Wisconsin is good. After this past weekend, they are still good.
I just thought I would throw up Wisconsin's offensive numbers for the year to see if everyone actually realizes how good they are:
YPG - 440.3
Pass YPG - 207.6
Rush YPG - 239.9
PPG - 40.9
I get that our defense didn't play well against Wisonsin's offense this past weekend, but with 1 game left in the season, they have the 7th best scoring offense in the nation (which is better than our offense). It is almost like everyone disliking GERG and RichRod are acting surprised and shocked just so they can find something to bitch about with the team. Wait, it isn't almost like that, it is exactly like that. The Wisconsin offense is one of the best in the nation. They gained more rushing yards against us than they average and had one score more than they average. Did you really expect our horrid defense to hold them 10 or 15 points under their season average?
And before you bring out the Indiana debacle, even without that game, they are still averaging 37 points per game. That would put them at 14th in the nation right ahead of our offense.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
ummm, thanks??
November 21st, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
Everyone knew Wisconsin was a very good team going into the weekend, but what was troubling is that UM let another 'big" B10 team rushing out to a big lead, then just run them over in the second half as the offense finally came alive. I would actually be okay with the outcome if the halftime score had been 24-14 or something like that. Wiscy is very good, but this offense does have a penchant to disappear early in games, and with this defense that simply is not possible.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
WE SHOUD BE UNDEFEATED RIGHT NOW...wait, what?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
Yeah, Wisconsin is good. But are we? If we aren't, when are we going to be? At what point should be we expect to actually be competitive with good teams?
November 21st, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
OH MY GOD DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FRESHMEN WE HAVE IN THE SECONDARY??? STOP HATTING!! WE MAY NOT COMPETE FOR A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP TWO YEARS AGO OR LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR BUT 2012 WE COULD MAYBE POSSIBLY GET THIRD IN THE BIG TEN!!!! SO STOP HATING!!!
OMG ALL THESE HATERS EXPECT THAT JUST BECAUSE "WE'RE MICHIGAN" WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TO WIN THE BIG TEN ONCE A DECADE. LET ME GUESS, NOT WINNING A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP FOR A DECADE WOULD BE "UNACCEPTABLE" - THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT....IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY, PATIENCE!!!
Chill out y'all I'm just havin fun
November 21st, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
You're hurting my ears dude
November 21st, 2010 at 6:57 PM ^
just imagine what LLOYD could do with all the talent on this team........
/s....
November 21st, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
I guarantee the defense would be better.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:12 AM ^
they probably wouldn't let appalachian state score 38 points or anything!
November 21st, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^
And if we aren't competing with the best teams in the league, everyone will be pissed and Rodriguez will be fired. If you don't think it is going to happen that is fine, but nobody is asking you to wait any longer than next season so stop pretending they are.
Nobody supporting the coaching staff is going to do so indefinitely. However, those paying attention to the state of the program know that you don't go from 3-9 to Big 10 Champs overnight. You're free to blame Rodriguez for 3-9 if you want to, but at that moment our program was completely broken. Everything since has been an improvement (maybe not as good as you would like it to be, but certainly better than 3-9) and all indications (19 starters returning next year and only one key contributor lost on either side of the ball) point to continued improvement next year.
It is going to happen whether you want to wait another offseason for it or not.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
Two years ago, when "everything was completely broken" (your words, not mine), we went 2-6 in conference play.
Two years later, we're 3-4 in conference play. Two of those wins were extremely tight games that could have gone the other way. The other was also pretty close and required a TD in the final two minutes to ice it. Conversely, each of our four losses was by double-digits, and in each one, we trailed by 20+ points in the second half.
Are we really making great progress, or are we barely treading water? How likely is it that we go from three consecutive losing conference seasons to winning the Big Ten title? It takes a major leap of faith to assume something like that will happen. Something tells me, unfortunately, that by the time next year rolls around, we'll get more of the "What were you expecting?" threads by midseason, and the prove-it year will get pushed back to 2012.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^
Nobody said we would be good this year. No one is saying we won't get better next year. You have invented an argument to pretend your patience is being tested that doesn't exist. It doesn't take a major leap of faith to assume a team that returns 19 starters and all but two quality contributors will continue to improve. It does however, take a major leap in logic to pretend we aren't loads better than we were in a season where we lost to TOLEDO. 3-9 TOLEDO.
I'm sorry you're upset. No one else is happy about losing, even to good teams.
