Michigan Museday Abuses Cat Comment Count

Seth

imgad 1953_Michigan-State_vs_Michigan

PeTA ad / Historicfootballposters.com

Some things that are inevitable are impossible to call until they happen. Like that Google AdSense would eventually find the perfect sponsor to reach the massive and growing audience of Michigan/cat readers. Or that Michigan would eventually run a fake from the FB dive.

It's 4th and short. Michigan has cut MSU's lead to 7 and has the ball on the MSU 9 with a little over 6 minutes to play thanks to a State fumble on its own 32. Michigan has already converted a 4th and 1 on this drive (the ZR where Denard pulled it after his RB was already being tackled). A fumbled snap, a short pass to Koger and a dead-on pass to Gallon at the sticks for 11 yards (had Michigan challenged the spot we would have gotten it) later it's 4th and inches. Then everything goes wrong:

Somewhere in Michigan, a cat is being abused.

Said Hoke:

Do you wish you would have called a running play on the fourth and one? “No. I liked the play. If we execute the play, Koger’s in the endzone. We don’t make a block that we need to make, and that’s part of it. That play’s been very successful for us. It’s a nice complement to the dive. We just didn’t execute it.”

WE DON'T MAKE A BLOCK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE

Before the snap the TE on the top of your screen (Moore) is looking inside for the snap and misses the CB start his blitz. By the time Moore is out of his stance the CB is already past him. The fake doesn't work because the corner is coming from the edge and knows exactly who has the ball.

IF WE EXECUTE THE PLAY

There was more than just the missed assignment. MSU's strongside end managed to hit both Watson (the TE) and Koger (the H-Back), which occupied Koger long enough to throw off his route. By the time Denard was on the ground, Koger still hadn't made it out of the backfield, and had picked up a safety escort.

BUT THE DIVE-FAKE WAS SET UP!

How many times in a short situation has Michigan come out in the I, shifted the RB outside, then run a FB dive? Eventually there was going to be a wrinkle off of this. Such a wrinkle was primed like a Guitar Hero Star Power Meter. cat_born-in-teh-usaOr was it?

Here's all the goal-line dives this year:

  • 4th and 1 from WMU's 19. Toussaint gets 3 against the 3-4 defense.
  • 2nd and goal from WMU 1. Well defended but Toussaint just barely gets the nose of the ball to break the plane.
  • 3rd and goal from ND 3. ND stuffs, Hopkins fumbles, Denard picks it up and runs in unmolested.
  • 3rd and goal from EMU 1. Because it's EMU they are slow to react and Toussaint leaps over the pile.
  • 2nd and goal from Minn 1. Michigan gets a yard.
  • 1st and goal from NW 1. Wildcats spot the play, meet Toussaint's leap, stopped just short.
  • 2nd and goal from NW 1 (the next play). Toussaint doesn't jump, they stop it.

In Star Power terms this is Note-plink-plink-plink-plink-plink-plink = U No Haz Str Pwr.

DeBordian thinking would tell you a fake off the dive is perfectly set up. MSU knows the dive by heart. They're even tempting Michigan to run it by shifting the alignment. There's a hole to the left of Molk that either Toussaint or Norman will get to first. This is Man-Ball at maximum chest hair.

Diveit

Because of Molk's block (he's 3/4 of the way to a seal before anyone else is out of their stance) and Toussaint's athleticism, the dive probably would have worked. It would depend on the spot, and be close.

The point is a fake off this thing was as incredibly surprising as a DeBordian waggle. MSU had seen it defended, and knew just like the rest of us that a fake was eventually inevitable. Their answer: blitz the corner in case of a keeper and having Norman shoot the hole they left.

IT'S THE WRONG OFFENSE AT THIS MOMENT

wow funny lol cat

I am totally fine with the FB dive and its variations this year. It is a staple of power offenses, and except in terrible, cat-abusive situations, saves Denard from taking hits. Saves him, for example, for those times you're down a score and deep in your opponent's territory late in the 4th quarter against a rival with a three-game streak against you.

What caused this

That was the dumbest goddamned $%&*^-*$#*ing #&!$brained dip*&%$ mother*(%$ing horse_+$# goat-&^%t &%$*y-infested $%^&stick playcalling I have ever &*$ing seen in my life.

…wasn't any of the execution problems. It was conceptual. Hoke and Borges are betting that MSU sells out against the dive—never mind the plinking—and he can use that to take an easy touchdown. This is the opposite of correct, cat-evil-plan the equivalent to Weis throwing a bomb on 2nd and 10, and giving Tate and company an extra 28 seconds for the comeback. It's throwing away a huge advantage for the advantage of surprise. It's making lemonade when God gave you apples and an apple crusher.

