Hoke: Nebraska players "wrong" about offense predictability
Oh. Maw. Gawd.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they backed up their claims on the field coach.
That Fitz is going to run the ball, you probably are predictable.
Runs by Fitz, Green, DG (including scrambles): 13
While still favoring the run, it's less than 60% run on first down. It's pretty balanced actually and was 50-50 going into the 4th (not sure what happened in the 4th).
It's not about run/pass predictability, Michigan tips their plays by not diverting from what they do from each formation. They scream scissors and the defense responds with a rock. The one drive in which Borges dared to do different resulted in a touchdown, and with it went all smart adjustments.
I don't mind people saying logical complaints. Plenty to complain about after that performance. Don't need people to make things up on top of it.
My eleven year old was frequently calling the play before the ball was snapped. But he was the QB for his Pee Wee team and likely smarter than most of Nebraska.
Hell, I was calling the plays and I wasn't even watching it on TV, just listening to it in my office.
Seriously? Grow up.
It was an appropriate comment.
Listening to the WHOLE game in your office? I recommend more fiber in your diet...
When people say they were calling out the plays before the snap, do they just mean pass or run? Because if that's the case, that doesn't really mean much. It's a 50-50 prospect at worse and often better odds than that on downs like 3rd and 13. So saying that you or your wife or your kid predicted pass / run means nothing to me.
Now if you're calling out off tackle right, inverted veer, PA pass corner-post combo to gallon then Michigan really is predicable. And you should probably be coaching football...
For more than half the runs I wasn't just calling out the run, I was able to call the the intended direction and holes. As an example, that set where they come out with a FB/TE tight stack on one side, shift them to the other, and then run away from the FB/TE. Consequently, NB seems to know that play as well as I did and oversold the weak side every time resulting in stuffing the play.
Every once in a blue moon the actual play was a misdirection, but it was rare and as a defense, once you saw the misdirection play, you could pretty much bank on the next 5-6 plays being completely straight forward. And that's part of the problem. The flow of the plays that Borges calls are completely predictable. When the announcers are on TV running down Borges tendancies and they are playing out on the field completely the same way, you have a problem.
And it was as predictable as the sunrise.
Frankly, the only drive that wasn't considerably predictable was the first one of the second half. You know, where they scored convincingly.
I'll hand it to their secondary - they actually did a decent job of locking up our receivers. It really seems like Gardner has okay pass protection against teams not called State. But the line collapses in designed power runs, and it's embarrassing to see that much fail on one line.
When he said he liked the play calling yesterday, I was irritated, but gave it the just after the game quote treatment. Saying it a day later after presumably watching the film, just makes me made.
Not that anyone cares about my emotions regarding Hoke's quotes.
on being "made"
I had to read it twice to understand it. Well played.
I am still made about it though.
i don't understand : nebraska said they knew what was coming, they did in fact know what was coming, they then stated the obvios and somehow they were wrong? i think brady need to learn what "wrong" means.
Well, to be fair, it's easy for the Nebraska players to say that after the fact.
Those comments don't come after every team wins. They are rare. They come after a team is so shocked we tipped our hand all game and they got to keep pillaging us. And we never caught on. They're not trolling our fan base with those comments. "Gee, they hate their OC. Look what we'll say to piss them off more..."
Unless that's the case, which I doubt, they were right. And they were so surprised to be right all game, they decided to talk about it after.
Yes it is very easy for them to say it after the fact, because they were very effective in shutting us down. Based on their previous poor performances on defense throughout the season they must have known something.
The statement was never made as a "look how predictable Michigan was and that's why we knew it". This statement is made after opposing defenses stop offenses quite often. They say it basically to say how prepared they were by their defensive staff.
During the game I could guess and equal amount of plays (which was never even close to 100%) from Nebraska as I could Michigan. Both were equally "predictable", meaning, I had a decent idea of what the team was going to run. That goes with both offense and defense for both teams.
Just stop. You know way more about football terminology and teaching technique than I ever will, but if you don't think Michigan's play calling was predictable than you can have fun on your small island. Nebraska may be predictable but they did different things post snap. And they aren't the gold standard offensively anyway, but they still came through with almost half their offense injured. I'd love to have your seeming optimism bottled up since anyone who legitimately questions the play calling doesn't know what they're talking about.
Nebraska had their third string freshman QB running the point for them and a host of important players on the injured list. They were predicatable as well, and as you would expect they would be. Anyone who didn't see Nebraska running option to the weak side where they had numbers to take the lead wasn't paying attention to Nebraska's play calling previous to that play.
These are all 1st and 10 plays when the game was within 1 score either way. Name what the playcall was:
1. Butt is in a wing position, Williams at Y-TE. Gallon stacked behind Gallon
2. Gallon on top, Butt at Y-TE, Dileo in the slot and I believe Funchess down off the screen.
3. Funchess at bottom, Williams at Y-TE, Gallon on top.
4. Houma at wing, Paskorz at Y-TE. Funchess on top, Gallon on bottom.
5. Paskortz at one TE, Butt at the other. Funchess down on the bottom, Gallon in motion to the top.
Without going back through the game, tell me which play was run in each of these situations. Then tell me how you know. This is even giving you an advantage as you've already watched the game.
Cool i'll play.
1. Pass to either Gallon or Funchess
2. read option probably a Devin keeper.
3. Power up the gut probably a loss
4.it's hard to tell but i'm going to say play action.
5. Play action
Do i win a cookie?
I'm not really 100% sure. I'm betting if i knew how the DB's where playing on run vs. Pass I'd be able to get 80%. I'm not football wizard by any means but i know that most of the running plays i saw ran into blitzing linebackers. I also remember one of nebraskas defensive fronts looked like they had 10 men in the box and i was screaming please dont run into that and then michigan ran into it.
Honestly it doesn't matter what the play call is because the defense could go Madden and run the same defense every play and get great results 80% of the time. A double a gap blitz kills just about every Michigan play be it pass or run.
And, FWIW, you were 3/5 run vs pass (interesting that on 1st down, Michigan ran the ball ~60% of the time). Of those 3 you got right, you were only half right on all of them (even without being very descriptive).
interested in facts, SC. They just aren't. You can do this until you're blue in the face.
