Monday Presser Transcript 11-26-12: Brady Hoke Comment Count

Heiko

Bullets:

  • Sorry I didn't post a postgame presser transcript. I was too busy avoiding the internet, and no one said much anyway.
  • Devin Gardner's redshirt paperwork will be filed soon. Hoke expects him to get his fifth year.
  • Hoke will talk to Taylor Lewan about the NFL draft this week.
  • Bowl practice will not begin until the opponent is revealed.

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

file

“You guys didn’t get fed. Well, that’s poor.”

Makes us ornery.

“Yeah. You know, we’re all real disappointed in the outcome down in Columbus obviously, but one thing I can tell you is we’re really proud of this senior class. Proud because of the leadership and the development of the program that they’ve helped and their commitment to the university, and proud of how they’ve continued to lay the foundation of what we want to be as a program. It was hard. It was disappointing for them to play their last game against Ohio and not be successful like we all want to, and that’s an expectation. But we’re proud of them and we’ll have one more opportunity with them. We’ll take that very seriously.”

As you looked at the film during the second half, aside from the turnovers, what did you see could have been done differently?

“Well, I think a lot of it, number one, was short yardage things. We prided ourselves on being good in short yardage. We tried three different, really four different schemes. Ran the iso, ran the power, ran the quarterback read play, and just couldn’t -- didn’t -- execute it like we’d like to. They all had possibilities besides probably the iso that could have been executed, but that was disappointing, when you get 21 plays in the second half. That’s hard when you want to get into rhythm and turnovers are part of it. We’ve talked about turnovers throughout the year. You turned the ball over four times, you’re not going to win many football games. At the same time, I thought from a defensive perspective, we’d love to have been a little better vs. the run in there, especially with Hyde. Braxton is going to get his share to some degree, but the defense stood up when it had to. Liked to have, on the last drive, gotten the ball back one more time. We went in at halftime and it was 21-20. If they don’t score, they can’t win. Well, we have to keep them from scoring.”

Was Denard limited at all, and did it affect the way you called plays?

“Not really. I mean, he can throw the ball, but he can’t throw it the way and with the confidence that he’d like to throw with. That was one reason we weren’t going to put him out there in a situation where he’s not throwing it as well as he knows he would like to. That would be unfair. No, he was okay. The last two drives we had to try and get points, so keeping Devin in the game and throwing the ball a little bit, and unfortunately we throw the pick. But that’s football.”

Why didn’t Denard get the ball more in the second half?

“We only had 21 plays. We tried to give him a shovel, tried to get him out -- I’m trying to think what other situation it was -- it just didn’t present itself. And then with the fourth and two, fourth and three, it was the same play he had a nice run earlier in the football game, and we don’t block it right.”

Why did you limit the amount of plays involving both Devin and Denard? Did you not think it would work?

“I would say the reason would be it wasn’t exactly the timing of it. There’s a timing of how you set things up, and especially in the second half. We turn the ball over three times, so offensively you’re a little bit out of your realm and just your mojo, if you want to call it that. So trying to do something that maybe wouldn’t be as successful, it just didn’t feel like it.”

Punt vs. go for it on 4th down? Whose call was that?

“Mine. Mine. Mine.”

Why did you change the call?

“That’s the only thing I wish I wouldn’t have done was call the time out. Should have left them on the field and gone for it.”

Were you going to fake punt?

“Maybe.”

Reasons for success on the road vs. at home?

“Well. I think when you look at turnovers on the road, the one thing I know you have to do on the road is run the football. We have not run the football or taken care of the football as well as we need to away from home.”

You called last season a failure because you didn’t win the B1&. What do you tell your players about this season?

“Well we didn’t win the championship, and that’s the expectation. I think there was some growth, and I think that growth is probably as much with how the senior class came together. I think it also is for the young guys who played some snaps, some valuable snaps in football games, so that foundation of what you want to do in the weight room, what you want to do in spring football, summer conditioning, winter conditioning, all those things -- there’s always that foundation, and how one group responds, and is it a better job than the last group? It’s disappointing to all of us, more disappointing because of the seniors. For them.”

