In Hoke I trust
In Mattison I trust
Borges? Not so much.
In Hoke I trust
In Mattison I trust
Borges? Not so much.
Are you saying they would have scored LESS points if they had found a solution or alternative to running Toussaint into a brick wall over and over again all season long?
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.
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.
"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.
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
So it s not like diarrhea, but where logs come out instead of liquid?
And now I need to look up loquacity. /s
I foolishly thought it was a new word (Log...I can't spell it) possibly involving origins in "blog" from "weblog." Then I felt stupid. Loquacious just means talkative.
Great, now I have to look up loquacity. Thanks, mGrowOld.
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.'
A stunningly beautiful word. One would think it would have been used by a professor in law school, but not so.
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.
Adjustments after a game sounds about right.
First Down: Runs ball into stacked line for negative yardage.
Second Down: Runs ball into stacked line for negative yardage.
Play action on third and nobody's falling for this, for incompletion/interception/QB gets mauled by defense.
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.
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.
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.
"set up" or constraint plays do not have to be EPIC FAILS! You can set up successful plays with other successful plays. Al is way over thinking the process and refusing to focus on the strengths of the talent he has. We need a change at OC.
and when it came down to crunch time against tough defenses we didn't do squat. If you don't think there are problems on offense then I don't know what to tell you.
But I thought he was a genius! If Rich wasn't good enough, and Borges isn't good enough, who ARE we going to get to run our offense??
There are more than two people that coach offense. Grab bag at this point.
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).
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.
Our Oline can't run block for the second consecutive season
I do too. Nothing was more entertaining than seeing drunk Buckeyes pissing all over their own shoes.
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.
Have you ever been daydreaming and dropped trou in a public urinal to whiz? This one guy I know did that.
I knew this one guy who took a whiz and didn't realize he was whizzing all over his shirt, which then caused the whiz to drip elsewhere including on his pants. That was pretty cool.
I remember one time, it might have been during a blackout, my roommate at UM went to pee outside. In the dark, he unzipped then proceeded to pee directly onto his own pants. Good times.
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."
Eh, I'm a kitten man myself.
But how many puppy threads are we going to have?
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.
Agreed on the wall urinals. I also miss the trough at Brown Jug.
Those things were amazing. I still remember walking in the first time in 1998, and beling like "whoah; county fair in here." I miss it; made you feel free.
I wipe my own ass.
... Me too! Haha great line in that movie. Actually one of my all time favorites.
"...and he taught how Styx was one of music's greatest rock bands and they don't get the credit for it because most critics are cynical assholes."
Many out there have the seeming expectation that someone else will do it for them.
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.
We haven't had an epic thread-jacking in a long, long time. Let me contribute to the cause:
(NSFW - language)
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.
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.
Where did the title snowflake come from?
I think it was my good friend BiSB that started using it in earnest back when he was a moderator (before he rage quit :-).
Everyone feels their opinion is special and unique, hence why it's called snowflake.
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.
See my first post? See the bit about non sequiturs? It's like I'm goddamn Nostradamus.
Sequester?! No fucking politics.
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.
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?
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.
pretty much exactly what I was thinking about posting, although I like your phrasology slightly more than that of my proto-paragraph.
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.
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.
I think it's freaking AWESOME!
What about it is AWESOME?
It's the winning national championships thing.
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.
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?
-_- sneaky Borges meme. Good one.
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?
Welcome to Bizarro MGoBlog!
How dare you come in here and neglect to mention that he wears short sleeves?
Can't develop top tier talent? The fuck kind of top tier talent was on this roster? At nearly every position there are freshman and sophomores playing. The top tier talent you talk of is what Jake Ryan who has become the top LB in the BigTen prior to Perry the ACLephant. Remember he was a middling 2-3* that we grabbed after striking out elsewhere. Literally the only player you could argue hasn't developed is Gardner and that alone is a ridiculous statement considering this is his first season at the QB position save a few starts last year after switching from WR.
There are some people I would like to see fired from the board.
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.
How the fuck are you supposed to develop a true freshman halfway into his first season?
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
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.
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.
I agree with all named except Wilson. I think he was a concensus 4 star coming out of high school. If his coverage abilities catch up with his ball hawking skills he could be special.
Also it's not on Hoke if a dude comes to school fat after an offseason of high school senior year.
Why you hef to be mad?
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.
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.
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.
Attitude reflect leadership, captain.
I used to trust in the booze
now I don't trust anything
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.
a good shrooms reset is just what I need I think. Probably gonna really need heroin for the ohio weekend.
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.
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.
Yeah, but, they will get "really" grumpy.
Thanks for joining yesterday. Now go back to fucking yourself.
Forget the poor spelling and punctuation, what makes you think anyone here wants to see your dick?
And no one else can find it, is that something one really wants advertised?
"I'm a bigger fan that you are"...and size of penis jokes.
Har Har Har
the value of the blog..right here.
It's sad. It's getting hard to tell the difference between here and MLive.
Oh man. Tears. Streaming. Down. Face. I don't advocate douchebaggery but, Yossarian, that was hilarious. Sorry tylloyd34. First impressions matter.
The dim light of reason may one day reach you looking at your joint. Until then, resume ignorance.
As you are new here, just be aware that we try - we try - to be a little more civil to our fellow MGoBloggers than this. If you feel that all you can offer are personal insults, then MLive has numerous forums which might be of interest. In other words, best keep these thoughts to yourself.
"...now go back go back to fucking yourself". Now who started the personal insults? Thank God the Board is always so welcoming to new people.
Did you not notice that the user to which Yossarian was replying has been blatantly trolling all day?
While it was a bit hostile, and I could have used my expansive vocabulary to find a better word, if I'm the first guy to use the "F" word on here I'll eat my hat. LSA2000 has a good point about tone and I'll respect that.
