Brhino

September 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^

Lots of them bitching about the pass interference call on Michigan's last TD drive.  They may have a bit of a point there.  On the other hand, Fitz Toussaint got his helmet turned 90 degrees on Michigan's first drive of the second half.  Without a penalty, we're forced to punt two plays later.  With a personal foul called as it should have been, we're looking at first and 10 from the ND 21 and it's very likely that we go up by three scores.  Would have been a lot less drama in the second half if that had happened.  So, refs gonna ref.  You lost.  

Joined: 09/08/2009

MGoPoints: 19457

Soulfire21

September 8th, 2013 at 1:02 PM ^

While I even agree the PI call was questionable I seem to remember a vivid horse-collar tackle that ND wasn't called for as well as 2-3 facemasks that they were not called for, so in the end I think it evens out a bit.

Perusing some of the posts.

P.s. Our new, game-chamging, program-building nutrition program seems to emphasize chitterlings and milkshakes and pizza and mashed potatoes

I was a bit surprised at how many people kept repeating over and over that Michigan is not great, Michigan is not elite, etc.

Joined: 03/18/2010

MGoPoints: 22716

The Wolf

September 8th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^

That seems like a fairly logical assessment right now.  Maybe Georgia (Gurley can really tote the rock -- I hope Mr. Green is able to watch some of that film)?  I don't think that Oregon, Clemson, OSU, or Michigan could keep up with the Tide right now.  Perhaps (hopefully) the end of the season will show a slightly different story.  

I am very excited to see what Saban dials up for Johnny Football next weekend, however.  Hate the man's (public) demeanor and the tactics he uses, but you've got to give credit to the machine he has created.  My hope is that Michigan is on a similar trajectory in the next few years.

Joined: 02/02/2011

MGoPoints: 356

stephenrjking

September 8th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^

Bama may still be the best, but we can't say for sure yet. Their offense certainly wasn't impressive against Va Tech (of course we know how that feels) and the history of great teams suggests a surprising drop-off sooner or later.
But I think "elite" means more than Bama anyway. Top five at least, or very good and able to beat a top five team. Or something.
Anyway, it's entirely possible that a Michigan team with a lot of youth, an all-new interior OL, key receiver injuries, and a big hole at safety is not elite. Maybe Devin lifts the team and proves them wrong, but we can't know that for sure.

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20143524

Soulfire21

September 8th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^

So, then what is great?  My point was that they appeared to completely discredit our team, which I thought was unwarranted.  Certainly we appear fairly good, do we not?  Has anyone in the Big Ten been more impressive through (an admittedly small sample size of) two games?

Joined: 03/18/2010

MGoPoints: 22716

MGoBlue96

September 8th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^

on Gallon when the ball was in the air, that is pretty much an automatic PI. Not to mention as others have said, before that point, the missed calls have been going against Michigan (missed PI on the play before on Butt, missed facemask and horse collar on Fitz, and a phantom hold that stopped a Michigan drive). I don't want to hear any bitching about that call from ND fans considering it was the right call, and Michigan was getting the short end of the stick from the officials most of the game.

Joined: 12/26/2010

MGoPoints: 25993

mastodon

September 8th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^

I hate it when we benefit from questionable calls - I don't want a tainted win, and I don't think this one was - but I'll make an exception for ND with all the breaks they've gotten over the years against us and others.  I actually enjoy it.

Joined: 04/20/2011

MGoPoints: 2393

Clarence Beeks

September 8th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^

"Michigan didn't have much of a pass rush"

I think that may have actually been intentional. When we really needed one, we got one. For whatever reason, we were really content with a four man rush that didn't apply much pressure for almost the entire first three quarters with the exception of a few plays when we really needed a stop.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22733

ironman4579

September 8th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^

Count me among the people confused by this.  Typical ND play selection seemed to by "1st and 10- rush for 8 yards.  2nd and 2- empty backfield 5 wide.  3rd and 2- empty backfield five wide."   With the way ND was gashing Michigan, I don't really understand why they didn't run more.

Joined: 11/08/2009

MGoPoints: 3867

Dallas Walmart…

September 8th, 2013 at 2:42 PM ^

"You're better than us, but not elite"? Not sure I get their need to make those statements. Seems to be that means they're bashing their own team by commenting on how the team that just beat them by two scores isn't really that strong. Unless they're saying we may be better than them this year, but not "elite" like they were last year, which would be just as stupid. FWIW, I don't think we're elite yet either, but it's hard to argue that we don't have the chance to have a very successful team this year and beyond. I loved DG's game last night (other than The Incident).

