I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 4 years 10 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Karma value
|11 hours 47 min ago||4th year as coaches||
In the fourth year of Hoke/Borges/Funk, you still will not be able to attribute any blame to them? Even if they cannot coach up, for instance, one of the highest ranked guards in the country as a recruit, in his third year under these coaches? Might as well give everyone a perpetual pass -- RR is to blame for all problems forever. On the other hand, Auburn fired Scott Loeffler (OC) and Gene Chizik (head coach), who led Auburn to a 0-9 SEC record last year, and in year one of the new regime, they are 7-1 in the SEC, ranked #3 in the country, and have the 5th best rushing offense.
|5 days 8 hours ago||Any clues?||
Any clues who Michigan has in mind for OC?
|1 week 6 hours ago||Coaching and Indiana||
Doesn't surprise me to see Indiana, with OL Coach Frey, well above the trendline in all of your charts. I hope we have an excellent OL Coach and OC next year to coach up all the talent we have on our roster.
|1 week 5 days ago||Bowl game||
Is that a possibility? I don't know enough about the picking priority, etc., to tell if that could even happen.
|1 week 5 days ago||Our old coaches||
Early in the second quarter, Arizona has 13 first downs (and 21 points) on the 5th ranked Ducks, using a QB that did not get a FBS, FCS, or Division III offer out of high school.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Why we aren't yelling at Mattison||
We aren't yelling because Mattison took one of the worst defenses in the country and immediately turned it around. It has been a top 20/25 outfit ever since. No excuses that he needs five years of recruiting his kinds of players, etc. Moreover, Mattison has a track record of success, which, while not a perfect indicator of future success, is a better sign than a track record of failure.
It appears that you would like to use scoring offense/defense as your indicator of whether a coach is performing well (as opposed to total offense/defense, or FEI). Even cherry-picking this statistic, which helps Borges (as opposed to total offense), here is his track record (this includes the year prior to his arrival as well as his years at each stop):
Year Team Total
2000 Cal 80th
2010 Mich 25th
In the Pac-10/Pac-12, regression.
In the Big 10 (at Indiana), steady regression.
In the SEC, after catching lightning in a bottle with two first round RBs (seniors) and a first round QB (senior), all developed by a previous coach, three years of steady regression.
In the Mountain West, one good year (2010).
In the Big 10 again, regression. (Yes, the scoring offense number at 39th so far isn't as bad as 57th last year. I do not think we will be scoring as many points on Ohio State as we did on CMU or Indiana. We have one TD in regulation the past three games.)
Given that we are willing to pay an OC enough to put him in the handful of highest paid coordinators in the country, we can find people with better resumes (i.e., track records of success, rather than regression). There were threads earlier that threw out a handful of names. Personally, I would love to see Hoke and Brandon take a chance on someone like Bob Stitt. But if you want to emulate Stanford (and we swung and missed on Harbaugh and his staff), why not go after Bloomgren? Or how about Charlie Taaffe (who makes a quarter of what Borges does? Or Sean Kugler, about whom Chris Peterson apparently said: "There's absolutely no question that he's the best football coach I've ever been around." (Kugler was assistant head coach with Peterson at Boise State in 2006, when they went undefeated.) He's making $280,000 as head coach of UTEP. He could coach his son and the rest of the blue chips we brought in, who look confused under Funk and Borges. We have plenty of preferable options to our current situation.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Wisconsin under Bielema||
Bielema took underwhelming recruiting classes and won the conference numerous times, making it regularly to the Rose Bowl. Those who lack our "clear naivety of organizational dynamics" would prefer more regression under Borges (who has not made it to the end of a fourth year anywhere in the past dozen years, being fired from Cal, Indiana, and Auburn) to actual success on the field?
Also, "flush[ing] a lot of QB recruiting"? We foolishly passed on taking any QB one year; Borges has done a really fine job of coaching up Bellomy and Gardner; and while I hope Speight turns out to be a star, he is a consensus 3 star recruit.
When you are willing to pay an OC enough money to make him top 3 in the country, you don't need a successor lined up when you realize that the one you have now is not only not elite, but is below-average. His offenses have regressed here, just like they did at Cal, Indiana, and Auburn. Given that we are now willing to write a big check for an OC, we could use that money this offseason to bring in someone who is worth it.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Huh?||
Akron's players are better than ours? It seems like you are saying that anyone with more career starts is better than someone with fewer. I will happily line up 3 and 5 star recruits with little experience taught by competent coaches against Akron (whose very good coaches are working with players who largely did not receive offers from AQ teams). (Akron's 2011 recruiting class had one 3 star recruit, nine 2 star recruits, one 1 star, and 13 recruits with no stars.)
