5 Sane Reasons Not To Worry
Someone called me one of the most depressing users on this board on the other thread, so maybe some of you will think this is coming from an unlikely source. But yeah, I can get down with optimism, here it goes:
1. Denard might be Percy Harvin with an arm!
There are so many reasons to be optimistic about Denard that I feel like I could do a top 5 list just about that, but I won't. As good as Tate was last year, Denard has the tools to take this offense from good to mindblowingly awesome. Last year, Denard was extremely limited in what he was allowed to run. Mostly the coaches just had him run straight at the line, or roll out to hit bubble screens. There was no deception in how he was deployed. Denard wasn't even allowed to run the zone read, this offense's base play and a play call that, at least physically, plays to his strengths.
Fortunately Denard seems to have made progress at a breakneck pace. In the spring game (insert caveat here) wasn't just running the zone read, he was completing passes over the middle and sometimes even sitting in the pocket and letting the play develop. Whereas last year every throw of his seemed to fly out at 100 mph, in the spring game he showed a fair amount of touch on the ball. If Denard can be half as poised throwing in the season as he was in the spring game, this offense will open up and hit on all cylinders. Denard and co will dance around the opposition and light up the scoreboard like we've never seen at Michigan. Even better, if he continues to improve at this pace, in a few years we'll be comparing him favorably to Pat White.
2. Improved O line play!
All we lost were an adequate tackle and an adequate guard. We've got an extremely talented pool of youngsters fighting for their spots, led by Taylor Lewan and Patrick Omameh, both of whom have the potential to be four year starters. Others will push returning starters. Everyone has had an extra year to improve and this should be a very good and very deep group.
3. GERG is coaching all linebackers!
3 cheers for Jay Hopson being gone! Obi Ezeh and Jonas Mouton might be this year's Stevie Brown(s). All three were starters since at least their sophomore years who showed tremendous physical skills, but seemed unable to put it together mentally. For Brown, this was until his senior year, when he switched to an outside linebacker (kind of nickel corner) role from his safety position. GERG proceeded to turn him from mgowhippingboy to easily our best linebacker and an NFL draft pick. If Mouton and Ezeh make half the improvement Brown did our linebacking play will have gone from bad to fairly decent.
4. Molk is back!
David Molk proved his worth with his absence last year. When he got injured the offense took a major step back which they never recovered from. Hopefully with improved depth, any injuries will be weathered better this year, but Molk is good enough and important enough to this offense that his return should provide a shot of life either way.
5. (Relative) Continuity on defense!
So we're kind of switching to a 3-3-5, but at least we have the same coordinator for the first time since '07. That continuity extends at least to the coordinator's personal familiarity with the players and vice versa and that's gotta be worth something even if the scheme has changed amirite?
Bonus: 6. Turnovers!
We've had one of the worst turnover margins in the country in each of the last two years. If turnovers are as random as I'd like to think (and a lot of research shows) that has to change sooner or later.
but it's the middle of the off season. I'm not sure if sanity is necessary at this juncture.
three plays away from winning 8 games. we'll be straight
We also beat Notre Dame and Indiana by the skin of our teeth.
That was also my first thought, too. Michigan was closer to losing against ND and Indiana than they were to beating Iowa and MSU. Purdue probably should have been a win.
That's what I really want to see this year.....the ability to win close games. RR has only won three close games in two years (Wisconsin '08, ND '09 and IU '09). However, Michigan has lost a ton of close games, or games that were close until they got out of control after halfime.
This is the year that we need to see the other teams getting out-schemed and out-coached. There's a little more experience on the roster and the playbook has to open up a ittle bit. No more falling to Purdue's trickeration. No more getting shut down in the second half. As long as they can turn that corner, we can look forward to a respectable 2010 and a promising 2011.
I can not say for certain, but I think he meant Illinois not Iowa, but I could be wrong; it's crazy that we had 5 chances to beat Illinois and couldn't do it.
That happened at the beginning of the 3rd quarter and we ended up losing 38-13. In the Iowa game we lost on our final drive when we were down 2 and Denard got intercepted.
How can you be 100% sure he didn't mean Illinois, I mean we had 5 chances to get that TD (and a 13 point lead) and ended up turning the ball over for a 99 yard drive and losing 38-13. I think we all here believe that had we scored that TD we "probably" win that game.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=293040356&period=3
I don't think anyone needs a play-by-play recap of the Illinois game. Yes, I agree that it probably would have turned out differently if we'd scored there (actually, I thought we DID score on 3rd down, but I digress...), but the fact of the matter is that we folded after that and lost big. Against Iowa, on the other hand, we had the ball at the end of the game, needing only to kick a field goal to win. I really thought we'd do it. If Tate hadn't been out of sorts because of the concussion and could have played, I believe we would have pulled it out.
the inability of Rich Rod coached teams to gut out the close games is what has bothered me most the last 2 years.
we had 28 scholarship players on d, 12 were freshman
"But three inches the other way and you would've missed altogether"
"Well, Charlie, I never thought of it that way"
I just signed in so that I could +1 this. Between the Mighty Ducks and Eastbound and Down, you deserve it!
... when I say, Thank god, we are not in the "middle" of the offseason. We are in the home stretch.
