In Hoke I Trust
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.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
I LIKE it. A pre-game snowflake thread. Genius!
Why until after the game for people to post random thoughts on things - post them before the game and beat the rush.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
We haven't had an epic thread-jacking in a long, long time. Let me contribute to the cause:
(NSFW - language)
November 8th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
of pure, unadulterated bliss. So great.
P.S. I think you're as much a gamer as me. I am a B4 guy as well, got sick of COD. Plus, i heard GHOSTS wasn't that good. Now just waiting on new Assassins Creed. Mixed in with plenty of FIFA14.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
Goddamnit! What are we, cursed? How is it that every time Michigan plays against a back-up, the guy has some insane career day?!
McGloin and PSU. Siemian and NW. Now, fucking Armstrong and Nebraska. What the hell?
Mattison has to realize that he can't get pressure if he keeps rushing one every play. Playing ten deep DBs isn't going to help when he keeps leaving the seam uncovered.
Fire Montgomery!
November 8th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
I think it was my good friend BiSB that started using it in earnest back when he was a moderator (before he rage quit :-).
November 8th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^
I could go into a detailed rant about how Stanford's defense has jack-fucking-shit to do with "manball," how ridiculing the spread offense is annoying, asinine, and involves non sequiturs and straw man arguments, and how laying down (misspelled) buzzwords that don't mean anything is borderline nihilism, but I feel at this point it would be like attempting to teach calculus to a brick wall.
/urgetokillrising
November 8th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
The Stanford D-Line (a 3 man front) averages 293 pounds. That's as big as the Oregon O-Line. Mariota ran for -16 yards. Stanford won the battle at the line of scrimmage. Period. Anybody who bothered to see the game last night should have been surprised by the fact that Oregon could get absolutely nothing going on offense. It's the line of scrimmage stupid. Hoke knows this. That's what he's trying to instill and I would encourage any haters out there to take a deep breath.. At one point last night the score was 26-0 and the only reason the final score was close is 2 great special teams plays (out of desperation) made by Oregon in the closing minutes. Allot has been said this past week about our coaches, our players, and the direction of the program. I'm tired of all the negativity. Man up.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
See my first post? See the bit about non sequiturs? It's like I'm goddamn Nostradamus.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^
Yes, Bama and Stanford are great and play a version of manball--and even Wisconsin closer to home (at least under Bielema). But you can't point to many other successful college programs that currently do. I don't need to list the litany of highly successful programs that run spread. So we can want to be Bama or even Stanford, but that's just wishing and just a little reactionary. Sometimes I sense this continuing comparison of manball to spread is really about something else.......that has little to do with football.
November 8th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^
absolutely agree.
I'm on board with the Borges criticism. Why not just run the offense of the the last two years with modifications to make use of having a much better passer (but can still execute the runs, just won't take them to house) and better receivers. Devin is more likely to get hurt sitting in the pocket getting while it caves in around him (or an unblocked linebacker screams through the line), than when giving him designed runs, or using the threat of his running to slow the pash rush. Totally agree with the notion espoused here that we're leaving some yards on the table and not making optimal use of personnel. Whether, that's due to philosophical purity (manball) or just being a bad coach/gameplanner, I don't know and i doubt anyone here really does either.
More broadly, I still believe in Hoke, his blueprint for this team in the future, his player development and especially his recruiting.
I too wanted to believe that: 1) Devin was the next Vince Young/Randall Cunningham combined; 2) that Braden, Glascow/Miller, Kalis would somehow all be top flight interior linemen from week 1, and combined with Lewan/Scho, would run roughshod over the B1G, and that Derrick Green & Fitz would be the next coming of Thunder and Lighting. What? Each of these discrete ideal scenarios didn't independantly occur together?...FIRE COACHES. What we're people expecting this year?
November 8th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^
I could go into a detailed rant about how Stanford's defense has jack-fucking-shit to do with "manball,"
It doesn't. Good defense is good defense. Period.
That said, Oregon has, over the last few years, shown itself vulnerable to opponents with a defensive line that can control, get penetration and disrupt the offensive backfield. Auburn did that in the national championship game, USC did it a few years ago, and Stanford has shown an ability to do that as well.
But that vulnerability extends to any offensive scheme.
I had my suspicions about Oregon and was interested to see how the Stanford game played out. I'm not convinced Baylor is top-tier since OU has a history of choking in big games. I still like Alabama / FSU as the top two and would like to see them in the NC game. That would be an interesting matchup.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^
pretty much exactly what I was thinking about posting, although I like your phrasology slightly more than that of my proto-paragraph.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
I saw the stat where 15 of Stanford's 22 players on the D rotation were seniors. That is pretty epic. Wolverine fans are going to have to bank on player experience/seniority as the single lynchpin metric upon which all of our hopes will rest for the next 3-4 years.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
It seems to me that every team that has won the national championship has controlled the line of scrimmage with a physical attack. Even the spread teams that have won the national championship (Florida, Auburn, Texas to some degree) did it with physical, downhill rushing QBs and an offensive line that could run over people.
I don't mean to say running a spread couldn't work, but I think the Stanford-Oregon game does indicate that there is nothing inherently wrong with power offense (I hate the pejorative term Manball). We just need to pick an identity and stick with it - that has been the problem lately not the move away from the spread.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:49 AM ^
I think it's freaking AWESOME!
MANBALL!!!!!
November 8th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 4:19 PM ^
It's the winning national championships thing.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^
except that a senior-laden team is pretty good.