But again you show the fallacy of your argument by pointing out the three losing seasons in the Big 10 (and a third is still not guaranteed, though I certainly don't expect us to beat OSU). They have nothing to do with what happens going forward. They are a sunk cost. The question is, can we go from 7 wins to 9+. Since the team has made a two game improvement each of the last two years Rodriguez has been here and since we return basically our entire roster in tact and since we've just seen a team make an even bigger leap this year in our own conference (State is +4 in wins already this year) there is plenty of evidence to support the assumption.
Either you can see that or you can continue to fume about 3-9. Either way we'll know in about 12 months.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
with the haters, just start to look forward to next year. They'll have to decide whether they want to root for the team or sit on their hands as the games unfold. If we go el foldo next year, cool--RichRod tried. I will never understand hating him for it, though, until the day I die.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
Can we dispense with the teenybopper lingo and stop calling anyone concerned about this program a "hater?" In no way, shape or form do I hate the man coaching the team. I'd love for him to win big here. I'm just concerned that it may never happen.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
you say we went 2-6 in the B10 2 years ago?
so that means we won as many big 10 games this year as in the past two years combined, right?
sorry, I'm not a math major... but everyone can find and/or isolate statistics to support or debunk an argument.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
Wow, that is an extremely depressing statistic anyway you look at it. But hey, if you can find hope in that, I'm happy for you.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
But if/when we win big next year I will demand that you drink an enormous bottle of purple Hater-ade to celebrate.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:13 PM ^
To be a punishment.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
No punishment. Just one big party when we're back on top.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:57 PM ^
Purple. Sign me up...
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
population. And--though you may not count yourself as one--there are lots of haters out there.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
I don't think it's the win-loss numbers that concerns people. 7-4 on its own isn't that bad; it's the way we got to that number that's troubling: barely beating bad teams, getting destroyed by good teams.
I will be disappointed if we are 9-3 next year and still look as if we don't belong on the field with the top tier of the conference.
And honestly, I fear that's exactly where we're headed.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:49 PM ^
........4 losses to teams with losing records. In 2009, we had 3 losses to teams with losing records. This year, we have 0 losses to teams with losing records. We are improving. This wasn't a case of a new coach coming with talent galore all around but the new scheme kept them from success. This was a case of a new coach coming into a situation where overall talent had been waning for years, especially on the defensive side. Sure, we had a few really good players, but not a whole team full of them.
Guys like you seem to try and fit RR and UM's situation into other schools situations and wonder why we didn't have the success they had. Our situation was quite different than theirs. I'd rather be patient with RR, knowing the success he had at WVU, than just can him after 3-4 years because we haven't been as good as we were once perceived to be.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
Along these same lines, I am wondering when the last time there was three 10-1 teams in the Big Ten?
We have 4 losses right now.
2 of those losses are to 10-1 MSU and 10-1 Wisconsin, and SURPRISE those were the games where we weren't competitive.
Iowa and PSU were games that we could have had a chance in if we had just started a little faster than we did or had a defense that was middle of the pack.
We may lose our 5th game next week...to yet another 10-1 team.
IMO, there is no shame in 3 of our 5 losses.
And I personally think that next season we could have a good shot to beat the Iowa and PSU level teams as long as we show marginal improvement and don't wait until the 2nd half to start playing football.
Would a 9 win regular season be enough progress for you skeptics out there? It would be for me.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wanted to rephrase.
So think about it this way:
If prior to the season, I told you we would play three 10-1 (possibly 11-1) teams in the Big Ten, would you have predicted that we would win any of those game? Would you predict that we were anywhere near the same level as those teams?
I wouldn't have. In fact, I would have expected to be manhandled by such quality opponents.
Then what if I told you that we would play two toss-up games against middle of the pack Big Ten teams, one at home and one on the road. How many of those would you have expected to win?
I probably would have said I would hope for a split.
Okay, so we lost ONE game we shouldn't have and we weren't competitive against 11 win teams. Is that really a surprise to anyone?
If it is, I think you were deluding yourself.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:17 PM ^
So here's where we are as a program: Rich Rodriguez is finishing up his third year in the program, and we're not compettive with about half the conference's teams. Why exactly should we have faith that he's the guy, going forward? Did you expect things to be like this three, two or even one year ago?
