The UFR will Show.....
After 3 watchings, I am still sick, but I feel good about the rest of the year. Give credit to MSU but RR had the answers the kids just didn't execute. I guarantee when Brian does the UFR he will say anywhere from 5-10 times that if the guys make a basic play or block it would have been 6. It was obvious Denard was dreadful passing but his run reads were terrible as well, Dorrestein and Shaw both completely whiffed basic blocks that Denard would have sprung for long td's. MSU's line and linebackers played well, but we had the answers , which in the long term is the more important thing even though I'm still depressed. If Iowa comes with that same gameplan they are toast.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
Linebacker is one of the only positions where we have lots of 2nd and 3rd year talent waiting in the wings. If they're only as bad as Ezeh, I'd rather play them and get them experience. Safety and corner are totally different, and you know that, so don't say it's the same reason Gordons, Rogers, and Floyd are playing.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
If they are so talented why havent they seen the field?
October 10th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
I didn't say "SO" talented, but they are at least decent.
October 10th, 2010 at 4:04 PM ^
What are you basing this on? How do you know they are "at least decent?" Are you on the coaching staff watching practice everyday? I'm sure Rich Rod wants to lose so he's not playing this "talent waiting in the wings" in favor of players that suck.
How in the world do you have any idea how good the backups are?
Idiot.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
we basically are running a 2-1-1. the stats show it.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
we'd be running a 2-1-1 defense this year
Thanks for my first laugh about the game. Scary but true.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
Albeit, from high school:
We run variations of the 10-1 and we base out of the 4-3. However, the "10" is a gap-defense that simply matches LB = RB. So, if there is one RB, we have one LB. Well, our MLB is athletic, fast and tenacious...at a different position. He really is a fantastic DE (we have sinced moved him to DE) but a terrible LB. However, we didn't have another viable option and we watched the first 5 weeks of him unable to press, scrape and generally do the things a mike was supposed to do.
We have since put someone in who was not as 'good' but is getting the job done cleaning up that area. They are both bad with their hips but right now, it's the only option. Our front does an excellent job with tempo and pressure, so right now, not much is on the shoulders of the mike, except making sure we are aligned properly to the formations we see.
At any rate, our mikes = Ezeh. No choice, hope to hide and still win. (We're 5-1 and ranked 2 in our area ...privates - DFW)
My guess is GERG hopes the front 3 or 4 is strong enough to cover Obi's rear without getting 'kilt' too badly. So far = fail.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
would reduce some of the penalty yardage by reducing the number of facemasks.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
left out gashed on defense. We have players that play tentative and soft after X years of playing the same posistion there has either been a step backwards or no progression at two of the most important spots. I'm not going to call names, but they are obvious. The offense was unsettled, the QB was so jacked up thats why we got the bad passes and then he tried to compensate when he was told to settle down. The over compensation came when he started double pumping his passes.
edit: I'll take 5-1 for now and we should still make a bowl game. This team has shown they are coachable and fix some things then come back ready to play.
The Xs and Os are fine, most of the posistioning is good. But. some of the Defensive players are soft at the point of attack at posistions that usually call for that spot to be the most violent. You cannot coach that other than take them out of the game until they improve.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^
Ok, I've had enough.
the QB was so jacked up thats why we got the bad passes and then he tried to compensate when he was told to settle down.
Can you blame him. Biggest day of his career thus far. The kid was jacked up, so be it, I would be too. I really don't get why they left him in the game so long, when we had someone with your composure sitting idle in the stands. RR should be canned, simply for not inserting bluesouth on passing downs somewhere towards the middle of the second quarter.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
will show that Denard is not a very good pocket passer. he's not chad henne. run the damn offense even when behind.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
That Brian's "love" for Ezeh will grow even stronger...
October 10th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
On one of the long Spartan touchdown runs a gaping hole opened and the running back ran through it. Instead of filling that hole, Ezeh ran into a blocker on the outside. Granted I saw this on fan vision and I'm not a football strategist but I couldn't figure out what the heck he was doing. If that TD isn't on him, I hope someone with x and o knowledge will explain.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
If Ezeh was free that play (no gap to cover) then he RPS to find the ball. It looked like Mouton was the Will there or backside and over ran the play, thus left his hole.
That's part of the problem, it seems. They are not run-fitting very well. The Lions' LB's often seemed to end up at the same hole.
If there is a hole, it needs to be filled. Mouton and Ezeh run to piles instead of covering their gap and often over run plays. That may be fairly simplistic, but sometimes it is as simple as take care of the gap and don't leave it until the threat is gone.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
I really do not care what the UFR says - putting the blame on this player or that player is an artificial way to understand what happened. Even adding up the mistakes do not tell us what happened (the parts do not make the whole). The UFR will not explain the coaching MSU got before the game, how they came to play much better from one down to another, how they anticipated what our players would do, etc, etc,. It is a method of placing blame in a truncated, very limited manner - "player x didn't read playing y", when the real question should be, Why? How did player X not come to read player y? The UFR may give some additional insight, but it will not replace the ass kicking I saw yesterday. The painful thing is not that we lost, its that State is a vastly better practiced, prepared (i.e. coached) team than we are. Its the distance, the gap between the two teams that makes this so hard.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
I disagree. In football the parts do make up the whole. That's why it is the ultimate team game, you need all 11 guys on one side of the ball doing what they are supposed to be doing in order to be successful.
