Kansas State 31, Michigan 14
Photo via
Shane Morris had a solid debut as a starting quarterback.
He also led Michigan in rushing. By 29 yards. Over Devin Funchess.
The defense, meanwhile, couldn't put together a real stop until the second half. KSU receiver Tyler Lockett's three first-half touchdown receptions were more than enough to defeat the Wolverines on their own, as the offense fared no better, failing to reach 300 yards of total offense for the 11th time under Al Borges.
The 2013 season is mercifully over. Michigan finishes at 7-6, blown out by a mediocre Big 12 team. It's 1:30 in the morning. Goodnight, and here's to a better tomorrow.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 7:23 AM ^
Football is not like basketball where one guy can take over a game. The key to winning is to suppress your opponents' strengths and attack the weaknesses. WTF do you think all those A-gap blitzes were all season? You think opponents were going to just throw all their hopes on beating Taylor Lewan?
Thing is, Michigan's weakness on D was their D-line and unfortunately K-State had:
1) An efficient hybrid rushing attack that wasn't adequately covered in the Preview or FFFF despite being the bread-and-butter of their offense, and
2) An NFL receiver that unfortunately was just flat-out better than our CBs. Lockett has embarrassed CBs all season.
They pound it on the ground and Lockett just won't stay covered, so the key to beating K-State is to kill the plays early at the LoS. Unfortunately Michigan's D-line is a bad combination of young AND small (the big guys are young and the veterans are small), so this was a battle Mattison could do little about. It's not like blitzing is a magic sauce; it all starts with a D-line push.
On offense. . . freshman QB making first start in a bowl game. They started off well with the short-n'-easy stuff but honestly did anyone think K-State wasn't going to adjust to that? I'm no fan of Borges but the only hope of a win would've been a phenomenal performance from the D, but. . . see above.
Honestly, there's not much to glean from this result except that 2013 just really sucked dirty donkey balls. Due to a variety of unfortunate factors (losing D-line depth and our starting QB for starters, making a ridiculously young team even younger), this was a mismatch that heavily favored K-State. On to 2014 and it can't happen fast enough.
December 29th, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:34 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:18 AM ^
"WTF are you talking about?"
I was talking about K-State. You know, our bowl opponent. Last I checked, my sources indicate that our starting QB was indeed out for that game, which -- again, based on my sources -- forced us to field yet another freshman. I don't think I was being particularly unclear here; I think this is more a case of someone not quite talking about what you want to talk about: We get it, you hate the coaches.
We can have the conversation you so desperately want about how badly our team is coached when we're talking about how badly our team is coached. This thread is about a game the team played yesterday. Which, incidentally, is something I don't think the coaches could do much about. That doesn't necessarily mean they're good; it means they were irrelevant.
This is by no means an attempt to exonerate them for what was a very disappointing season overall. Hell, I was the guy to start the whole Borges = Field Marshal Haig thing; you think I'm a fan of his style? I just happen to talk about other things from time to time.
December 29th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
CB--if you're going to stare in the backfield when the WR you're covering runs by you, the result is getting beat (particularly on the first two TDs). It's one thing to to have Lockett make a play in coverage, it's quite another to have him wide open.
And why is Lockett 1-on-1 on the 3rd TD?
The defense was AWFUL in this game against a very mediocre offense.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
"And why is Lockett 1-on-1 on the 3rd TD?"
Because you're only allowed 11 men on the field. They sent four and the whole point with sending Lockett on an out route to the far side was to spread the backfield. The safety to that side was too far inside and slow to react; obviously he was expecting run but I doubt he would've gotten there in time. Mattison gambled on Raymon Taylor holding his own on a short field and lost. It was 2nd and goal; you can't have your safeties selling out on the run to cover one guy.
For that matter:
1) On the first TD, Michigan rushed seven. K-State countered with extra protection; no one got to the QB in time and Lockett broke open.
2) On the second TD, Michigan rushed four; the deep safety had to pick between two receivers that had gotten separation.
3) On the third, K-State sent four receivers out of a single-back look. Michigan rushed four and had everyone else in zone coverage. I'd say Mattison got RPS-ed here.
However, it's not like Mattison kept getting beat by the same play or kept doing the same thing; K-State ran a well-balanced offense featuring three key ball handlers out of the same looks.
