In Support of Brady's Two Point Call

Submitted by Cold War on

Brass balls.

Red_Lee

November 30th, 2013 at 3:50 PM ^

It was a great choice, but I swear I only saw 3 guys running routes...all on the same side of the field. To me, and I know I didn't get to see a great angle, that was an atrocious playcall for a 2 point conversion. The defense covered that with ease. We needed misdirection or somebody leaking on the back side (which we may have...I couldn't tell but it looked like Fitz stayed put and everyone else blocked).

MGoSoftball

November 30th, 2013 at 6:55 PM ^

I could have support this if we thought we could hurry the snap and catch them off-guard.  But after the time-out, I be like....Kick the dang ball and win it in overtime.  There was no gurantee we would have won it in OT either.  

Everyone in my section wanted OT.  Is a loss in OT better than a loss in regulation?  I dont know.

 

bo4uofm

November 30th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^

No one was on the back side and we've been killing them the whole day on misdirection. After the timeout we needed to show them something completely different that they couldn't call a timeout for. There should be a play like that in reserve. No problems with the decision at all. You control the game and that's all you could ever ask for today. Can't blame that on "execution" though, just wrong play call. A loss is a loss and that means Borges has to go. Somebody has to be held accountable.

Still though, great call to go for two and couldn't be any prouder of my boy's today! I'll admit that I gave up hope before it even started. These men came out and fought for everything we believe in and showed why you should never give up on Michigan. Go Blue! 

ituralde

December 1st, 2013 at 12:03 AM ^

The second read (fade) looked open to me.  If Devin steps up more into the pocket and pumps the first read, nobody from Ohio State is in a position to make a play on the fade.  

They were facing zones, they knew they were facing zones, trying to overload the zones was not a bad plan. 

harmon40

December 1st, 2013 at 3:21 PM ^

Obviously, losing always sucks.  Losing to a hated rival sucks more. But had we been annihilated in this game it could have affected recruiting.  As it turned out, the team proved that there is not anywhere near as much distance between these two programs as anyone thought.

If you think that doesn't matter, a lot, then you don't know that much about college football.

Cali Wolverine

November 30th, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^

...watched our O drop 41 (should have been 42) in regulation. Ohio couldn't stop us either. We were at home, had the home crowd...bad call. It is funny because half the people that liked the call think we have big balls so we went for it...the other half think we went for it because we don't have the balls to take Ohio in OT...which one is it?

yoyo

November 30th, 2013 at 4:55 PM ^

It's both.  It was a gutsy call and the right one since we couldn't stop them.  Our success was on misdirection and fortune that OSU couldn't figure out our play calling.  They were straight up mauling our defensive line.  They might figure out our offense but we couldn't stop them. 

Do you honestly trust Borges with more time?

nickb

November 30th, 2013 at 8:03 PM ^

Schedule weak opponents beat them (albeit just barely) and lose to opponents that matter. If we play close games against them we accept it as a moral victory. As long as we do not get blown out is all that matters.

The right call for the two point is to give DG an option to either hand off, pass or run it himself. To restrict the play to one option really handcuffed him.

 Hoke and his staff will not have any excuses next year. 

reshp1

November 30th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^

Agreed, it was a rub route that's worked consistently for us in the past. The receivers didn't use each other to obstruct each other's defenders as well as they could, the throw was a bit inside, and also give Ohio's defenders for jumping the route.

As far as the call, I loved it. I loved the fact that Hoke let the seniors decide even more.

gbdub

November 30th, 2013 at 7:45 PM ^

I also think Gardner rushed it a bit. I know it's supposed to be a quick throw, but he had a bit more time and I think Gallon could have worked open or a running lane could have presented itself. Can't fault the guy too much though given the rest of the game.

JTrain

November 30th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^

Wish all you armchair guys would've been calling the play so when the play didn't go as planned we could've listened to you justify why you did what u did.
We saw a different team today than we've seen in a while. If we play our cards right...next year... We control our destiny.

In reply to by JTrain

grovecitywolverine

November 30th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

like we said last yr and the year before and the yr before that, etc?

 

Youth?

 

Go Blue!

JTrain

November 30th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^

Let's buy a new coordinator. I'm sure he looks really smart next year regardless, right? Every linemen on the team has grown. Learned. Invaluable experience has nothing to do with it, right? Not according to you I'm sure. .
Borgess may have been stubborn early in the year but who's to say brady hoke didn't say "here's the game plan. We stick with it. No questions asked. We have to become who we want yo be eventually". Does making our ultra talented qb learn a new offense in his fifth year make any sense for next year???? I don't think so.
See u next year Al!

IPFW_Wolverines

November 30th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^

I had no issue with going for two. That was the right decision. However, staying in the same formation after Ohio State called timeout was stupid.