Was going to say the same thing. Have to admire SC for swimming upstream against this torrent of BS and self-appointed gurus with their genius wives and children.
While I respect posters who try to defend level-headedness, logic, and football intelligence, I can't understand the perspective of anyone who can defend Borges, even implicitly, as you all are doing. I don't want a pitchfork or irrationality, but we are below the performance of most youthful offenses and are spiraling down.
I'd like to hear an intelligent defense of Borges's failure beyond youthful O-line... rather than implied support by name-calling and sarcasm.
It really doesn't go that far beyond the OL issues. I think the other position groups are getting better and improving. I think that improvement is heavily masked by the ineptitude of the OL is pass pro. I talk about it quite a bit in the link in my signiture (including some Borges criticism of my own).
A contributing problem is how slow we are in blitzes on the quarterback? I've noticed all year we project our blitzes by walking up to the line early and we blitz slowly and rarely even endanger the quarterback. Could another factor of the O-line's ineptitude be that they prep all week with poor rushers and slow blitzers, so when game time comes, they are surprised at the speed of the game because they haven't seen anything like it in practice?
But it doesn't look to me like they're simply slow getting to the spot, it looks like they are mentally confused which probably gets more back to the individual drills and how they are drilling those than what they are doing in the O vs D portions of practice. But it could be part of it to an extent maybe.
So some guy on a message board gets 60% right, imagine how many the Nebraska coaches and players get right. Congrats, you've proved yourself wrong.
Yeah, a guy was 60% right if a play was a run or a pass and never said exactly what the play call was. What do you think the plays are that were run (I bet you'll go watch the game and look for these). What are they give aways for each? You don't even know your own argument anymore. You've just looked at my profile and responded to things I've written today. Congrats. You're a troll.
What does that make you? A troll with a platform?
For what its worth, I've thought you wrote an absurd defense of the end of the Penn State game and from then I've kept tabs on what you've wrote. For the most part, you sound like Al Borges is putting money in your pocket.
Same here. To me, SC comes across as someone you enjoys the process of the argument, and who eventually beomes a little blind to the big picture.
What your pictures DO NOT SHOW is what the game situation was. There were stretches of the game where UM was compeltely predictable. And UM was much more predictable by down and distance.
While your general point is somewhat true - that Borges' offense is likely less prredictable than many of us are saying, you are too far in the other direction of calling it normally-predictable.
And the game was within a single score and they were end of the half situations. These are all standard downs and distances and were explained in my post.
I've also said they may lean slightly more on tendencies than other teams, but it is hardly much more. If they do that, it's only because their TEs are not prepared to be diverse enough yet to handle all the assignments correctly.
Trust me, it'd be much easier for me to just blindly follow others, this isn't about just arguing a point. People are arguing their points incorrectly and with false logic and false information. People have claimed knowing the exact play 90% of the time. People have claimed that Michigan runs on first down the vast majority of the time (less than 60% on normal down situations actually). People have made all these claims, and they're simply lies. It's people seeing what they want to see. I bet if people went back and watched the game without a preconceived notion of Borges and watched the game with some objectivity, they would see that the things they are claiming are false.
The point above was to point that out, and I think I did because, despite listing the situation, no one has been able to take a good stab at what it is and a lot of people are very reluctant to do so because they know that they can't really back up their claim.
The give aways where personel and the look of the defense. I guessed if the DB's where playing off they expected pass and if the DB's where on the line then it was a run. Thats the reason i said... 4. i think was play action because one db was up and the other was off.
A huge percentage of our pass plays go to Gallon or Funchess and when we bunch WR's it's usually a pass. Not hard to guess that .
I got most of from your previous point where you tried to drive point home that michigan did pass on first down, so i figured you'ld put more pass plays than run plays. I'm not one of those guys who disects plays obviously. I know that MSU and Nebraska both blitzed 60-70% of their defensive plays. If i'm an offensive coordinator i'm doing everything i possibly can to avoid the blitz or use to my advantage. Borges did neither, well cept for the screen to Funches and Fitz which both got pretty nice gains.
I think 3 times. It worked once. That is a play that is directly set up to attack the void left by blitzing players. As I've said, the fact that defenses don't need to respect deep routes because they know their blitzes can get home means that they sit right in the hip pocket of all the short routes without respecting the deep stuff.
If I was a DC I'd blitz and have stunts up the interior most of the time too, because there are very few things that can be called to beat it with Michigan's poor OL play.
FWIW, I would like more screens as well.
And also, my point of the pictures wasn't to try to trick people. I actually appreciate you answering. The point was to show all the people that said things were obvious to take a nuetral down and distance and show people why plays aren't so easily tipped. Sure, there are tendencies, and there are tendencies in the plays above as well. Some of which, if you look at the tendencies, you will get the answers rigth. But that's not the point, the point is that tendencies don't make it a sure thing, far from it. And while you can guess many plays and have a decent idea of what may happen, you can't sell out of it because it's not that simple.
1. Pass. Two man cover 3 beater, dig/seam combo, a rub of some sort
2. inverted veer
3. PA pass. Gallon go, Funchess post/seam read
4. Zone stretch/outside zone
5. Power to Funchess's side.
You were correct 2/5 times as far as run to pass. Of those two times you were right with 1 and not with the other.
In your blog post, you mention something about how one needs to be able to roll to both sides.
Considering strengths/weaknesses of rolling to each side, do you find there are different routes/throws available on each roll? How about rolling to the field or boundary?
You don't want routes that force a QB to throw back across his body. You also don't want to run routes that don't allow for good footwork/mechanics. So, for instance, it's unrealistic to do a full roll and expect to throw a seam because you can't get your front hip/shoulder upfield.
Some also depends on if you're rolling from under center or from shotgun because that dictates your path to a degree (such as depth, etc).
Now, my point on that was that in gun, it is actually easier to throw to the sideline rolling to your non-throwing arm side. It is probably easier throwing something like a hitch or a snag (where you run a slant and out) that ends up being even with the QB laterally to your throwing arm side. Things that require touch, such as a fade or wheel, tend to always be easier to your throwing arm side because it's hard to throw touch with a closed shoulder (which tends to happen when you roll away from your throwing arm).
