OK. Yeah. Sure. Sheridan? Fuck no.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
OK. Yeah. Sure. Sheridan? Fuck no.
I don't think Sheridan is the answer. Based on the fact that he hasn't been given the job, I have to conclude that he hasn't earned the job in practice yet.
I am also not sure that Tate is the issue here. He doesn't go through progressions well. (I know, Freshman.) But its not his job to block and catch the ball.
Going with Sheridan would hurts us in 2010 as well as 2009.
"hurts" was originally a typo, but I decided to leave it in, as it seems worse than just "hurt" ;)
Couldn't agree more. Notice how Tate runs for his life after 2.5 seconds? That is the time at which Sheridan would be a) chucking it downfield b) getting sacked.
one thing that stood out about this loss. before, there were the fans who fully supported RR and those that still didn't like him. After this game, there have been a healthy amount of who supported him that are now legitimately questioning RR and his staff and if they should be around any longer.
I recognize that this sentiment will probably evaporate with a win over Purdue and/or keeping it competitive with OSU and Wisconsin, but these last two weeks our trajectory has been emphatically downward.
a win over purdue wont ease the tension. 6-6 is shit. 2 wins in the big ten is shit. People are actually just starting to notice that Rich Rod has been out coached in every fucking game this season. If anyone can prove me wrong and explain to me how Rich Rod and his staff outfoxed another opponent this season then ill retreat into a dark hole of m go shame. If not for a last second miracle win over Notre Dame, we would have 3 wins against FBS teams this season. (sounds real fucking familiar)
... is when Rodriguez forgot how to coach, for those of you who want your explanations. He's had amazing success wherever he's been - Tulane, Clemson, WVU?! Come on! Seems clear to me that there have to be some mitiating circumstances here.
This team is right where they were expected to be at the beginning of the year. It's not your birthright to win a national championship every year, nor even beat a horrible, horrible Illinois team in a rebuilding year.
And Tate is injured. His sore throwing shoulder and potentially lingering headaches may have something to do with his play of late.
Consider his team's academic progress - something to be proud of. And his team's general lack of legal troubles - again. And his rather consistent disciplinary policies. His team's coherency. Of these, I'm more than happy with his performance.
If this team is in a tailspin, it began before he got here - or maybe you forgot about Appalachian State, Oregon and crushing bowl losses to USC, Texas and Nebraska. Give him some time to get it turned around.
Yeesh... this negativity is depressing. I'm still happy to be patient.
"He's had amazing success wherever he's been - Tulane, Clemson, WVU?! "
He was an offensive coordinator except for WVU and WVU was in a very bad Big East. I'm not in the fire RR camp, but it is time to start asking questions. Maybe he isn't a primetime headcoach but is one hell of an offensive coordinator?
2005 West Virginia 11-1 7-0 1st W Sugar
2006 West Virginia 11-2 5-2 T-2nd W Gator
2007 West Virginia 10-2* 5-2 T-1st * Invited to Fiesta
His team won that Fiesta Bowl, 48-28 over #3 Oklahoma.
Average 8+ wins 6 of the previous 8 years at WVU and at Glenville St. Maybe he had nothing to do with the 12-0 season at Tulane as assistant coach, offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach.
There's nothing there to suggest to me that he won't succeed here, if given some time.
...at least his passing game at Illinois anyway. He was as good as one can reasonably expect there. We are mad at him, however, for fumbling the ball like nobody's business, which cannot be explained away by a sore shoulder.
How well does your car steer with a flat tire?
I bet it does make a difference. If you're not 100%, it affects all aspects of your game. You'll compensate for one area, likely affecting other areas.
You are saying that Tate made a large number of what amounts to mental errors (not protecting the ball, making poor reads, etc.) because of a physical ailment, yet was fine from a physical standpoint when it came to throwing the ball and running?
Quite simply, Tate made a ton of mistakes yesterday. He definitely has the talent to be great, but he makes a lot of mistakes. Normally, I would be more forgiving because he is a freshman. However, some of his fumbles yesterday weren't even forced. This is unforgivable for a high school player and therefore we have every reason to be annoyed with him.