Reaction to the 2012 schedule? Two undefeated teams, defending national champion, and potential B1G champion … What were some of the troubles this schedule presented?

“I don’t know about troubles. You’re going out there to compete. Maybe self-inflicted troubles at times, giving the ball up, not running the ball well enough, all those things are part of it.”

Does the quarterback situation for the bowl game change based on Denard’s progress?

“Yeah, a little bit. A little bit. But I think at the same time, there’s an opportunity to expand more maybe on some of the two-quarterback things.”

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

Roundtable

file

“As Phil Hanlon said, the sun came up and it wasn’t quite as bright.”

How much is Devin’s November a springboard for him going forward? Also, do you expect his redshirt application to go through?

“Um, yeah I would expect that would go through. I think all the documentation and everything is being sent to the Big Ten. And I think there is some momentum. I know how terrible he feels right now, but I know there is momentum and things to learn from, and also he had some success, too.”

Ball security? What can you do?

“Heh. Heh. You’ll see guys walking around campus with footballs in their arms.”

Have you done that previously?

“Not here. But I’ve done it.”

How happy are you to see Roundtree get some plays these last few weeks?

“Well, I think we’re all excited for all of them, but Roy, because of how he has handled himself as a student and an athlete, how he’s come to work every day, I think all those things are a big part of it. I thought he played a good football game the other day obviously, and being an Ohio kid, you want to see that for him.”

Denard and route running?

“Well, we had a couple routes in there for him. It was pretty obvious that they paid attention to where he was. You can do that. Has he had a whole lot of route running and that stuff? No. Maybe if he would have had a little more, but that wasn’t the plan.”

Did you think the offense became a bit predictable when Denard was on the field?

“I don’t think so, because I think there were plenty of opportunities. You have to block, too.”

How quickly can the offensive line and running back issues be fixed?

“Oh, sheez. I don’t know if there’s any quick fixes. I think there’s some, oh, some guys that we haven’t played that we’ll see. They have some growth to do, though. That’s a big part of it. That’s these 15 days that we’ll practice, will be a big part of it. We’ll bring them along. In both of those areas, there’s a higher expectation than what we’re doing right now.”

What do the young offensive linemen get during the bowl practice that they don’t get during the regular season?

“Well the one thing we’ve tried to do is continue to develop them all fall. But there will be a couple practices in there that will be a little more focused on what they’re doing.”

Will Fitz try to apply for a redshirt next year, or will he try to get back on the field?

“I don’t know. I think he’ll have a full recovery. How long that is? I don’t know.”

Going forward, will you think about using two quarterbacks in the future?

“I think depending on your personnel. I think there’s not any limitations to what you might be able to accomplish with it. But I think in doing that, you have to look at then, offensively, what are you? Are you a pro-style? Spread? What are you? How do you get them both the ball?”

Could you take a guy like Dennis Norfleet and turn him into a read-option back?

“You could, I’d imagine. You could.”

But you’re not thinking about it.

“I’m not as radical as you are right now.”

After Iowa, did you look back and wonder if you should have tried to the Devin-Denard thing earlier?

“No. Because we weren’t in position to. [Denard] was our quarterback. No.”

Going for 4th down? What’s the process for making that decision?

“Gut.”

Do you talk to Al?

“I just told him to, after I called the timeout, be ready. And then go. And I thought we had a good play. In fact, we did have a good play if we execute the blocking.”

So it was more on the offensive line?

“It wasn’t blocked the way I’d like for it to be blocked.”

Does execution on the offensive line change the way Al calls the offense?

“Sure it does. Sure it does. And same thing defensively. You’ve got to have enough calls in there -- which I guarantee on both sides of the ball, we had enough calls -- that if they’re taking advantage of you somehow someway, that you can respond differnetly. Counteract.”

