Yes, coaches should be like Ronin. If they ever fail, they need to disembowel themselves in front of that fanbase.
Everyone's Back Next Year, Including Gardner
According to Brady Hoke, the coaching staff will return intact next year:
"I anticipate (this) staff (to be back)," Hoke said after attending a UAW/Ford Child Identity Program event at Ford Field.
Asked again, if he does not anticipate any staff changes for the 2014 season, Hoke responded with the following: "Correct."
And so will Devin Gardner, guy who sent me that one email about how he could transfer and not sit out a year.
"He'll be back," he said.
With your level headed approach. Patience isn't our strong suit.
Patience may not be our strong suit, but it could very well be Hoke's downfall.
So, Hoke gets fired because the fans are impatient? Yay! Can't wait for that to happen /s
Who said anything about Hoke getting fired?
Did you have some other downfall in mind?
And to answer your question, scroll down a bit to the poster that says this is for the best because it will get Hoke fired sooner.
He meant that Hoke's patience would be his own downfall.
Even some of the most ardently anti-Hoke people know he's back for next year and possibly 2015. The only way he's let go before then is if he makes no changes to his staff and the offense is no better than this season, and the team loses 4+ games again.
I tend to agree with you but my biggest fear is an entire fanbase constantly ready to pounce on the first sign of adversity and the toxic environment that creates for the players and, more importantly, for recruiting. I think we will be better next year too regardless of that environment, but it may still be a rebuilding year (Hoke's 1st year recruits are still going to be Juniors and RS Sophmores). A loss here and there and the boo birds will come out, as will calls for Hoke to be fired.
My biggest fear during the transition from RR was that we'd get a hot name and immediately expect and demand success because of it. One of the things I like about Hoke was that he was under the radar enough that people would give him some breathing room to rebuild. 2011 kinda erased that, both in terms of resetting expections and also in terms of delaying the schematic transition.
The vast majority of the fan base(and our AD) are significantly less reactionary than this blog. Most of us understand the concept of context. Whoa is me x amount of losses against y team isn't quite as daunting in the context of year three following a .400 coach. Just like spouting Hoke's pedestrian pre-Michigan record didn't mean much in the context of him turning crap programs into contenders in 3 or 4 years.
To me, this is probably the last moment of vulnerability before this thing gets rolling, the last chance for the "Unacceptable" crew to screw this thing up. Sorry folks, in context 7 wins is somewhat disappointing....But it isn't a fireable offense. In a couple years it could be. But I'd bet money against such a season occurring.
You're right, 7 wins isn't a fireable offense for Hoke at this point. However, the historical lows the offense reached this season multiple times should be for the guy calling the plays.
The fact that our offense is so incredibly bi-polar suggests to me it's not on the OC as much as everyone thinks. Now, I'm not saying Al Borges is for sure the answer. But when we had GERG, our defense was almost equally bad every game. We did not have 4 or 5 games where we looked like we had one of the best defenses in the country.
But that has been the case with our offense this year. Against CMU, ND, Indiana, Minnesota and OSU (2 or 3 of those who have very good defenses) we looked like we couldn't be stopped. Hell, we gave up half of our possessions against UConn and still scored 28 points. We were 40th in the country in points scored despite almost leading the country in turnovers.
I know everyone hated Borges and Hoke mentioning "execution" during press conferences, but when our offense executed well, they were really tough to stop. I concede that the playcalling made me scratch my head plenty so the blame isn't completely off Borges, but if he was that bad, how do you explain ND and OSU, the two top defenses outside of MSU we faced all year?
I can see your point...to a point. I feel like Gardner had an awful day vs Akron and was totally snakebit. So he lost all confidence and defenses could smell it. The only remedy at that point was the run game, but with no threat to pass, teams teed up on our O-line with abandon and Fitz went nowhere. The problem I have with Borges and Funk is that they seemed basically hapless to coach the team out of it. They couldn't find any way better than running Fitz 27 for 27. They knew they couldn't pick up a blitz, yet they couldn't find a counter to it. Granted, they're young, and guys drop balls and miss assignments, but to lay it on the players implies a lack of talent, yet these players are still more talented than most of the teams they lined up against this year. To me, its obvious that lack of execution is definitely a coaching issue.
You're bringing up examples of teams that are terrible on defense, or at least were at that point in the season.
And our offense executed better when they weren't being asked to run into the middle of a stacked defensive front. Running lanes opened up in those games because there were fewer people in the box. Plus, Ohio State's pass defense has been pourous all year. It wasn't some fluke thing that just happened this week.
When an offensive coordinator more often than not playcalls to his team's weaknesses this far into his tenure, he's not very good. At all.
