My thoughts on the Sugar Bowl Victory
As I like to do after most Michigan games, the following are my observations, made for the purpose of prompting discussion on the various topics. Discuss . . .
1. The Molk injury killed our offense. Obviously, the snap issues during our first possession were a problem and Molk, being the leader that he is, found a way to play through it. The fact that he was able to play most of the game was really impressive. It was obvious, though, from the outset that whatever his foot injury was, it REALLY impacted his play, and his ability to move laterally. Much of our difficulty running the ball was attributable to pressure coming up the middle. Note: This is NOT offered as a criticism of Molk, who played through enough pain that many NFL players would have simply sat out.
2. Our running game. I think that the Molk injury, discussed above, was the biggest factor. Almost any running back, with the exception of the most elite (think Barry Sanders, D. McFadden or Peterson) will only have success if their line is giving them holes to run through. Clearly Fitz is not in that elite categoty AT THIS STAGE IN HIS CAREER. That said, there were several plays where his quick lateral cuts and his short bursts allowed him to gain 2-3 yards, rather than losing a yard. I still have a ton of faith in Fitz, especially with another offseason of weight training and practice. I see him having another 1000+ yard season.
3. Denard. It is odd to say this but Denard was a non-factor. Aside from 1-2 runs, his legs were largely taken out of the game by VT bottling him up (see point #1). AS for his throwing, again, he didn't necessarily play that poorly poorly (although we did see a return to his bad habits of locking in on a receiver, regardless of coverage, his back foot throws, his lofted jump balls and his overall poor decision making), but he also didn't play that well. Oddly, Denard was just a guy today. (silver lining: If he put up something like 32-35, 425 yds, 4 TD, 1 INT, 120 russhing yards, 1 rush TD, the OMG-Denard-is-going-pro hype might have built to a point where he would have considered it. PLainly, Denard still has a lot of work to do).
4. Our defense. I am split on my view of our defense. Negative: We continue to struggle against taller wide receivers. We also tackled poorly and allowed a mobile, but slow and lumbering, QB to gash us for a bunch of yards on the ground. Also, 3rd and 20?!?!?! We gave up way too many 3rd and longs. On the positive side, hot damn, our red zone defense is just great, as is our overall scoring D.
5. Coaching. Brady Hoke really is an aggressive coach. He loves to fake the FG, and does so at the right times. Also, on the last play of the first half, my wife said that we should kick the FG and I pretty much told her that she knows nothing about football (although she probably knows more than all but the most avid fans). Damn you Coach Hoke for making me look like a moron by kicking the FG 2 seconds later, but bless you for making the right call, as those points were critical.
Overall, we did not play well, but we found a way to win. I do not like so many fans saying that "VaTech gave us the game by fumbling, missing FGs, throwing picks, etc." VaTech didn't do those things in isolation - they did those things largely as a result of our defense and special teams. Also, we gifted VaTech a few picks, as well. So, while we didn;t play our best, this was a great win for Michigan, that should carry us to a top 10 pre-season ranking.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:00 AM ^
The 3rd and long thing was annoying but I'm copacetic about it. Thomas was clearly channeling Elway all game and sometimes you just have to tip your cap. I feel a lot of those 3rd and longs were just great execution and taking advantage of opportunities.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
Logan Thomas played a great game. Sometimes you just have to give your opponent some credit. All the players on both teams were playing with great intensity. Thomas made some great decisions and some great plays. The fact that he is somewhat lumbering also overlooks the fact that he did make a few nice moves and that he is a real load.
January 4th, 2012 at 5:06 PM ^
how much of the Logan scrambles on 3rd and long were due to the RVB injury.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:00 AM ^
" Also, on the last play of the first half, my wife said that we should kick the FG and I pretty much told her that she knows nothing about football"
No offense, but with 2 seconds left, that is not enough time to throw the ball into the endzone and call a time out to kick a field goal. Kicking the field goal was the only option.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^
They should have just spiked it.
/s
January 4th, 2012 at 11:21 AM ^
My thought was that with enough time for 1 play, Denard as one of the best weapons in college FB, Junior as a jump ball specialist and our generally good offense, take your shot at the TD to go into the half up 8 instead of up 4.
