Why did the Utah loss turn the world upside down?

Submitted by Cold War on

There has been growing discontent with Hoke for some time now, dating back to at least last season. But the Utah loss seems to have had a disproportionate effect. ESPN is suddenly smelling blood and televising a routine Hoke presser, and MGoBlog and Michigan fandom has lit the torches and picked up the pitchforks. I don't recognize this place.

I get the start of the season is disappointing. Even as a Hoke slappy, I'll admit whatever doubts I had have grown. And I understand how whatever oppostion Hoke had would grow with the loss.

But why have we gone over a cliff after Utah? It's not App State, Toledo, or even an Akron near miss.  They're a decent PAC team that came in and we lost a game we shouldn't have.

What am I missing? What was it about Utah?

 

MGoBoard

Muttley

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^

and now there's no denying it.  In week 4 of year 4.

Now there's a small chance that we won't suck in, say, week 7 of year 4.  But right now we suck.

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

alum96

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^

It's cumulative dude...it's cumulative.  I It is not one game - I cannot believe how many people still look at each game in a vacuum. Its 1.25 years of the SOS.  Even if you take 2014 alone we've faced 2 real opponents and not been competitive WHERE IT MATTERS (ON THE SCOREBOARD NOT IN TOTAL YARDS) in either.  Utah is a bottom third Pac 12 team, it didnt have its QB for an entire quarter, and not only did we lose we looked hapless in the 2nd half. 

It was no different than last years NW game (WHICH WE WON ON THE SCOREBOARD BUT LOOKED HAPLESS) or the Iowa game or the Kansas State game.

It's a team that plugs one hole (defense) and 2 more pop up (offense, special team).  I am sure if we fix special teams one of these years the defense would then fall apart.  Etc.

Our last 4 wins are a miracle vs Northwestern, Indiana, Miami OH and App State.  Against 8 losses.  Its cumulative dude.

 

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82457

mgolund

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^

No discernible improvement year to year. 0-2 against decent competition this year, and on-field performance seems to be declining. RR got canned for the same reasons, but with less time to prove himself (I am glad he's gone, BTW). If Hoke weren't a "Michigan man", he'd have no defenders.

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 5145

westwardwolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:10 PM ^

Its fun to pretend like all circumstances are the same (which is why you think that 8-5 records at Arizona and Michigan are the same level of success), but that's not the way life works. You're an old man, you should know this. 

Anyway, I'm gonna stay out of lengthy RR debates. 

Joined: 11/26/2013

MGoPoints: 9007

Reader71

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^

I think 8-5 at Arizona is more impressive than 8-5 at Michigan. In the vast majority of cases, that is. I'd argue for more nuance, not less. I think Hoke's 11-2 season was remarkable because of the unthinkable turnaround in the defense that had to happen for that season to occur. I think Coach Rod's 2013 was better than Hoke's. And I think Coach Rod is a good coach. I was 100% sure he'd work at Arizona. I was trying to distill your argument. His record shows that he didn't do a good job here, but the way his recruits played under a new coach speak to his success as a recruiter. Right?

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

westwardwolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^

"I think 8-5 at Arizona is more impressive than 8-5 at Michigan."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not the sentiment you've expressed numerous times on this board when comparing Michigan to programs like Arizona or Michigan State. But I'll take it. 

I'll bite: 

What was so "unthinkable" about the turnaround? We played a softer schedule, returned a whole bunch of starters and upgraded our defensive coordinator. Which is what Rich Rod had wanted to do ever since the 2008 season when he tried to bring Jeff Casteel here on more than one occasion (Last year, Arizona was 26th in FEI on defense and 37th in YPP. That's remarkable for that school in that conference). 

Imagine 2013's offensive line without Taylor Lewan and Michael Schofield. That's the equivalent of the secondary we were trotting out in 2010. Why was anyone suprised that they were bad? 

The next year, you had a bunch of guys with experience (much like we're seeing with the interior of the offensive line being better than last year) and it showed. Not to mention the team remained almost 100% healthy the entire year, which is a miracle for a football team. 

My Argument: In his first game here, Rodriguez trotted out something like 9 returning starters, including only one on offense and Nick Sheridan at QB. By the OSU game in year three, his secondary's only upperclassman was a converted wide receiver. Rodriguez walked into a really terrible situation, didn't do the best job with it and got fired before he would have had his first complete team take the field. He also never had the DC of his choice, which Hoke has had from day one. 

