Michigan Man

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.

I noticed, I think, that Coach Hoke does not wear headphones during the game - he never seemed to have a headset on? What is this all about? Is this how he operates or did I just miss the headset? Is it a new way of coaching or did he coach this way at San Diego State?

Tru2Blu76

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 4 p.m.

What's with the coughing? Coach Hoke was seen to be coughing during the game and now we see him doing it in the presser. I worry about this man's health. Otherwise, there's nothing unexpected in Coach Hoke's post-game comments. Defense: "a lot of work to do." Yep. At least there IS obvious improvement and there were some effective effective players on both sides of the ball (besides just the QB) in this game. The questions, looking at next Saturday night are: will these vulnerabilities remain when the Wolverines meet the Irish and will the Irish be able to take advantage?

DonAZ

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.

After three years of utter negligence with regard to the defense, it's going to take some time to correct. Yesterday's game showed significant improvement over last year's defense, though it's still not where it needs to be. Hoke said as much. It did seem as if both the offense and defence settled down and gained some confidence as the game wore on. With respect to Denard and the new offense -- Borges ran out of the shotgun more than 50% of the time. It's clear he's not abandoned that element of the game. Robinson looked pretty good in the pocket ... some good patience, looking over the field, planting his feet. He's still learning the "touch" on deeper passes, but I'd say a pretty good start. I darn near cried when Kevin Koger caught that pass over the middle. Finally some effective play out of the TE. And Koger is a stud. A pure stud. Are we a 10-2 team based on this game? No. Are we looking like a team that can win the games we should? Yes. Are we looking like a team that can play hard in games where we're overmatched? I think so. Win them? Maybe not. Be embarrassed? I don't think so.

Griffin

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.

The era of Hoke and change started slow. Big Blue needs plenty of work on the defense. I felt the front four held up, those corner backs will be lit up like a curly fry light bulb. They were at least two steps off the receiver......Western Mich. QB tossed three bad passes in the red zone. Each time the corner was beat and beat bad. All in all this is change I can believe in......Hoke n Change!!!!

tulsatom

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.

I agree 100% with burton163. The defense created key turnovers which they didn't do the past few years. This was the key to the game, in my opinion. It seemed like the defense got better as the game went along, although I am very concerned with the inability of the front four to mount a pass rush without the help of linebackers blitzing. The defense looked out of place a lot, especially in the first half, like the time WMU had two receivers on one side of the formation spread out about 5-7 yards guarded by one U-M defender, which WMU exploited. Special teams again didn't look very special. The WMU kicker kicked the ball into the end zone on kickoffs while the U-M kicker could barely make the 10 yard line. The U-M kickoff team let WMU have the ball at about the 40 yd line on too many occasions. This won't cut it in the Big Ten. The offense looked solid in the new offense but somehow not as explosive as last year. Maybe that will change as the season goes along. However, I liked the ability of U-M to control the ball and take time off the clock, which definitely helped the defense get some rest for a change compared to last year.The running game seemed to click in the abbreviated second half, and I liked the ability to run the ball down the opponent's throat on 3rd and 1 compared to having to throw a sideways pass as in recent years. I think Mattison is getting the most from the defense and they are definitely better than last year, but the lack of talent on that side of the ball (barring a miracle) should keep U-M out of Big Ten title contention. However, the future (2012 and beyond) looks pretty good.

August Janke

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.

Congrats to the U of M Football team, coach Hoke, Borg and Mattison. It is obvious that this team has gotten a lot better, especially on defense. It was such a pleasure to see solid fundamentals. The tackling was 1000% better than the last 3 years. Another thing that jumped out at me was the lack of penalties. The last 3 yrs were full of penalties each and every game. Did anyone notice the broken coverage on goal line and one receiver didnt have a DB on him? I dont know what DB of ours it was but he covered his guy until the QB threw to the open receiver and he darted over there and laid out the WR before he could score. What a great play! Anyways, our team has a lot of work to do, but i sure as hell see a HUGE IMPROVEMENT in Discipline (Penalties) & Fundamentals (Tackling). I am proud once again of the MICHIGAN FOOTBALL TEAM! Keep working hard guys, you will get to were you want to be. You have a great coach in Hoke!

DennisP

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.

No kidding about the kickoff coverage. The defense is improved but still needs every advantage it can get. Letting the opponents spot the ball at the 35 or 45 after each kick will be a killer against teams like MSU and Nebraska. Worse, letting the returner score and taking away any momentum from the offense's points leading to the kick. Having a PAT blocked was bad too. Special teams are a real worry here and need LOTS of work. I'm a little less concerned about the D because I saw that Mattison has got them playing aggressively and finding the ball. There were early miscues, but--given their talent--the blitzes worked well. Mattison makes adjustments and that's really good. A little more Denard on called plays will help this offense put points against the better teams by keeping them honest. They didn't need it against WMU, but will need it as the season rolls. Shaw and Toussaint aren't going to emerge as the next Mike Hart or Tom Harmon--they will be serviceable, but Denard's legs must be part of the game plan to open up the passing game AND help the backs. With Denard, you can use a play action and he can either pass or bootleg off of it and opponents will have conniptions.

burton163

Sun, Sep 4, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.

The positives: The defense seemed to be in position to make plays. The CB's ( Avery, Woolfolk, Floyd) played well. Jordan Kovacs picked up where he left off last year. The Oline looked pretty good in opening holes for the run game and creating a pocket for Denard. Toussiant and Shaw made nice cuts and made some guys miss in the open field. Denard didn't look too uncomfortable in the new scheme. Koger looks like he's primed for a big year. Nice to see the power run game actually look like a power run game. Very few penalties / mental errors. The negatives: The front four couldn't generate any pressure...we never got to Carder except on blitzes. Kovacs was probably the leading tackler, should be a LB'r. The kickoff coverage allowed too many long returns. Denard's accuracy was hit or miss. Hopefully Woolfolk's injury isn't severe. Too bad Notre Dame couldn't win their opener...takes a little of the luster off our game next week. Did you see Brian Kelly going absolutely ballistic on the sidelines (more than once)??? Nice opening day for the B10 with Northwestern beating BC and Minny almost taking down USC (!)