You're overstating the point. No one expects Rich to win a NC this year. Its just that, in most people's minds on this board, he basically got a free pass for 2008. This team was expected to go 7-5 and to make a bowl. That's not a ton to ask and there is now a good chance he wont make those limited expectations. After two years, he has to start owning some responsibility and it is legitimate to be concerned about where this is heading.
Concerned? Maybe. Still patient? Yes.
Makes me wonder what those mitigating circumstances really are.
I'm content to wait and see what happens after another couple of years, at least. I've seen a lot of improvement over last year, even if the last two games did suck.
I think we are on the same page. I certainly don't think firing Rich Rod is even up for discussion. With Martin not leaving until September of 2010, he is guaranteed next season anyway. I think we would have to give him a year or two after that. By then he will have experienced senior starters on offense with Garnder waiting in the wings at QB. The defense will have had to improve. At that point, I think RR would be out of excuses if things aren't better. I still think things will be better, but damn, the last two weeks have been total crap.
You're delusional if you believe a scenario doesn't exist in which Rodriguez gets fired after this season. What if the team loses its remaining games--essentially finishing 4-7 overall and 1-7 in the Big 10--and the NCAA concludes that major violations occurred under his watch?
But, what if he gets busted with a 12 year old hooker and a moutain of blow while wearing an OSU T-Shirt and "I Love Sparty" boxers. Then he is fired for sure!
Jokes aside, Martin is not going to fire him even if the team loses the rest of the year. He will stay with his decision, especially since he is retiring anyway.
The allegations the NCAA is looking into are not considered major violations. IF a violation is found, the likely penalty is basically a letter saying don't do this again. IF that happens, it will not be good and will not help RR, but it wont result in him being fired this year. Of course, if the NCAA finds some sort of hypothetical major violation that they aren't investigating, then I guess maybe my opinion would change. Or the hooker-cocaine-Sparty boxer thing.
In the real world that exists outside the MGoBlog echo chamber, this investigation is viewed as a serious matter. And there are scenarios (other than your ridiculous ones) that could lead to Rodriguez getting fired at the end of this season. And if you think a decision to fire a coach at Michigan rests solely in the hands of the AD--sorry to say--but again you're delusional.
The point (which I guess you missed?) of my ridiculous scenaio was that it hasn't happened. Much like the major violations your first post relied on.
But yes, you are right, the decision to terminate a coach is also up the President - who was directly involved in the decision to hire Rich Rod. In my experience, people like Coleman and Martin do not make multi-million dollar investments only to throw them away half way through the initial contract.
I also noticed that you didn't go into any of your "scenarios." So, other than name-calling, your post doesn't do much. Which, I guess, is why you have been negged (not by me by the way). If you want to give me a scenario, we can talk about it. But please, the name-calling is just weak.
Double post deleted
I don't think most people are expecting Big Ten Championships at this point, and they aren't even expecting 8 - 4 or 9 - 3. It's the terrible play and mistakes and lack of execution that calls for some explanation. I buy your explanation about Tate (although I wonder, then, should this kid be starting if he's injured on two levels?), but it's more than just Tate. All systems seem to be failing.
I'm willing to give RR time. It's just frustrating to hear the same scripted explanations at the press conferences. We know "obviously there are things that need a lot of work." But because there are no real details or facts, we fans speculate. In the face of no real answers, we tend to come up with our own.
I think the fans need to be cut some slack at this point. We're frustrated. We just want to know why.
is it the terrible play but what is also disconcerting is that they seem to be regressing. I do believe RR will eventually succeed as he is too good a coach not too. I guess nobody ever said that it would be a straight upward line to success but it not surprising that there will be some ups and downs along the way.
I agree with the bulk of the points in your post, but if Tate is having lingering headaches at this point, he should not be playing at all. That would not be wise for Tate's health.
You hit it right on the head TC.....an overwhelming supporter that now has questions. The incessant apologists are getting old as well on our beloved MGoBlog....how many times can it be typed about youth, inexperience, lack of depth, he inherited this mess, he's been a great coach in the past.....let it rest. He is sounding like a broken record now as well..."we need to get it fixed, fast....blah, blah, blah". Fans within reason understood there would be no magic return to dominance pill, but expectations of IMPROVEMENT and PROGRESS is a fair expectation and its not happening in year 2. So constructive criticism is due and asking questions needs to happen.....
want him to say or do? You cant change much in the middle of the season. He has said time and time again that the depth and talent issue needs to be addressed via recruiting. If you don't want the honest answers, don't ask the questions.
