Not a clue. Interested in the answer though.
...says Denzel Valentine of Big Ten Tourney favorite MSU, which is 5-7 in its last 12 games. Cumong, man.
Field rush update.
Got a number of emails detailing Michigan's field rush activities:
In response to your question, here are the only three I recall since the 1997 OSU game.
2003 OSU game (100th game)
2011 OSU game
2012 MSU game
But here's one that probably doesn't get remembered:
After the 2008 Wisconsin game, about 5-7 students attempted to rush the field and a few were lucky enough to out-juke the security and run around midfield. One was not: he got body slammed by a police officer right in front of the student section, which is probably the only thing that quelled a massive on-rush of students.
I have somehow forgotten the 2003 field rush entirely despite being in the student section for it. Conclusion: I must not have joined it. If you're more than a couple dozen rows up, which I probably was, rushing the field is an exercise in walking around, looking at other people walking around looking at people since no one's even going "WOO" anymore.
So that confirms the 2012 MSU rush: lamest, only non-OSU field rush in 20 years. I get it, I guess, but if they were going to do it at least they did it in the appropriate fashion by half-assing it and taking about 10 minutes for anyone to get down, then trickling out seemingly one by one because half of the students didn't care to bother. That's the right kind of MSU field rush.
What is next years QB looking like? I thought someone said Gardner would move back to QB in the spring and start in the fall. Is that the case or is Morris going to play in the spring and start in the fall or just show up in the fall and start?
I can't see Morris showing up in the fall and starting.
Gardner just about has to move back to QB as soon as the season's over. Morris won't be enrolling early—his high school does not allow it—and Michigan's not going into spring practice carrying one scholarship QB.
Also, there's an excellent chance Gardner ends up being Michigan's best option there. Morris will be a true freshman, one coming off a senior season partially lost to mono. Bellomy has the look of a game manager type (early, yeah, okay). Gardner's the best bet to MAKE PLAYS with his legs, and he'll have as much experience practicing at QB as Bellomy even with this year that's lost to WR.
Meta photobomb. I still have not seen one of these in the wild, but they exist.
[AFTER THE JUMP: game theory, Toledo style, TE play action on the goal line, some guy with a weird idea that Chip Kelly is going to do someday.]
Nerdy game theory bit.
As I was watching my Alma Mater run its record to 5-1 against ranked teams in the Glass Bowl last night, an interesting situation presented itself very late in the game. Unfortunately, I don't have any friends nerdy enough to discuss this with in person, so I'm forced to call upon my favorite tastefully-named-internet-game-theory-junkie to either confirm my mad rantings, or tell me I'm an idiot.
Toledo led 26-23 with 50 seconds left in the game, and faced fourth-and-goal from the Cincinnati 3 yard line. As they lined up to kick the field goal, I thought to myself "I'd go for it here." Obviously, a Rocket touchdown would ice it, with the downside of opening up an additional avenue of victory for the Bearcats if you don't make the end zone (drive, field goal, win in overtime). But, I think that even if you can't convert, the field position is such a huge advantage for your defense that going for it is the correct answer. It would be different if the Field Goal put you up 7 or 8, but in last night's situation, a Touchdown beats you either way.
What say you? Would you also display the testicular fortitude necessary to buck conventional wisdom in that situation, or did I take down a few too many Anderson Valley Boont Amber Ales in the aftermath of Brunette Girls, Part II?
Brian in Charlottesville
YEAH LET'S DO IT.
My seat of the pants take is that it's probably a push. Being up six with something like 45 seconds left is pretty good. Being up three with 45 seconds left and the ball on the opponent's three is pretty good, and being up ten is 100%. The difference in win probability there is between 96 and 98 percent, I'd bet.
I think I'd go for it since reasonable field goal range starts at the 25-30 yard line and you're gaining 22-24 yards in field position even if you fail.
KICK. Opponent needs to go 75 yards to win, assuming touchback.
GO FOR IT, FAIL. Opponent needs to go 65-ish yards for a shot at a tie, 97 to win. BONUS: you may not fail.
Sounds like going for it is the pick. One thing I've always felt is that there's less value in extending a field goal lead with another field goal than you'd think. You're turning, say, fourth and one from the ten into an obvious go-for-it situation instead of a situation on which every coach in America would kick despite the fact that this would be a massive opportunity if presented to them in overtime. Coaches will make conservative decisions if they can possibly be justified, and being up six removes the possibility your opponent will do something suboptimal. Late up three I'm not kicking unless the situation turns into a third and lots.
My thinking here is influenced a great deal by Kirk Ferentz nutting up as soon as he'd gotten into field goal range in the 2005 Iowa game. At that point I was actually glad Michigan was up three instead of four, because Iowa had the advantage on offense all day and was willing to toss away the knife at Michigan's throat to play OT. (That game also influenced my thinking on Ferentz as a hopeless puntosaur, which he still is… at all times he is not playing Michigan, grrr.)
Hmmm, what does that Advanced NFL stats calculator say…
…wow. It says punting or missing the field goal is a better move than actually kicking it. It may not be in this situation because college rules are friendlier to frenetic last-second comebacks because the clock stops when you get a first down and secondaries are composed of things other than hardened assassins, but that's pretty stark.
Denard on kickoff.
Not sure if this has been talked about much, but did you notice Denard in the return team to start the 2nd half? He was lined up on the right side of the field in the 2nd line opposite Norfleet. Throwback? Reverse? Hopefully something we will see against Nebraska next week. This might have been our version of the fake punt if the kick hadn't gone through the endzone.
This was not a hallucination, as Brady Hoke addressed what the dickens was going on with that business. He was out there to "maybe return a kick or something." Wild guess: ostentatious fake reverse now that everyone has gone "ooooh."
Just a quick question. I love watching football, but in all honestly don't know too much about the technical stuff. I watch it for pure entertainment. Why is it, that that play State ran to score their touchdown (pass to the TE Lang) always seems to work? I've seen the play (or some similar variation) run many times over the years in college and the pros and it usually seems to succeed. Why is the TE so open? Is it the speed of the play? The proximity to the endzone? Aren't commentators usually saying how much easier it is for the defense the closer they get to the endzone because there's less field to cover? Who's suppose to cover that guy?
Obviously, I know it doesn't always work. It's probably that phenomenon where you think you always look at the clock at 11:11 but in reality you've looked at the clock numerous times before that but don't register it because 11:11 is a unique number. And there's probably some statistic or mathematical curvature that pinpoints where the defense is at its most and least vulnerable in terms of field position. But darn it if that play doesn't seem to be highly successful.
Confirmation bias is what you're looking for there, and that is a possibility. But the little flip to the tight end off play action is pretty effective yes; it's more effective when you're running it on first down, as MSU did, instead of second.
The fundamental problem for the defense is that they're trying to not give up a yard or two, which is really hard. It generally requires flinging your body into the guy who is blocking you with great force so that he stops moving or goes backwards, which means you need to run at him, and ideally avoid him, and when he goes WOOP and avoids you you get a big question mark over your head and he's generally an extremely open guy. In this specific case it was probably Desmond Morgan who got blown by, but once the offense gets down to the two the defense is either selling out on the run or not and hoping to get lucky. Michigan did not get lucky.
So: the speed of the play and the proximity of the endzone, yes. The linebacker is making a run or pass decision at great speed, generally biased towards run on first down.
With the shift towards faster offenses (and I suppose this question is somewhat relevant to D as well), is it possible for a team to roll with essentially two lineups? Particularly in large gain and hurry up situations where instead of having the entire lineup run 30-40 yards down the field, have a backup lineup (maybe at least the o-line) ready to run out on the field as soon as the whistle is blown? Is such a thing feasible and any more effective than your typical no-huddle offense?
Class of 2004
Um… if Chip Kelly hasn't tried this, probably not. You wouldn't be saving much distance by having guys in the center of the field run off it and vice versa, and how many teams of any variety have a solid two-deep of OL to just flip around? I am guessing the answer is nobody.
Generally, the starters are so much better than the backups—especially in college when the backups are often freshmen—that such a crazy switching scheme is not feasible. Skill position players, sure, but those get interchanged all the time anyway.
But even if he hasn't, Chip Kelly will definitely try this at some point.
Not a clue. Interested in the answer though.
Font on the PhotoBomb shirt is from the Hunger Games! Gimme my imaginary candy corn (that is if the drought in Nebraska hasn't killed it off).
Your free imaginary candy corn will be delivered in 3 to 159 weeks. And sorry but all the imaginary chocolate kind is sold out at my local grocery stores. All they have left is that crappy Fall Mix with the enormous pumpkin sugar lumps mixed in.
I wore my Mgoblog Photobomb shirt to the Air Force game and did not get one comment from anybody at the game or while tailgating.
Either the MGoBlog community is a smaller portion of the Michigan fanbase than I expected or are just a shy group. or I just look like a tool and nobody wanted to talk to me.
The first rule of MGoBlog photobomb t-shirt is you don't talk about MGoBlog photobomb t-shirt.
won't dissuade folks from talking to you. I wore my photobomb to the State game and got 3 verbal affirmations between Amer's Deli on State and the stadium.
For the record my friend and I were wearing matching photobomb shirts to the game. You just need to look in the right places.
Also, wearing that shirt apparently causes people to yell "Brian Cook" at you.
So if Gardner moves back to QB in the spring because he offers more of a threat with his legs does that mean I'm going to get frustrated again with another mismatched QB/OC marrage or will Borges adjust?
I wonder if we arent better off with a young QB who makes plays with his arm (Morris) simply because our OC can work better with him.
They haven't worked out too well (Having Braylon helped Chad).
