Michigan football in 5 years.

Submitted by jmdblue on

Lots of talk about the possible dismissal of Brady Hoke this week.  And deservedly so.  We lose.... often. Those traditions not being ignored are cannibalized to maximize profit.  The students aren't interested because the games are too filled with commercial timeouts and the product sucks.  We are treated to a weekly air show made up of private planes.  Sweet Caroline and Sweet Cherry Pie.  Thank goodness for the regents' call on the fireworks.  

Is Michigan Football broken?  If it is then someone else needs to repair it. Dave Brandon can go to hell (or at lease be fired) immediately, but what of Hoke?  The last 10 games have been awful, there's no denying, but I see hope.  The coaches talk about the building of a foundation and I see that.  The defense appears to be poised to be near-elite by the end of the year.  The offensive line remains bad, but it's clearly improved from last year and this while working with an entirely new offense (again).  The skill positions are fine and improving.  The QB situation will figure itself out as the line provides better protection and a better running game.  Our players seem like decent guys and I don't worry about a tattoo or car scandal hitting campus.  

The fact is I want my Michigan Football back and it's not my Michigan Football without a "Bo" level of class.  Hoke strives for this and it's important.  For those who want to compete the way the SEC competes I have no good argument.  It just isn't my thing and I don't want to associate myself with it.  There was so much promise after Hoke's first season.  Even before this season.  But we all suspected 2015 would be our real year to compete.  Starting over now may put off winning another 5 years.

Here's what I think.....In 5 years Ohio won't give a damn about our whole state and they'll field a good team.  Iowa or someone else will replace Sparty as a good B1G team that isn't normally very good.  Tennessee or Miami will be in the news for a group of their players caught with a retail supply of the drug of the day.  Mississippi State will be caught up in an academic scandal.  Auburn and Alabama will each have 24 verbal commitments on their way to 33 member classes.  USC will be breaking in another head coach.  And if we stay the course, Michigan will be a Top 10 team we will be proud to associate with.  The damage done by Lloyd's end-of-career bad recruiting and RichRod's poor performance (his fault or not) have taken time to fix.  We're almost home.

Comments

DealerCamel

September 24th, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^

Five years ago Alabama was only just starting to become really good; five years before that, USC was the premier program and Oregon had a losing season.

In the next five years, Boston College and Mississippi State will probably be the nation's top teams; Bama experiences some sort of scandal and their run comes to an abrupt end; Minnesota climbs atop the Big Ten only to get thrashed by Arizona in the Rose Bowl, and Washington probably becomes inexplicably good too.

As for Michigan, I have no idea.

jmdblue

September 24th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^

be very good for the foreseeable future.  The O-line is undeniably improving and should continue to improve as they turn into Jrs and Srs and if allowed to develop under a single system.  The skill positions.... the QB situation..... I think I spelled out my reasons fairly well.  Although I may well be wrong, I think we were in a deep hole that needed/needs time to get out of.

CalifExile

September 25th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^

Was it a dip or not?

EDIT: I just looked up SOS for the 2012 team.

TeamRankings had us at #12.

FBSchedules had the top 10 of 5 different guys, we showed up at #9 on one of them.

Jeff Sagarin had us #20.

Phil Steele had us at #26 (pre-season).

Apparently the experts don't share your opinion of the difficulty of our schedule.

MichAero

September 25th, 2014 at 7:38 PM ^

Those rankings take a 1-11 UMass and a 2-10 Illinois into consideration. Yes, those were easy games, but the schedule was top heavy with good teams.

We lost to teams that finished the year ranked 1,3,4,8, and 25. We also beat the team ranked 17th.

You can argue we weren't a great team, but we did have a very difficult schedule.

3 of those losses were within a TD, and the loss to #25 Neb was after losing our starting QB.

GoBLUinTX

September 26th, 2014 at 12:39 AM ^

Do no other teams experience tough schedules?  Or are we to assume that teams that are better than 8-5 always have easier schedules?  As a matter fact the talking heads pre-season 2013 saw 2012 as the dip, that 2013 would be a repeat of 2011.  As we've found out 2012 wasn't a dip, it was the harbinger of a program sliding backward.  

