Michigan 42, Indiana 35: more postgame discussion.

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Oct 4, 2010 7:09 AM EDT in Indiana Hoosiers Football

Here are the stats. The game played out much as most of us expected. The team that scored last won. My concern was that IU's offense would not in any way match its preconference numbers, and obviously that concern was not warranted. On the other hand, IU's defense turned out to be as bad as advertised. That's not to point the finger at the defense and blame that unit for the loss. It's been obvious since long before the season started that the offense would have to carry most of the load for this team. They have done so, but Michigan punted on four of its first five possessions in the second half, but IU managed only 7 points during that stretch, the same as Michigan. That's not to minimize the poor defense. IU allowed 574 yards and 12.8 yards per play. Michigan scored a lot and scored fast. All of the Wolverines' six scoring drives were 69 yards or longer, but only one took more than four plays. IU never tackled Robinson (or anyone else) for a loss.

The offense, of course, stood out. After some struggles early in the game and his first interception of the game, Ben Chappell found his footing and matched his average completion percentage of 70. He averaged a smaller-than-usual but sufficient 7.5 yards per attempts, and the Hoosiers managed a school record 37 first downs. With all this, the most surprising statistic is that the teams managed to punt a combined 9 times (r for Michigan 4 for IU). Performances of note:

Chappell was 45-64 for 480 yards and 3 TD to 1 INT. He was sacked twice.
IU's overall running numbers were not great, but the running offense wasn't a total disaster. Darius Willis ran 18 times for 59 yards and scored two rushing touchdowns (he also caught 7 passes for 53 yards and a TD).
Tandon Doss played the game of his career, catching 15 passes for 221 yards. He also ran 6 times for 21 yards.
Damarlo Belcher caught 10 balls for 91 yards and Terrance Turner caught 7 for 56. Duwyce Wilson caught 3 balls for 22 yards, including his first career touchdown.

Where does this leave us? I'm not inclined to take any sort of moral victory from this loss. IU fans filled the stadium and created a great atmosphere, and it was a fun and competitive game, but this was IU's 15th loss in its last 17 Big Ten games. The 2009 season began much the same way, with a competitive loss to Michigan, and for all the halftime leads and encouraging play, IU's only win the rest of the season was against a horrid Illinois team. In 2010 IU does have another non-conference game that should get the Hoosiers to 4 wins, but this defense gives the offense little margin for error. We have only two remaining Big Ten home games (Northwestern and Iowa). Before this weekend, I was mad about the brainless decision to sell the Penn State game. After seeing how the Nittany Lions struggled against Iowa, I'm over the edge about it. Yes, this is a talented and exciting offense, but most of Cam Cameron's teams featured talented and exciting offenses. It's time to win. Is it time this week? Well, IU travels to Columbus on Saturday to play the #2 Buckeyes, so it's fairly unlikely. This team's fate will be decided in late October against Illinois and Northwestern.

More on the Buckeyes as the week continues.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As a Michigan fan watching on TV, I was really impressed by the turnout in the stands. If there’s one thing people, especially those from OSU like to talk about, it’s the ease to get tickets to Bloomington. Last weekend was different. The stadium looked pack and the crowd was really into it. It’s amazing what a couple of wins can do for a program like that.

Good luck down the road. Hopefully Chappel can lead IU to an unexpected win or two down the road. The kid looked good.

by formerlyanonymous on Oct 4, 2010 8:28 AM EDT reply actions

For reasons that aren’t exactly clear to me, we have made strides in attendance. Saturday’s game was IU’s largest crowd for a game against anyone other than OSU or Purdue (both of which travel very well to Bloomington) since the 1992 Michigan game. This isn’t the first time IU has started well against a weak pre-con schedule. We drew 42,000 for Akron last week, too. Ultimately, I give the credit to the students and Fred Glass. I’m hoping the anomalous uptick in enthusiasm will be rewarded with some wins. Usually, and especially at IU, it’s the other way around.

The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Oct 4, 2010 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Gah

A couple of things, first: (i) great game and fun to watch and/or listen to (did a little of both); and (ii) cheering an injury to an opposing player is completely classless and indefensible.

