Edited Title: Player development over next three games
EDIT: I agree that the question I posed in the original title (what's the best outcome for the season) is dumb and loser mentality. But I still think I posed one question that isn't quite as flamebaity and worthy of discussion:
Can the players show enough development/progress/etc. over the next three games for you to believe in Funk and Borges moving forward?
What exactly would it take for you to believe in them?
November 17th, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
Uh....win all the games?
November 17th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
If you're at a point where you're honestly wondering whether it's good or bad for Michigan to win a football game, something is wrong.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
...buried in the livethread or the snowflake threads you read gems like "winnig is nice but this one came at a terrible cost" because it might save the coaches' jobs.
So, yeah, those people exist, at least in the heat of Saturday inebriation.
November 17th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
What's even more crazy is that there are people around here that think Borges should keep his job. I can only assume these people are on the verge of death due to intoxication.
November 17th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
At this point I'm not married to the idea of keeping him around, but I don't think his playcalling is the biggest problem with our offense. Our OL is the biggest problem. If I could fix one thing only with this offense over the offseason, it'd be the OL. A functional OL can make almost any OC look good. Look at MSU.
November 17th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^
Is the OL part of the offense? The offense that Al Borges coaches? Is Borges the QB coach? The guy that turned record setting Denard Robinson into a shell of himself and has taken 5 start recruit Devin Gardner and turned him to whatever that is out there this season?
His playcalls are bad enough but he is responsible for much more than just that. He is the CEO of the offense. He is responsible for all of it. When Gerg's defense under RR was awful, people were not calling for the DB coach to be fired or the DL coach. They wanted Gerg gone becuase he was in charge of it all. In fact, not only did people want Gerg gone, they wanted RR gone too becuase he was the head coach.
For some reason that is not getting applied to this staff. We are all supposed to blame the players and give Borges a pass.
November 17th, 2013 at 9:34 PM ^
my son agrees with you
November 17th, 2013 at 10:24 AM ^
This may well be the dumbest thread ever.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
I think we're in a very interesting position because the majority of people will blindly gauge success by number of wins, and not by how we got there. If we go 10-3 to finish the season, that will invariably garner a lot of momentum for Hoke to stick with our current coaching staff. And, I'm not sure if you've been on the blog at all, but it's not an uncommon opinion to think that our offensive coaching staff is a tad inept.
We've also demonstrated the ability to win games in spite of poor execution, poor gameplans, and shitty coaching. So, just because we win 3 games, it means nothing about the promise of our program moving forward. If we hold on to Borges and Funk, whose to say we don't have the exact same problems moving forward?
If you think the answers to these issues are blatantly obvious, then you are clearly on a level far beyond me, and I submit to your greatness.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
Yesterday while staring at a 9-3 deficit I caught myself thinking, "Well, if we were to win this game, it would increase the degree of difficulty in the bowl game, so maybe we should just go ahead and lose out and get a nice easy bowl opponent."
Then I was like, "wait, that's stupid. I'm talking about trading a win now for a maybe-win later. What a terrible idea I just had." That's some thinking straight out of loserville.
Win the games, man. Just win the games and let the other chips fall where they may. Trading wins now for maybe-wins later is stupid.
Edit: I tell you what. You guarantee me, with 100% rock-solid, unassailable odds, that by losing out we will 1) fire Borges and Funk and 2) hire coaches that are guaranteed with no chance of failure whatsoever to be outstanding coaches, the best of their kind, who are absolutely guaranteed to produce positive results of the highest order, and I will accept your premise that losing the next three games is the best thing for the program.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^
Because that's not how it works. I'm talking about, 1,2,3 seasons down the line, we look back at these next three games and ask ourselves, retroactively, was that good for the program?
It may be dumb to talk about it now, but many people have been doing the same thing in looking back at Hoke's first season. People say things like, it made us have too high of expectations, or, it gave him too much job security and have too little accountability for mistakes. That being said, I'd rather have won the sugarbowl than lost it, just like I'd rather beat OSU than lose this year.
