The 2 point conversion play call will bother me for eternity
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2013/11/29782/michigan-notebook-buckeyes-…
OSU knew exactly what was coming on the 2 point conversion. I'll forever love the fact that Hoke went for two, but if it was Borges' call for the 2 point conversion he should be fired (I think he should still be, one game does not save your job). I'll probably be thinking about what would've happened if Devin had rolled out for the rest of the week non stop. And I know I'll never fully get over it. Shit.
December 1st, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^
That trips bunch/stack formation hasn't worked all year. Especially with little time to throw, and it takes longer to get open when WRs are bunched like that, unless you're throwing a screen which isn't a goal line play.
December 1st, 2013 at 4:34 PM ^
Hmmm, pretty sure it worked for us a few times yesterday.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^
I agree. Just because a formation works a few times doesn’t mean it’s a good formation. I really hate the stack because it limits a couple of things that a normal bunch formation provides. The first is that if the first guy in the stack gets jammed hard or even a little the timing of the whole play is off. Another reason I don’t like it is because it does not allow the receivers to set the “picks” that are so often used in the NFL (especially Denver and New England). What it does is allow for the DB’s to just take the guy who goes the in his direction. In the bunch formation this is much more difficult as there is far better spacing. I don’t understand why Borges likes this formation so much as Mich doesn’t run enough zip screens (like an Oregon) for this formation to be utilized properly.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
But more importantly, the play we called did give 2-3 options for success. An earlier pass to Dileo, a later pass to Gallon on the out, or a Gardner scramble may have all been successful. I'm sure Gardner will look at that tape and see that he had a few better options than the one he chose. That's not to say Gardner should take the blame, but hopefully it will put a fire in his belly this offseason.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^
Agree jmblue. To the poster who said if Devin had waited a 1/2 second longer Gallon was open. Yes he would have been open and Devin would be flat on his back WITH the ball.
Once again a failed block wrecked a play that could have worked.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^
And it's not about any of the other plays. It is about this particular play, the final Michigan play. Perhaps the most important play. A play in which the exact same formation and motion is run before and after the timeout. That is unacceptable. You don't tip your hand on a play that important, let alone ever. And you've got to be kidding me about whether or not it makes a difference if the defense knows what play is coming. Anyone who says it doesn't matter, is either arrogant or has never played organized football.
December 1st, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
It was the most important play at the end of a string of most important plays.
Aftter every game, the winning teams always claims to know exactlly what the other team was doing. If you all want to run to 11W and make yourself miserable, be my guest.
I"m sure the OSU coaches hope everyone believes this load of shit and forgets that the Michigan offense had a historic day against them.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^
I agree. Look at the tape. OSU had all four DBs on with the two recievers before Dileo went in motion. When Dileo went in motion OSU didn't even acknowledge as they knew where he was going. I would have loved to see out of the time out mich come out in the same formation and snap the ball after Dileo goes behind the right tackle and have him go to the front corner of the endzone while the other two recieves run a short drag and a hard slant while getting Devon out of the pocket rolling to his right. Maybe this wouldn't have worked but it was clear the OSU knew where Dileo was going to end up when he was in motion as they didn't react at all. Borges broke tendencies all game, but this was a time he needed to be creative. I've scouted football for quite a while and when a team reacts to a play like OSU did they knew what was coming. If you don't agree I can't explain it any differently. OSU scouted Mich well enough to know what was coming based on the formation Mich came out in.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
Woulda, coulda, shoulda. And I call BS on OSU knowing what was coming.
If they knew what was coming, I'd sure like them to explain how their defense was gashed to the tune of 600 yards?
December 1st, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
gashing them for 600 yards means nothing as they won the game
Moral victories are worth zero
December 1st, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^
Yes, because that's what he was talking about.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^
So were you entirely content with the Akron game, since "a win is a win" (the flip side of "moral victories are worth zero").
