Things to take away from the MSU game
For those of you who recognize my Goonies handle and posts, I usually only contribute wise ass, hopefully humorous, comments on already established posts. However, watching the game with no sound in a fairly empty sports bar just outside of Chicago gave me a few thoughts about this team that I felt I needed to get off my chest. First, Denard is human. We all knew, whether we wanted to admit it or not, that he was going to have a few games in which he struggled. I take nothing away from Denard for his performance today. To those suggesting Tate should have been given a chance, I do think it may have had a positive impact on the game. However, Denard needed a game like today to realize what he really needs to work on more consistently and attempt to work through it in a game situation. He certainly didn't play as poorly as many of us think, but two interceptions in the end zone are game changers. He will learn from this and be better of for it.
Second, the defense obviously didn't play well, but they're learning as well. As much as Rogers and Martin going down hurt, other players got to step into a big game and get much needed experience. I was as mad as anyone seeing the MSU receiver streak past Cullen Christian for a TD, but growing pains are expected with a defense this young. The reps that Christian, Avery, Talbott, etc. are getting will pay dividends in the long run.
Third, the media attention should be off the team for a while. They are no longer undefeated and can work their behinds off with extra motivation to make up for this loss. Every now and then you need to take a step back to take two forward, and I completely believe that will be the case with this team. We've all seen how far they have come since Rich Rod's first year. This team will stay hungry and motivated for the rest of this season and for seasons to come, given the youth in key spots. These guys won't forget this loss. MSU beat them, plain and simple, but they will work their tails off to regain their spot at the top of the Big Ten in the very near future.
Lastly, I'm not trying to be one of those guys who says losing a game is a good thing. In college football, it never is. However, good can come from it if the team approaches the right way. I have full confidence in Rich Rod to keep steering this team in the right direction, and I hope the rest of the Michigan faithful do as well. With that, I'll finish my Jameson and 7 UP, go to bed, and wake up tomorrow knowing that a better effort will come next Saturday against Iowa.
October 10th, 2010 at 5:38 AM ^
The truth is after the past 2 seasons this team has to win football games. You can find the good in the bad with anything but at the end of it all this team has to win.
You cannot have a knee gerk reaction to one side or the other. We aren't a horrible football team, but we aren't a good football team either. We are decent. We are a young team that has a really bad D that won't keep you in games so you better score 30+ and match score for score cause if you don't you will lose.
Its simple....if the O has an off day we lose. They have to play lights out every game. That is impossible and you cannot ask them to do that.
October 10th, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^
And RR still can't field a team that beats MSU, and next year in EL doesn't look promising (our defense will still be bad). There are no positives. If the defense showed any signs of improvement i could understand the board's optimism but right now I wish Rich was our offensive coordinator, not the head coach.
October 10th, 2010 at 8:33 AM ^
Read. We weren't going to win them all this year.
<br>Would have been easy if our bowl eligible win came against Sparty. We could proclaim "we're back" and get a good night's sleep. Well, we're not back yet. There are lessons to be learned when you're down, as the OP is recognizing. Turning your back on your HC after one loss is not one of the lessons.
October 10th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^
Decimated Defense should be required for all MGoBloggers...
October 10th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
The Decimated Defense line has been played out. The reality is that it's year three of a new regime. They have to accept responsibilty for the defense that they put on the field. If not now....when?
October 10th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
And when the defense is bad next year (I don't see our LB play improving) we'll all point to the decimated defense post. At that point RR's first recruiting class will be seniors. If you can't trend upward within a full college cycle that is on the coach. At some point Brandon will have to judge where things are heading. This board seems to think it is too early to make significant changes based on this team's defensive performance (and that of the last 3 years). Then when can such evaluation be fairly made? Decimated Defense was a great diary but it's shelf life is not infinite. Read Genuinely Sarcastic's latest post, I echo that sentiment 100%.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
RichRod can claim only a handful of '08 recruits. That makes '09 his first real class. They're either true sophomores or redshirt freshmen this year. That makes them ... *juniors* next year.
Minor quibble, I know ...
