First Year Winning Coaches: Brady Hoke
Mike Reiter mentions in this little slideshow a list of first year coaches that will win the most games next season. I firmly believe in what Brady Hoke has been doing and how he's been attacking this program with recruiting and leadership. Its good to see the media on his side and supporting. Just a little small read to keep the In Hoke We Trust going.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/622325-college-football-2011-which-f…
February 28th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
To counteract the use of Bleacher Report, I present Very Fake Bleacher Report.
February 28th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^
Cmon, srsly. Bleacher Report is like trying to feed people cat poop. Funny in Anchorman, awful in real life.
February 28th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
FIle this under "no shit".
Look, the defense is bad, but when you have PSU coming out and saying "Michigan was in positions we wanted them in on defense" - it's not a knock on the kids / talent.
The best thing Hoke ever did was hire Mattison. Now, if Borges doesn't screw up the offense, we can easily win 9 games next year. Easily.
February 28th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
I hate the whole "if Borges doesn't screw up the offense" and "we can easily win 9 games next year."
On the first point, yes, our offense put up some big numbers last year, but it was completely shut down by OSU and MSU (Gator) and struggled for large portions of the game against MSU, Iowa, PSU and Wisco. Our offense needs to improve its performance against good teams if we hope to win 9 games. Rather than Borges screwing up our offense, I expect that he will IMPROVE it by making us less one-dimensional and predictable.
As to the second point - winning 9 games, "easily" - how can you say this? We won 7. ND came down to a last drive, and they were playing their second game under a new coach / system with their walk-on third string QB in for much of the game. They will be improved this year. Illinois took us to triple overtime. One play goes the other way, we lose that one. Indiana - we won by a score, at the end. One play goes the other way, we could lose this one. I won't even mention to tight game against UMass. So, sure, we won 7 games, but we were literally 3 plays away from having won 4. You can't make the same "almost" argument for ANY of the wins.
This is not to knock our team or to re-litigate the past, but to assume that we will go from 7 wins - 3 or 4 of which were barely wins, with many of the losses being blow-outs - to 9 wins by simply aging a year is presumptuous.
But, I hope you are right.
February 28th, 2011 at 3:53 PM ^
"I won't even mention to tight game against UMass"
you hypocrite
February 28th, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
We averaged 250.2 yards passing, 238.5 yards running. Which part of that is one-dimensional?
If you mean that Denard was the threat on each play, then yes I guess that could be considered one-dimensional (and will be next year as well). Denard was a First Team All-American, and we don't have comperable talent at the WR/RB positions.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
I checked, you win with points scored, not yards gained. Just sayin'
February 28th, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^
I was referring to the balance of the offense.
Yes, there were problems putting points on the board, but not because our offense was "one-dimensional".
February 28th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
Sorry, replied on the wrong level. Doh!
February 28th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
If you want to go by points, Denard had 16 passing TD's compared to 14 rushing. Again, very much in balance.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
I'd argue the offense was somewhat one dimensional last year in that it depended entirely on Denard being awesome to succeed. Michigan hasn't had the running back who can move the ball independant of the quarterback, often due to injuries, in a couple of seasons. The offense looks great on paper, and maybe this is a product of always needing to drive 70-90 yards to score, but reality left a lot to be desired.
The 9+ wins crowd may be sorely disappointed this season. Michigan has a long road to haul to reach competitive with good teams.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
There I would agree.
However, I don't see this changing at all next year simply because RR isn't here and Borges is. Denard is far and away the best player on the offense, and until that changes the offense will be one dimensional in that regard.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
I think that the challenge for the coaching will be to find a way to maximize Denard's "output" as opposed to maximizing his "usage." Yes, he is the best player on O. No doubt on that. But is he more effective runing 20-30 times per game, and then throwing another 20?
Or, is he more effective for the team throwing 25 times, running 5-10 and then handing it off another 15-20? Based upon how easily quality defenses stopped us last year, I would argue the latter. Not a criticism on RR at all, but I think that Borges will show more variety in his offense, as he is not wedded to a particularly rigid system.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^
Well the obvious answer is that time will tell.
