My conflicting viewpoint on the game

Submitted by michgoblue on

Obviously, that sucked.  As I was watching us lose another non-competitive game to MSU, there was an internal war going on in my head.  My internal dialogue was probably not all that different than the fanbase generally.  I have had time to reflect, and here are my thoughts:

 

Topic:  Denard v. Tate

Angry Michgoblue:  Denard is playing like shit.  Why doesn't RR pull him already and give Tate a shot.

Rational Michgoblue:  Because Denard is one of the best players in the country, is our best shot at winning and you don't pull a guy like that.

Verdict after calming down - Angry Michgoblue wins.  You don't pull Denard lightly, but he was clearnly not playing well, and in his one stint this season, Tate looked awesome.  Also, Tate knows a little something about comeback wins under pressure in rivalry games. 

 

Topic:  RR's playcalling

Angry Michgoblue:  What the hell.  If I see V. Smith run for 2 yards on 1st, putting more pressure on a struggling Denard, I am going to throw my remote through the TV.  With all of the firepower we have, let's get creative for once and, you know, do something other than run for 2 yds on 1st.

Rational Michgoblue:  Um, yeah, you sort of got me there.  But, Smith did have some decent runs, and Denard isn't throwing well, so there weren't many better options.

Angry Michgoblue.  Damn it, that TV was expensive. 

Verdict after calming down : Angrymichgoblue wins - the play calling was uncreative, and on several third and shorts, MSU appeared to know what we were going to run.

 

Topic:  Why not play Hopkins and Cox when Smith and Shaw are not looking great?

Angry Michgoblue:  Smith runs for 2 yards more often than he runs for more than 4.  This is killing drives.  Shaw is not much better.  Not criticizing Smith - still recovering from the ACL injury, but until he can be more effective, he should not be our feature back.  When Hopkins was in, he looked solid, and we got one of those touchdown things on that drive.  Why not ride him harder?

Rational Michgoblue:  Because Smith doesn't fumble, and is a good blocker.  Hopkins may have fumble issues, and is not as good of a blocker for Denard.  Smith is the safer call.

Angry Michgoblue:  But safe wasn't working, and Hopkins was.

Verdict after calming down :  Angry Michgoblue wins.  SMith was not effective.  Time to give Hopkins more meaningful snaps.  He looked good.

 

Topic:  The defense

Angry Michgoblue:  This bend don't break shit isn't working. Time to put more men on pass rush, even if it means leaving the CBs on their own.  We will get burned more regularly on long ones, but if we get some pressure, it may throw off QBs, result in turnovers and it is better to die quickly than to bleed to death.

Rational Michgoblue:  No.  THe defense was actually marginally decent today.  We will not be good with this talent level, but this was not a terrible performance considering.  We got some key stops.

Angry Michgoblue:  Yes, but those stops were when we got away from this 3 man front crap and brought pressure.

Verdict after calming down - Andgy Michgoblue again.  The 3 man front needs to end now.  Also, the talent level sucks, but GERG needs to find a way to get SOMETHING more out of them. 

 

So there it is.  I would be interested to see whether the community agrees with Angry Michgoblue or Rational Michgoblue?

jayman065

October 9th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^

Nice, i got a good chuckle out of reading the your post.  I like smith as a blocker, but agree, watching him get stuffed on first down after frist down attempt is frustrating.

Gustavo Fring

October 9th, 2010 at 10:58 PM ^

I thought he looked good and should have gotten more touches (maybe health was an issue?)

I agree about Vincent Smith.  I don't think he's being used properly.  He's not the guy you give it to on third and 2; have him in on passing downs, let him be a Brian Westbrook type player (though I think Michael Shaw does everything Smith does except better).

Mike Cox needs some more action on Saturdays (pause) and so does Hopkins. 