But at the same time, it's still possible to say that losing may be better for the program if we get rid of Borges and get lucky enough to have a better coordinator.
November 17th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^
This is simple. If this coaching staff can get this roster of players to 10 wins, it will have done a good job, because this is not a talented or experienced football team by Michigan standards. This may well be the least-experienced team (in terms of the number of upperclassmen on the roster) that Hoke will ever coach, and probably the worst OL he'll ever have. If he can win 10 games despite that, he's a good coach. That is definitely the optimal outcome.
Go 1-2 or 2-1 and it gets murky. Is that an acceptable season? I don't know. It would bring up the "Is it coaching or inexperience" debate." There's no telling where we go from there.
Go 0-3 and there will be consequences, but do not assume these will all be good ones. That would likely increase roster and recruiting attrition. It would put Hoke on a serious hot seat for next season, which would likely affect recruiting. It could also compromise his ability to hire top-notch assistants to replace any he might fire, because assistants might be leery of going to a staff that might not last.
November 17th, 2013 at 2:20 PM ^
November 18th, 2013 at 8:23 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
The fact that I'm not a frequent commenter doesn't mean I'm not on here 30 times a day.
No, I'm not going to try to mount a massive defense of Al Borges--the playcalling has been incredibly frustrating at times, and it is hard to imagine how our offense could be much worse than it has over the last 3 weeks. Having said that, there is no doubting the fact that the O-line play we are seeing is among the worst we've ever seen. We might be able to blame Funk for that, but probably not Borges. So, I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that it's hard to get a grasp on what he can or can't do until we have an offensive line that is moderately competent in place, giving him the freedom to call the plays he wants with some confidence that they have a chance at success. Now, I'm sure you (and many others) would disagree with me. But if I'm thinking that Borges might possibly deserve a year (maybe even 2) to show what he can do under those circumstances, then I think you can be resonably sure that Hoke does too, and my guess is that Brandon is giving Hoke a pretty good deal of independence.
So if there's little reason to believe that Borges is getting fired in the off-season (and there really is), then the only thing that changes if we lose the next 3 games instead of winning them is that we look like even more of a laughingstock than we already do. 3 wins, and a 10-3 season might just get recruits excited again, and reunite a fan base that appears ready to go back into cannibal mode.
I'll take the wins, if the football gods will give them to us.
November 17th, 2013 at 1:07 PM ^
November 18th, 2013 at 8:28 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:24 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:25 AM ^
with the current state of M football, I can not see the coaching staff being safe. I can see them putting feelers out there to see who is available, but wouldn't see a firing after the season just to scramble to fill a spot.
I was very happy yesterday by not seeing Fitz on the field, Hoke has always said his best 11 will be on the field. I have called him a liar the last 4 to 5 games. Yesterday he got it right. I still stand by my theory for next year. Gardner to WR, while Morris is our QB.
November 17th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
Gardner is not moving to WR. We will have Funchess and Chesson plus Darboh. There are a bunch of incoming freshman and players coming off redshirts. We will need both Morris and Gardner at QB, and I guaruntee Gardner is the starter. Our offensive line is not going to be much better next year and we will definitely need QB mobility to bail us out of a few games.
November 17th, 2013 at 5:50 PM ^
Yeah that bails us out of bad O-Line play. Oh wait, we've had like 19 sacks against us in three games.
And how does throwing out routes to opposing team linebackers 4-6 times a game "bail us out" exactly?
One or Two nifty looking runs and big gains does not make up for having no football sense.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
...lose all our remaining games, then we'll get a higher draft pick next year.
What?...
...Really?...
Oh, nevermind.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
The best outcome is for "Michigan fans" to start acting like Michigan fans instead of Sparty fans. The people who clamored for a return to "Michigan football," got exactly what they asked for, but are bitching right now are everything that is negative about fandom and sports in general.
