Pages

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Notre Dame 13, Michigan 6

This will not end well. (image via USA Today)
I wish I were wrong.  I pretty much had the lowest score prediction in the Michigan blogosphere, and even I didn't expect the sloppy snoozefest that occurred on Saturday night.  I was criticized on my game preview for picking a 24-20 score because the offenses were powerful and the defenses weren't.  Well . . . we saw what happened.  The defenses were okay, but the offenses aren't where they should be for either school.  Notre Dame should be more explosive for offensive genius Brian Kelly, and Michigan should be better with a senior quarterback.  Brian at MGoBlog sort of criticized my understatement that this would be Denard's worst game against Notre Dame, but I guess I wasn't clear enough; the pressure up front was bound to make Denard jumpy.  I just expected more breakdowns in the defensive backfield.

Denard Robinson is a terrible (passing) quarterback.  He was, is, and probably always will be.  I have been saying this for years.  He's capable of good games (Ohio State in 2011, for example), but that's not the norm when he faces decent teams.  Over the past two seasons, he has 26 touchdowns and 23 interceptions. Last night he was 13/24 for 138 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 4 interceptions; he also fumbled twice and got sacked 3 times.  There's no excuse for the poor decisions he makes, the poor footwork, the turnovers, and the inaccuracy.  Even his Hail Mary interception at the end of the first half was terrible because he overthrew every single dude on the team; you're not trying to beat the opponent deep in that situation - you're trying to complete the pass and get yards after the catch.  And all that stuff happened with Notre Dame missing starting safety Jamoris Slaughter and starting corner Lo Wood.

Vincent Smith and Al Borges d'oh.  Michigan was moving the ball really well at one point in the first quarter, and then Al Borges had to go ahead and call that play where Vincent Smith throws the ball to the other team.  That was a huge turning point in the game, because it seemed Michigan was on its way to scoring before that play.  Of course, Smith should know better than to throw it, but he's a running back.  Hell, Michigan's actual quarterback threw four picks of his own, so who's to say that Denard wouldn't have made the same poor decision?  I thought Borges called an okay game, but that was a huge, huge mistake.

Hooray for Jeremy Gallon.  I thought Gallon was pretty consistent throughout the night in all phases of the game.  He made good decisions on punt returns, ran well after the catch, and had a couple nice designed runs.

J.T. Floyd rabble rabble rabble.  He did not have a good game.  He is not good.  I take that back.  He isn't good at covering, he isn't good at supporting the run, and he isn't good at taking on blocks.  However, he does have a knack for tackling wide receivers when they catch the ball in front of him.  So there's that.

Freshman safety anger.  I hate hate hate playing freshman safeties.  I've mentioned this before.  All safeties should redshirt or be limited to special teams.  Jarrod Wilson got caught flat-footed in the second quarter and then had to grab onto Tyler Eifert to prevent a touchdown pass.  Pass interference, first down, then touchdown.  Wilson also picked up a holding penalty on the ensuing kickoff.  All that attrition in the defensive backfield over the past few years has really hurt the team.

WTF on Notre Dame's touchdown?  Notre Dame lined up in pro left with trips to the right on the 2-yard line..  Michigan put four guys down with Jake Ryan as the middle linebacker and safety Jordan Kovacs about 7 or 8 yards off the ball.  This is problematic because a) Notre Dame has six blockers to block five guys and b) Jake Ryan isn't a middle linebacker.  Ryan's read step took him to Notre Dame's left (presumably because that's where the uncovered gaps were), but he was also moving backward on the snap.  Quarterback Tommy Rees simply took the shotgun snap and ran right behind his center and right guard, who were double-teaming Quinton Washington.  Washington didn't do a bad job of holding up, but that's just setting up your defense to fail.  Put Desmond Morgan or James Ross in there, and maybe your MIKE has a chance of making the right read.

Jake Ryan's role needs to be re-evaluated.  I think the coaching staff is asking too much of him.  Sometimes he's a SAM linebacker, sometimes he's an inside linebacker, and sometimes they put him at defensive end, even in running situations.  He can't hold up at defensive end against the run.  Leave him on the edge and then move him around in obvious passing situations to get after the quarterback.  He's a quality player in some aspects, but he's not a freak athlete that can be moved around at will.