There is a lack of talent and depth. RR and staff knows this. They have communicated this to us. We know and understand as well. And x amount of games into the season we still know this. Yet we expect this drastic improvement game to game? I guess I just dont get it. The problems wont be fixed until next year, and the year after that. Sad but true.
I personally see a lot of progress in the team, especially on offense where there is talent. The offense has multiple times shown us they can only be stopped by themselves, which they unfortunately have done multiple times. The o-line has been better, even if not great, than last year. Even with losing Molk. When he is in there, they are drastically better than last year. The defense masks its holes as best it can.
If this is the product we get in 2011. Ok its time to move on.
Recruiting hasn't been a beacon of light this season, either.
I'm willing to be patient, both with recruiting, and with RR in general. But as we are moving further away from the Carr era and into the RichRod era, RichRod is becoming more and more responsible for the totality of the program .
If depth is still an issue in another year or so, then that's a reflection on the staff.
5-4 is a hell of a lot better than 3-9. Acting like this team has not improved or progressed from last year because of one super-freaky momentum shift playing on the road against a team that is much more talented than their record would indicate is laughable.
I'm sorry if the fact that this team is ridiculously young doesn't satisfy you as an explanation for the up-and-down nature of their performance, but it is a fact that frames the expectation level for every fan who knows anything about college football.
In addition to season record, improvement is measured, and indeed defined, by gradually becoming better--beginning to eliminate the mistakes that were made earlier, and playing better as time progresses. We cannot fairly say that at this point in the season the players are becoming better or eliminating foolish mistakes--in fact the opposite is true--mistakes are increasing. I would argue that the only guys on the entire team playing better now than at the beginning of the season are Graham and Van Bergen. I think its arguable that every other player is playing worse now than they were earlier in the year, starting with Tate and continuing throughout the team. If true, I'm not sure how you can justify saying we've improved.
An improved team would have performed better this year against PSU at home than last year on the road--we performed worse this year against them. An improved team would have performed better against Illinois this year than last, especially given that Illinois is far worse this year than last. We performed worse this year.
Those are not the actions of a team that is improving, I'm sorry to say.
Football improvement or success doesn't occur in a vacuum. Just because you are not pleased with the result on the field, doesn't mean the team is regressing. Record is all we have to judge a team over the course of a season because drawing conclusions from the tiny sample size of one or two games leads to ridiculous results (like Purdue owns Ohio State).
Talented but inexperienced players (the bulk of our team) are going to make great plays and they are going to make lots of mistakes. Just because a lot of them had a bad day (after a few good days earlier in the year) doesn't mean that basically every single guy on the team is worse than he was at the start of the season. It is also much easier to play against a young team like Michigan's later in the year when opponents get a chance to study film on our guys.
If the team beats Purdue next week, will they once again have made dramatic improvement?
I was pretty balanced and careful in my appraisal IMO. And I acknowledged that record at year end is a defining way of measuring progress. I simply said that it was not the only way. IMO two games in a row against teams that are pretty objectively worse than they were last year, with the result no better, even though we supposedly have an improved team, is one legitimate way of measuring progress. We have better players on offense than last year, I don't think that's debatable--yet the result was worse, even though we have a built in incentive due to getting waxed by both teams last year. And my main point was that I believe it is legitimate to expect progress throughout the season, not merely measuring record at season's end. Talk to any coach in any sport and they will tell you the expect their players to be better at year's end than at beginning--I don't think you can debate that starting with Indiana, we have been playing worse each week.
So what does that mean? Am I advocating anything be done with the coaches? Nope. At year end? Nope. Nesx year? No again. But that does not mean we can't look at this team at this point in time, which is the only time we can look at, and conclude they are not regressing. Its a fact, not an opinion, that they are. But if we beat Purdue and do well against Wisconsin and OSU, then no one could debate the fact that we are greatly improved. Right now? It's certainly debatable at minimum in my view.
ultimately, any Michigan coach needs to be judged by his body of work.
RR, or any coach, deserves three years, if for no reason other than a firing after only two years would really hurt the courting of the next coach. Still, his GPA is 8-13. And I think serious evaluations can start after next year is over. He still has time to prove his worthiness, but his margin for error is getting smaller and smaller.
Brown is not an ideal short yardage back, but he did score from the 2 on the 1st td. The oline needs to get a better push on 4 cracks from the 1. And if you really think Kevin Grady was a better option then you must not remember why he is a fb this year.
I am seeing people all over this board prove the ridiculous theory that the most popular player on the team is the backup qb.
Gaining two feet is what fullbacks are for.
as a blocker. How often do you see teams handoff to the fb at the 1 and how often do you see the fb be a lead blocker there? 1st and goal at the 1 and you have to trust your oline to get it punched in against a crappy defense.
The reason that Grady did not make it as a rb is that he does not have the vision a rb needs. There are numerous examples of him getting stuffed back in 05 and 06 in short yardage situations, and that was before he blew his knee out.
Vision??!?!!!?! How much %$ing vision do you need to take the handoff and run straight ahead and hit the first thing in the way as hard as you can??? Grady is 20 pounds heavier than Brown. I don't want "vision" at the goal line, I want someone to go forward very very hard.
The below post about the O-line is also correct. Actually, I think any back ought to be able to get two feet, because the line should be doing it for them. But there's no reason Grady shouldn't be just as good a choice as anyone, if not better because he's heavier.
There were no holes on any of the four tries at the end zone--against one of the worst D-lines in the B10. That's on the O-line.
or he would have played more than just a few plays. Yes, the line should have been able to get enough push to get a TD. Also I would not have been apposed to a Play action roll out on second down. But it is always easier to second guess.
The points threshold should be raised to 1600 so crap like this OP can't be posted.
If you want to round up to 5000 so he can't, I wouldn't be opposed.
I see what you did there.
If they really wanted to pound it in there, they should have put Moundros in at FB and Grady in at HB. BTW, why hasn't Moundros seen more playtime? I saw him open underneath right in front of Tate before Tate spun around, almost got sacked, then threw it away. The guy eats babies for fun. I wish we could see him more.
I don't know if RR will get a chance beyond 2010. I don't see us winning more than 7-8 games. I think 7 or less gets him fired, or at least it should. But who knows what the next AD's philosophy is.
I agree, but I really can't see that happening. Tate knew 70% of the playbook going into the season but I think they could only execute about 30% of it. Next year, I would hope/expect that he knows 10% of the playbook and can execute about 70% of it which should give us twice the offense that we ended up this year.
Also, I really hope that Tate and Denard learn to run the read option. Whoever learns that first will win the job.
Just because Tate knows 70% of the playbook doesn't mean he can operate it effectively. I watched WVU football consistently between 2003 and 2007, and they showed a ton of looks that I haven't seen out of this Michigan team. Now either Rodriguez accidentally dropped his playbook in the shredder along with all his old player's files, or the current team is just not capable of executing these plays.
Go watch the Oregon game, or actually just watch Juice Williams run the read option. Sometimes he made bad reads, but his handoffs were extremely believable. Tate makes bad reads consistently, and his "fakes" don't fake anyone. When you can't operate the staple of your offense, you're never going to be effective.
I don't think this is on Rodriguez, at least not yet. Patience is going to be very important. If Rodriguez is the answer, we need to give him at least 4 years to prove it. If he isn't the answer, we need to show potential future coaches that they'll be given a fair chance to succeed. Rash decision making is NOT going to benefit anyone.
I really doubt that a new AD would fire the head football coach within 3-4 months of starting the job. (You need to make the decision by Jan to start the hiring process.) That at least gets RR 2011. He would probably get 2012 unless the wheels are really falling off.
The new AD comes in at the beginning of next season. If we go 6-6 again, RR might be fired. The new AD would have been with RR for a year then.
