Did we play for a field goal on the last drive of the Sugar Bowl

The offense hadn't done anything, and Denard was having one of his scary-Denard days, which included losing yards on sacks.  Setting up in the middle of the field for an attempt of less than 40 yards was prudent, especially since Gibbons was already having a good day.

Edit: I thought you were talking about the OT drive.  Didn't Denard try to hit Koger near the goal line on the last drive of regulation? 

When you have a kicker who can visualize brunette girls while kicking, wouldn't you feel confident too?

In all seriousness though, I was a little surprised too especially when they had single coverage on the 2nd down play.

Yes, we only played for a field goal.  That was the smart move.  You don't want to pass it at all, especially with Denard's erratic arm and their ball-hawking secondary.  Why play for a TD when you're already in range for a field goal and that will win you the game?

Denard passing the whole game was bad, bad, bad, and you obviously don't want to throw a pick in OT.  A FG insta-wins, and if you have a reliable kicker (GIBBONS???), you play for a field-goal.  This leaves you with run x 3 to try to get a little closer safely, and then kick it.

for most of the game, no point risking a turnover when all we needed was a few yards to set us up for a game winning FG. Plus the coaches were confident with Gibbon's abilities and I had no problem with that

If you're talking about regulation, Hoke trusts the defense. With the way our offense was playing, you take no risks. And Borges calls the plays anyways. If you're talking about OT, going for the field goal is all you need to win why take risks?

I think the risk of Denard throwing an INT and the general ineffectiveness of our offense was the reason why Borges went conservative. That, and Fitz got 5 yards on first down, which was actually pretty good for a FG kicker at that point on the field. It's good to see Hoke/Borges have supreme confidence in Gibbons, because I'm not sure I would have given how he layed last year.

Don't get me wrong, I usually hate seeing coaches go super conservative like that instead of running a normal offense there. But the way the game was playing out pointed to doing things the old-fashioned super-conservative way (even Brian noted as much).

Plus it worked out. 

DRob sucked all game and I for one did not trust him to throw anything downfield in that situation.

I felt good about running it with Fitz. Maybe would have liked to see a counter play on 1st  or 2nd down (or fake it with Drob keeping a trying for the edge) that could have caught Va Tech off guard though.

UM's passing struggles really troubled me in the game. The script to stop our O was fairly simple and discovered by MSU. Just blitz the hell out of UM, espcially up the A Gap and DRob will not make you pay.

This has gotta get fixed for next season.

We played for the win.

Maybe on 2nd down we could have run a bootleg run with Denard, but whatever. It worked.

Yes we play to win! BEAT me to it powhound.

I would have liked to see a spread and a couple Denard power runs, but playing conservatively and kicking is the call 99% of coaches would make. (Brian Kelly being the 1%, lol)

Yup.  What Michigan did all season has little relevance here.  This was an opportunity to end it in a sudden death form.  Gibbons (Chubs McGee) looked good previously, and had the ball lined up in the center of the field.  With the VT defense kicking our butt, I believe this to have been the smart play - especially on third down.

I would have run the fritz diamond package. 3 times.

Really?

All they needed was a FG.  

#notaproblem

to victory. Reliable field goal kicker. Protect ball. End of story.

vatech was daring Michigan to throw, and they sold out to stop the run, cause it was obvious what was happening....they could have ran play action and told denard throw it out of the endzone if he isn't open.......

But denard isn't a throw it away qb and will hesitate and take a sack if the receiver isn't open.  I would have done the same thing the staff did, Hemmingway or Roundtree may have got inside position and hit the post hard for a td, but I wouldn't have trusted roundtree to protect the ball if it wasn't thrown well or slightly behind.

That's a legitimate question for a Thursday morning quarterback, but can't we hold the second quessing for now and just enjoy what Hoke and the team acccomplished this year? 

After what we witnessed all season it can hardly be argued that Hoke is overly conservative in his play calling.  In this instance he trusted the defense which was performing much better than the offense all night.  He played the odds correctly even though it didn't work this time. 

I thought all year we seemed to play for TDs and on the last drive we were obviously OK settling for a field goal.

This was a situation where a field goal would end the game. There was no need for a touchdown. You can't compare this to some decision we made in the 3rd quarter of a game. All we needed was some kind of a score to win - and we got it.

The fact that it was OT changes the strategy. VT missed their chance. All we need is a FG and we win. The percentages of the FG is miuch higher than a TD. Why not take the percentages for the win?

