Hoke: Upon Further Review
Now that the regular season is through, I've been looking back at MGoBlog circa January 2011, "Hoke React, No Swearing". Given Brian's previous distaste for the idea of hiring Hoke, I was surprised to see that he actually projected a lot of good things would happen this upcoming season: "A completely average coach should be able to take 20 returning starters on a 7-6 team that sees the schedule ease considerably and get to 9-3....This hypothetical 9-3 will cause the media to fall all over themselves declaring Brady Hoke the polar opposite of Rich Rodriguez". This has actually all happened, except Michigan is 10-2 but in a weaker-than anticipated Big Ten, and one of those wins was miraculously stolen from Notre Dame in an incredibly improbable fashion. The BCS computers all still seem to treat us like we're 9-3 anyway, so we only did a little better than Brian predicted. So here we are, in the not-very-nightmarish situation that Brian curiously predicted at a time when he was predisposed to be pessimistic.
What Brian seemed most worried about were future years, not this next year. He said, "Michigan's just thrown in the towel on being a national power". I think Brian and a lot of MGoBlog people felt like although Hoke might have this kind of season from time to time, this was his ceiling. Do we still think this? Is Brady Hoke's tremendous first year success more the product of returning starters, experience, talent, and media support that he walked into, than any of Brady Hoke's doing?
Brady Hoke isn't an offensive guru. The offensive coordinator that he hired does not have an elite resume. However, the offense this year has still been good, and next year, it may well be one of the best in the nation, if the last two games are any indication. Hoke has inherited a tremendous amount of talent recruited by Rich Rod on the offensive side of the ball: mountain goat slot ninjas, a dilithium quarterback, a running back who is like Mike Hart but with speed, donkey-hating, freshman-headbutting offensive linemen, and a bunch of short guys from Pahokee who block like they're twice their size because they've got something to prove. Borges has figured out how to use these guys; but one wonders if the offense will ever be even close to what it was once they graduate and Hoke's recruits move in.
Anyway, I'm just wondering, what do you think Brady Hoke's ceiling is? Do you still think he represents a return to late-era Carr, going 9-3 every year and beating OSU 30% of the time, occasionally going to the Rose Bowl sometimes but invariably losing by trying to out-execute USC? How does Brady compare to Carr, and what might make him more or less successful than Carr was?
November 30th, 2011 at 8:59 AM ^
I found Hoke very impressive this year both from a motiviational perspective as well as his judgment on the field. He got his players to buy in and that is a huge battle to achieve, particularly for a first year coach. The senior class also exhibited excellent leadership.
Ultimately, one of the factors that gets you top defensive and offensive coordinators (as well as head coaches) is spending money. Michigan did that for Mattison and if they think Borges is the answer on O, then poney up the cash to keep him here. If you look at what Ohio spends on their football program compared to what we spend, I believe the tables are sharply tilted in their favor.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^
when I was thinking the same as the OP, but I think there's signs that point to a higher ceiling on Hoke.
First off, I would disagree about Borges resume' not being elite. During the midst of the flack about lack of bubble screens I went to his wiki page to see where he'd been and what he's done. It stands up pretty strongly to any comparison short of richrod and oregon. And even though we aren't doing bubble screens, he has found other ways to stretch out the defense and keep the backside pursuit playing honest.
Secondly, Hoke's gameday management is far superior to later era Carr. Brian has repeatedly pointed this out and I agree. There's been a couple clock mismanagement issues, but nothing too egregious. I attribute this to the lack of a headset, his coordinators take care of the details and he can focus on big picture game issues.
Thirdly, the coordinators are awesome, but the assistants are also proving themselves beyond a doubt as we've seen individual growth and improvement amongst nearly every position group (save maybe the last game for the secondary) over the course of the season.
And maybe most importantly, the recruiting has been just as good, if not better across the board than late era Carr. There's certainly been a better job done at addressing positions of need, and with the good recruiting in RR's last year, there's no large gaps to fill. (Unless you count the incoming crop of O-linement as not having an impact for another year)
So I'm quite happy with the direction the program is heading and think Hoke would outperform a hypothetical late era carr under the same circumstances.