But the guy literally did just join yesterday and comes in firing Brady Hoke. He should go over to the "B" thread at MLive and practice a bit before coming on here.
A misplaced "h" in "Trust" would make the title of this thread a little creepy.
Pitchfork at the ready?
Sacrificial coaches/players list in hand?
K, I'm ready.
How many of these types of threads will be on the board?
I'm hoping Hoke is the guy to get us to consecutive 10+ win seasons. If our O line can't pass or run block by the end of next year he will be on the first thing smoking.
in the coach that consistently wins games for us, regardless of philosophy. If it's Hoke - great. If it's someone else - great. All I know is that right now the program is underperforming relative to its talent level. I don't want to hear about how young the O-Line is. That explains why we're not a Top 5/10 team and likely won't be next year either. Cool, I'm good with that - I'm not one of these people who thinks it's Michigan's birthright to go 12-0 without looking at the actual talent and experience of the team that's being fielded in a given year. It does NOT explain, however, why the previously unheralded defensive lines of Akron, UCONN and Penn State were able to look downright NFL-esque when playing against Michigan, yet look like complete dog shit against every other opponent.
I've been watching Michigan football for over 30 years. This is not the first time we've had to replace 3 starters on the O-Line or use a couple of younger guys in order to do so. In those previous instances, while the O-Line was far from dominant, it was not inept to this degree. You could literally make a case this year that based on execution, Michigan's O-Line has been one of the 10-15 worst in Division 1 (or whatever acronym is used to describe Division 1 these days). Worse, they haven't improved over the course of the year.
In fact, that's the real sticking point for me. They looked better at the beginning of the season than in Oct/Nov. This was the same complaint I had with RichRod's defenses and was, in hindsight, what ultimately caused me to lose confidence in him as the HC at Michigan. Hopefully history will not repeat itself, but in Year 3 of the Hoke program, I am not thrilled with what I'm seeing. At this point, I don't trust him and I don't distrust him if that makes any sense.
I know the coaches on that staff are capable of coaching up mediocre players - we saw plenty of examples of this in 2011 and 2012. But for the life of me, I just can't understand why the O-Line seems to be flailing so miersably in 2013 relative to their talent level. If they were simply mediocre/average, this team would be 7-1 right now with a legitimate shot of upsetting OSU at home and running the table (I'm assuming a mediocre/average O-Line would still have lost the game at MSU, but the optics of the game would certainly have been much less horrifying). But given the current state of affairs, the best we can probably hope for down the stretch is 2-2 and a "close but no cigar" loss vs. OSU.
To me, this outcome is the sports equivalent of being constipated. It's not the end of the world, but it pretty much makes you feel terrible and you can't wait for it to be over so you can just forget the whole thing ever happened.
great constipation analogy...and i agree with your post in it's entirety
The only thing worse than constipation is when you can't stop shitting yourself. The MSU game was more of the latter than the former. Hopefully we can stop shitting ourselves and at least get back to being constipated in time for the OSU game.
(Constipation: THAT'S the Michigan difference!)
its been a tough year with how young M is and how bad the play-calling has been...i still feel good about the offense's capabilities for this weekend (given how bad Neb has been of late)...but @ Iowa and v. Ohio might indeed end up with M shitting our pants uncontrollably like an infant with diarrhea
if we lose to Nebraska. They're a soft team with poor coaching and they play much worse on the road than at home. They are the exact opponent we've had no problem beating at home in the Hoke era. I don't have the warm and fuzzies about Iowa at all and I have to be realistic about OSU - even if we don't shit the bed in that one, we're still going to lose. I did not think that would be the case coming into the season (especially on the heels of last year's game in Columbus) but when you look at how the two teams are playing at the moment, it's kind of obvious what the ultimate outcome of that game will be.
Our only hope is that Brady Hoke is able to build a time machine that takes both teams back to 1993, 1995, 1996, or 1997 and can recreate history for the Good Guys. In fact, if he does that, I'll totally trust him going forward and will upvote the OP of this thread.
lets gun this bitch up to 88 and see what happens!
"But for the life of me, I just can't understand why the O-Line seems to be flailing so miersably in 2013 relative to their talent level."
I've been thinking about this a lot, and aside from them being young, I am wondering if the blocking schemes that Michigan uses are complex and require exquisit technique.
I ask this because I remember reading that Hoke & Co. emphasize technique above all else. Maybe Hoke & Co. are pushing technique development with these young kids and what we're seeing is gap between the time where they become technically proficient, and when they're thinking too much about technique.
I think anyone whose played competitive sports has been in this situation. You're trying to learn new skills, trying to take your game to the next level against better competition. But, when you try to take the new skills into a live game, you're unable to apply them as well as necessary as you're thinking about them too much, and are a step off in relation to your competition.
Unfortunately for many fans who are losing their patience, I think this coaching strategy has more of a long-term perspective. In time, when the OL is experienced and has their technique down to an instinctive level, the coaching staff feels they're going to be unstoppable.
I remember reading that Bo demanded perfect execution based upon perfect technique from his players. I am not saying, necessarily that this is right, but it seems to me that Hoke & Co. are demanding a great deal from the players. It might seem to the outsiders that they're not improving, or that they're not coaching them up. But some of that might be that gap, and in time we'll see the payoff of this approach.
The problem is that Stanford's offense hasn't been all that good this year. Without an outstanding, senior-laden defense, they'd have 3 or 4 loses where they haven't been able to move the ball efficiently (check out the box scores of the Washington and Oregon St. games).
Even last night, their lack of explosiveness gave them an extremely thin margin of error. They were outstanding on third down last night. A lot of it was because they were able to get to short yardage, but they also were very good at converting third and medium. Oregon's line contains Hogan scrambles a little bit better and they get off the field on a couple of those epic Stanford drives.
