Better Know An Iowa Football Opponent 2010: Michigan Wolverines (Part Two)
The off-season is a long and tiresome trudge, so how can we best get through it? By looking ahead to next year, of course. So, in the spirit of forward thinking, we present a team-by-team look at Iowa's 2010 football opponents (with looks at Illinois and Purdue thrown in for good measure so our Big Televen brethren don't feel ignored). Next up: Meeeeeechigan.
MICHIGAN WOLVERINES (@Ann Arbor, MI; 2:30pm CT; ABC/ESPN/ESPN2)
In case you missed it (or forgot about it)... PART ONE
Michigan practices ACC defense against tight ends.
OK, what should we expect when Michigan doesn't have the ball? Michigan's two best defenders from a year ago, DE Brandon Graham and CB Donovan Warren, are gone; they took their talents to the NFL and left the defense scrambling to find new leaders and difference-makers from a crew of misfits that's been torched by nearly every program they've faced over the past two years. Along the defensive line, they lose the aforementioned Graham (a massive blow, considering he was the first Big Ten player taken in last year's draft and, at times, the most dominant defensive player in the league; we don't say that lightly as charter members of the Adrian Clayborn For King Terrormonster campaign, but Graham really was that good), but return the other three starters in Ryan Van Bergen (40 tackles, 6.5 TFL, 5 sacks, 1 fumble recovery), Mike Martin (51 tackles, 8.5 TFL, 2 sacks), and Craig Roh (37 tackles, 7.5 TFL, 2 sacks, 1 INT). Van Bergen and Martin played defensive tackle a year ago, while Roh was a defensive end, but with the defense planning to play more 3-3-5 this fall, Van Bergen has been slated to move outside and Roh has been slated to transition into more of a DE/OLB hybrid position.
Big Blue also returns two starters at linebacker (three if we count Roh there) in seniors Jonas Mouton (66 tackles, 3 TFL, 2 INT, 1 fumble recovery) and Obi Ezeh (69 tackles, 5 TFL, 1 fumble recovery). Youth or inexperience isn't really the issue for Mouton or Ezeh; they've logged quite a few game reps by this point, so their deficiencies may be down to a lack of talent (or, from a more charitable perspective, a lack of fit in the current defensive schemes), which doesn't bode well for them making a magical transformation into the sort of game-changing linebacker that Michigan might need to turn things around on defense.
While the talent along the line or at linebacker hasn't been quite up to past Michigan standards (with a few exceptions, like Graham), they've usually at least hewed to respectable; the secondary, on the other hand, has been a flaming wasteland of despair and missed tackles. Even Warren, undoubtedly the best player in last year's secondary, wasn't exactly a star -- he went undrafted in last April's NFL draft. Michigan returns a trio of players with starting experience from a year ago in CB Troy Woolfolk (46 tackles, 0 INT, 1 pass break-up), SS Jordan Kovacs (75 tackles, 4.5 TFL, 1 INT), and S Mike Williams (56 tackles, 1 TFL, 1 pass break-up) but is going to be relying on some inexperienced players to fill in the gaps alongside them. One of those inexperienced players was expected to be the hugely talented and much-hyped DeMar Dorsey, but an admissions kerfluffle spiked his position on the team and left Greg Robinson without one of his best hopes for turning around the fortunes of this moribund unit. Sans Dorsey, they're looking at pulling from a grab-bag of mostly untested underclassmen, including Vladimir Emilien (1 tackle) and JT Floyd (17 tackles, 1 pass break-up).
A year ago, the middle of their defense was almost impossibly soft; Iowa fans need only remember the acres of open space that Tony Moeaki had to operate in last year. That defense still boasts the same middling linebackers and questionable safeties (Kovacs is a former walk-on and while it would be the height of hypocrisy for an Iowa blog to dis walk-ons, particularly at the safety position, let's just say we're well aware that it can take a while for walk-ons to mature into dependable starters; see: Greenwood, Brett in 2007 and 2008). Not to mention the fact that they're breaking in a new defense, which isn't the easiest thing to do; the challenge is mitigated to an extent by the fact that they have the same defensive coordinator (TEH GERG) and they're moving from more of a 4-2-5 a year ago to a 3-3-5 this year, so they're probably not dealing with sea changes in terminology or philosophy. But it's still a change and change means more thinking and less doing on defense, which is a problem. So you have a defense breaking in a new scheme and a handful of new faces; the bleeding on defense may not be quite as catastrophic as it's been the past two years, but this isn't likely to turn into one of the top 3-4 defenses in the league overnight. This is still a team that's going to need to rely on scoring a lot of points to win most of its games.
Take that, Devourer of Worlds.
And just how "special" are the special teams? With the Space Emperor off plying his trade in the NFL by day and plotting the conquest of the universe by night, Michigan finally has need of a new face at punter. Enter: true freshman Will Hagerup, who has some mighty big shoes to fill in Mesko's absence. It's safe to expect a bit of a drop-off from the consistent excellence that the Space Emperor provided, which is a net loss for a defense that has plenty of its own problems to worry about. There's also a fresh face at placekicker, where Brendan Gibbons is expected to slot in; Gibbons was highly decorated in the prep ranks, but this year will be his first effort in the big time. It's probably wise to expect a few growing pains there.