Right now, I don't know if teams respect Denard's accuracy enough to allow him to throw completions a large percentage of the time; your conclusion is also totally dependent on finding a running back that is effective enough to stop risking Denard running it on most plays.
Both might be true; Denard might make drastic improvement in his accuracy and Smith/Fitz might be featured backs next year, but it's far from certain at this point.
Hes still fast as hell, good luck running man coverage and turning your back on him.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^
Offensively, absolutely not. This argument will come up a dozen more times before Fall, but forget the stats for a moment and look at the players. Lewan, Molk, and Omameh are very good-to-elite B1G starters next year. Huyge is solid. Our TEs are fine. Our WR's are above average. Denard is simply one of the best players in the county. RBs are below average (so far) but benefit from an outstanding line. Everyone has experience and significant playing time.
Offensively we should be very good next year. And Defensively we shouldn't be a burning, screaming fireball of death.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^
I don't think anyone would argue the offense can't make up enough ground to become a championship level offense. Finding a reliable running back, solidifying Denard's mechanics, and turning the ball over a normal amount would probably do it.
Unfortunately, the other 11 guys have to play too, and there's no reason outside of blind faith in the new staff to suggest regression to the mean. I hope you're right, but it isn't like Jadeveon Clowney and that USC transfer signed on.
February 28th, 2011 at 6:39 PM ^
And I think he starts at FS, locking down a position that's killed us for 2 years (when he hasn't been playing it). Avery will be better than he was at the end of last year, which wasn't terrible. Floyd should be better. Demens should be better and starting the whole way. Martin, Roh, and Van Bergen should be better. Black will either shore up his run-stopping ability or settle in as a pure pash rush specialist opposite Roh on passing downs. Carvin (who I think unseats Kovacs at SS), Cam Gordon, and (should he start) Kovacs should be better. And the scheme will be more sound - it must be, given last year was stuffed animals.
So, though this is the second year saying this: O should be better (very good), D should be better (below average). 9 wins and competing for the B1G title are my expectations. This time for reals
February 28th, 2011 at 10:23 PM ^
I think hoping for improvement to slightly below average on defense, especially given the schedule, is pretty reasonable. However, 9+ wins is going to depend heavily on the opposition too. ND is a lot better now than at the beginning of last year and is, frankly, a probable loss. OSU is going to be a bear (again), sigh, and is a highly probable loss. I get both at home next year as a grad student and they both scare me.
Assuming those two are losses, we need to pull out a relatively tough game against SDSU, but probably a 10+ point win. After that, who knows where we'll be relative to Northwestern, MSU, Iowa, and Illinois. All have reasons to regress, but all might be better--or at least better than Michigan. Nebraska is a complete unknown to me. They've seemed like a paper tiger minus Suh, but I haven't seen enough of them to tell. 8 wins and seems like a really solid season to me.
I'm hopeful for the defense, but Black needs to improve, two of Ash/Washington/Campbell need to be able to play opposite Martin, someone needs to be able to play linebacker outside of Demens, at least a couple of the rising Sophomores need to become viable Big 10 starters in the secondary, and Woolfolk needs to come back as an average Big 10 safety. That's a lot of things that need to go right, but only the linebackers seem relatively unlikely to me.
If Ash/QW/BWC surface as viable options, it's a bonus but not a requirement (except for depth). I see RVB starting at DT. But Black was a true freshman last year, which is astounding at SDE in a 3-3-5 (Roh starting as a WDE in a 4-3 also impressive, though aided by Graham). I think it's reasonable to expect improvement given he showed flashes of ability and we're now in a 4-3. Line rates above average with Martin, RVB, and Roh.
CB's will be Floyd and Avery, which I have as below average but not death. JT made some huge mistakes (surrendering inside position in man coverage aginst Iowa (?) comes to mind), but was viable for much of the season. And he's an upperclassman-non-position-switcher. I'm not giving up on Cullen Christian either - he was overwhelmed last year, but he has skillz. I think Woolfolk was already an average-to-trending-above B1G FS when he went down. Average should be the expectation, even given injury. Could be much better if the ankle's OK.
