.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
On that one, there's been talk that even after we lost, he wanted to retire and Bill Martin talked him into staying one more year.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
Bill Martin is a brilliant man.
January 1st, 2009 at 7:54 AM ^
Whoever had the ball last in tht game was going to win. Texas couldn't stop our offense, and we couldn't stop Vince Young.
Memories, like the corners of our minds...
and junk like that.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:00 PM ^
Not many defenses were able to stop Vince that year. In two words he was...simply amazing.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
The losses to Toledo & Purwhoo are still itches in my crawl...UGGGGH!
The shock of the season otherwise has worn off...alot of Bombay Sapphire was quite instrumental with my offseason,lack of bowl game blues.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
Oh, and yes, 2006 USC was MUCH more talented than us.
January 1st, 2009 at 7:35 PM ^
I'm not so sure about that. Most of the guys from our 2006 starting lineup are now playing in the NFL. It was definitely our most talented, well-rounded team in the past decade. As for USC, it was probably their weakest team since the start of the run in 2002 - now, that's not saying much, but they did drop two games and were held without a TD by UCLA, something that would have never happened to the Leinart/Bush teams. Going into the game, quite a few observers thought we not only had a chance but even should be favored.
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 AM ^
From that 2006 team, we have the following players drafted into the NFL:
Henne
Hart
Manningham
Breaston
Long
Woodley
Branch
Crable
Hall
(I assume that Terrence Taylor will end up in the NFL as well)
So - 10.
USC:
Steve Smith
Dwayne Jarrett
Sam Baker
Ryan Kalil
Chilo Rachal
Fred Davis
John David Booty
Thomas Williams
Chauncey Washington
Sedrick Ellis
Lawrence Jackson
Dallas Sartz
Oscar Lua
Keith Rivers
Terrell Thomas
(Fili Moala is a 2009 projected first round pick, Bryan Cushing will be drafted, Rey Maualaga will be drafted)
That's 18.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 PM ^
I don't dispute that they had more total talent overall, but I don't think the disparity was such that a lopsided result was inevitable. 2006 USC was a young team that had a lot of unimpressive results. During one four-week stretch, they beat WSU by 6, beat Washington by 6, beat ASU by 7, and lost to Oregon State. Later they lost the season finale to UCLA, being held without a TD. It was the weakest team since their current run began in 2002, and many analysts favored us against them.
The biggest disparity was on the sidelines. Carroll is a monster when he has a month to prepare and always throws in wrinkles that attack the opponent's weaknesses. (He particularly excels at incorporating new defensive fronts.) Carr, on the other hand, tended to coach bowls like he did the regular season - assuming that we had a talent advantage, so we could run predictable things and hope to out-execute our opponents. This frequently resulted in us falling behind and having to scramble out of the gameplan to catch up. It worked in the 2000 Orange Bowl, but not so well in the two USC games.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^
it's the coaching.
that sounds rational.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
18 to 14 isn't that big a disparity. And our guys were generally more experienced. SC was very young in 2006.
Yes, it's coaching. Carroll with a month to prepare is hands down the game's best. Carr with a month to prepare was very average (6-7 in bowls).
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
and it's my guess that age isn't a big deal for players of USC's caliber given the stiff competition they have to beat out just to see the field.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
Chitown forgot some guys, it's 14 UM plyers drafted. One of which was a 5th year senior TE in Ecker, a redshirt sophomore in Arrington (former Army AA), a senior LB in Burgess (former Army AA), and senior David freakin Harris. I think seniority helps where natural talent may lag.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
Yep. Experience is a big deal. Does anyone think our 2008 team had the overall talent level of a typical 3-9 team? Obviously not.
Again, if there was such a talent disparity, why did so many analysts expect us to win, and why was our loss so surprising to many people (including the Rivals and Scout mods - they didn't see a blowout coming)? It's coaching. USC threw some defensive fronts we'd never seen before and fluxommed us. When we loaded up to stop the run, they abandoned it entirely, and started rolling Booty away from where we were sending pressure, and completely negated our pass rush. We belatedly went to the shotgun to give Henne time, and started moving the ball, but it was too late. We never figured out how to counter their rollouts and continued, futily, to send pressure from the same places.
Here's the thing. You give Lloyd the 2006 USC team and give Carroll the 2006 Michigan team. You think the result would have been the same?
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 PM ^
Looking at bowl records and then saying that somehow Carrol is a better coach when looking through the prism of 8 games for Carroll and 13 for Lloyd is pretty thin gruel - those number make up about 8% of the games they coached.
