Congrats Sparty
January 1st, 2014 at 9:54 PM ^
Of course his o-linemen are still mostly holdovers from Harbaugh. That's how it works at a functioning program. He's got plenty of quality o-line recruits of his own, but all but one are still understudies.
January 2nd, 2014 at 8:25 AM ^
I don't think we are talking about a Stanford slide here at all, but rather a MSU program that is very relevant right now. And I as a Wolverine fan am very much envious of where their program is currently compared to ours.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:00 PM ^
They came in 11-2 against the #2 schedule in the country (at Massey anyway). Last year they were 12-2 against the #9 schedule. They've been to four straight BCS bowls.
If that's coasting, I'll take it.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
I stand corrected on the overall numbers, though he did luck out in playing Wiscy last year.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:03 PM ^
I think he's been recruiting well
January 1st, 2014 at 9:46 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^
Had their way, but had to recover an Oregon onside kick with 2 minutes left to secure the win. Stanford's system leaves them susceptible to close games, and close games can go the other way. There's a reason why Stanford's system is not en vogue. They typically get nothing easy unless they're clearly physically superior.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:22 PM ^
Better check his office at Schembechler hall!
January 1st, 2014 at 9:35 PM ^
Sure looked like so many games this season. I guess the caveman approach is alive and well out west too.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:37 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 8:33 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 8:42 PM ^
The facts won't change - we went 7-6 with serious questions about the future and MSU went 13-1 with two huge trophies.
Hopefully the UM players & coaches & AD hear about it every day and decide it's time for significant improvement.
The clock has already started for the 2014 season . . .
January 1st, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^
I think we need to let them know. I don't think the players, coaches and AD know that MSU won. Does anyone know where I can reach them? An email would be great.
OF COURSE THEY F*CKING KNOW
They will work hard to change that. What remains to be seen is if the fans can be patient to see Hoke change things around.
January 1st, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
This exactly.. Dantonio was 6-7 at this stage in his career at MSU, then once they finally built depth with the players they want, they are able to roll over a garbage big ten..
Who knows if they will let hoke last 7 years to make it to a rose bowl.. I highly doubt it
January 1st, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
three 11 win seasons out of four. Just sayin
January 1st, 2014 at 9:21 PM ^
Oh were these four years Dantonio's first 4?
No. Why MSU is so good is because of their depth. They RS a very high majority and they are coached up very well. Paired with their maturity, they become a very good football team.
We do a major dissevice to ourselves if we fire Hoke without him getting atleast half a decade of time to work on this team. That doesn't mean finding playmakers on offense and defense only, it also means building depth that if one playmaker goes down, we have a suitable replacement who will step up.
It will take time. I just hope that the fans are willing to wait. Wait 5 years to build a program back up and we will reap the benefits for the next decade and longer.
January 1st, 2014 at 11:23 PM ^
I'm sorry, I don't give a staff the benefit of the doubt after the nuclear disaster that was this year's offensive line. Yeah, young and inexperienced, blah blah blah. They had very solid tackle bookends, needed only to produce competent (not spectacular, not even good, just passably competent) guards and a center, and the team would have done pretty well.
Instead they produced the WORST OFFENSIVE LINE IN THE COUNTRY.
Not mediocre. Awful. We're talking about a line that could not get push or protect against bad MAC teams. Against teams like UConn that were so bad that their coach got fired in midseason.
That is not growth. No level of inexperience, regardless of whether or not there are highly touted prospects on the roster (and there are), can excuse that performance. I think we could all accept the occasional mistake, a poor read, or the occasional blown protection. I think we could accept the idea that the running game isn't quite where Michigan wants to be.
But what was actually produced was utter, colossal failure.
And a staff that fails that comprehensively does not get the benefit of the doubt for five years. They must produce wins next year or they must be fired. I'm not a quick-trigger guy on firing; I've defended Borges more than most on this board (and in fairness the OL was so bad that Borges could not produce a good base gameplan because even routine base plays simply did not ever work). But if next year is not a drastic improvement over this year they should all be given their walking papers.
If we have another year like this and they are given a fifth year, fans and recruits will jump ship en masse. It would be an irrevocable disaster that would set the program back by another decade. Next year or bust.
January 1st, 2014 at 11:28 PM ^
so we can rebuild again?
At this point, unless next year is a tire fire, we need to the staff more time. Having another transition would solidly knock Michigan from the ranks of the elite.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 9:33 PM ^
College Football is turning into a what have you done for me lately type deal. Have we forgotten what Hoke and Co. did in this first year?
We fielded a sub par team this year. SUB PAR. Not bad team. We could've easily won at PSU with a made field goal and vs OSU and the Bowl Game with a healthy gardner. That didn't happen. What should we do? Mope around? How about we support the team and trust that the young and talent on this team can and will be developed.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:40 PM ^
College Football is a results based business and always has been. Hoke gets his opportunity to show improvement in year 4 like Dantonio did. We will have a pretty good idea about this staff by this time next year. If they are still playing bend don't break and losing to our biggest rivals it will be clear if they were up to the task or not.