You can roll to boundary or field. A lot of that will depend on defensive tendencies. Do they like to blitz the field/boundary corner? You don't tend to like rolling into that blitz because often it doesn't give the play time to develop. But, sometimes if a team put more bodies field but is trusting their zone to the backside, you'll want to roll boundary because you have a numerical advantage. Rolling boundary will also shorten the throw for your QB and often make your QB more of a run threat because it's less likely to have a defender filling the alley, but it also means taht defenses can roll coverage quicker and make the windows much smaller. On the flip side, the field has more room to cover and more potential for different route concepts. But you are also more likely to have pressure in your face or more defenders to that side.
You refer to slide protections as being "high school level". What makes it that much easier than gap protection? What are a few things teams will do to attack a slide protection?
Basically you're just sliding a gap over and taking the man that tries to come through that gap and then the RB takes the gap away from the slide. This often leads him to have a DE or a more dangerous player.
Man blocking schemes tend to be 2-on-2 blocking scheme, where two players will work through a DL to a LB. It's not quite that simple, but two blockers will always take two defenders and pass on between one another, so on and so forth. If they move two gaps over then they'll pass on to the next 2 blockers and pick up whoever is coming over their direction, etc.
This is more complex. You have to be quicker with your reads and assignments. You have to have better chemistry between players to know how to take and release, etc. But it does allow you to match up a player on your RB better, such as giving him a safety or a smaller LB or a player that has a tendency to drop in coverage so the RB can leak out. Michigan has tried to run these schemes but hasn't been able to so has switched back to a slide protection, gap blocking scheme.
Brady was surprised by each play call. He expected POWER on every down.
I get what you're saying, and I think most regular fans are exaggerating when they say "I could predict what play was coming 90% of the time" (BS), but how do you explain such an outlier in offensive statistics compared to the rest of Nebraska's opponents to date?
And they can't run the ball. Thus, Nebraska never has to try to cover up their glaring weakness (run D) because Michigan sucks at running the ball worse than Nebraska sucks at defending it.
They stacked the box more than Michigan State did and routinely had their safeties flying up the field in run support. It's not like they lined up in nickel sets the whole game.
And Purdue, Wyoming, Indiana, FCS School X have great offensive lines. Gotcha.
For reference: Wyoming entered the year with 3 players who had started a college football game, one of who had started only one game. So two players with real experience. They have a single senior and only one 3-star player who is not a true freshman.
They probably don't have great OL. It's probably better than Michigan's. What, exactly, is your point you're trying to make? If it's that Michigan's OL isn't good, then yes, that's exactly what I've said. Or are you saying there is a different reason that Michigan is so bad relative to the other teams that have had more run success?
You say that Michigan's "terrible offensive line" is the problem.
You're acting as if other teams do not have terrible offensive lines with lack of skill and experience.
If we believe that the coaches know what they are doing recruiting this boils down to a lack of coaching which is on Funk and Borges, preseason identification of a sound offensive strategy with a limited offensive line which is on Borges and playcalling which is on Borges.
I'm arguing against your insane opinion that Al Borges has had a good year and called great games from Penn State on.
I didn't say other teams don't have experience. I've claimed the OL coaching hasn't been good enough. I've also said there are youth issues. Funk coaches the OL (Borges does not). I get it, you want them to run the spread. You want them to run a completely different offense then they want to run or that they're transitioning to. You want them to be the Indiana coaching staff. But that's not how things work. They are trying to get to where they want to get with their players. They've tried to implement things within their scheme to take advantage of their players (inverted veer, veer option, zone read, QB power counter). They probably thought the OL would come along faster than they did (a reasonable assumption considering I'm pretty sure coaches don't believe they suck at their job). I'm pretty sure they thought they would be decent enough to run the ball a bit and pass off that. When they found out it wasn't sound they simplified the playbook. They've done a lot of things people have asked them to do, and none of those things worked.
And I never said Borges called a great game plan in any game besides ND (which when I watched again, it was a good game plan that DG bailed out terrible OL play, but you can't hide bad OL play). I never said he's had a good year. In fact, it's far from it. Look at the offense, does it look like a good year. But you have not once, outside of your desire for Michigan to be Indiana's offense, made a single argument for what should be done. I'm trying to use logic to argue against the illogical. It's an unfair debate. But you'll continue to make up things and twist things and troll. That's great.
1. Your wording makes it seem like you are not only defending Borges, but lauding his gameplan.
2. I did make suggestions. With your infinite wisdom, you told me it was impossible for Michigan to add any tempo to their offense because you can't change schemes midseason even with a bye week. You know, even though they added Tackle-Over. I also suggested abandoning a useless player in having a RB on the field for a player designated to do a useful job, which you just disregarded.
3. You've made the argument that Borges has improved his QB play over time, which has not been the case whatsoever.
4. So Borges has nothing to do with the offensive line? Odd, considering its part of the offense.
Can't wait for next week's 100,000 word epic on how Al Borges is the only man alive who could improve Peyton Manning's footwork.
Where? Where am I arguing something that we have not been arguing about?
That's not what a strawman argument is
Let me rephrase: We're arguing the same things we've been arguing. I'm not bringing up anything new you haven't said or implied through your writing. So where is the straw man? Where is this new stand I have you taking that you haven't already taken?
And keep putting words in my mouth that I never said. I answer your questions and you ignore it and ask the same question implying I gave an answer I didn't (such as when I said I didn't think Borges called a great game on one thread and then the very next post said that I was lauding him when I said directly I didn't think he was great). Then you act like you're refuting me, I bring up more points, and you make grandiose claims like "I can't see the big picture". Then you point out other others and act like I think I'm "Bill Walsh" and yada, yada, yada.
When I make actual points and try to explain how practice schedules, schedules in season, actual practice sessions, etc, go (because I've seen these things, yes, from D1 college programs, I've seen these things first hand) you ignore them and repeat the things I said above.
Every week you go out of your way to excuse Borges. Are you related to him or something?
I have yet to try to defend something that has some validity outside of "I have a different opinion". But when people use terrible logic or talk out of their ass, I call them out on it. Such as a bunch of people claiming things are predictable, then the two people that actually stepped out and tried to answer the five 1st and 10 plays I showed above (to their credit, at least they tried unlike the others that skipped it and just tried to call me out more) are 50% as far as predicting if a play was run or pass, despite already seeing every single one of these plays two days ago.
