Honest Analysis - University of Michigan @ University of Iowa
So something I thought would turn into a weekly thing turned be a "whenever I get into an argument with my friends" thing. Sorry if I led you on, but alas, time to get to the game.
Disclaimer: I am a very realistic Michigan fan. We are far from 3-9.
My friends and I disagreed about a few things after the Western game and that's what prompted me to create this account and start ranting. Anyways, this week a big argument after the end of the game was the decision to leave Robinson in for the final drive with about 90 seconds left.
My opponents argue that Forcier should have been in the game at that point because of the fact that he is "our starting quarterback" and the outcomes from the recent games. They claim that we would have had a better chance of winning the game with Forcier in the game at that point than with Robinson.
I am obviously in disagreement with this perspective because of the mere fact that I am sitting here writing this. But I will lay my arguments out in a clear and honest manner.
1) THIS week is not LAST week or weeks 1, 2, 3, or 4 either.
Just because Tate has managed to get it done the past few weeks does not mean he is guaranteed at getting it done this week. It was evident throughout tonight's game that this week's version of Forcier was not the super freshman he's been in the first few games. Yes, Forcier has had a low completion percentage before (actually 3 times in weeks 3-5: 53.8, 52.4, 53.1), but in those games there were far more drops from the receivers than there were tonight. Heck, the receivers didn't even have many opportunities to commit drops. Tate overthrew his open receivers on more than one occasion tonight. Maybe his shoulder was sore, but a completion percentage of 42.1 just won't get it done on the road in the Big 10.
2) Denard SHOULD have been in the game for the last drive.
Denard drove Michigan down for a touchdown drive midway through the final frame. Tate was not responsible for a touchdown tonight. Yes, he did manage Michigan down the field for both of Minor's touchdown runs, but 8 completions out of 19 attempts is far from being a "quarterback that manages the game." Denard was more than competent in the second to last drive to bring us to within two. When asked to throw, he delivered the ball on the mark and on time (granted they were only 5-7 yard curls and outs). On the final offensive possession for Michigan, Denard just made a bad read and didn't realize this was COLLEGE football. He had a wide open receiver underneath (5-7 yard gain to give us a first down with 45 seconds on the clock and realistically about 25 yards from a field goal attempt to win the game (Michigan was on the 38 yard line, 7 yard gain puts us at the 45 with maybe three or four shots to get anywhere from 20-40 yards). To sum it all up, Denard deserved a shot at winning a game. They are both freshmen quarterbacks and both were promised an equal opportunity at the job. Denard has a right at trying to get some of that same glory Forcier has received.
3) Rodriguez made the right call.
Not his fault his quarterback made the wrong read. He had to find out if Denard has that "it" factor everyone talks about. I really think Denard gives you a better shot at winning that game than a 70% Forcier who had his confidence rattled. People seem to forget we only needed a field goal. I think Denard's running ability (and accuracy on short 5-7 yard routes) gave us a better shot. Get off our coach's back; do you want 3-9 again?
Al in all, Michigan played a sloppy hard-fought game. 5 turnovers is way too many and to actually have a shot at winning the game was pretty much all you could ask for. Hopefully we shore up our problems in the defensive secondary and heal up over the next two weeks. Let's make sure Delaware St. 2009 doesn't become Toldeo 2008. It might seem like a meaningless game, but get out there and support.
Respek. Go Blue.
Disclaimer: I am a very realistic Michigan fan. We are far from 3-9.
My friends and I disagreed about a few things after the Western game and that's what prompted me to create this account and start ranting. Anyways, this week a big argument after the end of the game was the decision to leave Robinson in for the final drive with about 90 seconds left.
My opponents argue that Forcier should have been in the game at that point because of the fact that he is "our starting quarterback" and the outcomes from the recent games. They claim that we would have had a better chance of winning the game with Forcier in the game at that point than with Robinson.
I am obviously in disagreement with this perspective because of the mere fact that I am sitting here writing this. But I will lay my arguments out in a clear and honest manner.
