Infamy Is Immortality Too Comment Count

Brian

11/8/2014 – Michigan 10, Northwestern 9 – 5-5, 3-3 Big Ten

large[1]

College football is for remembering. It stands alone in its brevity—even the NFL has you play your division-mates twice. Every year you play a team and then you have glory or death until next year. You can pick any game of remote interest and your friend will say "oh, THAT game" because it is also lodged in his brain.

This happens in other sports but as you add in more and more games, more and more of them are thrown down the memory hole. Hell, even last year's highly memorable basketball season has a number of events in it that I couldn't tell you anything about without looking it up. We beat Stanford? I guess we did.

In football the only things that disappear like that are the tomato can games. Others are notable only in the context of some guy's career. If I say "the Jerome Jackson game" you know it's that Iowa game Michigan won in overtime. "That one time Alain Kashama did something" was the Citrus Bowl win over Ron Zook's Florida. There are of course the titanic battles whose aftershocks rattle down the centuries, and depressing blowouts and fun blowouts and etc.

And then there's this game. This game will also rattle down the centuries, for… reasons. You will poke your buddy and say "hey man remember the M00N game," carefully enunciating the zeroes, and your buddy will either laugh or give you a sharp punch on the arm, depending on his mood.

Immortality comes in all kinds of ways.

-------------------------------------

15743410241_601992c4bf_k

FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU [Bryan Fuller]

Well, I'm in this to be entertained. And I cannot deny that Saturday was highly entertaining.

By the time the teams had exchanged boggling turnovers at the end of the first half I was giggling. The field goal block sent me into chuckles. The fumble of off Funchess's hip got me up to a guffaw, and when Northwestern followed a boggling Gardner interception by going backwards 30 yards and punting into the endzone I had to lie down and remember to breathe.

It was disappointing when M00N ceased being a potential final score, but at least it came on a terrible error—a muffed punt. Anything skillful breaking the deadlock would have been unjust. My wife was peeved, because she is not a True Fan™ and wanted to see a 0-0 regulation. I kind of did, too. Not every day you see something like that.

It is every day that Michigan finds itself in a football game hardly recognizable as sports. When you bring up the M00N game to your buddy you will probably be making a point about the descent into unwatchable dreck that was the last two years of the mercifully short Hoke era.

This is Hoke's version of RichRod's gloriously futile 67-65 win over Illinois. Both games were narrow, pyrrhic victories over bad opponents punctuated by two-point conversion stops. Both showed off the abilities of the team's good unit against an overmatched opponent and the total lack of ability of the team's miserable unit. And both were the same kind of delirious fun that sees you wake up naked in a haystack the next morning, with no idea where you are or even what month it is. Or where your hair is.

Nothing about that Illinois game changed Rodriguez's trajectory, and this won't move any needles either. Michigan's been plunged into a disaster of their own making and shows no signs of climbing out. That they've encountered a couple of teams even more BIG TEN(!) than themselves of late says more about the league than this outfit. It's no surprise that the other two teams Michigan's beaten in Big Ten play faced off in one of the ugliest games of the year immediately before M00N.

At least we've got a symbol now. Any time anyone wants to reference how far Michigan's come since they led the nation in TFLs allowed and somehow got worse the next year just needs two letters and a couple zeroes.

HIGHLIGHTS?

Via MGoVideo:

[After THE JUMP: but what if Hoke wins out?]

OTHER BITS

15744863215_8052586b79_z

Hoke back? Pat Fitzgerald handing out hot dogs has an equal chance of being Michigan's coach next year [Bryan Fuller]

Par for the course. With much of last week given over to insider types saying But What If Hoke Wins Out (Or Makes A Bowl), I guess we have to talk about But What If Hoke Wins Out (Or Makes A Bowl).

It doesn't matter. Or, at least it shouldn't matter.

