Injuries will happen
In 2009 Michigan dealt with important injuries at three positions, center, QB and RB. The serial injuries to Minor and Brown were the least important of these, as they were able to platoon, and when both were down, Smith and Shaw filled in adequately.
The same can’t be said for the impact of injuries to Molk and Forcier. Molk, arguably the best linemen, had to be replaced by shuffling in guys not quite ready (Khoury, Omameh) or guys not very good (Dorrestein, Ferrara) and the center position itself had to be manned by guys who had trouble snapping the ball. Obviously, Forcier continued to play after the Indiana game but his shoulder only got worse as the season progressed with the 4thquarter interceptions against OSU serving as Dead Arm exhibit A. Robinson wasn’t ready to play QB in lieu of Forcier. The results in the record book are stark. Without Molk, Michigan squeaked by Indiana, and thereafter with a lamed Forcier, they lost every meaningful game.
In 2010, the same injuries to Molk and Forcier are much more easily sustained.
I don’t remember the last time the same 5 OLs played the whole season; there are going to be injuries. Assume it’s Molk again. Between Khoury, Barnum and Mealer, there must be a replacement for Molk who performs better than last year’s replacement. Throw in improved-through-aging Dorrestein and Ferrara to patch any other holes that may open. Finally we’re looking at a full, experienced two-deep at OL, without even getting to Schofield or Washington.
As to how to replace Forcier if he’s knocked out or playing at less than 100%, well, we all know how dilithium works after it’s been out of the lab for a year. At his best, Forcier may not even have the job.
So that covers the center and QB replacements. Elsewhere? What player injury would be the least affordable? IMO, there’s no one even close to Troy Woolfolk. In fact, maybe the next most damaging loss would be the #2 CB, whoever that ends up being.
Other candidates? Well, Roh’s backups are dubious, so he’s probably #3. And of course, as far as safeties, we’ll have to wait for the season to begin and figure out which one is the most useful and anoint him the #4 most indispensible. Everywhere else – ILBs, DLs, receivers and RBs – there are numbers.
In summary, barring an outbreak of H1N1, and wishfully assuming Woolfolk, Roh, CB#2 and Safety #1 stay healthy, Michigan should do better than OK. The offense should be very good, the defense mediocre. On the other hand, with key disastrous injuries as occurred last year, it’s déjà vu all over again.
Anybody have a different perspective?
I agree, injuries will happen. Specifically to Pryor after Death Roh's first blitz.
If Miami's D brutalizes Pryor, OSU would be extremely lucky to go 8-4 without him, IME.
Finally, a sane person. I haven't seen a supposed elite QB be this mediocre since Ron Powlus. Well, JaMarcus Russell in the NFL too.
Trust me, I'm one of his biggest skeptics and the "WTF.. Pryor? Heisman? WTF" guy... But he is competent. His backups are yeauchk (I wish I could add an audio track to the pronunciation of this word).
I read the first reply. The second one made it even better. Plus 1 for each. I have the same feeling.
That would be a day for all to rejoice
I want us to beat those dirty buckeyes at full strength so they have no excuse.
In any way possible.
I want us to beat those dirty buckeyes at full strength so they have no excuse.
I agree in principle, but OSU has hung a couple of losses on us during their winning streak when we were at less than full strength and that hasn't stopped the Columbus Dispatch "Days Since Michigan Last Beat Ohio State" counter from turning.
I think that would bring me to tears of awesomeness if that actually happened. Just like when Carpenter busted his leg against us, the last significant injury that I can even think of that actually happened to OSU.
All of these hopes for an injury to Pryor are pretty tasteless. Getting banged up is one thing, getting injured is another. You may not like a player (a young guy who you don't even know), but hoping for him to get injured sounds like something coming out of East Lansing, not Ann Arbor. Personally, I would rather we lose to OSU with Pryor than beat OSU without Pryor.
I agree with your comment about tasteless hopes, but how about we win with - or without - Pryor?
I just meant is as a either/or choice as a way to illustrate my point. I would also want us to win either way, but a win over a healthy Pryor is much, much more meaningful.