And how different would the game have looked had Oregon not gone 0-3 on its first three red zone trips and had the extremely iffy pass interference call not been called? What if Mariota doesn't miss the wide open Huff for the first TD of the game? There was a potential 20-30 point swing on those big plays that all went Stanford's way for the first three quarters of the game and had very little to do with Stanford's dominating Oline and Dline. The first TD alone could have drastically shifted the game. That's football, these things happen regardless of style.
Stanford's an excellent team, I'm just a little hesitant to read too much into one game. Just like I'd be hesitant to say Stanford wasn't any good because they lost to a 4-4 Utah team.
Did we watch the same game? Stanford ran Tyler Gaffney 45 times, and only one of those carries resulted in negative yardage. When your O-line is so good that you can run the same play over and over again because you know your opponent can't stop it, you don't need a versatile offense.
Actually I said they weren't explosive. They were fairly versatile and threw in a lot of great wrinkles to set themselves up for those nice short third downs. It doesn't change the fact that despite their best offensive performance of the season (they really haven't looked that great this year outside of the Arizona St. first half) and a ton of breaks through three quarters, they needed to collect an onside kick with two minutes left to secure the game.
They operate with a system that has a very low margin of error. That's really my point.
They needed to collect that onside kick because they fell asleep in the 4th quarter. They had dominated so well to that point that they put it on cruise control. And honestly, had that FG not been blocked, Stanford wins by at least two touchdowns. Their margin of error was actually quite large to be able to practically mail it in for the 4th quarter and still win. Oregon needed a blocked kick td and an onside kick recovery to get 13 of the points that it got.
When you "dominate" so thoroughly, even a blocked FG shouldn't result in a one score game.
Stanford got a ton of lucky breaks in the first three quarters. Mariota (who is apparently injured, thus negating about a third of the Oregon offense) missed Huff on a wide open TD; De'Anthony Thomas' fumble on a would be TD drive; A very iffy PI call saved a sure interception resulting in a Stanford TD; Mariota fumbles on a potential scoring drive; Stanford recovered their own fumbles. All the breaks went Stanford's way and Stanford played their offensive style just about as perfectly as it could be played. Stanford won by 6 points. Yes, Oregon got a FG block returned for a touchdown and recovered 1 of 3 onside kicks, but still, when you add up the whole game, that's operating with a low margin for error.
Mariota missed Huff because of the pass rush, and Thomas' fumble was forced (and recovered) by Skov. Those "lucky breaks" came about because the Stanford defense did its job.
Really, you're grasping for straws here. I'd say that any team who shuts out the country's #1 offense through 3 quarters and builds up a 26-point cushion en route to victory has played a pretty impressive game.
I disagree on both of those. Skov did do a great job to force the fumble, but I don't know how Thomas doesn't do more to recover it when he was literally laying on top of the ball. But that's besides the point. Lets say you count all the breaks as being equal, blocking a FG/recovering an onside kick = three failed red zone trips/PI penalty negating an interception/Mariota missing Huff. Stanford won the game by 6 points! In a game everyone says they dominated! They did play a pretty impressive game. There's no denying that. The only problem I have is that the end result of them playing essentially "three yards and a cloud of dust" football is a very narrow margin of error. It's why, despite being one of if not the best teams across both lines for the last two seasons they've dropped games to 7-6 Washington and 4-4 Utah.
Because the blocked field goal - a 9 point swing, mind you - resulted in Oregon still being down by 13 points.
And by the way, when you are winning 26-0 with one quarter left in the game, yes you do have a large margin of error to winning. Stanford almost exhausted it, but it would have taken 2 successful onside kicks to do it. Admittedly, I thought they were going to because Oregon's kicker seems to have figured out a perfect way of getting the random jump on the ball. Such a funky way to kick it.
Let me add that until that blocked field goal, Stanford had driven down the field so regularly that they scored on 6 consecutive drives and killed like 30 minutes of clock. Had just one of those field goals been a touchdown instead, Oregon has even less of a shot than they did (which, I don't care how good you are, comeing back from down 26 points in one quarter is damn near impossible).In fact, one of their last field goals they only kicked because they got caught on the rarest of rare "offensive encroachment" penalties.
But, Shaw was a lot more engaged than Hoke. Isn't that what a head coach should be?
This has been brought up often (usually talking about a headset as well, thank you for the restraint) but Hoke knows what's going on & helps manage things while trusting his coordinators to call the plays. He has made very few in game errors (end of reg vs. PSU being most memorable to me)
There is a great diary above that discusses that basically, U-M beats who they are expected to, but hasn't been able to pull off "the big win", especially not at the big house
It's not even a transition period.
It's a "survive the horrible recruiting of Rich Rodriguez from 2010 and 2011" period.
It's been said to death, but anyone wanting to question the coaches, go look at the depth chart by class page. Pretty horrible we'll have ZERO seniors on the offensive line, 2 juniors, and 1 senior on the DL.
We are looking at the big time costs of transferring our offensive philosophy from Super Spread and Shred Ball -> Hybrid Spread Pro -> Pure West Coast Offense. This year, 2013, Borges said "I'm pulling out the full playbook for good". That's about as difficult and philosophically different as a transition you'll find in football.
That means we're taking a team that doesn't know much of the West Coast offense and forcing them to run it in games, where opposing DCs see all our little flaws on film. No more zone reads, slot receivers, speading the field.
WCO requires playing ball in a phone booth, like Stanford did last night. TEs. Extra OL. Push off the line of scrimmage. Chewing clock like gum. 5 yards a carry, bitches. That requires experience and coordination in a S-Y-S-T-E-M. You cannot just say "our S&C coaches aren't doing enough!!!" because there's a ton more to it than all that.
The defense has already more or less arrived. Mattison has pushed these athletes as far as possible. We just have to wait for them to grow up. I promise you when Taco hits his junior year no one will be bitching about the pass rush.
