Individual thoughts on the game go here. New threads about the game not containing news that is threadworthy or some kind of (relatively) complex analysis will be deleted for the rest of the evening.
i refuse to even consider this a possibility
Was awful. How many times are you going to get burned on a blitz to realize your not getting to the QB and your pair of second-string CBs cannot handle the deep ball? There was one sure-fire way to lose that game, and Mattison dialed it up. Very disappointing performance by the D.
We just don't have natural pass-rushers, you need to blitz to get any sort of pressure. Black had it lined up on one play, and a couple other plays we almost got to QB. You get a sack there in the end, and the game is basically over.
Pair that with the fact that our secondary isn't good enough to sit back and stop SC from nickel-and-diming down the field if they have the time to find receivers, it seems like a no-brainer that you bring pressure and hope for the best.
The front four was getting decent pressure. On the almost-sack from Clark, they rushed four. The staff put the game in the hands of the weakest part of our team
Secondary was the Achilles Heel in this one, especially being thin. In a strange twist, offense actually came through when it counted and D cost us.
The safeties have been very good for the most part for the past two years, but they laid an egg in this game. Sometimes good players have bad days. The corners weren't too bad considering that the starters ideally would have been Countess and Floyd.
I just have to fundamentally disagree. That safeties have looked good against inferior opponents and Kovacs has had several sexy plays on blitzes, but against good competition, they get burned a lot. We need more athletic players in the secondary.
On the game winning play, Kovacs got badly beat because he just didn't have the speed. If you're going to blitz a lot like we did yesterday, it's critical to have athletes in the secondary who can cover a lot of ground. Spurrier is no dummy and knew that was our achilles heal on defense.
I think our secondary was going to be an issue no matter what. We already have a pretty weak set of DBs, and we were missing our top 2 guys in Countess and Floyd. If you don't rush anyone and drop everyone back, I think you would've just let them take their time and pick us apart.
At least by bringing pressure, it opened up the oppportunity for sacks and general mistakes from SC. Hats off to SC for executing better than us...we had our chances.
Yeah it sounds good, but it didn't work all game. How many sacks did we have? How many mistakes did the USC QBs make? After the first half, it should have been very obvious that the game plan was too aggressive.
Die by the blitz. I, for one, would rather the coordinator be consistent and do what he's always done. The blitz and front 7 have been the heart of the defense all year. Mattison didn't change that. How many times have we screamed at the tv in the past about rushing 3 dropping 8 and let them march down the field at 15 yard chunks. Would 2 more 10 yard gains and then a game winning field goal make you feel better? I contend no, and that you'd be upset about us sitting back and playing prevent. We were without arguably our best coverage man, and then our most experienced. Maybe Mattison was thinking to try and get to the QB so the game didn't come down to an inexperienced DB. Half of a second from drilling Thompson before he gets the throw off.
It did not work the entire game. Play after play after play, we did not get to the USC QBs and they made us pay bigtime. And yes, I would have preferred rushing four on the last play. Even if you give up a decent gain, you still force their crap kicker to win the game.
You're right, Greg Mattison doesn't know what he's doing. I'm sure you would have done a much better job.
No, you're right. His name is Greg Mattison, so he must never be questioned.
In general, there is a laughable level of tolerance on this site. A preseason #8 team just went 8-5. That's unacceptable.
Yea, and thats all Greg Mattison's fault. How many people have said this was a successful year? Not me, I'm just saying this game was not lost because of his play calling.
"UNACCEPTABLE! I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS! THIS IS ME NOT ACCEPTING THIS!"
Explain to me exactly what that means. Are you saying you'd rather have someone else coaching this defense? Are you saying we would be better off if we fired Mattison? Are you going to storm into Schembechler hall and make some changes?
We were overrated at #8. Then we lost our best corner. Then we lost our best running back. Then we lost our best player for a couple games and the coaches had to essentially start from scratch with a guy they had playing receiver. Then we lost our second best corner and our punter. We lost to the #1, 2, 3, 10 and whatever Nebraska ends up at teams in the country.
But we'll note that you don't accept this situation. I'll write it down right here.
If you don't know what the word unacceptable means, I suggest you consult a dictionary.
I'm in no way suggesting that a change should be made. Way too early for that. What I am suggesting is that people shouldn't put their fingers in their ears when they hear any criticism just because Hoke is a "Michigan Man" and cleverly calls OSU "Ohio."
There have been some very questionable coaching moves this year, and if RR were the one making them, he'd have been crucified. The clock management has been terrible, as has the use of timeouts(See: Wasting 10 seconds before calling one at the end of the first half today). Personnel decisions, particularly the inexplicable burning of redshirts and the lack of preparedness regarding a back-up quarterback, are mistakes. The offensive line has regressed over the course of the year, and the playcalling has become so predictable at times that you actually have opposing players admitting that they knew what play was coming. The fake punt call today was atrocious, only saved by an even worse piece of officiating.
I just don't get why everyone around here glorifies Hoke. He did well in year one against a weak schedule, and has underperformed in year 2. The offense has gotten worse each of the first two years, and the D, while making big improvements with minimal talent, continues to get torched in big games. Obviously, there is still a long way to go in terms of getting the right talent, and I don't want anyone even considered for firing, but I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe this coaching staff is above criticism.
You could have just posted this with your first post, and saved us the other 100 today, and we would have gotten where you're coming from.
No coach is beyond criticism, and Hoke certainly isn't.
However, Hoke only "underperformed" this year in the minds of those people who thought we were going to match last year's victory total. The people who were convinced we were going 11-1 or 12-0 allowed their enthusiasm to completely outrun reality, which is that we were losing key members of both the offensive and defensive lines, and were thin at a number of positions even without injuries. You don't lose players like Countess when you've got very little depth to begin with and not have it be a serious loss.
My preseason prediction was 8-4 with losses to ND, Alabama, Nebraska, and OSU, and plenty of other people here had the same view. We were actually more competitive today than I thought was going to be the case.
There is a big difference between 11-2 and 8-5. With two returning 1000 yard rushers, a top 10 draft pick at LT, and veteran WRs, there was no excuse for our offense performing the way it did. A lot of that was on the coaches. Hoke lost games he should not have lost this year, and only the most obvious homer would deny that.
Which of the games on the road vs. the #1 or #3 ranked teams should he have not lost, or the "neutral site" games vs. #2 or #10 are games only homers expected us to win? Were we favored in any game we lost among them?
Aside from the Nebraska game, we lost every game we were expected to lose and won every game we were expected to win. I had this team at 9 wins before the start of the season, and we finished 1 below that. Anyone who thought we were going to match last season's win total was kidding themselves (especially considering Denard's injury).
That 1000 yard RB underperformed dramatically.
Those WRs were extremely under-sized and beaten out by a converted QB.
Our All-American QB was injured half way through the season.
Our interior O-Line had to be completely reshuffled which had an extremely large impact on our interior running game.
Our offense was cobbled together with Scotch tape, fairy dust, and dreams by the end of the season.
Again, all I hear are excuses. I didn't expect 11 wins. I also didn't expect 5 losses. For the sake of the blog, let's agree to just leave this alone. I'm not going to convince several posters here that Hoke deserves criticism, and you're certainlly not going to convince me that he doesn't. Let's forget it.
The problem is, you seem to consistently try to make everything someone's fault. Sometimes things just "are," and there is no one to blame.
If a number of your best players get injured, you probably aren't going meet expectations. There doesn't always have to be someone to blame for what happens.
Here is basically what you're doing:
You: "Man, the Miami Heat didn't win a title this year. Spoelstra must be a terrible coach. How did they not meet expectations?"
Me: "Well, LeBron did get hit by a bus half way through the season and died."
You: "All I hear are excuses."
I agree, but that didn't happen. Denard was out for a couple of games. Toussaint was out for one. Yeah, we lost a starting corner. Big deal. Do you have any idea how many other teams lose a starter for the year? Countess getting injured didn't cause the playcalling at OSU, nor did it cause the lack of any reliable backup QB, nor did it cause the numerous coaching mistakes that occured today, nor did it cause the mind-boggling game plan against ND. Given your avatar, I wouldn't expect you to engage in an honest discussion of the weaknesses of this staff, but I suggest you get your head out of the clouds and start facing reality.
"Face reality?" What the fuck does that even mean? Now you'e just saying things.
You can't ask, "What went wrong?" then when given the best explanations as to what went wrong, respond by saying, "Yeah, well, that's all horse shit."
Last year's team was extremely flawed, got a tad lucky, and played above expectations. This year's team was extremely flawed, a tad unlucky, and played slightly below expectations.
