Please don't be douchebags
We're about to lose a game.
To all who are about to complain about RichRod, please don't be douchebags. It's a game we were supposed to lose.
Maybe I'm out of line or just on my toes because of all of the douchebag comments this year after any loss, and if that's the case then just calm down. But I'm pretty sure people are going to be saying "Harbaugh" a whole bunch after the game and if so, I think you should just sit on something pointy and shut the fuck up.
That being said, Go Blue. Beat the Buckeyes.
Edit: Mods, if you feel it necessary to take it off then fine, I'm just sick of the...douchebaggy post-loss talk.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
You've done this after every loss for three years. Doesn't it get old getting on and off the bandwagon with every up and down?
November 20th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
i'm not on and off a bandwagon. i cheer for them every week. i don't leave the stadium early or change the channel when we're losing.
when they struggle, i look to what i think the problems are and wonder what can be done to fix them. that is NOT bandwagoning.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^
Scroll up. That's a response to exmtroj
November 20th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
You mean like the 21 points in the third quarter? Or the 67 against the Illini? Or the Notre Dame game? Yeah no. No offense does well every drive. If we had a kicker and a defense that could get us the ball back more often, the numbers would be even higher. And after the last few years why would we fire Rich for Harbaugh? We would have to completely revamp the offense and rebuild it from the ground up again. Let alone if he even decides to come to Michigan which people are really just assuming he would because he's a Michigan guy. We are not immune to our programs struggling. Look at Texas. They were supposed to be good especially on the Defensive side and yet they probably wont even make a bowl game this year and this was without a coaching change, or transfers, or a rash of injuries.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
It worked out pretty shitty a couple years ago actually. And our offense is incredibly overrated. Have they performed well against a top level team without being down 20 points first? And don't say Illinois. They aren't a top level team and if they were we would have been down 20 after giving them the ball over and over in the 1st quarter.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
is that the offense itself is still incredibly young. How many seniors did you see make a play on offense today? There was one where Webb made a catch. And Schilling or Dorrenstein played...but yeah, that's about it for seniors on offense.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
I'd say they've performed decently against top teams. They are getting tons of yards, and while yards is not points, it still counts for something. The problem stopping us on offense is turnovers. Again, turnovers happen with inexperience. It is even more likely to happen with you couple multiple inexperienced players together, hence Michigan's problems. Next year it should be much better.
Rich's first year, we had two first year QBs, second year we had two first year QBs, third year we had pretty much a first year QB still in Denard with limited experience in the running game. Tate's fumbles? I guess that's just Tate and I have no excuse for that because in my mind there is none. Denard's interceptions and fumbles? The fumble today was young players not executing perfectly as Smith ran into Denard. The interception, inexperience again as he'll learn to pump fake and get around that defensive end soon.
People don't understand that you aren't going to be perfect right out of the gate. These kids played in high school, had one year experience and suddenly we expect them to be perfect. That's ridiculous. Should our defense be this bad? No. Did Rich fuck up? Yes. Should we forgive and forget? Undecided yet, but I'm more inclined to say yes with what I saw at West Virginia and the glimpses I've seen the last two years.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
First of all, I'm beginning to believe less and less that Rich's success at WV really means anything as for whether or not he will succeed at Michigan. Michigan right now would be at the top of the BE, just like WV was when Rich was there.
You're counting Denard as a first year QB twice in a row. I agree, hes young, the offense is young and that causes mistakes. But to just excuse the absolute inexecution in first halves against good teams is not right in my opinion. By that logic, RR should start DG next year then his job will be safe again. "Oh look, we have an inexperienced QB, wait till next year."
The yards we rack up against good teams is in the 2nd half. Look up the stats. I havent looked it up, but I'd guess 2/3 of our yardage against these teams comes in the last 1/3 of the game (when it is all but already decided).
I don't want to talk about the defense. No excuse there. Youth, injuries, blah blah, yes I get it. Its reasonable the the defense is below average, not reasonable that they are commonly mentioned as the worst D in 1a football.
I'm not advocating firing RR yet. We have one (two) more game. But I'm not just going to assume things will get better automatically b/c of youth and that he should get a 3rd free pass after not meeting expectations (his own expectations were bowl eligible and in discussion for top 25 at the end of the season. That is clearly not going to happen)
November 20th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
the difference between a 335 and 44 or 34 D is not as cavernous a change as the difference between a spread O and a pro style O.
November 20th, 2010 at 9:24 PM ^
People said the same thing about the offense a couple years ago, look how that worked out.