The offense needs time too. RR had his 3-9 season. This is the equivalent. Wait for the Leap in 2014.
I have to disagree with the "Defense has arrived" comment. I was sorting through team schedules the other day. Here are the facts:
Michigan's defense has allowed the following:
ND: 30 points. 5th best scoring day out of 9 games. Only Navy, Air Force, Purdue, Arizone State gave up more.
Akron: 24 points. 3rd best scoring day out of 10 games. Only James Madison & LA-Lafayette gave up more
UConn: 21 points. Best scoring day out of 7 games. To be fair, Maryland game up 21 as well.
Penn State: 43 points. Second best scoring day out of 8 games. Only Eastern Michigan gave up more (Sorry Ron English)
Indiana: 47 points. Second best scoring day out of 8 games. Only Indiana State gave up more.
MSU: 29 points (all by the offense). 3rd best scoring day out of 9 games. Only Youngstown St, Indiana, and Illinois gave up more.
Look at that list. In 6 out of 8 Michigan games, the defense has allowed the opposing team to have one of it's best scoring days of the season. When you look at the teams who did comapritively worse than Michigan, it's pretty sad. That's barely MAC level quality defense being played. People can throw up all the "stats" and "Mattison ubber allies" they want, that's just consistently bad defense right there. The only two teams Michigan did play good defense against were Central and Minnesota.
Points don't ever tell the whole story, especially if you're careless enough to ignore defensive touchdowns and overtimes. This is easy. C'mon son.
The turnover issues are just as important. If all or most of those points came from 75-yard TD drives from everyone, that would be one thing. This is far from the case.
Your point about points is true if it is a one off example. Consistency does tell a story. And the story is this "son": The other team's offense has consistenly had one of their best games of the year against Michigan's defense. And there are enough games to see this is a trend.
Ignoring defensive touchdowns and turnovers deep in your own territory is one thing.
Claiming that they don't matter for reasons outside of perceivable reality is nihilism. You're making claims about points scored by the other team's OFFENSE when in three(!) of those games, the DEFENSE has been responsible for some of them. This is borderline 2+2=green territory and that's without getting into turnovers in our own territory or overtime.
Since I find it a waste of my time to evaluate numbers to prove someone else's ignorance, I am not going to do so. But if you are ever bored, look up the game drive charts, track Michigan's turnovers, track how many direct points came from those turnovers, divide by the total number of points scored, and see what a small percentage of this seasons points given up actually come directly from turnovers. To make this more academic, feel free to track this as a percentage within each game.
Or you can keep on spouting off how turnovers are the only thing preventing this defense from being the great wrecking crew you apparently believe it to be without any reality to back it up. Either way, believe what you want and enjoy the great defense this weekend.
That's an impressively-sized pole up your dishonest ass. Must get in the way with beating up that straw man of yours.
Congrats, you devolved to the most basic of male human responses after it took only one exchange for you to realize your argument didn't hold much water. Most idiots keep going before they reach your measured response. Yay! You saved me a lot of time today.
and you've been quite the jerk in the process of being wrong. not a good combo. go blue.
All I really did was post a series of facts. Just because those facts don't agree with your impression does not mean I am wrong. As for me being a jerk, well, that's just your opinion man.
This has a lot to do with the offense turning it over so many times that the opponent gets to start around the 50.
And when the offense isn't turning it over they're going 3 and out...
if you were impressed by Stanford's football team on both sides of the ball last night?
[ most people raise hands ]
Raise your hand if what you have seen in the last 3 years convinces you that Brady Hoke can turn Michigan into last nights Stanford within the next 2 years?
[ probably less hands ]
pointless thread continues.
Stanford's been doing what you saw last night for 7 seasons. We've been doing it for about 0.5 seasons.
Shaw also inherited a program that was in the best shape possible, whereas Hoke inherited a program that was in the throes of an aborted transition.
Harbaugh inherited a 1-11 tean. After 2 mediocre years of "rebuildng" he had a 8-5 season which included two wins over top 10 teams, Oregon and USC. The next year he was 12-1 before bolting to the NFL. So you claim Shaw is doing this because of his cupboard. What about Harbaugh? He had somethingf ar worse than an aborted transition and I'd bet you any of RR's classes were ranked ahead of anything Harbaugh had in his first 3 years.
I'll bet you the roster inherited by Harbaugh was far more prepared for his style of play than what RR left here.
Not to mention that Brady Hoke's worst season so far has been 8-5.
Finally, Harbaugh is literally one of the top 5 coaches in the NFL already. He's godamned good. Try and accept that few college coaches were capable of such a massive leap. I mean Stanford has pretty much sucked for their entire existence.
"I'll bet you the roster inherited by Harbaugh was far more prepared for his style of play than what RR left here"
They were fucking 1-11. I am sure they were "prepared" for manball. Just needed a few tweaks and some coaching and all was well. Because they were the right kind of (awful) players.
Some of the delusion here is beyond the pale. As if all of RR's recruits were horrid and would not succeed in a manball system. If you put Molk into a pro style system - no way could that guy do well. Neither could Roundtree, neither could Hemingway, neither could any fo these dozens of defensive players. They were only suited for the 3-3-5 and their top 100-top 250 recruiting rankings clearly stated "cannot play anything but spread or 3-3-5, will not excel otherwise"
It wasn't a good roster. But at least it was full. There weren't any recruiting classes without offensive linemen.
We'd love to have a couple of not-very-good third- or fourth-year guards now. An Omameh would work wonders here, no matter how unsuited he was to a power offense.
Harbaugh never had to deal with this particular problem.
who hates Brady Hoke?
Harbaugh transformed an abysmal Stanford program into a powehouse.
Did the Stanford football program at the time have more resources, reputation, and built in advantages that Michigan's had? No way.
