Why UM only earned 91 total yards
Some will blame injuries for Michigan’s lack of offensive production. Some will blame the weather conditions. Others will blame Carr’s playcalling. Still others might blame the Michigan WRs who dropped pass after pass.
But here’s the real reason why Michigan laid an egg offensively:
el Kaiser - 
10 Responses to “Why UM only earned 91 total yards”
Wow.
Just wow.
By The BBC on Nov 18, 2007
Ignorance, arrogance and delusion. Meechigan’s trademarks; and this picture shows it.
By Brutus42 Day on Nov 18, 2007
i’ve heard rumor that jake long gave up his first sack of his michigan career to gholston yesterday. can anyone verify this?
By darren on Nov 18, 2007
Before the game began I saw Hart kiss a man. I really did. I wish I had been recording it. I think it was his dad but it was still weird. Can anyone find it and post it to Youtube?
By Bobster on Nov 18, 2007
Darren – that rumor was started by Musberger during the game, who said, “I’ll bet that’s the first sack Long’s given up all year.”
No facts, no stats, nothing, just “I’ll bet.”
My bet is no, he’s given up sacks before. Last year UM gave up 24 sacks, this year they’ve given up 24, too. Long’s been there four years… so it seems unlikely that in ~80-100 sacks over four years none of them have been through Long. VG got him three times yesterday.
By sportsMonkey on Nov 18, 2007
I actually remember watching this play and saying to my friends “how is it possible that we get that kind of penetration?”
By Pfef on Nov 18, 2007
Actually, I think the sack Long gave up on Saturday was actually given to Dexter Larimore, but I’m not sure.
By Tom on Nov 19, 2007
My first thought after seeing this picture on Sunday was that it’s not that big of a deal, because it was a screen pass.
Then I watched the game on the ESPNU replay yesterday. It was a run.
I don’t know how we did that. I really don’t.
By jcarver27 on Nov 20, 2007
jcarver – I saw on a UM forum that this play was the “standard” zone stretch, where the blockers go left (or right), leaving the defender in front of them for the man behind to pick up. The FB picks up the odd man, and the RB chooses his own crease.
One weakness of the zone blocking scheme is that (1) you need a stud RB who has a knack for choosing the right crease, and (2) it can be exploited by really fast linemen, because they can get behind the blockers before they get to their positions & disrupt the blocking patterns.
You’ll notice that both the center and the guard have engaged OSU’s right tackle, and are pushing him “left.” The FB is about to pick up OSU’s DE. But the overall speed has still allowed three or four defenders into the backfield, where Hart has nowhere to go.
The zone blocking scheme works sometimes, but reliance on it can make for spectacular failure, like what happened Saturday (15 total yards rushing).
To me, the picture is a better example of which team was coached better. OSU was clearly instructed on how to blow up UM’s favorite scheme, while UM was ill-prepared for executing it properly (which there is no excuse for, since the play has been their bread-and-butter for three years).
By sportsMonkey on Nov 20, 2007
Gholston most certainly beat Long on one of his sacks. The one when Henne moved to his right (towards the camera) and got run down from behind by VG. Latimore may have gotten a sack while Long was blocking him as well. That would be 2 sacks given up in a game.
By rick@halftime adjustments on Nov 20, 2007