Hey guys! It's nebraska week.
Hoke, “Red-Letter Games,” and Dave Brandon’s standard for UM Football
Are you concerned that he's taking away from the 50 threads per week that you start, guthrie/heb?
Those dudes are just as wacky as Wolv Dev. Except Wolv Dev is just a goofy teenager who doesn't have anything better to do.
Best post since Saturday
Hi Nova - good post. I like these long ones (haha, been known to do that myself). My larger takeaway thus far is Hoke beats most of the teams UM should, although not in convincing fashion and loses to the teams we "should". I can count 2 victories over teams at the top or near the top of their games in 3 years - 2011 Nebraska and 2012 Northwestern.
I will say 2* because I still dont know how we won the Sugar Bowl with 180 yards of offense. VaTech was solid but I believe was destroyed by Clemson by 30 that year in the championship game so it wasn't a great team. A solid team with speed that sort of shocked UM a bit.
In 2011 UM beat a good Nebraska team that ended up 9-4. That Nebraska team was solid but nothing special, they lost by 30 to Wisconsin and 17 to South Carolina - but the best team Hoke beat IMO in 3 years. OSU's team was the worst OSU team in 2 decades, led by Fickell. That's just being honest. I know a win is a win, but in terms of beating above average teams I don't count it. Notre Dame's 8-5 team was solid not great, Kelly just getting established.
In 2012 the only victory of import was Northwestern's 10-3 squad. That took a last second miracle. MSU was not a very good team, with a bad QB and 1 man band at offense...and we barely beat em. Again a win is a win - it wasnt a dominating win like MSU has had over us multiple times in the past 6 years. And it was MSU's worse team in the past 4 years. Iowa was 4-8 in 2012, it is not a win to be excited about.
In 2013 the best team we beat was a pretty fraudulent Notre Dame team that eeked by Navy last week. The second best win I guess is Minnesota. I do expect a win versus a likewise fraudulent Nebraska team that is now 1 dimensional without Martinez, and doesnt play defense. Iowa is a real toss up, and OSU I expect to get a punch in the mouth from.
It is not a great resume of wins. I guess the upside is RichRod might have lost a few of those games. Hoke has yet to outcoach, outplan, outscheme, out whatever a team that UM "should not" beat. I had more confidence in the 2012 season as the teams UM lost to were #1, #2, #3 and Nebraska without a QB in the 2nd half, along with going toe to toe with a solid South Carolina team. All that is easily explainable and to justify. What I am seeing this year with the struggles versus Akrons, UConns, PSUs is a lot more troubling. 2012's 8-5 is going to look a lot better to me on paper than 2013's 9-4 or 8-5 or whatever it ends up being.
Go look at University of Central Florida - they played all these common opponents and destroyed UConn and Akron, and beat PSU in Happy Valley. With less stars in their recroooots. That's coaching.
A somewhat long post, but some good points made.
Alabama doesn't fit the description you quoted above nor does anyone in their right mind blame Hoke for that loss. 7-8 with 4 to play this season (Neb, Iowa, o$u and Bowl). My hope is Hoke will be no worse than 10-9 which would be a significant improvement over RichRod's 3-15, especially when you consider Hoke still doesn't have a full compliment of his own players.
RR never had a "full compliment of his own players."
measuring stick. AArrrrggghhhhhh. The worst legacy of the RR era is that people now use it to justify a pro-Hoke opinion. I'm sorry, but the fact that Hoke has a better record than RR should be irrelevant. Some of the worst coaches in history had better records than RR.
I'm sorry, but the fact that Hoke has a better record than RR should be irrelevant.
Why, because you feel bad for RichRod? If you're not going to judge a coach by wins and losses, what exactly are you going to judge him by?
or just misunderstood my point, but in case its the latter I will reiterate my point.
RR won 15 games in three seasons. By the logic of, better than RR = good, then had Hoke won 16 games in 3 seasons he would be good. This "logic" is beyond stupid.
I set the baseline for UM football at 3 annual losses. That is generally where it has been for the better part of a few decades excluding some of the RR years, and 1997. It's been a 3-4 loss program for a long time. A "top end" coach should have UM at OSU's level of performance the past 20 years. An decent coach should do 3-4 losses as top 15 classes year in and year out should make even an average coach who does not try something completely out of the box generate 3-4 losses a year, just from talent alone. By this measure Hoke is tracking along at decent and getting UM back to Carr levels. That's fine long term...but the competition has raised the game. And every 5-6 years this program needs to field teams that are nationally relevant... my model is Oklahoma. Great coach with Stoops, doesnt falter big time, doesnt always compete for national championship but a 3 loss season for Stoops is considered the basement. We have all the resources Oklahoma has and more. OSU is above us right now so I wont even use them as a model, at this point a 2 loss season at OSU is a failure by their fanbase.
Since 2008 Stoops has been
11-3, 11-3, 12-2, 8-5, 12-2, 10-3, 10-3. Before that he had bevy of 11 to 13 win seasons. This should be what UM should have as a baseline not being above RR era teams.
I dont know if we could pry Stoops away (would take Stephen Ross vault) but I consider a coach like that at the very top of the next tier behind Urban and Saban.
Alabama was definitely a red letter game.
We'll see on the other part after the season is over. If Lewan doesn't manage to get suspended, they may be able to pull out 3 more wins.
If Hoke doesn't have a full compliment of his own players, then that means he is winning with RRs players! On top of that, you can make the claim that the 5 or 6 best players (Gardiner, Lewan, Gallon, Ryan, Toussant, and Countess-who was a RR recruit as well) on the team are not any of Hoke's players. That should really concern us all. The record would be much worse without RRs players.
mattison is doing a fine job, name me one DB on this roster that is worth a damn right now? maybe countess but even so his coverage skills are suspect at best.
Even if I disagree about the entire backfield not being "worth a damn," I would think that you'd hold the defensive coaching staff at least a little accountable for the fact that the DBs are, in your opinion, so worthless.
Some are RR fault some Mattison missed on but you can't teach talent.
Jeez, what kind of shape would you call our D backfield in during the Floyd/Cissoko days?
Both corners are 4 star prospects, MSU's two are 2 stars, and one is headed to the NFL and the other might be better as a sophomore. So maybe development of players should be the answer rather than saying "you can't teach talent". How is MSU teaching talent to 2 stars ?
we all go on about how beilein is great at scouting talent. has anyone considered that Dantonio and Narduzzi are good at this too?
Well, I guess we simply disagree about the quality of the defensive backfeld. I'm happy with Countess, Gordon, Taylor, and Wilson, and see young talent in Stribling and Lewis, even if they aren't consistent enough yet.
I just find it funny how definitive people are willing to be about laying the blame on the players simply not being of high enough quality. I've seen the DBs, the OLine, and QBs all declared "not good players" in the past week or two, all in the context of some kind of "well, can't expect the coaches to do anything with that" statement.
Yes there is talent all over the roster. You dont have full classes of 4 star talent all bomb together and/or be "misjudged". Some portion (20-30%) might be but that leaves you with 70% of the recruits. People on this blog seem to think if they were not in 2013 or 2014s class these kids are average talents as if we had classes full of 2 stars who "cannot be coached". It is the coaches jobs to improve players when they get here - not simply acquire them. And I am not talking coordinators - the position coaches are where it all begins.
that there's a chance that Michigan DB's or their families may actually be reading this blog before posting. "Worth a damn"? Show some class please and give 18-21 year old kids some slack.
I see improvement wth every DB. They aren't great yet but its an improving unit imo.
Countess is playing at an All-B1G level just a year after having torn his ACL. Raymon Taylor has become a damn good corner. Thomas Gordon is the best all-around safety we've had in years.
Guys, if you want to make this point, at least use a position group that is bad. Our defensive backs have been a strength. It sucks that pass plays really hurt your fragile psyches due to that second the ball is in the air and you really, really hope it goes M's way, but they are playing well, by and large.
Sometimes it is difficult to split the pass rush from the pass defense since they need each other but UM is 96th in the country in pass yards allowed. And before you tell me its because we have a stellar run defense, there are certain teams in the state who have both a great pass defense and rush defense. And UM has faced no gun slingers aside from Indiana and if you want to be generous Notre Dame. Their other opponents have been Central, Akron, UConn, MSU, and a freshman QB at PSU (who will one day be a gun slinger).
So take out Indiana and instead of 96th maybe it would be ranked 84th. That is a stellar group? Far from it -the individual pieces dont seem to be adding up to a cohesive group.
Could the lack of a pass rush have something to do with that? Not many DBs can maintain coverage with no pressure. If ojemudia or Charlton can't develop next year then lets talk
I really do--I share it. But the fact is that our roster is not 10 wins good right now, has not been since 2006, and our coaches are not getting them to overachieve like they did in 2011. Next year will likely be more of the same--this is the slow reality of rebuilding, especially when your staff is more focused on structural than schematic advantages.
That said, I am pretty confident that by 2015, once our roster is made up of the '11 (R-Sr), '12 (Sr/R-Jr), '13 (Jr/R-So), '14 (So/R-Fr) and '15 (Fr) classes, we will be set up for sustained 9+ wins/year success, as during the Carr/Moeller years. Some years we will be better than that.
Whether we are able to surpass that level and reach Alabama, Oregon or even Ohio (under Tressel/Meyer) levels on a consistent basis is another story. We'll see.
But if you take the long-view, better things are indeed on the horizon. That was not the case with Rodriguez, who was a great offensive playcaller but had really screwed the pooch on defense and left a recruiting tire fire.
This team would be awesome if the recruiting we've been hearing so much about was actually panning out. USC has a RS freshman at LT (a 3-star, 260LB DE in high school), a true sophomore at LG, and 3rd year guys at the center and other guard spot. Their line is a hell of a lot better than ours (backs over 5.5 ypc despite a noodle armed QB with no rush ability). They've also recruited at least one running back in the last 2+ years who they trust to carry the ball (5 on the team in all have combined for 1,691 yards so far this year). And they are on super restrictive probation. And their coach just got fired.
If this team had two just-not-terrible OL starters from the 2012 (or 2011 class, or 2013), maybe a blue-chip RB, and a bit of extra pass rush (SC picked up a DT in their 2012 class with 13 career sacks now and a JUCO transfer DE who have combined for 30.5 sacks the last two seasons, our d-line has 9.5 all this year) they'd be a solid BCS bowl team. Instead we talk about the bright future of guys who can't seem to contribute to a winning team and shield our eyes from the glare.
I mean I know that comparing a coach to Lane Kiffin is a pretty big measuring stick to meet, but frankly we haven't been doing it so far and more stars next to names in the future isn't giving me any additional confidence at this point.
It's not very good.
Besides, that USC runs better than we do isn't surprising. USC may have sanctions, but they have also pulled in classes with higher average stars than we have nearly every year since 2001, and recruited very well during the years when we recruited very poorly (2010/2011).
Plus our OL problems also stem from the fact that we had a system through 2007, then changed to a different one (and recruited different kinds of OL), then started changing back to the first one, yet didn't change all the way. We've undergone schematic transition twice in a period when USC has not undergone schematic transition once.
Sure Kalis not panning out (yet) is a disappointment, but everywhere else shows a lack of depth and said lack of depth is caused by poor recruiting.
Our staff got the guys they wanted and have had every opportunity to install the system they want with their guys from the 2012 class. Those guys were never coached by anybody else in any other system. USC brought in 4 OL in their 2012 class. The two lowest rated guys are the ones in the starting lineup. When they hand the ball to a running back, they average 5.5 ypc. How happy would you be if we could do that? And they do it with a QB who struggles to arm punt it downfield at times and can't run at all. We brought in four heralded recruits in the 2012 class. 5-star Kalis got benched in favor of a two walk-on lineup. 4-star Magnuson is playing out of position at guard and has had his share of struggles. 4-star Blake Bars has not been seen. Braden got a ton of spring hype and has similarly vanished. And Chris Bryant, another 4-star bite at the apple, doesn't appear to be working out.
Youth isn't the problem. Our guys not being as good as the guys other teams get (or guys we've had in the recent past like Long, Molk, Lewan, and Omameh who played well as young players) is the problem. When that is the case, thumping our chest about recruiting rankings and looking forward to how awesome things will be down the road seems silly to me.
They could get things sorted out this year and guys might emerge down the stretch, but right now it looks like we're behind the 8-ball and the recruiting hype is just that. The fact remains, 3-4 emerging young stars (two decent OL, second RB, maybe a pass rusher) would make this team damn near unbeatable. They just aren't here.
Your very good points are my biggest fear. I love Hoke and want him to go down in history as the next Bo, except with MNC. I don't want him to be fired and I will absolutely support him until the end of 2015. That is fair. However, for being a line coach himself, it seems like our young O-line would be much better than they are. After struggling against Akron and UConn I'm also beginning to wonder what's going on. I realize there is a lot of youth on the team, but young players seem to be playing on other O-lines just fine. Not only that, but ours doesn't seem to be getting any better as the season progresses.
Without people jumping down my throat, what could it be besides coaching?
It just stings because this team really is so close, and there looks to be a dip coming when Lewan, Schofield, Fitz, and Gallon leave, followed by Gardner a year later. Gallon and Funchess are fantastic weapons. Devin has all the ability in the world, especially when given time. The defense is more than good enough to keep us in every game. And the team should be in better shape if not for some missteps by both staffs and "The Process" (we should have BWC and Fisher on the o-line and Roh on d).
But 3-4 impact players in that 2012 class could have made this team into a juggernaut. For all the hype, there isn't a Lewan in that class, or a Fisher for that matter. There's no Leonard Williams (the USC DT with 13 career sacks from the same class). There's no Clarett/Peterson/Williams/Bush in either of the last two classes to go with Gallon/Fitz/Funchess.
If those types of players were here this place would be a whole lot quieter.
"USC has a RS freshman at LT (a 3-star, 260LB DE in high school), a true sophomore at LG, and 3rd year guys at the center and other guard spot..."