One thing that is taken for granted around here is that Warren is leaving after this year. Don't get me wrong, I think that he's a great DB, but I thought that was a lock to leave (before the Penn State game) and now I'm not so sure. I'm not sure he's ready to make the leap to the NFL and he might benefit from another year in college. Then again, I'm not sure how he stacks up against the other competition in the draft pool.
I agree. Donovan Warren needs to season one more year in College. I don't think he is ready for the NFL. My guess (hope) is he's coming back.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but I think one of the reasons its assumed that DW will take off for the NFL is because of the impending NFL labor deal. And I'm pretty sure rookie salaries will be addressed. So this years draft class will probably be the last class to command the extravagant contracts.
IIRC, there's no salary cap either. I still think if you're not a first rounder, you stay for your senior year. Even after the rookie salaries are addressed, I still think it only really affects first rounders.
I'm not sure Warren is really close to those extravagant contracts. There is also the idea that 2010 will be uncapped making for more extravagance. Does anyone have him projected as a first rounder? I need links. cbssports.com has him as the 4th best junior CB. I love DW, but I don't think his stock is as high as this board thinks it is.
I just don't see how next year gets any better with Minor, Brown, and Mathews leaving on offense. Graham, Brown, and perhaps Warren (although I think he stays) leaving on defense. Michigan has to win 1 of the next 3 or this season is no better than last. What gives us optimism for next year? I'd love to hear as right now I don't see it.
My optimism lies with the offense. Minor and Brown are good, but so are Shaw and Smith, and Cox apparently too. Another year for the O-line to jell, the return of Molk. Mathews will be missed but is not irreplaceable. Tate (hopefully) becoming more comfortable in the pocket and more and more of the playbook available to him. Gardner being a got-damn manbearstud.
On defense, you hope for Roh and Lalota and Campbell to replenish the Dline. Stevie Brown has been good, but if it's one thing we have its athletic tweeners (maybe Mike Williams would be good for that role....he's seems to be less than ideal for his current role). And you hope that Turner replaces Warren and someone like Vlad steps up.
The defense won't be markedly better until better players come in, but you hope they become average, and you expect the offense to become, if not a machine, at least more machine-like. I don't think that's a far-fetched scenario.
Issue 3: We have to put a lot of blame for yesterday on the coaches, don't we? Illinois was a completely different team after that goal line stand, but it never should have happened. Carlos Brown is not a short yardage back. What good is speed and open field ability when you just need 3 feet? There's no reason to save Minor for 4th down in that situation. Also, Kevin Grady. And though this is kind of a moot point considering the final score, but we should not have let them run down the clock at the end of the first half. We could have gotten the ball back with a minute to play.
I'm not a big critic of RR at all, but I agree with your line of thinking on this portion.
Minor or Grady can get that 1 yard. Hell, Brandon Graham should have gotten a snap.
I agree more so on the idea of calling a timeout with over a minute left in the half with the prospect of great field position. That I really didn't get. Perhaps it was the lack of confidence in special teams?
I agree with using Brown for the first 3 downs - he has not shown an ability to run through initial contact, and at the goalline you need that ability. Minor, Grady, or Shaw should have been brought in earlier.
With the timeout at the end of the half, I guess you have to go with what the coaches felt was best. If RR does not have that much confidence in his punting unit, then you have to figure he knows something others don't.
I don't have a problem with us using Brown on first and second down. Third down I might have done something differently.
Given that Minor's only carry of the game came on that fourth down, it seems that the staff really didn't want to have to use him at all it this game. As for Brown, while he isn't a great short-yardage back, he had come through in every short-yardage situation in the game (including a first-and-goal from the 2) up until that point. Coming into that series, there was no particular reason to believe he wouldn't be able to get a yard on three tries against a porous Illinois defense. Having said that, by third down I might have tried a QB sneak or bootleg. But the bottom line is that the OL absolutely failed on that series.
I agree that going with Brown on first and maybe second made sense, but I also would have liked to see the ball given to Grady or Minor on third down, or at least try a pass/rollout with Tate or DR. And for as good as Brown has been at times this year, he just doesn't run through contact well. On runs where the field is open and he can bounce of some guys, he is okay after contact. But on the second down run (?), he was hit at the ankle by an Illinois arm and he started going down. You need a guy who can run through that type of contact. But ah well, it was a wasted opportunity.
at the ~Mich 35-40 with a little under a minute to go.
