Brady Hoke: whole staff will be back next year and Gardner will return
ohio state blogs will post literally anything
MGoBlog will self destruct in
This is what I was worried about. One close loss just saved Funk and Borges. Disturbing.
You're really convinced borges or funk was gone if we'd gotten pounded?
If we got thrashed by 40, and only scored single digits, there is no question that Borges would be gone.
UF is going to keep Muschamp and fired their OC...the same was going to happen with us, IMO.
That game saved his job. Period.
I had a question about Jackson too, I still think it's time for him to retire and work in some sort of Lloyd Carr advisory role.
We need much more youth on our coaching staff. OC and RB coaches would be a great start.
And since I'm a solutions oriented person...I'll even give you my replacements.
RB: Tyrone Wheatley (Buffalo Bills)
Mike Hart is the running backs coach at Eastern Michigan. Would Michigan keep him in mind?
My blood pressure is rising and the only thing keeping me from passing out is I know ill dream about running into a brick wall for a 2 yard loss...
He's my 2nd choice without question. Another guy that is going to be a GREAT position coach (not sure if he'll be much else), fantastic recruiter, and he'll infuse some energy into the coaching staff.
I think Wheatley is more qualified which is why he's my clear #1, but I'd take Hart #2 and not look back.
And for the people that say "it doesn't have to be a Michigan Man"...that is true, so true. But these guys are good at what they do AND they know/love the program. Notice I didn't say Cam Cameron or Scot Loeffler for the OC position.
I had a post a couple weeks ago where I put my favorites in a "dream staff" scenario.
Sanford was the OC, Wheatley was the RB coach, Mike Tice (longshot) was the OL coach, and Mike Mallory (yes, another brother) was the ST coach.
*TEs were coached by Hecklinski and Tice.
I have been wanting Mike Sanford for OC since Borges fell off the wagon this year. I like the way he coaches kids, and he is going to be a great OC and possible HC someday.......just sucks we can't get him in the Michigan tree.
And Wheatley would be an amazing RB Coach at Michigan.
I think nothing summarizes my opinion more than the first line of this post.
Borges back? Without question. Completely agree.
I'm frankly excited about him coming back and I think next year will be great.
One year from now, I think the idea of getting rid of Borges will be laughable.
Funk? Hmmmm.... That's a tougher question.
But if Hoke wants him back, good enough for me.
Obligatory Badass Kicker FOR NO REASON!
Shit shit shit
Love it! Let's go out and do it like we did this weekend, but win! Go blue
I wouldn't get too excited. The last games offensive performance was (unfortunately) a rare exception. Games like Akron, UConn, PSU, MSU, Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa and every other away game from the last 3 years look to be the norm, regardless of how poorly it works.
Why do people mention Akron and PSU as bad games for Borges? If not for 3 redzone turnovers from Devin, M scores 40+ on Akron. With those TO's, they had 425 yards of offense. Not overly impressive against MACtion but again, turnovers. Same with PSU. They had nearly 400 yards of offense and scored 27 pre OT. Not great but good enough, all things considered (Bryant getting yanked, Lewan being out, 3 turnovers).
It goes back to who you want to assign accountability for those turnovers to. Devin turned it over at an alarmingly high rate to begin the year and Borges basically shortened his leash to nothing for Big Ten play outside of the OSU game. Borges got the bulk of the blame for both of those things.
The only reason to mention Akron as a poor offensive performance is ignorance. It was a very good offensive performance; the defense was bad.
PSU is more understandable; the first half offense was pretty bad, and Borges seemed to stick with the run for too long. It was not a bad game offensively, but there were a few calls that may have cost us the game. Of course, Gibbons making any FG he always makes would have won us the game.
Anytime you can put up 7 points in the first half on a 5 win MAC team, you have to mark that down as a quality offensive performance.
Anytime you turn the ball over 3 times in a half, twice in the redzone, that sort of scoreline is possible and it's not the OC's fault.
When your QB looks like hot garbage against Akron, you need to question the QB coaching. So you're right, its not the OC's fault, its the QB coach's fault...oh, wait.
From what I can remember, our offensive line play was atrocious.
The D was woeful against Akron, I agree. PSU is different. They did only have 10 but again, DG lit 2 of those drives on fire by throwing picks. Not a whole lot the OC can do about that. Second half they got it going and should've won that game but for the lord and savior Greg Mattison's defense.
Yep, 30 rushes for 28 yards by your running backs definitely doesn't fall on your OC at all. Having the ball at your opponents 30 with three minutes left and running the ball into the line three times in a completely ineffective way doesn't fall on your OC at all.
7-5. Book it.
I respect Brady's loyalty but hope he consulted with Brandon first and was told he was free to make this decision but would be facing a pretty stringent review at the end of next year if he kept Borges. If we are 7-5 again Hoke and Co need to go (absent having massive injury issues), assuming there are good candidates available. When you are a CEO coach decisions like this make or break your career. Hoke is making an incredibly important decision that is contrary to the available facts (regression of the offense over the past 3 years) and there needs to be consequences if his blind loyalty to his assistants harms the program
Gardner in Heisman contention.
I guess it is never too early to start drinking.
You've given up. We all get it. Probably don't need to keep hearing about it.
Those two occurences are mutually exclusive.
Become vengance, MGoBlog. Become Wrath
what's in the box?
Borges: "No ... No ... NOOOO!!!"
/calls run up the middle in denial
All we need is 6 offensive tackles on the field at the same time to run on that.
Bring back upvotes for posts like this PLEASE.
I imagine myself in the Brad Pitt role, dry heaving, crying and repeating "No!" and "That's not true" over and over, upon hearing this news.
But I do think Hoke had a similar opinion as I had in regards to the coaching staff and the problems that faced the team. If the OSU game saved anyone's job (and I don't think it did, necessarily), I think it was Funk's (though I don't think a single game saved it, I think if they are starting to see things click throughout the past couple weeks, it may have; also take into account the untimely loss of his father).
My guess is next year is Jackson's final year though (due to retirement).
FWIW: In my opinion, if the OL plays consistent football like they did against OSU, where they are at least something other than a sieve, then I think this is the type of game plan (minus a couple of the trick plays) that you can expect from Borges. I said it after the Indiana game -and I understand that was Indiana but it was also the only other game that the OL established itself as at least mediocre - but the balanced offense with PA, deep passes, short passes, run, etc is where Borges wants to go. Without the extreme limitations and being forced to go to the "what is the defenses biggest weakness and can we do anything about it" prayer, this offense becomes much more diverse. That means executing, for those that hate that word. But that's been my feeling all along.
Crap, that was his son. I was hoping they would both leave together and that would open the door for Hart or Wheatley.
If you're Jackson, I don't really see the point of sticking it out one more year and then retiring. Unless he's going to hit some magic retirement threashold with an extra season. The time to walk off into the sunset is when your kid graduates. If he comes back for next season, I don't see him retiring for a while.
That he didn't want to coach much longer after his son graduated. This may mean that they wanted him to stay on one more year for consistency, I could also see his son possibly being a GA and that's why he's sticking around a bit longer.
I do not believe he will be coaching more than 1-2 more years though.
Than a grad assistant named Jackson.
You people need to knock this crap off right now. Hoke will come read the blog to determine his next move and we might find outselves stuck with Wheatley or Hart.
I'm not saying Jackson's son is possibly going to be a GA and should be the RB coach one day, it's just that usually GA's are former members of that team and Jackson seems to fit the bill, particularly with his dad coaching and there not being a next level opportunity for him. The elder's decision to stick around may be because he wants to be a part of that as well.
I, for the record, believe Wheatley would be the optimal choice, but that's only minorly due to his previous connections with the school. Outside of that, I think you look around elsewhere (take a look at Hart, but he needs to be better than other candidates, he hasn't proven that by his track record to date, and I have other reservations about him coaching outside of that).
Why do we hate Jackson again?
He has had a long distinguished career, producing great back after great back. He got 1000 yards out of Fitzgerald Touissant, who in all of his carries might not have broken 10 tackles when the defender touched him.
The freshmen RBs looked pretty good last game, although it took longer than we would have hoped. Fitz isn't that great and he came back from the most gruesome leg injury any of us have ever seen with a player in a Michigan uniform.
The results have been poor for two years running. But do we think Fred Jackson is the reason for that? I don't.
Fred Jackson has had 4 and 5 star backs from 2008 to 2013. In that time, only one has looked like a real gamebreaker and that was Fitz for one season. Before that, he had Mike Hart who pretty much looked like he was college ready.
I don't think Fred Jackson got that out of Fitz. I think our OLine was really good in 2011 and Denard took a lot of pressure off the backs.
What I really don't get is the 10-15 posters on this site who seem incapable of believing that any coach under Brady Hoke can have a negative affect on the team or player.
But he's been up and down the past few years as far as player development. I like Jackson, but I think Michigan has struggled a bit at the RB position for whatever reason. I'm not against him coming back by any means, but I also don't think Michigan will lose a whole lot when he does decide to retire, and that's the only way I see him leaving.
Yeah, I agree entirely. If he goes, he goes. I just don't understand why its become a given that he should go.
own terms. The guy has had a great run at Michigan. Isn't better for Hoke and Brandon to say everybody stays? Then a month later during the bowl trip, Jackson can announce he is going to retire and his son and the team can celebrate his final game.
Consistency? From the running backs? That's.....funny.
Is what that was intended to mean.
He has another son, Joshua. He might retire after Joshua gets accepted into Michigan or graduates.
While possibly wishful thinking…Maybe Jackson remains with the intent to buy Wheatley some additional time to see how things shake out in Buffalo. In addition if the season goes as we all hope it all but secures Hoke’s tenure and allows UM to lure quality positional coaches without having to address questions surrounding their stability as a staff.
for us to finally see something with the line this year? Last year our line wasn't good either. I do agree with you on Jackson, though.
I can promise the staff isn't happy that it took so long to see some consistency on the field. Note that the OL was still pretty bad on roll outs, often letting defenders beat them across their face, as well as getting a solid base on the interior of the OL to prevent the defense from collapsing the pocket, so they weren't perfect, but they were at least consistent at something. They could run the stretch a bit, they could at least hold up for the most part against an array of blitzes, it's real improvement. And as far as we know, that's improvement they've been getting better at week-to-week in practice and simply wasn't adjusting to game speed or something.