EZMIKEP

October 9th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^

I am still mad. I need more time to calm down. Sparty smacking us down at home really has my blood boiling. Maybe i'll be good by Tuesday. Then I can possibly reflect on what I actually watched today. 

mikoyan

October 10th, 2010 at 12:39 AM ^

What made me mad today was hearing that fuckiing "Go Green Go White" shit towards the end of the game.   What also made me mad was listening to Michigan fans talking poorly about Denard.  He had a bad game.  He is also a 19 year old kid.  A sophomore.  Given the level of improvement betweeen last year and this year, I can't wait until next year.  I hope "Go Blue" rings through Spartan Stadium next year.  What also made me mad was the douchebag in the douchebag foam Spartan helmet.  Kept getting in my shots.  If I had brought one of my other lens, he might have found himself getting famous....

Kilgore Trout

October 9th, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^

Nice.

I'm with rational on 1.  At this point, with this hype and everything based on Denard, it's hard to switch him out.

Not sure about 2.  I think the offense was fine in general, just not so good with the horribly crippling turnovers.  Not all that different from OSU last year.

I'm with Angry on 3.  Shaw must still be hurt, and Smith just doesn't seem that explosive.  It's worth spreading out the carries a bit.

I'm with rational on 4.  A little more than 500 yards and 30 something points is what this defense is going to do against solid competition.  That's just how it is at this point.  UM needs to put up 40 points to win, I don't think that is going to change.  When they left 11 points on the field in those first two drives, it was kind of bound to end poorly.

KC Wolve

October 9th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^

But I disagree with him mostly. I don't think you pull Denard. The trouble with doing that is when do you do it? If to early, he doesn't get experience dealing with adversity and doesn't get the chance to make the comeback. If too late, what is the point?

Didn't mind the play calling. TO's killed good drives.

D is terrible, but I thought it was a more aggressive plan. Freshman cb's 1 on 1 isn't a god idea. (see CC's first chance)
I agree with you on Hopkins, he should get more carries, esp on 3rd and short.

mnb zach

October 9th, 2010 at 11:06 PM ^

A bad defense held a good MSU offense to 34 points.  Take away three unforced turnovers by our true sophomore quarterback and we have a chance at the win.  

5-1 man, 5-1.  Lets all take a deep breath.

mvp

October 9th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^

The thing that is so frustrating is that it seemed like we were so close.  Pre-season if you told me we'd be 5-1, I would have been tickled.  But knowing that we were a handful of plays from that game being *very* competitive is what makes it so hard to take.

mnb zach

October 9th, 2010 at 11:18 PM ^

If you just keep in the back of your head that 7-5/8-4 is the ultimate goal, you'll be fine.  I HATE losing to MSU, but they played well and we made too many mistakes on offense.  Everyone here knows this team cant afford a -3 TO number.  Luckily they were all largely unforced errors by a sophomore QB in his first big rivalry game.  Add in all the freshman and sophomores that played significant time on defense and I won't allow myself to get too worried.

If we are going to panic about anything, panic about Illinois not being an automatic win anymore.

M-Wolverine

October 10th, 2010 at 1:13 AM ^

It wasn't the "ultimate" goal. It was the baseline "keep everyone from being fired" goal. And everyone thought 7-5 might be dicey. And to get to 8 (and a healthy 8), beating MSU at home was part of the plan. Now, a crappy Penn State team may still save us; as long as a not-so-crappy Illinois team doesn't derail us. But 2-7 vs. our rivals is not the things contract extensions were made of, like we were all dreaming about 10 hours ago.

mnb zach

October 10th, 2010 at 12:22 AM ^

It isn't an achievement, but simply the state of a young and inexperienced defense.  I am by no means happy about it, but I understand it is a fact of life.  When you have something like ten freshmen and sophomores getting playing time you can't expect a 2006 like effort on defense.  

The fact is, 34 points should be something this offense can overcome.  Today there were too many mistakes, and we lost.  State played a better game and deserved the win.  This team is a work in progress, and we knew it all along.  5-1 is still overwhelmingly positive this far into the season.

Mirasola

October 9th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^

Tate played awesome against Bowling Green.  That doesn't translate to the same level of performance against MSU.  I really don't think Tate would have put us in any better of a position to win than Denard.