I think Mike Jones will be a surprise at LB - he got time at ND before the injury, meaning he was clearly ahead of some of the other LB options. Cam may be a bit thin for SLB, but if Brian's got him slated as the starter I won't disagree. He's a playmaker and with a year of bulking up he may have finally found a home. JB Fitzgerald and Herron have played, and Jake Ryan is a player everyone seems to like. Demens is going to be good. LB I have as below average.
Scheme makes a big improvement. D is below average but not death.
You're right about ND, I've grudgingly accepted that their hype is finally justified this year. But we should be just as good, and we're at home. And I'm now back to caring more about a B1G title than OOC games - I care more about getting to Indy than 9 wins.
February 28th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
is one of the best players in Washtenaw County
February 28th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^
February 28th, 2011 at 9:24 PM ^
Because I was, and the offense looked pretty good even when Denard wasn't on the field.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^
Yes, I was referring to the heavy focus on Denard, not the run/pass split.
I hear your point, that Denard was our best player - hell, he may have been the best player in the conference - so it is natural that he would be a large part of our offense.
But, I don't think that the lack of a non-Denard run game was the result of lack of RB talent - I think that it was the result of the prior offense primarily using the RBs as lead blockers for Denard. Fred Jackson even said so much in a recent (2-3 weeks ago?) interview. Since V. Smith was far and away the best blocker, he featuered heavily. I think that the focus on Denard to either throw or run it himself made us predictable, and also led to Denard breaking down over the B10 schedule.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:47 PM ^
I wouldn't disagree, other than to ask what else we're supposed to do. Time will tell on the RB's, but they got enough carries to make me think we would have realized if one was truly explosive. Hopefully Fitz can stay healthy and will provide some of that other threat we lacked, or Smith gets better over the offseason.
I don't know what else we could have done given the talent disparity between Denard and everyone else, in regards to him being the big threat.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
I think that a lot of the frustration with the RBs was due to who was playing. RR primarily played V. Smith. Clearly, he didn't do so because he thought Smith was a homerun threat. Rather, as reflected in the recent Fred Jackson interview, RR primarily used the RBs as lead blockers. Now, one could argue that this was because of who we had, but I don't think that is the case. I believe that if given significant reps, Hopkins or even Cox could have provided a real weapon. No, not Chris Perry or Mike Hart, but more than what we had, and enough to lessen the dependancy upon Denard to do everythinkg. We will find out this year, when we see what the RBs are really capable of.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:18 PM ^
RR had shown willingness to do run a back a ton before, with White/Slaton.
I think Denard got the amount of carries he did last year because the coaches thought that was their best option to win. Your reply will probably be to say that Denard was only the best option in their read-option offense, and that we would have had a better chance running multiple or pro-sets.; fine, but RR's prior history makes me think that he would have liked to have a RB who could share carries with Denard.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^
I agree with you that RR ran his running backs a ton at WVU. Which is why I was surprised at the amount that he ran Denard this year.
I also think that he probably ran Denard because he didn't think that the other RBs fit his mold of a RB for his offense - a speedster like Slaton.
To me, that is part of what did RR in - he couldn't adjust to what he had. Sure, he didn't have a Slaton, but who is to say that if RR were to mold the offense to the current talent, Hopkins couldn't be a Brandon Jacobs like back? Or that Cox couldn't be effective?
(Note: As you predicted, I do think that we would be more effective running a multiple / pro set offense with a power back).
February 28th, 2011 at 6:18 PM ^
Obviously we stand diametrically opposed on this topic: Given the info we have, I think RR made the right call to run Denard as much as he did, you don't think he did. Both are opinions, and frankly don't matter much at this point.
Where I think you're actually wrong (at least at this point, the season is a long way away) is that Denard has enough accuracy to complete a respectable amount of passes without his running threat on every down. Last year the box got stacked quite a bit, taking Mont'e Teo/Greg Jones and a lot of other very good players out of the pass game; without this, I think Denard struggles immensly. He needs to be a threat to run on every down, and he was last year. I'm concerned that he won't run enough to get the same attention this year.