But no, you shouldn't be happy it took 11 games to see that. I promise the players and coaches aren't either. But it's reality, and sometimes (I'm not saying for certainty, mind you) that first small step is the most difficult one to take.
All this really does is make next season a make it or break it season for Hoke. He's got to hit 9 or 10 wins. With a third straight 5 loss season (or even a four loss season really) its going to be awful hard to bring him back for another year.
He's essentially doubling down on his own future here. The time for changes was this season. Next season it will be too late.
"We went 7-5, but at least fans got to bathe in the firing of some of the staff."
(BTW, we're not going 7-5 next year.)
It would be different for Hoke.
And, for what it's worth, everyone said we weren't going 7-5 this year.
I don't think we go 7-5 next year. Last year we were good in conference play (6-2) and could point to Denard's injury as an excuse for the overall record being a little disapppointing. This year we just weren't very good and it was plain as day. There are no excuses now. Throw in OSU and Sparty being in the title game and I think guys in the program are going to have a lot of fuel for the fire this offseason. This is the kind of crappy season that can force guys to rededicate themselves.
I am sure that by next August we'll all have a handful of reasons why 9-3, maaaaaybe 8-4, is the absolute floor for next year's team.... just as we did this past August. But just as their were reasons to be pessimistic this season, even if nobody wanted to hear them, there will be reasons to be pessimistic next season. We lose two senior tackles. We lose an all time great wide receiver. We still haven't seen anything from a backup QB. We lose three or four starters from a B defense and probably still won't have any non-Jake Ryan playmakers on that side of the ball.
I hope next season is a bounce back year, but if people don't think 5 loses is a possibility, they're being a bit naive.
Of course it's a possibility, but I don't think it happens. We lose a handful of key guys, sure - every team does. But on the whole we won't be as young as this year and I think we're going to see Gardner and Ryan really step up as team leaders. We saw Gardner start to become more of a leader as this year progressed. Next year I think he'll be a captain and a very good one. Generally speaking, teams with senior QBs do pretty well.
Technically, wasn't Gardner a senior this year?
Michigan loses a good receiver who had a couple of huge games. Now, please don't take this as me discounting what Gallon has done, because I think he's vastly underrated. But, Gallon is not an all-time great. I'm really not trying to be mean about it, but he's a good receiver. All-time great is more than pushing it. Especially for a guy who probably won't finish the season on any All-American list(I could be wrong). I like that Michigan returns Funchess, Butt, Darboh, Chesson, and gains some very talented guys.
I think next years wide receiver core will be much better because Butt will have a season under his belt, Funchess finally is being productive, and whoever else replaces Gallon will do so because they beat a ton of competition.
The line does lose two tackles, one who probably won't even be All-Big Ten, though possibly honorable mention. And yes, they lose Lewan, but I think Magnuson will be OK at the spot next year. It'll help that Kyle, Glasgow, and Bosch will all have experience. Braden or someone who beats him out should be probably as productive as Schofield was this year to be honest. So yes, the line loses some leaders, but will actually have some experience and chemistry on the inside.
Michigan also loses these guys on defense: Q-Wash, Black, Cam Gordon, and Thomas Gordon. For whatever reason Gordon was basically a lifetime back-up player in all reality. Q-Wash should be replaced by a higher ranked, more athletic guy in Pipkins. A guy who showed a lot of promise on the defense. Black will be replaced by Willie Henry, who is basically the starter now anyways. I think Pipkins will be equal to Q-Wash next year or close. Henry will be more than fine replacing Black. Gordon was a back-up and Michigan is loaded at linebacker.
Thomas Gordon will hurt, but Michigan has guys like Dymonte Thomas who should be OK at replacing Thomas. It will help that by next year Wilson should be a very good to All-Big Ten type safety.
As far as no playmakers? I don't know what you call playmakers, but Ross, Ryan, Morgan, and Countess are all big time playmakers. In case you didn't know, Countess leads the Big Ten in interceptions. He's fourth overall in the entire NCAA. Ross, Morgan, and Ryan will probably end up being the best group in the Big Ten linebacker wise.
Look I know Michigan has had a tough year. But let's not just put down the entire team and act like everyone is terrible. Countess is one interception from leading the country in picks. Ross looked great before he was injured. Morgan will probably be the best middle linebacker in the Big Ten next year. Henry is already playing starter snaps. Clark is rushing the QB well, and I honestly believe next year a lot of those will turn into sacks.
Shazier is a supposed amazing blitzer and yet he only had 1.5 sacks more than Clark. Yes Clark needs to produce more, but you can see he has talent. He also rushes the passer a good bit.
This is not even to mention the playmakers Michigan brings in from their class. Peppers anyone? He's a guy that could be a true playmaker right away. Not very many players are like that. Do I think Michigan has an amazing season next year? No, they have an extremely tough schedule. I would say 7-5 is the worst they'll do and they could be good enough to go 10-2. I'll say I think they go 8-4 with a couple of losses like you saw this past weekend. One where they're in it all the way against a very good team.
But I also think it'll be hard to compare this year to next year. This year's 7-5 was ugly and the team looked bad a lot. I think they go 8-4 next year but look like a completely different, better team. The difference will be the very tough schedule with a lot of road games, which the team always seem to blow. Anyways, just one guys opinion, but most importantly the team does have playmakers on defense, a fair share of them actually.
There are only 3 games that seem like losses (@ND, @MSU, @OSU). The rest of the schedule is not that daunting. Anything less than 9-3 is another disaster! Losing to ND, MSU and OSU again should not be acceptable. That would make "red letter" games as 2-2 vs. ND, 1-3 vs. MSU and 1-3 vs. OSU. I think the bar really needs to be 10 or more wins and a real shot at the Big Ten Championship.
Using the logic that we lose some starters so we should be ok with 5 losses seems ridiculous. We will lose a number of players year in and year out. It is not a pro team, you don't get to keep the players forever. Every team in college football deals with those issues. The top college teams don't continuously use that excuse for losing.
Using that logic, we will say in 2015 the team is young because we lost Ryan, Countess, Avery, Gardner, etc. We should expect that the coaches have been working with the replacement tackles on the roster all year and they are ready to step in. Otherwise Michigan will never have a team good enough to compete for a Big Ten or National Championship.
Too bad both of them are having Top 10 years at the same time. It is almost irrelevant that it is OSU and MSU rather than Top 10 Team A and Top 10 Team B
It is PSU and Iowa that bothered me. I hope those awful losses serve as motivators.
It's never irrevelant when it's your rival. When your rival is strong, that adds a level of urgency to everything. Losing to those guys sticks in your craw a whole lot more.
I'd nominate the hand wringing over Penn State as MGoBlog's second most ridiculous canard of the season, behind only the Fire Borges! meme. We played for a field goal as most teams would and the kicker didn't come through. That simple.
A serious question: If every starter on every other team in the Big Ten were injured during the season, would that change your expectations for Michigan throughout the course of the season?Or would you simply look at the preseason projections from FBO and say, "Yep, we should still finish 7-5"?
Its truly odd. Why exactly should Michigan have lost to Penn State? Or been unable to score more than 13 points against a mediocre Nebraska D? Or only gain 45 yards of offense in the second half against Iowa?
In the actual season that was played this year, Michigan should have been 10-2. Especially if you look at the fact they started out 2-0 winning one of their most difficult games right off the bat.
I think if the problems persist next year then it shows more accurately what people are worried about. And if the progress doesn't start happening next year, trust me when I say that I will change my opinion on it from what it is now. But I do think that both Hoke and Brandon saw (or believe they saw) certain circumstances that left the coaches handcuffed, otherwise there would be no valid reason for there not even being a scapegoat here.
My opinion is that you will see improvement (as I've stated), but if you don't I still don't see Hoke getting shoved out the door, I believe it would be his one chance after that to make the changes to try to save his job. I personally think that's the correct decision, though I know and understand why some would disagree with that. I can promise that no one is making that decision because they are alright with only winning 7-8 games or because they are content not winning championships though. They are doing this because they believe it is the move to get them to where we all want to go.
So there exists a small minority of people that don't see Borges as a problem, and all the examples of offense incompetence can be blamed on something else. Luckily for Borges, you're joined by Hoke and Brandon in that group. But, if it turns out you are all wrong and Borges really is the mediocre offensive coordinator his career indicates that he is, THAT'S when Hoke should be given the chance to fix his mistake? Not a whole lot of coaches get a chance to fix a mistake after compounding that mistake (this is where you slap a nice big picture of Rich Rodriguez). You may be right that Brandon will give him that chance as Brandon seems like a guy that would loathe to admit a mistake in his biggest decision on the job, but I don't think Hoke would deserve that second chance.
I don't see the support for Borges being "a small minority" at all. The fire Borges crowd is definitely louder and more persistent on blogs like this, but I'm certainly glad that Hoke and Brandon aren't using the torch and pitchfork crowd on message boards for guidance.
Just because we don't come in here crying and looking for someone's job after every loss does not mean the haters are all alone on top of the mountain.
Yeah. Brian writes about "dying on Borges hill," so the Fire People crowd feels legitimized.
Borges gets another year because it is silly to fire a coach that you hired to run a particular scheme and fire him before he gets to really install it. Next year is Borges's judgment year. If it goes badly, the year after is Hoke's.
Obviously, I agree with SC. As I've said all year, no coordinator looks good behind a line that is incapable of blocking any single play well. Brandon, Hoke, Me, Bo's corpse all knew that this line was going to be bad. So, it sucks, but Borges gets a pass.
Absurd... All of you people still defending Borges need to pop the MSU game back on play or the PSU game, or the Akron game, or the UCONN game, or the Iowa game.
"Oh but the ND and Ohio games" you say? If anything, the success we showed on offense in those games UNDERMINES your defending Borges because it shows what this team was capable of, but was nowhere near able to show with any consistency, instead setting historic, embarrassing statistical lows in many offensive categories in multiple games.
Every possible excuse you come up with is trumped. He needs time to install his offense? Hmm what was that offense we saw vs ND and Ohio? The spread? He had his offense this year, and proved himself horribly inconsistent.
The worst part of this is people are overlooking Borges' utter incompetence in defending against aggressive, blitz-heavy defenses. Ohio's D was not nearly as aggressive as MSU or PSU's. Why? Because they probably felt they could play is safe given their point-a-minute offense.
