did Forcier get hurt or just benched?

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:18 am

just switching over to this game after the lamer than lame Dan Hawkins post-game. there's always an exogenous reason for CU losing. sack up and admit your team (and son) just aren't very good....and quit pretending like you are re-inventing the wheel.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:20 am

They pulled Tater Tot. Curious move given the circumstances, but it paid off for DickRod. Ate up too much clock though, I don't think Michigan will stop Iowa on the ground.

I was surprised to see Iowa's rush D get worn down in the 2nd half, and Stanzi is just terrible. They should pull it out though.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:22 am

the other kid looks pretty good, so far.

UM needs to cover that on-side kick better, though. 3 minutes left, down 2....i just kick it.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:24 am

Mgo wrote:Tater Tot

Bwaaahaaa!!

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:24 am

Greg Robinson, holy crap.

guy has 9 lives. he sucks.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:26 am

Michigan will get it back. Forcier should come back in.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:26 am

you need a FG to win, and the on-side kick has cost you 40 yards of field position.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:27 am

King Crimson wrote:Greg Robinson

That sweatshirt is atrocious, like he plucked it out the bottom of a Value City discount bin.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:27 am

Robinson is back in? Dude has no passing ability.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:28 am

holy shit - robinson can pass

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:28 am

Yeah, I saw that coming a mile away.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:28 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Robinson is back in? Dude has no passing ability.

his throwing mechanics made me go blind, just now.

terrible throw to nowhere for the game ending INT>

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:29 am

bwaaaaa

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:30 am

benching tater tot was a bad idea, imo

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:30 am

Man, now if Washington can just cover I'll go 8-2 this week.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:30 am

Hawkeyes rush the field. Stanzi's 15 minutes are on the clock.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:31 am

Verrah nice win, schmoehawks

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:31 am

Haaa! Look at Jon storming the field after scabdicking again at home over another unranked team.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:36 am

5 to's and UM still had a chance to win. Iowa does not impress. Tate should have gotten the final posession, accuracy and having been there before.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:37 am

Kirk Herbstreit=orange.

nice tanning bed Kirk.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:46 am

i've been an apologist for dickrod's decisions thus far considering his lack of options, but on that last drive the choice was between two very different players and he fucking blew it. if he doesn't feel confident enough to let drob throw the ball every time he comes in to predictably run the ball against a 12-man front, why does he think he can all off a sudden move them at least 50 yards in 1.30? drob had TWO motherfuckers open on that last throw and chose triple coverage instead. guarantee next week, when he can give drob all the opportunities in the world to throw, he's just going to run him off someone's backside.

props, mace and jon. it's too bad stanzi's a piece of shit or you guys would have a legitimate shot at the big ten this year.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:06 am

Good game UM. Wtf was up w Robinson in there last drive? Forcier hurt? Michigan got good team. I was impressed. They were more physical than I thought and have a lot of speed. Disappointed in Iowa's playcalling late. We got real lazy the last few minutes. Anyways, we are 6-0 and I can't complain too much. Keep winning, keep improving. Good luck Umich rest of the way.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:14 am

TheJON wrote:Disappointed in Iowa's playcalling late.

like i said, ferentz = carr. dickrod was obviously smoking a crack rock, so "calm and steady" won the day today, but conservative football will bite you in the ass these days considering how explosive offenses are. your only hope is that the tan hillbilly on the other side decides to bench the guy who's led three 4th-quarter comebacks in favor of a guy with dreadlocks.

i'd really like to see iowa run the table, but like i've already said, stanzi looks like pure shit.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:25 am

So not injured? By the way- Carr = 78 percent win percentage and national title. What's wrong with that? Holy fuck my fingers are frozen. This shit hurts to type on my blackberry!

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:31 am

Unless he was hurt, why on earth did they bench Tater Tot for that final drive? They had no time-outs remaining, so clearly the better passer was the guy they should've used, and just as clearly Tater Tot is the better passer.

What was DickRod's reasoning there?

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:34 am

tate wasn't injured. dickrod said he felt he tate wasn't reading the field well and drob gave them the best chance to win. was probably hoping the five wr's would spread the field and he could scamper for the 50 we needed.

carr and ferentz are both slaves to an outdated philosophy. they think killing an extra 40 seconds is worth giving the other team a chance to win it at the end. i've never felt safe, especially near the end of carr's tenure, with michigan holding a two-score lead in the 4th quarter. i'm actually surprised ferentz went for the td on 4th down.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:39 am

Found out DickRod was pissed at Forciers decisions. I saw Forcier come on field only to go back. I was trying to figure out why. I think both coaching staff's really failed their team down the stretch. This game should have been over with 7 minutes to play.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:45 am

the problem with dickrod's histrionics is that a game's not the best time for teachable moments. or rather it is, but processing a tantrum on top of new schemes and adjustments is probably a bit taxing on a freshman, non?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:48 am

Agreed. Support the kid during the game, then kill him softly come Monday in the film room.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:54 am

dickrod should just blame someone else, like the media or internet fans....like Dan Hawkins does.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:09 am

I got literally 13 texts from Iowa fans bitching bout that big play we had in 1st half that woulda set up 1st and goal at the 4. Everyone said it was a catch and couldn't believe they didn't review it. They don't show controversial replays and it pisses me off. Supposedly Herbie said it was a catch. I wondered why no review. Big missed call if true. 4 point difference on that drive potentially.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:19 am

i thought it was a catch.

i think it's easier to overturn a completion than an incompletion, though. there's always that little bump to tell you when a ball hit the ground, whereas nothing so telling when reversing the other way.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:14 pm

Lot's of excuses from Michigan fans about how they just handed Iowa the game with all the turnovers.

