RR won't be beat...yup
October 11th, 2009 at 12:38 AM ^
Thank you. This such a young team
Fuck MgoIdiots
October 11th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
I don't think we're quite as young as everybody keeps insisting, but yes, we will be great next year.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:05 AM ^
Of the 125 players on the team, 89 are freshmen or sophomores. That's very young.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:14 AM ^
True, of course you're also including redshirt sophomores.
However, look at who is actually seeing the field:
Veteran OLine, veteran RBs, half-veteran D-line, veteran LBs, 1/2 veteran DBs.
I mean, come on. Are there really college football teams that have 100% juniors and seniors at every position, every single year? This is college football, not the NFL. You only get 4 years to play.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:17 PM ^
Are there really college football teams that have 100% juniors and seniors at every position, every single year?
That's a straw man. I never argued that there was.
Some of the upperclassmen we're playing quite frankly aren't that good. If we had more depth in the upper classes, some of them wouldn't be starting or at least would be pushed harder in practice by the competition. Unfortunately, we're so young overall that a lot of the guys on the team probably aren't physically or mentally ready to be college football players, so we have to play mediocre upperclassmen. That will change in the coming years.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^
Which upperclassmen wouldn't be starting if there was more depth? I'm not asking this to be a jerk. I'm seriously wondering. The upperclassman (juniors and seniors) that are starting are as follows:
Ortmann, Schilling, Moosman, Dorrestein, Minor, Mathews, Graham, Ezeh, Mouton, S. Brown, Warren, Woolfolk.
With the exception of Dorrestein (who is only playing because of an injury), I think most of those guys would be starting, anyway. They're all performing pretty well.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
The only guys on that list that I consider top-flight talents are Graham, Warren, and Minor/Brown. Woolfolk shows some promise but is still largely a question mark.
I wouldn't say Ezeh or Mouton is playing well. They get a lot of tackles because of the nature of their position, but they're probably below-average by Big Ten standards, let alone our historical standards. They're slow to react, don't cover well and are poor at shedding blocks. Unfortunately, there isn't much beneath them in the depth chart to push them.
I look at all the linemen other than Molk as functional at best. They're hardly stars. Our scheme, and the mobility/improvisation of Forcier, makes them look better than they are. Quick DEs in particular have been giving us fits.
Mathews is a solid player, but not a star. He has good hands (though I think we overrate them a little) but has a tough time getting separation. I'd like to see us go to him a little more on 3rd downs, but he's not good enough to be a #1 WR (but unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone else is, else).
October 11th, 2009 at 1:32 AM ^
but simply gaining experience does not make a team better. The deficiencies in defensive speed and talent (linebackers and especially in the secondary) on this year's team are not going to simply disappear; let alone the loss of Graham (and potentially Warren) whose talent alone has carried the defense so far this year. I know it's something RR prides himself on but I simply do not feel comfortable with walk-ons playing significant roles on a big 10 defense.
Offensively, experience can be a great thing, especially for the quarterbacks who will undoubtedly improve as they gain a better understanding of RR's offense. Losing Minor will be a much bigger hit than people realize - his power and short yardage prowess has been taken for granted the last 2 years.
I hate to be negative but simply saying we are automatically going to be better because some of our skill players and young defenders are going to be upper-classmen and will gain experience is not enough to translate to wins on the field.
If you wish to merely neg feel free but I would love to hear what everybody thinks about these issues?
October 11th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
Where do we lack speed? With Woolfolk playing corner, the only guy with below-average speed for his position is Kovacs at safety.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
How about Mike Williams, Brandon Herron, and Ryan Van Bergen,
plus throw in Ezeh frequently out of position and you have 4 guys.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
Ryan Van Bergen is slow for a defensive tackle?
Brandon Herron, who reportedly runs a 4.4, is slow for an OLB/DE?
Mike Williams isn't slow, just inexperienced and out of position. The same goes for Ezeh.
-1
October 11th, 2009 at 12:38 AM ^
That is a true statement. We're on our way...
October 11th, 2009 at 12:39 AM ^
No coach is a God and that includes Rich Rod. Let's not deify RR but obviously this loss isn't on him.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:40 AM ^
what the point of this post was...probably a thought you could have kept in your head instead of clogging up the board...
October 11th, 2009 at 12:48 AM ^
the point is that MICHIGAN just probably should have beat Iowa on the road, but they didn't because of their youth. I don't think Iowa will end the year in the top 15, but they are a decent squad. In 1 to 2 years, MICHIGAN wins these games by 10+
October 11th, 2009 at 12:57 AM ^
yea dude...i'm clogging up the board because I posted something right after a loss. You're all over it. Props
October 11th, 2009 at 12:42 AM ^
God I hope you're right. If it doesn't happen as you say it will, I will be disappointed.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:50 AM ^
I agree with you on how strong this team will be in the future but If you think for a moment that Iowa was the better team and should have won that game I have to call insanity!
And here why, we had 4 turnovers before the last int. 1 turnover was on a drive we probably would have scored on, 1 turnover they converted to 3 pts, and another turnover they converted to 7 pts so thats 10 pts for them and a neg 7 for us.
This is where im concerned, with a team far less expierenced, the turnovers, the pts off turnovers and everything that went against us that game we still had the game in our hands and yet failed to win for the second week in a row. Great coaches and teams win those games. You can talk about the future all you want but at the end of the day all we have is the past and the present to help us guestimate what the futre holds.
