at least it's not just us?
|1 day 15 hours ago||I'm glad I'm not the only one||
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the reports of Gardner's injury as a "turf-toe" smell a little fishy.
|1 day 15 hours ago||I don't know if I'd call this||
I don't know if I'd call this a new low. It still has Assembly Hall attached, and that'll still be its common name. I think the corporate renaming of stadiums is worse. And it isn't as low as say, renaming Kinnick after a big donor. I mean, the name itself isn't special. It's not even unique.
|1 day 20 hours ago||But isn't a big part of that||
But isn't a big part of that their non-conference rivalriy with FSU and to a smaller extent, with Miami? It's not that they don't play road games, it's that those road games are limited by set non-conference rivalries, just as ours have been limited due to the ND series.
You may be right that Florida wasn't the right team to pull off a home and home with, but I think most fans should prefer a home and home with another high quality opponent rather than shipping the one interesting non-conference home game off to Dallas.
Edit: nevermind, read jamiemac below. If it's this or a home game payoff to a MAC opponent, this is certainly better. Still don't like these games as a general concept, though.
|1 day 20 hours ago||This wasn't clear at all in||
This wasn't clear at all in my post, but I was referring to all officiating (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.) There has been very little inroads for women officials in any sport, even those that women have been playing for a long time.
Your argument makes some sense with respect to football, though I would question just how much high school football experience would help an official in an NFL game. And I think there are far more women with background knowledge and familiarity with football than you or the commenter above you acknowledge.
|1 day 21 hours ago||Hard to believe it's taken||
Hard to believe it's taken this long for women to make inroads into officiating. Officials aren't typically physical specimens (ed hochuli's guns, notwithstanding). There's nothing masculine about keen observation skills and the ability to make quick accurate decisions. A woman can be every bit as competent or incomptent as a male official.
|1 day 21 hours ago||Unless Wilton Speight or a||
Unless Wilton Speight or a 2015 signee beats Morris out for the starting job by 2016 (the latter is obviously highly unlikely). 2017 is a long way off to be worried that we might be breaking in a new QB.
|2 days 19 hours ago||I don't think that's his||
I don't think that's his position. I think his position is that we're not "fine" at WR, not that Campbell is a proven commodity. I think it's a more than fair statement. We shouldn't stop looking for the next stud WR recruit because we have a bunch of guys on the roster that haven't proven anything.
I'm sure MSU fans convinced themselves they were fine entering the 2012 season at WR with a bunch of guys who had been in the program plus Burbridge and Arnett, yet they've had two years of extremely underwhelming WR performance.
|2 days 21 hours ago||We're a ways away from 2010.||
We're a ways away from 2010. Hoke's job status has never seriously been questioned, while Rodriguez was under fire from both within the Michigan community and from outsiders almost from the start of his tenure. Add in the Free Press hit piece and it was just a toxic recruiting environment in 2010. Even if we struggle again next year and Hoke gets kicked to the curb, the program will be in a lot better shape for the next guy.
|3 days 13 hours ago||The small class would create||
The small class would create room for 2015 if we had more than 25 scholarships available to get to 85. Otherwise, it's sort of meaningless. I guess you should always backdate the maximum number you can, just in case you find yourself in an unanticipated attrition related jam. But well run programs generally shouldn't need more than 25 scholarships in a year to get to 85 on the roster.
|3 days 21 hours ago||You know what also fails more||
You know what also fails more often than not? Hiring NFL coaches. I'd have to search for it, but plenty of people have looked into it and found that former college coaches perform at the same levels as NFL coaches. You notice college coach failures more because of confirmation bias and because a college coach is more likely to be hired into a bad situation.
|4 days 8 hours ago||Unfortunately, Michigan State||
Unfortunately, Michigan State is making more news than we are these days...
|5 days 15 hours ago||Two teams playing out the||
Two teams playing out the string. I'm sure both teams' players appreciated the do or die situation rather than being forced to play an overtime.
|5 days 15 hours ago||Yeah, I think most QBs on NFL||
Yeah, I think most QBs on NFL rosters would have put up numbers at least as good given 45 attempts against Atlanta.
And when you consider that 17 of Atlanta's points came off Cousnis turnovers...
|1 week 21 hours ago||Exactly. At least three of||
Exactly. At least three of the these transfers makes absolute sense: A freshman QB who just saw another freshman QB get significant playing time, a fifth year lineman who wants to start if he's going to continue the grind of football, a third string TE who has two receptions in two seasons. Then you have a RS-Fr. lineman, a RS-Fr. fullback and a true FR lineman, the latter who seems like a project at best. I'd have to know the Florida roster better than I do to know how the latter departures would affect Florida, but I sure don't see the "Muschamp is horrible" storyline being furthered by this story. Sure, 23% of his recruits no longer being on the team isn't great, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonably high percentage.
|1 week 1 day ago||I think they get compensation||
I think they get compensation that your average joe would consider to be great pay, but yes, he's almost certainly making less now that he was as CEO.
|1 week 1 day ago||It's only expensive if you're||
It's only expensive if you're at the same time building palaces for your football and basketball programs.
|1 week 1 day ago||As I said right above your||
As I said right above your post, there's a difference between the pure economic definition of worth and the concept of what people mean when they're discussing what someone or something is worth.
Someone may be willing to spend $5,000 on a purse made from $200 in materials for reasons solely related to status and such. That doesn't mean the rational people who look at the bag and say, that's crazy, there's no way it's worth that much are "wrong."
Edit: I should add this to say that I'm not sure Saban isn't "worth" the money even in the subjective sense. As you point out, he undoubtedly brings in more money than his pay check.
|1 week 1 day ago||There's a difference between||
There's a difference between pure economic worth, which you're right, is a simple concept, and the more subjective concept of people saying "is it really worth it?" Those that say anyone is "worth" their salary because someone is willing to pay that much is being simplistic. They're ignoring subjective context in favor of a rigid definition. Life is more than rigid definitions.
|1 week 1 day ago||Do you think he would have||
Do you think he would have balked at being hired if he was making $500K less? I certainly don't. I think he was given a contract that has him currently the 11th highest paid coach in the country because Michigan thinks its coach should be one the top 15 highest paid coaches. While I think that sentiment is fine, it's hard to argue that Brady Hoke's resume then, or now, would have him in the top 15 of current or potential head coaches. We paid him based on the position he was taking, not his resume. Which was the OP's point.
I don't think its a real insult to Hoke to say that we paid him a salary based on what we are hoping he becomes. We're certainly not the only ones to do this.
|1 week 1 day ago||That's a little simplistic,||
That's a little simplistic, no? Lots of people pay more for a service than they think it's worth. They do this for many reasons. The Alabama AD may be thinking, there's no way in hell Nick Saban is worth this much money, but I'll be damned if I'm the guy blamed for letting him walk away. The Mariners front office might think there's no way in hell Cano is worth the $240M they're paying him but may have decided they had to make a splash in free agency, even if that meant greatly overpaying.
What one is willing to pay does not always equate to worth. This is true in everyday life when you say countless times "I can't believe I just payed that much for this." It's also true at these levels in sports when you may knowingly overpay and harm your own financial interests for vague reasons that may or may not make sense.
|1 week 1 day ago||Unfortunately, Brady Hoke||
Unfortunately, Brady Hoke coulc be used as exhibit A. I sure hope at some point he's worth his salary, but he wasn't when he was hired, and probably isn't now.
|1 week 2 days ago||I meant more from the||
I meant more from the opposite perspective. If you're AD at a big time school, do you want a guy who could be looking at retirement in 5 years? You do for a guy like Saban who could turn your program into a beheamoth in 5 years when he leaves it for the next guy, but Dantonio isn't remotely the same type of slam dunk.
|1 week 2 days ago||I think this is a good||
I think this is a good possibility. It seems to me that Narduzzi was rumored to be connected to the UConn job for too long for it to fall apart over assistnat pay. He either got cold feet (reasonable) or has reason to believe a better opportunity will be available.
On the other hand, isn't Dantonio a little long in the tooth for a big time coaching job?
|1 week 2 days ago||But then you look at Bama's||
But then you look at Bama's pre-Saban coaching hires, and Dantonio seems just fine:
Mike Shula - career assistant
Mike Price - Longtime Washington State head coach. Also, LOL.
Dennis Franchione - TCU head coach
Mike DuBose - long time DL coach at Alabama.
|1 week 4 days ago||I don't know... the two bowls||
I don't know... the two bowls are a wash, and I'd say last year's game we had a big advantage in that South Carolina had no idea what offense to expect with Denard's injury status being closely guarded. We haven't looked great after bye weeks, as others have noted.
|1 week 4 days ago||Because most people can look||
Because most people can look at a schedule and realize that despite losing "most of their games by double digits," they didn't get beat by more than 10 points in any game. Most people can also look and see that they only had one win with a margin of victory under 20 points.
|1 week 4 days ago||And, conversely, the Florida||
And, conversely, the Florida bowls would rather select fan bases from the eastern half of the U.S. and those to whom a little Florida sun sounds great come January 1st.
Did the Pac 10 also have a Rose Bowl only policy for a while? That and the relative lack of FBS schools west of the rockes would explain why there aren't good secondary bowl games in the Pac 12's home turf.
|1 week 4 days ago||I think you're undervaluing||
I think you're undervaluing KSU, losing sight of Clemson's passing offense vs. Ohio State's back 7 being a huge mismatch and seemingly forgotten Bad Conor Cook's performance against Minnesota. With Cook facing far and away the best defense he's seen all season in Stanford, I'm not sure anyone can count on much out of the MSU offense.
