Monkey Punches

Submitted by Brian on September 3rd, 2012 at 11:30 AM

9/1/2012 – Michigan 14, Alabama 41 – 0-1

[ED: I retreated into humor; Ace, being there, didn't have that option, and wrote a thing that is closer to the game column thing than this.]

So I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and have concluded that Michigan's biggest tactical error on Saturday night was not leaving Jerryworld ten minutes into the first quarter and wandering around Dallas until they'd had enough random encounters to go up several levels. Once Michigan had unlocked special abilities like Mystic Separation and acquired the Arm Of Elway, they could have returned to the field and resumed playing on a more even basis.

While this would take about three years and pose several logistical difficulties, there can be no debate this would have been a preferable to the solution Michigan's dunderheaded coaches decided on, viz., not running away at top speed apologizing profusely. By not fleeing to practice their skills on, like, bats and stuff, they ended up losing the game.

Worse, they ended up continuing the game, thus forcing a great many people to watch it. At no point did Al Borges deploy the EMP weapon he must have spent the offseason perfecting in lieu of figuring out what Denard Robinson is good at. So the broadcast continued unabated, except apparently in DC where DirecTV was on the fritz. (Wolverines in our nation's capitol: keep yourselves quarantined. You may be all that's left of us once the PTSD kicks in. You must continue to tell others of our sacrifice.)

As mentioned, a better strategy would have been to exit at top speed while splicing K-Pop videos into the feed.

One of 67,200,113 things that would have been preferable to watching football on Saturday night

But hey, I'm just a guy on the internet. Maybe I haven't thought this through. There are multiple strategies for successfully executing a game like Saturday's.

INVENT A TIME MACHINE. The classic. Go back to the point at which this game was agreed upon and describe to the decision-makers what the consequences will be. Unfortunately, in this case the only part of "nationally televised debacle on par with Chernobyl" that will be heard is "nationally televised," and nothing will change.

DRINK! Not working.

DRINK MORE! Nerft veruking erngerghf.

AFTER IT'S OVER, TELL PEOPLE YOU SUCK AND WILL PUT MORE SUGAR IN YOUR SAUCE. I'm not sure what the analog of putting more sugar in your sauce is but it's probably putting more MAN in your BALL down BY THE RIVER. This move was successfully executed by the guy who replaced the guy who only hears "nationally televised" at his old job and may be replicated here once the guy who only hears "nationally televised" has been safely quarantined in a relatively meaningless BS government job like governor.

Sorry, world, that you think we suck. We're going to try not to suck any more, and look, here's some guy who works for us. Very middle America, this guy. Puts garlic on the uniforms. How cool is that?

GO LIMP. Jesse Williams may believe you are rotten and wander off in search of salmon.

GIVE THE BALL TO A 5'8" SLOW GUY OVER AND OVER. Scratch this one.

---------------------------------------------

Photo-Sep-01-10-46-47-PM_thumb[1]

via MVictors

The weird thing about doing this and being this age is that you feel stuck. I did not know I was doing this when I started doing it and have felt grateful for my continued obsession it as various other people ranging from 30-50 have reported back on their waning interest in Michigan football, previously their alpha and omega. There's nothing sadder than the thing you used to think is amazing.

What I felt on Saturday was an intense jealousy of Orson/Spencer, who had a child a couple years back and is having another one. We're getting there, but not quite yet due to PhD things. It would have been nice to have a child to look at halfway through the second quarter and know with 100% certainty that what I was looking at was just a game that did not really matter.

I know this, or at least knew it. (I do not know this and never knew it even a tiny bit.) Now that the career is the game it is hard to figure out what's a reasonable response from a human, what's my response, and what's my response augmented by the fact that I've doubled down on fandom. All of it seems out whack, and never more so than on Saturday when a guy I've met a half-dozen times now, mostly at NYC Alumni Club events, was there. He's one of those magical guys who somehow makes a career out of writing stuff for Spin and the NYT Magazine and magazines that start "New York" and may or may not have additional bits in their name. He's been pitching an article about me at these organizations. He was taking notes.