Michigan's wins this year are over Appalachian State, Miami (Not That Miami), a sanctions-crippled Penn State, Indiana down to its fifth string QB, and now Northwestern. They have been blown out in four of their five losses, with the fifth coming against Rutgers. There is no combination of results left that looks like anything other than a huge regression in year four, and nobody is going to buy the narrative of improvement after wins like Saturday's. Even if Michigan plays like an entirely different team against Ohio State and beats the Buckeyes, it's still over.

I can guarantee none of this. The last time I guaranteed anything based on common sense I was promising everyone Brady Hoke had a 0.0% chance of being hired. Not so much. And we know nothing about Jim Hackett.

But you know what just went out? Season ticket deposit letters. You know what's not getting sent back immediately? Way more of those than usual. That more than anything else will demand a change.

In case you're Marcus Ray. Ohio State just annihilated Michigan State's defense to the tune of 49 points to take a commanding lead in the division race. They did this with:

  • A redshirt freshman QB
  • Two sophomores in the backfield
  • An OL with 11 collected years on campus compared to Michigan's 10

The only area in which OSU is more experienced than Michigan is at WR, where they have a couple seniors in Evan Spencer and Devin Smith plus a fifth-year TE, and even there Michigan has third-year players.

This is not Rodriguez's fault. Hell, the OL has gone two weeks without allowing any pressure at all. And it's not Devin Gardner's fault that there's no quarterback on the roster who's even vaguely plausible as a replacement.

The final play. Michigan had it dead to rights. Clark bolted for the corner on the snap; the America's-rollout-out guy was bracketed, and Delano Hill had the throwback option to the tight end:

qtbhxtop2jad7qsjmbiv[1]

Northwestern had run a similar play on a third down conversion earlier and had a two point attempt in last year's game that was pretty close; Michigan was prepped for it. Mattison has pulled out the right playcalls in critical situations against Northwestern—remember the weird 3-3-5 that stuffed Northwestern's triple option a couple years back?  

WTFunchess. Two flat-out drops that hampered the Michigan offense even more than usual. He doesn't seem to be there mentally… though I can't say he's 100% checked out after watching a replay of the second Gardner interception and seeing him run 80 yards just to hit Campbell as hard as possible. But he's not playing at all like the guy who's supposedly a first round draft pick.

OL tho? No sacks and very little pressure for a second straight week; the run blocking was okay. I did not think the OL had a good outing against Indiana on the ground, but they did pick up a ton of six man pressures. I don't think that's going to mean too much against OSU's rampant DL, unfortunately.

15746637662_d36c825d22_z

Smith undoubtedly ground out three more yards here [Fuller]

Smith vs Johnson. Michigan's battle of the running backs with the generic names went to Smith. Smith's prime ability is grinding through piles of limbs to pick up two more yards after contact than is reasonable to acquire and it was on frequent display in this one. He's real slow and has those vision issues, but he was pretty effective in this game.

I don't really blame him for the fourth down stuff since he's in a situation where he needs six inches and a bounce, while profitable in retrospect, is much more variable. If AJ Williams doesn't fall over we aren't talking about this because Michigan gets a first down. Yes, he's slow. He can't do anything about that.

Meanwhile, Michigan tried to get Johnson outside. He got a lot of counter stuff and other plays that test the edge as Michigan deployed his speed. That was dubiously effective once Northwestern figured it out, and then Johnson fumbled.

Hayes disappeared again and like… whatever man.

Interceptions. The Butt one wasn't the worst thing in the world. Ryan's pick was pretty horrendous on Siemian's part, and then Gardner's second interception was just… wow. Northwestern had busted hard and left Bo Dever wide open just next to Canteen; Gardner did not read it.

The play of the game. Mason Cole got over to cease Campbell's INT return, thus saving Michigan a full seven points despite that tackle coming on the 20.

Frank Clark & Jake Ryan. Hi guys. Sorry you have to be on this team instead of one with a functional offense.

HERE

Best And Worst:

It was just a terrible game.  And it just sucked all around for both teams, particularly on offenses.  Devin Gardner had the worst passing performance this year against the Wildcats, and that includes an under-fire Christian Hackenberg, the yipp-tacular combined efforts of Wisconsin QBs, and whomever was the 8th-string walk-on Poli Sci QB who took the last three snaps of NW's preseason scrimmage.  He threw 2 really bad INTs, had a couple more passes that should have been picked (including one that should have been taken to the house to end the first half), and never looked comfortable with any of his receivers.