Had we been called for roughing the kicker, Illinois would have had the ball at their own 39 with 15 seconds to go.
Of all the criticisms of RR, I don't think clock mgmt is one that will stick over time.
This team is better than last year. That's progress. Everyone saying "point to something RR has done": a victory over ND, taking the #1 computer team to the final possession on the road at night, an offense that is much more competent than last year (start sheridan? really? does anyone remember last year?), the influx of guys like Tay and Vincent Smith, and the future of Gardner.
It's not that there's not progress for all to see, it's that there's not progress fast enough for you, random fan. i'm sure the establishment is sorry this Return To Glory (TM) is taking longer than 2 years for you. you might have to wait a couple more.
The team is definitely better than it was a season ago. But is the team that took the field yesterday better than the team that we saw beat Western and Notre Dame? I honestly don't know if it's reasonable to expect visible improvement over the course of a season, but I think it's fair to say that the team hasn't gotten better. Maybe it's not that big a deal, so long as we're seeing season-to-season improvement, but it's a little disappointing.
The team that beat ND and gave IA all they could handle is better than last year, but I don't think the product on the field the last two weeks was any better than the season long debacle we saw last year.
Okay, we lost to Illinois, and Juice is our daddy. I know most people forgot after our 4-0 start that we had a freshman at quarterback. But, we have a freshman at quarterback. A True Freshman. He is going to make terrible mistakes and turn the ball over, it was bound to happen. Especially now that he is a little dinged up from probably not yet having the frame to be a division I starting QB. He is starting because he is undoubtedly better than any other option we have right now. This is why we beat both MAC schools we played this year and ND. Thankfully we played DSU instead of Utah. The few things that upset me from yesterday's game include:
1. Whats up with not calling too many men on the field when they are literally 15 feet from the sideline? That is why we try and run plays quickly so that the D can't get set and shouldn't beable to sub.
2. This one really got me and is something that got me upset with coach. how do we not kick the FG to cut it to 15? At Braylon fest we were down 17 and we settled for a short FG because we had to get it at some point.
3. What happened to alternating between Tate and Denard on the same drive? That seemed to work so well. If denard gets stuck in a 3rd and 9 bring Tate back in... Its a passing down. The opposing D is thinking pass all the way, so we might as well have a quarterback who is more accomplished at passing.
Thats all. Here's to running the table, finishing with 9 wins, hearing ohio cry about vest and pryor, not hearing little brothers name during bowl season (expect during the Central game, when the announcer says "Their biggest win of the year had to be against michigan state"), and starting the path to a Big Ten championship in 2010 just as scheduled.
"And though this is kind of a moot point considering the final score, but we should not have let them run down the clock at the end of the first half. We could have gotten the ball back with a minute to play."
I didn't necessarily have an issue with that because with UM getting the ball first they had the chance to go up. But I want to note RR's comments on this after the game. To me these are somewhat concerning.
Rodriguez said he didn’t call timeout immediately for two reasons: He wanted to set up a punt block and he didn’t trust his team on punt return.
“I was still a little nervous,” Rodriguez said. “They were kicking with the wind and fielding punts, so I figured we’d go after a punt maybe and if we don’t get the punt it’s still just a few seconds left on the clock.”
Michigan didn’t block the punt and took a knee to end the half.
Earlier in the game, Junior Hemingway fumbled a punt, a problem the Wolverines have dealt with for two years. Hemingway was playing in place of Odoms.
“If we wouldn’t have wanted to go after it I would have taken a timeout earlier,” Rodriguez said. “I wanted to at least make them punt and go after the punt and see if we could block it. We didn’t block it, but that was the reasoning behind that.
“If we had a mistake there, they wouldn’t have had much time to capitalize on it.”
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with him as the punt return teams have been awful but for him to have utterly lost faith in their ability not to screw up and then to note that in the post-game, is not a positive development.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that, but it just kind of stuck out to me.
I thought this was troubling too - in terms of time, he chose to go for a punt block over a punt return? Troubling indeed. He really thought our chances of blocking a punt were better than one of our guys actually fielding a punt?
