[Fuller]

Wednesday presser 9-5-18: Mike Zordich Comment Count

Ethan Sears

 

[Fuller]

Things discussed

  • Some brutal honesty about the first quarter against Notre Dame
  • The targeting call against Josh Metellus, and the targeting rule
  • Lavert Hill giving up a big play early on
  • Ambry Thomas playing on offense
  • Casey Hughes' status

[After THE JUMP: Mike Zordich isn't sure exactly what happened early on, but he's not happy about it]

 

How did you assess your group on Saturday?

 

“I would say for the first quarter, pretty bad. After that, they settled in and played well.”

 

What happened on the first two series there?

 

“If I had known that, it would never have happened. I don’t know. I had no idea what happened. The simplest things, the first third down, things we do probably 15, 20 times in practice. Didn’t do it. Why, I have no idea. Next play, (Lavert Hill) looks like he’s never covered a guy man-to-man. Interference, but the kid made a great catch anyway, so, you just never know. Never know. You just gotta learn from it. And we are, we’re moving on. But that was a tough one for all of us.”

 

Surprising to see Lavert get picked on a little bit early in the game?

 

“No, no, not at all. Those are big receivers. We knew they were gonna try to be physical with our guys at the line of scrimmage, which they were — give them credit — but early on, they did very well. Especially that play against (Hill), but I think after that — we didn’t give them much after that, but I — that was early and he just didn’t get a feel, good feel for it. They caught it.”

 

What did you say to Lavert after that?

 

“Not a damn thing. Go play the next play. There’s nothing to say. That’s what we preach all the time is, they’re gonna make catches. They’re gonna do that. So just dust yourself off and go make the next play.”

 

Was he supposed to switch that? Looked like there was some confusion on that first third down play

 

“There was. Yeah, that was supposed to be a switch call, Josh (Metellus) falling off and instead we picked ourselves and the guy got off scot-free.”

 

Was that just like an avalanche right away? One of those things that just — one thing after another after another?

 

“Yeah, that’s what it seemed like. And then that, then they scored, we come back — think we got our feet under us — Brad Hawkins is right there to make the play. Hats off to the Notre Dame guy. He made the play. Ball’s in the air, you gotta go get it. You gotta make plays.”

 

Too many missed opportunities, you think? It seemed like there were a lot of 50/50 balls that didn’t go your way

 

“Yeah, certainly that was a big one, cause that resulted in seven points. But, gotta make those kinda plays.”

 

But you guys felt like you were adequately prepared going in?

 

“Oh my Lord, yeah. Unbelievably prepared. And kids — our team — worked extremely hard. It was really frustrating. It’s frustrating today to talk about it. Because of how well-prepared we were.”

 

Did you notice anything upon reviewing film that you hadn’t caught the first time around, during the game?

 

“Can’t say that I did. Just hats off to Notre Dame for outplaying us early like that.”

 

What’d you think of Brandon Watson’s play?

 

“B-Wat? I thought B-Wat played a pretty good game. There was a couple technique issues, which is always gonna happen in every game, but special team-wise, he played well. Defensively, he played well for us. Had a nice interception for us, get the ball back to the offense early in the second half. So yeah. Pleased with his play.”

 

Looked like all three of those guys (Hill, David Long and Watson) kinda rotated the whole game?

 

“Yeah, that’s what it is. That’s how we practiced. That’s how we’re gonna play.”

 

Is it like a drive-by-drive basis or based on performance?

 

“No, it’s drive-by-drive. And there’s so many times there’s nickel called, so, all three will be on the field at the same time. So, good way to get a little bit of rest and keep those guys fresh.”

 

I’m just curious, when you’re coaching off that game, do you focus on the negatives from early-on or do you tend to focus on how they rebounded?

 

“Well, you as a coach have to focus on what you saw. Correct, absolutely. The second point is yes, you have to look at how they came back and they played well. They really did. I compliment them on that, it’s just trying to figure out why that happened in the first place?”

 

And you can’t put your finger on it?

 

“Nah, I really can’t. I really can’t. It’s a shame.”

 

What does being adequately prepared look like, before a game?

 

“What does it look like?”

 

Yeah, to you

 

“I don’t know. What does it look like to be adequately prepared before a game? I don’t know. I have no idea. I can’t answer that. I don’t understand that.”

 

Does the definition change when you maybe don’t start the game how you’d like?

 

“Yeah, if you’re saying based on the start of a football game, how do you — yeah. Absolutely. It coulda started better.”

 

Losing Josh to the targeting call so early in the game, do you have to, I guess, remind players to stay aggressive and not worry about that? How do you address that?

