The Snowflake Thread: Coaching

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on

This will be this evening's thread to discuss issues with the coaching and any issues you may have with the staff in general. 

GVSUofM

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:15 PM ^

rest of season prediction. The coaches are bad. Really, really bad. Seems generic, but a generic game plan and development of players deserves the same response. Borges must, must absolutely under every conceivable notion, be relieved of his duties. We need an actual QB coach and a separate OC. Plain and simple. We need to rescue Morris and Speight from this frightening string of bad coaching, game planning, play calling and overall development. Funk = theres the door! Good recruiter but couldn't coach an o-line to save his life. The stats and performance on the field speak for themselves. Absolutely embarrassed. We are a fake 6-2 with more talent than the team that just kicked our asses in E. Lansing. Wow! Just wow! We are being laughed at now for statistical performance and vs. our hated in-state rivalry nonetheless. Hoke = mid level manager trying to be the CEO of a major corporation. Way, way, way, over his head. I think he deserves one more year with Mattison, but this offseason better see change form some of the position coaches. If not, Hoke's loyalty will cause the end of his reign. Ugggghhhh!

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:27 PM ^

"We are a fake 6-2 with more talent than the team that just kicked our asses in E. Lansing."

What makes you assume that Michigan has more talent than MSU?  I think this is something that needs to go away.  We're NOT more talented than every team we play.  In fact, I would contend that were far LESS talented than many teams that we play, thanks to the crappy recruiting beginng in '09 and '10.  People can say RR is gone, but the effects of his poor recruiting and player managment are THE issue effecting this team, especially on the OL.

Swazi

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:35 PM ^

Lewan, Schofield, Cam Gordon, Thomas Gordon, QWash, Fitz, Gallon, Gibbons I believe are the only ones left from the 09 class.

What's troubling is that they're all 5th year seniors (Roh, Denard, Vinny Smith, Big Will) all graduated in 4 years, yet, are only 1 shy from matching the amount of players left from the 2010 class (9).

MGoBlue96

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:40 PM ^

If you going strictly by recruiting rankings I don't see you could say there is a mismatch in talent. Not to mention if you look at the offensive side of the ball, there is nobody on MSU as talented as Gardner, Gallon or Funchess.

MSU just seems to be a better coached team at the moment.

 

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:47 PM ^

The issue is not the star ranking, the issue (as the poster above aptly pointed out) is the number of upperclassmen.  A 5* freshmen OLineman is nowhere near as effective as 5th year Sr. OL who was a 3* coming out of HS.  Pretty much everything you need to know can be summed up in the fact that Michigan's roster is 58% UNDERCLASSMEN.  And again, as poster above pointed out, the upperclassmen on Michigan's roster are few and far between.

I agree that Gardner, Gallon, and Funchess are likely the most talented players on the field.  But, if you cannot block and keep your QB off his back, what does it matter.  IMO, everything Michigan is suffering from is caused by the piss poor OL recruiting under RR.  Imagine if RR had the same OL hauls as Hoke in '09 and '10 -- even HALF the hauls.  If he had, Michigan might be starting 5 upperclassmen on the OL.

MGoBlue96

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:05 PM ^

Yet it was still a below average unit. People keep on acting as though Michigan is the only team with youth at certain spots. That is college football, most teams aren't going to have experience at every position. It doesn't entirely excuse what we have seen from the o-line, just as it didn't entirely excuse the awfulness of defense under RR.

The real crux of the issue is there has been absolutely no progress on the o-line as the season has gone along. That is the concerning aspect, which is why I have no idea why anybody would have any confidence that they will make a gigantic leap next year, which will be required to offset the loss of Lewan and Schofield.

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:13 PM ^

Yes there were upperclassmen on the OL, but they were OLinemen that hadn't played much up to that point.  Here's how OL development goes in an ideal situation.  Stud recruits come in, they redshirt.  Unless there are holes, injuries, or they are complete college ready studs, they shouldn't see the field (even in blow out time) until they're RS Soph. year.  That's 3 years in the program.  The OL development pipeline broke down, and the process of developing the players suffered.  Players that never would have played much were starting, and players are starting before their ready.  What you want is competition so that the cream rises to the top, not what Michigan has had.  We'll have it soon.

MGoBlue96

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^

I know what the ideal situation for player growth is. The reality though, is that most teams around the country don't have that happen at every position in a given year. MSU has both an inexperienced QB and RB, for example.  Also you kind of negated your own point, when those ideal RS sophomores still wouldn't have any game experience when they initially step in.

