Q for players/coaches about emotional aspects of game
These days I keep hearing from non-Michigan people that we just don't have talent to do well this year. We have the coach, we have the fanbase, but our player talent levels are low.
As I think back to the last two years of games, it seems that our biggest problems were "mindset" based (placing aside coaching gaffs). We looked wholly uninspired at MOST games. We just seemed to play "flat" in almost every game. Only a few players seemed to have that kind of inspiration/motivation--particularly last year. Devin Gardner comes to mind. The last time this team looked REALLY inspired was the year we won the Sugar Bowl. Now I am sure that there are a number of factors that play into this.
but my questions, particularly for players/coaches, are:
1) How much effect does this inspiration/motivation have on a game? Can this compensate for talent gap?
2) Is there a chance this clicks and the team plays their asses off, surprising everyone?
3) Can the first year of a coaching change forge this aspect of a team? (Hoke's seemed to, chance this happens again?)
I'll take your thoughts off the air.
August 5th, 2015 at 12:38 PM ^
The other half is physical.
August 5th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
With an additional 110% effort. A FULL 60 MINUTES WORTH!!!! WOOOOO!!!!!
August 5th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
Technically if 90% is half then 180% is the full amont which would make 110% only about 61% effort. Not that good.
EDIT: meant to respond to 1484
August 5th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^
Nobody has heard Fort Minor "Remember the Name"? Seesh!
Pleasure?
August 5th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
August 5th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
It may be semantics, but it is a talent gap. We recruited 4 & 5 star potential, but to turn that into on the field talent needs obviously the right coaching, instruction, motivation, game plans, etc. - which we sorely lacked under the previous headcoach.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Some players (e.g. Denard Robinson) who are extremely effective at the college level are not big NFL prospects. But yeah, you judge juniors and seniors by what they've done on the field in college and by that measure we're well behind OSU and even MSU.
Exactly. This is why you end up with Heisman trophy winners like Eric Crouch and Tim Tebow. Especially with the popularity of the spread offense, quarterbacks and slot receivers can be extremely valuable in college, but not so much in the NFL.
August 5th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^
August 5th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
I don't think pep talks make much of a difference. If a player isn't self motivated they shouldn't be playing at this level. I've seen plenty of teams come out hyped up and end up getting destroyed by the calmer team.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
While I've never been around this level of play, I've watched my kids play on both good teams and bad, performance-wise. I've seen a few coaches who are really just phoning it in and the kids respond accordingly. I've also seen coaches who are engaged: interested in the game from start to finish and who ask the kids to do more beyond games and practices. In other words, setting the expectations and sticking to them. So it's less about a pep talk right before a game and more about the tone the coach sets for the entire season, and whether he is consistent in those expectations. I've also seen a few players bring a team down by not being interested. I would imagine it's tough when a group of players aren't all in. The other players have to compensate and if the coaches aren't holding anyone accountable, I would imagine those players get pissed and lose interest.
it's about accountablity and expectations from the coaches. Pep talk does not do a whole lot to the team's performances.
August 6th, 2015 at 12:26 AM ^
on St. Crispin's Day.
(Re: gord's #15)
August 5th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
Emotional aspect? There's no crying in football.
August 5th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^
This question might better be directed at Dantonio and staff as it seems to be their modus operandi when it comes to 'getting the most out of their players.'
How do you incite that burning desire to play above your talent level?
Seems Hoke had the unique ability to make players downplay that sort of motivating dynamic. Unless you call that stunt with the spear at midfield emotion.
August 5th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^
As a psychologist who has done a lot of sport psychology work (and used to teach a class on it for aspiring coaches), I would say Yes, Yes, and Yes to all three of your questions.
The mental/emotional part of the game is a big component of any sport, but I'd say football requires more thinking, focus, and teamwork than most. In basketball one player can dominate the game, but in football all cogs have to be full go and in rhythm for most plays to work. Even in basketball you often see teams with less talent upset the Goliaths because they have better teamwork, intensity, and focus (e.g., some of Beilein's teams, Novak's aneurysm of leadership).
In any case, most coaches/staffs at high level athletics know what they're doing when it comes to the physical aspects of the game (though obviously some are more talented/smarter/innovative than others, which I hope is the case with Harbaugh vs. Hoke), but there's a lot more variability in how they handle the cognitive, motivational, and leadership/teamwork components.
for being the first person to answer the questions!
