January 12th, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
February 1st - have salvaged the recruiting class, so he doesn't fall off in Year 3. Has a class that fills our needs of 15-20 guys.
November 26 - is competitive in The Game. Heads to a bowl.
Jan 1 - is competitive in the bowl. Finishes season with offense in top 30 and defense in top 60
Year 2 - beats Ohio, Sparty, competes for B1G Title, finishes in the top 15
Year 3 - may be tough because of this recruiting class - this is the year I judge him most on. Winning a B1G Title in Year 3 or 4 is expected. I'll expect him to compete or even fall off a bit from year 2, and win the title in year 4.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^
With Denard and a lot of spread, ten wins isn't out of the question.
With Denard and not as much spread, maximum of nine.
Without Denard, six wins max, with big improvement in 2012.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
Wins 9 games with this team and schedule next year.*
*this team includes Denard Robinson at QB.
pretty sure that this is why RR doesn't get year 4, because he was set up to succeed, and we couldn't have that happen.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^
I agree. The anti RR crowd had to get him out this year cause after next year he'd be hard to take out cause we was definitely set up for a 10 win plus season. And good lord can you imagine how horrible it would be if a guy NOT FROM MICHIGAN won 10 games?
Jesus....the wine and cheese alumnai wouldnt know what to do........
January 12th, 2011 at 8:25 PM ^
Hoke is from Ohio. I was not a fan of the hire either but your constant bitching is getting old. Rally around the coach and buck up.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^
dude cried today, so do I.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^
Why do we keep hiring criers?
January 12th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^
almost a general consensus that RR would have won 9-10 games in 2011? I'll admit, there was much improvement in the offense as his UM career progressed, yet the defense regressed and special teams were awful. Furthermore, his record against B1G teams with winning records in conference play was terrible. Just because we went 3-5-7 doesn't mean we were guaranteed 9 wins next year.
On another note, your sarcasm about the alumni and RR not being a Michigan man is absurd.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:05 PM ^
It's not exactly a general consensus among the U-M fanbase as a whole - just among the RR diehards. Given that we won every close game we played in, we were fortunate to even finish 7-6 in 2010. Assuming that our luck in close games evens out, nine or ten wins will require a pretty major team-wide improvement.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:14 PM ^
Did you not hear the Athletic Director of Michigan's comments today? Doesn't need a map to the campus? Already know The Victors? No matter what RR did, he was never going to be considered a Michigan Man by certain people at UM. Disgusting, but true.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:29 PM ^
...an easier schedule and something like 20 returning starters - including not having to play freshmen all over the place in the secondary, especially at corner.
Seriously, we're set up to do well next year as long as the offense doesn't fall apart. And before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying that it will, but it could - particularly if Denard takes his talents elsewhere.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:50 PM ^
i just don't get why people cant understand that rr would not ever win more than 8-9 games. rr would never get a defense that can stop big10 teams. If we played in the big east where he had his success we would have went 12-0 this past year with no defense.he was the problem on D we couldnt just keep letting him hire new D coordinator every year after he was the one that stepped in and had no clue what he was doing on D
January 12th, 2011 at 8:03 PM ^
Prevent DOOM from engulfing the program in a great pit of fire, molten lava, and bloodcurdling screams.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:08 PM ^
In 2012 we play roadies against Alabama, ND, Nebraska, and OSU. We'll be lucky to win 1 of those. Cant see us winning more than 8.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:09 PM ^
Dantonio's head on a pike outside of Fort Schembechler. Signaling the rise of the Maize Horde and glorious plans to pillage our way across the Rust Belt.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:11 PM ^
Like the fat chick. Enthusiastic, ok for awhile, but not especially endearing and not getting any better looking. But better than nothing.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:11 PM ^
This man has a vision. He has a clear goal. My expectations for next year are high but not unrealistic. I know his coaching style might be a little different than RR, but we still have a good group of young talented athletes on this team; most of which have solid experience under their belt.
I honestly think we'll go 8-4 next year, but I won't be stunned if we go 10-2. He'll do whats right with Denard. Yes, he;s a special player and had a great season, but I won't be fuming if Devin is announced starting QB and Denard plays slot/RB. I think Devin is our sleeping giant and will be Vince Young-like. Believe me, Denard will be utilized and will make a major impact this upcoming season, regardless of position. Remember, "no one is more important than the team."
