December 29th, 2013 at 2:08 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:36 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 1:55 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:10 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:42 AM ^
I was initially really happy with the Mattison hire, but I really just can't take watching losing football that implements a bend but don't break philosophy. I consider it lazy, losing football. That style is good for the 8-4 and 9-3 seasons, but is not championship caliber football. Don't tell me you need 4 and 5 star dbs to be aggressive with blitzes, because somehow MSU has been able to have an aggressive defense with lesser stars.
A vast majority of the National Championship Teams have steller defenses that blitz and are aggressive in coverage. Look at the attacking style of Alabama, Auburn (when they crushed Oregon), OSU (vs. Miami), etc. You don't see teams that play off the ball winning championships. Even MSU figured it out with lesser talent and developed them into the style they wanted and won against a far more talented OSU team.
Maybe Mattison is a dinosaur? Bend but don't break burns clock and keeps the score low, but doesn't win championships. Aggressive defenses cause turnovers and make their breaks. They don't hope the other team makes a mistake. They force the issue.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 1:56 AM ^
The defense sucked all season. They were RR bad in the last two games. Just cuz he was at the Ravens doesan't make him great. The evidence of the regression of the defense says he is as bad as Borges if not worse.
Not one coach on this staff is doing a good job. It might be time for a true NON-MIchigan coach. Someone who knows football and doesn't care about traditions and history that DON'T MATTER WHEN YOU DON'T WIN!!!
December 29th, 2013 at 8:32 AM ^
"The defense sucked all season. They were RR bad in the last two games."
Actually, Michigan is #41 in total defense nationally.
Additionally, Ohio State had a season scoring average of 48 points (we held them to 42). Kansas State had scored 35, 41, 49, 33, 31, and 31 points in their six games leading up to the bowl game (we allowed 31). Those aren't great performances, but they're not all-time terrible like Rodriguez's, either.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^
The fact that we held KSU to 31 is all smoke and mirrors. They punted once the entire game. What was the third down conversion rate, it must have been incredible. The Michigan Defense failed in every big situation throughout the year:
Indiana - The defense never put up any real resistence the entire game. If it wasn't for a record setting output by the offense that game is a loss.
PSU - 10 point lead in the 4th Qtr with epic collapse at the end of regulation.
MSU - Tight game in the first half. Then they give up a TD drive with less than 2 minutes left before the half with MSU getting the ball to start the 2nd half. At the start of the 2nd half when you needed a stop to keep it close, MSU rolled down the field for a FG. A 10 point lead before UM got the ball back on offense pretty much sealed the deal.
Iowa - 21-7 halftime lead only to give it all back and blow the game in the second half.
Nebraska - The Michigan offense was bad but managed to go ahead late in the game. Michigan defense collapsed and let Nebraska go right down the field.
OSU - Defense gives up tying score before the half then lets OSU build a 14 point lead. Michigan tied the game late and OSU went right down the field for the go ahead score before we get another late touchdown. The defense virtually never stopped OSU. Only giving up 42 points to OSU was a product of our offense having success against them and burning a lot of clock and limiting possessions by OSU.
Making a comment that Michigan did its job by holding OSU to 42 is just plain silly. Any decent offense that UM faced this year ripped them apart on the field. The KSU game is not close if not for some turnovers by KSU in the second half.
Defensive stats are as much about the offensive philosophy as the defensive philosophy. If you play ball control and burn clock, there is less opportunity for the opposing team to score. That really has little to do with the defenses ability to stop you, but makes the stats look better. Also a bend but don't break defense works the same. It bleeds clock and keeps the score in check, but does nothing to win games (death by a 1000 cuts). The rankings really mean nothing. The only stats that matter are wins and losses and whether or not you stopped a team at crucial points in a game.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
You're putting words in my mouth. The previous poster said that the defense sucked all season. That is, in fact, not true. You can try to calibrate for pace of the game, score, etc., but you would also have to do that for every other team you're comparing them to, every other season you're comparing them to, etc. It was not my statement that Michigan's defense did a great job. I said they didn't suck.
December 29th, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^
Why don't you just shut the fuck up
December 29th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
Because I don't want to.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
I just want to thank you for consistently being a knowlegeable, fact-based voice-of-reason. I can barely make it through the echo chamber of vitriol that most of these threads are right now, and posters like you are one of the reasons I'm still here.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:59 PM ^
It's actually misleading. Giving the overall statistics for the defense doesn't really tell the whole story as I indicated. If you want to discuss stats that matter, the discussion is around the defensive performance when the game was on the line. The defense failed this year. Conservative defenses can appear to be better statistically then they actually were on the field.
I have also seen posts arguing about Green being better than Smith, but when the data was presented on YPC, Smith's longest run was removed, but Green's was not. That is manipulating the data to fit your narrative, not actually looking at the reality of the situation.
I believe in stats, but you always need to look at the big picture, not just a narrow interpretation. You have to look at how those performances impacted the outcome of the games.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^
Speaking of misrepresentation...
