Hello Darkness My Old Friend

(HT: @NicolasLeroi)

Michigan 16, Iowa 24

At a certain point in the game, my worldview shifted from one defined by wins and losses to one of practical improvements, of an intellectual inching forward toward something that could be deemed ideal or even not entirely objectionable. It's hard to be mad when you've seen this story over and over again; if you're surprised by the ending then you should probably pay a little closer attention. This is what Michigan has done for years. In the interest of putting a name to it, we'll simply call this the Ben Chappell Theorem; that is, that if Michigan plays a team with multiple glaring weaknesses/an air of general incompetency that has already failed in the face of the opposition of other inferior teams, then, it must necessarily follow, that not only will Michigan not exploit those weaknesses (or what are ostensibly weaknesses, i.e. Michigan State's offensive line) effectively (usually not for lack of some trying, though), they will make certain players look like All-Americans in the process. An enormous shadow of a mouse becomes something much worse in the shifting tectonic plates of light and dark. Just as Michigan made former Indiana QB Ben Chappell look like the greatest thing ever on one afternoon, Michigan continues to make the mediocre look exceptional.

Unfortunately, as nondescript as Iowa football is this year save for a battering ram of a tailback and a receiver with a certain NFL future, it seems that Michigan is probably just as mediocre. Yet, how could we lose to a team that just lost to Minnesota? How could we muster up less yards against Iowa's decidedly mediocre, surprisingly untalented defense than almost every one of Iowa's previous opponents?

Although I figured this would be a loss before the season, I also thought Iowa would've been somewhat decent. There are really no excuses here. At the same time, maybe it's my fault for forgetting about the Chappell Theorem, just like those who touted State's porous offensive line while forgetting that we ourselves boasted a depth-less line with very little high end talent. You could say it's a battle of preconceived notions and reality, a reality which is mostly composed of Big Ten unexceptionalism and crippling mediocrity. We are what we are, which is mostly just as bad as everybody else. If you're expecting a win against Illinois because we are better and this is how things should normally go, you are setting yourself up for failure pursuant to every single clause of the Chappell Theorem.

Even worse than who we lost to and how we lost is the fact that this was a classic Lloyd era loss. We fell behind by two scores then went into "OH CRAP IT'S SHOTGUN TIME" mode, only to advance enough to be able to fall three yards short. We've heard this story before.

The Offense 

I mean, honestly. Michigan had some success in the first half on the ground, with Fitz Toussaint bouncing left and right and bursting through holes such with grace and skill that my little sister made a Mike Hart comparison without even being at all aware of the Fred Jackson hyperbole meme (so, that was a proud moment). Overall, though, Fitz only finished with 58 yards on 16 carries, with most of the yardage coming in the first half. After that it was a series of 0 and 1-yard runs until he was eventually knocked out of the game. It seems that Michigan probably did some sort of work on the power game during the last two weeks of practice in an attempt to "normalize" the offense, and it worked in the first half mostly because Iowa's defensive line is not very big and our line was able to push somebody around for once. However, being predictable eventually nullifies that advantage, and we were predictable.

For the second time in a row, Michigan has gone on the road and Al Borges seemingly has forgotten how to call plays. I'm not quite at the point where saying that "Al Borges: Denard Robinson::Jim Tressel: Terrelle Pryor" but I'm getting close. I get that he's not a spread guy, but I thought we were past the under center experiment? I'm sure it was kind of cool for Borges and Hoke to be able to look like a real BIG TEN OFFENSE in the first half (while putting up 7 points), but man it just seemed like a sham the entire time. This is just not who we are and I don't really understand why Al keeps trying it.

There were problems with the playcalling to be sure...I still don't understand Borges's aversion to the bubble screen, and I don't really remember too many screens in general. The dual-QB set probably needs to die. If getting Gardner snaps comes at the expense of offensive continuity, or makes a winnable game less winnable by any order of magnitude, then he should not be playing. I think Devin is going to be a good player once Denard is gone, but he showed once again that he really isn't doing anything that much better than Denard is, which is worse than it sounds considering that they're both, for all intents and purposes, first year players in this kaleidoscopic invertebrate of an offense.