I would run a blog of nothing but pictures from Iowa-Michigan in 2002 if more existed.
Alright, brainiac, what's gonna happen? In recent weeks, as fans begin to pore over the schedule more and more, this game has emerged as one of the top "trap games" on the schedule. Not without reason, frankly; Iowa's track record in Ann Arbor is incredibly poor (since 1980, Iowa is just 3-8 in the Big Mausoleum), the game is sandwiched between massive home tilts with Penn State and Wisconsin, and the Michigan offense (most of which is returning) was more successful against Iowa than virtually any other team last year (the 28 points conceded were the most since Purdue ran up 31 on Iowa in 2007). And if you wanted to get really paranoid you could point to the fact that Iowa is just 2-5 in games after regular season bye weeks under Ferentz. So yeah, there's reason to be fearful, even if the Iowa-Michigan game in 2009 wasn't quite as close as the final score makes it seem and even if the Michigan defense may have more leaks than a busted condom. But this game is going to come down to a few key questions.
Will Iowa's 2009 road mojo carry over into 2010? A year ago there's little doubt that Iowa played its best football away from the friendly confines of Kinnick Stadium; on the road (or on neutral fields), they blasted Iowa State by 30+ points, beat Penn State, Wisconsin, and Georgia Tech by double-digits, and took Ohio State to overtime. Meanwhile, in Kinnick they needed two blocked field goals to escape UNI, struggled to put away Michigan, Minnesota, and Arkansas State, and came up short against just Northwestern (again). For the sake of the season, we need to hope that Iowa rediscovers its home mojo in a hurry, given the murderer's row of teams headed there (Penn State, Wisconsin, Ohio State). But for the sake of this one game, we need Stanzi & Co. to get in a time machine and play like it's 2009 all over again.
Can Ricky Stanzi deny his inherent generosity and avoid gifting the other team six points off a STANZIBALL? If it seems like we say this about every game in this section, well, we probably do. But when your returning starter at quarterback threw four pick-sixes a year ago (and five total turnovers that were turned into immediate touchdowns if you count the WOOTENOCALYPSE play), it's kind of something that needs emphasizing. And, sure, Iowa improbably won every game in which Stanzi threw one of his patented STANZIBALLS right to an opposing defender... but you can't reasonably expect that luck to last forever. And you really can't expect it to last if you start doing it on the road; road games are tough enough to win without gifting the home team undeserved points.
Does the Iowa defense have some new tricks for the Michigan offense? We're not terribly concerned about the Iowa offense scoring points on Michigan; barring the offensive line turning into an unmitigated disaster, they should be able to hang a decent number on a Michigan defense that's still developing. But the Michigan offense is cause for some concern; esteemed FOTP Bama Hawkeye is fairly convinced that they can ride that offense alone to eight wins in 2010 and they did have quite a bit of success against Iowa in 2009 (195 yards and 3 TD on 45 carries). Iowa's record against run games in 2009 was pretty mixed. Iowa State was having quite a bit of success pounding away with their A-Rob last year, before OC Tom Herman decided the path to victory was by relying on Arnaud's arm; disaster ensued. The aforementioned Michigan attack did well, as did John Clay before the Iowa defense treated him like an accordian midway through the second quarter. Ohio State relied almost exclusively on its ground game against Iowa and it worked beautifully: 229 yards and 3 TD on 51 carries. On the other hand, Arizona's Nic Grigsby got swallowed up aside from one big run, Penn State got clobbered, and the Orange Bowl (or the first half, at least) was a tour de fource in run-stopping. Indeed, the games against Arizona and Georgia Tech may provide us with a glimpse of what to expect in 2010... or rather, what not to expect, as offenses do everything in their power to avoid Adrian Clayborn and his destructive powers. Let's hope Binns and the linebackers have their tackling shoes on.
So what's gonna happen? Picking against Iowa in this game has as much (or more) to do with the Michigan brand name and the Big House mystique than it does any of the players who are going to suit up in maize and blue to take on Iowa. This team slayed a lot of road demons a year ago and here's guessing that Stanzi & Co. have it in them to slay another one here: the defense slows (but doesn't stop) a pretty potent Michigan offense, while the offense takes advantage of holes in the Michigan defense to score enough points to pull out a 7-10 point win.
"I wonder if they're still hanging me in effigy in Morgantown..."
So how's the rest of their season gonna play out? No other team in the Big Ten divides prognosticators quite as much as Michigan. For the most part, teams in the Big Ten have been lumped into three groups: Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Penn State are expected to be good; Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana are expected to suck; and Michigan State, just Northwestern, and Purdue are expected to be alright, with the potential for more if they catch a few breaks. But Michigan... Michigan's an enigma. Some have them pegged for a big bounceback year; Phil Steele ranks them fifth on his Most Improved list and says they have a decent shot at nine wins, while the aforementioned FOTP Bama Hawkeye has them pegged for 8 wins and a January bowl game (and a good one, not that Dallas Football Classic nonsense). Others see a fragile, somewhat inconsistent offense and a hugely inexperienced defense and wonder where the hell they're going to come up with eight or nine wins.