Hoke's first game had Jr. Denard Robinson starting at QB and 19-20 starters. From an instant personnel standpoint, he walked into an excellent situation. That carried over into 2012. In 2013, we knew there was going to be a let down because of the recruiting situation on the offensive line that Dave Brandon created in 2011 (Bye Jake Fisher!). You'll note that not many people blamed Brady Hoke for last year's woes.

But now its the next year and that excuse no longer flies. He's got upperclassmen up and down the roster. The offensive line is young, but they have Miller, Glasgow, Bosch, Magnuson and Kalis with game experience and Braden, Bars, Kalis, Magnuson, Miller and Glasgow who have been here for at least three years. Behind them are numerous highly touted RS freshmen and freshmen. This is not a situation where 2010 Ray Vinopal, Jordan Kovacs and James Rodgers are your only options at a position group. 

To sum it up: Rodriguez did not do enough to guarantee himself a fourth year, but did not have the support or the personnel that Brady Hoke walked into. He was fired for performance, but part of that performance falls on the previous regime as well as the AD for not going out and getting Casteel like the AD did for Hoke with Mattison and Nussmeier. He's a very good coach and recruiter who made some mistakes and that cost him the chance to see things through at Michigan. 

Hoke, meanwhile, came into a great situation, had the full support of the AD and has made a mess of it in the fourth year that Rodriguez never got. I think he's a great recruiter and a mediocre coach. I thought this could be alleviated with really good coordinators, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I really, really hope I'm wrong. I would love to be wrong and see Michigan turn things around and go something like 7-1 in the Big Ten with a win over a rival. 

Damn it, you pulled me back down the rabbit hole. 

Joined: 11/26/2013

MGoPoints: 9007

Reader71

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:24 PM ^

I think you must have misread my statements. It's pretty common sense that M has huge institutional advantages over AZ and thus an equal record at AZ is more difficult. AZ also plays in a better conference. What I might have said is that I dont give a fuck how many games AZ or any non-Michigan team wins. And like I said earlier, I believe in nuance. If Coach Rod had won 9-10 games in 2010, I would have been firmly back on his side (I think; the NCAA violations really turned me against him [knowing what I know now, I was probably too harsh]). That would have been better than most 9-10 win seasons at Michigan because of all the obstacles in his way: rampant firing rumors, NCAA violations, alums that hated him. The rest of your post is pretty damn good. I dont disagree with a thing. But I do, and will always, disagree with someone that tries to credit Coach Rod more than the guy who actually coached the games in 2011. Coach Rod certainly did his part by bringing those guys in, but all it takes is hearing a few interviews with Roh and RVB to realize that the defense was never going to be any good, and that made a good 2011 under Coach Rod unlikely.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

westwardwolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^

No, here is you caring about other teams wins: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/why-coaching-concerning#comment-2654187 . So that's incorrect. Maybe I'm wrong and you weren't one of the numerous people to make the Arizona comparison, but I doubt it. 

I didn't look at your response but I'll address that as well:

If you're looking for nuance, I'd again argue that it was Rodriguez who took over the "MSU-like" program, based on everything I said above. The guys who were playing in 2008 were far more similar to your typical MSU team due to inexperience and recruiting by Carr. By 2011, Hoke inherited a typical Michigan team: Experienced, high level recruits up and down the roster, the full staff he wanted, etc. So if you go by the blunt look of record, your assertion would be correct, but...nuance. 

Rodriguez is actually the one who hit that horrible rare (un)sweet spot when it comes to taking over a program like Michigan, not Hoke. He came in right when all the players that made the 2006 and 2007 teams talented left. The guys that could have stayed had no reason to do so. Basically, Rodriguez took all the lumps so Hoke could fall into the (almost, because of late recruiting period) perfect situation. 

But I know we'll agree to disagree on that, so lets move on from it. Here's my real question to you:

You're on record saying pretty loudly that you knew our O-Line would be bad last year, despite Lewan and Schofield. You've said that that alone should have tampered expectations down to about where we ended up. That the coordinator would not be the problem. And you were in full support of Hoke in a big way because of this (I'm assuming), despite him finishing with 7 wins. 