While there are many things to complain about, a few nice things did happen. On Michigan's first touchdown drive, Denard was doing things like going through progressions and checking down, which, you're darn right that's an improvement. It's pretty bad that your junior starting quarterback is just starting to acquire these skills but this is where we are. Even though Denard went a pretty bad 18/38, a decent number of the incompletions were either drops or hopeless long balls that shouldn't have been thrown in the first place. A good amount of the time that Denard wasn't throwing the ball right at a defensive end's hands or out of bounds 40+ yards down the field, he was looking confident and throwing a decent ball, just like last week against Purdue. Of course, this only happened when Michigan picked up the pace in the comeback effort, getting in the 'gun and running play after play while giving the Iowa defense very little time to rest, and...wait a second. This sounds familiar.

I'm not giving up on Al quite yet; while his move from Auburn to SDSU should've been (and is) somewhat of a red flag, I still believe that he knows enough about offense, generally, that we at the very least won't look like this once we have the types of players in there that the staff is looking for. The worry still exists that this offensive attack is nothing more than an amalgamation of plays rather than an offense, but the only other options (running the RR spread or a straight up plodding I-form based run game), are, well, non-options for obvious reasons.

With that said, while Al has failed to get Michigan going in the last two road efforts, some onus has to fall on the players. As for the last drive, I've though about it and while I was initially upset that Al didn't do this or that, in the end what he did do should have probably worked. It just didn't, and that's just a testament to the fact that even a well-laid plan can be ground to powder by the machinations of reality. The Michigan timeout before Iowa's second to last punt came back to bit us hard in this situation, as we still would have had one in hand, probably changing our entire approach to that set of downs. But, with no timeouts, a limited amount of time left, and a quarterback that often holds onto the ball way too long in the face of a rush (in a situation where a sack=death), the way Borges called it is somewhat understandable. Vanilla, maybe, but one of those attempts should have resulted in a score.

On first and goal, Denard completely misfired on that short-ish fade to Hemingway; given how lost Micah Hyde looked on the next play, if Denard had, you know, not thrown it clear out of the end zone, I'd say that Hemingway stood a good chance of reeling in the TD right then and there. But, Denard being Denard, he throw it out of the end zone and the fact that Hyde looked like he was completely lost in the woods was not taken advantage of.

On second and goal, we know what happened...again, if Denard throws this one just a little bit better, Hemingway doesn't need to make a highlight reel play and we have a shot to tie. He didn't but Hemingway still brought it in...until it was ruled incomplete. The fact that MSU's Hail Mary against Wisconsin is a TD but this wasn't...I just don't know anymore. Indisputable video evidence is often an impossibility at times and an enabler of unadulterated referee pussyfooting. Was it a catch? I hate to say it, but it was not, although I'd love for someone to tell me otherwise. In the flow of the game, though, it was understandably pretty easy to coerce yourself into believing that the ball did not in fact hit the white.

On third and goal, Denard masterfully avoided a completely unblocked blitzer coming up the middle to launch a pass to a diving Vincent Smith. It would have been a difficult play to make for Smith, but it was there and he simply didn't make it. There's nothing else to say.

It was fourth and goal, and, being the last play of the game, you could argue that a run would have been warranted (the timeout called after the Roundtree reception essentially eliminated the choice on first through third down). Honestly, would it have been a lower percentage play than a pass (if any lower at all)? Of course, we passed and Roundtree was mauled by B.J. Lowery in what was not the first uncalled pass interference of the game. The slant was there and it's a fairly high percentage play...I can't really fault any of these calls in and of themselves. In a vacuum, each one was fine, especially if any of them would have worked. You can say that we should've rolled Denard out but that risks taking a sack and/or running off enough clock to eliminate an opportunity. Fourth and goal was really the only time you could call it a running play, but let's be honest, Al wasn't going to do that.