I cannot stress how bad of a performance this was; I will always defend Devin Gardner in aggregate, but in this game Michigan could have replaced him with a trebuchet made out of Gatorade bottles, athletic tape, Ro*Tel cheese, and Haas avocados and gotten a more complete performance out of a field general.  I hope something comes out during this off week that he's injured, that he lost a contact in the first quarter and didn't have a free pair, that an international cabal is holding someone he cares hostage, something to explain how he went 11/24 for 109 yards and 2 interceptions, resulting in a QBR rating of 5.2.  To put that into perspective, Joel Stave's 8/19-115 yards-1 TD/3 INT performance against NW was a 10.1.

Inside the Box Score:

Michigan's defense held Northwestern to 95 yards total for their first 13 drives. 95 yards in 51 plays; that's less than 2 yards per play. (I is good at math.) One drive lasted 9 plays. One drive lasted 7 plays. No other drives lasted more than 6 plays. So, of course, on Northwestern's last two drives, they go 95 yards in 19 plays and 74 yards in 14 plays. 169 yards in 33 plays. That's better than 5 yards per play after demonstrating complete futility all game long. Of course that happened, because this was the Michigan-Northwestern game.

ELSEWHERE

Hoover Street Rag:

In the end, Michigan won.  Michigan has lost just four times to Michigan in their last 35 meetings.  I have clear and vivid memories of each of those four losses:
2008: Fandom Endurance III
2001: A-Train Fumble
1996: We just lost to you LAST YEAR!
1995: Luther Van Dammit
The only other team that I have this precise a memory of losses to is Minnesota, and that is mostly Jug related.  If you'd like to make the argument that Michigan should be 0-3 against Northwestern over the last three years, you'd very well be on to something.  And yet, here we are.  Football is a strange game, deserving to win does not assure that you will.  Northwestern did everything they could to give this game to Michigan, and Michigan did everything they could to give the game back to Northwestern.

M Go Girl:

It's that love/hate/respect fine line you could feel during the Schembechler years that we're missing now. I don't feel we need a carbon copy of Bo or Woody or Bear or Ara to be great again. We need someone who's going to be tough, sometimes hated, often loved, and always respected. Who that is, I don't know. Jim Harbaugh would certainly have some of those traits. I'm sure there are others who would, too.

Touch The Banner:

Offensive line improvement. Michigan fans may not like to hear it, but this offensive line is getting better. The Wolverines did a good job of keeping pressure off of Gardner, and they were opening up decent-sized holes in the running game. Northwestern did not get a ton of penetration, and while they don't have any huge playmakers on the defensive line, this still represents a step forward for Michigan. Fans who want head coach Brady Hoke and offensive line coach Darrell Funk gone after this season are not gathering convincing evidence on the field from the offensive line. Of course, Michigan's skill players aren't doing much with the holes provided, either.

Sap's Decals:

DE’VEON SMITH – Now you know why coaches like Bo and Bill Parcells loved to have a strong running game. When you can close out a game, or at least milk the clock, it puts pressure on the opposing team to either use all their timeouts late in the game or drive the length of the field to win. Smith has given the Michigan offense the strength and stability it desperately needs – especially when U-M’s QB is basically playing on one leg.

The Daily's Alexa Dettelbach:

…most glaring of all, in Michigan’s ugly, ugly, ugly 10-9 win Saturday, was that Brady Hoke wasn’t doing much clapping during the game. And when Hoke isn’t clapping, you know you have a problem. The players certainly seem to recognize that much.

Pat Fitzgerald is feeling some heat now. Northwestern fans are wondering about kicking the field goal from the four, for one. At least the third down wasn't, like, supposed to be a checkdown:

Fitz said that the seemingly inexplicable short throw on third-and-goal before the field goal was a max blitz and Trevor Siemian checked it down. Siemian confirmed it was a checkdown. "Probably should have just thrown it into the endzone and given our guys a chance."

