Just Stop It Before It Starts

Submitted by RowoneEndzone on October 16th, 2010 at 7:17 PM

We just played the 15th best team in the nation.  Hearing the boos at the big house and witnessing how dark the liveblog got at times makes us look like spoiled brats.  Our young team made many mistakes that are easily fixed and mainly due to nerves and inexperience.  Denard cheered for his teeam when he was hurt/pulled. 

Our team got knocked on its ass and got up and hit back.  Got knocked on its ass again and got up and hit back again.  Thats boys turning into men.  That is the making of a dynasty. 

We gained 522 yards!  Our defense held Iowa to 383 yards.  We are making progress.  We are 5-2.  We are getting better.  Think of how much we will improve when our guys are 21 and 22 years old like everyone else they are playing. 

Wisconson just scored 12 seconds into the game on OSU.  That makes me smile.  Now lets not clog up the board multiple late game threads!

Comments

HAIL-YEA

October 16th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^

this team is young, and I accept them for what they are. It does not make it any less painful, which is why I made the fast foward comment..I beleive when these guys are upperclassman things will be much different.  And seriously, everyone is playing the "you dont have to be a M fan" card today... If you don't get frustrated watching games then you are not normal. The fact that we stalk this blog should tell you that we live and die by Michigan Football..and if you think throwing that dickhead comment out there is going to change that for myself or anyone else your'e fucking retarded. You are not surrounded by eneimies here..we're almost all M fans and we want this team to succeed. I'm sick of everyone being douchebags on here honestly.

Pay the Dragon

October 16th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^

they usually happen when your not in position and are completely desperate to bring the ballcarrier down. ( unless its the bullshit one where you barely touch it)  We just need to be in a better position to bring the guy down instead of hoping and clinging to anything that will stop them.  

lakerblue

October 16th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^

I completely agree. We are 5-2, we played what I honestly think is a end of the year top 10 team in MSU and a 15th ranked Iowa team the last two weeks and lost while getting owned in the turnover and penalty margin. Everybody just chill out and wait before you post, "FIRE COACH X,Y,Z AND TAKE SCHOLARSHIPS FROM PLAYER A,B,& C." Seriously, its a building year, and going into it, we all saw it as one, no one was predicting 10 wins if they were being realistic with themselves, and 7-8 is not only very possible but likely, which we should consider a win for the year. So everybody chill out, take heart, and actually support the team you and I love. K? K, thanx bye

AAB

October 16th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^

Yardage disparity is a good indicator of team quality, especially if you buy into the theory that turnovers are largely random (which I thought most around here did). 

Looking purely at the scoreboard as a gauge of how good or bad a team is is to pretend that randomness and variance don't exist in sports.

nazooq

October 16th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^

Agreed.  But most fans aren't satisfied with that pace because we all expected a "Rodriguez Leap" like the one WVU took in his second year.  Most expected a leap in the second or third year.  To wait until the fourth year to reach Michigan's historical average winning percentage is very  disappointing.

Go for 2

October 16th, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^

Is going to be an animal.  I remember being upset at the personal foul that derailed one drive before it could start and then the false start that was the killer on the attempted field goal.  But during my duress I noticed that I hadn't heard the name Adrian Clayborn.  He effectively shut him out.  

The future on offense is amazingly bright.  I am so excited to see this offense next year and a competent defense will make this team very tough to handle.   I believe the official revenge tour starts next year and it will be a blast to be on this board then.   For now, we have to deal with the manic depression that is the Michigan fan base.  

Tha Quiet Storm

October 16th, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^

What we saw today was a team chock-full of upperclassmen play a team with approximately a half-dozen seniors of consequence and 1st and 2nd year players littered everywhere on the two-deep.  The difference in experience was plain as day - mistakes, penalties, etc.  I felt sorry for Avery, a 165 pound true freshman, having to try and tackle Adam Robinson in the open field on that last 3rd and 9.  I know it sucks, and I know its been 3 years, but we're just not there yet - these kids need more time.

