In Hoke I Trust

Submitted by Webber's Pimp on

We are still transitioning into the program we will ultimately become under Hoke. We are a Manball team. That is the underlying philosophy and once we get some contiunuity going and the kids are in the program for 2 or 3 years you wil see a big difference on the field. The big take away from last night is that Stanford' s version of Manball (i.e. controlling the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball and imposing shear physicality) worked very well against an explsoive and nationally heralded spread offense. Going into this game Oregon had probably staked its claim as the #1 offense in the country. Standford showed everyone what good a O-Line and D-Line can do against the elite spread teams. 

MGoBoard
Football

Creedence Tapes

November 8th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

We are 23rd in scoring Offense, even with all of the turnovers, I still don't understand why you think Borges is a liability. You're old enough to have watched a lot of football, how good of an offense can a team have with a terrible interior line? Borges is more than making do with a young and overmatched interior line. 


By the way, as we saw last night (and alread knew), a good defense trumps a good offense. State is the #1 Rushing Defense, #1 Total Defense, #3 Scoring Defense and #4 pass defense. Are we really surprised we struggled on offense against them?

Joined: 01/23/2011

MGoPoints: 4140

reshp1

November 8th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^

We've hardly run in the last two games. Of all the criticisms of Borges, this caricature of a guy that'll keep doing the same thing no matter what is probably the most specious. You can argue his adjustments haven't worked, but he's made adjustments after every single game since UConn, and certainly after PSU.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

mGrowOld

November 8th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^

Fundamental Truths according to mGrowOld:

1. Generally speaking, once a person has formed an opinion on something or someone, little can be done or said to change that opinion.

2. We both are persons so we both fall under that caveat.

3. Michigan could score 50 points in each of their last four games and I would probably say "yeah but....."

4. Michigan could get shut out in each of their last four games and you would probably say "yeah but......"

5. I think we would be a better football team with a different OC 

6. You think our team would be weaker if our current OC leaves

Agree to disagree here and it doesnt really matter, Hoke isnt getting rid of any of his buddies no matter what the results on the field are.

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 211838

blueblueblue

November 8th, 2013 at 1:50 PM ^

"Agree to disagree here and it doesnt really matter, Hoke isnt getting rid of any of his buddies no matter what the results on the field are."

You seemed like a wise, thoughtful guy until you spewed this bit of loggorhea. The evidence we have is that Hoke will in fact make changes to his coaching staff (see Ball State). There is nothing to indicate the contrary. If you chalk his spouted support for his coaching staff, alingside his gentle nudges he publicly sends thier way that things must improve, as evidence contrary to his willingness to fire them, then you just dont understand a thing about leadership. Talk like this is just so fucking mindless, old, stupid, and just plain dumb. You take a dump on your IQ every time you speak it. You are better than this. Numbers 1 through 6 above are evidence of that. 

Joined: 12/28/2008

MGoPoints: 6630

mGrowOld

November 8th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

First of all - congrats on sending me to Google to look up what loggorhea means.  That is a new word (to me anyways) and I always like adding to my vocabulary.

Second of all - not sure you can classify the staff at Ball State that Hoke terminated as evidence of his willingness to make changes to HIS staff.  That was his first gig and the guys he took out hadnt worked with him that long yet.  The staff he has now has been with him through San Diego State and now here.  A bit different IMO.

Look - RichRod fired people too but at the end of the day guys like Tony Gibson killed him IMO.  I see Borges as Hoke's Gibson so yes, I do see him as a "buddy" to Hoke and not a subordinate in the work place. You don't and that's ok.

But thanks again on the new word - log·or·rhe·a

ˌlôgəˈrēə,ˌlägə-/
noun
 
  1. 1.
    a tendency to extreme loquacity.

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 211838

blueblueblue

November 9th, 2013 at 11:01 AM ^

I have to apologize for my harsh tone and words yesterday. Your post struck a cord at a bad time. Even in my attempt to 'correct' your thinking, you were actually thinking more correctly. We all socially construct our realities. Even the realities others attempt to socially construct for us. 

Oh, and the more colloqual definition for logorrhea is 'diarrhea of the mouth.'

Joined: 12/28/2008

MGoPoints: 6630

reshp1

November 8th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^

I think there's a lot of truth to that. I think the reason is that the failures on offense are so open to interpretation. Is it youth, is it coaching, is it playcalling? You could argue any of those and there's no way to know who's right. It's like a Roschach test (thanks Google), you see something ambiguous and project your preconceived beliefs onto it.

This is especially true from the perspective of the fans who only get to see some 30 plays a week from which to form an opinion, which is why I disagree with your last statement. Whether Hoke gets rid of anyone or not doesn't prove that he's a guy that puts his "buddies" above the team. It just means that he is making an assessment of a situation that isn't black or white. You and I might not agree with it, but at the end of the day he's the person in the best position to make that assessment and also the guy whose job it is to do so.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

Creedence Tapes

November 8th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^

Yes, point out what doesn't work, but ingnore the 900 yards receiving for Gallon and the 600 yards receving for Funchess, or 18+ yards per catch average for our top 3 receivers. It's not like those plays are set up or anything by the rest of the game plan. 

