POSITIVE Quick Hits - Wiscy

Submitted by ATLWolverine on November 20th, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Well, we just lost convincingly to the best team in the Big Ten. That being said, I noticed a lot of positive/neutral things in this game and I'd be curious to know what you all think as well. Please save bitching, sarcasm and FIRE RROD for other threads. This thread is meant to be a change of pace from the tsunami of negativity otherwise on the board.


That being said:


- Denard broke 2 NCAA records today: He is the first 1500/1500 NCAA QB in history, and now holds the NCAA major college single-season rushing record for a QB


- Michigan scored 28 pts in a half against Wisconsin-- perhaps we were more warmed up by then, or Denard's deep ball was finally falling? Either way, hopefully we can carry some momentum forward to next week


- The defense forced 2 turnovers against a team with 7 on the season (!)


- Drew Dileo and Darryl Stonum were returning kickoffs more so than Gallon. Following the injury to Stonum I think we see why he doesn't regularly return them, but after seeing Gallon's fumble, I think we might be seeing a turn towards the safer and more reliable Dileo.


- No disastrous picks from Denard in this game; his balls batted by Watt were unfortunate, but not dangerously thrown. The facepalm underthrown balls of the past few weeks were greatly cut down this week.


- Denard did a better job with QB draws and otherwise attempting to run when everyone was covered this week. It was a refreshing positive to see the coaching staff notice and presumably address his poor (non) running habits during designed pass plays this week.


- We were in a horrifying position at the end of the first half following Gallon's fumble inside our 30, but James Rogers baited Tolzien to throw and then picked off the pass, preventing a sure TD. Nice to see some mindgames being played by our secondary for a change; bodes well for the development. Also, way to respond! Our defense has heart/swagger this year even when things are going badly.


What else did y'all notice about the game in the positive/neutral category?



November 20th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^

people were booing the decision to run out the 30 seconds with three timeouts down 24-0.  It may have been the right decision, but I was irritated too.  At that point you need a touchdown to keep the game within reach.  Unfortunately with our defense, a comeback was all but impossible.  This team needs to play lights out the whole game to beat the fuckeyes.  

While we're talking coaching decisions, why was V Smith still in the game when Tate came in for that last drive?  Hopefully the injuries weren't as bad as it seemed and we can go down to [rapist-murderer] and pull off the upset of the decade.  Go Blue.

Magnum P.I.

November 20th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

but how do you determine whether the team fought hard until the end of the game? The defense allowed Wisconsin to run the ball every play in the second half except for one (the UW fumble) and run it effectively. UW ran 32 times in the second half for 173 yards (5.4 ypc). We forced zero punts despite near certitude that they were running. I would argue that the defense did not play particularly aggressively in the second half.


November 20th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^

A team getting blown out at halftime running out of the tunnel with fire in its belly is a well-coached team. These losses take a lot out of us, but it's nice to know that it's not just the uniforms and the banner-- these guys are true Michigan Wolverines, through and through.


November 20th, 2010 at 3:28 PM ^

If a team comes out late in the season at half of a blowout and quits...then you fire the coach.....this team did not and that is a sign of good chemistry with the staff and team.  Good things to come!!!!!!!!!


November 20th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

I'm positive that this is a team in need of some defensive recruits. 

I'm positive there will be a number of highly freaked out threads today.

I'm positive I'll be drinking more Lowenbrau.


November 20th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^

Ummm...Stonum was returning kicks because Gallon fumbled and got hurt.  And other than Stonum's final play of the day, he actually did a good job of returning.

Were you watching the whole game or just bits and pieces?


November 20th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

What I meant was that he's such a crucial part of our offense, his net benefit to the return game isn't worth the risk he takes in those dangerous special team situations, esp. as evidenced by his being shaken up on his last return. That was case in point for why Gallon is still returning kicks.

By all means he's a great returner, easily the best on the team. He's just more important to the offense.


November 20th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^

and the defense relaxed and Michigan moved the ball.  In all three games against quality teams and PSU the offense struggled until they were three score or more behind.  The only dogfights this team has had is against the weaker competition in the conference.  Yes the defense is a big part of that, but the offense has not played well in the first half of any game against a quality opponent all season.  Illinois had a good defense, but they are still in the bottom third of the B10.

We cannot kid ourselves, this team had made very little REAL progress since last year.  Yes the offense can move the ball at times, but when have been competitive against a quality team this season?

We are most done with the third season and the only thing we have to show for it is a 7-5 season and a weak bowl game.  The game today was embarrassing.


November 20th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^

Because 2 extra wins is FAKE. 7 wins is FAKE. Being 3-1 on the road is FAKE.

The only point your post makes is that our offense still has a long way to go. And it does. But you cannot seriously believe that there has been no progress on offense since last year...because, lol if you do. 

Never forget Denard is a sophomore in his first year as starter. I think a lot of the reason why they come out flat against quality opponents has something to do with that.