I know everyone around here wants to see Mattison double-cover both wideouts while blitzing eight and keeping 3 LBs in zone coverage but that just doesn't happen. You gotta pick your matchups and K-State had enough weapons to spread Michigan thin. That's aggravating but I don't see any "FIRE ******" moments to be had here. Just impatience to see Peppers take the field.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^
the CB takes his eyes off Lockett and puts them on the QB while Lockett proceeds to get open. The first one is in the RZ off a squirrel type route and understandable. I don't think it's well played by the DB but so be it. The second one is flat out awful. Stop and go at 10 yards and the CBs bad eyes on the QB while Lockett blows by him is atrocious. That's coaching.
The CB has NO help on the 3rd TD except for maybe a slant. He's manned up and knows it. The coverage by the DB isn't bad, but the matchup is awful. And is a safety expecting run on 3rd and 8? That makes no sense. When the CB does a pretty good job and still gets beat, it's probably on the call.
Kansas State is a mediocre offense at best. Nobody's asking the defense to shut everyone out. I think asking for more than one meaningful punt in the past 6 quarters of football and more than one 3-and-out in the last TWO games is more than realistic.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
What I'm trying to get at here is not that K-State is an offensive juggernaut; it's that K-State was a bad matchup, which is why I'm making the case that -- as disappointed as I am -- it's not like this game struck me as a playcalling debacle. The key to beating K-State (as far as my layman expertise can tell) is to:
1) Maul them at the LoS to disrupt the run game and make the QB uncomfortable, and
2) Build an early lead to force them out of their bread-and-butter run game, making their offense one-dimensional.
Teams that shut down K-State probably did this; Michigan did the opposite. To beat K-State you need a good D-line; all year, Michigan's simply gave QBs way too much time to throw. They weren't terrible, but they couldn't be counted on for much more than holding ground at the LoS so the LBs could make plays -- it was a 4-3 that functioned as a conventional 3-4 (in spirit anyway), except with only 3 linebackers. If we still had RVB and Mike Martin around the result might've been very different, but instead we had an undersized line that tried to finesse their way to pressure and didn't do a particularly good job of it.
The glaring symptom was the CBs blowing coverage on Lockett, and yeah they could've played better, but Lockett was never going to stay covered for very long. He was particularly good at the sort of subtle moves that sell the CB a curl or slant where the CB thinks the ball's coming and turns around to make a play on it. They should've been coached to keep their eyes on him and only go for the PBU; we knew going in that K-State loves the long ball. But when you're defending long throws to a shifty receiver, and I'm sure Mattison will echo this, it's up to the D-line to make sure the corners aren't on islands for too long.
P.S. The third TD was 2nd-and-8; a run was very possible. K-State averaged something like 5ypc on the day.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^
I'm more interested to see him sign his LOI. Then I'll worry about him taking the field.
After the way the season ended, I think it's dumb to take anything for granted.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:51 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 1:55 AM ^
Execute who?
December 29th, 2013 at 1:56 AM ^
If changes aren't made, Brandon and Hoke will confirm themselves to be the dumbasses that they appear to be. It's really THAT simple.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
Come on. We used how many OL combinations over the course of the season? The tackle over combo was introduced after UConn. Funchess's move to WR was after UConn. We ran screen-heavy gameplans down the stretch and de-emphasized Toussaint in favor of the other backs. If anything, one could argue that we changed too much as the year went on, doing too much grab-bagging instead of sticking with one set of personnel/philosophy.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:57 AM ^
Did KSU do anything that we did not expect them to do? It seems like they mostly followed their playbook on both sides of the ball. Frankly, they blitzed LESS than I thought they would. We weren't ready for them. We were dominated in all 3 phases of the game.
I have said all year that for college coaches, the fourth year should be their make-or-break year. I am ready to root for the 2014-2015 team. Howvever, I would put the over/under on 8.5 wins. Again. We will probably lose to MSU and OSU. We may lose to ND. Given how bad we were on the road, a loss to NWU or Rutgers is very possible (so is a home loss to Minn). So that would be 8-9 wins with a super soft schedule.
If we go 8-4 and get beat (again) in a mediocre bowl game in 2014, what happens then?
I doubt that there would be sufficient pressure from the base to unseat Hoke, but does that trigger, not quite a death spiral, but more of a mediocrity spiral? Changing the fight song to the 'Leaders and the pretty good' would be awful. It totally fucks up the meter.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:17 AM ^
8-5 next year, I'm fine with firing Hoke... stability is the only reason I hope he works out.
