Michigan Writer Doesn't think MSU Showed Blueprint

i read the first couple paragraphs and agree. and you could say the same thing about iowa arizona. Michigan shot itself in the foot time and again. will they do that two games in a row?
 
imported_ankle23 said:
i read the first couple paragraphs and agree. and you could say the same thing about iowa arizona. Michigan shot itself in the foot time and again. will they do that two games in a row?
Click to expand...

But what things like this don't talk about are plays that were executed based off another team's mistakes or breakdowns...or breaks that you got in the game.

For as often as we bring up Iowa had a punt blocked for a short porch, had an INT returned for a TD and a KOR for a TD v Arizona, Iowa also returned a pick six, AZ also fumbled inside their own 20 that set up a short porch...in the end, the KOR for a TD is the one thing Iowa didn't get back 'in return'.

The problem is Iowa did all these things in the first quarter...and it altered how AZ played defense the rest of the game.
 
That's pretty delousional stuff. He fails to consider that keeping Shoelace in contained on the ground and making throw the football 30 times IS a blueprint. Of course I don't know of anyone that didn't think that was the blueprint before the scUM-MSt8 game and obviously exectuing it is antoher matter.
 
Also fails to consider that focusing on Shoelace was a reason Michigan's backs were able to make some hay.

He is dead wrong about the line of scrimmage. MSU was blowing the Wolverines off the ball. And I was incredibly impressed with Bell's hard running, channeling a bit of Shonn Greene. He will be a load for us.
 
The Michigan writer didn't really seem to acknowledge the key ingredients that led to what truly was a "blue-print."

The blue-print is this:

1. Prevent the big play (in particular, contain the running game, prevent the long pass, and tackle well)

2. Get an early lead

Mind you, MSU DID NOT execute this game-plan all that great. Michigan really could have gouged MSU more in the passing game ... but Denard either didn't make the right decision OR missed the pass.

However, the Michigan writer got it wrong when pointing out the productivity of their RBs. The Michigan O still thrives on big plays. A 7-yard gainer is awesome for a ball-control O ... however, for an O that NEEDS big plays to score ... it doesn't pass muster.

Mighigan really seems accustomed to being the lead, that way they can then execute their bread and butter. When they can do that enough ... big plays usually come against many Ds.

I cannot emphasize this enough ... the Michigan O has scored 16 TDs through the season on drives that featured big-plays. If you take away the big play ... then you take away A LOT of Wolverine points!
 
Think key to beating UM is exactly what Hawks will do Sat control line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.
 
Articles like this always crack me up. They point out all the missed opportunities of their beloved Blue, but never mention any missed opportunities that MSU had. As if the game is somehow played in a vacuum and all of the MSU missed opportunities stay missed opportunities but all of Michigan's opportunities magically aren't missed. They even go into great detail about a 7 yard run that could have been housed. For cryin' out loud, there are tons of runs that get perfectly blocked that only gain 7 yards.....that's football.

But to suggest that a 34-17 beat down where your team was controlled on both lines of scrimmage more often than not was only a few plays away from being won is laughable. Ferentz often says, "Most times, you are what your record says", well I'd take that a step further and say, "Most times, you are what the score says".
 
Rawkhawk73 said:
Articles like this always crack me up. They point out all the missed opportunities of their beloved Blue, but never mention any missed opportunities that MSU had. As if the game is somehow played in a vacuum and all of the MSU missed opportunities stay missed opportunities but all of Michigan's opportunities magically aren't missed. They even go into great detail about a 7 yard run that could have been housed. For cryin' out loud, there are tons of runs that get perfectly blocked that only gain 7 yards.....that's football.

But to suggest that a 34-17 beat down where your team was controlled on both lines of scrimmage more often than not was only a few plays away from being won is laughable. Ferentz often says, "Most times, you are what your record says", well I'd take that a step further and say, "Most times, you are what the score says".
Click to expand...

Exactly! Iowa lost to Arizona because a critical element of our squad didn't execute well (the special teams) ... and, like all good teams, Arizona exploited those issues. The better team HAS TO execute better in ALL FACETS of the game. If they don't, then that leaves the door open for the opposition.
 
JonDMiller said:
But what things like this don't talk about are plays that were executed based off another team's mistakes or breakdowns...or breaks that you got in the game.

For as often as we bring up Iowa had a punt blocked for a short porch, had an INT returned for a TD and a KOR for a TD v Arizona, Iowa also returned a pick six, AZ also fumbled inside their own 20 that set up a short porch...in the end, the KOR for a TD is the one thing Iowa didn't get back 'in return'.

The problem is Iowa did all these things in the first quarter...and it altered how AZ played defense the rest of the game.
Click to expand...

The thing that is hard for Iowa fans to accept about the Arizona game is that we normally don't make those mistakes and we normally take advantage of our opponents' mistakes. So yeah, we had the short field on the muffed punt and we got the pick six, but that is how we normally play. We don't normally give up blocked punts and kickoff returns for TD's (pick sixes are becoming rare for Stanzi as well). So I agree, that we got a lot of easy chances to score against AZ, but that is what we, as Iowa fans, are used to. Our team is normally more disciplined than how we played in the first quarter against AZ.
 