Problem: while our head coach is considered one of the top offensive minds in the game, the same can't be said of our defensive braintrust.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
I didn't expect we'd have the worst defense in the nation either but I also didn't expect to have one of the best offenses in the nation starting primarily underclassmen.
And you're blaming injuries on the coaching staff because they kept in starters TOO LONG?! So you wouldn't be one of those complaining if we took our starters out of the game because it was a lost cause? He's our top runningback we're not going to take him out if we think we can score. And he got injured because he tackled with his head not because he was in the game too long. Just quit while you're ahead and save the "EDIT" button for an actual coherent comment.
As for being 5 yards in and not running, we were running on them well on ST today and Gallon was getting a ton of yards and still made it to the 35 before fumbling. Yes yell at him for fumbling but not for taking it out when we're consistently getting to the 40 yard line. If he hadn't fumbled he would've taken it out to the 35 instead of the 20. That's a win...running at that ST unit was a win all game.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:24 PM ^
when there was less than 4 minutes to play and we were down by 20 with 2nd string WR's and our back up QB out there....yes, at that point I think your starting RB should not be in the game.
Check the replay of the game...Gallon got to the 25, not the 35, before fumbling. Frankly, I would trade 5,10 or 15 yards in field position for 0 TO's in ST.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
Ok Gallon got to the 27 you were correct but still when you need to advance the ball in a hurry and you've been consistently running on an exploitable unit (frankly UWs only exploitable unit) you take advantage of it. It's not a guarantee you fumble the ball and it's not a bad idea to run out when you're advancing the ball as much we had been up until that point just because you're afraid you'll fumble. If you're complaining about that complain that it was Gallon back there not because of TO insecurity. If that's the case do we not field an offense because we're afraid of turning the ball over because V.Smith, Denard, Tate, and Hopkins have all had multiple TOs this season? What kind of logic is that?
And although Tate is technically our backup QB we also have put him in the game many times for quick scores and Stonum had appeared to be injured (because it's football and it's physical not because he was "in too long"). Maybe that explains why some of our backup WRs were in. Your criticisms only make sense in hindsight not because they follow any standard strategy or logic of the game. Gallon doesn't fumble he could've run for more than 27. Vincent Smith doesn't tackle with his head and he doesn't get concussed.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
not because he was going to bring us back from 3 scores down in 4 minutes.
As to your point on TO security: do you realize the meme: "HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL" started because of our TO's on special teams? That was 3 years ago and we still have problems with TO's on special teams.
At this point, I would absolutely prefer a kneel down for any kickoffs caught in the endzone and for our returners to get as far upfield as they can but to GO DOWN on contact instead of dancing around for an extra 10 inches and risk the turnover. We usually cough up the ball when our returners are trying for that extra inch, not upon first contact. For now, ball security is much more important than an extra yard or so.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
By that logic, guys should just run up to the 15-yard line and fall down on kickoff returns so they don't get hit (and risk fumbling) rather than trying to get out the 25 or 30.
He just needs to hang onto the ball.
November 20th, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
I would have no problem with them doing exactly that....getting out to the 20 and getting out of bounds or hitting the deck after first contact.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
It's funny, because those second string WRs are our starting receivers now...Stonum, Odoms, and Gallon are all injured now. It's so sad.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:21 PM ^
These are coherent points. I agree with the special teams stuff. The one criticism that I have is that we apparently haven't considered hiring a special teams coach. I think USC just did, and they have some ridiculous improvement in that regard. Something like matching their last 5-years-worth of kicks blocked in 5 games this year (I'm remembering roughly - that was a local column in the Tucson newspaper). I know almost nobody in the NCAA has a ST coach, and we would lose a much-needed coach elsewhere, but if there is a team who needs a ST coach, he is we.
November 21st, 2010 at 2:52 AM ^
ahemm....
November 20th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
I am really hoping for no Mgomeltdown today. This season has been full of highs and lows; I am taking away the Bowl berth as enough to keep my chin up. And if that doesn't work, the whiskey will.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:23 PM ^
I think it is because the end is nigh. There is little room left for hope that the season will exceed expectations. Oh well. For me, though, that is a reason to enjoy the few remaining games we have! It's a long offseason. If you spend the next two games pouting, you are going to miss the fun of a U-M football gameday. Even if it results in terroble things coming out of Bielema's pie-hole.
November 20th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
Douchebags, No. Circlejerkers..YEs!
November 20th, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
Remember when losing to Wisconsin really hurt? Remember when just making a bowl game was nothing and it was all about the Rose Bowl? I remember that. Shit sucks right now. Taylor Gang or don't fire Rich Rod
November 20th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
How far have we fallen as a program when our fans expect us to lose??? I ALWAYS believe that we have a chance to win ANY game. Thats why they play the game. Stats and national pundits mean nothing.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
It was well known this is how this game was going to turn out.
