Something to think about....

I don't think the team was breaking in a new RB... I think the new RB was breaking in the team.

I actually thought it was not a bad game. Just silly mistakes made the score look closer than it looked. I never felt like MTSU was threatening Michigan in any way.

Or, the flipside. The issues that most were worried about are still out there. The D Line is an issue. Even when healthy at DT, is that really going to be a strength? Winovich and Gary masked the issues on the interior last year. With them gone, the DT's are going to get exposed. The ends are solid, just not at the same level as last season.

Harbaugh has done a TON to make the program stable again and deserves credit for that. With that said, can the two QB's on the field at the same time please go away? Also, splitting the kicking between FG and extra points. Time management at the end of the half (spike vs using a TO). It just seems at times there are still some really unusual things that happen in game that there's no need for. 

Yes, there are guys injured. That's the nature of the game. Everyone has injuries. Having adequate roster management to deal with the inevitable is a necessity. Love Ben Mason, but come on, he shouldn't be on the field as a DT. Not at a program at the level we all want this one to be.

For me, the game wasn't a total disaster. It just has many if the same issues that have tripped up this program in recent years. 

Hopeful that it improves, but doubts do remain.

Bye felicia.  Send this dude and anyone else who makes a damn perspective thread straight to Bolivia 

Rewatched the first three quarters yesterday and I concur on many of your points:

- QB (O’Hara) was a baller making many plays under pressure, on the move, with his feet, etc.  He got the ball out with accuracy amazing fast.  There were times he got the ball out, while he was being tackled!

- MTSU had a very good game plan both offensively and defensively.  Offensively with the short throws and screens.  Defensively with the constant pressure and blitzing.

- We made a ton of mistakes with dropped balls (Bell, McKeon, Nico!).  Lavert Hill muffed a punt AND dropped a sure pick six!  Shea fumbled the ball away on the first play of the game.  There are mistakes that will be cleaned up, I have no doubt.

- Vincent Gray, Ambry Thomas and Zach Charbonnet were awesome.  Two big question marks coming into the season (CB and RB) were definitely answered IMO.

Getting Peoples-Jones and Runyan back will be big for the offense and I expect them to be very good throughout the rest of the season.  If Dwumfour and Jeter can come back healthy, and play well, the Defense should be fine and also improve throughout the remainder of the year.

Great perspective but receivers still have to wait on the deep ball from Shea and on short/intermediate routes, they have to adjust way too much. Watching Black have to wait in endzone for that ball is concerning as he was WIDE OPEN 

All is true and you are correct.  Drop the gimmick stuff though against MTSU and frankly against anyone.  There is no reason to have your 1 & 2 qb on the field at same time getting them hit.  That cost us two drives and was ridiculously unnecessary.

We know

While not the "perfect" game hoped for, I'd rather see this win v some of the "big" wins others put up against Hostess teams: Cupcakes, Twinkies and Ding Dongs.  2 short field TD's after turnovers. One garbage time against 2 's and 3's. Missed a couple to TD's, Bell and Hill P6.  MTSU won more than their fair share of 50-50 balls thrown as QB was about to be crushed.  Clean up the opening night mistakes, and this is a blow out against a tough and well coached team.  So a big FU to "experts" like Dandy Dan Orlovsky, the UConn "great" NFL barely JAG who hammered M on ESPN.

I'm now ok with the fact that they didn't look completely polished and cruise to a 70-0 win. I think on both sides of the ball the team has much more upside. It think it's better for a team to know they have things to work on and that they can be better. I'd rather they be focused than have an easy time and get smacked upside the head when they play their first real opponent.

However, if they are still looking the same by the 4th game of the season then we can worry.

I think we should try 3,4, or 5 QB sets.  Take that Lincoln Riley.

Don’t listen to the haters, OP.  It’s more of a recap than a snowflake, and I enjoyed reading it!

In the context of the rest of the year, weren't we without 1 significant starter on the oline?  Sounded like Steuber and Mayfield were close, so if Steuber is the other player missing that makes the oline absenses plural 1) not sure he was a starter anyway 2) he is out for a long time, so get used to it.