With that being said, the whole time I was following the game, even after Willis’s fourth quarter touchdown, I knew, KNEW, that the game would end that way. I guess that it’s better than getting blown out. I completely agree with your analysis on where this team is. Lynch has taken them beyond the early Cameron years and the DiNardo era (i.e., we are competitive and entertaining). I am hopeful that he can take the next step, to where we actually win these games. I’ll remain skeptical until it happens on a somewhat consistent basis.

I feel better now about our chances against Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Penn State and (maybe) Wisconsin. But I am not drinking any Kool Aid, either.

by hoosierdaddynow on Oct 4, 2010 9:40 AM EDT reply actions

I agree on both of your points in paragraph 1. As for #2, I’m not going to beat myself up about it. I don’t dispute that some IU fans were cheering the injury. On the other hand, it would be natural for everyone in the stadium to have some sort of audible reaction to seeking the best player on the opposing team lying on the ground, even if that audible reaction isn’t a cheer.

I agree that it’s time to win some games. Unfortunately, we won’t know what this team is made of until the Illinois and Northwestern games. Literally every team in the country (well, maybe not Alabama) would be an underdog in Columbus, and I’m pretty sure we will roll Arky State. If we go 2-0 against the teams from Illinois, we will be conditionally bowl eligible and in great shape. If it’s 1-1, it’s still livable, and getting to 5 wins would guarantee that every game is meaningful for the rest of the season. 0-2 in that stretch would put us at 4-4 with only one remaining home game and road/neutral games against Wisconsin, PSU, and Purdue.

The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Oct 4, 2010 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions

I took far more issue...

with the student section chanting “break his leg” earlier in the game than the reaction when he went down, for the exact reason you just stated. One was a reaction, the other was just classless.

GO BLUE! http://www.maizenbrew.com/

by SCM on Oct 5, 2010 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions

When Willis broke that tackle and got to the end zone...

I thought he should have fallen down at about the 5 so that Indiana could have run the clock down some. I have never been more certain that a team would drive successfully for the winning TD than when Denard & Co trotted onto the field after the kickoff.

Had the game gone to overtime, the final score might well have been 57-56.

Hopefully Chappell will heal up, as he looked pretty gimpy down the stretch, and the team is able to put a tough loss behind them.

by nothsa on Oct 4, 2010 12:07 PM EDT reply actions

A couple of other things of note

Very few penalties on IU. I think that they maybe had three penalties. That’s a very positive sign, IMHO. IU has historically often been undone by stupid penalties in games like this. I give some credit to the coaching staff for this improvement.

Doss is unbelievable. Howard Griffith noted on the BTN roundup that he “might” be the best receiver in the Big Ten. Slight understatement. I am sure that there are some good receivers in the Big Ten, but he’s just in another league. On the radio broadcast, they were comparing him to Ernie Jones. I loved Ernie Jones. Again: Doss is just on another plane. I have often wondered what Cub hitters would do if they got to fact Cub pitchers. In a similar vein, I wonder what kind of video game numbers Chappell and Doss would put up if they got to face IU’s secondary. On second thought, I guess that’s kind of what we saw this last weekend.

Not encouraging that IU could not run the ball at all when Michigan went into a defensive formation at the start of the second half with only three down linemen. I thought the pistol was supposed to lead to a lot of running opportunities. Or is that only when you have a mobile quarterback. Which, God bless him and his cannon for an arm, Chap is not.

by hoosierdaddynow on Oct 4, 2010 12:23 PM EDT reply actions

Ideally...

Success in the passing game will create opportunities to pound it on the ground. If you can then generate success running the ball, go playaction, freeze some defenders and burn ’em for big gains back through the air. This theory applies to primarily to the classic pocket quarterback, which Chap definitely is.

The big advantage to having a quarterback like Denard Robinson is that you keep DEs from pinning their ears back and overpursuing from scrimmage. You can also keep LBs in contain or spy defense to respect your ability to break loose from the pocket, thus giving you an advantage in the passing game if you’ve got the arm for it.

What is both surprising and delightful is that spectators are allowed, and even expected, to join in the vocal part of the game.... There is no reason why the field should not try to put the batsman off his stroke at the critical moment by neatly timed disparagements of his wife's fidelity and his mother's respectability. ~George Bernard Shaw

by Chopaholic on Oct 4, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Watching this team reminds me a great deal of watching the Colts when they first started to get good.