Apparently they felt really good about this game, because it was the only game they were prepared for all year!
everyone knows when:
-Norfleet enters game --- reverse / handoff
-Green enters game --- run
-1st down -- run w/ blitz incoming
- 2nd down -- run w/ blitz incoming
- 3rd down -- max protect pass
He wants his playbook back before anyone else reads it.
No, second down is the play action that gets Gardner destroyed before he has time to throw. Everything else is accurate.
When Denard enters game against Ohio State - run.
No words for this .....except that i have no words for this
I don't really care what he says publicly. He's been a coach speak guy since day one. I appreciate not throwing anybody under the bus, but at the same time I really hope he's cracking skulls behind the scenes.
Totally agree. How would it help for him to acknowledge issues with play calling publicly? The only thing it would do is estrange his staff. That doesn't really seem productive. I'm good with the coach speak. What I'm not good with is the actual play calling.
There's a difference between throwing someone under the bus and acknowleding an opponent knowing what you're doing before you do it. He could have simply said if two opponents in a row have said that they've known what we're going to do, then we as coaches need to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Also, its not throwing someone under the bus if they've already been run over by the bus.
Is there a more deluded man in football right now?
We scored 13 points and it was obvious to everyone in the stadium what plays we were running.
Hmm. He must have been watching film of a different game.
Oh man. Hoke is apparently the last soldier to die on Borges Hill apparently.
Nebraska 2011 was a game that was called GREAT. I think that came close or broke a record for RPS+. Must have been talking about that film.
How can he possibly argue that? If the opposing defense said it was predictable and they obviously blew everything up, then it was predictable. What is there to argue?
Hoke: "Nuh uh"
Nebraska defender: "Yuh huh"
Hoke: "Nuh uh"
Nebraska defender: "Is so"
Hoke: "Is not"
Nebraska defender: "Is too"
Hoke: "I know you are but what am I?"
you are glue...........infinity...........
You lost me after Hoke stopped communicating in caveman sounds.
I dunno, I think it's just coach speak. It's pretty obvious the defense knew what was coming - heck, I knew what was coming from my living room. Hoke probably just doesn't want to throw anybody under the bus in public, which is admirable. I'd expect he's having different conversations behind closed doors.
Come ON man you really don't mean that do you? You are definitely one of most favorite posters but for Hoke to say Nebraska really didnt know the plays that were coming is almost comical. No...it IS comical.
It's like when my 9 year old "hides" something in his hand and says "guess which hand dad" and I can see it sticking out between his fingers. If I told him "Tommy - I can see which hand you're holding it in" and he tells me "no I cant". What do you say then?
Virtually the entire board now agrees Borges tips his plays. The opposing team coaches say Borges tips his plays. The opposing team players say Borges tips his plays. Commentators doing the game say Borges tips his plays. The results on the field would seem to indicate that Borges tips his plays.
Yet our HC doesnt think Borges tips his plays. I dont even know anymore......
I think you just misunderstood what I said, or maybe I just didn't communicate my thought clearly. But my point was basically "just because Hoke said it doesn't mean that's what he really thinks."
My reasoning is really the same as yours: the results on the field are so obviously bad, there can really only be 2 explanations for Hoke's comments:
1) He really is oblivious to what's going on and has no idea what to do or how to fix it (in which case, the team is really screwed), or
2) He's painfully aware of the reality of the team on the field, but doesn't want to create further drama by throwing people under the bus in public.
I think it's very reasonable to think that he would have a different message to the coaches/team in private than the message he gives to the media/public.
Hopefully that makes a little more sense. Basically, I don't disagree at all in the general consensus on UM's play; I just don't think Hoke truly believes that the playcalling is OK.
Sadly my friend I'm going with #1. He's oblivious to what's going on.
As I've thought about it more, I think there could be a third explanation: what if he's so concerned with creating an identity for the program (THIS is who we are, and so we're going to continue doing things THIS way, no matter what, because THIS is who we are dagummit) that he's driving the program into the ground right now. If that's the case, could that end up being a positive in the long run? I really don't know. On the flip side, if that's the case, is it possible for him to make adjustments to maximize the abilities of the team right now, and still maintain a semblance of their identity?
I really don't know. I can't argue with you. I suppose the main thing keeping me from going off the ledge is the assumption that there's no way he got to where he is now by being that incompetent. But it's really frustrating and disappointing to see this team regress over the course of the season. I didn't have very high expectations for this team coming into the season (I've been expecting 8 wins), and still am not expecting much until 2015, but man, this sucks right now.
"But it's really frustrating and disappointing to see this team regress over the course of the season." It's one thing to want to do Manball, even knowing we have young o-linemen. most fans would be ok with struggles early but continued improvement as the season(s) moved forward. however, this offense/o-line is regressing. the evidence continues to pile up that these offense coaches, at a minimum, aren't getting the job done and moving in the right direction; but in reality, they are boderline incompetent.
I actually think it is #3. I don't think he could have had success anywhere by being that clueless. My hunch is that he has decided it is time to run the offense as a power running team with his offensive line recruits. RR made that move in year one so that it would not delay the migration to his system. I think Hoke has decided to do the same in year 3 with his recruits.
I could be wrong, but I don't think he wants to teach his line recruits a different blocking scheme right out of the gate. It's the only thing that makes any sense to me. I believe that is why he is defending Al Borges. Because Al Borges is following his lead!
I like how people think that because hoke hasn't been a coordinator and doesn't wear a headset, he is literally a caveman idiot who knows nothing about football. Give me a break!
Hoke is the head coach at Michigan. We can debate whether or not he had the credentials for that or not, but the fact remains that he has been a head coach in college football for a while. He understands football people. He knows the offense is terrible and that the running game is abysmal. He knows that running on first and second down after that muffed punt wasn't a great idea. As the head coach, he's responsible for fixing those things and I think he will in the off season.
But if you want hoke to call out his coaches or players this year or to fire someone during the season, then you are going to be really unhappy. We won't be firing anyone midseason. So just sit back and wait until the offseason before we all freak out over a lack of change.
But if you want hoke to call out his coaches or players this year or to fire someone during the season, then you are going to be really unhappy. We won't be firing anyone midseason.
I think I agree with you on this. I'm less sure of that fact than I was a week ago though, but I think it's too late in the season to fire Borges. If the offense continues their crappery against their remaining opponents though, I wouldn't be surprised to see Borges fired immediately following the OSU game.
you like weird things
Texas shook up their staff in the second game of the season and it worked fine. Granted Brown had no real loyalty to Diaz and had his old buddy GERG working in the program already so it was a bit of a smoother transition. Not to mention that their shakeup happened after game 2? I posted this elsewhere but who is our GERG solution? No one I can think of. USC got tired of Kiffin's shennanigans and had a competent replace in Oregeron.
My point is that 1) I don't think midseason firings should be off the table. They have worked elsewhere with success. Texas is rattling off 6 straight wins and looked inspired against their biggest rival. 2) I think it speaks volumes to the fact that we don't have an in-house replacement who would be capable/inspire confidence should he be asked to take over the reins. Coach O at USC has been around a long time and was a HC at Ole Miss. We all now GERGs career path. Is there anyone similarily capable in Brady Hoke's staff? Not that I know off on the offensive side of the ball. GMATT is good and all but he's never been a HC.
I told you to stop bursting my bubble of optimism going into the Nebraska game. Well, I want to apologize to you for being the realist and for my being naive/idiot. The word "optimism" and "Michigan football" will not be used in the same sentence going forward.
More like a buboon
about the Nebraska players knowing what we were running before the play. And we thought the Michigan offense was predictable and MSC was drunk giving her halftime speech. Silly us. I'm so glad the University straightened us all out today.
And everything we saw with our own eyes is completely wrong. The PR machine is strong with our glorious leaders.
Brady Hoke is very surprised every year when he learns that he'll have to pay taxes.
See also: Wesley Snipes.
It's coach speak. Of course he will say that. That is what a head coach is supposed to say in the middle of a season. He won't publicly call out Borges and will support everything he does (again, publicly).
He seems to be supporting it during game planing also. Either way, it's getting old really fast.
I can agree with that. Clearly Borges needs to be replaced, but I don't really know names of offensive coordinators, so I have no idea who can replace him.
You guys seriously want him to come out and say "yes, they're right, we only run certain things out of certain formations and they caught us perfectly"? ffs people, it's a press conference. Why on earth would he tell the press that we're running a predicatable offense? Or that he hated the play calling and thinks Borges is awful? There's no point in that; it's just bad PR.
If we go into next season with the same offensive staff, then and only then can we start calling Hoke stubborn. It's unfair to say that just based off of press conference answers which will always and forever only be motivated by PR concerns, not the truth.
Why can't we call him stubborn now when we keep trotting the same ineffective offensive gameplan out week after week? Why does it take an offseason for him to demand that Borges change up the gameplan?
I agree that he shouldn't say anything in the press conferences but the team's actions on the field speak much louder than any answer he can give.
This is entirely correct and is what should worry those who think the only problem is Borges. Hoke is the HC and has the ability to change plays now- he doesn't have to fire anybody to get more offensive variety now. it doesn't need to wait till off season or wait for a firing. Hoke is the head coach. The fact that the plays are the same week after speaks to the fact Hoke genuinely likes them- this is not an act on his part. Those who think that this is coach speak and Hoke will fire someone have no evidence at all to support their views- but there is plenty of evidence that Hoke likes the plays. Hoke supporters are not facing reality and the growing amount of evidence that Hoke does not share their views..
What if Hoke is happy with the playcalling? What if he is forcing the issue with his offensive line and is willing to let them fail before they succeed?
I am not saying I buy it, but it is the only thing that makes any sense to me. We will know in about 12 months whether he is a fool or a genius!
if he keeps making dumb statements like this then he should be let go pretty quick as well. I dont care if he wants to save his OC's ass. But 171.5 ypg and -34.5 rypg in the last 2 games and you liked the play calling????? Look at Texas, they solved their problem in Week 2. Fired their DC and now they have 6 wins in a row.
In the last two games. This is just amazingly poor. We would probably have better production if Gardner drew every play up, sand-lot style, on his own.
And simply played field position? A few times on Saturday, if we just skipped the three opportunities to run a play we would have been better off. Should we run the single wing? Our offensive is GERG -esque.
Has to be the worst Michigan rushing team of all time right?
This is a hilariously ominous leading indicator of how much of a tire fire we've become:
even GERG is more successful right now than Michigan.
They had a solution waiting. GERG was already in the AD working for Texas and had a past relationship with Mack Brown. Who is our GERG?
Don't joke, because Mike Debord is employed currently by the AD as some kind of administrator for non-rev sports.
thay gives up almost 190 yards a game rushing, goes -21 on our ass, it must have been just pure luck, right Coach. Or lack of execution. Or blah, blah, blah......
April Fools... in November. They'll never see it coming.
is starting to just be funny. I am not sure if its really funny, or I just chose to laugh to hide the tears
Absolutely destroying morale but this response is still appropriate: hahahaahahahahahahahahaahah.
Tough mans can't ever get predictified in advance. It's impossible.
Making public statements of support is one thing. Backing those statements up by allowing the OC to use the same gameplan week after week, to the point that opposing players now say they know exactly what's coming, indicates (unfortunately) that Hoke actually believes in what he's saying.
between throwing Borges under the bus and reiterating, twice, that there is absolutely no question that the play calling/plan was right on.
For those who are quite assured that Hoke is cracking skulls behind the scenes...where's the proof? Have tendencies changed? Have personnel/formations changed? Have adjustments been made at halftime? Has Borges' demeanor changed at all? etc.
If anything, it looks like Hoke has been "cracking skulls" on the defensive side of the ball - which has been above average to good this year. Why did the secondary get overhauled this week and the offense remained the same?
It appears that Brady is fixin' what ain't broke, and breakin' what needs fixin'.
If he really believes that, maybe he should join Borges and Funk on the bus headed out of town at the end of the season. He's either unconsciously incompetent, arrogant or both.
I was being patient with him, now I'm pissed. This is just ridiculously stubborn and stupid.
Yeah, my nine year old predicts the plays. Our second down calls are the most predictable. It's bad and until accountability is taken it'll continue. When Ohio state comes in here and beats us by fifty maybe he'll wake up.
Say what you want too, but I respect Hoke for not throwing Borges under the bus. Do I think we need a new OC? Yup! He still needs to be a leader for the players on this team. He would not be setting a good example to the players, by throwing a coach or a player, under the bus in public. It's easy to blame somebody else. They are facing some serious adversity. Personally, it's about everybody in that room right now. Keeping everybody together. Not what the fans or media have to say. We will see...
No player! No coach! Is more important then The Team!
I agree. As much as I want Borges, Funk and Jackson gone Hoke is taking the right tack in the pressers. While I also think that one can publically "coach speak" in a manner that would still convey much, much more leadership and concern, Hoke's even-keel public personality is only going to help the team's psyche
That's the most important thing right now! Last thing we/they need right now, is a divided locker room. I'm still all in for Hoke. But I agree changes are needed on offense. Let's just be patient and see how things play out.
We are FUCKED!!!! I bet my response wasn't predictable either right Brady???
In all fairness, Hoke spoke a bit more in depth about this and to some extent this is true of all teams. He mentioned a two TE pistol set that Michigan knew exactly what to expect out of and dropped Nebraska for a loss every time out of it.
That said, I'm not exactly sure what you'd expect him to say. Hoke is going to publicly support all of his coaching staff and assistants as well as players. Why would he say anything to the contrary?
I would've liked maybe something like "Al and I typically meet twice a week to go over the offensive gameplan but I will be spending more time there with him" or something to that effect so that he acknowledges the issue, but what he says in these press conferences is not necessarily what goes on behind the walls of Fort Schembechler.
I would've liked maybe something like "Al and I typically meet twice a week to go over the offensive gameplan but I will be spending more time there with him" or something to that effect so that he acknowledges the issue, but what he says in these press conferences is not necessarily what goes on behind the walls of Fort Schembechler.
I understand what you're saying, but be realistic. Hoke cannot say anything approaching what you want to hear, even if he thinks the same thing. How could he? He has to be seen as supporting his team, which includes coaches. You'll get nothing other than boilerplate during the season, and I doubt any more than that after...
It will be unscientific, of course, but a comparison of the MSU and Nebraska offensive UFRs would be interesting just to get a play-to-defensive response handle on how similar the game plans were. I must admit, I am intrigued by the notion of a historic study of playcalls versus defensive replies and yardage gained/lost for this season now. It might speak to predictability, but it might also speak to other issues.
what Bush era are you referring to?
I can't think of a better analogy to Hoke than Obama. I'm as apolitical as they come, so I'm not trying to inject any political laced agendas here. Just my casual observation.
Without consequences, Brady should just lose the term from his and the program's vocabulary. The amount of cynicism that arises from lack of accountability ruins organizations.
Brady seems intent on continuing the Lloyd coaching tree of dead leaves, which is Lloyd's real failure to the program -- not one competent assistant prepared to take the job after he held it for 13 years. Michigan is going to feel the effects of that singular failure for years to come.
My vast football knowledge includes watching lots of football, I've never been on a team past little league. But I can sit in the stands 85 god damn rows up and can just about pick every damn play you are going to run and what direction.
The whole damn thing is broken.
Come on, let's be fair now. Many of our run plays get blown up so fast it's difficult to tell what direction they were intended to go.
are you referring to our final 3rd down play with DG? i honestly don't know if that was roll out to the left then sprint back to the right was planned or not. that's how bad it has become. and if butt wasn't going to block that DE, why the hell didn't he just go downfield 5 yds so DG could just flip it to him for a first down. mindboggling.
What would those guys know about it anyway?
There is a commercial running on BTN where various B10 Head Coaches describe a passing play. I'm convinced Hoke wouldn't know a single passing play off the top of his head. Coach we run the same limited amount of plays. We're predictable.
He is a cheerleader.
Look, this just confirms what we've long feared: Hoke is 100% in the 'players execute' camp of coaching. That's the most scary part. It's the Carr way we all hated.
Car's offenses were never this bad. He had his bad years, but outside of a few games late in 2001 when John Navarre was a turnover machine his offenses never moved backwards on every possession.
Never said they were this bad. Just that Carr coached and planned as if every player would execute perfectly every time no matter his players, or who he was playing. When something didn't work, it was just that they didn't execute. You can put me out there and expect me to e execute all you want. But that would make you a poor coach.
If that's what you think, Hoke, then you're a damn idiot, and this team really is screwed.
Do you still like the play calling after you looked at the film?
“Yeah. There’s not even a question about it.”
Either Hoke is completely clueless about offense, or he is trying to avoid, essentially, throwing Borges under the bus.
His response to the following question seems to suggest that he may, in fact, be clueless.....
Does it get to a point where you can’t or shouldn’t run play action from certain sets?
“Certain sets, maybe. I think you’re right.”
Duuhhhhh......Come on man. You are the head coach of a major program...you need a reporter to tell you that your offensive coordinator is making some dumb decisions. Oh, wait, you liked all the play calling after you looked at the film.
Hoke's response could have been, "Nebraska knew what we were doing on each and every play and we still managed to score 13 points!!!!! That's progress over the last game in which we only scored 6 points."
of this "it was coachspeak" defense. If things were truly different behind the scenes the same shit wouldn't be happening every week! Shit would fucking get fixed! Things aren't getting fixed. They're getting worse because everyone and their dead grandmother knows exactly what we're going to do, and how to stop it. Look at Nebraska's defensive average going into Saturday's game, then look how far below that Michigan got. Two weeks in a row of negative rushing. Against MSU (because their defense is pretty damn good) that's a bad thing. Against Nebraska (with one of the worst rush defenses in the country, let alone the conference) that's downright fucking sad. Sparty fans feel sorry for Michigan right now. Seriously. Let that sink in for a minute.
I am seriously starting to question my support for Hoke after this comment. That is all.
I'm sorry but does Hoke think we are rubes? 1st and 10 and you run up the gut into a blitz and he likes like it?
