This is my first time doing this and a lot of people don't like my real and sometimes unintelligent posts but isn't this hot seat talk getting carried away? All the Big Ten stuff and then on sportscenter. Then they have the next clip on Braxton the Miller's daughter primed and ready to go. I guess, whatever. Even when you are down they know they must keep you down. Hail! Probably the most worthless post ever but it just bugs the hell out of me. These people who write this stuff, make it televised and keep bringing it up are the ones pouring the gas on the fire. Not that it's a fire though because we going to whoop some ass this year!
Make me think the seat is not as hot as portrayed by the BTN nor ESPN. Maybe just a little warm..........
Yes, Borges was performing terribly at blocking and running the ball well, and let's not forget he didn't make a single catch last year.
What's the good play when your interior line can't block anybody? Borges was the scapegoat since there needed to be one after a 7-6 season, but he wasn't the problem. I don't see how Funk kept his job after such terrible offensive line play, and Borges got canned after his QB threw for almost 3000 yards, with no running game and terrible pass protection resulting from that offensive line play.
How about being consistent in the style of play so the kids have a clue what they're doing and can improve over the course of the season?
Borges got fired because the running game wasn't up to the standards of the Michigan program. Now, within that failure (by all accounts of the post mortem) his was a scheme that was constantly changing, was overly complex, at a time when the OL in particular had very little chance of assimilating such complexity.
To me, its quite obvious that Funk kept his job because when Hoke assessed his performance in 2013 he felt that it was Borges' schemes, and not Funk's lack of technique coaching. Was he right? I don't know, and we'll know a lot more during this season. But, remember that Funk was Borges' subordinate, and although I'd imagine that the two (Borges' and Funk) worked together with the other coaches in schemeing, at the end of the day Borges was telling Funk what he wanted his OLinemen to do. For all we know, Funk was ready to kick the shit of Borges every week because Borges was (to use a WWI analogy) calling for his guys to go "over the top" and Funk was saying it was suicide.
How can your interior line block anybody when the entire defense knows what play you're going to run? It was bad enough that my wife (who knows little to nothing about football schemes) was able to tell what the play was going to be before the snap.
No, he just kept making it extremely difficult to succeed by calling the worst plays at the worst time.
sure we can all agree brandon was a member of mich football team and we can all agree he has (or certainly should have) a better handle of the daily comings and goings of mich football and B1G in general than most here - and thats due to his current job and daily activities at mich, not acting as mich's rudy in 1970. but id never admit dave brandon "understands football more than any of us" or toss out that type blanket statement....brandon was essentially a cheerleader who never sniffed the field and a member of the program during a totally different age of football. sure hes got a handle on daily football activities at mich bc hes inside, but indicating brandon understands the game more than everyone here is insane - especially re those who actually played and/or coached and offer insightful football commentary on this forum
I was thinking the same thing. A few weeks back I heard an ESPN radio host ask an analyst if Hoke was on the hot seat and he said yes. I'm not an expert or professional analyst but I keep up on UM sports as much as I can and haven't heard anything about him being on the hot seat. So what is the basis of this analyst saying he is on the hot seat? Just pure, blind, speculation? Or real knowledge? I would guess the former. I can't fault someone for assuming he is on the hot seat just due to a couple mediocre seasons but I would expect an "expert analyst" to have some real proof or evidence before making such claims.
It's idle chatter, fuel for the sports media fire that would otherwise die out during a long offseason. As long as you have people whose livelihoods depend on sports-talk ratings, you'll have lots of speculative coverage with dead spots that need to be filled. Just like 24-hour cable news networks and election cycles that last close to two years.
If we win 10 games this year, the narrative changes to Hoke as a program savior, and the pendulum will swing back. Their hyperbole will focus on "The Renaissance in Ann Arbor" and the "Birth of a New 10-year war."
Just how it goes -- best not to take it too seriously.
Do not try to understand the hot seat. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
There is no hot seat.
There is no hot seat?