You knew each week that the offense was going to be explosive, but you were always afraid that the defense was going to allow even more points than their prolific offense could put up. They were entertaining, but ultimately frustrating. While the Colts never have quite gotten the defense to the level of the offense, they were eventually able to put an adequate defense on the field. It’s no surprise that this was when they began to be one of the best teams in the league on a consistent basis.

Let’s hope that the Hoosiers can follow the blueprint laid out by the Colts. However, it is worth noting that this blueprint involved a coaching change that ultimately resulted in a more respectable defense, so Bill Lynch may not be a fan of this.

by acelion on Oct 4, 2010 12:28 PM EDT reply actions

The trick

With that situation is that there was a coaching change that did not disrupt what was good. Dungy kept Tom Mohr (sp?) around. Question: who’s responsible for the good offense? Is it Lynch or Canada? It seems that when you have a change of head coach in college, most often, that new coach will bring in a new system with them. It’s my opinion that one of the things that IU needs most right now is some continuity. There’s been an increase in talent. I think that a coaching overhaul, for the sake of overhaul, would be a serious step backward.

And I do not sense that you are advocating for that. But there are plenty of people out there who are calling for Lynch’s head, and will continue to do so until he starts winning these types of games. And if he can’t start winning these types of games, maybe a change is in order. But if that’s the case, the administration needs to find a way to do it while maintaining some level of continuity with the program (i.e., promoting someone from within, like Mo Moriarty or something like that).

by hoosierdaddynow on Oct 4, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Excellent points.

I’m a believer in Lynch. I think he has what it takes to get this team to the next level, provided he can keep bringing in enough talent to keep the engine humming along. Unsurprisingly, my concern is defense. Whether it is a lack of talent or a deficient defensive scheme, or both, this team needs to get a lot more stout on that side of the ball. As far as I can tell, that is the only thing holding the Hoosiers back.

Can you imagine where this team would be if they finished the Big Ten season just in the middle of the pack in defensive stats, rather than towards the back? I get a tingly feeling in my leg just thinking about that.

by Chopaholic on Oct 4, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Good question

Is the problem scheme, talent, or just a lack of fundamental skills? I think that we have to take a look at the defensive coaches. Over the past few years, we have had Kirlew, Middleton, and other talented players. Either the scheme is bad, or they are just not doing an effective job of teaching fundamental skills. An example: on the second play of the second half, Michigan runs a slant route; I don’t have a problem with the receiver getting in front of our defender (Ernest?). I do have a problem with the fact that he immediately left his feet to try and make an ill advised tackle. Once he missed, the play was over.

It’s easy for me to sit here and criticize. But that’s just fundamental stuff that happens over and over and over. I have to give credit to the coaching staff for the reduced penalties. I think it’s fair to hold them responsible for the alarming lack of fundamental skills on the defensive side of the ball.

by hoosierdaddynow on Oct 4, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

If ask me the problem with the D is the lack of talent and fundamentals a close second.

If we can continue to win and get the program more exposue it could help in getting some better talent on the D. They looked totally overmatched (Robinson is a freak) by Michigan and they lacked the fundamentals to stay in their lanes and Gap control. IU has had the problem on D for quite some time, while Middleton and Kirlew were great our secondary has always been lacking.

David Taylor's personal hype man. Check out his website unless you're a loser. http://www.cheekymonkeyart.com/

by Ditkavsworld on Oct 5, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions

I think you hit on the conundrum we have with the defense and the coaching.

Is it an issue of poor coaching/scheming that causes our defense to be inadequate, or is it a case of the talent level not being adequate to play effective defense? I think it’s certainly possible there may be some coaching issues, but the fact that the last few seasons we have regularly been taking skill players from the offensive side of the ball and switching them to the defensive side says a lot to me about the talent (or lack there of) of the players we have been able to recruit on the defensive side of the ball. This appears to be particularly true of the defensive backfield.

I’m not completely sold on Lynch just yet. However, I have been impressed by his ability to leverage the improvements in facilities into better recruiting classes the last two seasons. I was not sure that he would be able to do so. Say what you want about him, but he does seem to be a pretty effective recruiter. That’s a very big part of being a successful DI coach these days. I think that, ultimately, we will get a chance to find out for certain whether Lynch is capable of coaching this team to greater levels of success, because I think the talent level of the recruits will be a non-issue if he can continue the recent trend of landing better recruiting classes.

by acelion on Oct 6, 2010 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions