Not too bad a game.

I realize Minnesota isn't great. Can we take credit for utilizing Funchess as wide receiver since we'd been suggesting it the last couple of weeks?

I do think we may want to consider Smith as the back-up tailback. I've never seen a 240 lb back go down as easily as Green. I've been saying all year that Fitz gets more yards after contact and that was clear today.

'shoes

I again am glad we are still undefeated, but I still have the fear of what is coming down the road.

Go Blue!!

Well, Devin lowered his IPG from 2.0 to 1.6, so that's progress. Too many of his completions were the
credit of the receivers making great last-second adjustments and reaching out to grab the ball, though...
one glaring exception being the long sideline hook-up with Funchess to set up our 5th score. That was
a great throw, but his high completion percentage does mask the inaccuracy of many of his throws today.

Probably he still isn't fully back to his usual confidence, after his Akron and UConn debacles.

Run blocking was a little better, obviously. It was a very conservative game plan but they held on to the damn ball. Was not happy with how Minnesota's QB had so much time to throw. But generally a strong finish. Funchess was very, very good today. That was probably his best game ever.

I don't know who was the color commentator for this game but I can go forever without listening to him again. That was 3 straight hours of pure lust he was having for the Minny QB. It really got weird after a while. Gardner earned his criticism after the Akron and UConn games but that guy was blasting everything Gardner was doing this afternoon, even after that beautiful last bomb to Funchess. When we scored to go up 28-10, they were literally silent for 30 seconds.

This guy was worse than the Notre Dame announcers on NBC. When we were up 18, you would have thought we were trailing by 3 touchdowns.

WolverineHistorian wrote:

Run blocking was a little better, obviously.  It was a very conservative game plan but they held on to the damn ball.  Was not happy with how Minnesota's QB had so much time to throw.  But generally a strong finish.  Funchess was very, very good today.  That was probably his best game ever.  

I don't know who was the color commentator for this game but I can go forever without listening to him again.  That was 3 straight hours of pure lust he was having for the Minny QB.  It really got weird after a while.  Gardner earned his criticism after the Akron and UConn games but that guy was blasting everything Gardner was doing this afternoon, even after that beautiful last bomb to Funchess.  When we scored to go up 28-10, they were literally silent for 30 seconds.  

This guy was worse than the Notre Dame announcers on NBC.  When we were up 18, you would have thought we were trailing by 3 touchdowns.  

I thought the announcers were both going to have an orgasm every frickin time they mentioned the QB!!

Go Blue!!

UM dominated from start to finish.  Minn had one good drive.  UM scored on two 75+ yard drives.  What's the problem?

someone correct me if i'm wrong but I believe that was the first game that DG started that he didn't have a turnover. I like.

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

someone correct me if i'm wrong but I believe that was the first game that DG started that he didn't have a turnover. I like.

You are not wrong, he finally learned to take care of the damn ball.

First game since Oct 2011 against Minn to have no turnovers.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

First game since Oct 2011 against Minn to have no turnovers.

was it gardner, was it the play calling, was it a bit of both, was it some other factor? right now I don't know and I don't care. he took care of the ball, michigan looked really good. I thought we had a dominant performance. I know we still need a lot of work but I saw the progress I wanted to see. overall very happy with yesterday

just read this....


Michigan, and Gardner, had no giveaways Saturday. That ended an unfortunate streak of 25 consecutive games with at least one turnover.

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

fishgoblue22 wrote:

First game since Oct 2011 against Minn to have no turnovers.

was it gardner, was it the play calling, was it a bit of both, was it some other factor? right now I don't know and I don't care. he took care of the ball, michigan looked really good. I thought we had a dominant performance. I know we still need a lot of work but I saw the progress I wanted to see. overall very happy with yesterday

I thought it was a very conservative gameplan.  I liked that most of the throws were high percentage throws.  I also saw Gardner not try to do super human stuff.  Just make the play instead of trying to make the big play.  Also, one of the key plays was the snap that wasn't handled by DG, he fell on the ball.  Old DG would have tried to scoop it and make a play.  He did the right thing.  Get down and go to the next play.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

I thought it was a very conservative gameplan.  I liked that most of the throws were high percentage throws.  I also saw Gardner not try to do super human stuff.  Just make the play instead of trying to make the big play.  Also, one of the key plays was the snap that wasn't handled by DG, he fell on the ball.  Old DG would have tried to scoop it and make a play.  He did the right thing.  Get down and go to the next play.