Wait, you just wrote, minutes ago, that you'd rather lose to OSU with Pryor than beat them without him. Which is it?
Are you kidding me? Why are you nit-picking what I write?
I said:
Personally, I would rather we lose to OSU with Pryor than beat OSU without Pryor.
Then I said:
I just meant is as a either/or choice as a way to illustrate my point. I would also want us to win either way, but a win over a healthy Pryor is much, much more meaningful.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It is pretty meaningless to say that I would rather beat a healthy Pryor than an injured Pryor - duh. I meant the 1st statement as a more challenging either/or scenario - if somehow given the choice, I would chose to lose to OSU with a healthy Pryor over beating an OSU with an injured Pryor. For example, if we played OSU with healthy Pryor and lost, I would NOT trade that for a win over an injured Pryor/OSU. But in terms of reality, in which I would not be given magical powers, if we did win against an injured Pryor/OSU, I would be happy.[EDIT- better make this as clear as possible - I would be happy for the win as a UM fan, not the injury or because we won due to the injury.]
One is a fictional scenario, the other reality. What is the problem?
Okay, so if I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you're not contradicting yourself in the two statements, this is apparently your order of preference:
1. Beating OSU with Pryor.
2. Losing to OSU with Pryor.
3. Beating OSU without Pryor.
I find #2 impossible to believe. Are you honestly going to tell me that you wouldn't have taken a win over Pryor-less OSU last year over the result that happened? How about a win over OSU (sans Troy Smith) in 2004, '05 or '06?
My understanding of what he is saying is:
1. Beating OSU with Pryor.
2. Beating OSU without Pryor.
3. Losing to OSU with Pryor.
How do you get that interpretation out of this statement: "I would rather we lose to OSU with Pryor than beat OSU without Pryor"?
Personally, I would rather we lose to OSU with Pryor than beat OSU without Pryor.
I was with you until this statement. This is ridiculous, and I don't believe you for one millisecond. I don't know a single OSU fan who is sorry that Drew Henson didn't face them in 2001 (nor have I ever met a Buckeye who regrets playing us without our top two tailbacks and starting center last year). I don't want players to get hurt, but if they do, tough luck - it's happened to us plenty.
I'd anoint our starting free safety (looks to be Cam Gordon at this point) as #3, but possibly #2 depending on how Vlad has been progressing with his injury-wracked legs.
If we lose Molk, Khoury should able to step in and be competent.
If we lose Forcier, D-Rob will work out just fine.
If Woolfolk goes down, then it's over for the secondary. We can afford zero injuries in the secondary this year. The secondary is either going to be competent and allow us to get to a bowl game, or Rich Rod will most likely be looking for a new job this offseason.
get out the bubble-wrap.
As long as this top keeps spinning and I keep Lloyd properly sedated.
Thank you for that.
This is a very good reason why Woolfolk should return nothing unless it's an interception or he has his hand waving in the air before he catches the ball.
The serial injuries to Minor and Brown were the least important of these, as they were able to platoon, and when both were down, Smith and Shaw filled in adequately.
While I guess it's true to say that their injuries weren't quite as impactful as the ones to Forcier and Molk, I'm not sure I agree with the second part. Shaw didn't do anything last year against non-cupcake opposition, and while Smith was terrific as a receiver, he didn't make much of an impact as a rusher - he had 60 yards on 16 carries against Wisconsin and OSU. The lack of a true rushing threat didn't help Forcier any against the Bucks.
I'm glad somebody else realizes that Vincent Smith isn't necessarily a great runner. Every time I mention the fact that he was only mediocre against non-DSU opponents, people are like, "But but but he can catch the ball!"
Well, that's great, Eric Metcalf. In the real world of the zone read option, the running back has to be able to gain chunks of yards on the ground, too. F*** catching passes - give me a running back who can run. Good hands is just icing on the cake.
