Should Indiana Have Slowed Down?
November 15th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^
The problem is that there were 3 minutes left...that's a loooong time for a hurry up team to stall.
That said, with their kicker. It would've been convienient for them to take more time off.
But I don't think you intentionally do it.
We're just lucky that our defense was so shitty IU scored and gave Rudock JUST enough time to march back down the field.
Remember, Michigan also had timeouts and we were up 1...so an IU FG means Michigan just has to get back into FG position and not get a touchdown.
It would've been tough to get the clock down to the point where they could get a FG with zero time left considering we had the timeouts.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
To be fair, Michigan was running the clock down at the end, and probably could have scored in less time.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
We did on one play...because we had two timeouts...but I disagree.
We were trying to score on those runs. We just couldn't get in.
We basically ran our offense and then got close...we killed time on one specific play that got a little uncomfortable. And then we started using the timeouts.
The only problem I had with that strategy is...what if IU gets a PI or holding call that gives you an automatic first down? You've now run the clock down to where you can't use all of the extra downs.
It's a touchy back and fourth. I definitely would've drained some clock...but I'm not sure I would've taken those 15 seconds off standing at the line. I would've just kept huddling and running the offense. If we score with 15 seconds...fine. But it would suck to have a defensive PI or holding and be stuck with 1st and goal with only 2 seconds left on the clock.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
Agree. Weird things happen in Football. We could have had four new downs with no time left.
November 15th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
I agree that Harbaugh didn't purposefully score with 2 seconds on the clock. My only point is that we could've scored faster, so Indiana didn't leave Rudock with JUST enough time to score.
November 15th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. UM definitely worked the clock on that second-to-last scoring drive a bit. You could tell Harbaugh knew the defense wasn't likely to force IU off the field, so bleeding the clock shortened the game a bit.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 15th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
You're up 7 with over 2 minutes to go...why would you let someone score? You can't lose unless they go for 2 and win the game.
By the time Michigan got into the redzone there wasn't enough time for IU to do anything on offense even if Michigan had scored earlier.
Please don't ever be a head coach.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
There was 1:11 when Chesson caught that long pass and stumbled to the ground. IU had one timeout.
You want them to let Michigan score and tie the game so that you can try to drive into FG range with less than a minute to win it?
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Especially considering they almost stopped us from tying the football game.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
They were moving the ball on the ground. Go back and look at their drives.
They weren't flying down the field in 50 seconds with no timeouts.
I mean you can make a case for it...sure. But I just don't see why anyone would do it.
ESPECIALLY because they were dominating the game offensively.
So why would you let us score and then go try to score in regulation when the same thinking says "if they score...we'll just keep scoring touchdowns in OT."
They had the upperhand going into OT, no question. We hadn't stopped their offense all game.
They hadn't stopped us, but in throwing the ball, bad things can happen. They were just running it down our throats even though we knew it was coming.
Again, I see both sides, but 50 seconds isn't a whole lot of time when you're running the ball. If you're Baylor and chucking it all over the yard. I get it. But they weren't moving the ball in the air. So I don't see how you think you can get down the field quick enough...even if we're allowing 8-9 yards...the clock would still be running.
November 15th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^
You bring up a good point.
But driving the field in the middle of the 2nd quarter =/= driving the field with less than 50 seconds left in the 4th quarter.
To keep perfectly complex within combinatorial game-theory, the psychology of the athlete is absolutely affected by the urgency of the 4th quarter vs. the urgency of the 2nd quarter.
Indiana's offense would be nearly unable to call non-out-of-bounds run-plays, due to running out the clock, thus changing how UM's defense will set-up their defenders, which could wholly negate Indiana's previous run/pass success, seeing as how one compliments the other.
But, on the other side of the coin, the same goes with the exhaustion of UM's defense. Again, 2nd quarter =/= 4th quarter.
So, it's basically turtles all the way down, AND, that's why we play the game!
Thus, the results speak for themselves.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
They took the "check with me" late into the play clock and they were running the ball...we just couldn't stop them. So it's not like they were intentionally going fast and snapping the ball with 25 on the play clock...they were trying to milk it but every run was a big gainer.
November 15th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
HARBAUGH!
dude OWNS game theory
November 15th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
I was about ready to turn the game off after they kept getting first downs. I thought they were going to get 5-8 yards a carry run the clock and kick a field goal. Once they scored I was like with Indiana's secondary they scored way too fast, so I stayed an watched :)
November 15th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 15th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
Yes.
