is the problem, and all of the Borges apologists on here will not face the music and will constantly blame the lack of execution...the constant under-center dive runs are not working...all the other stats don't mean much, we have decent talent but a terrible play caller who refuses to adjust to the talent he has...this is also on Hoke as well for allowing these bad play calls week in and week out...GERG was also an easy scapegoat because he was forced to run a bad defense by RR...the problem is Borges, and until he is gone/changes his playcalling nothing will change other than the sheep on this board blaming Devin/Fitz/anything else other than the guy calling the dead-wrong plays
Reality Check - UM Football Has Been Mediocre by "Blue Blood" Standards ...for 20 Years
Its not on Borges. Who is Al's superior? It starts at the top. I agree we have to adapt or die. It all begins with coach Hoke.
By the "who is the superior" logic, Hoke reports to Brandon, so it is Brandon's fault. Of course, Brandon reports to MSC, so it must really be her fault.
Hoke makes the football decisions.
Sure, but absolving Borges (saying it not on him) is wrong. It is on Borges and it is on Hoke provide guidance or make a change. What I took from your comment was you want Hoke to micromanage. You need to give the folks that work for you some ability to make decisions. If the decision are not in line with your philosophical approach then you point that out and make clear your expectations. If after that, you still having issues, you make a change.
ok, this can go one of two ways for Hoke. He can micro manage Borges, or he can step away from the power scheme that I am sure he has a lot to do with and allow Borges to open it up like he did the end of 2011. It is silly for all of us to sit here and blame Borges relentlessly when we all know in the end it is on the head coach. He can simply tell him one way or another how to manage the game. I Have been in management for 10 years and I never micro manage until its neccessary. The time is now for Hoke to handle this.
On the other hand none of us really know how they manage anything. I can sit here all day with and blow hot air, but its irrelevant. My opinion is that Hoke is very hands off and not versatile enough to take over if he had too. This is a slippery slope for him, because as Borges does what he does it reflects on Hoke.
He can also fire Borges. If Hoke doesn't fire or micromanage Borges then it's on him.
as well if you didn't notice...but at the end of the day Borges is the the guy making the idiotic play calls
well then its time for Hoke to slap on a headset and make some calls himself. That is if he can. I questioning him in terms of versatility. Could he take over the offense if he had too?
so you are now talking out of both sides of your mouth...whose to blame? Borges calling the plays or Hoke not telling Borges to change the play calling??? You cannot sit there and blame Hoke and then say he cannot call plays....Borges is the problem as well as Hoke, but it is clear that Borges is given the green-light to call whatever he feels....so as a manager, you either micro-manage him or remove him from his position....Hoke is responsible for the Lloyd ball decisions to punt, Borges is responsible for the Lloyd ball power runs that simply do not work
Thats basically what I said.
Hoke is starting to remind me of Frieder.......a great recruiter, a lousy game coach.
How lousy? The strutting around the sidelines is a clue. He needs to have a headset on and have input into the offensive play calling.
In the "real world" a guy like Borges, with tons of good jobs (but none for very long) would be considered a journeyman, not a guru. That Hoke leaves him to operate the offense is a poor commentary on Hoke. Last year, he let Borges convince him Russell Bellomy was ready to play, so perhaps Hoke doesnt want to see the truth.
He can get away with leaaving the defense in the hands of Mattison, who we bought from the NFL. But Borges is not Mattison, and does not have nearly the resume.
My impression is that your average 14 year old with PlayStation expeerience could have done a better job fitting an offense to Denard, a unique talent Borges made do ordinary things.
But now its Year 3, which is all RichRod got, and RichRod at least left some talent behind.
In all fairness the big catch to Robinson on the final drive of regulation was covered. That was good coverage, not a great throw by Hackenburg, and Robinson went up and made a play against a DB 5" shorter than him. What are you gonna do? Hemingway did that against ND and V-Tech. Should we have been more aggressive and got a field goal, maybe, but Gardner also allowed the delay of game call. A lot of negatives happened, it's not all on the coaches.
If we went for the kick and missed it, we'd be pissed about that too, calling for Borges/Hoke to play the odds and not be stupid playing against a freshman QB. I don't think Hoke is conservative. I've seen him go for it on 4th, I've seen him go for the blocked punt, etc. He is considering the situation...playing on the road in a difficult place to run the offense with a QB that has made a lot of mistakes, going against a freshman QB on the other side. That's a logical choice. No problem there.
The circumstances are frustrating, but the choices are logical. I don't like them. I wish we had a confident/capable QB (Morris, Speight, etc.), offensive line ('13 recruiting group), pass rush (Charlton in the cupboard and Hand probably otw), shut down DB (Peppers otw) etc. to lock the end of the game down, but we're not there yet. The solutions are there, we just need more time. It's the players not the coaches. And, the effort is there from everyone and that's all you can ask for. As Hoke's recruiting classes, particularly on the lines, begin to become upperclassman, I beleive it will make all the difference.
I would give you 10,000 pts of upvote if I could. Borges is the new GERG, except this time he has an equally incompetent sidekick named Funk. The only difference between Hoke and RichRod aside from the goodwill with Blue nation is Hoke's recruiting. Both of them have fallen prey to hiring incompetent coordinators to whom they have given autonomy on the other side of the ball.
As much as I loathe talking about RichRod, it wasn't just GERG alone that ruined the defense. The entire defensive coaching staff, aside from maybe D-Line coach, were pretty bad. Mattison didn't come in and turn the worst defense in Michigan history into a pretty decent one with schemes alone. Coaching also improved dramatically in the back 7.
I think something similar is going on with the offense. In three years, who has performed above his talent on the offensive sisde of the ball? Maybe, Gallon? Nobody is being coached up on that side of the ball right now. I think it's time for a wholesale change in the offensive coaching staff. FWIW, I think this will automatically start this season with a Fred Jackson retirement.
but GERG has done just fine down in Texas seeing that they beat up Oklahoma...granted they almost lost to ISU, but GERG was forced to run the 3-3-5 that Dick Rod still runs (and fails terribly with) at Arizona....Michigan needs a competant OC, the defense is ok and has actually done a pretty damn good job that past couple of years
has Casteel (his 3-3-5 guru at WV) now working with him at Arizona. Only in year 2, I imagine they'll have the defense up to at least WV levels in the future. But agree that Borges doesn't seem to be imaginative/adaptable. Also wonder about Funk, but it seems to me we haven't had a dominating OL in nearly a decade. I remember we seemed to have trouble running the ball even during the last 4-5 years of the Carr era [insert pic of entire OSU DL getting past OL toward Hart here].
Only in year 2, I imagine they'll have the defense up to at least WV levels in the future.
I'm not sure about that. The Pac-12 has some very talented offenses, a lot more than the mid-2000s Big East had.
Oklahoma has a pretty medicore offense this season. 16 points against WVU. 20 points against TCU. Stopping them doesn't negate everything we saw out of him for two years at Michigan and however many years before that at Syracuse.
I've said this before: GERG may not have been the solution but he was not the problem. The problem was RR's insistence on the 3-3-5, a defense neither Shafer nor GERG wanted to run. Not only did we suck as they struggled to implement that as our base defense, it affected our defensive recruiting as opposing schools pointed out that few NFL teams use the 3-3-5.
is because of inadequate coaching we turn highly rated recruits into average to below average players. At some point, prospects will see this and stay away from Michigan.
Hoke is a good man and does recruit well. But he is above his head in coaching a high profile football program. He is the wrong man for the job and the longer he stays the program will continue to degrade.
And yet, his record is 24-8.
This is not the record of a guy who is in over his head.
And lets not forget, he took over a program in disarray, its not like he's been coasting and running a good thing down.
I blame him 100% for the Penn State loss. I appreciate the emotional state this board is in. But I don't think we should make crazy, wrong statements such as yours.
is that he's shown flashes of innovation. Where did all those reverses to Norfleet from the CMU game go? It seems like our offense gets more vanilla each week. Maybe he's stripping it down to basics because of turnovers, but it clearly isn't working.
I really think we try to set up future opponents and purposefully play a little vanilla against teams we expect to win. I see us being very different against the likes of MSU, Nebraska, NW, and OSU. We seem to be very different in the second half versus the first half all three years. Maybe we get to know our strengths/weaknesses better as time goes on and we adapt, but to some degree I think we do this on purpose to have vareity/unique plays against higher level conference foes.
Hoke will never fire Borges. By the time Hoke actually begins to consider this as a viable option it would be too late. Personally I don't see either happening as eventually our talent level, particularly our o-line will be good enough to hide Borges' weaknesses. But, we are stuck with Borges as long as Hoke remains which will be a while unless we get a few 6-7 win seasons in a row which I don't see happening. 8 wins is enough to give him more time for 2 more years, at which point talent will take over and give us 9-11 wins a year.
... that David Brandon gets more involved. He will not take failure sitting down. Say all the crap you want about him, but he understands the importance of putting a quality product on the field and is not a passive observer.
I don't know enough about football to say it is player X or coach Y, but I do know something is broken. Hopefully, there will be plenty of pressure to fix it ASAP.
Hoke will never fire Borges.
I don't understand why people make these kinds of absolute statements. Hoke and Borges have been together 4.5 years. People are acting like they were college roommates or something. If Hoke feels there should be a change, he may well make one. He shook up his staff at Ball State after he started poorly.
It's not Borges. It's the entire culture of the program. These people would rather be mediocre and win the "Michigan Way" than change. These people hung RR out to dry before he had a chance.
Strange. Right after a lenghy, well-written thread post about how the program has been mediocre for 20 years the first thing I see is "Borges is the problem." Playcalling in the last game was not good. No way around that, but calling our OC for the past 3 years THE problem (reminder, this is about 20 years of mediocrity) is unfair. We had offensive struggles before Hoke and before Rich Rod. Coaches have come and gone.
The gradual downslide of Michigan football goes beyond any individual. This, I feel, is more attributed to a change in college football culture than anything else. The elite programs that have risen or have stayed at the top in the past 10-20 years have something in common, and it's that they have changed their way of thinking and approaching everything from coaching to recruting. Michigan, as far as the big picture goes, has stayed the same, and it's because our stubborn, arrogant fan base refuses to accept any change.
We get all pissy when DB tries to change ANYTHING. This isn't the 80's anymore. College football is not an innocent game. Now more than ever we hear about schools offering illegal benefits to recruits and current players. Schools are doing whatever it takes to rise to the top. Michigan as an institution holds itself above that behavior. We are playing by a different set of rules than a lot of other schools. It's the Michigan Arrogance that's holding this program back. I'm not saying we should stoop down to the level of the people we hold ourselves higher than. I'm saying that I think we can't have both.
The point I'm trying to get at is that unless Belichick or Saban are on our sideline, we can't keep placing the blame on just one person, then expect our problems to go away once that problem is fired or retires. During RR, many turned to Carr as the source of the problem. Now we're seeing the same thing but RR being the source. We are a fanbase that, similar to Notre Dame, lives entirely in the past. It's time to move on from that, because the longer we keep holding on to the "glory days," the further away they'll get, and the more irrelevant they'll be on the recruiting trail. We are on a slippery slope, and have been for a while.
Where do you see these Borges apologists? Have you read Brian's recap? Have you been reading the diaries, board posts, comments, or the rest of the Michigan blogosphere? Everyone is pissed at Borges, and most are also frustrated with Hoke. Who are you arguing with?
I can say that I agree to the terms above. I would like to add that we have yet anothe top 5 or 10 class coming in next year and arguably the best athlete in the country on his way. We need an athlete of peppers caliber on this team. We have talent yes, but its crucial we find that woodson esque game changer. This is still michigan and we will get past this.
