Wojo's take on the game today.
Pretty fair I think. Great QB play early in the year covered up the deficiencies, it's troubling to him to see us manhandled upfront, expectations were too high after 4-0, but they should be lowered now.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20091024/OPINION03/910240404/1004/SPORTS…
October 24th, 2009 at 11:08 PM ^
If he wrote that as an MgoBoard post, he would get neg-banged all to holy hell.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:50 PM ^
His column was well-thought and accurate. The same cannot be said for most of the fair-weather chicken little types who have been squawking on here since the game ended. They earn negbangs, Wojo earns respect.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:29 AM ^
very young, this is either going to work or not work in the next two years. I dont think there is going to be much in between. Meaning 7-5, and quite possibly 8-4 years in 10, and 11 may have to be looked at as progress too slow, especially if this young team somehow finishes 7-5 this year.
Nobody knows what is definitely going to happen next year or the year after just because 80+ guys on this team have fr. and soph eligibility. That doesnt guarantee they will develop into 9+ win teams the next 2-3 years.
Looking at RRs track record, the likely outcome is good days ahead.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:29 AM ^
"fair-weather chicken little types"
Because nothing says fair-weather like giving a damn about your team.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
is right on the money. The more I read his articles the more I like him. This article didn't have any of the sarcasm that he's written in recent memory. It was a fair and sobering take on M's current woes
October 24th, 2009 at 11:13 PM ^
Well, the reasonable folks would need to hit back with a pos-bang for the ages. He's right on.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^
I hate 99% of sportswriters. Loudmouths with word processors.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^
Wojo's analysis is dead-nuts accurate.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^
I wonder what we'd be saying about Forcier, though, if his tight ends didn't drop everything thrown their way. 13-of-30 looks bad, but without the drops it might be 17-of-30, which doesn't suck. I don't think you can put this game on Forcier. I think you have to look at the O-line and the defense. Particularly the safeties.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^
Yeah there were at least 4 or 5 drops and a few of those were for 1st downs that never were converted. Drive enders... The good thing is, we are better than last year and next year we should improve again.
A lot of self-inflicted wounds. Turnovers, safety, dropped passes, poor coverage positioning...
October 25th, 2009 at 12:00 AM ^
Grady, Odoms and Roundtree each had a drop today, too.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:03 AM ^
who caught everything thrown to him, IIRC.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
Yeah. One mini-bright spot was that we finally got Mathews involved in the offense again (7 catches). We should use him as a possession receiver more often.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
...Because he can CATCH THE DAMN BALL only one way per game.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:10 AM ^
I watched the game and can't figure out why posters are bashing the safeties so much. I think we'll learn more with the UFR, but it looked to me like pretty much every big play was on a linebacker. Not that the safeties were great but I don't see how they played particularly worse than the linebackers.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:18 AM ^
tackles in the first half alone. He was terrible. But to your point, the LB's were not much better
October 25th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^
were not thrown as well as they should have been. I think some are being a little protective of Tate. I like him, have no problem with him and do think he is the qb for this system for now, but I already caught a couple of those drops on DVR...some were awful, a couple were awful passes that just happened to still be catchable but not bad drops.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:06 AM ^
"just happened to still be catchable"
Meaning that they were catchable... so, yeah.
For the record, probably the most difficult "catchable" ball for any of the "receivers" to make today was the one thrown to Shaw, and guess what, he caught it.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
On the numbers or not, if it hits em in the hands the catch needs to be made. Big games demand it and players beside BG need to step up.
October 25th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
I am actually surprised that this was the first game that we were pretty much manhandled. I thought we would have a few games like this. In every previous game we were competative, and could have one both of the losses. I guess I am happy with the season so far. Now if we can just beat OSU!
October 25th, 2009 at 1:53 AM ^
Yeah, it sucked to see us lose today, but I think there might be a silver lining in this defeat.
Our big games this season have all been decided by close margins. What's been interesting about this team is that on several occasions, they've played incredibly sloppy football. However, until today, they didn't really experience serious consequences for that kind of play. Sure, MSU and Iowa were losses, but they were close, and they didn't leave the team feeling completely, truly beaten.
Today was a stark reminder to the team that luck will not always be on our side - if they play sloppy football against a really good team, they're going to get crushed. There were true consequences today, and they were reflected in the scoreboard.
I think this loss will serve as a wake-up call, and the team will rise to the occasion and respond positively to this defeat. So in that sense, it could be a net positive in the long term, especially if we beat AN Ohio State University later this fall.