To me the four most damning revelations this year involving Al Borges were:
1. Historically atrocious offensive line play - worst ever, by a line that showed it could actually compete in certain instances (Ohio/ND/etc). I chalk that up to coaching.
2. Schemes that put his players more in a position to lose than win - see Gardner's endless turnovers in the early games, followed by Gardner's endless conservatism and eating endless sacks to avoid turnovers in the later games.
3. Utter futility in adjusting to blitz defenses. This team has ZERO chance vs MSU. None. Do any of you actually think next year Borges will do a 180 and solve Narduzzi? Even if Narduzzi's gone, Dantonio has a big hand in the defense and will offer the same blitz happy game plan, and as long as Borges remains our OC, you won't be chalking up a win vs MSU due to our offense's performance. He will assuredly be outcoached every time by MSU.
4. Worst of all, the predictable nature of his schemes and his inability to adapt. The last play of the season was the perfect example. Lines stacked receivers for the 2 pt. conversion, OSU calls time out to adjust, Borges doesn't adjust to their adjustment. Brian Cook: "It does feel like Michigan should be thinking of what OSU might do in this situation and reacting to that instead of just running their play, but that has not happened much this year."
I personally believe Hoke hasn't made his mind up yet re Borges. He is going to protect Borges to the media until after the bowl game because what purpose would there be otherwise with one more game to play? But once the bowl game is over, that first week is when we'll get the true answer re Hoke's intentions.
He may keep Borges, and if he does, we'll all cross our fingers that you can in fact teach on old dog new tricks, and Borges changes A LOT of how he approaches the offense next year.
Yeah but the offensive line is young. And FBO predicted we'd be 7-5. And his playcalls are designed to work. And scheme doesn't matter, all you need to do is execute.
Did I miss any?
Well, I don't think the Akron game was a bad game plan, but the turnovers were devastating. I don't think PSU was a bad game plan, but the missed kicks were devastating. I don't think MSU was a bad game plan, we were just outmatched and the line was dreadful. Iowa was awful, Nebraska was subpar.
You can't just assume things because you feel that way. People have different opinions about certain games. FWIW, I don't care if Borges stays or goes. I'm always in favor of keeping a guy unless he's proven to be bad. I don't think Borges has. We've all got qualms and quibbles, but we will with the next guy, too.
Did you know that with the Ohio State game we are still ranked the 114th offense in the country for November? And that we're ranked dead last in rushing for that month, despite a good performance against Ohio State?
And that even with the two best performances ever (Ohio State, Indiana) we finished in the mid-80s on offense? That's pretty much 2009 Greg Robinson.
But Rich Rod did fire someone who turned out to be a good DC and hired one that turned out to be worse (although he has proven he is at least competent this year). To some degree, that points to a different problem.
I personally believe that next year is the first year there are a realistic amount of handcuffs (if you will) that most teams face year-to-year, and at that point if production doesn't come, then there is clearly a problem there. But firing someone before that problem is clear, particularly when you believe things are going in the correct direction and there isn't problems within the staff (as there was between the position coaches and Rich Rod and Shafer), then I think there is more leeway. On top of that, not becoming a program that brings in and chases out coaching staffs, is, in my opinion a good thing. Despite that it goes against what I believe to be an unfortunate norm in sports, I believe it is the correct move.
I don't believe there were enough handcuffs to explain the offense we saw for most of the season. We had the talent to do what we did against Notre Dame and Ohio State. That the same team did what it did against Akron, UConn, MSU, Nebraska, Northwestern and Iowa tells me there's a problem in the coaching staff. I guess you can reasonably disagree.
I agree with not being a program that brings in and chases off staffs at the top level, but to me that doesn't apply to the coordinator and assistant level. Even Lloyd Carr made several changes at the coordinator level during his tenure.
A line that does not allow you to have a single go-to play is a handcuff, and a major one. That the line being bad was foreseeable (2 seniors, 0 juniors, 2 sophomores who had never played) means that they probably knee they were going to struggle a bit. And they definitely did foresee the problem, as they brought in 12 OL in their first two classes.
Its not that Borges is any good. I think he's an average OC. Its that this line would make any OC look worse than he really is.
Your last line explains why Michigan will forever be an underachieving program. Even the most ardent Borges defender knows he is average and chooses to support him.
With me, its not even about Borges. I defend him, and any other coach, against stupid criticisms. I'll defend the next guy, too, if the criticisms remain stupid and vapid and vague and banal.
And the idea that the fans are keeping Michigan from being undefeated is insanely misguided. Someone might call it really stupid.
I'm insinuating that the AD and head coach have the same opinion as fans such as yourself.
Also, its not a matter of being "undefeated". Its a matter of taking a favorable schedule and performing well below a team's ability. Why do seemingly smart people such as yourself argue against crazies and thus sound crasy yourself?
and so what he brings to the table is his ability to identify and attract quality coordinators.
If Hoke believes Borges is the best man for the job, then that's the horse upon which Hoke should ride into battle.
If Hoke is no good at picking an OC, then that seems to rise to the level of fatal flaw. What would make you confident in his alternate pick?
We shall see w/ results on the field. IMO, Hoke gets two more years so he is playing with seniors he recruited. (More than the three week haul he pulled off in 2011.) But if we go 7-5 next year, his seat is hotter-than-hell going into 2015. (Not.Gonna.Happen.)
"They are doing this because they believe it is the move to get them to where we all want to go."
The problem is with another down year (7-5/8-4) there will be no evidence that keeping Hoke, Broges, et al, is the "move to get them to where we all want to go."
Youth won't be accepted as an excuse and Devin will be a 2.5 year starter. It's next year or bust for Hoke. Or at least it should be based on evidence if we have another bad year.
To where they should (not just improve, that should be relatively easy as far as consistency), then I believe they should go 100%. I believe Hoke will have an opportunity to make a change after that if that were to happen. That's my opinion, nothing more.
I'm not against holding the coaches responsible, please don't take it that way. I don't think Hoke is either, FWIW. I think he's making the decision he believes is best for the program.
Yeah, that's what I think too. If they go 7-5 or even 8-4 next year there's an awful lot of evidence built up that Hoke's not the right guy. It'll be year four for him in the program, and if you're going to make the claim that things are headed in the right direction, you can't do that with your third straight sub-par season.
Next season has to be a 9 or 10 win season or Hoke is done. He'll have exhausted all possible excuses and the vultures will be circling at that point.
Look, if Michigan is still going to try and pretend that they are an elite national title contending school, then you need to set the bar high. Losing four and five games a year just isn't going to cut it.
So with that in mind, I just don't see how Brandon can look at three straight bad seasons and say "yup, this is still the guy" because you can't sell "they're improving" at that point any more. Because if that's what he's telling you, you have to ask "improving towards what?" Following next season, if he's been improving the guys he's recruited and coached for three straight seasons, and they are still a four or five loss team, that doesn't say a whole lot about his ability to coach at a high level.
Basically, every season Hoke has been year, there's been some excuse for the failures -- coaching transition, scheme transition, youth/depth, etc. Next season all of those are gone. The only excuses left are the ones of his own doing. And they will be the same issues that we've seen the last three seasons, which means they aren't likely to change with a fifth season.
This is undoubtedly true. And next year was the perfect year to bring in a new OC. We're going to be extremely young (Gardner, Funchess and Glasgow are basically going to be the only upperclassmen) so a new OC would get some leeway, yet we'd have a fifth year senior at QB with talent to paper over some of the youth issues and should be able to grasp a new system better than a young QB.
As it is, if Borges lights a couple games on fire as he's wont to do, and we end up with 4 to 5 loses, Hoke is gone. I don't know if this means Hoke is extremely loyal, extremely confident or extremely stupid. Maybe some combination of all three.
Anytime you have a senior QB, it's not a throwaway year. I'm not in love with Borges as our OC or QB coach but I was also somewhat leery of asking Gardner to adapt to a third QB coach in his career. Gardner can be a really special player and I can understand the rationale for wanting to ride it out with Borges as his OC/QB coach. There is no guarantee a new QB coach would help his development.
I didn't mean to imply that it's a throw away year. I'm just saying that purely from Hoke's self interest in staying employed, next year is a perfect one to bring in a new OC and make offensive coaching changes. If things were to go poorly on offense, youth would be seen as a legitimate reason for why the change didn't have the desired effect.
On the positive side, there are reasons to think that a coaching change could work really well. Gardner is experienced. He's gone to tons of camps and such during the summer. He's a bright guy. He should be able to handle a new system (not that a third system in 5 years is necessarily ideal). You have Funchess. You have two young RBs that have shown potential. There's clearly some talent, and with good coaching, you could scheme over deficiencies. You could have an LSU like offensive rejuvination under the right coach.
A change certainly could work out - but it might not. Right now we have no idea who a hypothetical replacement OC/QB coach could be, so we're ascribing all the best qualities to him. It's like those political polls where they compare the unpopular incumbent with a generic guy from the opposition - the generic guy wins. But then the party actually nominates someone and it might be another story.
The big unknown in all this is how Gardner and Borges get on. If they have a strong relationship (I don't know), that's not something you can easily toss aside.
Well put, you articulated exactly what I couldn't figure out how to say
So you shouldn't replace a guy who in your own words, you're not in love with, because the replacement might also be a guy you're not in love with? That's really striving for excellence there!
I like this announcement because I think it might be hard to find a good replacement OC. Borges has only two years of his recruits and not even his own style of QB. Should he be doing more with what he has? Definitely. Would many quality OC's walk into a situation where they could be fired in 2 years with other guys recruits? No. New coaches have to relocate families, sell houses, work long hours, cut recruiting ties, etc. - its big hassle to move. Why would you do that every 2 years? Also, how good will the offense be next year learning another new system? This is the best way to go and then, if things don't work out, make a decision on the entire package- Hoke and his crew- as one unit. Clear the weeds and replant.
He has been here 3 years. When speaking of relocation we wouldn't look at his tenure only based on his recruits!
You can "demand excellence" all you want - but in the real world, you can't always snap your fingers and land the perfect OC. In fact, I'd bet that the new OC would end up being an underwhelming hire like Loeffler. The real superstar coordinators are looking for head coaching jobs, not another OC position.
I'm not married to keeping Borges around, but I recognize that there is a nonzero chance that Borges's replacement would end up not being an improvement over him. It's not unthinkable that, with improved OL play, we have a considerably improved offense next year, without having to resort to the gimmick-of-the-week like the tackle over.