1) THIS week is not LAST week or weeks 1, 2, 3, or 4 either.
Just because Tate has managed to get it done the past few weeks does not mean he is guaranteed at getting it done this week. It was evident throughout tonight's game that this week's version of Forcier was not the super freshman he's been in the first few games. Yes, Forcier has had a low completion percentage before (actually 3 times in weeks 3-5: 53.8, 52.4, 53.1), but in those games there were far more drops from the receivers than there were tonight. Heck, the receivers didn't even have many opportunities to commit drops. Tate overthrew his open receivers on more than one occasion tonight. Maybe his shoulder was sore, but a completion percentage of 42.1 just won't get it done on the road in the Big 10.
2) Denard SHOULD have been in the game for the last drive.
Denard drove Michigan down for a touchdown drive midway through the final frame. Tate was not responsible for a touchdown tonight. Yes, he did manage Michigan down the field for both of Minor's touchdown runs, but 8 completions out of 19 attempts is far from being a "quarterback that manages the game." Denard was more than competent in the second to last drive to bring us to within two. When asked to throw, he delivered the ball on the mark and on time (granted they were only 5-7 yard curls and outs). On the final offensive possession for Michigan, Denard just made a bad read and didn't realize this was COLLEGE football. He had a wide open receiver underneath (5-7 yard gain to give us a first down with 45 seconds on the clock and realistically about 25 yards from a field goal attempt to win the game (Michigan was on the 38 yard line, 7 yard gain puts us at the 45 with maybe three or four shots to get anywhere from 20-40 yards). To sum it all up, Denard deserved a shot at winning a game. They are both freshmen quarterbacks and both were promised an equal opportunity at the job. Denard has a right at trying to get some of that same glory Forcier has received.
3) Rodriguez made the right call.
Not his fault his quarterback made the wrong read. He had to find out if Denard has that "it" factor everyone talks about. I really think Denard gives you a better shot at winning that game than a 70% Forcier who had his confidence rattled. People seem to forget we only needed a field goal. I think Denard's running ability (and accuracy on short 5-7 yard routes) gave us a better shot. Get off our coach's back; do you want 3-9 again?
Al in all, Michigan played a sloppy hard-fought game. 5 turnovers is way too many and to actually have a shot at winning the game was pretty much all you could ask for. Hopefully we shore up our problems in the defensive secondary and heal up over the next two weeks. Let's make sure Delaware St. 2009 doesn't become Toldeo 2008. It might seem like a meaningless game, but get out there and support.
Respek. Go Blue.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
QED -
your argument is fine. i can understand wanting Forcier in. If I were rich rod, I would have put Tate back in for the drive. But I'm not. and I can totally see why he left Denard in.
I guess I'm kinda resigned to this being another rebuilding year, though, and think the usage of Denard in that situation will help this team more in the longrun. If we're insistent on D Rob being a legitimate QB, he needs that experience. He earned the CHANCE to lead the comeback by putting the last TD on the board. it's not totally unreasonable for him to have been on the field.
like it or not, this is a 7-5 or 8-4 team, AT BEST. Rich Rod needs to find out what these guys are made of in the clutch. Iowa couldn't adjust to Denard, and he was hot for the first TD drive.
