I was pleasantly surprised that the game turned out as close as it did, given how our D was virtually non-existent for three quarters. Training with Barwis has helped immensely. As porous as the D was for the 40 minutes they were on the field, they still had something left at the end of the game (we were doomed once Tate threw the I). What if we actually had talent and experience in our secondary and at LB. Some things are hard to explain, like the at least four dropped passes. Stuff happens. Tate needs support - can't do it on his own. I see Denard as an afterthought at this point in time. Simply put, until he can throw, people will key on him for the run when he is in the game - captain obvious. You can't put him in the same backfield as Tate except for a rare trick play - neither he nor Tate can block. So far, I have started wondering about his ability to catch a ball. They did try him on punt receptions but I believe that didn't work out well. He often screws up snaps from center. In short, he is the best backup we have, but that may not be saying much. The jury is still out. The Sultan's decision to go for it on 4th down was stupid beyond belief - can't even blame the coaches as they assume a modicum of smarts on the part of the players. That, obviously, was missing yesterday. I think we have a decent shot against Iowa. If the game is close near the end, don't bet against us. PSU was the only convincing victory Iowa has had to date. They should have lost one game and barely won yesterday. Is Penn State so good? I'm not so sure. Keeping my fingers crossed. Go Blue!

I thought the inability to get any sort of running game going is what killed Michigan. The offensive line got owned by the MSU dline. Carlos and Brandon had no room at all. It was very disappointing to see how flat Michigan came in this rivalry game. How could the offense score 2 TD's in the final few minutes but play so inpet for the first 55 minutes? Where was the urgency? I thought RR gave up size for speed on defense. Then way does the defense look so slow? Did MSU WANT IT MORE???? Who knows, but everyone seems to think so.

"Woolfolk - This guy may be fast, but he can't tackle at all it seems. Kovaks is not a good safety, but he is better than Troy. " First of all his name is spelled Kovacs. Then you say you're behind him 100% you say he's not a good safety. Huh? Check the stats - Kovacs had 17 tackles. I'd call that a good performance. Second Woolfolk hurt his shoulder in the first half and aggravated his injury when he collided with Warren after the second interception. I think that contributed to his missing the tackle in OT, and the fact that he's not a very big safety. And lastly, I've said it already 3-4 times, defense was not the problem in this game. The offense's complete inability to do anything for 3 and a half quarters was the problem.

As an outsider looking in, it seems pretty obvious that the issue on defense is simply a lack of good players. That's pretty blunt, but I think it's true. There are talented guys there - fast, big dudes. But they're either blowing assignments, missing tackles, or just playing poorly. Those are things that bad players do. No amount of scheming is going to to fix those things; until the recruiting and depth pick up on D, one would think it will remain an issue. Offensively, the skill position guys look fairly competent (Forcier has a lot of potential, but still makes freshman-y mistakes; he is a freshmen, that is what they do). The OL did a reasonable job, but pressure was an issue. This team could be pretty good once that gets sorted out. I think Purdue and Illinois are definitely winnable; Wisky is a possibility, depending on how the wind blows. They're not particularly great, but I think they're about as good as ND or MSU. Of OSU, Iowa, and State Penn, I think State Penn is the most likely win (and not terribly likely). PSU's defense is really overrated as a result of playing some bad teams - you guys could put up some real points on them. Iowa and OSU...well, stranger things have happened, but I don't see any way that you win these games without either incredible flukes or serious injuries to the opposition. 6-8 wins with a bowl is pretty much where the realists (both fans and haters of UM) pegged you guys, and that's looking fairly likely. Still, I'd consider that a successful season, particularly if it's accompanied by the emergence of a legitimate QB and running game. At least that sets the stage for next year.

This is a tough game I think for our fans to get a grip on, because I think, in a lot of ways, everything was the problem...you're not supposed to have as many problems as we did today and still be in a position to win the game- 1) Questionable coaching decisions a) Whatever you want to say about Mesko's decision, in either case, the Rodriguez scheme either called for a fake punt or gave Mesko the option to run a fake there himself-I think a lot of people agree that is a dangerous way to run your system especially deep in your own territory. b) Putting Denard in there down 2 TDs on the road for a complete series... I know that Denard needs experience and time to grow and develop, but someone who understands offensive success as well as Rodriguez does should know that whatever he did was likely to be ineffective when he doesn't present a threat of passing vertically. When we are down in a game, I don't see a reason to EVER take the ball out of Tate's hands, the way he has performed this year. It was clear that it was taking him a little while in this game to get comfortable, but I think we all have to be confident that the more snaps Tate gets, the more plays he's going to make. Early in the game he couldn't make too many plays running or passing, but in the big drives in the 4th quarter he made everything happen. 2) MSU time of possession People who say the defense was not a problem today are just plain wrong. I think you can say that our defense didn't prevent us from winning, and all season have been just good enough to find a way to come up with stops after being dominated for long periods of time. However, how do you expect your team to find a rhythm on offense when they have the ball 1 minute in the 1st quarter? I think as Michigan fans (other than last year), we are accustomed to having a talent level on offense and defense that is on par with the best teams in the country. We just were forced to worry about whether or not we'd underachieve. Now we are consistently overachieving and if any number of things went a little better yesterday, we could have won ANOTHER game we had no business winning. All things considered, it's weird rooting for the underdog as a Michigan fan but it's been a fun ride and I hope we'll have some more things to cheer about this season.

