Way Too Early Thoughts on 2015

Submitted by alum96 on

Since we have a bye week, will throw this out there realizing there is a major unknown (coach).  What are your expectations for 2015 football?

I will throw out 2 candidates just to see how much people think a HC will change everything in 1 season.

  • Scenario 1:  A Harbaugh is coaching UM
  • Scenario 2:  The name is not important, it's a generic non Harbaugh/Miles/Patterson/Mullen candidate.  I'll throw out someone like Mark Stoops after leading Kentucky to a 8-4 season. 

Backdrop:

Here is the schedule, it is not as easy as it looked 3 months ago

Away

  • @Utah (currently 4-1, very well coached, and probably headed to a 8-4 type of season)
  • @Maryland (~ Rutgers level of football)
  • @Minnesota (currently 5-1, well coached if boring, and probably headed to a 8-4 type of season)
  • @Indiana (typical no defense, all offense team, Tevin Coleman will be a senior)
  • @Penn State (Hack will be a JR although probably PTSD by then, OL will move from horrid to probably bad, defense solid, tough environment)

Home

  • Oregon State (currently 4-1 but has not played anyone, probably headed to 7-5 - will lose their best player to the NFL)
  • BYU (was 4-0 but lost awesome dual threat QB Hill to broken leg, put up 41 pts on Charlie Strong's good Texas defense when Hill was healthy)
  • Northwestern
  • MSU (most likely Cook, Calhoun and Waynes will be early entry and their best offensive player Lippett will graduate but well coached)
  • Rutgers (Gary Nova graduates but they get their RB back from ACL)
  • OSU (JT Barrett or Braxton leading the charge)

 

Top 5 most difficult games, adjusted for locations (i.e. road games tougher)

  1. OSU
  2. MSU
  3. @Utah
  4. BYU
  5. @Maryland or @Minnesota or @PSU

 

Projected offense - main losses; Gardner / Funchess

  • QB - Speight or Morris (danger)
  • RB - Green / Isaac / Smith
  • OL - same guys, 1 year older
  • WR - Darboh #1, Chesson #2, Canteen, Ways, Norfleet, maybe Harris as 3 thru 6. (Funchess leaves early entry)
  • TE - Butt, Bunting, Hill (probably will be the strength of the 2015 offense)

Projected defense - main losses; Ryan, Clark, Beyer, Taylor

  • DL - Mario, Henry, Glasgow, Charlton (DEs will have a drop off due to Clark gone, DTs should be better with age, experience)
  • LB - Morgan, Bolden (assuming Morgan gets RS at this point with hints Hoke is dropping, only listed 2 LBs since that seems to be our base set in 2014 - Ross III would be the third)
  • CB - Peppers, Lewis with Blake as nickel (should be a very good set of starting CBs but could be hurt by lack of pass rush by DEs)
  • S - Wilson, Hill or Thomas or Clark

 

My quick thoughts:

  • Offense remains troublesome.  You lose your top 2 playmakers in Devin and Devin.  No game breaker WR remaning after back to back years of Gallon/Funchess.  No game breaking RB but people will place a lot of hope on Isaac as they did on Green 2 years ago.  OL has to improve marginally if for nothing else experience.  2 TE sets might be common as that is where the talent is.  QB is scary - either a first time starter or a guy who has shown little leads you into Utah and v BYU early.
  • Defense remains decent but not elite.  Corners improvement offset by step back at DE.  DT should be strength of defense.  LBs are a bunch of solid guys but not elite playmakers.  Safeties - who knows anymore.
  • With QB being the most important position in the sport and no elite WRs it's going to be rough early in 2015, and you hope either Morris or Speight comes into his own by game 4-5 as JT Barrett has done.   If not, it's going to be tough sledding whomever the coach is.

