Hoke Chimes In and Would Not Have Punted
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/2015/10/21/ex-michigan-coach-br…
Okay, you guys are sick of seeing MSU threads, chew on this one.
Personally, if we have the No. 1 defense in the nation I'm going to test those guys," Hoke said. "You've got to play to the strength of your football team and the strength of the Michigan football team all year long has been their defense." He said he was sure "Jimmy" went over what he wanted to do and how he wanted to do it but Hoke said there are too many potential breakdowns on a punt. "No. 1, I think the one gunner to the field should have been in a little bit more and if you're going to punt it there's ways to protect it a little better," Hoke said. Hoke first credited the MSU defense for forcing fourth down and said he would have gone for it at that point, handing the ball to De'Veon Smith and "challenge your offensive line" or play-action pass to take four to five seconds off the clock.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:57 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 21st, 2015 at 3:38 PM ^
^^^^ that.
October 21st, 2015 at 6:29 PM ^
His team could have been winning 12-10. When cherry picking do you usually pick rotten fruit?
October 21st, 2015 at 2:56 PM ^
I wasn't sure before, but now that Brady says he would have gone for it, I'm sure that punting was the right strategy.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:57 PM ^
A play action pass?! smh
October 21st, 2015 at 3:23 PM ^
If you're going for it (you shouldn't), if you have a quarterback with a strong arm (Michigan doesn't), and if you can trust your qb to throw it into coverage rather than take a sack (Michigan can't), the play-action pass on fourth down is the right call.
Advantages:
- The run fake takes time off of the clock
- The defense is likely to sell out on the fake
- A completed pass wins the game
- The clock won't stop until the play is over
Disadvantages:
- A sack gives MSU better field position than a failed run attempt
- A fumble is more likely on a sack than it is on a rush
- In theory, a downfield interception -- an arm punt -- could be returned for a touchdown.
With 5 seconds left, this is probably the right play, because there's an excellent chance that your QB can throw the ball downfield and have time expire before it hits out of bounds. With 10 seconds left, punting is the right call, and everybody except Brady Hoke appears to know that.
Edit: forgot to finish my thought. This is only valid on fourth down because the clock will stop anyway after the change of possession, so an incomplete pass is no worse than a zero-yard gain on a rushing attempt. On first through third down, the correct play is the hyper-obvious run, because the clock is more important than the yardage.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:33 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^
If you had a quarterback that you could trust to throw the ball away, then you could do it. Michigan doesn't, so I agree. Also, the run fake should slow up the blitzers by a step, as they would certainly be alert to the possibility of a run. When you see blitzers ignore play action, it's normally because it's 3rd and 15 or whatnot.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:43 PM ^
Are there run plays that could've been run on downs 1-3 that would have taken more time so that there was only 4 seconds left? I suppose the tradeoff is that those involve going wide and 1) you might lower the odds of getting a game sealing 1st down 2) you might get forced out of bounds to stop the clock 3) maybe going wide increases the chance of fumbling?
October 21st, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
Yes, there are potentially longer-running plays, but each of your three disadvantages is legitimate. I think they probably ran to the middle for avoid each of those potential pitfalls.
October 21st, 2015 at 4:50 PM ^
I suppose another thing you could have done on fourth down is overload one side of the line and have everyone hold/tackle their guy and try and create a hole so the running back makes the first down. If he does, they need to accept the penalty, but some time would have elapsed. If he doesn't, MSU gets the ball where he was tackled.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:57 PM ^
Nice fucking QB recruiting.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^
First of all, no reason for ad hominem pointed at coach Hoke. Yeah, he's just doing his job and there's probably some sour grapes here as well (as well as a stupid comment), but there's no need to get personal.
That being said, the irony of Hoke retroactively giving out some Special Teams advice is rich indeed.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
Hoke assembled one of the worst coaching staffs in the United States and would have gone for it because we would have been down by three scores attempting to secure a moral victory heading into the bye week which he would have spent failing to gain a schematic advantage over our next opponent.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^
"No. 1, I think the one gunner to the field should have been in a little bit more and if you're going to punt it there's ways to protect it a little better," Hoke said." This is true, the rest - rubbish.
Armchair QB'ing at it's best. Run the Debord play again, works everytime!
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
Oh Brady. As they like to say here in the south (Tennessee)..."Bless his heart."
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
I really want Hoke to be the guy that ages gracefully. You know, over time, we remember the good things and forget the bad.
Right now, unless he's talking about recruiting, DL technique or best places to find a burger in Muncie, I don't want to hear his opinion about anything.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
arghhhhhhhhhhh! Hoke's quote reeks of dirty hot dog water.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
Honestly I wanted to like Brady, I really did. But over the past few weeks he has opened his mouth and said some really stupid stuff.
So shut the hell up Brady, you had your shot and failed. Now ride off into the sunset far away from Ann Arbor. Thank you.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^
Brady Hoke is not qualified to offer any commentary on what occurred on Saturday. His tenure here clearly proved it.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
would then apologize to dantonio for going for it without his approval
October 21st, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
You've got to play to the strength of your football team
You mean like punting and special teams?
October 21st, 2015 at 4:20 PM ^
Nope, strengths of Hoke's teams; 1) not executing, 2) clapping, and 3) wearing short sleeves on really cold days.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:01 PM ^
Truthfully, I'd respect his commentary more than Hoke who was neither an offensive or defensive mastermind. At least Rich is an expert at one of those.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^
Hoke wasn't a special teams mastermind either. Nor was he good at basic counting.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:02 PM ^
The strength of this team is its defense. (In reality, special teams is also a huge strength.) So at mid-field, you rely on your offense (De'Veon Smith, who gained 46 yards on 19 runs against MSU) on 4th down to salt away the victory? Can't Brandon hook Brady up as a Toys 'R Us spokesman to save us from this?
October 21st, 2015 at 3:03 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 3:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 21st, 2015 at 3:03 PM ^
Brady is on this blog. He just downvoted every single comment.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:07 PM ^
Who is "Good Guy" Greg defender of all things Hoke? I wish he would at least make his presence known instead of lurking and downvoting anyone....you are such a stand up guy for defending Hoke! All of us are so rude for saying he's full of it, don't ever challenge anything said by a guy who was nice but in over his head.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^
I'm doing the exact same thing, and BTW you missed a couple.
October 21st, 2015 at 5:01 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 3:05 PM ^
...which is completely understandable. Hoke has earned it.
Hoke would not have had the team ready for the first 59 min and 50 seconds, so him commenting on the last 10 seconds is not going to get much of a response.
That said...I think his comments, on their own, are reasonable. If I were head coach, I would have punted, but I would have had on the super max punt protect *and* I would have covered what to do if the snap/catch was botched. Neither of those things happened. While there has been a huge upgrade, overall, in the coaching staff this year, that was a failure on U of M's part.
Though not my preferred course of action, I would have been fine with a play-action pass in that scenario. It has its own risks, but I think slightly less than punting (see end of Texas-Ok State game, for just one example). But I still would have punted, as properly prepared, a decent kick ends the game and botched snap just gives them a long field goal/haily mary.
Oh well. Good times.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:44 PM ^
They aren't.
You're saying you trust Rudock to do a better job than O'Neill. Given all we've seen this year, that is insane.
I would take O'Neill kicking the ball and rolling 10 seconds off the clock over Rudock doing anything to create a first down every day of the week.
October 21st, 2015 at 4:25 PM ^
My preference, as stated, was to punt. A max protect, safe as humanly possible, punt (which we didn't do). Blake was having a great day, and if the ball gets in the air, I think 10 seconds go by.
However, I've seen these stats about 0.2% chance of MSU winning. That suggests that in a college game, high stress situation, there is only a 1 in 500 chance of a botched snap, catch *or* a blocked kick (with potentially, the need for a successful FG or TD pass after). I think that's ridiculously low. It has to be much higher than that.
To put it another way, how nervous were you about the punt? Were you thinking there was only a 1 in 500 chance of there being a screwup? I was much, much more nervous about the punt than I was for the three straight QB snaps, then handoff to Smith right before it b/c I think we all know punting is a higher risk activity.
So, if U of M decided to go for it, I think a play-action pass would have been reasonable (a run would have been stuffed, IMHO). I give the pass a 40% chance of success for us, and failing that, the hail mary is, say, 95% for us. That's 97% chance of winning, which I don't think is appreciably different than the chance of a non-screw up punt in that situation. So I think going for it is a reasonable alternative, and I can see why others might have preferred it.
October 21st, 2015 at 5:46 PM ^
I understand what you said. I'm saying that this:
"That said...I think his comments, on their own, are reasonable."
Is something I disagree with totally. They aren't reasonable. They sound like a man who thinks higher of himself and his abilities as a coach than reality has dictated. He's a buffoon.
I was not nervous at all about the punt. Why? Because we have a great special teams unit and a great punter. My concern at that point was "Will we burn all ten seconds or will they have a chance to throw the ball from deep in their own half?"
I would have been much more nervous about going for it and letting Jake Rudock decide the outcome. I would have put much more money on Rudock botching a hand-off or a snap or screwing up play action than I would have O'Neill dropping the long snap.
Look, any play at that time probably works out for Michigan. But I think its unreasonable to say "Putting the ball in the hands of one of our weaker players is sound football strategy as opposed to putting the ball in the hands of one of our strongest players" which is what you're doing.
October 21st, 2015 at 6:10 PM ^
Wow. You're much calmer than I am, and I'm pretty calm. I literally said to the screen "Game's not over!" when they were discussing UM's upcoming schedule in the 1/2 minute before the punt.
Though, from what you are saying about Rudock, you were much more nervous about him executing a snap and handoff on the previous 3 plays. I wasn't so worried about that (more worried about Smith getting stripped). So maybe we get nervous about different things.
I agree the punting unit was (before this unfortunate event) easily better than Rudock. But you're not just putting the game in Blake's hands -- it's the snapper, the blockers, etc. Plus, Rudock's biggest weakness is making downfield throws (and missing wide-open guys) -- that's not an issue with this between the hashes, play action play. Even an interception (which Rudock has done much better at, since Utah) would not be as bad as punt block/bad snap, b/c there'd be 11 Wolverines who could have a chance to make a tackle.
And in the end, unfortunately, the reality of the play proved you wrong. There was reason to be nervous, excellent punter or not. Thus, other options become reasonable alternatives...at least to me (and Brady Hoke, I guess, though I don't really care what he thinks).
October 21st, 2015 at 6:25 PM ^
"The reality of the play proved you wrong".
This is absurd. So if a team attempts an extra point to tie the game and misses, the reality of that play proved that decision/team/coach wrong?
What happened doesn't change all the evidence that we had gathered beforehand which all pointed to putting the ball in Blake O'Neill's hands rather than Jake Rudock's hands.
Here's a pro tip: If you find yourself calling Brady Hoke reasonable when he disagrees with Jim Harbaugh, you probably shouldn't post.
October 21st, 2015 at 6:38 PM ^
Jim Harbaugh disagrees with Jim Harbaugh, he said as much.
October 21st, 2015 at 8:10 PM ^
You even took only part of my quote, which in full was " the reality of the play proved you wrong. There was reason to be nervous, excellent punter or not." Punting is, relatively, higher risk due to its lengthy mechanics with dramatic negatives (if things go wrong): a snap over the head; a block; a fumbled snap are all worse because of how far back *and* how alone the P is. Moreso than a QB fumbling a snap, throwing incompletion or an interception (a sack is clearly bad though). That's true, regardless of the punter.
Again, I personally would have max protect punted it. However, punting made me nervous -- you said, for you, it didn't. Thus, since there was no reason to be nervous, punting was (essentially) easily the right choice and to you, all other options are ridiculous.
I disagree with that. I don't think punting was easily the right choice. I think a short play-action pass, over the middle (i.e., no passes in the flat for a ready-pick six) would have been a reasonable alternative. That's all I am saying.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^
Perhaps you meant in practice, but during the game I'm not sure it is the best idea to cover "what to do if the snap/catch was botched." I don't think you want your punter thinking about not catching the ball. Granted, he missed it anyway, but...
October 21st, 2015 at 4:27 PM ^
I agree with the idea you "stay positive" with the punter. Kind of like telling someone "Whatever you do, don't think of something from your child hood" and then, of course, the Stay-Puff Marshmallow man pops in your head. You want the punter focused on "catch ball, then kick ball...catch ball, then kick ball."
I am saying that it appeared no non-punters on UM were ready for the snap/catch botch situation. There was no one back to receive from State -- if that punt gets in the air, there is no point for more than a couple UM players to go forward to down the punt.
However, since State was bringing the house, if:
1) The snap was off (e.g., goes over Blake's head, a la what Oregon State did)
2) The catch was botched (we know how this works)
3) The punt was blocked
...we need at least a couple people who, after finishing their blocks, aren't going down the field, but are going back towards the punter. Heck, that "gunner" at the top of the screen would have been perfect for this.
It's a unique situation. 99.5% of the time, you don't do this. But the disaster in this situation was any of my 1, 2 or 3 happening. And we were not as prepared as we could be for that.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^
...1) After harbaugh went out of his way to be gracious to Hoke, you think he would return a little good will and give a "it's a tough call" vague answer.
2) Trust your offensive line? That's rich.
3) Any special teams advice from this man should be in the "do not do" section.
4) How the hell did he sound so articulate in that segment? There were actual sentences being constructed.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^
recruits 97% of the players on the team, doesn't trust one half of them to get it done....? I iz confuzed....
October 21st, 2015 at 3:10 PM ^
Of course he would go for it...we would have been down by 30. Just keep eating and collecting that paycheck bozo.
October 21st, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 3:11 PM ^