Second Half Meltdowns
So clearly we've shown the habit of melting down in the second half. To me, that can basically only be the result of two things: inferior conditioning or getting owned by the opposing coaching staff through adjustments. I would lead strongly toward coaching at this point.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
What? The defense has so many problems, it's just waiting for them to fall apart.
Missing the extra point killed momentum. Then the onside kick and it went downhill.
What was Kovacs doing going after the qb 25 yards away?
November 7th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
half meltdowns. Or RR can't make as many adjustments because there is only so much that his kids can do.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
Barwis would eat every single one of the players lunches if he saw them doggin it towards the end of the game.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
will say that the opposing teams can pick apart our weaknesses. my question is why cant we pick apart theres?
November 7th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
we scored in the 2nd half of this game.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:14 PM ^
...it boils down to halftime adjustments. We had the same players in the first half we had in the second. Our coaches just didnt make the changes needed to stay ahead. Purdue didnt do that much different in the 2nd half offensively and on defense they simply put more pressure on our O line and pressed our receivers.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
Unfortunately I have to lean towards the coaching given those options. Option number three is the real answer though.
#3 - Michigan doesn't have the horses to win these games.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:51 PM ^
But why such a pronounced difference in the second half? We've been outscored 75-12 over the last three games in the second half.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
doesn't make Tate throw a bad option pitch that started the 2nd half. If Tate doesn't turn it over right there, I am sure Michigan wins the game. The momentum created by that turnover was huge. At least he won't be a freshman next year.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
option pitching is dangerous in our backfield. bad call.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
why take the risk there when the plain vanilla was eating around 4 YPC?
Why not slow things down with a 2 TD lead to limit the number of plays our D faces?
November 7th, 2009 at 4:25 PM ^
The goal line stand last week and the on side kick this week can be used as excuses for poor second half performances. They should not. Fact is, adjustments are easy to make on the offense. Forcier cannot run north/south and cannot run between tackles, so defenses key to the RB. Once that happens, you pretty much have an I-Form. The O-Line cannot protect the QB, so take away the short passes by playing all receivers (including inside receivers), tight. Once those adjustments are made, the offense has no answers. The only adjustment is to bring in D. Rob. I'm not sure why he didn't play. Perhaps RR was worried about turnovers. Maybe that's right, but give the sorry state of the defense no lead is safe. You have to stay aggressive the entire game. That's why DRob should have been in there. An assumption had to be made that the defense would blow the lead, which they did.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:51 PM ^
I thought starting the second half with D-Rob would have been nice, but I have to assume that Rich knows his team better than me. What really bothers me is the clock management at the end of the first half. We really had Purdue on their heals and he elected to leave 2 timeouts on the board. As bad as our defense has played, I still would have kicked that KO deep and played defense, getting the ball at the 10 and getting it at our 40 is a huge difference with 25 seconds to go. If we get it at our 40 with the wind at our back we really only need 25 yards for a fg try. It seems like he tends to get to wrapped in playcalling and forget about clock management.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
And you want to have DRob come in on the first possession...
This is why you are not the coach of this team.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^
...but coaching does tell him to tuck it and take the loss if he see's his pitchman covered.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
The start of the second half, you're up a couple of scores and you are running at will. Why would you even call that option
play? Knowing you have a freshman QB and a tail back that has not played much.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:47 PM ^
It is probably a bit of both.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:15 PM ^
Because you don't have ESP (you don't know Tate's going to make that awful decision), and because you want to install a dimension to the offense that should make you more dynamic and difficult to defend against?
FWIW they ran the pitch at least one other time in the first half.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:45 PM ^
...calling that option if DRob was in. But the defense knows Tate's isnt going to do much with an option to the short side of the field. No reason to defend him.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:48 PM ^
to that d-bag ira on wtka, it's bo and lloyd's fault.....moron
November 8th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^
I did listen to him, and that is not even remotely what he argued.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^
Don't overlook the fact that we had over 400 yards of offense in this game and 36 pts with a missed fg, extra point, and 0 pts on a red zone trip on a reasonable 4th down call IMO. Plus our turnover was completely Tate's fault. I think it's hard to blame coaching for this. Although I will say that our 3rd and 2 QB draw with empty backfield fooled absolutely nobody.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:17 PM ^
in the way they collapse when something goes wrong, breaks all go the wrong way, etc. and they manage to lose games they should win. Mentally weak. I'm hoping it's inexperience rather than attitude (which would mean coaching).
November 7th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
..like a lot of other things we're seeing from the coaching staff, is extremely concerning.
I understand all of the reasons (excuses?) why we're struggling this year, and I still support RR and believe he'll bring success here, but the ugly truth is, RR has gotten outcoached on MANY occassions while here.
His job is to put our players, however deficient in talent they may be, in the best situations to win. And unfortunately, he's failed to do so repeatedly.
November 7th, 2009 at 9:43 PM ^
how is he failing to put the best players in the best position to win? I'm pretty sure Ezeh was benched for a walkon. I'm pretty sure Mouton gave way to Fitzgerald. I believe they also moved Woolfolk to CB.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:25 AM ^
the thing is...opposing offensive coordinators can make adjustments to our terrible safties. robinson can't do anything about having them.