Michigan going for 2 was the right call

Submitted by wildbackdunesman on

I contend that it was the right call to go for 2 against Rutgers when up 27-0.

When kicking extra points, Rutgers was overloading our right side.  They lined 7 up on our right, but would then pull an 8th man lined up on our left to try and create havoc and holes on our right.  Additionally another player lined up on our left would swing way around the end. 

In essence they were hitting our right with 8 men and only had 2 men to cover a large section just to the left of our center and their man swinging around our left flank.

Rutgers by overloading our right side to that extent had been inviting us to try an easy run.  We had to do it, to keep them honest on special teams.  We couldn't risk them blocking a kick.

Plus, they scheduled their New Jersey satellite camp the same day as ours with Ohio State.

WolverineHistorian

October 9th, 2016 at 4:34 PM ^

OK. I'll buy it. Any explanation for us going for 2 last year against Rutgers?

I'd like to think it was because they had it coming for pounding their chests and talking shit going into the tunnel down 35-17 at halftime. But maybe it was an X's and O's thing I missed.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

bjk

October 9th, 2016 at 8:20 PM ^

the 2-pointer was on call in each of the four first scoring possessions, the the fourth one was the first time the D setup was favorable for the attempt. After that, Harbaugh took the 2-point option out of the call for the rest of the game -- in order to spare tender sensibilities.

wildbackdunesman

October 9th, 2016 at 4:54 PM ^

I would argue from a game standpoint, we needed to do it.

You would sit back as a head coach and let Rutgers slam 8 guys into 4 or 5 of our guys on right side of our line every time we kicked?! 

With some of their guys getting through, our guys double teamed, on slippery grass where injuries can happen...and a possible blocked kick that could get returned.

All you had to do was run a trick play up the gut to keep them honest...but we shouldn't because of feelings and/or politeness?

If they are still playing to block kicks on the point afters, why shouldn't we keep playing on the point afters?

DrMantisToboggan

October 9th, 2016 at 4:40 PM ^

I especially liked the design of the play. The left side featured a combination with a down block and a kick out underneath with the end man hard setting into protection. I'm assuming that this is something that can be called to either side and possibly even at the line, if Jim gives Moores that discretion. 

charblue.

October 9th, 2016 at 4:41 PM ^

in a game, not gamesmanship, but practice. Not gamesmanship, practice for that call in a situation that matters. Practice, not gamesmanship, The play was on for the first 4 scores, called off before the extra point was kicked on thei first 3, and then executed based on the defensive look the PAT got. Practice makes perfect. And puts something else on film for a team to prepare for every week.

HarbaughFever

October 9th, 2016 at 5:01 PM ^

There are a ton of reasons to go for 2 at that point:

  1. You recognize something in the coverage and want to exploit it
  2. You have a 2-point play design you've been practicing and want to see it in live action
  3. You give future opponents more to game plan for / keep future opponents honest on XP attempts

The notion that he "ran the score up" is absurd on it's face.  Our starters did not play the entire 2nd half.  We threw 3 passes in that 2nd half, 2 on the first drive of the 2nd half.  The alternative to handing the ball off and running, which we did, is starting to take knees in the 3rd quarter.  No one does that, anywhere.  It's pretty incredible that the 2nd and 3rd string won the 2nd half 35-0 doing basically nothing but running the ball, but they did.

Blue Ballin'

October 10th, 2016 at 11:19 AM ^

Yes...correct. Even Jansen made the observation that it was an audible and it was up to the holder's discretion to try it whenever he saw certain defensive alignments. According to him the kicking team works on it regularly. 

 

I'm just curious as to whether the holder has the same discretion on field goal attempts or punts. Would seem, logically, that they would practice this as well.

bluesparkhitsy…

October 10th, 2016 at 11:24 AM ^

Also, given our kicking game to date, you don't want a PAT blocked if you can avoid it; that potentially could hurt the kicker's morale. Given the unbalanced Rutgers formation relative to our line, that would have been a possibility. The better solution, then, is to use the opponent's schematic overload against them and take the points that are given.

More than that, Harbaugh's not one to take the gas off until there is virtually no chance of the opponent coming back. That early in the second quarter, it simply wouldn't have been smart football to assume a win was in the bag. Once the third quarter is underway without evidence of a dramatic halftime adjustment on the other side, that calculus changes.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Mr. Yost

October 9th, 2016 at 5:02 PM ^

At one point last night the ol' lady goes "why don't they change the rules in the 2nd half like they did in that Clemson game?"

Clemson was playing South Carolina St of the MEAC. Michigan was on the road in the Big Ten.

PopeLando

October 9th, 2016 at 5:08 PM ^

Both coaches and the refs have to agree to shorten quarters. The refs can't propose the idea. Harbaugh, as we know, would never propose anything that means LESS football will be played. So basically, Ash never asked - which I think was the right choice. As the head coach of a P5 team, you never wave the white flag like that.

Blue from Ohio

October 9th, 2016 at 5:07 PM ^

Kind of unrelated, but by all accounts this was a big recruiting weekend in terms of visitors for Rutgers.  I believe Isaiah Wilson was visiting.  Question, why would Rutgers schedule big time recruits for a game against Michigan?  I get it's primetime, big time opponent, but I have to belive Ash knew they were going to get it.  I'm thinking Wilson took his official to Rutgers this weekend more to see Michigan. I just don't understand the logic with Rutgers bringing in your prime targets to have them watch Michigan dismantle you.

PopeLando

October 9th, 2016 at 5:18 PM ^

There were indeed about 200 recruits there for Rutgers. Four possibilities (not all mutually exclusive): 1) Ash truly believed they were going to win 2) Ash knew they weren't going to win but thought it would be a good tough game. 3) The recruits ASKED to attend that game, and Ash was basically stuck because he couldn't say no 4) Ash wanted to show recruits how easy it would be to earn playing time. The moral of this story is: when you hype up a rivalry and get people to buy into that hype, you have to deliver.

kalamazoo

October 9th, 2016 at 6:51 PM ^

6)Showing recruits what a good team looks like and how it would be amazing if the recruits stay in state to build such a champion. A rebuilding process is an exciting thing to the down home recruits who have never been a fan of Michigan. Ash is getting his recruits. He's no Harbaugh but I can see perennial bowl appearances in their future. 8-4 or 7-5 is possible with an occasional 9-3 year.

Perkis-Size Me

October 9th, 2016 at 5:21 PM ^

OSU folks have been talking a ton of crap this morning and last night about how Harbaugh is a classless sociopath who showed no respect by going for two last night. And yet they idolize Hayes for going for two on us, when he openly admitted he went for two just because he could. And entire subset of their identity is based on disrespecting Michigan "just because they could."

Spare me your bullshit. If Meyer pulled that stunt it would've been all "we needed to practice the play in a live game" or "we saw a weakness in the formation and decided to take a chance." Everyone is in the wrong except for you, right?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad