Denard was incredibly efficient his sophomore year under a coach who was all about a running QB...coach played to his strengths.

Under Fat Al, he is lost. Why Borges continues to try to force DR into being a pocket passer is beyond me. He is at his best when he has quick hitting passes of his run action (particularly off of the zone read). He also is much more effective in the no huddle. Borges refuses to do any of this with him. The vast majority of the offenses problems lie with Borges...not Denard. How about pounding the ball in from the 10 and not throwing HB pass? Maybe that would have helped and changed the whole course of the game.

Shane Morris will be a 4 year starter for UM...Bellomy and Gardner will only start if Shane is hurt.

You are definitely "true blue", 'cause I thought he played horrendously, and his choices were just plain bad...however, I put a lot of the blame on Hoke and the OC, 'cause I think they're making DR do what he's not comfortable doing, and that's to stay in the pocket. You have a horse, ya' gotta' let him go, especially a fourth year stallion.

Trueblue23;1279448 wrote:I'm still 100% for Denard.

I think there was one interception that was squarely on Denard, and that was the one where he was rolling out to the right and he threw right to Teo. One pick was a hail Mary, one pick was on Gardner (who does not run very good routes at all) and one was a tipped football.

The tipped pass was not tipped at the line, a safety 15 yards down the field tipped it and could have caught it himself. He made a bad throw into double coverage because he was under pressure from ND's front. Same thing on the one Jackson picked off, Robinson was about to get hit as he released it. The Hail Mary is on him because he overthrew his WRs by 10 yards. Not sure how you can say those throws aren't on Robinson.

It's a combination of all those things. I completely agree about Borges and what he is trying to make DR do. It's like he is playing to what he wishes his strengths were, rather than what they are. RR played to his strengths, even if it meant he got hurt a lot in the process. And that is the difference between 2010 DR and 2012 DR.

However, he is a 4th year QB, 3rd year starting. He still cant' do basic QB stuff, like reading a defense, scrambling when he should, throwing the ball away, and actually hitting WRs in stride. It hasn't changed since his freshman year, and it's obvious it won't ever change.

As for Morris starting next year, don't count on it. He is missing his entire senior because of mono, and he cannot enroll early. If he does start, Michigan is in big trouble.

ksig489;1279450 wrote:Shane Morris will be a 4 year starter for UM...Bellomy and Gardner will only start if Shane is hurt.

Michigan 2013 = Notre Dame 2007

No, Michigan 2009 = Notre Dame 2007.

Yea, that's hateful to say any team is the Notre Dame 2007 team before the season even starts...

WebFire;1279625 wrote:No, Michigan 2009 = Notre Dame 2007.

It can happen again. Michigan 2013 will be a "hard reset," much like Notre Dame 2007.

sjmvsfscs08;1280340 wrote:It can happen again. Michigan 2013 will be a "hard reset," much like Notre Dame 2007.

Change in QBs is a hard reset?

I think Michigan Monday sums it up well. Sounds like sour grapes though. Oh wait, it's an OSU fan.

http://www.theozone.net/football/2012/MSU/michiganmonday.html

Lol you read osu sites??

WebFire;1280349 wrote:I think Michigan Monday sums it up well. Sounds like sour grapes though. Oh wait, it's an OSU fan.

http://www.theozone.net/football/2012/MSU/michiganmonday.html

Which is exactly why it isn't sour grapes....you just don't get it, do you

vball10set;1280352 wrote:Which is exactly why it isn't sour grapes....you just don't get it, do you

He is saying pretty much the same thing I said after the game. Apparently YOU don't get it.

karen lotz;1280351 wrote:Lol you read osu sites??

Just that one page. Which is about MICHIGAN.

WebFire;1280422 wrote:He is saying pretty much the same thing I said after the game. Apparently YOU don't get it.

smh :rolleyes:

2 people say the same thing. 1 is a fan, so it's sour grapes. The other is not, so it is good journalism.

I learn so much on the OC.

WebFire;1280431 wrote:2 people say the same thing. 1 is a fan, so it's sour grapes. The other is not, so it is good journalism.

I learn so much on the OC.

I'm not sure about the 'good journalism' part, but the rest of your post is correct. It's just the way it is.

vball10set;1280618 wrote:I'm not sure about the 'good journalism' part, but the rest of your post is correct. It's just the way it is.

I obviously don't know about the rest of site, but I've always enjoyed his Michigan Monday. Usually pretty spot on.

Be honest, if after last year's (or any one of the last 3 games) between ND and Michigan....I had come on here and said,"It's sad that Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State will all be ranked ahead of ND this week even though I think they're better than all 3, if we don't turn it over 6 times we win, I'm strangely okay with this loss and I would be worried if I was a Michigan fan going forward," etc.......I would not have been called out for it by some UM fans and labeled sour grapes? Please. The fact that you are a fan of the losing team and you said what you said when you said it just reeks of sour grapes. I thought this was done and over with but since you can't let it go and the sour grapes comment obviously still irritates you.....well, I'll revisit it.

Although I shouldn't be surprised by this because after the last ND victory over Michigan all we heard from *some* UM fans was the same stuff ("If they did't play in a monsoon...." or "If Michigan doesn't turn the ball over that many times.....they win!"). And I could go back and nitpick after 3 years of last second losses to Michigan and "IF" ND to a win too. They lost 'em all and that's that just like Michigan just lost.

killer_ewok;1280644 wrote:Be honest, if after last year's (or any one of the last 3 games) between ND and Michigan....I had come on here and said,"It's sad that Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State will all be ranked ahead of ND this week even though I think they're better than all 3, if we don't turn it over 6 times we win, I'm strangely okay with this loss and I would be worried if I was a Michigan fan going forward," etc.......I would not have been called out for it by some UM fans and labeled sour grapes? Please. The fact that you are a fan of the losing team and you said what you said when you said it just reeks of sour grapes. I thought this was done and over with but since you can't let it go and the sour grapes comment obviously still irritates you.....well, I'll revisit it.

Although I shouldn't be surprised by this because after the last ND victory over Michigan all we heard from *some* UM fans was the same stuff ("If they did't play in a monsoon...." or "If Michigan doesn't turn the ball over that many times.....they win!"). And I could go back and nitpick after 3 years of last second losses to Michigan and "IF" ND to a win too. They lost 'em all and that's that just like Michigan just lost.

That's funny. I recall plenty of "the better team didn't win" last year. And some even from Michigan fans. I certainly didn't go away from last year's game thinking UM was clearly the better team.

killer_ewok;1280644 wrote:Be honest, if after last year's (or any one of the last 3 games) between ND and Michigan....I had come on here and said,"It's sad that Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State will all be ranked ahead of ND this week even though I think they're better than all 3, if we don't turn it over 6 times we win, I'm strangely okay with this loss and I would be worried if I was a Michigan fan going forward," etc.......I would not have been called out for it by some UM fans and labeled sour grapes? Please. The fact that you are a fan of the losing team and you said what you said when you said it just reeks of sour grapes. I thought this was done and over with but since you can't let it go and the sour grapes comment obviously still irritates you.....well, I'll revisit it. <br>
<br>
Although I shouldn't be surprised by this because after the last ND victory over Michigan all we heard from *some* UM fans was the same stuff ("If they did't play in a monsoon...." or "If Michigan doesn't turn the ball over that many times.....they win!"). And I could go back and nitpick after 3 years of last second losses to Michigan and "IF" ND to a win too. They lost 'em all and that's that just like Michigan just lost.

So are you agreeing that non-UM fans saying it is ok, and even perhaps correct? Because I think the consensus on non-UM boards is that UM handed ND the game. It's not sour grapes, it's observation.

I certainly didn't have those observations after the Alabama game. See the difference?

It's cool. I was just asking a question.

WebFire;1280665 wrote:So are you agreeing that non-UM fans saying it is ok, and even perhaps correct? Because I think the consensus on non-UM boards is that UM handed ND the game. It's not sour grapes, it's observation.

I certainly didn't have those observations after the Alabama game. See the difference?

No, I still don't think that what he is saying is correct, but you can't classify him saying it as sour grapes unless it's from a conference standpoint (which I don't think is the case). It's an observation, absolutely. It's also an excuse. Turnovers are a part of football. UM stunk in that department that night and ND, while not perfect, didn't turn the ball over nearly as much. The better team won. I mean, if we wanna spin things.....ND's RS Frosh QB "handed" the ball to UM twice and then ND's 2nd string QB came in and played the rest of the game. Also, for all of the talk about what a huge rivalry this is (and it is) now that the series is ending early.....why hasn't anyone brought up that maybe Michigan was "up" for the game and played very well defensively? You said you were shocked that ND didn't blow both of their lines to bits. Well, maybe Michigan had some pride and was fired up to play against a highly-ranked and much ballyhooed ND team. Also, I think ND's D-line was trying to contain Denard more than they were trying to get to him if that makes any sense. The last thing they wanted to do was leave lanes open for him to run through. But anyways, I don't think it's out of the question that Michigan played a little "above" themselves in that game whereas ND's defense has been consistently strong this season.

You didn't have any of these "observations" after the Alabama game because of the final score. 'Bama dominated Michigan on both sides of the ball whereas ND only dominated defensively. Also, I think 'Bama is on another level and ND, to me, clearly is not on that level. However, to say that you think that Michigan is better than ND after ND just beat them and ND didn't play perfectly with their backup QB for most of the game....I just think it's sour grapes. The better team won. 6 turnovers doesn't change that as that is part of the game.

WebFire;1280664 wrote:That's funny. I recall plenty of "the better team didn't win" last year. And some even from Michigan fans. I certainly didn't go away from last year's game thinking UM was clearly the better team.

Were any ND fans on here saying that the better team didn't win after the game last year? If so, it had to have come across as sour grapes.

In regards to your last sentence there....I didn't go away from the game thinking, or saying for that matter, that ND was the better team after losing the game to Michigan last year.