View With Sanity Glasses On and Go Blue!

Submitted by fatbastard on

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!

Red is Blue

November 26th, 2013 at 6:42 PM ^

"Did Brady take a timeout he shouldn't have that lost a game (Les MIles).". No. But he didn't take a timeout he should have against PSU that resulted in a costly 5 yd delay of game.

27 for 27. After the first 25 you think they would've figured out it wasn't going to work.

Sure a few of the losses were close, but so were a few of the wins. Took +3 in to margin to keep Iowa close. NW had to drop 4 pretty easy interceptions. I think we we ahead on to margin against Neb.

MGoCombs

November 26th, 2013 at 6:37 PM ^

"...On the [whole] I don't see a gameplan or playcalling that should have been drastically different"

REALLY? Sorry to beat a dead and rotting horse, and I appreciate your optimism and positive look amid a sea of negativity, but you don't see how drastically different game plans would have changed the outcome of the games? Are we really that talent deficient that no matter what the offensive game plan, we were destined to have such horrendous offensive output? It wasn't like we lost the games because of a litany of turnovers or flukes (like the near losses at the beginning of the season). We had an awful offense against mostly subpar defenses, and we're supposed to just believe that this was the best we could do given the talent? I have a hard time believing that.

michfan6060returns

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. 

WolvinLA2

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.

gwkrlghl

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

lilpenny1316

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.

robmorren2

November 26th, 2013 at 6:56 PM ^

We will not have a more experienced line next year (in terms of starts). Chances are, our O-line will suck next year as well. You can't plug in two new starters where an All-American and All-B1G caliber players were and expect better results. Unless of course you changed coaches, but that's a different argument. We will absolutely not have a more experienced offensive line.

Tim in Huntsville

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..

 

RJWolvie

November 26th, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^

...but what I see does not seem too much on the coaches. The middle of the O line is badly outmanned & inexperienced this year, and the backs & TE's who might pick up a little for them are mostly less experienced & blocking adept at the moment than they are. (Fitz is only one with the experience who should be expected to be doing better.) Given that, there's not much you could call differently, seems to me. "Other teams start totally inexperienced lineman & manage..." Really? All 3 up the middle first-time starters? What other team? And do they also have inexperienced backs & TE's to back them up? Throw quick hitters -- could do more of that, in my view, but that wouldn't fix the core problem & would probably have allowed 3-4 more pick-6 by now. So: It gets a little better next year, but I wouldn't be expecting full turnaround. Brace yourselves. If this is a reasonable descript of bulk of their problems, it's not until 2015 that we're competing at top of this (weak!) conference. We're competing but not at top next year, is my bet. And that all seems realistic to me anyway.



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

fatbastard

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. 

ontarioblue

November 26th, 2013 at 7:09 PM ^

Rose colored glasses on Saturday. We are going to play tough, get beaten badly, but come Sunday morning I will be out in my maize and blue looking forward to having my hopes crushed again next September. Go Blue! 1969 we were huge underdogs as well. You never know what will happen.

TheFrigz

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.

bklein09

November 26th, 2013 at 8:24 PM ^

Well I think what the OP is trying to say is that the players were in a position to win the game and didn't come through.



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.

fatbastard

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. 

Gustavo Fring

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.

Reader71

November 26th, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^

Borges did not miss any kicks that day.

That was the game that everyone wants to blame the coaches for, but we actually scored quite a bit in that one and just needed a FG on two separate occasions in OT to win. Out of all the losses, that one is the least on the coaches.

Wanna blame Borges? Point to Nebraska and Iowa. PSU was on the kicker. MSU was on MSU.

UMxWolverines

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! 

goblue16

November 26th, 2013 at 8:22 PM ^

You do know that every loss was the fault of the coaching staff right? Not to mention how shitty the BIG ten is this season yet we still lost 4 games. Can u imagine if this team played in 03 they would have gone 0-8 in the big ten

Clarence Beeks

November 26th, 2013 at 8:27 PM ^

I completely agree with this. So many people are pointing to specific games we should have own but for the coaches, but the reality is that in each of those games (except MSU) on the key decisive plays the players were in the right place and did not execute. For fear of violating the new "no criticizing individual players" rule, I can't provide specific examples, but objectively looking at each game (again, other than MSU), the players were in the right place to succeed and just didn't. It's a tired and true sign of a young team. They will grow and get better. We will look back on this in two years and be thankful that all of these players have so much experience, but it sure sucks right now. For them, too.

jsquigg

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.

delmarblue

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.

Gustavo Fring

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

mgobleu

November 27th, 2013 at 7:04 AM ^

The bareness of our particular cupboard not withstanding, you're right on number 3. At the beginning of the season (and maybe even still now) there are a bunch of teams out there that would have killed to have our O line. This is not an untalented bunch. Granted, the unit is thinner than you'd like it to be, and we have what, 16 seniors on the whole roster? Still, lots of teams are competitive with a lot less. Talent of this caliber should be competitive in the B1G. They should blow out Akron and Uconn. It's just too bad these players are wasting their years of eligibility here.

BlueGoM

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.