HOWEVA, with all that said, just looking at the schedule and it's mathematically likely that we'll see more 8-4, 9-3 and 10-2 years over the next decade. And that's just because we play between 3 and 6 good programs every year. Purely looking at odds and statistics, you can only expect to win about half of the close games, teams have proven that the only way to consistently do better is to cheat, and we're not going down that path. So don't worry about the number of losses and just appreciate the good football product they're going to put on the field each game.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^
The Big Ten has gone from the Big Two and Little Eight, to the Big One, to the Big Three, and now the Big Four...and that's not even counting how much better former dregs like Wisconsin and Northwestern have become. If people are expecting 0 or 1 loss seasons every year, they're kidding themselves. The conference added Nebraska, and just got tougher. Winning the title has gone from a 50% proposition, to maybe a 25% proposition, if we're rolling. And even less, because now there will be no more "co-"champs. Even Urban Meyer's title teams didn't go undefeated. The idea is to make the conference good enough that a one loss team will be going head to head with the SEC in the title game births.
But really, if you're expecting a multi-title reign of dominance in and out of conference, just like X team, take a closer look at X team. The only ones who have had such sustained success have been shady, either on or off the field. We not doing that, so we'll probably never be the next great dynasty. And I'd rather be clean and winning, than dirty and winning huge.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
There really is more parity, which isn't all bad. While having a loss or two every season was the norm, that is no longer the current reality. As I look at ND, OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, none of those are regularly going to be "guaranteed" wins. And that's not even considering MSU and Iowa, the two teams we lost to this year. Were we to "split" with those seven eams regularly (remembering that we won't play all of them regularly, because of the division split,) that would mean 3 losses a year.
The cyclical nature of recruiting is such that you can't always just reload (unless you're cheating, as noted.) This seems particularly true with the quarterback position. The reality is that when you have 2 & 3 star rated recruits (or even walk ons such as Kovacs) perform at a high level, that can push a team over the top.
It was nice when we were the "Big 2," but only nice for us and OSU. It had to be demoralizing to the rest of the conference to always be much worse. I wonder how level the playing field was when I was a student. Well, there are some things we'll never know.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
Because Wisconsin and such started becoming good when the scholarships were reduced to 85. Love, great coaches, would have succeeded in any era, but Bo and Woody basically would recruit the guys who would start for MSU and Wisconsin as their second string. Therefore making us deeper, and the other teams worse. You had the numbers, you could do that.
Not to mention 3 networks, no ESPN, and all games that weren't on tv. So if you wanted to be seen, you better go to Michigan or the like....because if Purdue got on tv once a year, they were doing well.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:52 AM ^
now become somewhat significant, along the lines of splitting the old Big Ten 3-ways or so?
November 30th, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^
I think in reality it won't, at least for the likes of Michigan. I can't see our fans getting excited about division titles, or beating our chest over it like MSU has. And it's enough of a difference I don't know that it will help a coach much. The natural inclination was to say Bo, or whoever, won X Big Ten titles. Not X outright, and X shared. But no one is going to say Hoke won X Big Ten titles (Championship game AND division). It's a footnote.
But I do think there's something to the appearance in the Big Ten title game have some similar value. The difference is you have to have the best record to be "co-champ"...you could conceivably (though unlikely) have the 7th best record in the conference and make the title game. (Though having the 3rd or even 4th wouldn't be all that unlikely).
November 30th, 2011 at 9:13 AM ^
If he puts on a headset more.... that would make me happy.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^
As long as we have great coordinators that people can trust, I have no problem with him not wearing a headset. Mattison and Borges obviously know what they are doing. When we get younger coordinators then I think he will put on a headset.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^
As long as we have great coordinators that people can trust, I have no problem with him not wearing a headset. Mattison and Borges obviously know what they are doing. When we get younger coordinators then I think he will put on a headset.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^
I see Hoke's ideal team to resemble Wisconsin from the past few years, only better. Hoke will have a line that will absolutely manhandle anyone in its way; the B1G way.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^
Wisconsin has never had a good defense. I think he wants a great defense on top of the good offense with a great offensive line. I am kind of excited to see the behemoth offensive lines that Wisconsin and we field in the next couple of years. They are really starting to get really good recruits on the offensive line, which has not been true in the past.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
but I think Hoke's offensive coordinator would prefer to look more like USC or Stanford, and Hoke delegates that part of the game plan.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^
How did Mattison Hire come about? I know that he has family in the area, which weighed heavily. I remember reading about his daughter, and his grandchild, and her twisting his arm a bit.
What I'm curious about is the money. Did Brandon tell Hoke, "the sky's the limit." in terms of budget? Or did Hoke talk to Mattison first, find out his price, and then Hoke goes to Brandon asking him to fund it?
Given the absolute disaster with defense under RR, I have to believe that DB saw there was a great need to pony up more for decent coordinators.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
Hoke and Mattison have ties going back to when they were both here. Mattison was the DC and Hoke was the DL coach. They were close and had a strong friendship. So according to most reports, Hoke reached out to Mattison the moment he found out Rocky Long was staying at SDSU.
Mattison's daughter heard about the offer and pressured him to come as well. As for DB I assume he was smart enough to just open the checkbook and start writing when he hears "I want to hire Greg Mattison".
November 30th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
Which raises the incredibly interesting question of what would have happened to Hoke's initial impression if SDSU decided to go outside, rather than offer the job to Long, and Hoke had brought in a coordinator who ran the 3-3-5.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
At Western Michigan in the 80's. Beyond the daughter/grandchild obvious attraction, he probably wouldn't have come back for anyone but Brady. When discussing whether to leave the Ravens staff, one of the reasons there were no hard feeling about him leaving was "but it's Brady...". The Harbaughs (all of them) have a long standing relationship with both Hoke and Mattison.
Speculating, but I'm guessing if Jim didn't end up wanting the job, he's probably pretty happy with who it did go to.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^
I was a big Hoke doubter. However, while Michigan clearly outperfomed this year, I still have some doubts. Some assumptons (right or wrong):
1. The B10 is the worst its been in many years (I can't think of when the B10 was this bad).
2. The Ohio win was great no doubt, but it was against the worst Ohio team I've seen in my lifetime (I'm in my mid 30s) - maybe the 1999 Ohio team was worse. I think the win served more as a way to massage our deeply bruised egos WRT OSU. I can't even imagine the ramifications if we would have lost that game! Which was a definite possibility.
3. Ohio will not get much more punishment than they already self-imposed.
4. Urban is a great coach and will be a success at OSU. Those who think otherwise, I think are just trying to deflect reason. Urban had tremedous success in the SEC and is walking into fertile recruiting grounds and a talented team. It's highly likely (but not definite) that he will succeed.
5. Our schedule was pretty favorable this year
6. New coaches have a "honeymoon" period where expectations and criticism are somewhat tempered.
The point is, Hoke and Co walked into a very favorable situation - things are going to get MUCH tougher. So, I am curious to see how they react when these varibables change. Unfortunately, I not convinced that it will be as positive as people seem to predict. Then again, I am a very critical person :)
November 30th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
First of all, if Braxton Miller had completed that pass to Posey that he threw to Tacopants in the last two minutes, do you have any doubt that Denard would have driven us down the field to seal the game? The kid was not going to be denied. Not this time. Not by the refs, not by his secondary, and certainly not by this Braxton Miller guy.
If Hoke wants to beat Urban, though, he's going to need a better defensive team. I wish he would recruit some good defensive players for a change /s.
Brady Hoke never even got a honeymoon period on MGoBlog. Brady Hoke's honeymoon period in the media lasted exactly until he lost. After the Michigan State game, Drew Sharp wrote a column that might as well have consisted of the word "frauds" over and over again.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
everywhere but MGoBlog. And Brian's stream of steadily moderating commentary aside, there has been plenty of "Hoke is so dreamy" commentary on this board. BUT, that is OK. We needed the masses behind Hoke so the team could focus on the task at hand.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
1. I'm not really referring to that last pass attempt to Posey, but rather to the general closeness of the game (although, Miller did a number on our secondary). Overall, I thought Ohio played a pretty tight game for the most part and the game was close thoughout. It could've gone either way.