Every second the quarterback is moving backwards or isn't facing the line of scrimmage is a second that the quarterback isn't going to be running forward. Even if it was properly blocked. Even if Koger wasn't held up by a great rush by MSU's end, it's a terrible play call because it leaves Michigan's biggest weapon—Denard Robinson's legs—in the garage, while trusting Denard's arm (not good in a garbage tornado), Koger's catching (iffy all day), and Michigan State to not play disciplined defensively (between the whistles they were fine).

I haven't changed my opinion about these coaches: we have awesome coaches and I'd rather have them than any other person who's coached in this state the last four years. But that was a terrible, terrible call.

Comments

BigSi

October 18th, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^

Although both are gutsy play calls, there is one major difference here. Our biggest weapon on offense without question is denard's legs. Back in 91 our biggest weapon was Desmond Howard and Grbac was an excellent passer so in a way that call made some sense. This playcall did not play to our strengths as an offensive football team.

msoccer10

October 19th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^

Denard is not Grbac and Koger is not Howard. And this offensive line isn't as good at 91. The players have different skill sets and I think Denard's legs are why this is a silly comparison.

My big question is would the play have worked even if Moore picks up the corner blitz because a linebacker was screaming in untouched as well. Now Denard is looking right at him and he is vacating the area Koger is going in to, but that linebacker may have sacked or prevented the throwing lane to Koger anyway.

The sneak was the right call. Or even Denard in shotgun for a designed run.

fitty88

October 18th, 2011 at 7:04 PM ^

Most of the day. They knew our count better than our guys did. Not clear why that wasn't recognized and corrected. Wasn't like it was THAT loud there. Hopefully we don't see that happen again.

nickb

October 18th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^

It confirms what many failed to understand. The play was doomed from the outset. My view was if they did block the blitz there was nothing to priove the play would be successful.This post proves it would not had succeeded. I was not aware the Kroger was blocked and not able to get to his route.

I watched a couple of pro games this weekend and in both games with fourth and inches the qb sneek succeeded. Hope the staff took notice.

I don't believe anyone has given a reason for the play call other than it has been successful in the past. Let me give this reason. The staff did not have confidence that even if they did get the first down using a run play they could score a touchdown on plays that followed. Their first touchdown was as a result of a broken play and DR's ability to make a great play. The fake run and pass play on fourth and inches was a do or die play for a touchdown and not a first down.

allintime23

October 18th, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^

I'm sorry but the spot on the Gallon reception before the "doomed" fourth and one was the killer. I think he had it. I'm done thinking about this game. I'm done talking about it too. I hope the players can let it go.

BlueMan80

October 18th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^

and whiffed.  Narduzzi is an evil genius.  He made the right defensive call.  They didn't execute the play and it appears to be a collective "they" based on the analysis.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  Next year, the coaching staff benefits from lessons learned the hard way this year.

Roachgoblue

October 18th, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^

Put a $100 on #7 or a $100 on black. Gee, which is likely to hit? Howevuh I think Gorges was trying to go for the jugular, so I am not too pissed. I love the way the program is showing progress and if we use DRob as a running quarterback we will win. Let the boy play and if he gets hurt it is what it is. He wants to play his way so let him. He is a great kid, but a shitty passer.

Roachgoblue

October 18th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^

I am but dealing with the loss well. I am drinking tonight, which I rarely do. I do not need any assclowns telling me about commas and grammar. F ..... So, please go grade your papers and leave it at that. tchau. EU gostou beber!

Roachgoblue

October 18th, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^

I am but dealing with the loss well. I am drinking tonight, which I rarely do. I do not need any assclowns telling me about commas and grammar. F ..... So, please go grade your papers and leave it at that. tchau. EU gostou beber!

Don

October 18th, 2011 at 8:04 PM ^

that play call in that situation ranks right up there with Lloyd putting in William Carr to carry the ball on the Purdue goal line in '96. That's right, that famous Michigan running back William Carr, who promptly fumbled, Purdue recovered the gift, and we went on to lose 9-3 in West Lafayette. Sometimes even the smartest of coaches outthink themselves.

The silver lining is that we beat OSU that year, and next year LC made us all forget that mind-boggling head-scratcher of the previous autumn.

lexus larry

October 19th, 2011 at 8:37 AM ^

Back in the day, thinking 1994 against Penn State in AA (one of the Ki-Jana Carter teams), Michigan was driving late, and on a 3rd and 3 or 4th and 3, attempted a pass to Tyrone Wheatley, which bounced off his hands.