At halftime I bellowed "THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT RUNNING DENAAAAARD" at the television. I knew that this was probably not wise with a man taking notes in the room, but only after I did it. There it was anyway. I'd already spent the entire first quarter telling myself not to say anything on twitter until the die had truly been cast.

So, I feel stuck, you know? I'm 33 now, the age when Jim McManus had his Age of Miracles and went to the World Series of Poker to write about it for Harper's, married and not disjointed and blessed by the cosmos. It's a hell of a football game to watch that makes you wish this stuff didn't have such a hold on you, but the first time I looked at the clock and boggled at how much time was left was in the first quarter.

henri-the-otter-of-ennu

It'll pass, I'm sure. It's just a hell of a football game to do that do you, to leave you blank and unthinking until you laugh in a way that frightens even you.

Bullets we need for this post so you can't use them, find others

The takeaway. DENNIS NORFLEET WOOOOOOOOOOO. He looked fast! And returned some kicks a moderate distance! And got lit up by Dee Hart! And Fred Jackson doesn't think he can play!

Some other stuff that's not about Norfleet for some stupid reason follows.

Alabama-Michigan[1]

Obligatory uniform opinion. Highlighter yellow emphatically not getting fixed, so the shoulder things combine with the pants to give off a blinding aura. If that was the goal—maybe Alabama won't even be able to look at us!—okay. I'm guessing it's not. Meanwhile, Alabama just wears their uniforms because they're Alabama. Their brand seems to be surviving.

At least Michigan got the helmet numbers right, amirite?

Blown out. I debated just posting the Hoke presser and saying "Hoke's voice is all you need to know about this game."

Obligatory Borges stuff. Guh. The best thing you can say is that once you're down 31-0 you might as well get out of there without getting anyone hurt. When the opponents are saying stuff like this

“I thought with the running back being out, I thought (Robinson) would’ve got more touches, because he’s a playmaker, he’s a good athlete, good player,” said Alabama linebacker Nico Johnson. “And I don’t know, it was a shock.”

…you totally outsmarted them. And yourself. Mostly yourself.  Any hopes you may be harboring that this will all work itself out and Denard's legs will be the primary engine of the offense are looking pretty sickly at the moment. At least we've been here before, and Borges has retreated to plot anew. Usually he comes back with "hey, this guy can run."

The only rationale I can think of that makes any sense is that Borges believed flat-out that Michigan could not run at all and wanted an offense predicated on that. I don't know how much I buy that given Alabama replacing a number of starters and football coaches' general self-belief, but the numbers are clear. From Bill Connolly:

In 2011, Michigan ran the ball 74 percent of the time on standard downs (national average: 60 percent), 40 percent on passing downs (national average: 33 percent). Despite pro-style intentions, the Wolverines catered to Denard Robinson's strengths for the most part and kept things run-heavy, especially when Toussaint caught fire late in the year.

Against Alabama on Saturday, though, the gameplan was quite different. In the first quarter, Michigan ran just five times on 11 standard downs (45 percent) and just once in six passing downs (17 percent). These are Air Raid percentages.

If Robinson has 30 carries against Air Force I'll again descend into the Walter White laugh. (Spoilers, obviously.)

Would have been nice to see what Robinson could have become in an offense that catered to—or even bothered to use—his primary skill. (Everything else would have been terrible, of course.)

Yeah, yeah, Robinson had reads and could have kept the ball blah blah. Planning to get Robinson carries when Alabama's defense decides not to put a guy on him on the read option is not a winning strategy.

Gardner WR stuff. Gardner probably took more snaps at WR than anyone else and looked like a 6'4" version of Darryl Stonum from 2008. He consistently looked over the wrong shoulder on deep stuff and his routes were crap. But he scored a touchdown and could have had a couple more long gainers if he wasn't going up against yet another Alabama cornerback from hell. Gardner didn't get an opportunity to catch that opening slant thanks to that Milliner kid and had a few more potential long completions broken up by the Alabama secondary. Milliner raked one out; a few others never got there.

Once Gardner's away from a 6'2" junior who was a five star and the #2 CB in his class to Rivals, he'll do fine. Unlike Stonum 2008, Gardner did find the ball even if it looked ugly as he did so.