I'm not going to downvote because I get what you are saying but, honestly, who really cares? So a bunch of people expect perfection and the team rarely lives up to that; welcome to college sports. UM isn't one of the consistent elite programs anymore, but I'd counter that all of the schools listed above have gone through, and likely will go through, far more ups and downs compared to UM. And as you noted with USC and, I presume, OSU, they always have the potential for infractions and tarnished win-loss records that probably won't occur at UM. This isn't a morality argument because I think those are crap, but sometimes what makes you Auburn or Miami for a couple of years bites you in the ass later. I mean, teams like Miami, FSU, Colorado, Washington, etc. all had great runs during this timeframe but cratered due to incompetence, NCAA violations, and vagaries of the sport. I'm not saying losing 3-4 games a year is fantastic, but I'd much rather know my team is a consistent winner than have to watch Colorado get their heads beaten in for years.
All true. Painful to read, but true.
Football coaches (and others) often talk about the 80/10/10... 10% of the kids will do the right things, work, and lead. 10% will loaf, complain, and drag everybody else down (misery loves company). The rest of the 80% will follow one of these two.
alum96 you are either a fantastically obsessed (and hence educated on M) troll or the king of the lower 10%.
Is he wrong?
I love when people lay out facts and are called a troll. The first part of addressing a problem, is admitting it. We have been mediocre VERSUS our small peer group. I used a random measure, others can use other measures but in the end its Win v Loss to measure who is premier and who is not. We are 2nd from last in that category per my arbitrary measure, and if you use the eye test it would hard to argue over 20 years you can move UM much higher on the scale.
You can put your head in the sand and avoid it and call names but that is not doing much. Or join the chorus of "just wait until next year when it all gets fixed" which has been the status quo since 2006. My main worry is in reading far too many comments on these boards this weekend, a lot of hard core fans are now in the "acceptance" phase of 4 loss seasons as this is just what it is, while holding out some fanciful hope that by the laws of nature it will stop being so "In 2015". I sure hope so, but the now creeping acceptance of these results by more of the fan base, for a program who puts so much money and energy into football is not a great thing. I don't have any easy solutions short of bringing Nick Saban here but it doesnt change the analysis.
Did you post this in the offseason, when optimism (as it always is) was highest? Did you post it after Notre Dame? Are you making an intellectual argument based on facts - this one building over the last 20 years -, or are you hurting from the poor play of the last few weeks and drowning in misery? I posit the latter, which leads to my conclusion.
I thought the OL would struggle at the outset but be a few steps better by mid season when the "3 new guys" (whoever they were) would be better. I thought the offense would be more pro style per the coach's goals. I thought we'd be able to run running backs. I didn't think this would be Denard's offense all over again. We've had a very easy schedule and beaten one competent team. We've struggled (mostly due to turnovers) against 2 piss poor teams. The only part of this team executing and improving game versus game is the defense. The special teams and offense have regressed. The OL is among the worst I have ever seen at a Big 10 school, not to mention a OSU PSU UM type school. It might be rivaled by last year's.
Frankly I am amazed at how many points we can score with an arm tied behind our back but that goes to the natural ability of Devin Gardner who both gives and takes away. If we only had a pro style QB rather than a guy who can create 20+ yards on any scramble, I think this offense would be in very bad shape. And we have yet to play a defense with the team speed of Ohio or the stoutness of MSU. Devin can still keep us in any game but the fact we are in year 3 of the Hoke/Borges era completely reliant on 1 superman to run an offense versus asking the QB to just be a QB... is saying something. I thought we'd be far better by mid season not on how many points we score but on running a 2 dimesional offense. I guess its the journey rather than the destination of this year's offense that is dismaying. It doesnt look any differnet than 2012's offense.
After the ND game I thought Devin looked Vince Young-ish but it was hiding a ton of issues on the OL - he was scrambling for his life on almost every drop back and the run game still struggled. And in retrospect that ND defense is not anywhere near to 2012's. At this point I just feel sorry for Devin for what he is dealing with.
These are all reasonable - and frankly generic - frustations on the 2013 season so far. They're fair and could have been - and were - listed over and over again in any of the snowflake threads.
What you're doing while standing in the fire is looking for gasoline and tinder, and in this post you've found some and poured it all over the board. It's the act of someone who has a predisposition to wallow in pity, or of a provoking troll. Your recent history of emotional rants and gloom provide additional evidence for both.
Admit it: if M had won every game so far by a score of 60-0, you would have not made this post. Yet five games of 60-0 wins would do nothing to affect what you call 20 years of mediocrity.
you are being ridiculous. I agree that he wouldn't post this in your scenerio. So what? Get over it and find aomething more productive / less trollish you trolly troll-troll.
I have to agree. And this is why I down-voted. Not because of the OP's sentiment, but because it doesn't take any sort of intestinal fortitude to post something like this after Saturday's game. If this is how you've felt, then speak up and be the contrarian while everyone is more positive about the team. Otherwise, live with it. Hopefully, not too much of your personal happiness it tied to the success of the team.
He upvoted himself.
But yeah, too many people are willing to make all these sweeping bold statements and the "I've always known I told you so" posts after a really shitty loss, but somehow they either didn't know, or didn't step up to say them say, after the ND win when everyone was making Devin the #1 overall NFL draft pick next year.
The fact that this increase in yearly losses occurs over a roughly 20 year period indicates that it is not caused by any one coach, or AD, or even UM president. The shift may be due to an increasing acceptance of fewer victories by fans, alumni and boosters. In short, a culture change may be occuring which resets expectations from from one cohort to another. Reading from the comments, it appears that loyalty to the team is often being intepreted as accepting them no matter what outcome they produce. Those who argue for national championships are dismissed as hotheads or unbalanced or unrealistic. Those who argue that desiring a national championship is excessive may be right, but they have to consider another possibility- once 3-5 losses per season becomes acceptable, what is to stop the culture change from continuing to the point where 6-8 losses become acceptable? Where do you draw the line? What is to stop the process of culture change from continuing?
About 8 years ago at the end of the Carr era I read a quote by a Wisconsin player I've always remembered. When asked the difference between playing Michigan and Ohio he said, Ohio just plays harder. They hit harder and are just tougher than Michigan guys
That looks true to me too. Michigan can look incredibly soft at times. Hoke preaches toughness, but we just don't see it. To the OP point, no, Michigan isn't currently elite and hasn't been in a long, long time.
All football players in the Big Ten from 01-06 said the same thing. Specifically they said they would rather line up against Alan Branch and Gabe Watson than any Dlinemen from OSU. They made it clear to me that Branch and Watson had FAR more talent but "tired out and took a lot of plays off just going through the motion" (my classmate's exact words) whereas apparently OSU fought a lot harder and had much better technique. I thought this was a problem that would be immediately fixed under the next coach. I'm not sure it has been yet.
This is similar to what other B1G ten oppoenents have said about Frank Clark and some of our other players.. In the season preview magazine someone from another team said Clark could have 20 sacks if he showed up for every game because he was unstoppable 1 on 1.. But they said in watching different game films it looks like he doesn't play hard game to game.
Same was said about funchess and how he was never physical, even though he is the biggest player on the field.
All football players in the Big Ten from 01-06 said the same thing.
Everyone from 2001-06 said this? Even when we won the Big Ten title in 2003 and '04? Somehow I don't believe you.
It's well past time for Hoke to not just say all the right things, but actually fucking DO all the right things. All this walk to michigan and Fergodsakes bullshit means nothing.
It isn't so much whether your "analysis" is wrong or right, it's the timing. If you had the insight and/or nerve to post this before Saturday it might have meant more. Today it just seems like easy piling on.
On the bright side we beat both Alabama and Florida in bowl games during the period you reference.
I agree. I am just F****** frustrating seein the same thing now for 6 years - PSU sucks this year. UCF went in there and beat them. (UCF is a fine team but no world beater) The whole Big 10 has been down for a decade - really down. Our rival is taking advantage of it. We are sort of the same team in different iterations over and over whatever the record. We can not realistically look at our team and say "close to dominant" - just 3 players away. Not that I am expecting that in 2013, I was expecting 9-3 and we probably can do that just b/c the conf is so bad. But getting blown off the ball consistently in the trenches is just shocking for me to see.
I don't disagree but the ineffective line play didn't start Saturday and probably won't be ending any time soon. They're going to have to find a way to improve or continue to suffer.
In the vein of trying to stay positive remember Alabama wasn't the juggernaut they are now before Saban got there - the program was down and they had tried and failed to hire Rich Rodriguez.
20 years ago was 10/14/1993.
We were pretty mediocre the few years before that national championship. I don't think one national title in 20 years precludes a statement that an elite program has been pretty mediocre by its standards over that time period.
I'll take a National Championship wrapped up in a decade of "mediocre."
Although, dude we were ranked #2 in 2006... That's not "mediocre." I don't agree with the OP at all, but my statements remains true. I will take a NC anytime.
We lost our 2 biggest games that year and beat up on some shitty B1G and ND teams. 2006 was a mirage.
Isn't that the year we AGAIN lost to Ohio which was then humiliated by Florida the next game 41-14? Weren't we also wearing our asses as hats, courtesy of USC in the Rose Bowl? Great team? Nope.
I get called out for posting shit on here all the time, but man... just man. This comment is some shit.
If you didn't think the '06 team was great then I think you should just focus on the NFL or something. Maybe take a break from sports all together. Spend some time on some other things for a while.
What team were you watching in 2006?
Totally thought your post read "Definitely not in the past 20 years."
We are 5-1. Holy shit. Calm down.
The Titanic olny hit a small iceberg ... don't panic.
Did anyone here honestly believe we were the grandest ship to sail the Atlantic? My guess is no. Michigan is 5-1 and many projected 8-10 wins this year. We could absolutely fall short of that, but my gut says that Michigan will go 3-3 and then win a bowl game to finish 9-4. Not great but not bad by any stretch of the imagination.
Everyone's expectations got blown skyhigh after the ND win. This is a 9 or 10-win team, on track for another step forward with the new coaching regime. Rebuilding takes time. Exercise some patience.
Saturday's loss was infuriating. I have questions about Borges and the conservative gameplan at the end was mind-boggling, but that doesn't mean I want to nuke the damn program. Settle down.
"Rebuilding takes time. Exercise some patience."
RRs head just literally exploded. Literally.
You don't see a difference between going 24-8 and going 15-22? Really?
"You'll never get anyone to want to coach here after firing a guy after 3 years" who won 15 games now people seem to think firing a guy who is 24-8 is going to have coaches lining up at the door for the job.
We played 1 ranked team...who is no longer ranked. We are also in one of the worst, if not the worst, major conference in college football.
Honestly, though, before this game we were a very 2012 Notre Dame-like 5-0. I had started to wonder whether I would have been happy with a 2013 season that resembled their 2012 season. Going undefeated for the privilege of being shown that they were absolutely not the #2 team in the country. (My answer was yes, but only because that meant we'd beat Ohio.)
You're right. . . when you take a step back and look at it, you're absolutely right. We can get some of the best talent in the nation, (and definitely the best talent in the midwest) and do nothing with it. Gone are the days of back to back to back to back to back B1G championships like the late 80's/early 90's We'll all expect 1997 every year and we are far from that mark.
I don't think anyone expects 1997 consistently - no program does that. In 2006 we were very close to a win in The Game and being in the title game conversation. The UM team that played Vince Young's Texas team was fun and competitve at a very high level. There were a few other teams in the past 20 years (97 being obvious) but a few others at a very top end level. But in between those teams were a lot of 3 and 4 loss seasons.
There was no sustained excellent at any point in 20 years. The NC offsets a lot of 3 and 4 loss seasons I guess, but I don't know how much longer we can cling to that. To frame it between 93 and 96 there were four seasons of 4 losses (16 losses), and 7 of the 8 seasons after the NC year we had 3+ losses. When our "peers" rise up in their NC runs they bracket that championship team with a few years of 1-2 loss type teams, see Nebraska in the 90s, Okahoma 7-10 years ago, USC for 6-7 years (cheaters), Texas for 6-7 years, Alabama last half decade etc. Heck throw in LSU which has not won a NC but been considered elite or near elite for 7-8 years now. A consistent plateu at an elite level - our plateau has been 3-4 losses. Has there any point in the past 20 years that people thought of Michigan over a 5 year time frame as they do those teams? Aside from people in Michigan who wear our maize colored glasses?