Next year's team will probably end up being extremely flawed as well, and should be within a game or so of 9 wins.
It's going to take awhile to build up the depth in secondary, receiving corps, and on the offensive line, before Michigan is able to consistently win 10 or more games a season and compete with the elite teams in college football.
It means that Brady Hoke is not fucking Vince Lombardi and is capable of making major mistakes. I just explained why what you think went wrong was largely bullshit. Listen, for the sake of this blog, your ego, and my patience, I suggest we stop this. This will be my last comment.
Your explanation was stupid and something I had already pointed out, making it trite as well.
It seems like you're railing against everything and nothing at the same time, without any semblance of a cohesive argument. You know that movie Rebel Without a Cause? You're a rebel without a clue.
"Michigan didn't live up to expectations!"
This year a lot of Michigan's key players were injured at one point or another, which tends to make living up to expectations difficult.
"Players get injured on every team!"
And on every team where key players are injured, it typically hurts their chances of meeting or surpassing their expectations.
"Michigan didn't play as well as last year!"
I don't think anyone (outside of a handful of slappies not worth arguing with) expected them to equal what they did last year. When combined with all of the injuries and deficiencies this team had that last year's team didn't it was an inevitability.
"Last year was a fluke!"
OK, so your point being?
"Hoke's not that great!"
How can you tell?
"Just look at this year!"
So this year can't be a fluke as well? It's only a fluke when Michigan overperforms? That seems to mighty unfair period, let alone to place all (or most) of it at the feet of one guy, even if he is the head coach.
"OK, well, you guys are giving Hoke the benefit of the doubt that you didn't give Rich Rod!"
First of all, I was all in for Rich Rod, and didn't want him gone, even after the Gator Bowl. So don't question my loyalty to Rich Rod when he was HC. He received unfair treatment, and a lot of shit that happened wasn't his fault, but the second he was fired, and Hoke was hired I was all in for Hoke. I refuse to do to Hoke what those ass hats did to Rich Rod. That would make me a pretty huge hypocrite.
"Hoke sux! Agree to disagree and I'm done talking!"
Don't deny two and a half years before Hoke got the job you were all about him. That avatar was Nostradamus stuff.
Happy new year my friend.
Jesus Christ you make a lot of excuses. Are you Brady Hoke's wife? EVERY TEAM has injuries. OSU had a big one at the end of the Purdue game, and you know what happened? Their backup came in and led them to victory. Good teams are prepared for injuries. We were not. Explain away, but you're kidding yourself if you think this coaching staff did a good job this year.
Why do you keep making the same points I've refuted and/or already made myself?
Also, let's get real. You can't be this dumb. Ohio State over Purdue with their back up QB? OK.
So lets not go there. Just because he's refuting your points don't make it personal. And you've shown yourself to be such a zealot you've left no room for honest discussion.
You also seem bad at math. Fitz missed two games (and was banged up in others). And disingenuous. Denard, our starting QB, was unable to throw for almost 6 games.
And if you think the game plan was the problem vs. Notre Dae, you really can't have an honest discussion on the matter.
Yes, it was such a huge loss missing our 500 yard rusher for 1.5 games. Fitz was awful this year. The fact that Denard couldn't throw for 6 games was a blessing. His arm cost us horribly in the early season, and he never developed as a passer. Considering Borges himself admitted there was a problem with the ND gameplan, I'd say it is you who is being disingenuous. You sunshine blowers are as amusing as you are delusional. Brady Hoke sucked as a coach this year. He made bad decision after bad decision, and cost us a chance to win at least two games. Idolize him all you want, but he was bad, and if he doesn't improve his in-game decision-making and doesn't stop being essentially a cheerleader out there, he will suffer the same fate as Rich Rod.
When waves, upon waves, upon waves of posters...from regular joes, to established members, to coaches, tell you that you're completely wrong and have no idea what you're talking about, every single time you post...do you ever stop and think, "Maybe it's me? Maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about? Maybe I'm totally clueless?" No? OK.
...and I'm disingenuous? What happened, open another bottle?
The fact that you can write that "Denard's arm cost us horribly this year" and then say the game plan was the problem vs. Notre Dame in consecutive sentences just shows me you're out of touch with reality. You've got your agenda, and you're just spewing, even though everyone has pretty much pointed out you're wrong, and don't want to hear it. But you feel the need for attention. But no one is really taking you or anything you say seriously. So it's a waste of everyone's time.
All this hissy fit was over not winning 9 or 10 games? 1 or 2?
He's one of those Michigan fans that watches the games to complain. He never gets any joy out it. Only relief.
You can't reason with those people. They're happiest when Michigan is losing, and they can rail against the world on talk radio.
It's a tad ironic, considering his avatar. He is the exact definition of Fielding Yost's "street urchins."
Wait, so who are you complaining about? Im confused, Hoke, Borges, or Mattison... Or all of them.
And their losses were to 1, 2, 3, 10 and 10, all on the road.
This season's win count wasn't what we were hoping for, but I'm not convinced Michigan wasn't still one of the ten best in the country.
Though, I worry Hoke has lost some big games this year he could have won! ND, NE, OSU and now USC. Though Hoke did win some big games he could have lost, like MSU and NU!
I'm optimistic on the trajectory this team is taking. I see us being a young team next year but with a slightly easier schedule. I could see this team winning 9 or 10 games next season and possibly a big 10 championship.
call me optimistic, but I thought we played well today. Yes, the secondary blew some assignments and Devin missed wide open receivers all day, but despite this, we took a great team from the SSSSEEEECCCC to the end...and did so with alot of freshman and sophmores playing. Next year, we return our QB and most of our D. This was the first bowl in a while that I thought that we played to a level that represented the school well. My 2 cents
How did we play well? Our defense gave up over 400 yards, our QB couldn't get above 50%, and yet AGAIN, we lost the turover battle.
Call me a pessimist, but I see nothing next year that indicates we will be a better team. RBs will still be weak, WRs will still be poor, Devin looked bad today, and our Oline is losing Lewan and getting even younger. Ceiling is probably 9-3, with 8-4 likely.
How about the fact that we scored 28 points against a team that was giving up only 17 ppg on the season despite not having Toussaint and having Denard be unable to throw? Come on man, you seem completely incapable of seeing a silver lining.
What's that prove? USC was a preseason #1...they went 7-6 and lost their bowl game to what amounts to a beefed-up service academy. Notre Dame was unranked and are now one win away from being the undefeated national champion.
Michigan was a lot more gutted talent-wise this year than a lot of us wanted to believe...and when you look at the weird twists of fate that led to the 11-2 record last year, well...frankly the odds were bound to catch up. They played the toughest schedule in the country this year and were a couple of breaks/questionable coaching decisions from going 11-2 again.
When they have the talent that warrants a Top Ten ranking, I'll complain about not playing up to their potential. But when you're relying more on breaks than talent to keep your ranking up, it's not intellectually honest to complain about the results you get when you lose to more talented teams.
Besides, who cares about being #8, anyway?
This is exactly the same crap that we heard during the Rich Rod years. Always an excuse, always a qualifcation, always an explanation, until finally, no more could be given. Michigan was not gutted talent-wise. They returned a majority of players on both sides of the ball, as mentioned above. Yes, the lines were depleted; however, virtually all the skill-players returned. This team should not have gone 8-5.
And that is unfortunately where football games are won and lost. That is where you will need to be strong if you are trying to create an identity as a running team, and that is where you will need to be strong in pass protection when you're best quarterback hasn't got the most sound of mechanics, isn't necessarily that accurate of a passer when he's not hurt, and has a receiving corps that's so thin that the guy who was back-up QB last year is now a starting WR this year (a decision that undoubtedly cost us the Nebraska game, the one loss we had against a non-Top Ten team this year).
That is where you will need to be strong on defense when you need to stop the opponent's ground game and when you need to be able to deliver sufficient pressure to the opponent's quarterback so that he DOESN'T have time to complete his progressions before getting the ball to the first open receiver he can find (something Denard also had issues with, unfortunately).
Maybe this team shouldn't have gone 8-5. Maybe it should have gone 6-6. If not for the late FG against State and the miracle catch against Northwestern, that's what you've got.
The direction the team is heading is the right one, I believe. This season was disappointing, I get that. Winnable games (today's included) were lost. But if this team was really as good as we'd all like it to be, we're not having this conversation. Really good teams win those games...really lucky teams win those games (see: Team 132). This team just wasn't enough of either; like Bill Parcells said, they are what their record says they are.
