He said that the playcalling wasn't too conservative.
He won't spend extra time with the offensive line, "I've got a great offensive line coach. I've got a great offensive coordinator."
"What do you want him to say?" Not that.
Wow... Just wow.
Sure don't any responsibility for another failure.
I like it. This will probably turn into more hours at the office and Hoke wearing a headset. He can right the ship by tearing some shit up against Indiana and then putting together an unbelievable plan to beat Staeee. I have full confidence.
Because before he was just fucking around, right?
NOW shit is serious... NOW Hoke is gonna get all big and green.
Cumong man. Nobody here is 12 years old.
yeah... but you wrote dong-punched.
Rainbows and butterflys.
job to troll the entire fanbase so maybe it is a ruse.
You want us to throw open WR screens? Eff that spread crap!
How many times can we run our RB directly into the line? One more times than it takes for you to go insane! Hahahahaha
Gotta appreciate the long-con.
Have you ever had a job that requires production? How often have you ever had a bad week at the office then realized you needed to spend more time suring things up? Its simple. If you underperform you have to work harder to sure the problem area up. Put a headset on and coach, or continue to do the same thing over and over and be completely insane. I for one believe Hoke will dedicate more time working on the problem area. If he works 15 hours a day he will dedicate another hour working on how to sure up play calling, and Oline. Thanks DUDENESS have a great day.
doesnt really track since the current roster is just not very good. hoke and company can make all the changes they want during the week but the players are still average on sat. and coaches will likely revert to what they know in heat of the game. would i have liked gardner to finsish with 35 carries? absolutely bc that wouldve meant at least 1 gardner run during final offensive series in regulation which wouldve meant either a first down and game over or at worst another 10 yards for psu to travel. but it did not happen. hoke and borges and crew can revamp things, spread out the offense since that plays to their limited talent and then live and die with gardner as bell cow in spread offense....and even if they stop running touissant for -2 yards every other play, theyre still a medicore team with mediocre players that will be lucky to finsh 8-4 (and unless current redshirts and 2014s are beasts then they dont look promising next year either since the bulk of current 2deep and some 3s are playing at mac level). they can preach the "1 small error by 1 guy screws up given play" crap all they want...problem is that 1 small error results in someone other than lewan 3 yards deep in backfield on every single play
talent issue but I'm going to have a freakin aneurism if I see another game that includes 20 runs up the middle for no gain.
"shore it up" or "shore up", not "sure it up".
Are you shore about that?
Even though "shore it up" is correct, "sure it up," while not an accepted phrase, still makes sense.
If Hoke wasn't working that hard to begin with then he shouldnt be here. It's simple. Just like you said.
This offensive staff are so committed philosphically to the power run game, and also they can point to about 3 dozen things that still would have won the game against PSU had they gone right, that they may not be able to recognize the problem is that defenses are not being punished for stacking the box.
If you go based at least on his press conference, Hoke does not believe that there is a problem other than "we need to get the run game going a little better."
You have seen how they aim to get there and it is not by using misdirection, using pass to set up runs with fewer guys committed to the run, running Gardner from shot/pistol. It is throwing more bodies at the point of attack and they can scheme all day with in that tiny box, swap Burzinski for Bryant all they want and it is still a numbers game they will always lose.
I agree with you. I like it as well. I believe we will demolish IU and will have a unbelievable gameplan to go against our little brother. I am encouraged that this loss will only strengthen our resolve to win the B10 Championship! I have major confidence in Brady as our coach! Anyone who thought we would go 12-0 this year was only kidding themselves and really don't have a clue about Michigan Football. The 12-0 will happen, if not next year 2015 for sure. I will take 11-1 and a trip to the Rose Bowl for this team. People need to just back off Brady and this this team compete!
lol... i want what you're smoking
Hmmm must be an error with the boards. Cant see the /s tag
This can't be real?
Good for you, guy. Way to stay positive. Don't let the naysayers bring you down.
Credit where credit is due. He isn't going to throw his coaches under the bus. He's holding them accountable to do their jobs and they have his support. Hope it works out for him.