Yeoman

September 26th, 2014 at 12:55 AM ^

Of course some other teams also have tough schedules, and some don't.

What matters in this context is that Michigan's 2012 schedule was much tougher than the relatively weak 2011 schedule, so much so that Massey would have projected three fewer wins even if the strength of the team was the same. (He couldn't have known that South Carolina was going to be the bowl opponent, of course--I'm adding that in after the fact and it gets us to three.)

Last year's schedule was back to the level of 2011 and that team really was 3-4 games worse, but the apparent dip in 2012 was largely a schedule-induced mirage.

Yeoman

September 26th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^

No, where did I ever suggest that? Although I suppose an FBS team that played a full schedule of NFL opponents and went 2-11 could truly be classed as elite.

I'm trying to say that 2011 wasn't as good as it seemed, 2012 wasn't as bad as it seemed, and the difference between the two teams wasn't nearly as great as it seemed. Various objective measures back me up on this, Massey so much so that it thinks 2012 was better (I'm not sure I'd go that far).

Yeoman

September 26th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^

That's something Brian's written about as it impacts basketball scheduling: SOS metrics tend to heavily weight the strength of the very worst teams on your schedule, even though the strength of those teams has a minimal impact on your likely record for the season.

Another way of looking at this: Michigan's power rating at Massey (equivalent to Sag predictor) was:

  • 60.69 at the close of 2011
  • 62.49 at the close of 2012

If the two teams could somehow have met, he would have projected a 28-26 win for 2012.

To give some context, 2013 was 7 points worse than 2012; 2010 was 18 points worse than 2012.

tsabesi

September 24th, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^

I wouldn't phrase it as a one year dip, but fundamentally the only thing that hasn't lived up to expectations is Gardner's decision making in a new Offense and Special Teams. Special teams are squarely on Hoke's shoulders, but I think the jury is still out on Nuss's performance. There are a lot of things that concern me about his strategy, but it's hard to fault him too much for progress cleaning up the Borges mess and installing a his offense after an offseason and 4 games.

m1817

September 24th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^

In John Beilein's first three years, the MBB team was:

 

2007-08   11-22

2008-09   21-14

2009-10   15-17

Mid-way through his fourth year, the team was 11-9, including seven losses in its last eight games to Purdue, Wisconsin, Kansas, Ohio State, Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota.  His cumulative record at that point was 58-62.

Fire him? 

Little Jimmy

September 25th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^

was as big a sport then as football is, he would have been fired and no one in this blog would have batted an eye. The extended malaise in the program, the poor performances and the lack of sustained success gave Belien breathing room and time. He also did not whip up the fan base like Brady has done nor set goals like Brady. the next coach to take over from Hoke will have more time since the football program is quickly becoming the basketball program pre Belien in terms of expectations.

MGoCombs

September 25th, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^

I'm with you... I love Beilein, but I think whether the comparison is fair or not, it's apples and oranges. We were humbled in basketball. We were more willing to accept some form of rebuilding given HOW bad we had been. Not to mention, we got hammered by a scandal and were still feeling the effects. Having a nice guy .500 coach was more pallatable.

This is different. We have expected more of football, even if we're unwilling to admit that we should be humbler in the face of our contemporary streak of mediocrity. We've always thought we belong in the conversation. We have elite talent. We're paying for premier coaches. Where are the results? Whether this sense of entitlement is fair or deserved, I don't think it matters. We were fed "This is Michigan, Fergodsakes" at the beginning of Hoke's tenure, and yet he still hasn't made it look anything like what we think Michigan should look like.

SFBlue

September 26th, 2014 at 5:12 PM ^

A misleading comparison for several reasons.  First, JB took Michigan to the NCAA tournament after an 11 year drought.  Second, JB had a proven track record at several schools, whereas there is less reason to have confidence in Hoke.  Third, the basketball program is not as historically strong or high profile; nobody freaks about about the basketball team being 11-9. 

brewandbluesaturdays

September 24th, 2014 at 9:57 AM ^

This seems like wishful thoughts and opinions. If a Diary it seems like the thoughts of a 13 year old girl pining for the boy she's loved since grade school. However her glasses and quiet nature have kept them nothing more than old friends. 

Thoughts, opinions, and general talking points are usually saved for the MGoBoard. 

Sorry for my snark, and overall pissy demeanor. I am just tired of hearing about what we could, would, should be. I just want to be again and stop all the noise. Go win football games and take care of business. 

DonAZ

September 24th, 2014 at 2:57 PM ^

However her glasses and quiet nature have kept them nothing more than old friends.

Not that's there's anything wrong with quiet women in glasses, of course.

If MaryAnn from Gilligan's Island wore glasses, there'd be a whole generation of men who were way into the look.  :-)

mgowill

September 24th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^

You say we're fine at the skill position, yet I would ask you this - outside of Funchess - which skill position player right now would be considered for 1st Team B1G?

Also, don't get me wrong, I think we have some good players at RB, WR, QB - the problem is that they look lost for the most part.

PurpleStuff

September 24th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

Here are the career stats for our non-Funchess WR corps, guys who have been on campus for at least three years:

Norfleet: 100 yards receiving, 107 yards rushing, 0 TD of any kind.

Darboh:  142 yards receiving, 1 TD

Chesson: 311 yards receiving, 1 TD

At the same point in his career (4 games into his third year on campus), Roy Roundtree had 645 yards and 4 TD.  Martavious Odoms had 861 yards and had returned a punt for a TD.  Drew Dileo had 248 yards and 2 TD. 

Against real, BCS conference opponents, De'Veon Smith's best game has been a 57 yard performance against OSU (38 came on one run).  Derrick Green's best game saw him pick up 79 yards on 19 carries against a bad Northwestern team.

Compare that with Denard who started his sophomore season with 197 rushing yards against UConn, followed by 258 at Notre Dame.  And he threw the ball.  I really doubt Shane is going to be named the conference player of the year this season.

It takes a real optimist to see a full glass when there is so little in it at this point.

 

PurpleStuff

September 24th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^

Jeremy Gallon broke the single season record for receiving yards just last year (I think on a bit of a technicality if I recall, but still a superb season) with Devin throwing him the ball.  His production shot up at the end of 2012 as well.  Funchess has also had no problem being productive this year (averaging just under 100 yards per game he's played in, even slowed by injury).

Losing him and the two really good tackles is what has changed about this team.  Losing Denard (who provided a legit rushing threat at the end of 2012 standing next to Gardner or swapping out with him), Roundtree, and Omameh the year before also stung.

The talent around Gardner has gotten worse and his production has suffered right along with it.  My question would be, what would Devin Gardner look like with a quality offensive line and multiple weapons at the skill positions rather than just Funchess?

UMgradMSUdad

September 25th, 2014 at 12:32 AM ^

Of course this same information could lead to a different conclusion.  Yes, Michigan has had one outstanding receiver last year and so far this year.  Now that could be due to one receiver being just so much better than anyone else, or it could be due to a QB who locks onto his favorite receiver and rarely looks elsewhere. If that's the case, no matter how talented the other receivers are, they aren't going to put up huge numbers.

PurpleStuff

September 25th, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^

Funchess was also productive last year.  He put up 748 yards and 6 TD, the bulk of which came after the switch to WR (that happened in game #5).  In 2012 Roy Roundtree was the #2 target.  He put up 64 yards against Minnesota (DG's first start), 139 against Northwestern, 83 against Iowa, and 92 against OSU.

Gardner has found good receivers.  He's found two who were playing at the same time.  We don't have any right now other than Funchess.

bluebyyou

September 25th, 2014 at 5:29 AM ^

You had two offensive tackles last year now gone and playing in the NFL.  The protection offered by this year's replacement OT's is at a very different level at this point in time.  While Lewan's leadership might have been an issue, his skill set was not.

PurpleStuff

September 25th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^

I agree.  In addition to having a weak WR corps, this team also has a bad offensive line.  The talent surrounding Devin Gardner is much, much worse than it was when he first broke into the lineup in late 2012.  NFL guys on the line like Lewan, Schofield, and Omameh are gone.  Rushing threats like Denard and Fitz are gone.  Roundtree and Gallon are gone. 

This is a bad offense, not a team with a bad quarterback.  Under better circumstances, Gardner has had no trouble performing at a high level on many occassions.

