Bad Snaps and the huge loss of Molk

Submitted by tomhagan on October 4th, 2009 at 1:19 AM

Moosman's bad snap killed a drive and Michigan had to settle for a FG. This was one of the key plays of the game. Michigan was starting to grab momentum and had they scored a TD there, it would have made a huge dent in Sparty's fragile psyche. As it was, it was a FG.

The bad snaps have to stop...put Khory in or something... Losing Molk has really hurt this offense.

Comments

enlightenedbum

October 4th, 2009 at 1:29 AM ^

Also, the right side of the line which is playing out of position was destroyed from what I was seeing today. We'll see how they do in UFR, but I expect ugly, ugly numbers from Huyge and Dorrestein.

BlueGoM

October 4th, 2009 at 2:09 AM ^

was getting beat. I'm usually too wrapped up in the game emotionally to try to analyze things, but I did manage to note that for the 2nd half Sparty wasn't putting 7 or 8 in the box, they had 4 DL's and 2 LB's, they weren't overloading the line , it was just the o-line couldn't block the Spartan d-line. The offense couldn't do much of anything until T-Force's sandlot football heroics tied the game.

petered0518

October 4th, 2009 at 1:31 AM ^

I understand the emotions after a game, but I think it is way premature to start calling for putting in Khoury.

How is a redshirt Frosh with no game experience going to be that much better at snaps than Moosman? UFR suggested that besides snaps Moosman was not that bad, and he showed noticeable improvement from last week to this week.

I was frustrated with the snaps too, but there is just no easy fix for this one. Unless we play Denard all the time and bad snaps are more of a strategic play rather than mistake.

tecknogyk

October 4th, 2009 at 2:01 AM ^

Exactly. I don't think changing players in and out of the offensive line would be a good idea. I also think you have to take into consideration the weather and the fact that we have very few upperclassmen on the team right now. Would Molk have been better? Probably. However, he's not an option right now and I don't think that second guessing the coaching staff when they have the benefit of seeing the players everyday in practice is a smart thing to do. Hell, even Brian was second guessing having a walk-on or two on defense when you have a scholarship player waiting. If you've been reading the UFR's then you know how wrong he was. The coaches know what they are doing. If there was only one thing someone could learn from last year I would think that it would be patience.

tomhagan

October 4th, 2009 at 2:27 AM ^

not really...no offense but it just doesnt work like that in this scenario. There is far more OL depth this year than the QB situation last year, and to compare that unproven frosh QB to anything that is on the OL this year is not relevant.

SonoAzzurro

October 4th, 2009 at 3:07 AM ^

I just don't know if we can assume that the other guy will be better. Moosman struggled last week, and had some bad moments in this last game also. So, since his struggles have been obvious, if he starts at center again next week it must mean he's our best option at that position when Molk is out. But at the same time I do understand the idea of wanting to try somebody else and see what happens.

BlueinLansing

October 4th, 2009 at 1:56 AM ^

its the fact that moving him to center has caused 2 other players to play out of position.......and neither has been as effective as the regular starters.

I've actually been relatively pleased with Moosman's blocking, center is not an easy position to play at the D1 level (or any level really). His snaps have got to get better however.

NJWolverine

October 4th, 2009 at 7:53 AM ^

Moosman made fewer mistakes with the snaps today than he did a week before. That can only improve as he learns the position. What makes no sense is to replace him with a guy who hasn't taken any live snaps.

I agree about the right side. They were rather abysmal. Huyge was already the weak link of the line and Dorrestein was constantly getting pushed back. Inserting Ferrara didn't help either. I wouldn't mind experimenting with Barnum or Omameh at those positions.

Don

October 4th, 2009 at 8:22 AM ^

This guy started every game as a RS freshman last year, and considering he was learning a completely new system that's a hell of an accomplishment. He's been great at snapping in the shotgun, and with few exceptions pretty good in his blocking.

AceCubbie

October 4th, 2009 at 9:18 AM ^

Moosman as center is less the problem, as others have said; the problem is the other two guys who've had to change positions.

With Molk, I think it's a completely different game. The MSU D-line looked like it was loaded with all-conference superstars.

JT4104

October 4th, 2009 at 9:53 AM ^

All the pressure tate got yesterday came from the right side of the line. Schilling/Ortmann had the back side completely sealed up all game long. MSU pretty much put Anderson and Foley on the Huyge/Perry D side and those 2 guys had a field day.

I thought Ferrera did fine at guard and Huyge is certainly much better against the lighter DE's who rush rather than the space eating tackles. If a guy like Barnum is ready to step inside then I say anything to get Dorrestien off the line is a great idea!