Inside the Boxscore - Team 135, Game 8

Submitted by ST3 on

     Last week, Brian included a photo of the Michigan Football 2014 Team Goals in an Unverified Voracity post. Let's see how the team did this weekend:

Win? No.
Turnovers? No.
4th Quarter? Yes, but just barely.
Kicking Game? I have no idea how they judge this, but Wile made his FG and Sparty missed theirs. So, yes?
Time of Poss.? No.

Let's look at that last goal in the context of this game. In the third quarter, Michigan won the time of possession battle, 10:08 to 4:52. If that's one of the top five goals for the team, that must mean we did well in the third quarter, right? Let's check the drive chart in the play by play. Hmmm... State had one drive that consumed 0 plays, 0 yards, and 0:00 time of possession and resulted in 7 points. Of course, that's the pick six. State had another drive that consumed 1 play, 70 yards, and a whole 11 seconds. That drive also ended in a touchdown. 14 points in 11 seconds. It boggles the mind. If time of possession were so important, maybe this coaching staff should have called timeout at the end of the first half to save some time for our offense to answer State's second score. Being down 14-6 with some momentum and getting the ball to start the 2nd half is much better than being down 14-3 with bupkis.

I agree with the first 2 and 1/2 goals. I would change 4th quarter to 2nd half, because if you get down 28-3 by the start of the 4th quarter, the 4th quarter is meaningless. So how about these as goals:

Hold their running back under 100 yards? No.
Rush for over 100 yards as a team? No.
Average per pass <7 for them, No, >7 for us, No.
Total offense yards <350 for them, No, >350 for us, not even close.
Third down conversions < 40% for them, No, >40% for us, no.

So for all of the meaningful goals one might set, we came up short.

There is one last goal I'd set and that would relate to penalties. We had fewer penalty yards than State did, but maybe that's because our coaches don't teach, or at least condone, targeting. State picked up 2 personal foul calls for targeting and one ejection of a meaningless special teams player. The more important starting middle linebacker was allowed to continue playing in the game, and of course, he made an interception later in the game. Does anyone think Dantonio will offer an apology for his players targeting our players with helmet to helmet hits? I mean, this is something that actually matters. Sticking a stake in the ground is so inconsequential, it doesn't even show up in the boxscore. But helmet to helmet hits lead to brain damage, players committing suicide and donating their brains to science for study. That matters. Stakes do not.

Boxscore link: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/102514aaa.html

Play by play link: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/mich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2014-15/box_score/stats_20141025aaa.pdf

Mom is visiting this weekend from, of all places, East Lansing, (she was smart enough to get out of town for the weekend) so I'm cutting it short this week. Besides, it just doesn't matter.

 

Football
Meaningful goals
targeting matters

Comments

bronxblue

October 26th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^

But there are ways to show respect and they include playing hard past the whistle, potentially injuring the other teams' key players, and scoring late in a game to prove a point.  But heaven forbid you want to motviate your teammates on foreign soil.

I know it was short, but I like the breakdown.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171033

rainking

October 27th, 2014 at 7:55 AM ^

that game wasn't Hoke's swan song nothing will be. Apologizing for sticking a pen knife in State's field was Hoke's John L Smith slap moment in my opinion. Ludicrous.   

Joined: 09/08/2008

MGoPoints: 3592

ST3

October 27th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^

The boxscore reminds me of the Minnesota game (pick six, giving up almost two hundred yards to their feature back, total lack of offense.)

There were some good things in there, but just not nearly enough. State bested us roughly 2 to 1 on all the metrics. First downs was 22 to 13, net yards rushing was almost 4 to 1, average per rush was 4.8 to 2.3 (roughly 2 to 1), total offense yards was more than 2 to 1, even TOP outside the 3rd quarter was 2:1 for State. They had two sacks to our one. They had 7 TFLs to our 4, and 4 QHs to our 2. Yep, State is twice as good as us, which is pretty hard to do. I mean, all the linemen are roughly 6'6" and 300 pounds. How do you build a 2X advantage when the skill levels and size are similar? Coaching? Yeah, coaching, or lack thereof.

One big difference is they had 6 BrUps to our zero. Our big plan on defense this year was to emulate their attacking, tight coverage scheme. 6 BrUps to 0. Combine the BrUps with the dropped passes and it's no wonder that Gardner had such an awful day.

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52332

TheBoLineage--

October 27th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^

to me--  its The NussO.  It was Game-Over with 3-pts ONLY with those 2xO-possessions inside MSU 30 or whatever.  And then the GMatt give-up TD before half--  AGAIN.

That Goofball Gardner fumble didnt help of course--  and MAYBE this was a Good Nuss o-call.

 

But--  for this play it was FirstDown RunPlayFake.  MSU likes to use LB-StuntFireSchemes on 1st-D.

 

So--  FORGET the RunPlayFake.  Just do Shotgun Drop-back.  Therefore--  NO QB-RB Fake-Exchange Fumble  . . .

 

Go Figure  . . . 

 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 72

TheBoLineage--

October 27th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^

remember that--  that was first half.  It might have been 1st-Down call too.

 

But there was that LB-Stunt from MSU again--  crashed thru the RB when the RB was FleaFlicken the toss back to Gardner.  QB-SACK

 

What a Horrific Call  . . . 

 

 

Joined: 09/20/2014

MGoPoints: 72