3 quick takes from MSU (fill 'em in)
1. In retrospect, going for 2 would have been nice; momentum working in UM's favor, MSU defense on their heels, Tate loaded up with confidence and endorphins.
2. MSU's last two scores, long runs freed by poor tackling efforts, brought back miserable memories of Northwestern '00.
3. We knew the ride was going to end sometime; that it ended with a still-astounding Tate Forcier effort is something to feel good about. Time to work through the grind of the season. If the coaches were in any kind of a "don't mess with the magic brew" mindset it is out the window now, start fiddling with things all you want.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:09 AM ^
#1....well tate was EXHAUSTED at this point... if we had missed the 2 pt conversion you would have been upset that we tried to put too much on tate
October 5th, 2009 at 2:22 AM ^
Others might have, I wouldn't have complained - Tate's the QB, the offense goes through him every play whether we want it to or not.
I also remember from my playing days that once you're tired, you don't really get un-tired the rest of the game, and most importantly you start making really bad decisions. This is a much bigger factor in running QBs than in pocket passers (unless they've been sacked a bunch) and something we'll have to keep an eye on with Tate.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:15 AM ^
"You play to WIN the game.....you play to win the game.."
Herm Edwards
October 5th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
Yes Tate was gassed, but so was thier defense. I wouldn't have been upset with going for 2 at all and trying to sneak out of there and strike while the iron was hot (and wet). All we would have to do is put Desmond in there for one last...oh...wait...
October 5th, 2009 at 2:40 AM ^
Sounds good now (i.e. in the rear view mirror), but if they went for it and did not make it everyone would be bitching. For ALL teams, it is about a 47-48% chance of making a 2 point conversion. IDK what it is for Michigan, but Michigan was 3-0 in OT games and Michigan was rocking the last two drives against MSU so it is hard to say they did not have at least a 50/50 chance of winning in OT. RR made the right decision even if it did not result in a win.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:21 AM ^
Actually, for all teams, the conversion rate is about 43%. Some have argued that with an athletic QB it could be greater, but in a rainstorm, with the offensive line playing like garbage, and with no timeouts, I'd doubt it would be above 50%.
We actually were 5-0 all-time in OT going into the game. Previous OT wins:
1999 Alabama
2002 PSU
2004 MSU
2005 MSU
2005 Iowa
(That said, I don't think past OT performance should be a factor. OT should be a 50-50 proposition regardless. Still, 50-50 is probably better odds than that of a successful 2pt try.)
October 5th, 2009 at 3:14 AM ^
1) Tate will learn to focus better from the start of the game and play like his Hair is On Fire for the whole game...not just the 4th quarter.
Kid has shown that he is AN AMAZING TALENT at QB...but he does need to get his head a bit more in the game EARLIER... as shown by the past few games.
2) Denard is OK at QB now because of the lack of depth...but in the long run, he is better off...much better off as a Slot Receiver or Slash/Percy Harvin type...thats just the way it is for next year...anyone can see that.
3) ILBs continue to struggle...
4) The loss of Molk has been HUGE. Critical missnaps and having to reshuffle the line hurt Michigan badly vs. MSU.
oops thats 4...
October 5th, 2009 at 8:15 AM ^
Tate's head wasn't in the game earlier? I think you're pointing fingers at the wrong player. Look at the guys who were dropping his passes, or the ones up front who couldn't block worth crap all game.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:24 AM ^
The thought of trying for 2 flashed through my mind at the time, but I was fine with taking it to OT, and I am not going to go back and second-guess the coaches. That isn't fair. I was fine with it at the time, and "at the time" is all that the coaching staff got to make the decision.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:02 AM ^
1) In the 1st Quarter, we had MSU 3rd and 17. IMO this is a blitz every time, but we PUSS OUT with the 3-man rush. I HATE the 3-man rush. We would have gotten the ball around mid-field, but I think MSU marched down & scored. In my mind this gave them confidence they should never have had.
2) Dropped passes, including in OT...off the chest in the end zone and picked off.
3) Tate showed his poise again in a great comeback, but we're leaving too much on his shoulders.
Sorry if all the above seemed neg, but I need another day or two. GO BLUE!