The other thing to consider is the unknown issue of how much influence Hoke actually has over the offensive gameplan. We do not really know how much freedom the OC has.
If Borges can figure out how to handle a blitzing team and can roll out an offense like the ND, Indiana and OSU games week in and week out, then I think we would all be happy with him staying. Offenses have their ups and downs, but having another string of games like MSU, Nebraska, Iowa, etc. should not be considered acceptable next year.
Let's see if Borges has figured out what will work with his personnel.
I don't think sticking Devin with a new coordinator in year 5 is a good idea. Let's look at his history:
Year 1: QB under Rich Rod and Magee
Year 2: first year under Borges, doesn't look ready for prime-time in his few apperances
Year 3: starts season as WR, transitions back to QB late
Year 4: first full season as starting QB
And people want to stick him with a new OC/QB coach next year? If it doesn't work next year, then you bring in a new OC and let him work with Shane or whoever during the spring and fall.
I, for one, think the program is bigger than the development of a single player. Besides, college football is littered with QBs who have excelled under a new offensive coordinator. Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Zack Mettenberger and tons others have either excelled in their first year in a program or improved greatly under the tutelage of a new coach.
I'll turn the question around on you. Everyone keeps pointing to 2015 as the year for this program. Why would we want a new QB with a new OC for that make or break year?
You don't pass up an opportunity to change staff simply because you have a fifth year senior who would be getting his third OC/QB coach. You do it because you think its best for the long term success of the program.
And its not like Hoke needs to switch from manball to spread. Just find an OC that does the things you'd like Borges to do, but does them better.
Do you think that some of the defenders of the status quo want Borges to be retained because of his aptitude or is it out of fear that this staff can't identify an adequate replacement?
at Michigan that there's "leeway?"
This. So much.
Michigan blew a golden opportunity this season. At 2-0, they had already won one of their most difficult games and should have finished up at least 10-2. Instead, they went 5-5, nearly lost 3 more (though, to be fair, almost beat OSU) and missed an opportunity to solidify Hoke's job going into a difficult 2014.
Guess what? Next year we're going to be young on offense too. Our entire OL is going to be Freshmen to RS Sophomores (and possibly one JR in Glasgow). We lose our top two linemen, our biggest receiving threat and our most experienced RB.
We have three difficult road games (ND, MSU, OSU) and I'm really not that confident in ANY road game Michigan plays with this staff. It hasn't been pretty over the past 3 years.
If the offense struggles next year and the defense only makes a leap from above average/pretty good to good and Michigan ends up 7-5 with 1-3 records against MSU and OSU over the past 4 years....yeah, its not going to be pretty for for Hoke and Co.
A redshirt sophomore has had 3 years in the program, I would not consider them young anymore.
Then comes the next question: Is a RS-SO 2/3 star player that 1/3 the teams in the country trot out really that superior to a RS-FR like Kalis or Magnuson?
This is insanity. With even younger offensive line and difficult road games, we are easily going to lose 4 to 5 games next year. Switching the OC now would have given Hoke a fighting chance. Now, one more season like this and he can kiss his dream job goodbye. I don't get why you would jeopardize yourself like this.
I don't see how the next season is going to turnout any better than this season.
I am at loss for words.
These kids deserve better.
We should be favored in 9 of the 12 games. If we can pull off an upset and avoid one, we're looking at 10-2. What fourth games are we going to lose easily? (I'm assuming you think we will easily lose at MSU/ND/OSU)
Do you seriously believe that we will be favored in games at ND, MSU, and Ohio? Add a conference stinker game or two which we always have, and yes, we are going to lose 4 or 5 games next year.
At the start of the season, how many games was this team going to be favored in? Probably about 9. But they only won 7. At some point, you've got to use the recent past as a track record for projecting the future.
Hoke seems to be playing poker and has gone all in on 2014. Ballsy move, IMHO, as if things don't break his way it will be his head on the chopping block.
I love Al's offense when its clicking (as it was on saturday). When everything works right it's nearly unstoppable.
The problem is the wild inconsistensy. We go week to week from blowing up good teams (Ohio) to being blown up by bad teams (Nebraska's defense). In the three years he's been here he's never really gained any sort of consistency, and it's honestly (in my non-profession opinion) gotten worse even as we have players closer to what he'd ideally have (instead of Denard at QB).
Al Borges is the Tracy McGrady of college football. Flashed brilliance throughout his career, but provided zero consistency and inexplicably vanished with far too much frequency. The only thing consistent about Al Borges is that he is inconsistent. Oh, and my signature. Narduzzi completely and utterly owns Borges, and will do so again next year unless Borges actually shows some capacity to adapt, i.e., expect 40 screen passes.
Gratuitous brown nosing post. Thank's SC, a voice of knowledge and reason as always.
I for one agree with you completely and appreciate your insight. Even after the PSU game I was not ready to blame Borges. When the interior of your O-Line continually craters there are not many options. Against PSU we were even or ahead most of the game - with a chance to win running high risk plays (DG was still extremely turnover prone at that point) for appearances sake wasn't justified.
JMO and I know it's an incredibly unpopular one around here.
rest of the schedule and it should have been. We would not have 5 losses at this point if it was. It should not take the hot seat to make the guy call a good game and break tendency, this creates issues for the majority of next year when he can go back to what we saw Akron to Ohio.
That outside of a few of the trick plays, the scheme and game plan was generally the same for OSU as it was for every game post-MSU. I think the OL executed better and that resulted in the ability to open up the playbook more. You can get to that stuff when you get the first 1st down, when you can get to 2nd and medium, and when you do run a trick play that doesn't work, you know you can get to 3rd and manageable on 2nd down.
Maybe there were som slight changes, but I do not believe it was much. I think the lack of execution (players and coaches, just to make that clear for as is needed) and in large part a snowball effect due to inconsistency and limitations doomed the offense much of the time the offense played poorly.
But that's my opinion and has been. Again, I understand why people beleive differently and don't want to debate it, but that's the POV I've taken from the start and I think explains why this offense was wildly inconsistent this year more than any other time in Borges's career. In my opinion, that's a much more logical way of thinking that actually believing he forgets how to call plays, he is too stubborn, he saved everything for one game, or he saved everything to save his job. But what people view as logical can often be different (I'm not saying other people aren't using their own logic, I'm saying people often have a different view of what is logical based on other views, opinions, and bias, myself included).
"That outside of a few of the trick plays, the scheme and game plan was generally the same for OSU as it was for every game post-MSU."
I'm pretty sure the number of screen passes in the OSU game approaches the sum total of screen passes thrown for the rest of the season.
I also believe that both Green and Smith contributed heavily to the success against OSU. They typically would get positive yards when running on 1st and 2nd down and did a solid job blocking during pass downs. Their development in the offense next year will go a long way towards the overall team success.
Without the extreme limitations and being forced to go to the "what is the defenses biggest weakness and can we do anything about it" prayer, this offense becomes much more diverse.
Are you suggesting that attacking a defense's weaknesses isn't a good offensive strategy? Not trying to start an argument, I just don't understand what this specific statement means.
I believe Borges did try to do things to take advantage of what those defense's weaknesses. The problem was things such as: MSU's weakness - deep passes; Nebraska - Between OT running; Northwestern - Short/Intermediate Outs; etc. But Michigan either couldn't execute to take advantage of those things and struggled to execute outside of those things, making the offense quite limited in what they could do.
That's what I was trying to convey. That it was more "let's try to take advantage of their weakness and pray that's enough because we can't do much out of that due to poor OL play"
But your narrative for the season has gotten absurd beyond reason right now.
I don't know how you can still manage to pin the struggles primarily on the team not properly executing, and not on Al Borges preferring a style that the offense had serious problems executing.
Are you actually trying to tell us that the playcalling style we saw against Akron, Northwestern and Nebraska was due to the offense not being able to execute Al Borges' gameplan and him altering what he wanted to do, and that the shift to OSU is because the offense managed to execute against them and Borges started calling the game how he wanted? You are telling me that the offense could manage to handle assignments against OSU that they couldn't against Akron or Penn State?
You gotta answer me:
Did the offense suddenly start "executing" and allow Borges to call the gameplan as he wanted, or did Al Borges shift his game plan in away that allowed the offense to start "executing"?
I think Borges and Hoke played exactly the type of football they wanted, "execution" problems be damned. I think we will see much of the same next year, with a one game better record.
A guy that has been coaching for nearly 30 years and has been an OC for about as long, suddenly forgot game-to-game how to call plays or create game plans; or that 18-23 year olds trying to execute something that is going to be hard no matter what is asked of them - many of the kids being significantly inexperienced compared to their counterparts - may perform inconsistently?
As for gameplans:
Northwestern - throw short/intermediate throws to the flat which take advantage of the void in cover 3 that doesn't rely on Gardner making underneath reads
Nebraska - Run on one of the worst run defenses in the country, utilize jet sweep to beat them to the edge, run mesh concepts and double moves to beat cover 1.
Akron - Michigan averaged 6.9 yards per play and had 4 turnovers. Akron averages 5.5 yards per play on defense, the average Michigan put up on them would put them at 117 in the nation. Think the game plan in general was not too shabby.
Borges shifted his game plan week-to-week to try to take advantage of defensive weaknesses (MSU he stacked formations and forced safeties to cover WRs 1 on 1, as another example; Iowa came out mostly in man coverage as opposed to their typical 2-high look, Borges adjusted the game plan and called plays designed to beat man coverage rather than 2-high coverage, though I'm sure you noticed).
So why do you think Borges was successful some games and not others? Was it because he is capable but decided not to some games? Was it because he forgot how to game plan and call plays some games and then remembered other times? Or was it because execution was inconsistent, and maybe when execution got consistent, a snowball effect occured? FWIW, as someone who has played and coached, it's much easier to be consistent at things like game planning and coaching than it is executing as a player. Add on that young players at a position that is often vital to any success on offense, yeah, I think that's fairly reasonable.
When you have a bad OL, the rest snowballs. When Michigan's OL played at a mediocre level, you saw it snowball the other direction. The run game opens up, alright. Now the PA opens up. Great, now the short passing game opens up. Awesome, now that a base is established the counters and constraints open up. This is working out well. So, yes, the offense did execute much better against OSU. And some execution here and there resulted in nearly 20 more plays being called then you saw in other games, and allowed Borges to go deeper into the playbook, and allowed Michigan to be successful at doing other things.