Michigan had a chance to embrace the 21st century. Instead, they embraced their own egos. The decision was made that all head football coaches will be from the Inbred Michigan Coaching Tree and that "Michigan football" will be played in the style it has since Bo got there: MANBALL.
When Michigan had a huge advantage over the rest of the Big Ten in personnel, it worked. Now, however, they don't have the personnel to play a style of football where everyone knows what's coming. Other teams have equalized any slight personnel disadvantage by using 21st century concepts on offense.
Brady Hoke and Al Borges are doing exactly what Dave Brandon (via a considerable portion of the fan/donor base) mandated. They are exactly what those who bitched about Rich Rod wanted: a return to 20th century MANBALL. When they have had two more years to amass superior personnel, the results will be exactly like the "MIchigan Football" we have all come to know and love.
In the meantime, the staff deserves our support. If recruits start to waver and there is more movement "out" instead of in on NSD, the blame lies solely on the fanbase and media for creating an unstable environment that drives recruits away.
AFAIC, it is incumbent upon the fanbase to show some class and display to recruits and their parents who read blogs like this one that the community supports their team. Failure to do so is going to result in some high-profile decommits.
In other words: you asked for it, you got it. Don't sabotage yet another five years of Michigan football.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
Could't disagree with you more on so many levels.
1. You apparently have no idea what Michigan fans asked for. With RichRod's replacement, Michigan fans were not clamoring for Manball. In fact, I don't recall too many people complaining about the offense really, except how it kept tanking in big games. Fans were asking for a return to recruiting well (no more smurfs and empty O line classes), good defense (or any non-GERG defense really), winning and a coach that could shore the divide in the fan base. They didn't ask for Brady Hoke, and in fact there were several other candidates preferred to him that Brandon whiffed on, many of whom did not prioritize Manball. Yet you think everyone wanted Manball. False.
2. For you to state that Al Borges is doing exactly what Brandon mandated is absurd. Brandon didn't mandate the offense. How else explain years 1 and 2 where Borges stuck to a more spread option to leverage the parts (Denard) he had? Yet this year, with a gaping hole of experience on the O line, suddenly now is the time to turn to Brandon's mandated Manball.... If anything, the only thing that Brandon's sizeable paycheck to Borges mandates is that he do what Des Howard said, and maybe "figure it out," or maybe outscheme a D coordinator or two instead of having his lunch served to him by opposing coordinators week after week (hello 1 TD in 12 Qs of regulation play). This offense is worse than any MAC offense right now. 0 regulation TDs vs 0-5 Big Ten record NW?? Two near pix-sixes? Almost 4-5 interceptions going right through the hands of NW defenders? Winning by converting 2 4th downs and 1 second FG against 0-5 NW? 21 for 21 PSU? -48 MSU? -21 Nebraska? Yeah Brandon mandated this offense? Please.
3. The staff deserves support? I mean, what planet are you on Tater? What do you think this blog is? MGoBlue.com? Last I checked this blog wasn't propaganda central. Blogs are cool specifically because they are indy. The day Michigan fans are silenced from expressing issue with their third highest paid offensive coordinator being a miserable failure on so many fronts, is the day this blog will start dying. Check my signature. The blog's founder bashes the staff too, and it's this independent voice that goes a large part toward why people love this blog.
November 17th, 2013 at 12:06 PM ^
Clearly he didn't mean this offense production-wise. He meant offense scheme-wise.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:26 PM ^
You can be right about all your facts, and I'm sure you are, and I submit it doesn't matter. Bob Ufer used to say over and over how football is a game of emotions, remember that? Maybe not at the pro level but definitely in college. You can have all the bells and whistles, charge sky high ticket prices and have luxury box seating but I don't think any of that changes the age of the players on the field. Which is why on any given Saturday, the collective wisdom used to say, any college team has the theoretical ability to upset any other college team. And we can all give examples of these upsets. So go ahead and cite numbers that back up who you want fired, it's always possible to do that. And I'm not saying that improvements aren't called for. But when the team gets a win, do all possible to celebrate the win? Then have some trust that the people who hold their high paying jobs know how to do their jobs. If they don't, time and tide will catch up with them. In the meantime, I love reading the discussions, will never pretend I have the answers. I'm just here to support our team. GO BLUE!