And just as there are (at least) two ways to view Michigan's '10 prospects, there are a few different ways to determine which part of their schedule is the most critical. From a talent standpoint, the toughest games they'll play will likely be either the three-game set against Michigan State, Iowa, and Penn State in October or the three-game set against Purdue, Wisconsin, and Ohio State in November. But there's also a compelling argument to be made for the notion that if Michigan doesn't get off to a hot start, it won't matter what happens in October and November because their goose (and RichRod's job status) will be cooked. A fast start is essential for a young team (and coach) enduring a great deal of pressure; no one wants to be a member of the third-straight Michigan team to fail to make a bowl game.
On paper, the first five games of Michigan's schedule look fairly easy: UConn, @ Notre Dame, UMass, Bowling Green, and @ Indiana. But is any schedule truly easy for a team that's lost 16 games over the past two seasons and suffered humbling defeats to the likes of Illinois (twice), Purdue, and Toledo? UConn is something of a dark horse contender to win the Big East, owing to the fact that they return eight starters on offense and defense and that they had a 2008 Iowa-esque tendency to lose close games (their five losses came by a combined 15 points). And it's not as if Michigan has been razor-sharp in their home openers in recent years... Notre Dame has some gaping holes to fill after the departures of their best offensive players, but Brian Kelly is well-experienced at making silk purses out of sow's ears; he brought Central Michigan to (semi-) prominence and masterminded Cincinnati's stunning rise to the top of the Big East with a team full of cast-offs and no-names.
UMass continues Michigan's new trend of only playing I-AA also-rans; they went 5-6 in 2009, although they did give Kansas State a fiesty effort (losing 21-17). Then again, they also gave up 52 points to Hofstra. Bowling Green ought to be your bog standard MACrificial lamb and Michigan did wallop those sorts of teams when they played them in 2009... but just as the specter of Western Michigan 2007 lingers over Iowa's games against mid-major opposition, so too does Toledo 2008 still hang over Michigan's head. They should win... but recent events make it impossible to call it a sure thing. And as for Indiana... Michigan struggled mightily with them a year ago, when the game was in Ann Arbor, before they were making still more changes on defense, and against an Indiana offense that's relatively loaded with weapons. Could Michigan go 5-0 in this stretch? Sure; none of these teams are all that challenging. On the other hand, could they also go 2-3 in this stretch? Sure; it's not a huge stretch to see them dropping games to UConn, Notre Dame, and Indiana.
After that stretch, Michigan goes full-bore into Big Ten play, with a pair of home games against Michigan State and Iowa before a bye week and a road date with Penn State close out October. This stretch in 2009 was when Michigan's season first began taking on water, as they dropped the Sparty game in OT, lost the weirdly tight night game to Iowa, and got knocked around by Penn State (although they did manage to work in a thorough beatdown of Delaware State, too; the bye week might pose stiffer competition in 2010). Ultimately, this stretch probably will be the tipping point of Michigan's season; if they emerge from their opening slate at 4-1 or 5-0, these games could either drag them back to the middle of the Big Ten pack or give them an opportunity to surge ahead on the comeback trail and really get the "OMG RichRod is a genius, Michigan is BACK~!" meme exploding. But if they emerge from those games at 3-2 or 2-3, these games have the opportunity to either put the nail in the coffin of their season or provide them with a springboard to salvage something respectable from this campaign. At a guess, they win one of these three; for our sake, let's hope it isn't the Iowa game.
This happened a lot the last two years.
Michigan closes out the season with a home game against Illinois, a road game against Purdue, a home game against Wisconsin, and a road game against Ohio State. Under RichRod, Michigan is a scintillating 1-7 against those teams, with the lone win coming in improbable fashion, when the thoroughly ass-tastic 2008 LOLverine outfit erased a 19-0 halftime deficit to beat the Badgers, 27-25. The much-reviled Michigan defense has been at its most putrid in those games, too; of those eight games, the D only held the opposition under 30 points against 2009 Ohio State. They've rattled off back-to-back 25-point losses to Illinois and lost a pair of shootouts to Purdue (including the utterly amazing 2008 affair, which featured a goddamn hook and ladder).
You wouldn't think they could lose a third straight game to Illinois (FUN FACT: Ron Zook has never beaten any Big Ten team three times during his tenure at Illinois; in fact, his two wins over Michigan are tied for the most wins he has against any Big Ten team), but few people would have predicted the woodshed beating they endured at the hands of Zook and Juice a year ago, either. You wouldn't think lightning could strike thrice for Purdue against Michigan, but are we really confident in TEH GERG's ability to upgrade that shambling band of zombies masquerading as a defense? You wouldn't think Ohio State would... wait, you would definitely think that Ohio State would pound the piss out of Michigan again. Scratch that. Commandant Sweatervest owns Big Blue the same way Hayden owned The Two Jims at ISU in the '80s. Ultimately, it feels like Michigan gets a win out of these four games (let's say over Illinois, because forecasting a third straight Fightin' Zooker win is just something I can't do sober), and possibly two. Best case scenario for them feels like 8-4 if they run the table in the early part of the schedule, but really this feels more like a 6-7 win team slugging it out in whatever the new equivalent of the Alamo Bowl is in the Big Ten's bowl pecking order (the Insight?). And it wouldn't be a huge surprise if the bottom continues to fall out on Michigan and their legion of speedy midgets and they flail their way to another losing season. There isn't much about this team that's immediately impressive.