Certainly, the offense wasn't perfect and you'd like to see it have better results. But the fact that you can't see the adjustments Borges tried to make, both to take advantage of Michigan's strengths and to take advantage of opponents weaknesses, and to attempt to cover up some of Michigan's weaknesses, I'm sorry. There are things to complain about, sure, but Borges didn't go out there, forget what football was, and then suddenly remember for a few games during the season.
I'm not going any further into the debate. You can disagree with my POV, that's fine and I can respect that. But I'm not sure how my option is "absurd beyond reason". But alright.
You aren't debating with me in good faith, anyways, and I'm sorry if it is because I was not very tactful in my response.
I never implied that Al Borges forgot how to gameplan or call plays. I simply argued that he he was calling a scheme that didn't suit his personnel, was slow in making adjustments, but finally found success when he finally made some substantial shifts in strategy.
The timeline is pretty clear. He spends fall camp and non-conference trying to iron it out, but by B1G play its obviously not working. He makes some minor adjustments that work against Minnesota, but Penn St. and particularly Michigan St. showed some major exploits, notably by loading the box and sending linebackers hard against the play action. Nebraska is the nadir. Against NW he unloads the box by attacking the flats and going wild with the fake bubble screen. Against Ohio State he goes full bore into spreading the defense horizontally and quick passes out the PA, most notably that play action screen to Gallon that started the game off.
So I would say we are actually judging the likelihood of two scenarios:
A OC who has been forced out of two of his last three positions has a bad season because he mismatches his scheme and personel, but pulls it together with good adjustments for a great final game.
Or the line is so mind-blowingly inconsistent that they spend most of the latter half of the season mired in incompetence, with the only front sevens they can handle being Indiana and OSU. One of those teams has 4 guys that will probably be playing on Sundays in their front seven, the other has 4 guys that probably shouldn't be playing in a BCS conference.
I was giving my honest assesment of the situation and the opposing view point. I appreciate that you at least looked at the timeline and show that he did try different things. Now, I believe he tried different things each week to attack the weaknesses of each team he faced individually, while trying to mitigate to the best of his ability a weakness that is extremely difficult to mitigate.
The Northwestern short passes were a function of that, not because he didn't realize their value before. It's that they were open against Northwestern's cover 3. They weren't against a press based cover 4 with tight safety help over top (MSU) and they weren't open against a press cover 1 (and at times press cover 4) look from Nebraska. Iowa went to more of a press look as well, though not as successfully (because they don't have the skill at DB) and not as often (because it isn't their base defense), but did it because they could exploit Michigan's greatest weakness under those circumstances: the interior OL's lack of protection leading to a lack of route developement on the outside.
In essense, I don't think Borges was tinkering because he didn't know what to do. He knows how to take advantage of different looks from different schemes and styles of teams. He didn't forget that. But at some point the team has to execute to some degree.
Against OSU, he started off with a tunnel screen off of PA to Gallon, a play that has been a staple of Michigan's offense since Borges's arrival. That play was not new, and has probably been run in the majority of games throughout his three years here. But it was executed flawlessly, right down to Lewan's pancake block. But that's set up by the 4-yard gain on first down and the hitch for a 1st down on 2nd down. The first three plays have been staples of Michigan's offense since DG took over as QB.
So yes, I do believe it's in large part due to execution, because that sequence of events, along with most of the play calling, was very similar to what we've seen in the past, except for it worked.
We will suck again next year.
from a recruiting standpoint, I understand why he came out and said this.
I'm not going to claim certainty that this is a failure to be cognizant of the multitude of problems, but that's what it looks like from an outside perspective.
Disappointing, but not surprising. Was hoping coach Jackson would at least retire now that his son has graduated, but I guess not. Turns next season into a make it or break it season for Hoke. That seat is going to get awfully hot after the first couple of losses.
Brady Hoke - you're on notice.
We better hope the OL with another year of experience gets it and is able to execute what Borges calls, or it's gonna get even uglier 'round these parts.
Can someone post the Colbert notice-board and put Hoke down on all the slots?
Oooooo, scary. Don't think Hoke'll be getting much sleep after that throw down.
How long until this site burns down today? 5,4,3,2,..... too late!
can be as bad at their jobs as Funk and Borges and keep their jobs. Funk has had terrible, absolutely terrible lines for 2 years in a row now and Borges has called games like he wants us to lose too many times to count. Hell, when was the last time Jackson produced a good back?
I don't see us doing any better than 8-4 next year, not with our road schedule and not with this staff.
Make $800k, be maddeningly ineffective and get called back for next year. Sounds like a dream job.
At first, I thought this was one of those spam posts. "I make $800k a year sitting in a box and making terrible decision while blaming it on the execution of my players. Click here to find out how!"
I was just about to post how nice it was to see that everyone had backed off the ledge and how it was actually pleasant to read the forum again.
Oh come now, you can't really be surprised can you? There was absolutely no signs of firing anyone anywhere from within the Fort.
Doesn't make it any less galling.
Borges has cost us 2-3 games a year, expect this to continue. This is why Michigan has not won a title in quite a few years. Crap.
Very hard to have patience but these guys do deserve one more year. Would like to see a name QB coach installed.
Who would you removed on the staff to have made room for a dedicated QB coach?
Really don't think this is a terrible idea. This year was really year one of the type of system Hoke wants to run (IMO) because of Denard's absence, but I would agree with everyone else, that puts a lot of pressure on Hoke and Co.
Um.......I told you so?
I guess to some this is wonderful news. To others (like me) it's like the failed two point converstion try emotion multiplied many times over. And yes, once and for all, Hoke DOES love Borges and his playcalling - he told you that in his pressers and he wasnt lying.
And no rage from me. I saw this coming months ago when Brady was telling everybody how wonderful the playcalling was and that he saw nothing wrong with any of it. Just defeated acceptance at this point.
I don't want to get into a whole argument again, but I think it's more that he likes the idea of where the offense is going in his opinion. He obviously doesn't love the results as they happened, I just think he has a similar opinion to things as I do, which is different than most fans, and we can't yet say who is right and who is wrong.
I really just don't understand your insistence on having Borges around. It baffles me.
I understand your general thought process, which I believe you once stated as "he calls plays that are designed to succeed", but is that ALL there is to be an OC? And, couldn't you really say that about every single coordinator in football? I'm sure if I sat down with the OC from every last place team in each conference in college football, he could explain to me why he called the plays he did and why they didn't succeed and how all he needs to be successful is just better "execution". Do you really believe that for the money he's being paid he's the best man for the job? Do you really believe that there is no one else out there in all of college football who could have avoided 4-7 debacles (depending on your definition of the word) that this team came up with this year?
If he would have let go, I would have agreed with Hoke's move to let him go (because he's inside the program and knows better than any of us). My personal opinion is that I've seen what he wants to do and why he can't, and when he has a consistent OL (note: not great, just consistently in a mediocre or better way), I beleive he can do much of what will make his offenses successful.
And I believe I have seen Gardner improve over the course of the year, and there are other circumstances why it appears he hasn't (namely: the OL). I still prefer having a QB coach that isn't also the OC, but I think, as far as practice is concerned, that Borges has done well there. I think Borges can and will be a good OC for Michigan. I could be wrong, and if I am than I won't lose sleep over it. I have just believed there are other circumstances that would have severely limited any OC's ability with this team. Hopefully those limitations are fixed next year, or he deserves to be gone. But that's my opinion from outside the program.
I have just believed there are other circumstances that would have severely limited any OC's ability with this team.
You could very well be right about this and my feelings on Borges would change very little. My opinion is that the offensive coordinator's job is much, much more than just drawing on a chalkboard and going home. He's responsible for the output of the offense. That means the "handcuffs" that prevent his plays from working are ALSO his responsibility, at least in part.
He is much more than just drawing up plays. I think the lack of interior OL consistency really hurt him. Saying much more beyond that is getting deeper into a debate I don't want to get in to. In my belief, you will see a much better output next season (not just better, because being better consistently is must and shouldn't be difficult, but much better game-to-game and over the whole course of the season).
Nor I. And you are one of the people I would expect to be happy about this news and hey, only time will tell if it's the right call or not. I sincerely hope it is for everyone's sake. But I really don't think it is and I really think we've just locked ourselves into 8-4 records for a while.
My main point here is that for the past several months I've been saying this would happen because I believed that Hoke was telling the truth in his pressers re Borges and lots of people here either didnt want to or couldnt believe it.
I'm happy as far as I think it's the correct move from my opinion, but it doesn't really prove my point outside of the fact that Hoke probably thinks something similar. But I'm not going to go around telling people "I told you so!", mostly because he still may not be the guy. I believe he is, I think next year will clearly tell if he is or not, at which point I'll either be correct or come around to the other side, albeit a year later than everyone else.
I don't know that this is wonderful news to anyone other than Borges et al., but I do see some limited benefit in being seen as a program that does not cut bait every three years. I guess I am grasping for butterflies.
Hoke DOES love Borges and his playcalling
The playcalling that racked up 603 yards, 41 points, and 31 first downs against the No. 3 team in the country? Borges has had good games and has bad games, and while I am not content with this season I know for a fact neither are Brandon nor Hoke--who have made it clear that Big Ten (and more) titles are priority.
If they're retaining Borges, it's for a reason to achieve that goal, and we can speculate all we want as to what that reason or reasons is/are, but I'm not sure it's worth anything because none of us are inside Schembechler Hall. Maybe it simply is blind loyalty to his staff, maybe something else, but if Dave Brandon is running Michigan athletics like a corporation (as we've all lamented about at some point or another) then he is results-driven and sees value in retaining the staff.
Remember when Charlie Weis almost beat USC? That ended up well.
I never said it was the right decision, only that the people in charge see value in retaining the staff, and I'm apt to trust the people intimately involved in the daily operations of the football program than mindless speculation from fellow MGoBloggers.
Remember when it wracked up negative rushing yards against a woeful Nebraska team? Borges has had a few good games, you are correct there. But his terrible (or worse) games outnumber and outweigh them.
I'd love a job where I can perform like crap and get paid oodles of money.
I'm disappointed but not surprised. I was hoping for some changes. I hope this works out for Coach Hoke. If there isn't a big improvement next season, I don't think he'll be around for a 5th season with a revamped staff.
you actually expected accountability? hahahah, this is madness!