This cherry picking is the best you could come up with?... And you still decided to build an argument around it?
Hoke & co have their first real class in the middle of their second year and they're transitioning from a completely different system/style. That's not "clouding the issue"... It's stating the obvious.
People are talking about youth on the interior o-line (a spot that is really the only weakness on this team). USC is just as young, and doesn't suck balls at trying to run the football. Michigan was just as young in RR's third year and managed to post positive rushing stats in almost every game, I'm sure.
Hoke's first class is WAY BEHIND what Rich Rodriguez (who was changing systems as well) and Lane Kiffin (on probation and soon to be fired) did in similar spots. If he had recruited in 2012 as well as Kiffin did at SC the same year (with 9 fewer spots to offer) or as well as Rodriguez did in his first full class, the o-line wouldn't be the disaster it is, and we might have one or two extra playmakers to compete for a championship. Kiffin also landed a DT who has 13 sacks in his first two seasons and a JUCO DE with 17.5 (our entire line rotation this year has 9.5). But we got Pee Wee and Wormley so we cool, dog! And the guys who came in 2012 never switched systems. They've had the same coaches the whole time, unlike Lewan, Molk, Omameh (good players) who had no problem adjusting and raking in 1st team all-conference honors playing for different staffs.
In RR's third year, guys he brought in rushed for nearly 2,900 yards. A receiver he brought in led the team and was 3rd in the Big Ten. The QBs he brought in threw for over 3,000 yards. Lewan was a freshman All-American and Omameh a respectable starter. This team has Devin Funchess. And...we're talking about recruiting prowess. Our touted linemen are not as good as the guys at SC and Stanford who are the same age. What makes you think we will pass those guys as the players age at the same rate? And they aren't as good as Lewan and Omameh were at the same age (and probably Schofield would have been if he'd gotten in as a RS freshman).
Tressel won a title his 2nd year because the 5-star RB he brought in was awesome as a freshman. Derrick Green is not Maurice Clarett. Or Adrian Peterson. Pete Carroll went to the Orange Bowl his 2nd year because Mike Williams was an absolute beast WR as a true freshman from his first full recruiting class. The next year he brought in Bush and White at RB and won a national title.
Where are those guys in Hoke's 2+ classes people keep raving about? Do you need more examples or are you going to claim that this is still cherry picking? Hoke (like any coach) should get five years, and DB should kick anybody in the balls who calls for him to be fired. And he should support him to the max until the day he's no longer the coach here. But acting like we're headed somewhere magical at this point because you'd rather believe recruiting rankings than on-field performance is just dumb or patient beyond belief.
But it's just not worth it.
Yes, you're still cherry picking. Now you're picking out star players from various teams who had early success? Or teams that have had success with arguably (I'd put this in italics for emphasis if I knew how to format) similar youth in various positions? This proves what? That youth doesn't matter?
That's the epitome of cherry picking. You're throwing out random exceptions when an even moderately large sample size would demonstrate just the opposite. If I had the time/desire I'd look into dominant teams (or O-lines even) over the last decade or so to see how experience correlates to success... Wanna take a wild guess on how that'd look? I know where my money would be.
of course it's better to have experience. no one argues that. but we lack experienced depth on the o-line. so that's hoke's #1 objective when taking over. and he has had great success in recruiting studs there in his first two years. in fact, many were saying these may be the best back-to-back O-lines in the history of college football...that's ever!!!
yet, we can't find one or two of those guys to be consistently "competent" this year. to me that comes down to one thing...coaching.
Everyone talks about youth, but it seem like the talent we have, especially anchored by an All-American and future draft pick, would be enough to control the line of scrimmage against Akron and UConn. I'm not saying they should be world beaters, but should manage the line against some of the worst teams in college football.
Our highly rated O-line classes haven't blown up in their first and second years on campus. It's definitely time to panic.
Nevermind it's typically one of the last positions you ever want to play guys early and all that. The coaches clearly suck.
Besides, if things look great a year or two down the road who's gonna remember all this negativity anyway?
Rich Rod put two solid starters on the line in year three, and may have been able to get by with three if Schofield had to play. Hoke has failed to bring in and/or develop even one AT THE SAME POINT IN HIS TENURE. How do you view this as a positive sign? How does it get better next year when it looks like the even younger guys may win some of these jobs? How many years more than his predecessor got do we have to sit through before we're allowed to have any expectations?
molk, omameh, lewan were pretty good in year 2 on campus. i'm just asking for ONE of these young studs to be serviceable. but to some, that's asking too much. and i can name serveral redshirt frosh o-lineman at UM who faired much better than the tire fire we are witnessing.
I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. Your last two posts (above and below this at the moment) are either way out in left field, or my ability to digest this stuff has reached it's limit. Coaches who had success early (below)? RRs 2010 team?...
I've been avoiding the forum/comments since Saturday evening... I think that was a wise choice.
coach up one or two of the most highly recruited linemen in the country the past two years to block someone...anyone.
Except if three aren't "coached up" there's still a serious problem, not to mention the lack of experience at TE.
YOU: Give it time, we're recruiting well and things will get better when our good young players grow up.
ME: Actually we're doing a shitty job recruiting (at o-line specifically) when compared with any number of programs where the coaches were fired for their efforts (specific examples provided). When looking at recruiting as a whole, we're also doing a shitty job bringing in the kind of top-tier talent that has an immediate impact (or certainly within three years) in turning teams from good to great, and that virtually every marquee coach in the country has benefitted from.
YOU: I don't understand.
The "any number of programs" meaning the one or two you're still cherry picking (and aren't exactly lighting the world on fire either)?
I picked the only two programs I looked at. Someone else mentioned Stanford's young guys as well. I'm sorry if you think it is unfair to expect Brady Hoke to recruit at least as well as his predecessor (who got fired) here did and Lane Fucking Kiffin. I think that is a fairly bare minimum standard that he has blatantly failed to meet so far in his tenure.
I'm talking about two coaches (who got fired) who objectively did a better job recruiting on the same timetable as Brady Hoke did, at a position that was supposed to be a major focus of this program and a huge success story coming out of signing day.
I'm also talking about every actual successful program in college football in recent years. Urban Meyer signed Tebow (13 total TD as a freshman) and Harvin (SEC title game MVP and conference freshman of the year) in his first full class. They won it all as freshmen, Tebow won the Heisman a year later, and they won another national title before Harvin left. I mentioned Pete Carroll and Mike Williams (1,265 yards as a true freshman) followed by Bush/White in his 2nd class (they won a national title the following year). Bob Stoops won a title in year 2 and was back in the game in year 5, 6 (thanks to a true freshman RB), and 10. Jim Harbaugh got Andrew Luck, Martin, and Decastro right out of the gate and his team was a monster by year 4. Bama was winning big in Saban's 2nd year.
We had a chance to build off a BCS bowl win and become one of those teams this year, with very few question marks and loads of optimism about our hyped recruiting classes. But we signed a 5-star back averaging 3.3 ypc and a few other guys the coach won't ever let hold a football. We found a solid #2 and probable future star in Devin Funchess, once we stopped asking him to block defensive ends. None of our young linemen can stay on the field, much less have any sustained success.
