Was looking forward to this post all day. Nice summary and I agree that this team is much better than the final score indicated. Still a lot to play for and a lot of season left.

I was looking forward to this post as well. 

It was a coaching issue. Terrible, terrible gameplan. They were getting 4-5 YPC and abandoned the run completely.

Excellent points. I especially agree with Michigan personnel not matching up well with Michigan State. Our linemen are too small on both sides of the ball. Same goes for Wisconsin (good thing we don't play them), and… dare I say it… Ohio.

Ohio is far more beatable than State was. How often does any team with a fifth year senior QB lose a rivalry game at home? But as Ohio showed yesterday, reports of their demise were premature. And there is no getting around that whatever happens between now and November 26, losing to Ohio this time would be a horrible pill to choke on.

Let's hope it won't come to that! My wish list going forward:

1. Avoid major injuries (Denard, Martin, Lewan, Denard, Demens, T. Gordon, Denard, Kovacs, RVB, Molk… and did I mention Denard?)

2. Borges figures out better gameplans (not too difficult compared to yesterday).

3. Yesterday's debacle causes a renewed sense of determination. Not sure that's possible because this team doesn't seem to lack for drive or motivation.

Go Blue!

Some seem to believe that with recruiting, UM will begin to dominate that way it did in early 2000.  I have to disagree.  MD is a good coach and Narduzzi an even better one.  Their defense was not that much bigger than ours and was LESS experienced than ours and still dominated us. Their OL consists of a bunch 2 stars and they ran the ball down our throat. My point is that the style of football played by MSU or Wisconsin can be run effectively without a lot of super stars.  Unless UM begins to recruit like Alabama or LSU, I believe this will remain a very competitive game year in and year out.

I think Borges did outcoach someone. Unfortunately, it was himself.

Sometimes I think he is one of those guys who is too smart and overthinks things, insteading of just handing the damn ball off or letting Denard run from shotgun. 

 

It was a tough loss, but strange to admit, unless other losses in the Big Ten where the Wolverines were clearly overmatched, they were very competitive and arguably played well enough that barring a few plays, they could have been the winners. Don't have that sense of unease about a collapse like last year.

I know someone might bring up that old saying, close only matters in horseshoes and hand grenades, but in this case, it matters a lot. The team didn't fold up and stayed active. We'll now see if they bounce back sharp and hard in the Purdue game.

I love this post. Agree with almost everything said.

There are a few things I'd quibble with.

First, I think the wind disproportionately affected Denard & therefore Michigan. Borges has said that it will take a full season for Denard to get his passing down. I think that under the same conditions, with the same personnel, but one more year of coaching under Borges, Denard and Michigan wins this game.

I also think that there are similar issues for the rest of the team. It takes time to fully install your gameplan, for both Mattison and Borges. Our seniors and upperclassman on defense (Martin, VanBergen, Roh, Kovacs, Floyd, Woolfolk) have largely done an excellent job (with the exception of Woolfolk being less than 100% physically.) They should have things pretty well nailed down in a year.

Likewise, on offense, in a year, our OL and receivers will know better what is expected:  how to pull, blocking schemes for particular plays, route running, etc. One big challenge, in my mind, is the running backs. For whatever reason (OL? shiftiness? Strength? Speed?) our running game just isn't what it should be. I don't know whether or not Rawls or Dunn are the answer, but as much as I like Fitz & Smith, it appears they can't carry the team with their running.

All in all, though, I can live with this loss. Which brings me to one other thing: Michigan State played well. Of course, Gholston took cheap shots. But football is a rough game, and you're hopelessly naive and looking through rose colored glasses to think that stuff like this doesn't happen a lot. And I am very skeptical at the idea that Dantonio ordered his team to play dirty and injure Denard. C'mon, give Dantonio and Narduzzi and MSU credit. While it is a very bitter pill for those of you who live in-state (here in Chicago, I passed a mom yesterdeay coaching her 3 year old in a MSU sweater to razz me,) we need to respect what Dantonio has done, and that MSU has played well.

I'm a Michigan fan through and through and have never rooted for Sparty. But still, I'm tired of all the "little brother," stuff, and thuggery stuff, and Dantonio is a crappy coach stuff. He gets it, in a sense, and has done a good job. Give credit where credit is due.

Hoke will use this, and with more of the right personnel, and more coaching, we'll return to prominence.

One other thought:  It seemed that both Denard and Gardner looked only to the primary receivers as they through into coverage a number of times with no success when it appeared that other receivers were wide open.  Maybe the frantic rush of MSU had something to do with the inability to look off to the secondary receivers, but this seems to be a pattern.

disappointed with offensive coaching. Normally Borges is top notch but tried too many cute things and didnt call plays to get the players in rhythm..

some is on the plays, but a lot on the coaches..dont sit denard ever if hes healthy..decoy him at the very least.

that being said i still hace
100% confidence in the coaches and players and hopefully they learn a lot from this game...this bye week is much needex, i just wish it was before the msu game