Hoke's first year Michigan goes 11 - 2. This is with RR's players. GERG is gone and GM steps in as DC. Nobody at that time realized that Borges IS WORTHLESS as a playcaller. The EXPECTATION LEVELS rise. And for good reason. Recruiting becomes TREMENDOUS. The Future looks bright ...
Down year in 2012 - capped off by a bowl loss that we should have won.
2013 - Most people (national talking heads) expect Michigan to contend for a B1G title. Erractic at times but Michigan undefeated going into Penn State ... then this entire coaching staff (but MOSTLY Borges) takes its foot off the gas in a game that Michigan had taken total control of. From Halftime to 6 min. to play, Michigan outscores PSU 24 - 3 to take a 10 point lead and Borges sticks his head up his ass and blows any chance this offense has to finish the game. Some games are defensive games ... WAKE UP this wasn't one of them.
I was there sitting in the upper deck screaming to THROW the football. PSU was playing man coverage 10 - 12 yards off our wideouts. One time they didn't even cover one of oue wideouts ! Devin would come to the line, look out and then tap his helmet like he was calling an audible - but then he handed the ball to Fitz (PUKE). But this game was done when we lose 8 yards and then punt from the 35. WTF - where's the Hoke that goes for it on 4th down from his own 40, or calls a fake FG ... this happened in 2011, the 11-2 season. And the aggresive play calling NEEDS to return or this team will wither the rest of the season ...
and I have no idea why half of this message board is apologizing for Borges!!!!
If this guy worked for me and performed like this he would have already been fired...I am so sick of hearing he and Hoke blame the players and the lack of "execution"...call the plays that work, or hit the unemployment line!
Running up the middle for a loss when the whole night on Devin could get positive yardage... I don't understand why anyone is defending that.
I kept begging for a pass and rarely got one. but also, was I the only one who wanted a little toss play or counter in there? every run seemed Power-O or Iso.
we won a national championship in '97 dude, WTF are you on about us being mediocre for 20 years? We had a shared B1G title in '04. '06 was not a mediocre team.
At best you could claim 7 years.
Sorry I disagree with you. It is your opinion so I respect it but a NC does not offset all the seasons around it. (it does help alleviate it of course). Can you really tell me one undefeated seasons offsets 12 years of 3-4 loss seasons around it? If so, then we respectfully disagree. I wrote this up higher on the page:
"To frame it between 93 and 96 there were four seasons of 4 losses (16 losses), and 7 of the 8 seasons after the NC year we had 3+ losses. When our "peers" rise up in their NC runs they bracket that championship team with a few years of 1-2 loss type teams, see Nebraska in the 90s, Okahoma 7-10 years ago, USC for 6-7 years (cheaters), Texas for 6-7 years, Alabama last half decade etc."
Here is a listing of losses by year starting with 93 - does this strike "elite" to you?
Those were the seasons bracketing the NC. That was more like a supernova surrounded by relatively meh. That string was followed by a 2 loss season, than a 4 loss, than Rich Rod.
For comparison sake it would be like saying if Notre Dame won a NC last year they had been an elite program for 10 years.
How many NC's and how many undefeated seasons did Bo have? Bowl wins?
Bo had how many 1 or 2 loss seasons?
How many have we had since Bo? That's what he's talking about.
He included a 2 loss season in his list above. Furthermore Bo never won a NC and had a losing record in bowl games.
If the standard is 1 loss or less a year to become 'elite', then we were elite for a period in the 1970's under Bo and that was it.
Most schools would love to have our record in football. How many winning seasons has Michigan had? Bowl games, bowl wins? etc. Get some perspective, people.
He was including all seasons. You'll notice he included a 0. He wasn't talking about just mediocre seasons.
Most schools being okay with it is not a good reason to accept 3 and 4 loss seasons and that's exactly the kinda of thinking that allowed it to happen. ''Oh most schools would be okay with 3 losses a year!'' Well guess what? Michigan isn't one of those schools. Neither is Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, OSU, and Alabama. The only reason Lloyd wasn't let go earlier is because he won a national championship.
When the seasons were one more games shorter, had years where he didn't even play in a bowl game due to rules (and most likely removing another loss from his record), and spent half his career in a conference that was total shit outside of Ohio State.
Nope, I used a 2 loss maximum. In the OP I wrote this:
For comparison sake, the previous 20 year period, we had 13 seasons of 2 losses or less; we had an elite program.
It has nothing to do with NC. It has to do with a plateau at a much higher level than we have been for the past 2 decades.
Ok, but I don't really think anybody was denying this. Lloyd tailed off after those late 90s teams and the 02-04 teams and RR was kind of a change of pace and hope that could bring UM back to a perennial top 10 team. When that didn't work out, Hoke was hired to bring things back closer to the mold of old Michigan teams.
I know a lot of posts are coming out because of the loss but come on, this was true before the game. The only thing that matters is Indiana and the rest of the B1G schedule. We have our tradition and history but that is not going to do anything to win games.
IMO the problem with these types of analyses is selecting the time frame. Is it reflective of the appropriate era or is it conveniently selected to support a pre-conceived notion. If I want to say OSU has had more success, I say the relevant history is the last 10 years (M trails 2-8) if I want to say they've been even I pick 25 years, if I want to say M has had more success I consider the overall record.
You are correct. However, this conversation still does not look favorable to Michigan if you go 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. That is the problem.
Um, osu still wins on more success if you go back 25 years.
I was talking head to head and I think it is 12-12-1. Of course OSU vacated one of those wins, so OSU has technically won 11 times.
This whole OP is stupid but the line that pissed me off the most was "we have let our biggest rival down". Aside from how asinine that statement is, even if it were true, over the past 20 years we are at (or maybe 1 game below, I'm not sure) .500 against Ohio. What they accomplished under Tressel was just to get them back to treading water after how we owned John Cooper's teams.
Michigan fans cannot keep living in the past. Hoke BARELY beat a wounded OSU team with sanctions and no long term head coach in the big house in '11. Yes, we owned Cooper. I was also a child when that happened.
Where are the recent results? I am not saying fire Hoke or even Borges. Where is the accountability from fans? Players overall are not the problem (this is college, not the pros). It is play calling, player development, adjustments, and game planning that has cost this team winnable games in the last few years. Fans need to realize that.
When Michigan lost my osu buddy sent me this text: "UM=Univ of Mediocre..lol Go Bucks!!!"
I wasnt even mad, bc he's 100% correct. It seems most people associated with UM are ok with going 8-4 every year. This has truly been a mediocre program. Maybe not for the last 20 years, but definitely the last 10.
What do you mean by "accountablity from fans?" That seems like a pretty strange concept.
Seems to me that the team is either going to play well, or not play well, irrespective of what some fan thinks.
Demand more from your team, staff, AD. Most M fans donate, pay big dollars, and spend time and effort to support this team at home and on the road. They deserve better and should demand more...but they don't. They are turning into Lion fans where they just sit back and bitch and complain.
I still don't follow. The bitching and complaining seems to follow logically from a team having failed to meet whatever "demands a fan has placed upon it.
Donations stop + Attendance goes downhill = changes get done. That simple.
Some people will go to the Big House every single Saturday and that is fine. But when the product you pay for does not meet YOUR standards (and even standards set by the school/team themselves) then it is not worth it.
I understand this is a drastic measure to some but why fire Matt Millen when fans still go to the games and spend money? It took Ford Field to become empty before change happened. DB starts losing money...he makes a few phone calls (Borges, Hoke, others).
College football is already heading toward the pro game...so DB better be ready to handle the consequences of high ticket prices if your product is not good. As a recent alum I do not want to be dropping hundreds of dollars (maybe 1-2 thousand + parking + time) for a team that goes 8-4 year in and year out. Yes, blame the younger generation but that is our mindset. We have no loyalty to brands. If a new phone company came with a better phone all those iphone lovers would have no problem bailing. I love Michigan and Michigan Football but for what they ask me to pay/donate I expect a certain standard.
Well, thank you for providing that explanation. I can now at least understand where you are coming from, even if I don't have the same perspective.
dump the good seats I've had since I graduated in 1993 to induce DB into putting a better product on the field and then when they get better, get back on the waiting list to try and get 6 seats again together. Ummmm....No. Sorry. You should totally do it though!!! Make a stand!!!
Why do you think the Big 10 has such a pathetic world view the past 10 years? Because Ohio is the only one carrying the flag for the conference at the highest level. Michigan has not. If anything Wisconsin has been carrying it for Michigan for nearly a decade now.
The rivalry will always be there even when one team is down. Not going to change. But even Earl Bruce said after one of the games of the RR era (2008 or 2010 - dont remember which) he was dismayed with what he saw here. That is in the past but when UM was beating OSU in the Carr v Cooper era, many (not all, and not early in the Cooper era) Cooper was usually bringing in elite OSU teams with 0 or 1 losses and we were beating them... with our 3-4 loss teams. Compare that to what has been happening lately (save 2011). It is a let down to the rivalry IMO. Just as there has been times OSU has been a letdown to the rivalry - albeit the last time on a sustained basis was the early Cooper years.
lack of line coaching and lack of a real leader since Carr
This reeks of a familiar strawman made by other teams' fans. Who is seriously still unaware that UM has underperformed lately? Did you know that M has only won one MNC in the last 50 years? AMAZING. I am really bummed about this "reality check," as it totally tempers my "Why Fitz Will Win the Heisman" diary.
I'm sorry, it seems you're just picking numbers arbitrarily and using those to back up your argument. For instance, you use the category of number of 2 loss or less years. Alabama is at 6. Michigan is at 4. You could then argue that Alabama has been "mediocre" for the past 20 years. So yeah, not really buying your schtick mainly b/c we also have a NC title in between those years.
Which number would you use for sustained excellence in a season? Feel free to use 1 loss or 0 losses if you wish. UM will fare worse in those analysis. I chose 2 losses as an elite team with 0-1 losses can stumble somewhere on their schedule and have a 2nd loss and/or come up against a tough team in a bowl game and go from say 11-1 to 11-2.
I am trying to find the # of seasons over the past 20 any team could be considered excellent. You can't use 0 as it would exclude most teams in the nation. You can't use 3 or 4 as those are not excellent seasons for a blue blood program. So that leaves you with 1 or 2. I chose 2. Feel free to run the analysis with 1 and get back to me. It's the same or worse for UM.
Well Alabama has been mediocre for a good majority of the past 20 years
I don't mind losses, but sometimes I get annoyed by the "way" we lose... i.e., getting too conservative at the end of the game because we're playing to not lose instead of to win.
Other than that, I, honestly, don't have any complaints and I will be a loyal Michigan supporter (and I'm going to keep writing checks and supporting the team, the team, the team).
Overall record from 1990-present - 205-92-3, .688 win %
Overall Big Ten record since 1990 - 130-54-2, .707
Overall record vs. rivals (OSU, ND, MSU) since 1990 - 34-29-2
Gary Moeller overall record (1990-1994) - 44-13-3, .758
Gary Moeller Big Ten record - 30-8-2, .775
Gary Moeller record vs. rivals - 7-5-2, .571
Lloyd Carr record overall (1995-2007) - 122-40, .753
Lloyd Carr Big Ten record - 81-23, .779
Lloyd Carr record vs. rivals - 21-14, .600
Rich Rodriguez overall record (2008-2010) - 15-22, .405
Rich Rodriguez Big Ten record - 6-18, .250
Rich Rodriguez record vs. rivals - 2-7, .222
Brady Hoke overall record (2011-present) - 24-8, .750
Brady Hoke Big Ten record - 13-5, .722
Brady Hoke record vs. rivals - 4-3, .571
But yes, fire Brady Hoke!
That should tell you everything you need to know. Our overall record from 1990 is less than 70% which is, you guessed it, MEDIOCRE.