...and this is coming from a staunch T Force supporter. I still think he'll be a 4-year starter and will be excellent. He just didn't have it last night, and that's OK. I just want to see him fight back next week, get better, and regain some confidence going into PSU. He's still our guy. Denard is not suddenly the new starter. Both guys are works in progress. I'm resigned to the fact that every time the ball's in either of their hands, they could make a killer throw/run or make a horrendous error. Compare that to last year, when the upside of Threet/Sheridan was maybe a completed bubble screen for a few yards.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
Back in August most were saying 6-6 or 7-5. 8-4 at best. Few had us going 4-0 and I think that spoiled us. We won a game we shouldn't have (notre dame) and now we're supposed to all the time. Carr left absolutely nothing in the cupboard. RR has ONE of his classes in. We are still rebuilding. Typically rebuilding is 6-6 at best. So if 7-5 or maybe 8-4 is our rebuilding, I can't wait to see good in a couple years. Patience is required with 18 year old kids. They'll get better, but until then, throwing ducks to opponents with a minute to go is going to happen every so often.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:03 PM ^
First, it appears that the old "nothing in the cupboard" myth will never go away. This is not an anti-RR post, just bringing some common sense to the situation. Carr left an offensive roster that consisted of Mallett (best passer in nation right now), Boren (best O-lineman on best team in Big Ten), Molk, Schilling, Brown, Minor, Mathews, Hemingway....among others. You can speculate all you want about the Mallett situation but the FACT is that he was in the "cupboard" when Carr stepped down. I'll throw Graham and Warren in as two defensive five star recruits who were on the scene, too. Hardly a bare cupboard. Carr's biggest problem is that he wasn't deep at QB or on the defensive side of the ball.
Secondly, RR has had TWO recruiting classes. I realize that he was a late arrival on the scene for the 2008 class but Shaw, Odoms, Koger, Roundtree.....are all distintively his players (and have been reasonable contributors at this early stage in their careers).
October 11th, 2009 at 11:42 PM ^
Not realize that MALLETT WAS GONE NO MATTER WHO THE COACH WAS. Carr THREW transfer papers at Mallet. As soon as Mustain bolted for USC Mallett was out the door to Arkansas.
When that happened the WR's saw the writing on the wall knew they couldn't improve their stats and bolted it's not exactly surprising and Mallet leaving caused a waterfall of defections that would have happened with ANYONE.
The only way that Boren stays is if Lloyd is still the Coach or someone else who has the country club attitude of "well you've put in the work for 4 years so you get to play" which is bs.
So you go through the motions of showing a total of like 10 people with talent on the team and then say "the problem with Lloyd is that he wasn't deep at QB or the defensive side of the ball" THAT IS HALF THE GD TEAM!!!!!! How the hell is the cupboard not bare if you don't have talent on HALF OF THE TEAM?
Finally RR has ONE class, you cannot count him re-recruiting the 2008 class to stick with him for 2 months before signing day. Come on man recruiting starts now-a-days 2/3 years before you ever even sign the dotted line you cannot just waltz into a job and just say "I want these players they are mine"
October 12th, 2009 at 9:52 AM ^
Unless you have some relationship with the team, I'm not buying the "Mallett Was Gone" theory. We hear lots of internet rumors that end up not being true. What about the Will Cambell de-commit that never happened? What about the Greg Mathews transfer to Florida State that never happened. Unless someone has real connections, it's all internet rumor. I realize that it may have happened, it's just not a fact.
Regarding talent on the team, the entire offensive unit for this year except from Forcier/DRob and some of the slot receivers were left by Carr. That's the ENTIRE O-line, both starting running backs and all three starting wideouts. Do you call that a "bare cupboard"? If so, you're basically saying that this year's offensive team is filled with crappy players.
On the defensive side of the ball, eight starters returned from the 2007 team. You might remember them as the defense that beat the crap out of Tim Tebow in the Capital One Bowl. Graham and Warren are five star, All-Conference type players. Others (Terrance Taylor, Will Johnson, Morgan Trent) were possible NFL caliber players. Not superstars, but better talent that anybody in the league outside of OSU or PSU would have. So no, the defensive cupboard wasn't empty, it just wasn't as deep as it should have been.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:02 PM ^
Your post is far too logical. The original author mentions that Tate had a 42% completion rate for the night but ignored the fact that DRob is at a 47% completion rate for the season (around 37% coming into the game). DRob is also averaging an interception per every five passes, way higher if he throws more than 15 yards down field (which was a necessity at this point in the game).