Vengeful Barbarian

September 26th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^

Are you accounting for any differences in play calling from the past two years to this year, or are you assuming everythign else has stayed the same? As much as people blamed Borges for Michigan's failure to run the ball effectively last year, the passing game was very good. Michigan is having more success running the ball this year, but at the expense of the passing game. The 2014 Michigan is not running the 2013 Michigan playbook, so its not fair to look at WR production and draw a conclusion that the lack of WR stats is due to a lack of talent, when in fact the play calling is to blame. 

alum96

September 24th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^

I agree - i think some people are STILL in love with stars...the starz type rather than what is being shown on the field.

The 2015 schedule should be one we FEAST on.  But we host BYU which has a pretty sick QB and should be a 10-2 type team this year.  We have to go TO Utah to open the year.  We do have our rivals at home and avoid Wisconsin but still with the current state of the team...

Also people seem to be glossing over our losses next year.  We have a 90%+ chance of losing our best player on 3 units - DL, LB, and WR.

We can talk about future and starz all we want but who is the next Funchess? We saw last year who the next Gallon would be.  Until a Darboh or Chesson shows he is going to be a prime time player this year you cant just say "Oh Canteen, Ways, HS starz - no problem".

  • QB still needs to be fixed. 
  • OL still needs to be fixed.
  • WR there is not a difference maker right now on the field not named Funchess.  He gone.
  • RB is one spot we should be better on the offense next year as if Green is not the man we have 2 new options in Isaac and Weber.  One of those 4 guys has to be a productive player.
  • And our TE situation will improve with our 1 star on the offense joined by Bunting

On the defense

  • We have no established DE who has anything close to All Big 10 2nd/3rd team potential coming back.  Clark is the only sorta difference maker we have.  Everyone coming back does not have much production or is a HS starz guy.
  • The DTs should be very good with Glasgow, Pipkins, Henry and guys like Mone, Hurst, Wormley hopefully taking a step
  • LBs lose Jake Ryan.  Who replaces him?  I hope Gedeon but again - based on what... hope? 
  • Secondary next year should be better - this is with Lewis and Peppers hopefully the 2 corners, a senior Jarrod Wilson and Delano Hill or Clark as the safeties

But next year has new questions, and arguably our 3 best players depart (Ryan, Clark, Funchess). 

PurpleStuff

September 24th, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^

While I do think the conference schedule is perhaps a little easier (though who really knows since the league hasn't looked so hot this year), that OOC schedule is terrifying to me.  Opening on the road on a Thursday night in SLC, after what just happened against the same team, is not a recipe for success in my book.  BYU and Oregon State could easily be good teams as well (don't follow either closely, but they are like Utah in that fans will probably assume a win and even if they weren't good the year before they can always be a solid opponent).  The next time we play well against a halfway decent west coast team will be the first time in 15 or so years.

I see another 2-2 start as pretty likely unless things are dramatically different very soon.

Swayze Howell Sheen

September 24th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^

you make it seem like the choice is "classy guy" or "SEC-like winner". Unfortunately, the answer has to be "both" - there are plenty of folks who play by the rules and win. The real danger is convincing ourselves otherwise...

schreibee

September 24th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^

Correct Coach, why would the OP point to Tennessee or Miami of Fla as cautionary examples of doing whatever it takes to win, when it would be just as/more apropos to point to Stanford as an example to strive for?! Straining to paint a happy face on the current situation would be my theory on that!

I'm always a believer that coaching changes are disruptive, often knee-jerk, based on unreasonble expectations. After last Saturday, I also believe necessary in our case. I don't think the expectation that we are as excellently prepared as ANY team in the nation is unreasonable.

What exuded from that performance (on TV in my case, but we've already heard ad nauseum from people in attendance as well) was a poorly prepared, confused, dispirited team. That goes directly to the HC, as the overall manager of the enterprise.

I believe in the DC and the OC (although with offense it's clearly based more on track record than performance at Michigan thus far). My greatest concern with making a change at the top is losing one or both of Mattison/Nussmeier. i can't fathom which top tier HC option would accept or welcome both of them back?