Lake The Posts:

By now you can imagine how nuts my own wife thinks I am. After tailgating all morning and lugging our three girls to a marathon of a Northwestern-Michigan game at Ryan Field she has had more than enough. My 9-year-old daughter turned to me before the start of the fourth quarter and said “Daddy, I think these are two pretty bad teams playing a very bad game”.  I didn’t know what to say other than “I agree”.

Michigan is playing with "nothing to lose," which is… accurate. More on the last play from Clark.

Basketball? Basketball.

Comments

rdlwolverine

November 10th, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^

I think Gardner injured his shoulder in the Notre Dame game.  Early in that game his passes were crisp and accurate.  They have not been so for the entire year since then.  His only accurate throws have been ones that he lofts.  That, to me, is the explanation as to why his mechanics are screwed up.  He did put some zip on the ball to Funchess that came just before the touchdown, but he sidearmed it.  To me, that is a sign (one of many) of a shoulder injury.  As a Washington Nationals fan, watching Gardner throw has been like watching Ryan Zimmerman at 3B the last couple years, inaccurate throws, no zip, sidearming.  He doesn't have the arm strength to throw the balls described by WiE because of injury.  He used to be able to make those throws.  Michigan has only thrown a handful of deep balls since Notre Dame because he can't make the throw.

funkywolve

November 11th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

I agree that Meyer does of heck of a job developing QB's in college but I think the jury is still out on whether they are NFL worthy.  The only QB Meyer has had in college that stuck around the NFL is Smith, and really Smith was a bust until Harbaugh turned his career around.

Glennsta

November 10th, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^

He has been throwing shot-puts instead of passes his whole career, healthy or not. Now and then, he'll go on a streak where he looks like a normal QB but he reverts to his usual poor form. 

I just wonder what this year's offense would look like if it had a competent QB. The OL seems to be generating some surge, receivers seem to be getting open.  We'll never know.

Reader71

November 10th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^

The coaches are trying to save their jobs. They think wins might do that. And they think Harder gives them the best chance. It is also about the players. Benching Gardner gives the team less of a chance to win, and thus less of a chance to play in a bowl game and fewer practice. No Michigan player doesn't want to play in a bowl game. And it's about the seniors. Those guys have 2 game left, and maybe a third. Most will never get to walk through that tunnel after next Saturday. Sending them out with a win would be really nice. Trust me, there isn't a day that goes by that old ballplayers don't think about touching the banner, being in the stadium, wearing that uniform, and playing for Michigan. Even in a bad season, these games are important to those kids, particularly the guys whose time is almost up.

westwardwolverine

November 10th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^

"No Michigan player doesn't want to play in a bowl game"

A few players pretty much admitted they didn't want to be at last year's bowl game. I doubt it will be much different this year playing in whatever bowl 6-6 gets us. 

I know you have a romantic notion of what it is to be a Michigan player, but it doesn't always match reality. 

I guess we submarine the future of the program a little further. This is a good reason to get rid of Hoke right now. 

Reader71

November 10th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^

Just because they said that does not mean that they will feel that way when they are my age. That's why adults run the program instead of kids. Protecting kids from their stupid selves is a pretty big part of college coaching. In college, I wanted to bang every co-ed I could and never wear a rubber. I was wrong. I caught the clap 5-6 times and my dong was running like a busted pipe. Peeing made my urethra burn hotter than a lit match. Anyone who said they didn't want to play in a bowl game was wrong.