But Brady Hoke's year 3 (in context and looking at trajectory) looks nothing like Harbaugh's Stanford in his year 3.
I also realize it's not entirely fair to compare both coaches anyway, but my original statement about the attitudes of fans on this blog is true.
Not everyone trusts him as a program savior.
He's been a starter for at least the last two seasons. I don't recall him being highlighted one way or the other last night.
Side note: Oregon started a true freshman guard last night.
I watched that game and I was in total awe of Stanford's O-line. If that's what our O-line will look like when Hoke's O-line classes from 2012 and 2013 come of age, then I'm willing to lock away the pitchforks.
So long as that holds, it would be a crime not to give him his 5 years to see where he can take the program. He did win more games his first year than his predecessor did in his first two, so he's got that going for him. If he were to have back to back <8 win seasons a decision would have to be made...But barring a <6 winner that decision would probably be to give him his fifth year and see what he can do.
TVH mentioned Harris is being rumored to be back interested in MSU. Any hear if there is any truth to this?
Ace Williams told me
Is he related to Alex Legion?
Is TomVH just making stuff up now?
is no where near "manball". Please put that phrase out to pasture.
I trusted Hoke until the team consistently choked in road games and has overseen an offense that falls well below expectations. Stanford and Michigan aren't even in the same ball park.
1) The Big 10 is awful and this will be the third straight year Hoke doesn't win it.
2) Michigan is awful on the road, although I think this has to do with level of competition.
3) Certain position groups have performed worse as time has gone on.
I will be as happy as anyone if Hoke gets this turned into a top 10, hell a top 15 program, but my heart can't defend what my eyes are telling my brain, and that the data is backing up. M just isn't a good football team right now.
It takes time. I know none of us want to hear that, especially seeing what that asshole, "Urbz," is doing in Columbus, but we had pretty bad recruiting during the RR years and most of RR's recruits are still here. Not saying that they're all garbage because there are some really good players, but it will take at least another full season, likely two, to really get this program where it needs to be.
I lost trust when the HC who doesn't wear a headset didn't have the awareness to avoid not one but TWO delay of game penalties vs PSU that potentially played a role in us losing that game. On top of the numerous other play calling blunders made by Borges, under Hoke we basically played to a draw with Akron and UConn.
Rebuilding is one thing. Being HISTORICALLY TERRIBLE is another. Where does everyone's faith in Borges come from? Whatever product we have right now isn't working on a number of levels and there is nothing aside from wishful thinking that suggests it will get better. Other teams with fewer resources, recruiting prowess, and harder schedules have done way more. What is our coaching staffs tactical advantage vs crapping the bed ratio? Pretty shitty.
"Rebuilding is one thing. Being HISTORICALLY TERRIBLE is another."
But Michigan's offense is NOT "historically terrible." Yes, the running game has been awful, but somehow this OC (whom people seem to hate intensely) is finding a way to put up points. In fact, IIRC, Devin Garder is LEADING the Big 10 in total offense, or was until the MSU game. [EDIT: DG was leading the Big 10 before the MSU, now he is second]. Gardner is 2nd in Passing yards w/1999 yrds (34th in FBS, and only 35 yards from leading the B10), and is leading the Big 10 in Yard/Attempt w/9.8 ypa (a full yard more than #2). Gallon is 2nd in Receiving Yards w/898 yrds (12th in FBS), and Funchess is 5th w/557 yrds. Funchess' 19.2 ypc is 3rd in the conference (17th in FBS) and Gallon's 18.0 ypc is 4th (38th in FBS). Gallon's 7 TD's put him in 2nd for B10 Receiving TD's (T22 in FBS).
In terms of Total Rushing Yards, despite how bad it's been Fitz is 11th in B10 and Gardner is 13th. Fitz 11 Rushing TD's puts him 1st in the B10 (T13th in FBS), and Gardner's 9 Rushing TD's puts him 5th in B10 (T29th in FBS).
Am I saying that the offense is a thing of beauty, heck no! But, you guys are acting like the offense is on par with GERG's 2010 defense.
Currently, Michigan offense is:
Interestingly, when you look at the Rushing TD's, Michigan's 23 TD is right up there with the best rushing teams in the nation. So despite the horrible OL performance, and the seeming inability to run the ball effectively against even the supposed cupcakes on the schedule, Michigan is scoring rushing TD's on par with the best teams in the nation.
Thanks for putting together those statistics. I guess I wasn't really implying we were historically bad from a statistical standpoint, aside from the 27 for 27 performance and -48 total rushing yards vs MSU. I was basing the BADNESS of our play vs bottom dwellers of the NCAA, namely Akron and UConn, without really any (from my eyes) subsequent improvement or reason for optimism going forward based on what I've seen. It is more of the overall gestalt of this offense and it's vagabond identity that has drained most all hope I had, the most in the 15 years I've been watching M football.
I at least had HOPE of victory watching this team during the last couple Lloyd years, the last two RR years, and the last two Hoke years. After the PSU game, I lost hope in our coaching providing us any sort of tactical advantage vs average to above average opponent coaches. So the stats may show that our offense isn't dead last, but I don't think they paint the whole picture (as I'm sure you know).
The fact that our OC gameplans us into 1 or 2 losses every year is also very disheartening (OSU 2012, MSU 2011, ND 2012, PSU 2013 and several others I can't list right now). I expected a loss to MSU, but not in that fashion. Seemingly obvious play-call blunders on a consistent basis in crucial situations that people just write off to "he's the coach so he must be right" is deflating. Like Brian pointed out, our PA isn't based off any actual running play! Coach Hoke gets frazzled in tense game situations and doesn't seem to be in control hence the 2 delay of game penalties and calling a timeout after our WR went out of bounds. In my mind, the PSU loss was inexcusable due to the number of times we pissed the game away and the atrocious offensive game plan. If Borges thought he did what was best, then the model he is using to gameplan has a major systematic flaw.
