If Michigan loses to Michigan State does your confidence in the direction that the program is heading change?
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^
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...
October 29th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 9:53 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 9:56 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^
What if we turn the homeless into tires?
October 29th, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:16 AM ^
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?
October 29th, 2013 at 10:29 AM ^
Texas Tech is a bad example. They have played one team with a winning record - 5-3 Texas State. Their schedule is a complete joke.
Also, people act like our offense just sucks something awful. It's averaging 4.9 ppg less than OSU. Yes, it's crapped the bed in clutch situations, but it's a pretty good offense. In fact, it's a much better unit than our defense, which nobody around here seems to understand or care about.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^
Agreed, our scoring offense is 8th in the country.
People act as if we're in the high 90s or low 100s or something.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^
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.
October 30th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 11:05 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 3:02 PM ^
I think that is a false dichotomy.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:03 AM ^
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).
October 29th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 10:17 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 10:42 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 3:08 PM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^
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.
October 30th, 2013 at 3:19 AM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
Not if we beat Ohio at the end of the year. If we lose both games? Yes. I'm fickle.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
Downer?
October 29th, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^
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!
October 29th, 2013 at 10:11 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:14 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
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
October 29th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
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
October 29th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
Wisconsin starting OL:
RS Senior
RS Junior
RS Junior
RS Junior
RS Freshman
All Blocking for the Big Ten's best RB.
It's really stunning to you that our OL can't come near their production?
October 29th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^
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.
October 29th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
October 29th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
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.