How much do you talk to Borges? Especially during the second half? What did you think of his playcalling?

“I thought he called a good football game. If we do a couple things better, I think we’ll all be much happier. I thought the playcalling was exactly what it should have been, and how much do I talk to him? I talked to him at half time. I talked to him during the third quarter. I talked to him during the fourth quarter.”

Chris Bryant’s recovery?

“He’s coming along. All those guys, Blake, all those guys are making progress daily. Who will be ready for spring? I don’t know that yet. We’ll be very smart in how we do get those guys back involved. ”

What’s your schedule in terms of recruiting, working out, practices, etc?

“Recruiting. Working out -- not the staff. Some of them do, but gameplanning once we find an opponent.”

Will you not practice until you have an opponent?

“Yeah. We won’t. We won’t practice. We’re going to lift and try and give them some time this week. Finals coming up. All those kinds of things.”

Was the reason you didn’t have Denard and Devin on the field at the same time more because you thought Ohio State’s defense was too good?

“Well I think I was talking about throwing the ball with Denard. If he can be successful, and he didn’t have that confidence, why put him in a situation that’s not fair to him?”

Were you planning on having a fake punt?

“We always have a fake punt ready. For a long time I’ve had it ready.”

What happens when you get that gut feeling in the moment?

“Coming off the first half we had, from an offensive perspective, you felt pretty good that we could get the first down.”

Early jumprs to the NFL? When do you have those conversations?

“No, we’ll talk about it this week. We’ve done our due diligence, sent all the information in that we need to.”

When does the draft advisory board meet?

“I’m trying to think. There’s a date that they’ll give you the information that you need. I can’t remember what that is.”

Have you talked to Taylor?

“No we’ll talk about it this week.”

Is Lewan the only player who’s seriously looking into it?

“I can’t think of anything else.”

When someone’s considering a move like that, do you gear them towards coming back for their senior season, or you take it on a case by case basis?

“I’m going to gear the young man towards what’s best for him.”

How discouraging is it that we’re talking about the same stuff for 10 weeks about the offensive line?

“Yeah.”

What do you attribute that to?

“You know, we just didn’t develop as well as we’d like.”

Have you seen improvement from Denard week to week?

“Mmhmm. Yeah. You mean in him healing? Oh yeah. Yeah.”

What is the difference between arm strength and confidence?

“I think it’s all part of it. How the ball spins. All that stuff.”

Ss is the ball not spinning right?

“I don’t think it’s spinning the way he’d like to.”

If Denard is 100% for the bowl,

“I would think he’d play quarterback, maybe wideout, maybe running back, maybe --”

Kick returner?

“He might do that.”

Is it safe to say that Devin’s your quarterback for next year?

“Well, he’s going to have to compete and earn it, but he’s put some -- he’s done a good job of what we’ve asked him to do to this point.”

Do you expect Russell to be back next year?

“Yeah. Oh yeah. I mean, and they’ll compete.”

How badly do you need a running back, too, in addition to fixing the offensive line?

“You need both. You better have a back, or a couple backs. And you better be able to have guys up front who can move the line of scrimmage.”

They didn’t progress this year, either, did they?

“I think it’s hard to evaluate to some degree, for the simple fact that maybe if we had blocked better, it may have been better.”

Why do you think Devin’s going to get his fifth year?

“Just a gut feeling. I mean, I’m serious.”

Do you have all the paperwork?

“We have all the paperwork, yes.”

You have a lot of gut feelings.

“Yeah, I do. I have a big gut.”

Comments

coastal blue

November 27th, 2012 at 6:45 PM ^

Everything you've argued simply ignores the idea that players should get better from their freshman to their senior season. You're someone who doesn't understand player development, thus this is pointless. 

I'm sorry you wasted your time not responding to anything I said. 

Butterfield

November 27th, 2012 at 6:54 PM ^

Yeah, they should develop over 4 years.  But guys didn't develop under the previous regime.  The guys who were here and played multiple years for RR got worse over time.  I understand player development just fine, and that player development is no certainty if the quality of football education they are receiving is poor. 