9-4, depends on the circumstances but if there is not much improvement fire Hoke. Stability only gets you so far when the ceiling is seemingly so low.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:45 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
The cupboard is/ was bare at certain position groups. When RR came in, the cupboard was bare at QB for the style of play he runs. Now the cupboard is bare for upperclass interior linemen on both offense and defense.
December 29th, 2013 at 8:40 AM ^
I just counted 18 seniors and 17 juniors on roster -- that's including walk-ons. Three of them consisted our special teams trio of Glanda-Dileo-Gibbons. Then there are our senior tackles, senior WRs and senior RB, none of whom could get much going because everything got neutralized by a push up the middle against our gooey-soft interior OL. Defense was slightly more balanced but we had exactly two (2) upperclassmen DTs -- QWash and Ash.
The roster had count-'em FIFTY-EIGHT (!!!!!) freshmen. There's no sugar-coating it; the team is really, spectacularly young. Laughably young. Again, with the exception of scholarship upperclassmen in all the wrong places, the 2013 Wolverines were basically a glorified HS team.
Even after an infinitely painful 2013, we're still a good two years away from taking on our rivals even if all the recruits pan out. There is no make-or-break year, here, except when maybe all these redshirts finally become seniors but there won't be any sudden shift because I'd expect a bunch of juniors to play better than a bunch of sophomores, who play better than this bunch, etc.
What we should see is marked improvement across the board. Maybe not in wins, but in how the team operates. No, we are not going to score on MSU's defense or slow down OSU's offense. However, we at least shouldn't have Gardner trying to make miracles out of mud against Penn State. The defense won't be elite but they should do better than zero sacks against Akron. We shouldn't be setting hard ultimatums (that's how we got in this position in the first place), but considering it doesn't get any younger than freshmen, this had better be the worst of it.
Go to hell, 2013.
December 29th, 2013 at 9:04 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:10 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^
OK, your childishly rude tone isn't begging for a respectul response, but just to clarify for the public, I'm not accepting youth as an excuse. I certainly point to how our offense and defense got worse over time instead of better, so we're in agreement that coaching's a problem.
However, you need to get your points straight or this won't even be a discussion, if you're at all interested in having one. I was specifically addressing "make-or-break" years. These things are horsecrap because every season is different, so setting hard expectations for 2014 is really just a set-up for disappointment. In particular, just one look at the roster -- ONE look -- is all I needed to quickly see that Michigan is nowhere near a make-or-break situation. The team is just way too young. Redshirting is a path to prepping players; it's not some instant guaranteed sign of readiness. Some players take 2-3 years to really get going, so you ideally want mostly upperclassmen in your two-deep with a smattering of walk-ons and hypertalented underclassmen where your veteran platoon is soft. Michigan's depth was just too uneven.
I did say very specifically that the benchmark for 2014 is improvement. The second half of this season is not a good sign by any means so this really isn't turning down the heat on the coaches. But at least it's a more practical means of assessing coaching than whether or not a pack of sophomores is ready to take on the two best-coached, stable, advanced, talented AND experienced teams in the B1G.
December 29th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
disappointing thing about this coaching staff. Even last year there was no marked improvement in the team. In 2011 we saw some improvement, which had more to do with getting accustomed to new coaches rather than player development. To me the mark of a good coaching staff is to improve a team and specific players throught the year and we have not seen it so far. A good coaching staff will see the strength and weakness of its players and will develop game plans to play to their strenght. A good coaching staff will work with players to overcome their weaknesses. A good coaching staff puts players in a position to use their strenght to succeed. Sadly, I have not seen much from this coaching staff.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:48 PM ^
The defense has had its bad games (especially the last two bowl games), but players like Craig Roh and Will Heininger went from quiet to reliable. Mattison, at least, develops players.
Offense is more frustrating. Fitz never learned to block, the O-line started out bad and only got worse, and instead of implementing a package and developing it Borges kept changing the scheme. Now, doing nothing would've been unacceptable, but I do wonder why he started out with a zone stretch for linemen recruited to run a downhill attack, used tackle over as a core rushing play when it should've been used as a short-yardage go-to (and I've even recommended it as such), then during the bye week before MSU. . . nothing, while Narduzzi Sun Tzu-ed Borges' playbook into oblivion. I get that you can't implement plays overnight, but Borges seems more like a guy who belongs in the NFL, and I don't mean that as praise. I mean he draws up stuff like he's got 5-year pro veterans putting in 60-hour weeks. That's a fundamental failing of a college OC.
