How long is it before we hear about possible coaching changes within the Michigan football coaching staff? As stated by Mangus in this article: http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2013/12/kansas-state-31-michigan-14.html#comment-form there have been rumors of Mallory looking for a coaching job at a smaller school, and Jackson possibly retiring. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Mallory and Jackson go. Al Borges, Dan Ferrigno, and Darrell Funk have also got to be on the hot seat. How long do you think it will be before we hear any news about possible coaching changes?
How long until we hear about possible coaching changes for Michigan?
Sometime between now, and two years from now.
Unless, I suppose, the staff survives this offseason and the team experiences much success over the following two seasons.
with San Francisco? I believe he is currently signed through 2015, and the Niners are pushing an extension hard, based on his name being associated with the Texas job.
I don't think I can wait that long for a Michigan Man.
I'd take John Harbaugh in a heartbeat, and he may be the easier of the two to get
Not sure, I'd expect soon if at all. Put me down for Funk though, something is seriously wrong with the way the OL is run.
I hope he is? If he wasn't a better coach than his high school line coach and pop warner coach we are royally fuc$ed
yes and if was asked about them while they were still here as his position coach he would say the same. not saying I dont believe him tho
Frey's Oline performed better with far less talent.
Frey's also doing a pretty nice job at Indiana.
Taylor was schooled well in coach speak. He's not gonna badmouth his current position coach
over everything else.
Okay he likes Funk, but what about the other 4 non NFL prospects on the line?
Plus, you can't make anything from these quotes. They aren't allowed to say anything even close to negative.
Too bad Lewan, Funk's line did not produce. He should get canned.
Frank Clark said you couldn't blame the coaches for the effort issues.
The players will never blames the coaches.
Hell, the coaches have never blamed the coaches.
all of our coaches must be sweet. I'm starting to feel better about the 2013 season.
The way Michigan prefers to handle business like that I would think we'll likely hear about it at the last minute, or after the fact.
There needs to be some changes of some sort. If none are made, it's just a sign that we are complacent with the results this season. If the players see some of their coaches depart, that will be a wake up call for them too IMO. I'm on the fence on Funk, Borges should go but he won't IMO. Jackson needs to retire IMO, move Manning over to RB coach and hire a Qb coach. JMO
Never gave that any thought, but I'm curious. What does it feel like?
I disagree. Change indicates panic. Stability indicates not panicking and letting the current lines mature to the point they (and coaches) can be judged appropriately.
So you believe that John Beilein was dumb to shake up his staff a couple of years ago, because it meant he was panicking.
Make it not make sense! Make it not make sense!
likely to be a long 12 months I think.
I saw the Zook tweet and I was like "Ha, stupid." Then I was like "Holy shit that may not be far off."
Well, then firing and replacing Hoke is going to workout GREAT for us...
As good as any other source at this point.
Never, because even though the offense was abysmal, there will be no changes.
"The players just need to execute", or some other bullshit reason will be given.
Is that really bullshit? If Chip Kelly was our HC and Mike Leach was our OC, but Funchess dropped a ball or Kalis whiffed a block, would execution not be a problem?
Execution is the one 100% non-bullshit coaching platitude. Without execution, you're just drawing up plays on a chalkboard.
Oregon has a great offense. I would autofellate myself to have such an offense here. But they lost to Stanford and Arizona. Did they lose because their offense actually sucked all along? They lost because they did not execute their assignments to a degree that would have allowed them to won the game.
Memes are fun, but not as fun as thinking.
Yeah, Oregon had two bad performances. We had about 10.
I'm not comparing Michigan to Oregon or even the respective coaching staffs. I just use Oregon as they have a hell of an offense (we can agree on that), but even they don't execute occasionally. And they lose. We do it much more often and, thus, we lose more frequently. This does not mean that "execution" is bullshit.
And Oregon executed a hell of a lot more than Michigan. If they were consistently missing assignments like Michigan did, they would be terrible, and the fans would be rightfully questioning if the coaching staff was any good.
Yes it is a bullshit reason as they are doing terrible jobs.
The oline is getting worse. The offense is getting worse. We aren't winning as many games. We're going the wrong way. Coaches make their players better. Our players are not getting better.
Where do you put the blame for that? The coaches for not doing their jobs? Or the players for not executing? I blame the coaches.
Well then, case closed.
Yes, on a blog where people come and write their opinions on Michigan athletics, I blame the coaches. I'm sure I'm the first one to do so.
Like most things in life, it is more complicated than the either/or you posit. I blame both. Frankly, execution is more important than scheme. We weren't outschemed by Iowa. We weren't outachemed by Nebraska. We weren't outschemed by Ohio. We were outplayed (read: they executed better).
But, and this is something that is very controversial for some reason, the coaches also share some responsibility for the execution of the players. Heck can't actually catch the ball for Funchess, so in my estimation the split would be something like 95-5 favoring the player.
