Michigan Starts Slow Against Eastern Michigan, Stays Unbeaten
Prospects of a New Year’s bowl game seemed nothing short of possible after an astonishing Notre Dame game only a week ago.
And then Eastern Michigan happened.
Perhaps initial reliance upon a strong OL was prematurely determined, but then again, if the QB were to have an off day, this would be the game to do it.
Michigan passed for a total of 68 yards. For what lacked in the passing game, was much more than compensated with a stellar running game. In particular, Carlos Brown tripled the yards obtained by passing alone, including a 90-yard touchdown run.
The Wolverines have little to complain about with a 45-17 win over Eastern Michigan—if that point margin does not signal a secure win, I don’t know what does.
Yet, two words seem to define post-game coverage of what would normally be considered a blow out win: “teachable moments.”
The “Forcier” freshman phenom was anything but in his third starting appearance and the lack of intensity seemed to diffuse throughout the entire Maize and Blue line for much of the game.
Although another stellar third quarter fastened a permanent win for Michigan, overall game-time performance was mediocre—too many Eastern runs looked too easy.
Michigan is back as a Big Ten contender—that much is for certain. With a 3-0 season record thus far, the Wolverines have certainly turned a few heads and garnered back the respect they deserve.
Keeping the point total high and improving upon what was lacking in the passing game should lead to a solid victory against an as of yet unscathed Indiana record.
The matchup will be the first since 2006, when No. 2 ranked Michigan visited Indiana.
Without a doubt, Michigan is far from it’s glory days—but the rebuilding process has transpired at a rate no one expected.
Will they blow out Penn State? Probably not.
A few more surprises are bound to take place in the remainder of this season. A Penn State victory may be one of them.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?