Snowflakes: Bowl Game Edition - Coaching
And no mention of Hoke or Mattison? This entire team has been pathetic and has consistently underperformed.
Unfortunately this staff is among the highest in all the land. Don't think we are getting top 10 football.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Bingo. The michigan man meme is so overplayed and has held back this program. Sooner alums realize this the better.
We are really past the Bo coaching tree at this point from a hiring perspective. The bigger problem that I see is the Lloyd Carr coaching tree. I can not remember to many of his assistants going somewhere else and being successful other than Hoke with modest results. If Michigan continues down the michigan man path, I am not sure you get a championship caliber coach. Hoke was really the best shot coming out of the Carr era.
The best options all appear to be from outside the Michigan family, with the exception of Harbaugh. But even Harbaugh was not from the Carr tree even though he wanted to be.
I think this may be the biggest failing of the program in the Carr era. The inability to develop anyone under Carr that could come back and run the program. I am not sure if he just didn't have many high end coaches on his staff or if he was more focused on making sure no one overshadowed him.
This is spot on.
modest results? Didn't he take Ball State to 12-1? Wasn't the Hoke-run SDSU squad the only one to come close to beating the Rose Bowl winning TCU team? Because TCU embarrassed Wisconsin, but I think SDSU lost by 3 or 5?
Is it August 30 yet?
After this season. At least expectations will be low going into next season. We will not be ranked in the top 50.
Was Mattison making so many player substitutions when the Michigan defense was ranked #17 in 2011 and #13 in 2012? Was there less "bend don't break," then?
Gerg had some goo defenses too... This is 2013 and this defense is BAD.
The defense wasn't great this year, but I'm wondering what's different besides the players.
those subs all the time, just like he is now. It did seem the play calling was more aggressive in 2011 though.
a lot of subs, especially on the DL, like he does now. did seem like he was more aggressive with blitzes and creativity in 2011 though
I don't believe he was making so many substitutions. And if you look at the tackle totals, it seems that the totals for the starters were higher and less spread out. I remember the WILL linebacker spot being a revolving door (Herron, Hawthorne, Morgan), but that was more from game to game than series to series. And Mike Martin rarely seemed to come out of the game.
our LBs can't plug gaps - they're not big enough - and the DL can't help them. Which is a recipe for play action death, as they cheat forward so they don't get blown 8 yards off the ball.
But even when they do get into pass drops, they just wander aimlessly. Seemingly no awareness of where the receivers are, and hence the threats (curl? in? slant? cross?). They should be thinking those things. Instead they're leaving slot receivers laughably uncovered because they don't know what they're doing, or the D is too complex. They just float, don't get depth, forget about the TE, and don't seem to realize they have to get wide as well as deep. Staring at the QBs eyes isn't enough - by formation you have to have and idea what's coming and choke off those likely routes
What you describe here is more deflating to me than tonight's struggles by the offense. The OL is very young in the interior. We knew that. And asking Morris to step into this situation and win was always asking too much. I think 99% of us understood that...But the inability if the front seven to hold its own against a middling Big Twelve team is a largely new type of suck. We could at least chalk the OSU game up to OSU's talent on offense. Tonight, Michigan's D was just bad.
Let's think about this for a second: When was the last time another program actually wanted to try to hire our head coach away from us? When was the last time a Michigan coach was a publicly sought commodity?
Bo. 1982. Texas A&M.
Just think about that. 30 years. We've gotten by on coaches that were right for us, but wrong for everyone else. And, arguably, this iteration is by far the least prestigious and largest stretch at head coach we've had in decades.
Ask yourself this: If Brady Hoke were hired tomorrow, what program takes him on? Or are we looking at a guy who will go from head coach at Michigan to a DL position that could turn into another shot at the top years from now?
a) You have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. How do you know that some school didn't pursue Lloyd Carr or Rich Rodriguez behind the scenes?
b) At least during Carr's years, Michigan was a destination program. Carr didn't appear to be looking for other jobs, and there weren't really any other college jobs that were consistently superior and better situations than his.
c) We've only had four coaches since Bo Schembechler (Moeller, Carr, Rodriguez, Hoke). If one guy got fired after a very short period of time despite having success (Moeller), another guy wasn't going to leave because he's a native of the state (Carr), another had a bad run (Rodriguez), and the other just now finished his third year, who exactly do you think could have been ripe for the picking? What program was supposed to pick off Hoke after his 11-2 season. Alabama? LSU? USC? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't really give a rat's patoot whether another school has publicly tried to hire away our coach, because it's somewhat irrelevant and very circumstantial.
Of course it's relevant - great coaches are the targets of other school's hiring desires. True in football, and true in other professions too. Recent example: Saban to Texas and other pipe dreams.
If no one else wants a coach, it probably says something - and that something is not too positive.
Hoke would be the target for roughly 0 of the big openings this year, or frankly in any other year. That doesn't mean he can't succeed here, but it sure tells me something about his perceived abilities.
Or maybe just every other AD on the planet is really dumb.
The reason I say it's not relevant is because Michigan wasn't in a situation where other teams would come pounding down the door to get those guys. Yes, I agree that other teams wanting your coach means your coach must be doing something right, but the circumstances suggested that a guy like Carr wasn't going anywhere, and Moeller didn't really have time to be courted by anyone before he got canned. And even if he had been, Michigan was in such good shape at that point that he, too, would have had no reason to leave.
It's just not relevant to Michigan over the past 20 years.
How do you know no one wanted Carr? Just because you didn't see it on the ESPN bottom line doesn't mean no one made any inquiries.
Name me one elite CFB coach / coordinator who is obese / severely overweight.
Not even being a dick - name me one
Honestly it seems as if our team has been prepared lazily this whole year and it is evident that they have been unprepared multiple times. Who does that fall on? The coaches. And although Brady and Borges might be great individuals - I simply see our team being led out onto the field completely unprepared and it really baffles me.
I do mags I do
Andy Reid has always had trouble coaching his teams because he is fat, right?
level, but yeah, it was a stupid comment.
I understand the obvious kickback to the sentiment that a "fat guy can't coach" however, seeing as almost half of our country is obese, shouldn't half of any successful professionals be obese as well?
My point is that there is a dearth of obese, elite CFB coaches. I by no means am attempting to state that fat guys can't coach because, well - that would be pompous and pretty much fucked up.
Either it is simply an unrelated statistic - or perhaps there is a correlation. It just seemed odd to me once I thought of it.
Saban, Miles, Meyer, *dantonio* (shudder), Strong, Shaw, Harbaugh etc all seem to take care of themselves physically (apart from genetic heart type conditions) and perhaps that is an indicator of work ethic and stamina to do their job well.
This could and probably is complete BS, however, I found it odd. That is all.
She is a KSU fan. She predicted a 45-17 win, which was close. She knew KSU would win easily since she told me our team is not that good, at this time.
The defense disappointed me the most. Though the offense looked flat. Shane did a great job. Good velocity throws and a quick release.
especially the S&C staff.
As a Michigan fan living in SEC country the one noticeable difference I see is the level of strength in the players. We need to find out what Missouri did last year to get their players stronger so they weren't blown off the ball!
blog or any media would be a study into S&C during this offseason.
Tonight the team looked slow and lethargic. Watching the tiny fragments of bowl preparation film, it appears the practices function at slower speed as well.
All season the lines have lacked explosiveness and we wear down by Q4 instead of the opposition. It's also reflected in the inability to shut down Offenses in the late stages, like NU and PSU.
time to gotobed i wish the rest of you would too. You might feel just a little better after some sleep and less booze
When Hoke was hired I vowed to quit paying money to support this charade. He was 47 and 50 when hired, went 11-2 with Carr/Rich Rod recruits, and has backed up since. There is plenty of talent on both sides of the ball but unlike an Iowa, K State or yes, MSU the team simply doesn't improve from start to finish and that is coaching.
All the marketing and branding in the world doesn't sell an obsolete product and thankfully, I haven't spent one cent of disposable income since Hoke was hired. I have never seen a coaching staff do less with more!
Think about the next season. Is anybody excited? This is the first time I can remember feeling absolutely nothing towards the next football season. No intrigue, no anticipation, no excitement. I feel about as uninspired as Brady Hoke looks coaching a football game.
Changes will be made, sure. Borges will be gone. Perhaps some of the other staff too. But does anybody feel any sort of positive with Brady Hoke in charge?
This man is not a BCS level coach.
He is not a Michigan caliber coach.
During the hiring process, Brandon spent too much time vetting his Michigan ties and not enough time vetting his football philosophy or credentials.
And now, we pay the price.
Let's enjoy mediocrity.
i will bet you anything they all come back,
Bingo...it feels like he has to be the smartest man in the room...
Sorry - misplaced - this was to StephenKing's comment about Borges's inability to develop a sound base offense...
Awful game, preparation, and player development.
Time to start cutting the fat (Borges and Mallory, for starters), but I'm afraid the problems are systemic.
and the problems include S&C.
Why Mallory? Did our cornerbacks not have 10 picks this year? They were beaten by a kid who's an All-America-caliber player last night. They certainly could/should have done better, but the secondary was not really the problem for most of the year. The most glaring problem was the lack of penetration and pass rush up front.
Well, if we're going to fire the guys responsible for pass rush and penetration, that means Hoke and Mattison have to go. Then who's left to coach the team?
Seriously, though, I think that the secondary has been poorly coached all season. Blowing assignments, playing soft coverage, NOT TURNING THEIR HEADS EVER ON LONG PASSES, and all sorts of other deficiencies.
But I guess you could pick a grab-bag defensive coach to can, and I wouldn't complain.
Although the defense and team as a whole has serious deficiencies, not looking at the ball in coverage is not one of them. Excepting the truly elite backs, most college level backs are coached to look at the receiver and ignore the ball.
I'm just sick and tired of turning in to watch my favorite football team I've rooted for the past 28 years only to spend the game in shock at the utter incompetence of this team. I've truly never seen anything like it.
