My conflicting viewpoint on the game

I side more with Angry Michgoblue on 3, but not on 1. 2 and 4 I'm still undecided on.

Nice, i got a good chuckle out of reading the your post.  I like smith as a blocker, but agree, watching him get stuffed on first down after frist down attempt is frustrating.

I thought he looked good and should have gotten more touches (maybe health was an issue?)

I agree about Vincent Smith.  I don't think he's being used properly.  He's not the guy you give it to on third and 2; have him in on passing downs, let him be a Brian Westbrook type player (though I think Michael Shaw does everything Smith does except better).

Mike Cox needs some more action on Saturdays (pause) and so does Hopkins. 

But I would have liked to see more Hopkins today.

I am still mad. I need more time to calm down. Sparty smacking us down at home really has my blood boiling. Maybe i'll be good by Tuesday. Then I can possibly reflect on what I actually watched today. 

Shaw was a little gimpy when he came out after half.

Nice.

I'm with rational on 1.  At this point, with this hype and everything based on Denard, it's hard to switch him out.

Not sure about 2.  I think the offense was fine in general, just not so good with the horribly crippling turnovers.  Not all that different from OSU last year.

I'm with Angry on 3.  Shaw must still be hurt, and Smith just doesn't seem that explosive.  It's worth spreading out the carries a bit.

I'm with rational on 4.  A little more than 500 yards and 30 something points is what this defense is going to do against solid competition.  That's just how it is at this point.  UM needs to put up 40 points to win, I don't think that is going to change.  When they left 11 points on the field in those first two drives, it was kind of bound to end poorly.

But I disagree with him mostly. I don't think you pull Denard. The trouble with doing that is when do you do it? If to early, he doesn't get experience dealing with adversity and doesn't get the chance to make the comeback. If too late, what is the point?

Didn't mind the play calling. TO's killed good drives.

D is terrible, but I thought it was a more aggressive plan. Freshman cb's 1 on 1 isn't a god idea. (see CC's first chance)
I agree with you on Hopkins, he should get more carries, esp on 3rd and short.

A bad defense held a good MSU offense to 34 points.  Take away three unforced turnovers by our true sophomore quarterback and we have a chance at the win.  

5-1 man, 5-1.  Lets all take a deep breath.

Tate played awesome against Bowling Green.  That doesn't translate to the same level of performance against MSU.  I really don't think Tate would have put us in any better of a position to win than Denard.

IMHO since Oregon in '07. So, you are absolutely right about one thing: that sucked.

#1) Especially frustrating because we seemed to abandon the running game WAY too early for my taste.  But if you are going to go downfield every play, why not give Tate a shot?  I was *really* torn on this one during the game.  But, especially down 17, I would have pulled Denard.  Then again, I'm no coach.  Point: Angry.

#2) Totally agree.  Maybe they were the right reads, but if they were, they were being run into a defense totally set up to stop that play.  Smith had some good plays, too -- especially early.  But we got in trouble a LOT in the second half by putting ourselves in troubling 2nd and longs.  Point: Angry.

#3) Hopkins *was* getting 7 or 8 on first down instead of 2 or 3.  BUT, you gotta dance with who brung ya.  In a rivalry game, I say go with the guy(s) least likely to fumble.  Shaw and Smith as far as I'm concerned.  Point: Rational.

#4) With more than 3 rushing, Cousins was under pressure and should have been called for 1 if not 2 grounding penalties, IMHO.  Rushing 3 wasn't causing that pressure.  I'm torn on the GERG thing.  I mean, we know that good defenses can be made from less than all 5* players, but BOY are we lousy at a lot of positions.  I don't know with whom I'm agreeing here, but I think it is Angry -- Point.

Verdict: 3-1 Angry by me...  And the fourth point isn't a strong disagreement.

The overall things for me are this:

1) Denard pushed too hard; hopefully he learns a LOT from his first big rivalry game and becomes a better player for it.  He doesn't have to score on every play.  When he just runs the offense, we are nearly unstoppable.