Pretty much. I keep reading comments about "We're Michigan, we deserve better!!" that I just do not understand. Michigan is a team that should be expected to win 9 games a year, with a 10 win season mixed in occasionally. Most programs would be thrilled to have that. I still think the worst thing Hoke has done was winning 11 games and a BCS bowl in his first season. That set up unrealistic expectations. I still firmly believe in Hoke, Mattision and even Borges. Fans freak out after losses and I get that. But some people need to realize this is not the same Michigan program that we grew up watching in the '80s. We are a step behind the Alabama's and OSU's of the world. Those teams have elite players and depth at most all positions. Right now we simply do not have that. Until we get to that point, mediocrity, as you say, is what we are.
" Those teams have elite players and depth at most all positions."
We had depth and elite players from 1993 to 2006. What was the excuse? Cooper > Carr...except for the 1 game they played each other? Tressel? To say we can't even be OSU is defeatist.
I know we are "mediocre" now (versus the standard) but my point is let's wake up, it is not a 5 year problem. It's not been a premier program other than 1 season since the 70s/80s. And a lot of people just seem to be accepting of it... 4 losses is now "typical Michigan football". Urban is not going to let the peddle off the metal... if this does not get turned around in 2015/2016 with the talent being brought in, we are going to be having the same conversation in 2023, while our friends in Ohio are flaunting their feathers for another decade.. Only pissing some of us off even more.
Our overall record from 1990 is less than 70% which is, you guessed it, MEDIOCRE.
Yes, but the three RichRod seasons really drag that down. From 1990-2007 and since 2011, we've performed at almost exactly our all-time win percentage, which is .735.
This Michigan team is not very good and could quite conceivably lose the rest of their games this season. Everybody on this board was thinking 'in 2 years we'll be great!', but now I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. The problems of this team reach far greater than Hoke or Borges and the fact that NOBDY can spot the true problem is very concerning. This makes me think were are a lot further off from being 'championship contenders' then 2-3 years. At this rate it's more like 8-10 years and I'm sure Hoke won't be around that long if that's the case.
Losses are going to happen, but when your offensive coordinator keeps calling runs with 8-9 players 4yds from the LOS, then you're putting the team in a bad position.
I agree 100%, although I think your thoughts timeframe is a bit off. I've thought and talked a lot about this over the years, and I think the Michigan program was in a downward spiral that started sometime after the 2000 season. Yes, there were some good/great seasons in there, but there was a festering mediocrity growing inside the program that manifested in the outdated facilities, and ultimately resulted in a break down in the all important recruiting pipeline. That is not to say that Michigan wasn't getting talent, it was. But, the depth of talent was shallowing out quickly, and it really only became apparent when the program's veil was lifted in 2008 when RR came in, and we all saw that Michigan only had 65 (IIRC) scholarship athletes on the roster.
I know people are rolling their eyes and saying, "it's 2013, why the hell does that matter?!?" It matters because RR did very little to restore the pipeline, especially with OL recruiting, and it takes time and continuity to develop the talent that comes in the door. Don't think it matters, look at the benefit that a team like Alabama was getting from having what amounted to an extra full recruiting class every 4 years.
Effectively, when Hoke took over in 2010 he was starting basically from where RR started from a pipeline rebuilding standpoint. Add to that, the fact that Hoke's 2010 class was small due to timing, and it really could be argued that 2011 was the real beginning of the "rebuild."
I know many of you won't argee, and don't want to hear that shit. You want to win now! You want consistency NOW! You think we have enough talent on this team to win, and that the coaches are fucking everything up. Well, I would say that the absolute LAST thing the program should do at this point is start changing coaching staffs. Hoke might not be "the guy" to lead Michigan back to national contention (I happen to think he is). But, the facilities have been upgraded and are now among the elite in the nation, and Hoke is opening the pipeline back up. He MUST be given the time to do that, or else we'll be right back where we started again.
Tough as it might be to accept it, Michigan shot itself in the foot over a decade ago, and we're just now beginning to heal from that wound.
First, nice post. Very well presented. The one point I will argue is that there should still enough talent on this team to win games like last Saturday. I believe this is where the frustration stems from.
The level headed fan base understands that it will take time, and many are ok with that, as long as there is progress being made. What is very troublesome is that lack of progress, which actually seems to be a regression by this staff.
I am not calling for National Titles and such, however, do I expect Hoke and co., who are in their third year, to out perform the bottom of the FBS? Ya, I do, and I don't think that is selfish of me to believe and expect this program to be farther along than it is.
Thanks! It's "STEN" btw (no biggie I've been dealing with that my whole life).
"The one point I will argue is that there should still enough talent on this team to win games like last Saturday. I believe this is where the frustration stems from."
I am not a big fan of the "should," but I agree that this is where the frustration stems from. Michigan did 99.9% of what it needed to do to win, despite the poor running, the turnovers, and the botched endgame. If we have enough talent to win, we would have won.
What I am trying to get across to the furious masses in here is that we're rebuilding, and we are bascially where we were had RR never taken over, right now. There was a huge talent and number deficiency when RR took over, and he did very little to rectify those issues, and in terms of OL recruiting, he actally made it worse.
"What is very troublesome is that lack of progress, which actually seems to be a regression by this staff."
I don't think the regression is coming from the staff, I think it's coming from the players. Hear me out. The RS Sr. came in in 2009, after the 3-9 debacle, and there are only 2 of them -- Lewan and Gallon -- who have done anything of significance in their careers. Is it that hard to believe that RR didn't recruit that many good players in 2009 after the worst year in Michigan football history? Now go to the 2010 class, is there anyone besides Gardner and Ryan that have done anything? Black has come on of late, and Dileo has played very well at at times. As a whole those, of the 18 players, there are only 2 that stand out. The regression that you think you're seeing a product of a lack of talent in the classes that RR (and Hoke in 2010) brought in.
Thanks for your cogent comments.
Football has changed since we were an elite program. This is big business now and while I love our culture and history, in some ways that stubborn-ness has held us back. We all love Bo, but what worked for Bo won't work today. We need to evolve. Unless you're one of those few programs that are the top dog in a talent rich state (Texas, OSU, USC, Florida, Georgia, etc.) or unless you have Saban, you have to appeal to kids. We can no longer rely on our history and tradition, be man-ball, run the ball every first down, etc. And, We HAVE to recruit national talent to win and we are. We have recruited well in the mid-west, but until this year's class we have not recruited well nationally with top 50-type kids for as long as recruiting services have been around. It's been a long time since we have gotten a Green, Peppers, Hand, Campbell, D. Harris level talent (top 50 kids outside the mid-west). Those are the kids that are gonna help us win. We are now getting them and that trend appears to continue. Once our '13 class of o-lineman are in year 3, and once some of these top national-level kids are on the field I am confident that will make a difference. But, it's none the less frustrating it hasn't happened yet. Hoke is good for people and recruits, which I beleive will be more important than his weaknesses. Granted it would be nice to have Saban-level results but that ain't happening. I think Hoke gets enough talent to make us a consistent 9-11 win team, unfortunately it will just take another few years and we are losing our patience.
Texas, OSU, USC, Florida, Georgia, etc.
Texas is going to fire their coach. USC in shambles because their dynasty was bought. Florida is no longer a power. Georgia hasn't won the SEC since about the same time we won our last B1G. Ohio ran afoul of the NCAA, and probably should have gotten more. Who thinka they didn't give Pryor cars?
The point is even those good teams, from talent-rich states, with winning traditions, haven't been as good as you think, or as good as we seem to expect Michigan to be (losing 2 games per season tops).
Guys, winning at that level for that long is not possible without cheating. We have the highest winning percentage in history at 73.5%. That translates to roughly 9-3 every year. What's wrong with that? If we're that good all the time, with a few bounces going our way, we can win a few national championships.
Coincidentally, Hoke's winning percentage so far is higher than our overall. I think Hoke is a guy who can average 9 wins a year, and can do this cleanly. I think even his detractors agree with this, as I've read a lot of you say just that. The problem is that we think doing better than that is possible. I suppose it is, but its highly unlikely, and I posit that an Alabama-like run of 3 NCs in 4 years and 1 loss a season is impossible without cheating. And there's some evidence to support that. Miami, Ohio, USC have all cheated. Alabama seems to be paying players such as Fluker and HaHa.
Gimme 9 wins a year, cleanly, and that kind of quality will allow you to compete for the B1G every year and the NC once in a while.
This is a lot of rationalization. Everyone cheated so they are ahead of us, or their program is in shambles. Guess what 4 years ago UM was in shambles. Every team has up and downs. My point is we have not had the ups at a consistent level the past 20 years other teams have - the ones you point as only successful due to cheating or other reasons. Who cares what the down years are like (we have had em, OSU had em at the beginning of the Cooper era) if they lead to a sustained period of excellence for 5+ years where you are in the NC conversation repeatedly? If you need to slink back to a 7-5, 8-4 season for 5 years, a decade later to offset so be it. We are basically doing that already without the upper level success.
What about Oklahoma? They were terrible for the first part of this measure period but I dont think are cheating now and have had a good 10-12 year period, well in excess of anything UM managed. Was Nebraska cheating for 8 years in the mid to late 90s? What about Tennessee - they stink now but have outperformed in that 20 year period as I measured it. Etc. Georgia is basically UM South IMO but in a tougher conference.
"Give me a good clean program that loses 4 games almost every year" has become a mantra of Michigan football. It is not either or....
I posit that it is either/or.
You mention some good examples. Tennessee, Georgia, Nebraska, Oklahoma. All those teams have been damn good for a large portion of that time span. None cheated. This is why none of them have done anything on the national scene since 2000.
And you're kind of proving my point. What's wrong with being like those teams? Consistently good, sometimes great? I'd just add that Tennessee has gone to shit after he fans got fed up with 8-9 win seasons and decided to get rid of Fullmer, at which point they started to suck dick. Kind of like what happened to us.
Its not rationalization. I swear to Christ I'd rather never win a national championship in my lifetime than win one that is tainted. In the meantime, give me a consistently good program, with the hope that we can see '97 again if everything goes right. What's so bad about that?
Thank you for your last paragraph. As Bo said, "Winning by cheating equates to losing." I agree wholeheartedly that I would rather never win one than win by cheating. That's one thing that bothers me so much about the direction of college football in general. The money has gotten so out of hand that it has raised the bar so high that it is very difficult to get to the top without something shady. And I hate that. I want Michigan to have players I am proud of and want to root for as people. Hoke seems to be successfully recruiting high level players with high character. I am okay with being "near the top" rather than "at the top" if it means the team and school have integrity. Maybe I'm just showing my age with that old fashioned sentiment...
12 of the 19 years Oklahoma has lost 3 or more games, and is well on their way to #13. And won one national title. They were in the conversation, sure, but when they go to the bowl games they regularly got rocked in them. It's more how awful the Big 12 was making even the Big Ten over those years look good. It was Texas and nobody else on their schedule.
Nebraska might not have been cheating, but they took a major philosophical turn in the types of kids they recruited. They went from a program that was up there with Michigan and Penn State (in reputation) losing bowl games every year, and losing to Switzer's corrupt Oklahoma teams, to one that recruited a lot of guys who got in trouble for beating up women and other legal problems. And still playing them. They sold their soul to take the next step.
Tennessee has 15 years of 3 or more losses. Including 7 of 5 or more. (And let's be real, it's going to be 8 very soon). THAT'S what you want our program to be like??
It's Borges the coaching staff it's Dave Brandon it's the country club we're better than you attitude. We can't just line up and beat people on talent anymore. We keep starting these games flat. I want to know why do other teams like the SEC get so much out of their young players and we're lucky if they tackle on special teams? No one plays with a chip on their shoulder right now football is a physical game usually the more angry, nasty, physical team wins. The team looks so sloppy throughout the entire game. It even looks like they just goof off in practice all week.
we are going to die.
He went 10-2 against the easiest schedule in decades, which I"m not sure Rich Rod wouldn't have done as well, and he's a good recruiter.
We have a poor man's Les Miles, but at least he loves Michigan.
We are the Targaryens.
Having read this board over the last 3 days.It is clear that this board just isn't what it used to be. We have become a dangerously over-reactive fan base that I thought we were above.