January 1st, 2014 at 11:31 PM ^
because every coach comes in with the same variables in every single job?
Each Coach should have their own benchmark based on where the program was when that coach took over and where that coach has taken us and what the future looks like.
January 2nd, 2014 at 12:40 AM ^
OK, I'll bite. I would argue that MSU was in worse shape after John L. Smith than Michigan was after a 7-5 year with RR, but we can debate that. Let's say they started in the same place, shouldn't we expect similar results to Dantonio. That's more rope than RR received.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:20 AM ^
No because there will be differences no matter what. Regardless of where that program started. Now I don't know the details of Dantonio's first few years and I'm not going to look for them. If a coach had a new, compatible QB to work with, ala Hackenberg and BOB, that would bode well for both parties. We had a situation where we had a coach who runs a completely different system. Yes he worked around it but the coach still needs to input his preffered style at some point right?
If you actually look into it, there are a lot of variable. Too much so that we cannot determine a comparison for any program out there. What we have to do is base our judgement on where we think we should be. And we should do so REALISTICALLY. None of this clamoring about using this excuse and that excuse.
People on this board say oh we had two awesome tackles. Well tackles don't really help you run inside do they? The line is only as strong as its weakest link. And we had different weak links every single game. I think we should be improved as a line next year. As a result of experience and chemistry. Stanford's O Line had a ridiculous three figure start total TOGETHER. That just blows my mind.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^
because Iowa Nebraska and Penn State werent close.
January 1st, 2014 at 11:36 PM ^
PSU has less than 60 scholarship players and a freshman QB. Here is Dantonio's year three:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Michigan_State_Spartans_football_team
Even their close Big Ten win was over 4-4 Purdue. Compare that to Hoke's. It's not close.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:57 PM ^
And could have just as easily been 5-3 with close wins over PSU and OSU. Last year's MSU team barely beat Boise at home, then were destroyed by ND, then lost to OSU, then barely beat IU, had some tough losses at UM and Iowa, etc. Hell, the "biggest" win in conference play last year was 26-10 over 6-7 Minnesota.
He has had a sustained run of solid play, so congrats to him. But looking at a guy in his 7th season and comparing him to a guy finishing his 3rd is just wrong. Unless you want to look at the first three years of each guy's tenure at said schools, in which case Hoke has a better overall record (26-13 compared to 22-17). Hoke had a bad year, but let's see how next year shakes out before we just presume a paradigm shift has occurred.
January 1st, 2014 at 10:07 PM ^
MSU had "firepatnarduzzi.com" and The Only Colors wanted him gone because he was an arrogant man that refused to adjust his scheme to his personnel and was costing them games. A few of them wanted Dantonio out too. They were convinced that 7-5 was the absolute ceiling for the program unless there were mass firings.
January 1st, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
Which was in a much better Big Ten. Hoke's 7-6 in year 3 is way worse than Dantonio's in every respect.
January 2nd, 2014 at 12:48 AM ^
I definitely think it needs to play out. As frustrating as this year may have been, we need to see what the coaching staff can do. They have some great talent coming in and I am looking forward to see what they can do. If the Michigan defense can make a big leap next year, we may be in a similar situation.
MSU shows yet again that you can live with a vanilla offense if you have a dominating defense. Even under Borges, I believe that the Michigan offense can be more dynamic than MSU's. Let's see if they can make another jump as a team. Why not!
January 2nd, 2014 at 11:58 AM ^
Was it that much better? I just looked and in 2009 there were 5 teams with above-.500 records; this year, 8. I know that Nebraska screws with that number a bit, but still - 2009 had a really tough top crew but kind of fell apart down the line. I actually think this year's conference was reasonably strong in the middle, but at the top was lacking.
January 2nd, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
I suspect one difference is that no one back then was anywhere close to as bad as Purdue was this year.
Here are the Massey rankings from the two years, 2009 on the left, 2013 on the right. Gap in the middle of 2009 because there's one less team.
- OSU 8 - 4 MSU
- PSU 9 - 12 OSU
- Iowa 14 - 21 Wisc
- Wisc 31 - 31 Iowa
- NW 54- 38 Neb
- xxxxxxx - 43 Mich
- MSU 56 - 46 PSU
- Minn 62 - 48 Minn
- Purd 63 - 64 Indy
- Mich 84 - 69 NW
- Illini 92 - 88 Illini
- Indy 94 - 166 Purd
Probably a slight edge to 2013 until you get to that last one.
You want to see the conference at its low? Go back and look at, say, 1981. Nobody in the top 15, league median was 70, NW was ranked 254. League's in much, much better shape now than it was then.
January 1st, 2014 at 8:33 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 8:36 PM ^
They deserve praise for doing something we haven't in a while. At least it makes the B1G look good.
EDIT: Apparently some of us cannot let Sparty win with class. Damn if that isn't unfortunate. Grow up people.