Otherwise all players of a certain position group would be similarly capable of playing football. But that's not how it goes. Players and their abilities are what make football plays
That's obviously true. However, every year at every level of organized football, a team or program that had formerly been a sad sack of ineptitude gets a new coach, and within a short period of time starts playing noticeably better, and not long after that becomes truly competitive with good teams it used to routinely lose to, and not long after that wins championships.
And it's not infrequent that many of the same players on the formerly sad sack team are playing for the newly competitive team. The reason is superior coaching, and it's the superior coaching that gets its players to execute better, among other things.
In many ways coaching a sports team at the amateur level is fundamentally all about teaching, and all of us know from personal experience how important having a good teacher is.
Absolutely. I guess my 95-5 number was player ability vs scheme. Good players will be able to make good plays in any scheme, so long as he has the athletic ability as well as a good understanding of what the scheme asks of him. And this is where coaching is huge: getting that player to understand technique and instilling it into him so that it becomes second nature.
Here's an example of what I mean. Who is a better QB, Denard or Henne? The answer is probably that they are roughly equal in their respective schemes. Is either scheme better? I'd argue that they are roughly equal with each of the respective QB at the helm. So, scheme matters less than having the good players.
Good players + right scheme + knowledge = execution?
I think that is your stated path of performance.
Thank you for making my point better than I could.
So who is responsible for our 2011 11-win season? In 2010 Michigan wins just 7 games and in the next year Hoke and company come in, Michigan goes 11-2. Did Hoke and his staff show that they are great coaches by taking that "sad sack" team to 11 wins including a Sugar Bowl victory? If so, what do the past 2 seasons tell us? I think we are trying too hard to simplify something that is more complex than we want to admit. It IS the coaching, it IS the players, it IS Rich Rod's recruiting, it IS THE PROCESS, etc. This all is of course just my opinion but I think there are way too many factors still in play just to boil it down to one of these. I am frustrated with the last two seasons and I am frustrated with some of the playcalling(not that I'm ever 100% satisfied) but I think it would cause more harm than good to oust the coaches right now and I think it's too soon to point the finger in their direction.
What's interesting is that Hoke's 2011 squad did exactly what you're describing.
Remember Gene Chizik? And now it's Gus Malzahn?
Year one doesn't mean much. Sustained success is the hallmark of great coaching, and, I believe, year four is the first year you can start to fully judge a coach's performance (good or bad).
Dantonio was 6-7 in '09 and vaulted to 11 regular season wins in '10. He is currently 63-29 at MSU, but only won 22 games in his first three seasons. Hoke has won 26.
Because of our late-season collapse, year four has become make-or-break for Hoke. If he had one another game and competed in the bowl, he'd probably have another year to develop his team. But because of the complete failure at the end of '13, he must win, and win big, to keep his job after 2014.
The 2014 schedule is no cakewalk. We'll see how good Hoke is very soon.
If someone knew, chances are it would be on the board. What is the point of speculating regarding a timeline? It's an even more pointless endeavor than speculating about the actual changes themselves.
I think the point is that we are all starving for answers to way too many questions right now and we're willing to try and satisfy our hunger by listening to the opinions every tom, dick, and harry until the real meal is handed to us by people who actually know what they're talking about...or at least that's why I'm here.
The Auburn AD last month stated he changed coaches even though the prior coach had won a NC a two years before. His reason was the program was trending in the wrong direction and he pays a lot of money to the guys to win.
We have Michigan men coaching the present team. They are given considerable leeway and failure is tolerated.
Changes will occur if the coaches decide to leave on their own. They for the most part are paid very well and have the name brand and facilities to recruit and do their work. Tough gig to leave.
How is Al Borges a Michigan Man?
Because he coached here (poorly) for 3 years?
I think he is bein sarcastic
Based on the way the term was actually used by Bo, yes that absolutely makes him a Michigan Man. Bo defined Fischer as a Michigan Man and Frieder not so much. By that he meant someone who was currently employed by Michigan. So let's stop trying to play the Michigan Man card, ultimately it is one of the big reasons we are where we are right now.
I tend to agree, but Hoke has the backing of a lot of influential football alums. We shall see how long that continues.
to know DB's management style in his past business dealings, i.e., does he quickly fire a poor performer and chalk it up to a bad hire or does he try to manage the problem by other means. If he learned anything form Bo, he would do the former.
if Dominos is any indication. He made the company profitable despite a product that sucked. Lets hope he doesn't do the same for us.
I'm not sure why people think a guy who actually played football here wouldn't care about the success of the team. Doesn't he attend the weekly film sessions? That doesn't sound like the actions of a guy who's just a bean counter.
Brandon has better access to the program than any of us, and can compare what he sees now with what he experienced under Bo, and what he observed under RichRod. He now has a lot of frames of reference. If what he sees behind the scenes gives him confidence, maybe we shouldn't be writing Hoke off.
Or maybe Brandon doesn't understand the modern competitive landscape of college football.
I'm just saying, I feel like this is a reasonable possibility.