Seems like a positive feedback loop might be operating - players make mistakes and their confidence goes down, the coach shows he has little confidence in players and players' confidence goes down further, and so on. I think it was a really bad call by RR.
This doesn't make any sense. It's not like you have to field the punt, you can let the other team down it.
I agree - but its the same principle - having no confidence in players to execute. If he tells the returners not to field it, then he is telling them he has no confidence in them. Either way, to go for the block instead is baffling.
Yeah, but we didn't call the timeout, which was the original point.
I just wanted to thank you for laying out a well-paced, reasonable series of thoughts, instead of an incendiary freak-out like the ones we saw yesterday.
I will reiterate something that seems to be forgotten by people - Tate is NOT the reason this team is struggling. Tate has been playing better than a true freshman should, save for the increase in fumbles (which seems to be a team-wide issue). I know everyone tends to think the backup guy must be different/better than the starter, but does anyone honestly think that Sheridan and/or DR would be an upgrade? Tate isn't the one dropping the ball on easy passes or fumbling on contact, he isn't the one who can't push a horrible D line 3 feet or block for a running back at the goal line, he isn't the one who can't cover anyone downfield or tackle at the line of scrimmage. Tate has certainly regressed a bit, and I do think there are issues that need to be remedied (e.g. his innate ability to Favre plays instead of making the safer play), but this team would likely be 2-7 without him; right now, they are 5-4. Blame him for his faults, but don't look for an easy scapegoat when the blame should be spread evenly.
I was at the game yesterday, and to put it mildly, our team simply folded after the fourth and none stand on the goal line. The sad faces of the guys on our bench was depressing. It was unbelievable.
I have been a huge supporter of RR, but how can a team wilt so fast during a game? Why isn't anybody on the team stepping up?
One little disturbing statistic: The total yard differential in Big Ten games has remained virtually the same in 2008 and 2009.
Last year, Michigan was outgained on average by 112 yards/game(402 vs. 290). This year, in five conference games, they have been outgained on average by 116 yards/game(429 vs. 313). This, IMHO, is not progress. Something must change.
Us going with Sheridan would be like the Tennessee Titans playing Kerry Collins right now, or the Browns playing Derek Anderson.
In other words, the older guy might give us a better chance to win right now, but you have to play the younger guy. If nothing else, just to get him some experience.
Except that Sheridan most likely does not give us a better chance to win. He's simply a bad quarterback. That we could not score any points when he played against DSU should say it all.
So where is the schadenfreude in this thread?
It seems easy to imagine that West Virginia, MSU and OSU fans would get significant pleasure from its contents.
That was your goal? Good for them. WVU just got blown out by USF. MSU got beat by a Minnesota team that gave us a win last year. OSU was pretty well dominated by Purdue. I don't think their focus was on UM losing to Illinois. Maybe I'm wrong and you did them a favor. Congrats!
I think you, and judging from the negs, others are misreading that comment. You may be aware that Brian has a column on another site called "This week in schadenfreude". He examines teams whose fans lose their marbles after a loss. The tone of this post is similar to the comments Brian regularly includes in his column.
Since schadenfreude means deriving pleasure from somebody else's pain, though, there is no schadenfreude in this, unless you account for our rivals who would get pleasure out of reading it.
I can't believe our playcalling from the 1. Fucking ROLLOUT. This is a team built around the ability of the QB (be it Forcier or Robinson) to run. Why not roll him out and let him run or throw?
How'd that work out in OT against State?
Yep, let's remove this from our playbook entirely on the basis of one bad play.
Hey, one time Brown fumbled on a draw. NO MORE DRAWS EVA!
From the 1/2 yardline, it should be removed from the playbook. O-line push, QB sneak or Grady or Minor. 1/2 yardline. 1/2 yardline. You shouldn't have to put the ball in the air from the 1/2 yardline.
Teams do this ALL the time. Watch a VT game with Tyrod Taylor. Look at Brett Favre who isn't even mobile.
I'll assume it was you that went through and systematically negged 25 of my older posts due to our disagreement. Very mature; you're a role model.