Play calling, schemes, personnel, aside...
Has Hoke and Co. in their recruiting of "Michigan Men" lost sight of recruiting tough, hard nosed players?!? Every game the past past 3 years (and I've watched every single one, trust me) Michigan has looked tentative, scared, passive, and it's blindingly obvious. Physically we have no presence. The toughness Hoke talks about is a FIGMENT of his imagination!
I hear guys like Marcus Ray, Woodson, Marlin Jackson, etc. talk on radio and these guys have attitudes and pride! They played angry and with an intent to physically dominate their opponent. When the guy across from them completed a pass or ran for a first down they took it personally and got even! They played angry and made opponents fear coming to the Big House. These days teams LOVE playing Michigan...we're over-hyped, over-rated and always under-performing.
Nothing I have seen this year indicates things turning around. See you all next year when we get shoved around by Sparty, Ohio, and another bowl opponent.
new uniforms last night. That would have been the icing on the cake.
Is am torn this morning after watching the game last night. I thought Al came out with a great game plan in the initial stages of the game with Shane to settle him in, but then just reverted back to his old ways. I see a bright future with Shane. But our defense looked so confused and overmatched by a middle of the pack Big 12 opponent. We got no pass rush and they gouged us repeatedly on the ground - not to mention they exploited both CBs. I really don't see how the pass rush will get any better next year. Hoke can't go because we cannot afford another transition after three years, but something has to change. At a loss, so disappointed in the end of the season.
It's just like every other game. Borges has his scripted start, and it usually looks OK. But once it runs out and he goes off script, it's another story.
Can we just get some young coaching in this staff, someone who is fucking hungry, willing to work hard so he can prove himslef..i am tired of us hiring these older generation guys who are worn out and still have the old philosophy..college football changes every year and its not the same anymore, so we need some young blood in our coachinh staff..its taine Greg and Al to retire
Roy Manning is 32. Curt Mallory is 44. Jeff Hecklinski is 39.
Im talking main coaches, coordinators, guys who make all the calls..
It's so hard to judge a coach based on just games. There's so much more to the job. Yeah it's all about wins and loses, but there's still so much more. Hoke took over a mess from RR so chill out.
He inherited Denard, who has been the best offensive threat Michigan has had for the last 4 years. The defense was at its best during the first year, and since then has been trending downward with Hoke. Next year, there can be no Rodriguez excuses, it's purely Hoke/Mattison/Borges. If you want to worship at the alter of the past, you may do so at your own risk. Time to move on!
It's been discussed ad nauseum on this blog. The style/philosophy changes (from pro-set to spread and now back to pro), the disastrous 2010 class which saw 1 OL taken (and not for the right system) and nearly everyone leave class, having only a couple weeks to finish up the 2011 class, etc.
And Hoke utilized Denard with quite a bit of success, the 11-2 Sugar Bowl season and the 8-5 season last year which saw Michigan lose to the #1, #2, #3 teams in the country (all away from Michigan Stadium) and a very good SC team, and if Denard doesn't go down against Nebraska we had a good chance to win that and be 7-1 in-conference.
Even last year Michigan was still 6-2 and a contender in the conference.
Ultimately, I agree that next year is very much make-or-break. There's no excuse we shouldn't get to 10 wins with our two losses being to two of OSU, MSU, and ND. It technically wouldn't be a coaches full team until 6 years in but I think you're correct that next year it is enough of Hoke's team that the Rodriguez factor should be negligible, if there at all.
This year had more of the makings of a year one than it did year 3, in my opinion.
I think we should definitely be looking at a new S&C coach. We look weaker than virtually every team we play.
Why not bring back Mike Barwis, who has his own S&C camp less than 15 miles away, and his work contributed significantly to the 11-2 record during Hoke's first year, IMHO.
For most of the season I felt that as long as Borges went, the coaching staff would be good enough to bring Michigan back to being a consistently good, occasionally great team.
I'm now not feeling so sure if anyone on the staff (save Mattison) is a BCS level coach. Here's a list of Michigan's position coaches and the biggest school they've coached at prior to Michigan. I've split the list between people that were with Hoke at SDSU, and those that weren't.
With Hoke at SDSU
Funk (OL Coach) - Colorado State
Mark Smith (LB) - Indiana State
Roy Manning (LB) - Cincinnati
Dan Ferringo (TE) - USC
Jeff Hecklinski (WR) - Arizona for one year, before that Central Missouri state
Not with Hoke at SDSU
Fred Jackson (RB) Michigan for forever
Curt Mallory (DB) - Illinois
So, what this information shows.
1) For half of the position coaches this is their first BCS level program they've coached for. For almost everyone, this is by far the biggest job they have ever had, and it seem possible they received it because of their affiliation with Hoke, not merit.
2) Including Mattison and Borges, 66% of the staff has ties with Hoke at SDSU.
What this suggests is the spreading idea that the staff is in over their heads is quite possibly true. Also, the lack of accountability and coaching changes amongst coordinators and position coaches is likely linked to their long-standing relationships with Hoke. It doesn't sound like a recipe for a successful program.