What doe we need Brady? More 'physicalness'? More 'toughness'?
How about some friggin accountability on Brady's part? Instead of needing to coach the kids better in technique the coaches begin with putting the kids in a better position to succeed?
I mean Spielman was begging Al to call 'Hot Routes' for 4 qtrs and was literally shaking his head by the end of the game.
You know when he finally called a 'Hot Route'? 4th and 5 on the last play.
under the bus when they screwed up on a project. It's keeping it inside the Hall.
...and then continuing to make the same mistake at every opportunity.
Ya, these players are just making this up...c'mon Hoke.
I trust tweets of Nebraska players more than Brady Hoke. It's the MGoBlog way of life.
We are a young team. Lets just take Stribling for a single example to illustrate. On one hand he's been there on many plays (going back to Penn State). He played not a perfect but a respectable game at corner vs Neb, the mistake coming at a key juncture against Neb, same as Penn State. But I also say he's the skinniest guy I can ever remember seeing in a Michigan football uniform.
We expect this massive development in bodies in 12 weeks. Thats 23% of a year. Give me the benefit of rounding to 20%. I expect the 80% development to be a lot bigger.
1) Hoke is a complete moron
2) He is intentionally full of shit to the press to protect the ineptitude of Borges.
The scary thing is, I'm not really sure which it is anymore.
I didn't realize til i read in the wolverine magazine the other day that our freshman O-lineman are only the 9th and 10th Freshman O-lineman to ever start at michigan.. yikes..
Come on Hoke, everyone in the stands knows what play you are going to run. And when it's 3rd and 25 and only two receivers they pretty much know who you are going to throw to.
I think Hoke is just protecting Borges. He not the type of guy to throw someone under the bus.
I keel repeating that over and over in my head!!
I realllllllly hope he's just trying to save Borges a little dignity here.
The one thing I did notice was the lack of open receivers.
I really hope Hoke truely doesn't believe this, otherwise this program may be looking for a whole new staff within the next couple of years. He is either in denial, clueless or is just trying to cover for Borges.
Hoke is full of shit I think. Why would a Nebraska player say that and not mean it? Also, I don't think this is the first opponent to say this.
He's obviously full of shit, and rightly so in this case. He can't publicly castrate his OC, that serves nobody but our opponents. There are a lot of angles to consider, not the least of which is public (recruit) perception of the situation. He's not doing the best job on handling it, but throwing people under the bus would be 10x worse.
I don't expect him to rip his OC publicly, but that doesn't mean he has to act like everything is fine and dandy with the playcalling either. He could phrase his answer in way that indicates it could be better or that they are looking to make possible adjustments, without ripping Borges in a direct manner.
If he is lying (which seems most likely), the answer he gave is pretty much insulting the intelligence of the fans. Does he expect people to honestly believe what he is saying?
He can't do that. Even a "Well... I suppose Al could have called a better game" opens the door to yet more criticism, and sows the seed of doubt among his team and staff. Anyone in any type of leadership position knows this, or should.
He could simply say as a staff that they are looking into possible adjustments moving forward. That would not be throwing Al under the bus or singling him out. The bullshit coachspeak Hoke continues to use week in and week out, is getting tiresome to say the least. It may deflect some criticism of Al, but all it is doing is causing that to be redirected at Hoke himself. One of those guys has a higher chance of not being here next year.
Like I said, Hoke has to be smart enough to realize that spouting bullshit and insulting fans intelligence in the process is only going to make them angrier.
Not to mention there is a chance he does actually believe what he saying, considering the playcalling has pretty much stayed the same most of the season. It sure doesn't look like many adjustments have made behind closed doors. Actions normally speak louder than words. I do that is the less likely to be the case, but you can't rule out the possibility that he is being genuine entirely.
That's the coach's job for which he is handsomely paid. The buck stops at the head coach.
If you still don't understand, nothing else I say will help. He has obliquely referenced future changes all season long. In the situation they now find themselves in, they must present a united front. Hoke doesn't owe you or I an explanation. He just doesn't. His responsibility is to the team, and the development of that team. Placating people by laying blame on anyone or anything in particular serves no other purpose, and has potential to do a lot of damage. He's saying what he needs to say (or not say).
Of course I'd like to hear a little more thoughtful answers to some of the questions. That doesn't mean I feel like I'm owed any real answers. All the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth around here over the fact that our coach isn't giving us a lamb to sacrifice is dumb, short sighted, and juvenile.
Why you think Hoke can't sidestep throwing Borges under the bus, while still letting people know they are looking for ways to improve the playcalling is beyond me. It is not rocket science to manuever his way around that situation, that doesn't come across to fans as him saying that everything is fine and dandy with the playcalling.
I gave a perfectly viable example for how Hoke (as have a couple others in this thread) could have answered the question, while straddling both sides of the equation. It is not impossible to do so, despite what you may think.Clearly Hoke isn't going to do that though, so I look forward to hearing him say the exact same thing a couple more times this season.
The thing is I wouldn't care what Hoke was saying publicly if the playcalling was being adressed behind closed doors, but judging by the last couple of weeks I question if that is taking place. As I said actions speak louder than words.
My God, I hope this is the case. Let's think this out logically. From Hoke's own words, his mindset seems to be in one of these generalized frames:
1) Completely Oblivious (They Don't Realize We Suck)
I cannot imagine this is the case. The statistics are right there. These are not stupid men. Rationalization might have gotten them past Akron and UConn, maybe past PSU due to a plethora of missed field goals, maybe MSU due to "hey, they've got one of the best defenses in the country." But not Nebraska. The fog of ignorance, if there ever was any, must have surely lifted by now.
2) Stragetic Pain (Rip The Band-Aid Off/The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves)
In this scenario, Hoke along with AB, have just decided to stick with the new program no matter what, until the young squad "gets it" and is able to "execute." They wanted to run their desiered offense from Day One, but due to the personnel and the dynamic play of Denard, they were forced to hold off for the first year or two. Everybody was waiting for an absolutely brutal transition the first year or two, but it wasn't as brutal as we all thought, especially after our hightened expectations after this year's Notre Dame game. But instead, it's just that the truly ugly ride was on time delay.