I'm struggling to find the last time anyone here ever said there was anything "inherently wrong" with an offense that focuses on the power running game leading to play action (aka MANBALL). The criticism is that we SUCK at it. There's really nothing "inherently wrong" with any offense unless you suck at it or it involves moving the ball towards your own end zone.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
What if your morals and values are against running bubble screens for free yards? It should be perfectly acceptable to struggle moving the ball as long as you stick to your values. You have to stand for something right?
November 8th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
-_- sneaky Borges meme. Good one.
Drink.
November 8th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
Who's ever said anythng negative about MANBALL?!?!?! (I mean, even the term is meant to be derogatory...)
Have I logged into the mirror universe MGoBlog today? Is this the one where Brian DOESN'T have a goatee?
November 8th, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^
Welcome to Bizarro MGoBlog!
November 8th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^
Hoke has not proven he can develop top tier talent and i dont blame kids for wanting to leave. He is not the right man for michigan. He loves the program, but he doesnt have it. Plus the bastard wont wear a headset..
November 8th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^
How dare you come in here and neglect to mention that he wears short sleeves?
November 8th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
There are some people I would like to see fired from the board.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
I think that Derrick Green guy was supposed to be kind of good. It's certainly not unheard of for 5 star true freshman RBs to have a good season. Showing up overweight and falling down immediately upon first contact doesn't sound like a guy who's been maximizing his talent to date.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
Did you see the part about freshman and sophomores playing at every position.
Jarrod Wilson wasn't supposed to be much same with Raymon Taylor, Jake Ryan, Frank Clark just to name a few on defense. You could even argue Jordan Kovacs
November 8th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
so you'll notice I focused specifically on a true freshman RB rather than a true freshman safety or D-Lineman. And not just any true freshman RB, but the guy who according to Rivals was the best RB coming out of high school. RB is one of the easiest positions to get good production out of early in a player's college or pro career. It's not unreasonable to think that a 5 star RB would be able to get some decent production going on his true freshman season.
Other notable skill players in Michigan history who produced as true freshmen include: Chad Henne, Mike Hart, Charles Woodson, Anthony Thomas, Ricky Powers, Justin Fargas (before he wrecked his knee in the middle of the 98 season). Notice a trend here? Highly rated RBs (as well as Hart who was a more middling prospect by comparison) can produce right out of the gate. They don't have to be 1,500 yard backs in Year 1, but producing 500-700 yards and having a couple big games later in the season as they get more comfortable in the system is not an unheard of concept.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:53 PM ^
You're right that it's not unheard of, but it's still not a very good foundation to build a "Hoke doesn't develop top tier talent" on.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
Why you hef to be mad?
November 8th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
I believe it was mentioned that Hoke did in fact develop several NFL lineman along with skill position players during his time at Ball State. To be able to do that at Ball State out of the MAC would demonstrate quite a bit.
I will disclose that I have always been a big proponent of Les Miles, even when RR was hired. I was not the biggest fan of the Hoke hiring, but Hoke has a 6 year contract and it is safe to say we will definitely see him coach at least 2 and possibly 3 more years. We will have a good idea about this staff over the next 12 -24 month based on how they handle the criticism. I think a little extra heat on the coaching staff by the fans is a good thing. It will add the necessary motivation to make changes and right the ship.
November 8th, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^
If the staff needs motivating by the fans we're in deep shit. Trust me these guys don't pay any attention to any whining from MGoBlog.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
top tier talent as you describe it. One is the talent, the second is time and third is the ability to do develop it. (Not in any particular order)
Time is somewhat subjective, but anything less than three years with any give player doesn't allow for much proof either way.
As for talent, I believe talent is something proven over time given a certain measuring stick. High School "stars" 3, 4, 5 don't really make for an accurate measuring stick. I believe it's more about how soon a player makes the field and then develops over the course of his time in the program.
So being able to develop talent requires both the time and talent and the proof will be in the pudding. Hoke has the necessary ingredients to make said pudding, but hasn't had enough time to mix all the ingredients and let it stand long enough to see if it'll be pudding. Also, he may need a better utensil to mix the ingredients, which may happen after November or January, we'll see.
Either way, you're wrong. Hoke needs the time to prove or disprove his ability and the talent. Relax.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
I used to trust in the booze
now I don't trust anything
November 8th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
I just read your blog. Your final post was where I was at for the past year until a couple days ago. I hope you're not still in that place. Btw, if you can't trust in the booze try and reset with the shrooms. Trust in that.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
a good shrooms reset is just what I need I think. Probably gonna really need heroin for the ohio weekend.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:51 AM ^
I trust their recruiting so far. If we don't see obvious improvement by the end of next season I think folks are gonna' get really grumpy.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:58 AM ^
People are grumpy now. I think its reasonable to see how the next two go...others want to jerk the rug out and start over, and then become dissatisfied before the new rug is even laid down.
I just hope Hoke and Co. can personally manage the adversity of a fan base that finger points and bitches to the degree ours does, and get things going upward quickly. If not, we will be going through this in another 4 years when we have a new coach and the team that coach has goes through adversity.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:12 PM ^
Yeah, but, they will get "really" grumpy.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^
Dear tylloyd,
Thanks for joining yesterday. Now go back to fucking yourself.
-Y
November 8th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
I appreciate your enthusiams. I am 100 times the fan you are.. I just dont live as a troll on this site. I have a life, fuck girls, and can see my dick like im sure you cant. GOOD DAY :)
November 8th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^
Forget the poor spelling and punctuation, what makes you think anyone here wants to see your dick?
November 8th, 2013 at 4:27 PM ^
And no one else can find it, is that something one really wants advertised?