I was thinking about how important this game is for Michigan this Saturday against MSU. Not only is this game important in regards to Michigan winning the Legends division, but also a measuring stick in the progress that Hoke has made since being hired. This is Hoke's third season at Michigan and historically a good coach at a school like Michigan that has tradition, great facilities, and deep pockets is enough time to build a super power. That being said it is not like Hoke walked into a perfect scenario. The team he inherited lacked depth up front and was built to run a system that didn't match what coach Hoke wanted to implement. It looks like Hoke has finally been able to build some depth up front, but the players are young and raw. Personally, I think the program is heading in the right direction. Dave Brandon should allow Hoke to coach for the duration of his contract as long as Michigan wins 9 games and is competitive with MSU and OSU. Now in year five if Michigan has not won a Big Ten championship then it will be time to look for another coach. The team will be loaded with talent and experience in 2016 for a new coach to step in and succeed immediately.
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
If Michigan loses to Michigan State does your confidence in the direction that the program is heading change?
It's one game.
Useless posts from you are as reliable as the sun setting.
Well, it is one game after all and doesn't define the season or direction of the program. If M loses to MSU and beats Ohio, no one will give a shit about the MSU loss.
That wasn't the case in 2011.
Like 2011.
One game doesn't determine where a PROGRAM is going. Maybe a season.
Talk about overreacting.
Except for the part where if we lose to MSU we 95% likely to miss out on the Big Ten championship game since MSU will be two wins up with the tie breaker in hand. This game is more important than the Ohio game this year because if we win this, we can then lose to Ohio and possibly still get redemption by winning the Big Ten Championship over them the next game.
One game doesn't define the program, but it can and will define this season. Even if we win, we have a tough road to travel to get ourselves into the B1G Championship Game. Lose on Saturday and we have virtually no chance.
You whining, complaining and crying about someone who posts on an internet message board is as reliable as the sun setting.
Pot meet kettle.
People should lay off Wolverine Devotee. I'm not sure why he seems to get singled out all the time as a "bad poster" when he doesn't seem to attack anyone. At worst, he's a little overexuberant about Michigan apparel.
Anyway, I agree with him - one game can only tell us so much.
I think people get him confused with Wolverines Dominate.
I was pretty bad last year. I posted stupid and offensive things and got Bolivia'd a few times. I've cleaned up my act on here, on my twitter and in life really.
People don't like me on here because I am annoyingly posting quite a but. For a long time this was my only means of social life, as sad as it sounds.
Also, I think age has to do with it. Young people's (I'm 18) opinions aren't respected. I've seen how a lot of them have been treated on here. That's why I was very reluctant to reveal my age on here.
Kind of ironic since people are fawning over the plays of kids my age in the team and kids younger than me's decision on where to attend college.
SHOULDN'T YOU BE FOCUSING IN CLASS RIGHT NOW?!
\boss walks in, frantically close all windows
\\start writing jibberish on a notepad to look busy
\\\glance up, "Oh hi. Didn't see you come in. Been so busy doing... things..."
\\\\Boss leaves, re-opens blog
agreed. the chicken little mentality on this board is nauseating.
My sense is that on Saturday evening DG and the offense are going to East Lansing and going to ride the lightning and the defense is going to blow shit up. You do remember the vaunted Notre Dame defense and the oooh scary Hanibal Lecter mask wearing single number having super frightening DT's, their experienced secondary and Tom Rees? Seems things worked out okay that night?
Also seems that team did happen to defeat Sparty. Enough with this bs and chicken little syndrome. I am well aware of the comparison x doesn't equal outcome y that invariably follows anyone who doesn't go full MLive of late. But really I am comfortable that Michigan puts at least 28 on Sparty and that will be more than enough.
Simply for your use of the phrase "ride the lightning."
Eh. Hoke had a Cinderella season that built his credibility up for the fanbase, and he didn't really start rebuilding until last year. We're going to go through a three- or four-year period of growing pains after Hoke's inaugural season before we even resemble a consistent team.
There are definitely things I'm not pleased with right now--particularly coaching-wise--but I think that in a general sense, we're going in a positive direction as compared to a few years ago.
That said, many people on this board want results now, and I can't blame them. But we are still winning (somehow) even with these serious growing pains, so I think that yes, we are going the right direction, win or lose on Saturday.
On the other hand, if we lose out, or if we lose all but 1 or 2 remaining games on the schedule, then we are going the wrong direction.
I agree with your points that we are in a building phase and I think growing pains is a perfect term. I have looked for a long time at 2015 and beyond as the target year(s) when everthing should be rolling.
the first two years, and that's serving to place more pressure on him now. We knew this team would struggle, but without Hoke blundering the time management against PSU we're undefeated now, approaching this game with more confidence. That blunder placed the spotlight on Hoke's easygoing, perhaps not quick-thinking style.
I think there is a lot of pressure here, myself. Not that Hoke should be under any threat of job loss if we get beaten, but for me it will tend to emphasize two hard facts of current football life:
1) MSU has come to field perennially strong football teams under Dantonio, in much the style that Hoke aspires to.
2) You've got to give a credibly coach quite a bit of time--four-five years, pushing half a decade--to see if he proves out. That's a huge but necessary investment. It may or may not work. It may mean 8-4, 9-3 teams a lot of years. That could be Michigan's ceiling. That could be incredibly good in the grand scheme of things (I thought it was under Carr, loved Carr, and was still driven crazy by the conservatism). You could also fumble around for quite some time to come a la Notre Dame. . .
the feeling many long time Michigan fans have. Personally, I am convinced Hoke is the wrong man for the job. But it is DB call and he will not act until we sink below being a middle tier football program which where we are now.
We cannot beat a top ten team and barely beat clearly inferior teams scheduled to inflate our win lost record. When Bowden of Akron said that after the first quarter he thought his team could beat Michigan that speaks volumes as to where are program is.
If you haven't seen improvement then you haven't been looking for it.
QB - Fundamentally speaking, DG has taken great strides. To say he is Denard II is wildly inaccurate. The only similarities between the two is that they are both African American and both good athletes. Outside of that they are very different, and Gardner has progressed into a much better throwing QB.
RB - Much of it is OL, but I have seen Fitz progress from season to season. Progression at RB is a little more slight than other positions, because a lot of it is natural. But I've seen Fitz progress year to year, and I've already seen Green progress quite well this year.
OL - Hasn't progressed as I'd like, but it's not to say they aren't progressing. It's slower than desired though, I won't lie there.
TE - Agree on wait and see. Asking a lot from young guys with no experience ahead of them.
WR - Have made drastic improvement from Rich Rod to now. Much better routes, better understanding of defenses, I think the WRs have improved.
DL - If you haven't seen players on the DL improve since Hoke got here, I don't know what to tell you. The past two years have seen players take giant leaps. This year, you are seeing a more steady progression from young guys - a lot of young guys - and they individually are getting better and doing their assignments more consistently.
LB - Same can be said as DL. Maybe the improvement hasn't been as obvious or as sudden, but these are young players that have looked better year to year than what they were before.
DB - Taylor has improved, but is inconsistent. Countess has certainly improved in his time here. The safeties? Yeah, I'd say they are more consistent overall and have done a good job of improving for the most parts.
Yes, the team needs to keep improving, and it's disapointing seeing them occasionally take steps back. But don't let a step back cloud the fact that players are often taking two steps forward. I'm not saying the amount of improvement has been optimal or as fast as I'd like it to be, but to say the team is regressing is far from the truth.
Sorry SC . . . You did a better job arguing that post. I just happened to be typing at the exact same time.
And I'm glad to have the support either way. It's a long post, I've often been a minute late when responding myself. No reason to apologize in the least.
Space Coyote should be added to mgoblog staff
Insufficient meme production. Not enough snark. Could risk making boss redundant.
Awful hire.
I am having a hard time seeing you lack of development angle, personally speaking. It kinda seems like you are just being an irrational loudmouth. Let me lay out my counter-argument.
QB - First year starter with a Top 10 QBR metric. The guy played WR most of last year. And the Denard amazing you speak of was better in the RR regime because plays were literally designed around him by a coach who specifically focused on maximizing the threat of QB run. The passing formations, lanes, concepts, etc were completely different. A new coach changes a player-like-that's effectiveness immediately. Just a fact of nature.
OL - Interior is 3 FR (true or RS) however you cut it. Remember when we were laughing at MSU's offensive line last year struggling to get an NFL-ready back like Bell yardage. They were young (in terms of starts), partly due to replacing injuries, which resulted in an offensive gameplan of hoping Bell fell forward after contact in the hole for postive yards.
DL - Greg Mattison took Mike Maritn from physical specimen to NFL-ready beast, turned RVB into a strong DE / DT hybrid, got something out of Washington and Campbell, made Roh a viable blitzer, and has brought out JMFR. That is, litterally, the opposite of your point. With the talent this group has - upper classmen without high ratings - and young guys in the 4-5 star range it is impressive what Mattison has developed this far. Maybe you forget GERG and the poorly managed 3-3-5.
DB - You are replacing a do-it-all walk-on success story with Kovacs. Your only true starting CB from last year is Taylor. Avery has only ever been used in spot duty or due to injuries. Which, speak of that, Countess didn't play last year. It is great to think people jump right back up after a severe injury. But, it takes time to get speed, breaks, timing back together. Mattison has put him in positions to be successful until he is 100% back to his old lock-down self. The saftey play has been very good, IMO. The only thing we are seeing is a couple freshmen (Stribling, Douglass, Hill) get beat over the top by either really good throws, bigger / better WRs, or hurry-up tempo.
And before you even argue the recent kicking game struggles, remember the tire fire that was Gibbons pre-brunette-girls.
I'm glad DB won't fire him for three years.
Also, please get off National Championship head football coach Lloyd Carr's ass.
No coach in the history of the program had a higher ceiling than Lloyd Carr.
Urban came to a good football team that had been readymade for his style of football, Hoke had to start from -gagillion. Ohio State, like it or not has been the premier program in the Big Ten for over a decade and Michigan has not. 2011 may have been a down year win/loss wise for Ohio but that was a good football team that had 4 of its best players suspended for the start of the year and underperformed. It still had loads of legit All-Conference, All-American and NFL talent in each and every class. Urban Meyer inherited a Big Ten Dynasty, Hoke was hired to fix the worst three year span of football we have had in 50 years. Ohio State has been a better football team than us since year two under Tressel and Llyod couldn't catch up and RR didn't have a snowball chance in hell of making it look respectable. Hoke is taking it to Meyer on the recruiting trail and we've hit about dead even there. The reason we haven't seen it on the field is because Ohio State tripped in 2011, Urbs just had to pick them up again. From 2008-2010 (you can maybe even include some of Carr) we dug ourselves a crater and if you think anyone one in the country is better for the job at Michigan than I've got some land to sell you
Listen to yourself. You have settled for mediocrity. OSU coming from Tresselball was in no way tailormade for Urban. Urban is a motivator and an X's and O's guru. Hoke has gotten the Jimmys and Joes but I have yet to see a damn thing from the Xs and Os as far as in game coaching. It seems to me that the farther away we get from RRs players, the worse off oir team is.
Why is that?
Instead of an OSU one?
Because, yes, Braxton Miller doesn't fit Urban's system at all....he's a Tresselball QB all the way.
And you realize the juniors and seniors on this team you're saying is getting worse ARE RRs players, right?
Im saying the less RR players on the team, the worse off the team looks. Why is that.
Player development? X's and O's?
How was a guy like Brilles able to take an all time doormat at Baylor and implement an entirely different/new system and ball so hard year 2? A cupboard that was bare for 50 years...shit recruits...and he has turned around a culture of losing. He does not have the imherent advantages that a Michigan does. Any Joe Blow can recruit to Michigan (or Bama or OSU or USC) but it takes a coach to develop talent.
Come up with the same lame excuses all you want...I will not accept being mediocre.
Rarely are holding themselves up to that same standard in their own lives.
You're all over the place with the RR players. And your Art Briles point is nonsense. He's in year 6 at Baylor. They "balled so hard in year 2" to the tune of 4-8 and 1-7 in conference. Until this year he's lost less than 5 games there once; and that year still lost 3, finishing 3rd in the conference. But I guess you'll accept that kind of mediocre.
Winning that BCS bowl was the worst thing that ever happened to Brady Hoke.
No, it was the best. Now people actually buy into him.
My point was more along the lines of how it created unrealistic expectations. That senior class was very solid in the BCS season. Now we're seeing the results of the dearth of OL recruiting at the end of the RR regime, and the lack of playmakers who are upperclassmen. People can look at the 11-2 season and point out the regression, but that's disingenuous when you consider what the depth chart looks like.
Along the offensive line right now, we are starting a true freshman, a walkon, and a redshirt freshman. On defense we have as many sophomores getting PT as we do seniors, and several freshmen have seen the field for significant time too. When you look at these facts, MSU should win the game. I'm not saying they will, but they have much more experience than us on the field.
And mine is that it bought him time. He doesn't care that we bitch about him online. He's not feeling pressure in the way we're imagining.
Well said, gentlemen. Both very good points.
+1 heartwarming concordance?
Bought him time? Guy was locked in for five years post RR tire fire either way.
Not if he created his own tire fire his first few years. If he finished in the bottom half of the Big Ten each of his first three years, I'm pretty sure he would be out looking for a new job.
I'm not so sure if they have more experience on offense then UM does. Gardner has more starts than Cook. Fitz has more starts than MSU's rb. I'm guessing Dileo and Gallon have more starts then MSU's wr's. Didn't MSU have to break in 3 new starters on their oline too? And I'm pretty sure they don't have a pre-season 1st All-American on their oline.
Perhaps not on offense, but we were the second most inexperienced team in the B1G going into the start of this season. That is not a recipe for success. Also, MSU may be breaking in new linemen, but they're not a hodgepodge of freshmen and walkons. They're mostly upperclassmen, which is significantly different.
Edit: As of January, we are the LEAST experienced team in the B1G.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/70395/the-big-tens-returning-starters-in-2013
Were Countess, Fitz and Ryan included as returning starters? If not, that means UM now has the same amount of returning starters as MSU playing this Saturday. If you take Maxwell out as a returning starter for MSU, UM would actually have more returning starters playing this Saturday if Dileo is a go.
What good is winning recruiting battles if you're not winning on the field?
Exactly. Wisconsin and MSU have been competititve in the B1G with far less talented rosters. If you're not winning and developing then who hares?
Hoke's big recruiting classes are freshmen and sophomores right now (and high school seniors). Despite that, a lot of those players are already big contributors. I don't think there is much evidence that Hoke has failed to develop young players.
PD maybe wasn't the best choice of words to describe what I meant. I guess what I mean is that NCs aren't won in Feb. I'm more worried about our coaches putting our players in the best position to succeed than missing out on Player X.
I mean if you're losing players to rivals, sure. If you're losing Da'Shawn Hand to Alabama well I mean I'm not going to get too upset at Hoke.
I don't agree with the above statement. Here's why. After RR's last game, Hoke and his staff recruited and signed 11 players* in the class of 2011. That means those 11 have been "coached up" for 2.5 years. Not one of them has really been developed - e.g. an all BIG candidate
* Frank Clark, Thomas Rawls, Chris Bryant, Russell Bellomy, Antonio Poole, Blake Countess, Tony Posada, Keith Heitzman, Raymon Taylor, Matt Wile, Tamani Carter
Developed means all B1G? Really?
Blake Countess, Frank Clark, Raymon Taylor, Keith Heitzman and Chris Bryant are all contributors / starters.
Furthermore, that was the "last grasp for anyone remotely talented to come to Michigan" part of the recruiting class. I'd say they did an alright job.
He had a month to recruit those guys and most if not all of the were guys RR had brought 90% of the way. If you think you can just go out in a month and recruit and land an all Big Ten player you must be smoking something, especially to a program in major rebuilding mode. Besides Countess could definitely be All-Big Ten this year and of the rest 2 quit the team, another 3 have been ravanged by injuries and the rest not named Rawls are starting on this football team. That is pretty good for a months worth of recruiting, and as for development, Frank Clark is leaps and bounds above where he came in as, Keith Heitzman was never going to be more than serviceable and Raymon Taylor while inconsistent is getting better. The only guy not developed is Thomas Rawls and he was a power back without the ability to run with power, not a whole lot you can do there when you have 4 or 5 other guys on the roster who are clearly better than him
Urban did it...