As I said in my initial post, I see one big favorite, one big underdog, and the rest somewhere in between. I can come up with reasons for Big Ten optimism in each game, but also reasons for dread.
I had read your last line as national title picture, not Big Ten. I disagree though that Ohio and MSU will get marginally better. I expect them to be at least marginally worse. I honestly haven't considered Wisconsin's depth chart, so not sure what to expect from them next year. As for us? Who knows. Tougher schedule, losing a lot on offense. Think we're still a year away from really being competitive.
|1 week 5 days ago||That would make this an||
That would make this an infinitely more interesting game.
|1 week 5 days ago||Agree on Minnesota and maybe||
Agree on Minnesota and maybe Wisconsin (though, the public will surely feely differently), Michigan is also mediocre and Clemson will also score easily on Ohio State. I think Michigan State can win that one, it's a game where both teams are highly dependant on which version of their QB shows up. No idea on Nebraska, don't really know if either team gets any of their injured players back, but Georgia has seemed to handle it better even when losing. I'm hoping for at least 3-4.
I think your thoughts on next year are wildly optimistic.
|1 week 5 days ago||I wonder if any coach to have||
I wonder if any coach to have two FBS coaching stints has produced a worse record than Stan Parrish?
|1 week 5 days ago||Really don't know where||
Really don't know where you're coming from on this one. They lost to three top-tenish teams, a desperate Texas team and the most dominant FCS team over the last three years. There isn't a loss like Penn State or Iowa on the schedule and nothing as bad as our near disasters against Akron and UConn.
I think this is a very winnable game, but nobody should be expecting a cake walk.
|1 week 5 days ago||Very much agree, though you||
Very much agree, though you can't really blame the Sugar Bowl committe for taking the closer, bigger program. Sets up a true blue blooded battle that should sell well.
|1 week 5 days ago||I guess it's a fair Big Ten||
I guess it's a fair Big Ten schedule. One big favorite (Minnesota), one big underdog (Iowa) with the rest likely to be somewhere between slight favorite and slight underdog. The rest are all winnable, even if I'm not sure I like any of the matchups for the Big Ten team.
|2 weeks 22 hours ago||Yeah, he just doesn't seem||
Yeah, he just doesn't seem like your typical coach where ambitions to be at the best schools with the most money is the driving force in his decision.
Washington makes sense for a guy like Chris Petersen. He's not stepping into a huge pressure cooker in a part of the country he doesn't know. Rather, he's upgrading to a football school in the same region of the country where he'll be utilizing the recruiting connections he's built up for his entire coaching career. I very much see the draw.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I think he means a different||
I think he means a different movie, perhaps simply titled "Mandela." I've seen commercials for it recently. Not sure when or if it came out yet.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, especially with respect to last year's Mizzou record not necesserily being reflective of the type of team they were. But at some point, as the saying goes, you are what the record says you are. If Mizzou wins Saturday, it'll be its first conference championship since 1969. I don't care how "on the rise" your program is, if the SEC was as tough as the south wants us to believe, Mizzou wouldn't have a shot at its first championship in 44 years in its second season in the SEC. Similarly, A&M wouldn't break through its decade+ streak of mediocrity its first year in the SEC.
Both teams may have been poised for success in the Big 12, but that is merely support for the point that teams that are successful in other conferences would probably be successful if transplanted into the SEC.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I would say that Auburn and||
I would say that Auburn and Missouri are ranked as high as they are, as compared to say Oklahoma St., because teams like Georgia, A&M, and Florida were criminally overrated to start the season. Auburn was only #4 before the Alabama game on the strength of wins over A&M and a miracle over Georgia. Missouri only jumped in the rankings after beating Georgia and the rotting corpse of Florida.
Everyone ignores the fact that A&M didn't beat anyone all season; Georgia lost to Clemson at full strength, lost to Vandy while beat up, and was taken to double OT by a mediocre Georgia Tech team two weeks after losing to Auburn; and Florida lost to Miami at full strength and then lost to Vandy and Georgia Southern.
It would be one thing if Auburn and Missouri laid down the path of destruction Florida State did in their wins, but that was far from the case. They simply rose so fast because an SEC win was valued more than any other win by pollsters.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I said they can be, didn't||
I said they can be, didn't say they are every year. Something that is pretty easily shown from years of Big Ten-SEC equality in bowls like the Citrus and the Gator. I certainly wouldn't try and make any positive comparisons between the Big Ten and damn near any conference this year. Thuogh I expect Wisconsin to hold their own against an SEC opponent in the Capital One bowl this year. But would I perhaps pick UCLA, Washington or USC in a matchup with South Carolina this year? The same South Carolina that lost to Tennessee? Yeah, I think I would.
And, for the record, I'd still list Alabama as the SEC's best team.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||But they clearly haven't done||
But they clearly haven't done worse than they did in the Big 12
2011 A&M T-6th overall, 4-5 conference record
2010 A&M T-1st in their division, 6-2 conference record
2009 A&M 5th in their division, 3-5 conference record
2008 A&M T-5th in their division, 2-6 conference record
2011 Missouri 5th in their division, 5-4 conference record
2010 Missouri T-1st in their division, 6-2 conference record
2009 Missouri T-2nd in their division, 4-4 conference record
2008 Missouri T-1st in their division, 5-3 conference record
If you go back further, of course, you get the one year Missouri sniffed a conference championship in 2007 and then a bunch of years where they were .500 or worse in conference. A&M is pretty damn similar until you get back into the 90's.
At worst you can say is that two middling Big 12 programs entered the SEC and did no worse. According to SEC partisans, they should have been creamed week in and week out for all eternity based on the improved competition. That hasn't happened.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I think they have the most||
I think they have the most programs capable of producing an elite team in any given year, but their 3rd best team on down can be as bad as the 3rd best team on down in any other conference. What always bothers me about the SEC homers is their refusal to accept that the 5th or 6th best team in the conference is probably not a top-10 or top-15 squad.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||As well as pretty much every||
As well as pretty much every other #1 before Braylon.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Full agreement with this.||
Full agreement with this. Give the numbers to freshman next year (or any returning player that specifically wants it). If they become contributors, great, if not, so be it.
The patches will get seen and occasionally a TV guy will take note. Pretty much the same thing that happens today. When was the last time a TV guy mentioned Funchess wearing 87, Morgan wearing 48 or Avery 11? I don't recall it once this season, but it's probably happened. In any event, aside from Harmon's 98 and 21 because of the Desmond connection being fresh, the rest of the world has moved on from caring.
Allowing players to have the numbers early in the career allows the player and the fans to identify with that number. I think that's more worthwhile than trying to swap in 4-5 new numbers every year.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I think it actually has the||
I think it actually has the opposite effect. If you know the best players are going to wear a legends jersey every year, you buy one and you're pretty much set. No need to buy your favorite WR's jersey, he'll either be 21 or 1 in the future.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I would guess practice,||
I would guess practice, practice, practice. Specialists have nothing to do in practice but kick, punt, and work on long snaps. While holding itself isn't very difficult, I'm sure some kickers would tell you there are a lot of subtle things that a holder does to make his life better. Sebastian Janikowski was pretty vocal early in the year that he hadn't developed the required chemistry yet with his new holder after having the same guy for most of his career.
There must be some value in having a guy who can get all those practice reps in, otherwise coaches wouldn't sacrifice a potential playmaker at the position. Is the benefit worth the cost? Who knows. Coaches obviously disagree since you see a huge variety of guys as the holder, from punter all the way up to occasionally your starting QB.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Someone with more knowledge||
Someone with more knowledge can probably give a better answer, but I don't think "dead period" means what you think it means. I believe a recruit can initiate any contact he wishes to have. I'd assume that means a kid can take an official visit if he so chooses. Additionally, I think some of the "dead periods" are just more limited contact periods.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||I don't really know Fremeau's||
I don't really know Fremeau's method, I just think this shows the "danger" of taking one statistical model and reading too much into its results.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I will say this, pretty much||
I will say this, pretty much every BCS champion has been the result of one of those 3-4 year max turnarounds. Accounting for the fact that Les Miles took over Nick Saban's death machine. The only real exceptions are Miami, and even then Butch Davis had to deal with sanctions and come back from that, and Tennessee with Fulmer not needing a rebuilding job.
I think you have a pretty good idea if you have an elite coach after 3-4 years. You might not know you have a bad coach after 3 years, but I don't think, in this day and age, you're going to find many elite coaches struggling for the first 3-4 years of his tenure at a big-time football school.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I think that "first year"||
I think that "first year" thing is a bullshit excuse. This might be the first year he's running entirely "his" offense, but the concepts were there from day one. In no way should we treat years 1 and 2 as year's -2 and -1 respectively.
I hope your second point is correct and this is merely Hoke playing coy with the media.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||So you shouldn't replace a||
So you shouldn't replace a guy who in your own words, you're not in love with, because the replacement might also be a guy you're not in love with? That's really striving for excellence there!
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Where to begin. You seem||
Where to begin. You seem very confident in a number of offensive players you've never seen before. Especially when you consider that they only have to replace one of the most prolific receivers Michigan has ever had. While the oline should be better, that's not saying much, and if they're only marginally better we could still be in for a long year. Especially if the tackles can't protect the QB. And Peppers on offense? Guy is going to have his hands full just playing defense.
We lose two starters on the defensive line and still lack playmakers. We also have to replace a safety. We've seen over the years that it's not always easy. I think we can be better on defense, but I'm not setting my hopes to "awesome."
I don't think 8-4 is the max, but I unfortunately see more reasons to be pessimistic than optimistic at this point. That's obviously clouded a lot with how I feel about Borges. I hope I'm wrong.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Doesn't matter when you play,||
Doesn't matter when you play, you get the same number of practices.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||It sure does seem like an||
It sure does seem like an chievable goal. But how many of those are "auto-wins" based on what we saw this year? I see a lot of teams capable of improvement. We could have been 10-2 this year with anything that halved our offensive highs for the season.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I, for one, think the program||
I, for one, think the program is bigger than the development of a single player. Besides, college football is littered with QBs who have excelled under a new offensive coordinator. Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Zack Mettenberger and tons others have either excelled in their first year in a program or improved greatly under the tutelage of a new coach.
I'll turn the question around on you. Everyone keeps pointing to 2015 as the year for this program. Why would we want a new QB with a new OC for that make or break year?
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I don't believe there were||
I don't believe there were enough handcuffs to explain the offense we saw for most of the season. We had the talent to do what we did against Notre Dame and Ohio State. That the same team did what it did against Akron, UConn, MSU, Nebraska, Northwestern and Iowa tells me there's a problem in the coaching staff. I guess you can reasonably disagree.
I agree with not being a program that brings in and chases off staffs at the top level, but to me that doesn't apply to the coordinator and assistant level. Even Lloyd Carr made several changes at the coordinator level during his tenure.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I am sure that by next August||
I am sure that by next August we'll all have a handful of reasons why 9-3, maaaaaybe 8-4, is the absolute floor for next year's team.... just as we did this past August. But just as their were reasons to be pessimistic this season, even if nobody wanted to hear them, there will be reasons to be pessimistic next season. We lose two senior tackles. We lose an all time great wide receiver. We still haven't seen anything from a backup QB. We lose three or four starters from a B defense and probably still won't have any non-Jake Ryan playmakers on that side of the ball.
I hope next season is a bounce back year, but if people don't think 5 loses is a possibility, they're being a bit naive.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I didn't mean to imply that||
I didn't mean to imply that it's a throw away year. I'm just saying that purely from Hoke's self interest in staying employed, next year is a perfect one to bring in a new OC and make offensive coaching changes. If things were to go poorly on offense, youth would be seen as a legitimate reason for why the change didn't have the desired effect.
On the positive side, there are reasons to think that a coaching change could work really well. Gardner is experienced. He's gone to tons of camps and such during the summer. He's a bright guy. He should be able to handle a new system (not that a third system in 5 years is necessarily ideal). You have Funchess. You have two young RBs that have shown potential. There's clearly some talent, and with good coaching, you could scheme over deficiencies. You could have an LSU like offensive rejuvination under the right coach.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||So there exists a small||
So there exists a small minority of people that don't see Borges as a problem, and all the examples of offense incompetence can be blamed on something else. Luckily for Borges, you're joined by Hoke and Brandon in that group. But, if it turns out you are all wrong and Borges really is the mediocre offensive coordinator his career indicates that he is, THAT'S when Hoke should be given the chance to fix his mistake? Not a whole lot of coaches get a chance to fix a mistake after compounding that mistake (this is where you slap a nice big picture of Rich Rodriguez). You may be right that Brandon will give him that chance as Brandon seems like a guy that would loathe to admit a mistake in his biggest decision on the job, but I don't think Hoke would deserve that second chance.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I think there's some health||
I think there's some health concerns related to his son? And somehow Boise actually is the perfect place for him.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||It would be different for||
It would be different for Hoke.
And, for what it's worth, everyone said we weren't going 7-5 this year.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||This is undoubtedly true.||
This is undoubtedly true. And next year was the perfect year to bring in a new OC. We're going to be extremely young (Gardner, Funchess and Glasgow are basically going to be the only upperclassmen) so a new OC would get some leeway, yet we'd have a fifth year senior at QB with talent to paper over some of the youth issues and should be able to grasp a new system better than a young QB.
As it is, if Borges lights a couple games on fire as he's wont to do, and we end up with 4 to 5 loses, Hoke is gone. I don't know if this means Hoke is extremely loyal, extremely confident or extremely stupid. Maybe some combination of all three.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||He really didn't "leave the||
He really didn't "leave the bench" since his offense was coming onto the field. Jake Ryan was in the middle of things as well, and he wasn't on kickoff coverage.
I think we should bite our toungs a bit on this whole thing in memory of the Charles Woodson-David Boston skirmish in 1997.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I think they just finished||
I think they just finished some of those facilities and the stadium. Might not have had time to impact recruiting. And really, it must be hard to recruit on the basis of "facilities" when you're competing with Oregon for a lot of the same kids.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I don't know what it says||
I don't know what it says about the game that it made me completely forget how annoyed I was with the coaching staff for not attempting to get points at the end of the half after the initial first down and the stupidity of the spike, but it says something...
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I sometimes think this way.||
I sometimes think this way. Then I think that we're replacing our two senior tackles, who happen to be one of the best tackle tandems in the country, and expect to be better?
I do think the line overall will be better, I just think there's a cap on how good the line can be and it is unfortunately likely to be no better than mediocre.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||They should take a step back||
They should take a step back next year. Losing all their senior offensive linemen and Carlos Hyde is going to make the rushing offense much more defensible. Unfortunately, their line will have had 11 games to gel.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||I saw an NFL coach a week or||
I saw an NFL coach a week or two ago pull back his FG team after the defense put a real return man back there. The coach didn't want a buch of offensive linemen trying to make that tackle.
It may not have been the most likely thing to happen, but it certainly wasn't completely unpredictable. For that matter, neither was a block and return for a TD. A long FG is far from a risk-free event and if your kid hasn't shown the leg in game situations, I think a little second guessing is warranted.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Gardner didn't have time to||
Gardner didn't have time to wait for that to happen. There's a reason that shot of Gardner is with him on his back.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||He made the offense go today.||
He made the offense go today. Made big plays at key moments in several drives.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||And that was for a lot more||
And that was for a lot more reasonable comment...
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I really hope that Brian||
I really hope that Brian hearing that there will be no coaching changes is merely a result of Fort Schembechler playing everything really close to the vest.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Yeah, it's impossible to do||
Yeah, it's impossible to do an apples to apples comparison but there are some ways to form a perception of a school's recruiting performance. Various publications would provide a ranking after signing day. Various all american teams were assembled. Yes, every player in the country wasn't scouted like they are today, but if you at least knew how many of the country's, region's, state's, etc. best players were coming your way.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||We can develop guys on||
We can develop guys on defense, but I haven't seen much if any development from an offensive player, and certainly not enough to outweigh the massive regression I've seen. FWIW, I view Funchess as a physical freak who was a physical freak the moment he set foot on campus. That we're utilizing him better these days doesn't mean he's developed. He still can't block worth a damn.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||He actually undersold how bad||
He actually undersold how bad UCLA was under Neuheisel: 4-8, 7-6, 4-8, 6-8. The last one was the weird year where UCLA qualified for the Pac 12 championship at 6-6 because of USC's sanctions and had to petition for bowl eligibility only to have them lose to Illilnois in the great "coachless" bowl of 2011. 9-4 and 8-4, at worst, regular seasons have been a huge step forward for UCLA.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Before Hoke got the job, it||
Before Hoke got the job, it seemed quite clear that years 2 and 3 were not set up for great success. That's come to pass. I feel the offense is far below where it should be, but with a course correction, we can be competitive for the Big Ten title next year and at least on the periphary of the national title picture for the years to follow. Defense is certainly on the right course and a playmaker or two away from being beastly. The offense will still have talent (Gardner, yes, Gardner, Funchess, someone else from the young receivers corp, Green, Smith, Butt) that could do good things with a little better line play and better scheming. The team should be there next year.
Things could turn around and turn around quickly. I don't know if Hoke's the guy to do it, but I think cutting bait after three years is generally a bad idea for the program, especially after just firing a coach after 3 years. Not every new job is setup for a year 2 or 3 epiphany. I don't think this one was set up that way for Hoke. In year 4, he'll have had enough time with his guys that conclusions can be made. We need to let him get to that point. On the other hand, if he refuses to fire Borges, I'd axe Hoke in a heartbeat.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I don't think this thread has||
I don't think this thread has much hope of being relevant. Can't fathom Auburn beating Alabama. LSU is the second best team in the SEC West and Bama already handled them pretty easily.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||I don't think there were a||
I don't think there were a whole lot of people predicting 7. 8 was the pessimistic view. That's not to say that everyone thought we had a great team, rather that the schedule was extremely weak and coming into the season it was hard to pick out more than 4 or 5 games we could possibly lose. Losing to PSU and Iowa weren't considered real possibilities at the beginning of the season. Most listed 5 games we could lose: NW, Neb., MSU, ND, and OSU. Everyone figured we could win at least two out of those, with many leaning towards 3, and then even if we slipped up somewhere else, 4 loses was the absolute floor.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Just out of curiousity, if||
Just out of curiousity, if your football-conscious life began in 2004, how can you say recruiting is better than the mid-90's? FWIW, I don't think Hoke has brought us to new heights in recruiting. I think he's returned us to our historical norm before the last couple classes of the Carr regime. Luckily, that historical norm is pretty damn good. So I agree with your general sentiment, we can be elite again in relatively short order, though I do wonder if Hoke is the guy to get us there.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||This is an excellent point.||
This is an excellent point. Tons of coaches get hired to big time jobs with a history of "turning programs around" and fail miserably. Hoke has to prove he can win at a school like Michigan. Until he does so, his resume is fairly meaningless.
Hoke obviously deserves another year. This year and last were always going to be steps back. The only reason that what we've accomplished has failed to live up to expectations is because of the job Greg Mattison has done with the defense. That being said, I too am a bit down on the future of the Hoke regime. I always thought "getting it" as far as Michigan tradition was meaningless in terms of winning games, and the real question was whether or not he "got it" with respect to how to put an elite program together. If Hoke doesn't clean house with his offensive coachign staff, I'm afraid there's no real hope for the latter, even if we show improvements over the next couple years. And for the record, that's not remotely speaking to style offense we run, but merely a failure to recognize a lack of competence in members of the coaching staff.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||Come on now, I'm sure Idaho,||
Come on now, I'm sure Idaho, Eastern Michigan, Western Kentucky and Tulane are lining up young linemen with just as much talent as we have.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||You act like Borges has zero||
You act like Borges has zero responsibility for any of that. Who is developing offensive talent? Who is giving the players a system to flourish in? Who is coaching the QB that has so dramatically regressed from last year's darling to this year's tire fire? You can say there are talent issues limiting offensive performance. That's true. What you can't say is that the offensive coaching staff is blameless for what's being put on the field these days.
|3 weeks 5 days ago||If you mean the Minnesota||
If you mean the Minnesota game represented an offensive outlier in 2008, than that's fair, if you mean 2008 Minnesota = 2013 Indiana than it isn't exactly a fair statement. That Minnesota team was actually decent.
What's most troubling about comparing this offense to the 2008 offense is the fact that that comparisson is even remotely apt. The 2008 offense was younger and less experienced across the board, lacked an all-american LT and an all-conference caliber RT. The QBs were a walk-on and a RS-Fr. both of whom were extremely ill-suited for the offense, not a 4th year QB who was the number 1 ranked duel threat QB recruit in the nation who the pro scouts also loved this summer. The receiving corp lacked anyone even remotely matching the talent of Gallon and Funchess. Top it off with the 2008 offense being in year one of an extremely different system, and it's hard to imagine that this offense could rival that one as the worst in memory.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||I think wanting the second||
I think wanting the second coming of Bo is exactly what we need. I think the problem is arbitrarily defining where the second coming of Bo can come from.
Nick Sabain IS the second coming of Bear Bryant. Just like Bryant, he won everywhere he went and he's turned Bama into a elite powerhouse. That's all Bama needs to define someone as the next Bryant. All we need to find the next Bo is a guy that has us in the national title picture year after year (yes, easier said than done), it doesn't matter where in the hell he comes from as long as he can do that.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||In reality it was 3 turnovers||
In reality it was 3 turnovers (the 4th was the botched FG), but your point still stands.
I didn't think the defense played great today, but they played well enough to win the game given anything from the offense.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Of course there were plays to||
Of course there were plays to be made. Unless a team is playing baby seal U. it almost always leaves plays on the field. Perfect execution is a myth. Are we executing less often than most teams? Absolutely. But it's not all about talent. This offense is far more talented than the 2008 team and the play has been as bad or worse than that team that had every legitimate excuse in the book for why it sucked. At some point you have to simply accept the obvious explanation: our coaching staff, at least on the offensive side of the ball, is not very good.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||It is so painful that there||
It is so painful that there is no real retort to that...
|4 weeks 2 days ago||You're right, I can't know,||
You're right, I can't know, but lets start looking at things with your assertions in mind: It takes time to make a hire of a college FB coach, presumably meaning more than one week. It's also unfair to start the search before RR is fired. I don't know that Brandon started the due diligence process before firing RR, therefore we should assume it didn't happen.
Now, look at the facts: RR was fired on the 5th, Hoke was hired on the 12th. By your logic, Brandon didn't take enough time or do his due diligence. By my logic, he started the process before firing RR. Which makes more sense?
Yes, I can't know that RR didn't want to fire him after the PSU game, but I have a strong hunch. But what I do know is that was the point where lots of people began to call for a change, and if Brandon didn't begin his due dilligence at that point, he wasn't doing his job.
And again on the Harbaugh thing. If he wouldn't leave Stanford for Michigan with a bowl game yet to play, then he probably wasn't all that committed to Michigan in the first place and wasn't worth screwing up a recruiting class over.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||While neither of you are||
While neither of you are necessarily wrong in some of your points. I for one wanted to keep him through to the bowl game and based on the timing of the firing, I thought it was a mistake to not give him another year.
But what I said was that I think Brandon had made up his mind that he was going to fire RR after the PSU game, the remainder of the season was all elementary. And don't think just because lots of people here were still in support of RR, that the establishment wasn't ready to throw him overboard.
There's also no revisionalist history in any of my posts. There were plenty of people at the end of the regular season calling on Brandon to shit or get off the pot, even many RR supporters. Dragging the uncertainty through the bowl season was detrimental to the team and that year's recruiting class. If Harbaugh insisted on sticking with his team to a meaningless BCS bowl instead of taking his "dream job," that should have been a risk we were willing to take.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||1. Brian specifically said||
1. Brian specifically said he wouldn't normally include batted balls in a discussion like this but for the fact that the passes in question were at best going to lead to pass break ups. Maybe the first and third batted balls in question would fit your "tight window" description, but looking at player positioning, I highly doubt it.
2. They've had 8 interceptions in 6 Big Ten games, 4 of which coming off Nebraska's backup QBs. Even using your one stat, when you use a little critical reasoning, it's fair to conlcude that interceptions doesn't paint a picture of a great NW secondary.
3. As people pointed out above, you're simply wrong about Denard not regressing statistically. But even if you want to say that he didn't, wouldn't his lack of progression during year two of pro-style coaching be a bad sign?
4. Nobody is concluding only based on these several passes in this one game that Gardner has regressed. If you can't see that he's regressed, then you're simply in denial.
It's funny that in your zeal to paint everything Brian writes as the incoherent ramblings of a Borges hater, you yourself write a post filled with the incoherent ramblings of an obviously biased Borges incompetence-denier.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||I think only Ace explicitly||
I think only Ace explicitly makes that Fisher makes a big difference, and the others poo-poo it to varying degrees.
As to your larger point, pretty much every other program that fires and hires a coach manages to do so within a week or two of the end of the regular season. I don't see why we would be different. Brandon knew he was going to fire RR, probably as early as the Penn St. game in the beginning of November. He could have, should have, and probably did perform due dilligence at that point. Fact is, the vast majority of ADs have a file in their desk of a short list for football and basketball coaches in case they ever needed to find a replacement whether due to firing, retirement, illness, or Petrinoness. An AD that has to start a search from scratch the moment the job becomes available isn't doing his or her job.
The process was mishandled. There was no reason to keep RR through the bowl game. Whether that really has much to do with the current state of things is obviously up for debate.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||I don't think the argument is||
I don't think the argument is so much that we would have kept Fisher if RR had been fired after Ohio St., but that those extra 5 weeks would have just generally helped put together a better class, maybe including a replacement O-lineman or two.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||Those offenses didn't have||
Those offenses didn't have quite as glaring of issues as those lines did block some (especially 2011), but I do think the "better without Denard" crowd has been proven to be quite silly.
|4 weeks 2 days ago||While I might agree with some||
While I might agree with some of your points and do assume that the line would be better under Rodriguez, where does that "blame" go for his low recruiting numbers and the substance of the O-Line recruits he did bring in? I think the panel is right that depth at the OL would still be an issue for a Rich Rodriguez coached 2013 Michigan football team and that transitioning from pro-style to spread to pro-style is part of the reason that we're bad. Where does that blame get placed if not with Rich Rodriguez? Which is not to say that he's at fault for not anticipating his firing and not chosing to set up the subsequent staff with players they would like.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Well there's still the false||
Well there's still the false start/illegal shift, however you choose to call it. There should have been a flag, we were lucky there wasn't.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I don't think keeping Borges||
I don't think keeping Borges around is important to the 2015 team. By all accounts, he doesn't recruit, so it's not like we'd be likely to lose guys. And if you give an offensive coordinator 2 years, most will have his system installed as long as there aren't huge personnel issues.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I think the type of depth||
I think the type of depth you're talking about is much more important for a Michigan State type program, than the type of program we have traditionally been. When you're not landing top of the class recruits, you need every ounce of development out of them. When you're piling top-10 class after top-10 class, your cream rises to the top quickly and more of your freshman play. That "lost" year of eligibility at the end is replaced by an equally talented youngster climbing the ranks.
I don't think we need to be like MSU with 6 non-redshirted players in the three-deep to win championships. What we need is a two-deep filled with good to great players. We're not there yet, and that's why we're not "deep." Next year we're likely to still not be there, and it won't be because Dileo, Black and Avery aren't 5th year seniors. Looking a year further into the future, I don't even think that 2015 would be much different with a couple of Morgan, Clark, Taylor and Hollowel around.