So in your black and white world where win count is all that matters in judging coaches and teams performance, what year did RR have 8 wins?
back and letting USC pick us apart. I have no problem with Mattison's aggressive blitz strategy. You don't beat Spurrier-coached teams by playing conservative. We did rush their QB into a lot of bad throws, forced them out of the pocket, and should have had a number of more sacks if not for poor tackling. Give USC a lot of credit for good blocking and making the tough throws.
Didn't we have like four or five sacs (more than we're used to)? And their qb's were under pressure all game, we just couldn't finish them off.
Weaknesses on this defense, no pressure with front four, secondary is also weak. If we would have rushed 4 that whole last series, the result would have been the same. I have no problem with the calls, tip our cap, the qb made quick reads and executed, our secondary didn't.
even when they rushed 2-3 receivers where wide open. It was more poor secondary play than poor line play or even play calling. I didn't know what to expect but, I'm proud of the effort the team played with. When this match up was made i figured this could have been a blow out loss for us but team 133 played a good game and with the exception of a few plays on defense really dominated.
I was surprised at how the O line played in the series when Taylor was on the side lines
That's sort of like saying running Smith up the middle is good playcalling but bad execution. It's not good playcalling if your players aren't capable of running the scheme. On the last drive, we had had some success rushing four, and even if we allow a 7-10 yard gain on the last play, they have a kick a fairly difficult field goal with a crappy kicker. Putting the secondary in that position was a mistake.
we get it...your pissed. You will not accept this....stop rewording your anger and cluttering up the board..
Cluttering up the board? This is a sports blog. It's all clutter.
So true! However, the clutter that you spew forth exceeds that of all other in terms of clutterousness.
Words like "unacceptable," "should/shouldn't,"excuses," etc. are indicative of an irrational and overly judgmental state of mind. There is no "should" only what is. That is the beauty of sports -- no matter how certain the outcome appears, the actual result can only be attained by action. Nobody is "happy" with 8-5, least of all Brady Hoke. But, rational fans have a handle on their expectations and are able to see mitigating factors as they arise throughout the season. You, by contrast, seem to assume that ANY explanation that describes a factor in the outcome is nothing but an excuse -- nothing could be farther from the truth. By your rules, nothing but winning every game is sufficient, whether the team as a whole is out matched or not. Further, a coach of Michigan must have near a miraculous ability to a) call a perfect game despite the highly paid and experienced foe on the other sidelines trying his hardest to thwart his efforts; and b) turn EVERY player into a world beater, regardless of age and talent level.
You're delusional dude. But, to make matters worse, your delusion has spilled over into thinking that anyone that doesn't also share your delusion is an apologist, or making excuses. There is not one player, former player, coach, AD, nor media pundit in the nation that would say, even candidly, that Hoke "sucks." Not one. Yet you, despite all the evidence to the contrary, have discerned this fact. How? Because he didn't live up to your expectations. That my friend is childish and just downright sad!
Ghost of Yost is the worst possible example of the sort of poster that MUST BLAME SOMEONE when things don't go right. No matter what happens, in his mind, there was a way for the coached to avoid or mitigate it. It is, I think, a thoroughly absurd way of looking at things. Sometimes defensive backs get beat, safeties make bad reads, and quarterbacks don't have ideal release points. Sometimes we are playing against an obscenely talented defensive line, and a terrifying kick returner/slot receiver.
But his world-view can't account for any of these things. We lost, so somebody must have fucked up.
"It's not good playcalling if your players aren't capable of executing the scheme."
So, just because a play doesn't work (you know, that one time) means that the players are incapable of running it? It must be a joy to watch games with you.
Michigan's defense overachieved relative to personnel this year: there was no consistent pass rush from the front four, the safeties were solid but unspectacular, and Michigan fans everywhere were praying for just basic competence out of the DTs. Not to mention the absence of Countess, the team's best cornerback, practically from the season's first snap.
And here you are claiming that Mattison put the players in a position to fail. Fascinating.
I you keep saying this in every thread, maybe it will become true.
And if we'd gone prevent and S.Car had marched right down the field, I suppose you'd have been OK with that?
Mattison's calls got us a couple of free shots at the QB and we incredibly could not wrap him up. A sack on either one of those plays and we win.
A lot of posters on here seem to be under the impression that there are two defenses in college football: Prevent, and sending the house. I'm not advocating either one.
Sometimes, you just have to give credit to the other guy. This is one of those times. Giving up all of those big plays up the middle pissed me off, and it would have been nice if they could have blocked Clowney better, but Michigan lost to a team of superior athletes today. I was there, and honestly, the score could have been far worse than it was. I was quite pissed when I left, but in retrospect, MIchigan did the Big Ten proud today.
Also, Steve Spurrier runs a clean program. It's probably why he hasn't won more National Championships. If Michigan has to lose, it's a lot easier to stomach when they lose to a clean program. Congrats to SC on a great game.
Did you watch the same game as everyone else because all of your comments have been terrible. You have stated that Borges called a terrible game despite us putting up 28 points on a very solid defense and great pass rush. Our blitzes nearly ended any chance for SC to win when Black got to the qb but just couldn't finish the sack. That's not on Mattison. The last TD was a bit of a blown coverage by Kovacs.
1. I never said Borges has a terrible game.
2. When Black got to the QB, it was on a four man rush.
3. It wasn't a blown coverage by Kovacs. He just got flat-out burned.
From what I could tell, Kovacs didn't get burned. He had the undernearth coverage. At least 2 guys should have been over the top on that play, but weren't. He recognized what was happening and gave a valiant effort to get back and make a play, but I don't think that guy was totally his responsibility.
So you just wanted them to continue to sit in zone coverage and give up 5-7 yards at a time until SC got well within field goal range? They had to generate a pass rush somehow on that final drive, and on the last play the blitz was executed beautifully, but the QB made a spectacular throw and our rag-tag secondary just couldn't hold it together.
Also, how can you blame Mattison for continuing to blitz, when the blitz got through to the QB every single time? We just couldn't bring the guy down.
The blitz got through, but we never got to the QB. Why? Because there were wide open receivers all game long making 60 yard gains.
On that final drive, the blitz consistently hurried the QB. We grabbed him, made him do pirouettes, shoved him, did everything but tackle him.
I'm not sure what you were watching, but we were burned deep when we dropped 9 guys into coverage.
The problem wasn't blitzing, it was blown assignments by players who otherwise wouldn't be on the field but for injuries and suspensions.
But the defense did get to the QB a couple of times, they just didn't tackle them when they had the chance. That's no on the playcalling.
And regardless, this team doesn't have a line that can get consistent pressure on the QB. That's what RVB and Martin gave the team last year - players who could get some pressure on the offense without bringing the blitz every down. That way, when Mattison called one, the offense wasn't always ready for it.
There were no good solutions. As color analyst Gruden noted, Mattison was doing a great job of mixing up the defenses, including the last drive. Gruden rightly commented that our defensive ends were just not doing a good enough job of getting to the QB. You can't blame Mattison for our secondary, or for the failure of the defensive line to be more disruptive. With Demens and Floyd gone, and even worse, Countess, along with the defensive line not getting in, what was Mattison supposed to do? As it was, with the blitzes, we came so close . . . if only Black had wrapped up their QB, but "if only" and "coulda, woulda," doesn't get you very far.
I wouldn't agree with that. I felt like Black did a pretty great job of rushing the qbs. He just didn't finish on that sack on the last drive which would've put them in a serious hole. I'm not suggesting the ends did a great job but I don't think they were ineffective.
Fitting end to his career. Left it all on the field just didn't have the physical tools.
cue the denard draft status threads
after Nik Stauskas.
Disappointing game to watch as a Michigan fan. Glad Al showed up, hope he sticks around...
Barf. I hate Spurrier.
jeremy Gallon went to work today
Wile made that long FG...
Defense was bad. Couldn't stop them when we dropped 9 and couldn't stick with them in man to man either. They completely didn't respect Shaw on the read options even though he is a very good running QB.
Lewan won the war with Clowney.
Devin was way too jittery today early on. At least a half dozen times he had a solid pocket and went running blindly into the pressure. He was clutch at the end though. He needs to work on being consistent with his footwork and he can be great. Gallon is a stud. Funchess needs to be involved. We need a true RB.
When Ace whatever his name is had 3 TDs. Clearly Lewan didn't win the battle.
He was player of the game because of one play. Lewan kept him mostly under control. The blown play wasn't Lewans assignment.
and two of the plays he made Lewan was not responsible for him.
Lewan definitely did. ESPN talked him up so much they had to give it to him to save face. The guy was a not a big factor except for that one play.