 

uminks

October 15th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^

We have the talent to go 10-2. I will be wiling to give a first year coach a 7-5 or 8-4 record with major improvement through the season. I've project Hoke finishing up at 5-7, may be 6-6, so 8-4 would be a good goal to shoot for but I would not be surprised if this team can win 10 or more wins next season. And originally I had thought that Hoke would win a B1G championship in 2015!

alum96

October 15th, 2014 at 10:23 PM ^

On paper it looked like the easiest schedule we will have in many years to come as Nebraska Iowa and Wisconsin don't rotate onto our schedule and MSU and OSU are at home.  BYU and Utah are those type of teams that are not sexy but are good enough to beat you.  I was wary about this year (thought 8-4ish) but I expected 2 months ago for 2015 to vault us to a 1 or 2 loss season with major progression from Shane this year in a backup role leading to an easy transition in 2015.... especially seeing 2nd year players start at major college programs throughout the country.  Also I assumed the 2015 OL would be quite darn good after making major strides this year towards the back half of the year.

Now 60 days later, with a new staff most likely headed to AA with new terminology, new systems, and welp at QB for 2015, the schedule suddenly seems a lot more daunting. 

The open question is - is there a lot of talent being obfuscated by this coaching staff?  i.e. if Josh Furman can be an impact player for a top 10 team in the country when he looked like a mistake prone cone for our team, do we have a lot of other Josh Furmans on this roster that a better staff will utilize properly? 

funkywolve

October 15th, 2014 at 11:39 PM ^

is the key question.  I'd like to think that there's enough potential/untapped talent on the roster that if they had a decent staff, they'd be much better then 3-4 this year.  However, as others have said, the QB situation next year is a huge question mark.  You either have a guy in Morris who has yet to look like he's ready or a guy (Speight/Malzone) who's never taken a snap in college.

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 12:06 AM ^

This is such an asinine argument.

You can only put players where you need them. Our linebacker corps is strong with JMFR leading the charge. Our secondary is much weaker.

You can't judge this staff's personnel decisions without considering the impact on the rest of the roster. If Furman moves from safety here, how do we repair our safety depth?

Ultimately it comes down to a couple things: (1) I had a class with Furman and all I will say is that I'm not sad he no longer represents our university--not a bad human, just not a person I envision representing our program, and (2) Furman transferred because it was best for him, not best for Michigan football. The coaches put him where they did because they perceived it as best for Michigan football. I'm happy that he's having success. I want him to succeed. But you just can't compare this stuff without considering all of the ramifications of what you're proposing. If he were making an impact at safety at OkSt, then you'd have a good point. But he's not. He's playing a completely different position. As such, he's getting more playing time and therefore playing less aggressively. From knowing him a bit and watching him play, I sensed his frustration about not playing more before he transferred. I sensed that his errors were of overdoing his play out of frustration and not out of making mistakes.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

funkywolve

October 16th, 2014 at 12:16 AM ^

This is about a roster loaded with 4 star recruits.  Yeah, not every recruit pans out but either Hoke and company have had extremely bad luck with recruits or they're not doing a very good job in developing them.  Heck, the oline has been piss poor for 3 straight years.

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 8:12 AM ^

The oldest Hoke recruits are a couple seniors peppered into RR's final class. The next class and far from Hoke's best are juniors who are seeing quite a bit of playing time. Most of Hoke's best recruits are sophomores and freshman. Pretending like Hoke could've gotten "all his guys for his system" with an offensive scheme that emphasizes roster depth as much as our defensive scheme and had them producing at maximum efficiency in year four is ludicrous. The pure Hoke recruits are juniors and below; expecting remarkable results "because one complete class of juniors recruited by Hoke" is asinine. In case you haven't noticed, Green and Justice Hayes have made huge leaps this year in production. The interior line actually knows what holes look like.

If Hoke were to fail (worse than 9-3) for the next two years (2015-2016) consecutively, I'd concede. By year 6, you're either winning or you're not. Sadly I don't think even I have patience to take me to the end of year 6. But to imply that a few 4-star sophomores and juniors means we should be 6-1 or better is a little ridiculous.

Truth be told we should be 5-2 with the traded W/L being Minny and Rutgers. But those were coaching decisions that had nothing to do with development.