November 21st, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
What do you define as competitive? Last year the team took Iowa and MSU to the wire, and played OSU tight. I think all this shows is that the B10 may very well be the best conference in America, and that UM happens to be experiencing such a rash of injuries that they could not compete. Let's say next year MSU and Wiscy revert a bit, PSU's lack of solid recruiting and concerns about JoePa hurts them, and UM goes 9-3 or 10-2? Does that count as progress, or does it mean the team just got lucky and beat a couple of powers on a down year? I think you have to look at where the program has gone since RR showed up, and we've seen progress. Sure, it was from a pretty low point, but I honestly think UM was headed for a couple of down years (maybe not 3-9, but close) under Carr, and RR's cultural shift just accelerated that downfall.
November 21st, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
but injuries are not a very good way to rationalize a poor season.
every team has to deal with injuries.
PSU, Iowa, and Purdue come to mind...
November 21st, 2010 at 8:09 PM ^
Last year the team took Iowa and MSU to the wire, and played OSU tight.
Last year, MSU went 6-7. Playing a seven-loss team close is not an accomplishment. (And you can't seriously be suggesting that we should ever take solace in a loss to MSU.) And the OSU game was a lot like our big games this year - we never had the ball with a chance to tie or take the lead in the second half.
Iowa, I'll give you. But this raises the question of how we were able to be competitive with them last year, on their home field, but not this year. We've been told that this year is supposed to represent progress from last year. Where is the progress against good teams? Just like last year, we've lost four games by double-digit margins. The only meaningful difference I see this year is that we've managed to win all the coinflip games (4-0 in games decided by seven or fewer points) whereas last year we went 2-3 in them. But is that progress or just statistical variance?
November 21st, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
first year starting QB. In the games this year against MSU, Iowa, and PSU, it was youth driven mistakes that killed drives in the first half. We also had those against every team we won against, with the difference being that the mistakes weren't quite as costly against them. One could say that our teams were very competive in the second half of every loss we've had this year. Look at the opposing teams in the losses. Other than PSU, they were all led by experience laden teams that just don't make the small mistakes, and coupled with our patchwork secondary and lack of beef on the DL, their offenses were successful quite a bit more than ours was. On O, other than Schilling and Dorrestein, everyone is back. One year older. Less youthful mistakes will be made. We should be in every game we play next year, regardless of how good or bad our D is.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^
In addition to the three 10-1 teams, Iowa won the Orange Bowl last year and returned a large portion of that squad. Not exactly your average 7-4 team. Compare that to the Pac 10 which has just 4 teams with a winning record and will finish the season that way assuming Oregon St. loses to EITHER Stanford or Oregon in their last two games (the Big 10 has eight teams with a winning record overall).
We've lost to three legit top-25 teams and split between a much improved Illinois team and a PSU team that are both likely to finish 4-4 in the conference. With the roster situation still what it was going into the season nobody can really complain about the record this year.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^
Let me preface this by say I am very catiously optimistic, but it gets really old hearing the excuses. I'm sick of the excuses. Why can't we just say, yeah, they came out this year and beat crappy teams they were supposed to and lost big to the good teams. The most disappointing thing is that we haven't even made any games against decent opponents within reach. Excuses are like a-holes....you know the rest.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^
Yes, the endless excuses have been endless. This situation has proven to be the perfect exercise for casuist/sophistic arguments. At least all the apologists will become good philosophers.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
The only thing more annoying than "fire Rich Rod!" posts after a terrible performance are "what are you complaining about, we all knew this would happen" posts after a terrible performance. (As though the predictability of our terrible defense somehow makes it all OK).
I don't know about you, but I didn't predict that Wisconsin would rush the ball for all but one play in the second half, and we still wouldn't be able to stop them a single time. Didn't see that one coming.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I expected this to happen or that I am happy with the results. But do I expect the 7th best offense in the nation to put up one more score than they average against one of the worst defenses in the nation? Probably. I bet we would all be really upset and SHOCKED if we played Oregon and let up 58, right? The OP was made because I don't think we give Wisconsin enough credit. Just because I point out something obvious doesn't mean that I am happy with the results. Also, I don't give a shit if you complain. Go for it. I just want you to see exactly what you are complaining about. A team averaging over 40 a game scored 48 on us. I guess that is a great reason for a meltdown. Continue panic mode.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
You act like this happened in a vacuum. The "meltdown" concerning what has happened to Michigan's defense is based on what has happened over the course of the year. Individual games just add more dirt to the mountain.