February 28th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
I also think that Denard needs the threat of the run to be able to effectively pass. But, I am not sure that it has to be the threat that he will run - wny can't it be the threat that a RB OR Denard will run? Wouldn't that be even harder to defend, opening up even more passing options?
February 28th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
But now we're just back to the argument about the strength of our RB stable. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Denard is one of the best runners in the country (perhaps the best), so it's more effective to use him than someone else.
I'm looking forward to not seeing him get leveled by a JJ Watt or a Ryan Kerrigan, running up the middle 32094 times a game (this was my biggest playcalling complaint last year), but I do think Denard needs to rush at close to the same level he did last year to get us to contender status.
Again, if Fitz, Shaw or Smith can do close to the same thing without having to risk Denard running, then we're in agreement. I just don't see that right now.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^
Those that continue to bang the drum for how our offense was so great last year must not watch those "other" games, you know, the ones not against patsies. Our offense was so damn predictable I'd have loved to be on a D coaching staff going against it(provided I had respectable talent on the field).
February 28th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
MANBALL!!!!!
Yeah and you would have been torched too.
Moron
February 28th, 2011 at 4:45 PM ^
I won't even debate you on any of your points(even though I could) or bring up any of the points about our kicking game and defense killing us with field position, chances, or fg's. I'll leave all that out. Just look at any offensive metric you want on a national scale. All you guys want to look at just points instead of yards because it supports your argument instead of all the advanced stats that prove otherwise so we'll use that.
Michigan was 25th in ppg last year and return 10 starters with a qb coming off his 1st yr starting. Considering everything else (defense, turnovers, etc..) if we regress from this line it will be a disappointment. Does it mean Borges and Hoke are not good coaches? No it doesn't mean that, it means they failed to effectively use their personnel and hope they do better next year.
If I have to hear 1 more argument about our offense struggling against OSU and Wisc last year I am going to stick a fork in my head.
The reason why those teams are good is that a lot of teams struggle against those teams. That is why they are good. We got those numbers against a SOS that was near the top.
We get it you didn't like the offense. Stop! The numbers are the numbers.
We were 25th in scoring
We return 10 starters
All outside factors other than coaching change will be in our favor.
Add all those up and if we don't improve on that number we either had injuries or the coaches failed at adapting the personnel.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^
I would expect that to decrease based solely on the fact that we will get less possessions per game given using more time on offense and our defense not getting scored on all the time. I do think our points per possession will increase though.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
Just a few responses (since you and I could just copy the same arguments from one of our many debates in prior threads):
1. "The reason why [Wisco ad OSU] are good is that a lot of teams struggle against those teams. That is why they are good."
The point is that there are many on his site, you included, who talk about our AMAZING offense. If our offense was AMAZING, then we would score against top defenses. That is what an AMAZING offense does. Sure, Wisco and OSU stopped many offenses. And nobody is arguing that those offenses were amazing. But if you want to say how great our offense was, then it should be able to score against great defenses. Oh, and MSU (Gator) was not a great defense. By the way, we scored less points against OSU every team other than Purdue. Similarly, we scored less in the Gator than almost any of MSU's other opponants.
2. "The numbers are the numbers. We were 25th in scoring. We return 10 starters."
I would rather see us be 40 in scoring, but perform consistently well offensively against real defenses. Also, I hope that someone teaches those 10 returning starters to stop turning over the damn ball, because they clearly have not been taught that these past three years.
3. "if we regress from this line it will be a disappointment. Does it mean Borges and Hoke are not good coaches? No it doesn't mean that, it means they failed to effectively use their personnel and hope they do better next year."