What is so easy to forget is something that Ferentz says often and I heard Bob Stoops say it this noon: "Remember, the other guys have 85 players on scholarship, too, and they are working hard 12 months of the year, too. They also want to win; they are also trying."

It's our prerogative, of course, to make a caricature out of a guy like Zook or RichRod and act like they and their teams are jokes, but the above sentiments are truer about both coaches and their teams than any caricature we might like to create and dream will take the field against our Hawkeyes.

Saturday's game will turn on special teams play, turnovers, and missed and made opportunities...just like it always does. Just like the AZ game did.

I hope that the bounces go our way this weekend.

BTW, I re-watched the scUM/Sparty game last night, focusing only on heh scUM offensive plays. They missed many opportunities. I hope that we can control the ball/the clock and keep them off the field.
 
This is about as much fun as reading over and over that Georgia Tech would have won the OB if not for the false start that called back a "sure" TD.
 
JonDMiller said:
But what things like this don't talk about are plays that were executed based off another team's mistakes or breakdowns...or breaks that you got in the game.

For as often as we bring up Iowa had a punt blocked for a short porch, had an INT returned for a TD and a KOR for a TD v Arizona, Iowa also returned a pick six, AZ also fumbled inside their own 20 that set up a short porch...in the end, the KOR for a TD is the one thing Iowa didn't get back 'in return'.

The problem is Iowa did all these things in the first quarter...and it altered how AZ played defense the rest of the game.
Click to expand...

Okay this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but can I just say, once and for all, that the two pick-6's were not equivalent?

Their pick-6 happened after we had driven the length of the field into their redzone and is due to our own receiver letting the ball go through his hands into the "right-place, right-time" DB who returned it 85 yards for the TD. Our pick-6 happened at the beginning of a drive while they were back in their own territory and was due to a freak with gadget arms snatching the ball out the air and running 20 yard to the endzone.

Theirs was much more fortuitous, so can we stop saying it was an even exchange? Thanks.

Also, Jon, this wasn't meant to target you specifically. Lots of people have made similar comments.
 
Saginawbay said:
Think key to beating UM is exactly what Hawks will do Sat control line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.
Click to expand...

+1.

I'd like to add, Iowa needs to play physical on special teams as well. Hard hitting there will be an indicator for the rest of the day. Not many teams can get as physical as the Hawks can, and they need to put the Wolverines through hell on Saturday.
 
I feel the same. They allowed yards. The first two drives, if not for Michigan failing way more than MSU succeeding, they would have scored. Sure good teams finish, but if you want to give them those yards I think you're playing with fire. Right now it is impossible to tell if that game was the exception or the rule. I think we find out a lot about that team this week. I also think we find out about Denard this week. He made a few mistakes last week, but he has made the same plays before during this season. He missed a couple throws he has been making and he missed some reads he has been making. I don't think MSU did anything special. They contained with the Dend seemingly all game. If Iowa does that, I think they lose a lot of their defensive effectiveness because their LBers are not MSUs linebackers. I think Iowa has to contain with LBers. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
 
JonDMiller said:
But what things like this don't talk about are plays that were executed based off another team's mistakes or breakdowns...or breaks that you got in the game.

For as often as we bring up Iowa had a punt blocked for a short porch, had an INT returned for a TD and a KOR for a TD v Arizona, Iowa also returned a pick six, AZ also fumbled inside their own 20 that set up a short porch...in the end, the KOR for a TD is the one thing Iowa didn't get back 'in return'.

The problem is Iowa did all these things in the first quarter...and it altered how AZ played defense the rest of the game.
Click to expand...


I understand your point on plays evening out against Arizona, however I will argue one thing. Arizona's pick 6 was a result of Iowa making a mistake. McNutt should have clearly caught the easy throw from Stanzi, but as we know he didn't and it bounced perfectly for a pick 6 for Arizona. On Iowa's pick 6 it was Binns making an unbelievable play on the ball, like we've seen many times, this time he caught it. That was making a play as opposed to Arizona's being a fortuitous tip. I'll give you the blocked kicked and fumble canceling each other out, however Iowa gave Arizona and I mean gave them 14 points. Anyway, on to Michigan.
 
Definately a revisionist thinker. All those things happened but they didn't happen by themselves. Interceptions are often a team effort. The quarterback gets rushed, the ball gets tipped, a lane is blocked, in short its usually a bunch of little bits lead to an interception. Michigan State's pass defense is not great but its not pourous either.
For the most part Michigan State contained Denard between the ends, rattled him and he made mistakes. If this writer thinks that last week was a isolated incident he's wrong. Michigan still has two stellar defenses to get past. And that doesn't even include Wisconson.
 
Last edited:
Dick-Rod must have tossed him a few buxx in order to put a loss in the best light possible. (For a comparison, look at how Punky is handling his loss @ Wisconsin).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top