Or maybe Brandon wouldn't hire anyone he can't control (seeing as he just might be a micromanager).
I have absolutely no confidence, personally, in what Brandon has confidence in, but that's just what my gut tells me.
2010: 14-0 (8-0 SEC) - MNC
2011: 8-5 (4-4 SEC)
2012: 3-9 (0-8 SEC)
When Michigan goes 3-9 and doesn't have a conference win, then I'll start drawing the parallel between when to make the move for Auburn and when to make the move for Michigan
a division title or Big 10 championship yet alone a MNC. To give him the same leeway would be stupid. Not to mention he didn't hire a coordinator that could hold a candle to Gus Malzahn IMO.
We finished one game out of first place in our division in Brady's first two years - and if Denard hadn't damaged his ulnar nerve, we probably win the division in the second year. We weren't that far off.
Hoke hasn't won those things. Chizik did. Out of 6 seasons as a coach, that was also his only one where he had more than 8 wins. He also finished with 3 or fewer wins in half of his seasons as a head coach. He also was above .500 in conference once in his career. Lastly, his final season he had zero conference wins and went 3-9 (the programs worst record in 60 years). Let's not even get into all the off-field issues surrounding the program.
So Auburn fired him to hire the OC that you love so much and is apparently pretty good at what he does. So, again, there aren't really many parallels between Chizik and Auburn and Hoke and Michigan.
Also in Chizik's one good year, he had Cam Newton as a QB, which wouldn't have happened had Newton not been dismissed from UF. If Newton isn't there Auburn doesn't win that MNC and Guz Malzahn probably isn't the coach at Auburn right now.
If Curt Mallory goes, I think the first choice to replace him would be Jon Hoke.
I'd be pretty happy to land Jon Hoke, but I don't think it would happen unless it was for the DC position.
Jon Hoke has been coaching DB's for 30 years.
I figure that if he wanted to be a coordinator he would have already made that move. Some position coaches are really good at what they do and don't have any interest in moving up.
Hoke was DC at Florida from 1999-2001, which was his last college job. If he returns to the college ranks, I don't think it would be as a mere position coach at this point - unless he really wants to work with his brother (which could be the case, I don't know) and/or becomes Mattison's designated successor.
It could be a possibility at UNLV, Bobby Hauck brought his brother Tim in from the Browns, so it could happen.
Steve Spurrier wanted Jon Hoke to join him back in 2004 to be the defensive coordinator of the Gamecocks. I wouldn't mind to see Jon come in and replace Curt, if Curt left to get a DC or head coaching job. Jon would be a good potential DC after Mattison retires. Or Jon would also be someone who would be beneficial to have around if Michigan hired a younger guy once Mattison retired.
I think the second choice would be Hoke Colburn (Morgan Freeman) from Driving Miss Daisy.
The day before signing day.
As soon as some major donors pull DB aside and say they're not donating to a subpar program anymore.
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to those folks.
interesting but in the Magnus post, he stated that the Helicski (sp) would be miffed if passed over for a new OC. Could he be the OC here while retaining duties as WR coach and then we bring in a QB coach?
The simple answer to that question is yes.
Yes, he could, but the QB coach thing is overrated. Lots of teams (7 of the top 10 teams at one point this season, which is the last time I checked) have an OC who doubles as the QB coach.
I refuse to set foot in the Big House next year of buy anything Michigan related if Al Borges is still on this coaching staff next year.
Don't write checks you know full well you can't cash.
tickets should be pretty cheap on the secondary market.
I am sure this will cause Hoke to immediately fire Borges and anyone else you demand. Because I am positive that winning programs just go in the direction that a majority of their fans want, that is what it takes to win.
Good cause we don't want you!
During the '81 MLB strike my BIL's father announced that he was so pissed at the players' union that he was never, ever going to go to another major league baseball game again as long as he lived.
That next game would have been his first. He was pushing 60 years old and he'd never been to a game in his life, but he was convinced that he was making an important statement with his boycott.
Unfortunatly its not as quick as you expect it, seeing all these nfl coaches get axed I was hoping to hear something from the college side but its too early..college football is not even over yet..i expect us to hear changes after sign in day, around february
Says the person who thinks GR3 and McGary would wash out in the NBA after 1-2 years, and thinks that Stafford is the problem for the Lions. I'd watch who you call idiot.
you must be a delight to work with.
Also can we fire Wellman and rehire Barwis? The physical toughness seems to be severly lacking all around on offense and defense.
We were physically tough back then?
Our defense was on the field the entire game though, which created some problems. But look at the drop off in our guys at the combine and pro days, it's been very dramatic.
Can you provide more specific evidence of the drop off in combine and pro day workouts?
Sure. It was the dramatic ones.
Hmmm, I don't remember us being all that good at controlling the line of scrimmage in the RR years. We had a lot of big plays, but converting short yardage, and in the redzone in general, was a lot more challenging. Illinois 2009 comes to mind.