One of these things is not like the others. And if you're thinking, well obviously Hoke isn't in the same league as Tressel, Harbaugh, Carroll, Meyer, Stoops, Saban, etc. then what does that say about where this is going to eventually end up, especially when I point out that Hoke had a stronger season in year one than any of them, and by a considerable margin?
Yikes! You're all over the place now. Yes breaking in a stud freshman or two into an otherwise talent-rich and experienced line-up isn't quite the same thing as what Michigan is experiencing though, is it?
Tell it my brother. You speak the truth.
So, you have lost all faith in our coaches (assuming you ever had any and aren't just grinding the Coach Rod axe) because they failed to find the next 3* 260 lb HS DE future NFL player and get him to come to Michigan. There are a lot of schools that didn't get that guy. In fact, only USC got him. Fire everyone?
Also, there is no way that one can say Coach Rod's first class way WAY ahead of Coach Hoke's in year 3. That class featured a ton of contributors, for sure, but that was more a product of the poor shape the roster was in. He needed to play those guys early. What happened? 3-9, 5-7, 7-5. We were bad precisely because those youngsters were playing before they were ready. Coach Hoke's first class has fewer contributors, perhaps, but the roster was in pretty good shape so the ones who played earned the right to play, and are pretty good.
Thus team has problems. The line is awful. The main problem is their youth. This isn't an excuse. I actually played on the line in college. Its a tough thing to be good at right away. Its just the way it is. The guys who are capable of playing well as underclassmen eventually end up as sure fire NFL guys. We might not have any of those. We can still have a decent line as early as next season. I think we will. My track record is pretty good, as I was warning everyone last season that this line would be worse than that one.
If you are going to make an argument, make a good one. I don't disagree with your concerns. I think the one USC freshman that you choose to cherry pick is a bad argument for a decent point. Work on it. Don't try to use prove the exception as the rule.
I didn't cherry pick one USC freshman. I looked at two recruiting classes in the exact same year. I picked USC because it is a team I am familiar with and because people here would cry laughing if anyone ever suggested Lane Kiffin is a better coach than Brady Hoke. Both classes had 4 linemen, both were well thought of by recruiting gurus. Their class has produced two starters on a team that is totally capable of lining up and running the ball for positive yardage (and their blue-chip guys are the ones that aren't panning out). I then looked at our heralded class from the exact same year that has produced nobody capable of anything but getting zero push and flailing wildly in the passing game. I threw in the guy Hoke added in 2011 and the whole 2013 class looking for perhaps a superstar true freshman out of "THE BEST LINE CLASS EVER!!!!" And found nothing positive to see. Where is the apples/oranges aspect to this?
Then I looked at our o-line recruiting (which was far less heralded) when Hoke's predecessor was here, to see if playing young guys in year three posed the same kind of problem. It didn't. Lewan was a freshman all-American and Omameh was a competent starter. Schofield was an effective starter a year later. If we have 3 Hoke guys who play as well next year as those guys did in 2011, we'll probably be fine. Do you really see that happening?
As for guys earning the right to play, who has done that on offense besides Funchess? Denard Robinson was the Player of the Year in RR's third year, Roundtree one of the top receivers in the conference, Lewan a freshman All-American. Those guys earned the right to play. Those kinds of guys are not on Michigan's current roster. Saying we'll be better without those guys under the current circumstances is just fucking dumb.
Let me make this really simple.
The vast majority of offensive linemen need years of development at the college level. Even highly rated recruits.
Naming a bunch who had success early doesn't change this fact. It's simply cherry picking. It doesn't prove there's a problem with coaching and/or recruiting.
It's a numbers game that thus far hasn't worked in our favor in a "better than expected" manner. Shit happens. In your own example the USC "blue chips" are the ones who aren't panning out and they got hits with two "lesser recruits" (to be honest I'm skimming at this point) no?
Luck of the draw man. Looks like we may have to be patient with those linemen who ALMOST ALWAYS NEED DEVELOPMENT. My god, the horror of it.
Guys who are eventually really good are competent to good as RS freshmen. Jake Long, David Molk, Taylor Lewan to name a few in just recent years here at Michigan. We don't have anybody in the 2012 class who is really good. That is going to make it less likely that the team is really good in the future.
Jim Harbaugh signed two 3-star linemen in his first class. They were both freshman All-Americans after a redshirt year, honorable mention all-conference that first season, and the next year anchored a team that in his fourth year went 12-1. You think that is happening here?
Our recruiting/development looks absolutely nothing like what other elite coaches were doing out of the box, no matter the rankings. There is no Julio Jones on this year's or next year's team. No Mike Williams. No Percy Harvin. No Denard Robinson. No Tim Tebow. No Reggie Bush/LenDale White. No Clarett. No Andrew Luck. No Martin/DeCastro on the lines. USC had a RS freshman and a true sophomore (same age as the guys in our super hyped 2012 class) starting on their 2004 national championship team. We don't have guys like Sam Baker and Ryan Kalil. We just don't. We have a bunch of stars next to names and a nice opening season with another guys players. Just like Charlie Weis had.
Unless things go a whole lot better next year, Brady Hoke is clearly not Jim Harbaugh. Or Urban Meyer. Or Nick Saban. Or Bob Stoops. Or Mark Richt. Or Mack Brown. Or Bobby Petrino. Or Pete Carroll. Or Phil Fulmer. Or Barry Alvarez. Or Bret Bielema. Or Les Miles. Or Steve Spurrier. Or Charlie Strong. Or Chip Kelly. Etc. Etc.
Sorry if I don't fucking jump for joy at that prospect. Hopefully I'm wrong and we're tearing toward a B1G title or a major bowl next season. I just don't see any evidence to suggest it is going to happen.
"Good ones don't"
Do I need to compile a list of all the great linemen who didn't play until they were RS SO (or later) and then we can have a theoretical argument about how good they would have been in year one or two?
Just because you can name a lot of exceptions doesn't mean they're not exceptions. You have a massive pool to draw from. I'm talking about a handful of players and 3 positions. See any problem with comparing those sample sizes? Any at all?
The guys we're talking about aren't even done with their first/second years! It may be too late to salvage anything from this season (aside from some potential moral victories and improving perceptions), but it's not out of the question things could still start clicking for them this year and we could see improvement. I see it with various squads, on various teams, at various points in the season, every year.
If you really think it's reasonable to write them off or make it out to be some systemic failure?... It's time to just agree to disagree. I personally think that's insanely pessimistic and/or shortsighted.
If Taylor Lewan had arrived when Jake Long was here he might not have played as early. It doesn't mean he wouldn't have been capable of being a competent player. None of the 5 Hoke recruits from the 2011 or 2012 class are remotely close to as good as he was. Or all the other really good linemen we've had recently. They have in fact been varying degrees of terrible throughout the year. Keep telling yourself that is just the luck of the draw and that all will be well.