October 5th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
I know exactly what play you are talking about, and I groaned as soon as I saw the 3 man. I swear, the QB had time to look back and forth at least 4 times on that play.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:34 AM ^
off the chest. The receiver was well covered and the ball was nowhere near catchable. Tate indicated in the presser that there was a miscommunication in route being run.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:00 AM ^
I don't see it. In addition to the fact that Tate had just driven the team 92 yards and had run himself or passed on every play (in sheets of rain) with no times out left, Rodriguez had to know, in his mind, he was already going to catch Hell for the fake punt debacle. If you go for two and miss, then you have all kinds of play calling questions and I just don't see that being what you want to take out of this game.
Never mind the fact that, outside of Tate, the running game had not been established, so you're lining up for what amounts to a fourth and goal from the three. State knows you either need to pass or run some sort of QB scramble. With a somewhat worn down QB, they'll be looking to pass, so you probably have to have Minor in for help pass protection, so that leaves you probably with Koger, Stonum, Hemingway, and Odoms in. I guess you hope for Koger getting open?
The killer was Michigan losing the toss in overtime. If Michigan wins and goes on defense first, Tate gets a chance to rest, compose himself, and know the situation before he heads back out there. It's also why I'm not too upset about the interception. As much as it was the cause of the ending, it was also a heck of a play by State's secondary to get the tip and then to catch the deflection. Right place, right time for them and unfortunate bounce for Michigan.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:30 AM ^
agree.
If you go for two in the fourth quarter, if you go at all, you do it on the first touchdown (which would cut it to a 6 point game) if you don't make it on that, you're forced to go for two the second TD.
Honestly, I can't understand why one would even consider going for two with just 2 seconds tied up. This isn't the NBA where you shoot a 3 on the road down by two. Take your chances in OT.
You're right about losing the toss in OT. The entire offense was exhausted and you could see it in Tate's face. They needed to rest for a drive.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:04 AM ^
I'm fine taking my chances with OT instead of going for 2. Since both teams have at least one possession in OT, you might as well take a chance at OT than let MSU off the hook with one play from the 3 yard line. Also, in that rain and with the number of errant snaps already, I'm not sure if I would want to take the risk.
The defense played reasonably well all things considered, though it definitely needs more depth. Ezeh was, well, a train wreck for most of the game, though Kouvacs surprised me. DBs not named Warren are, unsurprisingly, not All-Americans.
Overall, I think this was a positive for the team. They should never have been in the game after being dominated for 3 quarters, and the running game is going to have to be more consistent if this team has any chance to compete in the Big 10. Hoping to come back in the 4th quarter is fine against IU or MSU, but teams like Iowa or OSU are going got destroy this team if that is the mindset.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:56 AM ^
Did we give up on running the ball because we were behind, or did we just think they had us figured out? Under 50 yards total rushing?? They ran the stretch play a few times, but I didn't see the dive or the lead counter up the middle. When this team relies on the passing game things can get ugly fast. They need to run it all game regardless of sucess. It seemed to me that the MSU defense was focusing on the edge and the flats, and we didn't attack the middle with the run. Our offense in the past can attest to the fact that when you stick with the running plays, they will open up near the end of the game.
My other thought was that if you keep playing every game down to the last second, you are bound to start losing a few. The defense showed up in this game, and they looked better than they have all year. Too bad the offense didn't. If we can put both together in the same game, this team will be really good. Kudos to JT Floyd, Obi Ezeh, Brandon Graham and Kovacks for a good game!
October 5th, 2009 at 9:16 AM ^
My three quick takes from the game (and game coverage):
I didn't get to see most of it, as my sister was busy having a baby, but I did note a few things.
1) In the future, if our first couple of series have more rushes of 2-3 yards than 20-30, we're in trouble.
2) That offensive line better bust its butt in practice this week.
3) Good to see the national media doesn't seem to be brewing thunderclouds immediately already. They're taking the perspective, it appears, that everyone knew M wouldn't go undefeated, and M is still a lot better than they were and will win a lot more games.
3A) Tate, when you turn 21, I'm sending you a bottle of fine Scotch.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:19 AM ^
1. ILB's are hurtin' and probably will be that way all year
2. Van Bergen looks to be improving every game
3. Kovacs would've been All Big Ten 15 years ago