But is he holding them accountable? I wholly agree that throwing them to the dogs publicly is not the thing to do and I respect him for not doing it. But I fear that he is not holding them accountable. Well, this is the kind of scenario when we learn what Hoke is all about. If he fires them up privately while defending them publicly, then he may end up being a great coach. I sure hope that happens, cause the guy is otherwise great.
No one outside the fort will know, so all we can do his hope he knows what he is doing.
We'll know throughout the rest of the season and in the offseason.
If we keep trying to run up the middle instead of using running as a change up and not throwing more short easy passes to set up the run then if Hoke doesn't do something there is a problem.
It is really worrying that we are seeing the mirror problems that existed under RR on the other side of the ball. Yes it is great that our defense is getting better but we need a competent, good offense also if we want to be at the top.
season when it started to tank. Assume we have to have some stud former alum lineman that could step in to coach this unit to shake it up. Swapping OC is much more disruptive so we are stuck with Borges through the season, the OL coach might be enough to right the ship.
it looks like their o-line only had five uppderclassmen, three juniors and two seniors. I was hoping to find quite a few more, but it doesn't look much more mature than Michigan's current O-line.
Let me start by saying I like the term "uppderclassman." It's as intriguing as it is vague.
But you have to look where those OL are for Wisconsin. Two of their starters are seniors (like us). Two more are RS Juniors (this part is not like us) and their fifth is a RS Soph. Senior-senior-junior-junior-Soph is about as experienced as you'll see in a college OL.
Still at work, so I'm not able to delve into it deeper, but I'd like to look at o-lines comparisons across the conference, to either strengthen my faith or shatter it completely. I believe once we have a line that can compete, it'll open the offense exponentially. Someone did a great post about O-line that I believe pointed to being elite in 2015. I think it might be a good idea to read that one over again.
The summer of 2012 was an exodus of Wisconsin assistants, including the OC and offensive line coach. Early on in the Fall of 2012, the new offensive line coach was struggling to institute his philosophy. Bielema fired the new coach and promoted a graduate assistant familiar with the old scheme. The old way worked, so they reinstituted it to great effect.
We certainly don't have anything that works or used to work, so I don't think we can even consider personnel changes until the offseason.
You're contradicting yourself. Do you want him to bash them in the media or maintain the fort? There's absolutely no reason to think he's not holding them accountable, and you're absolutely right that he should not throw them under the bus publicly, so what's the problem? For all we know the meetings could be revolving around the fact that the kids aren't doing a single thing the coaches are saying, but we won't know about it. And we shouldn't.
Whether "the meetings are revolving around the fact that the kids aren't doing a single thing the coaches are saying" is irrelevant, as coaching is to blame for either issue. If the kids aren't grasping what the coach is teaching, that is still on the coach. Either he is not a good teacher, or not good at putting the kids in situations where they can be successful, or both. As a leader, it's his job to make sure the kids play and compete at a very high level. If they don't, its his fault.
Whenever they say "we just need to execute better" that is (intentionally or not) throwing the players under the bus. At some point the coaching staff has to realize that maybe they're asking the kids to do something that they can't consistently do, and then that's entirely on the coaching staff for consistently putting the kids not in a position to succeed.
Also, on Inside Michigan Football, Hoke defended 8 runs to 6 passes in the overtime periods as not being conservative.
If this really is his outlook on what happened Saturday night, we're seriously fucked
In what world do coaches say how they really feel during a press conference? Have you always take Hoke's word as fact in previous press conferences? Calling out Borges in front of the media would do nothing other than discourage other coaches to come work for Hoke.
I'm sure Brady Hoke doesn't think everything went just fine on Saturday.
This. Hoke's words at press conferences and interviews will always be supportive of his players and staff. His actions come off season will be the true test. Borges and Funk must, and I mean absolutely must go.
"His actions come off season will be the true test."
"Off-season???" What the hell are the players doing this coming Saturday then? Just dicking the dog?
How about Hoke does something now, (if we are assuming a move MUST be made). What the fuck are we waiting for? These kids are putting their bodies/futures at risk for nothing? I certainly hope that isn't the case.
