Outback Bowl Snowflake Thread

Submitted by justingoblue on January 1st, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Individual thoughts on the game go here. New threads about the game not containing news that is threadworthy or some kind of (relatively) complex analysis will be deleted for the rest of the evening.


True Blue Grit

January 2nd, 2013 at 8:13 AM ^

back and letting USC pick us apart.  I have no problem with Mattison's aggressive blitz strategy.  You don't beat Spurrier-coached teams by playing conservative.  We did rush their QB into a lot of bad throws, forced them out of the pocket, and should have had a number of more sacks if not for poor tackling.  Give USC a lot of credit for good blocking and making the tough throws.    


January 2nd, 2013 at 3:23 AM ^

 even when they rushed 2-3 receivers where wide open. It was more poor secondary play than poor line play or even play calling. I didn't know what to expect but, I'm proud of the effort the team played with. When this match up was made i figured this could have been a blow out loss for us but team 133 played a good game and with the exception of a few plays on defense really dominated.

I was surprised at how the O line played in the series when Taylor was on the side lines


January 1st, 2013 at 5:25 PM ^

That's sort of like saying running Smith up the middle is good playcalling but bad execution.  It's not good playcalling if your players aren't capable of running the scheme.  On the last drive, we had had some success rushing four, and even if we allow a 7-10 yard gain on the last play, they have a kick a fairly difficult field goal with a crappy kicker.  Putting the secondary in that position was a mistake.

Sten Carlson

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:04 AM ^

So true! However, the clutter that you spew forth exceeds that of all other in terms of clutterousness.

Words like "unacceptable," "should/shouldn't,"excuses," etc. are indicative of an irrational and overly judgmental state of mind. There is no "should" only what is. That is the beauty of sports -- no matter how certain the outcome appears, the actual result can only be attained by action. Nobody is "happy" with 8-5, least of all Brady Hoke. But, rational fans have a handle on their expectations and are able to see mitigating factors as they arise throughout the season. You, by contrast, seem to assume that ANY explanation that describes a factor in the outcome is nothing but an excuse -- nothing could be farther from the truth. By your rules, nothing but winning every game is sufficient, whether the team as a whole is out matched or not. Further, a coach of Michigan must have near a miraculous ability to a) call a perfect game despite the highly paid and experienced foe on the other sidelines trying his hardest to thwart his efforts; and b) turn EVERY player into a world beater, regardless of age and talent level.

You're delusional dude. But, to make matters worse, your delusion has spilled over into thinking that anyone that doesn't also share your delusion is an apologist, or making excuses. There is not one player, former player, coach, AD, nor media pundit in the nation that would say, even candidly, that Hoke "sucks." Not one. Yet you, despite all the evidence to the contrary, have discerned this fact. How? Because he didn't live up to your expectations. That my friend is childish and just downright sad!


January 2nd, 2013 at 9:48 AM ^

Ghost of Yost is the worst possible example of the sort of poster that MUST BLAME SOMEONE when things don't go right. No matter what happens, in his mind, there was a way for the coached to avoid or mitigate it. It is, I think, a thoroughly absurd way of looking at things. Sometimes defensive backs get beat, safeties make bad reads, and quarterbacks don't have ideal release points. Sometimes we are playing against an obscenely talented defensive line, and a terrifying kick returner/slot receiver.

But his world-view can't account for any of these things. We lost, so somebody must have fucked up.


January 1st, 2013 at 9:05 PM ^

"It's not good playcalling if your players aren't capable of executing the scheme."

So, just because a play doesn't work (you know, that one time) means that the players are incapable of running it?  It must be a joy to watch games with you.  

Michigan's defense overachieved relative to personnel this year:  there was no consistent pass rush from the front four, the safeties were solid but unspectacular, and Michigan fans everywhere were praying for just basic competence out of the DTs.  Not to mention the absence of Countess, the team's best cornerback, practically from the season's first snap.

And here you are claiming that Mattison put the players in a position to fail.  Fascinating.


January 1st, 2013 at 6:17 PM ^

Sometimes, you just have to give credit to the other guy.  This is one of those times.  Giving up all of those big plays up the middle pissed me off, and it would have been nice if they could have blocked Clowney better, but Michigan lost to a team of superior athletes today.  I was there, and honestly, the score could have been far worse than it was.  I was quite pissed when I left, but in retrospect, MIchigan did the Big Ten proud today.  

Also, Steve Spurrier runs a clean program.  It's probably why he hasn't won more National Championships.  If Michigan has to lose, it's a lot easier to stomach when they lose to a clean program.  Congrats to SC on a great game.


January 1st, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^

Did you watch the same game as everyone else because all of your comments have been terrible.  You have stated that Borges called a terrible game despite us putting up 28 points on a very solid defense and great pass rush.  Our blitzes nearly ended any chance for SC to win when Black got to the qb but just couldn't finish the sack.  That's not on Mattison.  The last TD was a bit of a blown coverage by Kovacs.