November 17th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^
Thank you for articulating an opinion I wish more fans shared. Yeah, no B1G Championship yet but this is not even close to the disaster that some people make it out to be. It is just what happens when the median or low end of expectations unfold.
But I don't understand how people can't be excited about the future with guys like Funchess and Butt breaking out, playing two true freshmen at RB almost exclusively, and an OL that hopefully had its collective floor against MSU and Nebraska. I can't help but be optimistic for the future of guys like Chesson (good WR and probably one of the best ST guys on the team) Willie Henry (Holy shit this DL is going to be crazy in the next couple years) JMFR3, Jarrod Wilson, etc.
Over 30 freshmen and sophomores have meaningful playing time this year and they all have shown talent. Yeah, the record has not been great but these are the growing pains of little depth and scheme change - not a catastrophe.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:29 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
False. The search for replacements should have started a month ago. But the 24 seconds part, I'm totally on board.
November 17th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^
How likely is it to have new coaches get hired and start working between the end of the season and the start of bowl practices?
November 17th, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 11:14 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 10:35 AM ^
da'shawn hand everything will be OK
/s too soon? too bad.
November 17th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
November 17th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
Not as much as what looking at that whitefro on his avatar of that nerdy painting dude from the 70's does to my eyes.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^
The best case scenario would be winning the last three in ugly low scoring games. That way Borges still looks incompetent and can hopefully be canned, but the team can feel decent about themselves going into next year.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:40 AM ^
I'm starting to seriously question our fanbase. The general tone of many posters on this board is that they would rather us lose to force coaching changes than win. That is complete bullshit. I realize that a lot of people have their ego on the line with Hoke and Borges failing to somehow prove they were right all along, but you need to seriously think about what is good or bad from the program.
Think about what went wrong with RR and whether or not this type of attitude would or wouldn't contribute to the failure we saw in that situation.
EDIT: To answer the question, best case scenario is to win out scoring 50 pts per game and having full improvement on both sides of the ball and continue playing like that next year.
November 17th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
Perhaps I've been blindly listening to random internet posters who say Hoke is loyal to a fault when it comes his coaching staff, but I do worry that he won't make changes that would otherwise benefit the team.
So if my premise is incorrect, and Hoke isn't like that, then yes, this thread makes no sense.
But if it's true (and it's impossible to prove one way or the other), then I think, as a fan, I have every right to worry that a couple lucky wins and we'll be stuck with an inept coaching staff for the next couple of years.
The basis of my argument is that winning today is not necessarily indicative of your success at winning tomorrow. Did yesterday's win give you any confidence in the coaching staff's ability? So if we keep winning like that, what makes you think the staff will do a better job in the future?
November 17th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
Several commenters have pointed out in other threads over the last few weeks that Hoke made some significant changes to his Ball State staff after his third season, so it's not a foregone conclusion that he's too loyal to make necessary changes. Regardless, my hunch is that he's going to stand pat and keep both Borges and Funk, for better or worse.
November 17th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
I'm kinda one of those random internet poster guys Don who says he's loyal to a fault. And go back and look at who he let go at Ball State and how long they were actually with him prior to the terminations. He fired assistants he inhereted from the previous regime - not guys with any longevity or connection to him in the past. Saying he's not afraid to make changes based on fired somebody else's staff is hardly proof-positive of his willingness to make needed changes.
For better or worse Brady is a "stay the course" kinda guy. And Funk has deeper and longer roots with Hoke than Borges does so I'm guessing he's staying next year with Borges.