Roundtree. The first interception was debatably interference as Milliner shoved Roundtree to the ground on his route. Penalty or not, that sequence should make Roundtree's shortcomings as an outside receiver clear. He is not big enough, strong enough, or athletic enough to compete with standout corners. His assets are about as wasted as Denard's, though at least in Roundtree's case it's clear he's on the outside because of a lack of other options.

The ground game. Hard to get a grasp on anything, obviously. Michigan was overwhelmed; Toussaint would not have done much better. Aside from one Vincent Smith run that Alabama lost contain on, Michigan got jack on the ground. I can ask questions all day: why was Rawls going east-west? Why was misdirection hardly attempted? Did Michigan come into the game with more than one running play?

It doesn't really matter.

Bubble screens. They existed, and they got eight yards each, and they were Michigan's best plays that weren't chucking it deep. Gallon looked very good on both; there's no reason not to keep going to it when the defense is giving it to you.

In case of Lewan emergency. Move Schofield to left tackle (where he was pwned on his first play), Omameh to right tackle, and bring in Burzynski at right guard. In case of Lewan emergency, we are dead dead dead dead dead dead.

Defense. Ask again later. I stopped paying close enough attention to tell you anything interesting after the first quarter.

The Countess injury is of course a major blow; with Talbott out the door earlier their CB depth has gone from excellent to shaky before game two. Webb says($) expect Raymon Taylor to pick up the slack. The line was always going to get pounded. Somewhat disconcerting to see a lot of James Ross out there unless Michigan had also just packed it in and was screwing around with getting some experience.

Freshmen. Maize and Blue News has a comprehensive recap. Other than Ross (and NORFLEET) the most prominent freshman contributor was Jarrod Wilson, who stepped in as the free safety in the nickel package as Michigan moved Thomas Gordon down to nickel. Pipkins looked like he got some push on a few plays, too.

We did not see much from Chesson and Darboh, but if Roundtree keeps playing like he is that won't last.

Your winner for dumbest burned redshirt: Royce Jenkins-Stone.

Well, at least this isn't particularly unusual. Various recent Alabama scores:

  • 2011 Citrus Bowl: Alabama 49, MSU 7
  • 2011 Arkansas: 38-14
  • 2011 Florida: 38-10
  • 2011 Tennessee: 37-6
  • 2011 Auburn: 42-14
  • National title game: 21-0 over LSU, LSU never crosses midfield.

Other than Georgia Southern, no team has put up more than 14 points on Michigan since Cam Newton's Auburn outfit.

Forever little brother. This is why Michigan State will always be Michigan State, and doesn't even include Delvon Roe:

Michigan is getting Raped right now. I bet Jerry Sandusky is proud lol #ROLLTIDE

Get your yuks in now.

At least it wasn't the most embarrassing thing to happen over the weekend. This GIF of Kentucky fans is destined to go head to head with Rollerblading Raptors Mascot someday:

KENTUCKY-FAN-HIGH-FIVE-FAIL

Don't forget the guy in the bottom corner and the dude left hanging at the top right. This is a gif as complex and layered as Yankee Enthusiasts and will in time take its place in GIF Valhalla.

Here

Inside the Boxscore returns:

Morgan had 8 tackles, but they were all assisted tackles, which epitomizes the game. In all of the one-on-one matchups, we lost. Bama was just more “-er” than us, bigger, stronger, faster, tougher. I avoided watching Bama last season because I hate that “ESS EEE SEE” crap, but there’s no denying how good they are.

As does Hoke For Tomorrow:

I turned off the TV after Bellamy's first career pass attempt/interception and made my way quietly upstairs to bed.  The rest of the family (wife, 5yo son, 1yo daughter) had long since decided that a good night's sleep was a better option than watching Michigan get smeared across the turf in Texas.  I didn't feel any bitter emotions really, mostly concern for the collective knees of Taylor Lewan, Blake Countess, and Brandon Moore.  I guess the Rich Rod years knocked all of the conceited sense of entitlement out of me for real.

See?

Elsewhere

Hinton is gloriously reborn and his article is mostly about Alabama, because obviously. The bit on Denard:

That said, Denard Robinson did not look like a quarterback on the verge of turning the corner as a passer. On one level, it's hard to judge a guy who's being consistently hit and hurried by a defense as relentless as Alabama's, which seems to have an answer for everything on almost every play. But Robinson was well below the Mendoza line tonight in terms of completion percentage (11 of 26), and his two interceptions in the first half were about as ugly – and as costly – as they come.