As to not responding to anything you said, you must have missed me responding to pretty much every point you tried to make (e.g. weak schedule, comparing OSU teams, decline of the offense).  I'm sorry you're not a very good reader. 

coastal blue

November 27th, 2012 at 8:23 PM ^

You treat each season as if they are played under the exact same circumstances. 

You make claims that because the 2011 offense scored more points they were better. What would have happened had hte 2010 offense had the 2011 defense? Was Denard a Junior in 2010? A Senior? How does Ray Vinopal get worse in his first season? How does JT Floyd get worse? Kovacs? Avery? Christian? They had just started playing college football. Who on offense got worse? 

Against Ohio State: Did Rodriguez's offense have an offensive line full of juniors and seniors? A JR/SR qb? Was the defense top 30? 

You literally do not take anything into account other than the numbers. Each season is different. You, for some reason cannot understand this. 

Butterfield

November 28th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

Under RR, why does Ezeh get worse?  Mouton?  Why is 5 star BWC shifted to offensive line?  Under Hoke, why does BWC excel at his original DL position?  Why do first year starters like Countess, Bolden, Ross, play well?

How would the 2011 offense have performed had they ran the same number of plays as the uptempo RR squads?  More plays logically means more points, right?  Well they scored more points with less plays.  Hmmm....  Against Ohio State, did Hoke have an offensive line full of draftable NFL players?  RR had Schilling, Molk, Lewan...  Hoke has Lewan and four really nice guys who I'm sure will have successful careers in business, engineering, or whatever.  Against Ohio State, did Hoke have anyone as dynamic as Brandon Graham to pressure OSUs quarterback? 

Michigan was trending down until the regime change.  There was literally no hope for the defense to improve much if at all, and there was equally as little hope that the offense would ever put together a decent performance against teams not named Delware State, Massachusetts, or Illinois. 

Ron Utah

November 28th, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^

"The fact is, we are clearly not as talented as Ohio on the line, making plays that count on offensvie line execution alone the wrong play call."

REALLY???!!!  This is a perfect demonstration of fan ignorance.  There is NO play that doesn't require offensive line execution.  NONE.  Any running play, any passing play, depends on offensive line execution.  In the first half, when Denard ran for a TD, were you complaining that the line had to block?

Denard playing QB was just a "wildcat" formation that gave us an extra blocker on running plays.  It's a concept that has worked very well in both college and pro football, and had worked in this game.  If an OT misses a block, no matter what play you're running, you're probably going to lose yards.

And on this play, it was Taylor F-ing Lewan that missed the block...so you're saying we shouldn't call plays that expect Lewan to block properly?

Borges didn't call a great game, IMO, but blaming him for poor O-line execution by our all-world LT is ridiculous.

CLord

November 26th, 2012 at 5:11 PM ^

Hoke is a Carr disciple with the media. 

With such a bad offensive line this year, no amount of hyperbole from Hoke or anyone else about "good play calling" will overcome the obvious failure of Borges to play away from weakness and onto strength by:

1. Using Denard as a decoy.

2. Leveraging Devin's running on the edges.

3. Leveraging Devin's running on the edges to open up easy dumps to TEs and RBs.

Go back and watch what Northwestern's offense looked like with Colter.  Is he any better or faster than Devin?  Perhaps slightly shiftier but Devin makes up for it with a little extra YAC.  Compare the beauty that is Northwestern's offense and utilizing all of its 2 and 3 stars, to the steaming pile of dog poop Borges offered up in the second half.

The book isn't closed.  Hoke shows a penchant for risk taking which is nice, but he needs that to rub off on the offensive game plan much, much more.

AlwaysBlue

November 26th, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^

Northwestern averaged 1 more point per game in the conference this season than Michigan, and they didn't play Ohio State.  Like it or not, Hoke believes football starts with owning the line of scrimmage not playing poor-man football with a scheme designed to overcome the talent and size of the opposition.