Reader71

November 10th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^

Sorry, that is just the first thing to come to mind. I have a hard time believing that anyone on the team did not want to play in the bowl game. I think its very likely that a lot of them were unhappy with the season and unhappy with the bowl itself. But I cannot imagine a single person, of any generation, preferring to sit at home. And yeah, I could be totally wrong. I'm not trying to speak for everyone. In the context of my first post, my claims about the players is really a claim about the coaches: that they are doing it for the players, whether the players like it or not. And part of that is because most of those coaches played football and realize how important the last few games of your career are., even if you don't.

westwardwolverine

November 10th, 2014 at 2:24 PM ^

Well, if you played during Brady Hoke's time at Michigan - which I believe you said you did - these are the bowls you might have played in:

1995 - Alamo Bowl against #18 Texas AM

1996 - Outback Bowl against #15 Alabama

1997 - Rose Bowl against #7 Washington State

1998 - Citrus Bowl against #11 Arkansas

1999 - Orange Bowl against #5 Alabama

2000 - Citrus Bowl against #20 Auburn

2001 - Citrus Bowl against #8 Tennessee

2002 - Outback Bowl against #20 Florida

Those are exciting games against ranked opponents at a time when there were only 18 bowls (by 2002 they were up to 29 and are now at 39). 

Now it seems like its more of just a thing and thats why guys last year weren't all that excited to hit the BWW bowl. 

bdstain

November 10th, 2014 at 2:48 PM ^

I know thats always a major reason given for why getting into any bowl game is important.  Based on what I've seen the last 4 years with this staff that may not be valid in this case.  I don't think 4 more weeks of "development" with Hoke in charge will help. 

jmblue

November 10th, 2014 at 3:07 PM ^

Practice, even with a mediocre staff, is better than not being able to practice.  This staff may not be developing these guys as much as it potentially could, but they're not going to develop more working out on their own with no coaching.

M-GoGirl

November 10th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^

I think plenty of Michigan players would rather stay home and study than be the Michigan team that qualified for and was invited to (though not necessarily favored to win) the Ford Quick Lane Bowl in Detroit.  Bowl committees normally love Michigan because of the fans they draw all over the country. Given the quality of this year's play, Michigan may not be as attractive to a good bowl because it's not even attractive to its own fans. 

Ugh. At least a burger and a beer at Nemo's, a shuttle ride to Ford Field, and tickets to the game are a Michigan Bowl package I could afford.

Glennsta

November 10th, 2014 at 8:42 PM ^

It's one thing to say you're disppointed to go to a crappy bowl after you've had a crappy season that earns you that bowl spot.  It's completely another to say that you would rather sit home even if you are bowl-eligible because you feel the bowl is beneath the dignity of the program.

After this week's performance, there isn't a bowl out there that is below this team.

champswest

November 10th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

because I think you should earn your playing time.  If I was coaching, neither Devin would have started the second half against Northwestern.  I would put both of them on second team today and tell them that they have 2 weeks to show me why I should let them start, let alone play.

With Gardner's current level of play, I go with Morris.  At least you would be giving him some experience for his role next year as a back up.  Devin isn't even a threat to run with the ball.  Shane is a better runner at this point and I know that he could have delivered that deep ball.

MI Expat NY

November 10th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^

I think Morris at least has to get a possession or two in the first half of the Maryland game.  And that's being said knowing full well that he hasn't shown anything to indicate he's even a viable option at QB.  Morris has had to have shown something at some point to get the Minnesota start (our coaches are not so dumb as to make that change if they've only seen the bad version of Morris that we have seen in his limited playing time).  It's time to see if there's anything there.  After all, somebody is going to have to play QB next year...

I would start Gardner, it is senior day and the kid deserves it.  Let them split reps in the first half.  If they look equal maybe split reps in the second half or even go with Morris.  If one looks significantly better, he's your guy the rest of the season. 

JFW

November 10th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

I'm a former Hoke supporter. I still think he's a decent guy. 

 

But I'm afraid if there is any hope for Morris we have to not have this staff actively developing him in this offense. They've arguably wrecked Gardner. I'd like whatever coach comes in to have a fresh shot with Morris, not a reclamation job of a kid whose shell shocked by the last few games in a season. 

M-Dog

November 10th, 2014 at 7:14 PM ^

I just wonder what is gained by playing Devin Gardner at this point

Devin has only 2/3 more games left at Michgan.  Hoke knows that he aslo has only 2/3 more games left at Michgan as well.  He's letting Devin play out his last few games at Michigan.  Nothing to lose.  Might as well give a true warrior his due.  I actually respect that.

