Article on Michigan's OT approach against Army

Submitted by PeteM on September 11th, 2019 at 11:10 PM

I was curious while at the game about how Michigan would approach a short field situation against Army.  Obviously, the first Army possession in OT did not go as hoped, and I remember thinking that a short field played to Army's strengths.  Anyway, the article is interesting, though I wish I knew what led to the 3 straight passes on Michigan's last possession.   I was happy to see them open it up, but it seemed like a departure from all that came before.  Anyway, here's a piece about the overtime:

https://www.michigandaily.com/section/football/how-michigan-approached-overtime-against-army

jsquigg

September 12th, 2019 at 4:58 PM ^

The most frustrating thing about that game is that every explanation for why it went the way it did is unacceptable:

1) Shea was hurt so play McCaffery.

2) They were trying to take time to give the defense a rest in the second half and they didn't want to leave Army too much time. The score was tied and they had the ball, so nerfing your offense for any reason is pretty stupid, especially when your advantage is at receiver and they're getting 5-10 yards of cushion.

That said, the coaches are definitely human, but it is discouraging to see things that appeared obvious in real time ignored so they could set plays on fire.

Panther72

September 12th, 2019 at 5:34 PM ^

I have come to believe that Don Browns presser on the Army game gives an important insight to the later 3rd & 4th quarter run pass ratio. His comments about a defensive player having the courage to take on blocks play after play knowing he is going to take a hit to is back leg area made me realize that this may well have  played into the run run plays. The low cut block concerns add to the reasoning of clock killing. Better to have your offensive doing the blocking than Army beating on the legs and knees of our defense. No disrespect to Army. I admire the team.  Just a thought.