Did these brilliant football minds even watch the game?

Iowa turned the ball over 1 time.
Michigan turned the ball over 5 times.

By my count, Iowa scored a total of 6 points off Michigan turnovers and Michigan scored 7 points off of Iowa's turnover.

Last I checked, Iowa won 30-28.

We have now made Austen Arnaud, Darryl Clark, and Tate Forcier look bad. Those 3 combined for about 8 INT's and 35% passing. When is it no longer "we handed them the game" and it becomes "maybe their secondary is pretty fucking good"?

BCS QB's are completing under 40% against us in the last 5-6 games. That's not luck.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:23 pm

It'll be interesting to see how you guys do against Scott Tolzien, who is a pretty solid dropback passer -- and who differs quite a bit from those other guys you mentioned. I think you guys will be in an absolute dogfight against Wisky. Should be a good game.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:34 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:It'll be interesting to see how you guys do against Scott Tolzien, who is a pretty solid dropback passer -- and who differs quite a bit from those other guys you mentioned. I think you guys will be in an absolute dogfight against Wisky. Should be a good game.

Tolzien, to me, seems quite a bit like Stanzi. Makes some nice plays then makes some dumb mistakes. Saw highlights of the Wisconsin game and it looks like this is how he played this week again. Wisconsin, in some ways, has an offense that can really give our defense problems due to a balanced attack with a couple of good WR's and a decent QB. But Bielema's style of play just does not match up against our defense. Tough game to pick that's for sure.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:39 pm

Tolzien is a better passer and decision maker than Stanzi based on what I've seen. Admittedly, the OSU game was a bit rough for him...then again, that was a first year starter on the road at C-bus. Tough situation.

I'll be pulling for your guys though. I want the Hawks 7-0 heading into E. Lansing at night.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:22 pm

TheJON wrote:Lot's of excuses from Michigan fans about how they just handed Iowa the game with all the turnovers.

Did these brilliant football minds even watch the game?

Iowa turned the ball over 1 time.
Michigan turned the ball over 5 times.

By my count, Iowa scored a total of 6 points off Michigan turnovers and Michigan scored 7 points off of Iowa's turnover.

Last I checked, Iowa won 30-28.

We have now made Austen Arnaud, Darryl Clark, and Tate Forcier look bad. Those 3 combined for about 8 INT's and 35% passing. When is it no longer "we handed them the game" and it becomes "maybe their secondary is pretty fucking good"?

BCS QB's are completing under 40% against us in the last 5-6 games. That's not luck.

i'm sure those brilliant minds did watch the game. any time you lose by two points with a -4 turnover margin, it's reasonable to feel you gave the game away. you pretty much did. "by your count" is actually an elementary metric since you're treating points as the end all be all. one of those fumbles was in field goal territory. another was the int that killed michigan's last drive, when two very open michigan receivers could have probably gotten them in fg range to possibly win the game. if turnovers don't lead directly to points they at least kill scoring opportunities for the other team. 'tis why we call them 14-point swings. tell me you knew.

your secondary is good.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:38 pm

A couple counter points, m club.........

1. We did virtually nothing the entire game with the turnovers. Michigan scored 1 more point off turnovers than Iowa. So how did Michigan lose because of turnovers? On most of the turnovers, we pretty much just gave you the ball back a few minutes later where you started. I don't think the turnovers affected the game as much as Michigan fan is leading on.

2. When does Iowa start getting credit for forcing turnovers? Are we just the luckiest team in the history of sports?

Iowa wins 30-28. We handed you 7 points. You handed us 6 points, according to Michigan fan logic. How does Michigan win if not for turnovers based on this??? 24 > 22, no???

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:45 pm

Just a hunch, but probably Michigan scores a few extra points were it not for all their turnovers.

Are we just the luckiest team in the history of sports?

No, that would most certainly be LSU.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:53 pm

Just a hunch, but probably Michigan scores a few extra points were it not for all their turnovers.

I know this is what m club is saying, but how do they score many more points if we basically just gave them the ball right back where they started? A couple of the turnovers were essentially a "here you go, take 2 minutes off the clock and give our offense a rest and then we'll just take the ball right back".

If you want to talk about having the game handed to them, how's about these plays......

2 missed FG's, a pick-6 just handed to them, ending up with a FG on a drive because of a bad call from the refs instead of a TD, and not scoring any points after having 1st and goal from the 5, lazy playcalling and defense late in the game allowing Michigan to rally.

So if Michigan fan is going to cry about "handing Iowa the game", I could just as easily do the same. Take away our "mistakes" and Michigan loses by 800. Michigan never loses. Either their coach sucks or they handed the game away. This is how they act after every loss (not saying m club or the umich fans on this board do, however). You can't possibly beat Michigan, you can only hope to score more points than them!

This is my point here.