66 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I expect this to be Iowa's easiest road victory within the Big Ten
Michigan lacks the proper match-ups to stay close in this one. Barring a turnoverfest by Iowa I expect a 21 point win. Norm will say, sure, go ahead and try to throw while we beat the stuffing out of these two QBs. Add in that UM will have just played an archrival the week before (MSU) while we will be coming off a bye…maybe 21 points is too little.
I expect Michigan State to beat them up physically like they did us last year and for us to be very healthy and ready for a run.
Great work as usual Ross…love these!!!
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
Iowa should win but nothing comes easy to this team.
If you feel like singing along, don't.
James Taylor
Just to clarify...
…I think you mean that nothing came easy to last year’s team. Except the Orange Bowl and the win in Ames.
I understand that the 2009 season is the best predictor of what we will see in 2010 but it’s important to recognize the weaknesses in that measure. In 2008 Iowa was 1-4 in games decided by three points or less. If we used that as the basis for the 2009 season, Iowa would have been a five-loss team playing in the Alamo Bowl. Instead, Iowa went 4-1 in those games and ended up dominating a BCS game.
All this is just to say that just because last year’s Hawkeye squad struggled at times with inferior competition doesn’t mean this year’s squad will. Maybe some things will come easy to this team. And I’m with SMA, I think this year’s Michigan game will be one of those things.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Aug 3, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
We SHOULD beat these pukes shamelessly.
Granted the Football Gods often have a differing opinion of what should happen, but and Holy Hell events we should be playing in a half empty Big House (which means it will sound completely empty) by half time.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 3, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
That was supposed to say...
…“barring any Holy Hell events…” but my brain got ahead of my fingers.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 3, 2010 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions
There's close and then there's Iowa close
Bellanca did a post on this some time back. He compared Iowa’s game strategy to that of a pro team. A win by 17 points in the NFL is a full scale blowout. That holds true for Ferentz too. He goes into lock down mode once we’re up by 17. You may recall the final drives in the Penn St., Indiana and GTech games—-one punishing run after the next. If Iowa wins a contest by 30 points it means the other team completely quit.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
So what does it mean if you beat the other team by 55 points?
“Man, this is a far cry from those Super Bowls I won.”

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Aug 3, 2010 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Stop and think about this for a moment
A commenter (who for the record is not batshit insane but rather well regarded) opines that AT MICHIGAN will be the easiest conference road win for the Hawks. No one bats an eye, no one says, whoa whoa, let’s not get ahead of ourselves …. it is just accepted as fact.
Put aside the context of the other choices being @Ind, @jNWU and @Minn and ponder that the winningest program in college history might in fact be the easiest road W for us. Wow.
Indiana scares me ... for obvious reasons.
It might be -15 degrees for that Minny game. Outdoors. It’s no disrespect to Michigan, just to Rich Rod and Forcier and, oh hell, the whole team.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
I'm on the
“better win early” bandwagon. The referendum on RichRod’s offensive scheme is possibly in its final year, and I am among the non-believers. I just don’t see the starting QB, whomever it is, making it through the MSU/Iowa/PSU series of games healthy, if at all. The two-headed QB situation, if they go that way, could leave them with two fairly banged-up guys at the same time. The defense has to be really good to give them a chance, and it doesn’t look like it will be.
The BTN folks were raving last night about how Nebraska is such a perfect fit, as a physical, “black and blue” sort of team. In the midst of that transition, Michigan is in ’put up or shut up" mode while it tries to depart from that sort of style. It is hard to believe that Michigan is now a team that is dangerous any given week, but is suspect for sustaining it over the length of the season.
A fella steps out for a two pound burrito and all hell breaks loose.
Yes, this:
I just don’t see the starting QB, whomever it is, making it through the MSU/Iowa/PSU series of games healthy, if at all.
That’s a good point and something I neglected to mention in the thousands of words I already wrote. MSU was the hardest-hitting game we played last year, hands down — that game was incredibly violent. We know Iowa has a very tough, hard-hitting defense… and Michigan experienced it first-hand last year. PSU typically also has a very hard-nosed defense. The Michigan OL is going to need to work their asses off to keep Forcier and Robinson from getting pounded, I think.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
The data don't agree with you.
Would you make this same statement if UM had non-running QBs? Because the data show that mobile QBs are actually not injured any more frequently than pocket QBs.
by LJ7 on Aug 3, 2010 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions
From said post:
“The next order of business was to filter out irrelevant players. To do this, I assumed that a QB needed to register at least 17 plays (any combination of passes and rushes) per game he played in to qualify as a non-scrub QB.”
Don’t those guys have the same chance of getting hurt? Also, don’t some “non-scrub” QBs get hurt before their 17th play of a game?
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Aug 4, 2010 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes.
Forcier didn’t get hammered by Clayborn last year because he was scrambling around; he got hammered because his offensive line wasn’t good. If that hasn’t improved, he’ll got hammered again, mobility or not.