Then you'll see, that it is not the seat that is hot, it is only yourself...
this is a lie. my car has heated seats and the seats truly do get hot.
I think it was Doyle on CBS a few years back that said Beilein was on the hotseat as well.
It's an overused term by writers that don't have any other thoughts.
I'm not sure that these talking heads don't have any other thoughts. I think because they have so much airtime to fill they're not going to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
meaning, only in the highly unlikely state of affairs of, say, another season like last and where we lose all of the 'big 3' in some pretty ugly fashion. in other words, hoke would have to go down like rich rod did in his last season and quite frankly that is extremely unlikely.
so, no more 'hot seat' b.s., football cometh, and that right soon. go blue!
and great username as well. +1
I JUST watched Shawshank this past weekend and I'm not seeing what the reference is... help me out here?
...embroidered on the wall hanging that covered the safe in the wall. The OP took some liberties in the quote by adding the word "football", but no big deal.
Either somebody has been drinking or the stream of consciousness writing style is getting more popular than I thought.
all writers drank?
But it's the same as any sports writers trying to sell their stories. People love turmoil and not everybody is as big of fans as this blog's viewership. So the casual fans will see the headline of "hot seat" and be more likely to click on the story because they'll want the inside scoop, thinking that it is an actual scoop and not just fluffy garbage.
I could be way off on this, but that's just like, my opinion, man.
I agree. And the sad part is that it's not like ESPN needs the scandalous headlines and controversial topics to get page views and mentions. They used to be the best at delivering sports news and highlights, but now every minute topic needs to have two polar opinions that are to be intensely debated. And even if it is not a debate, everything needs an opinion now, "What do you think of..."
I guess any attention is still attention, though.
of the program since Bo died. Yesterday's detnews article with Brandon is an example. General apathy among the students the aggravated fan base that feels compelled to take a second mortgage on their houses to finance a football season of going to games. With nothing to show for it but a 7-6 season and not very good success in the "red letter games".
Orange you glad he didn't tell us what program he was talking about?
It's Uncle Gerg's Story Time
I think that the story is a bit misleading on Pasqualoni. Almost all of his big successes came in his first 8 years. Outside of 2001, his last 6 years sucked ass. In those years he went 7-5, 6-5, 10-3, 4-8, 6-6, and 6-6. The Big East was generally pretty weak, so the schedules weren't that tough. In that stretch they lost 62-0 to Va Tech, 34-17 to East Carolina, 59-0 to Miami, 51-7 to Va Tech, 51-0 to Purdue and 51-14 to Georgia Tech, and they had virtually no quality wins. Syracuse was right to get rid of him. Robinson wasn't the answer, but neither was Pasqualoni. Syracuse should expecty better.
I agree though that Hoke's seat is definitely hot this year.
the Mgohandle is chatster.
Edit: good post, chatster. Just busting chops.
On this board, I'm accustomed to having my chops busted. Well done, sir. You've been upvoted.
media is problem, but what can we do? Go Blue!
The only way hoke gets fired this season is if he TOTALLY drops the ball coaching-wise. If we lose 6-plus games, the team self-implodes, there's too much off-field-drama, AND some super attractive "Michigan man" coaching candidate (harbaugh-ish) becomes readily available providing Dave Brandon with a fresh , new, popular outlook for a few more years. I really, REALLY, don't see any of the above happening.
Side note: I really like Brady hoke and the person he appears to be. I hope he succeeds. If he were to get canned it would be a HUGE opportunity for the next guy in line. Hoke has done a great job of getting all the tools..the foundation in place...we just have to get some momentum now and hang onto it. That's my only worry about him thus far is he can't ignite that winning formula. Hoping for a season of exceeded expectations in Ann Arbor.
You could takeout Hoke name and insert TA's name...and wouldn't skip a beat.
Tommy Amaker never accomplished anything close to Hoke's 11-2 season (Winning the NIT is roughly equivalent to that 8-5 2012 team). He also didn't recruit at nearly the level Hoke is AND he was still givien six years. So I don't really see any relevant comparison between the two.