RR is the head coach and he has every right to make decisions as he sees fit. Saying that, if you follow Michigan football closely (and realistically) you had to see that ending coming given the circumstances.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^
You're exactly right, though you didn't mean to be serious. The fact is yes, if you look at statistics and the facts that we have available, it is an easy argument to say Tate should have gone in.
The bottom line is that the one thing that gives Rich Rod more expertise than anyone else, including we shmucks on this board, is that he's on the sidelines and interacting with the players. He knows what they've done, but he can also read what they're going through at the time.
I don't think he would have sent Denard out there if Tate looked in good enough shape to lead a drive. But that's just me-- an optimist. Maybe he sent DRob out there to "prove a point"... but nah, I don't think so.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:55 AM ^
RR knows that Tate isn't the future of the program and sat him on purpose because he's white and he obviously likes his qb's fast and... well not white.
Yeah that's it!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:21 AM ^
I've been disconnected for a week, and was only able to listen to the MSU game over XM on the road. It seems to me that they are protecting Tate, and he's not as slippery or accurate and thus as able to make plays than he was before he was injured.
Watching the Iowa game though - it seemed that Tate was rattled, but ready to be back in it at the start if that last drive.
Now balance that with Tate's struggles, what they see in practice (which we don't), Denards former interceptions (and Tate's), Tate's former comeback drives, and the fact that Denard had just run a successful scoring drive .... it's not black and white. Heck I might have run both.
Well anyway, it would appear Tate wasn't 100%, and Rich went with the guy who was hot at the moment. He didn't bench Tate as much as he went with who he thought (based on the last few drives) could get the job done at the moment.
In retrospect, subbing Tate in for that pass may have been the best move, but that's a what if, and Tate's completion percentages on the day were no guarantee.
I feel sorry for Denard though, he really shined on that previous drive, and the interception wasn't entirely his fault.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:08 AM ^
I told my friend beside me at half time, "I hope RR puts Denard in. I want to see what he can do." I thought the decision from RR came to0 late to put RR in. Although he may have been waiting on Tate to revitalize. I trust his judgment and will continue to do so. I like this coach a lot, I hope he wins a lot of football games for us.
However, after Denard led the successful yet long drive, I kept saying, WHY IS DENARD IN, There is 2:00 left in the game, but he was doing a good job and made a bad throw and a bad read. It happens, could have happened to Tate. Denard showed that he was ok behind the center which showed a good sign for the team.
This loss was a tough one, but we'll bounce back.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:24 AM ^
Part of the reason Robinson had some success that last drive was because Iowa was perfectly happy to give him the yardage in exchange for the clock moving. Sure, Robinson gave Iowa a new look and had some success on really short rollout passes, but that drive took about 4 minutes. Iowa was fine with doing that because they knew all they needed was a first down to salt the game away, and nearly had it on the next drive. So yeah, just because Robinson had a great previous drive does not mean the situation is the same. For some reason we are supposed to completely ignore the significance of Tate Forcier's play the last 5 games, but presume the same success of another true freshman with extremely limited gametime experience and passing abilities just because he scored a touchdown against a willing defense on the earlier drive? I don't buy that argument.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^
that Tate was flat out terrible on this night. Not just "bad for a freshman" but flat out bad. Tate has a lot of ability, but he is undersized and has not shown a consistent ability to throw from the pocket, thus, no down field massing game at all (except for the occasional miracle). Sure, Iowa was giving Michigan the short stuff on the last UM scoring drive with DRob, but they would have been giving Tate the same short stuff anyway (if he could hold onto the "slippery ball" c'mon. Lets be serious here, we all want to see Forcier as the great hope for this program, but he last truly impressed against ND. He pulled out a nice ending against Indiana, but how did Indiana fair against 1-4 Virginia yesterday. I say start Denard against Delaware State. This kid can fly, and personally, I am sick of pretending that Tate won a Heisman because he orchastrated a last second drive on a Notre Dame secondary on par with ours. Personally, I think the future of the Michigan QB position is coming to campus next year, so what the f#@k, lets have some fun. And OT, Defense is improving, Penn State is going to be a battle. Hope the Nitony Lions bring their helmets, sure gonna need em.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:38 PM ^
He was also impressive against State considering the rain and his various injuries. Listen, I'm not saying he is a savior right now, but you are seriously short-changing him if you think that he has not shown an immense amount of poise this season. Plus, what other option did the team have? Denard is a good athlete, but he clearly has a limited playbook and with less than two minutes, you need a QB back there who has enough accuracy and feel for the game to complete some mid and long passes. Robinson has a cannon, but is erratic and his grasp of the offense is still maturing. I'm fine with RR playing Robinson if he honestly felt that DR was better than Tate at that time; he's a coach and the credit/blame for that decision is something he accepts. But as a fan, it is within my right to take issue with it.