Angry Michigan Healthy Center Hating God just woke up, donned his Wake Forest hat, and is lumbering towards Ann Arbor
Now that GERG knows that Obi Ezeh prefers small children on his pizza instead of olives, our defense will be much better.
If you look at highlights too, we have a lot of 3.5 man type fronts and I think you will see a lot of the same thing, just that the more 4-3 type looks will have that last 'lb'ish type person alternate between two people on the field.
I saw an interesting thing on first-half leads too on ESPN a bit ago talking about how that lets defenses play. If our defense can play with a lead, that alone will be a huge boost.
#3 - something I had not thought about in a while. If we can consistently stop the run, teams will have to out score us in the air alone - they wont get both air and ground for that. And that does increase the optimism quite a bit for me. Appreciate the reminder.
But then you think about our previous success rate on 3rd and 18, and you begin to worry again.
in the theory that your defensive front has as much or more to do with stopping the passing game as your defensive backfield. Penetrate, get to that QB, and those passes will all be tiny little screens, or they just won't come off.
I think you are trying to be reassuring, but somehow reminded me that we lost our top pass rusher.
But when you can take out the "slow" MSU QB that runs for 40+ yards in that situation it starts to bring back the optimism.
Welcome to MGoBlog. Get that up in the subhead.
...is that you're optimistic.
Rack up another one for the bandwagon. Whee!
Well, since today appears to be Optimism Day, yes. I'm still scared to death of the secondary, though.
...but let's get this baby on the road anyhow!
I yield to nobody in my ability to look at the glass as not just half-empty, but lying shattered on the floor in a million pointy shards trying to kill you.
He started last year, as a freshman.
You don't determine returning starters based on the lineup for the opener. You look at who finished the season. Omameh started during the home stretch.
right, but I think Marcus above is like a lot of people in thinking of "starter" as someone on top of the depth chart. I would classify spot starts (3 for Omameh in '09) as "some starting experience" versus guys who were clear #1's coming out of fall camp.
Anyhooze, I like your original post. Can't agree with you more on Denard. He needs to touch the ball minimum of 15 times a game, IMO, and I hoping for more.
Reason #2 could be a direct result of reason #4.
How about continually improving return game or something about Tater being awesome.
Tate or Denard is the mgoblog version of Taylor or Jacob. Personally, I like Tate fine, but Denard really pushes my buttons.
Say what you want about Denard's speed, but Tater's accuracy is what gets me going...
'Tater'? The person who posts here (and everywhere else for that matter)? He's throwing for Michigan? Other than that poster, or someone from the deep south, I am not sure who you are referring to.
Does that mean that we have to get really bad "Team Tate" and "Team Denard" t-shirts?
No joke, I'd probably buy one.
One of each? Or one for one side? And if one for one side, which one?
Team Tate on one side, Team Denard on the other.
I have a similar set of shirts in development, but I like the idea of putting them front to back. Of course, we can't actually use the words 'Tate' or 'Denard.'
Team Dilithium?
And on the other side, Team Moxie.
"Of course, we can't actually use the words 'Tate' or 'Denard.' "
Can I ask why? My first thought was recruiting violations, but they're already enrolled and on campus, so...? Is this some other NCAA rule?
The same reason you can't put Michael Jordan's name on any shoe. You don't have a right to their name/likeness.
...but isn't this pushing it? Michigan doesn't have a registered trademark or copyright on the name Tate or Denard. The Block M and the winged helmet is one thing, but putting the words on a maize/canary/sun/chartreuse shirt seems perfectly legit.
This logic would prevent us from putting #5 or #16 on a tee shirt. That doesn't make sense.
They recently said something to the affect of "You cant do exactly what we're talking about"
I believe the idea is no one (except the university) is allowed to make money off of these kids. You can sell a #5 jersey, it cant say "Tate".
Same reason why in NCAA 11 EA doesn't put names on the kids, just QB #5.
We do not have the right to make money off of the identities and likenesses of student athletes. You can make a shirt with a #5 on it, but it can't say 'Forcier' above the 5. You can make a cartoon of a white kid with a #5 shirt, but you can't have it with a toothy smile, reddish-brown hair and the chin fuzz or someone might argue it's too close to the likeness of Tate himself.
We also cannot use the winged helmet, the words "Michigan," "Wolverines," "Go Blue," or the block M in any designs, as they are the direct property of the university itself.
We can use other ideas and images that have been used by or are owned by other companies, but only if it is in as satirical and non-original use as possible. For example, we can probably get away with a Vader head, but only if legal counsel is confident that it's not stealing Lucasfilm's thunder, etc. I'm probably not a great authority on this, I submit it and it's either approved or denied.
Michigan itself can't even sell a shirt with the last name of a current athlete on it. If you wanna read more about this, look into the current lawsuit led by Ed Obannon and Sam Keller against the NCAA and EASports for using athletes likeness in video games without paying them for it.
I realize he's not a student, but does the same hold true for the "Charlie Weis should probably eat less" t-shirt?
He's not a student athlete. He is capable of using his own likeness to sell whatever it is he wants in endorsements. He could choose to pursue legal action, but they almost never do.