M-Wolverine

October 10th, 2010 at 1:09 AM ^

Because we thought we'd have a chance in this one, but looked totally inept. But PSU was worse. But I think at that point we had a pretty good idea the wheels were coming off vs. a really good Penn State team. But then, in 2008 we had Illinois too. Heck MSU that year was only 3 points worse than this year. That's twice now they've waxed us at home, and we're regressing in comparison to them.

jmblue

October 10th, 2010 at 1:32 AM ^

Well, I don't know about regressing.  In 2008 we benefitted from a horrendous call to get one of our scores, and State kept shanking FGs.  We were extremely lucky to ever be in that game.  Today, given how we moved the ball, we were unlucky to fall behind by as many as we did. 

mvp

October 9th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^

#1) Especially frustrating because we seemed to abandon the running game WAY too early for my taste.  But if you are going to go downfield every play, why not give Tate a shot?  I was *really* torn on this one during the game.  But, especially down 17, I would have pulled Denard.  Then again, I'm no coach.  Point: Angry.

#2) Totally agree.  Maybe they were the right reads, but if they were, they were being run into a defense totally set up to stop that play.  Smith had some good plays, too -- especially early.  But we got in trouble a LOT in the second half by putting ourselves in troubling 2nd and longs.  Point: Angry.

#3) Hopkins *was* getting 7 or 8 on first down instead of 2 or 3.  BUT, you gotta dance with who brung ya.  In a rivalry game, I say go with the guy(s) least likely to fumble.  Shaw and Smith as far as I'm concerned.  Point: Rational.

#4) With more than 3 rushing, Cousins was under pressure and should have been called for 1 if not 2 grounding penalties, IMHO.  Rushing 3 wasn't causing that pressure.  I'm torn on the GERG thing.  I mean, we know that good defenses can be made from less than all 5* players, but BOY are we lousy at a lot of positions.  I don't know with whom I'm agreeing here, but I think it is Angry -- Point.

Verdict: 3-1 Angry by me...  And the fourth point isn't a strong disagreement.

The overall things for me are this:

1) Denard pushed too hard; hopefully he learns a LOT from his first big rivalry game and becomes a better player for it.  He doesn't have to score on every play.  When he just runs the offense, we are nearly unstoppable.

2) Four key drops from two receivers who haven't done that yet this year were killers.

3) Despite everything above, the defense played well enough to keep us in the game today.  Especially considering the 2nd long TD run looked to me to be sprung by an AWFUL hold on M Martin who would have been in position to make the tackle.

Muttley

October 9th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^

Smith: Runs of 7, 8, 13, 3, 0, 1, 2

Shaw: Runs of 21, 3, 3

Perhaps a couple of Smith's runs weren't well timed, but I don't think you can put a lot of weight on those few carries.

ShruteBeetFarms

October 10th, 2010 at 2:23 AM ^

Hopkins carried the ball twice! I don't know how that translates into him getting a bunch of yards on every carry as you suggest.  I recall him having a carry in the BG game and getting 3 yards and then fumbling. Maybe his arms were fatigued from holding the ball too tight after that wonderful 3 yard run in that game.

My point is, every running back will have carries that yields very little yardage sometimes. 

 

mvp

October 10th, 2010 at 5:11 AM ^

Exactly.  OP said, go with Hopkins.  I said, Yes, he got big yards, but you should stick with Smith/Shaw.  I guess I wasn't clear enough to say "You can't base your decision to go with Hopkins on only a small number of carries."

I think we're saying the same thing.

brianc500

October 9th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^

I remember the days when it was fun watching games, now I find it just maddening trying to enjoy watching the offense knowing that as soon as we kick the ball back to the other team we're going to be gashed. 

HeismanPose

October 9th, 2010 at 11:18 PM ^

I completely agree with Angry Guy on point 2 - would have liked to see better play calling. Try a fake or something.  That field goal at the end of the half was a disaster waiting to happen.  The punt with 5-6 minutes left in the 4th - WTF was that?  I also feel that we panicked once we went down.  Should have run the ball more - that's our bread and butter. 

As bad as that was, if we played mistake free and were a little more agressive, we would have won.

Muttley

October 9th, 2010 at 11:32 PM ^

We had a ~40% chance for 3 points, or very little for 7 with only three seconds left.  THe fake would have to score, and I doubt we'd be catching MSU by surprise.  Everyone knows our kicking game sucks.

