A glimpse ahead to 2011
November 21st, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
This would matter if we would have at least competed with those teams this year. We didn't compete at all. They flattened us. So we will go from flattened to competing, which let's call it 2-2 against those teams then. Throw in another loss against one of ND, San Diego State, Northwestern, or Illinois, and we're looking at a best case 9-3 next year, good for second or third in our Big Ten division and a mediocre bowl game.
Man it was so much sweeter when we were good.
EDIT: Wouldn't have been such a debbie downer if I realized I was the first comment. Sorry bro.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:54 PM ^
Wisconsin is the only team that flattened us this year. We lost by 10 to Iowa and outgained them by close to 200 yards.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
UM was down 28-7 heading into the 4th quarter. They got flattened on the scoreboard the first 3 quarters.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:36 PM ^
A game is not 3 quarters, nor is a season one game.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
But again, Michigan outgained Iowa by a bunch, but kept turning the ball over. There's a big difference between losing a game because you kept getting blown off the ball (Wisconsin) and losing a game because you couldn't hold onto the damn ball (Iowa, MSU).
Besides, if we're not counting all four quarters of some games, then can we just count the second half of yesterday's game? 'Cause by that standard, we won.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:22 PM ^
Michigan has been down by huge points to MSU, Iowa, PSU and Wisc. I don't need to hear the we made a combeback reply because any team is going to let up a little bit, a true comeback would mean we lost by only 3, which none of the games that happened. I completely agree with the first post.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
Wisconsin is the only team that flattened us this year.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. MSU, Iowa, PSU and Wisconsin each led us by 20 or more points in the second half of those games. While we scored some TDs after that point in each of those games, we never had the ball with a chance to tie, and ended up losing all four by double-digits.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^
if your down by 7 in the fourth: you did not get flattened....
November 21st, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
Call it whatever you want - a double-digit loss sucks, especially at home. I mean seriously . . . are we really going to find some kind of moral consolation in losing to MSU by 17, Iowa by 10, PSU by 10 and Wisconsin by 20? Incidentally, the two teams that "only" beat us by 10 have the same overall record as us.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:20 PM ^
If that is your case, then Iowa lost a lot of games last year, because they were always losing in the 4th.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
don't play wisco next year, so there is that to look forward too.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
Also, IF WE LOSE 3 GAMES NEXT YEAR THE BEST WE CAN DO IS 9-3!!!!!
November 21st, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
If all the losses were out of conference. Or enough of them. :-)
November 21st, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^
Bowl victory, anyone?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
BLAH BLAH BLAH M-16 BLAH BLAH
November 21st, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
Fair enough, but in general I'm quite positive actually. Just on this board I feel a moral responsibility to bring people back to earth with their future expectations of this team. We're at least 2 years out from competing for a championship, clearly.
And as a side-note, what's with everyone using the "The Who Stay..." line to support the team now. "Those Who Stay" meant if you stay on the team, you will win a Big Ten championship. But those who stayed at Michigan this time never even competed for one. In fact, J. Boren left and won one. So actually, those who left are champions. Those who stayed lost a lotta games. Just a question I've had.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
You really are dense, it doesnt have to exactly mean those who stay will be big ten champions. The kids who have stayed around this program for 4 years are going to be more successful in life having to endure the challenges that they've had. In my book every player that stays is a champion regardless of on field results.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
You only say that when it's been more than 4 years without a title. Ideally, it means both.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
It's always been my interpretation that "Those Who Stay Will Be Champions" refers to the Big Ten Chajmpionship (or more). Particularly when the quote came from Bo. I don't think that he's was talking about everybody getting a blue ribbon for competing like a T-Ball team. I think that he was talking about actual championships.
I live in Raleigh and NC State does "The Walk Of Champions" before every game. This always sort of bothered me since none of those players are champions of anything at this point. They haven't won the ACC since the 70's.