I'm all ears if you want to "cherry pick" a single player who went out and ate his balls completely (things like getting benched in favor of a 6'1" walk-on) as a 2nd or 3rd year player (in Bryant's case) and then later got really good on the offensive line. Would especially appreciate it if the coaching staff in question raved about how the guy maybe could've/should've been playing as a true freshman to deflect past criticisms about line play during its tenure.
Then you can exlain to me how signing Thomas Rawls (Where is he?), Drake Johnson and Dennis Norfleet (who never lines up in the backfield) in your first full recruiting class, and no RB in your third full recruiting class is a recipe for MANBALL DOMINATION!!!! Especially with this clusterfuck on the line.
I'm done trying to explain anything to you. Maybe someone else will take up the challenge (though I wouldn't encourage it).
I'm cherry picking, but you have zero examples of guys getting to play and struggling like this in year two or three who went on to be elite players. Trust the coaches, xoxo.
You have gotten thoroughly squashed in this thread, have been all aggro, and your arguments have been all over the place.
This is not a good look for you, dude.
Awesome u managed to list a bunch of players who either got paid a lot or brought sanctions to their programs
Tim Tebow be stackin' paper, yo! And Stanford be achin' from them sanctions. I forgot we hired Brady Hoke so we could sit comfortably below all the schools that are actually good at playing football.
RS Freshman 2 star Conklin starting LT.
RS Soph 3 star starting center Allen.
Lossing RS Soph starting LT Schofner before the season started due to repeated injuries (apparently considering a return).
Landing (still) undersized 3 star JUCO OT Fonoti, and making him effective.
Two true freshman RB's getting quality time/production.
First year starting RS Soph QB that has improved dramatically within a few games.
WR dropsies and route running improve dramatically, within a few games.
Turning ATH Langford into a reliable RB within a few games.
A starting D that averages exactly 3 stars, and leading the nation in overall D.
MSU had a spread O with Stanton running as often as he passed (probably). Dantonio turned that 4-8 spread team into a bowling pro-style 7-6 team in one year, and continued to improve with JLS's 40 WR roster. Dantonio had to spend 9 redshirts his first season, including two DT's - and those DT's saw lots of action. I think both were starting by the end of the season.
One top 20 recruiting class (17th) since he got here. 2009.
We all know how it's gone from there.
Someone here quoted Bum Phillips referring to Don Shula awhile back (and all of you long time fans know who they are:)). It's worth repeating:
He can take his'n and beat your'n, and take your'n and beat his'n.
It's not youth, it's coaching.
- LT: Chad Wheeler, RS FR
- LG: John Martinez, 5th year, 3yr starter
- C: Marcus Martin, JR, 3yr starter
- RG: Aundrey Walker, JR, returning starter
- RT: Max Tuerk, SO, returning starter
Four returning starters, including a 5th year who's mysteriously missing from Purple Stuff's lineup. The third-year at RG was inserted there this week to replace another 5th-year that was hurt the week before.
I can't tell from the website who's on scholarship, but besides the six listed above they have two additional fifth-years and one fourth-year lineman on the roster that have letters. (There's also a fifth-year with "SQ" under participation that must be a walkon.)
They have five starters back from last year; they had a red-shirt freshmen develop so well he outplayed one of them. This is our example for a successful inexperienced line?
They're #29 in offensive FEI, Michigan is #43.
I'm not quite sure what this cherry was supposed to prove.
Appalachian State is 10 months away, and adding that game to the schedule is looking like a worse decision every day.
Brady Hoke is our coach for the foreseeable future. Constantly talking about his job security isn't very productive (and arguably counterproductive, if recruits read this stuff). Maybe an assistant or two is on the hot seat but Hoke isn't.
I felt RR should have gotten 5 years, I feel the same way about Hoke. However, I am losing faith in AL Bore because:
A) His offense seems to have no identity. Is it Pro? Is it Spread? What the hell is it? And what is Michigan's "go-to" play. Under Carr and Debored it seemed to be the stretch play out of the Ace formation. Under RR, the zone-read. Under Hoke and Big Al...uh?
B) There has been no signs of improvement for the QB's. Denard regressed his senior year. Gardener has regressed since last season.
My recommendation: Get a new QB coach/Offensive Coordinator or hire a full-time QB coach with a proven track record.
While I generally agree- the reason the identity "hybrid" is because of the personnel he has. We might be trying to do too much in terms of identity, but he can't go full manball due to our personnel, and if he tries spread we are developing the system he knows best/most (west coast). He is in a hell of a position. I think the hybrid identity can work (short term) but his play calling seems questionable a lot. I am done with Borges myself. Just trying to add some perspective
Well, that would depend on other stuff. You know, like every other game on the schedule. Say he wins them all but loses 3 straight to Ohio and once more against MSU. Fire him? You would have had to fire Bo Schembechler as well.
No one wants to lose to Ohio or State. No one wants to lose at all. But you can't just put a silly set of criteria out there. Unless you really feel that Bo merited a firing in 1975, when, over the previous 4 seasons he was 0-3-1 against OSU despite not losing another game. Fire him. But then you probably would have gotten to see Michigan go 3-0 against Ohio the next three years, winning the B1G each time.
"The coaches understand this teams limitations better then us all yet they refuse to put the team in the best position to win."
Maybe they are being put in the best position, but they are simply being outplayed. As you said, the coaches probably understand this team better than all of us, and they probably do put the team in the best position to win.
If Team A is superior to Team B, and Team A wins the game, that doesn't mean that Team B's coaches didn't put their players in the best position to win.
"When a head coach is under fire, you can only play the “this is my guy, and he’s the right guy” card once. Given Hoke’s recruiting success and the positive vibe he’s built around the program since 2011, there’s little doubt Brandon gives Hoke at least four years, and probably five – heck, maybe even his entire six-year contract – before definitively deciding whether he is the long-term answer as Michigan’s head coach."
I have a minor quibble here - if you're talking about Hoke being "under fire" from sources such as this blog, then I have to argue that such things wouldn't count heavily as being "under fire". Indeed, Hoke is probably one of the safest coaches (in terms of job security) in the conference right now. You are more than likely correct, however, when you mention that he may get the full term of the contract at a minimum, and it is because of some of the things Eye Of The Tiger mentioned above. I'll be honest - I understand it and don't necessarily have an issue with that level of patience.
They were rather awful last year and once again a bottom feeder in the B1G. Fact is, we were two miracle finishes away from being 6-6 in the regular season last year. I would give Hoke next year to turn this thing around. If he can't, Brandon seriously has to consider if there is anyone out there that can get the program to the next level.
And schedule for next year? Hoke is fucked with all those away games proving he can't win outside of aa
That better not be a lame excuse next year. We should have depth and experience everywhere. Even O line (tho not a lot of upperclassmen there).
Considering the circumstances of the Notre Dame and Nebraska games, we were also pretty close to 10-2, as well.
