CC: Jim Mora, Jr - Everything Michigan Needs

Submitted by blue_shift on

Why aren't we discussing Jim Mora, Jr. here? It seems like he would be the perfect fit for Michigan.

He's only 53 years old, runs a clean program, and is currently paid less than $2 million at UCLA. He's twice the coach of Hoke, at half the price. And his offensive scheme could fit our current personnel. No need for another disruptive offensive transition.

Why do I think he'd be great? First of all, he's had success at all levels of the game - from the NFL to college. He coached under Mariucci & Holmgren, comes from a strong football pedigree (PLAYOFFS?!) and made the NFC Championship Game with the Falcons.

Next, he clearly understands the importance of winning games and beating rivals. In 2011, UCLA was 6-8. In Mora's first year, they went 9-5 and beat USC. He won 10 games the next year, and has won 9 games this year - and as a former DB, he understands how to play defense against the heavy offensive hitters of the Pac-12.

On the recruiting trail, he catapulted a mediocre UCLA class into the Top 15 almost immediately and consistently brings in talent. He's proven he can also develop that talent, as he's sent guys to the NFL.

So why not Mora? He's young, enthusiastic, ethical, talented, understands the academic needs of a public university, recruits well, and has won at all levels of the game.

 

Rabbit21

December 5th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

He was on the verge of what was suppossed to be a historic season at UCLA with Brett Hundley's last year and a lot of maturing talent.  If I was in his shoes I wouldn't have left either.  Now we can basically offer similar things, lots of talent, uncertainty at QB, and a somewhat uncertain future.  However, Michigan can offer more money, fan support, and MUCH better facilities.  I don't think the lessons of last year necessarily apply this year.

ahw1982

December 4th, 2014 at 7:03 PM ^

David Shaw.

Grew up in Michigan.  Brian Griese said he was involved in the coaching search and later in the interview mentioned Stanford as what Michigan wants to be.

ahw1982

December 4th, 2014 at 7:21 PM ^

I'm not endorsing Shaw, i'm just throwing his name out there as a prediction.  Shaw kind of fits Cowherd's vague "mystery candidate" description.  Plus there's a Brian Griese interview where Griese says he's involved in the process but refuses to name names.  But later in the interview he talks about how Schlissel's vision for Michigan is similar to what Stanford is doing.  Plus if Harbaugh isn't interested, he'd probably recommend Shaw.

aiglick

December 4th, 2014 at 7:18 PM ^

Well Stanford under Harbaugh right and not the one that has mostly been bad? They seem to be regressing the last few years and may no longer be elite. If we're talking about 2009 and 2010 Stanford I'm all for it. Not sure why the spread is hated so much while the pro offense continues to become anachronistic and antiquated.

dipshit moron

December 4th, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^

those of you that think shaw is regressing should do your homework. look at last years resuls and this years. picture michigan playing those two schedules and tell me you wouldnt want shaw. i think there is one bad loss. and the guy who didnt like how they played msu, 4 pt. loss in the rose bowl?  ya we wouldnt what that would we?

newtopos

December 4th, 2014 at 8:10 PM ^

Harbaugh had one year at Stanford with double-digit wins -- 2010 (12-1).  In 2009, they were 8-5.

Since then, Shaw has gone 11-2, 12-2, and 11-3 prior to this year.  That's not much of a regression.  And that 11-3 season last year (6 pt loss at Utah, 3 pt loss at USC, and 4 pt loss to Michigan State in the Rose Bowl) and the 12-2 season the year prior (4 pt loss at Washington and 7 point overtime loss at Notre Dame) were without Andrew Luck.

Monocle Smile

December 4th, 2014 at 7:56 PM ^

You're about six years late to the party, bro.

http://deadspin.com/245881/tony-dungy-makes-it-clear-that-only-straight…

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/forget-popular-opinion-tony-dungy-is-the…

Also, try to recall that he had a major hard-on for Tebow despite that "media distraction" being orders of magnitude more severe than anything Michael Sam-related.

Mr. Yost

December 4th, 2014 at 7:58 PM ^

...and he also had Andrew Luck!

You just pointed out someone being selective in their response, by doing the same thing.

Harbaugh had luck for 2 of the 4 years he was at Stanford. Of course he had balance and threw the football.

He was also 9-15 in those first 2 years. Obviously he was building and you need more than 2 years to turn things around, but it had to be nice to get Luck his last 2 years at Stanford. I'm sure that constributed to passing more and winning games.

Harbaughs balance

Year 1: 35 passes per game / 37 rushes
Year 2: 24 passes per game / 41 rushes
Year 3: 24 passes per game / 41 rushes (Luck's RS Freshman year)
Year 4: 29 passes per game / 41 rushes

...so actually, Harbaugh. too, favored the run!

Shaw's balance

Year 1: 32 passes per game / 40 rushes (Luck's RS Junior/final year)
Year 2: 29 passes per game / 39 rushes 
Year 3: 22 passes per game / 42 rushes
Year 4: 30 passes per game / 36 rushes

Stanford has always preferred to run more than they pass.