It was an old school Michigan offensive effort in a loss...unimaginative and flailingly effective in a just short last ditch effort. For a team being led by a coordinator that "knows offense" and has spiced things up with 2-QB formations, Michigan was predictable and unimaginative when it mattered, just like the old days. Al going into full on "watch these four verts bro" mode on the last drive leading up to the last four plays didn't exactly help the situation. Iowa's defense practically inherently gives up free completions/large chunks of yardage...when was the last time Denard completed a deep ball that wasn't a jump ball?

The Defense


For all the defense's flaws, a rational person just can't be mad at it. The defense is like a puppy that has rolled around in the mud and then proceeded to jump all over you and your white shirt...OH PUPPY DEFENSE I CAN'T STAY MAD AT YOU. Although, there's something to be said (something bad) about a defense that calls to mind the image of an adorable puppy. So, there's that.

In all seriousness, Iowa's offense was who we thought they were: a team with a Dollar Tree version of Beanie Wells--by no means an insult--paired with a strong-armed quarterback capable of making you pay and a pretty good receiver in McNutt. They didn't even have that middle-of-the-field-eviscerating tight end that they normally do.

At the end of the day, giving up 24 points and only 302 total yards on the road is not bad at all. I can live with that, although the trend of Michigan coming out and looking like a complete sieve on the first drive continues. Plays were made, and perhaps the only significant knock was the inability to force a turnover, which Michigan has relied on for sustenance all year. I can't even get mad about Coker's performance against our front...it was kind of expected. Coker carried the ball 29 times for 132 yards at 4.6 ypc. That's not encouraging or anything--particularly in light of our complete inability to bring him down for no gain despite multiple defenders being draped all over him--but it's not terrible.

Martin, RVB, and Roh came through on several occasions with much-needed TFLs. Heck, even Will Heininger got in there and made a play. It's safe to say that Iowa's line isn't exactly great, but it's still nice to see Martin and Co. knifing through the line and making plays.

As we already know, the depth just isn't there (and, needless to say, is overall quality of talent), and, paired with young and slow linebackers, that's just asking to get gashed. Michigan better get used to it, because there are the next three teams we face will look to run the ball again and again and again. Scheelhaase and Ford next week, then it's Martinez and Burkhead, then it's OSU's stable of talented, capable backs...it doesn't get easier.

Back to the linebackers...they are slow. That play on the first drive where Demens pulled up like he got hurt underscored a severe lack of speed and athleticism on his part, a fact only made more apparent after watching the LSU-Alabama defensive slugfest. Even Morgan, who is a clear upgrade over Hawthorne, and Ryan, who has shown some promise, just don't have enough speed to get to the ball at times. It is what it is. We just sort of have to ride with them until the incoming class of linebackers makes their way into the system.

Am I missing something or did Thomas Gordon not even play at all? I understand Woolfolk being on the field (he did a solid job moonlighting as a safety in '09) but did he really deserve to completely usurp the position from him? Unless Gordon was injured and Hoke wasn't saying anything (entirely possible) then I think the answer is no. Other than that, Countess continues to make the case that he's our best cover corner. So, that's nice.

Also, the 3rd & 1 stops on Iowa's last two drives were things of beauty. That is all.

Special Teams 


Gibbons?

Despite making his one field goal, the haunting pall of mediocrity looming over everything precludes me from anything representing happiness (e.g. dancing Swanson). Maybe next week. Oh, and there's the botched XP, which didn't really end up mattering because Michigan couldn't score at the end, but was still pretty bad.

Otherwise, Hagerup booted 5 for a total of 197 yards and an average of 39.4 per...he did have a long of 49 but that average is not very good. Hagerup reverting to his old form would be nice, as the defense will take any extra bit of help it can get in the coming weeks. Rounding out the special teams, Michigan defended returns pretty well and the return game the other way continues to not turn the ball over. Odoms did have a nice kick return for the second week in a row that I felt could have almost gone for much more.

Despite a couple slightly better than average returns, Stonum's return next year will provide an enormous boost on kick returns (not to mention his obvious effect on the offense)...I feel like I say this every week.