No one calls for Hoke's head if we win those two games. But DG probably doesn't play as on the money now if he weren't benched.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

I Like Burgers

October 16th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^

C'mon man...by year six?  If you are a good coach and are good at developing talent, you should start to see players getting better in year two and three of their playing time.  We're not seeing much of any of that with the players on the roster.  Off the top of my head, I've got Lewis, Glasow (DL) and Henry as guys that have gotten noticeably better since they started playing.  And that's about it.

Plenty of other teams see improvement and don't hide behind the "oh...if I only had 6 years..." excuse.  You're either developing talent or you're not.

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 9:10 AM ^

Jake Butt, Mike McCray, Ben Gedeon, Taco Charlton, Derrick Green, Khalid Hill, Henry Poggi, Channing Stribling, Deveon Smith, Jourdan Lewis, and Scott Sypniewski. All players I've either witnessed developing or heard positivity about their development that seems to have translated somewhat to the field. Those are sophomores only.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

aplatypus

October 16th, 2014 at 9:28 AM ^

but the fact that you had to drop down to a long snapper to help prove a point about development... doesn't really help your point. 

This team is made up of 85 players, the vast majority of them now were Hoke's guys or have been coached by his staff for a few years. You can't pick out a handful of players you think have developed and point to that as good coaching while ignoring the others not developing or in some cases getting substantially worse (Countess, Ryan). 

And I mean, Mike McCray and Ben Gedeon rarely play ever right now, Stribling is behind even Countess on depth, Devon Smith and Derrick Green have no idea how to read a hole when they get one and netiher has shown much of any improvement yet. Jourdan Lewis and Taco are really the only ones you listed that help your point. 

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^

Or I literally looked at a recruiting roster and listed names that stuck out.

Countess and Ryan regressed as the result of defensive schematic changes. You're not helping your point by ignoring that, nor are you helping your point by ignoring that Ryan has grown over the course of the season.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

I Like Burgers

October 16th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^

I mentioned Lewis, but pretty much all of those players look about the same this year as they did last year.  Stribling doens't even play this year, McCray and Gedeon barely see the field, and Taco is still just flashing the talent he has instead of harnessing it.  Which granted is what a second year DE should be doing, but I'm not seeing improvement like you're apparently seeing from him.

Lewis is the only one that's made any sort of leap.

Cranky Dave

October 16th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^

You can go back through virtually every season for a team and say we shoulda won this game or that game.  It's true that to win a championship you do need everything to go your way.  However, this team and program is not just a play or two away from being a great team.  There are so many basic problems that have nothing to do with inexperience so giving Hoke 6 years is ridiculous given the numerous mistakes over the past two seasons. 

BigBlue02

October 16th, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^

Year fucking 6?!?! It really, really pains me to use this example, but Dantonio had 11 wins in his 4th year at MSU. By year 6, he had 2 big 10 titles and two 11-win seasons. Good coaches don't need 6 years to win games. Just because it took Hoke 6 years to win at ball state doesn't mean it should take him that long here.

gustave ferbert

October 16th, 2014 at 8:52 AM ^

but shouldn't have the coaches picked up on his talents in their evaluations when they got here? Hindsight is of course 20/20 But I do recall Furman having a lot of hype when he signed to come here, and it saddened me to not see him develop during his time here. . .

uminks

October 15th, 2014 at 11:19 PM ^

This was a year where he should have had an improving team. The team may improve through season but it will be quite the task to get to 6-6. I think we can beat IU now but NU will probably take us at home. We will lose to MSU and OSU on the road. How can a coach that goes 11-2, 8-5, 7-6 and most likely go 5-7 be back for his 5th season? It is better to hit the restart button and get a good coach in here. I don't want a string of 7-5 and 8-4 records trough the next several years, and I'm afraid that is what Hoke would provide us with. He does not have the coaching skill level to be a major football program HC!

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 12:22 AM ^

The problem is that he does have an improving team. He just also has a team that still shoots itself in the foot routinely.

What position group hasn't improved on the offense? RBs, OL, WR have improved. If you want to say it's the QB coach, I'd say it's curious that they are not developing under a highly lauded QB coach. Yet even DG seems to be progressing a bit more and more with the season. Still prone to bad reads and throws and inaccuracy, but he also was money against Rutgers.