RowoneEndzone

October 16th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^

Thats what I am saying.  People need to realize the youth.  We are starting 18 19 and 20 yr olds.  We are playing 21, 22 and 23 year olds across the board.  Our guys are a bit small underdeveloped and young,  Anyone bashing them must have been a complete stud and been head hunting seniors in HS when they were freshman playing JV ball.  Must be cool to be them.

bronxblue

October 16th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^

I love the passion, but this team still struggled pretty badly against an admittedly good defense.  Sure, there was some growth out there offensively, but part of the reason UM had so many yards was because Iowa kept scoring on short fields after UM turnovers/miscues.  I expect the team to play better in the coming weeks, but this game was probably a loss going into the season and played out like it should between a veteran team and a young one.

bronxblue

October 16th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

Those are good numbers, but considering how far back UM was to begin the third period (and needing 44 pass attempts) and the fact that the offense got to run 86 plays vs. 60 for Iowa, I think the numbers might be hiding the facts of the game a bit.  Similar to the Indiana game in which the defense looked horrible but also had to face 100 plays.

jmblue

October 16th, 2010 at 9:22 PM ^

I'm not following this reasoning.  Our defense was horrible against IU, which was why they were able to run so many plays.  Today we moved the ball all game.  At every point in the game, we had more yardage than they did.  It's not like we were shut down for three quarters.  We moved it all day and shot ourselves in the foot.

tasnyder01

October 16th, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^

1.)How did we "struggle pretty badly" when we got a 500+ yard game...with our backup QB in?  Also, that was against a top 10 defense.

2.) "part of the reason UM had so many yards was because Iowa kept scoring on short fields"  How does that equate to us having a lot of yards?

We lost the game beause of turnovers.  Whoever said this "TOM +=win; TOM- =loss" was correct.  If we get that Rick6 by Kovaks we win this game.  If we don't turn the ball over 4 times we get at least 7 more points.  Etc.

bronxblue

October 16th, 2010 at 8:00 PM ^

(1)  I'm not saying that the offense struggled in the sense that they recorded lots of yardage at the end of the game, but at the same time they struggled again in the redzone holding onto the ball and scoring until late in the game.  Also, Tate is a backup in name only - when the team needs to throw the ball, I think he is a far better option than Denard at this point in Denard's career.

(2)  Iowa didn't need to spend much time scoring because of the short fields, giving UM the ball more often, and usually farter down the field because they were kick-offs.  Case in point - the average Iowa drive started at the Iowa 32 (and if you throw out the end-of-the-half drive that started on the 1, Iowa 35), while the average UM drive started at the UM 23.  Sure, the offense was able to move down the field on some of those drives, but they still had longer fields to go, and that inflated the numbers a bit.

As for the Kovacs missed INT, that was a killer, but the game certainly was not "over" if that happens.  Iowa is a disciplined club with a very good defense - they are not going to implode being down 14 in the first quarter.

CRex

October 16th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^

I get what you're saying, but the problem is this is a second year in a row we've gone flat going into conference play.  Last week if Roundtree snags that ball down. if Denard makes a couple of better reads in the Red Zone and if we make that FG, we beat ranked MSU.  This week if we make a few less mistakes we beat Iowa.  Heck last year if Tate is healthy and we don't have multiple turnovers, that tOSU game suddenly looks winnable.  

I know we were destined for a 7-8 win season from the get go with our defense.  The problem is our offense, which is supposed to be coached by RR the spread offensive guru, seems to be excelling at struggling every time it comes face to face with a decent B10 defense.  Yeah we put up those offensive numbers and gaudy stats, but we didn't put up a lot of points in the first face.  Basically Iowa pulled it's version of "Bend Don't Break" on us and walked out a win.  

