- Member for
- 5 years 22 weeks
|36 weeks 19 hours ago||whatever the math, i liked the call||
Going for the tie at that point would have made me uncomfortable, for psychological reasons, more than anything else.
a) Make the kick, and NW has all the time it wants to run or pass, all the way down the field for a TD or FG, or get conservative whenever it wanted, all the way to overtime. Make the first down and score the TD, or at least the FG you run some time off the clock, and NW becomes more one dimensional, which is easier to defend.
b) As effective as the defense has been most of the year, they have had the habit of giving up long drives to the opponent just when we've need a stop the most. (see NE and MSU).
c) I was reminded me of the Carr years, where I almost felt more comfortable when Michigan was trailing in the 4th quarter in a close game, and we had to rely on Brady, Henne, etc. and the offense to do it or else, rather than crawl into a shell, punt the ball away, and go on to lose. Anybody else?
d) The PSU game. At same point Michigan has to develop a more confident, aggressive personality on offense. Leaders and best? Champions of the West? Come on! The playing for FGs in the PSU game really bothered me most this year, not only for this team, but just as importantly, the milquetoast message it sent to recruits.
e)The crisis of confidence (particularly OL and Devin). I believe Borges has been desperately trying to start a fire somehow, someway, to get this team/season/program headed in the right direction, using the wet kindling available. A first down there could have done that. [apologies for the mixed metaphors]
f) If Gibbons had missed the FG? (PSU again?), What would that have done to the kicker/team/season? The good thing about the kick at the end, was they didn't have time to think about it- they just executed.
|47 weeks 1 day ago||Take your top 10 (mGrowOld)...||
...and reverse it, pretty much.
Maybe it comes from living abroad for many years. But then I seem to have relatives, friends who are ND, PSU, MSU grads and fans, and- believe it or not- they are actually half decent, and humble (though can't say that for the USC, OSU and Texas grads I know).
Oh, yeah, gotta stick Oklahoma in there somewhere. `
Really, it's a very good day when any SEC team loses to an outsider, especially a team from a...blue state.
If we are talking basketball, certainly all ACC teams should be near the top of that list.
But I assume you are talking purely college football, or otherwise the Yankees, Cowboys, Lakers, NASCAR and soccer would definitely be on there.
|47 weeks 1 day ago||I feel really conflicted...||
...when I see tOSU getting smacked down by SEC teams
|47 weeks 1 day ago||I was thinking the same||
I was thinking the same thing. Too "in your face" in more ways than one.
|1 year 34 weeks ago||Grow or Die||
Penn State was a good addition. Rutgers, Maryland make some sense- GT and Virginia make even more sense...the B1G needs to grow its recruiting area to improve or die. Yeah, TV too. Virginia and Atlanta do that; the DC and east coast areas will help.
OTOH it was Nebraska that really didn't make much sense- much better deal for Nebraska than it is/will be for the B1G. Very few new recruits in that area, small TV market, with one more football powerhouse to divide the exisiting recruiting terrttory up with. If the B1G likes the TV exposure that outsized brands like Nebraska (or ND, Oklahoma, etc.) bring, the B1G should have just 'strongly encouraged' (incentives?) for non-conference games with them.
|5 years 22 weeks ago||Bo & Llloyd||
I realizing whacking Lloyd is a standard theme here. But I think you've got much of it wrong.
I will agree that both Bo and Lloyd attempted to impose Michigan's will upon the opponent. But there was quite a difference and evolution that took place.
The most common thread was the insistence on soundness in scheme and design and execution, eliminating chances of mistakes, and making the opponent play a near perfect game to beat you- which, while it is admittedly predictable, is a philosophy hardly unique to Michigan. Virtually all big (better talent) programs follow this general blueprint, depending on their own talent and situation. Did they err on the side of conservative sometimes? Sure, but not all that often. We tend to remember the cases where that MAY have been true, without knowing of course if the alternative really would have been better or worse.
Bo's schemes on offense and defense from the the 70's (and even through much of the 80's) and Lloyd Carr's offenses and defenses in the 00's were entirely different.
Bo's philosophy for much of his career: put your best athletes on defense, be tougher on both sides of the ball, and pound them; sooner or later the TB or QB will get loose on the option (and later maybe a WR on something deep) for a big play.
Mo and Lloyd's offenses were adopted from the NFL to the college game, and generally built around (NFL prospect) big play receivers and QBs who could get the ball to them if the defense dared to single cover them. The routes were usually intermediate and longer routes, although increasingly used WR screens in later years.
It was hardly "three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust" stuff. If the safeties were back, that allowed the run game to control the game. The Alex Gibbs zone run offense was based in large parts on reducing or eliminating negative yardage plays, in part with the realization that there is a big difference between 3&5 and 3&9 in what routes you can run, pass protections you need, etc. Perhaps I have digressed...
|5 years 22 weeks ago||maximizing points||
Maximizing points is often not the best strategy.
I recall a game at Michigan Stadium several years ago when Illinois give Michigan several chances to steal the game back, when all they really needed was a first down and possession of the ball.
Apart from sportsmanship issues of running up the score, scoring can remove the element of control. Generally a team of superior talent game plans around wanting to reduce the variables, increase its own time of possession and reduce the number of chances the other team has to score.
|5 years 22 weeks ago||speaking of passing risk||
we should not neglect the additional risk of injury to the QB when attempting to pass. While RBs (and running QBs) face a greater risk of injury when running the ball, they are not exposed in the way that a QB are.
|5 years 22 weeks ago||YPA||
"you should seek to have your passing plays and running plays gain the same number of yards" sounds pretty silly to me.
Certain plays will (and should) have higher reward (and hence higher risk). To design all pass plays and runs gain 3-4 yards would be ridiculous- defenses would merely align all 11 players within 5 yards of the LOS.
Rather than maximizing points scored in a game, you should seek to have each offensive play gain the maximum number of yards (and minimizing losses) for that play. Expectations (and risk/rewards) for each respective play are different, and perform a different function within the game plan and weekly practice plan.