Also you're wrong about the o-line last year, Mealer was the only one without a decent amount of experience.

fatbastard

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:32 PM ^

You are so, so far off base.  I challenge you to come up with any team that has been competitve with three freshman on the offesive line in a power conference.   You realize, I hope, this is the reason we almost lost to Uconn as well.  

Yeoman

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:40 PM ^

We're discussing this on another thread. UCLA's the only example; they're in a similar situation to Michigan's (the prior staff didn't recruit any linemen) and they're about as competitive. In UCLA's case that's seen as a positive, maybe even a miracle. At Michigan we want to fire everybody.

MGoBlue96

November 2nd, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^

those performances against Akron and UCONN are soley the product of youth that is their prerogative. That is not even considering 27 yards on 27 carries, or this game today. There are other problems with this o-line besides simply expierence and anybody who believes this o-line will make a large leap next season despite losing it's two best linemen is much more of an optimist than most.

Reader71

November 3rd, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^

I'm not really an optimist. I have been screaming "The sky is falling on our offensive line!" since spring ball. But I guarantee the line will be better next year. It still might not be good, but it will be better. And I don't say this just because it can't get worse. You thought that last year, and I said we would be worse. I say this because no one on our line will have never taken an in-game snap, barring perhaps one tackle. Assuming Magnuson, Bosch, Glasgow, Kalis, Braden, we will have 4 guys who have started at least a half-seasons worth of games. This season, we have 2 that have ever started a single game, and both are tackles.

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:44 PM ^

MSU has had the same coaching staff since 2007.  Continuity is essential in CFB.  Michigan, since 2007 has had 3 coaching staffs, 3 different schemes, and set a historical low.  Why is that so hard to understand?

Inserting an RS Soph., is not an issue if your OL is anchored by upperclassmen.  Michigan's is NOT.  But, if you do insert an RS Soph., it's because he's a stud and has earned his spot of older more experienced players.  Michigan's OL has a lot of "least worse" on it, and has for several years.

Reader71

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:12 PM ^

Yes, and that line was bad. Seniors and all. Pretty bad line. Still muuuuuuuuuuuuch better than this one. This team would have stood a chance today with last year's line. THIS IS THE WORST LINE IN THE LONG AND ILLUSTRIOUS HISTORY OF MICHIGAN FOOTBALL.

kscurrie2

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:03 PM ^

On the other side, where would we be if we didn't have Robinson, Gardner and gallon. They were rr recruits also. It kills me how fans are quick to blame rr for mediocre players but give him no credit for the play makers who he recruited and didn't abandon ship like Lloyd's guys.

fatbastard

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:45 PM ^

The guy, RR, was a complete f'n jackass at team management.  From recruiting to game time.  The freshman will be much better next year, and we won't see the same failures on the o-line.  I am sad that it takes this long to recover, but sadly, it is true.  

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:29 PM ^

I give him 100% credit for those players.  Further, the roster issues we're discussing now are the same ones I used to defend keeping RR (although I am glad we didn't) back then.  I think what Carr left RR was crap, and number deficient.  Similarly, many of same things can be said about what RR left Hoke.  At some point, the program MUST get the pipeline back up and running or else EVERY coach is going struggle.

Yeoman

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:15 PM ^

it didn't really seem that way to me (unless you mean potential talent and not current skill-level) but let's line it up and see:

  • Gallon - Burbridge
  • Lewan - Conklin
  • Bosch - Treadwell
  • Glasgow - Allen
  • Magnuson - France
  • Schofield - Fonoti
  • Funchess - Dennis
  • Chesson - Fowler
  • Gardner - Cook
  • Toussaint - Langford
  • Kerridge - Pendleton
  • Clark - Calhoun
  • Black - Hoover
  • Washington - Reynolds
  • Heitzman - Rush
  • C. Gordon or J. Ryan - Allen
  • Morgan - Bullough
  • Ross - Jones
  • Avery - Waynes
  • T. Gordon - Lewis
  • Wilson - Drummond
  • Countess - Dennard

Michigan's got a big edge at LT and I'd prefer our WRs. QB too. But on the interior of the OL and through most of the defense these comparisons are often between very young guys on the M side and 4th and 5th and even 6th year players for State who are maybe a bit less talented (or not, like Calhoun and Bullough and Rush and the CBs) but it's more than made up for by the extra years of experience.

MSU's got a superior roster, if you ask me. They kicked our asses in recruiting from '09 to '11, did a better job of keeping players in the program, and it's showing on the depth chart.

That's why they were favored. That's why they won.

 

aplatypus

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:16 PM ^

I started coming here more after the ESPN den closed down because I used to post over there occasionally. This game was that embarrassing. Like everyone, I'm pissed at the game, and I feel like venting is a somewhat constructive way to get around it, so pardon the long post, especially for a first one. 