Wisky has shown what a good football team does..it gets better as the season goes on. Michigan, like the last 2 years, has gotten worse as teh season has gone on.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^
It was well known that we'd lose by 20 points? That they'd complete more than 90% of their passes for 13 yards per pass and then entirely eschew passing the ball in the 2nd half because they could just go "rock rock rock rock..." and not punt the entire half?
Do you have a pulse?
November 20th, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^
I realize you are angry but did you honestly think UM had a chance against Wisky?
If so, I might not have a pulse but you have no brain.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^
"If so, I might not have a pulse but you have no brain."
This is classic. Of course you root for the team, but going into you had to have some kind of idea that they would get man handled up front against what is probably the best offensive line in the Nation.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
The issue isn't that we lost, it's how we lost. The line was Wisco by four. We lost by 20. They did this despite calling only one pass in the 2nd half.
November 20th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
As formerlyanonymous said, running every play is not going into a shell for UW. Even cromagnon running calls are effective when they are your bread-and-butter. How many times did Carr do this exact same thing? There were a coupla games every year where all we had to do was show up and run and we would win. The reason we have a new style is that the Carr strategy seemed to fail in the clutch. Watch what happens when these teams (who have played nobody of note - UW out of conference heavy was Arizona State) get behind.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^
Wisconsin has a very good passing attack that thrives off of play action. Saying they didn't go into a shell because they love running it is hyperbole. They're not Air Force.
The idea behind their offense is that when a defense plays them honestly they'll get a positive result out of their base (running) plays. Eventually, if this is the case, they assume the opponent will cheat to shut the base plays down. That's when they'll hit them with a play action pass and make them pay. They were letting us cheat all we wanted to stop the run and we couldn't. They were happy to just drain the clock, if they had wanted to they could've gone over the top easily, though, and the scoreline would have been even worse.
And I don't remember a time when Carr called one pass in an entire half AND Michigan didn't have to punt once. And that certainly never happened when his qb was as robotically efficient (90+% completions 13+ ypa) as Tolzien was in the first half.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 3:51 PM ^
I don't recall Wisco attempting a single pass in the 2nd half. We KNEW they were running everytime, and we were powerless to stop it. And this is encouraging, how exactly? Sure, they did OK early in the 1st half...but a game if 4 quarters long.
In short, I hope you were being sarcastic. (If you were...sorry, I haven't bought a sarcasm meter yet. I'm pretty poor.)
November 20th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
But we will score a lot of points...........
November 20th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
mistakes and execution on D and Special Teams cost us. We could have won this game.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
We could have won this game.
Which game?
November 20th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
Wow, you've raised the bar in terms of how delusional you can be after Michigan gets dominated.
November 20th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
We would have been in the game had we not had so many drops, which are absolute drive killers. Maybe we score more, keep our D off the field, at the very least leave them with bad field position. (which would mean something if our D could tackle) I'm not saying we should have won, just that we could have.
This is not domination:
Wisconsin Michigan 1st Downs 26 24 Total Yards 558 442 Passing 201 274 Rushing 357 168 Penalties 2-25 1-10 3rd Down Conversions 5-10 6-12 4th Down Conversions 0-0 1-2 Turnovers 2 2 Possession 36:59 23:01 (Copy/paste job didn't turn out well, but you can look up the box score for yourself)
November 20th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
Do you guys ever get sick of making excuses for how horrible these last few teams have been?
Actually probably not. I just wanted to put out there that personally, I would be sick of it right now.
And your offensive comparison has no merit. We didn't start scoring until they were up by 4 scores and settled into a softer defensive scheme. Our offense is incredibly overrated; it puts up big numbers in this matter every week, same formula (suck when it matters but then score a bunch when the other defense softens up).
November 20th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
Hey, just because someone speaks their mind, doesn't make them a douche bag. If you cant handle it, don't read it. A lot of people are frustrated after losing in blowouts to Michigan State, Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin. Some of those games might have been close at the end, but we all know they weren't even close. People tend to cool off after a few days, anyway. They sooner you let them vent, the sooner they get over it. GO BLUE.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^
November 20th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
If we play a complete game, we can play with anybody, but it is hard to get consistency out of such a young team.
On the flipside, Wisconsin (like the rest of the Big Ten) loses a lot of players next year, while we return almost everybody.
November 20th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
Cut bait after this season DB, please!
November 20th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
As a fan of Shorts Brewing, I beg you to change you avatar if you're going to say dumb shit.