I love Michigan football, and it's incredibly exciting to watch this team. We're headed in the right direction.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:03 AM ^
Come on, give me a break please. We were only competitive against MSU in the 4th quarter, and we turned the ball over to Iowa 4 or 5 times. People say we would have won against Iowa had we not turned the ball over so many times, but the simple truth is that a good team does not turn the ball over like that. It's like saying we would have won if we had only gained 200 more yards. We have serious problems, we have been exposed repeatedly now, and if you all think for a second that, barring immense improvement, we will beat OSU - you all are sadly mistaken.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:41 AM ^
Good teams don't turn it over like that? PSU is a good team, but it turned it over four times against Iowa. It can happen to anyone. Heck, our 1997 team was prone to the occasional turnoverfest: we turned it over three times (all in our own territory) in the fourth quarter of the ND game, 3-4 times against Iowa (contributing to the big deficit) and twice in the fourth quarter of the OSU game.
Some turnovers are preventable, like the INT Tate threw at an Iowa defender. But others (like the fumble that slipped right out of his hand in that game) are just flukes. A mark of a good team isn't necessarily its turnover margin, but its ability to recover when faced with turnovers.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:49 PM ^
I don't think our opinions necessarily differ. You think turnovers are a somewhat consistent presence and somewhat non-preventable. I agree - to a certain extent. Some turnovers are expected, but not ones like we have had in the past two games. I think they signal a bigger problem - not necessarily that all we we need to do is somehow teach them not to turn over the ball, but rather we need to address the factors that are making turnovers more likely, like blocks, being in the vicinity of the ball (thus being able to recover) and such. I am saying our troubles are a signal of bigger problems. The simple fact is that you dont turn over the ball like we have (key part of the phrase is OVER - i.e., the other team gets it) and win games.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:54 AM ^
People were excited, and rightfully so that it appeared we had a qb ( two, actually ) who could make things happen. But as a whole these are mostly the same kids who were 3-9 last year. They're playing better, but it may be a season or two before they can really challenge for the B10 championship.
Before the season started I was hoping for 7-5, after the great start I was hoping for 8-4. 9-3 or better seemed just too optimistic.
We can still go 7-5 and get to a bowl. UM has a chance to get back on track with two beatable teams, Illinois and Purdue ( never mind that whole OSU thing). Wiscy and OSU ... not so much.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^
The thing that concerns me is that this team as a whole is getting worse from week to week, not better. If you look at Matt Barkley and Tate, they've done the opposite of each other. Barkley has improved while Tate hasn't. I understand the whole young team thing, but why did they start hot and then get worse? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
October 25th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
First, teams have had a chance to figure out how to defend Forcier. As he and the team improve, this will hopefully be less of a factor.
Second, we're facing better competition. Penn State is most assuredly better than Notre Dame and Indiana.
Third, Tate's been playing hurt (the shoulder). I suspect he's not going to be at full capacity until next year.
Tate (like the rest of the team) is young and is going to drive you crazy with his inconsistency.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
1. Every single person who followed the two of them in High School would say that Matt Barkley is better than Tate. There's a reason he was the #1 recruit in the nation, and Tate wasn't in the top 250.
2. There is something of a difference, if you haven't noticed, in the situations in which Barkley has found himself and those that Tate has found himself in. Barkley is piloting an offense of 5-stars, and has the best defense in football behind him.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
1) Agree, and Barkley doesn't look like a freshman, he's a big guy @ 6-3, 220.
2) USC defense is not up to the standard it's set over the past few seasons; they gave up 27 to ND and 36 to Oregon State yesterday. Major reasons: linebacker play and injury to Taylor Mays , IMO.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
you mean playing tougher, better competition and not getting the job done when it mattered, then yes. But if you mean Michigan is getting worse as a football team, then no.
Sparty is decent, not necessarily good. Wisco blew them out, the close score is b/c of garbage time points. Michigan played poorly for 55 minutes and they were still in the game.
Iowa is a tough defensive team that takes advantage of what the other team gives them. Michigan gave them way too much of an open field and TOs. Sparty gave them too much time and open field.
Penn State is bigger, stronger and more experienced than Michigan with a senior leader at QB. Iowa proved to be a better defensive team at Happy Valley. We have a young, inexperienced team that doesn't match up well(sizewise) on the lines and our secondary and LBs are in way over their heads in a defense they barely know.
Our QBs are freshmen. Let me say this again, our QBs are FRESHMEN! Matt Stafford, Colt MCCoy, Sam Bradford, and Mark Sanchez either didn't play or weren't making headlines as freshmen. Tim Tebow has always had great talent around him, including great line play and of course he is 'god' (please!).
When Chad Henne was playing as a freshmen he was surrounded by junior and senior talent and great line play and defense. Freshman QBs are not supposed to be starting, much less leading the team.
I know it sounds like excuses, but it's a simple fact, freshman QBs struggle in major college football and the team's record will reflect it. Remember how bad Clausen looked as a freshman? He looks a hellava lot better now.(I hate to admit it)
Yeah, we're not as good as we thought, or as good as we'd like, but this team doesn't quit and they will get better.