I always listen to the college sports station on siriusxm radio in the mornings. Former Bama QB Greg McElroy has a new show on there called The First Team. I forget the co-hosts name, but last week I caught a segment where they were discussing coaches who were on the hot seat. The first two guys they mentioned were Hoke and Muschamp. McElroy went on to say emphatically that this will be Brady Hoke's last year in AA and that the team will go 6-6, and losing every road game. Now I must say that McElroy does a great job, and he is entitled to his opinion, but 6-6 is mind boggling. Brady has to go if they end up 6-6, but i do not forsee that happening.
On the other hand, McElroy's co-host predicted Michigan to go 10-2 with losses to Sparty and OSU. Im not sure if I see 10-2, but I like this prediction a little better than 6-6. It is funny to see the disparity between these guys when it comes to predicting Michigan football. Im going with 10-3 after you can the bowl win, and a new contract extension for Hoke.
I believe I see where the OP is coming from here and I tend to agree at present. While I believe a good performance this year is important for maintaining some of the recruiting momentum as well as for other reasons, I wouldn't think that Brady Hoke is on the "hot seat" by even most media standards. The person whose evaluation would make the determination, if you will, has said that he is not even in the same neighborhood right now as the so-called "hot seat", so that's perhaps the word we must accept right now. So, to answer - is there drama being created around Michigan where there likely is none? I would say, right now, "yes".
some people are truly forgettting how just god awful Michigan was last year. Michigan was a complete miracle kick play against NW from losing its last 6 games of the year and 7 of its last 8.
Another season like that and it could become untennable for Hoke very easily.
Yes, we were god awful, but arguably for reasons out of Hoke's control. Fix the offensive line, get a viable run game, and that's a pretty decent team. We had (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) a total of 6 scholarship OL on the roster, due to You Know Who's recruiting failures.
Sure, it's easy to blame Rich Rod, but Hoke sure isn't the reason the offensive line was so shorthanded last year.
its on hoke too, as he shouldve tried to get transfers like Lindsay, knowing the problem at OL. its on him too.
Who's to say he didn't try to get transfers?
Hoke chose to keep Borges as his Ocoordinator despite the evidence he had no clue what he was doing. Borges did not just suddenly begin stinking up the joint last year. Every year including 2011 there were games that you could point to where his patholocial logic cost us victories. He has a long tract record of being unable to sustain success and being unable to develop young talent. Borges ultimately is a Weis 2.0 who is more interesting in drawing up plays than teaching. Hoke could not see this when many of us saw this in 2011.
Tactically Hoke did not step up as a coach and insist on moving Scofield to guard. If this were done we might have had a run offense simliar to 2007 where we ran 90% of the time behind Long/Kraus. But it would have been okay. This topic was brought up multiple times as many could see that the young line was going to be a problem. Instead our NFL talent at tackle was completely wasted. Maybe it would not work against an elite defense. But the Nebraska's and Iowas would not have absolutely shut us down. Gardner has the atheltisim to run away from a DE. There is little he can do when preasure comes right up the middle.
Lewan, Barnum, Molk, Hugye, Omameh, Schofield, Mealer, Khoury, Glasgow, Burzynski. Recruits included Posada, Miller, and, Bryant. Jake Fisher was committed before RR was let go. Christian Pace was medicalled and QWash was switched to D. I would prefer this to what LC left RR anyday.
Hoke saw the roster but did he bring in any OL in the class before his first year? Granted he was hamstrung by DB's process.
Molk and Huyge were holdovers from Carr, but point taken. However, there was not much Hoke could do about the OL in 2013. He has been recruiting OL like mad but we won't see the true benefit of that until next year since they take so long to develop. Besides, what Carr left RR is irrelevant in terms of what RR left Hoke on the offensive line, unless you count Molk and Huyge, which should be credited to Carr.
as they had two freshman, a soph, rs soph and jr start on the OL last year. Alex Kozan disagrees as he played in the NC game. There are plenty of 2012 recruited OL that are making significant contributions as starters so don't give me that so long to develop BS. USC has a projected starting OL with two freshman, two RS freshman and a true sophomore for the upcomimg year.