So knowing that: How is the 2010 seven win team not worthy of the same treatment? I mean, imagine if Taylor Lewan went to the NFL and Schofield got hurt for the season before the year began. How many games do we win last year? CMU, one of Akron/UConn, Northwestern? Do we score enough to keep up with Indiana? Minnesota? There's a very real chance we go somewhere between 2-9 and 5-7 and that's about it. Well, that exact scenario hit the 2010 secondary when Warren went to the NFL and Woolfolk got hurt. So how could you, given what you've said about the offensive line, have ever expected that defense to look better with what they had in the secondary? Isn't it a miracle that they won seven games with that line-up? And knowing that, how does Rodriguez not have your support to go into the next year with the DC of his choice and, finally, a team full of his guys and upperclassmen? 

The only argument you can make is that Hoke won more games the two years before...but that comes knowing full well that Hoke inherited a much better situation with full support of the AD, whereas RR inherited a talent deficieny with literally less than half the experienced personnel that Hoke did and little to no support from the AD. And to me this, if we're looking at things from a nuanced perspective, is where a good Athletic Director would have taken a deep breathe, told RR he had two more years, went out and got Jeff Casteel and reaped the benefits of being right in 2011 (because given his career, there is no reason to think that Jeff Casteel could not have done the job Mattison did). Instead, we have Dave Brandon, who went out and got Brady Hoke (because he is a MICHIGAN MAN and Lloyd Carr says he'll bring in BIG PLAYERS so we can COMPETE FOR A BIG TEN TITLE), a really nice guy and really average coach, reaped the benefit of looking right because of the perfect situation that Rodriguez created for Hoke and now looks like an idiot. 

 

Joined: 11/26/2013

MGoPoints: 9007

Reader71

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:15 PM ^

Didn't click the link, because I'm on my phone. I can do it tomorrow. Us old folks don't have great stamina. Coach Rod inherited a worse roster than Hoke, for sure. But Hoke got that team to 11-2, and I don't think anyone could believe that Coach Rod would have. The offense was already good, and we won 7 games. Improvement would have to come from the defense, and I don't see how one could think that would happen under Coach Rod. He never fielded a good defense. Contrast that with Hoke, whose offense was good in 2011 and had a lot of us thinking big for 2013 after Gardner looked great at the end of 2012. Why wouldn't Coach Rod have improved the defense? Roh and RVB gave damning quotes. As for the secondary, it probably should have tipped me off in 2010, but I didn't know the situation and I am no DB expert. What I do know is that I expected them to play poorly in 2011 based off the performance from a year earlier. Instead, they were quite good. Why no leniency for Coach Rod. A few reasons. 1. 3-9. I can't forgive that. Not sorry. 2. NCAA sanctions. If I knew then what I know now, I would have been more lenient. But at that time, I wanted blood. Was I wrong? Probably. I've been wrong before. 3. 7-5 was his best season. Sure, things were looking up, but I didn't see us ever getting to 10 wins or better. That defense, man. Compare that to Hoke, whose worst season was 7-6. 4. I know and love Brady Hoke. Not just as a man, either. I've seen him coach. He's a good coach. I will be the last one off the bandwagon. I admit I am biased. But I've got a reason. Why would anyone who doesn't know Coach Rod stick up for him 4 years after his departure? More to the point, how can one give him credit for 2011? 5. I knew the OL was going to be bad. This comes from personal experience, so it wasn't a hunch. I knew it. And so I lowered my expectations. I didn't know that about the 2010 secondary. It's not my area of expertise. That's pretty natural, I think. EDIT: Just clicked the link. I stand by what I said. Hoke inherited an historical MSU-like team. Coach Rod inherited an historically Illinois-like team. That's not really controversial, is it? And the whole discussion began when someone brought up Dantonio, who had a road record 1 game better than Hoke does right now. I asked, if Dantonio could turn it around, why cant Hoke? That isn't to say Hoke would be more impressive; we agree that it should be easier to do at M than MSU. Just because I like Hoke and you dont doesn't mean that everything I say is wrong.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

DMill2782

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^

mentioned here. Plus, I'm also sick of the lip service bullshit from this coaching staff. All I heard all offseason about Nuss was how fast the tempo on offense is now! Bullshit. Complete bullshit. We are a man press cover team now! Bullshit. We are a man press team against Appalachian State and that's it. Coaches can't deliver on anything they promise. 

Joined: 01/21/2011

MGoPoints: 12480

Blue2000

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^

Give Hoke and Mattison and Nuss some more time, and everyone stop being impatient.

This would be a reasonable suggestion if there was anything to indicate that the team was improving under the current regime (as it appeared to be the case under the prior regime).  But since the current team is significantly worse than the one Hoke inherited in 2011, there's simply no reason to give him more time.  