I think you could fairly reason we had chances in those games, but here's the problem: If we kept Gardner at QB (And remember he played well at Illinois in 2011), we may have won those games. Here's an article about Devin after the Illinois game that year: http://espn.go.com/colleges/michigan/football/story/_/id/7227064/devin-gardner-michigan-wolverines-beat-illinois-fighting-illini
What I'm saying is that we may have won those games if the coaching staff did not make the ill-advised move of moving our talented backup QB to wide receiver.
If RichRod needed a new DC to right the ship, Hoke needs a new OC.
which do we like better: run up and down the field/ cant stop em or cant run the ball/ play pretty good D?
Remember how Coach Rodriguez fired Shafer because the defense sucked? And then hired Robinson and the defense sucked? And then we kinda wished we had Shafer back after his defense at Syracuse was good? Coaching changes aren't a panacea.
Most of this is noise - random event hapenning in a small sample size. It's more often not about coaching.
The question is how much of the defensive woes of 2010 were on Robinson and how much was on Rodriguez's apparent insistance on sticking with the 3-3-5. Ultimately, the HC has the final say.
We played a 4-3 for all but one game in 2008. We played a 4-3 for every game in 2009. Then we played a 3-3-5 in 2010.
It isn't like we didn't do the other stuff for quite a while, without any greater degree of success. The 3-3-5 was just a useful aesthetic thing for people to bitch about. A lousy roster was always going to see the defense go from mediocre, to bad, to horrendous as guys like Graham graduated and the last Carr recruiting classes dominated things.
Aha. Now we've gotten to the root of things. You don't care about this team of these circumstances. You just don't want Hoke to succeed. You're hurt about having been wrong about Coach Rod.
One cannot say things like, "A lousy roster was always going to see the defense go from mediocre, to bad, to horrendous as guys like Graham graduated and the last Carr recruiting classes dominated things," and not acknowledge that our offensive line was always going to be dreadful after 2011 when we would have no juniors and no interior line seniors.
Our offensive line has two very good 5th year seniors at tackle, and a walk-on playing fairly well (at least when he was at guard) to fill recruiting gaps. There is also no issue at QB (4th year returning starter, #1 dual threat in his recruiting class), RB (5th year returning starter, 4-star recruit), or WR (5th year returning starter, Army All-American). Hoke had to find 2 not-atrocious guys by year three to have a very good team and failed to do so. No one ever said the interior line had to be a strength or that there wouldn't be issues. We're saying that anything remotely approaching mediocrity at two spots is the difference between a BCS bowl (at minimum) and stumbling through the season as we have.
Our 2010 defense had Jonas Mouton, hobbled Mike Martin, RVB, and crickets. If the difference between that and a good defense was, say, Craig Roh not falling down on every play and Cam Gordon making a few big plays, then we'd be talking about similar situations. We aren't.
The "want the coach/team to fail" comment is douchetastic beyond belief. As for supposedly being wrong, what are the records of the coaches you have such differing opinions on over the last two years?
Brandon's stated rationale for firing Rodriguez is fair enough--in the final reckoning, it is those big games that determine whether you are successful at Michigan. Rodriguez would have had more time to prove his case had he been able to win the games against weak or mediocre opponents: Toledo, Notre Dame, Purdue, Illinois in 2008; Purdue, Sparty, and Illinois in 2009; Penn State and Iowa in 2010.
Aiming for the top is what you do at Michigan, but you get there over the course of coaching a team up through the Minnesotas, Purdues, etc. Winning those games sets up opportunities for the red letter games. For example, losing to Sparty in a year where they may have their best team since '87 is foregivable if Michigan can win the winnable games.
The end of year review with my boss if the last 3 years were 11-2, 8-5 and then 6-6. Not saying that's what it will ultimately be, but that frames up the worst case proposition.
The final answer of course would be at the end of 6 year contract period.
I think everything is in place to swing this back up. There are a few nice recruits out there and even if we only landed 1 I would feel it a positive. Go get another QB or OL is my vote. Ya can never have enough! I'm convinced Hoke knows the gravity of the situation more than anyone because he lives it 84 or more hours a week. I also believe he purposefully puts out the meh answers in pressers. I believe he is purposefully taking the heat to allow others to do their jobs...that is also a characteristic of a good leader.
As I posted before, I would prefer him to use the rest of this season to set us up for success next year. Get the freshman RBs more involved, put corners on islands and keep them there for awhile. Get Allen punting now in games. Make our mistakes now, and have game references the kids can remember, learn from and develop. Not suggesting burning any more red shirts...just those who have already been in.
...who actually played for Bo in the 70's said that Bo "wouldn't let us lose." Hoke needs a little more Bo spine, IMHO.
This assumes, of course, that Bo's coaching style would work on today's kids. Perhaps a BIG assumption.
True.. And the only way to do that is with some ass kicking just like Bo did.
1). I worshipped Bo
2) the Big 10 was much different and we took advantage
3) Hoke needs a bit more of Bo's kick ass and take no excuses, but Bo would struggle with today's blue chippers
4). Bo won a lot of games, but lost a lot of big games and we were all disappointed
5) Bo was criticized often in losses for play calling and being conservative
But, Bo ALWAYS had damn good tailback, big, strong blocking and pass catchingTE and a tough smart, physical center and at least one mean, d linemen that always commanded a double team. We have none of those. We have many real good players, but none of those key elements.
i posted this in another thread, but pre-2000, i can't think of 5 games where we got dominated in the trenches. yet, in recent years, it is commonplace.
0-7 on the road.
0-7 on the road.
ZERO-SEVEN ON THE ROAD!!! AARRGH!!!
That is definitely an interesting statistic. It doesn't really argue that the problem is X's and O's. Instead it is psychology. Maybe what is lacking is a mental toughness.
Some of that can be youth. If you don't have a lot of experience playing in very hostile environments, it can be tough. It is also personality; some players love that kind of environment. Finally, it is coaching.
I wonder if there is anything about how our current coaches coach that might be lacking in terms of this mental toughness.
Or are we making too much of a small sample size?
At the big house, Al has a nice cushy extra wide chair up in the box. He is nice and cozy. On the road, he probably gets a plastic or folding chair. Butt falls asleep and his play calling goes to hell. That explains why the first one or two possessions of a road game look promising before it all goes to crap.
I've been quietly hoping that Brandon will agitate for change. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who will let Borges continue to fart away games and do nothing. I think he has as high or higher expectations for the program than any of us and will throw boatloads of money at Hoke's staff until the right guys are in place
What is this 97.1?
We'd follow this topic up with a bunch of comments about "Downriver Chicks", "Funny Fart Noises" and "Why does Detroit suck so much?"
ever. I think as long as he avoids multiple losing seasons he has a virtual lifetime contract because the bar of success at Michigan has lowered substantially over the years. I think the fact that Hoke was accepted as a "Michigan Man," would have taken the job for no pay and runs a clean program buys him a decade or more of 3-5 losses per season.
I don't get the comparisons to RR. The offense under RR was over rated. They couldn't score against good defenses either. I'm not confident that Hoke is the right coach, but if he was fired after year three the program would be in better shape than when RR was canned. Maybe Dave Brandon should go after a can't miss coach like OSU did with Meyer. Hoke knows how to build an elite team, but it doesn't look like he knows how to coach them. He has given Borge's 100 percent control of the offense and needs to take charge of the offense. Also, the defense isn't exactly good. This team is sloppy and poorly coached.
