Official Vent Thread

Submitted by jsquigg on October 27th, 2012 at 11:18 PM

It was looking ok until Denard went out and our defense decided to implode and Bellomy couldn't make a throw to save his life.  Commence the bitching.  Oh, and the refs where all around the worst I've seen this year both ways.  Whisky time....


Sten Carlson

October 28th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^

DEVIN IS FUCKING HURT YOU BLITHERING MORON!  He's got a separated shoulder, and is just healthy enough to play WR (ineffectively for the most part I might add) but not enough to play QB.  Do you REALLY think that Hoke would leave a struggling RS Fr. QB in the game if he thought there was another option?  REALLY?  You're a fucking moron if you think that.  So, given the fact that Hoke didn't go to Gardner, it means: 1) either Bellomy is BETTER than a healthy Gardner, and/or 2) Gardner is better, but cannot play QB due to injury.

Basically, what we saw was Michigan's 3rd string QB, not its 2nd string QB.  Your statement about Bellomy having, "no business seeing the field with devin on the roster" prove my point, and disproves yours.  He saw the field with DG on the roster; therefore, he MUST be the best option for whatever reason.


Glen Masons Hot Wife

October 28th, 2012 at 4:32 PM ^

ReDenard had to sit out a series. They put in bellomy.
Even if bellomy was more capable, which hes not at this point, the point is devin isnt getting the reps to even have the chance to go in there.

Theyve made it clear bellomy is their guy. They want him to go in there if denard goes down. He is more borges' type so to speak.

So to answer your question, even if devin can be a more effective qb at this point, yes, yes they would put in bellomy.

Dont tell me it doesnt happen. Same shit happened to brady hensons sophomore year. In fact we lost a couple games primarily because of it.

I guess its hard for you to believe that coaches make big mistakes, have lapses in judgement at that level. Believe me it happens.

Call me every name in the book you ignorant fuck but its clear the coaching staff made bellomy their guy. Look no further than the reps in practice and the alabama game.

ole luther

October 28th, 2012 at 6:55 PM ^

This guy has all the flower and unicorn answers.

All posters who question a coaches or players ability or performances are "fucking idiots who don't know anything about football".

Can't wait to see RR succeed at Arizona. He's won everywhere except Michigan where he wasn't allowed to bring his successful coaching staff with him.  When that happens, I wonder where the fault will lie? Successful everywhere BUT Michigan.....hhmmm?

Denard was successful when left alone to make decisions for himself when necessary.  Enter Borgess and now not so much.

Borgess is unimaginative, hard headed and arrogant.  Sick and tired of hearing about kindergarten and bubble screens.  Try concentrating on using the talent you have instead of wasting it, i.e.- Bama, ND MSU and now Nebraska.  Win or lose those games, there has been an absolute waste of any talent that these kids bring to the table.


October 28th, 2012 at 10:07 AM ^

and yes if we didn't lose Denard we would have won that game. i will say that if anything positive came of this its that Bellomy finally got some meaningful pressure situation snaps. Yea he was horrible and his receivers did him no favors but at least he finally got some experience to build on.

As for Big Al, I'm getting sick of these ultra conservative game plans. He experimented with all those formations last season so where the fuck is all this stuff. He needs to OPEN UP THE PLAY BOOK.

Sten Carlson

October 28th, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^

Open up the playbook?  Did you see the passes to Tree downfield?  What about the open play book versus ND?  Did you see that?  You don't "open up the playbook" when you cannot even execute your base running play.  Everything starts from there.  You control the LOS, you run your base, you make the defense adjust to stop you from just cramming it down their throat all game, then you hit them with play action, etc.   Simple, football 101.  You guys are making this far more complex than it is.  You're lashing out at the coaches because you think there is something that they're refusing to do, or something that they overlooking (like you know better), when it is YOU that is overlooking the obvious -- MICHIGAN'S OL IS WEAK, VERY WEAK, AND WITHOUT A GOOD OL, NO TEAM MOVES THE BALL EFFECTIVELY.  The only reason that Michigan has had ANY offensive success is because Denard is so dynamic. 