I concede that I was wrong, though.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^
I had the same thought that Fitz would be able to find a small crease and get into the endzone from 1.5 yards out. Of course obviously the FG helped in the end, but who knows what would have been the result had Michigan gone for it and scored a TD.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^
But imagine going for it and coming up empty, after starting that possession around the VT 30 (or whatever it was). You've got to get points there. At least we went for the TD with 8 seconds left. Some coaches won't even do that.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:35 AM ^
Thanks for clarifying, I hope I didn't come off as a dick with my comment.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^
didn't come off as dickish at all.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
Sadly, my first thought when Logan ran for the first down on 3rd & long in the 3rd quarter, was this.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^
...to watch. I cringed far more than I celebrated. (Until the very end, that is.)
January 4th, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
No way the lack of running room is attributable to Molk's injury. There was no room anywhere. Pullers weren't getting to the edge, the middle was getting completely clogged up, and it seemed like every time the o-line maintained their blocks, there was an extra guy waiting in the hole who made the tackle.
I'd have to watch the game again, but I think our lack of running game was 30% due to O-Line play, 20% due to Denard Robinson being a little too wound up, and 50% due to the Hokies not having any respect for Michigan's passing game.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:17 AM ^
As I watched the game, I was thinking that next year, B10 defensive coordinators will dissect this game and figure out how to defend Dendard and our offense.
"Eight in the box" will largely be the rule of thumb. Force Denard (who tends to rush many decisions) to throw the ball deep.
The antidote (to my amateur eye) is to return to some of the quick slants RR implemented with much success. Think of those 1-step drops and quickly hitting Roy Roundtree countless times in 2010. That will keep the defenses honest and open running lanes.
But what the hell do I know?
January 4th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^
I was sitting there thinking, "This is Notre Dame all over again, did B10 coaches just miss something?"
I do believe they did complete a couple of quick slants last night, but the problem I have with that is that Denard is short and teams like VT and ND were clogging up short passing lanes. If Michigan doesn't force safeties to maintain depth, I don't know how much good slants will do.
But I am an amateur as well, so I don't know.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:50 AM ^
We threw a couple slants, but they were in tight coverage and one was a pick-turned-incompletion. Denard's got to make better pre-snap reads on those plays. VT was jumping them.
I think some more WR screens may have helped. VT was pretty tight in there and stretching the field laterally might have loosened them up. I also thought this was a perfect game to bring back the transcontinental. That play will be lethal with Denard if we ever run it.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
While I'm sure Big 10 teams will look at this film, the catch is outside of maybe a couple teams most Big 10 defenses do not have the speed that VaTech has.
Antidote - the frustrating thing on some of Denard's sacks was when they'd show the replay from the camera behind him and all the receivers were running deep routes. Shouldn't you at least have one guy running something short - curl, out, slant, etc. to give Denard an outlet if he needs it.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:06 PM ^
January 4th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
B10 coaches will take note. Fill the box to stop the run. DRob and Ftiz... Big Als task over the off season will be to figure out how to beat that strategy, which I'm sure there is, I just don't know what should be done, if i did I would be a coach.
I have confidence that Al will come up a plan, after all, if all those guys are in the box, there has to be openings and space out ther somewhere.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:58 PM ^
a strategy of contain Denard and Fitz first, and force us to pass.
At first I was thinking they could have won the game if they had just passed more (like USC in the 2007 Rose Bowl), but I think their run rpoduction was good enough that they decided to play keep the ball away from Denard just like Howie laid out.
I think Virginia Tech played a very good defensive game.
As for next year - clearly Denard and the receiving corps have to get in synch so they can punish the teams that play us like MSU and Virginia Tech did. OLine Pass protection will be key as well (we didn't do too well at that yesterday).
January 4th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
The running game was bad for one reason -- this was Al Borges worst game as our OC. When the other team puts ten men in the box, there is only one solution: throw the ball on first down. It was insane how he was trying to run against that defense in the second half, when bubble screens would have demolished it. I have to say, much as I love all things Hoke -- incuding his staff -- this game has me worried a bit about Borges.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
The 3rd-down conversions were annoying but I'm not sure what else you could do outside of, well, stopping them. Thomas made some nice throws and good runs, and big QBs are hard to take down when they get momentum. I think the lack of depth on the line hurt there most - with less pressure being put on Thomas because the guys were tired, he had more time to survey the field and make the throws. On a couple of those long completions, Thomas was mere milliseconds from being tackled when he threw the ball. With a fresher/better line play on those pass rushes, maybe he gets nicked earlier and those plays fall apart.