Anybody who has done any coaching at all knows that the lows are never that low and the highs are never that high and when you are dealing with what is essentially teenagers these things happen. Did you think they were going undefeated? National Championship?
Are people actually suggesting we fire Hoke? Who are we Notre Dame?
If we were Notre Dame we would've given Hoke a ten year extention after the first season. We haven't stooped that low yet, but we're close.
yea seriously. Lets just steal Bill Obrien away and make him our OC.
This is absolutely it. I think the late Lloyd Carr years and then the RR years has taken what little patience this fan base has. We're in a rebuilding phase with an average team. We're sitting 5-1 in a medeocre conference. Every game showed some concerns (ND included). If I remember, most people on this board were predicting a 9-10 win season this year. We may be 1 game off from that in reality (maybe I'm still one of the more optimistic people on this board, but to me 8 wins is very realistic).
This loss (and quite frankly, this whole year) has been difficult to deal with, yet you would think we would know how to since we have been dealing with these feelings and results for years now. How a program with this many resources, and this much history continues to be this average is confounding.
I really wanted to believe that Hoke was the guy, and he still might be, but with the body of work we have to judge, he seems to be in over his head at times. One could argue, in his third year, he is at the helm of his worst team during that span. This is a bit concerning.
By no means do I expect this program to be in a position to be contending for MNC's at this time; however, we are talking about a team that is struglling to beat the bottome dwellers of FBS. In year three we should be competing for conference titles, which we haven't tasted in almost 10 years.
Changes need to be made. Now, what type of changes that means can be debated (and has been). What we all can agree on, is that this program can not continue to head down the path we are on. It is time for Hoke and these coaches to swallow their pride and make some tough decisions.
we just lost a road game where we played like dog crap and still should have won...cmon guys calm down just a bit. Very tough game to watch but if Gibbons kicks that field goal for the win, the tone of this message board changes immensely.
We are 5-1 and we knew what the expectations were this year. Didnt most of us think we would lose this game anyway in the pre-season predictions, or at least most of us said a toss up game? I am not as mad at Borges as the rest of you guys, I am mad at our O-line coach and the lack of development. If our O-Line plays average at best Borges can then do somethings he wants. Our O-line gets zero push and then we are a 1 dimensional team. I think it would be tough for any OC out there.
Regroup and beat Indiana.
How many times are you willing to use the excuse for this team ''we played our absolute worst and still won, or were close to winning''. We've played like dog crap 3 times this season. We were lucky to escape the first two with wins and I'll remind you that neither of those teams have won a FUCKING GAME.
Something has got to change.
Maybe we're playing like crap because the upperclassmen that should be the leaders on this this team aren't very good? Ever think about that? We have 25 players that have 4 years or more in the program, how many All Big 10 players are amoung those 25 players?
Try and understand. Just 6 years ago in 2008 Michigan had 65 scholarship athletes on its roster. Then, they went 3-9, the fanbase revolted, and after another 2 miserable seasons, a change was made. I tried to explain it but you obviously cannot get it.
MICHIGAN FOOTBALL IS REBUILDING! It has a severe lack of developed talent, and the players with the most experience ARE NOT GOOD!
This team is still under construction. Still very young overall and inexperienced in a lot of places. Young and inexperienced teams don't usually play well. Bring your expectations in line with where the team actually is and you won't be so disappointed. Wait another year or two to pass judgment on Hoke and Borges. They still put up 34 points and put the team in position to win the game 3 or 4 times.
This place is so full of emotional overreactors. It feels like it did back in the RR days.
Literally the only place this team in young at is the interior line. Don't spare me ''the team is young''. No, that is not true at all. QB, RB, WR, DL, LB, and Secondary all have experienced guys starting.
read my post above. The upperclassmen aren't good!
QB = First year starter, followed by true freshman, followed by...?
RB = Experienced starter, followed by true freshman, followed by guys with little meaningful game experience.
WR = Experienced starter (Gallon), redshirt freshman, little-used, experienced catcher (Dileo), not very good players.
TE = Sophomores and freshmen.
SDE = First time starters or freshmen
WDE = Inconsistent player or freshmen
Interior DL = Experienced starters, followed by...?
LBs = Somewhat experienced, but good players
Corners = Somewhat experienced, followed by freshmen
Safeties = Experienced starter (Gordon), first year starter (Wilson), followed by...?
That's a lot of inexperienced players and freshmen in the two deep.
and 61 players on scholarship with over a dozen of those are former walk ons. And we almost lost to the 2 worst teams in the FBS.
Please spare me the inexperience and/or talent arguments
Why? What are the 3 most common complaints with this team? From what I've read, it's:
- Too many turnovers from Gardner.
- Not enough push up front from the OL.
- Not enough organic pash rush from the DL.
That just so happens to coincide with the youngest/most inexperienced parts of the team:
- First year-starter QB. Inexperienced players make mistakes. It happens.
- Offensive line is a tough position to play, which is why you see most offensive linemen get redshirted.
- Good pass rushes come from the ends. Clark/Ojemudia are either not very experienced or have a track record of mediocrity. Godin/Heitzmann/Wormley/everyone else at SDE are young and don't have much experience.
This is still a young and inexperienced team. You have to give the coaches time to develop players. It doesn't happen overnight. A coach needs at least 4 years to develop his team...which we should know by now.
You are 100% correct regarding the lack of talent/expereince, but I think it is a relative lack of experience, and it does not adequately explain the situation we are in. Using our Oline/Running Backs as an example, Mathlete's front page post shows just how god-awful we are in that aspect of the game. I do not struggle with the question, "Why aren't we a great running team?" You point out a number of legitimate reasons. I struggle with the question, "Why are we a terrible running team?" I think your rationale conceivably explains our lack of dominance. I am not so sure it completely explains our totally inept pass rush and o line play, because I have to believe that there are far less talented teams and equally inexperienced teams that are faring much better than us in at least those two aspects of the game.
Well put. That things are bad at times this season is not a shock. That things are as bad as they have been as often as they have been this season is what is so concerning.
Yeah we have seniors at WR. after Gallon however is a sophomore TE, freshman WR, then Dileo. And at TE now is a freshman. 3 of our lineman have started this year only. Our QB is in his first year as a starter and our best RB Quite possibly is a freshman (Smith).
Good post, Moleskyn. I honestly wonder if other fanbases freak out this way after a loss.
Many people need to look into a good therapist. Weirdos. I love the "fire everyone" mentality, yet there is no talk of a sucessor. Let's jump on a coaching carousel, because that will end well. OH, wait, LANE KIFFIN! He's totally available. I avoided the blog all weekend, thinking it would be more normal on Monday, but we're not there yet. Maybe Tuesday or next May.
I never loved Carr as our coach. He coached exactly like Borges and Brady did on Saturday. They all coached afraid to lose and let teams with inferior talent keep the game close enough to pull out the upset. Carr's teams did this almost every year except for 97 when he had a helacious defense that was capable of closing out every close game.
vs. Indiana next weekend, because, you know " this is Michigan" for godssake. At Michigan we out-tough our opponents, because that's how games are won. Look at Stanford!...uh, no don't look at Stanford.
Never mind the mental aspect of the game. Being tougher is all that matters man. Look out Indiana, with your fancy air raid playbook and "basketball on grass" business. You're going be in big trouble.
What a bunch of horseshit.
LOL. I'm still perfectly happy to look at Stanford
And they're 5-1 this year. Pretty terrible I guess.
This is our problem. No memory and no emotional control.
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH STANFORD? They lost last week. That's the sixth time in 3.5 years, at football powerhouse Stanford, you nitwit.
Anyone calling for Hoke's job needs to rethink their stance. It takes a little while for players to become good. This staff wants a power offense with a super offensive line, which we didn't have with RR. Well, that takes time. Look for the line to get better next year and especially beyond.
Also, who the hell will they get if they foolishly fire Hoke? Harbaugh isn't coming here.
You don't get it. When your team loses a game it should win, you must always do the following:
- Find someone to pin the blame on.
- Blame that person profusely, realizing that all of the team's problems stem from that person.
- Find stats that back up your position. Repeat them ad nauseum.*
- Demand that the person from step 1 be fired. Do not make any good suggestions for a successor. That's for the administration to figure out.
- Expect successor to be better.**
*If no such stats exist, make some up.
**These steps should be repeated for every successor each time the team loses a game it should win.
Michigan should be vying for the Big10 title this year.
Or he should be fired, right?
Or does he get a free pass because he was a once Michigan DL coach 16 years ago?
This is such horseshit man.
He should have vied for a B1G title in year 1 and should be contending for a MNC by year 3. This is because I DEMAND RESULTS NOW.
Last time I checked, they can still win the conference this year.
there is also ample room to criticize him and Borges for failing to correct the obvious offensive deficiencies.
I'd have no problem canning Borges, however, if things don't improve this season.
I agree we can criticize the coaches, but some people are saying "fire them all" or some of them and that is ridiculous.
Sure! Let's fire the coach and then start over again. That will really help with recruiting and staying competitive with Ohio. Fire the coach and we're not going to be Ohio for years, let alone win the conference.
- The first year with Hoke & Co. was great. 11-2 and a Sugar Bowl. No complaints there.
That was going to be a good year no matter who was the coach. It was a soft schedule and all of the big games were at home. If RR had been given one more year (which would have been 2011), I guarantee he'd still be coaching, because he would have won at least 10 games.
2011 was the perfect year to bring in a new coach.
- Then last year, we took a step back.
It only appears that way because 2011 was a mirage. All of the big games we had at home in 2011 were on the road in 2012. It only feels like it was a step back because the expectations were so high (which was a mistake) after 2011.
- This year sort of explains itself.
This year is just further proof that this team is still a work in progress with holes to fill. The pieces are starting to fill in, thanks to great recruiting, but it takes time for guys to develop.
- Darrell Funk is the new Tony Gibson.
What is the evidence for this? That 3 freshman or first-time-starting linemen are struggling?
Open my eyes to what? I realize the offensive line play has not been good. I feel the frustration as much as anyone. But does that fall on Funk (who's more responsible for the development of the players) or Borges (who's more responsible for utilizing the players)? You seem to say it's on Funk. If that's the case, that means Borges can't be faulted because he's using the guys he has to the best of their abilities.
I think it really boils down to two questions:
- Are they being under-utilized or misused (meaning, if they were being used a different way, would they be struggling as much as they are)? How would be able to tell this?
- Are they lacking in development (meaning they're not as far along as they should be)?
Couldn't it be both?! Couldn't the O-line be lacking development because of Funk? And, couldn't Borges be at fault for mis-using the players because he clearly sees that doing the same thing over-and-over-and-over-and-(you get the point) doesn't work?
It seems like Funk just fundamentally does not do a good job growing the talent he has...and it seems Borges thinks doing the same thing everytime will somehow produce different results.
Hoke needs to take a cue from Belein and fire the OC and O-Line coaches and hire coaches with more recent, relevant success, including success in player development. Specifically, if Hoke insists on running MANBALL, hire Mike Bloomgren from Stanford (who was also Stanford's O-line coach for years and did an AMAZING job with sub-par rercuits that are now in the NFL). Moreover, hire T.J. Woods or Bart Miller to coach the O-Line. Both are young and have impressive pedigrees.
How can you make that blanket statement about Funk though? Does he get no credit for Lewan and Schofield (the only upperclass linemen on the two-deep)? I don't deny that Funk could be the cause of the problems, but I just don't think any of us know for sure. I don't understand how anyone can make a judgment call on someone when the first full recruiting class under this new regime is in year 2.
Your reaction, and many others on here, suggests an emotional reaction to a bad loss, trying to find someone to place blame. Sure, the OL production has been really disappointing, but how much of that is due to youth and inexperience, and how much due to coaching? And how do you know one versus the other?
With all due respect, what evidence do you need before answering your questions? I am looking at:
- The overall output of the offense: yards, PPG, etc.
- Trend data over the course of multiple seasons and multiple games this season: Are we regressing? Are we improving?
