Of course the second guessing will begin on a great effort. But with the momentum and the Spartans D reeling I am surprised that Coach didn't go for two.
I'd rather not. Forgot what losing felt like. I don't like it one bit.
my only question is why did denard get that possession wit 8 minutes left down 14....thats my only complaint.
Probably because the offense stalled out every single time before that with Tate in the game. Whether that was on him or not, I have no problem with RR trying to mix things up.
My only question is why the fake punt on 4th and inches? Don't really get it..
Is what shifted the momentum. HORROR-IBLE play call....
In the post-game press conference RRod said it was supposed to be a kick, but Zoltan made a read and decided to keep it
I for one, blame this loss on the coaches completely. With our offense sputtering we get to 4th and inches twice and punt it both times in the first half. What is the deal with the roll out punt on 4th and inches? I know we did this last year but not much this year. Too many bad calls in the first half and denard coming in cold down 14? Just a shoot yourself in the foot performance that I would love to forget. Can we get a muligan on that interception? I call REDO!
THe problem is that we weren't able to run the ball all game long..so now you got about 8 yds to find a tight window in a driving rain..right call was made.
Going for the endzone on 3rd down in OT was a Freshman mistake, you either try for the first or you make sure you give yourself a chance for 3!
I really wanted them to do it. That's easy to say now, but I was kind of hoping we did. However, there really were a few things going against us. Tate was dead tired and it was pouring, so I wouldn't want to put our whole game on those chances.
you have one chance. Overtime gives you more opportunity. Amazing job they did just to get to overtime.
This hurts. Yet, it hurts less that we made it to OT, than it would have if they had continued to kick our butt. Until the last of the 4th, they were kicking our butt. RR always says "we will win when we deserve to win." We didn't deserve to win for most of the game. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have won, but we didn't do what was necessary to do so. They had 3 turnovers and tons of penalty yardage. Whatever, lets move to Iowa.
Yep. They need to play like it's the fourth quarter every quarter to win games right now. Not good enough to start slow and come from behind every week.
also.. Dantonio had a chance to take the game away by making it a 3 score game with a field goal.. however, he decided to go for it on fourth down, and that really gave us a huge chance. Had we won that game, Dantonio gets crucified for that decision...
I was worried about the rain and making the conversion; I also wanted to go for 2. But -- I think Forcier was completely spent, and they had no time outs, and it wouldn't make sense for Robinson to have tried to go for 2.
Michigan was also set up well in OT; either Michigan defends first and can try to hold Sparty to a FG, or the tired Spartan defense comes out again. MSU got the plays, UM didn't.
If Tate wasn't completely gassed, I would agree.
your D is playing excellent, your Qb is clutch. you go go for the tie and force overtime and hope you can pull it off.
if we had lost by one because of a failed conversion, everyone would have been excoriating RR for his bad decision. As is, we pulled an overtime loss out of what should have been a blowout.
Right. In retrospect, it was a lose-lose situation for RR. We had tons of momentum. All the momentum. Our D was clicking. Tate was transcendent (did anyone notice how the clouds opened up and the sun shone on him right before the Stonum TD?). You had to trust the team to keep it rolling, just one bad throw and one horrendously missed tackle. That's it. I would have liked to keep the ball in the air on every play during OT, given our rythym; I think the 3rd and long kind of forced a tough pass.
Overall, heartbreaking loss, but good toughness for M down the stretch.
If he would have completed that pass it would have been a great pass but it gets tipped and its a freshman mistake? He saw an oportunity and took it. I've seen a lot of upper-classmen make that same "freshman mistake"
The only thing I can say against Tate's last pass was that perhaps it had too much zip. A loft there might've gotten it over the defender and scored a TD.
But, seriously, not a complaint. The kid has played his heart out every week.
You'd be an idiot if you went for two there. The only play we should be second guessing is the Zoltan run. But we played like crap until the 4th so we didnt deserve to win. If we played like we were capable of, we could have won by double digits.
Take a chance with overtime. MSU hadn't stopped UM in the 4th quarter, so I rather take a chance with multiple overtime downs versus a 1-shot from the 8 yard line.
The 8? 2pt conversions start at the 3.
been at the 8...we weren't going to run it in there at all.
The window I still think would have been too tight in a driving rain though!
Yeah, thanks for the clarification. True, the ball is lined up at the 3, but the actual run would be nearly from the 10.
I am heartbroken over the loss just like all of you but we got outplayed for the majority of the game and for them to fight back with 8 mins left says a lot to me. I am in no way gonna let this one loss define the season that is yet to come and for anyone else to would be a mistake!
10 out of 10 coaches kick the PAT.
They won, but only because they had a little more time on the clock and they made a perfect onside kick.
