5 Sane Reasons Not To Worry

Submitted by mejunglechop on

Someone called me one of the most depressing users on this board on the other thread, so maybe some of you will think this is coming from an unlikely source. But yeah, I can get down with optimism, here it goes:

1. Denard might be Percy Harvin with an arm!

There are so many reasons to be optimistic about Denard that I feel like I could do a top 5 list just about that, but I won't.  As good as Tate was last year, Denard has the tools to take this offense from good to mindblowingly awesome. Last year, Denard was extremely limited in what he was allowed to run. Mostly the coaches just had him run straight at the line, or roll out to hit bubble screens. There was no deception in how he was deployed. Denard wasn't even allowed to run the zone read, this offense's base play and a play call that, at least physically, plays to his strengths. 

Fortunately Denard seems to have made progress at a breakneck pace. In the spring game (insert caveat here) wasn't just running the zone read, he was completing passes over the middle and sometimes even sitting in the pocket and letting the play develop. Whereas last year every throw of his seemed to fly out at 100 mph, in the spring game he showed a fair amount of touch on the ball. If Denard can be half as poised throwing in the season as he was in the spring game, this offense will open up and hit on all cylinders. Denard and co will dance around the opposition and light up the scoreboard like we've never seen at Michigan. Even better, if he continues to improve at this pace, in a few years we'll be comparing him favorably to Pat White.

2. Improved O line play!

All we lost were an adequate tackle and an adequate guard. We've got an extremely talented pool of youngsters fighting for their spots, led by Taylor Lewan and Patrick Omameh, both of whom have the potential to be four year starters. Others will push returning starters. Everyone has had an extra year to improve and this should be a very good and very deep group.

3. GERG is coaching all linebackers!

3 cheers for Jay Hopson being gone! Obi Ezeh and Jonas Mouton might be this year's Stevie Brown(s). All three were starters since at least their sophomore years who showed tremendous physical skills, but seemed unable to put it together mentally. For Brown, this was until his senior year, when he switched to an outside linebacker (kind of nickel corner) role from his safety position. GERG proceeded to turn him from mgowhippingboy to easily our best linebacker and an NFL draft pick. If Mouton and Ezeh make half the improvement Brown did our linebacking play will have gone from bad to fairly decent.

4. Molk is back!

David Molk proved his worth with his absence last year. When he got injured the offense took a major step back which they never recovered from. Hopefully with improved depth, any injuries will be weathered better this year, but Molk is good enough and important enough to this offense that his return should provide a shot of life either way. 

5. (Relative) Continuity on defense!

So we're kind of switching to a 3-3-5, but at least we have the same coordinator for the first time since '07. That continuity extends at least to the coordinator's personal familiarity with the players and vice versa and that's gotta be worth something even if the scheme has changed amirite?

Bonus: 6. Turnovers!

We've had one of the worst turnover margins in the country in each of the last two years. If turnovers are as random as I'd like to think (and a lot of research shows) that has to change sooner or later.

raleighwood

July 20th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^

That was also my first thought, too.  Michigan was closer to losing against ND and Indiana than they were to beating Iowa and MSU.  Purdue probably should have been a win.

That's what I really want to see this year.....the ability to win close games.  RR has only won three close games in two years (Wisconsin '08, ND '09 and IU '09).  However, Michigan has lost a ton of close games, or games that were close until they got out of control after halfime.

This is the year that we need to see the other teams getting out-schemed and out-coached.  There's a little more experience on the roster and the playbook has to open up a ittle bit.  No more falling to Purdue's trickeration.  No more getting shut down in the second half.  As long as they can turn that corner, we can look forward to a respectable 2010 and a promising 2011.

jmblue

July 20th, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^

I don't think anyone needs a play-by-play recap of the Illinois game.  Yes, I agree that it probably would have turned out differently if we'd scored there (actually, I thought we DID score on 3rd down, but I digress...), but the fact of the matter is that we folded after that and lost big.  Against Iowa, on the other hand, we had the ball at the end of the game, needing only to kick a field goal to win.  I really thought we'd do it.  If Tate hadn't been out of sorts because of the concussion and could have played, I believe we would have pulled it out.

ituralde

July 20th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^

If you look at highlights too, we have a lot of 3.5 man type fronts and I think you will see a lot of the same thing, just that the more 4-3 type looks will have that last 'lb'ish type person alternate between two people on the field.

 

I saw an interesting thing on first-half leads too on ESPN a bit ago talking about how that lets defenses play.  If our defense can play with a lead, that alone will be a huge boost. 

blueblueblue

July 20th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^

#3 - something I had not thought about in a while. If we can consistently stop the run, teams will have to out score us in the air alone - they wont get both air and ground for that. And that does increase the optimism quite a bit for me. Appreciate the reminder. 

Don

July 20th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

I yield to nobody in my ability to look at the glass as not just half-empty, but lying shattered on the floor in a million pointy shards trying to kill you.

PhillipFulmersPants

July 20th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^

right, but I think Marcus above is like a lot of people in thinking of "starter" as someone on top of the depth chart.  I would classify spot starts (3 for Omameh in '09) as "some starting experience" versus guys who were clear #1's coming out of fall camp.  

Anyhooze, I like your original post. Can't agree with you more on Denard. He needs to touch the ball minimum of 15 times a game, IMO, and I hoping for more.

MCalibur

July 20th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

...but isn't this pushing it? Michigan doesn't have a registered trademark or copyright on the name Tate or Denard. The Block M and the winged helmet is one thing, but putting the words on a maize/canary/sun/chartreuse shirt seems perfectly legit.

This logic would prevent us from putting #5 or #16 on a tee shirt. That doesn't make sense.

JeepinBen

July 20th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^

They recently said something to the affect of "You cant do exactly what we're talking about"

I believe the idea is no one (except the university) is allowed to make money off of these kids. You can sell a #5 jersey, it cant say "Tate". 

Same reason why in NCAA 11 EA doesn't put names on the kids, just QB #5. 

Six Zero

July 20th, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^

We do not have the right to make money off of the identities and likenesses of student athletes.  You can make a shirt with a #5 on it, but it can't say 'Forcier' above the 5.  You can make a cartoon of a white kid with a #5 shirt, but you can't have it with a toothy smile, reddish-brown hair and the chin fuzz or someone might argue it's too close to the likeness of Tate himself.

We also cannot use the winged helmet, the words "Michigan," "Wolverines," "Go Blue," or the block M in any designs, as they are the direct property of the university itself.

We can use other ideas and images that have been used by or are owned by other companies, but only if it is in as satirical and non-original use as possible.  For example, we can probably get away with a Vader head, but only if legal counsel is confident that it's not stealing Lucasfilm's thunder, etc.  I'm probably not a great authority on this, I submit it and it's either approved or denied.

mejunglechop

July 20th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^

Michigan itself can't even sell a shirt with the last name of a current athlete on it. If you wanna read more about this, look into the current lawsuit led by Ed Obannon and Sam Keller against the NCAA and EASports for using athletes likeness in video games without paying them for it.