You’ll notice that my comments there referred specifically to the fact that he was facing three nasty, hard-hitting defenses in a row. I would worry about the health of any QB facing those three defenses back-to-back-to-back. But feel free to come back when you want to actually debate the merits of what’s actually said, rather than jumping to erroneous conclusions.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Don't take something about one person and try to make it about all scrambling QBs...
…that is the worst argument you could make. TForce was broken the majority of last year. That is a fact. No one tried to say “scrambling quarterbacks in general”- – it was a comment about one puny QB by the name of Tate Forcier and another puny RB named Robinson who threw for two touchdowns and four interceptions. Quit changing the sample set.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 4, 2010 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Call me crazy
But if Pryor goes to Michigan, things are very different. It’s pretty clear from RR’s career that his system only works if he’s got all-galaxy athleticism at the QB position. He hasn’t had that at Michigan, and it’s obvious. RR isn’t a Meyer or Tressel or Saban or Ferentz when it comes to developing talent (or recruiting it).
Assuming that they stop turning the ball over so much, I think they can get to 8-4 this year on the strength of their offense. Their defense is a straight up dumpster fire; you can’t count of them winning any games in which the offense can’t score at least 40 points. I don’t think this is the last year of RR in Ann Arbor…but as an OSU fan, I’m also happy about that.
Anyway, unless there are 3-4 Stanziballs thrown in this game I simply can’t see Michigan winning. They are demonstrably worse at every position. Iowa is simply a better team.
by The Iron Colonel on Aug 3, 2010 10:20 AM CDT reply actions
thats ridiculous...
RR won at Clemson and Tulane with all-world athletes? I dont know if anyone has ever called Shaun King a great athlete before lol
Last year
This game was close (along with several games) because of the Stanziballs. Even an interception would have been fine, as I think the defense could have at least forced the other teams to work for points and perhaps even held them off.
Huh... There's a thought
Maybe we need to put TMFS on Offense behind Morse to stop anyone that catches a Stanziball. He might even pick up a TD return or two on some passes tipped by the opposing DL. Sure our offense would be less effective, but there’d be no Rick Sixes.
by KinnickNorthHawk on Aug 3, 2010 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions
You mentioned Stanziballs

While the term has come to mean a Stanzi thrown pick-six, let us not forget that Stanzi has also proven to have a ball sack the size of the Big House and the ice cold nerves of a proven winner and undisputed team leader. I kneel in awe of those Stanziballs.
If you feel like singing along, don't.
James Taylor
Yeah, I never really understood that because it's much more clever.
In fact I still call them that…which just makes me sound like a lunatic.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 3, 2010 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
I still use it on occasion.
But STANZIBALL is way more fun to say (and type).
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Rick Six is more fun to say
if you say it like Kaitlin.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 3, 2010 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions
It caught on in Cedar Rapids...
…at least with the people I talk to. Stanziball is a poorly thrown interception (by my definition), so things like the Collin S ninjitsu-ption from Penn St doesn’t count to me. A Rick-Six is a Stanziball turned up to 11. It’s where Stanzi pulls the cell phone from his jockstrap and leaves a voicemail for the defender, telling him exactly where to be so he doesn’t have to jump or anything. The reason for a Rick-Six is purely sporting and motivational (our D plays with fire when we’re behind). [Okay, that’s a bit overboard, but you’ve seen them.]
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 3, 2010 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm shocked that no one has complained about that and gotten the chisel taken to it (y'know, for the kids).
Also, what’s with the noose up above the monument to testosterone?
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 3, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Solid take.
For what it’s worth, I happen to think the offense will be better than you suggest (there’s not tremendous evidence that Rodriguez’s quarterbacks get injured more often than anyone else’s, no matter what the in vogue perception is), and the defense is probably considerably worse. Mouton and Ezeh follow ball-fakes like a collie chasing a tennis-ball, we’re trying our 5th FS in 3 years…it’s just not good.
http://www.wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
Ummm....
Tate Forcier would like to have a word.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Aug 3, 2010 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, you said that already?
Only there is no ‘data’ in that ‘analysis’. It’s like calling rock-paper-scissors a bond arbitrage pricing model. The guy is making assertions for a sample size of three, while not controlling for size, offense, or relevant defense. (Granted, “three” is a larger number than the number of successful defenses Greg Robinson has constructed in the past 20 years, but still.) It’s fine if you want to express the opinion that running quarterbacks who are larger than most linebackers and defensive ends don’t get hurt very often (Tebow), I’m sure people would say, ‘yeah that sounds plausible’. But the only conclusion that you can draw from that story is “this guy is pretending to be a quant, but he’s actually embarrassing himself.”
Even if the guy had written a valid statistical summary, and controlled for size, offense and defense, and looked at a pool of a few hundred QBs over time, he’s using the wrong approach. That’s because he’s intent on showing mean rate of injury, which is pointless in football if you care about wins and losses: if you lose your QB, you’re probably going to lose the game. (You can’t win games with “average QB availability”; you win games when your QB is not hurt.) Therefore solving for the mean incidence of injury is much less useful than approaching it as a stochastic optimization problem, which will help you understand the likelihood of the cliff event.
Pat White had a sore thumb when all WVU had to do was beat a 4-7 Pitt team in order to get to the BCS championship. WVU lost. See? I just used stupid faux statistical analysis to prove my point.
Denard must be an amazing athlete, but Michigan had better get ahead and stay ahead if he is the QB. And it’s not like you’ll be able to bring the passer off the bench; it sounds like Woolfolk will kill him in practice first. There was some bizarre stuff coming out of the media days on Michigan: RichRod: least favorite coach among (statistically impressive) player sample of 11 in the Big Ten. That was a little weird: he crushes Zook and Brewster in the unpopularity award. Woolfolk: Baby Jesus is a pussy whom no one respects. What? Would I be surprised if Baby Jesus transferred before the season starts? Nope. Not if his teammates are saying that stuff.
Anyway: here’s the question I have: in defending option football it’s schematically important to put a hat on the QB every single play. That’s obvious. Do you think Big Ten DCs are planning to hit Michigan’s 175 QBs every single play? I do. RichRod may be the best OC in the Big Ten, but he’d better be. I really do think it’s all or nothing this year for UM. They could win 9 and I wouldn’t be surprised. They could win 2, and we’d probably wonder how they beat UMass. Rodriguez has adapted to every environment he’s entered so I guess I’ll go with nine.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
I'll go with the 2
because West Virginia and Michigan are two wholly different places, the Big Ten and the Big East are two wholly different conferences, and 2010 is not 2006.
9 wins seems like a Miracle on Ice type achievement for a team that has shown squat with talent, and now has less. Plus, Rich Rod had great success when his offense was exotic in a world of convention, well Gus Malzahn and a million others have come along in the meantime and defenses, as they always do, have caught up with him. And amping up for annual clashes with Virginia Tech, South Florida and Louisville is a lot different than amping up for Penn State, Michigan State and Ohio State … and the rest.
Long story short, I have not seen Rich Rod adapt to this Big Ten. Otherwise he’d have a player along the lines of an Austen Arnaud (6’3" 230 lbs can run and throw) and he plays at Iowa State so I would think a Michigan can get that prototype. Yet, Rich Rod apparently thinks the way to go is shifty, speedy, 5’ 11" versions. I don’t get it. If these little guys cannot hit a cricket on the top of a Gatorade bottle at 50 yards then defenses are going to smother the shit out of this team. This league has at least four NFL ready defensive ends waiting to destroy these children. What craccks me up is that Iowa would redshirt both those guys and then have them watch for two years as Doyle gets them Big Ten ready, yet Rich Rod hangs his fucking career on them. Baffling.
If I had to guess, Michigan will get to win #3 with a win against Illinois—only because by the time Michigan plays them Illinois will be 3-5 and the talk of Champagne will be when do we fire Zook? Oh, and I guess I’ll give Michigan a 50/50 chance to beat UConn, who is going to play them just like another Big Ten school in all likelihood. They will run endlessly, control clock and crash the LOS on Michigan’s offense. They have a nasty set of LBs from a team that lost five games by a total of 15 points (Phil Steele had one model where they go undefeated) but it’s a home game and the first of the season, so Rich Rod has all campe to game plan for them. If they played further along in the season though I would be shaking in my helmet if I were the nations winningest program.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
My heart says 2
but my brain says, Go with the track record. I think they’ll score points, although both QBs will have repetitive brain injury. They’ll have to score points because they’re fielding a team without linebackers, playing for one of the most overrated DCs in college football. So somehow they’re going to win a lot of 41-38 games and Phil Steele is right. I just don’t know how.
Anyway, back to the sage statistical discussion. I should have said that my premise is that measuring QB health requires a binary outcome analysis, rather than a mean incidence of injury analysis, which makes any statement beginning “On average …” fundamentally pointless. I think that if you ask any HC what happens if his starting QB gets hurt (and remember, he gets 80% of the practice snaps in a very time-limited (whoops, usually time-limited) practice regime, he’ll say, “Well, we just lost that game.” Risking that failure each and every play with admittedly quick dudes who are built like high school juniors is bold, or bold and stupid.
Last, remember how last year Tate was being discussed for the Heisman after they beat Notre Dame? This year his teammate — one of three picked to represent the team at media days? — dumps on him. And Iowa’s got like five guys playing defense who throw a better ball than Robinson. Like I said, I’m going with RichRod playing to type and figuring it out this year, but I do not see how even that can be true if they ever get behind.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
You can’t click your heels and automatically have that big guy who can run and throw. Rodriguez actively recruited some bigger guys last year but they didn’t pick Michigan, so he ended up with Forcier and Robinson.
Devin Gardner will be that bigger guy but he’ll need a redshirt before he fills out to that size – recruiting profiles listed him at 6’4" but around 200 lbs. Their QB commit for the next class is listed at 6’3", 207 on ESPN and 6’2", 213 on Rivals. He went after Pryor right after he took the Michigan job. It’s not like he doesn’t want these bigger guys who can run and throw, it’s that the ones he went after the first couple years didn’t sign with Michigan.
by Yinka Double Dare on Aug 4, 2010 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions
So you're saying
that RichRod’s replacement will have some decent size QB prospects.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
You're over-thinking the problem
I actually posted two follow ups to that article where data was added to increase the sample sizes.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/qb-fragility-update
Stochastic Optimization Problem? What the heck are you talking about? The question is: do running QBs get injured more often? The issues you bring up (offensive scheme, opposing defense, impact on winning) are all irrelevant to the question. QBs were grouped by how often they ran vs. how often they threw, then it was determined whether they suffered an injury or not. When all was said and done the differences between groups was insignificant.