We should have gone for two, regardless of how gassed Tate was. If he was gassed, that's precisely WHY we should have gone for two - we could have ended the game right there.
Michigan's offense was finally moving the ball, and MSU had no answer for it. If you have momentum, go with it.
I have questioned the play calling several times this year, but in my opinion, some of today's calls were ridiculous. The fake punt inside our own 20, the insistence on throwing the ball, the insertion of Denard Robinson who can/will only throw the ball, the extra point at the end instead of going for two.
Regardless, I didn't think we'd be 4-0 going into this game, so I'm not all that disappointed that we're 4-1 now.
hindsight is 20/20
had we failed to convert 2 points.. you'd be saying it was a retarded decision
No, I wouldn't.
We should have gone for two. I said it when I was watching the game. You have no idea what I was thinking at the time, so please don't speak so definitively about my thought process.
I'd call that momentum in Michigan's favor.
2 pt conversions are successful about 40% of the time. The odds were better kicking the PAT.
I will be completely honest. I wasn't sure how good our chances were to make the PAT. With as wet as it was and a kicker that I don't have a whole lot of confidence in, I was a little worried.
if he went for 2 pts and failed, we'd have an army of people coming here saying "Why the F did he go for two!??? Horrible call."
It is what it is.
MSU lost 2 close games. UM won two close games.
MSU is not that bad.
UM is not that good.
But for my money, Michigan is a far more interesting team to pay attention to in the coming weeks of Big Ten play.
Hawkeyes better have long fingernails.
The conventional wisdom is clear.kick the PAT.
Football is also a game of emotion and mental toughness. The Spartans were in the Same Old Spartan mindset.
I think they were ripe for the kill then, and think the "two" would have had a great chance to work.
If they didn't make it Coach Rod would be bombarded with "that's not Michigan football"
If they made it, The team would have an amazing swagger, and Tate's legend would be beyond belief. I think the team earned that opportunity with the comeback.
Great effort in the fourth by the team.
People would be whining a lot more if we went for 2 and missed it, which is more likely than making it.
I'm more annoyed by the shitty tackling at the end than I would have been if they failed at converting the two-point.
Most people would be way more pissed about missing a 2pt though. We were dominating and RR thought we would win in OT.
This is why it would be so hard to be a coach. The logical choice was to just kick the field goal and keep the momentum going. But it's so tempting to end it right there, you really have to be able to keep your emotions in check and do what is smart in the long run.
If I am the coach, I would have gone for two, probably would have missed and the team would be heartbroken.
If they missed on two the whining would have been through the roof.
The focus will be on the fake punt play now.
All fun to discuss and wonder what may or may not have happened.
Glad that we are still on schedule for a bowl appearance this year and on to greater things in the years to come.
Flip a coin - I don't think that going for 2 or kicking is neccesarily "wrong".
except there's a slight advantage for going for two on the road and playing for overtime at home.
that they should go for 2. The stun factor was in play -- MSU didn't know what had just hit them. If Forcier was tired, think how tired MSU's D was. Also, if I'm not mistaken, MSU had no timeouts left so Michigan would have surprised them by sending out the offense. Finally -- and I think this is important -- MSU had the better field goal kicker. The way Olsenavage was kicking there was every possibility he'd miss the 3 pointer. Indeed, his extra point was far from clean.
One other note: I believe this was Michigan's first OT loss -- the odds were pretty good that we'd eventually lose one.
The moment the TD was scored, I yelled "go for two!" at my TV, my kids, and my dogs. I really didn't like M's chances in OT. In any event, amazing performance at the end of the game. MSU played inspired ball on defense, and with serious desperation on offense.
I told my wifey after the Stonum TD...that if the Wolverines get this game tied up I would go for Two...why not...nothing to lose..why tie it up with the All american Kicker at MSU and if we are so good to score getting the ball at the 25...why not score at the 3yard line with a spread formation and "Little Man" Tate may the Forcier be with us all!!
You have to kick the PAT. Consider the situation. In a driving rainstorm, do you really want to try to punch it in from the 3 (when you haven't run well all day) in a single try with the game in the balance, or do you want to just attempt a near-automatic kick to prolong the game?
Passing from the 3 is iffy in any case, much less when it's pouring rain. And running might not be the best proposition when your OL has been getting outplayed at the line all day. I would not have felt that confident going for it.
You could say the same thing for long snapping, holding, and kicking in the driving rain - all are made more difficult.
I'll take a short pass play with the option to run, thank you very much.
And you'd have to be prepared to defend the call if/when it fails. A majority of 2-point attempts fail, and most aren't called in terrible weather.