Ty Butterfield

November 10th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^

I read the whole write up at Lake the Posts. Good observations from the Northwestern side of things. The author notes that on the 2 point conversion attempt Northwestern was out coached by Michigan. In this case I would agree, but it is just funny seeing another fan base lament that they were out coached by Brady Hoke.

Magnus

November 10th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^

You can't have it both ways.

Either the head coach is responsible, or he's not. You can't give Mattison credit for the defensive play calling, but then blame Hoke for the offensive play calling. The fact is that he doesn't actually call any of the plays offensively or defensively.

So which is it going to be? Did Hoke's defensive coaching stop Northwestern? Or was it Doug Nussmeier's offense that allowed Northwestern to hang around?

RobSk

November 10th, 2014 at 2:11 PM ^

This is absolutely 100% true.

Somehow though, in my head, I manage to blame Hoke for all the longer term stuff, and give Mattison/Nussmeier credit when individual things go right. I realize how dumb it is, but I keep doing it.

        Rob

mich_engineer

November 10th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^

I think this misses the point - no, Hoke can't be blamed for specific bad play calls on offense (nor credited for good ones), but what he CAN be blamed for is the offensive philosophy generally (barring evidence that he is 100% hands-off, which we have not seen), and his retention of position coaching staff, who are largely responsible for invidual player development; thus, Hoke bears significant responsibility for the lack of player development himself.

 

Speaking for myself, I do not think that specific offensive play calls are that big of a problem this year, e.g., no "throw the damn bubble screen" issues.  Instead, I think that the offense is permeated by a general malaise, lack of identity / trying to force an identity that they truly are not, and lack of improvement at the individual level.  I believe that those items can be laid at Hoke's feet.

 

However, in the instance of the 2-point conversion, it was a specific play call that had it dead to rights - such play calling being the sole responsibility of Greg Mattison.  Therefore, it is proper to credit Greg Mattison for making that play call.  Likewise, Hoke can be credited with player development, general philosophical issues, and morale on the defense.  IMO, credit for that last play goes 40% to Mattison (right players in the right place); 50% to the players (made the play that they were put in a position to make); and 10% to Hoke (general good defensive juju + good defensive philosophy).

Magnus

November 10th, 2014 at 2:43 PM ^

I really do believe that Hoke is essentially "hands off" when it comes to offense. He was a linebacker in college, and he has been a defensive line coach. He has said that he leaves the offense to his coordinators.

Yes, there is a general philosophy that he likes to use (big formations, big running backs, etc.), but the play calling and such are left to Nussmeier.

mich_engineer

November 10th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

I agree with you generally; it would be an interesting debate over how much Hoke's philosophy has been to the credit or detriment of the offense as a whole, and one of the questions I would like answered most is what level of control Hoke exercises over the offense, and how that effects the play calling.  For example, is Nussmeier constrained in the formations/plays he is permitted to call on game day?  During practice?

 

In short, my response was generally meant to point out that individual coaches CAN be credited for things that they individually did correctly, and this does not necessarily mitigate any criticisms of Hoke, especially as their responsibilites differ drastically.  I personally feel that in the case of the 2-point conversion, Mattison does deserve significant credit, and this doesn't lessen any criticism of Hoke regarding the issues that are in his domain.

 

Another fun debate would be whether having a head coach be 90-100% hands-off to an entire facet of the game is a good thing or not, e.g., what is the success rate of "delegator" coaches in the long and short term compared to "control freak" coaches who interject themselves in every possible area.  My personal opinion is that the "delegator" coach may achieve short-term success, but ultimately his fate rests on continually making good hires for the area in which he is not involved, which may lead to lack of long-term stability due to successful coordinators being hired away for bigger and better things (if that coordinator isn't getting offers elsewhere, that head coach likely isn't very successful).

jackw8542

November 10th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^

Hoke is responsible for the overall game plan.  He has to coordinate between Nussmeier and Mattison (and the rest of the coaches) to create what he believes to be a comprehensive plan on how to approach each game.  Many head coaches script out a significant number of plays and go into the game intending to run that certain series of plays. 