2. Re: honeymoon. He definitely got one! If 3&O taught us anything is that people like Hoke were going to be received more favorably by key Michigan stakeholders than RR did. That alone created a much larger leash to work with. And, while there was certainly some bellyaching on this blog (me included) WRT Hoke, I bet the membership here only represents about 1% (if that) of the Michigan fandom.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^
good points, but ohio state should be better than their record which has been mentioned here. if they had posey for the full year, no way their record is what it is. second, watch the game again, rivalry games are close, they are suppose to be. ohio state has more talent than us. after their last recruiting classes, i would guess, they are much better in talent than us. after watching the game again, on non stop replay on BTN. the score could have been much different, they missed some open receivers, but we turned the ball over and had some bad plays. we don't know how the game would have turned out, with all the could of's and would of's.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
People have forgotten that's how the Michigan-Ohio State game is supposed to go. The underdog is supposed to give the favorite a scare (or upset them outright). Just because we didn't hold up our end of the bargin lately doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to be.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^
I seem to recall a whole bunch of supposedly superior OSU teams under a coach before Tressel come into the OSU vs Michigan game highly ranked against 4 loss Michigan teams and losing with a 2-10-1 record over a 13 year period.......
Point being, last game of the year, rivalry game, you are likely to get the best game that either team is going to play all year. A win is a win is a win.
Walking into a 7-5 team that has gone 3-9 and 5-7 the previous two years and just got its head handed to it in a bowl game with the worst defense in Div 1 football is a favorable situation??????
Gee, I wonder what you would consider an unfavorable situation???
November 30th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
...Hoke certainly had some things working against him, but overall the situation was very favorable.
Also, those Michigan teams you are referring to in the Cooper years were not even close to being Michigan's worst. But I do agree, rivalry games do bring out the best in teams.
But this kinda brings up the question I've been wanting to ask as a forum topic (but am afraid to): What would be the ramifications if we would have lost the Game last weekend? It certainly was a possibility.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^
Instead of setting the foundation for the next ten years, there would be doubt and recriminations.
But we didn't lose. We won. And while it's a fine line, it can change things drastically. I mean, we all know (and it has been written about) how much winning one or two more games the last 3 years might have changed the outlook of those seasons, and our current status. For one, Rich would still be our coach. But we never got over the hump in any of them. And in some of those a win was probably as or more likely than a loss last Saturday. It just didn't go our way. This did. Part luck, part preparation, part determination. It comes down to the wins and losses. And making it work gives you a chance, and changes perception widely.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
but public perception outside of Michigan and possibly Ohio has changed - especially over the past three to eight years. And Saturday the national expectation was that the game should never have been in question. A 9-2 Michigan, should have controlled a game against a wounded 6-5 Buckeye squad, and (thanks to the replay official) we were one missed completion away from losing that game.
If Fitz's touchdown had not been overturned, the national perception would be different. I still feel like the Buckeyes scored too many points.
If we are back (and it appears we are - hopefully), and the game continues to be contested over the next several years (no more Cooper or Tressel streaks), then national expectations for close games like this regardless of either team's record will return, and national perception will adjust accordingly.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
where the seniors band together and ask everyone to stay on a team returning 19 starters a favorable situation.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
Our SOS is anywhere from 26 to 36. That isn't top 15, but I'll take it.
I agree that Urban will have success, but there is also plenty of evidence he'll quit again, whine like a douche, or just generally be hated by the media/college football proletariat to a degree not seen at UF.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
Urban will really be under pressure by the fan base and that increased stress may affect his health. He may have to retire once again.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
"Brady Hoke isn't an offensive guru. The offensive coordinator that he hired does not have an elite resume."
Damn! What does it take for Al Borges to get some respect? The man has had some elite offenses. Look to Auburn, Jason Campbell, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, UCLA with McCown. Even recently paired up with Hoke at SDSU with a freshman Ronnie Hillman, and Ryan Lindley, and their recieving corps last year. I think he has a fairly elite resume, or at least as much as you can ask one coordinator to have.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
I honestly did not expect Hoke to be able to recruit the way he has. If he can keep winning then we have a legitiment shot at a NC within 5 years (not being greedy here). I really enjoy the way he coaches, he doesnt try to take over a game with his personality, he just sits there, watches what happens and corrects from there.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:34 AM ^
Brady Hoke wants and expects to win all of our games.
We're scheduling Alabama at a neutral site so we can ge even more national attention.
Have you seen our recruitng classes so far? Awesome kids are committing to play for Hoke and Co.
So yeah, I'd say we're looking to win the B1G yearly and compete for NCs.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^
How many of our previous head coaches were offensive or defensive wizards?