Some of the play can be blamed on player youth, but if this is truly an elite coaching staff, they would be doing more with what they have just as other elite coaching staffs have done this year and in years past. Bo and Lloyd-type out-execute 'em, force square-peg into round hole football is not enough to compete with OSU let alone AlaBama in this day and age, and apparently MSU. Sorry for the lack of direction in some parts, but I'll end with this, you don't have to be a chef to know the food sucks.
Thanks for the reply!
I've made the stats easier to look at (I hope) and put them into a Forum Topic. Please cut and paste your reply (since it was you that sparked me to spend the time putting it together) in the thread.
I hope we can get a nice discussion going.
I couldn't help thinking of this quote from the last Michigan Monday from the Ozone.
"At this point, it's almost reaching 'Just wait until RichRod gets his players here' levels."
Did you just uncover the answer to everything?? Scissors that are so physical, they beat rock AND paper??
BOOM! Nailed it!
Interesting stuff out of the DC at Cass Tech on twitter. (let me say I think the Cass Tech pipeline is overstated - most players that have come to UM have been ok - not world beaters, with a few exceptions... that said with how little top end talent there is in Michigan every year it's one of the few schools that constantly pushes out D1 talent)
Coach Dantonio is one of the coaches who is good for Football! Stands behind what he says! Recruiting at Cass is changing.
In regards to things changing around Cass! No head coach has ever visited for as long as Dantonio was there yeasterday. Schools are working!
@ProfessorSWebb Yes I am the living example of why some folks shouldn't have access to social media. I'm a Michigan fan speaking my mind.
I'm not happy about Michigan losing nor am I a Spartan fan. I grew up a Michigan fan and don't believe in jumping ship. I only spoke my mind
@dominicisblue I'm just as much a fan as you. I think that if other Rivals are increasing there effort Michigan has to as well.
I have close to zero amount of trust in a man who as head coach not only delegates half of the game of football to somebody else, but delegates that half to Al motherfucking Borges.
Stanford = MANBALL. They have honed their Oline play for years and their OC Bloomgren has been very effective the last three years (another guy with NFL coaching experience) and showed great effectiveness during his tenure.
But.... we forget... Harbaugh was the coach at Stanford and rebuilt that program and... he lost 5,7 and 8 games each of his first three years at Stanford (and David Shaw was his coordinator there). It wasn't until year FOUR that Stanford looked good. The program improved but he still lost 5 games his third year there. Shaw took over a great program after being OC for Harbaugh.
While we are not even close to what is expected in the MANBALL or Manball sense, Hoke and his staff (with or without changes) get another few years to get us there.
UM Class of '79 (BS), Stanford Class of 1988 (MS), Class of 1992 (PhD).
#1 impressive list of credentials there
#2 Harbaugh inherited a 1-11 team, not a flawed bowl team. Huge difference.
#3 You wrote "It wasn't until year FOUR that Stanford looked good." Disagree. Stanford showed flashes in Harbaugh's 3rd year. They beat top 5-10 ranked USC and Oregon. Do you see UM in year 3 beating top 5-10 ranked teams? We'll see in a few weeks but evidence would point to the contrary.
#4 Do you see UM going 12-1 next year?
Face it Harbaugh is a superior coach, no harm in admitting it. UM always gets higher rated classes than Stanford. They have more to work with. He started with less from the previous regime than Hoke, and got less via recruiting than Hoke is getting in his classes. And did more with it. That doesnt mean Hoke can't work here because frankly you dont need to be a Harbaugh level coach to generate 3 loss seasons at UM. But Harbaugh pulled off an incredible turnaround and comparing them is pointless as there are far more benefits to the UM program in terms of what Hoke inherited than a bad Stanford program that Harbaugh waltzed into.
All your points are extremely valid.
I was all for us trying to get Harbaugh (it would have taken more than Mack Brown's salary at the time, about $5.6M per year) and I don't think we were going to pay that because we expected that good coaches would come here automatically due to our legacy.
And yes Stanford really sucked in 2006. Harbaugh took over a demoralized program and built it back up followed by all we know about him now, he is a very elite coach. Finally, I also would expect better performance from our (young) O line. That said, Stanford played two sophmore OTs last night, so in comparison we should be better. But (it is only my opinion) that we need to give Hoke 5 years because anything less will make recruiting future coaches very difficult. If we dump him now, do you think we will be 12-1 next year?
We won't be 12-1 with or without Hoke. He seems like the CEO type of delegator so it is imperative he has big time coordinators and position coaches. As much as Borges drives some of us up the wall (2nd half OSU 2012, late PSU, spending 2 weeks of prep for MSU for 1 successful drive) the disaster of an OL doesnt allow us to judge. I am a lot more worried about the position coaches incl Fred Jackson who hasnt apparently found anyone he can develop in 6-7 years. Despite all being like Barry Sanders but more shifty and AP but more fast and strong. And angry (Rawls). At this point we are stuck, and have to see what happens I guess, no other choice - can't blow this place up every 3 years or no coach will come here. But I am looking every year to see who the next coach will be until I see signs that there is tangible individual player improvement outside of 4-6 players a year.
For starters I am getting sick of the R^2 recruiting excuses. Are we going to complaining that R^2 is also at fault for high taxes and health care reform much less turmoil in the Middle East? R^2 had to deal with as many youngsters and derth of talent on defense as Hoke does on the Oline. Unlike Hoke, R^2 had no starting QB his first year and had to compete when the Big10 was much tougher. The Big10 of 2013 is a tire fire that will only be extinguished by its cesspool of ineptitude, in which case it still stinks. The R^2 haters complained he was trying to force spread on a power team and being inflexible. Yet it is perfectly ok for Hoke to get his six years to get his players despite ramming power down the teams throats. Is there really much difference between 2007 ND and 2013 Michigan except Devin Gardner and the fat guy is in the box? The savior golden boy with the hotshot coaching staff wows the alum with big time recruiting and proclimations of skematic advantages. End of rant.