Star-divide

The first he simply put up for grabs, recklessly lobbing a jump ball in the direction of a receiver who had already been shoved off of his feet and out of bounds by Tide corner Dee Milliner, who found himself all alone to gather in the pick; Eddie Lacy scored three plays, extending 'Bama's lead to 21-0. On the second, Robinson stepped up in the pocket and drilled the ball directly into the chest of linebacker C.J. Mosley, who jogged in for an icing score that pushed the lead to 31-0. In both cases, Robinson had no idea what he was seeing when he put the ball in the air, and seemed more interested in getting rid of it under pressure for the sake of getting rid of, whatever the cost on the other end. Michigan fans have seen that before; all indications tonight are that they'll be seeing it again.

I think that The Hoover Street Rag is not correct:

We have a choice as fans.  We can sulk, we can lament, we can shake our fists in anger.  But I don't think we will.

That would be nice.

BWS:

In the second quarter, with Michigan trailing 24-0 and backed up inside their 10-yard line, Kirk Herbstreit was talking about Michigan's non-existant running game. The camera panned up to Al Borges in the coordinator's booth. After relaying the upcoming 3rd down play, Borges shook his head in disbelief and rubbed his face. It was the unmistakeable look of someone who had run out of answers, like working your way through a maze and finding only brick walls.

Touch the Banner:

Al Borges deserves some blame, but not much.  Michigan wasn't going to be able to run the ball in this game.  I predicted that Michigan would rush for fewer than 100 yards; the final tally was 69, despite having one of the most electrifying players in the country at quarterback.  Yes, Denard Robinson probably could have run the ball more, especially before he got dinged up.  Would it have made much of a difference?  Probably not.  Where Robinson really could  have made a difference was in the passing game.  He had lots of open receivers early in the game, but he's just as erratic as ever in the passing game.  He kept throwing deep (inaccurately), and completed just 11/26 passes.  The offensive line did a decent job of pass blocking, but if Michigan has to rely on Robinson to win the game with his arm, they're going to struggle.

Erratic, maybe, but I saw a lot of accurate-enough passes that would have been complete if not for Dee Milliner and other members of the Alabama secondary.

Wojo wrote a column. Maize and Brew did a thing. MGoRecruiting returns from the dead to pine for the spread 'n' shred. MLive now TWIS-ing their own readers. Big House Blog is not thrilled with Brandon. Me, I say that whenever you can get less money to play thousands of miles from campus against a team that's signed an extra recruiting class of players over the last five years without getting a home game in return, you have to do it.

At least the server held up, amirite?

Comments

bacon1431

September 3rd, 2012 at 11:46 AM ^

I felt that Borges was hoping to get the RB going so it could open things up for Denard. Obviously it didn't work out that way and Denard dinged his shoulder so I think Borges didn't want risk him too much by pounding him. So he went read option and Bama pretty much forced Denard to give it up (although there were a couple where I thought Denard should have kept them, but he's never been great at that read option stuff). Either way, Bama's D was just too good and even if Denard got his designed runs, we were going to have to be them in the air eventually and we just don't have the air weapons to do so. Gardner will get there with a little more refinement. If he stays at WR next year - look out.

UMGooch

September 3rd, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^

It was pretty obvious we were outmatched by halfway through the first quarter. The more carries Denard got, the more likely he would get himself hurt on a game which, frankly, didn't mean much. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize it, but I don't think Borges is much to blame.

Pick up the pieces, and let's move forward. We've got a Big Ten Championship to win. Alabama is not in the Big Ten.

wolverine1987

September 3rd, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^

"Brady, I know it's midway through the 1st quarter, but we are outmatched. Let's save Denard for the real season, the B1G, and run Vicnent Smith from now on k?"  Yes, that seems like a good coaching strategy. I certainly hope we give Borges more credit than that, because if he and Hoke actually did that, it would be an insult to every fan and football player on that team

Yeoman

September 3rd, 2012 at 7:55 PM ^

They had eight in the box and press coverage on all three receivers and they were knocking us off the LOS at every position. Where the hell was he supposed to run? I suppose a Kent State wrong-way play could have gotten him loose for a safety.