Clowney won MVP off of two plays, and the more important of those it appeared as if he wasn't Lewan's assignment. I don't know who was supposed to pick him up or if there was a blown call on the line, but Lewan didn't look like a lineman that had just let his opponent beat him. Rest of the game Clowney was pretty much a non-factor thanks to Lewan and good play-calling.
Just because ESPN gave a guy they've been touting all game the "player of the game" award doesn't mean he actually dominated. He had one great play, but otherwise he was largely held in check compared to what he did against other teams this year.
Was just espn feeding on its own hype. Ace sanders won them the game.
Thanks for pointing that out. Devin looked very impatient out there and seemed to take off on multiple plays if his first read wasn't open.
1. Why can't we tackle a QB?
2. JT being out hurt a lot. Maybe was the key to our loss.
3. We need a RB next year badly
4. We need WRs next year badly
5. Denard must have some fluke of an injury. I think we'll find out soon enough from draft workouts.
...are pretty serious. It afflicts guitarists (Dave Mustaine being one of the more high profile sufferers) to the point where they literally can't play the instrument, can't even pick one up, for months. I was afraid it might be something like that when I saw him flexing his hand after the hit.
But yeah, Team 133 was pretty thin at some vital aspects of the game. I hate that Denard and all the other outgoing seniors from the RichRod era had to go out like this. But as Brian says, they died like Vikings and have nothing to be ashamed of.
I thought play-calling was very sound on both sides of the ball. Borges compensated very well for the strong D-line of SC and moved the pocket around a lot, tried out a lot of different packages, and used Denard and Devin well. Very impressive.
On the D, Mattison did what he could. Seemed to be dialing up a lot of different blitz packages, getting guys to the ball. Ultimately, we just didn't have the horses to compete, it was pretty clear - especially in the secondary.
Also thought Denard rushed pretty well between the tackles, was really impressed at that. Brought us a good run presence to go along with Devin passing.
Offense and defense both played well, we can (and will) quibble about a few single plays in isolation, but all in all our coaches and players all did a great job today
A fantastic game that came down to one play, and we came up short against what is probably a better team.
Any reasonable person would have to say that we are on the right track.
We are indeed heading in the right direction.
I think the game hinged on more than one play, but Carolina is a talented team and they just had a little more than we did.
Next year will be a very good one!
I'll stay away from the coaching commentary.
Anyone else feel like the karma of the game/ momentum was just completely screwed up by that bad first down call on the measurement? I don't know if the game would've resulted any differently, but that bad call fired up SC. And it was right when the momentum pendulum was starting to turn our way.
if Black plants the QB, we have an excellent chance to win the game.
But I believe in the Clowney Dreadsghetti Monster. We took the lead back anyways, just couldn't tackle a qb
Well IMO that has been the best game Al has called against a quality D since he has been at michigan.....Devin while clearly was off battled and made plays when he had to.
Secondary is just slow....no other way to put it. Will be open season on secondary spots next season, no one should have a safe job.
Gardner was also pretty bad today. So many missed throws.
The throw that counted when he needed to. D lost the game.
Lots of bad passes, but a lot of really good plays too, mostly with his legs. Overall, I think he had an average day.
Aaron Murray was 11-31 for 109 yards with a pick and no TD against this 'Cocks defense. Tajh Boy was 11-24 for 183 with a TD and 2 INT. Florida scored a lot against them but that was all on the offense turning the ball over as the Gators gained less than 200 yards total against them.
3 TD passes to just one turnover and some key plays with his feet is about as good as anyone has done against this team. Tyler Bray had a pretty good game, but that is it. The fact that the guy who didn't practice the position for half the year could have had an even better game with a few not-terrible throws is pretty damn encouraging.
People can down vote this but I just up voted it. He did have a bad game. I don't care what other players did against this defense. He missed a lot of throws. He ran well but he could not get the ball to Gallon when he was open.
Until the Rose Bowl starts.
About the Rose Bowl or any remaining bowl game for that matter.
so that means you atleast care a little, eh?
He does not get beat deep. He has no problem getting a PI over a 70 bomb. I would have gladly traded 2-3 PIs over those 50, 60, 70 plays..
Uhh of all things you can say about Floyd, "doesn't get beat deep" is probably the last one.
Uniforms were terrible. The helmets were atrocious. I'll try to digest the rest of my negative comments into something bearable for you sissies.
The helmets looked no different. The uniforms were terrible but the helmets looked just fine.
Helmets were sharp. Numbers were impossible to read from the upper deck. Needed to be blue
Helmets looked great with the matte finish. Maize wings really popped. I thought the jerseys looked better than the maize shoulders in the bama game.
lemme guess... "overrated"??
Was really hard to make them out on TV when the it wasn't a close up shot. The announcers even commented that it was hard to read the numbers.
They did look different. Matte finish on the blue is different. I didn't like it, but I didn't think it looked horrible either.
No more messing with the helmet please.
not "messing" with it... They're enhancing it! Did the leather winged helmets have a gloss finish?.... I think not!
I am in favor of functional enhancements. I am not in favor of cosmetic "enhancements".
we'll agree to disagree... I think it gave them a cleaner look while keeping the Michigan traditional color scheme in tact. Now, if they would have done something drastic like reverse the colors, then I would've had an issue.
There's the Herm I know and love.
I can't think of any product of your digestion that might be bearable to us sissies. I don't just mean your digestion, in particular, but the results of anyone's digestive processes. My dog, for some reason, seems especially attracted to such things.
Free blooming onion!
Free greasy battered and fried onion. Mmm!
Way to find a silver lining!
Lewan > Clowney
Could have used JT Floyd today- dont you think Magnus?
Overall 8-5 is a disappointing year- sad to see denard walk off the field for the last time...
Thought there were still enough positives to have optimism about next year. Obviously biggest question mark is the OL .
With that game, I can't believe Lewan wouldn't be gone.
That game most definitely did not help his draft stock
Seemed to me he held his own, plus, against undisputed best DE in game. Did I miss something? Big play was with Lewan out. Maybe couple good plays for clowney at end, couple too many penalties on Lewan perhaps, but in all: strong performance against best in the game, I thought. What did you see differently?
...on that play, not off field. Still he wasn't the one who got schooled, I thought.
Lewan wasn't at fault for Vincent's decapitation, but he was responsible for Clowney's big hit on Denard on the next series. Clowney beat Lewan badly on that one.
And Clowney got pretty much zero pass rush. Lewan made himself a bunch of money, I suspect.
The rest of the line had issues with the other Gamecocks.
Mostly, this was a lesson for JT Floyd that there is a time and place for pot, which is after the bowl game.
He also didn't record a sack after netting 4.5 in his last game. Nobody shuts down a top DE all game, but Clowney was held in reasonable check for most of the game. Just because we don't have stats for linemen doesn't mean Lewan didn't perform well.
I saw a pretty even battle with lewan having to hold clowney to keep him from going HAM. Lewan did an admirable job but did not "win" the battle
Clarification: I saw a few no calls that I was surprised weren't called
Completely disagree - he more than held his own. He was mostly one-on-one against the best defensive lineman in college football and kept him silent except for a few plays. If anything this will move him up in the draft and, unfortunately for us, gurantee his departure.
A lot of the isolation replays showed a frustrated Clowney.
I thought Lewan played a great game. Clowney was neutralized until the sack/strip play (which was not Lewan's fault - Clowney was not his assignment there).
I don't think we recruited enough DB's for this class...
Yeah, Crawford's offer is hopefully on the way today..... and maybe LM3 sees some serious playtime opportunity(although I doubt he comes).
showed balls when it wasnt nesessary!... Sure, it worked on the fake field goal, but, up one, in our own end of the field, there was no need for the fake punt. Defense was playing well enough, and momentum was on our side. Kick it deep! THAT, was the turning point in the game.
I think it was pretty clear to the staff that we weren't stopping them and needed to keep the ball out of their hands
It wasn't desperation time, plus we had a 1 point lead. Should've tried to pin them deep.
I wouldv'e rather lost by 21. I just hate the feeling when you were that close.
for making a selfish decision to self-indulge on drugs. He probably would've been the difference maker in this game.
My main thoughts: Borges put together a (more) creative game-plan that was much more successful that I expected against an elite D.
Also, man we are still so under-talented and the talent we have is still too young.
This is what I saw. I saw USC scoring on a big play within 2 minutes to go out by 7 and then devin throwing an arm punt to get intercepted. THis team could of packed its bags and quit making the result look like alabama but they didnt. Michigan fought this whole game. Was it perfect? Not one bit but MIchigan continued to fight and almost won the game against a top 10 team, a team if two years ago you said we had a chance against i would roll my eyes. Maybe i am too into moral victories but I am damn proud of this team.
am very proud of the players on this team.... I just cant get over the bad decisions the coaches made in key situations which cost us the momentum, and game! I love Hoke and Co, I really do. But, I scratched my head wondering "why" too many times today.