Maybe by 2016 or 2017 there's some guys where we're saying, man, really wish we hadn't burned his redshirt freshman year. But there's also a good chance that we won't even notice, depending on if the recruiting pipeline continues to be robust.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||Right, I believe there is||
Right, I believe there is language in the rule about the offense seeking to gain an unfair advantage by substituting and rushing to the line, catching the defense unprepared. There was no intent on our play as the only purpose in rushing to the line was to kick the FG before time expired.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||I'm not sure if this is||
I'm not sure if this is exactly the rule, but I think if the penalty results in the play being whistled dead, there's a 10 second runoff. Otherwise, the penalty would not have been enforced until after the play ended, with no time left on the clock, resulting in the end of the game. Either way, if the penalty was called, the game is over. I'm really surprised NW folks aren't more upset about this.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||No, the game would end on the||
No, the game would end on the penalty. Either because the clock expired if they called an illegal shift, or because there would be a 10 second runoff on a false start penalty. The scenario you describe resulted in a game winning or tying field goal a couple bowl seasons ago, leading to the new 10 second runoff rule.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||But on the other hand. I'm||
But on the other hand. I'm not sure that if we played "not to bend," we wouldn't have a couple breaks a game, and our offense doesn't seem like it could match in that scenario.
I don't think you devise a defensive philosophy based on offensive output.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||I don't see that from any of||
I don't see that from any of the televised angles. I see nine near the line, one much further away toward the sideline, and then one even closer to the sideline. Besides, if they tried to call that, it would bring up the whole "defense gets a chance to substitute deal."
I think it's pretty clear that we caught a huge break.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||That's not true. The rule:||
That's not true. The rule:
Defenses are given the chance to substitute. Though in this case, I think the refs did the right thing because our kicking team wasn't rushing to the line to gain an advantage on the defense, we just wanted to get the snap off.
|4 weeks 5 days ago||Analyzing it in the wrong||
Analyzing it in the wrong way. Gibbons started moving backwards before the line was set and then he never got set for a full second. It was an illegal shift. But, hey, I'll take it!
|4 weeks 6 days ago||While he said he wasn't||
While he said he wasn't calling for Borges' replacement, he pretty clearly was...
|5 weeks 1 day ago||Even if it were to happen,||
Even if it were to happen, you'd expect Nick Saban to act like that absolutely is not happening... until it does.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||I don't know what his past||
I don't know what his past Saturday was like, but if it was like mine, watching us then watching Bama, can't say I'd blame him for the decision he made.
|5 weeks 1 day ago||That's the problem when you||
That's the problem when you hand over control of an announcement to TV.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||It should also be noted that||
It should also be noted that at UCLA Borges was working under an offensive head coach. Bob Toledo had bene an OC for 13 years before taking over as head coach, and to this day runs a WCO based offense. While I'm sure Borges was influential during that UCLA run, without having been there, it's impossible to say how much of the UCLA success was due to him.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||That's essentially the||
That's essentially the pattern that got him canned by Auburn.
|5 weeks 2 days ago||It's not like SC doesn't have||
It's not like SC doesn't have his own blog and write regularly at a second popular michigan blog. He's not some anonymous commenter that Brian decided to "attack." He's nearly as public in the ole Michigan blogosphere as Brian is. Directly responding to him on the front page does not seem out of the ordinary.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||Not only should he not try||
Not only should he not try and do it with an inexperienced group, Weis' ND tenure shows why you don't want to do it with an experienced group either. You can't do it and continue to prepare your program for future success.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I'd imagine that those teams||
I'd imagine that those teams also have other issues with the offense besides a young line. For instance, I know Maryland has now lost a bunch of starting skill position players (though they did put up 500 total and 220 rushing yards against UConn when healthy, how'd we do?) and Cal is starting a true freshman QB.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||As I understand it, your||
As I understand it, your argument is that the TE screws up by blocking the playside OLB. He is either supposed to double the DE, making the OLB the read, or take the OLB as the T flows to the ILB (or doubles the T?), leaving the DE as the read. If the read defender flows up the field going after Touissant, DG keeps and follows his lead blocker. If the defender stays inside, DG hands off to Touissant, who goes around the Kerridge block to lots of daylight.
That sounds extremely plausible, if not outright correct without the advantage of actually seeing how Borges drew it up. I guess my problem is that the TE seems to have one read for determining the assignment, the positioning of the DE. They don't appear to have been shifting, Paskorz has at least a couple beats to examine his key, yet he apparently screws it up. How is it possible that he could screw up such a basic assignment?
|5 weeks 3 days ago||One difference, and I'm 100%||
One difference, and I'm 100% sure a staff of mostly pure college guys wouldn't make this mistake, Weis apparently disregarded player development during practice so his starters could get the required reps to execute his new weekly game plans. That's why his offense generally did ok to pretty well in his first two years when he was working with experienced and talented players. It's also why his offense cratered when he first started using guys not developed by the earlier regimes.
|5 weeks 3 days ago||I think that's a false||
I think that's a false dichotomy. You don't have to be RR/Meyer to be simple. Many of the prolific spread passing teams, which is every bit as "pro-style" these days as the classic west coast offense, keep things simple. You hear about coaches that say they have a ridiculously small number of plays, they just run them out of different looks and personnel packages, with the plays set up so that the defense can't know what's coming at them before the snap.
I think the lesson is that you can't be insanely complicated on either side of the ball in college because you don't have the practice time to make it work. Starting over every week isn't possible. What you need is a simple system that you can add wrinkles to from week to week to keep defenses/offenses honest. Then you execute. You get to the NFL and you can't be so simple since the defenses have more time to prepare. But conversely, NFL offenses have more time to prepare a larger base offense and more wrinkles to keep the defenses off base.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||So you end a sound,||
So you end a sound, reasonable strategy because of one failure to revert to something that's almost completely irrational?
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I haven't seen anyone that we||
I haven't seen anyone that we necessarily couldn't get to come here. Assuming we fire Borges this season, the next guy walks into a good situation. He'll get a bit of grace period which allows for any hangover from the young O-Line and then he gets to coach all the great recruits coming into their prime. That will be enticing. The only thing left would to make it financially worth his while.
Sure, some guys in comfortable situations aren't going to leave no matter what. But I don't think we're being unreasonable to throw around good coordinators, even at other big time football schools.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Stop making sense.||
Stop making sense.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Having Michigan ties is not||
Having Michigan ties is not the only criteria for being realistic. Coordinators will often leave their current job if the price is right. If we pay accordingly, almost anyone is obtainable.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||A&M staff might be living||
A&M staff might be living dangerously. Kingsbury, Sumlin's OC of a few years recently left and the offense is still largely Sumlin's baby. Don't know how well anyone else would do out in the wild on their own.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||That may be a good reason to||
That may be a good reason to hire him as QB coach, but his career shows that he'd be a disaster as OC. It's really ok to hire people from outside the Michigan family tree. I swear it is.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Didn't Chris Spielman spend||
Didn't Chris Spielman spend most of the last game damning the offense for not having hot routes?
|5 weeks 4 days ago||On Pelini shooting kittens at||
On Pelini shooting kittens at his defenders: he seemed to be strangely calm all game long. I don't remember him having a single freak out, though I'm sure there had to be at least one. Even after his receivers potentially crippling fumble, he appeared to give the WR some encouraging words and a slap on the butt. Who was that man and what did he do with Bo Pelini?
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Since I think it's getting||
Since I think it's getting harder to be the CEO style head coach and still be elite, it's absolutely relevant that Mack Brown's teams have been raging disappointments the past few years.
Mack Brown is an interesting coach, he's drastically reshaped his offense to match his personnel with Vince Young and then with Colt McCoy. That and his decision to can Manny Diaz shows what you need to do to be successful as a CEO style coach: constantly adapt and be willing to cut loose underperforming coaches. We'll see if Hoke has similar abilitites.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I'll give you Les Miles, but||
I'll give you Les Miles, but Pete Carroll is a defensive guru, Mack Brown is being kicked to the curb, and Bobby Bowden is a vestige of a different time in college football.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||If those were the two worst||
If those were the two worst games we've played in 20 years (the entire 2008 season disagrees, and a multitude of others), then what were the Akron and UConn games?
|5 weeks 4 days ago||Even Mack Brown had a couple||
Even Mack Brown had a couple stints as OC.
|5 weeks 4 days ago||I think it's getting tougher||
I think it's getting tougher to be elite as a CEO type coach. In the past, when offenses and defense weren't all that advanced, your head coach simply had to get the best players and then be a motivator and things would work out. These days, with the advancements and huge variety of sytems, just lining up and being more talented than those across the ball doesn't cut it. You have to be able to at least play the coaching matchup to a draw to be truly successful.
Obviously a CEO type coach can still win, he just needs to have great coordinators on both sides. Easier said than done. It's much, much easier when you are a great coordinator and you just need to find one other. There might also be something to the idea that a CEO type coach is taking one of the limited number of coaches out of the planning process. A guru head coach supported by a coordinator combining to game plan is probably better than a head coach simply leaving it to his coordinator to put things together.