He didn't pull it together in a few weeks. He hired and recruiting all through the bowl season with nothing else to do because the previous staff hadn't left yet. The NCAA gave a team that had to change their coach because they were cheating a break to have two coaching staffs at once. They should have recruited great, they had twice as many guys to do it in the home stretch.
with the exception of 2011 possibly.
Otherwise, it's not been close.
I swear this year, 2013, has to officially be the last year where Michigan fans offer up the "past attrition", "injuries", "youth" and "inexperience" excuses. It might be correct, but it sounds really lame man. As if MSU and other opponents are immune from these same things.
Dantonio has been at MSU for 7 years, a period we've gone through 3 coaches.
In a word: No.
When the future becomes the present, something about expectations drastically change. Many people on this board were thinking 6-1 or 7-0 going into the MSU game. But because of the way 6-1 happened, that's no longer acceptable. At the same time, many here believed that the game at MSU would only slightly be in Michigan's favor. So even if the prediction has slightly changed to slightly in MSU's favor, I don't see how a loss changes the direction of the program drastically.
I guess, the fact of the matter is, in the present, no one accepts losing any game ever. In the future it's fine, it's realistic to a degree, but in the present it's never something that should happen. Likely, it's because in the present we get too caught up in the finite (down to a play here or a play there, but also game to game) and often lose sight of the big picture.
So, my answer, no, it wouldn't.
I guess, the fact of the matter is, in the present, no one accepts losing any game ever. In the future it's fine, it's realistic to a degree, but in the present it's never something that should happen. Likely, it's because in the present we get too caught up in the finite (down to a play here or a play there, but also game to game) and often lose sight of the big picture.
...that is goddamn brilliant. I'm stealing the hell outta this when I talk sports with my buddies. Well done.
I think that was like Red's narrative on his way to meet Andy at the end of Shawshank Redemption or something. I have goosebumps. To one of the points, one of the things that I am surprised at right now is the amount of credibility that State has built up beating by beating conference bottom feeders the last few weeks. I am not saying their defense is not impressive, but you would think we were playing a top five team right now the way people are talking. There are a lot of unknowns about State. They have been in one close game and they shit the bed when it came down to it. We may not be the team that we thought we were after the ND game but what I am hearing right now about this game is hysteria. I expect Michigan to win this game. That is the expectation.
You're right about expectations -- they are lower now because of the way 6-1 happened.
The shift in the direction of the program this year has already happened. It's not a big deal. Indeed, it's a good thing, a reality check.
I don't know how you can dismiss 'how' or 'why' a loss or win happens so easily. Not all 11-2 records are equal, just like not all 6-6 records are. If you're talking about season specific goals, then a win is all that matters. But when trying to extrapolate over-arching themes and projecting a team into the future, then I think, absolutely one has to take into account the 'how' and 'why'.
To a certain degree, you are correct. All losses are not created equal. Some might portend things to come. I'm just not sure you can say, with any sort of confidence, that a performance is not a one-off, or that a coaching blunder is part of a systemic issue.
Lloyd Carr won a national championship. The NC occurred after 4 straight 4-loss seasons (two under Carr), so it was pretty safe to say we would be a 4 loss team for quite some time. Not so.
The question posed is about my confidence in the direction this program is headed based on a loss on the road to a good defensive team. Space Coyote summed it up pretty perfectly, and in the end I agree with him, no it would not.
is one of the smarter comments I've seen posted on a sports blog in quite a while. It's completely true. It's easy to talk about 1-2 losses conceptually, but when you see/experience it, it's much less acceptable. I'm sure it has a lot to do with actually seeing the flaws of your team, breaking down the bad execution/play calls, etc. It's pretty intuitive, but still a strange sort of phenomenon
So even if the prediction has slightly changed to slightly in MSU's favor, I don't see how a loss changes the direction of the program drastically.
It doesn't. The program is going to build the way Hoke, Borge, and Mattison want it to build. I think the question is do you have confidence that Hoke's plan is going to take us to where we want to go, which is atop our conference and being a consistent player in the future college playoff.
I mean it's frustrating to look at Michigan 3 years ago as an 11-2 team and Ohio State as a 6-7 team and fast forward 2 years, and Ohio hasn't lost in 20 game and we're still hoping to push past the MSU tier. There's definately a sense of Michigan running in place a bit and at some point you have to stop pointing at recruiting advantages and see it on the field.
Except that recruiting advantages take more than a year to take hold. Hoke's first real class just got to campus a year ago. His recruiting classes appear to be getting better each year, but it still takes some time for those guys to get here, let alone make an impact.
In terms of recruiting advantage, we're still comparing classes from 2009 and 2010 for the most part.
catch 22 - he won't be able to recruit unless he starts winning consistently. He needs to prove we are on the rise and that the problems of the RR years are long gone or we will start to see recruiting suffer.
Had we not gone 8-5 last year I think he would have a better grace period.
That OSU team that went 6-7 was a mirage of the real thing. That team was very talented, but there was a coach that wasn't comfortable in his situation, a team that quit, and a whole lot of other factors. Meyer walked into a very talented situation from day 1.
That's not to say Meyer isn't a very good coach. But the situation he walked into and the situation Hoke walked into are completely different. Regardless of player developement, the 2012 OSU team was going to be more talented than the 2012 Michigan team, which covered up a lot of flaws. And yet, Michigan had a great chance to win that game in Columbus.
I do agree that Hoke has a lot to prove still, but I really don't think you can compare Meyer's situation to Hoke's. Two very different cases.
Keep telling yourself that.
We'll reevaluate in a year or 2.
in the 3 years prior to that 2011 team Michigan was 15-22 and Ohio was 33-6 without sanctions. That 2011 team had a lot of talent on it and that talent was spread out over every class unlike Michigan who had the majority of its talent graduate after that year and then not replaced by juniors stepping up because most of them were no longer on the football team for one reason or another. You can't compare us to the best team in the Big Ten in the last decade because we haven't even been in the top 3
I can't speak for others but that is not true for me at all. How I feel about a loss depends on a lot of different factors but mainly comes down to expectations and who the opponent is.
For example, if we lose to OSU but give tremendous effort, use every trick we can, and maximize our potential in the loss, so be it. We got beat by a better team.
However, if we lose to a team decimated by scholarship losses, starting a Freshman QB, after running a terrible offensive game plan, messing up basic game management principles and after having a pretty solid lead, I certainly start to question the coaches and the direction of the program.
The PSU game did very little to inspire confidence in the areas where coaching can win or lose a game for you. We need the coaches to be consistently great to overcome the inexperience we have on the team and they haven't proven to be that as of yet.
But I don't think that's true of others at all. They may SAY the same thing, but that's not how they react.
We could lose to OSU in a game the pundits call "the greatest game in football history" and that's not going to stop the majority for screaming for people's heads for losing.
I mean we lost to 4 top 10 teams last year all but 1 of which were close and it doesn't really change how people react to 8-5.
I think context reigns here, too, when talking about 8-5 because it seems out losses were precipated by terrible coaching/game management/strategic thinking.
We lost to Nebraska because we moved our only competent back up QB to wide receiver and had to suffer the FR QB experiment....and then watched Devin perform really well as QB the rest of the way.
Maybe, and I stress maybe, the same could be said for our loss at ND - Denard threw 4 picks!! Maybe a change at QB was warranted at that time but we couldn't do it because Devin was a WR. What in the world did they see in Bellomy to decide that was a worthwhile tradeoff given Denard's history of mid game injury? Hindisight is 20-20 but man, he must have really been impressive in practice.
We lost to OSU, in my opinon, because of bad strategy - playing around with Devin and Denard at QB instead of sticking with Devin and moving Denard to full time RB seemed to destroy our momentum time and time again.
I think it is ok to gripe about those losses.
[EDIT] - we also narrowly defeated MSU and Northwestern. Our record could have been much worse. We were a little lucky to be 8-5.
It wasn't one I was that fond of, but before Denard got hurt the majority were behind it. And really, Devin not being the back up didn't cost us the game, because Devin wasn't really very good his first game out. He needed a couple of games to get his sea legs. So throwing him at Nebraska might have made us better, but probably doesn't win the game for us.
And the record is the record. We narrowly lost to ND, OSU, and South Carolina, and could just as easily been 11-2. But we weren't. (Heck, we were about to take the lead vs. Nebraska before Denard went down, and if we just hadn't scheduled Alabama we'd have been undefeated till we play them in the National Championship game! Fun stuff.)
yes because it's a big game and no because this coaching staff has shown they can't win on the road. Maybe will start winning on the road sometime in the near future. I will be mad IF will lose this game BUT fire Brady Hoke no,FIRE BIG AL YES!!!
I am a girl, so granted I have no idea what it's like to coach or play organized football. I certainly hoped we'd be further along in the rebuilding process by now. My issue is, I see so many people complaining about execution. It's not like the players aren't talented, they just aren't executing. So what does that mean? Is it coaching? Are the coaches not getting every ounce from the players that they can? Seems like the best coaches can take their 2 and 3 star players and coach them up or design schemes that take advantage of their strengths. Are the UM coaches doing that? I'm definitely not ready to say Hoke isn't the right guy, but I'm less optimistic now than I was when he was first hired.
I think most of us feel the same as you do, Borges (and Hoke to a certain extant) have not even come close to maximizing the offensive potential week-in and week-out that this team can achieve
Not great points at all, those teams that take low star recruits and win are senior junior loaded.
That some of the kids get it, and some are not there yet. Hoke is trying to build a culture where all the players have the same mentality. Usually the newer kids take a little bit to get there. Those that say Coach is too soft on the players seem misinformed. I truly believe he is working toward a tougher team.
For instance, toward the end of the PSU game, MI was in the red zone, and the camera went to Hoke. He was shaking his head and telling someone "You're fine, let's go." I couldn't figure out who he was directing that comment, but it shows, to me anyway, that he is trying to get these guys used to playing banged up, tired, and under pressure.
The term "when the bullets fly" applies to this in a way. To be a championship team, the players have to be taught to play through all types of adversity. Whether it's injuries, fatigue, high pressure situations, or just frustration. That is where the Senior Leadership on the field helps greatly.
I wouldn't worry about qualifying your remarks with the fact that you're a girl, so you may not know much about football. Trust me when I say most of the people on this blog have no idea what it's like to coach or play organized football. If you're a fan, if you watch some games, if you have a basic understanding, and you're not simply a loose cannon filled with nothing but emotional prejudice, you have every right to state your opinion, ask your questions, so on and so forth. I want to state that first off because there are a group of people that are extremely loud and vocal that don't know much about football, and there is anotehr group that doesn't know much but is fairly passive about joining discussion because of where they stand from an experience stand-point. Neither of these types learn about football as well as they should, the first group because it's very difficult to listen when your mouth is moving and sounds are coming out, the second because they aren't fully involved in the conversation, or getting their questions answered, or even thinking to ask questions. So, don't worry about being a girl when it comes to talking sports, you may and likely know more than a lot of the guys here, and asking questions or stating your opinion while being able to listen and discuss will only further your knowledge more beyond others that fail to do so.
That said, I'm one of the biggest proponents that execution has been the major issue with this team, not scheme or style or other things. That still is on the coaches. But the main thing that helps execution is experience. And experience isn't some binary concept, where "you have 1 year so now you will get it". Experience checks in at different times for different people. Better coaches will help it come along sooner, having more experienced players around you will also help. The difference so far, between the teams that take their 2 and 3 star players and make them good, is that those players have been able to develop within their systems to reach that point, and the ones that are still young are sprinkled in, placed next to players with experience. Michigan isn't at that point yet. You have 3 young guys playing side-by-side on the interior line. You have a bunch of young guys seeing significant time along the defensive line, and in the defensive backfield. Youth is extremely abundant right now on this team, not just in the starters, but in the vast majority of the two-deep. So, while I agree that I'd like to see this team further along, you do see the flashes. But, as most know, individual flashes mean fairly little in the grand scheme. Good teams have consistent units that work together. A single inconsistency on a play here or play there will make a whole unit look worse.
I don't think this year is the year to judge where this staff stands as far as being able to develop players. I know it sounds like we say this every year, but that's part fo the deal when you have drastic coaching changes in a successful program.
Your first paragraph should be posted to the front page, top of every thread, and emailed to every reader. If everybody understood your point there, this board would be a much better place.
that there is no reason to judge Hoke after this year (as I posted earlier), there is no way you cannot blame the terrible offensive game-plans against the coaches (eg: UConn, Akron and PSU)...I don't think anyone is doubting the fact that Hoke and Mattison will make our young defense elite over the next couple of years...but at the same time there is no excuse for the incredible play-makers (with experience) we have on the offensive side of the ball to not be blowing out teams like UConn, Akron and Penn St....the great coaches adapt to the talent they have, plain and simple
Gallon and Fitz and Fitz is running behind a unit with 2 FR and a former walk-on that is essentially a RS FR with where his ability was coming into the program. Gardner has some limited experience, but was extremely raw fundamentally until some point last year. Dileo has some experience but is far from a playmaker and has a much more limited role he fits than people are willing to give credit.
So you have a very, very young OL unit, which works as a unit probably more so than any other position group, you have a bunch of extremely young TEs at a position where learning how to do all the things TEs are asked to do play in and play out takes a lot of experience, you have young guys at the WR position trying to step in, and your two-deep is filled top to bottom at every single position with guys that aren't even upper-classmen. Even FB has two Soph playing.
If you think the offense has play-makers with experienced all over, you're seeing what you want to see. The fact that the most important unit is an extremely young unit (OL) is extremely critical. This is an inexperienced team all over the place, I don't see how that can be debated.
the fact that we have youth on both sides of the ball and especially on offense...but i am saying that we have a great deal of experience with Funchess, Gallon, Dileo, Fitz and DG that have all proven that they are very capable of making plays....you pointed out (rightfully so) that the interior o-line is incredibly young, so why does Borges call so many plays up the middle that get Fitz destroyed when the pass plays are working out wonderfully out of the gun???...this falls on Borges (and Hoke) to adjust to the talent they have, not call the plays they want to work with the players that are clearly not ready....the reason posters like myself have cause for concern is that Borges' arrogance to not adjust his play-calling and talk smack to reporters (with very valid questions/suggestions, eg: screens) in the pressers is very telling that nothing with change with him when change is very much so needed...like i said, I'm not judging this staff after this game or after this year...but to say that the problems are stemming mainly from a "lack of execution" is flat-out bullshit when the exact opposite has been proven with a different set of plays and the record-setting ability to "execute"
Experience: Funchess is a Sophomore, and Gardner has less than 15 games as a starter, so as SC pointed out, we have a LACK of experience other than Gallon and Fitz (Dileo being hurt). Sure we have shown some flashes of great play, against awful defenses, and shown flashes of terrible play against awful defenses. Which makes sense when young players are involved. Does some of that fall on the coaches, and some of it fall on the lack of execution, absolutely. To make a claim other than that is as you said in your post bullshit.
dropping a wide-open pass was lack of excution on his part and he still put up record numbers....Borges running up the middle and getting stuffed is bad coaching...all the other excuses are just that: excuses
I'm not going to sit here and explain for the n-th time how simplified your POV is with regards to coaching, play calling, execution, etc. Frankly because I'm tired of it and people that want to listen have listened, and people that want to scream and shout their POV are still screaming and shouting it almost two weeks later.
But needless to say, some excuses are valid. Execution problems are still on the coaches. Execution problems are also on the receivers. This idea that it's bad execution when it's obvious (like dropping the ball) and simply bad coaching when something doesn't work is beyond simplified, and not exactly anything near true.
with a lot of your points SC, you do a great job of explaining your reasoning in detail and usually give both sides of the story...you and I simply have a very different perspective on this issue with Borges' play-calling/schemes...in theory they can and might very well work when the pieces of the puzzle/experience are gained and in place...i am simply pointing out the fact that he refuses to adjust against the good teams...and at what point are we trying to make the game of football as complicated as theoretical physics??? I am going to watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak at GVSU is a couple of weeks and watching and learning from him about the future of our species survival and evolution is fascinating....the x' and o's of football is often times very simple, and Borges failing to adapt is in plain sight compared to things in life that are incredibly hard to understand and execute
The X's and O's aren't very difficult. If Borges could muster correctly understanding the X's and O's and the adjustments to the opponents X's and O's, he wouldn't have this job, or his previous one, or the one before that. One of the thousands of other people that tried to get into coaching but now rent cars at Enterprise or sell insurance for All State would have his job. It's not like his job isn't desired by a huge number of people. If he didn't understand the simplist of things, as you state, he wouldn't have what he has, or be in charge of what he's in charge of.