The discussion you're talking about was specifically about De'Veon Smith and his breaking of tackles. I said something to the effect of "Other than his 38-yard run against Ohio State, I haven't seen him break many tackles." You just added in the part about the comparison to Green, and voila, you were arguing against yourself.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^
Well, thanks. Considering you have 58 points in over two years here, I'll take it as a compliment that you came out of lurker mode to say that.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:56 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 1:57 AM ^
I personally thought Borges should have been fired after the Ohio State game last year, and I've been a huge proponent of firing him ever since. However, this season it has become clear that the entire team is regressing and this lands squarely on Hoke. He is not a good D1 coach, and this entire staff needs to be blown up.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:06 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:11 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:02 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:29 AM ^
Unfortunately this staff is among the highest in all the land. Don't think we are getting top 10 football.
December 29th, 2013 at 8:33 AM ^
You don't know what you're talking about.
December 29th, 2013 at 8:49 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
We are really past the Bo coaching tree at this point from a hiring perspective. The bigger problem that I see is the Lloyd Carr coaching tree. I can not remember to many of his assistants going somewhere else and being successful other than Hoke with modest results. If Michigan continues down the michigan man path, I am not sure you get a championship caliber coach. Hoke was really the best shot coming out of the Carr era.
The best options all appear to be from outside the Michigan family, with the exception of Harbaugh. But even Harbaugh was not from the Carr tree even though he wanted to be.
I think this may be the biggest failing of the program in the Carr era. The inability to develop anyone under Carr that could come back and run the program. I am not sure if he just didn't have many high end coaches on his staff or if he was more focused on making sure no one overshadowed him.
December 29th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:20 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^
look at the rest of his seasons though..
December 29th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:07 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 4:30 AM ^
After this season. At least expectations will be low going into next season. We will not be ranked in the top 50.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:08 AM ^
Was Mattison making so many player substitutions when the Michigan defense was ranked #17 in 2011 and #13 in 2012? Was there less "bend don't break," then?
December 29th, 2013 at 2:14 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:45 AM ^
The defense wasn't great this year, but I'm wondering what's different besides the players.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^
I don't believe he was making so many substitutions. And if you look at the tackle totals, it seems that the totals for the starters were higher and less spread out. I remember the WILL linebacker spot being a revolving door (Herron, Hawthorne, Morgan), but that was more from game to game than series to series. And Mike Martin rarely seemed to come out of the game.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:10 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:23 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:38 AM ^
Let's think about this for a second: When was the last time another program actually wanted to try to hire our head coach away from us? When was the last time a Michigan coach was a publicly sought commodity?
Bo. 1982. Texas A&M.
Just think about that. 30 years. We've gotten by on coaches that were right for us, but wrong for everyone else. And, arguably, this iteration is by far the least prestigious and largest stretch at head coach we've had in decades.
Ask yourself this: If Brady Hoke were hired tomorrow, what program takes him on? Or are we looking at a guy who will go from head coach at Michigan to a DL position that could turn into another shot at the top years from now?
December 29th, 2013 at 2:52 AM ^
a) You have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. How do you know that some school didn't pursue Lloyd Carr or Rich Rodriguez behind the scenes?
b) At least during Carr's years, Michigan was a destination program. Carr didn't appear to be looking for other jobs, and there weren't really any other college jobs that were consistently superior and better situations than his.
c) We've only had four coaches since Bo Schembechler (Moeller, Carr, Rodriguez, Hoke). If one guy got fired after a very short period of time despite having success (Moeller), another guy wasn't going to leave because he's a native of the state (Carr), another had a bad run (Rodriguez), and the other just now finished his third year, who exactly do you think could have been ripe for the picking? What program was supposed to pick off Hoke after his 11-2 season. Alabama? LSU? USC? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't really give a rat's patoot whether another school has publicly tried to hire away our coach, because it's somewhat irrelevant and very circumstantial.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^
Of course it's relevant - great coaches are the targets of other school's hiring desires. True in football, and true in other professions too. Recent example: Saban to Texas and other pipe dreams.
If no one else wants a coach, it probably says something - and that something is not too positive.
Hoke would be the target for roughly 0 of the big openings this year, or frankly in any other year. That doesn't mean he can't succeed here, but it sure tells me something about his perceived abilities.
Or maybe just every other AD on the planet is really dumb.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
The reason I say it's not relevant is because Michigan wasn't in a situation where other teams would come pounding down the door to get those guys. Yes, I agree that other teams wanting your coach means your coach must be doing something right, but the circumstances suggested that a guy like Carr wasn't going anywhere, and Moeller didn't really have time to be courted by anyone before he got canned. And even if he had been, Michigan was in such good shape at that point that he, too, would have had no reason to leave.
It's relevant.
It's just not relevant to Michigan over the past 20 years.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:24 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:53 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:54 AM ^
Who cares?
December 29th, 2013 at 7:40 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^