And for the record, I do think that Tate will be a good QB for this team going forward, and while Gardener certainly has potential, he has quite a ways to go before he will be able to run this offense like Tate can right now.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^
While I totally see where the other side is coming from on this one, and its a tough call, I really think going with Denard was a good call. First of all, he had just led the team down the field. Yes time was running out, and he isn't the greatest passing threat we have in that situation, but the pace they were moving, depending on if they could have gotten a couple 10 yarders out of bounds, we probably would have gotten into FG range. Obviously he made a bad throw and that was that.
The other reason I like the call is this. Going back to the MSU game, Tate's offense really was terrible. He had one good drive and got a long play that really the receiver made. And lets be honest, Tate looked awful last night. Minor was carrying the team (that fumble hurt though). I think benching Tate in that situation might make him re-evaluate how he is doing, and the kinds of plays hes making earlier in the game. I got the feeling that he was just kind of waiting for the end of the game thinking a comeback was automatic. I think he will learn from this (similar to the Manny benching). Just my two cents.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:12 AM ^
This is the third time Iowa has caused an opposing QB to be benched (ISU, Ariz., Mich) and Clark should have been benched. Forcier had a pass eff rating of 73 and two turnovers. I don't see why people are surprised that he had a bad game, given Iowa's season to date.
What I found surprising, but this tells you how Iowa is playing spread teams these days, is that Michigan's longest run was 12 yards. I thought this would be the key to the game, Michigan breaking or not breaking long runs.
People seem to be making a big deal about Michigan's run yardage advantage in this game, and Michigan winning the LOS in this game. But if you put 8-9 guys against 5-6 guys on the LOS, you will control it. Enter Moeaki. Granted, who wouldn't scheme to force Stanzi to beat them.
I guess the only thing I found surprising about this contest, other than the 12 yard run-game by Michigan, was Rodriguez melting down. I mean, that's your issue. He lost it. I don't know how you manage a close game at the end, when you are in full melt-down mode. Does he do that often?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
I disagree that Tate's offense was terrible against MSU. Look at Brian's UFR. The vast majority of his passes were "dead on" or "catchable".
He wasn't great last night, a lot of that had to do with Iowa's defense.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:50 AM ^
Read the various articles on Georgia's defense for the Georgia - Tennessee game.
It sounds like what's been said about Michigan's defense. Georgia has superior recruiting as well. The blame is put on the coaching staff. RR doesn't have the time to let things play out 2 or 3 years to see if Robinson is right for the job.
28 points should be enough offense to win.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:58 AM ^
And the turnovers had how much to do with that loss? Just saying...
October 11th, 2009 at 10:09 AM ^
How many times did we give Iowa a short field and the D came up big. If it wasn't for the D we wouldn't have had the chance at the end of the game. They do need to stop letting teams complete third and longs so they can get off the field.
Go troll someplace else!
October 11th, 2009 at 10:21 AM ^
Newbie?, Troll?