Now that that's done, I feel somewhat like I did after the Texas game, only... worse, somehow.
Gallon and Dileo have one more year. Hopefully their skills can rub off on the younger but taller receivers moving forward.
...but fundamentals, technique and execution were subpar. Too many big plays. Hoke will take blame, but will also note performance accountability by Team 133.
If you had told me in August that we would finish 8-5 w/o Denard as QB, no Fitz, JT or Haggerup, I wouldn't have believed it.
Thank you Team 133.
Is anyone so tired of watching secondary after secondary get burned?? When is the last time we had a good one? 97? I can't stand it. How hard is it to get some decent DBs?
We had (statistically) the best performing secondary of the entire country all year, lost both of our starters from the beginning of the year, and gave up a couple of big plays. Get a grip.
Give me a break. Every decent passing team we played shredded us through the air. Guys wide open against Alabama, Northwestern, OSU, USC, etc. Our high ranking was largely due to playing rush-based offenses and bad QBs.
I have disagreed with every comment that you have made tonight - literlly, every one - other than this. Our secondary stats do not tell the whole story. Our DBs consistently got beaten downfield. Lack of speed is killing us.
Stats don't mean shit, especially when you accumulate them against Purdue, Illinois, UMass, Iowa, I mean terrible teams. Even ND was a horrible passing tram when we played them and Alabama didn't need to throw. When it counted, this secondary was not good.
The Big Ten had a bunch of the top ten pass defenses in the country. Nebraska was one and Murray threw for 400 yards against them. Minnesota was another.
Big Ten QBs sucked, thus the highly ranked pass defenses.
Beating the dead horse already?
needs to be removed from the field.
I really think you should post this and argue it in a few more threads.
We lost our best and second best corners in Countess and Floyd. So please tell me which schools out there have their 3rd and 4th best corners not getting burned.
It takes time for recruiting to catch up. We have Dymonte Thomas, Channing Stribling, and Jourdan Lewis coming in, and the coaches continue to recruit hard for the secondary. It is coming, but depth doesn't happen overnight.
Again, the color commentators were trying to be delicate, but reading through the lines, they clearly indicated that Mattison has done a masterful job with subpar talent. The talent is coming.
Hey everybody don't be so down! We still have a undefeated top 5 basketball team to cheer for.
John Gruden is a douchebag. the end.
If you were listening, he gushed over Lewan, and Denard, and Ryan, and Roh, and Gardner, and Gallon. Yes, he had high praise for the USC defensive line, which he should have. As it was, he also praised the ability of Michigan to largely neutralize the USC DL.
On that last play I wish the DBs would have just tackled the WR. Oh well.
not let him get behind them.
Dissapointing game obviously, but I was really impressed with what I saw out of the offense. We were able to routinely open up holes for our RBs from under center against a great run defense. We haven't really been able to do that to this point, even against terrible run defenses. Add a guy like Derrick Green to that equation and that's a damn good rushing attack. Borges also had a pretty good game, though Gardner let him down a bit. At the end of the day, if we had either of our starting CBs available we probably win. All you can really do is look forward to next year.
I believe Vincent Smith's helmet came off before the "exchange" from Gardner.
Shouldn't the play be called dead at that instant?
(I'm actually OK w/ the review official overlooking that as a makeup call. I think Spurrier would have gone Brian Kelly-purple had they reversed the call, and he's too old for that.)
The play doesn't stop, but Smith could no longer participate.
Here are my snowflakes:
Gardner did not play great.
What Yost said.
means hitting your receivers in their hands. He over threw a couple, but the receivers had their fare share of drops.
A couple? More like a dozen.
Honestly dude, you're such a little bitch I wish you go root for another team.
He's posting within the rules and there's no reason for ad hominem attacks. If he bugs you that much, just ignore him or try to present some articulate argument against his position.
Fine. Sorry for the ad hominem attack. But, read through his posts, they are almost all whiney complaints. Nothing is ever good enough for him, and it's annoying as hell. I'll try to ignore him, but he contributes to nearly every thread with his snarky little jabs at players, coaches, and the program as a whole. It's a disgrace that he uses F.H. Yost's name as his handle in here. Yost was a great man, and contributed to building the greatest college football program in the nation. This jack wagon whines and complains about everything and has contributed FUCK ALL!
I really dislike people that claim to be fans, claim to love something, then do nothing but belittle it and those that are trying their hardest to again make it great. He's obviously entitled to his opinion, but I just don't suffer negative snarky people who just sit and shit on everyone as if they're the fucking bomb. I'd rather he go root for MSU, or ND, or his neighbor's softball team -- anything but the
That would necessitate ghost making an valid and sound argument himself. Too bad he chose the butthurt route.
that was funny. I wasn't expecting that.
Our defensive line was not solid today. They missed so many sacks with arm tackles and there was almost no pass rush amongst them. Any pressure on the qb was created by blitzes which then left our weak secondary on single coverage that South Carolina continually exposed.
We need to work on a different technique for punt coverage, when the gunners dont get there against an elite returner (ace sanders) we are done for. I know im echoing Brian here but this game obviously made it apparent.
Also I am very excited to see the progression of Devin in the spring. He has all the tools to be a great QB but he needs as many reps as possible to iron out his inconsistencies.
Did he play at corner? I dont remember seeing him out there on D since there was talk of him playin CB for the game.
We kept hearing the hype about the freshmen in bowl practices, but I don't seem to recall them being in the game at all. Any thoughts on this? Are the coaches hesitant to play younger players on offense for fear of the mental breakdown? I thought Funchess was under-utilized I'm this game as well. Gardner doesn't overthrow him as easily as he does Gallon. Also, freshmen seemed to see a good bit of the field on defense, so maybe it's a Borges thing against freshmen?
Did you want to see?
Darboh and Chesson. They are 2 of the biggest receivers we have. I am pretty confident they haven't accumulated any stats this year, but I thought they have been in games. So does are their redshirts still in place? Borges seemed to pull out all the stop for the whole game, and those were 2 weapons that weren't used in this game.
Darboh's is definitely burnt.
Gallon and Roundtree played pretty well, Gallon especially. There may not have been a need to use them. And at this point, I'd rather not burn Chesson's redshirt. We've already burned Darboh's, which for the life of me I can't understand why.
I'd say at least I didn't blow $2-3k on a trip down there to see us lose, and I still haven't witnessed a loss in person since Wisconsin '10....
But that would be a lie; I'd still rather have been down there with the men.
I was there and it was a loss but in some weird way it feels like am inspiring loss. We got beaten on talent but with the transitions that was an issue which time will fix in the near future
What did I miss?
He's not that good. No speed and can only break tackles against Purdue and Illinois. People need to forget about him (guy only had Mac level offers) and pray that Fitz comes back healthy or we land Green.
Aren't we getting Deveon Smith from Howland, OH. I believe he is a 4 star and All-Ohio in Division II.
Smith has given his verbal for Michigan.
I did enjoy seeing all those USC players on the sidelines looking banged up near the end of the game...Michigan definitely did not get 'out physicaled'.
THE_KNOWLEDGE was wrong. What does this mean for the space-time continuum?
...Cocks beat YOU!
I understand the comments regarding Floyd (even though I doubt he would have really made the difference), but the Countess comments confuse me - I understand that is is good, but we lost him during the Bama game - you might as well state that If X player that graduated last year would have redshirted, then we would have won.
DAMN IT RICH ROD!!!! WHY DIDN'T YOU REDSHIRT RVB AND MIKE MARTIN!!!! WE COULDA HAD IT ALL THIS YEAR!!!!!1!11!11!!!!!
1) Pass rushing linemen greatly needed. Also, people that can tackle a QB when they are already hanging on would be nice
2) Secondary really needs to improve, hopefully countess comes back healthy and improved from his injury
3) Gardner really likes Gallon as a WR, it would be helpful to have any other options at WR next year/ moving forward
4) RB needed badly
5) Defense cost us this game but will be better next year and so should this team as a whole
and played like an 8-4 team. We didn't play horribly and did some things well, but we didn't make enough clutch plays to win. Our inability to get a sack on the last drive when we had the QB in our grasp twice was just a killer to watch.
It's mystifying why we can't make more use of Funchess.
We played like an 8-4 team and it was gut-wrenching not being able to sack that qb at the end. Tht being said, we desperately need Deveon Smith to be the real deal as well as get better rush on the qb more consistently without having to blitz everyone. As far as Funchess goes...my guess is he isn't real good at remembering plays or they don't trust him with blocking etc. I would imagine next year he could be pretty damn effective.
Sometimes QB's make great plays and you have to live with it. Black had the guy sacked and instead he makes an Eli Manning type play to keep it alive. Just ask the 2007 Patriots...
Here are some real positives:
1. Denard all time rushing QB rusher (although he would rather have the W)
2. SC is a more talented team, yet we hung with them and we are stocking up on talent.
3. I was afraid of a collapse like the Mississippi St. game, yet our guys hung in there and played their asses off.
4. Borges called a game that put up 28 (30 without two missed conversions) against a SEC defense.
5. My pizza just arrived and I'm hungry.
That sounds good.
With very few exceptions, everything was there except veteran talent.
We end the season 8-5, with the Great RR Experiment all but done. Carr had 5 seasons with 4 or more losses. I think the coaches did a fantastic job of coaching these kids up.
The players played their hearts out and I couldn't be more proud of them.
It will be at least a decade before we see another 8-5 season.
Go Blue and see you next season for Team 134.
Wile can kick.
Norfleet is a solid returner.
Gardner to Gallon will be commonplace next year.
Another year of embarassing safety play. Sure Kovacs is a good story and all, but good stories still can't cover deep receivers. Until the safeties in particular are addressed, the defense will continue to lose close games.
Don't agree with a year of bad safety play. I agree that at first glance they did not play well today, but looking at the year as a whole, I thought the safeties play well this year - not lights out, but it think the defense did a good job of limiting big plays this year.
Unless the stat they showed was wrong! SC was the first team to pass for over 200 yds.
Well when the safety thinks the inexperienced corner is going to do something and has to make a mid play adjustment he's probably going to get beat deep
"continue to lose games"???
they kept us in and won us so many games this year. they gave up one too many big plays tody without a key starter
How many guys on this team gave verbals to Carr? They would have to be redshirt seniors? That's probably only 5-7 guys right? The biggest downfall to this team was the lack of defensive playmakers and proper teaching of technique under Rich. Hoke and Mattison are rectifying that though. They only have one and a half classes of their own recruits on campus. The future is bright!
5-loss seasons are what cost Lloyd Carr his job
Carr didn't get fired, if that's what you're implying. He retired on his own. In fact, he wanted to retire a year earlier and Bill Martin begged him to stay on another year.
(Speaking of which, some "insiders" have said that if Carr had retired in 2006, the first guy we'd have looked at was . . . Mark Dantonio. If true, that might explain the gigantic chip he has on his shoulder about us. Is he pissed off that the job he really wanted came open only one year after he went to MSU?)
...it was originally posted elsewhere with some old-hat info condensed for a non-Michigan audience.
I'm not implying that Lloyd Carr was fired -- only that if he hadn't suffered a string of 4 and 5 loss seasons, he would likely have coached several seasons longer than he did. That's my opinion, only. Most coaches don't just up and retire if they are still among the elite.
The phrase "cost him his job" was poorly chosen, though, and I'd agree it makes him sound like he was fired.
Carr was 62 and reputedly suffering from some health issues when he retired. For a guy to step down at that age, after 13 years at an elite program, is not surprising in the least. College coaches work 100-hour weeks during the season, have to recruit basically 365 days a year, and face intense scrutiny. The toll that all takes is pretty heavy. Nowadays, if you can get a decade out of a coach, that's pretty good.
....Wile punted 3 times for an AVERAGE of 70 yards.
It's not. I was surprised when I saw it in the Yahoo box score. I should've checked again -- ESPN reports a 48 yard per punt average, which makes more sense.
...the Yahoo box score. Still showing 70/per right now.
..............a 52 yd FG
Pretty sure he averaged 48. Which is still pretty damn good.
Uhh that's straight up not true... 3 punts for 144 yards, average of 48.
We've got a lot to work on, but there were some great positives to take away:
-Hung tough with a top-10 SEC team, led them for a decent chunk of the game.
-Did not get out-physicaled.
-The defensive line looked good. It will only get better.
-Denard owns the record.
-Gallon looked real good today.
-The team did not quit when it could have. They gave South Carolina all it could handle, and made their fans have a much more uneasy day than they thought they would have.
-Aside from absolutely leveling V. Smith (one of the hardest hits I've ever seen in a football game), the O-Line forced Clowney into a relatively quiet day.
This is by far the best our offense has looked against an elite defense.
and in a loooong time, at least it feels that way.
My heart sank when Black went in out of controll and missed that easy sack. :(
If you look closely the QB was about to go down if Black holds onto him and flass down but instead he tried to spin tackle him and helped him stay on his feet. I watched the play over 10 times and it will keep me up all night... HE HAD HIM IF HE JUST GOES DOWN WHEN HE MADE CONTACT AAAAAAAAAAAAH its almost as bad as the near block in the Rose Bowl against Texas.
Have to say the SC fans were pretty cool. I'll take a close bowl game over a blowout any day, win or lose. This season proved to me that the rebuilding process is in the right direction. Consistent improvement all year (except 2 quarters against Nebraska). Go Blue! Great season 133, looking forward to 134
I was traveling and only caught the second half of the game....but, where was Demens? Did he get injured? I didn't see him in there.
Yea he got injured in first half
- Al Borges..... I'll give him a B-. First two drives an F, but he came out of it. I would have preferred more plays to get the ball to Denard in space. And I wonder why Funchess was bascially non existant.
- Lewan.... Great job against Clowney. Wish he could stay another year, but CHA CHING is pretty loud.
- Gardner..... made some great throws, and some great plays with his feet. He missed 6 wide open receivers, at least two of those on 3rd down plays that would have resulted in 1st downs. Felt like he hung on to the ball too long at times. Looking forward to seeing what he can do next year with full focus on being a QB.
- Gallon.... slot ninja turned into stud. Played fantastic.
- Mattison....I'll give him a C because his secondary got lit up, and at the end of the day that's on him. Pick your poison though: blitz and hope your guys get there in time, or sit back and get nickle/dimed. I was glad he was aggressive. Our D line crashed in on the QB a lot, and almost made enough plays at the end to win.
- D Rob.... looked good as a RB. Wish they'd have got him the ball out in space more. Would have been interesting to see him return a kick. Love that kid, miss him already. I hope he goes to a good team that can use his talents, probably situationally. Hard to see him being an every down player, but he has been proving people wrong his whole career.
................I do not think he was out coached by the SC D coordinator or their offensive coordinator. I am thinking more like an A-
Mattison was better than a C. Calling a defense and players not making plays are two different things.
Our guys made some mistakes and SC capitalized
The results on the field are an acceptable way of judging a coaches performance with respect to an individual game.
B- for Borges because I thought he could have done a better job of being creative about getting Denard the ball in space, and because we lost.
I agree the players make (or don't make) the plays. Coaches have to put players in the best position to make plays. Mattison chose to be aggressive, I would have done the same thing. The results for the D were half good, half bad: front played pretty well but ultimately needed to make one or two more plays and didn't, and the secondary got lit up. Sounds like a C to me.
B- for Borges because I thought he could have done a better job of being creative about getting Denard the ball in space, and because we lost.
So if our defense could have gotten a stop on South Carolina's final possession, you'd have given our offensive coordinator a higher grade?
No. An offensive coordinator has nothing to do with plays called on defense.
But I'll retract that single sentance because I see your point.
EDIT: Basically what I meant is the offense didn't play well enough to win, which contributes to a lower grade.
How much of that is poor play calling versus poor execution by the players? I thought Borges called a good game. As others have mentioned, Gardner did OK. He missed a handful of receivers who were open that would have been big gainers. UM's offense also had a few penalites at really bad times.
Your points are legit. I just think Borges wasn't creative enough in how he got Denard the ball. I wanted him out in space more. Most plays D Rob ran looked like the ordinary RB variety. Creativity level was better than it was against Ohio, but not as good as it was against Iowa.
*Gallon was awesome. The way he way was getting out of his breaks and how he highpointed the ball was impressive.
*Wile kicked the ball very well overall while impersonating Mike Gillette.
*Gardner showed solid leadership and despite missing some throws gave Michigan a chance to win.
*A lot of underclassman gained valuable playing time against a top 10 team.
*Vincent Smith still has his head attached.
Double plus for that last point. That hit was brutal
Gibby was still solid sans hair.