November 30th, 2011 at 9:45 AM ^
Moeller was a pretty damn good defensive and offensive coordinator.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
Moeller was 44-13-3 as head coach at Michigan and had back to back 8-4 seasons his last two years.
My personal opinion is that Moeller was a better coordinator than a head coach, and that his last two teams demonstrated this quite well with back to back 8-4 seasons in 1993 and 1994.
Of interest, his assistant coaches in 1993 were:
Assistant coaches: Cam Cameron, Lloyd Carr, Mike DeBord, Bill Harris, Jim Herrmann, Fred Jackson, Greg Mattison, Les Miles, Bobby Morrison
Of interest, his assistant coaches in 1994 were:
Assistant coaches: Lloyd Carr, Kit Cartwright, Mike DeBord, Bill Harris, Jim Herrmann, Fred Jackson, Greg Mattison, Les Miles, Bobby Morrison
So, he did bring in Mike DeBord, which is a strike against him in my book.....
November 30th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^
First off the late Carr era is not as terrible as it sounds on some level. Yes you could give Carr the Patroit's roster (from their prime) and he'd somehow manage to go 10-2 or 9-3. However you could also give Carr a squad of freshmen and somehow he'd pull out 7-5 with a post Xmas Bowl. It's like he cut a deal with the football gods and in exchange for rarely winning more than 10 they promised him he'd always win at least 7. After 3-9 and 5-7, there are worse fates. Honestly if Carr: Beats Texas in that Rose Bowl, beats tOSU in 2006, and maybe one or two other bowl victories, we remember him as the second coming of Bo as opposed to the "Dude who went 9-3 alot and we bitch about that". Also keep in mind the only two coaches in football who had his number were both run out of town by the NCAA.
Anyway my blue hair mandated defense of Carr aside...
Hoke definitely exceeded expectations this year. The MSU loss was annoying but they are a good team. Also part of that loss comes from the fact Borges and Denard were still working on their mind meld. The Iowa loss is also bad, but not unexpected. Teams with young talent (we do a have number of Freshmen, R-Freshmen, and Sophmores getting playing time) sometimes remember they are young teams and lose random games. On the flip side they also do weird things like slaughter a ranked Nebraska team. It's hard to predict how 19 year olds will respond at times.
Honestly I thought we were looking at 8-4 or 9-3 with two of those Iowa style games as losses. So I have to credit the staff with the fact we only have one. We have some decent scalps on our wall this year and we were competitive in all our loses. We didn't have a Wisconsin type game where and we didn't fall off a fucking cliff once B1G play started. We bounced back from the losses and took care of business.
What impressed me the most was that we never really got figured out. In the RR years I fealt like by Week 6 or so people had enough film on us to dominate us. It led to those games where Bielma or Tressel just choked the life out of us for 4 quarters. This year though we saw Borges and Mattison introduce new plays as the season moved on. Also I was impressed with Borges doing things like moving from the deep passing game (which didn't work) to using Fitz more and creating two thousand yard rushers.
My big worry is next year we are going to regress. We have depth issues on the lines (not Hoke's fault) and an unpleasant road schedule. I hope that Washington and BWC become MM and RVB, but we shall see. Also even if everyone does pan out, we're a crippling injury or two away from major problems (for example if Lewan goes down there are good odds we're trotting out a true freshman). I can accept a regression next year but I'm afraid that the fanbase as a whole will go nuclear, make Hoke's seat hot, and give us stability issues (and possibly recruiting issues).
End of the day though I think the Hoke era is really determined by how he handles coordinator loses (likely due to retirement at some point). Hoke's continued ability to surround himself with excellence really determines the future. If he starts doing the equivalant of rehiring DeBord and stuff like that, then perhaps we are headed for the Later Carr Era Part II. Whereas if his ability to make personal connections turns us into the place the hot coordinators spend some time at before moving on, then the sky is the limit.
So far though in terms of recruiting, on the field performance, and off the field demeanor, he gets an A.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^
We are all just getting used to Hoke, because now we have a full season of seeing how he handles all sorts of things up close and personal. How does he deal with the media? What do his coachspeak phrases really mean? What does he do versus what does he say? How does he handle himself on the sidelines? How does he handle his kids (i.e. football players) during practice and during the game? How does he handle our rivalry games?