2) Four key drops from two receivers who haven't done that yet this year were killers.

3) Despite everything above, the defense played well enough to keep us in the game today.  Especially considering the 2nd long TD run looked to me to be sprung by an AWFUL hold on M Martin who would have been in position to make the tackle.

I remember the days when it was fun watching games, now I find it just maddening trying to enjoy watching the offense knowing that as soon as we kick the ball back to the other team we're going to be gashed. 

I completely agree with Angry Guy on point 2 - would have liked to see better play calling. Try a fake or something.  That field goal at the end of the half was a disaster waiting to happen.  The punt with 5-6 minutes left in the 4th - WTF was that?  I also feel that we panicked once we went down.  Should have run the ball more - that's our bread and butter. 

As bad as that was, if we played mistake free and were a little more agressive, we would have won.

You are a one man thread and post machine!

At this point I feel that Michigan has put all their eggs in his basket. Much like I didn't like playing Denard at the end of the Iowa game last year, I just believe in rolling with your starting QB. Denard clearly beat out Tate in camp and I am against rotating QBs in general unless the starting QB is just completely playing incompetently. 

And yes, Denard didn't play very well today. He made three pretty bad decisions on the picks. Ultimately though, as much as it was easy to point at Denard for the loss today, I really directed most of my scorn towards the offensive playcalling in the redzone. We allowed ourselves to get in passing situations all too easily (something we should always try to avoid) and then had the receivers run routes towards the middle of the field where the pass relies so much on timing and accuracy (something that will probably never be Denard's strength). That's fine if Mallett is your QB, but Denard is still not a QB who I want to see throwing those passes often. I thought Michigan should have exploited the perimeter of MSU's defense much more in the red-zone like they did on the TD to Webb.

The only thing I would actively disagree with is point #4.  We were much more aggressive as a defense this game.  It paid dividends the first couple of drives, and then we got burned by multiple big plays.  We stacked the box with 8 players and still got run over.

I think its pretty clear that both defensive schemes won't be very good.  Let's mix sports to create analogies!  With bend don't break we give up lots of singles.  With all or nothing we get strikeouts, but also give up home runs.  As we found out today, we give up about the same amount of points either way.

1. Ehh not sure. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. 

2. Playcalling was awful. Once again I thought Lloyd Carr was coaching today.

3. Our backs are not consistent one bit, thank god Dee committed. Friggen Toussaint gets hurt if you touch him I guess. He's the only back to impress me at all and he's always hurt.

4. Defense sucks period. In reality, nothing can be done. Just recruit like hell Rich. 

I'm really really really scared that we could be in for another meltdown this year after this.

...today but overall we seemed to go right back to the same mistakes on D.  I think on 3 I'm definitely with Angrymich and partly on 4.  I think we were definitely better with a 4 man front today BUT our LBs potentially had the worst 1st half they've had this year and I think Obi is useless.  I've never seen a D1 LB as bad as he is.  Roh has no business covering pass routes and Mouton had a much better second half with the run.  I think the DBs need some tough love right now and someone needs to potentially question someone's heart to see if they'll step up, not necessarily the coaches here either.  It might be time to have a lil' teammate tough love.  Maybe the guys should have a 7 on 7 after practice and the D has to go Man press the entire time.  Run them till they get it right. Reps, reps, reps! 

UFR will tell the tale but I didn't notice 3 man rush as much today.  They got more pressure on Cousins than any other quarterback this year.  GERG's calling was much more aggressive in this game and it was effective for much of the first half.  The offensive did not make the plays they needed to in the first half.  If they do, it is a different game. 

Shaw was our most productive back today ave. 8.4 yds per.

Denard was noticeably frazzled when things weren't working.  Putting in Tate to give Denard a chance to calm down would not have been a bad idea.