 

“Yeah, we talk about it all week. We watch film on things like, of that nature, to remind the guys of the hits that you can’t — those helmet to helmet. Was it helmet to helmet? I don’t know. Looked like a shoulder to me. But you gotta be smart. The play was made. Play the ball. Play the ball in the air rather than try to chop a shoulder off the guy.”

 

Coach, generally speaking, do you feel the ejection penalty limits those helmet to helmet contact at all? Is it doing it job to prevent players from (doing that)?

 

“I don’t know if it is. Because I don’t know if it’s called fairly, if that’s a valid way to answer it. Two years ago, we played Penn State here, and their linebacker is clearly going after the football. I mean, he’s not even looking at the receiver. And he gets called for a helmet to helmet. Is that fair? Is that a good call? I don’t know. I think the way it’s being called probably needs to be looked at, as well as we’ve gotta police it, certainly. And not a lotta players do it, but I think the way it’s being called has to do with that, too.”

 

Have you coached any differently since they made it — a few years back — making it the ejection?

 

“Yeah, you have to. You have to. I mean, shoot, when I played (the head) was what it was all about. Bang. You put your face on him. Now, you gotta keep that out of the way. It’s a whole different way to play, sure.

 

Was that more dangerous though, what you were doing, you think?

 

“I don’t know. Yeah, it’s safety and I appreciate it — I totally appreciate it. But don’t hurt the team because of your judgement call. Right?

 

It’s still proper technique the way you were doing it before, right?

 

“In every tackling thing we do, there’s proper technique for sure. Absolutely. We practice tackling. We practice.”

 

But even when you were playing, it was not like you were just a missile

 

“I mean, never used (the crown of the helmet), like I said, just put your eyes on things and go after it. But you never wanna use the crown of your head, that’s not the proper way to tackle. But you see with your eyes, that’s what leads you to things. Now you’re asking to keep that part out of the way — it’s just hard. I mean, those guys aren’t just standing still.”

 

Everybody knows Lavert and David, they’re talented, they can cover — have done really good things. Do they have that type of short memory that you like?

 

“Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. In fact, B-Wat does, too. They do. And it’s something we talk about. It’s something we’ve brought up, probably on a daily basis.”

 

Is there a challenge at all when you’re going up against, this week, Drake Harris, who’s been in your room and obviously was a receiver here?

 

 “For him and the other two guys. Number 7 and 87, freshman, 87, had a really good game last week (against) Syracuse. But we know Drake is a really good athlete. Hell of a basketball player. He can jump through the roof, so you gotta watch him. And then number 7, really, damn good game last week. Really explosive, very fast, so there’s a challenge for all three of those guys for us.”

 

Were you willing to let Ambry play some offense? Cause Jim (Harbaugh) didn’t say that couldn’t happen, on Monday

 

“Would I be willing?”

 

Yeah, I mean, do you have a choice?

 

“I don’t think I have a choice. Hey, the more he can do.”

 

Can he do it?

 

“Well, think about it, if he’s returning kicks, I’m sure he can. But that’s out of my court. Out of my court. Coach Harbaugh wants to take him, you can take him.”

 

Is Casey Hughes with the cornerbacks?

 

“Casey is with the cornerbacks, yes.”

 

Is he hurt, or what’s his status?

 

“He hurt his wrist, but he is back. He’s got a little cast on it in practice, but he’s good. Good to go.”

 

 

Comments

unWavering

September 6th, 2018 at 9:36 AM ^

I actually agree with your assessment of ND being a possible top 10 team.  They only have 3ish tossup type games, and I expect them to win 2 of those.  

However, I don't really think you can blame the issues on defense on "youth" while calling NDs WR/QB "veterans."  If anything, it would be the opposite.

robbyt003

September 6th, 2018 at 9:08 AM ^

How it's called varies so much, does anyone fully understand the rule?  The ND guy led with his helmet, and hit (Mckeon or Gentry's) helmet in the 2nd half, and no call.  But Metellus uses his shoulder on a guy that is falling to the ground, so changing levels, and he's given the boot.

1VaBlue1

September 6th, 2018 at 9:43 AM ^

Disagree on the hits.  Metellus ran right at the diving WR and lowered his shoulder into the guys head.  He never tried to pull up.  That is the poster play for targeting calls, and he deserved to be ejected.  I don't think for a minute that he was trying to hurt the WR, or aiming at his head - but he has to pull up and avoid the head shot.  Has to.

The ND player ran into a standing McKeown while standing striaght up himself.  He did not lead with his head, and the hit came at the moment the ball arrived.  That was a good, hard, clean hit.  Helmets came together, but the hit was across the full length of the body, and that is not what targeting is meant to stop.

I do agree that targeting is very often called wrong - but not these two instances.  I also realize that UM homers will lambaste me for this take.  Remove the maize-n-blue glasses and see the hits for what they were...