It's clearly a reference to what he is going to do with Borge and Funk man. He won't overly criticize them until end of season, at which point he should axe them on the spot, after having secretly discussed adequate if not elite replacements long in advance with Brandon. In the meantime, he will probably do very little I bet other than ask Al to try new ideas.
I don't think this thread is good for your health...just step away and move onto one of those 'Snowflake' threads...
Smith had no problem telling the media how the coaches were doing at halftime.
Don't want our coaches to be like him but maybe I missed the /s.
You're probably right, and again, I'm not saying he should've thrown them under the bus. But my point remains, if he actually thinks we weren't too conservative, we're fucked
Hopefully this question draws out a response from the reasonable posters rather than the mouth breathers that have surfaced since this game, but I'd like to know what specifically was conservative in the play calling? The only thing I can think of is playing for the field goal once we got in range right before the delay of game penalty at the end of regulation. I view that as a pretty good decision, however, given our quarterback's tendency to turn the ball over and our kicker's tendency to make clutch field goals. The decisions in OT were all correct as far as I'm concerned, because again, no one on this blog expected Gibbons to miss those field goals.
To me, all the first down power runs getting negative or no yardage wre inexcusable. I get that Hoke wants our identity to be manball, but when it's not working you gotta switch it up. Second and 13 isn't a recipe for prolonged success
30 runningback carries for 28 yards. That's either conservative, or moronic.
8 of those carries were in the overtime periods. That's conservative.
Banking on your kicker to hit a clutch field goal (even if you expect him to) rather than trying to score a touchdown is conservative.
"Centering" the ball on a third down for a 40 yard field is conservative.
Let's break it down by OT:
1st OT: RB run for 1 yard, RB run for 1 yard, QB centers the ball. FG blocked.
2nd OT: RB run for 3 yards, pass for 9 yards, QB run for -3 yards, incomplete pass, QB run for 8 yards, FG
3rd OT: RB run for 0 yards, pass for 9 yards, RB run for 0 yards, FG missed.
4th OT: Pass incomplete, pass incomplete, delay of game, QB run for 7 yards, FG.
So a total of 5 RB runs for 5 yards, 4 QB runs for 12 yards, 5 passes for 18 yards.
So either conservative, or moronic.
I'll accept the first point only. And even that is questionable because we put up 40 points. I'm not sure what number of runs qualifies as "establishing the run" but football people will universally say you have to continue to run the ball even if it's not successful in order to keep the defense honest.
The rest of your points might qualify as conservative in your opinion, but they are all smart decisions. Two of those OT play sequences came after PSU had failed to score, so the field goal is the obvious goal of the offense at that point. Why risk turning it over when you can kick a medium distance field goal for the win? The other OTs where we had the ball first were the 2nd and 4th. In the 2nd, look at what you wrote. That's not conservative at all. It's a first down on a pass follwed by poor execution and Devin running for his life trying to make a play. In the 4th we passed on 1st down. Not conservative. 2nd down incomplete. 3rd down mistake, FG.
You're lumping the numbers together to make a point, when in fact that point couldn't be farther from the truth.
I don't think anyone is saying that we should've stopped running the ball altogether, but the power runs were clearly going nowhere and penn state consistently had 8 or 9 in the box. We had a lot more success with zone schemes, but refused to run them consistently. So in addition to being conservative, we refused to adapt to what this group runs best
seriously? the D scored a TD and the D set up another gift FG. take away the 6 gift OT pts and that leaves 24 earned pts by the offense against a mediocre psu D. that's pathetic. and how were those TDs scored??? 2 bombs to funchess and a 16 yd TD to gallon. the only contribution by running was done by DG.
Also, the scoring drives involved effective runs by DG and passes, very little was due to running through the line. The only way we roared back into the game to take a 10 point lead was DG either running or passing; only 4 plays during this time featured Toussaint running into the line and yet the coaches moved away from that very effective strategy in OT.
A 40 yd field goal is considered "medium" distance for about 5-10% of ncaa kickers. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have expected him to make it, but there's no reason we shouldn't have been trying to get him into chip shot range.