The same can be said for pretty much every OC that has actually made it. Rich Rod may have had imperfect game plans at times, but I'll tell you that the play calls within his game plans from game to game were perfectly fine. He made the adjustments his teams were capable of making within his game plan for that week. Sometimes the results didn't show it, as sometimes for even the best the results don't show up, but I wouldn't critisize a poor performance from a Rich Rod offense as him stubbornly not adjusting because he couldn't. I would say that players didn't execute, he had a partially flawed game plan, but the game plan still could have been successful and most likely each play and adjustment was the correct play call within that game plan to take advantage of the things the defense presented and to ultimately help his team move the ball.
It's one thing to say "27 for 27". It's another thing to ignore the huge faults that a bad interior OL are going to have on any play call. It's another thing to ignore all the things those plays set up. It's another thing to ignore the obvious adjustments he made to his play calls and his X's and O's within his game plan and within his system to adjust to the defense. Was it the best game plan in the world against PSU? No, I don't think it was. I don' t think Borges thinks it was either. But you have a game plan and you have a set of plays and you can't just abandon all prep within a game because your team isn't prepared to abandon it. And, at the end of the day, the game plan was still good enough that it should have worked and the plays were called that should have been successful and did adjust to things and did set up the defense, etc.
The point is and has been that it isn't as simple as an X's and O's problem that people want to make it. Do physicists sometimes make simple math mistakes? Yes. But they don't do it often and on top of that they understand much more fully the intricacies of the rest of it. But no one understands it fully, they can't necessarily understand that that isn't simple or predictable.
The same can be said for an offensive coordinator. Sometimes he doesn't call the best play, sometimes he can't predict how the defense will react, but at the end of the day that's very rare and he knows perfectly well how to do the simple things. He also understands the more complex things to a much higher degree, but that doesn't mean he can predict it all. So the mistakes, the flaws, are much deeper than the predictable and relatively repeatable X's and O's.
I've read many of your posts and really appreciate your viewpoint. but to use a basketball analogy. Trey Burke was great at driving the lane and making contested layups (call this man ball); against most anyone. However, if I'm playing against a great 7 ft shotblocker (call this playing 9 men in the box), I'm not going to have Trey keep driving for layups to continually see his shot swatted into the 5th row. I might have him drive, pull the D, the kick it out to open guy (like a play action pass or quick screen). as bad as we run out of the I-form, i don't advocate abandoning it. but 25 times with no success is like having 20 shots blocked. the psu game was a horrible strategy. i really don't understand how anyone can see past that. the IU game was a much better mix, and i give borges credit. but he crapped the bed against psu.
And it's not a bad one, but hear me out.
Before Michigan tried to either a) kill the clock, or b) felt comfortable with their position to kick a FG, Michigan ran Fitz or Green 14 times. 14 times in 54 minutes of play. That's about 16.666 times in a game if you extrapolate it to 60 minutes. Three of those were to try to pick up "and 1" situations or trying to kill the clock at the end of the half (when the first down pop pass didn't spring, Michigan was just trying to get into the half, so they ran Fitz twice). So on normal downs they ran with the RBs a total of 11 times.
To me, that's a number that indicates "we're keeping the defense honest but we are running a lot of other things". Or in your basketball analogy, they went to it enough to keep the defense collapsing to open up the shooters. Now, I agree I would have liked to see it get more varied by down, and it did in the second half. But at the end of the day, people are vastly overstating how often Borges ran Fitz head first into brick walls. He used 11 plays to set up pretty much every successful deep pass Michigan had.
Again, the game plan wasn't great, but it should have been succeeded, and to some extent it still did. Or to throw it back in your analogy, if Burke had to take 11 to 14 shots (however you want to quantify the "and 1" situations), contested, difficult shots that had a minimal chance of scoring, say he makes two or three, is it worth it to leave the three-point shooters wide open all night. You can argue, maybe he should have taken only 9 shots or something like that, is that enough to keep the defense collapsing? What if for a time the defense quit collapsing as PSU quit stacking the box? Should those number then start going back up? So there is a magic number somewhere in there with a changing defensive plan. Michigan did need to at least get the defense to respect the run to open up the pass within their game plan. They were able to do that, but did they do it too much, perhaps. I just don't think it's as wildly out of control and stubborn as people are making it out to be.
FWIW, I don't mind people arguing that "yeah, maybe it should have been 7". I think when Borges looked back maybe he though, "yeah, maybe should have done it fewer times". The point is to try to see things from the there and now perspective, and trying to set up what Borges was trying to do within his game plan. You can't just abandon the game plan, and if the game plan is to run to set up the pass to an extreme extent, you need to do it a bit. So yeah, maybe it should have been 7, I have no problem with the argument. But I just think people are acting like he did it 27 times in the first 54 minutes, rather than what really happened.
i agree with much of what you say here. however, i don't think you can just shew away the end of regulation and the OTs (settling for punts and FG). i have as much an issue with that strategy as the overall game strategy. but we don't really know if that was hoke or borges. and i don't want to beat that dead horse. hopefully borges may have learned his lesson, as you have to agree the play breakdown was much different in the IU game (ie. throwing on early downs; more spread runs vs i-form runs, etc). but we've seen this in prior years; great gameplans against iowa, sc, neb and osu (both at home); yet several headscratchers: @iowa, @nw, @msu, @osu, alab, @psu, @nd, akron. he's paid too much money to have all those headscratchers.
I get that you have to run the ball a bit just to keep the defense honest. But if every single time you run that zone stretch outside..you lose 2 or 3 yards, wouldnt it be better to just slam it up the middle for no gain or maybe a yard or 2? What kills me is these run plays that take a long time to develop and go for big losses. Half the time I am just hoping we dont fumble..the lss of yardage seems guaranteed.
".in theory they can and might very well work when the pieces of the puzzle/experience are gained and in place."
I suspect it is a difference in how one sees the coaches duty.
The job of the offensive coordinator is to put the offense in an OPTIMAL play... a play that SHOULD succeed, not a play that COULD succeed.
SC seems to consider any play that COULD succeed to be a good play call. I consider any play that isn't the OPTIMAL play a failure.
Then probably 99% of all play calls are failures, because you can't just call the optimal play every time.
I don't think simply because a play could succeed that it's a good play call. All plays could succeed. A Hail Mary, in theory, works every time. So no, that's not at all what I think, though it's been said multiple times. Borges called played that should succeed, that took advantage of the opponent, and set the opponent up for success. The game plan wasn't optimal, but the play calling within the game plan should have succeeded. Not could have, should have.
You go, Space Coyote. Tell it.
Fitz and Gallon are the only experienced players on our offense? What about Lewan and Scholfield? Funchess has a year and a half of experience under his belt now. Devin Gardner is in his 3rd year in this system, and has a years worth of starts under his belt. Any faults in his game aren't from inexperience, but from lack of development by the coaches.
I actually agree with most of your points, but dont try and over sell them by making ridiculous claims about having only 2 experienced players on our whole offense.
So I wasn't counting the OL as play-makers. I took it to mean he meant skill-position guys and the QB. As for the OL: OL, probably more than any other position, is about a unit. You can have two great pieces and still be a terrible unit, because it's about all 5 working together. The unit as a whole is vastly inexperienced, and having two guys that have experience doesn't make up for that.
Gardner has some decent experience, but it's not great. He only has 2 years of QB coaching in this system and has only had a single off-season as a starter. For how raw he was coming in, he has made great improvement, no doubt. I think he'll continue to improve, but I wouldn't call him an extremely experienced player, he's kind of inbetween.
At the end of the day though, on both sides of the ball, Michigan is plugging in experienced players between the youth. It's the opposite of the desired way to have it. You want the more talented but raw inexperienced players to be plugged within the experienced players to maximize output. The balance is off on both sides of the ball.
We're young in terms of both class position and number of starts.
...but we're running with about the same amount of youth as Texas A&M.
And the DG we saw against ND is the worst DG that shows up week-to-week, then this Michigan team is an awful lot like Texas A&M, a club that has two loses, one of which being to a pretty bad Ole Miss team.
We'd get absolutely destroyed by A&M at this point I'm afraid.
Years experience in program (FR=1, RS FR/So =2, etc.)
Texas A&M skill players: 18 "player years"
Michigan skill players: 22 "player years"
Texas A&M OL: 17 "player years"
Michigan OL: 17 "player years"
Number of starts (entering season):
Texas A&M skill players: 39 starts (2 players with 0 starts entering this season)
Michigan skill players: 46 starts (2 players with 0 starts entering this season)
Texas A&M OL: 74 (2 players with 0 starts entering this season)
Michigan OL: 58 (3 players with 0 starts entering this season with Butt as TE)
But if you are right, and we have a very limited OL, why are we insisting on running power football behind our biggest weakness? Wouldn't a top coaching staff recognize the folly of trying to run out of formations that tip your play and expose our weakest players?
So I really didn't want to get into this again and don't want to continue what has started. Needless to say, there are different philosophies when looking at protecting players, giving them easier assignments (does this mean more likely to not lose consistently, or more likely to win?), utilizing methods that help you move the ball in big chunks because you aren't consistent, etc.
There is nothing binary about this. It's not 0 or 1. Running out of a formation the majority of the time doesn't mean every time. Running power doesn't mean you're utilizing you weakness when your weakness is apparent no matter what you run. I really don't want to go into depth with this again because I'm exhausted arguing my point of view. I'd really like to move past the game and onto future games. I am really sorry if you are genuinely asking because you haven't seen my responses or if you're just wondering my opinion or what have you, but it is something that has worn on me enough to not really wish to go in more depth now.
Ask AP how it feels to be an elite play maker with no o-line.
Is the secondary really that young?
Gordon is a senior who is a multi year starter. Avery's a senior who's started and seen lots of playing time. Taylor and Countess might be young when it comes to class designation but they are both 2nd year starters.
Wilson is young and a first year starter and the 6th db they bring in is very youong but with their core nickel package, don't they have tons of experience?
There may be some seniors, but they are the only seniors. It's not like there is a variety of upperclassmen to choose from here.
...started this thread reads this to see how it is done.
"Experience checks in at different times for different people. Better coaches will help it come along sooner, having more experienced players around you will also help."
Can't one also make the argument that better coaches will recruit players who have less far to come and that the if the "distance" needed to be covered by a player is excessive - it is a failure of the coach in recruiting?
It's Tuesday and I already feel the blow up threads coming. Awesome.
I don't understand the negging of the OP. He asked an honest question that created a good dialogue. Negging has become a reflex for some people, they hit the down arrow before their brain even processes the content.
I don't think that this game will be the bellwether, but I do think that in year 4 or 5, there will be a point that if we are not functioning at a high level, blowing out bad opponents, winning the games we should win, and looking good in the process, that the question will be a fair one.
On one side, Hoke's best recruiting classes are still young or not even on campus yet.
On the other, current players are not living up to their billing.
I still have 100% faith in Hoke, and even Borges. I'd like to give them both two more years of unconditional support. Creating a coordinator carousel is a stupid idea, in my opinion. But I like being able to debate topics like this much more than most of the stuff on the boards.
I agree, the OP's question was fair. Do people only want cheerleading? If hoke can't find a way to win a big one on the road with the talent he has, then he is not as good a HC as many here hope he is. This is his mid-term exam.
It's written between the lines in a lot of threads. That said, and while I feel it here as well with even asking the question, I do feel like it's a fair question to ask to some degree. At least, from my point of view, the OP isn't just blindly crapping on the coaching staff like many have been doing here lately. It seems like a legit question that the OP wants to know how others feel if a hypothetical happens.
just think people are tired of the negativistic approach to things right now. Like, I don't think he would have got negged if he would have asked "When we beat Michigan State will your confidence in were the program is headed be confirmed or restored?" I think a lot of people are just done talking about State with trepdiation. In that way, the post was a "negative post" that I think many people thought essentially negged itself.
I guess I'm just looking at it from a relative standpoint compared to recent posts. It's negative, but at least it isn't negative to an insulting degree. I'm just glad I didn't read "When Hoke loses because he's fat and Borges gets stuffed for trying to run the ball 50 times and he's an idiot and far and arrogant, then can we talk about firing this coaching staff?", because honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see that posted here as of late.
hope that State cannot take advantage of Borges and Hoke's fatness and turn it into quick points this weekend or things are really going to get ugly.....
I think it's just human nature. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Also, asking "would a win restore or strengthen your confidence" is a completely separate question. It indicates that faith has already been lost or is waning. The way he phrased it makes it more optimistic in my opinion.
I get that Hoke is still building the program back to where he wants it to be, but this team has enough talent that it shouldn't get a free pass to lose every big road game for 3 years. As others have pointed out, MSU's team is not comprised of mostly 4 and 5 star recruits, yet they are still winning. And it's not like they were a consensus favorite to be the best team in the B1G this year a la Ohio. They had a huge question mark at the QB spot, had to replace LeVeon Bell at RB with no clear successor, had a bunch of unproven receivers who couldn't catch anything last year and had to replace a couple key starters on D.
I don't think Michigan's at the point where they can beat a team like Alabama yet and that's ok. But asking them to gut out a tough road win in East Lansing in Year 3 of the Hoke era with the existing talent on this team is not an unreasonable request.
With the schedule and talent Michigan has, I felt that coming into the season they should go either 9-3 or 10-2, depending on the outcome of the Ohio game. Anything less than that would be a step backwards, in my opinion. This is a critical game in terms of meeting that expectation. At some point, this team needs to be able to recover from a punch in the mouth on the road against a good team and fight back to win. If Michigan doesn't win this game, it will absolutely give me pause when I think about the potential progress this team is making under Hoke, Borges and Mattison.
The only people who are sure we will lose on Saturday are those that have already given up on the program.
I don't think its unreasonable to win in EL, because I think we will win.
But I also have adult-level emotional control, so while I will be disappointed (I may even use curse words, natch), my belief in a program that has gone 25-8 after seeing the previous program go 15-22 will not be shaken.
it will change my faith in Hoke so long as the loss is very competitive and we don't get stuffed with up the middle runs that don't work and abandon the pass altogether...but win or lose, I will not judge Hoke until after year 4...and at that time if we aren't a solid 10 win team with him going at least 2-2 against MSU and OSU, then I would start to worry about the direction of the program
Do we lose a close one? Did the refs only call one penalty on Staee? Is it terrible weather? Do we lose 63-0? If we lose 63-0, my opinion will change. Otherwise, not so much, since my expectation this year was 9-3, losing to Ohio, and losing two road games.
But again, how we play matters. Coming off a bye week, I'd hope we don't look unprepared. That will disappoint me.
what bluesalt said
are counting ohio as a loss,I would like to no what you are smoking?
If I'm a pessimist going in. Also, they're still reaping the rewards of Tatgate, so they have a better base of talent.
More than anything it is just one game. Unless they are blown out (never in the game and physically dominated and intimidated) I will still have a wait and see attitude. If they lose, I think you need to see if they can bounce back with three wins leading up to The Game; that would be encouraging.
Now if they win on the road in a hostile environment, that will be a nice step forward. A very nice step.
Yes I want national titles anything else is failure. Hoke is 0-3 in that department.
to WIN THE GAME!
You're going to be really disappointed for like 95% of Michigan football seasons. National championships are hard to come by.
Might want to check your sarcasm meter, it's not working 100%
and I am. Ask Alabama how hard it is to win titles. They seem to do a decent job at that. I want to be better than them. If you seriously think that going 9-3 10-2 is good enough than perhaps you should be a Clemson fan. It's been way too long since we have seen Michigan be Michigan. Carr couldn't maintain, rich rod never got off the ground, hoke so far has been on the decline since the end of season 1.
Ask Alabama how much easier it is to win titles when they got five full recruiting classes every four years and the minimum entrance requirements.