A PAT is such a short kick that kickers usually make it even when the hold is shaky. It's a near-given even in bad weather.
I would not have wanted to see a two-point play. MSU would have dialed up the pressure and I question whether our sieve-like OL could have given a tired Forcier time to find someone open in a crowded endzone.
That's funny . . . the TD play that caused this discussion happened near the goal line with our sieve-like OL and with a tired Forcier and a crowded end zone.
At that point I couldn't see the game, but it seems to me it took at least two tries from inside the ten to get the ball in the end zone. A two point conversion is just one play (obviously). Considering the rain and recurring problems with the snap, I'd rather go into overtime.
And if you noticed, it took three downs to score there. On two-pointers, you get one chance.
Nothing you have said is untrue.
At the same time, you can't legitimately argue that I'm wrong because we still lost the game. On the other hand, I can argue that you're wrong because of the result.
I know people say hindsight is 20/20 or that I would be arguing the opposite if they had gone for two and failed. But this is the internet and I have no way of proving what I thought yesterday, so you're just going to have to take my word for it.
Few teams have qbs like Forcier; i.e., capable of running, improvising, passing. I suspect teams like that do better than 40%.
Common sense dictates that if the odds were significantly greater than that, you'd see coaches with athletic QBs going for it more often than they do. It's just not that easy of a place from which to score. Running it in against a goal line defense from the 3 is difficult, so teams usually pass. But that means throwing into a very crowded endzone, since there's not a lot of room for receivers to run.
Hindsight is 20/20. We don't turn the ball over in the redzone when Stonum fumbled and who knows what the outcome would have been. There are a lot of things that could have been done differently, should have been differently, but were not. The fact that we were still in a position to win at the end despite all the costly errors says a lot about our team, IMO.
but who was the genius who recommended that they challenge the Stonum funble?
I don't know the answer to your question, but to be honest I am glad that they challenged as I thought he was down.
the lack of 2 point try b/c it cost them money on UM on the spread...
I look at it this way:
-Your offense has been struggling all day. Finally it strings together two drives, you've got all the momentum in the world, why take the chance on your offense having to drive the ball from the 25 when they've been largely successful all day?
-Your defense has shown a chronic inability to tackle or cover receivers. Why put them in a position to have to stop somebody?
-The rain had just stopped
Really, there's a 50/50 chance you make the 2 point conversion. There's a 50/50 chance you lose in overtime. Why not just go for it? The entire final drive I was standing there weighing the entire scenario in my head. Going for 2, especially in that situation based on what had already happened the rest of the game, made infinitely more sense. I'd rather lose going for the win than lose after playing for overtime.
You clearly don't understand probability. "50/50" isn't how it works - if it was, then the success rate would be....50%. It's not. It's 40%.
The possibility of two options does not make something 50/50. We are either going to all die today at 9:30 PM in a nuclear holocaust or we're not - that is not a 50/50 prospect.
I thought a 2pt conversion was a good idea too, however, I have absolutely no problem with either play call in that situation.
I would have liked to seen them go for two, because it is either a win or a valiant loss. The loss in overtime leaves a bad taste in my mouth
I don't think its a valid reason to say that they should not have gone for it under the justification that if we wouldn't have gotten it, people would have second guessed the call. Why doesn't anyone ever look at it from the other side and say "What if we would have got it?" Had we gone for it and gotten it, RR would look like a genious, and I for one would have respected the call whether we got it or not. 4 minutes before we scored, we were down by 14, and it took almost all we had to even tie the game. Tate was exhausted after the 91 yard drive, but I think he had the heart to get the ball into the end zone on one more play. We should have put the dagger into sparty while we were at the peak of our momentum, rather than waiting for everyone to realize the great comeback they had just made.
A couple of folks earlier in this thread indicated that one reason NOT to have gone for two is that Forcier was tired. That's a bad argument: 1) right then, the MSU defense also had to be very tired. They'd basically been on the field for the last five minutes; and 2) if he was tired, wouldn't we have been better off, asking him to go one more play than play in the OT????
But before the OT, Tate had a few minutes to stop and catch his breath. And in OT, you get a new set of downs with which to work, so if first down fails, you have more tries. (Again, note that it took three plays for us to score that final TD after we picked up first and goal.) In a two-point attempt, it's one chance to win or lose, and we had no timeouts to call if Tate didn't like what the defense had set up. I do not think it was the percentage move.
Guys, just think about this statistically *puts in pocket protector. Estimate the chances that we make the two point conversion (and despite what the B10 announcers said, the driving rain is not an advantage). I'd say somewhere south of 50% and north of 40%.
Now, given how our coaches have adjusted to MSU's attack and how our offense was rolling, don't you think we have an edge in overtime? My guess is that we do.