I'm not saying the defense did well. I am saying that, despite the ugly result, I have consistently seen the players (O & D) make great effort, and Mattison responds by trying to put his players in the best positions to win. He's a great DC but he's human, and sometimes the D is just flat-out overmatched. It happens. It just so happens in this case that K-State drew just the sort of D they love to play against. On offense, I fear Borges might have permanently broken his young linemen, but it's not like Michigan was going to move the ball with a true freshman QB with zero prior starts.
The bowl game outcome and the progress of the team are two different issues. In the bowl game, the D looked awful but it's an outlier considering how well they kept us in games while the offense piled up three-and-outs. In the bowl game, there were obvious limitations due to running out a true freshman QB but the O-line issues were a season-long nightmare.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^
"despite the ugly result, I have consistently seen the players (O & D) make great effort"
I would often agree, but in the bowl game, I have never seen the team play with less intensity.
Walking up to the line, not finishing plays, none of that defensive pursuit (from the far side of the field where the defender is never going to get near the ball).
The best effort I saw all night was on Lewan's tackle after the interception.
I am nit picking here, while I agree with your overall sentiment.
The notion that we had essentially one game with good output on both sides of the ball (ND), otherwise we had ineptitude on offensive side more often and to a greater degree than failings on the defensive side of the ball.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:03 PM ^
"Even after an infinitely painful 2013, we're still a good two years away from taking on our rivals even if all the recruits pan out."
Wow, so not even 'wait 'til next year'. Now we're already talking about wait for 2015???
"What we should see is marked improvement across the board. Maybe not in wins, but in how the team operates."
I have mixed feelings about this. If we are 8-5 next year, it will be really hard to be happy in the operational improvement. If we are 9-4, or 10-3, even with losses to rivals, there may be room to look on the bright side.
Overall, I suppose I agree with the sentiment. The final way to think about this would be: deep down, do you feel better about the 'good loss' to OSU, or do you feel better about the 'bad win' to Akron/UConn? Personally, I feel equally crappy about both.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:02 AM ^
Long, slow death. Totally appropriate summation of this string of misery.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:02 AM ^
If this is Michigan football, we need to reconsider who we are as a program and a culture.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:03 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:04 AM ^
I know Snyder is a solid coach, but he made our staff look like amateur hour. And maybe they are. When have Michigan corners looked so bad? And it's not like Blake and Ray are bad players or untalented.
December 29th, 2013 at 9:08 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:05 AM ^
What is the opposite of Muppets?
December 29th, 2013 at 2:22 AM ^
Pictures of adorable kittens, and maybe some puppies.
December 29th, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^
Rosanne Barr singing the national anthem?
December 29th, 2013 at 2:15 AM ^
that Hoke really does not have much to do with the gameplan on either side of the ball and I really don't like that in a head coach. The best coaches plan the X's and O's... not just encourage from the sideline.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:16 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:41 AM ^
2013 keeps on giving.
December 29th, 2013 at 2:17 AM ^
..when Funchess decided to lope out of bounds instead of put his head down and try for the goal line on first drive...wish they all had Gardner's toughness.
It wouldn't have impacted the ultimate outcome as KState is simply a better team, but symbolic of how uninspired M has played much of the season. (OSU aside)
December 29th, 2013 at 2:21 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:25 AM ^
Does anyone really think we will beat MSU, OSU, ND and win 9 or 10 games next year? In 2015? It's impossible to polish this...Fred Flinstone cannot coach. He may be a great recruiter but he had a month to prepare and showed up with this nonsense. Can't wait for the presser...
December 29th, 2013 at 2:28 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^
sounds like that of a 3-star recruit.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:29 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:29 AM ^
Isn't this the 12th game under 300 yards for Borges?
2011: WMU, Mich. St., Va. Tech
2012: Ala., ND, Neb., OSU
2013: UConn, Mich. St., Neb., Iowa, K. St.
Note that in true Borges regression fashion, he has had more each year.
In 2010, our worst offensive output was 342 yards against 15th ranked Miss. State.
December 29th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^
Did you expect his offense to rack up big numbers with a true frosh making his debut?
It amazes me that even now most of the criticism seems directed at the offense, when the defense - which is not as young as the offense - finished a terrible overall season with two downright Greg Robinson-level performances.
Comments