Where is Michigan now? Out of the top 25.  And that's probably where they deserve to be.  They were overrated to begin the year, and now they're probably in the range where they deserve to be.  The loss of Junior Hemingway has hurt because Denard doesn't have a go-to guy, and the lack of playmakers on the defensive line has turned this into a mediocre defense.  The linebackers and safeties are fine, but the defensive line and cornerbacks are weaknesses right now.

56 comments:

  1. Poor game from Borges/Hoke. Needed to modify the game plan based upon Denard in game actions. Keep slamming your head against the wall expecting the unexpected??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't think Borges did a bad job overall, but the halfback pass and a couple other plays were poor choices. Nobody's perfect, though.

      Delete
  2. I kept thinking that these are two adequate football teams and not much more.

    I thought their front seven was pretty good, I'm pretty sure I thought our D line was better than Thunder does.

    It felt to me like we were hitting people which is a feeling I haven't had in some years, including last year.

    I thought that on numerous occasions that Denard could have pulled it down beat one guy and gone for 6 or 8 yards, maybe more ..... this is Denard we're talking about after all. That he didn't is coaching I'm sure and while I understand the rational regarding keeping Denard healthy and hanging in there/throwing it away, I'd really like to those yards.

    I do think that on one ball way long, straight down the field, Denard was throwing it away.

    Mostly I think the law of averages finally caught up with us/Denard against the Irish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the defensive line is terrible, but it lacks playmakers.

      Delete
    2. Agreed.

      I thought they did a pretty nice job of keeping it in front of them mostly, creating piles and keeping linemen off our linebackers. I can live with that against Notre Dame who is running decent D1 lineman out onto the field.

      Delete
  3. With all of that being said, what do you see our chances of winning the Big Ten? I had the odds at 50/50 going into the season, and I think the odds have improved modestly since then. Of course, this has more to do with the rest of the Big Ten than Michigan's performance to date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think chances are slim. I still think Ohio State and Michigan State are going to be tough to beat, even if MSU's offense is somewhat stagnant.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe Ohio State is eligible.

      Delete
    3. I think the winner of the U-M vs. MSU game will likely win the Big Ten. Wisconsin will probably pull things together, and I suppose a Purdue or Northwestern could conceivably win this year. At least we get the game at home.

      Delete
  4. I have to confess, I am anxious to see how Brian reconciles Denard's performance with his season-long "Denard is now a good passer" meme.

    6 TD's and 8 INT's in just 4 games as a senior third-year starter...Wow!

    I am reeeallly looking forward to UM having a "real" QB under center again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dread a quarterback under center as I am sick to death of I formation football.

      Delete
    2. I think if you are wondering what Brian thinks, you are already off track. He has been so wrong so many times that, well, who cares anymore? Just because he has built himself an outlet does not mean what he says should be take as anything more than what the average devoted fan thinks. Having an big outlet does not mean he has an accurate or knowledgeable voice. Hell, at least Magnus is or was an actual coach. Did Brian even play football at any level?

      Delete
    3. Denard's continual inability to not throw the ball away or read coverage well, or throw a consistent pass, or have zero pocket presence, or have anything close to resembling proper footwork has absolutely 0 to do with Borges. He's an athlete not a quarterback and any decent defense is going to make him one dimensional and force him to execute. He also holds the ball too long and for the life of me... can't understand why he does not just tuck the ball and run when he has no one open. Last year he was learning a new system but now he should know better than to chuck the ball up and hope for the best.

      Delete
    4. Gotta love the hate Brian gets even on other Michigan blogs. If you don't like his opinion, don't read his site. I don't think he has ever said he is a football expert or anything.

      Delete
    5. I think Brian is a very good writer, and he also does a good job of getting some inside information, reporting news, etc. I don't trust his opinions a great deal on football, but there are better football minds who aren't as interesting to read. As long as people keep the perspective that he's an engineer-turned-football writer, then his football analysis can be digested properly.

      Delete
    6. While I like his site Ok and go there about every third time I come here, I really don't give a rat's patootie what Brian thinks one way or the other.

      I'm sick to death of I formation football.

      I've seen enough to know, I've seen too much.