As for the defense, it was on the field a lot for the same reason that most bad defenses are on the field a lot: it didn't get stops.
Part of the disappointment at the Combine and pro days might be that we just didn't have very good players the past couple years. I think Denard Robinson was the only guy at the Combine last year, and other representatives at the pro day included former walk-on Jordan Kovacs, the legendary JT Floyd, our poor interior offensive line, etc.
When Barwis was here, people complained that we were "weak," too. Remember Wisconsin calling 30 running plays in a row on us?
Fans have been complaining about the S&C guy (whether it's been Gittleson, Barwis or Wellman) for a decade now. It's an easy scapegoat but there probably isn't much real difference from one S&C coach to the next.
runs a similar strength and conditioning program to Ken Mannie, strength coach at MSU. He learned under Mannie and follows many of the same methods. MSU is considered one of the toughest, hardest hitting teams in the country. Strength and Conditioning is not the problem.
Right, because there can certainly be no difference in implanting the program.
Implants have no place in football.
My bad, this is what happens when you are posting on your phone while rocking your one year old to sleep.
are only so many ways to implement the principles that are used by Wellman and co. They are sound principles. You can be as big and strong as you want, if the coaching you recieve is no good, it won't matter. If all that mattered was being big and strong, they would just recruit powerlifters to come play for them.
Honestly I don't think S&C is the problem, we have a freshman TE who put on almost 30 pounds under this S&C program. The problem comes back to the mentality of the team, the teams plays hard, but they don't play with an attitude. The 2006 defense had an attitude, the 1997 defense had an attitude, the teams from 2008 to present day seem to lack a killer instinct.
Go ahead and fire the cheerleaders too. They couldn't pump the crowd up good enough.
If anything happens at all, my own recollection of changes through the years makes me think that - aside from unexpected departures typically - such things usually occur between the start of the new year and the spring game, although there are likely exceptions to this. It probably makes the most sense to make moves then if you are going to do something. That being said, I believe there was an article after the Ohio State game where Hoke said that he does not anticipate changes, so it seems like a realizable possibility that there may be none this time around. My guess is that if we've heard nothing by the end of January or so, there might be nothing to hear based on how the department seems to operate.
And his name was Herbie.
@mgoblog@aceanbender Michigan fans, it's me, ur old buddy Herbie. Only I have more knowledge about your future than THE KNOWLEDGE. Your next coach is Brady Hoke and OC Al Borges. Nobody goin' nowhere suckas. #Herbstreited #BudswithDesmondUrNot #NoChanges
I think it's grea
Great that Herbie talks to Ace and also knows about THE KNOWLEDGE.
I can't find that original tweet anywhere.
After another disasterous year, DB will have to clean house to save his own A_ _. A new President will be in place and the seat will be "red hot" for DB to bring in a HC and staff to right the ship.
Just hang in there one more year and the misery will be over.
nothing will happen prior to National Signing Day, unless its a retirement like Freddy J.
this is how this was done in the past. Unless Mallory gets the HC position that he is looking for and of course if Coach Jackson hangs them up and either takes a job within the Ath Dept or heads out to some retirement location; I still believe there will be no changes.
DB coach must go as well....he cannot prepare these kids to play competent football.
I think Jabrill Peppers is taking over as DB coach next season, as well as playing.
He'll be like Pete Rose in 1986, but without all the gambling.
Comes across espn!
But I don't recall his offense struggle scoring Td's. Yeah, his Defense was nothing to brag about, but Hoke is struggling on both sides of the ball. Hoke has more talent at Michigan right now than RR ever did.
You may want to re watch every Ohio state game, a couple MSU games, Iowa, Penn State, and Mississippi state game. RR's offense performed against crap competition. Borges's offense up until this year has put up better numbers.
He always dropped around thirty, the bad part was the opponent dropped around fifty.
He didn't, unfortunately. There were plenty of low scoring (for us) games, the Gator bowl comes immediately to mind. OSU, MSU, Toledo...
I liked him, and wanted him to get more time, but he certainly didn't always score a lot of points. Against elite defenses we were routinely shut down.
I am in the same boat as you. I still like RR and did want him to get more time here to get things going, but that's in the past. What I always found hard to understand was how he would routinely lay eggs against elite defenses. Again, I liked (and still like) RR, but there's no denying that his offense struggled at times too, though never so much as we've witnessed this year IMHE.
your're kidding right. Borges' O has gone two games against them without scoring a TD. That didn't happen once during RR's tenure. It's interesting that you try to excuse Borges' O this year because that is the system they are implementing.
But then his offense shattered records. Inconsistency is a symptom of youth and inexperience.
There is nothing inconsistent about Indiana's defense - it is horrible all of the time.
Maybe so, but what about the OSU defense?
Look, all I am saying is that nobody should be surprised that Michigan was inconsistent on offense this year -- a simple look at the OL 2 deep would tell you that. All you guys that are up in arms obviously didn't do your due dligence based your expectations upon something other than the reality of the situation. I am not happy with the season, but I understand the reasons why a season like this was bound to happen during Hoke rebuilding. I expected it to happen, it did, and I know they'll improve going forward, so I am not concerned.