October 28th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^

1)  Refs were a cmplete joke for both teams! Changed the dynamic of the game with all the piss poor calls.

2) Where was there no review on the pick that Neb ran back to our 3 yd line?? I couldnt believe there was no review! WTF!

3) Fitz cant do anything cuz the play calling is so predictable.

4) Wear a headset Hoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5) Get in the players faces & get the team fired up Hoke!!!!!! WTF!!

6) Leaving Bellamy in was a horrible decision. Put anybody else in,  when everybody in the nation could see he was rattled.

7) Throw the ball downfield when they are blitzing ...not the dink pass BS

8) Even after we almost blew it to MSU ... still no hurry up O. WTF

9) Defense, O line & special teams look good

Bill the Butcher

October 28th, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^

I can't take any of your gripes seriously because it is clear that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

1) you think hoke not wearing a headset has anything to do with the outcome of the game

2) you think the oline looked good

3) you blame fitz's lack of production on predictability of play calls and not the shitty oline

4) you want to "throw the ball downfield when they are blitzing...not the dink pass BS" except that you kind of, you know, need time for the receivers to get downfield.  But when blitzes are hitting the qb 2 seconds after the snap you can't really throw a 40 yard pass.

Sten Carlson

October 28th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^

If everything in football "starts up front," as the cliche says, why is it so hard to look at Michigan's lack of offensive production and realize that it's due to a very weak OL?  Is it because it's somehow more satisfying to bitch about the OC?  When a running team, in a running conference, CANNOT RUN THE BALL, it's a serious problem.  As Bill the Butcher said, if you think the OL looks good, you're really not paying attention, and as such, you're arguments are meritless.

Glen Mason's Ugly Wife, et. al., can bitch all they want, but they're just pissing in the wind.  Michigan ran the ball quite well last season, with the same guys running the ball.  What's changed?  The big guys up front giving Denard and Fitz holes to run through.  For some reason people seem obsessed with the OC, and refuse to admit the fact that no OC can scheme around weak OL play.  Yes, the OL is realatively good at pass blocking -- I say relatively because Nebraska, ND, and Bama were content to sit back and not pass blitz as they wanted to contain Denard -- but unfortunately, Denard isn't the most accurate passer, and the WR's aren't the best at getting separation.  But, the OL is fucking horrible at run blocking.

Again, why is this so hard to understand?  Why do so many of you assume that it is incompetence/stubbornness of the coaching staff.  Last year, Michigan pounded the ball over and over with Fitz.  They ran "predictable" plays, the ran zone-read after zone-read.  They ran inverted veers, and QB powers, to great success.  Nobody cared that it seemed conservative and predictable, because the OL was blocking it well, and it fucking WORKED!  Then, as you all SHOULD know, things open up because you're able to run.  This year, not so much.  When you cannot run your base offense with any effectiveness, the defense has the upper hand.

You guys are complicating something that is very simple!


October 28th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^ know, that thing you do when you need to get players to play better. You watch tape with them and practice working on deficiencies. Sounds novel, right? Because I don't what Borges (and to certain extent Hoke) does to improve the offensive play.

And we can't blame this on talent, because we have it. More so than most of Nebraska & MSU opponents that were able to score at will against Nebraska and at least a TD against MSU.

It seems to me that Borges inherited an experienced (and believe it or not a well coached offensive unit) last year that made him look good. It almost reminds me of when Ron English was deemed a god for a season. Then reality set in. Same thing is happening here.

Bill the Butcher

October 28th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^

I agree 100% that coaching and practicing your deficiencies etc is important and necessary.  But what if, after all that coaching, the player still doesn't get?  I mean this happens often right?

Take Will Campbell for example.  This year he has been okay, but after 2 years of what we can assume is phenomenal coaching (based on the improvement of the rest of the D) he has not even come close to being an above average Big Ten DT let alone the THOR GOD OF THUNDER, he was thought to be coming out of HS.  

Now normally, I assume that if, after all that coaching, a guy still doesn't get it, you tell him to take a seat on the pine and put someone else in to do his job.  The problem is, we don't have anyone to put in other than walk-ons at this point.