YaterSalad

September 6th, 2018 at 11:16 AM ^

Please watch the replay of the ND player who tattooed McKeon.  The ND linebacker left his feet as he jumped up and through McKeon while leading with the crown of his helmet. The direct movement of the linebacker made helmet to helmet contact a possibility.  McKeon was defenseless because he just caught the ball turned away from the defender.  I am sorry, but that seems to fit the definition of a targeting call - even if not directly spelled out to the letter of the rule.  There was intent to hit McKeon with the helmet in a position where McKeon couldn’t protect himself.  Sorry to disagree. 

big john lives on 67

September 6th, 2018 at 11:33 AM ^

Agree. Clear targeting but let go. The impact of these calls is major, and yet the way they are called is totally inconsistent.  Too often, the result of the impact drives the call rather than the technique used to generate the impact.  Because McKeon did flail about and roll around as if shot, no call was made. 

 

Durham Blue

September 6th, 2018 at 11:34 AM ^

I totally agree with this.  Lots of people bitching about both calls going against Michigan.  But they looked like the correct calls to me.  Metellus led with his shoulder and inadvertently caught the ND player up high which caused rotational motion on the ND player and his helmet ended up hitting the turf hard.  That is how concussions happen.

I fault McKeon for not faking an injury.  Had he stayed down I bet a flag would've come late.  Or at the very least a nice PI make-up call or similar.

Double-D

September 6th, 2018 at 2:54 PM ^

This is a really good explanation of the difference between the two hits.  

The frustration is so often the the plays happen so fast and the contact can be incidental and unavoidable.  

I have lost faith in anything involving the discretion of the refs.  Especially something so challenging. 

Detroit Dan

September 6th, 2018 at 4:12 PM ^

I disagree.  By the time Metellus saw the collision coming, there was not much he could do.  Both players were moving at high speed, so he had to prepare his body for impact.  The shoulder was the lesser risk as far as injury (as opposed to helmet to helmet).  Nothing he could do, and a bad call as far as I'm concerned.   

carolina blue

September 6th, 2018 at 9:06 AM ^

 I actually find this rather encouraging. I think he’s proven that he’s a pretty good coach and that he can get his guys to perform. This almost definitely sounds like one of those situations where he says “what the fuck was that? “And just more less burns the tape. There’s nothing wrong with that on occasion. Sometimes kids just randomly don’t do what they’re supposed to do. I think some of that just has to do with more reps, and more importantly,   More game reps . They will be fine. 

Cope

September 6th, 2018 at 9:50 AM ^

Perhaps the team was well-prepared and the first quarter, first game jitters were all that was. But when a coach says even after analyzing everything, he has no idea what happened, don’t you think that requires some follow up as far as preparation direction?

I’m aware sometimes after introspection a leadership team comes away with, “No, we did everything right, and it’ll go our way next time.”

bronxblue

September 6th, 2018 at 9:41 AM ^

I hate the "were you prepared" questions.  It's a way for the question asker to take a shot at the coaches and players without actually calling them out, gives no credit to the opposition or chance, and the only answer is the one Zordich gave.

Zeke21

September 6th, 2018 at 10:08 AM ^

M did not come ready to play.

Nd won every third done play and every 50 50 ball.

Second half stats by our defense are meaningless. Nd shut it down.

Be real. Get ready. 

We should beat wmu by 45.

jgoblue11

September 6th, 2018 at 11:12 AM ^

That's what I don't get. We held them to what 60 yards and 3 points in the second half? And what, Notre Dame did that on purpose? If we do not screw up that field goal snap, it's 20-24. Not sure the irish shut anything down. Two arm punts to give them 14 and a legit score drive. Yep, totally shut down, got it. 

Also, I get it, "moral victory" blah blah blah. 

 

Yes, we absolutely blew in the first half, and only scored 10 legit offensive points. Nd is a good team. They came off a great year. We had a chance and found ourselves moving the ball, only to shit the bed in the red-zone. Time to move on!

Rabbit21

September 6th, 2018 at 10:25 AM ^

Love the honesty, but what he brings up with the way they acted in the first quarter is troubling, it confirms the whole, "Too nervous to play on the road thing."  Until that gets figured out, it does not matter how well prepared the team is or how talented they are, this shit is going to continue to happen.  

I must say I enjoy reading this presser as it gives lots of good info without being too specific and it sounds like Zordich is supporting his players.

Durham Blue

September 6th, 2018 at 11:39 AM ^

I like how Zordich came out firing and pissed off that we didn't play well in the first quarter.  Sounds like a guy that takes pride in his coaching.

I have a feeling we will be seeing the best out of our secondary for the remainder of the year.