Miscellaneous Minutiae

• Speaking of Odoms...he finally caught his first pass of the season on Michigan's last drive, a clutch catch and run for 13 yards on 3rd and 10. So, even though this year probably hasn't turned out like he might've wanted, there is that. Good for him. 

• Apparently Delonte Hollowell got in the game f.or the first time this year, notching 1 total tackle. I don't remember when this happened, but it did. I wonder what the motivation for burning his redshirt at this point in the year might be. 

• Personal foul on Lewan...come on, man. 

• Understatement alert, but I wish Denard had the sense to know when he should run. I understand the cognitive dissonance of telling a guy "be patient" but also "RUN RUN RUN LIKE YOU'VE NEVER RUN BEFORE" (which is often), but the fact remains that he's still not taking off when it's there, just like last year. It's consistently taking what should be a gain of some amount of yards and turning it into an incompletion, a sack, or a turnover. But, this is what you get when you take an already raw player and make him start all over again. 

• Just like the State game, Michigan was right there despite looking like garbage for much of the game. The fumble (which led to an Iowa field goal) and the soul-crushing interception in the red zone could very well be the difference in the game. That, and a few questionable pass interference no-calls pushed the win Iowa's way. It always sounds so sour grapesy to complain about the refs, but come on. That last play was a pass interference, period, and to say "oh well we just didn't do enough to win blah blah blah" and entertain notions of "deserving" to win is dumb. The refs did have a negative effect on the outcome of the game. Should Michigan have just not played horrible football and won anyway? Yeah, sure, but a team shouldn't have to overcome the refs to do so, especially when two teams are so evenly matched...I've never really understood the whole "the refs don't matter just play" argument as anything other than a convenient coping mechanism for fans who don't want to think about how their team was just obviously jobbed.  

• As Brian pointed out on Twitter, Michigan put up less yards against Iowa than this list of glorious champions of football prowess: Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern, Penn State, Pitt, Iowa State, and Louisiana-Monroe. I am now truly sad having typed that. 

• The 2-QB system needs to stop, starting this Saturday at Illinois. Gardner is not ready; here's to a great offseason for him and we'll try this thing again next year. As for now, Denard is and should be the guy. When put in the right position, he's proven that he can throw the ball well enough to lead a functioning offense. If they're going to keep doing this, Gardner needs to be on the field for entire drives, not a play here and there. 

• I'm always hesitant when it comes to saying anything negative about Denard, particularly regarding his speed, but...yeah. He's definitely slower this year. Part of it is definitely the offense, which has him hesitating with the ball in his hands when he'd simply just make people look like buoys floating in Lake Michigan in similar situations last season. I don't know if he's just banged up or if it's the added weight or what, but there's a noticeable difference. 

• FWIW, Denard moved into 9th place on Michigan's all-time leading rushers list. 

Punch Drunk

(HT: Mike DeSimone)

Michigan 14, Brahs 28

As Michigan left the fittingly trash-laden Spartan Stadium on Saturday, my immediate reaction was obviously one of disappointment. It's not that I felt so sure that we were going to win (I pretty much convinced myself of every possible score being possible in the days leading up to the game), but once they start playing you convince yourself that the bad things you hoped wouldn't happen actually wouldn't end up happening. You thought that maybe Denard wouldn't come out throwing passes into the sun for once, or maybe the running game via Fitz or Smith would be good for a decent gain here and there, that maybe the defense wouldn't get gashed by an ostensibly mediocre offensive line. Unfortunately, all of those things happened. It was like flipping over what looked like a perfectly stable, solid log only to find hordes of termites crawling all over the place. This thing is flawed, and a 6-0 start consisting of wins against Notre Dame and five other mediocre to downright horrid teams didn't change that. 

Last week I gave Mark Dantonio some flak (more on that in a bit), but I will say this: I never said he was a bad coach (I never even said MSU was a bad team). He is good at getting his team up for the Michigan game (obviously), and while the jury's still out on whether or not seasons like 2010 can happen on a regular or semi-regular basis, he is a good coach, period. His teams are bland by the standards of the modern landscape of college football--Cover 2 4-3s and a pro-style, downhill running game with a pocket passer--but that's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if you do the things that you do well (after all, the two best teams in the currently are basically MSU with much better talent). He's capable of sprinkling in some panache here and there when necessary (e.g., Little Giants) like good coaches do (this year's ND game is the exception). As a football tactician and motivator, he's just about as good of a guy as MSU could've expected to have post-JLS. 