Another way to look at things, in the current AP top 10 only Dabo Swinney and maybe Gary Pinkel (I'm not really sure if he's the guy on offense, though he was a longtime OC under Don James before becoming a head coach) would be considered CEO type coaches.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||People keep saying this but||
People keep saying this but provide no details. Anyone have any extra information on how and when these staff changes took place?
|5 weeks 6 days ago||FWIW, the scouts loved him||
FWIW, the scouts loved him during the summer. I wasn't nearly as convinced as others that last season's 5 game performance portended great things for him, but then he did the summer coaching/clinic tour and everyone raved. Maybe it was that he was away from Borges for that time period. Who knows. But what I do know is that Gardner has QB ability. Bringing in a freshman of questionable ability isn't going to solve anything. Not with this line and this offensive coaching staff.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||Me thinks you don't know what||
Me thinks you don't know what the Power I is.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||If the schedule wasn't||
If the schedule wasn't insanely easy, I might agree with you. The schedule has one great team. The next best team only plays on one side of the ball, the only other "good" team is Notre Dame, everyone else is mediocre to bad. The talent is better than 7-5 against our schedule. We've already dropped two games to poor teams. That's two too many.
|5 weeks 6 days ago||FWIW, Miller and Glasgow will||
FWIW, Miller and Glasgow will also be Juniors next year. We will be young along the front, this won't be a problem if the guys are talented and well coached, but that's a huge question mark.
|6 weeks 16 hours ago||I disagree on both of those.||
I disagree on both of those. Skov did do a great job to force the fumble, but I don't know how Thomas doesn't do more to recover it when he was literally laying on top of the ball. But that's besides the point. Lets say you count all the breaks as being equal, blocking a FG/recovering an onside kick = three failed red zone trips/PI penalty negating an interception/Mariota missing Huff. Stanford won the game by 6 points! In a game everyone says they dominated! They did play a pretty impressive game. There's no denying that. The only problem I have is that the end result of them playing essentially "three yards and a cloud of dust" football is a very narrow margin of error. It's why, despite being one of if not the best teams across both lines for the last two seasons they've dropped games to 7-6 Washington and 4-4 Utah.
|6 weeks 18 hours ago||When you "dominate" so||
When you "dominate" so thoroughly, even a blocked FG shouldn't result in a one score game.
Stanford got a ton of lucky breaks in the first three quarters. Mariota (who is apparently injured, thus negating about a third of the Oregon offense) missed Huff on a wide open TD; De'Anthony Thomas' fumble on a would be TD drive; A very iffy PI call saved a sure interception resulting in a Stanford TD; Mariota fumbles on a potential scoring drive; Stanford recovered their own fumbles. All the breaks went Stanford's way and Stanford played their offensive style just about as perfectly as it could be played. Stanford won by 6 points. Yes, Oregon got a FG block returned for a touchdown and recovered 1 of 3 onside kicks, but still, when you add up the whole game, that's operating with a low margin for error.
|6 weeks 19 hours ago||He's been a starter for at||
He's been a starter for at least the last two seasons. I don't recall him being highlighted one way or the other last night.
Side note: Oregon started a true freshman guard last night.
|6 weeks 19 hours ago||Actually I said they weren't||
Actually I said they weren't explosive. They were fairly versatile and threw in a lot of great wrinkles to set themselves up for those nice short third downs. It doesn't change the fact that despite their best offensive performance of the season (they really haven't looked that great this year outside of the Arizona St. first half) and a ton of breaks through three quarters, they needed to collect an onside kick with two minutes left to secure the game.
They operate with a system that has a very low margin of error. That's really my point.
|6 weeks 19 hours ago||The problem is that||
The problem is that Stanford's offense hasn't been all that good this year. Without an outstanding, senior-laden defense, they'd have 3 or 4 loses where they haven't been able to move the ball efficiently (check out the box scores of the Washington and Oregon St. games).
Even last night, their lack of explosiveness gave them an extremely thin margin of error. They were outstanding on third down last night. A lot of it was because they were able to get to short yardage, but they also were very good at converting third and medium. Oregon's line contains Hogan scrambles a little bit better and they get off the field on a couple of those epic Stanford drives.
And how different would the game have looked had Oregon not gone 0-3 on its first three red zone trips and had the extremely iffy pass interference call not been called? What if Mariota doesn't miss the wide open Huff for the first TD of the game? There was a potential 20-30 point swing on those big plays that all went Stanford's way for the first three quarters of the game and had very little to do with Stanford's dominating Oline and Dline. The first TD alone could have drastically shifted the game. That's football, these things happen regardless of style.
Stanford's an excellent team, I'm just a little hesitant to read too much into one game. Just like I'd be hesitant to say Stanford wasn't any good because they lost to a 4-4 Utah team.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||On WRs/TEs v. OLine, we seem||
On WRs/TEs v. OLine, we seem to be rushing linemen into the mix when they're not ready, why couldn't we doing the same at WR, a position where players are far, far more likely to contribute early? You say we only have 4 WRs but what about making better use out of Norfleet? What about some of the other youngins like Dukes, York and Jones? What abut two back sets where the second guy is a different type of running back? I think it's fair to say that there may not be a particularly good option to mask our interior line problems, but it seems odd that the only approach we seem to be sticking with is adding bad linemen on top of bad linemen.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||The consensus from coaching||
The consensus from coaching types seems to be that if Schofield was moved inside, he'd move to LG so that you have at least one dominant side of the line you can rely upon.
|6 weeks 1 day ago||Not that it really matters,||
Not that it really matters, but I think you're a couple games short with Central's record.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Certainly not||
Certainly not Denard-to-Bellomy. But a healthy Martinez is certainly an upgrade over the other two guys. Anyone that says otherwise is crazy.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Brian has been pretty||
Brian has been pretty consistent in claiming that Borges lays 2-3 absolute duds a year. He was merely trying to quantify that point. Sure you can pull stats to average those duds out with games where we've destroyed really bad teams, but that doesn't undermine the main point that on offense, we've been very bad on not so infrequent occasions. He doesn't need "confirmation bias" to prove that. That section of the post was merely providing another way to show all the bad performances we've had the last three seasons.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Having watched that game, I'd||
Having watched that game, I'd assume that is more a reflection that Martinez played while obviously hurting. He barely tried to run all game long. A healthy Martinez is still by far their best QB.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||So, pick a couple teams and||
So, pick a couple teams and look. It's happened once to Ohio St. under Urban Meyer. 7 times in 28 qualifying games for Michigan St. for the last three seasons (and we know how bad their offense has been the last two seasons) and 4 times in 28 qualifying games for Notre Dame the last three seasons (who again, hasn't been an offensive dynomo). So demonstrably worse than our three biggest rivals, running the gamut from good offense to mediocre to bad offense. Is that enough context for you?
He didn't make up a stat. He said to himself, "man we have had a lot of bad offensive football games under Borges. I wonder if there's a way to quantify that? Maybe anything under 300 yards is a bad game? Sure, lets see how we do. Wow, that looks bad." But by all means, keep claiming all is well.
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Honest question: Does Hoke||
Honest question: Does Hoke not making any changes after this season make all that "fire Funk/Borges" talk of this season transition into "FIRE HOKE" next season if things go poorly?
|6 weeks 4 days ago||They'd probably raise more||
They'd probably raise more money if they simply asked for donations at the stadium with significant in-stadium promotion with a matching donation from the school/Under Armour. Instead they'll inflict this faux-patriotic gear on the viewing public for the ultimate benefit of Under Armour. As an aside, I find the "bleeding" aspect of the red extremely tacky, especially considering the chosen charity.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||The reporters aren't exactly||
The reporters aren't exactly the white house press corps, no offense, Heiko. They mostly have their stories written already and are looking for a couple quotes to fill in. They're not looking for a "gotcha" moment. We may want that follow up question, but it's not really the type of press conference that is going to get that answer unless the coach is exceptionally forthright.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||Only for purposes of saying||
Only for purposes of saying that simply winning a BCS bowl early doesn't keep you off the hot seat. I mean, all Gene Chizik did was go 30-10 with a national championship in his first three years while recruiting like gangbusters only to be fired after things fell apart in year 4.
I think Hoke is a better coach than Chizik and I strongly prefer him as a person. But, unless things quickly turn around, his Michigan resume is going to be worse than Chizik's was at Auburn after 3 years where he entered year 4 on the hot seat. To pretend that Hoke can't also be on the hot seat is silly. And that was my only point. I apologize if I offended your delicate sensibilities.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||I do think we're going to end||
I do think we're going to end with a record about what I expected. But, I think our opponents have generally been worse than expected too. UConn wasn't supposed to be a complete tire fire. Notre Dame has taken a bigger step back, especially on defense, than most expected coming into the season. Penn State got drubbed by Indiana and needed OT to beat Illinois. Nebraska and Nortwestern have been far below expectations.
Coming into the season I thought we were mediocre, bordering on good. Now I think it's clear that we're medicore bordering on bad. If you can't look at this season so far and see that we're not living up to even reasonable expectations, then you probably just don't want to see it.
|6 weeks 5 days ago||Ever hear of Gene Chizik?||
Ever hear of Gene Chizik? Not saying Hoke is going to have the same result, but winning a BCS bowl (with what some could say was really Rich Rodriguez's team) is hardly reason to say a guy can't be on the hot seat.
Edit: I don't think he will be on the hot seat or will deserve to be after this season, but if he doesn't fix his offense, the end could come quicker than most would have guessed after year 1.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||It's easy to say that no OC||
It's easy to say that no OC could have done anything with the offene we put on the field in week 8 of the season. But at some point, shouldn't the OC/HC/entire offensive coaching staff be blamed for the offense that's put on the field in week 8 of the season?!?