I agree that if a starting QB gets injured, then the teams chances for winning go down significantly. But, that has nothing to do with how often the QB runs and everything to do with the fact that, you know, the starter is usually a better player. You don’t need stochastic optimization to determine that.
C’mon, you’re embarrassing yourself.
O yeah....
I love me some garbage cherry picked statistical analysis.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Aug 4, 2010 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions
To really analyze QB injuries
you will need to watch film on all of the plays where they get injured. What was the QB doing at the time? Scrambling? Standing in the pocket? Running for a first down?
Also, who exactly are the “Scrambling QB’s”. Vince Young, Tim Tebow, OK. but there are a hundred more in the gray area.
Drew Tate threw an interception and decided to tackle the guy himself, no injury. Colt McCoy gets taken down with what didn’t even look like a particularly violent set of events, and he’s out for the game.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
That doesn't sound terribly optimistic.
Friend of the Pants since 2009.
by ReadingRambler on Aug 3, 2010 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions
I’d flip a coin on the UConn game. This is like Boise State taking on Oklahoma in Tempe…. the Huskies are probably going to walk in thinking they can win this one.
Notre Dame will beat them. Kelly will be looking for an early “signature win” to get the faithful excited. While neither team will be all that good next year, first impressions mean a lot.
The best UM hopes for next year is 6-6, and I don’t think they’ll reach that. I wouldn’t be too surprised if they are a 3 win team.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
Can I...
bet large amounts of money with you on UM being better than a 3 win team? Or better than a 5 win team, since you think the best they can hope for is 6 wins?
by LJ7 on Aug 3, 2010 9:41 PM CDT up reply actions
RichRod's job...
is the prize (or loss).
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Aug 4, 2010 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Not large amounts
but yes, I would be willing to bet that UM wins 3 – 6 games this year. I see 2 sure wins and 3 maybes.
By the time Illinois comes to town, I think the QB is too beat up to accomplish much. On the other hand, it is Illinois so…. flip a coin. If Purdue is anywhere near decent, they will probably win.
Now for the hypocrite statement: There is no way in hell I am going to actually place a wager over the internet with somebody I don’t know.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
For what it's worth...
“they’re moving from more of a 4-2-5 a year ago to a 3-3-5 this year” isn’t really a big difference — they usually listed Roh as an OLB in the starting lineup listings last year, as they also did one of the 5 defensive back spots (played by Stevie Brown last year) that I think they call the spur (I screw up the bandit and spur all the time), and it sounds like Roh will still play some of the time on the line. As such, it doesn’t sound to me like they’re really making a wholesale scheme change, just tweaking some things, running more zone looks is one thing they’ve said they’re doing this year. Strangely, GERG taking over all linebacker coaching brings some optimism — if you can fix Stevie Brown (enough so that he was actually drafted) you can probably fix Ezeh and Mouton.
If Denard Robinson can hold onto the ball, I get the feeling that Rodriguez sees Pat White 2 and will start him. He’s Michigan’s fastest player at any position – general consensus was that it was between him and Woolfolk, they both ran the 60 at conference indoor championships and Robinson was faster. If he can present just a plausible passing threat (instead of last year’s threat, which was mainly to Michigan’s continued possession of the football), he’s going to play a lot. Forcier simply doesn’t have his ceiling in this offense. Gardner, of course, has the highest, but everyone hopes that he can be redshirted.
by Yinka Double Dare on Aug 3, 2010 4:37 PM CDT reply actions
If Iowa can shut down Robinson as a run threat then
things will get real ugly real fast for UM. He was by far the sorriest excuse for a passer that iowa faced all last year. Sash and Greenwood will have a pick fest.
If you feel like singing along, don't.
James Taylor
I think Robinson is a home run threat
ala Dave Kingman. Which is to say, a home run then like 7 strikeouts in a row. But those home runs were majestic. Forcier is the best option to win, and he’s not a great option if he has to run even once.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
I'm looking forward to hate week with Michigan this year.
Last year felt like trash talking to a middle schooler.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 4, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
I just don't understand
how Michigan could have such a weak back seven defensively for the second year in a row. This is Michigan, it makes no sense. How many times in your lifetime has Iowa had more talent in the back seven than Michigan, two years in a row? Very strange situation.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
Yeah, it's like they went through...