Don

November 26th, 2012 at 5:14 PM ^

that his team was predictable on either side of the ball. Most coaches are perfectly willing to blame execution or turnovers or penalties—those are on the players—but it appears that openly acknowledging that a game plan or strategy was a failure is simply not an option for head coaches.

might and main

November 26th, 2012 at 5:23 PM ^

Perhaps there's some strategy to not criticizing his coaches, but as I read this Hoke has thrown his players under the bus.  Other than taking responsibility for going for it on 4th and 3, I see zero accountability here regarding his coaching staff.  WTH is that?  Own it coach.

michgoblue

November 26th, 2012 at 8:34 PM ^

What good does it do for our program for hoke to blast anyone in these pressers? Sure, it will make many happy to hear that hoke gets what they are feeling and agrees, but how does that help out team? His usual non-answers and media fluff that basically translates to "I hate talking to you, intend to tell you nothing, find your questions to be silly and annoying, wish you would just go away or be abducted by aliens, effort, tremendous, execute better" anyway is exactly the right move.

might and main

November 26th, 2012 at 9:51 PM ^

but he needs to tell the truth and demonstrate leadership, which starts with holding the coaches accountable first and foremost.  Sorry, but the buck stops with the coaches, and he should've said that.   Everyone and his mother knows Borges screwed this game.  Even if Hoke doesn't address that directly, he did make it clear the line isn't doing it's job.  Well we can all see what Mattison has done with the D, and how the O has not improved but regressed.  Sorry, that buck stops with the coaches too.  And that's where Hoke should start his reply to any questions.

Brandon preaches accountability to everyone who will listen.  No doubt Hoke preaches it to his players.  He's just not applying it to his staff right now.  Not OK.

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

November 26th, 2012 at 10:13 PM ^

I agree that Hoke covered everything in so much coaching molasses that we learned very little. But all problems and necessary actions sit directly on his plate. First, execution is Hoke's responsibility and he knows it. Hoke has repeated the story in the past about his lamenting the execution of various players/teams and his dad poignantly asking, "Well, who is coaching that kid that keeps messing up?" Second, blaming execution avoids blaming talent shortages. Should Hoke just say the OL is too weak or lacks the quickness necessary to drive or reach block? Never. But it's Hoke's job to recruit the talent or find coaches who can shape the talent sufficiently to win. I think the bowl performance will tell us a lot about his ability to adjust scheme and play calling to enable execution as the talent isn't changing.

Maize and Blue…

November 26th, 2012 at 5:26 PM ^

is it time for Funk to go.  Of course, Funk wasn"t helped out any by Borges continually calling plays that highlighted the weakest part of our O line.  The other thing that really bothers me is that we seemed to run behind Lewan and Schofield a lot last year and this year we hardly used Lewan in the run game.

turtleboy

November 26th, 2012 at 5:41 PM ^

It's not on Funk. Last year we had a solid line and fantastic production. This year our line was held together with duct tape, and band aids. He's had good results at other stops, too. I commented it somewhere yeaterday, but at Colorado State 4 linemen under him went into the NFL, and at Ball State and SDSU his line allowed the 4th and 5th fewest sacks in the country. Khoury leaving at Center, and a lack of any kind of depth hurt us this year. Playing Bama, ND, and Ohios defense with a depleted front didn't help much, either.

Ron Utah

November 26th, 2012 at 5:49 PM ^

First of all, I'm thankful for his Coach Speak.  A quote from a coach should never be the story; it should always be about the team.

I was frustrated not to see Denard and Devin together on the field more, but we didn't have a lot of opportunities to make it happen.

Bo was right--this is a game of fundamentals, of blocking and tackling.  We couldn't block.  It's silly to say "run on the edge" to avoid the interior O-line having to block...I would submit whoever believes that has never coached football, because your interior O-line has to block on edge runs, too.