You treat this as an established, immutable fact, like the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow morning. You can't literally know they'll improve in the future.
You can guess, or prognosticate, or hope, but you can't know. Nor can you know right now whether any improvement that they might show is enough to make them truly competitive in the conference.
There is this unrealistic notion circulating through the Michigan fanbase someone else would undoubtedly do a better job than Hoke & Co., yet there is absolutely no evidence to support such a notion. However, CFB is replete with examples of programs that struggled a bit in transition with a yougn roster, stayed the course, and improved. Personally, I think that Michigan's need for stability outweighs it's need for immediate success. If the roster wasn't so lopsided towards youth, I wouldn't necessarily believe that.
The OSU pass defense ranks in the 100's in the NCAA - only eight teams gave up more passing yards. They are not good either.
Borges' O has gone two games against them without scoring a TD. That didn't happen once during RR's tenure.
But that's not really a fair comparison, because MSU is better defensively now than they were then. Their 2008 and 2009 defenses were just average, and 2010 was good but not great. They've taken things to the next level the last couple of years.
If you want to play this same game, we could note that Borges's offenses have scored a whole lot more against Ohio than RichRod's did.
I very very clearly remember RRs team not scoring points against the good teams he played.
teams like ... Toledo. / s
RichRod's defense were "nothing to brag about"? I was one of the biggest RichRod defenders alive, and that statement is ridiculous. His defenses were worse than atrocious. Srsly bro.
His offenses were fun & usually good. His defenses were Borges-esque.
But I don't recall his offense struggle scoring Td's
In 2008 we scored 23 points against Utah, 16 against Miami (NTM), 17 against Notre Dame, 27 against Wisconsin, 20 against Illinois, 10(!) against Toledo, 17 against Penn State, 21 against MSU, 14 against Northwestern and 7 against OSU. We averaged 20.25 points per game.
Let's throw 2008 out, after all, it was Nick Sheridan/Steven Threet, first year new system, etc.
2009 fared better, as we scored 30+ points in the first 4 contests. Against MSU we managed 20 (including OT), and only 10 against Penn State. We scored 13 against Illinois, 24 against Wisconsin, and only 10 against OSU.
And in 2010, we managed 17 against MSU, 28 against Iowa, 27 against Purdue, 28 against Wisconsin, 7 against OSU, and 14 against Mississippi State.
The offenses were good against far inferior teams, but when matched with a good opponent, RRs offenses frequently stalled.
They failed to produce more than 4 scores in 21 out of 37 games [including defensive scores, so that's highly optimistic].
Even in those games in 2010 where we hit double digits or in the 20's seems like we always scored late, very few were scored in first half.
In general, it seemed like Rich Rod's teams peaked in September and then got worse as the year went on.
...and then they fell apart??? It all sounds so oddly familiar...
This year unfolded a lot like a Rich Rod season, which is indeed disturbing. But I would not say that about 2011 or 2012.
2008: 31 touchdowns
2009: 46 touchdowns
2010: 59 touchdowns
2011: 56 touchdowns
2012: 48 touchdowns
2013: 52 touchdowns
In Rodriguez's years, we averaged 45.3 touchdowns per season.
In Hoke's years, we've averaged 52 touchdowns per season.
Also, I don't even need to get into the statistics to tell you that the defense is in significantly better shape.
Your memory is poor.
you may be able to hear something between the hours of 9:47 pm PST and 9:58 pm PST. Remember the secret is in the pudding.
About 368 days, depending on our 2015 bowl selection. Then the search will be on. At least the cupboard won't be bare for the next staff.
And let Hart light a fire under these guys. He would make sure the pilot is lit and these kids wanted hit someone. The team seems to take on the personality of their coach and Hoke is WAAAYYYY too laid back.
Not only laid back, but thus far Hoke has not proven he has the mental capability of an elite head coach.
Listening to Beilien's radio show tonight is such a stark contrast from anything I've ever heard Hoke say, be it in a press conference, in a private rotary club type setting, at a coaching convention, or otherwise.
Beilien could recite off the top of his head how many free throw attempts Stauskas has had this year, and noted that it was more than Burke had at this time last year.
That little nugget right there, however miniscule, just shows that Beilien knows the X's and O's, is up to date on relevant metrics, and can disect the critical aspects of the game.
It is nothing like "We did some things, executed, heard football being played."
Like it or not, you need to be more than a figure head to be a Head Coach at a school like this. You need to be able to think critically, solve problems and truly analyze every nook and cranny of the game.
Chip Kelly was/is amazing at this. And it's not a surprise how successful he's been in the NFL.
You are exactly right about this point. It's obvious during in game interviews as well. I always cringe before he starts speaking because it's always the same script with him.