Still, it was a good day overall by the defense, and the offense did enough. I hope Borges figures out how to handle the agressive defenses like VT, but I think yesterday really showed the lack of depth at the WR position. Hemingway is good for jump balls, but no one on the field could get separation from VT's corners, and that needs to be remedied through recruiting and player growth. Denard made some bad throws, but he also made some throws that would have worked with WRs who could get away from the corners.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
I'm normally a "Hoke Uber Alles!" kind of guy, but I thought he channeled his inner Lloyd Carr a bit last night. Not calling timeout with 45 seconds left in the game had me yelling at the screen, "GAME THEORY MANIFESTO!" Playing for a long field goal in overtime by not even really trying for a first down, while it worked out well, seemed to be the wrong call in my mind. I'm not sure if the order was given to fall down on the final kickoff of regulation, but the fact that Cox was almost tackled by a teammate makes me think it was.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:35 AM ^
Eh, the way we were moving the ball last night (not at all), I think setting up the field goal in OT was exactly the right call. You don't want to force it and turn over the ball when the game has been given to you on a silver platter. Gibbons had been consistent so far, you have to trust your kicker.
Also, regarding the last kickoff, I'm certain they were told to grab the ball, run the 2 seconds off the clock, and go down. This is also the right call. You aren't going to run the ball back for a TD.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^
I am so happy this group went out with a nice win.
Having said that it was an ugly game on both sides and we got really lucky on numerous plays.
I feel for that poor VT kid because if that isn't a catch I don't know what a catch is anymore. That was a great play at a HUGE moment and it could have gone either way. in my opinion you can't take that away from the kid. And who knows, we could have gone down and scored.
Love this group and there will never be another Michigan team like them.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
Not sure why this was downvited as flamebait. I disagree on the call (and it seems a bit like you were rooting for VaTech), but overall message about loving the team is spot on.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
as its coming out. Ground pushes it up. Its not a catch. Pretty plain to see.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^
I tip my hat to Logan Thomas. For a kid who only has three years of QB experience under his belt....I was impressed. I didn't know much about him going into the game but he had great zip on the ball and seemed to make some really tight throws. Speaking of Logan Thomas .......I was getting really annoyed during the game that I kept being reminded he was 6'6 and 250 by the announcers. Maybe it was just me but I think Brad Nessler mentioned it at least once every quarter.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^
And yes, Denard did play poorly, poorly. He could have had at least a couple more interceptions, and over a third of his yards and a TD came on a fluke play where the ball hit the defender in the hands, the two defenders covering Hemingway collided making a play on the ball and Hemingway walked in.
He hit a couple slants, but also nearly threw the ball to VT on a couple more.
And lastly, in what was a disturbing regression, he was making poor reads, missing receivers and throwing off his backfoot on anything downfield. VT defensive backs were making plays in the running game all night long, and that falls largely on Denard and Borges.
I will give credit for what was a tremendous throw to Hemingway, but I gotta bet that is intercepted or incomplete 19 times out of 20. It was that kinda gold-poopin night for Michigan.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:19 AM ^
My impressions:
That was a sloppy game all the way around. My wife said it was like watching two high school teams. A bit harsh, but I can see why she said it. Our offense never really found a rhythm. Our only TD's were prayers again. Our defense alternated brilliance with breakdowns, and showed some of the worst tackling this season. How much of that was attributed to David Wilson being a beast and Logan Thomas being a moose, I don't know. But not easy to watch. Both teams made a ton of mistakes.
The saying is true - sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. I wouldn't call that a good game. Certainly not a performance that could be replicated with the expectation of a win. Michigan got a TON of breaks, none of them unfair. VT shot themselves in the foot a few times with penalties or turnovers, but the replays were certainly kind and the penalties timely. And the thing is, I think all the calls were fair. On that Coale reversal, I certainly would not have wanted to be the one to have to make that call, but I can see why they did it. I genuinely felt bad for the kid (not to mention their kicker, but thems the breaks).
That having been said, I think the critical factor for both teams came down to missing players. Molk getting hurt in pregame warmups (SERIOUSLY???), Heininger and Brink being out hurt our pass rush something fierce. Who knows what would've happened if VT had their 1st or 2nd string kickers in there (although Myer put forth a valiant effort).
Oh well. I'm just a guy. Michigan won a hard-fought game and they deserve to feel so good about this season after all they've been through. The indelible moment for me will be Junior Hemmingway choking up after receiving the game MVP award.
GO BLUE!!!!