Perhaps Hoke promised AB that no matter what happened, in 2013 they would install their preferred offense come hell or highwater. Maybe they knew the growing pains would be inevitable at some point anyway, and now it's time to pay the piper before the honeymoon is totally over and they still have a reserve of goodwill in Ann Arbor to pull it off. And by refusing to adjust, they know they are sacrificing stats and wins today, but in order to provide (in their eyes) a necessary baptism of fire for their very young roster to pick up the system. In this scenario, they foresaw things would get worse before they got better, which is why they aren't hitting the panic button right now.
3) Messaging Security (Thou Shall Not Air Dirty Laundry)
Or maybe none of the above happened. Or alternatively, either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 started to happen, but Hoke has since seen fit to change course and is privately shaking things up. In this scenario, there are many places he could elect to censor the messaging to preserve morale--between all Fort Schembechler vs the rest of the world; between his coaching staff vs the rest of the world (including the kids on the team); or between himself alone and the rest of the world (including his own coaching staff). Where that line is drawn depends on his leadership style. Some might be in the "for God's sake, do SOMETHING" camp, in which case the appearance of not doing anything would kill morale more than staff shake-up rumors flying around. But there's definitely a leadership style out there that says, "praise in public; scold in private." Maybe Hoke is one of those guys.
But again, that's a matter of opinion. Folks have said before that Hoke has done a shake-up on his previous coaching staffs. Do we have any idea on how that was accomplished? Did Hoke have a tendency to telegraph the shake up beforehand? Or was it a stonewall of coach-speak all season, then a Bloody Sunday after the last game? And how much of this might be Hoke just not trusting himself to maintain a nuanced information embargo against a news-hungry media?
How many of you have ever sensed a begging dog beneath your spot at the dinner table that you were determined not to feed? Did you look at the dog and pet him, just to be nice, still knowing you'd never feed him a scrap of food? How did that go? Or did you just stone-cold ignore him because you didn't want to invite more aggressive begging? Or alternatively, because you didn't trust yourself and you knew that as soon as you saw his puppy-dog eyes you'd just break down and let the scraps spill from the table despite your better judgment?
At this point this is all speculative of course. Maybe we get to an OK bowl game after posting an 8-4 record---essentially what we originally expected out of this season anyway--and no major shake-ups happen. Maybe it's a tire fire, we play in "Try Harder Bowl" at some point in late December, and we hear about a coaching staff shake-up.
Only time will tell.
Since my question was not answered in the other thread and I would really like to know the answer, I thought I would try asking it again. In his Oz article, Brian indicates that it was up to Clark to make Armstrong make the pitch on the play where Abdullah scored the winning TD. Looking at it (and at the other options run earlier), it seemed to me as if it was Clark's responsibility to make it impossible for Armstrong to make the pitch by staying between Armstrong and Abdullah so that it could not be pitched and Armstrong would be forced to keep the ball and turn the play back inside. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Just trying to learn a little. Thanks.
Anytime you have one guy trying to account for both the QB and RB on an option that is bad situation. The optimal outcome would have one guy taking away the inside cutback from the QB, while another free defender comes over to cover the pitch. I don't think it is fair to pin that play on Clark. It is possible for one guy to take both away if he plays it perfectly, but that is very hard to do. He did force Armstrong to hold on to it for an extra second before pitching it, in the ideal outcome that would given other defenders time to get out on the pitch.
As Brian noted the playcall was the major problem, they only had 6 guys in the box and were shaded to the wrong side to cover the option to that side. That play was somewhat doomed for failure from the start and it led to no help coming for Clark on that play. Personally I think UM should have stacked the box on that play, and dared Nebraska to throw the ball.
I was totally shocked that play worked. They ran it to the short side of the field by the goal line when the entire defense is near the line of scrimmage. If Michigan ran that play it would have been a disaster!
When I attended Michigan in the early 70's Bo's offenses were very predictable. They ran into
the line a lot, gained chunks of yards and often won by big margins. The other team knew what we were going to do but were helpless to stop it. It was fun.
He is more dumb than he looks.
I bet that took you all night.
is that Hoke could easily say something like this:
"Anytime you have opponents claiming they know what's coming, that's concerning. If that's true, that's something that the coaching staff has to fix, so we're going to take a good look at that to make sure it isn't true or that it gets fixed."
There. Problem solved without throwing Borges under the bus and without the utter bullshit of "The playcalling was good".
What else can one make of Hokes comments!
Brady Hoke is an embarassment to this academically elite University. Hoke's not an alum. I get that. But to have somebody who thinks in this way, who speaks this way to the media, who communicates with vague catchphrases such as "we didn't do some things" and spews such absurd garbage is an insult to the the people who have worked hard to build up the integrity of the institution.
It's enough already. I don't mind having a non-alum coach. I do mind having a (purposely or otherwise) mentally incapacitated one.
South Dakota State put up 465 yards on the Huskers. Are you telling me we have less talent than SDSU?
Arnold Rothstein has gotten to Borges and half the Michigan offense. Watch Schofield at the 1:11 mark of the BTN highlights video. THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMMMMMMMM.
and damned if he doesn't. I see through the bullshit. You're not going to throw him under the bus and cause more problems inside the coaching circle and give media and us more shit to talk. Cupboards were bare from poor recruiting on RR's part. I'll give Hoke 2 more years to fix this. All of you calling for Hoke's head are full of shit. The next coach would be stacked for a few years with Hoke's players. Michigan fan for life unlike some of you fair weather fans.
A new coach would be stacked, because we have all seen that Hoke can recruit. Everyone is questioning whether he can coach or not!
He gets a year to show some improvement in my opinion. If the team shows progress next year, then he gets another year. More regression next year and anything is possible.
I missed this thread real time but went back though some of it; I think this was the official arrival of the weeping and gnashing of teeth the prophets warned us about.
People heard a Nebraska player say the offense was predictable, and with -21 rushing yards, who were we to question him?
Then Hoke just says "He's wrong" when asked about it?
Well, Brady, you managed 13 points and less than 200 yards against a team that pretty much everyone else has bombed for 450 plus and 40. You're gonna have to give us a little more than "he's wrong" or we're gonna assume you're blowing smoke up our asses.