View With Sanity Glasses On and Go Blue!
It's been a touch season. I've been as mad as anyone. I wanted more.
It's depressing to lose to MSU, and games we should have won against PSU, Nebraska and Iowa. Another way to look at this season, might be to say that Michigan lost to MSU definitively, and every other game was winnable.
I cannot think of a single loss this year that I can pin on the coaching staff. Did Brady take a timeout he shouldn't have that lost a game (Les MIles). Did he make a horrible strategy decision that cost us a game? If we're 10-1 right now, and still have the same offensive production, does that change how you feel?
Instead, many on this board point to horrible offensive playcalling or the nebulous failure to develop talent. I second guess like everyone, but on the whold I don't see a gameplan or playcalling that should have been drastically different, or could not have been successful. Frankly some of the same things people complain about here you see NFL teams do every week -- for instance, Tampa Bay continuing to run the ball against the Lions to open up the pass.
Michigan clearly has a very serious depth problem. We are starting far too many freshman or inexperienced players in key positions. The bottom line is that this year's team is inexperienced and hasn't learned as fast as we'd hoped. That youth and inexperience has led to poor execution, particularly on the o-line. I don't have the impression that lays at the feet of our current coaches The depth problem clearly lays at the feet of the former coach.
Maybe there is something to be said for simply being in a position to win every game this year except for one. with such vast inexperience at key positions (o-line and quarterback). Maybe a one attribute of a good coach is one who can keep a team in the game with an oppotunity to win until the end of the game despite vast youth and inexperience. Lesser coaches might simply get blown out in the same scenario. Lesser coaches might "lose" their team. .
The season record is clearly not what we want. It may be less than some of you "deserve" Regardless, we'll be a different team next year, with a more experienced line and an experienced quarterback and running back(s) who know pass protection schemes and are big enough to block blitzers.
Until then, let's root for the team, and the coaches, to perform at the highest possible level.
Go Blue! Beat Ohio!
November 26th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 6:33 PM ^
Anything can happen. Our D is very good. How can you not be motivated to play your best game of the year on Saturday? I believe.
November 26th, 2013 at 6:34 PM ^
watching games during this touch season or resisting the urge to be an internet touch guy and make fun of the OP's typographical error.
November 26th, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 6:37 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 7:56 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 6:40 PM ^
A sanity view is that we are a mediocre program that hasn't won a big ten title in almost a decade, with no real sign of winning one in the near future. People need to stop setting their expectations so damn high. If people would take an honest look at our program they would realize we are a 7-8 win team year in and year out.
November 27th, 2013 at 9:13 AM ^
... there ain't no sanity clause.
November 26th, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^
I didn't think USC had a shot against Stanford a couple weeks ago. Stanford looked like the team in the country (maybe) and SC hadn't beaten any of the good teams they had played (and lost to some so-so ones). But SC put together one of their best games of the season and Stanford made a few timely mistakes.
I'm not saying it's likely that we win, but it's certainly not out of the question.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^
I didn't follow Michigan back then, but I wonder how similar the feelings leading up to the 93, 95, and 96 seasons. I think it was maybe 95 that had all those award winners and buckeye trash talking and we won anyway.
We're I think the second best D Ohio will have played all season and we're playing at home where we still only have one loss. We've got a chance.
It's not like we're 0-11, we're 7-4 - we're still a decent team
November 26th, 2013 at 10:06 PM ^
In 1993, we had a couple very close losses, but were coming off a couple blowout wins. And the 1995 team lost some close games, but we knew Biakabutuka was a beast and we still had Toomer and Hayes, not to mention Jarret Irons and a pretty good defensive line.
But that 1996 game @ OSU? I stayed in my dorm room and watched it by myself. We played so horribly the week before at home against PSU, not to mention the egg we laid at Purdue. I thought the game would be over by halftime. There was little to no confidence Griese. That's probably the best comparison out of the years you mentioned.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:27 PM ^
90s offense worked better in the 90s.
November 26th, 2013 at 6:56 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^
I believe in our team and I am sure that, after all of the work they put in, they are more disappointed than those of us who are merely fans. I hurt terribly when our team isn't dominant; they will be dominant in the future.
If anyone on the team is reading this, good luck on Saturday, play hard, and we will all be cheering you on..
November 26th, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^
And for the last time about fire the coach(es): please please please have a look at how it went last two times we went coach searching -- we got (at best) our THIRD choice (seemed) both times, after first two said not interested! (in various ways). So fire Hoke? For love of Blue, please no, not again so soon! Fire Borges or other, not as horrific a mistake, but still a mistake I think
November 27th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
UCLA started 3 freshman OL against Oregon, and their OL will likely be 3 freshman, 1 sophomore and 1 junior against USC. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you did ask.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:04 PM ^
Sanity is making an argument that this team could be 10-1...
November 26th, 2013 at 7:06 PM ^
It's much closer to 4-7, with two losses about as embarrassing as the one Florida suffered.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:11 PM ^
I could have spelled it out a bit more clearly, i thought it was something clear through implication.
Yes, we could easily be 4-7. We could just as easily be 10-1. We are, split the difference, 7-4. The fact is that, whether people here are willing to believe it or not, this team faces a drastic talent and numbers deficiency in upper classmen. By far the worst I have ever seen.
That's the "sanity". Take a look at the depth and position chart, and explain to me how it's "sane" to believe the team should be 10-1. It's not. The sane view is to realize how deficient the team is now in depth, and the insanity to think that with those players we should be 10-1.
Yet, we're, quite literally, only a few bad plays from being 9-2 or 10-1.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:37 PM ^
The cupboards been bare for six years and running!