THIS IS SPARTA!
Basically, Hoke is betting his future at Michigan on Borges. So there's that.
at some level, if Hoke can learn to be more directive. I'm okay with loyalty from Hoke, but obviously the empowering CEO version of coaching isn't working. He needs to be in charge.
But Funk??? Seriously, with that much talent they've recruited, this should be the best part of the offense every year. I hope they get him some help.
In Funk's defense, the talent he's recruited is all freshmen (redshirt or true) right now. He doesn't have many upperclassmen to work with beyond the tackle duo. Also, both he and his GA, Stenavich, suffered deaths in the family during the season, and we can only guess how much that affected them.
How can you expect me to over react with such foolishness?
Wish I had something intelligent to say aside from fuuuuuuuuuuuu
Clearly continuity is being placed at a premium here, even if we got the best OC/Staff in the world there would be some growing pains related to the transition. I, for one, expect this to help us flip back all those one-score losses this year and end something like 11 or 12-1 next season.
Why would there be growing pains? It didn't happen at ohio? Nor LSU? Auburn? Bama? What about when Stoops took over Ok? Why does there need to be more than 3 years of growing pains? Why? 8-4 is best we can hope for.
Because this is Michigan and we Michigan fans are different and allow excuses instead of demanding our team win.
One year, it's Tressel signing a class coming off a BCS win against Arkansas, the next year it's Urban Meyer who was hired on Nov 28, 2011. A mere blip in recruiting. Fickell clearly was in over his head, but he never presided over a signing day.
RichRod's classes, on the other hand, were trending downward, and so today Hoke is dealing with the three-star 2010 smorgasbord and the near-disaster 2011 class, which Hoke had to mitigate given only three weeks from his Jan 11, 2011 hiring date.
Not to mention that Ohio was allowed to have essentially 2 coaching staffs. One to recruit and one to coach for the end of the season.
Our QB coach you guys....
you missed what happened next; instead of throwing it to the open Tree, Borges tucked it and ran into the line of photographers, thus losing two yards.
Many of us already knew this was going to happen. Raging about something over which you have no control over, will do nothing. Brady was always going to keep this staff intact. If you didn't think so, then you haven't been paying attention. Accept it, and resign yourself to what it is.
Hoke is going down with them if this shit happens again.
Read this and first thing that popped in my mind was Cypress Hill
"When the shit goes down, Hoke better be ready. When the shit goes down!"
I am not surprised that the entire staff will return next season. If the offensive line is average, or approaches good next season, then Saturday's gameplan becomes the norm.
So be it.
Regarding your last sentence, I think that is exactly what will happen. continued struggles, coaching shake up, year 5 is do or die.
Sorry, this was in reply to ilah17's post above
This is a time where I really need Dave Brandon to do a typical Dave Brandon thing and step in
He has already stepped in and kept Hoke. That was him stepping in. This is what DB wanted. Maybe you were being sarcastic? Not sure. But that last thing we need is for DB to do anything.
Debacle. Debacle. Debacle. Debacle.
If Al decides to be "OSU Al" in 2014, I'm ok with it. Problem is, I think he goes back into turtle mode during most games of the reg. season. And that, will be bad.
Will Brady Hoke be fired after the 2014 season? Will youth still be the excuse? Nine wins is the floor; it's not a hard schedule when you actually break it down and realize it is a soft B1G these days.
2014 Michigan Football Schedule
|Date||Opponent / Event||Location||2013 Sagarin|
|Sat., Aug. 30||vs. Appalachian State||Michigan Stadium||173|
|Sat., Sep. 6||at Notre Dame||South Bend, Ind.||27|
|Sat., Sep. 13||vs. Miami (Ohio)||Michigan Stadium||219|
|Sat., Sep. 20||vs. Utah||Michigan Stadium||33|
|Sat., Sep. 27||vs. Minnesota *||Michigan Stadium||51|
|Sat., Oct. 4||at Rutgers *||Piscataway, N.J.||114|
|Sat., Oct. 11||vs. Penn State *||Michigan Stadium||52|
|Sat., Oct. 25||at Michigan State *||East Lansing, Mich.||13|
|Sat., Nov. 1||vs. Indiana - Homecoming *||Michigan Stadium||57|
|Sat., Nov. 8||at Northwestern *||Evanston, Ill.||65|
|Sat., Nov. 22||vs. Maryland *||Michigan Stadium||71|
|Sat., Nov. 29||at Ohio State *||Columbus, Ohio||7|
Going 7-0 at home and at least 3-2 on the road seems like a very achievable goal (10-2).
It sure does seem like an chievable goal. But how many of those are "auto-wins" based on what we saw this year? I see a lot of teams capable of improvement. We could have been 10-2 this year with anything that halved our offensive highs for the season.
I'm hoping that Al & Co can field a competent offense given a vastly improved interior line. No more Devin getting beat up with 7-10 sacks a game, not to mention the additional hits he took.
The coaching staff and team have to go out and make it happen. I think Brady deserves two more years to get his recruits in place as seniors. Let's see what these recruiting classes can do when they've got experience and strength training. But, holy hell, another 7-5 year would sure throw a wrench in that projection.
Going 7-0 at home and at least 3-2 on the road seemed very achievable to many in the season predictions threads. You have to be wearing Maize and Blue glasses to think Michigan goes 10-2 with our 2014 schedule.
I don't see a hard schedule here at all. AT MSU and at OSU will be tough but the other are extremely winnable
Does this mean Peppers is still Blue?
Hope so, we need Breezy.
That's a top 10 job and the best they could do was Sarkisian who was 34-29 at UW in five seasons. That's scary to think about.
We need a USC person...so...uh....Sark!
Keep Brady and al and go blue
Was on the fence about renewing my season tickets. No more. I can just buy the games I want on stubhub. 2014 - more of the same, 2015 - new HC and the rebuild starts all over again.
I had decided to give if one more year as far as season tickets. Now I am not sure.
that they were all getting raises and that ticket prices were going up 30% next year.
both because of the crappy slate of 2014 games and the 7-5 record this year.
If you've got good seats, you are to be shaken for money in 2015.
Unsurprised and really not that worried. I think there needs to be some degree of faith in those who are behind the scenes and can see what we can't, and are making these decisions rationally and not because they're pissed that they have to hear it from their asshole cousin in Ohio or Sparty coworkers. Next year is it. Brady Hoke's career will live or die on 2014's win-loss record. If you think he hasn't considered what all the options are before deciding what the best *available* one is, don't come back here saying you had faith all along if Michigan is 12-1 and looking at a playoff berth a year from now.
(yes, insert Jim Mora .gif here)
This is seriously the worst nightmare scenario I can possibly think of!
1. We lost to osu by one f^%king point
2. We put up a s@%t ton of points so it looked like we got things figured out and was probably enough to save Borges' job.
3. MSU and OSU are playing for a big ten title
Please someone just shoot me.
I think what we saw against OSU is what SDSU looked like before Hoke and Co. left. They looked good. They had a balanced attack with spread and pro formations that could open it up or pound it with zone-running schemes. I think this will be the norm next year and will be a benefit. If we arent 9-3 or better, then that's all she wrote on this regime I think.
FWIW I do think that Funk should be gone as well as Jackson. I give Borges another season.
Well, the conversation is no longer about Al Borges. Either it's sorted out next year or the whole staff will get cleaned out.
....for another year, yeah. We've got the Funk. 1 more Funking year. Yeah?
We'll spend the next 10 months seriously fretting how terrible we'll be next year only to see the O-line maul everyone all season
Or maybe we'll suck again
OL will be massively improved next year.
We lose Lewan and Schofield and our entire OLine will be made up of players with 1 year or less of experience.
I expect them to better, but massively improved?
Funk is good at his. Just chill! These kids are young and it's just football! Go blue
Devin with time versus Devin running for his life
So next year our weak link will potentially be the same as this year - multiple young first time starters - and our strength will be...?
An entire line of guys with one year of playing time is better than a line of one very good senior, another OK senior, and 3-6 guys that have never taken a snap. That's my contention anyways. We shall see. FWIW, I was right about this line being worse than last years. I am really interested in line play.
Except it won't be an entire line with one year of playing time. It will be 3-5 guys who were shuffled in and out of the line-up the year before with a start here and a start there. More than likely, two of them will be playing outside of the position they played all of this year. Glascow is the only guy who played the entire season last year. Kalis played what, 2/3? Magnuson, 1/2? Then Bosch got a look for 2-3 games?
So here's what you're looking at next year:
LT: Magnuson (most experienced tackle) RS SO
LG: Kalis (underachived his first year, early, but seems to be overrated at 5-star, top 25 recruit) RS SO
C: Glasgow (for what its worth, seemed to be the one guy who showed actual progress, not just complete night and day performances) JR
RG: Bosch (Started 2-3 games as true freshman) SO
RT: Braden? (first year starter) RS SO
How much better are we really going to be? This is looking really similar to the 2008 offensive line, which wasn't all that great.
Didn't people try saying that the line this year couldn't possibly be worse than last year?
You guys haven't seen the best of Gorgeous Borges, believe me.
Name a successful offense that wasn't loaded with upperclassmen recruits that he walked into? His best years have all been with someone else's players. After they leave, the offense goes to shit, and he gets fired. Except at Michigan.
Chances are slim at this point but everyone is forgetting,
Jackson could still retire and even less likely with this year but someone could get hired away like Jerry Montgomery was. To me this was more of a everyone is welcome to come back
Just what we needed....more bad news
Are bad news. Hope depression is fun. Go blue!
You really are annoying
So Brady really thinks it's all the kids fault for not executing..
Not that I am terribly surprised. I am still amazed at the fan reaction to the game Saturday. Sure it was fun to watch and I am happy the team played hard but:
1) a loss is a loss and only losing by one just made it more fun to watch.
2) has everyone forgot about Akron, UCONN, negative rushing yards for 3 straight games? What if the Game was 2 games ago and the Nebraska and Iowa game followed it? Would people still want to keep Al?
At least Hoke is either going to make this work or they are all going down together.
1) a loss is a loss? but...
2) [Akron, UConn] a win isnt a win?
Only moral losses.
Duh. It's science.
Yay!!!!! Negative rush yards gallore!!
Hoke has made his bed. Loyalty will be his downfall at this program.