January 1st, 2014 at 8:40 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
Oh, I don't think they are years ahead of UM at most position groups. Let's see how they handle losing half their defense next year. They are very good, but unless they buck all traditional means of player development they won't field a better team next year.
January 1st, 2014 at 8:58 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
In 2011, we were 11-2 to their 11-3.
In 2012, we were 8-5 to their 7-6.
They were obviously a lot better than us this year, but next year may be another story.
January 1st, 2014 at 9:10 PM ^
in the last 6 years. or you could just ignore that.
January 1st, 2014 at 10:11 PM ^
Or 1-2 since Hoke arrived, with every team holding serve at home. Because if we are going to go all the way back to the first RR year, then this isn't even a discussion.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:05 AM ^
Are you blaming Brady Hoke for how we did before he was our coach? I fail to see the relevance.
January 2nd, 2014 at 8:47 AM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 10:00 PM ^
Well, they haven't lost half their defense. The year after Cousins and the two WRs left, they went 7-6 and had trouble scoring the ball at near-UM levels of incompetence.
But yes, please keep ignoring the possibility of teams not performing the same year-over-year and keep spouting that same tired line that MSU is a new juggernaut because "last year didn't count" and "they have great player development and can turn ever 2* into a 1st rounder."
January 1st, 2014 at 9:43 PM ^
We got a glimse of their defense without Bullough and it looked pretty damn good. We have had a glimse of turnover on their roster the last 4 years and they have been to 2 big ten championship games, win bowl games and have won 11 games or more in 3 of 4 years. But, go ahead keep telling yourself they are going away!
What stage is denial?
January 1st, 2014 at 10:10 PM ^
Nobody is denying that their defense played well. But losing one guy, for one game, isn't the same as losing a bunch of guys all at one time, including your two corners that were very good.
I get that some people on this blog love to think that the sky is falling if anyone else has success, but UM and MSU can both be very good and that isn't a bad thing. MSU has been and will be good going forward, but take a look at their depth chart and you'll see that the turnover hasn't been overly pronounced on defense - that 2010 defense was mostly underclassmen, and those guys are graduating now. I'll admit that MSU did a great job molding them into this unit, but we saw what happend to this offense when a bunch of their offensive players all graduated - 7-6 with an offense that could barely score over 14 points in conference play.
If I was in denial I'd say MSU is due to go 7-6 next year - that won't happen. But if they have a top-20 defense instead of a top-2 defense, that could mean 8 wins (look at Iowa) instead of 10-11. But as the hive mind sometimes takes over here, the world is ending and get ready for UM to get destroyed by MSU for the next 20 years.
January 2nd, 2014 at 1:01 AM ^
Their success the last 4 years is based as much on scheme as it is on the players. I used to think like you and had actually convinced myself that once Cousins was gone they would come back down to earth. But I realize that I was to busy convincing myself that their success was an aberration, rather than acknowledging what was really taking place.
Dantonio was the coach of the OSU defense when they beat Miami in the National Title Game. That was one of the best OSU defenses I have ever seen. They had the exact same attacking style on that team. This is not a mistake. They have lost good corners and LBs and have not missed a beat. They will be good for a long time.
January 2nd, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
I'm not arguing that they won't be good, but that OSU team was loaded with top players with great recruiting profiles; MSU is apparently making a similar effort with glue, tape, and sunshine.
If you look at this roster, they've been playing lots of these guys for years, and this is the first year where they'll lose a significant number of them. I totally agree that are not going away completely, but they did come back to earth once Cousins left; they barely scored and finished 7-6. This year they had a once-in-a-generation defense and played great, but this isn't the NFL where you can keep Ed Reed and Lewis on your team for 8 years. They'll have to replace two starting corners, a middle LB who started since he was a true sophomore, one of their best rushers in Allen, etc. That is a huge hit, and it will affect them. Maybe not to an immense degree, but as I've said a top-20 defense from MSU probably gets them into Iowa territory, which is 8-9 wins and a team that can be run off the field by a good offense.
MSU and UM can both be successful at the same time, but just like how UM wasn't a juggernaut when MSU was down and out, I don't see the logic that MSU has taken a final step into national prominence forever because they won the Rose Bowl and had a couple of really good years and one stinker. Hell, TCU had an equally-amazing run for twice as long and have gone 11 and 14 the past two years, and don't look to be getting that much better. Not saying that is going to happen to MSU, but teams usually don't stay super-elite forever.
January 1st, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
true, but not like being 7 years deep in dantonios tenure has anything to do with them having depth everywhere
January 1st, 2014 at 8:57 PM ^
January 1st, 2014 at 10:02 PM ^
What is "coached up" to you? Does it mean turning true sophomores into RS seniors? Because if you look at the two depth charts, what you see are a bunch of young guys working through UM's system while MSU has those guys already in positions. They are going to have high turnover after this year, and while I'm sure they'll have some quality replacements f'king Alabama and LSU had trouble replacing that level of talent year-to-year.