- Are we competitive with our rivals? Are we winning when we should win? Are we looking competent when we may not be expected to win?
- What is the talent we are fielding? How experienced are they?
- What is the relative talent we are fielding? How talented are they compared to the competition?
- Are we leveraging our strengths and positioning our players to be successful?
To me, whether emotional or fact-based, the conculsions I am arriving at to these questions are not positive. Granted, there's not much we can do about the young(ish) talent we have; however, nearly every college football team in the country is constantly replacing starters on the line...every year! So, I guess I don't buy that excuse too much since it's not something remotely unique to our team. Moreover, what is unique about our team is we have two senior bookends to the line, and one of those seniors is an All-American (and even he appears to be - at best - plateauing this year).
Finally, layering on the "eye test," I am arriving at (1) Funk is not great at developing talent; and, (2) Borges does not position his players to succeed, nor does he play to win (he plays not to lose).
Yeah, I'd give him credit for the fact that both have regressed since he got here.
Lewan wasn't a top 10 draft pick as a freshman, guy.
Schofield hadn't taken a snap before Funk got here.
I'm not saying Funk isn't bad, I'm just using my brain.
Lewan started 9 games, and was a Freshman All-American before Hoke was hired.
Schofield played in all 13 games the year before Hoke got here, special teams mostly.
Darrell Funk is the new Tony Gibson.
What is the evidence for this? That 3 freshman or first-time-starting linemen are struggling?
Normally I agree with your posts but I have to differ with you on this one Moleskyn and side with Rager. Those freshman (excluding our All-American of course) and first-time starting lineman are getting crushed by walk-ons, no-stars and a collection of players that never got invited to a camp at Michigan much less got a scholly offer.
I have brought up the Funk=Gipson analogy in many threads and believe it to be true as well. Coach B smoked his entire assistant staff a few years ago because he didnt think they were getting the job done so he put his job ahead of his loyality to his friends. Rich did not and it cost us and it cost him.
I don't know what Hoke will do with Funk but to claim he doesnt know what he SHOULD do is incorrect IMO. The evidence is right in front of him.
Those freshman (excluding our All-American of course) and first-time starting lineman are getting crushed by walk-ons, no-stars and a collection of players that never got invited to a camp at Michigan much less got a scholly offer.
That's a good point, but how can you know for sure that the blame for that falls on Funk? How can you know that it falls on Borges? Because it must fall on one of the two, no? Either Funk is failing at developing, or Borges is failing at utilizing . Given the amount of time the interior OL has played, have we seen enough to definitively say that either Funk or Borges is failing? If this can be proven, I'll advocate just as strongly as anyone for a coaching change. I just don't think we have a big enough sample size. If the interior linemen were all upperclassmen, had been in the system for multiple years, had multiple years of game experience, and were making the same mistakes we're seeing now, then I'd definitely say we've got a coaching problem. I'm just not convinced. I also don't know who the alternatives are, and why anyone thinks a new coach would make much of a difference.
What annoys me the most about all this ruckus is that nobody is presenting a rational argument. It stops at "Borges and Funk suck! We should be better! We're Michigan!" OK, so we can Borges and Funk, what next? Who replaces them, and what leads you to believe the replacement would make a difference?
27 runs for Fitz for 27 yards.
Let's mitigate our weaknesses (O Line and non QB running in general) and use our strengths (pretty good/improving receiving corps and a good QB).
Also make short passes your first attempt at a run game. Throw it long a little bit more (especially to Funchess) and then when the defense starts to defend that more then try to do power man ball.
I refuse to use that logic. So what if they were away? We still had a great chance to win the Notre Dame and OSU games but terrible playcalling f'd us. Just like we had a chance to win Saturday but terrible playcalling and playing not to lose f'd us. Playing on the road had very little to do with it.
I personally dont think anyone on staff deserves to feel heat until we face Ohio at this point. If they beat us then the heat needs to be felt. Its big business and if Ohio continues to have a far better product than UofM we need to make changes. Its too early. The only thing we need to change is trying to run power until we develop the player a little more. Read option will help losen up the defenses we face. If we can finish like we didi in 2011 no one will complain.
I can't really disagree with the OP. And to make matters worse, I found myself comparing Hoke to RR this morning with a colleague. I said I thought RR's biggest fault was trying to implement his system, personnel be damned. And I praised Hoke for not doing it with Denard - he kept the spread, even though he wasn't completely comfortable with it. Now it's clear again that we don't have the ability to run "manball" but instead of adjusting and giving us the best chance to win, we constantly run Fitz out of the I instead of realizing, "hey, this isn't working so I better stop doing it 27 times a game."
once again. I never thought I'd say that, but I'm totally serious you guyz.
I'm holding out hope that we open up the offense like we did in 2011, because frankly that's our best chance to move the ball at this point.
2014 is going to be the final exam for this coaching staff. Hoke's recruits will finally be upperclassman, and we should have the most talented team we've had since 2007.
Not the Final Exam, but maybe the Mid Term.
The 2011 class (Hoke's 1st) will be Srs./RS Jr's., and there are 18 of them on the roster still. Of those 18 there are some good contributors (Countess, Morgan, Clark, Beyer) but it's been a bit of a "lost class" as Hoke didn't have much time to put it together.
The 2012 class (Hoke true 1st) will be Jrs/RS So., and this is where one can see a big jump in not only the numbers, but the talent. There are 27 of them, and many were highly rated, especially on the OL. Remember though, when you have a veteran OL, a RS So. is usually about the first time an OLineman starts.
Then the 2013 class will be So/RS Fr. There are 35 of them.
I agree 2014 should tell us more about how Hoke & Co. are doing, but it won't be until 2015 that Hoke's first true class are Sr.'s/RS Jr's.
I don't think 2014 will be judgement day. The 2014 defense should be better (slightly) although we lose what our now are 2 best DL - Black and Washington. And both Cams. (p.s. nice game at safety Mr. Wilson - nice to see). But the rest of the back 7 is coming back and these freshman getting playing time in secondary have some experience. Maybe Peppers adds to it although I think expectations for a true freshman are off the chart ... the DL still is a concern for me in 2014.
The offense? I am afraid. Very afraid. You lose both tackles. Kalis and Glasgow are your 2 most experienced linemen - with all of 1 year experience each. You bring in 2 new starters MINIMUM an most likely 3. And the 2 vets are not senior tackles.
WRs? You bring Funchess back if he makes the position switch and than Chesson is your 2nd most experienced WR. Darboh is next. Then you hope Drake Harris is the truth or one of the freshman from this year make an impact. But there is no experience out there (plenty of depth) - you essentially trade Gallon and Dileo for Funchess and Chesson and than look around and start pointing at guys who have no real game experience.
TEs will improve, so ok there.
QB is QB.
RB you lose Fitz. Green will be the main back with D. Smith who has little experience and then I guess Drake Harris.
Seriously it might be the youngest offense we have seen in Michigan in the modern era. With the most important cog (OL) in worse shape than this year. Unless you tell me Braden + Magnuson as RS sophomores with limited playing time are better than Lewan and Schofield.
I don't think that Braden and Magnuson are better than Lewan and Schofield but I think an experienced interior line and a starting lineup of Magnuson, Kalis, Glasgow, Bryant, Braden could be better than this year. Maybe the freshman (Dawson, Fox, Kugler etc can vie for a slot or at minimum some PT)
Are you willing to trade offensive coordinators with us?
Have you stopped watching your own games?
And that concludes the most depressing post of my life
"Since 1993, the # of years UM has lost less than 3 games: 4"
Yeah, that's true, but I would point out - for what it is worth (which might not be much) - that the average Michigan in terms of overall record (perhaps not a great measure, but a nice 30,000 view) has not degraded a whole lot if you think about the most recent 20 year span versus the 20 years before that, but it has become more varied, if you will.
Over the most recent 20 year window, the average win total is 8.6 wins to 3.7 for losses, and the standard deviation is about 2 games for each. In the previous 20 year span, which covers virtually all of Schembechler's time, it would be an average of 9.3 wins to 2.4 losses, and a standard deviation of about 1 game for each.
There are numerous factors which contribute to the more recent numbers (like two losing seasons) but I have the feeling that the deviations from that typical performance are what we're discussing in this thread. That being said, I have the suspicion that our typical performance has - in recent history - being the typical ceiling for other teams in the conferene, so if it is being posited that we're average in comparison to the rest of the Big Ten, I suspect this might not be the case...at least by the record. On more precise metrics, it could be different.
Also in Bo's days we usually only played 12 games including the bowl game, and in Lloyd's era most years there were 13.
Yep, 1 more opportunity for "loss" in the way I analyzed it once you get to the 90s. But my comparison group also had 1 more game on their schedule. I was not necessarily comparing Michigan eras - anyone with open eyes sees we were much more dominant in the 70s/80s - and frankly a lot of built in advantages with scholarships and such were available back then. I was comparing apples to apples - "blue blood programs" in the same era of the past 20 years. Those peers played just as many games as UM did, and hence had as many chances to lose as we did. Other than OSU and PSU I was not comparing the rest of the Big 10* to UM.
*Nebraska was late comer to conference.
I won’t repeat what’s already been said by the media and the boards after Saturday’s loss.
But the one thing that bear’s repeated noting is for all of Brady Hoke’s talk about toughness, man-ball and yadda, yadda this team is soft and passive.
To be clear - I love him to death - think he's the right man for Michigan, but this rah-rah talk he spins is wearing thin. I'm also getting weary of hearing how young this team is.
Many schools around the country at all levels plays young . We got beat by a freshman. A freshman won the Heisman last year. Beilein took a young team to the national championship game. So, I'm not sure how much water the "young team" argument holds these days. Instead of age, I would focus more on the rate of development of young talented four and five-star players - I'm looking at you Borges and Funk.
And speaking of Beilein, he reassesed staff after three years and made, I'm sure, hard critical changes. Similarly the coaching issue goes beyond the assistants; it rests at the feet of Brady Hoke, who, also after three years on the job is at a critical juncture in his tenure at U of M. You all know the ol’ adage, I’m sure: the team takes on the personality of its coach.
Bo snarled all the time and it was a tough love he had for his players. His teams responded and pounded that rock down a team's throat and his teams intimidated teams.
Brady’s so laid back - geez he won’t even wear a headset – he pats his players on the behind, wraps an arm around them when they come off the field, when maybe they need a good kick in the ass. His teams would not scare a Pop Warner team. he needs to turn the heat up a little.
During the game is no time to be soft and cuddly with players. Hoke says he likes to coach his players during the game – say what? That’s like the golfer who goes through all his swing mechanics before striking the ball while playing- you go to the practice range for that to work on mechanics not during play. The time for Hoke to coach is on the practice field not during the game – during the game it’s time to play.
Many schools around the country at all levels plays young . We got beat by a freshman. A freshman won the Heisman last year. Beilein took a young team to the national championship game. So, I'm not sure how much water the "young team" argument holds these days. Instead of age, I would focus more on the rate of development of young talented four and five-star players - I'm looking at you Borges and Funk.
You say "many schools...play young" but list two teams with two exceptional players. Are those guys the exception or the rule? You'd have to do some in-depth research to prove that they are the rule. Since you make the assertion, I'm assuming you've done the research? I'd be interested in seeing more of it.
And because something worked in basketball, which is a completely different sport for those who don't know, means it should also work in football? I fail to see the argument there.
Brady’s so laid back - geez he won’t even wear a headset – he pats his players on the behind, wraps an arm around them when they come off the field, when maybe they need a good kick in the ass. His teams would not scare a Pop Warner team. he needs to turn the heat up a little.
The whole headset on the sidelines meme is utterly ridiculous. If you really think it makes a difference, please do some research comparing the success of coaches who wear headsets versus coaches who do not. Again, since you make the assertion, I'm guessing you've already done this research.
During the game is no time to be soft and cuddly with players.