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 7901

mich_engineer

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:15 PM ^

What makes you think that a transition period would be any worse than what we'd see if Hoke was retained?  This season is shaping up to 7-5, 6-6, or worse.  Plus, look at next year's schedule - what on earth gives you any confidence that Hoke can win any of the following: (1) @Utah; (2) Oregon State; (3) BYU; (4) @Maryland; (5) Michigan State; (6) Rutgers; (7) @Indiana; (8) @OSU?  Do you need a 4-8 season next year to say it isn't working?

 

Joined: 11/30/2010

MGoPoints: 561

J.Madrox

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

There are other coaches, at equally storied football programs as Michigan who turn things around in less than 4 years. Sumlin at A&M, Saban at Alabama, Malzahn at Auburn, Meyer at OSU.

All of these coaches have had more success, quicker than Hoke has had, and yet Brady Hoke apparently needs at least 5 years to get things turned around. Why should any of use be patient with a coach whose teams have gotten worse each year he has been the head coach?

 

Joined: 03/15/2013

MGoPoints: 1674

L'Carpetron Do…

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

Yeah, but remember how horrible A&M and Alabama were for years before they found their saviors?  Alabama had 4 coaches in the span of ten years and were not good.    Michigan will have had 4 in 8 years if they fire Hoke.    Even Oklahoma was shitty for most of the 1990s. and Nebraska really struggled after Osborne retired.  There's no magic wand for Michigan to wave to get their savior.

Joined: 03/15/2010

MGoPoints: 8551

L'Carpetron Do…

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^

I hear you man.  The problems with the offense are definitely troubling but Hoke has taken a defense under RR that was straight up awful and turned it completely around.  He needs a lot of credit for that.  

I believe the O can turn it around as well.  they just need time to let Nuss work his magic.

The lack of fire does concern me though but thats also something that can change in the Big Ten season.  

You're right - another transition would be horrible for the program.  

Joined: 03/15/2010

MGoPoints: 8551

The Baughz

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^

Im tired of hearing "next year is our year." It's a culmination of things, and it doesnt look like it's getting any better. This program needs a major overhaul. New AD, new coaches, etc. etc. Hoke has regressed every year. I mean for the offense to not be able to get in the red zone against ND and Utah is laughable. I know Hoke isnt calling the plays, but he has a lot of say so as to what goes on on that side of the ball. 

Joined: 10/08/2010

MGoPoints: 31913

Blue Durham

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

The further removed this team is from Rodriguez the worse it gets. 

Hoke's successful first year can probably be more attributable to Rodriguez than to Hoke.  All it took to go 11-2 was a capable DC.  The plays left over from the previous regime worked, and the stuff Hoke brought in didn't.  Fortunately, Denard was there to save the day on more than one occasion.

The changes Hoke made (like Denard more under center, Gardner as a WR, etc) in his second year didn't work either.  The team got to 8 wins again because of what was left from RR (Denard running), not from what Hoke has done.

Last year's close wins are this years blow-out loses.  It is all about the trend I don't understand anyone not seeing this.

What is Hoke known for?  He brought in a decent DC and is a well-liked "player's coach."  But "player's coaches" are rarely winners.  

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 6082

Blue2000

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^

Because we don't appear to be competing or improving.  This was going to happen after any loss that wasn't to either MSU or OSU.  Although it will probably happen after those losses too.

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 7901

CLord

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^

You clearly didn't watch the game.  If you had, you would have seen an offense that would be the worst offense in the MAC conference.  The worst.  Then, since you're a Michigan guy and probably a little smart, you'd start understanding the gravity of that.  The fact that, despite all of the other coaching malfeasance we've witnessed (Funchess hurt in garbage time vs ND, no spread punts, 10 men on punt return TDs, horrible time management before half time last week, zero RPS flare all year aside from one Butt trick play last year), the offense is littered with 4-5 star players.  Then, since you're a smart Michigan guy, you put those two together and realize this coaching staff has taken a roster loaded with 4-5 star players, with explosive players like Funchess, Norfleet, Canteen, and a 5th year senior QB, and reduced it to worse than any MAC offense. 

You then ponder how many other coaching staffs out there have done so little with so much in the history of college football.  You feared ND was a fluke, but Utah confirmed it.  This coaching staff can put together a Power 5 defense, but that's 40% of a football team (offense 40%, special teams 20%).  40% doesn't even get you a D-.  It gets you an F, and even with significant improvement, it will still be an F.

You expect more from the most storied, winningest program in football.

Joined: 09/11/2011

MGoPoints: -6341