Joined: 10/20/2011

MGoPoints: 1158

ppToilet

September 8th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^

In the banter he had with the ND blogger, Brian predicted Michigan would go to a bend-but-don't-break defense. This gives up a lot of yards but no big plays and less points. It worked.

Joined: 04/18/2011

MGoPoints: 5263

sdogg1m

September 8th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^

Yes, we were fortunate to get two turnovers and a clutch fourth down stop during the game but ND hung around mainly because we weren't dominate. We were dominate not because they were just better, we weren't risking much.

I trust Mattison and think part of the reason he help back is because of the youth of his team and also to unleash some good stuff for the game against Ohio. I hope he has some good stuff for the Buckeyes.

Joined: 09/13/2008

MGoPoints: 5790

KBLOW

September 8th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^

Not barely.  Not at all.

The bend but don't break is all about forcing excellent execution.  ND/Rees couldnt do that.  Granted the last INT was fortune smiling on us, but the first was a classic bend but don't break turnover.  

Rather, ND "hung around" due to issues witht the offense: Gardener's INT and our inability (though helped by the phantom hold on Miller) to even get a FG on our first drive of the 2nd half.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 22424

Sten Carlson

September 8th, 2013 at 3:38 PM ^

Not sure what you were watching SDogg! I saw an ND team that got exceedingly lucky courtesy of a fluky tipped TD catch, a dropped INT by Ross, missed/bad calls that extended their drives and killed Michigan drives, and DG's 1 poor decision. I think this game was a gnats ass from getting out hand and being a blow out win by Michigan. ND fans, from what I've been reading, recognize that fact, have given DG props, and are rightly upset with Kelly's strategy. IMO, Mattison did what a good DC does with a young squad going against a big play offense -- keep everything inside and in front of your defense. I think ND's DL is elite, and hopefully our OL learned a lot about elite level blocking last night. They basically pinned their ears back and came at our OL every play. I think this is the first time in a long time that Michigan was just the better team and played with more poise, and didn't have to rely upon miracles to win.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

Jonesy

September 8th, 2013 at 5:44 PM ^

Not sure what you were watching Sten Carlson!

 

I saw an ND offensive line that destroyed our defensive line allowing them to run the ball at will and sit in the pocket all day while we failed to cover anyone.  We never got any pressure on the quarterback besides one lucky sack when brennan did a spin move in the same direction rees cut and found a gift in front of him, besides that Rees just picked us apart.  Our defense did nothing and our only hope was that for three straight plays Rees would throw a bad pass/a receiver would drop the ball.  They moved the ball with ease.

 

Meanwhile on offense I saw a defensive line that destroyed our offensive line having their whole team in our backfield on every run play and hitting Gardner two seconds into every pass play.  Every yard we got was fought for tooth and nail.

 

I have no idea how we won this game when we got absolutely manhandled in the trenches, we did not at all look like the better team to me, it looked like a push at best.

Joined: 03/14/2012

MGoPoints: 10534

switch26

September 8th, 2013 at 6:18 PM ^

I agree with this..  We are in year 3, and our head coach is suppose to be a D-line coach, yet we managed 1 sack against a decent O-line?  How many years are we gonna have to wait before we have someone on the D line that can actually be a force?

Joined: 02/04/2010

MGoPoints: 8309

M-Wolverine

September 9th, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^

1 week 2 hoursago After re-watching im nervous

After re-watching im nervous about our WR and RB's thru the rest of the year..  Don't think our offense will move the ball much against ND, but we'll see.
1 week 21 hoursago When none of our RB's rush

When none of our RB's rush for over 50 yards against ND you will prob think we need to recruit more too

 

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

Sten Carlson

September 8th, 2013 at 8:35 PM ^

ND "moved the ball with ease" yet Michigan scored more points, had more yards, more rushing yards, more T.O.P., more first downs, more yards per play, and more third down conversions.  The only stats in which ND beat Michigan were passing yards (by 20 yards), yards per rush (by .6 yards/carry), penalties, and turnovers. 

Michigan out performed ND in nearly every category, and if not (as I mentioned previously) for a few fluky plays, some bad/missed calls, and a complete brain melt by DG, Michigan runs away with the game. 