November 26th, 2013 at 7:07 PM ^
are the sane ones. Now, that is funny.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^
Gorgeous Borges is a diety who shall not be questioned!
November 26th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^
"I cannot think of a single loss this year that I can pin on the coaching staff."
I'm sorry, I'm as optimistic as any, but how the HELL do you not pin the PSU game on the coaching staff?? Stopped reading right there.
November 26th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 8:24 PM ^
Against PSU we win if our stud kicker doesn't suffer a meltdown. Against Nebraska we had chances to seal it. And against Iowa, maybe we win if Devin doesn't fumble.
I'm not saying I agree with all of those things. Because with better coaching maybe it doesn't come down to just a few plays. But if we had some 2012 Notre Dame style luck, we would be a 10-1 team despite all the shit that has happened. Of course that ND team was one of the luckiest in the history of college football, so it's best not to bank on that.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:03 PM ^
What was the mistake that Hoke made that lost that game?
The way I recall it, Stribling misplayed the ball at the end. The kicker was horrific. We clearly should have won the game. As bad as it was, it wasn't any single, or culmination of events from the staff that cost us that game. Unless you're going to say that the playcalling sucked. Which, ok, fine, more of the same.
November 27th, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^
The first half, the offense was non-existent because of the insistence on manball.
As far as OT, I understand why everyone is saying it was right to play it safe and trust the kicker. Certainly, it paid off in the Sugar Bowl against VT.
I don't agree. You go for the win, you don't play "not to lose". PSU's coach went for fourth down when he could ahve settles for a field goal, and he was rewarded for the win. I despise their program, students, and athletic department, but Penn State's head coach gained a lot of respect from me that day.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
How do you not pin the Nebraska game on the coaching staff?! We should have beaten Nebraska! Their defense has been horrid all year and we made them look like the 2nd coming of the blackshirts!
November 26th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
i believe they are called "blinders"
November 26th, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^
Blinders AND kool-aid.
November 26th, 2013 at 8:19 PM ^
You do know that Borges is part of the coaching staff, right?
November 26th, 2013 at 8:22 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 8:27 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 10:52 PM ^
I couldn't agree with you more. It is not time to panic. Just dig in for the future. These coaches gave us 11-2 in a season no one was expecting such a good result. Give them time to implement their system with their players.
November 26th, 2013 at 8:29 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 8:39 PM ^
Yeah, the coaches have nothing to do with constructing the offense and the offense sucking isn't even the reason we're losing.....
The OP needs to share the dope he's smoking with the board.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:54 PM ^
a fat bastard on crack. What season have you been watching? Our offense is as historically bad as the defense and special teams were under hoke's predecessor. UCONN is the worst team in D-1 and we almost lost to them. The team has set all-time records for rushing futility. Manball! Arguably at best, we have quality wins against ND and Minn, no others. Nebraska has a horrible D, and were without their starting qb. Iowa is a middling BIG team with recruits no where near M's. PSU is half a team with a true freshman quarterback going against our redshirt junior QB. MSU has the toughest team in the state and is the division champion. Borges is an offensive GERG. Year three and getting worse with Hoke's players. Don't let the facts get in the way. Either borges goes this year or hoke next year. I agree there is no savior replacement in the wings. Remember schiano passed on the job, and Harbaugh and Urb were not interested either. Best hope is to get a skilled oc to make the offense positive.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:58 PM ^
November 27th, 2013 at 1:00 AM ^
1. Record is a poor measuring stick. The B1G is historically bad, and two of Michigan's wins were miraculous comebacks against mighty Akron and UConn.
2. Michigan was not competitive against Michigan State. In the last eight quarters, Pat Narduzzi has kept Al Borges out of the end zone.
3. There may have been inexperience on the interior line, but there was also a first-round pick at left tackle, a solid fifth-year senior at right tackle, a talented redshirt junior at QB, two experienced senior wide receivers, a fifth-year senior at running back...there was plenty of talent on offense. And year in, year out, MSU faces the challenge of a lack of depth, experience, and talent on the offensive line and yet they seem to improve over the course of the season.
4. There is something to be said with playing to your offense's strengths. Being unable to do this is one thing. Actively doing the exact opposite thing is insane. Why keep calling long-developing routes when your offense is getting the crapped kicked out of him? Why keep running iso plays out of i-formation when it has not worked? Why not practice two-minute offense to (a) get your defense prepared for it and (b) be able to keep defenses off-balance and (c) give your quarterback a chance to audible from doomed plays?
All of this does not mean Al Borges is a bad coach. Last year, Andy Reid was plagued with many of the same shortcomings as the Philadelphia Eagles finished 4-12. With an injury-ravaged offensive line, he would often go empty backfield and go deep all the time. Despite having Lesean McCoy and facing hyper-aggressive defenses, he rarely called screen passes. He never figured out how to get Desean Jackson to be more than a one-trick pony.
Andy Reid was not a bad coach, but he wasn't right for that team anymore. It happens. Al Borges is not a bad coach, but right now, it's not working. Andy Reid has bounced back with the Kansas City Chiefs (riding the same "tough defense, turnover-averse offense" formula that worked for him for so many eyars). I am sure Al Borges will do the same. But it's time to say goodbye
November 27th, 2013 at 7:04 AM ^
November 27th, 2013 at 8:20 AM ^
November 27th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^
http://stats.ncaa.org/team/index/11520?org_id=418.0
Sanity is realizing the team is ranked 100/123 in rushing offense and can't move the ball to save its life.
UCLA has young guys on its line, and they aren't inept at blocking. I wasn't expecting a world-beating offense, but I was expecting a competent one. We don't even have that. I remember 2008, and 2001 (Navarre's first full year at QB). Those were rough offenses. This edition is worse than those two.