In college football, you don't need 5 years to turn around a program. There are scores of examples of it taking less than that, and it is not as if Hoke has wanted to for resources (e.g., cash money for assts). If Hoke goes 7-5 (and perhaps even 8-4 if he loses to ND, MSU and OSU), I think it's likely he is gone. The fan base will be apopletic, whether on this blog or off.
Hopefully that won't happen, but with all of our main rivals recently having very good/great seasons, three straight years of five losses does not keep your job. Not when your AD has 110,000 seats to fill.
Sadly that does seem to be the atmosphere these days, but I do disagree it doesn't take 5 years. It can take less, especially when you have pretty smooth transitions, but doesn't mean if it doesn't happen after 3 that it won't ever happen. The Carr to RR to Hoke whiplash will probably be one of the rougher transitions too, especially with the custom tailoring to Denard we did 2011 and 12.
7-5 will probably put Hoke on the hot seat next year, and it'll be a shame if that happens, because I think he can do great things with a couple more years.
Hoke doesn't have 2014 as another "rebuilding" year; he has to produce. UM needs to contend for a B1G title next year for his sake.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of single football coach in the last twenty years who put together three straight mediocre to below average seasons at one of the Top 40 schools in the country and kept their job. And that's what Hoke would have achieved if he goes 8-5, 7-6, 8-5. If you have an example, I'm all ears. Perhaps Bo Pellini, but his teams at least are semi-regularly in the conf championship game (which we haven't sniffed since it started).
And I don't think four years is unreasonable. In four years, you should have most (if not all) of "your" guys, from coaches to players. If "your" guys are still delivering 5 loss seasons, esp in the 4th or 5th best conference in the country, you've got a problem. And the problem is you.
I agree with you that that's the reality at the upper echelons of college ball these days, I just don't think it's necessarily right. Even in year 4, "your guys" might be playing, but they still make up probably just over half of the roster on a normal team. On this team with the weak 2010 and 2011 classes, that leaves you without a lot of depth and still a lot of youth. Granted, there should be some clear signs things are moving in the right direction by then, but deciding on the fate of Hoke on win-losses based on some arbitruary expectation is foolish, IMO.
Sark just did that and it got him the HC job at USC.
Talk about doing the same thing and expecting different results; chronic underperformer Kiffin to Sark...
I will say this, pretty much every BCS champion has been the result of one of those 3-4 year max turnarounds. Accounting for the fact that Les Miles took over Nick Saban's death machine. The only real exceptions are Miami, and even then Butch Davis had to deal with sanctions and come back from that, and Tennessee with Fulmer not needing a rebuilding job.
I think you have a pretty good idea if you have an elite coach after 3-4 years. You might not know you have a bad coach after 3 years, but I don't think, in this day and age, you're going to find many elite coaches struggling for the first 3-4 years of his tenure at a big-time football school.
I think you are correct.
There is a disconnect, however, in how people judge coaches. I wouldn't trade Brady Hoke for anyone. What he has done here has convinced me that he is an elite coach.
with other players in other, if similar, situations. The question is what is required, in terms of time and coaching and recruiting, to turn the Michigan program around starting in 2011.
You and I do not know the answer to that. No one, other than Hoke and Brandon, knows what their assessment of that task was in 2011 or is today.
If we take Hoke's statement about retention of staff at face value, and there is no reason not to, he clearly feels that his staff has performed well enough to return. He would not have made such a statement without Brandon's backing, which, based on Brandon's statement that Hoke would be here "for years to come" (after 2015), he clearly enjoys.
BTW. Based on Brandon's comments any notion that 2014 is "do or die" for Hoke clearly belong in some other reality. Brandon has put his chips behind Hoke for the extended future.
They may be wrong, but it seems clear that, at least this season, the guys in charge of the program feel that this staff is capable of getting to Indy and eventually beyond.
Should their assessment change then the staff will change, but not until after 2014.
Thus is the best news for anyone who wants Brady gone. With. Borges back, the odds of Brady lasting longer than next year has greatly diminished.
Disagree. Brady is here longterm. If after next year they need to find another OC, then they'll do exactly that.
Thus is the best news for anyone who wants Brady gone.
Be careful what you wish for. USC - which pledged to spend up to $6 million a year on a new coach - is settling for Sarkisian.
What were his other options? Yes, I'm probably firing some people, but I just haven't told them yet? Even, "we might make some pretty big changes, but I haven't made that decision yet" would be a crazy statement to make.
guy who sent me that one email about how he could transfer and not sit out a year.
Did said guy's name rhyme with "Base Jilliams"?
Spike Schlamenti. Thats how Brian knew he had opinions on things.
Well, Borges called the game like he was Mike Debord at a bowl game. A bunch of new stuff we've never seen that magically worked, which makes you wonder where it was the rest of the year, and also manages to take the heat off for another offseason.