Both those games were not won by the oposing teams, they were lost by this team and the coaches. Last year we got beat this year in the 2 games we have lost we beat ourselves, we should have won both those games. I have to say decisions made by coaches cost us both those games period, that concerns me for our future.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:51 AM ^
I agree, Michigan will be tough to beat in the upcoming years when our team are no longer full freshmen but full of juniors and seniors. If we look like this now, I have high hopes for our future.. and if not, well it can't be as bad as last year, right?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^
I mean were young... but we lose a lot of guys this year... Graham and Brown on defense and on offense we lose minor, brown, mathews and ortmann? not sure about ortmann
October 11th, 2009 at 1:08 AM ^
I wouldn't consider that "a lot." You've named six of the 44 players in the two-deep.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:53 AM ^
It has to be extremely frustrating for Rich to coach this team. We will see, from here on out this season, what he's made of as a coach. he's got to get this team regrouped and build up their confidence.
in particular, he's got a bit of a touchy situation with these QB's. he can't bail on Tate at this point, but it's clear Denard needs more reps if he's going to continue to be a QB. it will be interesting to watch him balance things.
also, as a side note, what are our thoughts on Calvin Magee's playcalling at this point? I'd be interested to know how much of the offensive plan is CM's vs RR.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:54 AM ^
anyone know?
October 11th, 2009 at 1:09 AM ^
Schilling is a redshirt junior. He'll be back next year.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:55 AM ^
he calls a majority of the plays.... I remember hearing that.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:58 AM ^
Why is everyone making excuses for Rich Rod now? i want to love the guy, but it is hard. We are 4-2, and that is better than last year. but we could easily be 2-4. ND was a last minute win, and so was indiana (and they got blown away by virginia today if that says anything). so why are we so happy making excuses for why we lost? we lost!!! yea we had 5 turnovers. but imagine a lloyd carr team having 5 turnovers....you would all be blaming lloyd.
rich rod did making michigan fun to watch. but did you see arkansas today? mallet threw it all over the place. so what did rich rod really bring to the table? he makes the team more exciting, but yet we still lose?
i am drunkg and venting. hopefully it is coherent.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:16 AM ^
But it is a bit ridiculous for everyone to neg people who complain about Tate being benched for the final drive. It was a horrible decision and it was all RichRod. It is what it is at this point, but you don't put a running QB in with under 2 minutes left. I would have rather have seen Sheridan at that point.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:35 AM ^
You'd rather see SHERIDAN? NICK SHERIDAN? A guy who has seen all of like 2 snaps all season? Over a guy who had just led our team on a TD drive when every drive had stalled over the previous drives in under 3 minutes! Really? Wow.... Um... yeah....
No, I will respectfully disagree with you and agree with coach RR on this one. You stick with the guy who GOT YOU TO EVEN BEING WITHIN A TD.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:48 AM ^
i would not have been happy to see Sheridan, but putting in DRob in that situation was a mistake in my opinion mainly because of the clock. Also, I will have to go back to see the DRob drive thought it was more like 4 minutes, but felt like 5. I guess I need to really watch the game again with some perspective. During the game, I didn't really feel like it was something wrong with Tate, but rather with the rhythm on offense, it was disrupted too many times by turnovers. I also think that RR had already made his point with Tate and if does seem to be a little bit childish on his part if his decision was in any way because of his feud with Tate. i don't know what has gone on behind the scenes though, maybe there is a valid reason he needs to show he is in control even if it doesn't give us the best chance to win the game. I certainly don't blame anyone specifically for the loss and was happy to even be in the game, but I do wish I could have watch Tate run the two minute drill.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^
No, you don't. You stick with the guy who can pass the ball and has been making fourth quarter comebacks every single game.
You can't honestly say at this point that putting Denard in for that final drive was the best choice. Besides the reason that it doesn't make any sense...
Tate: 3 fourth quarter comebacks to tie/win the game out of 3 chances
Denard: 0 fourth quarter comebacks out of 1 chance
It was a bad move at the time, and it was a bad move in retrospect.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
And you want this kid out there for the final drive?
DR EARNED THE RIGHT to be out there for that final drive. He earned it on the field Tate didn't.
I completely agree (again) with TOB @ GS geniunelysarcastic.blogspot.com
October 11th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^
So because Denard Robinson played well on one drive against Iowa, that totally negates the fact that Forcier has been Captain Comeback for the previous 5 weeks of the year?
October 11th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
Read tobs post
October 11th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
Robinson hasn't done it (passing-wise) ANY week.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
And if you never give him the chance, he never will.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^
I'd rather give him a chance to prove he can pass against Delaware State than on the decisive drive with a minute and change left, on the road against Iowa.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^
And his throws were always off, thrown away or into double coverage. Dr proved on the second to last drive that he deserved to be in the game. Trial by fire and we got burned. We had 4 turnovers before that final drive and were down by 2 to question the gameplan is ridiculous because obviously it was mental errors by a young team
October 11th, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^
I'm not getting dragged into the Tate vs Denard debate. All I'm saying is there are and were better opportunities for us to give Denard a chance to prove himself throwing the ball than on the last drive down two with a minute and change left at an Iowa night game.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^
By the way, if Denard proved himself on the second-to-last drive where his go-to pass was that sprint right option-type play, then consider me proven as well. That pass that he completed twice is about as easy of a throw as a QB can make. His other throw was completed on that drive, but it was an ill-advised pass back across his body that was almost intercepted. I know "almost" doesn't count, but I don't think any coach would suggest making that throw very often.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
Who said anything about never giving him a chance?
I'm just saying he shouldn't have been given a chance against a tough pass defense on the road in the cold against the #12 team in the country at night when we needed 80 yards for a TD/60 yards for a FG with 1:30 left and no timeouts.