I understand many people defending coaches by pointing out offensive line youth and that they're getting destroyed repeatedly as the reason the team struggles. While that is true, other teams do better with younger and less highly rated lineman. Lewan and Schofield are All Conference or better. Bosch and Kalis were top 100 level recruits. None of that is new; Purdue had 66 yards rushing against MSU, though. Our offensive line is more talented than Purdue's. Illinois had at least 25. Our offensive line is better than theirs. Even ignoring the bad snap we were -28 yards. How can that all be on the players? If they are making poor decisions or not executing, then Funk is failing them. Really bad teams do not look this bad, and if they do they fire someone. By my count, we had 71 yards lost on sacks and bad snaps, which resulted in about 23 yards on 19 actual run attempts. That's 27 for 27 ish; yeah the players have made mistakes, but it's a recurring theme which to me points to poor blocking and preparation.

To people pointing out that Michigan went spread heavy like many mgobloggers want. Also true; but Michigan rarely did the things that spread teams with bad offensive lines do to protect the players and limit mistakes. Borges is very smart, and I know what he wants to do should work in theory more than they do, I put most of the failures on the above. But at some point you have to throw your game plan out and go with what has a chance to work - that game plan btw, that he had an extra week to work on. MSU likes to blitz up the middle. They destroyed us with it 2 years ago and last year; they've messed up teams with it all year, and they crushed Gardner with A gap blitzes today. The offense seemed totally unprepared for it, and when they kind of were it called for the RBs to make a block that they failed miserably at. Fitz has ben around for a while; he should know how to pick up a blitz every now and then, see coaching. When Michigan did go with quick passes, even though it was too frequently the same damn pop pass play to Funchess (4 attempts?) they almost gave up on it after the drop, because I don't know. "Well crap he dropped that 6 yard completion. Can't run quick passes anymore." was the logic I guess. He even did a bubble screen, for 8 yards! Never even looked at it again. We tried one screen, a play that is designed to work against blitzes, and never tried again. I think when a play doesn't work repeatedly you should maybe go away from it, not when the first try doesn't work. Either way, when MSU is blitzing heavy, repeated long play-action calls that you know your O Line can't block isn't really the way to go. Granted, Borges isn't awful, I think just stubborn. There were many plays where Gardner missed open guys and threw to someone covered. That 3rd down PBU early on was a great example, I'm not sure of the play call, Z snag maybe, but Gallon basically ran an out and Jackson in the slot just did a hitch. The safety undercut Gallon and broke it up, Jackson was wiiiide open. Even Gallon was open if DG leads him. Good call, bad execution. Other plays like that abounded, there were a few where Funch or Chesson were very open in the middle but Gardner had already pulled it or had locked on a covered Gallon. 

There are many plays where it looks like Gardner doesn't really make his passing reads. He got hit a lot and didn't have time, but when he did, he often seemed to have his mind made up pre-snap. That isn't exactly new; Gallon being very good and Funchess making catches like he did early today mitigate it, but it's no surprise that he likes to throw to Gallon even when he's far from open. That's usually something for a QB coach to work on. Pretty sure Borges is our QB coach.. I know popular opinion here is otherwise, but this would have been a good game for Michigan to actually run power. They didn't even load the box a lot, going true I form power had potential for 3-4 yards a pop. That's better than 8 yard sacks repeatedly. Spread torched Indiana, but Indiana doesn't play defense. I'm no expert, but I feel like if your players can't do what you want to do, while you have to stay aggressive sometimes you still need put them in positions to succeed - or in this case not screw up as much. If you're going to spread it out, I think a quicker passing game, moving pockets that generally worked, and more decisive running plays keep your risk lower. Slow read options and play actions give their blitzing LBs more opportunities to get into your backfield. If the primary issue lies with the line blocking, then you have to question why these highly rated recruits and all american tackles can't do that and have hardly improved this year, let alone 3 years for the players that've been around. 

Anyway, the game was a depressing tirefire and I need more to drink.

TheTeam16

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^

Getting ready to watch a real football game in FSU v Miami...

How long has it been since jimbo fisher took over for bowden, and they are just now back to the top of the heap? 

Is the time table the same for this michigan program? Are we being unreasonable with these coaches? How much longer?

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:30 PM ^

Jimbo Fisher has been on the FSU staff since 2007 as OC/QB coach.  FSU was a juggernaut for many of Bowden's seasons, they slipped a bit, but to think Fisher took over anything resembling the cluster fuck that Michigan was when RR passed the torch to Hoke is laughable.