There is no way around these simple facts:

  • We lost four games this year, to teams who are a combined 45-3
  • Two of the teams that beat us--'Bama and ND--will likely be playing for the National Championship
  • The loss to Nebraska was largely because of Denard's injury
  • Ohio still has a HUGE talent advantage over us.  (this is a FACT, look at the players and their recruiting rankings.

We're playing almost as many young kids now as we were when RR was in his second year, yet we all cut him slack--even though his "great" offense could never score points against quality defenses.  Why are we so hard on Hoke and Borges for losing four games to four of the best teams in the country?  I really don't get it.

Take it a step further and look at the recruiting projections...our least talented years are this year and next.  Have some patience, and realize that this team was never going to be 10-2 unless Denard was healthy and could competently throw the football.  We got neither of those.  I'm not having a party over our 8-4 season, but we beat Sparty, got the Iowa monkey off our back, and survived against a tought NW team.  Only Air Force even tested us otherwise.

All-in-all, not a bad season.  I'm looking forward to better, but not expecting to be in the national title hunt until 2014.

UMgradMSUdad

November 26th, 2012 at 5:52 PM ^

I think Hoke is the one behind some of the offensive play calls.  I don't mean to say that he is calling the plays during the game, but I get the sense that he's the one insisting that Michigan must establish the run first and is imposing that philosophy on Borges.  This is not to say that Hoke is singularly at fault for the offenses problems, but I think he is more involved in the offense than many here give him credit (or blame, as the case may be) for.

If the underclassmen on the O-line develop and live up to their expectations, this kind of mentality shouldn't be as much of an issue in the future.

coastal blue

November 26th, 2012 at 6:18 PM ^

I'm with you. Saturday sucked, but with the guys coming in, there's no reason to panic in the near future. 

Next year may be rough due to youth, but the years after should make the 2012 offensive line failures fade quickly. 

Patience. 

Bush_League_All_Star

November 26th, 2012 at 5:59 PM ^

I think Borges called the game the right way. When you can't establish the line of scrimmage, you can't do anything. Regardless of play calling, we would have seen similar results in my opinion. Either way, victory was within reach and it slipped away.

might and main

November 26th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^

How anyone can think Borges called the right game is beyond me.  And your argument makes no sense at all ... when you can't establish the line of scrimmage, you can't do anything ... so let's just keep doing the thing that isn't working?  That was Al's approach, and it sucked.  Victory was within reach because of the D.  

Red is Blue

November 26th, 2012 at 9:50 PM ^

Not exactly sure what "establlsh the line of scrimage" means.  Does it mean you need to run the ball?  If so, that is not true.  USC proved that in the '07 Rose Bowl.  Now, USC may have had superior ability to throw relative to UM '12, but they still disproved the notion that you must run to be effective.

Ron Utah

November 28th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^

I would like to have seen a few more calls with Devin and Denard on the field at the same time, but I do agree that if you can't establish the LOS, you're going to have a hard time winning.  If you turn the ball over four times, you're going to have a hard time winning.  These people that think play calling magically erases O-line issues just don't understand the game.  That said, some play-action with Denard would have been nice to see.

Despite our blunders, we were still in a position to win the game in the fourth quarter.  Could the play-calling have been better?  Yes.  Is it the reason we lost the game?  No.  Lots factors contributed to the loss:

  • O-line play
  • Defense allowing runs up the gut to close out the game
  • Defense allowing 20 first half points
  • Turnovers
  • JT Floyd beat deep
  • Cuts and lanes missed by runners
  • Playcalling (yes, it could have been better)

And let's not forget that Ohio has a darn talented team, and frankly, just outplayed us.

ontblue

November 26th, 2012 at 6:51 PM ^

he said something along the lines of, its 21-20 at half. if we don't let them score we win the game.

really??? they gave up 6 points the second half. do you really want to go with that???