I just don't understand what the point of your post is. Yes, Wisconsin is very good. That does not change the fact that Michigan's defense is historically bad. Are you saying we shouldn't panic about this? If so, provide a reason that it will get better. Saying that "Wisconsin is really good" is only relevant if you're trying to downplay how bad our defense is.
And while I don't dispute how good Wisconsin is, this lauding of our opponents to downplay our own failings has occurred throughout the year. First it was about how UMass, while only a Division I-AA team, was so much better than many Division I-A teams. (Check out U-Mass's record lately? They're freaking 5-4, not even a top 20 Division I-AA team). Then it was Chappell being the next coming of Drew Brees. (Indiana has no victories in the Big 10). Next it was McGloin being a hidden gem. You would think that Michigan has played nothing but top 10 offenses all year.
I just want it to stop. Yes, other teams are good. We know. But our defense sucks, sucks, sucks, shows no signs of getting better, and it is perfectly appropriate for the fanbase to be upset about that.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
Our defense sucks. Everybody knew they would suck when they looked at the roster going into the season. They have sucked all year in every single game they have played. Nothing has changed. Why has this happened you ask? Because we have the most inexperienced defensive roster in major college football. By a lot. Feel free to say "Nuh uh!" but I will ask that you actually provide evidence to back up your claim. Just saying, "We must have talent and we should be good no matter what and other teams must have similar issues" isn't going to cut it.
Defenses don't improve over the course of a season. Our 2005 defense never showed any sign of getting better. OSU and a mediocre Nebraska team had no trouble moving the ball on them at the end of the year. They returned a bunch of talented players who continued to mature and they got loads better in 2006. That is how it works. Next year this defense returns basically everyone but Jonas Mouton. There are loads of talented freshmen/sophomores on this team who will soon not be freshmen/sophomores and as such will play much better.
This is just what the bottom feels like.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
I love the revisionist history.
Everyone knew our defense would be bad. No one was predicting we would be the worst defense in college football.
As far as the "youth" argument, we just watched our defensive line and linebackers, who consist of seniors, juniors and sophomores, get rolled in historically embarassing fashion. The freshman in the secondary weren't the ones getting exploited in the second half yesterday -- it was our more experienced front lines.
So what's the reason that this happened? So many people love crapping on Ezeh and Mouton, and citing them as examples of Lloyd leaving Rodriguez with crap talent on defense. But Ezeh and Mouton have been in the Rodriguez system since they were sophomores. Does anyone think that our linebacking corps would have been this bad, even with the same players, under the Carr regime? And given this team's dismal player development on defense over the past three years, why does anyone expect massive improvement next year? Have we seen massive improvement in the returning players on this year's team?
And why did our defensive line get trucked? There are certainly talented, and experienced, players there, so is it finally OK to say that the defensive scheme sucked?
November 21st, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^
Our "talented and experienced" defensive line starts an undersized true sophomore at one defensive end spot. The only senior in the first team (Greg Banks) is a first time starter who was a meh 3-star recruit coming out of high school who last year as a junior tied with a bunch of other guys (among them such household names as Jon Conover and Zac Johnson) to be the 23rd leading tackler on the team in a season where he was behind a former walk-on on the two deep. If he leaves the game he is replaced by a true freshman. Van Bergen and Martin are talented and experienced players (and both have played well all year when healthy). Sadly, two guys doesn't make a quality defensive line.
Jonas Mouton's production has improved dramatically this season. In one fewer appearance than last year, he already has more than doubled his TFL's (7.5 compared with 3.0), has 2 more sacks (he had none in 2009), and has made 36 more tackles than he did in 2009. He isn't David Harris, but most people aren't and he's clearly gotten better.
Obi Ezeh continued to not be terribly good at playing linebacker. This wouldn't be an issue if there were any junior/senior scholarship players on the entire roster who could play that position. Sadly, there are none. Eventually Ezeh was replaced by a guy in the middle of his sophomore season. Yet another young/inexperienced player in the front seven.
Other teams aren't running out a team full of freshmen/sophomores and a bunch of default starters. And if they do they suck at playing defense. Good defenses are built with talented juniors/seniors (just look at our 2006 unit for one example and compare it to this unit).
Also, if your secondary sucks, you have to take measures to protect them when say a quarterback is completing every single pass he throws (like yesterday) and that can make you susceptible to the run.