Whatever though.  As long as they stay focused they have a shot at 8 wins.  If they do that today will soon be ancient history.

Disagree on #1 (Tate vs. Denard).  Denard played poorly by his standards, and the INTs were certainly bad throws, but it wasn't like he didn't do anything out there.  He was 17-29 passing, with about five drops in there.  He had over 300 total yards.  And he's got some experience leading us on comeback drives, too.  As for Tate, what he did against BGSU doesn't really tell me anything.  He completed a lot of short throws against a terrible defense. 

On #2 . . . eh, I don't know.  We moved it pretty well when we weren't turning it over.  My main gripe is that we could have run the ball more in the redzone.  If you have shaky kicking, make it four-down territory, and run on 3rd down.  The first INT came on 3rd and 4.  At that point they were on their heels and probably would not have stopped us on two carries.  The second INT came on 3rd and 9.  That's a long distance, but with Denard, you can pick that up or at least shorten the distance significantly with a QB lead draw.   

On #3 . . . I definitely would not have had him carry it on that 3rd and 1.  I did not like that call.  I would have rather had Denard keep it.  Besides that, I thought all our backs showed something, but just didn't get enough carries. 

On #4, I'm coming around to the necessity of rushing four.  Dropping eight into coverage has worked on the odd play here and there, but not often enough to prevent opposing QBs from getting into a rhythm.

definetely disagree on #1.  denard is our starter and though he made some bad decisions, his two endzone INTs were not bad decisions but bad throws.  RR needed to show denard that he is confident in him to play himself out of a bad game so far.

its tough to say about the defense.  while i agree that the 3 man rush is not effective nor will it ever be effective, james rogers and our freshman corners have shown me nothing to trust them in single coverage (kind of a double edged sword because if we dont get pressure on the qb, the corners will get picked apart anyways)

no. you do not pull denard in a game like this. it's not as if the offense couldn't move. on any given play, from anywhere on the field, Denard has the potential to score immediately. With Tate, sure, he'll make his share of plays, but mostly it would be a dink and dunk attack that chews up clock time. The only chance we had in the 3rd/4th Q was the possibility of a missed tackle, quick strike denard play (or pass). now, were he playing like Tate last year against Iowa, where basically nothing was working, I would support trying Tate for a series.

I had the same thoughts about Denard and Tate after the game but my dad had it right when he just said "you have to ride the horse that got you here". Denard is just too explosive to take out of a ball game, you never know he might have caught fire....hind sight. All QB's struggle you just have to ride your horse.

Now I agree about the running backs. I would like to see Hoppkins more.

As for the play calling.....This drove me and my dad nuts all game. Why are you not running Denard on first and second down. This offense is based on his ability to run the ball and everyone keying on him. That opens the hole for the RB's and softens the secondary for the WR's. Plus when you run Denard on first and second it is a high percentage that you are going to have short yardage on second and third down.

RR seems to be very conservative over his WVU days. I think its time to open it up. Run the Option, more WR motion sweeps, more screens ect...His creativity just doesn't seem to be there.

Pulling Denard for Tate wouldn't have helped much IMO.   By the point Denard threw his 3rd pick we were behind and needed to start throwing - Tate may be a better passer (in terms of reading defenses) but MSU defense would have just gone after Tate all the more.

Maybe it would have helped- IDK.  With a defense that can't stop anyone we cannot afford to miss scoring opportunities via turnovers.  Simple as that.

This guy should have got more carries, Tate should have played, Obi can't tackle.  Yesterday's game can be summed up in two words: turnovers and momentum.  When UM started getting momentum, even down 17 points, you could feel the energy and the crowd coming alive.  The turnovers killed that momentum three times.  End of story. 

Our team was good enough to beat Sparty but the turnovers killed us.  Denard is human, but he will be back strong.  I predict our team comes together after this downer and beats Iowa.  After the UMass game, BGSU didn't stand a chance.  I love this team and they are improved.  Looking forward to an Iowa win at home.