August 5th, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^
Anyone who says Michigan has a talent gap is clearly talking out of their ass. Hoke didn't have problems recruiting, his staff just didn't develop the players on hand.
Harbaugh will develop them but for the returners, will this season be enough to overcome 4 years of no development?
Anyone who thinks Devin Gardner was "unmotivated" simply hasn't been paying attention. The reason Michigan looked so "unmotivated" and underachieved so badly is because their offense was so predictable that the other team knew exactly where everyone was going to be before they got there.
I am extremely disappointed that a poster who is usually quite thoughtful would blame Devin Gardner for any of this.
Gardner played his heart out for the University of Michigan. He represented his school well both on and off the field. He deserves our undying respect and admiration for sticiking it out and valuing a University of Michigan degree over a better "fit" at a different school.
Was coming to comment on it. The post was fine, except Gardner was the worst example to use. He played pretty hurt his last 1.5 years. Almost beat OSU on a hurculean (sp?) effort, and seemed tough as nails. Maybe the poster mixed up his Devins? That can be the only explanation I can see.
I am not sure if I am who you are referring to here, but I was saying that Devin Gardner seemed to one of the few who showed the passion and heart on the field. He was/is a fucking warrior in every game he played.
In case I was the one you were talking about, I wanted to make my point clear in OP
"We just seemed to play "flat" in almost every game. Only a few players seemed to have that kind of inspiration/motivation--particularly last year. Devin Gardner comes to mind."
I read that as Devin Gardner being an example of one of the few players that WAS motivated...
I hated this board when people ran their mouth about Gardner. HATED IT!
Was he the QB Michigan needed? No. But that kid was the #5 QB in the nation in HS. He went through a handful of coaches here, 2 position changes, and played behind a craptastic O line. Never bitched once. NOT ONCE!
He almost willed Michigan to a victory over tOSU on a fucking broken foot.
He's the all time greatest Michigan Man in my opinion.
Preach it, bro! He surpasses even Denard in my book. And thats a tough surpass to surpass.
August 5th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^
anyone being hit by the snap. That was weird.
I'm sure all that stuff does matter. But here's my evidence that those things are tools for the lazy as far as explaining results: how many teams can you name that were extremely "inspired" yet still lost lots of games? And on the flipside, how many teams can you name that were great, but won because of pure skill despite their "flat" play?
You mention the 2011 team as the most recent one that didn't play "flat" and was "inspired." Big surprise -- that was our last good team. What, exactly, was it that made them look inspired? Was it maybe that they were a good football team for lots of reasons, many of them independant of their level of "heart" during the game?
that was a spear. Or at least that's what someone said.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I've been reading for years about our "talent gap" and how (insert previous coach) left the cupboard bare. The fact is that Michigan has had top 10 recruiting classes more often than not going back as far as data is available (early 2000's).
Yes, the previous staff did not develop that talent well. The players often seemed soft and the team would fall apart in 4th quarters for whatever reason.
I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of the team's issues are mental and directly related to the team's leadership.
Some of the current roster won't buy in to the new way of doing things, and indeed some have already left. But I honestly think that we're about to see 1969 all over again. Harbaugh is going to get this mess straightened out a lot quicker than people think.
But not at every position. There are ZERO experienced playmakers at WR. With a depleted running game and below-average quarterback play you get an offense like last year.
But if some guys can step up.....
Michigan still has better overall talent than 80% of FBS.
2011 is a very interesting data point, and in many ways the reverse of what we have now. Coming out of 2010, we had a properly coached offense and a poorly coached defense. With good defensive coaching and a fresh attitude that the team embraced, they went from a 7-6 debacle to 11-2.
Now, we have a (mostly) properly coach defense and a poorly coached offense. We're introducing solid coaching to the areas that had been neglected (offense and DBs), as well as a fresh attitude that at least some of the team seems to be embracing. We also have arguably a more talented team (on paper) than in 2011. So the question remains as to whether the offense can take the same type of leap the defense did in 2011 and overall whether the team can make a similar improvement from 5-7...
under Hoke is gone.
Those non-Michigan people you speak of will be very surprised.
Not sure how that relates to college players, but I see teams improve right after a coaching change. See: Sugar Bowl win in year 1 of Hokamania
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Hoke's time here will go down as the darkest in several decades. Dude was so over his head, it'd be funny if it wasn't real life.
Watching games last year, I had to fight off falling asleep or do something during the games they were so boring.
RichRod's disdain for defense have improved in 2011?