January 4th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^
I like yours better than mine. I totally agree with all of this.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
I haven't seen his stat line but it seemed like he was always around the ball. He caught the VT back from behind after a long gain with good hussle and the diving sack was great.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^
Ryan was like a RB killing missile. Everytime the RB started dancing around in the backfield, Ryan would at least get a hand on him and slow him down for the next wave. Or drop him for a 20 yard loss.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
I wasn't sure that was an intentional fake during the game. Gibbons certainly took an early step, and I figured that the snap was a delayed a tick and Dileo just made the decision to take off.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
Molk's injury definitely hurt, but the team speed of VT hurt more. It does make me wonder WTF is going to happen next year. Khoury is going to need to step up big time, have a great senior year, and stay healthy while one of the younger guys develops.
Really, though, Michigan played the percentages, and it worked out OK. They could have passed more, but they could have gotten intercepted more. They could have changed what they did on third downs, but percentages dictate that VT couldn't convert every third down for the entire game.
Frank Beamer is a very good coach, and he has a lot of good athletes on his team. Except for the center, the entire OL consisted of seniors playing their last games in a VT uniform. Their defense was quite impressive, and it is quite scary that they only had one senior starting on that side of the ball. I am glad they aren't in the Big Ten next year.
The coolest thing here is that Al Borges has plenty to work on in the offseason. He got to play against a defense that held his team to 174 yards, but didn't have to suffer the sting of a loss. Football is all a matter of adjustments. Offenses figure out how to gain yards, defenses figure out how to stop them, and offenses figure out more ways to gain yards.
Usually, a coach in Borges' position would be evolving his offense during the offseason while still thinking about how much the loss hurt. Now, Borges gets to tweak and adjust in the glow of a very good season.
January 4th, 2012 at 7:23 PM ^
Not sure if Koury will even start next season. There is a chance Jack Miller will win the Center position as a redshirt freshman. There was no way Hoke would have burned Miller's RS to play him in the Sugar Bowl, but by next fall he could be the best option at Center.
As for Koury, he probably would have settled down and been fine, who knows. Koury did have the fastball going on his snaps, that's for sure.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:41 AM ^
Not trying to hack into a thread, but I cannot post new threads yet. Anyone know if an official or analyst has explained why the catch in OT by the VT player was overturned to not be called a touchdown?
January 4th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
Just what the folks on TV said last night. If the ground helps the receiver secure the football, it's ruled an incompletion. In this case, they must have ruled that enough of the ball hit the ground that it helped secure the ball in Coale's arms. It certainly did hit the ground and certainly did move a little. I think it gets into a judgement call by the official, though, in terms of how much is too much. I would not have wanted to be in that position to make the call.
Just a guy.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:59 AM ^
As much as I love Denard, I show no bias when it comes to his playing ability. He can make a spectacular play one second and then make an unbelievably bad play the next. Last night, I can't fault him too much. He had absolutely no time to put anything in motion. Any time he wanted to throw, he had 1-2 VaTech defenders right in his face. Really, the only time he got a few seconds to set up a pass was on the second Hemmingway touchdown.
I can't believe Clemson's crappy ass defense was able to to shut this Hokie team down so easily twice this year. VaTech completed a 3rd and 8, 3rd and 12, 3rd and 20, 3rd and 8, 3rd and 15 and a 4th and 11. Defense played so great until 3rd downs. I almost pulled out all my hair.
Me being who I am, I obviously love to go back and watch old games. But this is one of those games I think I'll just throw in the collection and probably not watch for a long time. It was THAT ugly. I will say this, though. If you look back on our history, you'll notice that many, many times, we were in VaTech's position where we dominated everywhere but the scoreboard. I can think of at least a dozen off the top of my head. It's nice to be on the other end for once.
January 4th, 2012 at 12:14 PM ^
"If you look back on our history, you'll notice that many, many times, we were in VaTech's position where we dominated everywhere but the scoreboard. I can think of at least a dozen off the top of my head. It's nice to be on the other end for once."
I was thinking the exact same thing this morning. For example, I was at the Colorado "The Catch" game....
January 4th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^
how much DID Molk's injury contribute to our terrible line play and inability to get Fitz or Denard holes; and was our run on first mentality--which SEEMED miserably predictable--the result of some monumental Borges brain fart, or a more complicated issue?
January 4th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
I'll quickly say congrats to M. We both did our jobs to make a good showing for the conference.
January 4th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^
the sugar bowl trophy is
tiny
January 4th, 2012 at 9:15 PM ^