      Delete
  5. Guess what? Borges's varied career of great offenses and mediocre to bad offenses is showing up here at Michigan. We see his whole previous career exemplified in his first season and a third here. Why should we have expected any different? And, more troublingly, why should we expect any different going forward? Because he will have a QB that is more of 'his' style? Color me very skeptical. A good offensive coordinator is an adaptable one, in which his adaptability produces consistency on the field. I dont see it happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a good offensive coordinator is an adaptable one then we must have a very good offensive coordinator. If you have watched Michigan football at all over the hoke tenure then you would see just how much Borges has adapted. Denard ran the ball 26 frickin times yesterday, what more do you people want? Eventually your quarterback has to be able to throw the ball.

      And to your comment on his adaptability not producing consistency, why dont you look to the quarterback that is held above all else by this delusional fan base. If your qb is as inconsistent as denard from down to down and throw to throw, how then is the OC supposed to show consistency? It amazes me to see the lengths that Michigan fans will go to to absolve denard of any blame because "ZOMG HES DENARD AND HE IS SO AWESOME CAUSE HE IS SO FAST AND HAS SUCH A NICE SMILE AHHHHHHHHH".

      Fan boys need to grow up, the kid is flawed and has always been flawed. There was always a ceiling with him playing qb and that ceiling is not having a chance against good defenses who contain his running ability and force him to beat them through the air. Its unacceptable for a 3rd year starter to make the mistakes and the misreads that Denard has been making.

      The result of this game has nothing to do with Al Borges, the receivers, the O-line Fitz, Hoke, or the defense. This game is solely on Denard and the inexplicable decisions he was making.

      Delete
    2. Why are you criticizing Borges? Michigan converted several key 3rd downs because he made great calls. As for the turnovers, do you think he would've liked Denard to throw any of those four passes? Denard was horrible reverting to his old self time after time last night. In retrospect I do wish we had run more in the first half but I don't think it was Borges fault that Denard couldnt find the open guys, didnt use his athleticism to scramble, and of course not throw four terrible picks...

      Delete
    3. If you think this game was attributable to anything other than poor execution by the players on offense then you didn't watch very closely.

      Delete
    4. How exactly does a good offensive coordinator adapt to having a quarterback who can't throw the ball accurately, take sacks when necessary, or throw away the football? If your answer is running the triple option like Georgia Tech, then I might be with you. Other than that, I'm not sure how much more Borges can adapt.

      Delete
    5. Jesus folks, calm down. Because I laid some blame at Borges' feet does not mean I lay all the blame at his feet. I think he could have called a better game for Denard in this game and in many games in the past. Its pretty commonly accepted, and by Borges himself, that he has not used Denard to the best of Denard's abilities in the past. And I question what that means going forward. I think that is legitimate.

      But make no mistake, Denard lost us this game. Make no mistake - Denard is playing out of position. Make no mistake - its been a mistake to play Denard at QB. Period. And it's a shame for the kid's future - he will be known as a mediocre to bad college QB while also a dynamic yardage machine, and a non-existant NFL QB. And I do lay some of the blame for that at the feet of both Borges and Hoke. They should have moved him to a different position, but its too late now.

      Here - I'll re-post what I posted over at annarbornews.com (under 'edjasbord'), that expresses my thoughts on Denard:

      Denard's is a sad tale to tell: A happy-go-lucky kid feverishly wanting something he will never get, the adults around him all doing their best to give urge him on just so they can selfishly feel good for making the kid smile, for getting some of his attention, for the kid liking them in return. But what the kid wants, and what he can get, are very different. It takes the unselfish, unwavering, and truly caring adults to make the tough decision for the kid - to point him to where he can achieve greatness. Sometimes limitations really are limitations, despite what the outliers and Hollywood lead us to believe.

      Denard will never be a good QB in college or, and especially, in the NFL. He can produce yards like crazy, but he has been in the wrong position doing so. And so he has suffered, as has his teammates and fans. He should have been moved to another position long ago where he could produce yards without all the negatives. And now its too late for him. And that's a very sad thing for such a good kid. And its the adults' fault.

      And guess who one of those adults was that told the kid he should not play QB? That's right, that coach down in Columbus, who recruited Denard for Florida. Hoke has failed him. But Denard sure does like Hoke.

      Delete
  6. I have to also add that the defense played extremely well with the odd breakdowns that Magnus covered. You could see the hats to the ball, and the takling was loads better. Hang on to the damm bal and we win this thing. Man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the tackling was much better. I also think Quinton Washington had a pretty solid game.

      Delete
  7. Having a freshman safety cover the nightmare that is Tyler Eifert was just asking for trouble.

    Despite the complaints about that and JT Floyd and the touchdown, defense really showed up in this game. All those turnovers and still only 13 points?

    Borges deserves some flak for the first quarter, but the rest is really on Denard. This was his worst game as a Wolverine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think this game showed us to be overhyped as much as it did ND... horrible game offensively by both sides. ND thinking they have arrived and using that game as confirmation are in for some surprises down the road... they needed us constantly giving the ball back to them (not them making a ton of great plays)... to win by 7.

    I'm not sure how much blame you can put on Borges; he couldn't have possibly expected Denard to make the flurry of horrible decisions that he did (his only option was to only call running plays). Did Denard have his feet planted on any passes??? The picks weren't even him trying to fit it in an NFL hole, they were just horrible decisions. Many of his completions he put his receivers in a tough spot to even make a catch, forget about yards after catch. Then there are the 12 ft. high passes to the 5.6 recivers!

    I thought we could squeak through this one, with a couple of Denard turnovers as usuall... I had no idea he was capable of a performance this bad his senior year; and now have serious reservations for the rest of the season. And yea, as others have brought up... I hope folks will finally stop/drop the Denard is an accurate passer garbage, and that Denard can play QB at the next level conversations for good. Great kid, not a good passing QB.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gimme a break love how everyone wants to dog borges, with the exception of a few bad play calls.. Denard did throw 5passes to the other team failed to do anything in the redzone how do we blame borges for moving the ball well on the other teams till we either got sacked or gave them the ball.. Half you ppl don't know what to look for in a good/bad play calling game if the team loses we wanna go and talk about how borges hoke mattison can't adapt. I'm pissed and embarrassed about how this "football" game was performed but come on not like we have every piece of the puzzle. Believe we are in year 2 working with sub par players, hate to mention this cause its such a poor man's easy out but RRs recruiting ?? Is catching up with us. Is why hoke is playing so many freshman. Even with how painful the game was we could have destroyed them. Not like Kelly has a powerhouse over there on offense has Thunder says.. Idk what Im getting at a lot of ranting on everywhere I guess leave the staff outta this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Believe we are in year 2 working with sub par players, hate to mention this cause its such a poor man's easy out but RRs recruiting ?? Is catching up with us."

      Well, last year, the Hoke coaching staff were all touted as geniuses because of what they were able to do with a team that went 7-5 the year before.

      At the same time, the anti-Rodriguez grumblers were still grousing about how Rodriguez failed to bend his system to the available talent at QB in 2008. Does that ring a bell?

      -Section 1

      Delete
  10. Hey magnus,

    LOOOOOOOL at seth's column on how Denard is the best passer in the big ten. I was right with you on everything you commented on that thread.

    Its amazing to see the lengths people will go to try and explain away all the bad that comes with denard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must be so much fun at parties. You seem to just hope Denard has a bad game to prove those who are saying he is good wrong.

      Delete
    2. Me stating that it was laughable to claim denard was the best passer in the big ten and correlating it with the rest of the fan base explaining away all of his mistakes by blaming other people does not say anywhere that I hope denard has a bad game. I just call a spade a spade while everyone else calls it a rainbow and blames someone else for the issues. Nice try tho

      Delete
  11. The defense was "ok"? They yielded 239 yards, something like 2-8 on third downs, forced two turnovers, and held Notre Dame to 13 points despite 6 turnovers from the offense. Criticizing the defensive line and J.T. Floyd to this extent seems completely unwarranted and unnecessary. Neither was responsible for this loss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody deserves all the blame. But when Michigan had a chance to get a stop near the end of the game and Floyd allowed a long pass to Eifert, I'd say he deserves a decent sized chunk of the blame.

      Delete
    2. That's just flat out wrong when they would still have to drive the field for a winning touchdown, and then win in overtime as well. Not to mention that Eifert is 6 inches(!) taller than Floyd so even if he was blanketing him he has a distinct advantage. He would need safety help to even have a chance, which is why Notre Dame ran that play in the first place. You're using pre-existing bias against Floyd to shape your view. C'mon Magnus, you're better than that.

      Delete
    3. The problem on that play was simple. Floyd missed his jam. Once he guessed wrong (he thought Eifert was running a quick inside route) and lost his balance, it was game over. I didn't think he played too bad outside of that, he isn't a great cover corner but he is good enough in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. Floyd had other issues in the game, too, with supporting the run and in coverage on other plays. He's the best Michigan has right now at the CB position (with Countess out), but that's not saying a whole lot.