That aside, you made a point that I think actually disproves your contention. You state that "Carr couldn't maintain..." This, IMO, should be something that the Michigan fanbase gives the significance that it is due in relation to state of the program today.
Long term college footbal success, IMO, is built on a foundation of continuity, recruiting, facilities, and of course a high winning percentage. Michigan at the end of the Carr era was suffering from a deep infection festering inside the program. The facilities was woefully outdated and in need of renovation, and recruiting (see 2005) had slipped in large part due to Tressel in OSU. The facade was still there, and from the outside all appeared ok. But, then we all were witness to the debacle that eventually brought RR to Ann Arbor. The details of that event have been laid out, but it seems to me that Michigan on the inside wasn't what the fans saw (or wanted to see) on the outside. RR exposed a lot of this infection. He told us that he had a severe lack of scholarship athletes (again, see 2005), that S&C were outdated, and not to expect a great deal.
What does all this have to do with today?
As I look at it, when Hoke took over Michigan was in an only slightly better position that it was in 2008 when RR took over from Carr. There was still a scholarship deficit, but the facilities were being renovated and upgraded, but, RR kind of forgot that he needed to recruit OLinemen. So here we are today.
Remember continuity? Well, Michigan lost it and teams like Alabama, OSU, and Oregon didn't -- even when they had coaching changes. When you lose your foundation, you MUST rebuild it. You cannot just start building a structure on top of a crumbling foundation.
IMO, that is what Hoke is doing, and more importantly, that is what Brandon has mandated he do. Short term pain for long term gain. Remember, Michigan has been playing football for 134 years. Brandon and Hoke want to bring Michigan football back to national contention, and they both understand that to do that, there MUST be continuity and a slow steady approach to player development.
Everything you need to know about what is going on with the Michigan program can be found in looking at the roster, and the rosters going back to about 2005.
"Long term college footbal success, IMO, is built on a foundation of continuity, recruiting, facilities, and of course a high winning percentage."
...and it often seems to be something that goes AGAINST winning national championships. A bit of a dichotomy.
Sometimes you have to choose whether you want to be the 1990's Buffalo Bills or the 1990's Washington Redskins.
...that Alabama is the premier program in the nation, right?
You know what their average record over the past decade is?
9-3.
If we play well, and Borges calls an intelligent game, but we still get beat by a pretty good MSU team ... playing what is THE GAME for them ... at home - then No.
Howevah - If Borges goes all reptile brain and has us at 2 and 12 all day, and/or we come up with nothing innovative to surprise them... and we lose... and Hoke makes no changes at the end of the season then... yeah my confidence will be shaken (but not stirred to point of despair).
No.
While there are some things I am quite displeased with, we have to realize that Hoke's current recruits are only sophomores. 2011 was a nice Cinderella-type season, and maybe through my maize-colored glasses I was thinking more, but the rebuild (and conversion from spread to pro-style) really started last year.
If there wasn't a complete style change, then I'd be more frustrated than I already am, but it's simply not fair to hire coaches and then not let them get "their guys" to upperclassmen before the griping and calling for his head starts.
I was a Hoke supporter before the season started, and I had us going 9-3 including losses to MSU and OSU this season, so there's no reason for me to change my view after losing up in EL. I think he needs at least the '14 season before I start making conclusive judgements about whether he's going to make it or not.
No head coach, especially one who's more of a program manager than someone who's directly involved in game-time direction and decisions, is any better than his assistant coaches. It's not unreasonable to have reservations about some of his staff at this point, and Hoke's success is exactly tied to how he hires, assembles, and manages his assistants. If he doesn't maintain a staff that's stronger overall than his predecessor, he won't be successful in the long-term.
Getting back to the MSU game, I guess what would impact my view is how the game goes. If we get blown out in embarrassing fashion, that would certainly not be encouraging.
win or lose Saturday.
But I would really prefer a win...
always have tom brady
No, but it does change my outlook for the rest of the year. I think we'll go 11-1 if we beat Sparty and 9-3 if we lose.
We are nowhere near Coach Hoke having to win one particular game...If it means anything to anyone, I recently explained the board's misgivings with Coach Hoke and Coach Borges to an OSU-fan friend of mine. He laughed and said that he hopes Michigan fires Hoke, because he fears what Hoke is building.
I think a lot of OSU fans see how Hoke is recruiting and that worries them a little. It was definitely nice going into that Saturday in November and knowing (or feeling pretty confident) that OSU was going to beat UM. But there are a lot of OSU fans, myself included, who want to see Hoke succeed and continue to recruit well. I think that when every thing comes easy to you- especially winning B1G games for most of the 2000's- it leads to complacency and you end up getting smoked in back to back national championships. As much as OSU fans hate to admit it, OSU needs UM to be good. And that will drive OSU to be better. More OSU fans will realize this once we get left out of the NC game this year.
Why would OSU fans be worried about our recruiting? It's not like we're pulling in Alabama/Texas level classes every year. They're closer to that under Urban than we are under Hoke. Know the last time Rivals ranked one of our classes higher than Ohio State's? 2010. If anything, Ohio State is doing better in recruiting when compared to us than they were during the Tressel/Carrr years.
Whoa, man, try to have some perspective. First of all, at the end of the day, rankings are not that important as they are far from an exact science. Secondly, if you finish in the top 10- which UM has done and it seems like they will continue to do under Hoke- you have obviously recruited some very good football players. You have to give Hoke some credit in what he has done on the recruiting trail (especially if he lands Hand). I am still witholding judgment on his coaching ability/player development, but Hoke and his staff has done extremely well with getting talent to Ann Arbor.
I just don't see why OSU fans would be worried about us recruiting at our historical norm. From the Ohio State fans I know, they seem to think recruiting is going wonderfully for them and that for every Ohio recruit they lose to us, they grab someone better from out of state.
Hoke has recruited well, I just tend to think that he isn't having the monster classes that scare our top rival who are pulling in classes at least equal to, if not better than what we're getting.
"I just don't see why OSU fans would be worried about us recruiting at our historical norm."
Maybe because our "historical norm" had us beating them at least as often as we lost to them. Further, it is Hoke's ability to break through the "wall around Ohio" that Tressel built in the latter stages of Carr's tenure that has them justifiably worried.
Similaryly, MSU fans are worried because they were able to gain a short-term advantage in the rivalry when Michigan was at its historic lows.
I don't think it is Hoke's recruiting success in Ohio that has a majority of the fans concerned. At the end of the day, Urban still gets 90+% of the guys he wants from the state of Ohio. What I was alluding to in my previous post is that you cannot discount what Hoke has done not only locally but nationally- Peppers, Hand, Campbell, Harris just to name a few. I am not saying he won't outrecruit Urban but if he can keep it close and win some battles which he has done, how would OSU fans not be concerned? Again, though, that is good for the B1G, the rivalry and it will make OSU better in the long run so I am all for it.
like this sometimes when people are unsure what to think about things. Win or lose, the Board will find an equilibrium after this week where nearly everybody agress that we are pretty good or pretty shitty. There will still be some hysteria, particularly if we lose, but it will be a much more stable environment and dialogue. It may be a clinically depressed dialgoue but the manic phase will be over.
Feels a lot like before 2009 Penn State around here right now (hopefully we don't have a gut punch like that coming). Everybody is antsy and confused as hell.
Good point about 2009 Penn St. I wasn't posting around here then but there's definitely a feeling right now as though we're at a cross roads. I'm a bit in the middle of the chaos vs everything is hunky-dory. Many questions are in all of us and this week does in fact, to me, have a bit weighing on it. Is the world hanging on this game? No, but enough is that will tell where this season is heading more or less how it'll likely end.
Just this week?
the make or break for Coach Hoke. The sad reality may be that we win all of our Legend division games (a perfect 5-0) and if we lose to ohio, MSU would likely play for the B1G championship (assuming that they would only have 1 loss in the conference). This would mean that Michigan would be 10 - 2 and still not be in the title game.
On the flip side if MSU wins, I wonder how the team will react because any chance of a B!G championship would be gone ... again.
Go Blue!
we won't lose, beat state!
1. Dantonio will show a surprising level of class in the post-game presser, crediting Michigan with matching MSU's physicality.
2. If the line on number of penalty-worthy WWF moves is at 1.5, I will take the under.
3. Channing Stribling gets his first career pick and Michigan's D forces at least one fumble.
4. Langford rushes for less than 100.
The coaches really need to create an advantage in this game, whether by scheme or new plays or trick plays. I'd like to see Sparty try a fake something, and Michigan be on the lookout for it and snuff it. I'd like to see a real counter to double A gap blitz and snap count jumping. I'd like to see Borges really have a plan to get some good (open) deep shots and running lanes against that cover 4. And I'd like Mattison to befuddle their Offense and force some turnovers. I don't expect to see this every down, but I'd like our guys to be outsmarting theirs. That needs to happen.
I don't want to be screaming "watch the fake" on every punt and watch as they go around for a 20-yard gain. We need to reverse that.
My confidence in Hoke already took a huge hit in the Penn State game. He coached scared and not to lose. My greater concern is the teams lack of identity. With three top 5 recruiting classes, Hoke should not lose to a Penn State team with 20 less scholarships and a fresh QB. The 11-1 season was a fluke and last year plus this year gives a pretty large sample size. Hoke appears to be a 8-4/9-3 record coach who might give you a BCS type team once every few years.
Let's not forget, we were extremelyluckyto beat UCONN and Akron.
He has one top-25 recruiting class and two top 10 recruiting classes. We still should have beat Penn State but c'mon man if you're going to make comments like that do a 30 second foogle search first.
ED: Also...what 11-1 season does he have? Haha
Akron and UConn were close games, but there was nothing lucky about winning either.
...this is embarassing. Downright awful. In fact, you have no clue what you're talking about. None whatsoever.
Hoke is in his third year. No excuses. He MUST beat spartie and ohio. If he doesn't, then I have no confidence. None. The schedule is very favorable. There are no excuses. Good coaches succeed in second and third years. Period. It is time to show me. If Hoke cannot get it done he WILL not get it done.
I want him to succeed. I really do. Show me. Now.
Some seem to think that Meyer and Hoke inherited equivalent situations. They did not, as you note...Tressel wasn't fired from OSU because he wasn't recruiting or winning games. He'd just made it to his umpteenth straight BCS game when he was let go. Meyer inherited a group of players that likely would have continued Tressel's success if Tressel had stayed as OSU's coach. You can argue that Meyer hasn't changed the course of OSU's program all that much. You cannot argue that with Coach Hoke.
While I agree with your roster point, I still expected (before the season) that we would beat spartie and ohio this year. Year 3. I expect that. So my confidence would be a casualty if we don't, especially since I have seen how 6-1 was accomplished. I believe that the close games against UCONN and Akron were not flukes, they were harbingers. So far I have been correct. Those games showed us to be SOFT. We need to turn it around and be tough enough to win these games ahead. If Hoke's team continues to be soft, we will lose to spartie and ohio, and my confidence will be completely gone. It is shaken right now. I hope to get it back.
So yeah, I am serious, and I am saddened as well. Look at history. Coaches at big time schools in their second and third year WIN. If not they lose their job and someone else steps in. I am aware of what Hoke started with here at Michigan. Well aware. Still, the toughness I thought was coming back is not. Is he another Notre Dame level failed coach? So far I fear that is a yes, unless he can win in his third year against his rivals.
And to cite a specific SOFT example....I am still stinging from the game two years ago when Hoke actually shook Golston's hand and patted him on the back after the game..... ugh how embarrassing. You think Bo or Mo and even Lloyd would have put up with that by acting that way? Ugh. We all know the answer to that. And that hurts my confidence.
So you think Hoke should have slugged Gholston like Woody would have? Being a jackass to a kid would be more embarrasing?
I have not one loss under Hoke in which I felt like Michigan lost because they were "soft" as you say. Soft teams don't come back to win when they're getting stunned by an inferior opponent. Soft teams crator and pout, Michigan did neither.
I think the problem is with your expectations NOT with what Hoke is or isn't doing. If you EXPECTED to beat MSU on the road, and OSU -- one of the best teams in the nation -- with a team as young as Michigan's team is, then you're not really paying attention, IMO. I WANT to beat those two team, but do I EXPECT to beat them? Hell no!
I never said Hoke should punch someone. I said he should not have shook his hand and, stay with me here, pat him on the back. Lloyd would have been clear about things.
I think we are soft because we get pushed around (by Akron omigosh).
I do think we have great resiliency and (young) talent.
I do not believe osu is one of the best teams in the nation. That is crucial to our points of view and who knows who is correct right now. But I definitely do not believe that. I do believe they are one of the best in the Big Ten and I think we can be as well.
I am paying attention. Look at my other posts. This is not a new topic for me. I have thought about this for a long time now.
And I think it furthers my whole point that you (and others) do not EXPECT to win this weekend. WE SHOULD EXPECT IT! We should not be at this point. I have faith that it will happen, I am just saying that my confidence of where this program is heading will be hit hard if we don't.
"And I think it furthers my whole point that you (and others) do not EXPECT to win this weekend. WE SHOULD EXPECT IT!"
I have no expectations -- expectations and attachments are the source of all human suffering. The results of something as complex as a football game are pretty much beyond anyone's control. Players and coaches can influence the result, to an extent, but trying too hard to control results that are beyond your control is folly.
When you state something like, "WE SHOULD EXPECT [to win]" you state it with bravado, as if expecting to win is the nirvana state that all fans should seek to attain. Not expecting to win is not indicative of a lack confidence nor passion for Michigan football. Not expecting to win is, IMO, indicative of understanding the reality of sports, the "on any given Saturaday..." idea, and accepting that my expectations are wholly and completely irrelevant.
I have no problem with your expectation, unless you (and others) decide that it's something that they should hold against others, and the coaching staff. As for the coaching staff, they have a very different perspective, and motivation. If asked, "do you expect to beat MSU?" I am sure you'd hear Hoke say something along the lines of, "I expect our team to play hard, to be physical, and to leave everything they have on the field for Michigan." Those, IMO, are healty expectations. They are expectations that are within the control of the coaches and players.
In reading your posts I get a very negative vibe from you, and specifically in relation to Hoke. Fine, your choice. However, I think your indictments of him and the teams that he's coached are unfair.
"We should not be at this point."
There is that SHOULD again. Why should we be at this point? Because...? We should be at this point because you feel like we're supposed to be? I personally don't think we should be. Setting aside my Buddhist philosophy for a moment, and looking purely at personnel and continuity, I don't think we're anywhere near "back" from the hole that Michigan was in since about 2005. You obviously harken back to the glory days of Bo, Mo, and early Carr. But, you can basically discount much of Bo's tenure (in comparing his era to today) as for his first 3 seasons there were no limits, then in 1972 the limit was 105, then 95 in 1978 -- it wasn't until 3 years AFTER Bo retired that the current limit of 95 was set. I loved those days too, believe me. But, rebuilding and reestablishing the pipeline of recruits takes time, and we're just not there yet.
"I expect our team to play hard, to be physical, and to leave everything they have on the field for Michigan". Agreed. If we do that, I would expect we would win. Having better caliber players than spartie, we should fare well. I have much faith that we can do this. I know all about reestablishing the pipeline, but I am not happy with the thought it should take longer at Michigan than is does at other programs. I am not giving that free pass to Hoke. And I hope he is man enough to understand that. Course it doesn't matter what I think, it matters, eventually, what the Money Men think and tell Brandon to do.
I would allow that the negative vibe you feel is our season so far. It has been a very negative 6-1. Two narrow victories against teams with 2 wins between them is included as well as continuing to underperform on the road. I would like my vibe to be on the fence kind of thing. The balance of the season depends on this game. My vibe/confidence will fall to the negative side if we lose because I feel Hoke has no excuses. If we win, bravo, and I will be vibing all positive about games to come this season.
"I know all about reestablishing the pipeline, but I am not happy with the thought it should take longer at Michigan than is does at other programs."
What programs are you speaking of? How long has it taken Michigan? Further, if it has, in fact, taken Michigan longer (which I don't think it has) to reestablish the pipeline, doesn't that indicate just how disfunctional Michigan's pipeline/recruiting/development had become?