That was our can't miss coach. Maybe SF can win the Super Bowl this year and he'll be willing to listen to Brandon this time. We could probably match whatever $$$ the 49ers could pay.
As much as Borges gets blame, what can he do with that offensive line? His #2 receiver was lost before the season began. As good as Funchess looks, he is still a true sophomore. I'm not crazy about Borges, but I don't know what else you can do with a pedestrian OL.
But Hoke is the position coach for the DL, and the results there have likewise been pedestrian. If you're going to coach a position, it should be one of the top units, not whatever it is right now.
I don't know how you can say, "Hoke knows how to build an elite team." Has he ever built an elite team before? I'm not saying the guy can't do it, but he's never done it before.
And he was, what, 47-53 (W/L) career when he took the job? WIth...a good year at Ball State or two (with "Good at Ball State" being....unimpressive, still) and "pretty good for 2 years at San Diego State," which is, I guess, more impressive.
Look, I love Hoke, but, respectfully, at least to this fan, he wasn't qualified when he was hired, other than that he "REALLY wanted the job." Stop and think about it. His qualifications were: 1.) that he'd coached at Michigan before (WHEW!), 2.) had some decent teams in shit conferences, but was less than .500 in a 9 year head coaching career. The end. That's not a resume for a Michigan coach unless you think that "hey, it worked in 1969" is good logic. Oh wait- I forgot number 3.) he really wanted the job and would crawl from San Diego to Ann Arbor for it.
n that case, I'd like to throw my name in for U.S. Attorney General; I really want the job, after all, and would gladly crawl the 1,500 miles from my home to D.C. for said position. It's asinine logic, obviously. There's a part of me-- the cynical, coldly rational part-- who wonders if he ever was really the guy for the job. His resume sure as heck didn't scream so, and a lot of "rah rah"/he "gets it" isn't cutting it. Of course, the emotional side of me had all but convinced my rational side that I was wrong and that we'd caught lightning in a bottle. That's just not the case. He overachieved in 2011 and it's been mostly a shit sandwich since then when compared to program expectations and, frankly, what one would like to see in terms of player development.
Our current offense averages more points a game then RR Arizona team does.
in RR 3rd and final year we lost 7 games by a total of 125 points. 22 total losses by a total of 355 points for an average loss of 16.1.
Last year we lost 5 games for a total of 58 which included both teams that were in the NC game. Hoke has lost 9 games so far in 3 years by 106 total points for an average lose of 11.8
Point is we are in much better shape then we were and atleast we are more competitive in losses. There has been only one game that I felt we were done before the 4th quarter and that was the Alabama game(maybe also last years nebraska game due to not having a QB). Even in the State game last week we were alive up to the Gardner interception. I am happy that I can watch a whole game for the past few years and not be so sick to my stomach that I had to change it like in the RichRod years.
The thing I hate the most about losses these days in that I can not read the message boards due to how negative Most people are.
I don't care if UM loses by 100 or 3.
This is when Hoke's first true class will be seniors. If he is still losing to MSU and OSU and we are not in true competition for the the B1G championship, then yes it wil be time to pull the plug. At least Hoke will leave the program in better shape to his successor if it does come to that. I don't think Hoke will be on the hot seat until 2015. If we win 10 games but lose to OSU in a close game I think Hoke will continue as coach even though he may not have a B1G title and may not get one until 2017. I'll support Hoke through 2015 and see what transpires.
First, nice post to the OP!
Second, the weird thing about all the complaint about the coaching staff, Borges in particular, is despite the worse OL ever (I'll discuss causes in a bit) and a near inability to run the ball, the offense was top 10 in scoring prior to the MSU game, and is now 23rd with 37.5 points per game -- not too bad all things considered. I am not defending Borges per se, just saying if we had even a conference average running attack our offense would be near unstoppable.
Lastly, and more on point with the OP, Brandon is acutely aware of the state of Michigan football, past, present, and he has a very clear blueprint of where he wants it in the future. He became AD with the program barely above its all time low, and hired Hoke knowing full well that his task was to rebuild for the future. Brandon, more than anyone, understands that this is a process that is going to have highs, like '11, and lows, but that the process MUST be completed. Anything short of a complete and total rebuild, seen through to fruition, leaves the program vulnerable -- and that is something he refuses to accept. So, as frustrating as it might be in the short term, Brandon seems 100% committed to his long term plan, as Hoke is unequivocally the man he believes in to execute that plan.
Now, as far as putting pressure on Hoke to find a new OC and OL coach -- we'll see, but I doubt it. Brandon is the head of a business with 134 years of history, he's not going to rush, and I cannot blame him. For those that think Hoke cannot coach up players I think you're 100% wrong, and I believe we'll see this fact play out more and more every year.
but you failed to mention a few things:
1. we've had a few pick 6s on D which factors in that scoring
2. we've had a few pick 6s on O which should be considered
3. before msu, we were in the easy part of the schedule. it only gets worse from here. msu, osu and iowa may be the 3 toughest Ds we face all year.
No fucking way Iowa's D is better than ND. Hell, I'd argue ND's is better than Ohio's.
What evidence do you have to support your opinion that everyone is "100% wrong" in re Hoke's staff "coaching up players"? I'm just curious, because i haven't seen it in the 3 years here, other than that in 2011, the defense was a year older, with the same players mostly, and played better as a unit. Otherwise, though? Who has markedly improved/drastically exceeded expectatoins as a player in the last 2 seasons, and keep in mind the whole "expectations" part of that equation(?). Also, this is a lot of the point that PurpleStuff is making above with his comparison to USC in the same time period and, don't tell anyone, but he's right.
You just pointed it out yourself dude! 2011 showed what Hoke & Co. can do with a group of motivated upperclassmen, who until '11 were labeled underachievers. You cannot just say, "otherwise though" and disregard evidence that refutes your point.
The young kids in the lineup because of a lack of experience won't be so young and inexperienced next season. The improvements you're looking for are subtle in most instances, and many times don't necessarily appear on the stat sheet. Despite what you of others think, and as Hoke said, every one of those young OLinemen are better today than they were on Sept. 1st. Maybe you cannot see that, and maybe MSUs defense made that seem untrue, but they're improving and they won't be so young and inexperienced soon. Maybe it's not fast or dramatic enough for you, but you're experience developing OLinemen is likely insufficient to make that call.
Further, I think Gardner has improved, as has Funchess, Butt, the LB corp, the Db's, the safeties, and the WR's.
Fine, but if the guy continually produces a product that the majority of alumni and fans find to be below their expectations, and the stated expectations of Hoke's boss...don't we have the intellectual foundation to stand on to bitch about Hoke and openly pine for a new coach? I'm not saying right now, but...If he pumps out another 8-5 this year and a 7-6 or 6-7 next year...he SHOULD be fired. Especially given the fact that his boss fired his predecessor after three years. Right or wrong for firing RR after 3 years, I can't think that DB wouldn't strongly consider axing Hoke after 4 if we are around .500 next year, and rightly so.