Disagree. There is boundd to be regression, when you move to a new offense. This is natural. As long as the offense is better at the end of the season (when we enter the tough part of the B10 schedule) than it is in the beginning - as opposed to last year, when the offense got worse throughout the season - I will be happy. Look at ND last year - they pretty much sucked for the first half of the season, then continued to improve.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
There is a large gap between amazing and pretty good. UM's offense last year was pretty good. By any metric you want to use, they were probably a top 3 offense in the conference(don't really know how scoring 28 points counts as "struggling" against Wisconsin but I digress). If you want to say our offense wasn't top 10 in the country, fine, I can agree with that. But I can't agree that our offense wasn't good just because they put up a clunker against OSU and literally had no FG kicking(something you could reasonably blame on the coaches, but not when evaluating the offense itself).
February 28th, 2011 at 5:17 PM ^
I don't disagree with this at all. And if you look at the many, many, many threads in which Ziff and I have debated this, I have never said that our offense wasn't "pretty good" last year. I just don't think that it was as amazing as many make it out to me.
I think that a pretty good offense is the type that should be able to put up big numbers against crappy defenses, but which might struggle somewhat against pretty good defenses, and which will struggle even more against very good defenses. This is exactly what we did.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
The offense also struggled against PSU, MSU, and Iowa. They couldn't score against good teams. Deal with it. Banging the drum about how awesome things were in the third worst season record-wise in 25 years is getting really old.
It doesn't mean Rodriguez punched babies or that Denard isn't really good. It means there is still a long ways to go when you think about the overall offense/defense gap that has to close to make Michigan competitive against the five teams they lost to last season.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM ^
I'm not going to change your mind, but I need to know if you guys think you are smarter than everyone else or don't believe in stats? I forgot the advanced metric that Brian cites that had us as the #2 offense in the country. In total yardage we were in the top 10. All teams struggle from time to time. Oregon couldn't score 20 against a pretty mediocre Cal defense. Auburn struggled against MSU.
I just don't understand how you guys can watch Denard overthrow a guy wide open in the end zone and say we struggled.
Like you say we have gone over this time and time again, but against OSU on the road with 1 senior we came out and did this.
Marched down the field and stalled deep in their territory.
Marched down and fumbled inside the 10
Marched down and scored a TD.
Completed a 25yd pass to get inside their territory only to get it called back by a formation penalty that nothing to do with the play.
Do you guys not see that we could move the ball on any team in the country? Sure we got bogged down at times in the red zone, but that is mostly on Denard's maturity and dumb luck.
How many teams went on over 50yd drives against OSU 3 times in a row? Guessing not many.
Did we score 3 d's or 4td's in a row on Wisconsin?
Did we shred Iowa for 500 or 600yds?
If you say it was garbage time, it was not. These teams were all scared until deep into the 4th qtr except OSU and The Gator Bowl.
Can you name 20 offenses you would have rather had than ours?
February 28th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^
It's not that I don't believe in stats, its that I think that they are too easy to manipulate for a given purpose. Also, all of the offensive stats that you cited - PPG, YPG - do not take into account that fact that we had a ton more drives per game because our defense couldn't stop a middle school offense. Also, many better teams pull their starters (at least some of their starters) by the fourth quarter when the game is out of reach. Other than BGSU, no game was out of reach, so our offense had to lean on the gas all game. These two stats alone distort your "stats" heavily.
I would be curious to know how our offense ranks in points per drive, not points per game. This would still not take into account my second concern above - about the starters staying in all game and having to score, and not being able to sit back and chew clock - but it would at least take care of one factor.
As to your analysis of the OSU game:
"Marched down the field and stalled deep in their territory."
That's my point. Our great offense really struggled in putting the ball in the endzone against good teams.
"Marched down and fumbled inside the 10"
Again, exactly. Our offense was capable of moving the ball, at time, but the turnovers / mistakes were too frequant against good teams to ignore.
"Marched down and scored a TD."
Good. Happy we got at least one.
"Completed a 25yd pass to get inside their territory only to get it called back by a formation penalty that nothing to do with the play."
Penalties were another problem that this offense struggled with as the year went on.
Finally,
"Sure we got bogged down at times in the red zone, but that is mostly on Denard's maturity and dumb luck."