This is our offense. We haven't been plagued be injuries. If recruiting rankigns are to be believed, there is plenty of talent on that side of the ball, even if some of it is young. We should be better on offense. As most believed that RichRod could only be retained if he replaced his entire defensive coaching staff, I'd like to see an entirely new offensive coaching staff. Maybe we can keep the WRs coach.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||Nope, he's 2-3, at least||
Nope, he's 2-3, at least according to those that threw around the 0-6 stat for RichRod.
|7 weeks 17 hours ago||You might be right. But then||
You might be right. But then again, the comparison was to the 2007 Florida D.
|7 weeks 1 day ago||Wow, telling the OP he's late||
Wow, telling the OP he's late and then making a grammar correction. You must be a real joy at parties...
|7 weeks 2 days ago||It's bad form to even hint at||
It's bad form to even hint at equating Jerry Sandusky and his reasons for staying at PSU with Bud Foster or Narduzzi and their reasons for staying at their respective positions.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||I think it's a little tricky.||
I think it's a little tricky. We have to bring pressure, but keeping him in the pocket seems important. He seems to look a little better when he's throwing on the run. We need to get pressure while at the same time forcing him to throw from the pocket.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||This idea that 27 for 27||
This idea that 27 for 27 doesn't mean anything towards playcalling because it really was only "14 to 4" is silly for a couple reasons, but mainly because there absolutely were times in those last 13 carries that gaining yards was a necessary goal (getting a FG instead of settling for a punt at the end of regulation, not needing to rely on a FG for the win, getting shorter game winning FG attempts). Yet we went with plays that we had proven we could not execute. To act like the final 13 runs were only about grinding out the clock, to me, gives the coaching staff an unearned free pass.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||I seemed to recall a lot of||
I seemed to recall a lot of Alabama's big losses under Saban coming at home, so I went back and looked. After Saban's first season, they've gone 23-2 on the road! That's insane. Over the same time period, they've gone 37-3 at home and 9-2 on neutral fields. His Home/Away/Overall percentages over that period are 0.925/0.885/0.907.
I guess when you're great, it doesn't matter where you play.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||it's distorted for strict||
it's distorted for strict compairsons of home vs. away records, but when comparing to other teams, you don't need to weed out non-conference since each team has a similar lineup of home cupcakes.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||I don't think they're||
I don't think they're misleading at all. I think Hoke's Michigan squads having a far, far higher differential between home and road records than any of the compared teams indicates that he is also losing more frequently to lesser opponents on the road than one would expect from his home record.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||I think they're more talking||
I think they're more talking about look than stats. Also, Carlos Hyde didn't put up great stats because he was in a loaded backfield lead by upperclassmen who had good years. You can't rely simply on stats to say that Carlos Hyde didn't look like he'd grow into being Carlos Hyde.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Obvious troll is obvious. On||
Obvious troll is obvious.
On the ridiculously small chance he is not a troll, I'd say there's a 0.01% chance he was alive for a game coached by his avatar.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||I was looking for someone to||
I was looking for someone to make this point. I'm sure most people know someone in their respective fields of employment that is high ranking, far more knowledgeable about the subject matter than 95% of the public, maybe even generally respected, but also terrible at his or her job.
Second, you don't have to necessarily have the same level of knowledge as professionals in a particular field to be able to identify someone who is not good at his or her job. In fact, I'd argue that being in the field often hinders some people's abilty to objectively consider a fellow professional's job performance.
I have no problem with SC correcting technical mistakes that he can correct based on professional knowledge. But people shouldn't act like others can't reasonably believe Al Borges isn't good at his job (despite the inartful and stupid ways some use to explain that belief) because Borges obviously knows more about football than pretty much everyone on this board. After all, Borges was essentially fired by Auburn despite his initial success there.
As an aside, I agree with SC's main point that people shouldn't read too much into press conference quotes. Yes, the post-PSU one had my blood boiling a little bit, but some of the other comments people harp on have way, way too much read into them.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||I just don't see why OSU fans||
I just don't see why OSU fans would be worried about us recruiting at our historical norm. From the Ohio State fans I know, they seem to think recruiting is going wonderfully for them and that for every Ohio recruit they lose to us, they grab someone better from out of state.
Hoke has recruited well, I just tend to think that he isn't having the monster classes that scare our top rival who are pulling in classes at least equal to, if not better than what we're getting.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Why would OSU fans be worried||
Why would OSU fans be worried about our recruiting? It's not like we're pulling in Alabama/Texas level classes every year. They're closer to that under Urban than we are under Hoke. Know the last time Rivals ranked one of our classes higher than Ohio State's? 2010. If anything, Ohio State is doing better in recruiting when compared to us than they were during the Tressel/Carrr years.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||It's reasonable to question||
It's reasonable to question the direction of the program, but I'm not really sure this game changes anything. I think we've been a pretty mediocre football team for all three years of Hoke's tenure, much of that isn't his fault. Mediocre teams often lose on the road to teams with something special to hang their hat on. If we lose, I don't think it changes anything, it just confirms where we're currently at.
I guess the only way it changes anything is in that it would basically clinch a third straight year that we won't be playing for a Big Ten championship. Winning the division in each year of Hoke's tenure has been an achievable goal, yet, despite some good fortune in years one and two, we haven't been able to do it. If we are basically out of the running with 4 big ten games remaining, it's not a good look, especially considering we're headed into a tougher division next year.
|7 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, it does seem weird that||
Yeah, it does seem weird that you can obstruct a runner without being in the actual basepath.
|8 weeks 10 hours ago||And I think he's harped on||
And I think he's harped on all those "broad" issues far more than he has harped on huddling. Why Brian harps on huddling, to the extent he does, is that nobody has given a solid reason why huddling EVERY play is necessary or even good coaching in modern football and that our insistence on huddling, like the tight punt formation, is just an unfortunate sign that our coaching staff might be behind the times. I think that is a very reasonable concern. It doesn't explain everything wrong with this team, but I don't think Brian has ever said it does.
On defense. ND scored one 4th quarter TD in 2011, hardly a bunch at the end. Plus you had gifts like Rees dropping the ball to keep that score down. The highest scoring game that year was Ohio St. with 34 putting Braxton Miller in a spread. Even a very mediocre Northwestern put up 24 in a half. It's hardly a defense of Mattison's issues against the spread that Borges laid an absolute egg against teams with pro-style offenses.
I don't think Mattison has necessarily been bad against spread offenses, but I think it's clear that they've given him more trouble than pro style defenses. I don't think anyone claims you have to run spread to stop it. If that were true, Mattison's time at Florida should have been a good primer. But, again, we've been bad against the spread under the Carr coaching tree, and it's frustrating. It's also raises the possibility that maybe there's some problem at the top of the food chain that keeps us from adequately preparing for these type teams. I don't see an issue with someone raising that possibility.
|8 weeks 10 hours ago||I don't see any mention of||
I don't see any mention of spread in that statement. He says we suck at two minute offense, which is true. He says we suck at defending high tempo offense, which IU exploited to the tune of 40+ points. He hypothesizes that this is a program problem in that they coaches don't seem to appreciate what tempo changes accomplishes. I don't remotely see why this is unreasonable.
And, FWIW, Brian has been far more excited about Borges's system than many considering the utter playcalling failures demonstrated in the first couple years. A lot of support for a guy fired by Auburn despite preferring a system loved by the then head coach.
|8 weeks 15 hours ago||What bigger issues has he||
What bigger issues has he been ignoring? Youth on the offensive line? Denard/Devin turnover issues? Lack of playmakers on defense? I think he's talked all of those to death. We're all aware that this team isn't perfect.
But, I think there are two things that are fairly undeniable at this point: (1) our offense can't adjust tempo at all, whether for the 2-minute drill or just a change of pace to get the offense going, something that can be done in all types of offenses; and (2) offenses that have shreaded our defense in the last three seasons have been spread-majority teams with an ability to go up-tempo (and Alabama). Is it really so ridiculous to have a unifying, program wide theory that says those two things might occasionally be connected? Certainly isn't the whole reason, and doesn't explain everything, but when I see an offense that too often gets to the line without enough time to check and a defense that frequently tips its blitz, sees the offense check, and runs the blitz anyways, it's not crazy to think that the coaching staff as a whole doesn't value some of the newer concepts that have frankly made coaching easier and better across college football.
|8 weeks 15 hours ago||I don't think he's saying all||
I don't think he's saying all "manball" teams can't handle spreads or high tempo offenses. I think he's saying MICHIGAN under the Carr branch of coaching hasn't handled spreads or high tempo offenses well at all (I'm ignoring the RichRod years, because his defense couldn't handle ANYTHING). I take his statement as frustration, simple as that. Discussing the offense in that paragraph was simply tying the previous paragraph in. Hoke thought we were prepared for Indiana's tempo based on our standard defensive prep, but if our offense has generally been unable to run a competent 2-minute drill, how fast could the scout team really be going?
|8 weeks 1 day ago||I guess you're right, there||
I guess you're right, there really isn't a distinction. I think I just found the video a little awkward with Gardner looking to throw the quick hitch to Gallon and only then giving a sort of delayed handoff.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||Intuitively, I've always||
Intuitively, I've always thought of packaged plays as run plays with pass options off of them. Just seems easier to me to have the QB set to make the handoff and if his read indicates the pass, he pulls and passes. Are these types of pass first, run second, packaged plays common? I'll admit to only having a cursory knowledge of standard packaged plays.