Was UCLAs OL any good? Just because there are a couple of good freshman and sophomore linemen across the country does not mean it's a common phenomenon. We shouldn't have to rely on true freshman and sophomore OL to fill the starting spots in our OL. The reason we had to in 2013 is solely because of Rich Rod.
Not great, but significantly better than Michigan was...
2556 rushing yards (#34)
4.5 yards per carry average (#52)
203 Sack yards lost (#89)
1634 rushing yards (#103)
3.3 yards per carry average (#116)
268 Sack yards lost (#120)
a fallacy during RR's three season's here. In his first, he had one returning OLman, a true soph. The remainder were filled with those that had been in the system but had proven they'd never be capable of being starters during their three or four years on campus. Those eligible for a 5th year, already proven to have been wash outs, declined to accept another year, one in which they would actually have to work. And then the next two seasons, with exceptionally young lines and a very good line coach in Greg Frey, they continued to run the zone blocking schemes and gave us the two most productive seasons of the last two decades.
When Borges took over, he had no choice but to keep intact what was working. Actually Brady had 730 days, along with two bowl practices to have his OL ready to at least become "adequate," actually not asking much from kids rated this high. Inasmuch as he's the HC and is not going to fire himself, a decision that would not have been good for the school, he was right in ridding himself of Borges, who had two full seasons to see what a good, but not over abundant amount of star power could do, given the right assignments and keeping things pretty simple. The fact our current OC who came from what some consider a decent program has opted to move us back to that scheme in his first decision aimed at improving the line in terms of scheme & efficiency is completely opposite of what you are saying. As I stated, RR didn't inherit an experienced line either, and they certainly didn't possess the rankings these kids do. But the majority had been in the program about as long. And even odder yet was the injection of RR's kids into the OL as they came in actually improved the offense. Weird, huh? Personally, I think Frey was a tremendous teacher, and he was a hell of a ball player. I believe these attributes, married to an ability to motivate were instrumental in getting maximum production from his charges. I do think it might have backfired with the most talented from time-to-time. Because the season was going nowhere, it wasn't difficult to laugh at the stupid shit N0. 77 would do after the whistle. I'd often make bets with my son - non monetary - on how many yards Taylor would get before they announced the penalty whenever we saw a flag fly into that area right after the play.
Actually what you saw on offense last year was reminiscent of what we saw on defense during the RR era. It's a bitch when there are no replacements and you haven't proven a thing on that side of the ball. Yet, I didn't notice you attacking LC for leaving the program with less than a full two deep on that side of the ball, and the fact we were graduating about 9 out of 11 starters. Yes, that was the year we saw three walk-ons on the D. 65 players on a Michigan roster? How many walk-ons do you think we see in the future? Now just how long does the cover up go back? Inquiring minds want to know. LIke I said, it's ok to attack, although I don't see what good it does. But when you do, you should be fair about it.
Personally, I don't see where that gets us. I think we should just hope Brady doesn't prove to be a Weiss and we can get back to M football. There can be no argument to talent now. Yost brought this university many things other than being the then no. 1 program in the nation. But his most important lesson, imo anyway, was that fans and players alike should all pull together, especially when times aren't as easy as we've come to expect. I see no more reason for attacking past coaches than I do the present one. In fact, I think a public attack on whomever is manning the position in no way improves our situation.
didn't show up in Chicago, they had to sensationalize something because God forbid the "news" we watch today not be sensational.
"Hot Seat" = instant offseason story (see also "QB controversy")
As stated in other recent blog posts, I feel like the deficit of upperclassmen is being erased and the recruits are of high quality. Putting Michigan back in the upper half of the Top25 is something that's going to help everything going forward, of course. I believe our new perfectionist OC and guru-level DC are the guys to get 'r' done!