POST-GAME SNOWFLAKES

Submitted by uniqenam on

THANKS FOR LETTING ME FILL IN AS PBP, LET'S LET IT SNOW LET IT SNOW LET IT SNOW.

 

Al Borges game ball plz.

MGoBoard

SHub'68

September 8th, 2013 at 12:41 AM ^

And it's at Northwestern.

OTOH.  I haven't watched them.  Are they slinging it all over the field, or is it all option run stuff? Right now, I'm expecting the NW game to be Scorefest.

MSU?  It ought to look like ND, without them getting 30, unless somehow their defense gets 4 touchdowns and a safety against us.  But the game is in the land of tornadoes, trash, creative clock control and butt-grab pass interference...so we probably don't put 40 on them.

Joined: 09/29/2010

MGoPoints: 6663

JHendo

September 8th, 2013 at 12:08 AM ^

As expected by everyone outside of E. Lansing and a few moronic preseason rankings, MSU's offense is the most anemic excuse for an offense I've seen in a while. However, their defense is looking pretty good and rivalry games always have the potential to go either way. It will be a test for us regardless of how much of a blowout it looks like on paper.

Joined: 10/25/2008

MGoPoints: 13993

SituationSoap

September 8th, 2013 at 12:25 AM ^

MSU is going to give it everything they have, sure, but they don't have a serious RPS advantage against a QB who can't throw any more, and that's going to make a big difference.

 

FWIW, MSU's offense is averaging 9 PPG against a pair of teams that have lost to FCS opponents (one of whom put up 53 points against one of those opponents). I would not at all be surprised if MSU's offense doesn't score 100 points this season. UM's offense will top 100 points on the season next game (I feel like that's a safe call). 

 

Again, MSU will give it their damndest, but without an offense and against Gardner, I don't think it's close. At all.

Joined: 09/22/2012

MGoPoints: 4965

denardogasm

September 8th, 2013 at 12:39 AM ^

Not that young, and they couldn't score on us last year when they had Leveon Bell and a real live tight end.  They now have neither.  Your MGoPessimism is strong, but you're not convincing me they are a threat this year.  And you're only predicting a loss against NW because every pundit and their mother has predicted them to sneak up on the world.  Newsflash, if EVERYONE predicts them to be a sleeper, they're not really a sleeper.  It will be a tough game, but I predict a W.

Joined: 09/11/2011

MGoPoints: 10688

taistreetsmyhero

September 7th, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^

this looked like a RR game.

critical-thinking snowflake: offense actually looks sustainable. gardner is a sharp passer, typically poised (i'll ignore that poopthrow), knows when to scramble, and has big play capability. running game outside of devin looks poopy, but i liked the play calling to use devin to set up fitz. had a huge 22 yard run that really changed momentum after the devin poopthrow.

defensive line looked atrocious. front seven didn't do much. but, tackling was very solid, we didn't give up any huge plays, made plays when we had to, and maybe just had one rough game. benefit of the doubt goes to mattison.

Joined: 08/08/2012

MGoPoints: 39396

FGB

September 8th, 2013 at 12:25 AM ^

I would bet a fair amount that Notre Dame's rushing defense at the end of the year is in the top ten.  That was tough sledding and Fitz had basically 4 yards/carry without that last series of obvious-running-play-is-obvious.

I think the running game will be average to slightly above average, which will be fine if Devin/Gallon stay healthy.

You can't have the best of everything, but the running game is not a liability

Joined: 09/24/2009

MGoPoints: 3197

Rmilkman

September 7th, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^

While we failed to get pressure on Rees tonight, I have a lot of confidence in Hoke and Mattison to get those guys in shape. We have a few more games to work that out before our next real test. Great win. Go Blue!

Joined: 08/13/2010

MGoPoints: 1052

jblaze

September 7th, 2013 at 11:59 PM ^

It just makes last years Ohio game that more frustrating.

Gardner was all that and a bag of chips. The D was very good. Mattison did some. Prevent/ soft stuff, but I believe it's because he figured Rees would make mistakes.

Joined: 08/29/2008

MGoPoints: 19234

One Inch Woody…

September 8th, 2013 at 12:00 AM ^

Notre Dame looked flat-out impressive. Their offensive line was very good, their defensive line eats planets, their secondary is fairly good, their running backs and receivers are good, and I hate to admit it, but Rees was 100% spot-on on most of his throws. The reason why this game is NOT like 2011 is because 2011 featured some yakety-saxing that happened to go in our favor and the defense was partially helped by Rees being turrible. Tonight was more similar to the Georgia-Clemson game... two good teams actually playing some good football against each other. In the end it came down to which team made more plays and guess what, that was Michigan.

Btw... What's up with Chesson? Get him a curl or a screen at least... damn.

Joined: 06/25/2011

MGoPoints: 1434

Slim_Hype

September 8th, 2013 at 12:01 AM ^

Not worried about the defense at all. Missed Q.Wash, he eats up double teams which frees up everybody else on the line. That was the biggest issue I seen. Team looked great. Only 23 points given up. Great performance.

Joined: 01/21/2011

MGoPoints: 642

kehnonymous

September 8th, 2013 at 12:01 AM ^

Credit where credit is due - Rees is a good passer.  The D-line needs to step it up, but... let's not forget the Heinenger Certainty Principle when you see them play in November

Joined: 11/25/2011

MGoPoints: 32917

LSAClassOf2000

September 8th, 2013 at 12:01 AM ^

This will be the only snowflake, being the first one. I let two go last week because I got to the computer late. 

We won the battle of yards per play by slightly less than a full yard in the end - we gained an average of 6.39 yards per play to Notre Dame's 5.69. However, we typically do well when we're outgaining our opponents by about 0.5 yards or better. 

We allowed 410 yards, 314 of them in the air - those who were wondering about the pass rush were pointing out something that does need to be address, I would think. The run defense was actually not bad - Notre Dame only managed 96 yards, but it was on 19 attempts (indeed, we were outdone on a YPC basis by almost a full yard despite rushing for 166 yards). 

Final line on Gardner - 21 of 33 for 294 yards and 4 TDs with 1 INT (let's not discuss this one), which means 8.91 YPA or 14.0 yards per completion. Gardner also gained nearly half (82 yards) of Michigan's rushing yards as well. Fitz had 22 carries for 71 yards, good for 3.2 YPC, but ND was not leaving much room save for some select plays where they seemed unsure what would happen. 

 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130525

TheGhostofChappuis

September 8th, 2013 at 12:02 AM ^

Thrilled with the win, and there are a ton of positives, but we absolutely must get more pressure on the QB with a four-man rush.

Joined: 07/13/2013

MGoPoints: 758

Zone Left

September 8th, 2013 at 12:02 AM ^

Well, that's the best passer we'll see until a bowl game and probably the best two fronts we'll see all season. There is a lot of potential here. Borges was fantastic. He knows how to use Gardner and called a fantastic game. We punted twice and had a turnover against what should be a really good defense and put up 41 points with only one short field. Today was his best game so far at Michigan. Gardner is terrifying for opponents. He had one awful play, but was unstoppable for the other 59 minutes. He and Gallon are going to have a wonderful year. We should be 7-0 rolling into East Lansing.

Joined: 07/03/2008

MGoPoints: 16428