October 10th, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^
Most people here know the defense wasn't going to be good. But it's not just not good. It's really really bad. That is what is shocking to me and I think many other fans.
Been a fan since high school ( 20 years ago ) and I've never seen a defense like this. It's literally painful to think about losing to MSU at this point.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^
You've never seen a defense like this because we've never been so starved of talent and experience in the secondary. The DL and LB are on par with some of Carr's weaker units, but our rotation in the secondary (counting spur and bandit) consists of:
4 true freshmen
2 redshirt freshmen, one of whom just switched from WR
1 senior who just switched from WR and might as well be a redshirt freshman
1 redshirt sophomore walk-on
1 redshirt sophomore who was overmatched as a freshman
None of the returning players in the secondary are very fast. When we play conservatively, we get dinked and dunked to death (Indiana). When we play aggressively, we give up a lot of big plays (MSU). What do you expect the coaches to do?
October 10th, 2010 at 10:05 AM ^
Finally. Someone with logic not flipping out after a loss where Michigan was completely out-executed by MSU (and where Denard clearly had a bad game).
October 10th, 2010 at 9:08 AM ^
after he took RR's place would inherit the same defense with the same problems. Also, you need to give the Spartans credit; they didn't turn the ball over, they executed better than us. The better team won. Say what you want about Coach Dantonio, the man has done a good job in E. Lansing. No, next year doesn't look to cheery right now, but let's cross that bridge when we get there; we have a long ways to go before then, starting with Iowa next week.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
October 11th, 2010 at 2:26 AM ^
No, he's a great coach. He's had success everywhere.
That said, let's not say that ANY other coach would have had the same problems. There are a few facts that must be faced.
One, the transition to the spread set us back. That's not Rich Rod's fault; he did what he was brought here to do. But Bill Martin could have thought twice before sacrificing 2 years (maybe more). If Jim Harbaugh came here, the transition would not have happened (at least not the same way; growing pains from Mallett and a shaky defense probably would have kept us at 7-5 the first year).
Two, Rich Rod really should have focused more on the defensive side of the ball. A lot of the problems in the secondary are not his fault completely, but Obi Ezeh should never be starting at arguably the most imporant defensive position on a team like Michigan. Rich has had two years to bring in a MLB recruit and he just hasn't.
I'm not suggesting anything about his job security and I still think he can be successful. But that doesn't mean I can't see some of the negatives of hiring him (just like there would have been negatives hiring a guy like Jim Harbaugh)
October 10th, 2010 at 9:13 AM ^
There is one positive for next season and that is the offense will be even better next year IMO. Most starters return on offense (xcept Schilling and Dorrestein and Dor.'s spot will be filled by Huyge). Also no more freshmen kickers - they'll have a full year in.
I would have to think the defense will at least be marginally improved next season as well. Most of those inexperienced guys in the secondary will be back and will at least have a full year of being in the same program. Big question mark will be at LB however and that will be why the defense will still be weak. Also plz Mike Martin do not go to the NFL m'kay?
October 10th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
Obi Ezeh will finally be gone. I'm sorry but the biggest issue I have with the GERG and RR is the fact that they still play Obi. Please just key on him when you watch the game. I've never seen a college linebacker less instinctual or provide so little punch for his size. He must be competent in the his pass protection reads, but his ability to make a difference in the running game or blitzing is ridiculous. I've never seen a LB on 3rd and 2 stand in the hole and absorb tackles for first downs as much as he does. Anybody, and I mean Anybody on the roster would be better. I believe the secondary will improve with experience and the LB play (btw why doesn't Capt Mouton ever see the field when Obi is so bad?) will be addition with subtraction.
October 10th, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^
Nice post, and here is the sum total of what I take away from this game
- Our defense is on the bad side of mediocre, largely due to inexperience, which itself is due to (in descending order of importance) (1) RichRod focusing on offensive recruiting his first year, (2) injury and attrition, part of which is on the coaching staff, and part of which is on the fact that that stuff sometimes happens, and (3) shaky recruiting by Lloyd and his staff at the very end of his tenure.
