Blowout Clarification

Submitted by Ziff72 on December 2nd, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I've seen this in arguments over the last month and I would like to ask that you refrain from using it as it is driving me crazy. 

When you are arguing about  RR in the big games please do not use Iowa or Penn St as games we "were blown out" in or "overmatched".

PSU Score was 38-31 with 7 minutes to go and they were facing a 3rd and 5.  A 1 score game with 7 minutes to go is not overmatched.  If you asked any PSU fan at that point if they fely comfortable they would have said no.

Iowa Score was 35-28 with 3 minutes to go facing a 3rd and 8.  Again BHGB may have had a brown stain in their gold pants on this 3rd down play.

I can argue with you about turnovers and yardage blah blah and you'll say scoreboard and we can agree to disagree in the other games but these games were tight.  End of story.

You can now resume you regularly scheduled venting.  

 

Comments

CompleteLunacy

December 2nd, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

firmly in control does not necessarily mean blowout. I might even lump MSU in there with Iowa and PSU...the only real blowouts were Wisky and OSU this season.

To me, if you can look at one play here or there that would change the whole game, then I doubt you can really call it a blowout. And I can honestly say that's true of Iowa and PSU (come on D, one 3rd down stop late in the game plz?) and even MSU (if Denard didn't turn into a first-year starting INT machine)

Ghost of Bo

December 2nd, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^

I think I've tried to block out of my mind how competitive those games were because it's less painful to remember them as blowouts.

Truth is, if we didn't shoot ourselves in both feet over and over again in those conference losses two or three of them would have been toss-ups at the end of the game.

maizenbluenc

December 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

I say turnovers and mistakes killed us in the Iowa, Penn State and arguably the MSU game - and almost killed us in the Purdue and Illinois games. (I felt the offense really let us down in all 5 losses, putting our young and inexperienced defense in even worse predicaments.)

But the pervasively bad turnover margin in critical games for three straight years ... well if I were DB, I would be factoring that into my decision making.

Me personally, I am tired of hearing "youth", and "we looked better in practice" / "if you could only see what I see in practice". At some point ...

Of course, I am of a mind that if we keep Rich based on offensive improvement / Denard's first year as a starter mistakes won't happen so often next year on the stipulation that we see defensive and special teams staff overhaul -- then I'll be happy and support Rich.

On the other hand, if Rich gets fired and Jim Harbaugh gets brought in -- then I'll be happy too, and support Jim.

Guess what - I can't loose!

Ziff72

December 2nd, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^

we scored a bunch of points in a row to get the game tight.  I wasn't happy about either game, I'm just saying we were in those games.  

Overmatched was PSU last year or OSU in 07 and 08.   Games where you can't get 1st downs and the line of scrimmage is getting caved in are blow outs or mismatches.   Games where teams go back and forth and the winner is decided by a big play or turnovers are not mismatches.   The difference between a 3pt game and a 20pt game near the end can be very small.

14wolverine

December 2nd, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^

why does it appear that we as fans are expecting so much from freshman and sophomores?  I didn't see them quiting on us!  where is the believing and support for them to keep working hard? and all the negative talk is probably turning recruits away from wanting to be part of this. would we expect our local high school team if they were playing with talented sophomores and freshman to beat the other team who are playing with seniors?  it was disappointing to see our boys lose but i could care less what the score was, good things always come to those who wait, stay strong andstay hungry. They will get theirs and we will be happy.  some good ass kickings is exactly what i think  a young team needs....i feel im seeing an animal of a team in the making.  I keep hearing that the spread can't work in the B10...our  O-line is nasty as in great and we are starting to see glimpses of how much of a beast this offense will be to come.  we have the #1 and #3 APB ready to join in on this what does that tell ya.  The games i have been watching shows we could score on almost every play,but  they are young.  we just gotta catch the ball better which will happen and protect the ball better  which I anticipate Denard will be hungry to do  .i find it hard to believe that Oreand or  Auburn wouldn't be winning their games in this conference.  And about the defense....the longer the season went on and all the negative press and blogs about them,  the Butch Davis built Miami Hurricanes came to mind when he had played all those freshman.   do we know the end result on that venture?  Michigan=Be strong, Be patient and Be Supportive....I always thought that Michigan would kick, claw, and fight to be the first in line to be the one's that did what they said could not be done!

coastal blue

December 2nd, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

...an easy or one-sided victory.

So....

I would say this year we were blown out by Wisconsin and Ohio State.

And we blew out Bowling Green and Connecticut.

Every other game was somewhere in between.

MazenBlue4ever

December 2nd, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^

Too be honest RR will probably be fired take his talent else where and dominate (probably the U) JH will probably be hired and win with RR recruits or maybe not. What i dont get is how you want to fire someone but bring in someone  with the same record and is it me or does the Big 10 have better competition than the Pac-2 (USC,Oregon)..... i mean Pac-10 so in my book JH is a failure compared to RRod who faces teams like Wisc,Iowa,PSU,tOSU,MSU every other weak and next year Nebraska

Mitch Cumstein

December 2nd, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^

Were they blowouts? No.  But on the other hand, we did manage to get down by 3 TDs to all top level b10 opponents and not win the game.  So should I have expected to win?  I did not.  I still had hope to win though. 

Here is what I will say.  If you were watching a random team A vs random team B, and you turned on the game in the 3rd quarter and team B was down 20 points.  Would you continue watching?  What would you think if you turned it back on in the 4th at it was a 7-10 point game?

My point is just b/c Michigan was involved doesn't change the characterization of how the game went.  We all had hope for the win, and we never won.  They weren't blowouts (OSU was obviously, and probably MSU), but they weren't victories either.  Somewhere in between.  I personally wouldn't say they were nail biters, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

AMazinBlue

December 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

In the Iowa game, Michigan scored on 4 of 12 drives and against PSU Michigan scored on 5 of 10.  That's 9 out-of 22 possessions that resulted in points.  Both games were characterized by Michigan failing behind by significant margins only to make a comeback to a point where the opposition stiffened on defense and then their offense put the game away.

They may not have been "blowouts", but neither were they competitive to the point of saying that the opposition got lucky.  Remember PSU took a knee at the end when they were getting 1st downs at will, it was generally conceded by all, including Sam Webb and Andy Mignery that PSU won that game by 17 points.

The point is, against the top five teams in the conference, Michigan was not competitive enough to say they could have won those games the way they played.  In each of those games the opposition was definitely the better team on that day.

phork

December 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 PM ^

In all of those games it was over by half time.  When a team is whipping up on another team its easy to let the foot off the gas.  As for PSU, they also kneeled on a sure TD as well.

No don't get me wrong.  While I am not a UM fan it is great when UM and ND are good.  I was terrified when you guys went out and hired RR, I certainly didn't expect this.  While the offense is lights out in most cases, against the big boys it was flatter than your first girlfriend.   You are much like ND under Weis, good offense, no defense.  Ultimately that will cost RR his job.  A gameplan that says outscoring opponents 67-65 is not one that will get you very far.

The hire was good but it seems its a square peg in a round hole.  Year 3 into this and you should be atleast competitve with the big boys.  You scraped by teams you should have killed (ND, Illinois, Umass?, Purdue), and you got killed by teams you should be competing with.  Frankly I don't think 2 more years is going to solve the issue.

Now saying that I know I'll be negged into oblivion, but I enjoy this forum because you guys are pretty smart cookies and the hilarity meter generally goes into the Side Splitting zone.  So have at'er, I'm hoping to be -1000 before the weekend.