      Delete
    5. The other problem with that play was that we had no safety help because it was only 3rd and 4 and we had to be prepared for a possible run. We really needed to be more stout on 1st and 2nd down against the run and get them in a more obvious passing situation.

      Delete
  12. I would personally disagree that the hb pass was borges' mistake. The play worked and would have been 6 if smith just throws a mediocre to good pass. Unfortunately he threw a tebow style jump pass that was about 5 yards behind the receiver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The play didn't work. It got picked. Nobody picked up Manti Te'o, who forced the hurried pass. Nobody beat it into Smith's head that he shouldn't throw the pass if the guy is well covered and/or if he's hurried. And while Dileo was open for an accurate pass, he wasn't THAT wide open that it's a gimme for a running back.

      Delete
  13. Don't think it would have changed the result of the game but the timekeeper started the clock after the chains were moved twice on first down receptions in the 4th qtr following receptions that were run out of bounds by Gallon and Jerald Robinson. It was a total of 30 seconds. That is absolutely ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Magnus-

    RE: Jarrod Wilson in a red zone defense, and on special teams.

    The play that resulted in pass interference was a package that included not only Wilson, but also Courtney Avery! Whenever I see Wilson on the field, I instinctively look for Avery, because of the unresolved/unexplained story with Raymon Taylor taking over the starting CB job from Avery.

    If indeed there is a package that includes both Wilson and Avery in the defensive set (and who else? Floyd-Taylor-Kovacs-T.Gordon? 6 DB's?) and Mattison really wants that many d-backs on the field, who else other than Jarrod Wilson would go in?

    Also -- I am as surprised as you are, Magnus, with the proliferation of Freshmen on special teams particularly kick returns. I think there are five. That just seems really odd to me. That many young guys.

    Section 1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Other options would be Josh Furman and Delonte Hollowell. I'm not sure they would be any better, but at least they're not true freshmen.

      Delete
  15. Floyd has been a liability for 4 years now and this is the only blog that accurately points that out. I get tired of watching him dance around on the field and show off after a QB overthrows a receiver he is trying to cover. Or going over to mgoblog where everyone tries to defend his play. Let's face it, the guy isn't a Big 10 caliber athlete and never will be. If he wants to act cocky out there he needs to back it up with his play. Hopefully, we can get a lockdown corner on the roster at some point. Losing Countess was a huge blow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Countess, Richardson, and Jourdan Lewis are going to be pretty good. Conley and Stribling have potential. Michigan should be pretty solid at corner in another year or two.

      Delete
  16. People need to calm down. We will be just fine. Everyone knows we were the better team. Mistakes did kill us, otherwise we blow them out. The defense was amazing and I am very encouraged of the effort they put out. The big ten is terrible and we have a very good chance to win the big ten. Msu was overpowered by notre dame and struggled with eastern Michigan. OSU is ineligible this year in case some have forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just curious Thunder. I know you are not JT Floyd fan. Who would you rather see start in his place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody. I'm realistic enough to know that there's nobody better on the roster right now, but his play is still frustrating. I don't want Denard Robinson benched, either, but that doesn't mean his play has been up to par.

      Delete
  18. What did you think of Raymon Taylor's play?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't say that I noticed him a lot, outside of the interception (which was good) and the pass interference (which was bad). Notre Dame took more advantage of Floyd in the passing game, I think, but I'm not sure if that's because Taylor had good coverage or if the plays were just designed to go Floyd's way.

      Delete
  19. I love Denard and all but man, why can't he learn to just throw it away (or better yet, scramble) when his receivers aren't open? I just don't understand why that part of the game is so hard for him. Either the guy's open or he isn't. If he's not, run or throw it out of bounds. The coaches have to be stressing this to him, right?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow - 48 comments. Credit to you Thunder for building up the blog with consistently good content. Have you thought about removing the option of "anon" posts - it's hard to have a coherent dialogue when there are 20 comments from various people with that same (non)name. It takes 2 seconds to write in a name/alias.

    I agree with much/most of the analysis, but criticizing hail mary/jump balls always bugs me. Good or bad you're basically tossing the ball up in the air and hoping. There isn't much skill involved - it's luck. Knocking a guy for hail mary's is pretty silly. If you're going to give Hemingway all the credit for catching jump balls in the past...have it both ways. Either give the passer a, um, pass or don't. But if you're going to criticize poorly thrown hail mary's than you have to also credit well thrown ones and that's something you have clearly NOT done in the past. True or not, it seems like a cheap shot, IMO.