Coach Hoke isn't the big ticket coach we are hoped for. I was one of the people pulling hard for JH, then LM. However, I am extremely content with Coach Hoke and I'm positive that he's going to bring us back to dominance in the Big Ten and on the national level.
I'm from Michigan and have been a Michigan fan for my entire life. I don't use the term "Michigan Man," because it is purely subjective. All I can say is that we have found the right guy and Wolverine Nation needs to rally around him. This man would die for the Maize and Blue.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:11 PM ^
= 10 wins. It's math. Look, there's an "equals" sign. And mathematics is virtually impossible to argue with.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:19 PM ^
when i ran the numbers i came up with 20 starters + 22 starting spots = 14 wins
(national champs!)
January 13th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
I believe you have proven why mathematics is only virtually impossible to argue with. I rescind my fuzzy logic in favor of your far superior proof. All hail 14 wins in 2011! (Because math says so.)
January 12th, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^
The first year losing can be tolerated. After that we call for his job after each and every loss without excuse. The questioning of him being a "Michigan Man" and whether or not he has "family values" should already be underway of course.
Just need to make sure he is held to the same standard.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
So, because the last coach was unfairly criticized off the bat, we need to make sure we do that every time?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:48 PM ^
Yes. we need to hold the standard that you and other's set.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
What does letting go of RR have to do with applying the same standards to our new coach? If Hoke can't do better than 3 wins next year, or 7-6 in year 3, would you really think we should keep him?
Judging by people's expectations here, 7-6 by the third year would be highly unlikely. He would be significantly underperforming, and undeserving of a fourth year based on traditional Michigan expectations.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
Defran, Rosenberg and Snyder will be fondling themselves in ecstasy.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:29 PM ^
I think you meant "fondling each other in ecstasy."
January 12th, 2011 at 8:29 PM ^
I see 2011 with 8-9 wins with a defense that isn't bad.
2012 = Big Ten Title
Given Denard's success in year 1 as a starter, how hard he works and how much he improved over his freshman year. I believe Denard will be top 3 Heisman in 2011 and will win or finish 2nd for the Heisman in 2012.
If you can run like Denard, you can be a good but not great passer and dominate college football even without the spread. Look at Michael Vick at VA Tech, he threw a good deep ball but was a terrible passer less than 15 yards.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:42 PM ^
Beat State by 40
January 12th, 2011 at 8:45 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^
A win on the road against sparty and a home victory over OSU!
January 12th, 2011 at 8:55 PM ^
9 wins, which Brian has stated, is too high for me. I'd expect seven wins. If Denard stays, bump that up a little, but I think it's too hard to guess what kind of zany pro-style offense we will run.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:56 PM ^
Lose to ND, MSU, Nebraska and OSU, but competitive in 2 of the losses. Win the rest, go to the Outback bowl and beat Florida!
January 12th, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^
Lose to ND, MSU, Nebraska, AND tSIO?
Sad panda.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:09 PM ^
3 seasons? I think he needs to have 27 wins by this time in 2014.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:24 PM ^
How about a defense that doesn't yield more than 350 yards per game? (That would have put you in the Top 40 in 2010)
...or surrender more than 24PPG? (which would put you in the Top 50 in 2010)
A kicking game that makes 90% of their FGs and 99% of their PATs?
And an offense that averages 35PPG? (which would have put you in the Top 20......ironically, SDSU averaged 35.0 PPG in 2010).
IF we could do that, I don't see how this team doesn't win 8 games.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:05 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 9:27 PM ^
and after all the above expectations, get nike back! I cant stand having adidas jerseys, those three stripes are so ugly.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^
9+ wins a year, top 40 offense and defense, top 15 recruiting class, 0 NCAA violations, positive turnover margin in every game, 0 missed kicks ever. Anything else is absoultely UNACCEPTABLE!
But seriously, in 2 or 3 years Michigan should be competing for division and B1G titles.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^
January 12th, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
we need to win all the easy ones no suprises we need to go to a bowl game and beat msu and ND and then he will have proven himself !