I just remember so many people being so pissed at Moeller for calling a play, which, as Woody Hayes used to say, there are 3 outcomes to a pass, and 2 are bad.

Very odd how people want to use the Grbac to Desmond as the rationalization of how well this kind of play would work...

Dramatic to see all those great names on the stats page on mgoblue, both sides of the ball.  No reason for Michigan to have gone 8-4 four years in a row, except for oddball playcalling...

Drbogue

October 18th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^

Choosing misdirection for 1 shot at the endzone on 4th and 1 <<<<< 4 shots at the endzone from essentially the same distance. Dumb play = human. Hoke will defend because he will defend his coordinator. But if you got him drunk, you'd probably at least hear him say "grrphhmmm, manball" and a nod denoting you were right. If you're lucky, maybe even a finger point.

uminks

October 18th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^

But first I would have thrown my little red flag to review the previous play, since it was nearly at the 8 yard line. Spartakus refs moved the ball back behind the first down marker. It would have been overturned!

The game plan? I think we had to throw to open up the running. MSU was daring us to throw and kept 8 to 9 defenders in the box. If we would have run DROB he probably would have been beaten up with out them respecting the pass. I think we should have had more 10 to 15 yard pass routes or screens. No reason to send receivers 30 plus yards down!  If we would hit some big medium size passes this would have changed the game and open up the running, especially DROB's running!

Oh well, we'll just have to get them at home next year. I hope we play more aggressive, like we want it! I hate when we come out flat in big rivalry games! Lets get the buckeyes at home this year!!!! I we beat OSU I won't be too upset about losing this game.

cigol

October 18th, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^

I find it to be a blessing that after 9 months of Hoke & Co. we are nitpicking about individual play calls as opposed to fundamental deficiencies in 90% of our football program that were experienced over the past few years.

bob_ufer

October 18th, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^

Worst play call in UM history......give me another one for consideration.  They needs to just keep the drive going...four more plays to get fancy and get a TD.  7 games and he makes the worst call in 132 years.  Wow. 

 

Old man Ufer has never seen anything like this.

iam4blue

October 19th, 2011 at 8:06 AM ^

Worst play call in Michigan history?  I hardly doubt it.  I saw much worse and more predictable during the Carr era.  It's hard to narrow it down to one.

This focus on the 4th and inches play is overkill.  It was a risky call and it failed.  It happens all the time.  I have a bigger issue with the fact that we got the ball back with plenty of time left to tie the store and we threw yet another interception…  Our NCAA leading 10th interception if I remember correctly.

 

STW P. Brabbs

October 19th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^

Is so, so much better than predictability (as laid out in the above post) + stupid design + key moment on 4th and inches against in-state rival. Go ahead and try to find a single play call that was as mind-numbingly awful as this under Lloyd (rather than vague, echoed assertions about predictability) and I'll eat my words.

*I would accept the case, however, that the 3rd/4th and Short Dive Play to Vincent Smith Extravaganza under Rodriguez, when taken as a body of work, is the stupid equivalent to the play in question here.

Jaceon1974

October 19th, 2011 at 2:06 AM ^

Just out of curiosity and not that I'm suggesting we should have done this but, the thought did cross my mind of kicking a field goal when watching the game. Anyone else consider that option? Plenty of time on the clock.

 

msoccer10

October 19th, 2011 at 9:37 AM ^

At the time, I felt like we had momentum and didn't think we would be able to drive the length of the field again if we did get the ball back. So go for it.That being said, it would have been nice to be down 4 with the ball back and driving, but if Denard throws the pick six it wouldn't have mattered. The wind and Dantonio conservative play calling suggest that kicking the field goal wouldn't have been a horrible option.

But with inches to go and only having scored twice to that point though, I think you have to go for it.

lager86

October 19th, 2011 at 8:53 AM ^

I think the plays were similar.  If we miss in '91, ND can drive and win.  Last week, our D stuffed MSU after the failed conversion.  We were still in great position to come back and tie the game, but denard throws yet another pick on first down.  Now, you can say Vincent missed the hot read or whatever, but my biggest criticism of Denard for the past 2 years is that he throws needless INT's on first and 2nd down which are total killers.  At some point, he needs to figure out that eating the ball, throwing it away or scrambling are all better options early in series, than just chucking it up for grabs.  Even after the pick 6 there was time to come back in the game if DG didn't forget that you can't throw a pass 5 yards past the line of scrimmage.  No way the failed 4th down should have cost us the game, bad play call or not.  Sorry.