Recruiting classes that would be relevant to the 2006 game:
2002 (5th year): USC - #13, Michigan - #16
2003 (4th year): USC - #3, Michigan - #17
2004 (3rd year): USC - #1, Michigan #5 (this doesn't seem big, but USC's average star rating was seven tenths of a star higher)
2005 (2nd year): USC - #1, Michigan - #6 (again, .6 of a star higher)
2006 (1st year): USC - #1, Michigan - #13
So, even if you limit it to 5th, 4th, and 3rd year players (generally, your starters), USC was still significantly more talented. I mean, look at the result - they kicked the shit out of us. If talent was equal, what coaching move made them SO much better? If you say we should have played shotgun, I give up.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
We should have played the shotgun.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
OK, so then why wasn't SC a big favorite in the game? (Look up the Rivals and Scout archives and you'll find game predictions of close Michigan victories.) Why were so many teams able to compete with them (and two teams beat them) in the regular season? Were we less talented than UCLA, Oregon State, WSU, Washington and Arizona State? Or did their talent advantage only materialize after the regular season ended?
Chitown, I think you're a pretty levelheaded fan, but you are a bit too much of a homer when it comes to analyzing our coaching staff. Your reflex is to rationalize everything that goes wrong. Sometimes we just plain screw up.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 PM ^
Wait, so we're using Vegas odds as a barometer of team quality? And Michigan's Rivals site picked Michigan to win? Oh my!
What are you arguing - that Pete Carroll's distinct coaching advantage only manifests itself in Bowl Games?
Team aren't automatons. They don't play exactly the same way and just as good every single week. That's why USC lost to Stanford last year.
But, would I consider an 11-2 USC team that:
-Won at #15 Arkansas
-Beat #22 Nebraska
-Beat #20 Oregon
-Beat #14 Cal
-Beat #17 Notre Dame
-Beat #8 Michigan
As a vastly superior team to a Michigan team that:
-Beat #17 Notre Dame
-Beat #5 Wisconsin
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
How could you forget THE David Harris? Also, just to nitpick, Burgess was selected in the 6th rd. and Ecker and Arrington were both drafted in the 7th round. I don't think Ecker is still playing, but Arrington is a lot better of a receiver than his draft status showed. So that's 14.
January 1st, 2009 at 8:08 PM ^
Yea I think their coaching staff was much more talented than ours, but not the players. We had a ton of good-great players on that 2006 team including a lot of NFL-talent. Hart, Henne, Manningham, Arrington, Breaston, Ecker, Oluigbo, Long, Kraus, and OL experience with Bihl and Riley on offense. Mesko and Rivas on ST. On defense, Branch, Woodley, TT, Harris, Hall, and Crable, three of which are starters in the NFL in their second seasons. Good but not great defensive players in Adams, Barringer, Biggs, and Burgess. The weakest links in player personnel were Graham and Trent, and any injury bug that kept any starters off the field (like Barringer).
January 1st, 2009 at 8:20 PM ^
It is nice to see someone else getting anally abused in the Rose Bowl. It's not just a Michigan thing. It's a road game for the BT every year and the distractions are much too great to overcome for the most part.
Oh, and USC is practically a pro team.
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^
A pro team that loses to Stanford and an okay Oregon St? :) I don't think distractions have much to do with it, USC is just that much more talented and well coached & prepared. When was the last time PSU had a great recruiting class? To answer my own question, they had a top 10 recruiting class in '06, but didn't even make the top 15 or top 20 in most other years.
USC has H.S. All Americans stockpiled at every position so regardless of how seasoned and well PSU played as a team, they just don't have the depth or talent to match and couldn't coach or luck their way out of having such a disparity in talent like other teams have been occasionally been able to do against USC...especially against a USC team that had a few weeks to prepare.
Basically, it's not a shock that they've been housing fools in the RB when they play the likes of the B10s third place team (and is freaking Illinois no less) and a PSU team that doesn't have the talent or coaching to match. Not to discredit them because they are obvi awesome, but it's not like the B10 is sending out teams that could at least compete on paper. The only team that could compete on paper considering depth, experience, and overall talent was the 2006 UM team and they blew it.
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^
so that some of that USC 5-deep talent gets drained off.
Would love to see USC play Florida this year. (They already beat the snot out of OK a couple of years ago.)
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 PM ^
So the posting doesn't get smushed, I agree with the idea that coaching was the ultimate factor. I could care less about who was favored or what not, b/c I think most "analysts" are pretty stupid and buy into hype rather than facts. But as jmblue stated, designed roll-outs kept our d-line out of the game and exploited our weakest area (secondary).
Michigan didn't put Henne in a situation to avoid the USC blitz by rolling him out or putting him in shotgun. Going to shotgun, in my understanding, severely limits the running game but the thing is, nobody was going to run at that Rose Bowl. USC was the only team to realize that, so they abandoned it completely and Booty & Jarrett were able to capitalize whereas Henne and Co. were getting raped. It's not like USC was lighting it up in the first half until they came out in the second half with a new gameplan.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^
Yes, yes, 10000 times yes. It was 3-3 at halftime. Then after the half, USC stopped running the ball completely and just moved away from pressure to pick up pass yards. We got down, were in repeated 3rd and long, and Chad Henne ate turf. This game was 100% on coaching imo. Sorry Chitown, but you're way off in your argument.