 

I think you forgot to mention how Borges called the missed FG plays in the UConn game.

 

 

Joined: 01/23/2011

MGoPoints: 4140

wahooverine

November 8th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

very valid point, but I'd counter that most of those stats were accumulated against the weakest opponents on the schedule and/or during insane games like PSU and IU, and very little against a strong defense.  What's troubling many here is that the lack of coherrence in offensive philosophy and seemingly specious adjustments, cast doubt on whether those big yardage numbers resulted from good gameplanning or simply executing against inferior competition.  Gut says weak defenses.  The offense made any feel good or confident since ND and it's not just the o line issues.

 

 

Joined: 11/14/2011

MGoPoints: 6799

Creedence Tapes

November 8th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

You are right about the stats coming against the easier teams on the schedule, but this is the case with any team. Of course are stats are going to be different against Indiana than against MSU. You can't expect the same statistical output against #1 defense in the country as against the #117th defense. You mention lack of coherence to Borges offense, but the main criticism I hear is the "predictability" of his offense.

If anyone watched the Stanford Oregon game last night, Stanfords offense was nothing if not predictable, but it didn't matter because they could execute. We cannot execute the same way on offense due to our interior line, but Borges is finding ways to move the ball and score points. We are averaging 37.9 ppg, with a terrible OL.

Joined: 01/23/2011

MGoPoints: 4140

I dumped the Dope

November 8th, 2013 at 7:42 PM ^

9 OL banging people off the line, plus that 1-2 punch of the pulling left guard and the fullback...wide receivers??? Surely you jest!! I was impressed. I want this in Ann Arbor. And you know what...we have it. Scroll all the way back to the opener when we were blowing CMU off the line in about 9 straight plays where we rumbled down the field. So yeah. That was MAC and this is B1G, I get it...but if we keep the grinding meme going here. Our players need to keep growing and working. Wait for it, it's going to be awesome someday too. I also realized from a couple of guys at work who are 280 and 300 lbs respectively, that pure mass is deceiving if you just analyze the absolute value. Obviously these guys aren't high level D1 recruits either, although one played OL for central at one time. Just saying i can see it takes time and effort to develop the requisite upper AND lower body strength. I believe the strength is what lets an OL athlete work thru some mistakes. At this point our OL has to survive on perfect techniques and as fast as the plays move, I think strength is the overriding priority and so you see why we keep getting blown up. As I've said before I like that a lot of guys have seen the field, and we seem to have a succession plan for schofield and Lewan. I say emulate the Cardinal, and get there in 2 years.

Joined: 09/22/2013

MGoPoints: 2342

wahooverine

November 8th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^

very valid point, but I'd counter that most of those stats were accumulated against the weakest opponents on the schedule and/or during insane games like PSU and IU, and very little against a strong defense.  What's troubling many here is that the lack of coherrence in offensive philosophy and seemingly specious adjustments, cast doubt on whether those big yardage numbers resulted from good gameplanning or simply executing against inferior competition.  Gut says weak defenses.  The offense made any feel good or confident since ND and it's not just the o line issues.

 

 

Joined: 11/14/2011

MGoPoints: 6799

gbdub

November 8th, 2013 at 4:13 PM ^

I was going to say this. That was always the gripe about RR's offense, even in 2010 (but we never score a bajillion points against GOOD defenses!). It's as valid now as it was then (not sure how valid, but whatever).

Of course, back in 2010 at least we dominated UConn and did better than average against good defenses (i.e. teams tended to give up more than their season average against us).

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26699

CLord

November 8th, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^

In the immortal words of the entire ESPN NFL staff: "C'mon man"...  Borges' incompetence goes so far beyond the offensive line and it's been rehashed here a thousand times.  His schemes, his inability to even play basic checkers in a chess game with decent defensive coordinators, his inability to coach anyone up, his lack of a QB coach, blah, blah on and on.

Joined: 09/11/2011

MGoPoints: -6344

GoBlueInNYC

November 8th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^

I miss those urinals in West Quad with the big drip trough you could straddle.

Now I work in an office building that also services parents and children with special needs, so we have those elementary school style urinals that go all the way to the floor, which just encourages people to pee on the floor.

Joined: 03/23/2010

MGoPoints: 8781

yossarians tree

November 8th, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^

And I'm sick of the whiney bitches who come on here deprived of anything else to do and then critique the content. If the guy's post is such a waste of your time, then you have time to waste. I believe a discussion of the general faith in the football program's leader on a website dedicated to same might just be of relevance to the ordinary user.

Just for you, I'm going to start a new thread called "Puppies are Good."

Joined: 08/19/2010

MGoPoints: 22240

CooperLily21

November 8th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^

That would be more interesting than this thread.

But you're point is well-taken.  In my defense, I'm just bored.  This seemed like a fun thread to hijack, especially since snowflake threads like this (where someone feels the need to post their unsolicited opinion).  Its not new thread material and you know it.  But you're right - a lot of us are being a--holes.

Joined: 03/05/2013

MGoPoints: 2262