Meta: correct Capitalization of FORUM Topics

Meta: correct Capitalization of FORUM Topics

Submitted by clown question on March 21st, 2015 at 10:11 PM

Maybe it is the academic in me, but is there a correct procedure for capitalization of thread titles?

And yes, this is very important.

 

my vote: Capitalize first word, DENARD, and the first letter of proper nouns. Don't capitalize the first letter of other stuff.

 

Example:

Brady throws for 300 yards (good)

DENARD rushes for 300 yards (good)

Brady Throws For 300 Yards (ok)

BRADY THROWS FOR 300 YARDS (bad)

 

Neg Away, I Deserve It.

Michigan's offensive regression, part II: 2011-2013

Michigan's offensive regression, part II: 2011-2013

Submitted by dnak438 on November 26th, 2013 at 9:14 AM

In my last diary, in which I tried to chart Michigan's offensive regression over the season, Gandalf the Maize suggested that I track Michigan's offensive performance over the course of the past three seasons. That seemed like a good idea.

For this diary, I only used one statistic: Michigan's offensive yards per play (YPP), which I then divided by the average yards per play allowed by that team over the course of that season. So, for example, Michigan averaged 7.38 yards per play on offense against Western Michigan in 2011, and 6.63 YPP against Ohio State. But Western allowed 6.1 YPP on defense over the 2011 season, whereas Ohio State allowed only 5.06 YPP. That means that our offensive output against Ohio State was more impressive (131% of their average YPP allowed) than our output against Western (121%).

Note: the black diagonal line is the trendline. Maize dots indicate losses.

Here are the charts:

And, all three seasons in one chart:

Notes:

  • There is offensive regression in each season. As Gandalf pointed out, this is sub-optimal.

    • It is most pronounced this season, of course.
    • In 2012, it is the least pronounced; I took out the Nebraska game and the trendline was still slightly negative (y = -0.0063x + 1.205, R² = 0.011).
  • The 2012 Iowa game was Michigan's best offensive output over the past three years by this metric. For those who forgot, that was the game where Devin played QB and Denard returned as a RB. Devin was 18/23, 314 yds (13.65 yards per attempt), and Denard rushed for 98 yards on 13 rushes for an average of 7.5 yards per rush.
  • The 2012 Nebraska game was, unsurprising, the worst offensive output over the past 3 years. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded about that game.

I'm not sure how to diagnose this overall trend. Borges running out of ideas? Our quarterbacks getting banged up? Cold weather? On the other hand, perhaps it's not terribly significant -- the slopes for 2011 and 2012 are only slightly negative, after all.

 

The Difference: A statistical and eyeball comparison of the '11 and '12 seasons

The Difference: A statistical and eyeball comparison of the '11 and '12 seasons

Submitted by Ron Utah on January 7th, 2013 at 1:40 PM

After a disappointing end to a disappointing season I found myself looking for answers beyond "Al Borges just doesn't know how to use Denard!" and "ESSSSSEEEEEECEEEEEE!" I was curious what, if anything, tangibly separated the two-loss BCS Bowl winning season of yesteryear from the five-loss fumble that saw us fall to (almost) everyone that had a legitimate chance to beat us.  Of course, obvious is obvious, and the schedule was unkind, but what else happened?  And what does it mean for 2013?

2012 Stats:

  Michigan Opponents
Scoring 29.8 19.8
1st Downs 249 237
1st Downs (Rush - Pass - Penalty) 112 - 113 - 24 116 - 101 - 20
Rushing (Att - Yds - Avg - TD) 502 - 2389 - 4.76 - 27 514 - 1957 - 3.81 - 9
Passer Rating 130.39 127.84
Passing Yds 2591 2203
Pass (Att - Comp - % - INT - TD) 318 - 169 - 53.1% - 19 - 20 330 - 198 - 60.0% - 7 - 16
Total Offense (Att - Avg - Yds) 820 - 6.07 - 4980 844 -4.93 - 4160
Punt Returns (Att - Avg - TD) 16 - 8.81 - 0 20 - 10.15 - 1
Kick Returns (Att - Avg - TD) 42 - 22.05 - 0 48 - 23.25 - 0
Punting (Att - Avg) 44 - 42.59 58 - 42.36
INT (# - Yds - TD) 7 - 127 - 1 19 - 225 - 2
Fumbles (# - Lost) 17 - 8 22 - 11
Penalties (# - Yds) 62 - 641 84 - 719
Time of Possession 30:10.38 29:49.62
3rd Down (Att - %) 173 - 50.29% 178 - 35.96%
4thd Down (Att - %) 13 - 69.23% 21 - 42.86%
Red Zone (Att - %) 46 - 93.48% 42 - 80.95%
FG (Att - Conv - %) 21 - 18 - 85.7% 30 - 21 - 70%
PATS (Att - %) 46 - 100% 25 - 100%
2 Pt (Att - Conv - %) 2 - 0 - 0% 3 - 1 - 33%
Record (Home / Away) 6-0 / 2-5 0-6 / 5-2
Turnovers 27 18