The reality is great coaches take advantage of the opportunities given to them. Everyone talks about Harbaugh manball. But Harbaugh was savy enough to implement read option packages when it was advantageous. Seattle has the nastiest beast in Lynch outside of Peterson. Yet they gladly run read option and jet sweeps if that is what the defense gives them. Even man baller Jim Tressel went spread when he realized he had a mobile QB and four great receivers. A good coach is not a fanatic riven to his orthodoxy. A spread team can be as tough as nails as any power team and a power team can be as subtle as any spread(Denver 1998)
I would rather have a coach who is not beholden to any scheme. I would rather that coach be opportunistic and maximize the talent of what you have. Got a mobile QB and 4 speedy receivers, run spread. Stumble into a few fast undersized DT's run a 3-4. Have a power back and some oversized but physical road graders, run power.
It's not unrealistic to expect coaches to tweak their schemes to fit personnel. But in college football, unlike the NFL examples you gave above, teams need to recruit, and if you don't settle on a particular type of offense and recruit players who fit that system, you're always going to be in the kind of hybrid limbo that Michigan has been in for 2+ seasons now.
I personally thought Hoke should have hired a spread OC and kept the core of Rich Rod's offense intact. He didn't, and now we are suffering through the transition cost that occurs when you have veteran players who don't fit your scheme (2012) and young players who fit the scheme but aren't ready for prime time (2013). We probably have to just have to accept the situation for what it is and wait it out.
"...and if you don't settle on a particular type of offense and recruit players who fit that system, you're always going to be in the kind of hybrid limbo that Michigan has been in for 2+ seasons now."
I agree with this 100%!
I said this in another thread, and I think you encapsulated the thought.
Hoke is trying establishing (or reestablishing) Michigan's identity. Michigan's identity development was delayed (rightly) because of Denard. I think Michigan's OL stuggles are a combination of younth/inexperience, and the fact that Michigan is in the process of changing its identity. If Hoke doesn't do it now, when is he going to do it? Remember something very important, there is only so much pracitice time. The staff cannot run one scheme for games, and then get the group of younger OLinemen practicing the scheme that they'll be running when THEY are starting.
I think what we're seeing today from this OL is the fact that they've not been completely one scheme since they've been at Michigan. Look at Wisconsin, Standford, Bama, any team that has had long-term continuity. A kid who comes in is in the SAME scheme from day 1 of his development until the day he finally breaks into the starting line up. It makes a HUGE difference.
I think two very different things are being rolled into one ball here.
On one hand you have transition costs. It wasn't Lloyd Carr's fault he didn't leave Rodriguez a running QB and a lot of handy slot receivers. It's not Rodriguez's fault he didn't recruit tight ends, or linemen built to run a power game.
Those are real problems, you have to deal with them with any change of system. But you can't lay them at the feet of the prior coach--it's not his job to recruit for his successor's style.
But it's not that our third- and fourth-year linemen were recruitied and trained for another offense. Our third- and fourth-year linemen weren't recruited for anything. They don't exist.
That's a different kind of problem entirely, and it's a problem we'd be stuck with even if we'd kept the same offense. The rules require you to put a minimum of five linemen on the field for every snap no matter what scheme you run.
TX has contiune to slide. First they're power I,then they went spread,only to transition back to power I. However,2 college seasons later and hiring new offensive and defensive cordinators things still aren't clicking. Changing schemes can take time until you've gotten personnel (players) in place.
Went 3-9. We still have a shot to win 10 games. Get a hobby
Couldn't agree more.
but I hope you are correct.
In we need to execute better I trust.
In well, uhhh... I trust.
FWIW, I think that a lot of TTUN fans feel like we did during the Cooper years. We wanted to believe the story, but the pile of losses to you guys and just about anyone that we played in a bowl game made us bipolar as a fan base. Fire Cooper! Keep Cooper forever!I think it is going to take Brandon awhile to sort Hoke out for you guys...and I'm not gonna lie....that makes us happy. With that said, you guys have all the talent you need to compete and Hoke's view that it is all about "better execution" is wrong IMO and that of many other (rational) Buckeyes. It points the finger at the kids and not where it belongs: at the coaches
Did you just create an account to come over here and watch us wallow in our own misery? I'm impressed - I thought chatting among a huge group of Michigan fans would be too much schadenfreude for you to handle at one time. Welcome aboard and remember, the Hoke Fat Jokes don't go over quite as well around here as they do on 11W.
Actually, I could get all the schadenfreude that I need by lurking here. Since you are an existence proof that a rival can add persepective to a fan site, I figured that I would give it a shot over here. I am sure that I will feel as much love here as you do at 11W
Hoke is not Cooper. There is nothing to "sort out" regrarding Hoke at this point. Cooper's issue was that he could not win a title even though he didn't have to worry about academic standards, police reports and/or date rape. In short, he couldn't win even though OSU is purely a football factory -- not a school that has football program. Michigan and OSU are apples and oranges. That's why -- despite your recent record agasint us -- OSU can't stand Michigan.
You know, they're not bad coaches. But they're not elite coaches like your team's coach. Maybe they'll get better. Because we know our AD who made the hire will give them time. They won't get fired for a season like the one they're having.
One advantage OSU has over UM right now is an athletic director with lots of prior experience. We have a rookie who thinks being an AD is about hiring a skywriter to write "Go Blue" in the air over Spartan Stadium.
I wrote on this blog a long time ago that UM's athletic directors since Canham have been obsessed with the same thing our university is into: raising money and erecting new buildings.
UM is a great university for research, for learning, and for the important things. But sometimes I think our athletic department has its collective head up its collective ass.