M-Wolverine

November 26th, 2012 at 8:57 PM ^

Look, they weren't probably in the top 5 reasons we lost, but to act like we lost 6-3 isn't right either. It could be argued we really gave up momentum when we let them get into FG range before the half. And give up one less TD in the first half, and we win. It's a team game. Some parts were better than others, but no one was close to perfect.

Red is Blue

November 26th, 2012 at 10:00 PM ^

FWIW, I took the comment in the same manner as ontblue -- with Hoke saying, if the defense pitches a shutout in the second half, we win.  While obviously true, that is asking an awful lot.  When I read the comment, I wondered if that mentality prevail at halftime.  If so, maybe it provides insight into offense (in more ways than one) strategic in 2nd half. 

 

 

M-Wolverine

November 26th, 2012 at 10:48 PM ^

If we had held them to 10 points and were up by a lot more at halftime he probably doesn't go for it on 4th down on the opening drive. At that point he probably feels they're moving the ball and they might need to score on almost every possession. Now why the hell we'd think a I-form run with Vincent Smith in tat situation was a good idea, you got me.

nicnok

November 26th, 2012 at 11:52 PM ^

Come on. Of all the Coach-speaking, that was the line that just drove me nuts. The Defence was put in every kind of bad situation and only allowed two field goals. No D in the world can be expected to take the field inside their own red zone and not surrender a field goal. That answer just made an obviously smart man sound stupid to me.

snoopblue

November 26th, 2012 at 8:02 PM ^

If Dave Brandon is the Athletic Director I imagine he is, he'll probably stick his nose in here. In this situation, I hope he DOES jump in. That's basically two of his all important "RED LETTER GAMES" that we blew away due to ineffective play calling.

 

michgoblue

November 26th, 2012 at 8:31 PM ^

Brandon is going to do no such thing. He gets that stability of coaching staffs is perhaps one of the most important aspects of a long term successful program. He also gets that, while the Borges dense fusion cuisine didn't taste good at all, Denard is now gone (other than the capital or alamo bowl) and Borges will get to run a full time pro system that he is comfortable with. Even then, I imagine that Brandon gets that Borges is working with really low levels of talent, depth and upperclassman over the next year or so, and he will give him time to implement his program. Hell, he gave RR 3 years, and the entire program was a tire fire under him (not assigning blame - not flaming RR - the last thing we all want Rocco today is rehash that discussion).

StateStreetApostle

November 26th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^

Only ten sentences began with "well".

(Yet another reason to like him:  he only used "good" when he should have used "well" once--all the other times were also "well".)

With Hoke, even in dark times, it is "Well" with my soul.

Ball Hawk

November 26th, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^

Do you guys really expect hoke to say Al called a bad game and then walk out of the room and call up Derrick Green and say so are you ready to commit today? Fuck no!

blueball97

November 27th, 2012 at 8:08 AM ^

It is easier to teach someone to tackle than it is to teach someone a complex system of blocking schemes. As for Borgess, it is easy to be critical and it may even be justified, but there are a lot of things that go into calling a game and calling plays. Maybe Ohio was just better up front, well no maybe involved really, Ohio was simply better up front. We have had issues all year long with our line minus Lewan. This year was almost a sacrificial year, we redshirted a lot of O-Linemen that probably could have played as well or better than some of the guys that played, but the future is bright and Borgess will be fine. There was nothing wrong with his game plans for 10 of the 12 games. Ohio and Alabama were the only two games that the play calling was questionable, but that might have something to do more with the talent on the other team than the actual game plan. 

Sten Carlson

November 27th, 2012 at 9:42 AM ^

We all knew coming into the game that Michigan was weak up front, on both sides of the ball.  Not surprisingly, in the biggest game of the year, the OL couldn't block, and the DL couldn't stop Hyde on the power run. 

The defense was lead by Jake Ryan and the LB's, with little spurts of good play by the DL.  When they played a good OL the DL were ineffective, for the most part.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the OL.  Even against weaker teams they struggled to control the LoS.

My question is how the Borges haters in here think an OC can call a effective game when the OL cannot block?