Look, Borges hasn't been perfect, in fact he hasn't been good on many occasions.  But I agree with the poster above, and I think that people are severely overlooking the problems we have up front.  Barnum, Mealer, and to a lesser extent Omameh have struggled to get generate push on many occasions and the offensive line as a whole has failed miserably to open up holes for Fitz and Denard.  Denard, as we all know, is beyond exceptional at turning a tiny crease into 6 points.  Fitz is a great back, but he isn't a runner on Denard's level (who is really?), and he needs holes to open up in order to be productive.  


Sten Carlson

October 28th, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^

Well said Bill, and I agree with you!

Look WindyCity, coaching is obviously paramount.  But, as Bill said, what do you do if all your upperclassmen on the OL, for example, aren't getting any better?  What if they've reached their collective ceilings?  These guys were ALL recruited by RR, and with the exception of Lewan, I don't think any of them would start on the OL in the past, nor in the near future.  But, at this point, they're the best and most experienced that we've got.  We know what happens to freshman OLinemen, and I promise you that everyone in here would be freaking the fuck out if Hoke decided to waste RS years for guys like Kalis, Magnuson, etc.  You would think that with an OL with 3 RS Sr's and 2 RS Juniors, it would be the strength of the program.  But, again, remember the circumstance in which these guys entered the program.  Remember how pissed everyone was with RR's OL recruiting. 

Anytime you see a back go from 1,000 yard in one season, then, without an injury or a new OC, drops to virtually nothing, you can be sure that it is the OL that isn't performing.  I don't think anyone really appreciated how much Molk meant to this team, and to the offensive performance in particular.  Remember the Sugar Bowl, when Molk was hobbled and had to sit out the beginning of the game?  Remember how anemic the offense looked?  I am all for coaching, but at some point, like say 4-5 years in the program, if you're not getting any better, I think it's on you, not the coach.

ole luther

October 28th, 2012 at 7:11 PM ^

for actually posting without calling someone a fucking idiot or asking what they were watching, 

I agree with you 100%. Have always believed that the trenches is where a game is controlled, but, I'd like to see an attempt at adaptation.

This game sucked because it seemed that anything that could go wrong, did.

Bad passes, no holes, dropped passes, bad calls.....hard to sustain anything when fighting all of that.

We are now seeing just how much we miss Molk!


October 28th, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

The University of Michigan should hire a quaterback coach.

The rest of my venting will be mostly directed at UM football fans that like to pretend how much more knowledgable they are than other fans, etc. etc. etc.

I love Denard. He's a once-in-a-generatior talent, and i'll win and lose with him. They'll be some loses because he has deficiencies (perhaps correctable with a QB coach). But for Denard to be successful, the offense pretty much has to be designed around him. And on this blog, most have bitched up a storm when Borges tries to do normal football things like establish a vertical passing game. Whenever Borges deveates from the script of designing the offense around Denard, he sucks. Well, this is what you get when that offensive design loses Denard.

Oh sure, Bellomy looked awful. Hard not to look awful when Nebraska is playing video game defense: just overload blitz again, and again, and again. Where would his meaningful snaps have come from? Two top five teams in the OOC schedule, and a starting QB that still needs refinement in his senior season.

Also, it will take more than a year or two to climb out of the recuriting black hole and be a team where injuries to stars or near stars mean replacement with the next star or near star.

Bill the Butcher

October 28th, 2012 at 3:03 PM ^

But if we hire a QB coach we have to get rid of one of the other assistant coaches because we are only allowed to have 1 head coach and 9 assistants which we currently have.  So you would have to eliminate a position coach in order to bring in a QB coach.  Unless you are talking about bringing in a new OC who is also a QB coach.

Sione's Flow

October 28th, 2012 at 2:42 PM ^

I think the offense will start to click once we stop trying to turn Denard into a pocket passer.  How many time last night when he stood, and stood, and stood in the pocket, could he have taken off and got some meaningful yards.  Denard wants to play QB in the NFL, but I don't think it will happen, so stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.  If Denard is in the pocket for more than 3 seconds, he should bolt.