Jackson could still retire after signing day. (Then please Tyrone Wheatly please)
Why do you think Wheatley would leave a job in the NFL for the same position at the college level? He has more than some (perceived) undying allegiance to his alma mater to worry about at this stage of his career.
If we were to offer him added responsibility, I'd get it. But he's early in his career, why would he pretty much want to resign himself to being an RB coach for life like his former mentor? Usually guys that become OCs or HCs move from position to position.
The move would maybe make sense for Mike Hart. But what has he done to distinguish himself other than graduate from Michigan?
I don't mean to attack you personally, but I see these names thrown around a lot by Michigan fans.
If you're going to shell out enough cash to make your OC the 3rd highest paid at his position, get someone who won't oversee several historically bad craters.
I know Space Coyote is all "I can see some logic in the play calling," but we're paying for excellence, not mediocrity. That's what I don't get. There's a difference between cautious optimism following Saturday's loss and lighting all standards and expectations on fire.
The excuses are done. What happens if we lay an egg in the bowl game? This announcement was premature.
Because Ur not the coach of Michigan. Stick to your day job. Go blue!
What about those asking the same questions, and that IS their day job?
Brady Hoke appears to be an intelligent man and claims this is the job of his life. I believe him. There is no question that he has bet his future as HC on next year. I have to believe that Hoke sees things in practice that encourage him, which have not been apparent on game days most of the season. I hope that is the case.
Brady is not. We'll be fine next year bro!
Do not resort to calling people "dumb".
I know that this topic is a passionate one for people, but we need to try and refrain from personal insults and gratuitous abuse as a substitute for considered opinion. This goes similarly for the divisive "apologist" talk and all the other nonsense put forth on the board lately.
He's trolling all through this thread. Might I suggest you use your night stick officer?
I am actually really happy to hear this. Keep the ship together Brady! Go Blue and Go Devin! Hoping to hear jake Ryan staying too.
If Borges can consistently call games like he did this weekend, I have absolutely no problems with him coming back. When he calls a good game, he calls a GOOD game. And the same goes to Funk, who's O-Line finally generated some consistency against a good rush defense.
I trust Hoke to make this judgment call, but if this doesn't work out next year, its not just Funk and Borges' jobs that are on the line, but I think Hoke's as well. Not that I hope it ever comes remotely close to that.
Borges has been here 3 years, how many gems has he called? If you expect a switch to flip and things to be fine from here on out you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
This is the wrong move. I'm even more skeptical of Brady Hoke then I was before.
Of you. Your comments are sub par more than often. I think we should fire you.
Hell I'd fire myself to! I've got nothing good to add.
This is the last time I'm going to comment on this because it is sad how frustrated I am with this "non" move. To win meaningful games you need an elite coach and/or elite coordinators. Mattison has at least show that he can be elite, Hoke and Al have shown that they can be very inconsistent and average. I don't believe in youth excuses or any others for Michigan football. One of Hoke's stupid quotes that I actually like is "this is Michigan". I the admin and coaching staff would act like it. I am still going to watch every game and root my ass off, but I don't like this at all.
Well before this was official I did say personally I would support Hoke until 2015 if there were no staff changes. I think this may, unfortunately, be the watershed moment of the Hoke era and we will once again be proven right and this stubborn staff will be proven wrong. I hope I am wrong for all our sakes.
I don't argue to make change for the sake of making change but it's like Brian said there have been far too many stinkers called by Borges these last three years and the offense has performed below the talent level mainly due to coaching ineptitude.
The interesting thing is that we will truly see if it is coaching or not. There are no excuses next year and there apparently is no accountability in Ann Arbor. It is frustrating that OSU recognizes when it needs to make changes and we do not. Hopefully this is Hoke showing true leadership because he is clearly cutting against the grain and maybe he sees something we don't see. I honestly think Hoke should do what other CEOs have done and take a voluntary pay cut. There needs to be accountability when we pay Alabama prices for a product, yes product, that is nowhere near there in its quality. This is supremely frustrating.
We will see if your comment about Ohio seeing that it needs to make changes. Their defense hasn't been too great the last few years and Fickel and company are all still employeed
This is the wrong move. I'm even more skeptical of Brady Hoke then I was before.
Well Brady just put all his marbles on Borges. Terrible decision IMO but will see. Best part if we struggle rushing in the bowl game what's gonna happen to the perception that our oline finally improved??
No marbles. Brady ain't going nowhere. Go blue!
How is that the best part? Fairly certain that would be a worst part but hey whatever I guess.
This defeatist negative attitude to make your opinion seem right is getting ridiculous.
Besides if it goes to help in. Handbasket for the bowl game then someone oils still get canned.
will not lose any sleep over it. As someone else pointed out, all of this is beyond any of our control, so there's no point it letting it bug me. I DO have a lot of concerns about Borges and Funk going forward, but we'll just have to see how much the team improves next year. I'm going to assume that Brandon will let this go one more year, THEN take some action if things don't go well in 2014.
I agree that the coaches are certainly not happy with how things went and will work extra hard in the offseason to improve the offense and defense. I am very happy to hear Gardner is coming back. Although I've had times this season where I was pretty exasperated with him, after this last game, I know he has the capability of having an amazing year next season. Devin will work even harder to improve his passing skills and we should see the interceptions drop quite a bit.
I think the offensive line needs to get even bigger and stronger next season - so some big effort in the weight room is probably in order.
And if Mattison can greatly stiffen up the D-line and middle of the defense, these games that we lost by giving up a late TD drive should turn into wins next season.
So, I'm going to try and be optimistic about all this until I see what happens next season. I'll certainly feel better too if we win the bowl game in a convincing manner.
Oh well my faith was shaken in the staff this year. if we have a repeat of this year then i'll be on the fire Hoke bus instead of the fire Borges one. If we struggle on the road, can't run the ball or cant protect the QB for the third year in a row then they all have to go. I would rather have had 2-3 new coaches next year and had some new hope but, i'll put my last bit of faith in these coaches and move on. They're all playing for their jobs next year
to ensure Borges would be kept around for the future. Then, when they needed a stop to win the game, they got it. Win-win for them.
That, or Borges followed my advice for making the offense functional on Saturday. Guess that's one way to maintain your status as 3rd-highest paid offensive coordinator.
Keep positive! Go blue!
I know that you've had it up for quite some time now; could you leave it as is until January, 2015?
Once the points system returns, it depends on whether my sig line draws users to excessively auto-neg me. It is admittedly designed to oppose those that post "26-12 =/= 15-22" as if that's somehow relevant to the discussion about how effective Hoke and his staff have been as Michigan coaches.
Got to admit, I'm happy that no one has replied to it yet with an ad hominem on my intelligence. That, or the mods are excellent at banning all the people that have.
@Bill yeah I tried to edit an /s into that, but was replied to too quickly.
I sincerely hope your first paragraph was intended to be sarcastic.
Football is somewhat like business, the CEO makes changes so the shareholders (the folks that buy tickets) think we're heading in the right direction. No change and the shareholders get a bit angry.
I get Hoke's loyalty, I believe he needs 5 years to build but we headed in the wrong direction this year. As a life-long (50 plus years) fan I am getting very tired of losing to OSU and MSU every year. If our talented boys (a lot of 3, 4 and 5 stars) continue to lose to teams with less talent that we have, I have to blame the coaches. It's not luck. I am so tired of settling. So, good one coach. Now you need to buckle down and better blow some doors off in the non-elite bowl game we are going to this year and better come up with a way of beating our rivals next year. As a fan I will aways watch UM and love the team but I will not be happy until we return to excellence. We have amazing athletes as we saw on Saturday. Time to put up some signature wins on the road next year or hit the road. I am so tired of this lousy product Mr. Hoke CEO, Michigan football. Oh and one more thing, no golden parachute.
You're. Please don't call 95% of the fanbase who are upset at this stupid. Especially if you don't know the difference between your and you're.
Hoke said that at this point he "anticipates" all of the staff returning. That is a far cry from the staff is 100% returning. A HC of a bowl-bound team is not going to can his OC two days after a deflating loss. If a move comes, it'll come after NSD and with no prior announcement. RELAX PEOPLE.
Not bothered by this at all really. Next year we have the makings of an elite team.
The offensive line might be just as bad and we lose a game-breaking receiver. Plus the schedule is harder and we blow chunks on the road. Defense will probably be better, but we're looking at 8-4 max depending on which coach's head is still lodged up their ass.
A 5 year senior QB. Two highly ranked sophomore RBs that started pouring it on towards the end of the season. Funchess will only get better. Butt. Bunting. Chesson. Darboh was looked at as a break out star before he got hurt. Harris. Canteen plus the number of other WRs. Our oline loses Lewan but should be better as a unit just by not having 60% never start a game prior (Mags, Kalis, Glasgow/Kugler, Bosch, Braden(can't be worse)). Plus thrown in some sporadic Jabrill Peppers.
Our defense has the ability to be awesome. We essentially lose nothing from our front seven and add experience plus we can add Pipkins and throw in Mone to stuff the run. Countess, Taylor, Wilson all are back with probably Dymonte as the other safety and with Jabrill in there somewhere rotating.
We were close to elite this year even with an inept offense. We lost 4 games by what a combined 11 points? We could have been 11-1 very easily. The offense is only going to get better. We play in the B1G. It ain't tough.
If you see 8-4 AS THE MAX(?!?!) for next war then you are jaded by your rage at how the season turned out/Borges.
Or you know, just think we're going to suck forever
Where to begin. You seem very confident in a number of offensive players you've never seen before. Especially when you consider that they only have to replace one of the most prolific receivers Michigan has ever had. While the oline should be better, that's not saying much, and if they're only marginally better we could still be in for a long year. Especially if the tackles can't protect the QB. And Peppers on offense? Guy is going to have his hands full just playing defense.
We lose two starters on the defensive line and still lack playmakers. We also have to replace a safety. We've seen over the years that it's not always easy. I think we can be better on defense, but I'm not setting my hopes to "awesome."
I don't think 8-4 is the max, but I unfortunately see more reasons to be pessimistic than optimistic at this point. That's obviously clouded a lot with how I feel about Borges. I hope I'm wrong.
You're right ... I do seem confident. Maybe I'm too confident. I don't know. But I don't think my confidence in Darboh is too unfounded or in Peppers and Dymonte who has shown flashes this ear. maybe some of the others ( Bunting, Harris, Canteen, Mone) it's more unfounded. We don't need any of them to be really good next year to be a much better team though.