Would have been nice to have DPJ, but given the depth and talent at WR I don't think his absence was significant in this game.

I love the positivity mate, but if we're still comparing ourselves to the RichRod and Brady Hoke era, I don't think that's what we signed up for...  With that being said I assume most concerns will be answered positively Saturday at noon.  The only concerns I have after that game are the conditions of Dwumfour and DPJ moving forward.

This made me think .

 I need to start prepping the menu for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for this Sat.

Maybe after a festival cold one in a few hours. Go Blue. 

1.) We were without significant starters on the O-line 
2.) We were without one of our top WRs 

I think one of the main concerns is what if Runyan, DPJ, Jeter, and Dwumfor remain banged up all year?  Can Hayes deal with Espensa, Young, Willekes, etc.?  Can we hold up to the better rushing attacks and/or generate a pass rush with the DEs getting doubled?  This is a viable concern.

MTSU is not even a MAC level team this year. Go look at their depth chart and check out the size of the players they started. Our front 7 should have whipped their O Line.

So I won’t pile on to the thread “worthiness” of the original post.  Objective thoughts with statistical backing are the following:

1).    RPO components of the offense were really intriguing and many of the old world elements felt like things you put on tape to set up the next opponent.   The defense they played returns a lot of starters and has minimal busts in coverage historically.   With field position advantages for the most part they put them on their heels.   They also countered off that action well.   Injury to Shea in the 3rd quarter seemed plausible to me based on the accuracy reduction of throws but I felt Gattis saw MTSU countering RPO action by packing in the middle of the field opening up what seemed like endless ZR to the outside which they likely felt Dylan was both better at running and had the ribs to tolerate.

2).  Lack of internal push is problematic no doubt.   I would kill for even a space eating NT who could hold the point of attack.   My hope is Hinton really blossoms because we will need something for sure because there are teams that will pick up 3-4 yds consistently between the tackles and not bother trying to edge us at all other than as a counter when we pack it in (Wisconsin for example).  

Im not sure what else can be gleaned from this game.   This isn’t the world beater unit of last year on defense but it will be a far more explosive offense.   They purposefully didn’t ground and pound and still got many plays and many possessions.   They played a defense whose statistical profile is one that doesn’t bust almost ever and still put constraints on them.   I didn’t expect them to score a ton of points and they could have put up 49 and likely should have (Eric all needs to block inside the defender to give the offensive player more space to run in for example).   QBs will get better in throwing the ball out faster as well.    I still feel this team is a year away from being truly elite but this was a good start.   Army will be a test mostly because if you make mistakes you may not see the ball back.  

I appreciate this thread aside from the title. Removed from the emotional reactions immediately following the game, most responses here aimed at adding to the discussion seem more measured. 

It's true that some of these experiments look a bit too adventurous: after 2017 we don't need to risk QBs unnecessarily. After so many complaints about a predictable offence last year, however, experimentation should be welcome and where better to try it than the first game against an over-matched opponent? 

Coaches and players have a chance to work on weaknesses exposed, notably tackling 

That's the value of a first game. It provides an opportunity not only to identify and work on weaknesses, but for players to prove themselves, as RBs and CBs did. Hill may have dropped a pick 6, but Ambry's interception was impressive. The use of so many back-ups and freshmen may have contributed to a drop-off in performance in the second half, but it gave them a taste of experience that should help their development.

Performance was uneven, as one should expect given so many changes from last year (as OP points out), but there is as much room for optimism as despair. More, I would argue, but then I do not regard anything less than the B1G championship and NC bowl appearance as a complete disaster.

Speaking of which, some of our up-coming opponents were not particularly impressive, I gather? Is there as much hand-wringing among their fans as we seem to have?

Go Blue!

I too have opinions

Is big Mike starting at guard? Would he play NT if not?

2 of those 7 are incorrect or misleading. Other than that I agree. Calm down people. 

MTSU looked pretty good to me.  I think they'll win at least 7 or 8 games this season.