Normally I spend the time in the beginning of these recaps to talk about the game in a more general sense, like what it means going forward and whether certain trends are being corroborated or destroyed by the newest data point. What does this game mean for Michigan? Well, it depends on what your expectations were to begin with. I think 8 wins is certainly still in reach, but if you were expecting 10--either before the season or after the Northwestern game--then you might be a little bit disappointed. Otherwise, this isn't an entirely unexpected outcome. I'm sure this would be different if I was in Michigan right now, but I'm more upset at how we lost than the fact that we lost to Michigan State. In these types of games, you just have to tip your hat to the guy across the sidelines and say "well done, you win." This game isn't Michigan's season, and there is still a chance to do something of significance this season. Of course,we know how the last couple seasons have gone after that first loss.

Normally, I would do this. I want to say that MSU just straight up beat us, with no qualifiers. We didn't help ourselves at all, but, at the end of the day, we weren't playing against air. They played a solid game (admittedly not a great one), but more importantly, they played a better game than we did. The refs made some questionable calls, but they didn't force our lines to get handled for most of the contest.

I say I would normally do this only to emphasize that I'm not doing it now. I'm sure MSU fans will somehow find this and be all HURR DURR Y U NO RESPECT but honestly, if you can watch that game and condone some of the things that were going on out there then, to quote Rooster Cogburn, "I ain't do nothin' for ya son." I mean, really? Gholston's play was absolutely despicable, and to see guys like him get talked to by the head coach, only to be out there on the next play, drive, in the game again at all...says a lot. To see Marcus Rush get an obvious personal foul penalty then pace up and down the sidelines cussing up a storm as if he didn't do anything wrong, getting high-fived, even, was classic. I don't need to run through each one; we all saw it. As a Michigan fan--if the script was flipped--would you feel okay about this game? Sure, you'd have the win, but is that really all that matters? The answer is a definitive and resounding no. No no a million times no. I was furious when Greg Mathews kicked that Oregon DB and Mouton gave that ND offensive lineman a little upper cut, as were most other Michigan fans. This is why I do not respect Mark Dantonio, and probably never will. It's not like those penalties were the "defender leaves his feet and can't pull up" variety; they were intentional, dirty plays. That type of stuff comes from somewhere.

That's what we try to do. Sixty minutes of unnecessary roughness. 

That's MSU DC Pat Narduzzi. It's not even covert.

If there was ever a more "this is why we're not them" moment, it was the Gholston punch. It would almost be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous. Lewan almost appeared to be helping Gholston up, only to get socked in the face in the middle of what was supposedly a football game*. How was this spotted by the refs and given a flag but no ejection? How is this even possible? The fact that that happened and Gholston was in on the next drive tells me all I need to know about Mark Dantonio.

If there's anything to be truly frustrated about, it's that we lost to a team that plays like this, to a coach that silently condones this type of behavior on and off the field. Of course, it should be made clear that we did not lose because of these penalties. So, then, what happened, exactly?


*I can imagine thousands of Sparty brahs trying to wallpaper their places with pictures of Gholston's Falcon Punch, and I can't even begin to imagine the number of message board signatures that will inevitably feature this picture. SICK SIG BRAH.

The Offense


We all came in with the understanding that MSU's defense was good, and obviously we weren't going to move the ball like we did against Northwestern. How good was the question, and while I vacillated between "pretty darn good but a touch stat-padded" and "solid but somewhat paper tigerish," it was obvious that Michigan State is fielding a pretty good defense, which is especially remarkable given the youth at the end positions and what was lost at linebacker. Even the secondary wasn't the generic medley of mediocrity that MSU has put out there in the past.