2011 Stats:

  Michigan Opponents
Scoring 33.3 17.4
1st Downs 270 224
1st Downs (Rush - Pass - Penalty) 148 - 97 -25 94 - 115 - 15
Rushing (Att - Yds - Avg - TD) 560 - 2884 - 5.15 - 31 429 - 1712 - 3.99 - 14
Passer Rating 139.18 120.48
Passing Yds 2377 2476
Pass (Att - Comp - % - INT - TD) 284 - 155 - 54.6% - 16 - 22 374 - 221 - 59.1% - 9 - 12
Total Offense (Att - Avg - Yds) 844 - 6.23 - 5261 803 - 5.22 - 4188
Punt Returns (Att - Avg - TD) 22 - 9.00 - 0 21 - 9.19 - 0
Kick Returns (Att - Avg - TD) 35 - 18.43 - 0 57 - 21.44 - 0
Punting (Att - Avg) 46 - 38.04 66 - 39.70
INT (# - Yds - TD) 9 - 163 - 1 16 - 121 - 1
Fumbles (# - Lost) 19 - 6 25 - 20
Penalties (# - Yds) 53 - 458 92 - 802
Time of Possession 31:15.15 27:28.31
3rd Down (Att - %) 168 - 47.02% 173 - 36.42%
4thd Down (Att - %) 17 - 58.82% 21 - 38.1%
Red Zone (Att - %) 58 - 84.48% 41 - 68.29%
FG (Att - Conv - %) 17 - 13 - 76.5% 15 - 12 - 80%
PATS (Att - %) 55 - 98.2% 26 - 100%
2 Pt (Att - Conv - %) 1 - 0% 1 - 100%
Record (Home / Away) 8-0 / 3-2 0-8 / 2-3
Turnovers 22 29

A lot of this is just useless numbers; much of the difference can be attributed to quality of opponent and the number of road games.   A quick look at the non-conference schedule basically has Alabama replacing Western Michigan and Air Force replacing San Diego State--both significant--with UMass roughly equivalent to EMU and ND = ND.  That said, ND and 'Bama are #1 and #2, and both of those games were away from the Big House.  Ohio is now coached by one of the top 3 coaches in the game (like him or not) instead Finkel and Einhorn.  Taylor Martinez learned how to throw.  Denard got hurt.  Blah, blah, blah.

But I do believe there are some golden nuggets (or perhaps corn nuggets, depending on your half-full/half-empty attitude on Monday Morning) that help explain what went wronger (to quote Kanye) this year.  Here are the highlights:

  • Turnovers.  It's more more than a little disturbing that our turnover margin went from +7 to -9.  I did not realize the difference was so vast.  This is a -16 swing in the margin category, and could explain the difference in our success all by itself.  One of the huge factors here was our mythical fumble recovery rate in 2011; we scooped-up 80% of our opponents dropsies last year and returned to a normal 50% this year.  If you replace last year's fumble recovery rate with this year's, however, the difference between the two margins is still is -8.5.  We forced more fumbles last year, had two more INTs, and threw three fewer INTs.  Not having Countess certainly factored-in here, and I have a conspiracy theory that I will reveal later about the INTs.
  • Rushing.  It is inconceivable that Borges got dumberer between this season and last.  With a year under his belt and an off-season to think about ways to use Denard more effectively, I was hoping for better.  That said, the O-line performance was dramatically different.  RR is quoted as saying that Molk was worth two wins; I'm sure I did not believe that when I read it, and I'm sure I do believe it now.  The Barnum & Mealer circus on the interior O-line did us no favors here, and my conspiracy theory factors in as well.
  • Passing.  This, to me, is one of the pivot points.  I was shocked to see that our 2012 passer rating was actually lower than 2011.  Where is the DG effect?  Well, it's there.  DG posted an astounding 161.66 rating in 2012, with 9.7 yds/att.  That puts him in elite company.  Only five teams posted better passer ratings than DG this season -- Georgia, 'Bama, San Jose State, Clemson, and West Virginia, and only Georgia had a higher yds/att.  Denard's rating, on the other hand, dropped from 139.73 to 126.63.  This is a sizeable decrease in rating, and makes no sense when you consider Borges' history of improving passers.  Some of this can be attributed to a weaker O-line, but I believe the lion's share is more about...
  • CONSPIRACY THEORY.  During the off-season and before the 'Bama game, I often said that I believed our success in 2012 would hinge on Denard's progress as a passer.  With a year of Big Al's grooming, I was sure Denard would take at least a large step forward, if not a leap.  There was no doubt in my mind that using slants, curls, and other quick routes to some effect would open-up some much needed space for Denard to be Denard without 8-9 defenders keying on him.  This, of course, didn't happen.  Why not?  Here is my theory: Denard's nerve injury was affecting him all season long.  My evidence is certainly not conclusive, but we do know that Denard had dealt with numbness in his throwing hand in previous seasons, and we are certain that the play on which the nerve finally said "UNCLE!" against Nebraska looked super-ultra-mega-hyper-tetra-uber-harmless.  Further evidence showed-up in Denard's passing, even early on.  Against 'Bama he missed some easy slants in the first quarter that had been his bread-and-butter in previous years, and his downfield passing was bad this year even if you count Taco Pants as an eligible receiver.  I do not believe that Junior Hemingway would have helped Denard much this year; his passing was just bad.  And I do not believe that our WRs were that much worse this year.  My theory is that Denard's ulnar nerve degraded during camp, and even more so during the season, and that what happened at Nebraska was simply the final straw.  Don't get me wrong--I don't think they were giving him cortizone shots just so he could play, but I do believe the injury may have been affecting him all season and the subtle difference it made significantly impacted Denard's already shaky passing ability.  The silver lining here is that Denard was never going to be an NFL QB, and now that is not even an option.  He's also had almost half of a season to learn how to play not QB (not sure what position he did learn, though) and I look forward to watching him on Sundays.
  • Defense.  Both the stats and the eyeballs tell you that the defense was not significantly different year-over-year.  That said, eight fewer sacks and 11 fewer turnovers are game-changing differences, and while quality of opponent is a factor here, so is luck (fumble recoveries), injuries (Countess), and pass rush (RVB, Martin).  It simply is not fair to lay all of the blame for this year's record at the feet of the offense--the defense did not create enough turnovers.  The defense MUST make more game-changing plays in 2013 if we are going to have a successful (B1G Championship) season.
  • Schedule.  Obvious is obvious, but it's worth mentioning that while Hoke hasn't yet lost at the Big House, he's 5-7 on the road.  Yuck.

Outlook and mandatory 2013 predictions:

Extrapolating the data points and eyeball examinations leads to lots of different conclusions: some pretty obvious, some hopeful, and some "I have no freakin' idea where that came from."  Of course, since this is an internet blog, I'll give you all of them, even though they are entirely amateur.  But as a sort of CYA disclaimer, I'll add a DGuarantee  1-5 scale: 5 meaning you can bet the farm it will happen, and 1 being more like a Mayan calendar-type prediction.

  • Offense: 3.  This one lands squarely in the middle on the DGuarantee scale, which is about as courageous Lloyd Carr on 4th down, but my reasoning (excuse) is solid.  I believe you can bet all of your possessions and everything in East Lansing that our passing game will be vastly improved next season.  Give that a 5. DG will have a full year to play QB, and he will be the man for the whole year.  He was playing at a high level this season, and loses only Roy Roundtree as a WR.  While I do love Roy, I believe the incoming Darboh/Chesson effect will more than replace his production.  Gallon, who ended the year on a tear, will be a year better and will be dominant.  Dileo is The Threat.  The O-line is a little bit questionable, but Schofield will hold his own at  LT in the passing the game, and given the talent we have replacing the other four spots, I just don't see a dramatic drop-off in pass-blocking performance.  There will be some head-scratching sacks as freshmen act like freshmen and do some matador-style blocking on missed assignments, but we had plenty of that this year too, and DG is good on the run.  The running game is a 1.  I don't have a freakin' clue.  It's not going to have Denard anymore, and that's obviously a blow.  But it will also be rid of the interior O-line, and will filled with huge, strong, talented players.  My prediction here based on flimsy evidence is that our YPC stays in the same 4.75 neighborhood (putting us around 40th nationally) but includes fewer big plays (Denard, duh) and far fewer negative plays.  The RB situation is as big a question mark as the O-line--Rawls showed promise but never more than that, Hayes really hasn't had a chance yet, and Toussaint was pretty lousy before his Tarantino-esque injury.  Is Drake Johnson going to prove the rating services wrong (I doubt it)?  Is Norfleet a DB for good (probably)?  There is a very good chance that Derrick Green and Deveon Smith are both on the depth chart next year, and freshmen are always a question mark.  All-in-all I expect our total production to look similar to this year in yards, points, and 3rd down conversions.  RANDOM SIDE NOTE: Say what you will about Al Borges, the guy converts 3rd downs.  Michigan was 6th(!!!) nationally this year, and two teams ahead of us were MWC and CUSA flukes.  Only Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Clemson were better in the real world.
  • Defense: 4.  Yum Yum.  Even setting aside the fact that our schedule is much more favorable in 2013, I believe our defense is poised to take a big step forward.  Only 5 players are coming off of the entire depth chart, and, while all five were starters, only Kovacs was irreplaceable.  Campbell's back-up at DT (Black) might be an upgrade, and the depth with the 2012 and 2013 recruting classes is solid.  Craig Roh has a veritable platoon of capable back-ups, headlined by Keith Heitzman, with Wormley and Strobel right behind, to say nothing of the 2013 class.  Demens' experience gives way to Bolden's athleticism and instincts (and plenty of snaps) with Ross and RJS available as well.  JT Floyd + Raymon Taylor < Blake Countess + Raymon Taylor, and the depth should be FAR better in 2013, with another year of experience for everyone else and an absurdly good recruiting class.  Kovacs is the guy that we'll miss the most; his leadership, intelligence, and fearlessness were invaluable.  But his replacement will be bigger, faster, and stronger, and Jarrod Wilson got some snaps this year and Furman and M-Rob are waiting in the wings.  This is, without a doubt, the most concerning position, as inexperience at safety often equals big plays for the opposition.  That said, Beyer, Clark, and Ojemudia are all back at WDE and I believe they'll actually produce a pass rush next year.  Black was on a hotstreak at the end of the season can really get after the passer.  QWash is a beast and has Pee Wee behind him; Jake Ryan is, well, JMFR.  Morgan has turned into a very good player whom I believe is NFL-bound, and T. Gordon returns at safety to hopefully create turnovers ala 2011.  I expect both the run defense and the pass defense to improve, the latter more than the former.  I think point and yardage averages similar to 2011 will return, with more takeaways than in 2012, and double-digit INTs for the first time under Hoke/Mattison.  The only thing keeping this from a 5 is the youth and Kovacs effect.
  • Special Teams: 4.  What's sad about our 2012 special teams is that they were almost universally better than our 2011 effort and still weren't very good.  Our punt return average would be about 40th, but we don't return very many punts (damn you spread punt!).  Norfleet was 47th in kick returns.  I have to say that of all of Hoke's units, this is the least impressive.  But The (other) Threat returns in Brendan Gibbons, and Matt Wile is a more than capable back-up at both K and P, and could start if Hagerup gets kicked-off the team (and I believe he will).  Our kick and punt coverage is okay; the guys playing there were mostly young, so I expect improvement.
  • Overall: 4.  Depending on how you define success, this is either a 5 or a 3.  I took the average.  If success is more than wins than 2012, it's a 5.  The schedule alone should get us two more wins.  If success is winning the B1G, it's a 3.  The uncertainty at O-line and RB is too much to overcome what should be a much improved passing game and a better defense.  Even though the schedule is easier, we still have to beat Ohio and Nebraska at home and Penn State and MSU at on the road.  And don't sleep on Northwestern.  That said, the non-conference schedule is marshmellow soft and should give the younger players some time to find their rhythm, and opening conference play with Minnesota at home is generous.  I believe the biggest hurdles are Nebraska and Ohio, and Nebraska doesn't have to play Ohio (stupid divisions!) but does have Penn State on the road (as do we).  The good news on the Corn Huskers side is that they will have faced no one that is good at football before they come to our place; Northwestern the previous week will be the closest thing.

The final verdict is that I believe we finish 9-3, with our youth showing-up just enough to keep us out of the B1G Championship game as Ohio looks poised to win the conference.  I think we'll lose to Ohio, and 2 more losses coming from possibly ND, Nebraska, MSU, Penn State, or Northwestern.  All that said, a 10-2 finish with losses only to ND and Ohio is very possible, and 11-1 is not out of the question.  Beating Ohio is certainly not an impossibility, but I'm not confident a team as young as ours will be next year can go undefeated, and beating them twice seems pretty daunting (a re-match with Ohio in the Championship game seems like a lock if we're able to get there).  Our bowl game is anywhere from the Rose to the Outback; with a BCS NCG (at the Rose) an unlikely outlier.  2014 has road games at Nebraska, Ohio, and Notre Dame, but the team should be in full gear by then, and that is when I expect Hoke to raise another banner and challenge for the NCG.

GO BLUE!

Burgeoning Wolverine Star on the inverted veer (vs UMass)

Burgeoning Wolverine Star on the inverted veer (vs UMass)

Submitted by dnak438 on September 18th, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Burgeoning Wolverine Star has a picture-page breakdown of this inverted veer against UMass (LINK to full article):

 

His conclusions? 

The way Michigan ran this play last year wasn't really an option at all. If you're blocking the player that you're supposed to be optioning, your QB is just taking longer to hand the ball off/run. This schematic tweak against UMass hopefully signals a change in philosophy where the offense will block defenders by optioning them.

2013 - Year of Manball...Right?

2013 - Year of Manball...Right?

Submitted by Ron Utah on September 17th, 2012 at 12:42 PM

 

After watching the UMass game I went through a series of strange feelings:

  1. Relief.  Game never in question, easy opponent dispatched, spread covered.
  2. Anxiety.  The D-Line didn't look that good.  Come to think of it, neither did the run-blocking.
  3. Relief.  2013 isn't far away, and we'll be transitioning from Borges-Denard Fusion to Manball.
  4. Anxiety.  2013 isn't far away, and we'll be transitioning from Borges-Denard Fusion to Manball.

Yes, the last two are the same.  No, it's not a mistake.  Here's what happened in my brain:

  • I sure will miss Denard next year, but we'll be back to Michigan Manball without him.  And our offensive line will be much better at run-blocking.
  • Wait, why will it be better at run-blocking?  Who will even be playing O-Line for us next year?
  • SHUT-UP!  SHUT-UP!  SHUT-UP!  Enjoy the win.  Just pretend that Hoke will sprinkle magical Manball dust (wait, that doesn't sound right) and everything will turn out fine.
  • No, you shut-up.  I have to research this so I can sleep.  Or so I can't sleep.  AAARRRGGGGH!

Suddenly, I'm lying awake in bed, and going through the depth chart in my head.  The one guy that seems to be playing good football on the O-Line is Taylor Lewan, and it's no secret that he's projected to get a 1st round NFL draft grade.  We have to assume he's gone.  Also gone from the line is...EVERYONE.  Except Schofield.  He'll stick around for his fifth year.  Right?  RIGHT?!!!  And it's good that he stays...right?  RIGHT?!!!

Let's just assume the whole line, except Schofield, is gone.  Our new O-Line looks like this:

LT Erik Magnuson; LG Chris Bryant; C Jack Miller; RG Kyle Kalis; RT Michael Schofield

Maybe Joey Burzynski sneaks in there, but we're likely going with four (FOUR!) players with little or no playing experience.  And Schofield.

And I think, if we're geing honest with ourselves, that line doesn't look much better than this year's version.  Sure, Bryant and Kalis should be better people-movers than Barnum and Omameh, but they'll be learning the position as they go.  And a redshirt freshman left tackle?  Ummmm...

Oh, and did I mention that Jack Miller is currently 6-4 and 288 lbs?  Not exactly the size we're looking for at center.

My point is that our O-Line will be far from "Manball-Ready" and that we have much to fear about their abilities.  Maybe we'll get some better natural push, but we're trading that for what will likely be a drop-off in pass-blocking.  Erik Gunderson is currently listed ahead of Ben Braden, so I'm not holding my breath there.  Blake Bars isn't currently listed on the depth chart.  

On the other side of the ball, things don't look much better.  BWC and Roh are gone.  Pipkins should be seasoned, and hopefully in shape.  Brink, Washington, Black, and Ash are all back, but like, seriously.

Our hopes will be tied to Pee Wee (NT) and Frank Clark (WDE), with Heitzman/Brink/Wormley/Strobel at SDE and Black/Washington/Ash/Brink at DT needing to just not screw it up.

The only logical conclusion is that next year will require the same patience with our lines as this year.  This issue will be exacerbated by the lack of Denard...whether it's Bellomy or Gardner running the offense, it will be an offense that is trying to be pro style, and won't have a premier QB to run it.  Gardner's growth will be stunted by his time at WR, and Bellomy looks like a solid-but-not-spectacular player.  Navarre Light, if you will, with more mobility and a not-as-good arm.

I guess what I'm saying is that we'll really have to wait until 2014 before we have our Manball lines in place, and maybe then we can go back to complaining about the secondary.

Denard's 2011 B10 Passing Statline

Denard's 2011 B10 Passing Statline

Submitted by Marley Nowell on December 2nd, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Denard B10 Passing (8 Games)

Completion% Touchdowns Interceptions Yards Yards/Attempt
59.4% 12 8 1432 8.68

 

Compare this to Denard's Overall Passing Season:

Completion% Touchdowns Interceptions Yards Yards/Attempt
56.1% 18 14 2056 8.68

 

Brian mentioned a few times that Denard's B10 Season was much better than his overall season so I wanted to look at the numbers.  He was able to retain his yards/attempt while completing a higher percentage of passes.  The improvements he made are impressive considering it was against B10 defenses (Minnesota not withstanding) and speaks to his better understanding of the passing scheme.  Denard improved immensely in 2010 and in 2011 had to learn a new system.  Its reasonable to expect continuity and increased understanding, not to mention his hard-work we all know will happen.  Throw in the rushing yards and Denard in 2012 could produce a year we have never seen before.

 

GO BLUE!

Denard production v. Defensive Improvement

Denard production v. Defensive Improvement

Submitted by griesecheeks on November 21st, 2011 at 1:16 AM

I would just like to aknowledge several things that have really helped me put things in perspective about this team, this season, and this coaching staff.

 

(1) I've been vocally hard on Denard this year, as more people have tended to be. He's got some serious fundamental flaws that are being exposed in a system that awkwardly hybridizes (word? word, now.) things that he does well with things that he doesn't do well. This naturally has made for frustrating moments where you want to string up borges, denard, rich rod, anyone tangentially related to this transition, etc. 

Given (1), (2) Denard has accounted for 29 TDs through 10 (11) games, which is 3 short of his scoring production in 13 games-ish last year. That's actually pretty nuts, given his apparent struggles. The point is this: we can handle the reduction in yardage/ per play average if he's getting us into the endzone with that kind of regularity.

(3) Acknowledging that Denard's turnover rate is still unacceptable, and given (1) and (2), if this is a down year for D-Rob, I'm OK with it. I'm more than ready to give Al Borges the benefit of the doubt and see if his Year 2 progression theory holds up. I've been pleased with the job he's done overall, and I'm more than happy to sacrifice the bubble screen for the package deal of hiring Borges and Mattison. The development of Fitz Toussaint has been amazing to watch.

(4) Speaking of Mattison and his defensive staff, holy hell. I'd trade flashy QB heisman-ish stats for this defensive turnaround 3 times over.

(5) I'm ready for 8 years of frustration to be taken out on OSU next weekend. 41-17 M with the coronation of Fitzmonga Biakabatoussaint. 200+. Go Blue. Good times ahead!

You Can Call Me Al

You Can Call Me Al

Submitted by BornInAA on October 16th, 2011 at 10:18 AM

There were incidents and accidents
There were hints and allegations

 

It's obvious to me that the staff knew that MSU could not be run on. Their plan was to pass most of they day. I think this was a good plan.

However, there were two items that thwarted this plan:

The stiff 40mph wind all day.

The inability to protect the passer.

 

I didn't expect the OL to fold like a cheap lawn chair. But they did. Thankfully, we don't see a DL like this until perhaps a bowl game.