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:52 PM ^

Look at the '11 roster.  Look who the upperclassmen were, and remember the way they carried the team.  Michigan had the Rimington Award winner anchoring the center of the line.  We had Mike Martin, RVB, Huege (sp), Hemmingway, Koger, et. al.  The '11 season was charmed, and Michigan got very lucky in many games, and benefitted from a lot of home games.  I think Hoke showed what he can do with upperclassmen in the '11 season.  There just aren't that many last year nor this year.  There will be more every year going forward now.

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 9:52 PM ^

Look, Michigan has to "break the cycle."  The downward cycle started in 2005 with the complete cluster fuck of a "class that never was."  The had talent, but handed over an empty cupboard to RR -- another cluster fuck.  RR didn't break the cycle, and although he gave us Denard, Gallon, Gardner, and a few others, he also didn't restock the cupboard -- especially on the OL.  Where as the bad class in 2005 hurt RR in '08, '09, and '10, so too weak classes from those years are hurting Michigan today.  Hoke MUST be given time to break this cycle of bad classes, and bare(ish) cupboard being handed to the next coach. 

It's going to take time, but fortunately Hoke has booked 2 great classes, a couple more and the cycle will be broken.  I know, I know...hard to be patient, but the cycle MUST be broken.

TheTeam16

November 2nd, 2013 at 10:08 PM ^

Problem is you can pull that talent all you want...if you do not develop the recruits it doesnt mean shit. Not a single player has gotten significantly better on this team...no one. Funchess still cannot block, interior OL is BAD, tackles are same as last year, frank clark is a nobody, countess is meh, gardner and fitz have both regressed (partially due to the line).

Absolutely no progress. No smart top high school recruit would want that for themselves.

Sten Carlson

November 2nd, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^

Nobody?  C'mon.  Stop being so emotional and use your head.  There is improvement all over the field.  Sometimes improvement takes some time to show up in games.

Reader71

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:18 PM ^

Gallon, Schofield, Funchess, Clark, Black, Beyer, Ojemudia, Washington, Henry, Morgan, Ross, Taylor, Countess, Gordon, Wilson. I'm sure I'm missing a few, too. I'd also argue that every true freshman is better than he was in high school. Lewan, as an early first rounder, has plateaued. Gardner has probably regressed, but I think its more of a case of him not being ready for an expanded playbook. The offense was pretty vanilla until OSU/SC.

MGoBlue96

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^

Gallon - was just as a good at the start of last year, only difference has been Gardner being the starter has given him more oppurtunities.

Schofield - decent last year, decent this year. Don't see a difference.

Funchess - possibly, but I think the move to playing the outside has simply given him more playmaking oppurtunities.

Clark - don't agree at all, no consistency still. Makes one or two good plays a game, and is otherwise non-existent.

Black - not sure what your seeing here, has been consistently average throughout his career.

Beyer- not sure what your seeing here, has made a couple of plays against lesser competition, but that is it.

Ojemuda - ?. Is he even get consistent reps the last handful of games? I haven't heard his name mentioned.

Washington - was honestly a better player last year if you ask me.

Henry - possibly, though hard to tell since he has only been getting playing time the last couple of weeks.

Ross - not really, actually has been getting less reps the last couple of weeks due to poor play presumably.

Taylor, Countess, Gordon, Morgan - think have all played about the same as  last year. Countess has some picks, but seems to be getting beat a little more often this year.

Wilson - Haven't really noticed him doing much one or another.

 

I think several of those names you listed may be reaches with the exception of Funchess or Henry.

 

MGoBlue96

November 2nd, 2013 at 10:37 PM ^

How can we believe there is improvement where there is no evidence of it on the field? I can't think of a single position group other than maybe WR that has gotten better from the first game until now. I mean your telling people to use their heads, and turning around and saying for sure there has been improvement based on blind faith that it is occurring in practice. Improvement in practice means jack if it doesn't translate to the field.

Reader71

November 2nd, 2013 at 11:22 PM ^

Check Brian's UFRs. Schofield has gotten better, as he struggled in his first year at tackle at times last season. Funchess has developed into a pretty good WR after being just a promising TE. Defensive improvements are everywhere. Raymon Taylor is a stud. Jarrod Wilson has gone from liability to good. Beyer has been good. Clark has been much better. Black has been a revelation. There are improvements everywhere, and more to the point, there have been no obvious regressions, perhaps Gardner.

jmblue

November 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^

Incidentally, I saw Hoke wearing a headset at times today, so it turns out that that is not, in fact, the solution to our football team's woes.