Can we also acknowledge how good the halftime adjustments were then? Arguably best adjustment I’ve seen out of Rutgers in as long as I can remember.
Worst half of play calling I've ever seen
- Thread starter TommyGunn
- Start date
I think the whole Langan Package is too cute and doesn’t surprise any Defensive Coordinator?
To your point about the Cruickshank non-call, think it was deemed uncatchable. BUT had he not been TOWING the defender through the end zone, was it?? LOL
If it surprised any DC by this time they should be fired. It's probably one of the most successful situational packages I think we've ever used. Just don't screw around. Give the kid the ball and let him plow the two yards he needs. His success rate is incredible.
On that 4th and 2 when they set up Langan I was hoping for a pass. The inside cover guys were cheating all day by moving to the LOS on the snap, playing the run. I think Langan could have put is head down and taken a step, then stood up and threw to a wide open WR in the middle of the field, maybe goes for a TD. 4th and 1 then yes Langan plow ahead, but 4th and 2 against a good DL is tough. Langan did make the right read, keeping the ball as the rb would have been hit for a loss if Langan didn't keep.
My thought on that play is why put Pacheco under center and thus signalling what we are doing? Why not snap it as if running a wildcat?
(Just taking up the point here, not at all agreeing with OP who looks just a bit histrionic in retrospect)
Since the Purdue game, in which it was off the charts effective, it's been good, but not fantastic, especially against higher level opponents.
On the 4th down late in the game, I was thinking maybe run that play with Vedral, because he was making good decisions, he was gaining yards, and it does keep the D thinking pass, at least a little.
Also thought Langan could/should have handed the ball off there as there looked to be a hole, but his mindset is a heavy lean towards keeping it himself.
Note: I'm by no means negative, more just musing about a really good game.
Johnny Langan had 3 carries yesterday in 3rd/4th down situations. He was 2 for 3. 2 out of 3 ain't bad?
4th & 3 at MICH 32
(3:01 - 1st) Johnny Langan run for 3 yds to the Mich 29 for a 1ST down
- 3rd & 1 at RUTG 42
(9:10 - 3rd) Johnny Langan run for 3 yds to the Rutgr 45 for a 1ST down - 4th & 2 at MICH 39
(5:24 - 4th) Johnny Langan run for 1 yd to the Mich 38
I didn't have problem with that whole acting bit. I've seen plays like that work. The only thing is imo if you want someone to come up under center like that for a quick snap maybe Langan line up the backfield instead of IP. If you want IP to take the snap maybe something out of a wildcat/pistol like you said where he catches it and can come up with some steam instead of directly under center which might be too foreign for him to execute well. But the whole putting on a show thing didn't bother me.
I really didn't have too many problems with decisions made except the not punting before half. To me that was not just an unnecessary risk but an extremely unnecessary risk...especially with Michigan having 2 TOs and us having a good punter. Just push them back and go into half down 14. We're lucky it was only 3 we gave up instead of 7. I still wouldn't have liked the decision but say it was 4th and 5ish or something I could try to talk myself into it but 4th and 10 imo is a bad decision. We were coming out of the half with the ball too, not that we did anything that first drive but that's something to factor in going into that decision.
I actually felt they might be setting it up to go for it on 4th by the way we used (or in this case didn't use) our TOs. The commentators were even mentioning why we weren't using our TOs and letting the clock run. I was thinking that the coaches were considering going for it on 4th and whatever and if they fail make sure Michigan has very little time left. I think the 10yds necessary on 4th down should have quashed that notion though.
Last edited:
OP apparently was not an RU fan during the Ash era. Although, you could argue that Ash did such a horrible job of preparing the team for games, proven by the fact that the majority of games were over by the end of the first quarter, that he never was in a position to make a decision that would have actually resulted in having a bad coaching game day.
There's a huge difference between knowing what you are doing and "making poor decisions" vs. just not having your necessary gamble (because you actually want to win at Michigan) pay off because of poor execution (like the center-Pacheco exchange) or the other team to their credit ended up ready for what you ran.
We looked like absolute dog crap in the 1st half. The gambles were necessary at that point, unless you wanted to take on Ash's "let's not lose too badly" mode. As stated elsewhere, if our defense did it's damned job on crossing patterns it had already seen right after the gambles, Schiano and Gleason are geniuses for the entire game.
Similar threads