We play in the big ten 8 wins is always do able especially with our Maryland and Rutger filled schedule. (Of course I said the same thing this year)
When I said close to elite I probably should have ' ' it. 11-1 is a close to elite, if not elite, record .... And wins and losses are what matter. Obviously we are not an elite team, that's abundantly clear. What I meant was that our record could very easily have been ( it also could have been really bad)
Probably the dumbest thing I've heard in a month. We could have just as easily had a losing record and missed a bowl game. By rights, we should be 6-6, narrowly escaping 5-7. We were not "close to elite" in any category. Maybe our linebacker play was somewhat in the vicinity of that area later in the season.
The running backs didn't start "pouring it on" later in the season. They look okay.
I really like Chesson, Funchess, and Butt, but the rest are unknowns.
So having 40% of the line never start a game and 20% start two games is really that much better than 60% with no starts? Especially when you drop two NFL-caliber tackles? Whatever. I can't fix your brain. The line might not be a total tire fire, but I have zero confidence that they'll even be mediocre.
The schedule is much harder. We play good teams on the road. I'm not that optimistic.
Sorry like I said below I should have ' ' it. I meant record wise we were close to elite and close to a BCS bowl. The team? Far from elite itself but record wise we were very close, close enough to give me reason for optimism next year. We also could have really sucked and had a sub 500 record. I get that.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. After I posted t I figured that part would get misconstrued.
And you're right about the unknowns but I don't think my optimism is Dymonte, Peppers, Darboh is unfounded. The rest, yeah, I'm probably jumping the gun. We don't need the others to really step up next year to have a chance at being really good.
There are only 2 probable L's on next years schedule. OSU and MSU. OSU loses essentially their entire offense and MSU loses a bunch from their defense. 8-4 is a definite possibility but it ain't a max.
What I'm saying about the line is it is not going to be worse and it should be better, that's all.
Monocle, no need to be mean. You disagree. You explain why. Why the need to be a jerk?
The one thing that I'd like to posit is that the line will be better. Lewan will be missed, but Schofield can be replaced pretty easily.
The point is that having three positions filled by guys who are young and (more importantly) have never taken a single snap is a disaster. Its only compounded when all three play next to each other. Its further compounded when one is the center, who makes all the calls. The line will be better next year. I know you won't believe me, but I'd ask that you do. It'll be good for your psyche. I'm not being sarcastic either. A little (founded) optimism is great.
If experience is the issue then why not let them gel. Why did we burn Bosch's red shirt half way through or preserve Kalis' last year. These coaches were clueless and probably will be next year.
Schofield was solid this year. You will rue your words saying he can easily be replaced. We have forgotten what poor OT play looks like. It can be every bit as bad as poor interior play. It only takes one back side sack to take out your QB. Not to mention that Fox and Kugler are likely to challenge for interior positions only to bring back the youth issues.
I appreciate your optimism and will dig deep to share it. Bottom line... this was not a good decision. Losing has consequences and Hoke gave Funk and Borges a mulligan.
Recruits have choices. Players need to find motivation. Michigan men need patience. I don't know where you find the optimism but it's hard for me at least to share it. I will try.
A few things. I don't think bad tackle play is as dangerous as bad interior play. A solid interior is more important in the run game (simply because 3>2). Also, a QB can't really avoid pass rush up the middle, but he can step up into a stout interior if the edge is soft.
Schofield is a good player. Replacing him wont be easy, but getting a similar level of play from a good underclassman isn't impossible. Getting a Lewan-like level of play from a youngster is. Not even Lewan was Lewan as a sophomore.
Also, I think Bosch's red shirt was going to be burned no matter what. He was on the travel squad all year. Also, it makes sense from a numbers standpoint. They recruited 4 OL in 2012 and 6 in 2013. Burning a red shirt makes the classes 5 and 5. There is less of a logjam in the 2013 class, which allows those guys to hold out hope that they will at least get one year. This is not a bad thing when trying to retain players.
The shuffling of the line didn't work, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. Everyone on here wanted Miller out. And I was pointing out Kalis's struggles from day 1. It got bad. We had to make a change. The silver lining is that we will have at least 4 potential starters that have at least a half-season of in-game experience. More, if you think Miller and Bryant can get back into the mix. And if nothing else, we'll have some experience in our reserves.
Optimism isn't that hard. I believe we have a good head coach. We have a good defense and pretty good special teams. The offense has shown glimpses, and what I thought the biggest weakness was before the season proved to be true. It also happens that I know a bit about line play and I am certain we will be better next season. Certainly, we will have fewer missed assignments, which are a source of our negative plays and, consequently, a source of our terrible down-distance situations.
I also tend to not believe that college coaches are idiots.
OL is driven by weakest link. Interior play can be covered by good team play - which can be coached. OT is on an island generally against the biggest most athletic guy the other team has. But let's not quibble - any OL hit is a hit.
Lewan was every bit of Lewan as a sophomore. As a freshman he held Heyward in check in the game. We don't have any Lewan's or even Schofield's in the pocket - though there is hope... just hitting on two OTs is a tall order.
Bosch's RS was not burned if we developed Bryant or let Braden or Schofield take a turn at guard.
Miller played two years of bench ball before getting his chance. The coaches are paid to evaluate his play before he hits the field. They are not required to use players who are not ready or the best choice.
I have no choice but to look on the bright side here. I'm Michigan until sweet death comes my way.
Saban looked like an idiot for not having coverage guys on the FG unit - Malzhan looked smart for coaching his players to return a miss. Granted there are few idiots in college football - just winners and losers. I just want to win. If this is how Hoke sees it then so be it. Change at OC or OL position coach is not such a big deal. I don't understand the reluctance.
8 wins seems optimistic. We could go 1-4 or even 0-5 on the road next year. I like our chances to go 6-1 at home next season. 5-2 at home would be a disaster.
|Date||Opponent / Event||Location||2013 Sagarin|
|Sat., Aug. 30||vs. Appalachian State||Michigan Stadium||173|
|Sat., Sep. 6||at Notre Dame||South Bend, Ind.||27|
|Sat., Sep. 13||vs. Miami (Ohio)||Michigan Stadium||219|
|Sat., Sep. 20||vs. Utah||Michigan Stadium||33|
|Sat., Sep. 27||vs. Minnesota *||Michigan Stadium||51|
|Sat., Oct. 4||at Rutgers *||Piscataway, N.J.||114|
|Sat., Oct. 11||vs. Penn State *||Michigan Stadium||52|
|Sat., Oct. 25||at Michigan State *||East Lansing, Mich.||13|
|Sat., Nov. 1||vs. Indiana - Homecoming *||Michigan Stadium||57|
|Sat., Nov. 8||at Northwestern *||Evanston, Ill.||65|
|Sat., Nov. 22||vs. Maryland *||Michigan Stadium||71|
|Sat., Nov. 29||at Ohio State *||Columbus, Ohio||7|
So we're going 0-5 on the road next year, with losses to Rutgers and NW. Riiiiggght.
Look at how badly we played @UCONN and @NW this year. @Rutgers and @NW next year are not sure wins.
Michigan is 39 in Sagarin this year. So ND, Utah, MSU, and OSU are all ahead of us. Minnesota, Penn State, IU, and NW are within striking distance. Hoke's history tells us he is going 2-3 on the road next year (6-8 on the road lifetime, 1-2 at neutral fields). With ND, MSU, and OSU all on the road I'd say 1-4 on the road is more likely than 2-3. That means to finish 8-4 we have to go 7-0 at home. Name sure wins against Minnesota, IU, PSU, and Utah.
With this schedule I'd be shocked if we go anything less than 9-3 at the very worst.
Nothing ever is a sure win, ask alabama about that or Flroida but games we should win are Appalachian state, heck everyone of our home games should be a win. We can beat Rutgers and Northwestern on the road. Northwestern is the only place we consistantly win at away from home. The 3 games you should not be sure of are Notre Dame, MSU and Ohio. Everyone else on our schedule is mediocre, bad or a division 2 team. Northwestern is the only exception and they just blew their special season by giving up after the Wisconsin loss.
...was smokin the Sisyphean rock.
Mark Dantonio was 6-7 I believe after his 3rd season at MSU before winning 11 the next two seasons. I am not a Borges supporter or even a "Hoke fan" but can we chill out for a minute. Team has talent but they need some strength, conditioning, and some development.
I am on the BRING ED ORGERON to Michigan for recruiting bandwaggon... for no reason other than he lets guys eat fried chicken at meetings. Borges and Hoke have to like that...right?
MSU and Michigan definitely have similar resources and expectations.
MSU expects to go to Indy every year and Michigan wants to keep saying 'Ohio' and 'Little Brother'?
hey al, Washington has an opening. don't you want to be a head coach?
Next year is the first year where there are little to no disclaimers for performace. The players are there. They are Hoke's recruits. Many of them have meaningful experience and an off season to improve. The system was implemented this year and should be completely installed by next season. The RR era is well in the rear view mirror. Next year it's Hoke's economy, along with the rest of the staff. At this point I think stability moving forward is a good thing long term even if Borges or someone else does not grade out. With that in mind, I'm willing to give them more time based on the entire body of work and overall upside.
No more excuses next year! That is another reason why I like this decision, this eliminates the arguing points about lack of experience, consistent coaching, etc. The experiment is running its full course. I expect everybody to get along next year here on this board with no arguments.
This decision is disturbing. It means that Hoke values loyalty more than he should. It also means that he is willing to accept the product that Borges and the offense have given the program. That is what is really depressing about all of this.
Or maybe he believes that Borges, who has worked with these guys for three years now, is a better bet to deliver a good offense next year than a totally new coordinator. Is that really impossible to believe?
Yes. Because of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED this year. Its like you guys think we went 2-1 this year with the only three games being Indiana, Notre Dame and Ohio State.
Keeping the staff in tact for year 4 vs bringin in new oc/ol/rb coaches. Who's to say which is better? Hoke had to make a decision. He decided that not changing was the better choice. He'll reap the consequences of that decision. From my perspective, I hope he chose correctly.
And next year we will continue to have losses that are 100% due to offensive playcalling/bad gameplanning. We will continue to call plays and schemes that refuse to accept the team's limitations, weaknesses, or strengths, and likewise refuse to exploit opposing defenses weaknesses, or flatly ignore their strengths to our detriment, just like the last 3 years.