Brady Hoke: Whole staff will return next year
December 2nd, 2013 at 9:27 PM ^
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.
December 3rd, 2013 at 12:57 AM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
Consistency? From the running backs? That's.....funny.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^
Is what that was intended to mean.
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
He has another son, Joshua. He might retire after Joshua gets accepted into Michigan or graduates.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
"We went 7-5, but at least fans got to bathe in the firing of some of the staff."
-Dave Brandon
(BTW, we're not going 7-5 next year.)
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^
It would be different for Hoke.
And, for what it's worth, everyone said we weren't going 7-5 this year.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:09 PM ^
Technically, wasn't Gardner a senior this year?
December 2nd, 2013 at 5:40 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:26 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 8:15 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 6:10 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:23 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 5:52 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 7:21 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 8:06 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 10:30 PM ^
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?
December 3rd, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^
December 3rd, 2013 at 9:56 AM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^
December 2nd, 2013 at 6:13 PM ^
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.
December 3rd, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
December 3rd, 2013 at 9:57 AM ^
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?
December 2nd, 2013 at 7:26 PM ^
Completely agree.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
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.)
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
"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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:02 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
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.
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
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.