The coordinators are responsible for implementing the game plan.  It is hard to see, though, how the head coach can avoid responsibility for the overall plan itself. 

As to individual plays in specific situations, there can be little doubt that Mattison called the defense to be employed on the 2 point conversion attempt.  If Hoke did his job during the week, he would have insured that his coordinators were aware of what kinds of plays or defenses NU would be likely to use in all of the situations reasonably likely to be faced in the game, including how it was likely to approach a 2 point conversion attempt.  As to that particular play, Hoke probably does deserve some credit, along with Mattison.

AZ-Blue

November 10th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^

To use a miliary analogy, Hoke is the General pacing the sidelines, silent, arms folded, clapping occasionally, watchng events unfold while Mattison and Nuss are Colonels actually directing the troops?  

We tried changing the OC and that got us nothing and indicates the problem is Hoke there. We all know Hoke is a Dline coordinator at heart so  we expect the D line to excel.  Clearly though, he struggles with motivating his offensive players and coaches to succeed.  That's his role as you say since he's hands-off at game time.

I think we can both call for Hoke's dismissal as HC while simultaneously congratulating the defensive successes.

Magnus

November 10th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^

"I think we can both call for Hoke's dismissal as HC while simultaneously congratulating the defensive successes."

That's not really the point, though. The point is that Hoke is either in charge or he's not. 

In my opinion, Hoke is in charge of the defense that is playing well. He's also in charge of the offense that is playing poorly. Mattison and Nussmeier also have large roles in that. Call for Hoke's head if you want, but that doesn't mean every part of his coaching tenure has been a failure.

I said the same thing during the Rodriguez tenure. Ultimately, he failed as a coach at Michigan, but he still recruited some good players, installed an offense that could be exciting at times, etc. Rodriguez was responsible for Scott Shafer's failure, Greg Robinson's failure, etc., but he was also at least partly responsible for Denard Robinson, David Molk, Taylor Lewan, etc.

leftrare

November 10th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^

Magnus, Brian or anybody else, I'm late to the thread about the Funchess fumble. Riddle me this: What was Miller's cue for snapping the ball directly into DF's passing body? Did DG call for it or was Miller watching the play clock run out? If the latter, is that common practice for a center? That Funchess was late in his motion is not something that occurred to me until somebody pointed it out (and others cocurred). But still, the snap was just so stupid looking.

Magnus

November 10th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^

It's hard to tell. From what I remember, it looked like Gardner was giving a verbal snap count. But it is possible that they were going on a silent count, meaning that once Gardner gave the signal, the choice of when to snap that ball would have been Miller's.

Anyway, I have a hunch that some of the blame lies on Gardner, but Funchess surely bears some of the blame, too. My guess is that Jack Miller was a bit of an innocent bystander in that situation.

leftrare

November 10th, 2014 at 9:01 PM ^

For the explanation, although it's still a little unclear, right?

 

The thing reminded me of watching someone cutting vegetables and then cutting themselves -- like an accident that you're watching happen, you somehow know it's going to happen and it happens.  (And then you say OHFERGODSAKES and hit fastback on your remote and watch it again, and again, and again .)  IIRC, Funchess was moving FAST.  The fact that he didn't have the play call and then had to catch up with it explains that; that's infuriating enough.

That it's actually a plausible idea that Gardner called the snap at exactly the wrong time -- if that's what happened I'm just dumbfounded in him.

If, OTOH, it was Miller snapping the ball spontaneously with authority to do so, I'm OK with that, but that's hard to believe too.

 

 

 

mGrowOld

November 10th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^

On an individual play you most certainly can.  For the entirety of the game I give Hoke credit for being responsible for a strong defensive performance and blame for the shitstorm we saw on offense.  For an individual play call however I either give credit or blame to the coordinator making the call because as you said, Hoke is largely hands off during the game itself.

It's not "having it both ways", rather it's looking at two different things.  One is the overall gameplan and the other is the speciific in-game play calls.