The defense has also improved in many ways. The DL is pretty stout, the secondary has improved (though still is a major weakness of the defense, and Countess, admittedly, has regressed), the linebackers have improved as the season has worn on.

The kicking is improving as the season wears on. Punt returns are maybe the only thing not improving. Fleet should have much better blocking.

My opinion: Wellman needs to go. He's the first to go. And Hoke has already identified S&C as an area of need by hiring another coach. Next is a promotion for good ole Fred Jackson to get a new RB coach. Finally fire Ferrigno. There must be a more competent special teams coach.

Keep Heck, Manning, Mallory, the new DL coach, Nuss, etc. The fact is we're still young on offense from an exodus of RR players. Gardner didn't pan out as we hoped because PTSD. Borges didn't give opportunities for the line to grow because he was to busy with his cerebral schemes. Nuss is giving them a chance to do that. Improvement doesn't necessarily translate to wins. Unfortunately. Borges may have scored points but it was HIS offense that failed to improve it's technical work.

What am I missing?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

funkywolve

October 16th, 2014 at 12:33 AM ^

OSU's starting offense is:

5th yr Sr - 1

Sr - 2

Jr - 2

3rd yr Soph - 2

Soph - 3

2nd yr Fr - 1

 

Michigan's offense is:

5th yr Sr -  Gardner

4th yr Jr -  Glasgow, Miller

Jr - Funchess, Norfleet, Williams, Chesson (out),

3rd yr Soph - Darboh, Mags, Kalis, Braden

Soph - Green/Smith

Fr - Cole

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 11:17 AM ^

"Vastly different" may be an overstatement, though I admit that I'm not totally able to assess that, having been in the infancy of fandom while Tressel was the coach. Tressel did, however, utilize mobile QBs in a way that Hoke thus far has not really used Gardner. Not much of a stretch to go from Tressel's offense to a spread option.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^

I can't find the numbers. How many more? How many are sacks for each? Was his running more efficient? And why was it more or less efficient? (I'm guessing more.)

Like I said, I was not wise to the ways of football in the days of Tressel at OSU. But he recruited Braxton Miller and Terrelle Pryor, both known for their success as mobile QBs. Hoke did not recruit Gardner and Gardner has not been known to utilize his mobility to much success under Hoke.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

aplatypus

October 16th, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^

Style has nothing to do with it. 

They have more youth on offense and are vastly more successful. 

You mention spread QB.. but we have a sophomore "pro" style QB that looks worse than their true freshman. Both are playing in the styles they were recruited for so that point is completely irrelevant. 

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^

Your point is an interesting one, but does not account for (1) Borges QB coaching or (2) Nuss QB coaching.

To accept your argument, both would have to be ineffective QB coaches, or that the combo of both creates inefficacy. Statistics on Nuss, however, seem very heavily to favor his QB tutelage as a particular asset of his. As far as I can remember, Nuss has been a second QB coach to several younger QBs and been effective.

The other piece at play that you won't recognize is that in the hey-day of pro-style college offenses, it would be highly uncommon for a sophomore QB to play effectively.

However, in the hey day of the spread (aka now), freshman and sophomore QBs have been winning the Heisman pretty consistently. The spread is regarded as a "gimmicky" offense because it basically amounts to structured manipulation of defenses. In the NFL, there are rules in place that make the spread offense basically illegal to run. Hence "pro-style."

Hoke is trying to build a program predicated on Saban-style Bama offenses: pro-style, deep, essentially unstoppable without a godly defense. Whether he will accomplish that is up in the air. I'm not very confident that he will. But comparing his effort to the effort of a spread offense is ridiculous. That's my only point. I'll repeat it for emphasis: Because of the utter disparity between what is required for spread and pro-style offenses, you cannot effectively compare offensive success between pro-style recruits and spread specialty-position recruits as a function of age.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

bo_lives

October 16th, 2014 at 2:01 AM ^

I guess if you're using the Notre Dame game as your starting point then anything is improvement. But Michigan is currently 67 in offensive FEI, and last year they finished 42... How exactly are they getting better? In yards per play they've jumped from 73 to... 71. So I guess there's that.