To date Mich defense 388 yards per game
To date Iowa offense 363 yards per game
Last night Iowa offense 367 yards. Not improving in leaps and bounds after 6 games.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^
Here are the yardage totals we've surrendered against BCS-conference opponents:
ND - 490 yards
IU - 467 yards
MSU - 418 yards
Iowa - 367 yards
That's a positive trend.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
The trend is encouraging. If we stay at 367 yards per game we would rank seventh in the Big Ten.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=offense&confere…
Michigan leads the Big Ten in points per game. If they could tighten up on defense there might or might not be two less defeats.
Look at the defense statistics for the Big Ten. We rank tenth in total yards (388 yards per game), ahead of only Illinois (409 yards per game).
Statistics don't tell the whole story but it's hard to argue one or two plays a game to say how good or bad the team is.
Interestingly at the end of last year's 3 and 9 season we ranked ninth in the Big Ten allowing 367 yards per game. Along with that we allowed 29 points per game vs. 24.5 this year.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:19 AM ^
Points per game and points per game allowed are not very telling stats.
These two teams could have the same PPG and PPGA.
Team A gets blown out but scores a lot in half their games and dominates/shuts out their opponents in half the games. PPG: 30 PPGA: 15
Team B playS tight in all their games and wins them all. PPG: 18 PPGA: 15
October 11th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
not when the offense is putting the defense in a bad position with turnovers
October 11th, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^
Your point is ignore the stats, the defensive performance last night was great? And that if Michigan did not have such a great defense we would have lost by a lot more.
Short yardage scores don't add much to the total yardage stats.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:56 AM ^
are you forgetting the offense only scored 21 pts? Donovan Warren was responsible for the first TD. The defense also came up with a huge stop after Mathews fumbled the punt.
This defense isn't going to be that great but I thought they actually played pretty good for the most part saturday night - other then the two passes to the tight end.
Who are the superior recruits that Michigan has on defense that are upperclassmen? Warren and Graham. Anyone else? RR has brought in some highly rated guys on defense, but they are mainly freshmen and sophomores.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:47 PM ^
Valid arguments can be made either for Tate or Denard. But...Denard has shown a propensity for throwing picks, and all have to admit he had to throw on at least some of the downs to get in FG range. Tate has shown a propensity for engineering game-winning(/tying) drives. I think it's hard to overestimate that last point. Not all good QBs can run the 2 min drill well, and to find one that runs it with the same level Tate has shown is truly rare. I don't want to reveal that I'm completely hammered from drinking the Tate Kool-Aid...but he pulls games out of the crapper the way Elway and Montana could. It is truly a gift. He had done it in three of four games this year. In the other game we were so far ahead we pulled him in favor of the Coner. I don't think it is indefensible to leave Denard in, but I too was screaming WTF at RR.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:03 PM ^
When Denard first went in, I was WTF? Then he scored and I assumed Tate would come out. He didn't and I questioned it then. But, after some time, I do not think it was a bad decision for the following reasons (in no real order):
First, game winnnig drives on the road to a top 12 team are a risky proposition for a team like we are now. The fact is that it was a desparate situation that was created by turnovers. Given our QB situation, if RR played a hunch, I can't kill him for it. He was already looking at a loss.
Second, simply because Tate has led come from behind drives before is no guarantee he would do it again. In fact, his performance last night suggested he wouldn't have pulled it off. He appeared frustrated and uncertain - at least from the always realiale vantage point of my living room hundreds of miles away. In contrast, he was awesome against ND all game long (minus the pick).
Third, and related to number two, RR played the hot hand. Against State, Denard struggled and Tate led a scoring drive to make it close. Thus, Tate got the call on the last drive and OT. Last night, Denard led the drive to make it close while Tate had problems. RR actually made the same call he did at State - he played the hot hand.
Fourth, if one guy slipped, or lost contain, Denard has the speed to pick up tons of yards very fast. There is also a chance that he scores on a big run, even though Iowa was in the prevent. This had to play into RR's decision.
Fifth, I think we are starting to buy into some hype here. The media, espcially ABC/ESPN really wanta to turn Tate into Tiebow. This is way too early for that. I mean, Heisman canidate???? He has performed some miracles, no doubt. He also has the potential to be great. But right now, he is a good, but not great, quaterback. He was not a lock to win the game. You can't say Tate = win or that he would have given us a much better chance than Denard did.
The bottom line is that RR made a reasonable decision. You can't lay it on his doorstep because one of his two freshman QBs didn't drive down the field to beat #12 Iowa on the road. You also can't say that Denard was a bad call. There are good reasons behind it - not to mention all the stuff that we fans dont'/wont ever know about.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:54 PM ^
why because you say so? i've been to every game this year. tate has brought the team back in 3 games this year; one of which he was meh throughout.
tate has been in that situation before at the end of games and has proven to be successful. denard has not. denard isn't even close to tate (yet) at throwing the ball consistently; and that's precisely what you need in a two minute drill.
put it this way, the iowa fans feared tate (despite his meh game) a helleva lot more than denard.
October 13th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
Actually, because of the reasons I listed.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
I thought Forcier should have been in for the final drive strictly for his command of the 2 minute offense, but at the same time Denard earned a chance to play it out after his previous drive. No time for second guessing it now anyway. Besides, you never know on what snap he might just take it to the house. 5 turnovers in a two-score game is the story, but I don't feel bad about last nights loss at all. I think a tune-up game at home against Delaware St will get us back on track.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:39 PM ^
It's not on the DEEEEE!!! Five turnovers will kill the best teams let alone our crew on the road at night in the cold corn fields of Iowa.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:14 PM ^
After how clutch Tate has been in pressure situations at the end of games this year I really don't know why we wouldn't have him in there. That's when he performs his best.
If Denard was a proven passer and game manager then replacing Tate might have been warranted, but the way he's passed the ball this year (7/15 with 3 INT's) gives me no reason to think he should have been in.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:53 PM ^
I'm taking the positive outlook after this game. We dominated for the most part in our line play on both sides of the ball. I have to give Ferentz and co. props because they had a good gameplan. We have to remember that we are playing tons of underclassmen. We're on the right track, but the bottom line that was obvious to see is that freshman make mistakes. I refuse to live in the world of what ifs. I have no beefs with the game plan or decision making, even when it went wrong it wasn't necessarily because the wrong personnel was on the field.
If Richrod develops our players like he did at WVU (and there's no reason to think he won't) then we'll be at the national level pretty soon.
I think that even this year we will be in every game. These kids play their guts out for 60 minutes and have yet to give up. Nothing is more indicative of that then having a chance to win despite a -3 turnover margin. I'm proud of this team even in losing, and soon that will change.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:43 PM ^
i was at the game and assumed tate aggrivated his injury. hearing that he was benched is disturbing to me. now, i don't mind getting DRob some reps, but already in his short career tate has shown that he can make 4Q comebacks, and to not let him try again is wrong.
to me, it's kind of like pinch hitting for an 0 for 3 albert pujols in the ninth down by a run. give the proven guy the opportunity.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:07 AM ^
This was his 6th collegiate start. Give me a break.
I think the more important thing is the "big picture" anyways. Michigan was 4-1 going into the Iowa game. They probably were hoping for a shot at the Big 10 title. Now, realistically of course, we are out of the race for the Big 10 essentially (Iowa has the tiebreaker over UM). But it was important for Rodriguez to get to see Denard play under a stressful situation. He did get it done the drive before might I add. Perhaps Denard should have even started the game. For all I know Tate's shoulder was 60%. The kid weighs 160 pounds drenched and in his pads.
