Outback Bowl Snowflake Thread

Submitted by justingoblue on January 1st, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Individual thoughts on the game go here. New threads about the game not containing news that is threadworthy or some kind of (relatively) complex analysis will be deleted for the rest of the evening.

Comments

woomba

January 1st, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^

I did enjoy seeing all those USC players on the sidelines looking banged up near the end of the game...Michigan definitely did not get 'out physicaled'.

Cold War

January 1st, 2013 at 5:50 PM ^

  1. Whatever Floyd and Hagerup did, I hope it was worth it. Sparty or Ohio would  have played them. But we didn't, that's why we're Michigan.
  2. We're short on talent and it's young. Proud of how this  team battled against a superior opponent.
  3. It felt great to be rooting for Michigan on New Year's Day in a great game against a top ten opponent.
  4. The future is bright.
  5. Lewan > Clowney, and the scouts saw this, despite the game MVP.
  6. I will miss Denard greatly, my favorite Wolverine ever.
  7. When the offense screws up, it's Borges' fault. When the defense screws up, Mattison is blameless.

GoBlueInIowa

January 1st, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^

I understand the comments regarding Floyd (even though I doubt he would have really made the difference), but the Countess comments confuse me - I understand that is is good, but we lost him during the Bama game - you might as well state that If X player that graduated last year would have redshirted, then we would have won.

An Angelo's Addict

January 1st, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^

my snowflakes:

1) Pass rushing linemen greatly needed. Also, people that can tackle a QB when they are already hanging on would be nice

2) Secondary really needs to improve, hopefully countess comes back healthy and improved from his injury

3) Gardner really likes Gallon as a WR, it would be helpful to have any other options at WR next year/ moving forward

4) RB needed badly

5) Defense cost us this game but will be better next year and so should this team as a whole

Don

January 1st, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^

and played like an 8-4 team. We didn't play horribly and did some things well, but we didn't make enough clutch plays to win. Our inability to get a sack on the last drive when we had the QB in our grasp twice was just a killer to watch.

It's mystifying why we can't make more use of Funchess.

Leonhall

January 1st, 2013 at 8:12 PM ^

We played like an 8-4 team and it was gut-wrenching not being able to sack that qb at the end. Tht being said, we desperately need Deveon Smith to be the real deal as well as get better rush on the qb more consistently without having to blitz everyone. As far as Funchess goes...my guess is he isn't real good at remembering plays or they don't trust him with blocking etc. I would imagine next year he could be pretty damn effective.

Dutch Ferbert

January 1st, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^

Here are some real positives:

1. Denard all time rushing QB rusher (although he would rather have the W)

2. SC is a more talented team, yet we hung with them and we are stocking up on talent.

3. I was afraid of a collapse like the Mississippi St. game, yet our guys hung in there and played their asses off.

4. Borges called a game that put up 28 (30 without two missed conversions) against a SEC defense.

5. My pizza just arrived and I'm hungry.

Class of 1817

January 1st, 2013 at 5:55 PM ^

With very few exceptions, everything was there except veteran talent.

We end the season 8-5, with the Great RR Experiment all but done. Carr had 5 seasons with 4 or more losses. I think the coaches did a fantastic job of coaching these kids up.

The players played their hearts out and I couldn't be more proud of them.

It will be at least a decade before we see another 8-5 season.

Go Blue and see you next season for Team 134.

BlueArcflash

January 1st, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^

Another year of embarassing safety play. Sure Kovacs is a good story and all, but good stories still can't cover deep receivers. Until the safeties in particular are addressed, the defense will continue to lose close games.

mgeoffriau

January 1st, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^

 

This was originally posted elsewhere -- apologies for including info that's old hat to people here.
 
 
 
That game was painful, then nerve-wracking, then joyous, and then finally, painful again. 5-loss seasons are what cost Lloyd Carr his job. But consider.
 