Are you saying he should be screaming at his players 'til he's purple in the face? Personally, I don't care how a coach treats his players on the sideline (within reason), but that seems like an odd statement to be making after all the grief this fanbase has given RR and BK for their antics on the sideline.
completely agree UM has produced mediocre squads during said 20 year period and aside from 1997 and 2006, theyve failed to field a national title contender. but ill only comment on the current regime since it does not really matter at this point whether john navarre or brian griese led UM to more wins decades ago, it just does not affect current results on field. have to mention hoke walked into an awful situation at his dream school....except lewan, 2 athletic QBs and handful of other nice players, hokes roster not only did not fit his desired scheme/identity, but the players were not good enough to compete at the highest levels in ANY scheme. hoke has started to bring in what everyone believes will be top tier recruits but those players are only 1-2 yrs into program. its never just one thing. the offensive coaching has been awful this year and the team has no identity. mattison does not have the players to effectively run the scheme he wants - he is honestly one of the best coaches in the country but not much he can do when he does not have pass rushers or elite athletes in secondary...hes forced to mix it up with combo of underneath zones and soft man and some pressure packages which expose his secondary in 1on1s. its corny but true....not about x's and o's, its all about jimmys and joes. they need horses. theres only 2-3 players on this roster who have proven they consistently win 1on1 matchups....and if you most of your team cannot beat the guy across from them, youre not going to win, period. theyve had some great performances but for most part have been average to below average. the offensive coaches have been stubborn, foolish and refused to be flexible....recipe for disaster especially when you lack elite talent at every single position except QB and LT. gardner runs on any of those final 3 down in regulation and its first down, game over....but no, lets ram touissant into that brick wall for 3 straight losses....inflexible and stubborn....play to win the game just like herm said. and they did not. hopefully the current young classes and future class or 2 can fit into hoke/borges neat little box...bc theyre doomed if they cannot. and in regards to recruiting...all 85 matter at this level, its not san diego or ball st, you cannot afford to piss away any scholarships since at least 1/3 of the 85 will be busts on almost any team. ive yelled it from mountaintop, in a year when you have limited #s like 2015, they cannot afford to give charity scholarships to guys like pallante and runyans son....those guys are prayers since youre hoping they can both grow and gain weight and also dramatically increase athletic ability they dont have....basically another 2 brennan beyers, nice smart solid kids who are nothing but backups on good teams.. every single recruit should be brought in with the thought that he can start at some point and be impact player, not rotation player, but reliable and potential elite starter....thats UM brady, even carrs worst teams still had big athletic kids who the staff thought could start. they never spent multiple scholarships on role players other than special teams. if you want to beat OSU and urban meyer (who understands this concept better than almost anyone) you have to make all 85 count and bring in absolute studs. if a kid is undersized he better be the best available athlete, no room for rudys if you truly want to win B1G titles and compete for national titles....its not debatable. now the jury is still out on all of hokes players, im just pointing out that even 1-2 scholarships per year cannot be given out unless you truly envision those kids making an impact and starting. if theyre solid role players that might be decent ballers in 4-5 years, let them go to the MAC
but "back" in a bad way. We're right back to where we were befor: teams with superior talent playing down to our opponents with ultra conservative play-calling as we watch our double-digit 4th quarter lead slip away.
If you really look at Michigan's program objectively (as much as we all can), the OP is dead-on. We're barely better than ND
Food for thought...
In terms of overall success you are right, but Rodriguez, in spite of the recruiting OL issue, had productive offensive lines in 2009 and 2010, and actually I don't even think 2008 was historically bad running the ball. The offensive line has gotten progressively worse despite the "star rankings" under Hoke and Co.
Gardner had three turnovers. Again. That's the game. Toussaint being run into the pile over and over is annoying no doubt. But Brian summed it up on the front page: Penn State had three drives start around the Michigan 25. That isn't scheme. That isn't poor play calling. Gardner had one unavoidable fumble, and then two picks. Those weren't unfortunate. Those were thrown directly to defenders.
Once again, we have a quarterback who cannot reliably do half the job of his position. Make it easier for Gardner? These turnovers were not on super difficult throws. This was pretty vanilla stuff. How is an OC supposed to pull out anything exotic when teams prepare for any kind of run and any kind of pass on our part has my chest full of fear?
I totally agree with what you are saying. Other than a few years Michigan has not been as good as we all think/hope they are. Save the 97' National Championship and it would have been what 65 years since our last NC. If our recruits pan out like people think, I believe this trend should change but if they don't...watch out...
but not your timeline. A lot has happened in the last 20 years for sure, but I think that Michigan ceased being an elite program after the 2004 season. You mentioned 2 loss seasons as a valid metric for establishing an "elite" program along with conference championships. To that, I would also add BCS (or in the previous era, "Alliance Bowl") appearances, 10 win seasons and overall bowl record. And from the 12-year period of 1993-2004, here were the relevant numbers for Michigan:
Overall record: 111-37
Winning percentage: .750
# of 10 win seasons: 5
# of 2 (or fewer) loss seasons: 2
# of Conference Championships: 5
# of BCS/Alliance Bowl Appearances: 4
Record vs. OSU: 7-5
Record in BCS/Alliance Bowls: 2-2
Overall Bowl Record: 7-5
If you want to debate whether those numbers scream "elite" at you, that's fine, but first be sure to compare them against the 12 years immediately prior to them.
Overall record: 108-35-5
Winning percentage: .755
# of 10 win seasons: 4
# of 2 (or fewer) loss seasons: 5
# of Conference Championships: 7
# of BCS/Alliance Bowl Appearances: 8
Record vs. OSU: 7-4-1
Record in BCS/Alliance Bowls: 3-5
Overall Bowl Record: 6-6
The takeaway here is that our performance from 1993-2004 was mostly in line with what we saw from 1981-1992. Sure, there were two more conference championships and we went to a few more prestigious bowl games, but our bowl record in those incremental prestigious games was shit and the Big 10 overall was weaker than in the mid-late 90's (emergence of Wisconsin as a conference power, addition of Penn State).
Total winning percentage was nearly identical, as was our record vs. OSU and number of double digit win seasons. We had a few more seasons with 2 or fewer losses in the 1981-92 timeframe, but we also had a national championship/undefeated season in the 1993-2004 timeframe. For good measure, there was 1 Heisman trophy winner in each of these two periods.
While I believe that Michigan football was slightly better from 1981-92 than it was from 1993-2004, it was not by a large margin. In my estimation, we were either elite in both periods or we weren't elite in either one. Therefore, I don't think the OP's post about us being in a 20 year period of medicority is accurate. We've either been a mediocre program for over 30 years (which I seriously doubt) or we've been a mediocre program since our last conference championship in 2004 (much more likely).
The entire jaded nature of the fanbase, the calling for coaches' heads, the inability to blow out shitty teams, the perpetual fear of losing to OSU......this truly manifested itself in the mid-2000's and has continued to present day. Were it not for the 2006 season, there wouldn't be one dominant Michigan team we could point to in the last decade.
But the key is that this is a fairly recent phenomenon and as such, this is not a 20-year hole of "suck" that we're trying to dig ourselves out of.
Good analysis. I just went back 20 years as an easy cutoff date of "1 generation". I agree the first half of these 20 years has been obviously much better than the last half. But even in the first half I felt based on what some of these kids did in the NFL once they left, the coaching staff underachieved. No way some of those teams in the mid/late 90s should have lost 4-ish games if this program was running on all cylinders. I look back at some of those rosters and am very perplexed at how we lost to some very serious Big 10 also rans almost yearly.
Getting crushed by Florida State or McNabb's signular one man show with Syracuse is one thing, but the constant "what the hell??" games against inferior competition (one to two a year, almost like clockwork) was mind boggling based on the talent discrepency alone.
is that in the Post 10-Year War Era, an unfortunate part of Michigan's football legacy has been to lose at least 1 WTF game almost every year against inferior competition and sometimes 2. In the mid-late 90's, there were a number of those games such as the '95 losses to Northwestern and MSU, the '93 losses to Illinois and MSU, the '94 loss to Wisconsin, the '96 loss to Northwestern and the '99 loss to Illinois.
But life wasn't so great on this front in the 80's and early 90's either. Classic stinkbombs include the '84 loss to MSU, the '86 losses to Minnesota (when we were undefeated no less) and Arizona State (Rose Bowl), the '85 tie against Illinois, the '87 losses to Indiana and OSU and the '90 loss to MSU.
Hell, the 1990 team was a complete mirror image of the disappointment that happened in 2000. Two teams with crazy good offenses and legitimate defensive talent that each went 9-3 when they should have gone 11-1. Two of the biggest "what if" games in Michigan history ("What if" the refs threw the PI flag against MSU and "what if" Anthony Thomas held on to the ball vs. Northwestern?) that ended up costing each team a trip to the Rose Bowl and, in the case of 1990, possibly a national championship.
Losing 1-2 WTF games/year is and has been part of Michigan's program history for the better part of 30 years. It's the stuff like losing regularly vs. OSU or being challenged by MAC teams, APP state, etc that are a relatively recent development. Those are the incidents that took the program from the more familiar "borderline elite underachiever" status to " straight up mediocre, yo" status over the last 9 years.
I would include top-10 rankings as well. Carr teams finished in the top 10 6 times. I would also point out Woodson, Perry, David Baas, Edwards, Woodley, all national award winning players.
Certainly since Carr left we've had big problems. The claim going back 20 years is just wrong.
Michigan Football has been mediocre for the past 20 years. 1997 anf 2006 werr the only championship caliber years. 2004 was close. We simply dont win at a high levek anymore. I for one am no longer in denial.
Rich Rod got the shaft and we're still bitter.
Anyone who is taking this loss as a reason to fire the head coach is either a manic-depressive, a child, or someone who is just not over Rich Rod.
Also, anyone who can call a 20 year span that contains a national championship mediocre has unrealistic expectations. Bo never even won a national championship. They're hard to come by. Wait til 2 January 2018 for this post.
The last 20 years of Michigan Football have not been conducive to being the Winningest program of all time. How many times can 4 and 5 loss seasons be accepted? Our standards at Michigan have been lowered significantly at Michigan. We talk about winning the B1G....havent since 2005. This program needs to keep recruiting and severely ramp up the player development. This staff is failing with the amouny of talent they have. No more damn excuses. Just stop it. This loss sucks and is in line with what this program has done lately. We lost 5 games last year after being ranked in the top 10 to start. We have digressed the last two years on both lines....which happens to be Brady's hands on groups. He is not getting it done and needs to step it up. We cant just keep saying this is Michigan....we have to make it look like Michigan....it looks like Central Michigan right now.
They SHOULD have won. It's unlike Penn State 2010 in that that was never a game. This was a victory, a solid victory despite 3 first-half turnovers that led to touchdowns...until every conceivable thing went wrong at the end (PSU circus catches, delay of games, THREE(!!!!) missed game-winning field goals). As much as we are piling on the coaches for their mistakes, and they made aplenty, the bottom line is Michigan was going to win that game. Several times.
So, I do think some people are overreacting quite a bit.
And there are some very serious concerns from this team, no doubt. But there is still a lot of season left, and I (perhaps, naively) doubt that Borges will try to keep running up the middle on 1st down over and over again for the remainder of the season.
I will say this...Michigan playing the way it did against PSU would have been beaten by Notre Dame earlier this year. I think the coaches were more affected by the Akron and Uconn scares than even Devin was. They need to get back to trusting Devin to run the offense. They HAVE to trust that the ND game wasn't some fluke. Otherwise every game going forward will be close...nothing is guaranteed.
Complete Lunacy. Because your post is one of the most sane posts on this Board today. Thank you for that. It was a team loss, we should have won, get back to what we do, and move on. Hopefully we will win more, maybe not. Either way, I'll be there Saturday with my kids, cheering like crazy for the team I love.
We've been consistently good, not mediocore. The defense now is on pace to become consistiently awesome and the offense is on pace to be consistently average.
For how much talnet we have on offense, this is embarrassing.
How many BCS bowl games have ND and MSU won? I'll hang up and listen.
