friend12

Mon, Apr 19, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.

Denard looked good, but, until he faces a defense from another school I have my concerns. Even in this game, he still started scrambling too early. Good thing is that he tossed the ball more in those cases.

Freemind42

Mon, Apr 19, 2010 : 8:29 a.m.

rensational, i believe the word you are looking for is regressed.

believeinM

Mon, Apr 19, 2010 : 1:17 a.m.

finally someone who sees it the way i do robbie. how about this backfield come fall w/ v smith, shaw, toussaint,cox, and hopkins all young guys with 3 4 years left, wrs: roundtree, stonum, odoms, gallon, stokes, r miller,j hemingway and the tight ends in koger webb and moore again all young guys except webb who i think will still be back next year?? not sure but forcier, robinson and gardner at qb and how t lewan and the rest of the o line look once molk returns wow this offense has some serious upside! another thing i noticed was some of the guys on d look much bigger although still very young, roh really impressed me with his size looks like he gained 20 lbs and w ezeh and mouton returning this gives them some good leadership and experience, mike martin, van bergen and campbell clogging the middle and gordon woolfolk jt floyd and hopefully we see something more out of turner and with the freshman coming in the fall like dorsey, marvin robinson, furman, and cullen christian this defense could be better than expected but still very young, this offense will avg 35 pts a game. if nothing else these guys give me some much needed hope for the upcoming season and many more seasons to come so lets keep the momentum going, believe in michigan believe in rr!!

OSUbeBetter

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 11:11 p.m.

I would say that I am most surprised that the D got rung like a bell, but honestly im not surprised at all. I understand this is practice, but its practice for the defence too. getting beat for 95 yards has got to sting no matter what.

Robbie Webb

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 3:51 p.m.

Injuries was a factor. Molk was out basically the rest of the year after Notre Dame, and he is the one that does the communicating. He'll be back. Brandon Minor suffered injuries and didn't even play against OSU. Hopkins will eventually fill in for him, because Hopkins is a tank with a football. Mike Martin, who is now a junior will be back. Woolfolk will be back. The first four games we had a team, no injuries, everyone was fine, the lineup we wanted was there. Hence the outcome. But once you have to start switching people and relying on newcomers, that's where problems start. The defense didn't do anything to ''Wow'' me yesterday, but I didn't expect them too. In a game you are trying to stomp your opponent. We played against each other yesterday. Plus you dont want to show your scheme in a spring game and make it easy for other teams to have a jump on you. They also wanted to get some guys who are young and don't play alot in there. During a game, obviously your best players will be out there. We have some tough games, Uconn is not a push over team. We need to beat them, and we should. Again, I'm not happen with the negativity that Michigan has gotten. I love this team. But I know that as long as we play 60 minutes of football, we are going to really be on top again. Notre Dame was suppose to contend for a BCS game last year, and look what we did. No one expected us to beat them. Even OSU, who is contending for a title this year, we only lost by 11. Take away the freshman mistake Tate made in the beginning, that makes it 10-14. But on that not, who's to say we wouldn't have gone up the field on that play and scored? Greg Robinson called a questionable blitz call which lead to a touchdown. We have more speed now. Michigan gave up ONE legit touchdown by I believe Brandon Sain. Michigan is going to prove people wrong this year.

Jaxon5

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 3:35 p.m.

Good points about the number of returning starters. In fact, Michigan has the most returning starters of any Big Ten team. But it's a team that was not even competitive in the Big Ten last year, especially after the Iowa game.

Robbie Webb

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.

