Tate, running game, playcalling...

Submitted by mgofootball4 on
I don't have too much to say about the offensive playcalling yesterday. But I'm wondering how it may affected the game if RR decided to completely abandon the run out of the gates in the 2nd half. If he would have put Tate back there and rolled him right, rolled him left instead of putting in DRob and trying to get the ground game going - I think UM pulls closer quicker. Although, something clicks with Tate late in that fourth quarter where he somehow refuses to get sacked - not sure he had that goin in the first three quarters. At any rate, Tate is damn fun to watch when his back is up against a wall. That would have been a sweet one to pull out in OT to go 5-0. But hey, it's a young team and if they can use this loss as added motivation and focus for Iowa - 5-1 is okay at this point and better than most had expected....so yea, beat Iowa!

tomhagan

October 4th, 2009 at 6:11 PM ^

jg2112...you must post a lot to get all of your "points" because you are always such a huge D****** and get neg'd all the the time for it... im guessing that you are very unhappy in real life so you act out your angst by being a jerk online. bye.

foreverbluemaize

October 4th, 2009 at 9:23 AM ^

TF is a great QB for a freshman and there is nobody out there that I would rather have in there (especially for a frosh) than TF. He made a couple of bone-headed plays (the intentional grounding comes to mind) but I would expect nothing less from someone this new to the program and level. I do not know enough about the fundamentals of football to say what plan of attack would have been the best for this game but I do feel like I can trust RR to do what he thinks is best for the team and thus far this year I would say that my trust is not misplaced in him.

Maize and Blue…

October 4th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^

If he manages to get that ball to the line of scrimmage there is no flag as he was outside the tackle box and our next play starts at the original los. If he doesn't throw it he is sacked and we get the ball with loss of down the exact same thing as taking the intentional grounding. The kid was trying to avoid a loss and no harm was done yet you think that is a stupid play.

jmblue

October 4th, 2009 at 10:55 AM ^

Intentional grounding is a spot foul. You don't lose additional yardage. Had he simply taken the sack, we would have ended up in the same spot on the field. Given that, a QB may as well try to get rid of the ball when he's about to get sacked.

Wendyk5

October 4th, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^

It really seems like we have made two mediocre teams (Indiana and MSU) look like much better teams. We seem to come out of these games saying "They're not as bad as their record says." But Indiana got squashed at home by Ohio State and I'm willing to bet MSU will not have a good season even with this win yesterday. If we take our maize and blue glasses off, are we really that good of a team? I think Illinois will be an interesting game to watch because Illinois really is terrible this year and it's an away game. That will be a telling game. I just hope Molk will be back by the Penn State game.

willywill9

October 4th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^

I think everyone was saying MSU was better than their record indicates before the game. I don't think they're a better team, but they were the better team that day. State is not having a good season, so you just might be right that they won't finish strong. As for Illinois, we haven't yet stopped Juice Williams... he could make this game a tough won to win, too.

Papochronopolis

October 4th, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^

My only concern with play calling was in OT. With Tate having so much success in the last drive with 5 wide formations, I definitely questioned to why we ran on both 1st and 2nd down from the MSU 10 yard line. I think if we pass on those downs there's a good chance that 3rd down wouldn't have come up.