This is #15 'fish. We're on a roll today.

2ndComingOfBo wrote:

fishgoblue22 wrote:

I thought it was a very conservative gameplan.  I liked that most of the throws were high percentage throws.  I also saw Gardner not try to do super human stuff.  Just make the play instead of trying to make the big play.  Also, one of the key plays was the snap that wasn't handled by DG, he fell on the ball.  Old DG would have tried to scoop it and make a play.  He did the right thing.  Get down and go to the next play.

This is #15 'fish.  We're on a roll today.

Dang, I'll have to take a break.

Good game but still work to be done.

The good- 0 turnovers. Run game was established. I agree with shoes though, Green does not do well running hard. Run blocking was much improved. Funchess was a man child.

The bad-Defense continues to be soft. This surprises me after it being a real strength the past two years. Fairly solid against the run but very suspect against the pass. See Green comments above.

Good win. Definitely a step in the right direction. I think it will be interesting to see what Hackenburg does against us this Saturday. He is young but a descent passer.

MgoBlue wrote:

Good game but still work to be done.

The good- 0 turnovers.  Run game was established.  I agree with shoes though, Green does not do well running hard.  Run blocking was much improved.  Funchess was a man child.  

The bad-Defense continues to be soft.  This surprises me after it being a real strength the past two years.  Fairly solid against the run but very suspect against the pass.  See Green comments above.

Good win.  Definitely a step in the right direction.  I  think it will be interesting to see what Hackenburg does against us this Saturday.  He is young but a descent passer.  

The defense allowed 13 points.  How is that bad?  The defense forced two TOs that directly led to TDs. 
 How is that bad?  One long sustained drive in the first quarter, and people have it set that the game was bad by the defense.  They allowed less than 300 yards of total offense.  How is that bad?  Minn had two backs that average over 5 yards a carry before Saturday and they were shut down for a total of 55 yards between them.  How is that bad?  Minn. passed for only 145 yards.  How is that bad?  The longest play from scrimmage allowed was 18 yards.  How is that bad?

Because it was Minnesota. Because Minnesota sucks. Because we have beat them like 23 out of 24 games. Because Minnesota is not relevant in college athletics. Because NW will absolutely shred this defense if they don't improve.

Occasionally, just occasionally you have to take of the maize and blue glasses and see things for what they really are.

MgoBlue wrote:

Because Minnesota is not relevant in college athletics.  Because NW will absolutely shred this defense if they don't improve.

Not true, Minnesota athletics are fairly solid.  Their football program ain't too hot though.

MgoBlue wrote:

I  think it will be interesting to see what Hackenburg does against us this Saturday.  He is young but a descent passer.  

So, Mgo, his [once-promising] game is going downhill, eh?

Yes, I know how unpopular my puns are, but ahh, what the Hack???

Either way, it will be an uphill climb for PSU Saturday; too little talent and too many walk-ons (40, by O'Brien's count) on that depleted
roster. Losing by 20 to Indiana says enough.

michmike wrote:

MgoBlue wrote:

I  think it will be interesting to see what Hackenburg does against us this Saturday.  He is young but a descent passer.  

So, Mgo, his [once-promising] game is going downhill, eh?

Yes, I know how unpopular my puns are, but ahh, what the Hack???

Either way, it will be an uphill climb for PSU Saturday; too little talent and too many walk-ons (40, by O'Brien's count) on that depleted
roster. Losing by 20 to Indiana says enough.