Absolutely! The problem in Ann Arbor is Michigan aren't use to the two years we've had. I'm not happy with them either, but I realize what happened and why it happened. Do I think that we should have gone to a bowl game last year and had a better record? Yes. Am I surprised we didn't? No. Smashmouth football is all well and good, but this is 2010, times have changed. Michigan is won ONE national championship in the last 50 years. For all the Rich Rod haters, I suppose that's his fault too, right? Change was needed. As for this year, yes, the loss of Graham and Warren are big, but returning eight starters is a great thing, and things can only go up from here. The 3-3-5 is just something they are installing, it gives multiple looks. Craig Roh will be on the line when needs be and at lineback to give a 3-3-5 look. Not to mention the studs coming in this year that will make an impact (e.g. Dorsey, Marvin Robinson, Josh Furman, or Cullen Christian). Offense was never a concern of mine. Although Denard had a good PRACTICE yesterday and has clearly shown imporvement, games are obviously much different and I think Tate is still our man this year although Denard most certainly will be on the field somewhere. And he should be. As for our record, I'm not going to make any predictions, I do know they will be better, but Iowa, Wisconsin and even MSU are tough home games, we can most certainly win. Going to Notre Dame, Penn State, and especially OSU are not easy games either. Again, more than capable of winning. As a matter of fact, Jim Tressel said after the game, and I quote, ''Say what you will, but I am scared to death of this team in 2010. Trust me, I know.'' Michigan fans have every right to be upset, but let's not get carried away by saying ''Fire Rich Rod! Bring in Harbaugh.'' That would set the probram back even further by bringing in a coach with ANOTHER playbook and then losing the recruits, which are excellent. This is a make or break year, but Michigan didn't fire him for a reason. He's a proven winner and they know it takes time. As for the violations, they have yet to be proven guilty. Even if they were, it's not like they committed academic fraud or things of that nature. Loss of practice time and or scholarships is more of what we're looking at. However, if we win, then all of the negativity will go away. That's the cure in football, winning. This is Michigan football. We always find a way. No one is going to expect much out of us this year, but that's okay. I love Cinderella stories personally. I think we are going to wake up some people this year. September 4th can't come fast enough. GO BLUE!!!

BowlForBlue

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 2:45 p.m.

Robbie... it's okay, apparently the circus is in town this weekend... you have some good points... I read earlier Theo or Terry Star said how close we were to ten wins last year by pointing out the turnovers in msu, iowa, ill, pur., & osu... and I went back and looked... a lot of those were '1 bad play', take that away, insert '1 good play' and... I think 10-2 is reasonable, we struggle with iowa and wisconsin this year.

Robbie Webb

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.

Jaxon5, you cannot be serious, I read that comment and almost lost my mind. Two wins? Really? Please tell me how that would happen. Enlighten me. We will be mich better than last year. What you saw was PRACTICE. They clearly were just going through the motions and not going full speed. You are reading way too much into it. I hope you realize this team lead the team in scoring offense last year, which Rich Rod runs, our defensive line and linebackers are very solid. Our secondary is getting better, Woolfolk has gotten better with practice, not to mention the guys coming in the summer. We are returning eight starters on defense and our offense is clearly more than fine, our offensive line is very experienced, Molk will be back. If you honestly think we are going to do worse than we did Rich Rod's first year, then you need to watch a few more football games.

Jaxon5

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 6:42 a.m.

Most surprised about the defense giving up a 97 yard touchdown pass when they were supposed to be better at stopping the big play. Also surprised at all of the scrambling at QB with broken plays. W-2 L-10 in 2010.

rensational

Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 12:39 a.m.

I might actually be more surprised by how Forcier looked. I know he has the ankle issue, but he was still doing the same things from last season...stuff that really should have nothing to do with his ankle being sprained. Bottom line: he doesn't seem to have progressed much--may even have retrogressed--and he couldn't even move the ball against a weak Michigan defense. Imagine against Big Ten defenses such as Iowa. Denard was great, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Forcier rocked the spring game last season, and look how things turned out for us. Also, he was rocking against a weak defense. He looks improved, but I want to see what he does against defenses he doesn't practice against all the time.

2bluebyu

Sat, Apr 17, 2010 : 10:19 p.m.

Denard looked real confident out there........good clean passes,I hope Tate get's it together over the summer, Gardiner definately has potential. Looking forward to a much better year. GO BLUE!!!

grantwstephens

Sat, Apr 17, 2010 : 10:02 p.m.

D-Rob, 10-12, over 250 yards combined, 4 TD, NO TURNOVERS

Terry Star21

Sat, Apr 17, 2010 : 8:31 p.m.

Deanard really surprised me because we had just 'heard' that he was challenging Tate. Right from the get-go he showed improvement in his quick reactions, reads, pass velocity, accuracy, scrambling and decision making. These were all the items he struggled with last season, and he was in high school at this time last year. Albeit one spring outing, one short performance, where the defense isn't going to hit him - but jeez, Denard really showed something today and if he has a good summer, he will start and I think some magical things are going to happen this fall.

BowlForBlue

Sat, Apr 17, 2010 : 7:44 p.m.

Denard.... no question, difference between night and day from last year.