We now have 12 games of knowledge that we did not have before, both with ups (wins over ND and OSU) and downs (losses to MSU and Iowa). I think we can draw a few conclusions:
1) Hoke's game management as the head coach in terms of decision making is pretty damn good. We are no long Kirk Ferentz east. Most people seem pleased with this, I know I sure am. Hoke has some of that Mad Hatter in him, and personally I see that as a strategic advantage for a team.
2) Hoke delegates and trusts his assistants and coordinators to do their jobs, and understands his is to see the forest while they see the trees.
3) Hoke's sideline demeanor and how he talks and explains things to his players during games fits well with most Michigan people. I like his calm demeanor, how he talks to his players like Hagerup after a messed up play, how he talks about our kickers, how he is focused on his players.
I'm sure there are other observations, what do you guys think we have learned about Hoke that we did not know before this year and what else are we going to learn?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
until his introductory press conference, where he won me over.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^
Until the intro presser. Since then, I would run thru a wall for Coach Hoke!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^
I started to love Hoke when he said he would have walked here then hired Mattison
November 30th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
One more thing Id like to point out is how many times this year we saw people desperately breaking tendencies just against us. Ferentz going for it on 4th down in ( I think) the 1st quarter? Ohio passing the ball around like they thought they were houston?
This looks like people desperate to deal with what we're doing from a game-plan standpoint, where they felt they had to change what they do, in order to deal with what we do. When was the last time we saw that happen?
November 30th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
And one I don't think that anyone has made as succinctly as you just did. Walrusball was completely un-Walrussy. Zook didn't punt on 4th and short across midfield (at least not every time he could have). MSU did play us like they always do and won that way but other than that it was everyone playing and scheming out of the box.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^
outstanding coaching
outstanding games entertainment wise
no question, Jim.
Hoke is a huge success so far and the future is bright.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
Anyone see Hoke's recruiting class? Did Carr call a pass play with a few seconds left or would he have gone for the tie? Does he teach fundamentals? Does he promote the brand to draw recruits? Do I think he is the best, no. I was a doubter, but he is doing a tremendous job. Hoke is no joke. Was that too cheesy? Lol
November 30th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^
When there was talk of hiring Hoke after Carr retired I was up in arms. Last year I was indifferent, I still didn't love his resume but it seemed apparent at that point that only a guy with a Michigan background would be allowed to succeed at UM, so since Miles and Harbaugh were not happening, Hoke was as a good a choice as any. I am cautiously optimistic about what has happened this season but I would emphasize the cautious. Remember you're never as bad or as good as you think you are. Barring a miracle in the ND game and a play or two in the OSU game and we would look at this season MUCH differently. What I do like is that I think we have the staff (to me RR's biggest failing was his failure to get a top flight defensive staff) who have the coaching ability to win big and consistently.
Then its all about talent, about recruiting. This team is still shallow and seriously under-talented. We simply have too many guys playing, starting even, who simply do not have the athletic ability to play on a top level team. Recruiting the last 4 to 6 years has been no where near where it needed to be. We seem to have turned that around, I'm very interested to see how this year closes and next years builds off this year's on field success.
One comment about recruiting and Meyer, I think people are forgetting that only 3 of our current commits are from Ohio and had OSU offers, Wormley, Kalis and Strobel. There's little doubt we wouldn't have gotten Kalis and probably Strobel but for the OSU problems, but the point is we don't have to beat OSU for 8-10 kids a year in Ohio to have great success, it just takes a couple/few, and we've been able to do that consistently over many years.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
Ah I hate doing that because you change a couple plays in Iowa and MSU, and we are probably looking at this season a whole lot differently as well.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
Sure, although one might argue that certain other games, for example NW, could have went against us with some different breaks. Regardless, though the point is that luck and the bounce of the ball play a big roll in these things and so one 10-2 season which seems like a resounding success, while great, should be viewed with caution. Note, for example we had a very very good season from an injury perspective.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
I don't know how many MNC we'll compete for (if any) but I bet we'll be playing for the Big 10 title on a failry regular basis. Honestly, that's what I'm looking for. Anything more than that would be thick, rich, moms-homemade gravy.
The biggest thing in the back of my mind is the health and age of our coaching staff( namely Hoke and Mattison.
PS: 5000 MGoPoints. What did I win?