Even defense has dropped from 37 to 50 after returning virtually everyone - remember, this was the year almost everyone was saying they would make the jump to become an "elite" unit.

 

glewe

October 16th, 2014 at 6:49 AM ^

Yes, because taking a yearlong average last year makes sense given a total lack of offensive identity. In OSU and IU games, we're basically a spread team. In PSU, we're a manball team.

You can't compare last year to this year because last year is confounded by difficult to understand schematic changes that make us look better primarily because they make Gardner better.

Doesn't mean we had an effective offense that was fundamentally sound. We did not. This year we're getting closer to that "fundamentally sound" benchmark. We've out gained multiple opponents who best us.

When did I use the ND game as my starting point?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

bo_lives

October 16th, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^

Last year Hoke/Borges sometimes ran a "spread" and sometimes ran "manball". They sucked at manball but got lucky ~25% of the time with the spread (e.g. ND, OSU). This year Hoke/Nuss are sticking with manball and the offense has been atrocious 100% of the time discounting cupcakes and Rutgers (where we lit it up with 158 total rushing yards and 4.5 ypc). You cite ND and Utah as examples of where they outgained their opponent in a loss - this year's version of manball provided a whopping 100 yards/2.9 ypc and 118 yards/3.3 ypc in those games, respectively.This qualifies as a significant improvement in your mind.

I Like Burgers

October 16th, 2014 at 8:58 AM ^

Seriously, what team are you watching?  And do you watch other games in college football?  This is a team that's headed for 4 or 5 wins at best and a third straight year with a declining win/loss record.  That's not improvement no matter how many pairs of rose colored glasses you have on.

pescadero

October 16th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^

The problem is that he does have an improving team. He just also has a team that still shoots itself in the foot routinely.

 



Almost every team in college football is "improving" week to week during the season, and season on season.

Problem is - mere improvement isn't good enough. You have to improve at a rate faster than your competition, or you're just falling further behind.

feanor

October 15th, 2014 at 10:20 PM ^

How in the hell is Connor Cook projecting as a top 15 (top 10 in a few mocks) draft pick.  I mean he has been solid this year, but is he really the third or fourth best college QB?  I would of guessed mid second round.

alum96

October 15th, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^

Its pretty slim pickings out there this year - after Winston and Mariota you basically have a group with Cook, Hundley, Hogan from Stanford, and Sean Mannion from Oregon State.  And I don't think Winston is any sure thing especially with his mentality.  And QBs are always picked ahead of their talent due to importance of position.

Note there is not a single SEC QB in that group - probably Prescott has played himself into the 2nd/3rd round at this point perhaps.  A guy like Bryce Petty at Baylor you question if he is a "system QB" or a real guy who can work in a pro style set.  Which is why Hogan and Cook are looked at favorably - both run NFL type offenses, even if not the most talented dudes in the world.   Cook is also a big dude with some decent mobility so that is a benefit in the NFL.

Also Cousins and Hoyer doing "ok" in the NFL should help MSU QBs of the future.  It is a lot like us actually when we had a train set up with Navarre, Henne, Brady, Griese, Collins, Grbac.  You had a pro style system in place and you knew you were getting at least a quality type backup QB if you drafted a Michigan guy.

I Like Burgers

October 16th, 2014 at 9:05 AM ^

Michigan State has started to develop a bit of a reputation for picking out and developing quarterbacks that can have success in the NFL.  Cousins, Hoyer, and Stanton have all looked good this season.  They even recruited Nick Foles (although he transfered after a year).  So Cook would just be another in a long line of good QBs to come out of MSU lately.

Like it or not, MSU is basically Michigan in the late 90s at this point.

MichiganMan14

October 15th, 2014 at 10:21 PM ^

The fact that some body negged this is ridiculous. To me it's all coaching. We have an offense littered with 4 and 5 stars. The talent is there. We doing an awful job of coaching them. A solid coach can get us 9 wins or better next year.