Laugahable. Predictable. Sad.
There's a reason we repped the plays we did from week to week. It's what the coaches, with their finite practice time, want to get good at.
They will. Took them forever to show competence (NW game) but they will. Once Borges has the basics down, this offense will take off. But the basics have to be down.
To be fair, he's had a couple of years to get the basics down, and 12 games this season. If your basics take that long, you're doing them wrong.
Oh trust me, I'm not happy either. Disappointed with 7-5. We all should be.
When Denard is your QB, you don't really get the basics down yet.
And this offense certainly hummed at times this year. Searching for a decent interior OL combination (that never really becomes decent) or having your QB cough the ball up so much (don't get me wrong, I love DG) doesn't help your cause. Gibbons shanking FGs or Funchess forgetting how to catch for a game just add to it.
I'm not saying this team should be in the national championship. But if Funchess doesn't develop stone hands in Iowa City or Gibbons makes one of his game winning opportunities, and this is a 9-3 team right now, and we're all saying how we're one step away from prime time.
"It's what the coaches, with their finite practice time, want to get good at. They will."
I'm glad you have faith... but that is all it is - faith. A belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
In fairness, though, the "fire Borges" camp is asking for a leap of faith too. The question is whose leap is more reasonable.
What does the other side have faith on? That borges is an idiot who doesn't know how to design the most basic offense?
Should i be all capitals OUTRAGED at this UNACCEPTABLE performance?
The other side lacks faith in Borges and has faith that with the 3rd highest OC salary in the country we can attract someone better.
Both sides are basing their beliefs on pure faith without logical or material support.
Should you be outraged? Eh, that is up to you.
You probably should not make definitive factual type statements about things based completely in faith ("It's what the coaches, with their finite practice time, want to get good at. They will.)
I hope they will. I even have some faith they will... but I know a whole lot better than to emphatically state "They will" as if it is a foregone conclusion supported by evidence.
It's a leap of faith to assume the team will take a step forward in year 2 of running the WCO? If semantics irritate you so much, I encourage you to start a site of your own. I won't post there.
"It's a leap of faith to assume the team will take a step forward in year 2 of running the WCO?"
Yes, a complete leap of faith supported by zero material evidence.
I sure HOPE they do... but that hope is completely based in faith and desire.
Still, he hasn't lit the world on fire as an OC. Talent may have something to do with that, or other things, but Debord largely was not responsible for Michigan going the route they did against Florida.
Debord called more than one bowl game, you know.
I don't remember him really changing his offense much in bowl games. Maybe I'm wrong, but from 1997-1999 (including 2000 Orange Bowl) and 2006-2007, we were pretty consistent in how bowl games were called, at least that's how I remember it (2007 Rose Bowl for instance). And even the 2nd half of that Alabama game was called mostly because Michigan was losing by 14. When they tied it back up they kind of reverted back to the norm, if memory serves.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I just honestly don't remember any game outside the Florida game in which DeBord really changed up what Michigan did most of the season.
None of you have seen the best of Al Borges. Be patient.
Except we have. And the very fact that you make that comment means something is wrong with Mr. Borges.
I don't have the time to get into this chicken-and-egg argument with everyone on this site, and you are welcome to not believe me / disagree, but as space coyote has said, there are 2 schools of offensive thought
1) spread: score TD's every snap
2) Power football: impose your will, blow teams off the ball every snap
#2 is harder to get good at. Well, at least it's harder for a team in transition, like us. As a result, the offensive staff began the long process of having the team practice what they actually want them to do in games. Borges could've come out and done what you saw against OSU week to week, but they chose to focus on the meat and potatoes. Iso, Power, Off tackle right.
Everyone's pissed that Borges suddenly has the offense clicking on saturday. 600 yards, video game numbers. Did he suddenly remember how to score? That's not it. The coaches want the kids to learn the fundamentals, and put them in every gameplan to force them to learn it.
They don't want to trot out their A-grade, cream de la cream stuff for the Minnesotas of the world. They want to be able to rush for 200 yards every week. So that's the logic. Not saying that everyone should swallow that logic...just trying to explain.
Next season I'm pretty confident that they will be able to execute these basic staple plays better. When Michigan holds on to the ball for 30 mins time of possession every game and trots out an elite playmaking defense...
Just wait. Al Borges isn't Jim Bollman or Greg Davis.
How about trot out something functional in the 4th quarter against Penn State, or at all against MSU, or at all (outside of the opening possession of the 2nd half) against Nebrask, or Iowa? Why did it take an additional 10 games into the season to remember how to call plays to the offense's strengths, and away from its weaknesses?
is the question that needs answering. I suspect you will hear crickets.