The only thing that had any chance of working was what we did. We tried to take what they were giving us, and it turns out they're so good that they're not even giving you that.

 

maizenbluenc

September 3rd, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^

to open Bama up with a passing attack, force them to defend it, and then run. The passing plays seemed to all be step back into the pocket plays which Denard seems more comfortable with.

The problem: Denard is too excitable in the first few series, and apparently even when not throwing off his back foot he overthrows the ball. Of course our receivers were not ready for the jams they enocuntered on the way down their routes either, so timing was way off.

Brhino

September 3rd, 2012 at 11:46 AM ^

Normally when we lose a game there are one or two little things that, if we had done differently, we would have won.  Slightly better playcalling, or slightly better execution, or slightly more favorable officiating...

Not this game.  We just did not belong on the same field as Alabama.  Would it have been nice to have Fitz, and Countess, and a better game plan, and better officiating?  Yes.  Would it have mattered?  Well... it might have mattered to Floyd Mayweather's three million dollars.  I don't think it would have mattered to our win-loss record.

snarling wolverine

September 3rd, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^

Given that you predicted us to score 15 points and we ended up scoring 14, I'm a little surprised at this level of angst toward the offense.  Did you expect a gameplan like this all along?

IMO, the much bigger story is how our defense got rolled.

 

BOX House

September 3rd, 2012 at 12:31 PM ^

Yeah, exactly. Brian's bit on wishing he had a kid so that he could realize this was just a game hit me pretty hard. I'm a recent graduate and this game just made me wonder why I have so much invested into a game. I really wish I could look at it as just a game, but it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Route66

September 3rd, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^

I am almost 33 with a 7yo and 4yo.  Having a child takes the edge off but the loss and game plan still leave a bad taste in your mouth.  But you do realize that there IS more to life than Michigan football.

My theory on the game plan is that while you play to win every game, this was a lose lose from about the first offensive possession.  I think Borges put the cards away early and decided not to do anything stupid, panic and throw the kitchen sink at them once the writing was on the wall.  Yes, that sounds like giving up but there are 11 very important games left. 

maizenbluenc

September 3rd, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^

and pull away, the angst comes back. There is a care free middle, but then you feel the need to return to your roots.

For me at least that care free middle started with a national championship, and several of those blithley successful Carr years, and ended with increasing angst at not having beaten Ohio State, to be brought up by 2006, and then crushed by the USC loss, and wiped around in broken pieces from there.

M-Dog

September 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^

I have kids and I still was depressed.

The summer was over, I won't see the beach again for 10 months, work will be insane on Tuesday when everyone is back.  

But I still had glorious CFB!!!  Friday night alone was enough to relight the flame.  

Instead, it all went up in flames.

The summer is over, I won't see the beach again for 10 months, work will be insane on Tuesday when everyone is back.  

 

 

saveferris

September 4th, 2012 at 8:39 AM ^

As a father of a 17 month old daughter, who is  trying to transition to daily day care, I can state without hesitation that getting daily reports from my wife about how heart-breaking it is to drop her off while she cries and pleads for her mother and father is 1000 times worse than sitting through that train-wreck last Saturday.

That said, while parenthood takes a good bit of the sting out, I'm still feeling pretty melancholy. 

TXmaizeNblue

September 3rd, 2012 at 11:56 AM ^

with the delusive thinking that Borges did this intentionally to not show his hand of a wonderful masterpiece offensive filled with misdirection, Gardner reverses throwing downfield, veer, modified fritz, etc; from MSU so they will not be able to prepare for it.  This is what happened, right?  Right?  

schreibee

September 3rd, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^

... this is exactly what I started saying around half-way through the 1st quarter. As it became apparent we were not going to utilize ANY Denard runs or misdirection, but rather were going to force feed a pocket passing offense onto him, I said exactly this:
We (our coaches) watched film, analyzed our best options, and decided there was not a Damn thing we could do to win this game.
So, that being accepted, why show anything? Why risk anything? Why not "keep the powder dry" and "save some bullets" for ND & the B1G schedule?
So while anyone can criticize Borges, Denard, Hoke, the refs, Brandon, Richrod, Jerry Jones, Delta Airlines, Mattison, any-& everyone they want... I defy anyone- on this board or any other- to suggest any gameplan that would've had ANY chance at victory.
If, on the other hand, we successfully utilize an attack more reminiscent of the ohio gm going forward, then we can take solace in the notion that we gave away no secrets in DFW.