Michigan essentially had the same regime in control of the program from 1969 until 2007. It had become stale, out dated in its facilities, techniques, and was getting walled off from its most fertile recruiting ground by OSU's new coaching staff. I feel like whomever Michigan chose to replace Carr was going to struggle -- change was needed several years before. RR, IMO, made things even worse with his lack of recruiting.
So, IMO, Michigan made the necessary changes to the facilities and got "new blood" into the program that were needed almost a decade before. You might think the rebuild is taking too long and get impatient, but I don't. To me, the RR years should be thrown out on a the time line -- very little rebuilding progress was made, and likely even more harm was done in recruiting. So, to me, it's 2010, and Hoke was hired to replace Carr. As such, I am not impatient because I know many of the issues (facilities, scholarship deficit, poor recuriting) have been solved. We have a great coach who has been recruiting very well. Now is the time for patience. Let the staff do their work, enjoy the fact that we can be rebuilding and still win more than we lose, and be excited about the team going forward.
What programs are you speaking of? How long has it taken Michigan?
Alabama, USC, Oklahoma...it has taken all a minimum of three years. They all won NC's in year four or sooner, and were in the top 5 in year three or sooner.
But that is beside the point, because I believe Hoke's strength has been reestablishing the pipeline to be sure. We have a talent advantage (by far) on Saturday. I do not think this can be denied.
It would be nice to see the rebuild translating to the field. And winning Saturday would validate that. I would be more confident that the rebuilding is happening. If they continue their trends and get pushed around again, then my confidence goes away.
We have a great coach who has been recruiting very well.
I am certainly not ready to call Hoke a "Great" coach. Why would one call him a great coach?
I am with you on recruiting and getting RR behind us. And I am willing to be patient. Just give me something to see it all happening. Becauseeeee, as I state above, I expect things to get going in Year 3. That may be too soon for you. I hold Michigan to high standards. So many others do it in Year 3. Why can't we? And I am not saying we have not. I am saying that IF we lose Saturday, we probably have not.
FTR it is not ideal to argue all this over a What If scenario. We might be in complete agreement if our OL all of a sudden starts blocking better and we can run and our QB doesn't turn the ball over and we push their OL around and so on.
"So many others do it in Year 3. Why can't we?"
Maybe because the pipelines were in better shape at those schools than Michigan's was when Hoke took over. That was my point in going back to 2005 to understand why Michigan is where it is today. I don't have time to investigate the three programs you listed above, but I would be willing to bet that they were no where near as had become -- remember when RR took over in 2008 Michigan was 20+ scholarships short of the allowable limit. Again, I'd be willing to bet that neither USC, Oklahoma, and certainly not the oversigning Crimson Tide turned over the program with that kinda of deficit in scholarships. Then throw in 3-9, no bowl for the first time in 30 years, bad press, and even worse recruiting, and one should have a pretty clear picture of why Michigan might take a bit longer.
"It would be nice to see the rebuild translating to the field."
I agree 100%, although I think that has been translating to the field. Michigan is undefeated at home under Hoke, has only lost 8 games in 3 seasons, and has a BCS Bowl win. They broke the losing streak to their biggest rivals, and went 2-3 against ND. Add to that the fact that recruiting has been excellent, and I don't see what all the complaining is about.
If this was 2015...I'd agree with you 100%. But, sorry my friend.
Really? You are willing to be soft for an entire 5 years? I sincerely hope that things turn around. They might. They could. That is why I am focused on how we do this week. If we are tough and win like we are supposed to, I would be the first to say confidence is renewed and the ohio game can bring it very high. But really? 5 whole entire years? What other big time program waits 5 whole entire years? I know of no successful program that waits that long.
Alabama was bad for more than 5 years. Oregon was bad for as long as they'd played football. USC had a long bad stretch. LSU was bad for a long time before they were good. Notre Dame had been bad for 15 years or so.
All teams have bad stretches. The wonderful thing about Michigan is that none of us had ever seen a bad stretch before Coach Rods regime. But we've been stripped of that notion; we can be bad, we've been bad recently. Right now, we are good.
Appreciated. This is what my friends and I talk about during timeouts in games.
I agree we are having our bad stretch now. I was born during the Bump Elliot era. The first football game I can remember watching was the 1969 UM-osu game. I am from the Bo era.
Let's not discuss Oregon and LSU since they are not storied programs from the Bo era and have only gotten good while, let's say, taking advantage of the rules.
notre dame == since Lou Holtz, they have had their bad stretch with coaches named Bob Davie for 5 years, Ty Willingham for 3, Weis for 5
USC == pre-Carroll, they have gone through a long bad stretch peppered with Rose/BCS-type Bowl appearances. Larry Smith lasted three years after 3 Roses in a row, Hacket 3 years total. John Robinson's second stint in there for 5 years and a Rose Bowl. I refuse to let Lane Kiffin help my argument.
Alabama == post Bear era (pre-Saban and not counting Gene Stallings NC & cheating 7 years), you had Ray Perkins for 4, Bill Curry for 3, Mike DuBose for 4, Dennis Franchione for 2, and Mike Shula for 4 (omg).
I will state I was surprised that some of these coaches went more than 3 years, but will point out that their final seasons were garbage.
Sooooo, the above is what I am concerned about. If Hoke isn't the answer, we will know in Year 3 but may hang on longer for no real reason. So, this year I am not even asking for a NC, I am asking for Michigan Football. I want to beat our rivals. I do not want to be pushed around by the likes of Akron. I will lose my confidence if we lose to our rivals. I will KNOW Hoke isn't the guy. I hope that doesn't happen. I am not predicting the outcome, I am saying if Hoke is not another Bump Elliot, we MUST win this week, plain and simple.
To echo what Reader71 said.
Texas was a national non-entity after their glory days in the 60's, and it wasn't until Mack Brown came along with VY and McCoy that they regain their national status.
Bama won the NC in 1992 under Stallings and weren't back there until 2009.
You seem to act as if "waiting" means being "soft" and not winning. By contrast, I think "waiting" means understanding how CFB cycles work. When you're young and talented it's just a matter of time before your experienced and talented, and that is when you're most likely to win championships. Waiting 5 years (from the time a coach is hired) is giving that coach at least one complete recruiting cycle. Let that coach have an entire roster of players that he has recruited and developed -- especially if he can keep the team winning most of the time in the mean time. That was what did RR in. They gave him a pass for 2008, but he couldn't win with any regularity while he was rebuilding. Hoke has been.
Agreed with a lot there. I am not saying I already have lost confidence. I am anwering the OP's question, kinda. I am saying my confidence will change for the worse if they lose this week...then prolly gone completely if we lose to ohio.
We are i2i on the CFB cycles. {except please let me point out that Texas was a national Power in the 70's through Fred Akers reign....then they had coaches for 5 years at a time while winning their conference}. I can be patient.
The SOFT reference is because we have been this year. On the lines and in tackling. By soft I mean not physical, not imposing our will. It is football, after all.
If Hoke is going to get 5 years fine. But if he cannot beat spartie and ohio in year 3, my confidnce that he will be the man and lead us past 5 years will be gone.
Does anyone really believe we if we lose to them both this year but will magically beat them both NEXT year when they are both on the road? My confidence needs Hoke to win these games now.
This is a joke, guys.
If we go PSU and continue to do completely worthless play calls and DG isn't turning it over I'll be quite disappointed. If DG is turning it over I don't think I can blame the coaches for that as much as DG continuing to grow.
I've got a nervous excitement about this game - if we open it up and play the offense that we're best suited for I think we win by 10 or more. If we go into "OMG we're playing on the road we need to try 1 yard and a cloud of bodies" mode I'm going to be extremely disappointed.
Depends on why he's turning it over to me. If we're consistently putting him in third and long situations by refusing to pass on first and second down, it's going to be hard for me to blame him if that's the case.
I just want us to play well. For me, that's what's been lacking this season - a real sense that we're a good, disciplined, well-coached team. I'd like to see some consistency now. Even if we don't win games, if we're in them from start to finish, then I'll feel like we're headed in the right direction. So far, this season has me confused on what direction we're going in.
Spot on. The record last year wasn't great but we were competitive in every game save the one against the JV team for the NFL. I felt very good about the direction of the program last year because a couple of plays here and there and we have a very good record with one of the harder schedules. This year we have a much easier schedule so if we go 8-4 we have not made progress. If we go 9-3 or better coupled with a bowl win I would say that is progress. Definitely too early to be calling for Hoke's head IMO but Funk and Borges should probably get questioned.
While Hoke is no where near 'must win' yet, I will say that like any other game, this will provide a relevant data point as to the direction and ceiling of the program. We'll have to wait and see what happens and then digest from there. My personal feelings are that this game won't change a whole lot. I think I've seen enough already that I have an idea of the direction in my mind. It will take a few more games in either direction, positive or negative, to cause any significant direction changes for me.
The recent threads around here make me want to gouge my eyes out. For fuck sake people, lets play the game first.
Next year will be better and quite honestly, If we don't show vast improvement it wouldn't bother me to lose a few more. I think that this season is more of a building block to next season but if we skate by and win these next few games we shouldn't and then lose to OSU two times, to end the season, followed by a thrashing in a bowl we shouldn't be in, it could kill any momentum we may have for next season.
Nope, not at all. If Michigan is still in this position in 2015, then I'll begin to question whether Hoke is the guy for this program.
This team is still so young across the board, I don't expect anything big for another couple years.
Absolutely not. Sparty has probably the best defence in the country this year. Even when we were at our peak it was always tough playing in EL, probably losing about every other time there. One loss on the road to a good team says nothing about the long term direction of the program.
The outcome of this game won't affect my perception of Hoke or where the program is heading in general, but, depending on the offensive philosophy in this game, it may affect my perception of Borges. I haven't been very critical of him yet, but I think it is fairly obvious how we are going to win games from here on out.
Our under-center running game has not been working. I don't think you can abandon it because you need it for PA, but if he comes out and runs 20 times from under center, I will lose almost all of my confidence in him. I want to see them spread the defense out and pass. We have the components for it and I think it gives us the best shot at putting points on the board and winning.
We also know that MSU is going to time the snap and blitz a lot, especially with that double-A-gap blitz. This will be the third year we will have seen it. If there is no plan to deal with either of those, then I will lose a lot of confidence in Borges.
Our under-center running game has not been working. I don't think you can abandon it because you need it for PA, ...
Play-action works primarily because the defense is cheating towards the run action. If defenses don't have to cheat to stop the base under-center running game (like Penn State), then play-action can only work against your offense because the time spent on the meaningless play fake can be spent reading coverage and/or setting up a different pass play. Thus, there is no reason to run under-center (play-action or not) against MSU when a slew of other options will better utilize our players' strengths (most notably our WR duo and mobile QB).
Now if they use under-center as a counter when MSU decides to go 5-6 in the box to stop what is otherwise working...
Did cheat a bunch to stop our under center run game by bringing in a couple extra DTs and going big. Now there's a point to be made about not adjusting a ton and getting 27 for 27, but PSU did gameplan for it.
It sounds like Penn State just used a different base defense that includes four DTs. This should be vulnerable to outside running since a DT should not be able to keep edge contain like a traditional DE. Then, if Penn State commits more defenders (cheats) to stop this run play, play-actioning off of this would work to allow your receivers to get even more open.
Or, if your team is exceptionally bad at attacking the edges of a defense, don't play-action from this formation and just throw it, since their team should lose pass-rushing capability without any DEs.
The main complaint about PSU was that we were running into a stacked box. This happened right out of the blocks.
Your claim is true in general, but teams load up on us to stop the run right away. They aren't coming out and running base D and adjusting to our run game. They are taking it away right out of the box in an effort to make us one dimensional and trying to get some turnovers from our QB.
You forgot about the part where you figure out how the defense is cheating so that you can attack the part of the defense that they are cheating with. You're not figuring that out without actually running.
Like I said, I'd love to see us spread it out a lot more, but if we come out under center 90% of the game and we're passing 70% of that time against a stacked box to the tune of 300+ yards and 28 points with no turnovers, I'm not going to complain about that. If we keep running into said stacked box or Devin is making bad decisions because he doesn't have enough time to make them, then I'm going to complain that we aren't moving more toward the spread.
In the end, I'm trusting him with the play calling because he knows way more than I do. The one thing we know that this team can't do is run under center into a stacked box. If he repeatedly does that, then I'll lose my faith in him. If he decides to pass from under center and run from the spread, I'm relatively ok with that because I've seen that we are capable of doing both of those things.
Hoke started his U of M head coaching tenure on a higher note than he should've in his first year. By all accounts, that was the luckiest U of M team I ever recall seeing in my lifetime. So, we're probably where we should be. That said, a loss to MSU is not necessarily change my impression of this coaching regime's trajectory. I do honestly think however, that regardless of what happens on Saturday or the rest of the year, if a a few important coaching changes in the offseason are not made, then I would have great concern over the decision making ability of our short sleeved and fearless leader, and thus be worried about where this program is headed.
I think that, consciously or not, many fans have shortened the amount of rebuilding time they are content to deal with due to OSU's nearly unprecedented success with their regime change.
Watching OSU struggle through their scandal with a 6-7 record probably led many fans to imagine that OSU would hit a similar downturn as Michigan with RR, and that Hoke would very quickly ascend UM back to the top of the B1G.
But then in came Meyer and 20 wins, and Hoke's 11-2 turned to 8-5 and then this year all confidence was restored with a win over ND, only for it to be shattered into pieces by squeakers over Akron and UCONN, followed by the ugliness at PSU.
For fans who were expecting/hoping that OSU was trending down after 2011 and that Michigan was on its way to the top of the B1G, everything is all topsy-turvy and upside down. It is not too surprising then, when many fans are reaching towards the Panic Button, ready to hit it at the next major setback.
What if we turn the homeless into tires?
Sorry, but I don't judge the program direction based on one regional rivalry game. If losing to MSU annually meant beating Ohio every year, I'll take it.
There is a certain mix that coaches must use when approaching how they coach young players, and there is certainly a difference in the approach that this staff uses compared to some others. This staffs main focus is and will be to teach these players how to play the right way. I don't mean that as a moral thing, it's not about "playing without cheating", it's that fundamentals, technique, attitude, etc. will always come first and foremost before "what can we get away with now to look somewhat better in the present.
This staff coaches for a future that isn't here yet. You can argue that they need to have a bit better balance, maybe skimp on some of the fundamental things to get them to a point where they have a better chance of succeeding right away, but I don't think it's part of the philosophy. I'm not saying one way is right or one way is wrong. In today's culture, I think demanding technique so that players become better in the future, especially when you have lots of young players, is an extremely risky move. But I do think it has a higher payoff if it succeeds. A team with less limitations and weaknesses because once they consistently do things the right way, they can take on any challenge. This team isn't there yet though.
It's striking a balance. It's between "we aren't going to be very good at this this year, so let's miss a year of developement with that thing and take a bit of a short-cut by doing it this way so we can be relatively more successful right away" and "we aren't very good at this this year, but this is fundamental to our goals and we believe this needs to be understood if we want to reach our ultimate goals as a program." I know the latter sounds like a more positive outlook, but there is a lot to the former that is valid as well. This coaching staff leans heavily on the latter, and I think the debate, a valid debate, is whether people believe that should be more lenient in that approach.
I have a question that maybe you could shed some light on.
What makes the fundamentals that Hoke's staff is trying to teach different from the fundamentals that Kliff Kingsbury has successfully installed in year 1 at TT, leading them to a #15 ranking so far with a walk-on playing QB for them for much of the year?
Or how different are they from what Meyer did at OSU last year, taking an offensive line that had lost 3 five-star OL and having to start a converted TE at RT who had never played a snap of OT in his life, yet still managing to end up in the top 10 in rushing offense in year 1 of a brand new system that their players were not recruited into?
Obviously TT runs the Air Raid and OSU runs a power spread, but my point is that these offenses have successfully transitioned to a brand new style of offense, taught the players the fundamentals for it, and have been wildly successful in them ALL IN YEAR 1!
TT and OSU have not sacrificed their fundamentals for winning early. They installed their fundamentals quickly, continue to improve upon them, and run their offense in a way conducive to success.
Do Hoke's staff's fundamentals intrinsically require more time, experience, strength, and size to master? If so, what advantage do they have over these other teams that are able to run successful offenses in such a style nearly immediately?