I would agree with you about UTL #1, in which Michigan lucked into a win with a miracle finish and inexplicable mistakes by ND.  In this game, it seemed to me that much of the "manhandling" by the ND OL/DL was something that the Michigan coaches schemed for.  ND's DL is elite, and probably the best we're going to see all year.  Michigan's OL is talented, but young, and think the game plan was to neutralize the pass rush with quick hitters, zone reads, and DG's athletic ability to extend plays.  If you read what ND fans are complaining about it is that their DL was just rushing with their ears pinned back and their hair on fire, and DG was STILL able to beat them.  Similarly on defense, I think Mattison was pretty certain that they weren't going to get much pass rush on the veteran ND OL, so he schemed to keep the ball "inside and in front" of his relatively young and inexperienced defense, and let Rees make mistakes -- which he did, at the most inopportune time.  The bad passes he threw a product of the defense that Michigan was playing, both the rush, and the coverage.

Even after the DG INT, I wasn't concerned.  I could tell that Michigan had the game completely in hand.  Michigan won because they were the better team, that was better coached, better prepared, more physical, and made more plays, simple.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

MichiganTeacher

September 8th, 2013 at 9:22 PM ^

Jonesy, you said it yourself, you have no idea how we won this game. Seems to me that our gameplan and scheme was clear and effective: make Rees execute again and again. He couldn't do it. There's a reason he was replaced by a redshirt freshman last year.

This game was only close at the end because of Devin Gardner's one terrible choice. Rees made some bad choices too, of course. In the end, they probably canceled out, the luck on either side probably about canceled out, same with refs, and we're left with what we're left with: a score that says Michigan was 11 points better. That sounds about right to me. Take away the 3 points for home field and that says we're about one touchdown and a two-point conversion better. That sounds about right too.

Joined: 10/06/2011

MGoPoints: 9263

Jonesy

September 9th, 2013 at 2:36 AM ^

I wish I had your confidence because that game nearly gave me an ulcer.  Sure stats may say we outperformed them but we had to fight tooth and nail for every yard while theirs were gained easily and they lost more due to bad playcalling and missed open opportunities.

 

Every michigan running play (except when DG ran it) - offensive line destroyed, DL in the backfield, no gain or a great effort by the running back.

 

Every notre dame running play - gaping holes, easy 6 yard gain (BK is an idiot for ditching the run).

 

Every michigan passing play - offensive line destroyed, DL and LB in the backfield, Gardner has to make a quick decision and a good pass while getting hit, we're a split second from a sack or an altered pass.

 

Every notre dame passing play - we rush four, we get 0 pressure, rees sits in the pocket all day and easily finds an open receiver (yay for drops and bad throws).

 

To me, that means that we're fighting an uphill battle and relying on Rees and receivers to mess up, thats not exactly where I want to be.  We were far more likely to lose than to run away with it.  This was a very close game between pretty even teams.

Joined: 03/14/2012

MGoPoints: 10534

Sten Carlson

September 9th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^

Jonsey, Read what others are saying about Borges' game plan. He ran the ball to set up the play action, and he did it just enough to insure that ND wouldn't abandon defending it aggressively. I think if you asked Borges candidly whether he believed they'd get 100+ yards from the RB prior to the game he would have said, "no." ND's front is elite, and even when Michigan's OL is elite and experienced running consistently on a front like ND's is going to be tough. Ironic isn't it that the play that really put Michigan in position to seal the game was a 22 yard RUN by Fitz. I'll bet in a UFR of that play we'll see that this was one of the few times ND wasn't in "run-stop" mode as Borges made them think they were going to abandon the run, but came back to it at the perfect moment. On defense, I think the same is true, Mattison would have candidly said he was less than confident that the front 4 would get substantial pressure alone. Again, GM rolled the dice and opted to not let Rees go over the top like they had in the past by blitzing rarely and keeping everything in front of the defense. ND has a good, experienced OL and were basically max protect all game. If GM had calle up blitz after blitz, I think Rees would have REALLY hurt the defense. He forced ND to execute flawlessly over and over. There were the two INT's, one dropped INT by Ross, and a fluky tipped TD that should have been a break up. That's 4 times in which ND did NOT execute flawlessly, and Michigan's defense capitalized on 2/4. All in all, a good showing IMO for a young defense without its best LB. Chill out, ND is a good team, and it was a solid win for Michigan!

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

M-Wolverine

September 9th, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^

We'd have lost by 40, instead of having a game that easily could have been 22 point win.

Relying on the offense to screw up is what defenses do. Eventually we might be one that forces teams to make mistakes, but those are few and far between, and we're not there yet. But how many teams are we going to play that can exploit that?  And by the time we do, we'll be a better team in Novermber than we are now.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 42190

sdogg1m

September 8th, 2013 at 2:24 PM ^

Their fanbase seems to look internally. I really thought they would blame the loss on the questionable pass interference call. They are really blaming the loss on Kelly's decision making, failure to run the ball, and clock control.

Joined: 09/13/2008

MGoPoints: 5790