On the blocked FG, the center sent a short-hop snap to the holder, who did a great job of fielding it and getting it down somewhere.  However, the somewhere was not the expected spot.  I'm guessing the success rate of poorly spotted 42 yd FG attempts isn't very good for anybody.

HeismanPose

October 9th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^

Didn't mean the fake should have necessarily been on that kick.  And I'm also not so sure about that 40% number.  What are we, 2 of 7 on field goals this year?  And nothing over 40 yards, right?  Seems like we would have been better off throwing to the end zone.  Gotta be 20-25% chance at 7 pts.  Would have changed the game.

I just kinda feel RichRod was a little anxious/conservative today.  He threw the ball WAY more than normal.  I know we don't want to get DRob hurt, but if there ever was a game to put into his hands, this was it.  Today we ran the ball 34 times and passed 29.  We're usually at a 2/1 run/pass clip.  Very unusual for RIchRod.  His ratio is usually like clockwork.  

Creasy729

October 9th, 2010 at 11:21 PM ^

At this point I feel that Michigan has put all their eggs in his basket. Much like I didn't like playing Denard at the end of the Iowa game last year, I just believe in rolling with your starting QB. Denard clearly beat out Tate in camp and I am against rotating QBs in general unless the starting QB is just completely playing incompetently. 

And yes, Denard didn't play very well today. He made three pretty bad decisions on the picks. Ultimately though, as much as it was easy to point at Denard for the loss today, I really directed most of my scorn towards the offensive playcalling in the redzone. We allowed ourselves to get in passing situations all too easily (something we should always try to avoid) and then had the receivers run routes towards the middle of the field where the pass relies so much on timing and accuracy (something that will probably never be Denard's strength). That's fine if Mallett is your QB, but Denard is still not a QB who I want to see throwing those passes often. I thought Michigan should have exploited the perimeter of MSU's defense much more in the red-zone like they did on the TD to Webb.

Tacopants

October 9th, 2010 at 11:23 PM ^

The only thing I would actively disagree with is point #4.  We were much more aggressive as a defense this game.  It paid dividends the first couple of drives, and then we got burned by multiple big plays.  We stacked the box with 8 players and still got run over.

I think its pretty clear that both defensive schemes won't be very good.  Let's mix sports to create analogies!  With bend don't break we give up lots of singles.  With all or nothing we get strikeouts, but also give up home runs.  As we found out today, we give up about the same amount of points either way.

UMxWolverines

October 9th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^

1. Ehh not sure. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. 

2. Playcalling was awful. Once again I thought Lloyd Carr was coaching today.

3. Our backs are not consistent one bit, thank god Dee committed. Friggen Toussaint gets hurt if you touch him I guess. He's the only back to impress me at all and he's always hurt.

4. Defense sucks period. In reality, nothing can be done. Just recruit like hell Rich. 

I'm really really really scared that we could be in for another meltdown this year after this.

D.C.Blue

October 9th, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^

...today but overall we seemed to go right back to the same mistakes on D.  I think on 3 I'm definitely with Angrymich and partly on 4.  I think we were definitely better with a 4 man front today BUT our LBs potentially had the worst 1st half they've had this year and I think Obi is useless.  I've never seen a D1 LB as bad as he is.  Roh has no business covering pass routes and Mouton had a much better second half with the run.  I think the DBs need some tough love right now and someone needs to potentially question someone's heart to see if they'll step up, not necessarily the coaches here either.  It might be time to have a lil' teammate tough love.  Maybe the guys should have a 7 on 7 after practice and the D has to go Man press the entire time.  Run them till they get it right. Reps, reps, reps! 

kiwiwolverine

October 9th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^

UFR will tell the tale but I didn't notice 3 man rush as much today.  They got more pressure on Cousins than any other quarterback this year.  GERG's calling was much more aggressive in this game and it was effective for much of the first half.  The offensive did not make the plays they needed to in the first half.  If they do, it is a different game. 

Shaw was our most productive back today ave. 8.4 yds per.

Denard was noticeably frazzled when things weren't working.  Putting in Tate to give Denard a chance to calm down would not have been a bad idea.