If the staff is making such a sacrifice, what are they gaining out of it as opposed to the other systems that work fast and work well immediately?
Agreed, our scoring offense is 8th in the country.
People act as if we're in the high 90s or low 100s or something.
So I can't really comment on them too much. But let's take for example Mike Leech, their former coach, to help explain what I mean.
Mike Leech's offense is very simple, though it looks extremely complex. The reason he does that is to maximize player's abilities at certain things and not worry about the rest. What this means is that you have OL that really only know how to block for 3 and 5-step drops. They don't know how to pull. They struggle to get good leverage run blocking. They simplify their pass pro scheme. WRs only learn one position, and then a few routes out of that position. They don't learn how to read coverages. They don't really know how to adjust routes outside of sitting in a zone at the end of it. A common complaint is that they don't even know a route tree. QBs learn to read that system. They rarely learn to read coverages properly, only to an extent that allows them to run their certain plays. They simplify the reads and types of passes.
What all this means is that they are skirting many of the basic fundamentals to get these players to a point they can win. But if a defense takes away some of these things, they really don't have a chance. It's not as simple as just "taking things away" of course. The offense is still good and the players are very good at what they do. It's just that it's a different philosophy for approaching the situation. FWIW, Leech does this because he often took good athletes that were extremely raw fundamentally and technique-wise. He was simplifying it simply to try to get the most of his athletes, but it didn't really help many or any of them transisiton to the next level or getting better at playing in any system but his.
As far as OSU, I think it's a somewhat poor example. Under Tressel, and to the same extent, under Fickle, they still approached the game with a fundamentals first mentality. The best thing that ever happened to Pryor is that Tressel made him learn fundamentally how to play QB. Guys dumb as a box of rocks, was technically raw, and is an NFL QB right now, regardless of people's opinions of him. That approach didn't change to a huge degree under Meyer, it certainly didn't up front. Still, you look at the passing game and it's extremely simplified. It basic concepts that are run that aren't adjusted and reads aren't very difficult. They know a route tree and some basic adjustments, for instance, but not a whole lot more than that. The defense was always one predicated on fundamentals, fundamentals that for whatever reason have become more suspect since Meyer arrived, despite having a lot of the same defensive staff. But at the end of the day, those were players that were being heavily taught fundamentals similar to what Hoke's philosophy is now. So that transition is quite different.
Isn't this also the answer to the question from a couple of weeks ago of how Indiana is "doing it" with such a young offensive line? They run a scheme that minimizes the importance of their offensive line and depends very heavily on the abilities of their QB and especially their receivers, and on the shock value of the unique tempo. It kind of reminded me of Grinnell basketball, on a completely different level of course.
That makes sense if you're Indiana. You're not going to pull in massive hauls of top-quality O-line recruits, but if you can get a reputation as a dynamic offensive team you might be able to get a receiver each year and a QB every two. Maybe your ceiling will be what Indiana is now, but for Indiana that's pretty good.
But for Michigan to do that just to protect this year's young line and maybe pull out an extra win or two doesn't make any sense to me. Committing to a scheme that de-emphasized offensive line play would be throwing away what we have some reason to think is a likely future strength.
Agree with the posters below. Texas Tech is a very bad example. Their schedule is back loaded; games left include: Ok St, Ks St., Baylor and Texas. They could realistically lose out and finish 7-5.
I absolutely agree with your assessment of this coaching staff (at least on the offensive side of the ball). It's clear they want to do something, it's clear that the team cannot actually do it well yet, and it also seems they err to the side of 'keep on keeping on' when it comes to practicing that style of play.
However, the coaches also have stated goals of championships. And at this point, it's clear that 'keep on keeping on' will not get this team through the meat of the schedule and put the team in a position to win the division or conference. The coaches also owe it to the current players to put them in the best position to succeed for the rest of the season. I'm hoping they show some flexibility at this point in the tough games coming up to help put the team in a better position to win. I feel that even when the team matures and ages in a few years, it's still college football and there will always be youth and question marks. The coaches have to find that correct balance of practicing what they identity of the team is/will be, and actually winning. November this year will be a good litmus test in my opinion.
I think that is a false dichotomy.
The inability to mold even an acceptable OL is the lone thing that Hoke and Co haven't done well that can be attributed to coaching, IMO. Every other thing is direct result of the transition and gap in recruiting right before the transition. Even the OL troubles are in no small part due to this, and given the complexity of the position, the youth makes the problems disappointing but not really that surprising either.
These guys decided play to the strengths of the existing personnel (i.e. Denard) when they first got here instead of installing their system from day one. As a result, this is really year 1.5 of the transition, and, again, the recruiting gaps are still playing havoc with what they actually want to run offensively.
Either way, the whole year 3 timeline for a new coach is completely ridiculous and reflects the instant gratification culture at large. If we run off new coaches for not winning championships every 3-4 years, the continuity and recruiting issues we have now will seem like nothing and we'll be stuck in a perpetual cycle of mediocrity (see Notre Dame).
Except ND got to a NC game in their coach's 3rd year after running the previous coaches off. And Weis had 5 years at ND. ND may not be the greatest data point.
BK was already on the hot seat the entire previous year and prior to that they'd had 3 coaches in 13 years. Yeah, they gave Weiss a 5th year, but only because it was cheaper to keep him and he was a dead man walking. The fact that they pretty much lucked their way into the NC game last year doesn't change the fact that ND fans are the some of the most impatient, delusional fans in CFB and that they should be a cautionary tale to those in our fanbase with those same tendencies.
Even though ND got to the national title game I am not sure that was an overall positive experience. Between the way they got their ass handed to them and the fake dead girlfriend they became a national joke.
Doesn't matter how pleseant it was. Every team that goes undefeated gets a few breaks. And I agree that they didn't deserve to be in the NC game, but regardless, they still went undefeated against a good schedule. That is incredibly difficult to do. They leaned on their strengths, their youth didn't do them in, and they got it done. Even if they drop the Stanford game, or Pitt makes a feild goal, they still end up in a BCS bowl with a RS frosh at QB. I like to pile on ND as much as the next guy, but it was still a damn impressive season. That season was basically UM's 2011 season minus the offensive debacles of MSU and Iowa.
Either way, the whole year 3 timeline for a new coach is completely ridiculous and reflects the instant gratification culture at large. If we run off new coaches for not winning championships every 3-4 years, the continuity and recruiting issues we have now will seem like nothing and we'll be stuck in a perpetual cycle of mediocrity (see Notre Dame).
is a primary reason why people were reluctant to see Rodriguez get fired. Despite the mismanaging of the defense, the lackluster recruiting, etc., people were worried a lack of continuity would mean the problems would perpetuate rather than improve. Thus, give him 5 years to graduate a class of his own recruits and let's see the direction the program is headed. Instead we see a breath of life into the program, as recruiting takes off under Hoke and the 19 returning starters + Woolfolk are enough to catapult the team to a Sugar Bowl win. Now perception is that Michigan is "back" or "on the rise" or whatever positive narrative is appropriate here.
Now I don't think we are anywhere near the lows of Rodriguez's tenure, and I don't think the offense will approach the 2010 defense level of fail. However, if the goal is to win the big ten championship and beat Ohio State, the coaches have to show they are willing to do everything they can to do so (while staying inside NCAA regulations). Part of this is putting their athletes in the best position to succeed every game. So far, there have been 5 games (MSU + Iowa 2011, Notre Dame and OSU 2012, Penn State 2013) that the coaching staff's gameplan have allowed a potential win turn into a loss. For a team that wants to win Big Ten championships, that is probably too many.
Yes, it's not black and white. You have to balance the hit in continuity with keeping a guy that's obviously not cutting it. Yeah, the recruiting took off with the new coach (I would argue it was just as much suppressed by the uncertainty of the old one), but we're just seeing the fruits of that now. I'm not saying RR could have managed 11-2 in 2011, but Hoke and Co did it with RR's guys largely running RR's scheme offensively. Now, there's no question Mattison performed a miracle with the D, but could that have happened if RR had gotten his preferred DC? We'll never know.
You can't point to the all the positives of the transition and ignore the negatives, or chalk them up just to "bad gameplans." Sure, you can look at every loss and find something the coaches could have done differently, but we'll never know if it would have flipped a L into a W. At the end of the day, new coaches having round-peg-square-hole issues with the guys they inherit is part and parcel of coaching changes.
Guys get to this level because they know one system inside and out. A level of specialization is required, there just aren't enough hours in a day to know the nuances of every system. A backslide in coaching performance when you ask a guy deviate from his system is expected and understandable, see: Robinson, GERG. In that respect, Hoke and Borges have done a pretty heroic job of incorporating spread elements to suit the personnel. Add in a lack of bodies in general from the hole that was the class of 2010 and it's hard to argue that Hoke and Co lost us games just due to stubborness or ineptitude. They're working through some constraints they were dealt with still and we'd do well as a fanbase to keep that in mind.
when Michigan lost a game in his tenure despite a good gameplan (Outback Bowl, Nebraska 2012, Alabama). I also don't care if Hoke won a game mostly on the heroic effort of Devin or Denard despite poor gameplan (UTL 2011). Rather, games where defenses were cheating against certain tendencies yet Michigan was unwilling to punish them for it are among the most infuriating to watch as a fan. This happened in every loss I cited in my prior post (OSU 2012 is debatable). Sure, it's not easy to coach a running QB like Denard when your expertise uses an artillery pocket-passer, but I think small changes, like building in more constraint/counters or showing flexibility, could have gone a long way to helping the team succeed in these games. If a coaching system is good enough to incorporate some spread elements to accommodate Denard, this seems elementary.
Now, I'm on the side of "retain Hoke but re-evaluate Borges and Funk". It appears that Hoke has done an excellent job of removing most of what I'd call the "systematic failures" that were present under Rodriguez. Failures that run so deep that the players themselves look worse than they really are with decent coaching (see: the 2011 defense). This is hard to judge a coach's effect on without the benefit of hindsight; "Never Forget" was site's stance in 2010 but "Gibson minus all the points" came in 2011. As of right now, the biggest questions on this team's coaching staff involve OL development and illogical offensive gameplans. For the former, youth can explain why the interior OL is bad now but can't explain why Omameh couldn't pull effectively. For the latter, we've had excellent gameplans mixed in with failing to adjust to adversity. Over the long haul, Hoke's recruiting success gives plenty of optimism for the future of Michigan football.
MSU 2011 was a good game plan. They cheated up to stop Denard running, so we passed it quite a bit. Denard had a bad day throwing. We lost.
You could argue that throwing a lot was a bad game plan, but what was left? Denard was not going to get yards running, as MSUs entire plan was to stop that. So, hand off to Fitz all day? That would probably not have won the game, and we would be talking about how Borges is stupid for not trying the passing game on early downs.
I just don't get the constant hate for that game plan. It was damn good, and if we could throw it that day at all, we have a chance to win. We popped a slant for a long TD because the safeties were all in the box. There were more of those to be had. We tried them. They fell incomplete. Sucks.
One can question blaming execution all they like, but ND 2012 was lost on execution. I mean that was a historically bad turnover game that was still within reach of winning. If Denard doesn't have the worst game of his career that's an easy W. He won a lot of games by carrying us on his back; that one was lost.
Part of having an effective game plan is being able to adapt to adverse conditions. Michigan did a good job of emphasizing pass over run that game, and even got guys open that Denard missed in a trash tornado. I mostly blame Borges for
1) MSU constantly jumping our snap count, and
2) ten double A-gap blitzes, of which 7 resulted in free rusher.
Given the margin of defeat and the 100+ penalty yards that MSU gave us while on offense, a good chunk of blame falls on Borges for not taking advantage of what MSU is doing.
@MWolverine: Denard did plenty to lose the 2012 Notre Dame for Michigan, yet this doesn't mean Borges can pass the blame. His interceptions came in situations where he had to get rid of the ball quickly, and despite Notre Dame completely ignoring our slot receivers Denard was never given an easy outlet. Again, a good chunk of blame falls on Borges, given that he should know by then that Denard is prone to forcing the ball when under pressure, and Notre Dame was leaving our slot receivers open for more pressure on Denard.
In the end, if a singular play doesn't work, fine; it happens. If multiple drives are getting killed when the defense is using essentially the same method of disrupting the offense, that is on the coordinator for not being able to adjust. This happened in both of these games, which if you want to argue were not AS bad gameplans as 2011 Iowa or 27 for 27, fine. I say Borges at least shares blame in these losses and, because the margin of defeat was close, consider Borges' mistakes to cost Michigan the win.
Well, yeah, I know more goes I to a game than just run/pass. But that is the level that EVERYONE on here works at. 27 for 27 featured at least 5 different runs (ISO, stretch, power, counter, inside zone) out of a variety of looks. But they were runs, and they almost all sucked. Its not like we ran I form, tight right, power o right 27 times. So why have we read 1000 posts asking, "Why run 27 times up the middle?" as if "run up the middle" was a play. Not to mention that the stretch that we ran a few times isn't an up the middle play.
I don't have film of MSU 2011 so I don't know what kind of route concepts we ran against what kind of expected looks based on down and distance. But I know we passed on something like 50% of first downs, which is exactly what a lot of people on here suggested we should have done against PSU since they were selling out against the run. Why was that a good idea against PSU but not MSU? I suspect its because it is something we didn't see in a loss. What we saw wasn't enough to get the win, so something else must have been better.
It is difficult to imagine how or why someone's confidence in the direction of the program would be shaken by this game in isolation. This program is, in many respects, still in the process of developing / finding the pieces for what it would like to do, so in-game performance in one game - even if it is MSU - will not shake my confidenced that the trend is upward.
You have players that are still growing with the scheme and the style the coaches wish to use, and while execution is an issue, experience helps with that as well as stability. We really don't know that we've seen the ceiling of this staff - they had an unexpectedly great season in 2011, were forced to change their approach virtually overnight in 2012 (think pre- and post-Nebraska) and have had some other challenges as well. In a way, we're basically only a season into the true "Hoke era", if you will. That has to be taken into consideration here.
It's reasonable to question the direction of the program, but I'm not really sure this game changes anything. I think we've been a pretty mediocre football team for all three years of Hoke's tenure, much of that isn't his fault. Mediocre teams often lose on the road to teams with something special to hang their hat on. If we lose, I don't think it changes anything, it just confirms where we're currently at.
I guess the only way it changes anything is in that it would basically clinch a third straight year that we won't be playing for a Big Ten championship. Winning the division in each year of Hoke's tenure has been an achievable goal, yet, despite some good fortune in years one and two, we haven't been able to do it. If we are basically out of the running with 4 big ten games remaining, it's not a good look, especially considering we're headed into a tougher division next year.
Downer?
What if we beat them by 20 points? What if a frog had wings!? Be positive people. OP, the reason a new coach (you speak of) would be walking into a ton of talent is because the recruitment efforts of the current coaching staff.
Focus on letting this staff develop the kids they recruited. We have great coaches who will do what it takes to win on the field and recruit the kids that will win off!
So sick of the negativity!!! We will beat MSU by more than a field goal in their own house!
Let's think here OP...
Derrick Green, Channing Stribling, Jourdan Lewis, Dymonte Thomas, Taco Charlton, Chris Wormley, Ben Gedeon, Ryan Glasgow, Jake Butt, Jehu Chesson, Kyle Bosch, and Erik Magnuson are all freshman. That doesn't include the freshman that could still contribute like all of the offensive linemen, Shane Morris, Deveon Smith, Wyatt Shallman, Tom Strobel, etc, etc. The list of freshman goes on and on.
Then throw in sophomores like James Ross III, Dennis Norfleet, Jarrod Wilson, Joe Bolden, Mario Ojemudia, Ondre Pipkins, Graham Glasgow, Amarah Darboh, Devin Funchess, and Keith Heitzman.
Next year Jabrill Peppers, Drake Harris, Michael Ferns (Who probably won't see much time because of the current depth at LB), Ian Bunting (another 6'7 TE), and hopefully Da'Shawn Hand will be coming into town.
And have you seen Michigan's 2015 class yet?
You think a loss to MSU this year with this many young players making the impact that they are on the program is going to worry me about the direction of the program? That's silly, at best.
It'll stink and I will be upset and vent, but in the end, all wrongs can be righted by winning the last game in November.