But I do know that I DON'T foresee the type of progress or improvement posited by the OP. I now agree with those looking back on Hoke's success in '11 as a confluence of events. many of them purely lucky, but almost all of them not of his doing. In short, to quote a Motown great: "He hasn't done nuthin' "

hfhmilkman

September 24th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^

I do not take it as a given that the QB situation will work itself out.  There are plenty of examples in college football of recuits, especially QB's not turning out.  Shane Morris is highly regarded because of his physical ability to run and throw the ball.  He was part of a power program that did not have to lean on him.  Compare to Gardner whose HS career was a trial by fire.  Morris may work out.  I just don't see it as automatic.

maizenbluenc

September 24th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^

They are improving, but I think it is still an O-line problem. This year's line problem appears to me to be the outside. My sense watching both ND and Utah is pressure on the outside is killing either quarterback's ability to go through a full progression and they end up either have to force or rollout or both. When the line tries to compensate and help outside, then the pressure gets through inside.

Net - those two NFL tackles the appologists were saying were not very important last year, and this year would be better because the more important interior line will had aged were drinking strong cool-aid.

 

Waves

September 24th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^

I think DG is a known quantity. He may get marginally better but he's been mishandled and at this stage in his career, I think it's unrealistic to expect any drastic improvement. Shane may become great or he may not. It will be interesting to see how that situation unfolds next year. I think DG will be the QB moving forward this year. I just can't see them benching the guy they bestowed the legacy #98 on.

UMVAFAN

September 24th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^

First things first - Dave Brandon needs to go. People say he's generating unprecedented revenues for the athletic department, but Michigan has always been in the top 5 in terms of revenue amongst college athletic departments. What he's doing in this regard is not unprecedented at Michigan. He walked into the job with a very solid foundation built over decades with only one real crisis on hand - the state of the football program. What has Dave Brandon done to fix the state of the football program? Brady Hoke, Legacy jerseys, night games, piped in music, and other gimmicks have not moved the needle and have only alienated lifelong fans of Michigan football. If Brandon is still the AD at season's end, I'm on board for keeping Brady Hoke as coach because I don't trust that Brandon can bring in a top tier coach. Let them both sink or swim in Year 5. If they do fire Brandon before year's end, I'd reach out to both Harbaughs, Miles, Sumlin, Beilema (not a name normally mentioned, but he's won 3 B1G titles and might come back north if the price is right), and maybe a few others to gauge interest. If any of them want the job, then I'd let Hoke go assuming he doesn't reach the B1G championship game. If none of them are interested, I'd keep Hoke one more year and see how he performs in an environment without a meddlesome AD breathing down his neck, watching film with him, and forcing him to buy into distracting gimmicks on and off the field. If he fails in Year 5, then open up a wide coaching search outside the names I mentioned above. Hoke is a good man, but hasn't shown he's a good coach yet. I personally think it's time for him to move on, but I'm willing to give him one more year under the circumstances above.

Blue Durham

September 24th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

I was in support of keeping Rodriguez until the fiasco bowl against Mississippi State. Then I was neutral.

I kept asking myself: For Michigan to improve, the defense has to improve, and thus, do I have any confidence Michigan's defense would get better next year if Rodriguez was still coach? They had no answers that year, why would they have any answers the following one.

I am beginning to feel the same way now with this staff and the offense.

We all saw the useless flailing away and floundering on offense last year. We're seeing it this year, and there seems to be no sense of urgency (certainly during games we are losing).

The team and its attitude and posture on the field is a reflection of its leadership. And it isn't encouraging.

trueblueintexas

September 24th, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^

I expected struggles on offense to start the season due to a new OC and the typical struggles asssociated with it. I get the occasional holding penalty which kills a drive. I get the occasional missed assignment which causes a sack or interception which kills a drive. That said, I think you can see a better plan for offense than last season. 

What I am completely dismayed about is:

- continued mention of lack of communication on both offense and defense

- consistent mistakes by coaches (clock management, number of men on field)

- No sign of offensive capability against good competition. Nussmeier says he sees signs, but it is not consistent. I don't consider signs against App St & Miami but not against ND and Utah as a consistency problem. That is a team that is not prepared to play teams that are equally physical or equally as well coached.