January 12th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^
with everyone returning + new system. im gonna go ahead and expect 7-5 or 8-4 this coming year. all i want to see if an improvement in the defense, thats my expectation
January 12th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^
I think the the expectations should be relatively high. If our defense is even average (top 60) and we keep our in conference turnover margin out of the relm of -10 or better then we'll be fine. And average goes for the special teams as well. The offense will be just fine. You put that offense with 10 starters back on the field with more possesions and less turnovers? And our schedule is easier than last year. I don't think any of that is unreasonable. I'm going 9-10 wins. Prior to the bowl game.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^
If he gets the key guys to return, I see 8-4 or 9-3 as a realistic goal. A whole different playbook, a new defensive scheme, still a young defense but a talented one. We have some talent returning and I see some success in the near future.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^
First year HC in a major conference
First year facing the Big Ten
Team still young
Team adapting to a new system
Should expect 400 to 450 yards allowed per game on defense
Improve to -7 turnovers
Improve to a better scoring percentage on offense
Find a 50% kicker
3/4 Wins in the Big Ten
2/3 Wins in the OOC
The realistic view would be 6-6 /7-5. I don't know why so many people are claiming a 5-0 start. That just seems like you're setting up yourself up for a let down. That means the Offense scores against good opponents, not getting blown out of games, and how we fair against our rivals. I believe that would be a good start to Hoke's coaching career at Michigan.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^
I just don't see this 9-3 that everyone is talking about. There won't be a huge transition, but there will be a bit of one. The defense just isn't good enough to win 9 games, even if it does make major leaps. We have tough games against ND, MSU, Nebraska, OSU, Iowa, NW, and even Illinois.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
...after seeing the Spring Game. By then, it should possible to tell if we are starting from scratch or not, with the offense. The Spring Game before RR's first season (which was held at Pioneer's field, due to Big House construction) was shockingly ugly, but turned out to be a pretty accurate indicator of what was to come.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:46 PM ^
OK, I read through all the comments to date.
I'm not very optimistic.
I see anywhere from 0 to 3 wins and will go out on a limb to say only 1 win.
Here's why:
I see Denard leaving. Tate is also gone.
There is nothing in this recruiting class worth note -or that will help out.
The offense in place has been developed for "Basketball on grass". Hoke is on record as not wanting that. He has a bunch of small/quick buggers that is not condusive for Hoke's offense.
Our wins against the Big Ten opponents were all struggles. We had to outscore to win. Hoke's offense will not be as high scoring as RR's. Plain and simple. I see no wins against Big Ten schools -even if we do play Minnesota.
Our Defense will be roughly the same. We'll have some of those injured back, but the cupboard is pretty bare as we all know. Nontheless, he's not going to go from a 100+ D to a Top 40 D with the players he has.
That leaves Non-conference. We struggled with all our NC games last year -at least until the offense started to click -see above about the lower output I expect from the offense. I also see losses to Western, ND and, yes, SDSU. He will lose to his former team which we've been told is an "excellent" team. We struggled with them 5 or so years ago, we'll lose to them next year.
That leaves us at 1-11 in my book. Yes, I think we'll beat EMU -but I wouldn't be surprised at a loss here either.
And, to top it off, I really really hope I'm wrong.
Why am I pessimistic? I am looking at the situation through the assumption that the cupboard was bare when RR took over. Lloyd retired at the end of '07 for a reason -he didn't have to. Lloyd would have been lucky to have 3 wins that year. Most forget that Mallot was gone regardless of who the coach was -even if Lloyd had stayed. The cupboard was truly bare.
I've been consistent (not that any of you would know since I've pretty much only been a lurker here for the past 4 years) in holding to the idea that it was actually RR that was rebuilding. Lloyd drove the program into the ground and I don't expect Lloyd II to do anything different. I'm a patient person and I think Hoke could do well at M -I hope he does. But, I'm not very optimistic that he will in the short term. And, if 3 years is not "long term", that begs the question as to why Brandon did not give RR a chance at "long term" as he promised in his press conference announcing RR's termination. Brandon tipped his hat with that statement -letting us all know he wasn't ever interested in keeping RR.
Hoke has to completely rebuild this team for his philosophy -it's current personel is not condusive to what he wants to do -while he certainly has more talent that RR did in '08, he will still struggle -due mainly to the state of the D and the fact that his O will not put up the points that RR's did -it's not designed to.
Just my $0.02. And, I hope I'm wrong -REALLY REALLY wrong.