Count me in on this as well. I like Smith, but he's not a guy that can carry the load on a regular basis. Yes, he did better than Shaw, but Shaw's never done anything against an even decent opponent. I hateto say it, but neither guy particularly excites me as the starting RB. If it's not Cox or Toussaint, I'm going to be pretty concerned about the rushing attack overall.
Now as receivers out of the backfield or guys that can shift to the slot and create mismatches that way, yeah Smith and Shaw are very good weapons.
when minor was playing healthy none of the other three "adequately" filled the rage
Imagine an angry and healthy Minor running his heart out in his final game in Michigan Stadium; busting Buckeye heads and tackles. If he plays, Ohio State goes down on that day.
I don't think it's mere homer-ness to say that we've been pretty damn unlucky against OSU lately in the injury department. In the past five years, 2006 was the only game in which all our offensive skill players were able to go four quarters.
After Junior lights up UConn by catching two bombs for touchdowns. I just hope he doesn't get mono or something. That guy always plays great in the first game and then gets hurt and we don't really see him for much of the season.
Mike Martin
See, this was my thought as well. If Magnus is right and Martin starts at the nose (which I still think is a horrible idea), losing him would be a huge blow actually. Hell, I think it would be a pretty big loss if he was hurt and playing UT/DE as well.
If Magnus is right and Martin starts at the nose... losing him would be a huge blow actually.
Nice pun, intended or not.
I'm probably not smart enough to make a pun like that on purpose.
This year's Michigan football team will be the only uninjured team in the history of college football. We deserve it after the run we've had.
Either that or our whole team will be wiped out by freak meteor hitting the Big House a week before the UCONN game. Meanwhile, saddened fans are interrupted by happy chants of "No More RichRod" by the normal brigade of douchebags. (Sadly, at this point, the latter seems more likely to me.)
To be fair, I think the author wasn't intending to say Michigan cant afford any injuries this year. He was simply hoping what injuries we do have are to positions we can easily replace (RB/WR) relative to positions that we're already razor thin at (CB/Safety).
I thought it was a good post. We are due for a season without major industries to key positions though. Fingers crossed.
Affect player's rate of getting hurt? Not sure if anyone has noticed if Barwis/RR West Virginia teams have fared better or worse on average in the injury department. I thought that part of Barwis' philosophy in training with free weights was to help prevent injuries because it required you to build up your stabilization muscles. Not sure if the comparison is fair since he coached the Big East vs the Big Ten, which tends to be a little more hard nosed on both offense and defense, but it could show some trends. Hopefully 2 years in the system will help stave off injuries.
But it would kill us if Barwis were injured and out for an extended period of time
Martin is probably second, and Van Bergen third. That is not to say that the other positions are not important, but the drop off from those three would be the most significant.
I think the dropoff from Roh to Fitzgerald is pretty significant. If we lose Roh, that's a whole lotta pass rush that vanishes.
1. Either of the QB's - We saw what happened in 2008 and we don't want to be there again. If Tate goes down, well then we are just one tweak of an ankle away from having DG burn his redshirt and be thrown into the fire. Give me 2 healthy, and competent, QB's more than anything else.
2. TW - Wherever he ends up playing in the secondary, we need him
3. Roh - Dude is going to be a monster this year. No matter what the drop-off is, we can't afford to have our best players off the field, especially on defense.
4. Molk - See the 2nd half of 2009
5. Jonas - I think he is going to have a significant senior year a la Stevie Brown '09.
injuries to key positions, say your entire offense in the biggest game of the year, suck =(
i think losing your qb is obviously the worst position to lose in CFB. you cant just plug someone in without some drop off. take forcier -> denard(not saying forcier is a lock to start but lets imagine), teams can press a big more without having to fear the deepball. teams will stack the box in fear of the run. change of pace switching of QBs wont happen. etc.
Tired of the Molk got injured excuses used to explain the 2nd half collapse last year. After 2 seasons you only have 1 guy that can snap the ball effectively, you only have one guy that can block adequately out of the center position. Geezus enough already, we just weren't good enough with or without Molk.
Your irritation with such a statement doesn't make it any less true.