If you are surprised our defense sucks as bad as they do, then you don't know much about how good college football defenses are constructed.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
I guess you are right. It is unacceptable to have 4 losses, 2 of which have come at the hands of opponents who are 20-2 and both ranked inside the BCS top 15 and another coming to a team that gave those teams 1 of the 2 losses. UNACCEPTABLE.
Also, to say this post has no point and then say something like "the defense sucks, sucks, sucks" as if we all didn't know that already is idiotic. Saying our defense is not good adds about as much to this board as you say this post does. But go on, tell me how much our defense sucks because I haven't heard that yet on these boards.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^
My god, do you miss the point. I would never start a thread simply saying "the defense sucks", for the very reason you mention -- everyone knows it already. I only said it in RESPONSE to your post, which seemed to be downplaying the crappiness of our defensive performance by lauding the opponent.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
Great point. "I dislike your post. In order to show you that, I am going to post nothing of value and tell you how much I dislike your post." Is that what you meant?
Also, I said in the OP that our defense didn't play well against Wisconsin and called them horrid. I guess if you want you can see that as downplaying the crappiness of our defense. What did you want me to do, say we were fucking god awful horrid? Would that live up to your criteria of describing our defense? The post wasn't meant to downplay the defense, it was meant to point out that Wisconsin is 10-1 and their offense is better than ours. So go ahead and get upset and meltdown if you want. Have at it.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^
You really have some low expections for this team sir. It's not losing that is the problem. Look at how we lost all those games. Pitiful performances. You think that's acceptable? Well, the majority doesn't think losing that badly is acceptable whether you like it or not.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
Just read all of my responses. I don't really feel like saying "I am not ok with losing like this" again in another way. It was a good team. We lost. Here is a post to show you how good Wisconsin actually is in case you didn't know. I think you are irrational if you want to meltdown, but go ahead with it if you want. If you want RichRod fired, you are going to want him fired after wins and losses. If you don't want him fired, you are going to look at this as a bad loss to a very good team. A team who is probably the best 1 loss team in the country who will most likely be playing in a BCS bowl game.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^
Let the Ohio St. game play out first because that is the game that gets coaches hired or fired around here. I expect us to play them tough with a shot to win in the end. Fans that choose to stay the course should not be so frustrated with the rest of the fan base. Some have hated RR from day 1 and will not be swayed regardless of how season plays out. The other half of that faction is unsure and are not going to support RR on faith alone. A victory over OSU would do this program wonders to say the very least.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:03 PM ^
I expect us to play them tough with a shot to win in the end.
Based on what, exactly? I hope that happens, but what in our performance against other top teams this year leads you to "expect" that to be the case?
November 21st, 2010 at 7:55 PM ^
It's a rivalry game and I think UM is due to steal one from OSU. Their offense doesn't scare me nearly as bad as Wisky's offense did. Another reason I expect that to happen is I am a Michigan fan and can't help myself. You don't "expect" it to be close on Saturday then go and get a jump on holiday shopping. I will watch and cheer for my team to win, regardless of who coaches them because that is what a fan does.
November 21st, 2010 at 8:54 PM ^
It's a rivalry game and I think UM is due to steal one from OSU.
That's meaningless drivel. Since when are rivalry games necessarily close? How did the "rivalry" help us the last two years? How did it help UCLA when USC was dominating it for seven straight years? And no team is ever "due" to steal one -- they either are able to outplay the other team, or they aren't -- there are no cosmic forces out to hand us a break.
Their offense doesn't scare me nearly as bad as Wisky's offense did.
Does it scare you as much as Indiana's did? Illinois? Iowa? Penn State? Any of the innumerable teams that have heaped points on us like whipped cream on an ice cream sundae?
Another reason I expect that to happen is I am a Michigan fan and can't help myself. You don't "expect" it to be close on Saturday then go and get a jump on holiday shopping. I will watch and cheer for my team to win, regardless of who coaches them because that is what a fan does.
First of all, screw you for implying I'm not a fan. Each and every game I have an irrational expectation of victory. But I recognize that it is irrational, ie, not supported by any actual data. Which is why I don't go posting "I expect us to beat OSU" in a public forum, and then cite my fandom as evidence.
November 21st, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
If we beat OSU, I'll feel 100 percent better about this program. That would be the kind of big step forward that we've been waiting patiently to see. We didn't take that step against MSU, or Iowa, or Wisconsin. At some point we've got to show that we can play a complete game and get that signature win.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:51 PM ^
the walking stupid to come back out of their hiding for another rousing rendtion of Fire [fill in the blank].