Everybody relax. We are good. Let's look at this as honest fans. We are a 8-4 team. Much (much) better than 3-9. Let's look at trying to finish in the top half of the Big 10 and look at contending (top 3 finish) for a Big 10 title next year.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:49 AM ^
Tate wasn't exactly setting the world on fire in East Lansing until the final three UM drives when UM scored twice and Stonum coughed it once. I think most people would say that for the first 3.5 quarters of the MSU game Tate wasn't the super frosh he had been in the 4 previous games.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
I love you guys doing some navel-gazing and soul-searching. It's just so, um, endearing. I watched the game with some friends, all of them UM fans. Watching from the perspective of someone who isn't as invested in the result was illuminating. There was no "there" there with Tate, he was completely out of sorts. Not just a little bit, but a lot. The ball wasn't coming out of his hand well all game, and his read on the goal line was horrendous- he's lucky, because that 40-yard duck should have been picked off. I'll go with injury as the proximate cause of his performance; he couldn't do the things he's normally capable of, and it bothered him, leading him to try to go downfield when the play really wasn't there. You all know that he took a lot of deep shots that were well-covered, and should have had more than one pick. Unfounded assertion that will surely be rebuked by the UFR: Tate should have taken the short or intermediate reads that were there.
Robinson is intriguing because of his raw speed, and I've said before that if he learns enough of the playbook to pass effectively, watch out. Tate is the kind of guy who can beat you in a conventional manner, sustaining long drives and getting points. Denard, on the other hand, has the potential to stress your defense in a manner that's really unique. Every play, it is possible to have the perfect defense called- and still get beat. A defense could have only two or three bad plays, and lose because of them. I exaggerate a little, but only a little. As a Spartan fan, I don't like admitting that the idea of playing against Robinson when he knows the whole playbook is abjectly terrifying; so much attention needs to be committed to him that wide lanes open up for the pass, and I can see him playing MSU's defense like a freaking Stradivarius. Not fun.
What was I talking about again? Oh yeah. I understand why Coach Rodriguez put in Robinson. He was hoping that by throwing- and completing- a couple of passes, that he could put Iowa's defense in freak-out mode, which could spring Shoelace for one of his 'whee, running away from everyone is fun!' scampers. I get that. It was obvious to me that the Force was not with Tate Saturday, so the coach had to do what he could to get things rolling. The only surprise was that it took so long to get Robinson in there. At least your coach doesn't appear to have an unhealthy fascination with a guy that has middling speed paired with an inability to complete any pass over 20 yards consistently over a pocket passer who's pretty much a sniper. So at least you have that going for you.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
with your point #2 (Emphasis mine)
To sum it all up, Denard deserved a shot at winning a game. They are both freshmen quarterbacks and both were promised an equal opportunity at the job. Denard has a right at trying to get some of that same glory Forcier has received.To be blunt, no, he doesn't. To follow your logic, maybe Nick Sheridan should have gotten a shot. After all, we had three quarterbacks vying for the starting job in the summer. This is not little league where "everybody plays". You go with your best players and the second best players sit and wait for an opportunity that may or may not come to them. If your thesis is "Denard should have played" then you need to follow with "because he was the best player" and back up that argument. Simply saying, "Well Tate did it against Notre Dame and Indiana; and took the MSU game to overtime in the waning seconds" is a different kind of mistake. You have 90 seconds and 83 yards to go to the endzone. You need a field goal (or more!) to win. Who is your QB and why? I really don't think that there is a right answer...though I do think that there is a wrong answer (Sheridan). Rodrigues' decision takes balls. Going with Denard and losing, gives all of us a chance to second guess him, and leaves him open to the argument that Brian made (and I just repeated above). I feel that Rich Rod decided that Denard gave them the best chance to win. I am, however, working on a time machine* so that I can tell Denard that Odoms will be open in the flat for a mile on the last INT. *Actually, I'm not actively working on that, because I decided that when I invent a time machine, I will come back and give it to me. It will have already been done. Yes, I'm a nerd. Yes, I am aware of it.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
What about special teams? Offense and defense, whatever their problems have been good enough to win or keep us in games. Besides Zoltan I am not confident with the special teams and am not seeing the improvement that O&D are making.
What is RR's record with special teams and who is coaching them now?
Comments