Whatever though.  As long as they stay focused they have a shot at 8 wins.  If they do that today will soon be ancient history.

jmblue

October 9th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^

Disagree on #1 (Tate vs. Denard).  Denard played poorly by his standards, and the INTs were certainly bad throws, but it wasn't like he didn't do anything out there.  He was 17-29 passing, with about five drops in there.  He had over 300 total yards.  And he's got some experience leading us on comeback drives, too.  As for Tate, what he did against BGSU doesn't really tell me anything.  He completed a lot of short throws against a terrible defense. 

On #2 . . . eh, I don't know.  We moved it pretty well when we weren't turning it over.  My main gripe is that we could have run the ball more in the redzone.  If you have shaky kicking, make it four-down territory, and run on 3rd down.  The first INT came on 3rd and 4.  At that point they were on their heels and probably would not have stopped us on two carries.  The second INT came on 3rd and 9.  That's a long distance, but with Denard, you can pick that up or at least shorten the distance significantly with a QB lead draw.   

On #3 . . . I definitely would not have had him carry it on that 3rd and 1.  I did not like that call.  I would have rather had Denard keep it.  Besides that, I thought all our backs showed something, but just didn't get enough carries. 

On #4, I'm coming around to the necessity of rushing four.  Dropping eight into coverage has worked on the odd play here and there, but not often enough to prevent opposing QBs from getting into a rhythm.

 

  

umgoblue33

October 9th, 2010 at 11:52 PM ^

definetely disagree on #1.  denard is our starter and though he made some bad decisions, his two endzone INTs were not bad decisions but bad throws.  RR needed to show denard that he is confident in him to play himself out of a bad game so far.

its tough to say about the defense.  while i agree that the 3 man rush is not effective nor will it ever be effective, james rogers and our freshman corners have shown me nothing to trust them in single coverage (kind of a double edged sword because if we dont get pressure on the qb, the corners will get picked apart anyways)

griesecheeks

October 10th, 2010 at 1:49 AM ^

no. you do not pull denard in a game like this. it's not as if the offense couldn't move. on any given play, from anywhere on the field, Denard has the potential to score immediately. With Tate, sure, he'll make his share of plays, but mostly it would be a dink and dunk attack that chews up clock time. The only chance we had in the 3rd/4th Q was the possibility of a missed tackle, quick strike denard play (or pass). now, were he playing like Tate last year against Iowa, where basically nothing was working, I would support trying Tate for a series.

zippy476

October 10th, 2010 at 3:19 AM ^

I had the same thoughts about Denard and Tate after the game but my dad had it right when he just said "you have to ride the horse that got you here". Denard is just too explosive to take out of a ball game, you never know he might have caught fire....hind sight. All QB's struggle you just have to ride your horse.



Now I agree about the running backs. I would like to see Hoppkins more.



As for the play calling.....This drove me and my dad nuts all game. Why are you not running Denard on first and second down. This offense is based on his ability to run the ball and everyone keying on him. That opens the hole for the RB's and softens the secondary for the WR's. Plus when you run Denard on first and second it is a high percentage that you are going to have short yardage on second and third down.



RR seems to be very conservative over his WVU days. I think its time to open it up. Run the Option, more WR motion sweeps, more screens ect...His creativity just doesn't seem to be there.

BlueGoM

October 10th, 2010 at 8:42 AM ^

Pulling Denard for Tate wouldn't have helped much IMO.   By the point Denard threw his 3rd pick we were behind and needed to start throwing - Tate may be a better passer (in terms of reading defenses) but MSU defense would have just gone after Tate all the more.

Maybe it would have helped- IDK.  With a defense that can't stop anyone we cannot afford to miss scoring opportunities via turnovers.  Simple as that.

ND Sux

October 10th, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^

This guy should have got more carries, Tate should have played, Obi can't tackle.  Yesterday's game can be summed up in two words: turnovers and momentum.  When UM started getting momentum, even down 17 points, you could feel the energy and the crowd coming alive.  The turnovers killed that momentum three times.  End of story. 

Our team was good enough to beat Sparty but the turnovers killed us.  Denard is human, but he will be back strong.  I predict our team comes together after this downer and beats Iowa.  After the UMass game, BGSU didn't stand a chance.  I love this team and they are improved.  Looking forward to an Iowa win at home.