- Denard played like a true sophomore starting his sixth game ever and his first against a big rival.
We were never going to blow Sparty out of the water in this game, unless they played terribly. They are a good team, and if they played well, they would be in the game no matter how awesome Denard was. If you think about it, had Denard hit (1) Tree in the end zone on the first pick, (2) Stonum in the end zone on the field goal drive, and (3) Hemingway in the end zone on the second pick, that's an extra 18 points, leading to a 35-34 score (I realize you can't play things that way, but just for the sake of argument). Given how well State played, I would have taken that score in a heartbeat.
October 10th, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^
The year before Dantonio took over at MSU they had a terrible defense.That changed when he came on. No longer was MSU soft defensively. They play hard and with attitude.
<br>
<br>Michigan does not. This is a soft defense.
<br>MSU punched UM in the face and UM took it laying down.That is a very bitter pill to swallow.
<br>
<br>This program needs a change in philosophy because this one is not working vs the teams that matter most.0-5 vs MSU and OSU.
<br>
<br>Time for a change.
October 10th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
them but lets be honest. The better teams won. Year 1, no way we were beating them. Last year? Good games it was close but, wait for it, the inexperience at key positions killed both games. Same with this year. Yes Deanrd is inexperienced. People forget that. I don't think 100% of this offense is implemented and this is due to the 3rd starting QB in 3 years. I hate losing too but lets look at this realistically.
7-8 wins was about the standard prediction for this year. This team is on pace for that. The offense will not be off like this much more imo and we will win 2-3 more games and go bowling.
October 10th, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^
If you will be saying the same thing next year when Gardner is thrust into the starting roll. Eventually some of this falls back on the HC, not sure he should be shouldering all the blame, but some is def his doing.
October 10th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
Could not disagree more.
This team wants to win, they were fired up. I actually thought the defense played pretty well for a decent portion of the game. A few big plays (and poor LB play) hurt this team no doubt.
But I don't think that rests on RichRod. This team is going to fight, but look at your depth, look at the performance of your starters before you start saying that they just "took it."
This defense is not that good. Go back and look at the defense RichRod and Casteel ran at WVU - it was an aggressive, attacking defense. Michigan simply CANNOT run that at this point, they do not have the experience or talent. And that is the roster Michigan inherited, coupled with serious attrition issues.
In my opinion this program is undergoing a positive culture change away from the atmosphere that existed in the mid-2000s under Carr.
October 10th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
EL Jeffe we left three TD on the field that looked to be game changers.
October 10th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^
another mediocre Big Ten team physically push around a Michigan defense, I am no longer on the Mike Barwis hype wagon. Our players may be in great shape and able to play 60 minutes and supposedly a little quicker, but they have no strength to win the battles in the trenches vs anything more than MAC/Big East level talent.
There is not a single team remaining on the schedule that can't out muscle Michigan and win, (yes I know Michigan can also win a number of these games) even our "easy" one Purdue has beaten us two years in a row.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
There is nothing resembling a factual statement in this post.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:36 AM ^
MSU is not a mediocre big ten team, they are looking like one of the top teams in the conference. I am not sure the issue is just conditioning and not lack of experience.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
that this three game win streak the media is freaking obsessed with is overblown. They beat the two worst Michigan teams in recent history (took them OT in one of them) and deservingly won another. As has been stated, take away the poor throws and this is a completely different game. With that said, it certainly stings to lose to these guys. The perception that MSU has eclipsed us is galling.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
It's only been 539 days since we last beat Michigan State.....
.....at baseball.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
Don't forget hockey.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
October 10th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
NEEDZ MOAR ELLIPSES
October 10th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
with the defense we put on the field, our offense has to execute almost perfectly for us to win games against the better teams in the Big Ten.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
I love Denard, but for the first time all year, he played poorly and made bad decisions. This is part of his growing process and I am confident that this will make him stronger. Look how far he has come since last year.
This game could easily have had an opposite ending if there are different outcomes on the following 7 plays.