I'd take an actual victory over a moral victory any day, but not all losses are created equal. Losing by 50 yesterday would have produced a much uglier offseason than this one will (with respect to recruiting, media coverage, etc.). Maybe you'd prefer that because it might have triggered bigger changes, but it's definitely not true that a loss is a loss and the details don't matter.
December 1st, 2013 at 4:04 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
You're right. Those 600 yards don't mean anything in the face of a loss. But that wasn't at all the point of my post.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
We had a mediocre season, unsure if the offense could do ANYTHING right, going againt an OSU team that was #3 in the nation. We were certain, CERTAIN, of not just a loss, but a "bleeding from the Butt" type loss against a team that totally outranked us, more heavy, more mature, with an incentive to run up the score that transcended the rivalry itself, if that wasn't enough.
And it came down to a single play. A SINGLE TWO POINT CONVERSION.
Frustrating and disappointing, yes. But incompetent? No.
What will always haunt me about that play was seeing DGs hole between the LT and LG to the end zone that developed before the throw. Sigh. What could have been.
But playcalling? No, that was a very well called game by the coaching staff and specifically Mr. Borges. I have no problems with it.
Zero. Zip. None.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^
good post
moral victories are worth ZERO
December 1st, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
Certain losses feel different than others. They may mean ZERO in terms of the win column but for us fans we have nothing left to do but breakdown the loss and evaluate what it means going forward. If you don't want to read about it that don't.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^
nah, he throws a quick button hook to Dileo and you wish he rolled out. He rolls out and gets sacked and you woulda wished that he ran a QB draw. He runs a QB draw and you woulda wished he threw a jump ball to Funchess. See how this works? It's just a terrible spiraling mess that never ends. let it go man.
go blue.
December 1st, 2013 at 4:37 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
But it wasn't necessarily the playcall that was the problem. If Devin hangs on to the ball for slightly longer, he has Gallon open on the fade route.
December 1st, 2013 at 9:05 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^
The problem wasn't the playcall, it was not changing the playcall during the timeout. OSU knew exactly what was coming and that play had no chance. But that's Al "I don't want to get into a chess match" Borges for you.
December 1st, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^
How do you know the play call wasn't changed?
December 1st, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^
The playcall, from what I could tell, it was a triangle concept where that creates a high-low read. But even if they knew that was the set of routes (which I really doubt), they still didn't know who was running what, and the fact that Gallon was going to be open in another half-second pretty much tells you that OSU didn't have the super-magic bullet they seem to claim.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:54 PM ^
Thank you!! I was just about to post the same thing. If they had the play dead to rights, why was Gallon about to come open? It's complete bullshit.
December 1st, 2013 at 4:41 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:51 PM ^
Not really when you leave a guy wide open. If by knowing the play you're banking on leaving a guy wide open because the QB "probably" won't throw it to him, I'd say you didn't know anything.
December 1st, 2013 at 9:09 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
Yeah watching it again the only thing I would like to see is DG wait another couple of beats. There was nothing wrong with the formation or playcall - they could do a lot of things out of that.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^
but i would have loved to see funchess run a slant to the goal post. and if in trouble, DG just throws a jump ball at the cross bar. UM used to do that with david terrell. oh well. three yards. three damn yards.
December 1st, 2013 at 5:41 PM ^
Please don't bring rationality into this terrible thread. Internet Offensive Coordinators with 100% hindsight bias are geniuses and will always win these arguments.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
There was no way that Gallon was going to be open. He got hammered once he entered the endzone was and was about 3 yards from Dileo. Had Devon thrown to him he would have over thrown him for sure. QB's throw to a spot for the most part in goal to go situations and and Gallon wouldn't have been close to the spot you throw a corner route to. OSU was prepared well enough to know how to defend the play. If you can't understand that your not using your eyes to see what happened. Maybe they didn't know exactly what was coming but again they knew enough to defend the play perfectly as there was no one open and OSU had 5 defenders to guard 3. Usually in inside the 5 in a bunch you would use 3 or 4 to defend 3 WR.