Keep in mind that Bielein only has nine guys (important guys) that he has to account for. I would imagine it is somewhat easier to keep detailed info in your head for ten guys as opposed to 30-40.
Again, I take your meaning and I'm not really trying to take away too much from your point, but some context is always a good thing. Hoke certainly doesn't come off as a savant, where JB kinda does.
Am I making your point, or refuting it? I don't even know anymore...
In one of the "sneak peeks" that they have on BTN, Coach B was asking for stats even at half time. I think one of the grad assistants gave him how many times they were successful running a certain play to one side.
I don't think advanced stats can even change the way Hoke does some things. Just look at our punt formation.
Stats dont have to be "advanced" to be ignored around here. Any team that can give a RB the ball the 27th time when the first 26 led to 26 yards is not easily impressed by statistics of any sort.
I LOLed, but you aren't serious, right? A lot of handoffs came in OT, particularly in the two periods when we only needed a FG to win and we had a kicker that was generally automatic from that distance.
I remember in the "down year" of JB's tenure people were bitching about him not being emotional enough. JB"s always been an X's and O's guy, that's how he had success with small schools and nobody rosters.
Not a jab at your comment, I guess once you're here long enough you start to remember things like that.
"Not only laid back, but thus far Hoke has not proven he has the mental capability of an elite head coach."
He hasn't shown the mental capability of even a good coach.
If/when changes happen if it's Funk I say go after Blomgreen from Stanford, if it's Borges go after Blomgreen from Stanford. If that doesn't happen and it ends up costing Hoke his dream job, then I say UM seriously consider loading up an armored car full of cash and visiting Shaw, the brothers Harbaugh, or possibly Tim DeRuyter, and based on his recruiting prowess Hugh Freeze's name should come up.
Is replaced, I'm pretty damn sure john harbaugh is going to get the first call. I have heard that he would take the Michigan job as soon as it is ever offered.
LOL! You guys crack me up. The utter ridiculous bullshit you guys sling around out of frustration would be comical of it weren't so pathetic.
Your complete and utter loyalty to Hoke and baseless faith that he is the man for Michigan is also comical.
I am NOT completely loyal to Hoke, I am loyal to Michigan, and I think anyone barking for change right now is doing Michigan a severe disservice. Michigan's program is in that very fragile state at this point because of frome whence it came (you and other might disagree with how far down you think it really was, if so, we're at an impass). I think that if Michigan allows impatience to motivate its decision making, the mediocrity that so many of you fear is upon is will beset the program, and it will nearly impossible to break away from it.
This is the time when you stay the course, you rebuild the roster depth and experience, and then -- and ONLY THEN -- if the coaching staff is cannot get it done do you replace it. The next coach, should there be one, MUST be handed a "normal" roster or else the entire shitshow starts all over again.
Heard from where? from who? Standing at what urinal in what bar?
This is in the same category of unsupported hoohah as "Michigan is Jon Gruden's dream job."
John Harbaugh signed a new four-year contract with the Ravens at the start of the 2013 season at a reported $7 million a year. He ain't giving that up to make less money in Ann Arbor.
Be right, I'm not discussing where I've heard it. Just remember this, I hope it doesn't happen because that would mean hoke will have made it. If he doesn't, just sit back and watch. John harbaugh would be the call, call it bullshit, I don't care.
The sooner the better.
Can't do anything to disturb the apple cart of incoming recruits.
...for other people, some with families, to lose their jobs and livelihood? Shouldn't we think of our fellow citizens in a more generous spirit?
Their contracts will be bought out and they will likely find employment elsewhere within the year. Besides, you're missing the point. The coaches are there to win games for Michigan and, as even they put it, win Big Ten championships. We have, for a myriad of reasons, fallen farther and farther from that goal by the year.
In general, at any place of employment, if you are not performing well you are either demoted or terminated.
These coaches (including coordinators) make a fortune. They are not the so called 1%. They are the 0.001%. These coaches made more in 3 years than many of us will earn in a life time. If properly managed, they can retire if they wanted.
If they are fired, they will not go poor, or lose their house, or live on the street, or starting whoring an orifice for cash. If anything, their life will get better as they can spend more time with family and rest.
I'd be pretty surprised if any coaches were released. There is the meme here that Brady hedged in his comments about anticipating all staff to return. If you listen to the entire interview he was asked three questions about this and in each subsequent response made his statement stronger.
Say what you will about Brady's coaching skills and use of coachspeek, but he is a straight shooter and I see little reason to doubt that he has decided that his staff gets another season.
"...he is a straight shooter..."
Is that so?
"Turf Toe" - Hoke on Gardner's injury.
"He's probable to return" - Hoke at halftime of the Nebraska game last year, on Denard.
"He's day-to-day" - Hoke every week on Denard post-Nebraska, though it was clear he was anything but.
"He's got a boo boo" - Hoke on everybody.
Between being a straight shooter and being an idiot and tipping your hand to your opponent(s) about injuries.
Because I guess Kansas State was going to alter their gameplan based upon whether Gardner had a broken foot or Turf Toe, even after it was announced he wouldn't play in the game?
There's a difference between tipping your hand to your opponent(s) about injuries and just trolling for shits.
State St., why are you so obsessed by this. You beat this to death before the bowl game. WTF? There is a HUGE difference between a coach being straight with his players and recruits and a coach that uses coach speak with the media. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? I just don't get it.
I've been pretty critical of Hoke this year, but your notion that Hoke is somehow unethical because he isn't providing our opponents with detailed, accurate information about the injuries to his own players is asinine.
Coaching changes? Why do people think there will be changes. Hoke has already come out in support of Borges and Borges just lost a bowl game, but with a freshman QB who looked decent. Funk? Not going to happen. Jackson? Maybe he retires, that's all I see happening.
Exactly! Changes aren't always the answer, despite what the haters in here think. The people the live Michigan football know best. If they think that the struggles are due to a deficiency in the coaching ability or effort, you can bet your ass there will be changes. If, however, they feel that the struggles are do to personnel deficiencies that will be eliminated in time, there will be no changes. It's becoming a major ill in our society -- everything has to happen NOW or else. It's pathetic, IMO, and anyone that thinks that Michigan should make changes at this juncture is simply seeking instant gratification and is being selfish, IMO.
Leave everything alone. Don't change anything. Let the players grow up within a consistent and uniform system. Youth reacts the worst to change, and this team is young. Get over it guys, it was a shitty year for several reasons, most of which will evolve away as time goes by and the roster has more normal class distribution numbers.
But the site sure has gone emo over the last few months.
Yeah, those of us still hanging around hoping desperately, futilely, for brighter days are really in the instant gratification business. I get your desire to pump the brakes on rash reactions, but I don't know - you really aren't concerned that Fred Jackson hung onto a single subpar running back like grim death once again and that the line looked worse at the end of the year than it did at the start of the year (with no injuries (unless you count Bryant's perma-injury))?
I don't know if it's the right move, but dismissing out of hand people who don't want to see Freddy Jack and Funk back? That seems unfair.
The line was not worse than in the beginning of the year. They have beeb facing stiffer competition. This line has been poor from day 1, in all facets of the game, in all schemes, in all plays.
Brian said before MSU that the line was OK at protection. He was wrong. Gardner was running for his life against ND, the only decent defensive front we played in the early going. We had bad technique and an alarming number of breakdowns against the likes of Akron. The results weren't as bad as they were when we played Iowa, Nebraska, et al, but that was mostly because Gardner went into a shell and started holding on to the ball a very long time. In short, our pass protection was always bad, we just hadn't been exploited. We fan all agree the run blocking has been bad all year.
So, while we have not improved as much as we'd have liked, we have not gotten worse.
I agree, in that my number one comment at halftime of the Notre Dame game was "damn, our lines are getting dominated on both sides of the ball."
So maybe they haven't gotten worse. But would you really say they haven't improved as much as you would like, or would you say they never really improved at all? I mean, rushing for less than a ypc is rushing for less than a ypc. Which you acknowledge.
And Kansas State is always known for pretty good defenses, but it's not like they are all-world (Notre Dame's lines - the starting point - were borne out to be pretty darn good). Still, they did keep Shane pretty clean during that game, although simple, quick throws and Shane's release may have contributed to things. But I'll give them some credit there. Regardless, the dogshit runblocking just cannot be forgiven. I mean, this was legendary futility. And as you say, if it didn't get worse, it certainly didn't get any better.
They have improved. The center position improved a great deal from Miller to Glasgow, for one. Kalis has improved from "totally lost" to "just overwhelmed by college football".
The thing is, they have gotten better individually, to one degree or another. But the problem is that the line must be in concert. They work awfully as a unit, as seen by their pass protection pooch-screwings.
And, they are also nit good enough individually. They have improved from clueless to just not up to the task. This is improvement, but its not the kind of improvement that allows for good line play. The line needs 5 guys all doing the right thing at the right time. Physical dominance of the opposition is a huge bonus. Being physically outmatched at one point is bad, bud can often be worked around. But when you are overmatched at 3 spots, you are going to gets ton of plays that are blown up. This is our problem. We get some positive plays, but we get way too many negative plays.
I understand people being optimistic simply for the sake of not being pessimistic, but I find it hard to take anything you say seriously anymore.
Everything you post reeks of blind optimism, especially when you attempt to speak so authoritatively about things you obviously know nothing about. Case in point being your assertion that a coaching change shouldn't happen because youth cope more poorly than others to change? Wtf? The more experience you attain at a given thing the more MOST people become resistant to change (and thus cope worse). You've obviously heard the saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"....there's a reason that came into existence.
I don't have any issue with people believing that the coaching staff should remain intact. I obviously disagree with them (in terms of the assistants on the O) but that's life, people often disagree. I even like hearing well informed reasons as to why they fall on that side of the debate. What I don't enjoy reading is people who just make totally false crap up in an attempt to prove themselves right.