I still give PSU a fighting chance. We've proven we can go on the road, keep our composure and claw back to get the W but we had to do that against a lowly UCONN team. One point brings up another other. I'm worried about how they perform on the road in a stadium that hold 108k as opposed to 48k. after minny I saw the improvement I wanted to see to convince myself that we can and should win at PSU (that coupled with the ugly PSU loss this week) but until I see that consistency I will reserve making a "book it" type prediction.

M should get the W though. I look forward to being 6-0

We are 5-5 on the road the last 2 + years, so I assume they'll all be a struggle until proven otherwise.

'shoes

MgoBlue wrote:

Because it was Minnesota.  Because Minnesota sucks. Because we have beat them like 23 out of 24 games.  Because Minnesota is not relevant in college athletics.  Because NW will absolutely shred this defense if they don't improve.  

Occasionally, just occasionally you have to take of the maize and blue glasses and see things for what they really are.  

I don't see any reason why you should did respect Minny. they are rebuilding they didn't have their head coach on the field. Michigan had a week to prepare, I thought Minny looked good in the 1st half.

wshoes wrote:

We are 5-5 on the road the last 2 + years, so I assume they'll all be a struggle until proven otherwise.

'shoes

Agreed.

I'm nervous for this one.

michmike wrote:

Losing by 20 to Indiana says enough.

Just like Minnesota, Indiana is better than they used to be. Are they great? No, but don't take them lightly...

Indiana does have half of a team- a quality offense. I think they are far more dangerous than Minnesota which really does not have a strength.
Minnesota has an excellent chance of not picking up another win.

'shoes

the artist formally known wrote:

MgoBlue wrote:

Because it was Minnesota.  Because Minnesota sucks. Because we have beat them like 23 out of 24 games.  Because Minnesota is not relevant in college athletics.  Because NW will absolutely shred this defense if they don't improve.  

Occasionally, just occasionally you have to take of the maize and blue glasses and see things for what they really are.  

I don't see any reason why you should did respect Minny. they are rebuilding they didn't have their head coach on the field. Michigan had a week to prepare, I thought Minny looked good in the 1st half.

Man I know I am the new guy here and I really do not want to be the fly in the ointment but COME ON!!!! Hell Akron and UCONN looked pretty good against us too. Are they good? The latest bowl projections have Minnesota ineligible. They were blown out by Iowa at home the week before. Ever notice certain programs are always rebuilding?

MgoBlue wrote:

the artist formally known wrote:

MgoBlue wrote:

Because it was Minnesota.  Because Minnesota sucks. Because we have beat them like 23 out of 24 games.  Because Minnesota is not relevant in college athletics.  Because NW will absolutely shred this defense if they don't improve.  

Occasionally, just occasionally you have to take of the maize and blue glasses and see things for what they really are.  

I don't see any reason why you should did respect Minny. they are rebuilding they didn't have their head coach on the field. Michigan had a week to prepare, I thought Minny looked good in the 1st half.

Man I know I am the new guy here and I really do not want to be the fly in the ointment but COME ON!!!!  Hell Akron and UCONN looked pretty good against us too.  Are they good?  The latest bowl projections have Minnesota ineligible.  They were blown out by Iowa at home the week before.   Ever notice certain programs are always rebuilding?

new guys are entitled to their opinion, as long as their opinion doesn't suck.

joking of course  

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

new guys are entitled to their opinion, as long as their opinion doesn't suck.

joking of course  

Yeah, you can have an opinion as soon as I give it to you.  

Damn it!!!!!

fishgoblue22 wrote:

sandyeggo_blue wrote:

new guys are entitled to their opinion, as long as their opinion doesn't suck.

joking of course  

Yeah, you can have an opinion as soon as I give it to you.  

Fish- OT but have you read any of the Lee Child "Jack Reacher" books? I think his character would be right up your alley. Not to be confused with the Jack Reacher that Tom Cruise recently played in the movie of that name. Although based upon one of the books, Cruise did not resemble the character from the books very much. He played a pretty good character, it just wasn't the guy from the books.

'shoes