Just got back from the game. What a great experience. Our fans were awesome - it felt like a home game for us just walking around. After the first series, I feared another Alabama debacle, but this team showed great character and that they came to play. Regardless of Gardner's inconsistencies/indecisiveness and our suspect secondary play, we kept South Carolina honest, kept Clowney in check for most of the game, and our offense held its own against a good defense, first time we've done that all year. Someone's gotta lose, and we did, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. Holding my head high in St. Pete Beach tonight, still wearing my M wear.
It would be nice to hear some explanation about Clowney's hit, and why the play wasn't ruled dead on the spot. I mean, they just changed the rule this year, that play should be the posterchild for the rule. Clowney leads with his helmet, hits Smith in the helmet, the helmet comes flying violently off, and now that's going to be the showcase of Clowney's heisman bid for 2013. It would be nice to know why that's considered a legal play.
Not that it matters, since SC should have had the ball anyways.
You serious Clark?
I completely agree with you. He put his head down and led with hit helmet. That is the definition of the rule
Not too much to add. I agree with many comments already made. Early on, this game could have been lost, but they fought and fought and fought. A couple of things I haven't seen here:
1. In person, Swearinger was the SEC personified. He was a clown all game and showed his character when his coach tried to pull him back and he shoved the coach.
2. I was pretty frustrated that Denard wasn't in on the first play, or that series. We needed the QB oh-noes play so badly in this game and it would have worked so well. SC did everything possible to contain Denard.
3. I am so proud of team 133. After the game we waited for the players to come out, and they were gracious and magnanimous despite having lost the game. What a great example of character for my 8 year old son about how to carry yourself.
4. I thought Gardner was pretty good, but he seemed jittery early. He settled in later.
Two comments to reiterate. The "inspirational loss" comment above rings very true. And OMFG were the jerseys awful!!!!! It was impossible to read the numbers on the field, and we had pretty good seats.
I couldn't believe that when the SC player shoved his own coach, on the field for the entire stadium to see. They didn't even take the kid out or discipline him. Could you imagine if one of our guys did this to Mattison or Hoke? In addition,I believe SC had numerous personal fouls and acted poorly all game. I asked a couple of SC fans if they were proud of that type of behavior. No response.
All in all it was one of the best games I've seen in person and I really thought we were going to leave RayJay with a win on that last drive.
With all the trick plays and everything I kept thinking about the Bourbon Bowl in The Waterboy...
"Last game of the year, can't hold anything back now"
Overall, as disappointed as I am with the big plays we gave up, I feel like we played better than we did in the Sugar Bowl last year. Sucks to lose on a busted coverage though.
Like, way better. Against a way better defense.
I am not sure if i am just whiny or if this is something many of you are thinking, but why does the Big Ten stink and why have we been bad for the past 5+ years? It is great that we are competing in some of these games, but the end result in the end is all that matters and the Big Ten just is not getting it done.
The most unfortunate fact is that the Big Ten is going to gain more revenue this year than last, so it is going to be looked at as a success. I guess I am just waiting for the Big Ten to make some serious changes in Football to materialize into wins on the football field.
And hiring MAC coaches isn't the answer.
Getting off my whining soapbox now.
favorable matchups for the Big Ten. Never.
10-2 South Carolina vs 8-4 Michigan, you would never see the Big Ten get a 10-2 vs 8-4 matchup vs the SEC.
But I guess I just expect more out of Michigan. Right or wrong that is just the way I think. I would never think that Michigan would have a bad matchup being put up against South Carolina.
Regarding the Big Ten, they haven't had consistent bowl success for 10 years, so unless they have just had bad matchups every year then the improvement is just not there.
I thought today's game was a good match up. We hung with them the entire game, and the only beat us with :11 seconds left. Lewan handled Clowney. They won by breaking a couple of big plays. Other than that, pretty even match up.
NU was 9-3 and Mississippi St was 7-5.
I just heard the stat that the Big Ten is 4-13 on January 1st bowl games in the last 5 years. That is just terrible.
By the time I was 11 years old I had seen Michigan lose four (4) consecutive New Year's Day bowl games...Orange, Rose, Rose, Rose. Bo had been head coach in Ann Arbor for TWELVE YEARS before winning his first bowl game...and he is probably the most revered coach in the program's history.
I guess the takeaway I have is that as bad as it is watching Michigan lose bowl games that they had a legitimate chance to win, they were losing bigger games than this decades ago when they were a much better team.
The Big Ten hasn't been the premier conference in the country since before most of the posters on this board (myself included) were born.
I think the Big 10 was possibly the best conference in the mid to late 90's. PSU should have won a share of the NC in '94. Michigan won a NC in '97 Both PSU and UM were solid programs. OSU was a fixture in the Top 10. Saban had turned MSU around, highligted by an upset in 1998 at OSU, which possibly cost OSU a NC, and followed up with a 10-2 year in 1999. Mason had turned Minnesota into a decent program. Northwestern won back to back Big Ten titles. Tiller had Purdue on the upswing. Alvarez had established Wisconsin as a solid program. OSU won a Rose Bowl and a Sugar Bowl. Michigan won a Sugar Bowl and the Big Ten won the Rose Bowl after the '92, '93, '94, '96, '97. ;98 and ;99 seasons.
I think you mean we won the Orange Bowl not the Sugar though.
Sorry. 503. More than a Cincinnati area code.
Yep, Don Canham sure made a major error in hiring that guy out of Miami of Ohio. And Utah fucked up in hiring that guy from Bowling Green a few years ago, too. Come to think of it, Cincinnati screwed up in hiring that guy from CMU as well.
With the exception of us and Bo (who spent 6 years at Miami and established himself as a premier coach), all those other programs are programs from conferences below the Big Ten. It doesn't matter if they whiff on a coaching hire, because nobody cares about Cincinnati football or Utah football, or their conferences either (Big East and MWC when they hired those coaches). Granted, most people don't care about Purdue or Minnesota either, but they care about Big Ten football.
So it's not really "Never hire a Coach from the MAC", but more like Brian said, don't hire a MAC coach whose team managed to get hot for a year and win the MAC, hire proven coaches instead
The Big 10 is pretty terrible at the top right now and it sucks. Glad UM held their own today, but another NYD loss hurts.
If Ohio and Penn St. were eligible this year, we would have seen more favorable matchups. As much as I hate Ohio, I think they would've beat Stanford. That also would've moved Wisconsin to a lower tier bowl which I think they could've won. O'Brien had PSU playing pretty good this year and they may have won a bowl, but I'm not real confident of that. JMHO.
It might not have changed the match ups today. A 7-5 Wisky who didn't play in the conference title game probably wouldn't have been playing on NY's Day. The only question is whether an 8-4 PSU would have gotten a NY's Day berth over 9-3 Northwestern, 10-3 Nebraska or 8-4 Michigan.
The kid cannot (yet) block for spit. SC's D-line would have destroyed him, and this knowledge was common knowledge. Hence putting him in game gives none of the deceptive benefits of a pass catching TE-- he's just a giant slow WR with good hands at this point in his career. He will eventually be very good though, IMHO.
Gardner was just a bit too up in the first half; if Tacopants existed and was suited up, we are in an entirely different situation. Another slow start against a very well-matched opponent, and we just couldn't dig out of the hole we dug. I come down on the side of Lewan clearly besting Clowney over sixty minutes, but Clowney did what impact players need to do, and that won them the game.
I agree Floyd is no lock-down corner, but I think he would have performed better than Raymon today, and would have prevented SC from knowing where to throw on every single down.
Any way that Lewan assauges the pain by deciding to stay for a shot at a B10 championship?
After going 2-2 today, our kickers finished the year 18-21. Wow. And we get them both back next season.
yeah, I think Tirico or Gruden referred to our kickers as "weapons" which blows my mind.
hit was the football gods saying "no Michigan, you did not earn that first down and now you must pay"
Clowney hit was amazing, textbook for a man of his size to get so low on Vincent Smith, all the newschool football mumbo jumbo aside (helmet to helmet).
It seems to me that this year, anytime an offense got close to a first down on 3rd down or earlier, then the refs would just grant the first down rather than taking time to measure. Almost like a second baseman not having to touch the bag on a double play.
((Never on 4th down w a change of possession hanging in the balance, however.)
Has anyone else noticed this (or heard anything about it)?
Perhaps the "close enough" first down was a misapplication of a new unwritten rule?
I do believe the coaches kept it close. The size and talent discrepancy was very noticable to me.
I really thought the defense would hold there at the end. At worst give up a long FG attempt and hope SC missed again and we get out of there with a great upset win.