EnoughAlready

September 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 AM ^

If, all season, win or lose, people snipe at Borges for "not letting Denard be Denard!"  Look, Denard would not have had much success running against that defense.  Player for player, and as a unit, Alabama was just better than Michigan.  "But Bama has new players on D!"  Yes, and Michigan has four (including TE) new starters on the OL, plus no clear go-to receiver (plus a TB suspeded for the game).  Giving Denard 25+ runs would not have changed the outcome of the game.  Clearly Borges wants an offense with, you know, a passing game and RB production.  Roil in angst all you want, but he does not think the recipe for season-long success is a Denard-run-centric offense.  

DanRareEgg

September 3rd, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^

I'm all for some self-loathing and -pity after a game like that, but this is ridiculous. First off, when Brandon scheduled the game he was hoping we'd have a RR-led offensive juggernaut with loads of experience and talent. We can't blame him for what the team became. Second, I know the atmosphere would have been great in Ann Arbor or Tuscaloosa, but can you imagine if we'd scheduled a home-and-home? We'd have this game, the sequel, next year. Finally, while unbearable, this game showed that we haven't come as far as we'd hoped, but I believe we're still on our way. We still have a shot at the B1G title and the Rose Bowl because we won't face a team even close to that good the rest of the season.

With regard to the redshirt burning, I think we're seeing them burned because we don't yet have the roster depth to afford that luxury. Starting maybe next year and certainly in 2014 I believe we'll start to see more players redshirting.

DanRareEgg

September 3rd, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^

I think it was my weakest SAT category. I actually like your writing (a big reason I come here) and I don't often disagree with you; I just think you overstated things today. The 2011 Gator Bowl was much worse in my opinion. I have a kid, though, so I guess we have different perspectives.

EDIT - I didn't neg you for trolling, FWIW. As far as I'm concerned you don't have to explain yourself to every yahoo who takes issue with something you wrote. No need to be a grouch, though.

inthebluelot

September 3rd, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

I can't disagree with much you said, and the loss is worse than any going back to Oregon, that's the last time I felt this low, so, to contribute something to this thread, let me just correct one thing. LSU most certainly crossed the 50 in the MNCG. There, I'm putting the blog away for the day.

wolverine1987

September 3rd, 2012 at 10:42 PM ^

It's not contradictory at all, not even a little. Both of you guys are much smarter than this so you surprise me. You do know that both running and passing are part of football. And you both know that in football it is important (usually) to do both, to varying degrees, to win games (apart from Nebraska in the 70's/ 90's I suppose, and Oklahoma in the 70's).

So you both also know that you can do either A- pass to set up the run, or B- run to set up the pass. Both are possible and happen quite commonly in football at all levels. So the fact that, in a thread about what our offensive strategy should be for the game, I said that if we couldn't pass well we were dead (a truth) doesn't mean "let's have one designed run for Denard in the 1st half" . In your minds, does "we must pass well to win" mean the same thing as "let's not run Denard, I think we should make Denard throw into NFL passing lanes from the pocket all game?" Come, that is ludicrous criticism, as well as a failure of reading comprehension. Sheesh.

EDIT: and since you have been through my recent posts I wonder why you didn't post this quote, using your terminology "from five days and twelve hours ago" which said "my general philosophy would be to pass to set up the run."  You can see it right there on the same page.

Yeoman

September 3rd, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^

You can't run to set up the pass against a defense that has eight in the box and is knocking your entire O-line into the backfield on every running play.

How many times in the entire game did we successfully block someone at the second level? How many times did we successfully block someone at the first level?