No, sorry. When the bogging down happens against every good D we face, it is not dumb luck. Denard's maturity, however, I will give you. Freshmen QBs tend to make mistakes and have trouble scoring. This is a very fair point. It does, however, show that our offense was not as amazing as you argue, but that it has the potential to be unreal.
"How many teams went on over 50yd drives against OSU 3 times in a row? Guessing not many."
True, but aside from Purdue, every team that played OSU scored more points than us.
"Did we score 3 d's or 4td's in a row on Wisconsin?"
Shame that those 3 or 4 in a row were the only time the entire game that our offense was effective. They shut us down for 2.5 quarters.
"Did we shred Iowa for 500 or 600yds?"
Sure, but with all of those yards, we didn't score for whole quarters at a time.
February 28th, 2011 at 7:37 PM ^
I'll stop splitting hairs with you and can we put out this joint press release.
The 2010 Michigan offense was a pretty good offense that flashed great potential, but ultimately was not great due to red zone problems, turnovers and a horrid defense. The RR supporters will look at this as problems of youth and randomness and thought in 2011it would rival Oregon as the #1 offense in the country. The RR detractors looked at it as an offense that while interesting was not what they liked and thought it would continue to have execution problems in the red zone and turnovers.
Couple thoughts for you
Over the last 40 years what Mich offenses did you like better than last year?
I don't quite get your defense argument. If the d was better we would get the ball more as there would be more possesions in the game from shorter drives. Our scoring should go up as they killed our field position with no 3 and outs and no turnovers to give us short fields.
I think the RR guys like me always got frustrated because if we were 25 in scoring last year and we returned 10 starters and just improved on ST just a little and defense to slightly bad from horrific it could be great. You can't deny it would be reasonable to be a top 10 offense next year if this happened and coming across top 10 offenses is not easy.
It wasn't that I thought last year's team was so great it was their potential and the lost chance that has us frustrated. Hopefully Borges will do a great job with them.
I never got to reply to this yesterday. My reply. I co-sign your press release.
Also, this statement: "It wasn't that I thought last year's team was so great it was their potential and the lost chance that has us frustrated."
I can co-sign this as well. While I have argued that the offense wasn't as amazing last year as some think, I totally agree that we had the potential coming into this year to be one of the top 5 (forget top 10) offenses in the country. If the comparison is Borges' 2011 offense to RR's 2010, I do not expect much of a drop off at all, when taking into account the 2010 offense's play against better defenses. But, if the comparison is Borges 2011 to what RR 2011 likely would have been, I am actually with you - it will not be as good.
/Shocker ending to our 2-month long debate - I actually agree with you more than your probably thought regarding the 2011 potential!!
February 28th, 2011 at 5:58 PM ^
I think its really easy to look at the OSU game and say we struggled on offense--we scored 7 fucking points! When 50 yard drives and the Fremeau Efficiency Index start counting towards wins and losses, you'll be right. Today, wins happen when teams have higher point totals.
Michigan was down 21-7 in the 4th quarter against Iowa, 31-10 against MSU, and 24-0 at the half against Wisconsin. Each loss was awful and uncompetitive this year. Maybe next season they stop turning the ball over and someone starts tackling anyone if Rodriguez stays, but the statistical trend said Michigan was on pace to post its worse defensive season ever (again) by exceeding the 458 points it allowed in 13 games last season.
I believe you can look at a rough loss and realize that one or two breaks could have resulted in a win. The last three years weren't like that. Sorry.
February 28th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
You have summed up my 20 posts in this thread a lot more succinctly and effectively than I could. Well said. Forget stats, rankings, metrices and the like - just watch te damn games. Watching each of our losses was painful and depressing because we were thoroughly outplayed, and never really in the game.
February 28th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
I have a question. Do you hate the Basketball team? In your world where nothing ever goes right and nobody ever improves does the basketball team make your brain hurt?
I'm not sure why you even follow this team, it must give you never ending pain Sep-Nov.
Just take my word for it we're gona kick ass next year.
