Positive Post: All Hail Khoury, Demens, and Forcier

Submitted by Hoken's Heroes on October 17th, 2010 at 10:17 AM

All came off the bench and manned up. Sure, Tate made a few costly mistakes but he did keep UM in the game. Khoury did a great job at center considering the circumstances. And Demens stepped in and filled the gaps and made some great tackles for a team that really is struggling to tackle.

 

addendum: Reason Kovacs isn't listed here is because he started. I am hailing those that came off the bench and performed pretty darn well for not being starters or getting a lot of playing time. But yes, Kovacs did a hell of a job and has a lot of responsibility put on his shoulders considering just how porous the D is. He gets no help what so ever.

Comments

Kvothe

October 17th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^

I doubt Tate would have thrown that last INT if Mouton would have made that open field tackle to get us the ball back.  There were a few minutes left and we would have been down 7 with all three time outs.  Tate wouldn't have had to force the issue down field so much.

Blue Bunny Friday

October 17th, 2010 at 10:47 AM ^

I know there were a lot of them, but the one that I remember being the 'nail' was missed by Avery on a dump off to Adam Robinson on 3rd and 10 with 3:40 to go. He had him for no gain.

The true freshman was in position to make the play and just couldn't bring down a pretty good back. I agree on the Tate what-if though. He got desperate and became way predictable trying to win (Stonum all day!).

e.go.blue

October 17th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^

Dude. It was Courtney Avery, who wears the number 5 now after we got in trouble for having both he and Odoms on the field during a kick return.

I can't blame him for missing the tackle. He's a true freshman CB going up against their #1 RB. That would have been an NFL caliber open-field tackle.

MileHighWolverine

October 17th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

1) The fact that V. Smith fumbled after being barely touched?

2) the fact they called a play for V. Smith to run between the tackles after he has proven he can't do that at ALL?

I vote for 2 and that is ALL on the coaches...

Bronco Joe

October 17th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^

Smith was NOT barely touched - he was engulfed in a bear hug by the tackler. The guy literally squeezed Smith until the ball squirted loose. 

If you want to say he's too small to run up the gut, I'm OK with that (you point, #2), but he was far from barely touched on that play. 

Don

October 17th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^

100% agree with Demens. Nobody should be thinking he's David Harris, but it was revealing that the first two times the PA announcer called out the tackler, it was Demens. Lots of folks sitting around us were saying "Yes! finally some plays from that position!"

According to Sam Webb and Michael Taylor on WTKA this morning, after the first two series, with Demens showing something that's been completely absent from Ezeh's play, all of a sudden Demens is out of the game and Ezeh's back in, and predictably doing poorly. Webb said that RR then ran down the sideline towards Robinson, apparently (paraphrasing Webb's interpretation) basically yelling "Where the @#%@*& is Demens?" Right away, Demens is back in the game.

They also said that Adam Patterson played the entire game, and that Campbell didn't see any snaps on defense.

Assuming that these observations are accurate, I really have to wonder just what's going on with defensive personnel decisions. I'm not trying to say that Campbell deserves to be a starter, but not giving him any opportunities to play whatsoever when we're a bit small on the d-line to begin with and going against a big, physical OL to boot is more than a little mystifying to me. Taking out Demens after he proved in the first two series that he brings more to the field than Obi is ever going to is just plain bizarre, and it seems that RR might have shared that view.

I don't know if Robinson is the one who makes those on-field decisions on who to put out there and who not to, but as DC he has ultimate responsibility. The inability to figure out that Ezeh was never going to be more than he's shown, and that it was entirely warranted to try somebody else before this game is an alarming fact. It makes it a bit difficult escape the nagging suspicion that RR's selection of Robinson for DC is not the best decision he could have made. I hope the next three games prove that suspicion is unfounded.