Of the 5 losses:
 
1. Alabama. A drubbing, sure, but to the BEST TEAM EVER.
2. Notre Dame. Hurt more at the time when nobody thought ND was that good, but we turned the ball over 7 times and only lost 13-6 to a team that will be playing for the national championship.
3. Nebraska. Despite losing our starting QB who accounts for some 80% of our offense, this game was winnable until the very end.
4. Ohio State. A one-possession loss against an Urban Meyer team that finished the year undefeated and would be playing for a national championship if they weren't ineligible.
5. South Carolina. A 2-loss Top-10 ranked SEC team needed a TD with 11 seconds to go to beat us.
 
We were spoiled by Hoke's first year. We weren't as good as our record, and we knew it. If Hoke goes 6-6 in his first year, and then 8-5 this year with 4 (mostly) close losses to Top 10 teams, we're ecstatic and feeling good about the future.
 
It should also be noted that Hoke accomplished this with a roster diminished by Carr and Rodriguez's recruiting failures and further depleted by players leaving during the coaching changes. We were playing true freshmen at key positions. The best talent we had left was recruited to play in RichRod's spread offense, and somehow Borges made it work, mostly, for 2 years. 
 
Moreover, this year we lost our best (and by most eyes, our only decent) cornerback in the first game, and then our starting tailback and our starting quarterback later in the season.
 
Hoke has brought in 2 excellent recruiting classes -- his first class was ranked #21, and the second was ranked #2. Eventually these kids will be ready and will contribute. We'll actually have depth at key positions.
 
This game will sting for a while, but I'd still like to say thank you for the effort from Brady Hoke, Greg Mattison, Al Borges, the rest of the Michigan coaching staff, and most of all Denard Robinson and the rest of Team #133. Big things are ahead.
 
 
 
 
 
Forgot to mention another name: Jordan Kovacs. The whole "walk-on to Michigan starter" thing has been covered more than enough by the media, but it's worth mentioning one more time. In a time when Michigan's defense was struggling -- not just struggling by Michigan's standards, but struggling not to be the worst defense in college football -- Kovacs turned himself into a leader on defense and a legit college safety. His talent level will be picked apart by NFL draft experts, and they may be right. But whatever role he finds in the NFL, whether it's on defense or special teams, you can rest assured he will be giving 100% effort on every play.
 
Denard Robinson and Jordan Kovacs will be two of my favorite Michigan players for a long, long time. 

goblue1213

January 1st, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^

How many guys on this team gave verbals to Carr? They would have to be redshirt seniors? That's probably only 5-7 guys right? The biggest downfall to this team was the lack of defensive playmakers and proper teaching of technique under Rich. Hoke and Mattison are rectifying that though. They only have one and a half classes of their own recruits on campus. The future is bright!

jmblue

January 1st, 2013 at 6:41 PM ^

5-loss seasons are what cost Lloyd Carr his job

Carr didn't get fired, if that's what you're implying. He retired on his own. In fact, he wanted to retire a year earlier and Bill Martin begged him to stay on another year.

(Speaking of which, some "insiders" have said that if Carr had retired in 2006, the first guy we'd have looked at was . . . Mark Dantonio.  If true, that might explain the gigantic chip he has on his shoulder about us.  Is he pissed off that the job he really wanted came open only one year after he went to MSU?)

 

mgeoffriau

January 1st, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^

...it was originally posted elsewhere with some old-hat info condensed for a non-Michigan audience.

I'm not implying that Lloyd Carr was fired -- only that if he hadn't suffered a string of 4 and 5 loss seasons, he would likely have coached several seasons longer than he did. That's my opinion, only. Most coaches don't just up and retire if they are still among the elite.

The phrase "cost him his job" was poorly chosen, though, and I'd agree it makes him sound like he was fired.

jmblue

January 1st, 2013 at 6:51 PM ^

Carr was 62 and reputedly suffering from some health issues when he retired.  For a guy to step down at that age, after 13 years at an elite program, is not surprising in the least.   College coaches work 100-hour weeks during the season, have to recruit basically 365 days a year, and face intense scrutiny.  The toll that all takes is pretty heavy.  Nowadays, if you can get a decade out of a coach, that's pretty good.