While I never want to lose, especially to a rival like MSU or Ohio, I'm giving this staff through the 2015 season when their recruiting classes are mature before making that decision
Part of me buys into the hype that we are still "transitioning" to what we want to be. Just be patient it will happen. We have great coaches, great recruiting/talent, a great tradition that sells itself. Our linemen will soon be developed. We have blue chip talent at the qb coming in along with receivers and running backs to compliment them. How could we possibly not be setting the table for conference championships and maybe even playing for a title..........
Reality sucks tho. Our oline has proven nothing. We are worse at running the ball than I can EVER remember. Our two best linemen graduate next year which leaves us with...well....the unproven guys plus two more new ones. Where are we going?What is going on?
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO THINK ANYMORE.
This game is going to be a serious cup check for our program tho. We win and it gets contagious. We lose it could snowball too...
Win a Big Road game for once guys and I will feel a lot better. We have the talent...it's just got to start coming together
No as regards the direction of the program, because Hoke is recruiting his ass off. He is recruiting at a level as good as any elite Michigan coach. So with incoming recruits including the #1 DB, DE this year (cmon Nov 14), and #1 RB and WR nextyear, the direction of the program looks quite nice.
Borges, and Hoke's determination to stick with manball, is another story. Multi-dimensional, spread offenses just seem to be far more foregiving in terms of concealing one or two incompetent linemen than the Borges/Hoke manball approach.
What stuns me is that we have yet to come anywhere near Wisconsin's level of manball competence. By this year I expected us to be on par with Wisconsin,with next year reaching Wisconsin 2.0. But that's not happening this, nor next year when Lewan/Schofield are gone.
Borges and Funk are the ones who should take the most heat pending the outcome of this, and future games this year, unless they pull a genie out of their ass and drop at least 28 on Sparty and Ohio.
And stop with the excuse train. First it was Denard limiting Borges, now it's inexperienced line, and soon it'll be that Hoke stifles Borges who is actually a real creative OC beinged bounded to Hoke manball... Every team has inexperience across an important position group. It's all bullshit. Put up or see the door AL.
We had upperclassmen along the line last year and it still sucked.
Every year there is a new excuse for this program...some people are just tired of it. At a certain point you have to perform.
This team has had an incredibly EASY schedule to date and now TWO BYE WEEKS...if we can't come up with a good game plan based on what we have personnel wise then ITS ON THE COACHES. At this point you know what you are and what you are not. Time to gameplan accordingly.
Yes. No more excuses. I am sick of watching this team crap the bed in road games. Coming off a bye week this is a must win. MSU is still playing with house money. The pressure is on the coaching staff to put the players in a position to win,
I haven't had that since the uconn game.
If we lose - I will be concerned.
As posted earlier, coaches elsewhere have done more with less in a shorter amount of time. I am a patient man but I am growing a little weary of the "just wait - you'll see" posts.
If this staff and program is as good as everyone claims/hopes on this website, then Brady and company better win on Saturday.
Same goes with the players. We have the talent and the team has the resources to be successful.
Another road loss, no matter how it occurs is another data point in a trend I do not like to see.
No excuses - no wait until next year chatter. There has been enough time to develop both the players and game plan to win on Saturday.
There are many factors that affect a player development, both internal and external to the player. Developing a player is not like baking a cake - you can't say after so much time the player is "done' or "developed".
There is no timeline for development. No player is ever developed. As long as you play the game, you develop as a player.
That is why all teams - even pro teams loaded with veterans still practice.
Ask these questions instead:
Is this staff maximizing the potential from these players that could/should be expected?
Knowing where the players lie on their development plans, are we providing them the opportunity to individually succeed on the field?
Are we planning games based on these factors so that we can still succeed on the field?
Those are the bigger questions I feel need to be asked.
I'm not really sure, but I'm inclined to say no. I keep trying to remind myself that our 2010 recruiting class, minus Gardner, Ryan, and a few others, has essentially been wiped out, and our juniors are a group of guys that were more or less assembled together in the span of 3 weeks after Hoke's hire. And how many of those guys are regular contributors? 5-6? Upperclassmen are extremely important from an experience and leadership standpoint, so we're already operating at a disadvantage.
I can see why we're all extremely frustrated. Michigan football has been seen as subpar for a long time, gone through a lot of change, and we're still waiting to turn the corner even with all the elite talent we're bringing in. Meanwhile, down in Columbus, they trade one great coach, a minor scandal and one down season for an even better coach who completely turns everything around in year one, and now its like the scandal never happened. But Meyer was not working with a bare cupboard by any means. He still had the most raw talent to work with in the Big Ten from the moment he came in. It also didn't hurt to have a QB already at his disposal who was a perfect fit for his system. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen. Call it dumb luck, but Meyer was damn lucky to be walking into the situation he did when he first started.
I want to wait a little while longer before making the judgment call that we're going the wrong way, or that Hoke isn't the guy. If we lose a competitive, back and forth game on Saturday, that opinion won't change. We more or less have no senior class, so we're being forced to rely on a lot of true freshmen and RS freshmen who, however talented they might be, simply just aren't ready yet.
The one thing, though, that is truly bothering me with Hoke is his inability to mold a competent OL. Maybe that's more on Funk than Hoke, but I don't care about "lack of talent." There's no way the line should be this bad, especially when even a sanction-ridden program like Penn State can generate some push for its running backs. It also really bothers me because Hoke prides himself on being an "in the trenches" kind of guy. If there isn't considerable marked improvement on that front by the end of the season, it might be time for Funk to go. His O-Line has gotten progressively worse each year he's been here.
Hoke and company get five years.
Anyone who wanted RR fired early and wanted a Carr guy to take over has no right to expect anything better than an average of three losses a year. Anything better than that is a bonus.
When RR was trying to recruit, so-called "Michigan Men" were telling HS coaches not to send their kids to Michigan. Brady Hoke is now paying for their petty idiocy.
Give him a fucking break.
If this season turns into disappointments, I think a lot of us will look at Hoke to make changes to his staff. That doesn't mean a complete turnover but a few on the offensive side of the ball would have to go.
What terrifies me going into next year is if Devin leaves to the NFL, and without a mobile quarterback and this OL, we are in serious trouble.
I hope Devin stays for one more year until this young line really comes together.
Why on earth would Devin go to the NFL? What have you seen from him that makes you think he could potentially leave?
Devin to the NFL after this season?
My faith in the program would never change based on one game. That being said, if we show solid offensive and defensive gameplans with quality execution, and we get beat by a team that outplays us, that would be an acceptable, though unsatisfying, result. If it appears that we beat ourselves with nonfunctional gameplans, further on-field coaching mistakes, and/or execution that is clearly below par, even given expectations, then I would continue to wonder if we're headed in the right direction. It really is a big game, not necessarily just because winning would help us in our division, but also because it's on the road against a solid defensive program (which will require a more innovative and versatile offensive gameplan than we had against PSU) and a program whose offense can be disrupted by an aggressive defensive gameplan, which we have shown in the past, but not so much this year. How we play this game will say a lot about our coaches and where we are headed.
I can't wait to see how the tone of the board changes after we leave EL with a win.
You mean people's opinion's would change after new data is presented?! Who would have thought!
And flip flop on one data point.
Oh wait, we already did that this season....
I'm sure there will still be those complaining that we didn't win handily enough or that if it weren't for a few good breaks it would have been a loss.
Despite the discussions I was getting into yesterday, my overall view of the program's direction is positive. I more or less really only have issues with Borges and the offensive line; I think there is way more going positively for the program than not. Losing to MSU sucks*, but even with a loss this weekend (and possibly paired with an OSU loss) Hoke is still on a very cold seat, in my opinion.
*Point of clarification: I think the MSU match-up is pretty even (UM's good D v. a terrible MSU O, MSU's aggressive D v. UM's turtling-prone O, UM's talent v. MSU's tendency to outplay their talent level against UM), I could easily see it going either way. I think OSU is the heavy favorite, and though The Game hasn't really been kind to UM in the past decade, anything can happen in the Big House.
I don't factor game results into my appraisal of the program. s/
My confidence in the direction this thread is headed is pretty low.
no
So, far Hoke has shown he can recruit at an elite level.
The rebuild began in the Bowl game in January, and really during Spring football. The Notre Dame game sent all of our expectations through the roof.
I think we can learn some things about Hoke's game management this year, and player development this time next year, but you really won't be able to judge Hoke as a worthy UM coach until Jabrill Peppers is a Junior.
Barring a complete and total meltdown or crazy circumstances (i.e. major violations or something similar) this staff has my support through the 2015 season as it stands. We have been in flux and unstable since 2007 and I'd rather not take a Notre Dame-esque wander through the wilderness of college football for 20 years.
There is no shame in losing a road game to a rival. Now if we look disorganized and unprepared then I'm looking directly at Hoke. We won't have to worry because we're gonna kick a little sparty ass.
This thread is taking me down...
Long answer: No one game defines whether a coach gets fired or not. RR didn't get fired because MSU(NTMSU) blew them out. He got fired because he was a combined 15-22 in 3 years, especially bad in Big ten play, and winless against MSU and OSU. The Gator Bowl was a culmination. Obviously he was dealt a tough hand and was judged unfairly, but even with the caveats his staff had plenty of failures in that span.
This game against MSU isn't culminating anything. Hoke and his staff certainly seem to have a weakness for road games, but let's not act like they've never won on the road or been competetive in the road losses either. I want the team to be competetive, and I want Borges and Hoke to be aggressive in their gameplan, because they know damn well that MSU's defense is gonna be aggressive.
Argue whether it's fair or not, but coaching in today's college football is evaluated on results. Hoke has had results...his first two seasons were already better than RR's best year here. Hoke needs to get results for these road games of course, but we're not anywhere near the point that we can fully judge his staff for these road games against good competition, because the sample size is still small (you can probably even withold the Neb game last year based on losing your QB mid-game).
Also, I hate hypothetical questions. I ask a simple question...why isn't there a thread asking what a win would do for the confidence of the direction this program is heading? I bet you Sparty lurkers/trolls are laughing their asses off at this thread. It's pre-game schadenfreude. Come on guys, the game hasn't even been played yet. And we're asking each other "WHAT IF THE SKY FALLS? HUH? WHAT THEN?"
A coach's record is a blanket statement for what they have done, not what they will do. No athletic director would simply fire a coach because, after x years, the coach has fewer wins than they'd like, where x is a positive integer. Even if the fans care about record after x years, the athletic director doesn't care what the fans think unless the fans stop donating and/or buying tickets. That wasn't happening in 2010.
Now if the athletic director was to look at the future, see a coach with a tendency to mismanage the defense + special teams trying to recruit with toxic atmossurrounding him (due in part to his record, but it started before he played a single game), then he may predict the coach will win less in the future. Then he'd be more inclined to fire them. Bottom line: a coach is fired because of their perceived performance in the future, not because of their record accomplished in the past.
For clarification, I think you're correct in saying it's too early to judge Hoke.
I'll try my best at an analogy. Bear with me please.
I just had a new home built this summer. Picked a reputed general contractor who talked a great game. Had sub contractors lined up to do the work for him that all came highly recommended with impeccable references. He used nothing but the best materials and best drawings.
What a clusterf**k. I'd go to the job site and find contractors tripping over each other, one group blaming another for the issues I would find - and there was the GC over in the corner with a bewildered look on his face. One sub would do something just to have it undone b/c another sub had to get in that same are to do their work. Every sub was so busy concentrating on his portion of the build they would ignore the other subs and their workload/requirements. They all worked beside each other without someone in charge stepping back and looking at the situation as a whole.
I see this team like my house was built. We are working with some of the best raw materials you can get but as long as the general isn't making sure his subs are all rowing in the same direction and working together, it’s just a big discombobulated mess. I see it on TV and in person.
Like it or not – the most successful HCs tend to be the most involved in every aspect of the team – almost bordering on control freak levels – but as I said - on all levels and aspects of the team. Brady needs to be involved in every aspect of the team; not only one and I feel that is not happening.
That why it annoys me when I see Brady pick up the headset only when we are in trouble. Stay on top of the situation from the start and maybe we wouldn't need those head set moments to begin with.
Personally, I do not like the fact Brady coaches the DL. I do not expect my GC to swing a hammer and I do not want my HC coaching a position – it means his time an attention is not being spent on the team as a whole. Hire someone competent to do that work for you and ensure he is doing it right – that is your job as a HC.
I think that is why we have not improved as the season has worn on. Brady and Co. had all summer to plan and prepare for the first couple of games. So – the result is we performed well in the first couple of games since we acted like a cohesive group.
But now – once the schedule has become increasingly fast paced and the turnaround between games is compressed, Brady cedes too much autonomy to his coaching staff to prepare for the upcoming games as they see fit. They in turn look at the micro level versus the macro. I watch the team and it seems the coaches and coordinators are all working from their own set of ideas of what they feel they need to do and/or accomplish.
This is not a formula for success long term.
And good analogy re:home construction. You are correct-the best HCs are the ones who are really involve in every aspect of the team (see Saban, Meyer). I think Brady's laid back approach is nice when it comes to recruiting but it is not working well developing a consistent team performance. He definitely needs to take control of the team and staff and be involved in everything. While more stressful, it certainly will be more successful.
Some people seem confused about how many of us could get so caught up in "one game". It's not just one game though. I think the thought process is if UM loses this game most feel like it will be tailspin and they will only win 7...maybe 8 games this year.
So it's not simply one game...it's the reprocussions we expect from the loss. Mark my words if UM drops this game they will then lose to NU, Iowa, and OSU and will finish 7-5. If they win this weekend they only lose to Iowa, adn then it's a toss up for osu and they finish with 9 or 10 wins.
Those of saing "this one game is so important" sort of see a downward spiral if this game is lost. hell if they lose to MSU and only drop one more and end up 9-3 I won't be concerned with the direction of the program. But I don't see it working out that way...
... I readjusted expectations to be 8-4 or 7-5. I'm still sticking with that even with how bad Nebraska and NW look. MSU is the deserved favorite in this game. They are simply a more consistent team and have shown the ability to out game plan us over the past several years.
1-1 vs. Ohio and sparty. 2-1 vs. ND. BCS win. Undefeated at home. Recruiting is best it's been since early 2000's.
Brady Hoke isn't going anywhere and that makes me very happy.
Sometimes this fan base makes me sad.
We are clearly moving in the right direction. The whole league being week argument is well noted though. If the B1G is so weak now I get the feeling that the majority of fans see these games as obvious must wins, not only because they are a rival, but because try are one of few legit measuring sticks within the league. F we lose a close game then I see no reason to jump ship. Then again, a terrible offensive performance could be detrimental to Borges' future seeing how fans now know the o is capable of putting up big numbers; the majority coming from some kind of spread formation and not manball. Manball has not come instantly for us, but it's transition will either ruin or solidify this staff.
No, the direction of the program is solid and encouraging as Hell. But depending on the game plan it will either solidify my overall opinion of Borges as an OC or cause me to rethink my general negative impressions of HIM long-term.
While I will be disappointed with a loss, and joyous with a win, the outcome of this game will have no effect on my confidence. Since the beginning of the season I've said that Michigan could run the table or go 7-5 depending on the progress of the Oline. With the likely result dropping 2 or 3 games.
Admittedly I did not expect the team to be juggling Oline personnel seven games into the season, but it is what it is.
I also am well aware that nothing is "simple" when it comes to coaching a football team at this level, especially a team with so much youth and inexperience.
A win at MSU wouldn't improve my confidence, either.
Overall, I feel like there are a few elite football teams and a few really bad programs, but the majority of college football looks damn near equivalent to my eye. To the point where, if the same teams played more than once a season, I'd expect most to split the wins and losses. I can't determine anything with those odds, let alone the direction of a program.
Losing is disappointing, but it's not like Michigan is getting blown out in games under Hoke (excluding Bama), which would likely lower my confidence level. So far, M isn't some easy team to beat, and that's enough for me at the moment. And you have to admit, good coaches like Kelly, Spurrier, Meyer, etc. all looked seriously stressed squeezing out those single digit wins against Michigan, so Hoke doesn't appear to be very far behind his peers. Of course, I'd like to see the coaches and players improve, but a loss isn't going to cause me to sharpen my pitchfork.