UM Missed Opportunities (potential 17+ points)
1) 1st Denard pick in endzone (potential 7 points)
2) 2nd Denard pick in endzone (potential 7 points)
3) RR not calling TO immediately after Denard run at end of first half, RR let 8-9 seconds run off the clock before calling TO. The next play we hit Odoms at the 25 yard line with 3 seconds left. We would have had two shots and the endzone before trying a field goal. (potential 3-7 points)
4) 3rd Denard pick, tried forcing it into double coverage.
MSU scores that could have not happened (resulting in 21 fewer points):
1) 3rd and 10 on the MSU 22, UM Defense stops them but MSU called for false start and converts on 3rd and 15 which leads to a touchdown. (7 points they would not have scored)
2) Cousins fumbles the snap, MSU recovers. Next play Bell goes for a 41 yard TD. (7 points they would not have scored)
3) Cousins 42 yard throw to Nichols on the trick play to the Michigan 9 which lead to a TD.
Final score could easily have been UM - 34, MSU 20
October 10th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
And if my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle. So basically if we just change Cousin's throws from hitting state receivers to michigan dbs then basically the score could have been 49-0.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
While he definitely made some immature decisions, what surprised me was how badly our Oline looked. At least from where I was watching, the couch, it looked like they were getting whipped around all day resulting in a whole lot of pressure on Denard. He was scrambling around back there for his life which I think accounts for his erratic passing. Really reminded me of Tate last year running around trying to buy time with a defender inches away from him.
One thing I really would like to see at some point is the "trickeration" factor. What could you do to defenses if you put Tate and Denard in the same backfield? While they take a while to get there, Tate has shown an ability to hit the deep pass pretty consistently. Wouldn't having Tate and Denard in the backfield open up those longer plays for the O? At this point, it is time to do whatever it takes to get two more wins. We need to finish no worse than 7-5.
October 11th, 2010 at 2:30 AM ^
4.8 yards per rush. (5.3 if you take out the sack). The O-LIne does not deserve the blame.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
Where I come from as a Michigan grad and season ticket holder yesterday's performance was unacceptable. Projecting wins against the Big Ten's weak sisters to become bowl eligible as some standard of success is unacceptable. This is year 3 of the Rodriguez regime and we have defense that has been criminally neglected and an offensive scheme that has yet to show that it can compete in the conference. To blame Denard's off day is to ignore what happened to the OL, WRs and play calling.
I hope Brandon is paying close attention to what's happening to the Michigan brand he's so fond of talking about.
October 10th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
That's two unacceptables. Not bad. Next time use capitalization and more !!!s.
Aside: What does being a UM grad and ticket holder have to do with anything?
October 10th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
Dantonia is in his fourth year and took over for a total ass-bag. Rich Rod is in his third, and took over from a coach who had 11-2 and 9-3 his last two years. Color it how you want, but one coach is getting it done and another isn't.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
October 10th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
Disillusionment. http://genuinelysarcastic.blogspot.com/
He's on the money. Unfortunately, we Michigan fans will be waiting a long, long time for Coach Rodriguez to include defensive responsibilities among his other Head Coaching priorities.
But I'm not arguing with this thread, just suggesting that you take a look at the link.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
I agree with a lot of this, but not many people were worried about the defense when he came here. His WVU defenses were not like this, which leads to four possible conclusions:
1) RR stopped paying attention to D when he came to Ann Arbor (unlikely)
or
2) For whatever reason, we have worse defensive players than he had at WVU (well, they're not as talented as usual for us, but are they this bad?)
or
3) The Big Ten is OMG COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the Big East. (Come on, football is football. And it's not like we're tearing it up out of conference, either.)
or
4) He hasn't found that right-hand man to run the D that he had in Jeff Casteel.
I'm going down door #4. You can be an offensive-minded coach and thrive. Urban Meyer is one. Chip Kelly is another. Even Tressel and Ferentz are basically just offensive coordinators and leave the D alone. The key is to find that right-hand man to handle the other side of the ball, and let him do his thing. (The classic example of this may be Steve Spurrier turning to Bob Stoops after the '95 season.) I'm afraid GERG may not be that guy.