|8 weeks 2 days ago||I think that's a fair||
I think that's a fair question. In the olden days, when offensive and defensive systems were simpler, to be a great team you simply needed the best players and a coach with sufficient motivational ability to get the most out of those players. I don't think its that way any more. Now, to reach truly elite status, you have to have the horses and elite coaching. Sure, you can luck into a title by buying a Cam Newton or winning in a year where 2 loses gets you into the BCS title game, but if you look at the teams with multiple titles in the BCS era, they've all had elite coaching (Alabama, Florida, USC). I don't think our current staff is constructed that way with Borges as the OC. And I think it's a legitimate question of whether we can ever have an elite coaching staff with a guy like Hoke who isn't a big x's and o's guy. That's not to say that Hoke can't have a Les Miles like ceiling, which is pretty high, and I think we'd all take that in a hearbeat.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||Don't disagree with you, just||
Don't disagree with you, just trying to think like the coaching staff. We sort of had all been working under the assumption that Hoke/Borges reined in Gardner and the spread passing look due to Gardner TO concerns. I don't think the coaching staff is going to look at the Indiana game and think its solved, even though the last two games would indicate that Gardner is more comfortable with shotgun/spread looks.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||I see it like this: With no||
I see it like this: With no turnovers, it'll take 14-17 points to win this game. With 2-3 turnovers, it's going to take 24-27 points. Hoke/Borges will think that spreading the field and cutting Gardner loose = 2 to 3 TO's, while the Penn St. game plan could = 0 TO's. The question becomes, are you more confident in the IU gameplan generating 24-27 points or the PSU gameplan generating 14-17 points. I'd say the former, but I think the coaching staff will lean towards the latter.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||Not a chance. Clemson||
Not a chance. Clemson doesn't get a rematch when they got crushed at home. Alabama only got a shot because they lost a tight game where they missed some FGs, and there really was nobody elses. Next three in the rankings were Oklahoma St. who dropped a late game vs. Iowa St., Stanford who got drubbed by Oregon, and Oregon who had two losses including a bigger loss to LSU than Alabama's.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||Frankly, with the possible||
Frankly, with the possible exception of Hecklinski, I'd like to see an entire new coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball. I just haven't seen us utilize the talent we've had for three full years now.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||Froholdt is the most||
Froholdt is the most important recruit in the history of the program. We must establish a Danish pipeline...
|9 weeks 1 day ago||I'm with you. I've seen too||
I'm with you. I've seen too many parade of horrors from watching teams try and kick FGs in OT to think that the strategy should be anything besides get a first down. If you want to settle for a fg then, fine. Still not my preference, but a 25-32 yard attempt is far better than a 40 yard attempt. The difference isn't "just a bonus."
|9 weeks 1 day ago||I feel really terrible for||
I feel really terrible for your wife and your entire family. But I don't think your current position makes my post ignorant.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||At this point are women||
At this point are women really unaware of the need to to self exams, etc.? I'd say more than 99% of women are aware and those that choose not to be proactive are not going to be pursuaded by NFL players wearing pink gloves for 3 games a year. For women that aren't going to be proactive, a much more powerfull reason that will get them in gear is actually knowing someone who has to fight the battle.
I don't like the over-pinking of October for three reasons: (1) to me it does more to make the people donning pink feel good about themselves than anything for the actual cause; (2) some organizations (cough nfl cough) use it mostly as a marketing ploy; and (3) it so greatly overshadows other worthy causes that it's a fair argument that the breast cancer awareness month does more harm than good for the public as a whole.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||Its sort of like a few years||
Its sort of like a few years ago after Lance Armstrong did his whole wristband thing, suddenly there was a wristband for every cause under the sun. At some point you oversaturate the world with whatever it is that's supposed to raise awareness. At that point it has the opposite effect as people simply accept the awareness-raising activities as the normal course of life. Pink in October has long since blown past that point. Not to mention that lots of breast cancer survivors don't think all that highly of the national groupls leading the charge for blanketing the world in pink every October.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I read blame on playcalling||
I read blame on playcalling simply to mean that the play could not work as designed. That does not mean it is necesserily Borges' fault. Gardner could have missed a check. The defensive call could have simply been perfect. Even when coaches call great games, certain play calls will fail (thus negative RPS plays in the UFR). It's only when you add everything up and see a high total of blame being assigned to play calling can you fairly safely conclude that coaching/game planning was not good.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I would guess merely from a||
I would guess merely from a personnel, and down and distance stand point, Penn State thought this would be a hand off to the RB.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Yes. We will never be where||
Yes. We will never be where we want to be with Al Borges as OC. His time has passed. I also don't get this idea that there's nobody else out there. Every year an elite program snipes an up and comer because it can pay more. Why can't we do that? Why does it have to be someone with Michigan ties?
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Alabama doesn't do it. They||
Alabama doesn't do it. They are extremely balanced on first down. McCarron averages about 30 attempts per game.
Wisconsin and Stanford do, do it. But I'd argue the history of those two programs show that absent having NFL linemen and NFL QBs, they lose to elite opponents. As the OP said, the system only works when you have superior players. Anything close to even and you start to see problems.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Even MSU didn't keep them||
Even MSU didn't keep them from scoring... This game is way scarier than it should be.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Exactly. It's not as if||
Exactly. It's not as if anyone is asking to run Gardner 25 times a game. We're asking not to be in a two-TE set with Gardner under center. You can run your RB out of shotgun/pistol/spread looks. When we're as bad as we are at what we're doing, the answer to how to balance the offence and keep Gardner in oen piece isn't to run a two-TE set or run gardner, it's to run less two-TE and spread out the defense to better utilize all of your skill players.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I think all their skill||
I think all their skill players played or were drafted in the NFL from Borges' "good" year at SDSU. When compared to the rest of the MWC, that's pretty good talent.
I also think that TCU result has been blown way out of proportion. The result was fluky. SDSU took a quick 14-0 lead, including a defensive touchdown, then TCU scored the next 37 points. SDSU scored three touchdwons after that to make it a game, but it was one of those classic "we're rolling these guys" letups that allowed SDSU to make it close. SDSU only gained 300 yards on the day and had 9 straight 3 and outs or worse. That is not a game to hang your hat on if you're a Borges supporter.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||It's not like we were running||
It's not like we were running RR's spread for the last two seasons. There were a lot of power concepts, even when we were running the Denard Save Us offense. It's why there's been so much talk about how much zone-stretch blocking we've been doing this year. That scheme, a huge part of RR's spread, was non-existant for the last two years.
You seem to to be extending a misconception: running QB out of shotgun-spread look = RR's offense. That's just not the case. If we had been running RR's schemes over the last two+ seasons we would have been much better since we had an oline that was actually built for it. Instead, Hoke/Borges put in their preferred blocking scheme, and now, strangely, in year three have gone away from it a bit. The only area you can say the full offense maybe wasn't put in was the passing game because that's not what Denard excelled at. But once Gardner took over, you could see a closer relationship to what Borges wanted in that part of the game.
In sum, the argument that this year is to manball what 2008 was to RR's running spread is hogwash.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Typically offensive linemen||
Typically offensive linemen don't rotate. Your starters play every down. Depth at oline only matters for injury and non-performance replacements.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||5-6 years to put in an||
5-6 years to put in an offense? If it's going to take that long to have your pieces in place, you damn well better have something in the interim that works. I personally think that, while far from necessarily being perfect, a team should be able to competently run a coaches scheme by year 3.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||I think the inability to||
I think the inability to perform a real 2-minute drill is the greatest indicator that Borges is a problem at OC. That is pure coaching and preparation. We either do a horrible job preparing for the 2-minute drill or purposefully give that preparation short shift to instead focus on the latest flavor of the week. In any event, it seems to cost us at least a drive or two every couple games. I just don't see how you can employ an OC who can't prepare a team for a 2-minute drill. It's even more galling when you look around and nearly every other team uses the high tempo 2-minute style offense at least occasionally during regular game situations. How come we can't do it when it's absolutely necessary?!?
|9 weeks 3 days ago||I think as a practical||
I think as a practical matter, once you enter the season, defensive and offensive staffs aren't actively looking to help each other out. They're too concerned with preparing their own side of the ball to solve the other side's problems. You may have coaches bouncing questions off each other. Along the lines of: "hey, OPPONENT runs a blitz scheme similar to yours, what's your greatest fear when you run the blitz against this particular formation." But in terms of actually causing each other to be innovative, I don't see much correlation. Your OC and DC aren't preparing to go against each other, so their respective schemes really don't matter too much to each other.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Considering that one of the||
Considering that one of the offenses his supporters hang his hat on had caddilac williams and ronnie brown in the backfield, I think it's a fairly safe bet that he's coordinated an offense bent on establishing runs between the tackles.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||Oklahoma has a pretty||
Oklahoma has a pretty medicore offense this season. 16 points against WVU. 20 points against TCU. Stopping them doesn't negate everything we saw out of him for two years at Michigan and however many years before that at Syracuse.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||We were pretty mediocre the||
We were pretty mediocre the few years before that national championship. I don't think one national title in 20 years precludes a statement that an elite program has been pretty mediocre by its standards over that time period.
|9 weeks 4 days ago||As much as I loathe talking||
As much as I loathe talking about RichRod, it wasn't just GERG alone that ruined the defense. The entire defensive coaching staff, aside from maybe D-Line coach, were pretty bad. Mattison didn't come in and turn the worst defense in Michigan history into a pretty decent one with schemes alone. Coaching also improved dramatically in the back 7.
I think something similar is going on with the offense. In three years, who has performed above his talent on the offensive sisde of the ball? Maybe, Gallon? Nobody is being coached up on that side of the ball right now. I think it's time for a wholesale change in the offensive coaching staff. FWIW, I think this will automatically start this season with a Fred Jackson retirement.