Back in 2010 the Big10 was actually a decent conferences. OSU, PSU, MSU, and Iowa were all solid teams. Fast forward today. One could make the case that the Big10 may be the worse BCS conference. If we were playing a traditional Big10 schedule I could accept a 9-3 or 10-2 record. However, the reality is the Big10 minus a couple teams is MAC+. There are few teams that you can really measure yourself against. One of those teams is MSU.
In my opinion this is probably MSU's last hurrah as a large number of unheralded recruits who overachieved cycle out. It is possible that Dantonio is the Beilein of football. We will see next year. However MSU is one of the few teams that can actually measure up even close to Michigan. If we lose resoundingly to MSU then we are a lot farther from relevence even if we clean up on the rest of the cupcakes. If we lose a hard fought and close game I will not worry so much. A bad loss implies a smoking by OSU. With 3 losses we get to play a good SEC team and most likely get smoked again. 9-4 with bad losses against anyone decent would not make me feel good.
I keep hearing all of these youth excuses. Yet many of the teams we struggled against are also just as thin and young. It is excusable to expect a frosh Olinemen to struggle against lets say Iowa or Wisconsin's defensive front from 2010. It is another to see them get stuffed by Akron or UCONN. Also the expectation of 5 star freshmen is much different from others as it is presumed they can dominate. Marice Clarrett as a freshmen RB was the keystone that allowed OSU to win a NC. Almost every key win was set up by a signiture Clarrett play. Yet our 5 star RB can't even make the field. OSU has multiple first and second year starters on their Dline. Yet our most highly regarded Dlinemen Pimpkins is a backup to a starter who only gets snaps against non spread teams. The tag on Kalis when he came out of HS was college football ready. Yet he seems to be going backwards.
My basic rule for recruits is if you have 5 stars it is expected that you are good enough to compete for starters minutes unless there is a 5 star ahead of you. Perhaps show flashes of brilliance but be inconsistent. 2nd year you are showing flashes of domination and are not a weak link and are a solid starter. Year 3 you are dominanting. For each reduction in stars drop a year. It is reasonable in my opinion that a 3 star in a big time program not really contribute to year3 presuming one year of red shirt.
My other big problem is the constant reversion of the staff to stick with their orthodoxy of football. There is no reason why what happened at Indiana should have also happened to PSU. The mark of a great coach is to maximize the talent on the team. Tressel was a power ball disciple also. But when he realized he had a great spread QB and the dropback passer was not working so well he embaced the strengh of the team which was a mobile QB and 5 solid receivers. Gonzalez, Ginn, Robinski, and Hartline all had NFL looks.
I remember the RichRod games against MSU. The third year was particularly disappointing, and convinced me we were in trouble.
Not sure if "turning points" really exist, but if they do, rivalry games (and perhaps bowl games) could serve in that role.
Turning point games can be quite positive too - think of the Lions' recent win. I suspect (though who knows as of now) that this may drive them to great heights.
I'm hoping for a hard-fought victory this weekend. If Hoke and co. pull that off, I think we'll all be pretty damn happy with the program, regardless of how we played against Akron or even PSU.
My confidence in the direction of the program has already been shaken because of the way we've started this year. I don't doubt the program is heading in a better direction than it was from 2007-2010. But I don't think we're improving as rapidly as I had thought. Also, I admit to harboring some doubts about certain positions in the coaching staff, and I have certain systemic concerns caused by various program policies. Still, so much better than 2007-2010.
Has he learned his lesson yet? There is no reason to believe that this team can run the ball consistently against a defense like MSU considering the lack of success against far less talented units. Win or lose I hope to see players put in a position to succeed. Shorter quicker passes to build Devin's confidence and get him in a rhythm, and throwing on 1st down would be helpful. MSU is too fast and aggressive to think this O-line will allow 5-7 step drops. Michigan has a special athlete under center and if we can utilize his skillset and force a defense to defend against the pass/run option it will put tons of stress on the defense, Devin should be rolling out often and running when it presents itself. If Borges' gameplan is centered on a running game with the running backs and 5-7 step dropback passes, forget it! No chance in hell against this MSU defense.
the "3rd year coaches win championships" argument has no relevance to Michigan.
Every single one of those successful coaches inherited a team that can accurately be described as well recruited and talented but poorly coached. At the risk of offending people, the 2008-2010 Michigan teams do not qualify as that. Hoke is playing freshman all along the line, the defense will finally have a plethora of upperclassmen next year, and Devin will have over a year and a half of experience as a full time starting QB. If Michigan struggles to win 10 next year, then we can hop on the fright train.
our DBs are not ready for heavy blitzing and being on an island. We should win but if we lose it will be on Gardner turnovers and our defense letting yet another team play point to point with us like they have. I see us losing 2-3 more if we lose.
For MSU less so, except on the "OMG rivalry!" side of things.
I think Sparty can lose to Michigan on Saturday, then win out the rest of their games vs. NU, NW and Minny and still arrive at the title game. MSU would no doubt get a ton of help from Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio vs. Michigan.
Meanwhile, Michigan's margin for error gets tighter. UM cannot afford another loss right now to MSU, because of Nebraska, at Iowa, at NW and Ohio games in sequence.
Either way, I'm not sure it matters given what we now know. Whoever wins the Legends division is simply going to have the privilege of getting smoked by Ohio in the title game.
will just further cement my opinion of which direction the program is heading. Not change it.
So everyone here who says MSU is just one game it and doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things...
So if we were to beat OSU this year and snap there 24 game or whatever win streak I GUARANTEE every last one of you would say that was a program win. A sign that Hoke "gets it" and that the program is in the right direction. We all would bc its true.
But if we lose to MSU this week then "its ok, its just one game". "it wouldn't mean anything or be a sign". "the loss wouldn't cause me to question any coaches".
You can't have it both ways.
and btw, based on the Big 10 format, the MSU game IS bigger than the OSU game. UM needs this to make the Big Ten Championship. You know that game Hoke always talks about and says anything but is a FAILURE. We lose this game and its next to impossible to even PLAY in the B10 title game much less win it. This IS the biggest game of the season and will clearly set the tone for the final stretch.
But neither the MSU or OSU games will be his first as Michigan's head coach. He's coached 33 games and won 25 of them. One game should not change ones opinion of the coach when there is a pretty good sample size with which to judge.
And I disagree with one of your premises. I don't think anyone who currently thinks the coaches are not the right ones would change their mind after beating Ohio. But the people who think we have the right coaches will use it as evidence to support their mindset. Just like a loss to MSU is not going to change the minds of the pro-Hokers, but it will be used as ammo by the Others.
Pre-season I figured this was a 10-2 or 9-3 team, with a loss AWAY at MSU one of the more likely culprits. Midseason I reconfigured expectations, and started thinking of this as a 9-3 or 8-4 team, with a loss AWAY at MSU still one of the more likely culprits, but if anything, moderately more likely than it seemed before.
We can win this, but I don't think we are as likely to win as we are to lose.
If we win, though, I'll go back to thinking of us as a 2 or 3 loss team.
I always love reconfiguring expectations like this. Going in I thought 9-3, and damn it, I still expect this
Very few of the players who Hoke actually recruited are upperclassmen. The upperclassmen on this team (who number much fewer than what Michigan is used to) are all either survivors of RichRod's recruit-hemorraging final classes or part of the hybrid 2011 class that didn't even crack the top 20. Hoke only has two full recruiting classes under his belt, which were ranked #7 and #5 per Rivals.
I know it's frustrating, because this program was a rock of stability for most of its existence and yet it seems like we've been in transition mode forever. And yes, everyone hates the fact that there has been a significant gap between Michigan and Ohio State for quite a while (minus the '11 season). But the personnel issues that this program has faced dating back to the late Carr era are well-documented. Carr started to tail off in the latter half of his career and the (perhaps reactionary) RichRod hire turned out to be an epic blunder from which the program hasn't yet fully recovered. That's why we are where we are. Final judgment on Hoke can only be rendered when we've cycled through one full class of Hoke recruits.
than it provided Rodriguez. You typically need 4 to 5 years to recover from the previous admin and buid up your own. Getting pissed off and grabbing pitchforks at year 3 (UM will probably finish 7-5 to 8-4) just increases the likelihood of travelling down the infamous Baylor experience. Patience.
Coach Hoke and the staff deserve more time based on their perormance in the first 3 years. I also agree that the team is relatively young and the players still have room to develop, but it should not be overstated. There needs to be some progress this season. If the team loses and takes a nose dive, it will definitely diminish his prior accomplishments.
Even though I think he needs time, I think it is worth noting that Hoke's best season was his 1st with Rich Rod's players. RR was not afforded the opportunity to coach seniors because of the horrible performance in the Big Ten, against the main rivals and trainwreck when they got into a bowl game.
It's must win for me. Hoke has to show the team is in a position to win the league title in year three with a mix of his guys and RR guys. You can't let State bitch slap you around. Especially when you bade your entire coaching mission state as: Be Physical!
We're gonna have to spread the field and pass to win this one, there will be no running on this defense not even by Gardner.
We could have played hard, had no turnovers, and still lose, say 23-21.
Or, we could play terribly and lose big.
Almost worst, we could play terribly and still win. (unlikely.)
Of course, like all Michigan fans, I want to see us win. But to lose a close, well-played game on the road is vastly different from losing a blowout because a game was called poorly and the team wasn't put in the position to succeed.
To answer your question directly: a loss to MSU will NOT cause me to lose confidence in the direction the Michigan program is heading in. I believe we're heading in the right direction, and we will see this more in 2014, and see it completely by 2015.
i think it would be more important in how we lose. if UM gets embarrassed, that could be a problem. if we lose a close hard fought game, i don't see big problems. sparty is pretty good, and they are at home. but let's just win and start our typical win streak against sparty.
Here's the kind of perception about Michigan that I find troubling, a quote from today's Washington Post's Feinstein article on the top four teams:
"Here's another possible twist: Alabama and Oregon are far more likely to lose than Florida State or Ohio State. The Buckeyes play no one - and that includes Michigan - the rest of the season (italics supplied)."
While I think we are certainly someone, how does being perceived as no one affect recruiting, bowl invitations, etc.?
Brady Hoke called his team inconsistent - this isn't my value judgment, though I said exactly the same thing here after PSU. It's my belief that inconsistency is a sign of coaching problems.
This team may not be perfectly loaded with talent on defense, but it certainly has what it takes to slow MSU's offense down, if a Purdue can do it.
The offense clearly is potentially explosive, and despite MSU's defense, has the ability to score points; maybe not as many as it does against lesser defenses, but two or three touchdowns are not out of the question. And with a decent defensive effort, Michigan should be in the driver's seat.
So it seems to me that the difference between winning and losing this weekend is on the coaching staff. Getting the team mentally prepared, physically prepared, and put in a position to win is what coaching is about.
I'm fine with a close game, or even bad breaks causing a loss. But with this team, it's pretty obvious when they aren't being put in a position to win. And if it's that, yes, I will further lose confidence in this staff.
agree on all accounts.
is also a sign of youth
...turnover-prone QBs.
That is board would be completely unreadable if not for Space Coyote. I'm not sure how he keeps doing it.
MSU has to win it to control their own destiny. If they lose to UM Saturday, then MSU will requierd help from others to beat UM to get to the title game.
If Michigan loses Saturday, then reaching the title game is probably gone bye-bye, but they can go out and wreck other people's pathetic BIG10 seasons (and maybe Ohio's aspirations) with malice aforethought.
I'd like UM to win this rivalry game because I think the seniors deserve it.
You can pretty much throw out anything from before the Rich Rod era in regards to Hoke's teams because it is no longer relevant. People can look around the counrty and in this conference at other teams doing things well but the fact is Michigan is not at that point yet. In 2011 we had a strong senior class that took this team, put it on their backs and carried it to a Sugar Bowl, we had a senior class that hadn't beaten a Big Ten rival and refused to lose. That were also a TALENTED senior class and you can talk about Player Development all you want but talent and stars (which measure talent to a degree) matter. This is a program with very little stability and program direction right now and that means we have to create whole new one which takes years, not a season and a half. 2011 was the outlier, starting last year we started the rebuiling phase, Hoke wants to take us right back to what we where before, what Bo molded this program to be, a Huge, Tough team that plays extraordinary defense and can run the lights out of the ball because of a fantastic line. We were the definition of MANBRAWL. That is what we where for almost 40 years before a sizeable section of the fanbase grew tired and weary of conservative play calling and losing to Ohio and called for a change. The administration answered and Rich Rodriguez and riding in on a white horse to change the program and make it more exciting for fans. He basically made Michigan into a bad Big 12 team, an all offense and spread oriented team that can't stop anyone to save their lives. During his three years he effictively destroyed almost every bit of identity Bo Schembechler, Gary Moeller and Llyod Carr had built for almost 40 years save for one senior class that survived the devastation. RR seemingly targeted everything that made Michigan great and demolished it. He took a great defense and made it the worst we have ever seen, he took one of the most productive OL factories in football and deprived it of nourishment (recruited almost no one), he reversed MANBALL, and it took him three years. So when Hoke came in, he had to reverse what RR had done. Some changes happened rather quickly like the defense becoming respectable, but some take time, like rebuilding the OL. That takes at least 3,4 maybe even 5 years depending on how players pan out and are developed. OL is like no other position on the football field, I don't care what training you've had in high school it is "Lion's winning a Championship" rare to have a guy come in and start right away, ESPECIALLY without EE. It has happened before and probably will again but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. On the OL you have to have every single person execute their assignment or you get nowhere offensively, which is what has happened the last two years. 2012 we had basicaly 1/2 an OL on the interior 3 spots, this year we've improved to 1 1/2 if your generous. Basically we have no guards on this team and we have RR to thank. OL need about 3 or 4 years in most cases to develop which is why they all redshirt. If you think that's an excuse then take Glasgow, if he was anywhere near this good last year he would have played. But, more likely he improved leaps and bounds from last year as OL are wont to do and now he is one of the best we have. ALL of our line should be on this path but roster needs have forced otherwise. We need to be patient, once the OL comes around and matures, then we will have our team back. Until then no amount of firing and complaining in the world will fix our football team.
Kudos!
That Bo took a cream puff Michigan team and transformed it into top 5 team within 2 years. Under Chalmers, Michigan was a near .500 team through the 60s,'64 was a lucky season due to the play of Timberlake at QB. OSU thumped them in Chalmers final year. Sometimes a great coach and his staff can transform a team quickly. That '69 upset really helped recruiting but also not having a limit on scholarships helped as well. But I was kind of amazed at how fast Bo turned Michigan around.
Very talented coaches and their staffs can turn around programs fairy quickly, even though their players are young. I was kind of hoping Hoke would take this trajectory but I still think he should be given through the 2015 season before we throw in the towel on him. I think that the odds are 70/30 that Hoke will be a good coach and get back to winning 10 games per season with plenty of BCS bowls, winning the B1G every third year and perhaps winning a National Championship in the new playoff format. If we are still loosing 4 games per season in 2014 and 2015, then it may be time to look for another coach.
At the talent that Bo had on that '69 squad? A hell of a lot more than we have right now.
Q: Which coach needs to have a good November???
Rittenberg picks HOKE
There are some big-picture questions to be answered about Michigan in November. What is the state of the program right now? Where are the Wolverines headed under Hoke? The recruiting success is undeniable, but it doesn't matter much if it doesn't translate to championships. The great thing about Hoke is he has made the expectations so clear for the Wolverines: Big Ten title or failure. By Hoke's own standards, he has failed for two seasons and the program has failed for nearly a decade. The Sugar Bowl championship in Year 1 was nice, and so was the streak-ending win against Ohio State, but Michigan benefited in both cases from extremely favorable circumstances. This is the month for the Wolverines to truly show they're taking the next step. They'll have a very hard time winning the division without beating Michigan State on Saturday. They could be challenged by Nebraska, Northwestern and Iowa before facing arguably the best Ohio State team they've seen since the 2006 season.
Hoke isn't coaching for his job, a national championship or a dramatic turnaround from a long losing streak. But he needs to show in November that Michigan is taking steps toward a championships on the field, not just on the recruiting trail.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/87727/take-two-b1g-coaches-seek-strong-finish
WE ARE 6-1! CALM THE FUCK DOWN