There are a number of times you have this situation. There may be times where you don't want to score, but would be better off going down at the 2 yard line and then running out the clock for an "extra-point" field goal with 0:00.
Coaches are extremely risk averse, so they won't do it. But if you look at the odds and you've been making field goals all night while your D has not gotten stops all night . . . it makes mathematical sense.
A guy like Wilswon who is hanging on to his job by a thread could never do it. Because if it did not work out, he'd be trashed in the media for trying it.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^
They played to have the last 2 seconds in regulation.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^
Especially because we had the timeouts.
The problem was that we couldn't get one frickin stop on the 2-point conversion to keep it at 5. That was the "COME ON!" moment.
Obviously it worked out in our favor...but if we get one frickin stop on the 2-point conversion that they had to have then we would've been driving for a win in regulation --- which at the time looked like the best option to win the game.
OT was looking scary because they could run the ball and they had the better FG kicker.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
...what?
November 15th, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^
It's situational football...do you know that he does that if IU is 7-0 and playing for something? At this point in their season...who the fuck cares? They were all great calls at this point in the year.
When you're the underdog and your season is about done...you can be a little more reckless and daring. The calls made perfect sense and almost won the game for them.
Do it over the course of an entire season and well, some coaches do it...others don't. I wouldn't. But if I'm playing a team I haven't beaten in 20 years and we have 4 wins on the year...fuck it, we're going foot on the gas the whole way trying to get this upset.
November 15th, 2015 at 11:20 AM ^
i never punt. i always go for 2. i always onside-kick.
GIMME THE DAMN BALL
November 15th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
Obviously you don't want to give up the deep balls, but it's not like the coach decided to do that. As for the 4th downs, I think they were all the right call, and on balance worked out for Indiana.
Indiana was a hair's breadth from a major upset victory. I'd say the coach did quite well.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
Actually, that is all he could. Think about the number of times we stopped them and they went for it on fourth down. Our defense got gassed and we were already thin. They are an underdog. Punting the ball back to M would not go well for them. We would run the clock out and score. They were not able to stop us most of the game.
I don't expect OSU and PSU to go for it on fourth downs that much. But, Indiana, I do. Their defense is atrocious, even though they stopped our runs.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 15th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
Yep. I too thought that if the last Indiana TD was upeld on review, UM would have time for an answering score. Luckily, it turned out that way.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
I clapped when I saw he was in. It was weird.
Plus I was soooo mad at Durkin for his lack of adjustments. I just wanted the defense off the field with little impact on the rest of the game. I was much more comfortable with going down with the ball in Rudock's hands then praying and wishing for a defensive stop. Rudock had earned the opportunity to win/lose the game.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
Same here. EVERYONE knew that Indiana would keep running until Michigan showed that it could do anything about it. Why weren't we selling out on the run and stuffing the box more? If they then beat us in the air, fine, but our secondary is lights out - make them have to fight for it on our terms.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
I thought the same thing. But on reflection, the Michigan secondary wasn't lights-out against Minnesota a couple of weeks earlier. Maybe that factored into the defensive staff's approach against Indiana? Maybe?
November 15th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 15th, 2015 at 11:50 AM ^
Because for most of the season they'd been able to get away with it since the DL with one LB was able to stuff every teams run game. IDK if teams have adapted, the D has regressed, or injuries are stacking up thus making it look like they've regressed. Or some combination of everything. Either way, the thing we were doing to be dominant the first half of the season we've not been good at against Minny and IU at all.
November 15th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^
November 15th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
I am not sure if they were that good in running the ball, when they are or near the red zone. It is an advantage for us when the field is short. Our safeties were not too deep. Frankly, we looked more like NE defense. That is what NE does to people. They will give up yards, but will make you score FGs instead of TDs. But Tom Brady will go on to score TDs.
Our D was better near the red zone. At least, that is what I thought when watching the game.
November 15th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
on second down. Howard had to be getting tired and perhaps that was the rationale behind not running him on third down, that he was finally wearing out. Also, knowing that Michigan was probably going to sell out on the run to Howard opened up advantages elsewhere. It was the fourth down play that was really debatable. Still, even taking into account these thoughts are hindsight, it still seems like it would have been best to keep running him.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
trying to run the clock down and we just simply couldn't stop the run.
November 15th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
Indiana used up most of the play clock during each play of their last drive. What we needed to do was intentionally LET them score............giving us time to mount a drive of our own, Luckily(?) our defenses gashiness prevented that scenario.