It pains me to say this, but this game was eerily reminiscent of the Mississippi State game. MSU wasn't quite as blitz-mad as Diaz's insane defense, but Narduzzi brought the heat all day from various points on the field. They brought the corner blitz (most notably on the infamous 4th & derp), they crashed the backers up the middle, and generally did everything they could to send more guys than we could block. I mean, if you were trying to defend Denard, wouldn't you? Obviously you run the risk of Denard slipping out and running for large chunks of yardage, but that didn't happen for a number of reasons. For some reason, Denard continues to not run on passing plays when it seems clear that he probably should. I understand the desire to make him be a little more patient, but this is something that needs to change. The mental process that goes with deciding whether to run or pass on a given play for a talent like Denard is admittedly pretty delicate; that is, once you starting running once or twice then the offense risks becoming one-read-and-go. Not only does Denard not run, but he takes too long to recognize when pressure is coming/when he should get rid of it if need be. On top of this, when he did throw while being chased by blitzers, he was generally wildly erratic throwing the ball. If I'm an opposing DC, I watch both MSU (Bulldogs and Spartans) games for tape of how to completely stop this offense. The blueprint should be pretty obvious at this point.

Like the Mississippi State game, Michigan came out with a nice initial punch. The only problem is that once MSU started punching back, we had no answer. Despite this showing, I still have a general confidence in Borges's ability to call an offense, but it's hard for even the most trustworthy of fans to say that their confidence meter didn't tick down a notch or two. Trust the coaches and whatnot, but as far as I could tell we very rarely (if at all), checked out of any plays in which a blitz was clearly imminent. Honestly, as a Bears fan, it kind of reminded me of the Lions game last Monday; you knew the pressure was coming and that nothing would be done to impede the progress of at least one rusher. I'd have to watch the game again to notice (I'll probably have to pass on this one), but not having a back in to play--particularly one with Smith's blocking prowess--on a number of occasions was frankly a little curious. The 4th&1 was obviously just a dreadful call in general, but Moore was blocking a nice patch of air while a MSU corner zoomed behind him, and on the interception that ended it, a blitzer came straight up the middle untouched. The second play I have to fault Smith somewhat for not being aware of the hot route situation. Either way, you're not in a good situation as a quarterback when you have to get the snap and fling it almost immediately when you don't really want to.

In general, though, we were pushed around. As reductive as it is, games are won and lost in the trenches, and we seemed to lose that battle much more often than we won it. We ran Smith up the middle time and time again out of the shotgun only to get anywhere from a loss of a a couple to maybe two yards (after the initial drive). We kept plowing into the line and I kept hoping that maybe this was a set-up for something else, that maybe some sort of counter was coming (kind of like the play in the first half where Michigan ran to the opposite side from the shuffling fullback, which isn't so much a counter as it is breaking a historical tendency). It never came, and even that ridiculously awesome pull on the fourth down that Michigan converted wasn't a counter but a simple case of just making the right read.

Obviously, MSU has a good defense, but they were supposedly a 4-3 cover 2 that didn't blitz much (i.e., Iowa); of course, that was not the case. As good as they were, there is always a counterpunch to be had, and failing to find that counterpunch can either be the fault of a lack of execution or poor playcalling. Unfortunately, I think we had a bad case of both. Denard is not a great passer (or even a good one), but he can be good enough to get the job done if used correctly. There's nothing Borges can do about Denard zinging passes way over open receiver's heads (e.g., that one pass to Roundtree in the middle after which Denard looked strangely upset at Roundtree for some reason), but there has to be something to get Denard in a rhythm. This isn't anything new. Where were the screens? Running back screens, tight end screens, wide receiver screens, hitches, slants, curls, something. Why does it seem like everything is deep? I raised this question earlier this year about us throwing deep way too much and came to the conclusion that sometimes that's just what the defense is giving you, and if that means going deep then you do it and hope you connect on one to back them off. That's just not working.

This is not an easy fix. If Denard continues to be wildly inaccurate on passes that even your fairly average D1 college football then, really, what can we do? We can't run the ball at all, and for an offensive line that we all had some hopes for despite the change in schemes (from the spread to a hodgepodge of random incoherent nothingness), they are looking pretty bad. They didn't look great against Northwestern either, but I forgave that because the Wildcats were obviously selling out pretty heavily on the run. Notre Dame, the only other team of note on Michigan's schedule thus far, also completely owned the LOS when Michigan had the ball. This is a disturbing trend that probably won't change because we're stuck with the personnel we're stuck with. Lewan had his usual game (as far as I could tell) and seemed to generally control Gholston except for when he was getting punched in the face, but Schofield and Huyge are just average, and Molk and Omameh just can't seem to get enough push against the bigger guys. It might not be until 2014 until we see what a Brady Hoke offensive line is supposed to look like, all the way from the type of personnel to scheme.

Even with the lack of scheme-specific talent and execution, this one was just bad in every way for Borges. I figured the 2-QB formation would be used a decent amount, but I never thought Denard would be off the field completely in so many different situations. As bad as Denard was, there's no reason to do that unless he's injured. Despite it all, we were right there in the end until the derpiest 4th&1 call of all time. I know every OC dreams of making that amazing call, but this was just pure foolishness, particularly if you go back and look at the space available for Denard to sneak through. Just...why? That phrase should be the lasting memory of the offensive gameplan for this game: Just, why?



The Defense


At the beginning of the game I kept saying how I was actually more worried about the offense. I was right, but it left a hollow sense correctness given the circumstances. In my preview of the game I did express some concern that we were relying on MSU's OL not being very good a little too much, and that I had a feeling that stopping them wouldn't be as easy as we thought it would be. How many times have we been torn up by mediocre at best players in the past? Exhibit A: Ben Chappell. BEN CHAPPELL. That right there should be enough to never take any part of any team lightly for the rest of time.

Let's be honest, our defensive line has some talent on it, but at the end of the day is still pretty average. Craig Roh began to show some signs of life the last few weeks against weak competition, but he was once again pretty much a non-factor it seemed. RVB was around some plays--including a couple QB hurries--doing well to chase and make some tackles down the field that a lot of linemen wouldn't be able to make (e.g., the tracking down of Hillman--and fumble--in the SDSU game), but he has trouble holding up at times. Again, I'd have to watch the game again to notice but Mike Martin didn't seem to have any obvious impact. However, I always hate criticizing Martin in any way because it seems like he's getting doubled all the time and nobody else is really beating their single blocking with any sort of regularity, if at all (looking at you, Heininger*). I don't know if the reality on the ground is that simple, but I suspect that it is.

The Spartans got at least four yards per carry without fail, ending up with an average of 5.5 ypc. That's bad. Baker had the hot hand for MSU today, as the Spartans rode him for 26 carries and 167 yards. Michigan held Bell in check pretty well but given Baker's numbers it obviously didn't matter. The first drive in particular was just another reminder (as if we needed any more after last year's Wisconsin game) that Michigan is still a long way to go from being anywhere close to being able to stop power rushing attacks like this. Somehow, though, Michigan held MSU to 7 in the first half, and MSU only scored 14 more offensive points in the second. Despite getting mauled for much of the game, that's actually pretty good. Michigan's defense still has some glaring deficiencies that no number of Mattison adjustments will be able to fix, and I think that as the Big Ten schedule goes on some of those will continue to rear their ugly heads. The 6-0 start was nice, sure, but it didn't change the fact that this defense is still very talent-deficient, not very deep, not particularly athletic at certain spots, and lacking defensive speed in general. Like the offensive line, this will only ameliorate with time, coaching, and recruiting.

Michigan didn't really get close to Cousins very often, but MSU only passed 24 times, and a number of those were pretty quick releases. MSU didn't even need to pass to move the ball, but when they did Cousins generally wasn't all that impressive to be honest. On more than one occasion a play unfolded in which Cousins just needed to make a fairly reasonable play in the face of some slight pressure and he just didn't do it. Drops didn't help him though, and there were two pretty egregious ones by Cunningham and the other one early on that would've been a touchdown (was that Martin?). So, Cousins was 13/24 for 120 yards and 2 TDs. Nobody really killed us, and both Martin touchdowns featured some atrocious tackling.