RR's offense looked great when it was buzzsawing a Big East Team he knew well (he never lost to Edsall) or buzzsawing Kelly's first year defense at ND.  But he really needs to prove he can burn his way through a GOOD B10 defense.  The conference wins have been few and far between, while the mental mistakes against good B10 teams have been plentiful.  

CRex

October 16th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^

You are aware that points, not yards, wins games right?  Allow me to recap:

1st Quarter: 7 points

2nd Quarter: 0 Points

3rd Quarter: 0 Points

4th Quarter: 21 points

So while yes we ripped up and down the field, we got into the end zone once in 45 minutes of play.  It seems to be the new standard versus B10 good defenses.  We get down on their side of the field and we don't finish.  The offense had some moments of greatness in the 4th when the panic set in and they put the gas down, but the ability to score points seemed to be stuck in neutral for 3/4s of the game.  

CRex

October 16th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

So you're happy chalking 7 points in 45 minutes up to variance? 

So basically we come back to what I said, where we seem to be making mistakes (fumbles, I won't call the FG a mistake since the kicking game is a known disaster area).  The level of variance is a major problem here.  We're flawless against Big East teams and the like.  Turnover ratio in our favor, the offense becomes a soulless killing machine.  Then we hit conference play.  I'd expect us to degrade as we face between defenses, but not going from the UConn or ND level down to 7 points per 45 minutes.  Way too much variance in production.  We basically go from "Killing Machine" to "Lame bunny in the center lane of I-696".  Where the heck is the "semi functional scoring machine" for most the game?

AAB

October 16th, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^

I am absolutely chalking it up to variance.  This is the second week in a row that we essentially got punished for every single major mistake we made.  It's also the second week in a row that our opponent has gotten away with every major mistake.  I firmly believe that is not a matter of skill or coaching or execution.  It's variance, plain and simple.

C'est la vie.

PDX_Blue

October 16th, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^

Flipping a coin 10 times and getting heads 7 times is variance.  What we saw today was the difference between a well-coached team and no-so-well-coached team.  Good teams take advantage of major mistakes.  Bad teams make major mistakes.  The trend we're witnessing this B10 season is not variance.

Kilgore Trout

October 16th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^

Saying it's variance is stupid.  Was it pure chance that Mike Hart essentially never fumbled in four years as the primary RB?  No, he obviously was skilled at holding on to the ball.  It's not variance when Denard throws the ball right to the MSU guy in the end zone, or when he balloons it to Tyler Sash or when he throws into triple coverage against MSU.  It's not variance when Tate throws across his body into the middle of the field.  Those are bad throws, not random occurrences.  It's also not variance that our guys don't cover anyone close enough to get a pick.  That's bad defense.

M-Wolverine

October 16th, 2010 at 10:35 PM ^

And there are SO many things involved in turnovers that are controllable. The way a football bounces has variance sure. Or a tipped pass. Stripping the ball vs. Protecting it; experienced QB throwing it away or putting it where only the receiver can get it vs. Throwing it right to the guy. Those can be coached/learned.
<br>
<br>By you reasoning Mike Hart was the luckiest mofo ever, and had nothing to do with him.

Mannix

October 16th, 2010 at 8:49 PM ^

I think everyone knew the game was over at 28-7. They pulled everyone back in but in keeping with recent history, the stop that was needed was not gotten. (Lions, anyone?)

So, yes, they were resilient, determined and united. All great things as these men grow into leaders. That part is excellent and should be lauded.

The game itself was bad because this vaunted offense has been stymied the last two weeks against a 'real' defense.

Would you rather a) WIN and give up chunks of yardage  or b) lose but "leave points on the field" and outgain the Big 10?  (sorry if this is a false dilemma for some)

Tater

October 16th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^

Those who booed as the team came off the field in the first half should have their season tickets revoked.  I thought I was listening to a Sparty crowd.  What a bunch of classless morons.  Maybe they should give their tickets to people who want to go to the Big House and actually support their team.