I hope our peer group isn't Michigan State football and a mediocre Notre Dame. Like the OP said, against the other top programs in college football, we are super mediocre. Especially when you consider 'talent' on each team. Top 10 classes every year, rarely top 10 finishers
at the records of USC, Texas, and Alabama for the last 13 years. It's not as fabulous as you all think. Here are some Alabama highlights: 3-8 in 2000 and 4-9 in 2003 6-7 in 2006 and 7-6 in 2007. USC: Between 1996-2001, their best record was 9-6. Now they stink, too. Srsly. Look it up. mcubed.net. All records of all teams.
Their lows have been as low as Michigan's, but their highs have been higher. Michigan has not been consistently winning 11 or mores games the last 20 years. Only done it 3 times. Alabama has done it 6 times, Texas 6, USC 7, OSU NINE.
UM until Rich Rod had been remarkable in avoiding .500 type seasons for a long time. In return it was a consistent 3,4 loss team for many years beginning in early 90s. There were 2-3 years of exception but we were damn consistent. If it means a few more 7-5 or 6-6 seasons rather than 8-4, in return for a few more 12-1s or 11-2s over 2 decades, I would take that since it means for 5-6 years we were a legitimate national threat - not a pretender who eases in at #11 or #14 at the end of the year.
I do feel I might be in the minority however as a large portion of the fan base is content to "play the Michigan way" and lose 4 games most years with an occassional 2 loss season twice a decade. At least some of the comment here indicate it - not that they are "happy" doing that, but they sure seem content. Going for the NC is just talk for this program I guess.
their highs are higher. You know there is nothing that we, as fans, or even alums, can do about it, right???? Since you are not content, what are you going to do about it? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really asking.)
is to watch the game for the first quarter. You will know by our third offensive series whether or not the head man has the team ready. If they are not there, change to an SEC game and catch the score on score tracker. That is my plan. I know I'm not about to watch this much talent, talent that was on display in our first two games play non-Michigan football any longer. There is no need for it. I'm not asking for a change of coaching. I hope it works out. Something mysterious has happened since those first two weeks, and it's definitely on the offensive side of the ball, attributable in large part to Borges being afraid, for good reason, to start off the games in the same manner he did the first two. However, I will submit inasmuch as we have nothing to lose by abandoning our running game completely and just throw the ball instead of attempting to minimize turnovers by having Devin hand the ball off knowing the end result is not the answer. So in answer to your question, that's what I will do. See if they're ready-Defense has been ready and plays hard. If not, turn the channel. No big deal. Like the OP said, this has been going on for decades. Just like Carr would sleep walk through the first two games of each season, Brady seems to be sleep walking through the first half of every game.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
What worries me is that, under Hoke, we have not yet beaten a decent team on the road. And there's little progess in that regard in year 3. As long as we cannot win road games against average or above-average teams, we willl most likely be disappointed every season. We will always end up losing at least 2 to 3 road games without any sort of championship. 11-2 record including a BCS victory (like 2011) is probably our ceiling.
People keep saying this is a young team. But we just got beaten by a true FRESHMAN quarterback. (I know this is my rant.)... In this rate, I foresee 2014 season a down year as well with road games at Ohio, MSU, ND, and Northwestern.
Anyone who thinks that Hoke isn't the right man for the job at this point needs to get a life. He had double digit wins in his first season with a team that had very little talent. As for his supposed "problem" winning on the road, I merely point out that in 2012, he lost to the #1 (Alabama), #2 (Notre Dame); and #3 (OSU) ranked teams on the road. While it would have been nice to win at least one of those games, losing all three -- two of which were very close -- is nothing to be ashamed of. Yes, we should have beaten Penn State, however, they played out of their minds on the final possession of regulation. Shit happens. Enought about the headset. Enough about the play calling. You guys sound like a bunch of losers.
one of the coaches just joining the blog today to defend yourselves
Whereas your 27 points give you loads of credibility.
It really is amazing how one loss - in quadruple overtime no less - can cause everyone to do a 180 on the guy. There was none of this criticism before the game. Some people were worried about this year's team, yes, but no one fretted about the program as a whole. One game should not make people lose all faith in the program. That's a massive overreaction.
on the internet, where can you massively overreact? Freak out two days later over a football game at work or at home, and you end up getting a psych consult.
Did you not watch the game? Who cares that it went to four overtimes, it was an abortion from start to finish. F'ing Indiana just blew that team out of the water. INDIANA!
You just joined because the whiny "fire Hoke" posts got to you and you just had to say something, right?? FWIW, I agree with you.
I can't wait for the "oh you're overreacting" and "you're a bunch of chicken littles!" to come back and admonish people again. I doubt it.
Those who are pissed off right now actually get it. They at least acknowledge that the 2013 Michigan football team really is that team that should have lost to Akron and at UConn.
The rest of you no doubt have doctorate degrees in wishful thinking. As if being pissed off is inappropriate or "unacceptable!" after Michigan loses in 4 OT by 3 points to the worst and arguably least-talented Penn State football team in a generation and quite possibly in ther college football history - a team QBed by a true freshman no less, during Brady Hoke's 3rd year. You are probably the same guyz who called for Rodriguez's balls in his year 3, when Michigan also started out 5-0, lost badly to MSU on it's way to 3 straight defeats vs. Iowa and PSU again. It's horseshit.
Now just look at the damn schedule. Name one game where you think this Michigan team is a viable favorite anymore. Hoke might be sitting pretty at 24-8 right now. But the way this team is playing, and with upcoming games against the best this shitty league has to offer: at MSU, Nebraska, at Northwestern, at Iowa, Ohio State, Hoke's butt is definitely going to have griddle marks by end the of November.
A week ago I considered Michigan the most terrifying team in the conference, next to Northwestern maybe. Not anymore. Michigan is pretty much Indiana, except the kind of Indiana that really loses to Penn State for the 4th time in a row.
You're such a coward dude. Seriously.
Michigan would be in the top 10 if Gardner wasn't turning the ball over at a national leading rate, even with the rushing/OL issues. Again vs PSU he gifted them 14, gave them the momentum, the 1st half lead, and like Akron and UCONN before that, HOPE! In each one of those games, if he takes his offense down the field and even gets 3 points, the swings on the score board are remarkable.
Versus ND we saw a nearly flawless game, and then a horrifying glimpse of the monster lurking inside our best offensive player. The team has some issues, but so does every team. But, those issues are magnified by leading the nation in turnovers. This team was never going to be a rushing juggernaut, but Devin's arm should be able to loosen up the front to give them late game room, like in the ND game.
If you cannot understand what that many turnovers do to a team, on both sides of the ball, there isn't much else to talk about.
If we actually beat MSU or Northwestern....
Michigan will win another game this year. I just don't think they are that good. But I don't think that yelling "fire Hoke" is the solution. We fired a guy after 3 years and had to start all over. I don't want to jump on the coaching carousel. I would give him 2 more years. But it doesn't matter what I, or any other fan thinks. I also think that some posts seem rather hostile and don't understand the immense hostility after a football game. But that's me. Maybe i'm a lame "fan".
Let's just accept your analysis, the question is not what has been done, but what has to happen next to move toward whatever you want to define as non-mediocre. Whining about the last loss or Gary Moeller or Lloyd Carr or Rich Rodriguez or Brady Hoke for that matter is debating water that has already gone under the bridge. In the world of business, it is sunk cost, spent money, gone and it matters not what your analysis says except how that impacts what to do next. Now, the options are:
1) See if this head coach and his assistants can get you to that promised land.
2) Make this head coach fire his assistants and hire ??????????
3) Fire this head coach and his assistants and hire ??????????
Here is what we have seen from your analysis, Michigan has hired 1 name coach since 1969 (Bo was not a name coach when we hired him, trust me, I am old enough to remember that) and that became an unmitigated tire fire for all sorts of reasons that we have not yet recovered from at least based on your analysis. So, if you pick anything other than option 1, that is fine. Who do we hire and why do you think he will do better? Not some theoretical guy, but specifically who? Because if you are the AD at this school that is the real question. You want Les Miles? What makes you think Les Miles wants you? You want John Gruden? What makes you think John Gruden wants you? You wanted Jim Harbaugh, but did he want you? In the real world, you have to pick from what you can get and move on. Pat Fitzgerald was pursued, would have been a great coach for us if you ask me, but he did not want us. We got the best coach for this school that was available and wanted to be here near as I can tell, and he has a fairly experienced staff that he is comfortable with.
Easy to sit on the sidelines and abuse the coaches and the players and recruiting classes and whatever, but the final question remains. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING WE OUGHT TO DO???? And if it is fire any assistant or head coach, who do we replace them with that will come here?
I choose option 1 for now guys, because I do not have any better names that I see available that want to be here. I will let this head coach decide what he wants to do with his offensive and defensive coordinators and see if he can get us there because the alternative is to start over again. Have we not proven the cost of that from Moeller to Carr to Rodriguez to Hoke????
They are not going to answer you. It's because they know. There is no one else out there!! Wasn't it embarassing enough in 2011 when people were turning us down without even being asked?
I basically agree with you but I have one quibble. Just because you or I don't see a better option doesn't mean that one does not exist. I am very much against option 3 but I am warming up to option 2. No, I don't know off hand who would be better. But Brady or people actually in the business might. I am worried that Borges (and maybe Funk too) is a problem rather than a solution. I do not know this--I suspect it and have concern. I'd stick with option 1 for now, but it wouldn't take much to sway me to option 2. I'll bet Brady has contacts in the coaching business where he may be able to find someone good. And I'll bet plenty of people have potential to be good but we don't know about them yet.
If Gary Moeller would not have had to step down, we would be where Bama currently is today. I honestly believe he would have been the greatest coach in UM history had the whole situation not arose. I am thankful that Lloyd took his place and won an NC, but it was a steady decline from then on. Now here we are today.
Great post man, agree with everything you have said. I have been saying this for a while, and have received much disdain from other UM fans for saying it.
Everyone who wanted RR gone is getting exactly what they wanted: a Lloyd Carr guy. I have written here often that I see 9-3 as a baseline with a toss-up for the bowl game.
Lloyd Carr was a 3.5 loss a year guy. Why is everybody criticizing Brady Hoke for being exactly what Dave Brandon was looking for? Why are all of the people here from the Carr faction criticizing Hoke for getting pretty much the same results Carr got, especially considering that Hoke is only in his third year.
We don't yet know whether Hoke will be better than Carr, nor do we know if Borges will be a great OC. You can't judge either until year five. But nobody who sided with the Carr faction has the right to expect anything more than 9.5 wins a year and 3.5 losses a year out of Brady Hoke.
I am encouraged enough by recruiting that I think Hoke will be better than Carr was. But if he isn't, it's not his fault. He was hired to bring "Michigan Football" back. For Carr's tenure, that meant around 3.5 losses per year.
Mission accomplished. Stop bitching.
I agree 100%, although I take this as a positive. I never want a 3-8 again, as long as I live.
But your math is bad. 122-40 is good for 75.3%. Extrapolated over 12 games, that is a 9-3 record, not 3.5 losses. Had to get that other half loss in there to make your case?
He also won 5 B1G championships in 13 years, which I'd lime to see an improvement on. And to be frank, I think Lloyd would have done so if Tressel hadn't have cheated. I know some of you won't agree or think I'm rationalizing, I just think paying players in an unfair advantage and I'm proud we don't do it. And he won it all in 97.
If someone told you Hoke would have the same exact record over 13 seasons, could you turn that down? I couldn't. I dot think you could either. Its pretty fucking good.
Again, RR is water under the bridge, sunk cost, decision that seemed good at the time but turned out to be not so good. The man had a 3-9 season, a 5-6 season, and a 7-5 season and is gone. If Hoke has three such seasons, he will be canned too, and rightfully so.
Your venom for Michigan fans and alumi who thought RR was not the answer after going 15-22 over 3 seasons seems a bit overblown to me. I'd assume any football coach who goes 15-22 over a three year period is going to get fired at Michigan, whether he is a Lloyd Carr or Brady Hoke or Tom Brady guy....