Here and there we were reacquainted with the good ol' 10-yard cushion on 3rd&6, but overall the secondary wasn't noticeably terrible except for Woolfolk. I hate to say it, but it's pretty obvious that all the "wait till we get Woolfolk" chatter was just a touch misguided. Woolfolk is just not that good; Floyd and Countess are clearly our two best corners. It's good that Countess has shown the ability to get on the field as a true freshman, but, you know, it's also kind of bad.

*Looking at the box score, Heininger apparently notched a pair of TFLs, so at least he did something. I don't remember these plays at all because the game is now a monolithic depression-inducing blur, but the mgoblue.com box score says it happened.

Special Teams


Gibbons?

No Gibbons this week so no Swanson. Should Michigan have kicked a field goal instead of going for it on that fourth down? No, no they shouldn't have.

Otherwise, not much of note here. Hagerup had plenty of opportunities to work on his somewhat mediocre numbers since his return and he did manage to pin MSU deep more than once. Not going to lie, the straight line rocket punt into the stands was kind of hilarious. Michigan won the field position game most of the time but unfortunately was not able to do anything with it in the first half.

Michigan continues to be completely unimpressive in the return game. Of course, everybody but us can get to the 30 with ease. We are really missing Stonum in the kickoff return department. As long as we continue to hold on to the ball, though, this will continue to be a phase of the game that doesn't help or hurt us, which is an improvement from recent years.

Miscellaneous Minutiae

• Never has a dirty stadium been so apropos. 
• The spot on the reception right before the 4th & derp absolutely deserved to be looked at...it certainly was close enough to merit a second look. 
• Maybe I'm imagining this, but right before they cut away from the game a bunch of Spartan players gave somebody a Gatorade shower...only thing is, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Dantonio, because the guy definitely turned around and looked at them with an amusingly confused look. Not only is a Gatorade shower for a game that really doesn't determine anything completely a Sparty thing to do, but they couldn't even get the right guy. Did anybody else see this or am I just imagining it?
• In the game preview I said that something would have to give re: Michigan's sterling third down conversion rate and MSU's equally impressive third down prevention percentage...and boy did it. Michigan went 3/15 on third down. Seven punts in a row after the opening drive=absolutely no offensive rhythm. 
• On the plus side, the defense continued the 2011 Turnover Collection Tour, adding two more recovered fumbles to the already impressive body of work. 
• Gardner looked slightly better than Denard throwing the ball, which honestly doesn't speak to Devin's game too much given how Denard played. Devin will be a good player for us, but the time is not now. Denard should be the starter for Purdue without question unless he is seriously injured. However, I am starting to get more open to the idea of seeing Devin on the field. How this will be done is the tricky part. 
• I haven't heard an explanation yet for the Lewis pick 6 taunting no-call. I'm not saying it would have mattered in the end, but after a week in which the rule was actually used (in the LSU game last week), you'd think the refs would be aware and ready to call it. It's not like it wasn't an obvious taunt or anything. Speaking of the refs, what about the backwards pass? What about the review on the Denard TD but not the Martin TD (Martin's TD was in fact a TD, but still...consistency, please). What about the play where Martin just barely stepped out but the play was confirmed after review? Am I crazy or did he not definitely step out? What about all the missed holding calls in the first quarter? None of these really directly contributed to the loss, but they're all still pretty irritating. 
• Michigan did go to the option a couple times but I wish they'd gone to it a little more. I wish they'd try to do something different in the running game from time to time. While it didn't really work, at least it gets Denard in space and gives you the opportunity to do something other than pointlessly bash tiny Vincent Smith into a wall of enormous human beings for an at best 2-yard gain when the middle of the defensive line obviously isn't going anywhere. 
• This kind of goes without saying but the uniforms were awful. So much for tradition, Dave. Soon we'll have t-shirt cannons and FREEEE PIZZAAAAA in the Big House. 
• I'm glad I'm done writing this. It's time to move on and worry about Purdue. Enjoy the bye week.