I think Gardner is more of a QB who can make plays with his legs as opposed to the best runner ever to play the QB position. I don't think our base offense play would be the Veer with Gardner like it is with Denard.
He may not be a runner first, but that doesn't make him a good passer. From what I've seen (albeit limited sample size) he's a good bit worse than Denard. Though I guess we may be able to do more of what Borges wants under Devin.
I would say Gardner's passing mechanics and overall arm ability are superior to Denard's, it's just his decision making that's been questionable thus far.
Borges is the QB coach as well as the OC, so we'll see what happens in spring.
This wasnt a field rush
But do people remember the buck naked guy running from end zone to end zone in a full sprint during a break in the 1995 UM/OSU game
That should count as some sort of field rush
Here's a link to an article about they guy getting sentenced. (He was an EMU student and was on a $10K bet).
Seated in the wrong seats, at the student section 35-40 yardline (back in the day), Michigan was in the victory formation, sealing the win, and the streaker runs on the field. Keystone Kops (cue Yakety Sax) hilarity ensues, as the dude does a most awesome headfake, and jukes the cop(s) outta their Florsheims. Whoever was the "deep back" in the formation nearly hurt himself laughing so hard...
Cherry on top of the banana split kinda day!
Triple Overtime game against State? I know I went down on the field after that game but I don't remember if it was because I had a pass or if it was because I joined the rush on the field.
I don't think students rushed the field. That was one of the first times the players visited the student section after a win, though.
After its performance, it has remained on a hanger in the closet. I'll give it another shot during the Ohio State game. Maybe. Surely it isn't really cursed.
So I'll ask the obvious question: if the TE pass play in the endzone is so money, why don't we ever run it with Funchess? Brady runs that play all the time for NE and I always wondered why we don't try a naked boot leg TE pass in the endzone more often?
a) We don't run many plays to set up that play.
b) Denard isn't the greatest ball handler around.
c) Naked boots aren't as effective with a running QB because the D keys in on him anyway, so him runing outside with the ball isn't as big a surprise/advantage to the offense.
We don't run I-back/Manball enough to get the defense to really dig in and prepare for a 32 Power Dive for a 1 yard gain.
I think there is an additional factor to consider in this situation. Is the ball on the hash or in the middle of the field? Because of the severe angle making a field goal from the 3 yard line with the ball on the hash is more difficult than the near certainty of making it if the ball is centered between the goal posts like and extra point.
Since the worst case scenario is missing the field goal and giving the opponent the ball on the 20 only needing a field goal to tie, I would lean toward going for the touchdown if the ball is on the hashmarks. If the ball is in the middle of the field it's probably smarter to kick it.
Here's another important factor: If I get two drinks for a touchdown but I only get to drink once for a field goal, then I go definately go for the touchdown every time.
The problem with the idea of having two lineups that you can sub in is that it defeats the whole purpose of hurryup. Once you sub, you have to give the other team a chance to as well. Whether you're trying to score with a minute left, or you're just trying to tire out the defense, either way the defense will then naturally take its opportunity to sub and do it at a pace somewhere between the glacial pace they'd prefer and the hurry-up that you want, and either way you've lost your advantage. And then you have to sub again after that play, or else leave all those backups in, once again killing your hurry-up.
So no, I doubt Chip Kelly will even bother.
Thought I was responding to a comment, turns out not.
The exact scenario played out for Michigan when Moeller was coach and we were up on ND late in the game in South Bend with Ron Pawlus as QB. Moeller elected to go for a field goal very near the goal line, despite my screaming as loud as I could from the top row of the stadium to go for a TD. My fear was that we'd give up a huge return on the ensuing kickoff. Sure as shit, I was right. Working with a short field, Pawlus passed for a TD to put the Irish ahead with less than a minute remaining.
Fortunately for us, there was juuuuuust enough time for us to move the ball into FG position thanks to an extraordinary effort by Yale Van Dyne who dove to get out of bounds to stop the clock after a key reception.
I think it was JD Carlson who booted the winner.
of the 1994 Remy Hamilton game.
What Wolverine & FannMann said. I remember rushing the field frequently before the field was lowered in 1991. I think we climbed over the wall (which I think was only about 40" high) before time expired so we could be on the field the moment the clock hit 0:00 in our win (38-9) against Illinois on Nov. 12, 1988, to celebrate clinching the Big Ten and a Rose Bowl trip
That was '94 in South Bend. Not YVD, but Seth Smith who got out of bounds to stop the clock. And Remy Hamilton kicked the game winner. And you're right, none of it happens if Mo hadn't settled for the six point lead.
I do remember that Air Force Subbed in a second line, but I believe that was more of a function of keeping guys fresh against opposition that was 50 lbs heavier per player than they were. But as we can remember it was effective.
I graduated from UofM in 2002 after 9 years...
I also want some them.Tshirts are looking more catcy and trendy..