January 1st, 2013 at 6:27 PM ^

So you just wanted them to continue to sit in zone coverage and give up 5-7 yards at a time until SC got well within field goal range? They had to generate a pass rush somehow on that final drive, and on the last play the blitz was executed beautifully, but the QB made a spectacular throw and our rag-tag secondary just couldn't hold it together.

Also, how can you blame Mattison for continuing to blitz, when the blitz got through to the QB every single time? We just couldn't bring the guy down.


January 1st, 2013 at 6:38 PM ^

On that final drive, the blitz consistently hurried the QB. We grabbed him, made him do pirouettes, shoved him, did everything but tackle him. 

I'm not sure what you were watching, but we were burned deep when we dropped 9 guys into coverage.

The problem wasn't blitzing, it was blown assignments by players who otherwise wouldn't be on the field but for injuries and suspensions.


January 1st, 2013 at 6:46 PM ^

But the defense did get to the QB a couple of times, they just didn't tackle them when they had the chance.  That's no on the playcalling.

And regardless, this team doesn't have a line that can get consistent pressure on the QB.  That's what RVB and Martin gave the team last year - players who could get some pressure on the offense without bringing the blitz every down.  That way, when Mattison called one, the offense wasn't always ready for it. 


January 1st, 2013 at 7:49 PM ^

There were no good solutions. As color analyst Gruden noted, Mattison was doing a great job of mixing up the defenses, including the last drive. Gruden rightly commented that our defensive ends were just not doing a good enough job of getting to the QB. You can't blame Mattison for our secondary, or for the failure of the defensive line to be more disruptive. With Demens and Floyd gone, and even worse, Countess, along with the defensive line not getting in, what was Mattison supposed to do? As it was, with the blitzes, we came so close . . . if only Black had wrapped up their QB, but "if only" and "coulda, woulda," doesn't get you very far.


January 1st, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^

Defense was bad. Couldn't stop them when we dropped 9 and couldn't stick with them in man to man either. They completely didn't respect Shaw on the read options even though he is a very good running QB.

Lewan won the war with Clowney.

Devin was way too jittery today early on. At least a half dozen times he had a solid pocket and went running blindly into the pressure. He was clutch at the end though. He needs to work on being consistent with his footwork and he can be great. Gallon is a stud. Funchess needs to be involved. We need a true RB.


January 1st, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^

Clowney won MVP off of two plays, and the more important of those it appeared as if he wasn't Lewan's assignment.  I don't know who was supposed to pick him up or if there was a blown call on the line, but Lewan didn't look like a lineman that had just let his opponent beat him.  Rest of the game Clowney was pretty much a non-factor thanks to Lewan and good play-calling.


January 1st, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^

1. Why can't we tackle a QB?

2. JT being out hurt a lot. Maybe was the key to our loss.

3. We need a RB next year badly

4. We need WRs next year badly

5. Denard must have some fluke of an injury. I think we'll find out soon enough from draft workouts.

User -not THAT user

January 1st, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^

...are pretty serious.  It afflicts guitarists (Dave Mustaine being one of the more high profile sufferers) to the point where they literally can't play the instrument, can't even pick one up, for months.  I was afraid it might be something like that when I saw him flexing his hand after the hit.

But yeah, Team 133 was pretty thin at some vital aspects of the game.  I hate that Denard and all the other outgoing seniors from the RichRod era had to go out like this.  But as Brian says, they died like Vikings and have nothing to be ashamed of.


January 1st, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^

I thought play-calling was very sound on both sides of the ball.  Borges compensated very well for the strong D-line of SC and moved the pocket around a lot, tried out a lot of different packages, and used Denard and Devin well.  Very impressive.

On the D, Mattison did what he could.  Seemed to be dialing up a lot of different blitz packages, getting guys to the ball.  Ultimately, we just didn't have the horses to compete, it was pretty clear - especially in the secondary.

Also thought Denard rushed pretty well between the tackles, was really impressed at that.  Brought us a good run presence to go along with Devin passing.


January 1st, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^

Offense and defense both played well, we can (and will) quibble about a few single plays in isolation, but all in all our coaches and players all did a great job today

A fantastic game that came down to one play, and we came up short against what is probably a better team.

Any reasonable person would have to say that we are on the right track.


January 1st, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^

We are indeed heading in the right direction.

I think the game hinged on more than one play, but Carolina is a talented team and they just had a little more than we did.

Next year will be a very good one!

BOX House

January 1st, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^

I'll stay away from the coaching commentary.

Anyone else feel like the karma of the game/ momentum was just completely screwed up by that bad first down call on the measurement? I don't know if the game would've resulted any differently, but that bad call fired up SC. And it was right when the momentum pendulum was starting to turn our way.