In my mind, "Champions" should mean something tangible.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
If anyone on a blog like Dr. Saturday or EDSBS, or hell, even Brian's TWIS, is ever looking for a great example of the Michigan fanbase at its worst, this is it right here.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
Except that pretty much every opposing fan I've run into thinks the RR experiment has been a disaster here and can't understand why there are still Michigan fans that support him, so I don't think they'd see a post like that as an example of the "worst" we have to offer.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 AM ^
As a Michigan fan, I know the program and the fans better than your opposing fans, whoever the hell they are. Their opinion of our program means jackshit to me since they have not been closely observant of our program. They watch ESPN and read Bleacher Report and see nothing but "Derp, Rich Fraud Fail, Derp," and say ,"Why, Derp, that sounds about right, Derp." So no, they wouldn't know what they're talking about, which means they probably wouldn't recognize that bit of emotastic self-destructive bitchery as the worst of Michigan fandom. Which it is.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^
1. UM will have the #1 offense in the big10 next year. book it. plus, TOs will be reduced.
2. the defense will be improved with more experience and more depth. obviously, this is the main key; how much improved. if martin and woolfolk can stay healthy, i say much improved; possibly close to avg in the big 10. plus TOs will be improved.
3. special teams will be better. again, more experience and more depth.
so with the #1 offense and an avg defense, this team can indeed compete for the big10 title; especially with OSU and Nebraska at home. if UM can steal a win at iowa or msu, the team could be in line to play in the big10 title game.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
Average defense isn't going to win you the Big 10, just my humble opinion.
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 AM ^
Yeah, because this league is really known for its explosive offenses.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
Great post, champ.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
you can put me down for ND
November 21st, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
Oh, wait. I see what you were responding to.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
The B10 is going to get a lot tougher, man. No one is going to win at Bo's pace ever again. You are in for serious disappointment down the road, and may want to find a new hobby.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:19 PM ^
Jim Tressel's on the phone. He'd like to tell you why you're wrong.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^
Tressel has one of the best states in terms of football talent on lock, something we will never have. That is why, and it won't change.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
Michigan never needed any state on "lock" to be successful in the past. They took highly regarded Ohio kids and turned that into conference title winning teams.
Nice try.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
OU has been competing for Big 12 titles for the past 12 years or so - despite sharing the state with a pesky little brother and having a huge rivalry against Texas. There may be more talent in OK than MI, but their situation isn't that different than ours.
Bama is expected to be a perennial national title contender, despite also having a pesky little brother. Wiscy and Iowa, while not winning B10 titles like OSU did, have less in state talent than us to pick up and have been just as successful as we have over the past decade.
I'd be okay with 9-3 next year, but we hired Rich Rod because we wanted to win B10 titles at Bo's clip, and wanted to compete for national titles almost every November. He knows that's the expectation. And as someone who thinks we'd be foolish to let him go this off season, if we don't have a 10 win season after he's been here five years, he would not be meeting expectations.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
lol off the top of my head Shawn Crable and Manningham were both from Ohio. That is an utterly false statement.
EDIT: Prescott Burgess, Brandon Harrison, Mesko, Roundtree, Koger, Omameh, are all Ohioans.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
New players will step right in and the team wont even know there gone!.. exclude(clayborne, Dj, greg jones, tolzien, klug) One day we might have depth too!
November 21st, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
I really hope you're right, but its hard to see it right now. My biggest reason for optimism is the return of the secondary, be it players returning from injury, or the freshmen gaining experience this year.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^
If you weren't a downer than it wouldn't be you. I know UM sucks and we are never coming out of it. Young team with everyone back should certainly only under perform again as that SOB RR is likely to be back next year. This is no thanks to that profit pusher DB. Maybe you make your comments in ALL CAPS to jazz it up a bit but same message.
I on the other hand am looking forward to a year where freshman aren't forced to start. In coming recruits can red shirt and only the truly exceptional will contribute. All this behind a prolific offense and maybe a kicker by then. One can hope.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:03 PM ^
That's good, I'm looking forward to next year too. But, let's be honest, we don't have a prolific offense. We put up crazy yardage because we're down 24 and the other team softens up, but the offense doesn't exist when the game is actually attainable.
As for freshmen not starting, next year it'll be the same excuse, just with sophomores. Notice how that has pervaded lately, the whole "Denard is only a sophomore" thing. It's true to an extent. But then again, there's gotta be someone who can play D on this team right?
As you said, one can hope. And c'mon man, I said I was just messin around in the other thread.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
Somehow I don't think that these teams are trying to get lit up on defense in the second half. What is far more likely is that Denard, being a first year starter, still hasn't reached the point where he can settle in right from the opening kickoff. He is still working on developing his touch and mechanics, especially on the deeper throws, which leads to some missed opportunities, especially in the first half of games. There are usually not a lot of major adjustments on offense at halftime, but the execution seems to improve dramatcially.
What is encouraging is that Denard's athleticism opens up a lot of throws downfield, and next year he should be far more capable of hitting those open receivers consistently. When our offense has struggled it has been because of bad throws and drops. Looking at MSU alone, we left a ton of points on the field. There was the INT that should have been a TD, but for the bad throw. There was the overthrow of a wide open Stonum on a sure TD. There were numerous drops, and another INT in the red zone. On top of that, as Denard's downfield accuracy improves, it will be even harder to crowd the line to shut down the running game. That, in turn, will take pressure off of the defense as well.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
In the MSU game, you can't count the Stonum overthrow as leaving points on the field because we scored a TD anyways just a few plays later.
Edit: Thinking of the wrong play. Oops.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
Except you're wrong...
1st Half - Michigan vs Michigan State (17-10 MSU)
Michigan Yards: 263
Michigan State Yards: 246
1st Half - Michigan vs Iowa (21-7 Iowa)
Michigan Yards: 200
Iowa Yards: 188
1st Half - Michigan vs Penn State (28-10 Penn State)
Michigan Yards: 177
Penn State Yards: 246
1st Half - Michigan vs Wisconsin (24-0 Wisconsin)
Michigan Yards: 126
Wisconsin Yards: 364
We were totally outmanned against Wisconsin, sure. Penn State dominated the ball and we still almost put up 200 total yds in the 1st Half. We outgained Iowa and Little Bro.
This meme that the offense is only prolific because teams are playing vanilla D is entirely fabricated.
EDIT TO ADD: The yards info is gleamed for adding up drive chart totals for the 1st Half which means it is a summation of yards traveled. Adding/subtracting penalty totals may alter the numbers a tad, but the point remains.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^
That's all fine and dandy, but can we not dig 20-point holes for ourselves every time we play a decent opponent? The fact that this scenario (gain lots of yards, stall in the redzone in the first half) keeps happening makes it seem less fluky. Teams are playing the kind of bend-but-don't-break that GERG dreams of - they rarely tighten up their coverages or send pressure until we get within FG range, at which point we often stall.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
I don't have a problem with anybody doubting whether we make it back to the top under RR as we haven't ever been there under RR. It takes a bit of faith and it's not for everybody. In my personal opinion I think next year the team matures and takes a big leap forward. In the fourth year a head coach should have things in place to succeed. As of right now I like our chances next year to compete for Big Ten title.
You are a negative poster and you make some good points from time to time. Own up to them though, don't hide behind I was just messin' around.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
It's the turnovers that made the difference in all of the losses except Wiscy. We put up more yards in the first half than the second against MSU, about the same yards in each half on Penn State, and 100 "crazy" additional yards in the second half on Iowa. If this offense doesn't turn over the ball or miss lots of field goals we win 2 of those three - defense notwithstanding. We are not piling up yardage in Garbage time as you suggest.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^
i am very, very sad to see Justin Boren graduate and descend into anonymity.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
For better or worse, I'm sure we'll find a way to keep his memory alive.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^
November 21st, 2010 at 7:25 PM ^
by the Bills?
November 21st, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^
Agreed. I have been saying for a while that we have a significant improvement coming next year, while other teams will have some major holes to fill on their starting roster. When you consider that we not only have nearly everybody back, but also that many of our starters are going from being freshmen to sophomores, there is still a lot of upside yet to come. The biggest jump in performance is generally between freshman and sophompore years.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^
OSU just reloads. Doesn't matter how many or who they lose, Tressell has the buckeye machine well oiled.