IIRC, Brian pointed out that GERG has to play a form of prevent and can't blitz b/c we have a walk on at corner and Warren is good, but not Charles Woodson. We always have to keep the safeties back to help the corners, espcially Floyd who doesn't have speed to run with Big Ten WRs. That means the LBs have to take the middle and the flats in passing downs. If we had blitzed LBS, the safties would have needed to cover the TE/RBs. This leaves Floyd on an island with Dell or Cunningham. That has big play all over it. So we play a form of prevent, where the safties give deep help to the CBs, and the LBs cover the TEs or RBs. This leaves a ton of time for the QB and opens up space for a scramble. It requires the QB to execute and, if he does, they move the ball. BUT, the D tightens near the red-zone where there is less field to defend. You can't get beat on a 40 yard go route when the ball is on your own 20. This lets the D play more agressively and generally leads to FGs. See also, Indiana. The good thing is that we really need either one stud corner, or for BooBoo to live up top his potential. As long as we don't have to worry about a corner for whom man coverage = TD, we can blitz our asses off. I really think we are one player away.

It seems like the fake punt option would almost be better on 4th and 3-5 to go than 4th and inches. With more yardage to go, the defense will be a lot less conscious of the possibility of a fake. And since Z is running from 15 yards behind the line on a trick play anyways, chances are that either he'll get stuffed for a loss (in which case the distance to go doesn't matter) or he'll gain 10+ yards.

-Great player near the LOS. -No hip fluidity or speed to cover WRs/TEs Still, for a walk-on, he's playing great and you can tell he plays his ass off. I hope RichRod rewards him with a scholarship, even if it's just for the spring

Mike Barwis can't turn modestly-talented linemen into All-conference unstoppable locomotives, nor is he going to be able to take slow-footed DBs and LBs and turn them into Woodson and Harris. A linebacker who doesn't have a nose for the football and consistently takes bad pursuit angles might be in tremendous shape, but at the end of the day he's still mediocre. This is not a criticism of Barwis or his methods, but I think some have assumed that his regimen would create obvious physical advantages on the field in terms of strength and speed, over and above basic talent differentials. I don't see any of that happening, at least not yet. Certainly there was no apparent strength advantage that our OLs displayed yesterday against the MSU defensive line, regardless of how many weightlifting records they set in the offseason.

Who in the Big Ten has looked all that impressive? Iowa has struggled against Ark. St. and N. Iowa and beat PSU. Can I say there is no way we win that game- Hell NO! Iowa's O is adequate and their D is good but, has always struggled with speed. I wish Molk was back for this one though. What has PSU done? Decent D and struggled mightily on O and we get them at home. DState should be a nice warm up for the Nittany Lions. Then we have Illinois who has been awful, Purdue at home which is a likely win. Wisconsin one of only three teams we beat last year. I know they are undefeated now and its on the road but, they don't scare me either. That leaves the Buckeyes (our MSU game) I suspect after the shellacking they put on us last year we're gonna be real hungry. I maintained heading into last weekend that I would have rather faced a 4-0 or 3-1 Sparty team. At 1-3 they would be extremely dangerous because beating us made their season.

UM lost to a team they had no business losing to. Now, they have to beat a team they have no business beating to make up for it. PSU, anyone? Wisky? Since I already jinxed PSU by predicting them for the NC game, I will now predict that Iowa will make it to the NC game undefeated out of the Big Ten. I hope this helps Saturday.

The entire team and coaching staff should be upset: for twenty-four hours. I would hope that they are all extremely pissed off that MSU made their entire season by beating them. I am glad, though, that RR mentioned the "24-hour rule" in the presser. I am a firm believer in that rule, and the only thing I ever liked about any MSU coach was that George Perles used to use it. Let them celebrate victories and grieve defeats for 24 hours, and then get back to work. There is a lot of season left.

UM is currently 1 game ahead of my pre-season expectations. I looked at the schedule and saw 5 confident wins and figured they would upset someone else (probably Illinois) in addition, making them 6-6. Which I would be fine with. I had them 3-1 through the first 4 games and then losing to MSU to be 3-2 right now. I also have them losing to Iowa next week. So since they beat ND, I could now see them going 7-5, and that would be fantastic. I think that it will be at least next year before we can expect a really good season (i.e. 9-3 or 10-2).