As for MSU being better practiced, coached, all that other bullshit...no one knows. Unless you are at practice everyday (for both teams) no one has any clue what goes on behind the scenes.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:18 AM ^
You're thinking like a 4 yr old child. WE came out and dominated the 1st qtr. WE should have been up 14-0. Denard made errors caused by himself no one else. RR played them the 1st 2 drives and Denard fucked em up. MSU played better after that, but they were not "more ready to play".
October 10th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
I have to agree, we were prepared to play. The defense stopped MSU on their first 2 drives bc MSU wasn't ready for what we were showing them. Sure they ended up scoring a bunch after that, but that is because of our lack of talent and they adjusted to what we were showing them. But coming out and stopping them like we did to start the game shows that our coaches had a great gameplan that the lack of talent just couldn't hold on to. Also, it could have been stops on 3 of the first 4 drives if that false start penalty didn't get called that gave them another crack at it.
On offense, we should have been up 14-0. Denard F'd up, not the coaches. They marched right down the field, were in position to score, the coaches called the right plays, and Denard made bad throws. Now i'm not trying ot hate on Denard bc he's allowed one bad game, but i'm just saying that the coaches made adjustments, called good plays, and Denard didn't excute well enough and the defenses lack of talent finally gave way later in the game. It is simple as that. I don't think it was coaching.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
I don't see how MSU is that much better prepared/coached compared to UM. Now, continuity I could buy - that system has been in place for years and has the necessary players to make it succeed. But last year MSU struggled because they didn't have quality RBs, a sophomore QB, and some inexperience on the defensive line. Everyone keeps expecting UM to just roll off victories because it's UM, but this team is one of the least talented I've seen in UM's recent history. We can go into a long debate about the causes for this dearth of talent, but the reality is that it will take time to improve. RR is recruiting well enough, and the jump we've seen from the offense given a year of maturation is stunning. I expect the same growth to occur next year as these young kids gets more experience. But to say that MSU is miles ahead of UM is a bit reactionary - they went 6-7 last year, and considering their history could very be peaking with this win and regress back to a 8-4/7-5 team.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
The UFR will show that Obi has broken the record for largest negative number in the history of UFR.
So sick of this defense in the RR era. He needs some serious help assembling a competent staff.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
October 10th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^
He plays with instinct and he can't possibly tackle any worse. These guys tackled yesterday like the old Ron English defenses that would never wrap up. Hitting a guy hard is only half the battle.
I know they are trying as hard as they can. I saw great effort, but yes, the execution was definitely not there on either side of the ball. Why is Cox not getting any carries? I think Hopkins need some more chances as well. We need to show a little downhill running game to offset the "fast spread" look that didn't look fast at all yesterday.
Denard seemed a step slower. He kind of proved RR's theory that if the guys are thinking they are going to play slower. Denard was certainly slower yesterday and seemed to make many poor decisions on running plays. I counted at least six times where I think he could kept the ball and gotten around the backside D-end.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
ANGAR.
Hold the rope for the Choke-eyes, folks.
October 10th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
I dont care if its a midget on a tricycle. Cam Gordon at the VERY LEAST should be sharing time with somebody else. He runs a 4.9 40, he does bring the wood (but he never wraps up), and in 6 games he's had plenty chances (unfortunately), but he's never saved a touchdown. We all know the minute its Cam and anybody else on the other team with the ball, its 6.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
last week on the goalline. Pretty sure that saved a TD
October 10th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
When he's been one on one with the ball carrier has he stopped them? The IU int was thrown right to him, hell he is a former wide out. The point is, he takes horrible angles when the ball is in the air, and his lack of speed makes his angles irrelevant when attempting to run down ball carriers. Bottom line,if the coaching staff feels they have to keep him on the feild then it should be at strong saftey or linebacker, Free Safety is not working.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
It will definitely show us missing opportunities on those first two drives. If Denard had put the ball on the money on the first INT and the pass to Stonum, this would have been a very different game. Not only would we have gotten 14 points, we'd have probably forced MSU out of its defensive gameplan.
One other missed opportunity - Shaw losing his balance on his 20-yard run on our first drive. He was gone if he could've kept his footing.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^
Honestly, the offense wasn't even all that bad without the turnovers. We had two interceptions in the red zone. If those are touchdowns instead of turnovers, this was exactly the ball game we were expecting it would be. MSU cashed in on all 3 turnovers, and the scoreboard reflects it.
It sucks, but until we have a defense that can cover for us when our offense makes mistakes, we're going to have to be perfect if we want to win games. I think that'll be good enough for a winning season this year, but probably not more than the 8-4 we were all originally thinking.
When we have a defense though, we will be Michigan again. Our secondary is young, and I'm sure we'll be looking to get some linebackers this year that will serve us well. Alabama better watch out, because I expect by 2012 we'll be a far more complete team.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^
Rich Rod's offense was not the issue. Our defense is awful. Michigan is known for tough, hard-hitting defenses. What we have is a patchwork of walk-ons, youth, and MAC level players. We call all say that the players who have left this team are lazy, canerous--whatever. The fact remains our defense is a shell of what made Michigan, Michigan.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
but isn't a coach responsible for execution?
It's like a CEO saying, "my plan was awesome, but the damn employees made the company go bankrupt".
October 10th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^