<p>Well that was interesting. </p>
<p>Some of those passes worry me though. I want to know what Denard was thinking.</p>
<p>Scary indeed. And if Denard goes down, is midldly hurt or has a bad day, our offense simply cannot function. We have no running back that we can rely on and our second string QB is way too young. </p>
<p>Oh well, we are 6-0 and after Texas’ loss, we could well be ranked in the top 10! This will be short lived, however, should we have a similar first half next week vs MSU.</p>
<p>^^^Any top team that loses it’s starting quarterback is going to have a very tough time adjusting, not just Michigan.</p>
<p>I agree novi, but if Michigan had a stable and consistant running game, we could make do with a younger QB. More importantly, even if DR is not injured, if he has a couple of brain farts like he did today against a good opponent, we could find ourselves in a tight corner. The point I am trying to make is that we are still a one-man offense. At least our Defense is playing a lot better than last year. Let us hope we can maintain our momentum and that we find an answer to our running game.</p>
<p>Yeah, how many top ten teams have one player as… idk… 90% of their offense.</p>
<p>I like though how our offense is basically what is was last year with a few under center wrinkles. I wonder how good it would be if RRod was still here</p>
<p>Sure - if we lose Denard, it will hurt. But, there is a lot to like even outside of Denard. The O-line has given up 2 sacks in 6 games, Denard wasn’t pressured at all (which makes the thought of his interceptions all the more troubling). The receivers are veteran and doing very well; we may find that Gardner is actually a better passer than Denard and the defense is obviously much improved from last year and has put pressure on good QBs from both SDST and NW. I do think we may need a FG in a tight game and that is almost as worrisome as anything.</p>
<p>As for the running backs; sure it seems nice to say you have a “go to” back but the combination of all the backs outside of Denard are averaging 137 YPG.</p>
<h2>RUSHING GP-GS Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G</h2>
<p>Robinson, Denard 6-6 102 754 34 720 7.1 8 53 120.0
Toussaint Fitzgerald 5-4 60 341 15 326 5.4 4 43 65.2
Smith, Vincent 6-1 29 216 2 214 7.4 2 38 35.7
Shaw, Michael 6-1 21 144 5 139 6.6 2 44 23.2
Rawls, Thomas 3-0 12 78 1 77 6.4 0 25 25.7
Gardner, Devin 3-1 9 58 8 50 5.6 1 15 16.7
Hopkins, Stephen 5-1 7 24 0 24 3.4 0 8 4.8
TEAM 4-0 5 0 8 -8 -1.6 0 0 -2.0
Total… 6 245 1615 73 1542 6.3 17 53 257.0</p>
<p>I’m actually quite surprised by Devin Gardner. Sure, he is having a hard time getting plays off within the 40 second play clock, and each play is exciting in that I have absolutely no idea what he’ll do, but he is incredibly hard to take down. Every time he scrambles, it’s for 5+ yards. Plus, he has a pretty strong arm, and he is DAMN fast. We are overrated, though, and Alexandre is right in saying that if we play a first half at MSU anything like the one last night, we’ll see our perfect record tarnished. MSU is a great team. I hope Hoke makes the necesssary adjustments.</p>
<p>Also, the first half penalties (and penalties in general) really shot ourselves in the foot. On the first NW play, the roughing the passer call (which I thought was BS, but that’s neither here nor there) really got the ball rolling for NW.</p>
<p>I think a 9-3 record is very possible for this Michigan team. The defensive line is vastly improved.</p>
<p>Purdue is the only game left where I see us as heavily favored. The other games are mostly toss ups with MSU, Illinois and Iowa all on the road. OSU will depend on part on the NCAA and whether the players have finished their sentences. Nebraska will probably be favored but they don’t look as strong as previously thought. 9-3 is definitely possible.</p>
<p>We have to be the most overrated team in the country.</p>
<p>^^At this point in the season, I would have to agree.</p>
<p>I am not sure Michigan is overrated. No team has come close to Michigan except for Notre Dame, and they are 4-2 and have beaten solid MSU and Pitt teams soundly. Western, UCSD and Northwestern have some of the best QBs in the country and we beat all three teams without too much trouble.</p>
<p>This said, I agree that the next 6 games are going to be tough. I think 8-4 is definite and 9-3 is realistic.</p>
<p>Right, and to be rated at 10/11 going to the bowl game Michigan would likely need to be 10-2. That said, there are what I would call 4 really strong teams (LSU, 'bama, OU, Wisky) and 3 strong teams (Boise, OKl St, Stanford; and maybe Oregon). I’ll be surprised to see any of them lose two prior to their conference championship game. </p>
<p>But, after those 7-8 teams, its a crap shoot.</p>
<p>Boise, Stanford and Oregon are not necessarily that good. I think Michigan would beat any of those teams under normal circumstances. Oklahoma State is the real deal, as are LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. I think Michigan is definitely a top 25 team and potentially a top 10 team. I am waiting to see how we handle MSU next week before making up my mind.</p>
<p>“Boise, Stanford and Oregon are not necessarily that good.”</p>
<p>In my humble opinion, we would not beat any of those three schools this year Alexandre.</p>
<p>We are each entitled to our opinion novi. We will know more as the season progresses. It is still early. Michigan always had the talent to be a top 10 team, it simply did not have the right coaching philosophy. RichRod is an excellent coach, but not for Michigan. Hoke seems to be a perfect fit for our program. How well we do in East Lansing next week will answer many questions.</p>
<p>I agree we have the right coach Alexandre, but it’s going to take a couple of years for this team to be at the elite level again assuming all goes well. I think Hoke is well on his way and I am excited about the future!</p>
<p>I agree novi, I just don’t think that Boise, Oregon and Stanford are “elite”. They are very good teams to be sure, but they are not at the level of LSU, Alabama or Oklahoma. But like I said, we are going to have to wait and see. Who knows, perhaps Michigan will get to play one of those teams in a bowl game later this year! ;)</p>
<p>Back to an early post, for all intents and purposes, we should have lost to ND.</p>
<p>That was back when we were still trying to work in a pro style offense, which obviously was a dumb idea. So that’s a good portion of the offseason and the growing pains early on.</p>
<p>I wonder how good our offense could be if we had RRod controling it. Don’t get me wrong I think Borges is doing a good job, but we have guys built for the spread. If we spent to offseason only worrying about advancing our spread offense instead of converting to the pro we could be scary good.</p>
<p>If we should have lost to ND, we would have. They had multiple turnovers in the red zone and had several chances to put the game away, but did not execute. Our D also had some key 3rd down stops. Although we didn’t play great, ND deserved to lose.</p>