The Looking Glass, and the rest of the B10 stayed here.
by Norm Parker's Amputated Toes on Aug 4, 2010 9:26 AM CDT up reply actions
The more I think about this
and the more we talk about RichRod and the fantasy of a 175 lb QB NO ONE CAN FIND! WOW! the more I think the real problem for these boys in Ann Arbor is their DC. He’s never constructed from scratch a D, he’s never recruited a successful D, and now they have a truly inferior back 7, he’s working for a hothead HC, there’s no bench …
RichRod has a track record of pulling it out of his hat. Robinson? He’s the total resume. He was around success he didn’t create success.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
Rich Rod reminds me of Spurrier
Both had a successful run but hindsight suggests that they were at the right place at the right time for their greatest success. Both had some success prior (Spurrier at Duke and Rich Rod at Glenville State) but the third move was not the charm. It happens. Hayden Fry was a freak in this regard. He found a way to make it work at each stop. Holtz had three good stops in him but some not so good stops too. It’s not easy. Coaching in college is cultural. I am sure recruiting at WVU is MUCH easier than at Michigan. I would wager that 20% of the recruits at WVU couldn’t pass the entrance threshold at Michigan. Plus he is such a radical departure to what that school’s football identity had been for so long. I mean, he cut his teeth at WVU before venturing out. He was from WV, it was home cooking for him. Michigan looks like jeans in a linen closet on his resume.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
Recruiting...
On the other hand, Michigan is (allegedly) able to nationally recruit. There are probably more resources to use and more connections already made.
Of course, it is really all about momentum. Even though Ferentz had a rough couple of years at the beginning, there was improvement along the way. While RichRod did go from 3 wins to 5 wins, he took a step back in terms of conference wins. The practice scandal did not help.
Finally, you almost want to take over a program that has had one or two real down years right before you got there. Expectations would be at a minimum, and you can build things your way rather than make haphazard moves.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Aug 4, 2010 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions
The Spurrier reference is chilling, if you are a UM fan.
It didn’t work for him in the NFL, nor SC.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
I can't believe I'm going to defend Old Ball Coach.
But he hasn’t been an abject failure at UofSC. He isn’t overachieving, but he is usually at about where the SEC pecking order would place him. He has always won 7 a year there. He is in a division that includes the Florida dynasty, a strong program in Georgia, and a sleeping giant in Tennessee.
Maybe you can fault him for losing to Vandy twice, and losing most of his bowl games at UofSC.
Yes, he should never have left Florida. But you have to give him credit for reviving Duke for a couple years.
And I say all of this while not really caring for him as a human (too much ornery coot-ness).
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Aug 4, 2010 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions
He just isn't very successful
he loses too many games in which he’s favored and cannot win the big game. Like a home game against a so-called power in that conference. He recruits like a motherfucker too, which makes it all the more surprising. Under Spurrier more USC players have been taken in the first three rounds than, maybe, in history.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
His problem
Is that he is exactly where South Carolina would be if you plugged in any generic coach. Spurrier neither adds value nor is a hindrance, South Carolina is right where one would expect them to be historically, always bowl-eligible, clearly behind the alpha dog (Florida) in their division, occasionally on par with the beta dogs (TN and GA) when they’re having a down year, and better than the dregs (Vandy, Kentucky). Spurrier receives praise for what he did at Duke (deservedly) and Florida, especially the latter. But it has become increasingly clear from his stops at the Redskins and Gamecocks that, once you take away the huge talent disparity Spurrier enjoyed while at Florida (and having two traditional powers – Auburn and ‘Bama – on probation for periods of that run), he is just an above-.500 coach. He is neither innovative nor adaptive, he simply relies on his guys being better than yours, and when they aren’t, he loses.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Caveat
I must acknowledge, however, that Spurrier changed the face of the SEC. before he got there, it was a rather slow, plodding, conservative league (all the things the Big Ten is accused of, only more so). Spurrier opened it up and went after the best, fastest athletes – especially at the skill positions – and just threatened to just run opposing teams off the field. Much of the vaunted ESSS EEEE CEEEE SPEEEED!!!! can be traced to other teams trying to catch up to him, something they largely accomplished. It is telling that in the 12 seasons Spurrier coached at Florida, he won the SEC title 5 times in his first six years but only one it once in his last six seasons; the rest of the league had caught up.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Yep, Stoops, I did consider his recruiting success. We’ll have to see if that continues, or if good players would rather not play in the Independence Bowl every other year. You are correct that he seems to get his wins when nobody is paying attention.
And yes, Hoya, you are right about him not really having done more than an OK coach would. I had remembered that Bama was not good during his time, but thank you for reminding me about their probation.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Aug 4, 2010 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions
True.
yo, recruiting at Florida is a different animal than recruiting at SoCar, as well. No matter how good a coach you are, the team with the better players wins 8 out of 10. AT Florida he had top talent, in Washington, most NFL players are excellent athletes and he had no real talent advantage over anyone else (except the Lions). AT SoCar it’s the same story, he doesn’t have the talent to compete with the top programs, but in his defense, No one in the SEC has competed with Bama or Florida in the last 2 seasons. 3 combined losses in the SEC for those 2 schools and 2 of them were to each other in the conf title game.
Wow
As a Michigan fan, it’s interesting to see how the other half lives. I wouldn’t quite write this game off just yet. You don’t think Stanzi will have games as bad as he did last year? You didn’t think he would do it last year either. You can find 3 plays against us that would’ve drastically changed the outcome of the game. You can argue the score doesn’t indicate the tide of the game, but you should also be mindful that you had difficulty closing out a team that is as bad as all of you seem to think. That should concern you, because everyone in the conference is better (yes, including us) and the inability for Stanzi to avoid mistakes or the entire team to not close out weaker opponents in the 4th could spell doom throughout the Big 10 season.

by 




