It's soooo disappointing to see a Senior like Kovacs torched on the last TD play. What could he possible have been thinking? Such a horrendous day by the pass defense. Please god Hoke, recruit better DB's
The entire season was a story of coming up just a little short in big games. This game just adds to that story line
It's never good to lose, but if this is what Michigan looks like while Hoke is still building our roster, sign me up for the good times. That was a very good SC team and we went toe to toe with them. We were playing freshmen extensively on the defense, have no running game outside of Denard, Devin has played receiver most of the year, and our O-line is lousy (although they were decent today, I have to say). What will our '14 team look like? I think we may well be playing a few days after New Years Day a couple of years ago, as Hoke builds our team further upwards. Very proud of the Wolverines today -- smash mouth football played against what is probably a better roster.
I think we played well and should have won this game. It gives me a lot of hope for the future. We just have to learn how to finish games like this.
Did anyone else notice how many B1G receivers dropped the ball today? That to me was the big difference in the games today. SEC receivers do not drop the ball, period!
SEC players drop balls all the time.
PS I liked the uniforms. They were a little different, but clean looking. I think I'm one of the few that liked the matte helmets.
I couldn't see the yellow numbers clearly, and was watching in HD on a 60" screen.
I liked the helmets a lot. But my problem with the jerseys, like said previously, was that you couldn't see the numbers. I would've liked the numbers to be navy with maze trim around them.
I predicted a Michigan loss because we had so many problem issues including:
Featured RB gone and subpar back ups
Starting QB recovering from injury back-up QB with limited snaps
Starting QB moved to other position with minimal practice
No deep WR threat
Suspect playcalling from the OC
Questionable time management from the HC
weak defensive backfield with 2 season starters missing
special teams player promoted to defensive backfield
lack of pass rush without blitzes
suboptimal punt formation/coverage
I think just about every issue reared it's head in one form or another. Devin hurried/sacked & missed some throws. Interception. The running game was mostly Denard, but with limits. We couldn't get to their QB "enough". We let them return a punt for a TD. Our secondary gave up many big plays.
But I'm not that upset about this loss. Strangely, I think Al did a better than average job with plays, though I think Denard was a bit underutilized. Devin needs work but is getting there. The secondary got torched, but it wasn't a surprise (Never Forget® the sequel? )and I think Mattison was right to be as aggresive as he could. I'm dissapointed in the loss, but we played hard. Lewan looked good :-( Kicking game was great, Gallon rocked, etc.
No crying in my pillow tonight.
SC made the plays that were given to them, and we didn't. We had open receivers for long passes and missed them. We had a sack on the last drive and didn't tackle. We had good coverages called and didn't make plays.
They hit long passes in tight seams. They made a fumble out of a hand off. They just made a few more plays than we did.
In my opinion, we had a chance to win the game and didn't execute. Sure the coaching could have been better. But we missed chances that were there and they took the opportunities we gave them.
I look forward to having a better offensive line, an improved DG, and an even better defense next year. I think we will make a few more plays.
In the last 25 years, B1G Teams are 72-88 in bowl games 40 -52 in games on NYD or after. Michigan has a winning record of 12-11. They have 2 national championships with PSU getting hosed in 1994. Their worst bowl season had to be in 08 with a 1-6 record. So get used to it young ones, nothing will change considering we will always play out our area. The B1G just use they bowl games as extra practice time anyway. In the last 5 years, the B1G has a record of 14-25, 8 -18 for games that happened NYD or later.
I'll add to the pile of snowflakes.
It just kills me that there were 3 passes where our secondary was torched, along with the punt return TD. Our defense generally did a great job. If our secondary and special teams stop half those plays, we win.
I won't say it's always the right call, or it hasn't or won't cost us sometimes....but after years of lacking it I love it. Creativity, trying to win, aggressiveness. After everyone complaining about lacking it or a LONG time people bitching about it boggles my mind. Typical fan stuff of when it works it's right and when it doesn't it's stupid.
If I had to describe Michigan fans in a nut shell...
"God dammit, Carr! Punting for it on 4th and a couple, late in the 4th with a 1 score lead! Play to win the game, not to protect the lead! You're gonna blow it!"
"God dammit, Hoke! Going for it on 4th and couple, late in the 4th with a 1 point lead! Play to protect the lead! You're taking too many risks! You're gonna blow it!"
I have a few issues with his clock manaegement, his punt formations, etc.
But I have never questioned the size of his testicles. . . XL
Looking at the roster. I'm not sure they will be. Mario can hopefully step up but doon't see him being much better than a Frank Clark type.
Roh and Campbell were not spectacular but solid. Mattison likes to rotate a lot so lossing that depth could hurt. PeWee was decent but didn't show flashes of greatness. Hopefully he can make a leap, otherwise he might just be a guy.
Can anyone shed some light onto how the DL unit might improve in 2013?
Washington 2013 > Washington 2012.
Black 2013 > Campbell 2012. I felt Black played pretty well this year and I'm sure is still getting accustomed to the new position and all of the weight he put on to play it.
Clark 2013 > Clark 2012
Beyer/Mario 2013 < Roh 2012. No Roh did not rack up huge numbers this year, but the man was a 4 year starter for a reason.
Taco Charlton is another potential DE that shouldn't be overlooked. His senior year stats were incredible and with the early enrollment, he'll have plenty of time to get accustomed to the college level of play.
Alright I have a few Michigan related questions, and it would be great if a fellow mgoblogger could help me answer them.
1- How is Derrick Green in pass protection?
2- How did this bowl game help recruiting?
3- Should we get a backup kicker/punter with Wile taking over all duties next year (saying Hagrup doesn't come back)
4- How is Devin Gardner's redshirt appeal coming?
5- Was russel bellomy ever injured like hoke said, or is he just not there mentally?
6- Is there any news on how Fitz Toussaint and Countess are rehabbing/healing up?
7- Other than Roh and Demens, who else leaves in the front 7?
8- Speaking of Demens, was he banged up early? Because I saw a lot of Ross + Bolden.
Thanks, and Go Blue!
1. I don't know.
2. I don't know, and we probably won't know for a few days. I would imagine it didn't hurt, considering it was an exiciting, close game.
3. Don't we have a couple of kickers on the roster? I would imagine we can snag punter or kicker to fill out this class if we wanted.
4. We won't know until after his senior year, IIRC, but Hoke seems sure that he will get it.
5. That's probably going to remain one of the great unanswered mysteries of Michigan football. I personally think he got Matt Gutierrez'd.
6. Not that I'm aware of. Countess should be back to full strength next year. Fitz might get a red shirt, but I don't know.
7. Big Will is gone. Mike Jones might not get a 5th year. Hawthorne is gone too.
Hello everyone. I just joined the blog, and I must say I am very, very impressed with everyone's analysis and criticism of today's game and our season.
First, I predicted a 9-3 regular season and a 9-4 overall record becasue I suspected we'd be playing a much weaker SEC opponent in the end. The ghosts of Rich Rod, the risks of all-in DROB fanatacism, and the stupidity of our coaches not to have Gardner ready to play QB all added up to mediocrity. However 8-5 mediocrity blows the Joke Rod years out of the water! The only game that really mattered this year was vs MSU, and we smacked those punks in the mouth (I know - on a last second FG - just sayin!. Iowa also needed a bloody lip and we took care of that.
All and all we played really well today. I thought we would lose by 10-20 points in a borderline blowout! I think we erred on the right side by bringing pressure in the end. If we make a sack or hit the QB a secord earlier, we might be in the victors seat right now. The odds of SC attempting a 30-40 yd FG were pretty much assured, and I'd give them a 75% chance of making it. Was it just me, or was that Kovacs that got burnt at the end today. I know he's a great story, but I have seen him fan on tackles and get burned his entire career. How anyone has him on their draft board, I just don't get To me, he's another RR joke remnant and I can't wait for him and his class of clowns to move on.
Last but not least...Hoke and our coaches. Well, compared to RR et al, they're godsends! Compared to the best in the biz...1) Jury is out on Borges - I hate the spread and I know he wants to go proset, but how he and Hoke can't see what a complete fricking joke af a QUARTEBACK DBOB is/has been/ or ever will be baffles my mind. Congrats on your personal records and ur barely above 500 career winning percentage Denard.
2) Mattison seems like the real deal to me
3) Hoke seems stupid to me. Great guy, great motivator, but dumb.
In conclusion, as much as it pains me to say, I am rooting for the 49'ers to win the SuperBowl, so Jim Harbaugh will scratch one more goal of his bucket list, and return to Ann Arbor to bring us multiple national titles. He pissed me off for a lot of his MICH criticism and blowing us off last time around, but the guy is about the best in the business and that is what Michigan is all about!
Go Blue and onto hoops!