CalGoBlue

October 17th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

That's Correct.  My question  is: Is this a technique issue that should have been resolved through coaching.  He's had 1 1/2 seasons, two fall practices, and one spring practice to fix this.  Is this something curable through coaching or not?

Humen

October 17th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^

Tate was great. Demens was equally excellent. Khoury played well. Penn State should be an excellent tune up (dare I say that?) and hopefully we can steal one from Wisconsin/OSU. The moral of the story: if Michigan plays well, they can win any game. If they do not play well, they are still not good enough to play poorly and win.

Bronco Joe

October 17th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^

The moral of the story: if Michigan plays well, they can win any game. If they do not play well, they are still not good enough to play poorly and win.

And that is why better days are coming. Young teams lack maturity, discipline, and consistency. Some things you have to grow into.

Could not have said it better. 

JNewberg24

October 17th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^

as usual and was way out of position and over ran the play. Avery had ARob lined up but missed horribly. Back technique that I am sure Gibson taught him. The poor mechanics from our secondary is all on the coach. Gibson is a terrible coach and it is costing these kids a lot. Thanks RR for keeping that clown around. 

e.go.blue

October 17th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^

You idiot. How many times do we have to repeat this before it sinks in: Avery is a true freshman who's been coached up by Gibson for all of a few months. If it weren't for the extremely extenuating circumstances, he wouldn't even be on the field in any capacity, and Coach Rod has said as much.

willywill9

October 17th, 2010 at 10:53 AM ^

Sans the turnovers and CRAPPY kickoffs, isn't anyone else impressed with how Michigan played...even defensively?  This team is getting better, the W/L column doesn't evidence this the last two games, but I still think they're on the right track...almost there...

Don

October 17th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

It's a real Jekyll-and-Hyde defense... good enough to force a good number of third-and-longs over the last two weeks, and bad enough to allow repeated drive-sustaining conversions. As frustrating as it is for us to watch, it's got to be mind-numbingly worse for the players and coaches.

willywill9

October 17th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^

I see what you mean, the defense has been so bad, that during yesterday's game when Michigan forced Iowa to punt, my girlfriend (knows almost nothing about football) looks to me and says "Is that the first time Michigan has done that all year?"  I laughed and thought... oh crap, is it?  But seriously though, Michigan made some big stops, and while we gave up a couple of easy touchdowns, Michigan's D held their own.  The D obviously must improve, but I think it started to yesterday.  There's obviously a long way to go, but I saw some baby steps yesterday.

bjk

October 17th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

the defense was young and inexperienced at certain positions. I thought we were actually fortunate to start the game with two three-and-outs. I think the D has played as well as they would need to to win the last two games if the O would not cough up the ball and hand the bad guys the ball in relatively easy scoring position, or leave the field early because of penalties and leave the D on the field series after series with a losing score.

The D is not good enough to pull us out of games where the O fails to score and gives the opponents opportunities. Cleaning up offensive penalties and turnovers is where we need the short-term improvement.

funkywolve

October 17th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^

It's almost a false hope.  I think both MSU and Iowa started the games real conservative offensively to kind of feel out the UM defense.  Once both of these teams started to open up the play book, the floodgates opened and they scored points on almost every drive.

PDX_Blue

October 17th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

We'd need to be in a position to win or be competitive for me to be impressed.  I'm not going to parse plays and try to find positives like "Lewan has nice footwork" or "Demens made a play".  I watch a team and this team isn't competitive with quality teams.

D'Antonio has been at MSU for one more year than RR has been at UM and we were throttled in that game.  Unless you want to argue that he inherited a roster that was many times better than what RR inherited, you can only conclude that RR has not done as good of a coaching job as D'Antonio. 

MGolem

October 17th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^

Will Campbell must have boinked Rich Rod's wife or daughter to not see the field with Martin out. I like the fact that Patterson has hung on for five years and is seeing some PT but he is undersized by what 30 pounds at least. Can't they at least give the big guy a shot to see if he is capable?