December 2nd, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
I think it is obvious they knew something - They had all the DB's on the bunch side before Dileo went in motion. They completely ignored the motion, because Dileo was being motioned into the coverage.
...and the only reason Gallon was going to come open in a half-second is because the guy covering him was leaving to go get the already thrown ball.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:28 PM ^
Let it go... If you start breaking it down, it will eat away your sanity. That last play is pretty much what Michigan is at the moment. This is just the latest, in a long list of disappointments. So for your own good, just let it go... otherwise, you'll be tasting your own vomit for a long time.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
but this is a classic example of hindsight is 20/20
Any play that works has all of us still drinking and partying and praising the tremendous gameplan of the coaches
Any play that fails has us all bummed and saying FIRE PEOPLE
Al could've called the world's most brilliant trick play only to see someone drop it and everyone start saying "We shouldve been more conservative, just run it in"
If we just tried to run it in and we got stuffed, we all would've said "I wish would've done something more exciting. OSU totally saw the run coming"
The entire game came down to that one play. It didn't work out for us. We'll have to live with that forever. Its the nature of sports.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
There is so much hindsight being trumpeted in this thread. The penetration they had on Gardner is what made that play fail. I'm sure on a majority of plays they had an idea of what we were going to run. And I bet Mattison had a good idea of what OSU was going to do on more than a few occasions. Borges called a play that would give Devin multiple options and he'd have a chance to make a read once he saw the OSU defense react. The problem is that he never had time to make a read so he flung it to the guy closest to him. They made a good play, reading into it past that is just an exercise in futility.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:31 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 3:38 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
Admittedly, at the game I was calling for going for 2, but reading through all the post game stuff changes my mind. And I'm trying not to let hindsight influence my decision.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm on the side of "going for OT".
December 1st, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^
December 1st, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
Admittedly, at the game I was calling for going for 2, but reading through all the post game stuff changes my mind. And I'm trying not to let hindsight influence my decision.
Huh? Sure sounds like you're using hindsight to me.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:35 PM ^
Normally at home I'd agree with you about playing for OT. The difference here is that I don't think OSU was affected at all by being on the road. They committed how many false starts and delay of games? I'm not sure but it wasn't many. Hoke made the right call. Coaches that coach to win and not go by the book are the ones that win big games. Mich was not going to stop OSU. This was obvious. When you are the lesser team and you get a chance to win the game on one play you take that. Going into the game if I told you that we could have one play, where we needed to gain two yards to win, you wouldn't take it? I kinda think every Mich fan would have taken that scinerio before kick off. And I'm sure that Hoke thought about a situation like that long before the game kicked.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
I was fine with the call seeing that Gallon was just about to roast a flat footed safety to the corner, but man what I wouldn't give to watch Butt or Funchess put Roby on his leash yet again.
December 1st, 2013 at 6:37 PM ^
I agree. Our two TE's were beasts. Hopefully if Borges returns that was a sign of things to come with playcalling. But I would have loved to see a play that let them elevate over or shield a smaller DB for the win.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^
I have no problem with the decision by Hoke to be aggressive. The problem is that the play calling made those plays doomed to fail.
It was a great effort by the kids and I love that they laid it all out there. But if anyone is taking this game as a moral victory, especially the coaches/AD I will puke. A loss is still a loss and this is still a miserable season and Borges should still be fired.
December 1st, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^
I hope the no one will be offended if I declare this one of the better examples of hindsight bias posted on the board in recent memory. Having read the piece at 11 Warriors now, I find the claim dubious because the play gave Devin a few options in reality, so they may have practiced the formation, but there is no way they knew exactly what was going to happen. In any case, a defense that is reading an offense like a book does not give up 603 yards to that offense, and the call was a well-conceived one that simply did not pan out. I have to say, I was not looking forward to Hyde and Miller in OT - I would imagine no one on the field for us was.