February 28th, 2011 at 7:40 PM ^
I fucking hate the eyeball test. You know why? Because you see what you want to see. I look at the Iowa game where you said we didn't score for entire quarters. I see us being down 1 score with 7 minutes to go. What happened? Our defense lets up a 4 minute Iowa drive where they needed a stop on 3rd and 9 to give our offense back the ball without using any timeouts...17 yard pass. They then need a stop on 3rd and 8.....26 yard run. All of our timeouts used. They kick a field goal. We get ball back with 2 and a half minutes left and no timeouts down 10 instead of getting the ball back with 5 minutes to go and all of our timeouts left down 7. We were very much in that game because of our offense. You say we weren't. This is why the eyeball test is shit. We were not thoroughly outplayed and we were definitely in the game.
Wisconsin. Everyone says our offense doesn't kick in unitl the game is out of reach. I see us down by 10 points twice in the 3rd quarter. What happened both times? Our defense let up a 70 yard TD drive and a 50 yard TD drive, every play being a run. We weren't as into that game as the Iowa game, but when your offense puts up 28 against an 11-1 team, it isn't our offense, its our defense.
Everyone says our offesne struggled against PSU. I see us being down 7 points with 9 and a half minutes to go. What happened? 4th down and 4 with almost 4 minutes to play and they pick up the first down at our 22. Then we had a 3rd down and 10 at our own 15 with a minute and a half....12 yard rush. Game over.
I have just outlined numerous times when our offense played well enough to win the game and if the defense comes up with a stop here or there (or fucking anywhere), we have a chance to do something. Instead, the defense let us down. That isn't showing that our offfense sucked, that is showing an offense that did plenty enough to win a couple more games but the defense came up short.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^
ZL,
Your comment above about 9+ win crew being sorely disappointed has me thinking.
Why fire Rich Rod if we cannot get to 9 wins this year with Hoke/Mattison? Was the "long term" with Rich Rod really that bad? Was he never going to be able to field a "Michigan Defense" and that's why he was kicked to the curb?
I am clearly in the camp of "Hoke should win 9 games at least this year" based on the # of kids returning, and the defense improving significantly. I think expectations should be based on what a coach is able to do with the talent he has.
Rich Rod was ultimately fired because of the defense. But we all know he wasn't given much to work with those first few years (except a few stars on defense that got drafted to the NFL - Trent, BG, Brown, and (although undrafted still a star) DWarren). And instead of saying "I will adjust to what I have," he spent three years trying to build his own team. This also didn't help his cause, and I think DB/Hoke/et al know this. As Hoke and Co. have said many times they are going to work with the type of talent they have.
And to me - that means they will adjust schemes, Borges won't screw it up, and Mattison will fix the D. I don't think any of this is too ridiculous to assume, and given our schedule next year, I expect at least 9 wins.
February 28th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^
To me, the most damning indictment of the previous staff wasn't really the wins and losses. Like you alluded to, sometimes things are out of a coaches control. If you asked most posters to comment on what a staff's primary job was, they'd probably say either game management, game planning, or player development. After that would probably be recruiting. Somewhere down the list would be roster management.
Roster management could simply be rolled into recruiting, but I think it's larger than that. It's recognizing a hole at, for example, safety, and shifting a cornerback over well in advance to not plug a gap during Fall practice. It's also recognizing that a coach's job is to keep players at key positions on the team and playing.
Going into the Spring Ball, I would have guessed that the starting secondary would be some combination of Dorsey, Emelien, Kovacs, Woolfolk, and Turner. I'm definitely not the most read into the practice/academic rumor mill, but three of those guys weren't on the team last Fall, and only one (Kovacs) played. Each of those four individually isn't Rodriguez's (or any staff member's fault), but at some point it adds up to a severe problem with roster management. You can talk about decimated defense and that never forget poster all you want, but doesn't the staff share some of the blame?
I guess I felt like the last staff got a sizable majority to seriously buy into the program, but too significant a minority (and grouped together at key positions) didn't buy-in in droves. That crushed my confidence in the staff's ability to actually facilitate a turnaround. Just my opinion.