 

Perkis-Size Me

January 1st, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^

We've got a lot to work on, but there were some great positives to take away:

-Hung tough with a top-10 SEC team, led them for a decent chunk of the game.

-Did not get out-physicaled.

-The defensive line looked good. It will only get better.

-Denard owns the record.

-Gallon looked real good today.

-The team did not quit when it could have. They gave South Carolina all it could handle, and made their fans have a much more uneasy day than they thought they would have.

-Aside from absolutely leveling V. Smith (one of the hardest hits I've ever seen in a football game), the O-Line forced Clowney into a relatively quiet day.

TeddyGB

January 1st, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^

If you look closely the QB was about to go down if Black holds onto him and flass down but instead he tried to spin tackle him and helped him stay on his feet. I watched the play over 10 times and it will keep me up all night... HE HAD HIM IF HE JUST GOES DOWN WHEN HE MADE CONTACT AAAAAAAAAAAAH its almost as bad as the near block in the Rose Bowl against Texas.

Drbogue

January 1st, 2013 at 6:26 PM ^

Have to say the SC fans were pretty cool. I'll take a close bowl game over a blowout any day, win or lose. This season proved to me that the rebuilding process is in the right direction. Consistent improvement all year (except 2 quarters against Nebraska). Go Blue! Great season 133, looking forward to 134

k1400

January 1st, 2013 at 6:33 PM ^

- Al Borges..... I'll give him a B-.  First two drives an F, but he came out of it.  I would have preferred more plays to get the ball to Denard in space.  And I wonder why Funchess was bascially non existant.

- Lewan.... Great job against Clowney.  Wish he could stay another year, but CHA CHING is pretty loud. 

- Gardner..... made some great throws, and some great plays with his feet.  He missed 6 wide open receivers, at least two of those on 3rd down plays that would have resulted in 1st downs.  Felt like he hung on to the ball too long at times.  Looking forward to seeing what he can do next year with full focus on being a QB. 

- Gallon.... slot ninja turned into stud.  Played fantastic.

- Mattison....I'll give him a C because his secondary got lit up, and at the end of the day that's on him.  Pick your poison though: blitz and hope your guys get there in time, or sit back and get nickle/dimed.  I was glad he was aggressive.  Our D line crashed in on the QB a lot, and almost made enough plays at the end to win.  

- D Rob.... looked good as a RB.  Wish they'd have got him the ball out in space more.  Would have been interesting to see him return a kick.  Love that kid, miss him already.  I hope he goes to a good team that can use his talents, probably situationally.  Hard to see him being an every down player, but he has been proving people wrong his whole career.

k1400

January 1st, 2013 at 8:48 PM ^

The results on the field are an acceptable way of judging a coaches performance with respect to an individual game. 

B- for Borges because I thought he could have done a better job of being creative about getting Denard the ball in space, and because we lost.

I agree the players make (or don't make) the plays.  Coaches have to put players in the best position to make plays.  Mattison chose to be aggressive, I would have done the same thing. The results for the D were half good, half bad:  front played pretty well but ultimately needed to make one or two more plays and didn't, and the secondary got lit up.  Sounds like a C to me.

 

 

jmblue

January 1st, 2013 at 8:59 PM ^

B- for Borges because I thought he could have done a better job of being creative about getting Denard the ball in space, and because we lost.

So if our defense could have gotten a stop on South Carolina's final possession, you'd have given our offensive coordinator a higher grade?  

 

k1400

January 1st, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^

No.  An offensive coordinator has nothing to do with plays called on defense.  

But I'll retract that single sentance because I see  your point.

 

EDIT:  Basically what I meant is the offense didn't play well enough to win, which contributes to a lower grade. 

funkywolve

January 1st, 2013 at 10:57 PM ^

How much of that is poor play calling versus poor execution by the players?  I thought Borges called a good game.  As others have mentioned, Gardner did OK.  He missed a handful of receivers who were open that would have been big gainers.  UM's offense also had a few penalites at really bad times.