That is a fair argument and as many have pointed out, timing is everything. One year plus or minus and we wouldn't have gotten Meyer. Would we have gotten the next Tressel or the next RRod instead? Hiring is always a crapshoot in any business. I am not a Gene Smith fan because I believe he was culpable in the tat 4 case and I think JT took one for Smith, the team and OSU.. That is a view that many OSU alumni share. UM is a top flight academic institution and nothing will change that, but to think that either of our football teams is well represented in their respective colleges of engineering, serious pre-professional school programs or in STEM majors is simply untrue.
We are a man ball team that can't run the ball! Let's watch some basketball tonight and beat Nebraska tomorrow 55-41, woooohoooo!!! I'm happy.
My signature quote is pretty much where I am at right now.
By reading all these posts, you wouldn't know that: (1) Hoke has a 75% winning percentage; (2) is 2-0 vs. N.D.; (3) is 1-1 against OSU; and (4) finished in the top 12 in his first year. You would think that we are not 6-2. Get a life. Especially the OSU jerkoff. Hoke is not Cooper as Hoke beat Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl and was one minute from beating S.C last year. Tied of the OSU worship.
There was that debacle last year when Denard threw 5-6 INTs and we couldn't replace him because our best backup QB was playing wide receiver. Hoke signed off on that brilliant move.
It that winning percentage came from playing in the SEC or even Pac-12, it would hold more weight. But winning % is paper thin considering the competition so these three years. We've been able to win the pillow fights, not the heavyweight bouts.
OSU hasn't lost a game with Urban Meyer. That's impressive. And Meyer is shredding the B1G with the spread, something that we went away from because of the "spread can't work in the B1G, we're Michigan fergodsakes, MANBALL" garbage.
I'll give Hoke and his staff credit for one thing. They are doing a better job in recruiting top talent and players that seem to want to stick around. I would've loved to have seen Drake Harris, George Campbell and others spread out all over the field playing catch me if you can. Now I'm just hoping the system we're running will allow them to use their talents.
Hoke has won over 70% of his games but your stats are inaccurate. 2-1 vs Notre Dame, 1-2 vs MSU (how many TD's in those 3 games) and 1-1 vs OSU. With a few exceptions, during the last three years even when the team has won they haven't looked intimadating. I think the problem that most are having with team 134 and Hoke & Co. in general is the eyeball test. Hoke led teams have been abysmal on the road. This team has not shown a tangible progression as the season has unfolded. There are a lot of apologist and prognoticators on why this is, but I'm dissappointed. There are coaches doing more with less.
There are still wins to be had this season. Being a fan for the last 30 years I can only name a few losses that were worse than the beating we took last weekend. I hope the leadership on this team steps up and shows some pride in finishing the season strong wins or losses.
Noticed how you skipped the MSU record.
Sorry guys. I'm wrong. We are indeed 2-1 against ND with Hoke. I was blocking the game last year out. I'm not worried about our record against MSU and I'm just not that upset that we lost to a great defense on the road.
We need to get better, however, if you are disappointed this year then you just were not being realistic going into the season. This team has a long way to go, however, I have seen enough to believe that Hoke is the right guy.
about this season's expectations. I don't think many people expected much more than 9 wins at most this season. But as usual, we played a crazy, hyped often-above-our-heads game vs Notre Dame that always boosts otherwise realistic expectations.
Then Akron & Uconn
and the thing is, it really is about context and trajectory (for me at least).
I would have been ok with a loss to ND, dominant -if-not-blowout wins against Akron,Uconn.
some better D against Indiana, and at least for the 7th game of the season a significantly closer score (higher or lower) against an instate rival after a bye week.
It's not the record that has people so down, it's the skin-of-our-teeth wins, & WTF/ embarrasing losses.
I'm not seeing a season that baring injury should see any team with quality players and coaches slowly improve from the beginning of the season to the end.
Look at last year. Of course Michigan is overmatched by Alabama, but then we see the following games and scores in a pretty predictable fashion. turnovers costing us a game vs ND, blowing out Umass, expected wins, close defensive battle vs MSU, injury/catastrophe vs Neb, and a reasonably decent game against an undeated OSU.
The utter inconsistency this year is simply maddening.
Time will obviously tell. I am admittedly not the biggest Hoke fan. I just think that they could have done better. No, I don't have specific names, but his resume just didn't impress me as a coach at UM. I am willing to wait, with the caveat that the waiting period is getting close. On the plane ride here from KC I sat next to a guy that was "team Hoke" because he "understood the culture". I am all for that, but I am also a results guy. Hoke needs to start winning with is recruits and fast IMO. If not changes need to be made first with his staff and then if results still aren't there, he needs to be seriously evaluated. I'm glad he is a "Michigan Man", but Michigan men need to win too.
What worries is more is how many coaches have turned us down the past 2 searches. Miles I guess was not a "Carr man", and Harbaugh was never coming here as he had bigger ambitions but seeing guys like Schiano not at all interested is a pretty strong statement. Many people say Hoke was the 3rd choice but frankly what other choices were there that were viable? And what does that say about the lens other people view Michigan?
You may want to go back and have a look at the games we lost last year and the rankings of those teams. Other than Nebraska it's a pretty stout list.
any talented, well coached team can use any system to beat a team running any other system
A Vols fan asked me about this, as it has been lighting up their forums. I didn't see anything about it and can't start a topic yet.
Any truth to the rumors of players transfering out because of our less than stellar year? I mean, a close loss to a key opponent is one thing, but a close win to a UConn or getting whooped by State are different things.
OMG Please let this be rumors. I'm not sure I could handle it.
Are you serious? This has been debunked a handful of times on this blog. Cumong man
as are the SF 49ers in the NFL.
Hate to say it but I bet we would have been better off with Jerry Kill and his staff at Minn.