Post Game Thoughts [Snowflake Landing Spot]
(+)
Nice to see 300 yards of rushing. Seems to have been Hoke's message for the past two weeks.
Defense was dominant. Anything they got had to be spectacular or hard earned.
Clock killing. We were on the field for a LONG time.
FG kicking, aside from the crossbar one.
(-)
Kick off coverage was eh (fumble recover aside)
Fitz... Suffered today from the "8-9 guys in the box to stuff Denard and I don't have an extra blocker like he does and we are not passing the ball." Even still, 1.1 ypc sucks.
WR drops. Don't know if it was because of the cold or what... but there were at least 3 good gains that Denard put on the money that the WR dropped.
Needing 24 carries from Denard to win. Seeing him rack up yards was nice and he didn't take any big hits... but there should have been another way to win this game.
[ED:BISB - All your snowflakes are belong to this thread]
October 6th, 2012 at 9:18 PM ^
A major negative is the fumble that was caused by scheme and scheme only. We are still not requiring the defense to respect the possiblity of a bubble screen on every read-option play, so they can just blitz the OLB at the mesh point and have a low risk/high reward outcome.
Any sort of packaged play where the D is required to respect the receivers on the outside would both prevent this sort of blitizing and open up running lanes for Fitz. Yet we continue to do this.
October 6th, 2012 at 9:24 PM ^
come on man. cut the crap. a defense has a million things to worry about when we line up
October 6th, 2012 at 9:45 PM ^
So you mean to tell me that when there is an ublocked defender running directly at the mesh point, this is somehow the fault of the players? If you go back and look at the replay on this particular play, which it's obvious you didn't, you will observe three things: 1) the design of the play put denard in an impossible position because by the time he received the snap and was reading the play, there was a Purdue linebacker running directly at the mesh point, and who would have tackled whomever ended up holding on to the ball. 2) The designed unblocked defender was actually the defensive end and not the outside linebacker, so there were actually two unblocked defenders (one by design, the other by "RPS). It is impossible for the offense to win in this situation UNLESS there is a constraint play built in, hence the bubble screen. 3) The bubble screen was wide open and, had it been bult in to this play, would have resulted in a first down at worst.
So you can downvote me and reply with a plattitude, but there is no actual analysis contained in your "come on man" post.
October 6th, 2012 at 9:54 PM ^
match with an idiot.
1.) sometimes plays get blown up and you just have to protect the ball and take your whoopin.
2.) see #1
3.) How can you possibly speculate on what could or could not be added into the read/play?
honestly I think all this bubble screen shit is idiotic. The coaches run the plays they like and they develope them how they see fit and best; to sit and bitch about a team that just won 44-13 about the play calling of all things is the height of ignorance.
Actually I think the buble screem talk needs to go away all around... I'm sure it won't but there are a million ways to move an offense and focusing on something we don't do is irrelevant; you might as well bitch about our lack of wishbone.
out
jdon
October 6th, 2012 at 10:06 PM ^
You're right. I suppose I (along with the proprietor of this blog) am an idiot for arguing that a "buble screem" should be incorporated into what amounts to an attempt at running a spread option offense with a former all american at quarterback.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:21 PM ^
finally you get it.
thank you.
and thanks for the spelling help, cause lord knows I'm just ignorant and couldn't possibly have been typing a little too fast at the time...
love,
jdon
October 6th, 2012 at 10:38 PM ^
First of all, I am not the one calling people idiots, which seems highly disrespectful. I suppose it's the Internet and all pretense of decency is lost, but I hope you don't say such things to acquaintences in the real world. At least I can take some solace in the fact that, based on your posting history, you tend to call a lot of people idiots/morons/etc. simply because they disagree with your opinions, which are always cogent and expressed in a respectful and coherent fashion.
Second, the OP asked people their thoughts on the game and I simply offered an analysis of the worst play of the game for us. I think that's fair game, particularly since I expressed this in a perfectly reasonable and respectful fashion.
Finally, if you want to offer an actual counter-argument to the one I made about how poor play design led directly to a turnover, I'm ready to listen. Maybe I've been around this blog too long. It used to be that respectfully presented arguments about scheme were treated with actual discussion, as opposed to name calling and an outright refusal to acknowledge that people can respectfully disagree.
The most entertaining part of this little exchange is that you're making a parody of yourself and don't even realize.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:58 PM ^
seriously buddy, relax. I am sure you are not an idiot, you graduated from my alma mater so that makes us brethren... have you never heard the old saying about two idiots and a shouting match? You know that means I look like an idiot too right? And you know that means I understand that I am being very firm about something that does have flexibility right?
how bout this response: I do not believe that scheme is responsible for the fumble, I believe that the man who dropped the ball is responsible for the fumble. I also agree with you that the play itself was not set up very well, or carried out too well (whichever was the case), where i disagree is that these things happen to all coordinators and sometimes plays get blown up; you've got to live and learn.
As for bubble screens, i just think you should focus on the plays that are being called and not on the ones that could hypothetically be called considering the fact that there are a plethora of offensive formations out there and innumerable plays that could be called; to get into hypotheticals is an exercise in futility, in my humble opinion.
And finally, I say this as an English teacher, the people who worry about grammar and spelling on a message board are some of the more annoying people in existence; words are spelt incorrectly for any number of reasons, actual ignorance is rare and it usually has to do with typing to fast or not giving a fuck.
there, feel better? Enjoy another drink and go to sleep with a smile on your face knowing that we just went on the road and kicked the fuck out of a decent team...
love,
jdon
October 6th, 2012 at 11:54 PM ^
"focus on the plays that are being called and not on the ones that could hypothetically be called"
The argument is that a defensive player doesn't have that luxury. They have to worry about all of the plays that could hypothetically be called from a given formation. Don't look at bubble screens alone. That's just one play designed to keep the OLB from coming around the end on a blitz so quickly, and keeps things like that fumble from happening.
October 7th, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^
...can we call it a "bubble scream"? Discuss.
October 6th, 2012 at 9:44 PM ^
October 6th, 2012 at 9:46 PM ^
Unless you demonstrate that it is a base play of your offense, in which case they would have to respect it every single down. Respecting it every down means you don't have unblocked defenders run blitzing and blowing up plays in the backfield. It'd also mean more production from Fitz.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:23 PM ^
October 6th, 2012 at 10:59 PM ^
You and I agree that they called a good run blitz. Where we disagree is why it was a good blitz. I am arguing that the guy who blew up the play was able to do so because the defense schematically is not concerned with the outside receivers when we are running an inverted veer/zone read play. Right now the QB's choices are to keep or to give. I'm saying there should be a third, which is a keep/give/screen to the outside. The reason why we are seeing so many guys in the box and so many guys in the backfield is because we are not constraining the defense (specifically CBs and OLBs) with these simple packaged plays.
To effectively run a spread-option offense, it is imperative to retain the numbers advantage the scheme affords you, provided you have a QB who is an adequate runner. By not threatening the quick-hitting outside throws, we allow CBs and OLBs to blitz us in both running and passing downs.
Concluding, the reason why their run blitz was good is because we allowed it to be. If you go back and look at the play, there was no correct read; denard giving or keeping would have resulted in the play being blown up regardless. And the hypothetical throw that he would have made would have been the wide open screen to the outside, clearly resulting in a first down. Bubble screen should not be thought of as pass plays. They are effectively quick-hitting run plays on the perimeter of the defense.
October 6th, 2012 at 11:47 PM ^
October 7th, 2012 at 8:52 AM ^
We must have been watching different games. In the one I watched, Michigan ran for a billionty yards, many of which were on various forms of read options.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:27 PM ^
are you really argueing that a play would be more effective if it was hypothetically a base play of our offense? you are so far from practice that even the theory is becoming hypothetical... I think you are missing the main point I would make which is that our offense is what it is and to change any one thing is to change everything so you might as well argue that we run the wishbone or any other existent offense out there.
I guess my beef is with the notion that you, some dude on the internet, or even Brian are lunatics to call for a play again and again regardless of whether or not Borges wants to call the play. Neither of you are the coach, neither of you probably are a coach, and neither of you probably even ever played football (not that that would matter anyway, I played and it isn't like I think I am qualified to call the plays).
Like I said before, there are a million ways to run an offense, lets focus on the way our team does it and not sit around asking for hypotheticals...
So let me ask again, after a 44-13 win on the road against a team some people picked to win the division, are you really trying to argue that we would have done better if a certain play was set up as a base formation in our offense?
October 6th, 2012 at 9:51 PM ^
It felt REALLY good to hammer a team that the pundits were picking to win the B1G this year. The game was never in doubt, and Denard looked great.
(+)
- Denard ran very effectively and avoided taking big hits. I would like to see him pass Pat White, and today's performance made that possible, if not likely.
- DEFENSE. Ryan is a terror, the D-Line looks like a strength now, the DBs are tackling better, and Raymon Taylor won't allow himself to be picked on as teams go away from Floyd.
- Turnovers. The defense was obviously focusing on them today, and it paid off. We actually had another fumble recovery that the zebras missed.
- Easy throws. Borges dialed-up easier throws for Denard, and he only went downfield once that I can remember (high pass to Gallon). A couple of drops hurt Denard's box score, but these were easy throws and decisions for him.
(-)
- Fitz. I don't know what's wrong, but he's not going upfield. Of course, the threat of him running opened-up tons of space for Denard, and it almost appeared Purdue preferred Denard to take the carries.
- Passing game. If we're going to beat anyone that's really good at football, we have to do better here. Better routes, better catching, better throwing. While the short easy stuff worked today, we need to find a way to get more plays like the post route to Gardner.
I really want to see more of Thomas Rawls in the backfield. He is a beast and gets upfield in a hurry.
October 7th, 2012 at 1:23 AM ^
This is getting lost in the shuffle completely. Fitz's numbers are down because teams are more focused on him than they were a year ago. Now that teams are paying attention and doing things to shut him down, Denard Robinson is picking up yardage with ease. Fitz is down a little over 2 ypc (5.6 to 3.3) but Denard is up a little over 2 ypc (5.3 to 7.5).
I don't know why our fanbase fails to grasp that what matters is the rushing offense as a whole. Denard's yards and TDs count just as much as anybody else's. If teams really want to base their defense around shutting down Fitz while Denard strolls into their secondary at top speed, I am all for it. If they realize this is extremely dumb any time soon, Fitz will start being a lot more productive.
October 7th, 2012 at 7:50 AM ^
Also, ND tried to stop Denard. Fitz didn't exactly pick up the extra yards.
Bottom line, fitz is not getting it done at rb, and it is not because teams are game planning to stop him. Of anything, every defense we face is game planning to stop Denard on the ground. A rb that gets actual yards would make this strategy harder for defenses to implement.
October 6th, 2012 at 9:53 PM ^
Missed second half due to being at Tigers game but thought it was a complete game
October 6th, 2012 at 10:07 PM ^
Watching the second stringers' formation on offense brought back some good memories of 2003 Michigan Football.
As for Rawls:
"He's a beast!" - Thursday night football on NFL network.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:15 PM ^
October 7th, 2012 at 9:30 AM ^
Purdue's DL impressed me. They played much better than our rushing numbers suggest. We had one of the weirdest 300-yard performances, with a whole bunch of runs that went for nothing.
October 6th, 2012 at 10:21 PM ^
I want to buy a Jake Ryan jersey with the legends patch on it. Anyone know if they will start selling the legends jerseys?
October 6th, 2012 at 10:32 PM ^
Denard put up as many passing yards as Terbush while putting up 235 yards of rushing and without throwing a pick.
October 6th, 2012 at 11:04 PM ^
I did a search and couldn't find a post on this, but on the 15 yd penalty on the Purdue player late in the game (10 mins left in 4th, after the Gibbons FG to put us up 34-13), did the replay look like a Michigan player threw a punch first at the Purdue kid? I was listening to the radio feed while watching the game, so I didn't hear if the TV guys brought it up (they showed the replay). I haven't read any of the post-game transcripts so I wasn't sure if the question was brought up to Hoke. Anyone else see/confirm this for me?
I don't download torrents, and I imagine the play won't show up on UFR's or "Every Snap" videos, so that's why I am asking.
By the way, not trolling, so those waiting to overreact to the question, go have a drink. This is a genuine question in the interest of finding a genuine answer.
October 6th, 2012 at 11:40 PM ^
October 7th, 2012 at 12:20 AM ^
October 6th, 2012 at 11:05 PM ^
One comments about Rawls - he did his damage against the second-team defense of Purdue. He ran fine, but let's not overreact to a garbage-time TD.
That said, the running same other than Denard needs to improve. Probably a combination of competent passing, better blocking, and more gap-hitting, but it always seemed like Purdue had 2-3 people streaking to the holes as soon as the ball was handed off.
October 6th, 2012 at 11:29 PM ^
For me the urge isn't so much "Yeah Rawls was amazing on the field today!", its more "Fitz just isn't in 2011 form, we might as well try someone else".
Thus far, Toussaint's numbers are:
Air Force: 8 carries, 7 yards
UMass: 15 carries, 85 yards 1 TD
Notre Dame: 13 carries, 58 yards (one 31 yard run, otherwise we're looking at 12 carries, 27 yards, 2.3 yards a carry).
Purdue: 17 carries, 19 yards 2 TDs.
There's really nothing there to suggest that giving someone else a try would harm the team's performacne at this point in the season.
October 6th, 2012 at 11:35 PM ^
October 7th, 2012 at 12:52 AM ^
I agree 100%. Hoke spoke about Fitz putting his foot in the ground and heading upfield. I am sure there is something to do with the blocking as compared to last season's OL, but Fitz seems to have regressed to his early 2011 form where he used to dance.
At this point, I think that Rawls needs to get more carries, what could it hurt?
October 7th, 2012 at 1:00 AM ^
May as well give Rawls more opportunities. It is pretty clear why the coaches are trying very hard to bring in a stud RB who can play immediately.
October 7th, 2012 at 12:34 AM ^
October 7th, 2012 at 12:55 AM ^
It might have been Purdue's 2nd string, but I know Short was in the game on at least one of his carries. Even so, I like the way the kid hits the hole, takes on the first tackler, and run angry. On the TD run, I am certain Fitz would have gone down and not scored.
October 7th, 2012 at 4:09 AM ^
October 7th, 2012 at 1:02 AM ^
After a victory like this, so many comments seem insightful. Today was a good day.
