photo courtesy of the Detroit News
I'm a electric razor guy but sometimes I like to use a regular razor to get a closer shave. Well, my skin isn't used to the regular razor and I get small cuts on my face and neck.
The Michigan Football team used a regular razor today which gave us another reminder that this is the start of the journey and not the middle of it. This team last year lost these type of games. Today, Michigan won and the difference was a true freshman named Tate Forcier who is a real "gamer". He threw balls to Indiana's defensive lineman and also hit a Odoms on a beautiful post route for the winning touchdown. On this day he looked like a freshman and veteran but the most important thing was, he never gave up and continued to run for first down and touchdowns even when his shoulder was banged up. Tate might be the toughest 188 pounder in college football.
We also learned on Saturday the Michigan defense has a lot of problems. Indiana had a great game plan and gained at total of 467 yards to Michigan's 372. IU seemed to march down the field at will but could only muster field goals instead to touchdowns. Which was the difference in the game. Boubacar got benched early for JT Floyd who has also looked shaky this year. (Is it time to burn Justin Turners redshirt?). The Michigan D gave up big runs and intermediate pass routes, but when the game was on the line, Warren wrestled away a pick to seal/steal the game.
A win is a win and since Michigan only had 3 last year. We will take this one (#4).
Now to the Cheers and Jeers:
Cheers:
- Tate's toughness
- Carlos "Santana" Brown's screen pass and running ability
- Odoms catching the deep touchdown pass
- Warren's pick to save the game (which I thought was a bad call btw)
- Zoltan averaging 48 yards per punt
- Stonum had 218 yards on kick off returns
- The gum toss by IU's head coach Bill Lynch was a classic!
Jeers:
- Where was the defense?
- Michigan has a problem at corner back opposite of Warren
- Linebackers? Hello? Where are you?
- Pass Rush - One sack during the game
- I was afraid of bad snaps with the loss of Molk. Moosman and the QB's needs to work on the shotgun all week. Those bad snaps must of cost Michigan 60-80 yards.
- The run game? I think Michigan tried to force the pass game when they were getting 5-7 yards each time Brown or Minor touched the ball. Too many QB run plays when Tate was in there.
- Turnovers
Michigan is going to have to win games like this all year. They are going to have to out score opponents because the defense is going to give up a ton of points. Give credit to IU, they were a much better team then most of us thought.
Note for next week: Beware of the 1-3 Spartans. They are desperate and next week will be the FedEx Duo's (Tate and Denard) first taste at a hostile environment. Not to mention the extent of Tate's injuries and how that will effect his playing time next Saturday.
7 comments:
You missed one: LOTS of missed tackles.
good point, there were a ton.
The only reason this game was close was because Michigan allowed it to get close. After the 1st quarter our offense went away from the zone read and was clearly working on new stuff. If this was a real team (sorry IU but your not a real team) or if IU could score a TD (not just a FG) we would not have goofed around for 2 full quarters. For proof, look at the 4th quarter. As soon as we needed to score (or wanted to) we scored, just like we did in the 1st quarter.
Was MI trying to only gain 5 total yards in the 2nd and 3rd quarter? No, clearly not. But we were in new packages, we had a center take it upon himself to snap the ball when the QB was looking at the WR (Why would the C snap the ball and then not bloc?!? The play is live so BLOCK!!!!), and we were rotating in a new QB every other play.
This is what we also did with EMU and so when people say Tate played like a freshman or our offense is in trouble, I think it was a result of 1. no one starting for MI took either game serious 2. bad play calling and/or getting away from our base packages (which is okay because we need to expand our playbook anyway) 3. horrible o-line play (how does IU rush 3 and get 3 in the backfield?) and 4. Tate knowing he's playing IU/EMU not ND. Tate went right down the field with a busted shoulder and threw a perfect pass for a TD when he needed to.
•Warren's pick to save the game (which I thought was a bad call btw)
What is the NCAA rule on this? I thought that if the ball is in the air, it was fair game for both the WR and DB. Both seemed to have caught and maintained possession of the ball until they hit the ground. The ball was "live" and it was only when Warren came up with the ball that he was declared the winner.
Is the rule that the WR automatically be given the ball because he is the WR, because posession wasn't clearly established until the WR let go of the ball.
My question is, what was the basis of the refs making their decision on the call? They saw what we saw and yet they called it that way.
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2009/9/26/1056196/a-picture-story-donovan-warrens
Maizenbrew has a great picture feature on "the" catch.
I believe the rule is, the tie goes to the offense. I think Warren wrestled away the ball but a case could be made it was a "tie" when they hit the ground.
Looking at the last two pictures of the players hitting the ground, Warren had possession (or control)and the IU player did not. In other words, even if the IU player had his hands on the ball he did not have control. He let go or lost control during the tumble. That is what the officials saw.
Post a Comment