OMG Shirtless

September 3rd, 2012 at 11:10 PM ^

If you count the option plays that you've been asking for all weekend, they called more than one run for Denard. Unfortunately, on several of them Alabama did exactly what they were supposed to do to force the handoff.  I'm guessing Saban is smart enough to know what to do with his Defensive Ends to force the handoff rather than the QB keeper, especially when he can rely on the middle of his Defensive Line to manhandle our Offensive Line.

wolverine1987

September 4th, 2012 at 12:00 AM ^

your commetns criticizing my fairly mild and in no way calling for coaches scalps criticisms, Hoke said "a couple." And QB keepers are not the only kind of runs there are for Denard, which I assume you also know, just as you know trying to run does not always equal Smith up the middle, just as my previous posts pre-game saying we needed to pass successfuly does not necessarily equal stright drops and passing into NFL sized passing lanes. You really want to argue that the game plan was sound? Ok I disagree, but that's your choice. I never have called for the head of Al Borges--I disagree with his game plan. And I suspect that at some point, since Al Borges is a great guy and introspective about his game planning, that, just as he has said before, he will say that he might have made a mistake. I'm not sure why it bothers you but ok.

M-Wolverine

September 4th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^

You say you didn't like the game plan...but it's the exact game plan I quoted, and then you confirmed by backing it up....that you (and he) wanted to pass to set up the run.  Which is what they were doing. But because the receivers dropped passes, ran the wrong routes, got murdered on a few routes without flags, and Denard threw a few bad passes, we couldn't establish the pass, so we couldn't open up the run. You can't then run to open up the run after you've shown you can't pass the ball. And there's no way our team was running against that team when they were selling out to stop the run (and Denard). There might have been a chance if we exploited their secondary enough that they had to pull back and help, but till that happens you might as well have been running into a wall. The wall doesn't hit back.

wolverine1987

September 4th, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^

you think I'm inconsistent, wrong, maybe dumb, and probably overly critical on the coaches game plan. And that apparently for you, within the 80-90 plays in a game "passing to set up the run" and "we must pass well or we're dead" means  mostly passes except for a few runs up the middle by your mini RB, along with 1 by your fantastic Heisman trophy candidate QB in the first half.  I can live with that.

wolverine1987

September 5th, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^

Since you believe "passing to set up the run," and "if we don't pass well we're dead," are inconsistent with wanting more QB runs than 2 in the first half. It's right there in print. Since you do beleive that, we can conclude either that you don't know a lot about football, or that you just like to prove a point and will hold on like grim death to "correct" someone who's opinions you disaprove of. I've wondered before how someone could have so many posts. This may be a small part of how you accomplished it.

And regarding play count, since my comments about passing were pre-game and about game plan, as your sleuthing uncovered, it seems fair to refer to a more standard amount of plays, which is often greater than 55. Meaning a good game plan can include, wait for it, both passing plays and running.

M-Wolverine

September 5th, 2012 at 2:42 PM ^

I can consider you wrong and dumb in addition to inconsistent and overly critical.  Your call of course.  And I really don't know who is hanging onto what. I replied to one of the dozen times you posted pretty much the exact same thing over the long weekend.  If that's your tactic you're well on your way to catching up.

The 55 is only important because if you expect to run X amount of run plays, and the total plays are half of what you expected, you should probably expect X/2 run plays total.  Just simple math.  Hopefully you know more about football than math.  

wolverine1987

September 5th, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^

Was yours logic? Luckily for my college career, the other subjects were better. Anyway, actually I addressed Denard's running or lack thereof in 6 different posts on different threads in different responses to different points. I was interested and looked back to see if your math was close to correct. Sadly no. Though if anyone would know something about multiple posts on every potential topic, it certainly would be the guy with 33,000 points. So I cede the argument to you there. Let's call it a dozen even though the record doesn't show that. 

I thought perhaps I should reflect a bit given your persistence in looking down on the original opinion. But then I remembered that within x number of run plays, a coach can call a play designed for the QB to run, or the RB. I think they call it a game plan. But then since my math aptitude is weak, perhaps I'm getting that wrong too. 

If it wasn't for your screen name, given the (slight) reality distortion and (larger) condescension field around your responses to me, I'd wonder if you had any Spartan blood to combine with the fabled arrogance of our fan base. Though I suppose Spartan fans would throw out cruder insults than those you chose for me. So you have that going for you.

Cheers.