I guess I'd just say, what has the guy done to show he deserves to keep the job if this year's season continues and gets worse (which I really hope it doesn't, and actually, I think we end this year around 9-4, so this could all be moot) and then next year we shit the bed and win 6 or 7? Surely not his track record of wondrous success as a head coach before Michigan, and...in this hypothetical, surely not his track record at Michigan.
Also, it's a completely valid thing to wonder about. If the head coach at Michigan continually fails to win the requisite number of football games, he should no longer be the head coach at Michigan. If Hoke goes .500 next year, goes 4-5 the year after...why on earth would you give him his 6th year? Continuity in the wrong direction isn't good for the program; that's why DB fired RR-- he put wins over continuity/letting a guy finish his contract. So it should be with Hoke. (though 3 years...no. Hoke gets next year even if we lose every game left this season, and I think he should. But if it continues next season, there's not a very good argument for keeping him if the program has gotten worse in W/L in each year of his tenure).
In re: Devin at WR last season and Denard's injury, you chalk it up as a coaching mistake, but it was also a depth issue. We were short WR's and Devin proved to be an asset. Roll of the dice, yes. But from the sounds of it, it also kept Devin from transferring. Wasting such a great athlete as a back up would have caused people to freak out as well. It's not incompetent given the roster issue they were trying to mitigate.
he hardly played after the first few weeks of the "experiment" at WR; rarely targeted.
16 receptions for 266 yards and 4 TD's on the season. Played QB for last 5.
I think he got banged up versus ND and has a shoulder issue that kept him out/ineffective, no? I remember him being pushed into those stupid band risers right off the edge of the field.
i just looked up his stats. he caught 11 balls with 3 TDs thru 4 games. the next 4 games he caught a total of 5 balls for 1 TD; playing in all 4 games. then he took over as QB the remaining 5 games. so ya, he was rarely targeted his final 4 games at WR; dinged-up or not.
So what? Looking for negs on Hoke? Enough already. They tried to find a dynamic player some PT. judging Bellomy solely on the Nebraska game is unfair.
My question is how many AD's watch film with their coaching staffs? I know DB is a former player so he will obviously be more interested. I would think that AD's at large BCS schools would spend a little bit more time interacting with the football staff because of the importance of football to fundraising etc. Howeva, how many actually watch film? DB reminds me of Jerry Jones. He wants to be hands on even if it may not be best for the team. This would certainly affect any coach that may want to come to Michigan. They might not want the AD constantly in their way.
It was, is, and always will be douchey and (to those who believe he's an egotistical guy who cares mostly about Dave Brandon) demonstrative of megalomania, massive ego, and, really, shitty management.
Which is ridiculous, given that DB is an incredibly accomplished businessman who was in the business of improving the bottom lines of companies; I can't imagine he doesn't understand the concept of micromanagement and its detrimental effects on employees. I think he just doesn't care because his ego takes precedence. He wants to watch film with the coaches, so he does. They might not like it/it's fucking ridiculous? Who cares! I'm Dave Brandon! Ugh. I GO ON THE SIDELINE AND MUG FOR CAMERA AFTER BIG WINS. I'M DAVE BRANDON. I AM INCREASING MY BRAND! Who cares if it's, ahem, a little unusual for a non-former star, non-former coach to be so...out front, shall we say, always mugging for the cameras and inserting himself into the public aspect of the program. It's fine: I have a gut feeling he'll be leaving us for a political run sometime, hopefully sooner rather than later, as the guy's love of the camera and clear love for himself just scream of someone who is, at a minimum, taking positive steps to leave that option open, and, at a maximum, alreadly planning for it as an eventuality.
I don't care what he said, Iowa is not a red letter game anymore
Hoke has been coach for 3 years- but he has only two recruiting classes in uniform now, correct? He doesn't have 3 years of his own recruits let alone the 4 years that would give him all of his own players. Brandon cannot possibly evaluate him on only 2 years of recruiting. Hoke wll get 2 more years before a career changing evaluation occurs.
by that logic, RR only got 2 years.
Well I don't know about red letter games but Sat was sure disappointing. 2nd Game (first was Penn State ) that I watched most of in the Budwieser pavilion outside the Rose Bowl waiting for a UCLA home game to start. The sitting UCLA fan reaction to both games was one of don't they have an O line, what kind of call was that, shaking heads (as my son and I were) as to the predictability and ineptness that was clearly evident with UM on the field in each of those two games. Then I go into the Rose Bowl and while sloppy in some cases watch a UCLA team with a trove of much younger players gut out some in the end impressive and for the most part aggressive wins. Is it the recruited players that are making the difference for both these teams I follow or the coaching. I lived here through mediocrity with UCLA before Mora came in and with carry over players and many freshman he seems to be putting what at times is an exciting team on the field, from afar I just can't say Big Blue does that with the staff in place. It just appears from again afar, agressiveness is not something I can say I see with the current UM team. Are my afar observations in error, at least with Denard healthy I could say for the most part he sure put some excitement into games when schemes allowed him full run. Additionnally and not really discussed before but how come RR appears to have AZ heading in the right direction with at most times an entertaining and winning team, is that coaching also or the players that he inherited or recruited. I can watch UCLA and even AZ now and even when sloppy and losing their overall play just does not match up to the abject ineptness and disappointment I see this year with Michigan, it pains me to say so but it's how I feel. Something just does not match up correctly with this Michigan team and its efforts and I just can't imagine it's the talent of the players.
I feel much better now after reading we are still blaming Carr and RichRod for crappy development and shitty play calling under Hoke.
Agree. Also, umm, both of those men (yes, I'd say Rich Rodriguez) have a hell of a lot more career success as head coaches than our current coach. I'm talking full resume as HC here. Granted, both RR and LC had more seasons to amass those accomplishments.
I don't get it. Almost as lame as a President blaming the previous one 6 years later. Hoke needs to develop talent much better and gameplan to their strengths
The way I see it...Hoke is not the problem. Borges maybe and that may need to be addressed this year or next. But I'm not buying the Hoke isn't intense enough stuff. He seems intense in practice but is calm in games. I don't want him yelling and kosing his cool in games. Hoke may not be eqquipped to fix our current struggl es but I think he's perfectly capable of being sucessful once his guys are playing and gain experience. It's only fair to allow him the chance ro coach these great recruiting classes he's bringing in. Sorry if this doesn't come out. ..danged phone
Thank you for this. I find it useful. I would only like to point out one thing. Dave Brandon's opinion is not the only one that matters (thank goodness IMO). I mean, you are empirically correct, but I allow that the Money Men of the university tell DB what to do in certain situations. So I hope they also look at the kind of data you present.
He was rational, respectful, and researched. Agree or not with the post, it was a qualiuty post, period.
I don't think losing to Alabama and South Carolina are nearly as big as losing to tOSU and M State. I understand the issue the OP was bringing in but not all Red Letter Games are the same.