    Having freshman safeties is bad - totally agree with that. That's why I think, as bad as Greg Robinson was - he wasn't as bad as Michigan fans make him out to be. With the personnel he had, he was damned no matter what. He still sucks though.

    In one of the other comments you asked "How exactly does a good offensive coordinator adapt to having a quarterback who can't throw the ball accurately, take sacks when necessary, or throw away the football?" The answer is by a) throwing less and b) throwing more simply. It's pretty obvious right? He's not a guy who should be working through intricate route schemes or shuffling through reads/and progressions. Short throws, easy throws, quick throws. Denard has a good arm, but is susceptible to pressure. Give him easy stuff and don't make him run plays that take a long time to develop.

    The half-back pass wasn't a terrible play call. It wasn't good, but it should/could have worked if Smith wasn't pressured so badly. Can't expect a RB to make great passing decisions though. (insert joke about Denard being a RB.) If it works everyone is happy though and the guy was open - Smith just didn't throw it deep enough and made a terrible decision that proved very costly.

    Taylor was beat on his INT play - it was just an awful throw. One of those things where the guy just got lucky to be at the right place when the opposition messes up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a difference between a Hail Mary and a jump ball. The jump balls to Hemingway last season weren't Hail Marys. They were designed to get the ball to Hemingway, and he was able to outleap the defenders. But there's nobody on the team this year who can consistently make those catches.

      The Hail Mary on Saturday was a Hail Mary. And it was a poorly thrown one.

      You can simply the offense for Denard, but a) you shouldn't have to and b) it's simple to defend. Rodriguez simplified the offense for Denard, and the team bogged down when it played talented defenses. Denard makes bad throws on plays that are simple and complicated alike. The INT thrown past Gardner on Saturday was a simple throw. So was the Hail Mary. There's not much that's easier than hitting a guy on a slant when the throwing lane is unimpeded by a linebacker or tight corner coverage, but that's exactly what happened.

      Thanks for the compliments. I'm glad that the site is getting some significant traffic/comments. I'll think about changing the comment format, but I don't want to discourage people from commenting...

      Delete
    2. That is true that hail-marys and jump balls are different, but they're both about making the ball catchable. If a QB does that, he has done his job -- but I don't see anyone giving Denard credit for all those Hemingway balls last year. Hemingway, of course, has the harder job in that case, but Denard did his part too.

      'You shouldn't have to" simplify the offense is a debatable point. For most senior QBs that have spent 4 or 5 years in the same system that might be true, but most senior QBs can't run like Denard. If Borges is going stubbornly run an offense that requires a precision passer, he might as well bench Denard (which he might have done if a viable alternative was there). What's easy to defend is uncatchable passes. It's easy for a fan to sit say Denard should be more accurate, but we've seen time and time again that when he is pressured he is frequently not. You can say 'he should be' and just keep doing what you're doing or adjust. Make it easier on him, reduce the long-developing stuff, make things quicker and easier. Don't put Denard in a position where his weaknesses are most exposed.

      Good defenses stop good offenses - that's why they're good defenses. Even the Oregon Duck machine got grounded to a halt against LSU. Rodriguez's offense bogged down in large part because it was made up of freshman and sophomores on the OL. The defense is another story but the offense's trajectory was extremely strong.

      Delete
  21. Magnus I think you are being a bit tough on the defense. Sure, they were helped by poor passing by Golson, but they held up well against the run. Beyond that, I think a big reason they folded down the stretch is that they were on the field so much (it happens when your quarterback throws to the wrong team 4 times). It seemed like they were on the field forever in the first half.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I'm being too harsh on the defense. I don't think the defense is terrible; I don't think it's great. Those guys are just okay as a unit. The linebackers and safeties are pretty good; the defensive line played fairly well but didn't make many plays; and the cornerbacks are average at best. I hope the defense for the rest of 2012 looks like it did on Saturday, but nobody's making sacks, forcing turnovers, etc.

      Delete
  22. All the interceptions came in the 1st half - and Michigan ran 66 offensive plays to ND's 50 in the game. Blaming Denard's INTs for the defenses 4th quarter letup is some extremely lazy and thoughtless cliche deployment.

    ReplyDelete