What difference does it make whether we win by 3 or win by 6?  

Would the win have been any sweeter if we had scored a touchdown vs thinking about brunette girls and kicking a field goal?  

BTW, here's to all the brunette girls, real or imagined, who have not received their due credit for inspiring Gibbons!

Hoke played for a win. End of story.

Offense sucked all game.  Defense was good all game.  Their 3rd string kicker, while performing very wall, was still the 3rd string kicker and the odds of him missing a kick the closer it got to peak pressure time, and he eventually did.  The way we were playing this was the best strategy.  We won the game, thus it was the correct decision.

you have a chance to win the game. early in the season the field goals were to tie the game. why try and score a td when all u need is 3 points to win. plus the offense couldn't do a dang thing but throw it up for grabs. and hope hemmingway comes down with it.

I did not like the 3 runs into the line. I would have preferred more of a normal, but safe, approach to the possession. FGs are not guarantees.

HOWEVER

It was much better than running once, taking a knee to center, and then kicking on third down.

Are you referring to the OT drive or the last possession of the 4th qtr? If its OT I think its pretty self explanatory. 4th qtr I think Hoke trusted his defense, maybe more than he should have, to make a stop.

Of course we played for a field goal.  It doesn't matter in the least how potent your offense is or has been, when you're in overtime, in field goal range and a field goal wins the game, this is the only reasonable way to play.  This goes for college as well as the NFL.  You play it safe, avoid the possibility of a stupid turnover and run plays for the sole purpose of putting the ball in good position for the kicker.  Again, if you've ever watched a college or NFL game go into overtime, you've most likely witnessed this same universal plan.  To think any other method should of been utlilized is ignorant to common sense football strategy. 

If you still find yourself questioning Al/Brady's decision on this drive, ask yourself one thing: In the end, did we or did we not win?

Hoke was betting on the game and the line was Michigan -3 so Michigan kicked the field goal.

If OT, it's a no-brainer, you have a chance to win, you hang onto the ball, get as close as you can, and make the FG to win.  Going for it earlier in the season it's a matter of going for a tie or a win. It's not like he did that AFTER VT kicked a FG.

If you mean the last drive of regulation, how did we not go for it? My memory may be off, but wasn't the last play before the kick the needle pass to Koger? (where the guy underneath was wide open) They had to drive in to FG range, and got stopped. It wasn't 4th and 1. 

Don't confuse Michigan's final drive with how Richt threw away Georgia's chances. Michigan attempted to move the ball, but in a manner that protected the possibilities of a FG.

Richt was a fool. Hoke made a calculation on our best chances to win, and it worked.

You play... to win... the game.

Hoke acted accordingly, by most estimations.

Have to politely disagree. Hoke was definitely playing it conservative with three running plays - none of which involved Denard Robinson if I recall and all pretty much designed to keep it in the center of the field. Todd Blackledge in fact predicted the 3rd down play would be a run back to the left after the first two plays headed to the right in order to better center the ball for the FG attempt.

Hoke didn't open up and try to get 10 or 20 yards, just about 5 which he got - a 20 yard line spot + 7 for the placement and 10 for the endzone = 37 yard kick - doable for our kicker. Georgia's head coach error was to not gain any yardage for a kicker whose percentage was very bad from that rang.

The real criticism about game strategy should be aimed at Frank Beamer when V Tech was driving at the end of the 4th Q - he seemed to pull up and played to go into overtime rather than keep pressing and try to score a knockout. When the Wolverines go up 20-17, it looked like there was too much time left - had it been a TD, definitely, but a FG lead looked like V Tech had enough time to come back and score leaving us with a ND UTL situation of only a handful of seconds to come back.

I think they may have made the decision to be cautious on 2nd and 3rd down after they took a shot on 1st down and didn't connect.  If you recall, Denard took a shot down the sideline to what looked like no one.  Though it went ignored, the replay showed Junior running a double move, only to get leg-whipped by the corner who was about to get torched.  Junior came off limping and we were left in 2nd and 10.  They way our offense was going, being conservative from there may not have been a bad move.

I went to ESPN http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=320030259&period=4 to get the drive chart...

What exactly did you think was too conservative about that? 3 passes, 3 rushes. One pass for a 1st down, last pass that if he had hit the underneath man instead of trying to hit Koger would have been a first down, and at least put us in probably TD range. Gained 23 yards, 3:21 possession. What exactly seemed like we weren't taking chances?