You want the staff back, that's fine. No one even needs to hear why you want them back, that's your business. But please, stop making crap up to try and sway the argument in your direction or prove you're the one that's right.
My assertions are taken from my own personaly experiences in sports and in life. Older more experienced people (and players) understand and deal with changes more adeptly than young players. The young players many times feel abandoned by a coach they were expecting to play for. Just look around the nation at the attrition rates during transitions -- it's usually young guys that decide to leave. The "old dog new tricks" cliche doesn't necessarily apply here. Each player has a finite time in college. Older players don't usually want to sit out a season, and have far more invested at the school than younger players, so they usually stick it out.
But fine, don't take what I say seriously. You're welcome to your opinion.
My only point has been that Michigan was a shitstorm well BEFORE Carr even left, it didn't get better under RR, and it's starting to get better (albeit a bit slowly) under Hoke. If we let impatience rule the day, we're going to become a shitstorm again. If you want that, by all means continue to beat the drums, because that is all you're doing. You're not making things better, there is no Knight in Shining Armour out there that is going to swoop in and save the program. The problem with the program is the ROSTER, and the near complete lack of upperclassmen. A new coach isn't going to solve that issue. In fact, if like most transitions, there is some attrition, it could even get WORSE. Leave things alone, let them recruit and develop -- let them build the roster up because 62% of the roster being 1st or 2nd year players is NOT a formula for success.
Anyway, Happy New Year and Go Blue!
"The problem with the program is the ROSTER, and the near complete lack of upperclassmen. A new coach isn't going to solve that issue."
You're doing it again. You say the problem with the team is the roster and a new coach can't fix that. Listen, I have played sports my entire life and at a pretty high level as well. When I was in the CHL we went through a coaching change and went from almost dead last in our conference to top spot a year later with only minor changes to our roster, it CAN happen.
Also, you seem to be either missing what I am saying by mistake or intensionally leaving out the part where I mention that I am only talking about the offensive coaching staff here (not even Al specifically0 as I believe that is where the problems are. Now I'm not saying a guy has never left a team because an assistant has lost his job, but in most cases the fallout is minimal.
I guess I just don't enjoy the way in which you choose to debate. It's nothing against you personally, as in all my other experience with you as a poster you seem like a genuinely nice person. In this instance though, your blind loyalty has made you do things like make things up to prove points and ignore what people are saying in their posts and responding to things they never even said to make your position seem reasonable.
I don't mean to offend you, as I said, you seem like a good person. I just won't be reading any more of your posts where the future of this team and coaching staff are concerned.
No changes are necessarily good unless there is a definitive plan in place to bring in someone who is an almost no-brainer that can create a big splash and is a proven winner. Comments about one of the Harbaugh brothers are IMO way off base, I just cannot see either jumping ship.
I think a case can be made for changing out several on offense, but in all honesty I just caught an interesting comment by Randall Cunningham on how difficult he thought that learning and perfecting the West Coast Offense was, and that even at an NFL level it was considered a 3 yr plan to really get a team to fully gel if they had never run it, and that it overwhelmed him.
With the big openings already out in both college and the NFL, I think this is not a good year to be making wholesale change, unless somehow a truly big name had already agreed to come on board.
The problem with trying to implement a difficult offense that takes 3 years to really learn at Michigan is that colleges have constant turnover. This is not the 49ers, which might have the same QB and receivers for the better part of a decade.
So why in the name of all that is holy are the coaches trying to implement this for a college team? If it's really that complicated, aren't you just shooting yourself in the foot?
Has there ever really been a successful West Coast type team in college, that sustained that success instead of having one year bursts of effectiveness surrounded by drudgery?
If you find one, just redefine "West Coast Offense" to exclude them. After all, no one has ever fully implemented Walsh's entire playbook at the college level, so you can always find some excuse to say it's really something else.
Because it is a good offense. Because the coaches know it inside and out.
All that means is that we should not play most players before their third year in the system. That's not really controversial. We would all love a team of SR, JR, the occasional SO, and the ever rare FR difference maker. This is ideal in any system. It just might be more pronounced in the WCO.
This goes to what a lot of us have said: youth is killing us. It may be worse because of the inherent intricacy of the WCO. It is certainly worse because of the post-Denard switch. And no team should have to play 3 freshmen next to each other on the line.
It is Hoke's decision to keep or change assistant coaches. So, let him decide. Hoke will be under the microscope next season and he will need to win at least 7 games to get a 5th season. If he only wins 7 or 8 games next season he will be on the hot seat in 2015 and he will at a very minimum need to win 10 games and receive a BCS bowl game. So, Hoke will have to make his choices wisely. I hope he and his coaches can pull all together and return Michigan back into a competitive B1G team.
7 wins get's Hoke fired, easily.
5 losses would have to be OSU, MSU, ND, and then 2 more out of probably Penn State, Rutger's, Minnesota, Indiana....That wouldn't get him another year