Moreover, I thought that Hoke defenders' main point is how well he recruits. If recruiting ranks do not matter (because only experience does), why are we paying $4M to this head coach?
Our players are not the problem. We have seen what the defensive staff can give with all levels of recruits, helping individuals who have largely struggled get better. We have also seen what this offensive staff does. Based on my understanding of Borges' history, I think we have been set up for regression and disappointment.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Little talent on offense?||
We have (1) a returning LT that would have gone top 5 in the NFL draft; (2) a second or third round RT; (3) a senior QB who was a top recruit; (4) the top RB in the nation in last class, according to some scouting services; (5) the #1 guard from 2012, etc., etc. We don't have the talent to beat Akron or UConn by more than fluke and a prayer? We may not be able to get anything out of these players due to our coaches' ineptitude, but to think that we have "little talent on offense" is hilarious to the 100 (or more) other FBS teams that would trade their offensive rosters for ours in a heartbeat (provided they would have an opportunity to coach them up). Take a look at the roster of the teams that are beating us, or that we are beating with goal-line stands at the end of games, and reconsider.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Hoke doesn't fulfill the criteria||
He was clearly referring to Urban Meyer. Meyer took a 2-9 Bowling Green team, and immediately turned it around, going 8-3 in year one and 9-3 in year two.
Both of his years at Utah, he won the conference title and the bowl game, going undefeated in year two (and taking Utah to a top 5 ranking).
Hoke has never won a conference title, even in the MAC or WMC. He inherited a Ball State team that went 6-6 under Bill Lynch, and spend the next four years below .500. His fifth year they went 7-6. Lightning struck in year six, but even then, Hoke's ranked Ball State team was soundly beaten by Turner Gill's team in the MAC championship.
We hired a .500 coach with no conference titles to his name (and he still does not). He is a good recruiter, helped reunited the fanbase, and will always be incredibly dependent on having excellent coordinators underneath him if his teams are going to succeed. We do not have an excellent offensive coaching staff, including OC.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||Michael Cox under Hoke/Borges||
Michael Cox was also an option available to the non-RR coaching staff we have in place now (in Cox's senior year). Cox was given fewer carries by Hoke/Borges (zero carries in 6 game appearances). I'm glad he has found a place on the Giants' roster, and I wish him the best, but let's not turn this into a RR criticism. (Cox also averaged 3.6 yards per carry at UMass, with a season long of 32. So it's not like he lit the world on fire in his final year (on a weak team, admittedly).)
|2 weeks 5 days ago||Thank you Desmond||
In the end, this will ultimately be Dave Brandon's decision. The more he hears from former players (Larry Foote, Ryan Van Bergen, Desmond Howard), the more likely he will cut the cord. As a marketer, he also must realize that with a new OC he can sell hope, and he needs that hope to keep getting preferred seat donations, to support recruiting, etc. (Right now, all anyone can see is regression, which has been Borges' staple for the past 15 years.) Furthermore, Borges had no Michigan ties. He wasn't a coach under Carr, etc. Hopefully Brandon realizes that the Michigan brand he holds so dear can't take another year with this offensive staff.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||Chant||
Can we get a "Fi-re Bor-ges [clap, clap . . . clap, clap, clap]" chant going? Pretty hard to misconstrue that.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||Screen plays?!||
Screen plays?! Your answer is screen plays?!
(Said in Jim Mora voice, paraphrasing Al at recent press conference.)
|3 weeks 2 days ago||"Great track record"?||
Those halycon days at UCLA were actually 1997 and 1998. In 1999, UCLA and Borges averaged 20.9 ppg.
He had one year at Cal (2001), in which the team went 1-10. The offense averaged 18.3 points per game (105th of 117). Everyone was fired.
He then had two years at Indiana under Gerry DiNardo (2002 and 2003), in which the teams went 3-9 and 2-10. In 2002, they averaged 21.5 points per game (95th of 117). In 2003, they regressed, averaging 14.8 points per game (115th of 117).
Despite that, somehow he was hired by Tuberville at Auburn. He inherited a roster with redshirt senior QB first round pick Jason Campbell, senior RB first round pick Cadillac Williams (5th pick overall in 2005), and redshirt senior RB first round pick Ronnie Brown (2nd pick overall in 2005). With those pieces in place (and those players having been developed for three to four years by others), the 2004 Auburn offense ranked 18th of 120. With each year of Borges at the helm, it regressed: 30th in 2005, 56th in 2006, and 85th in 2007. Borges did not make it to the bowl game in 2007.
He did not coach in 2008.
You'll see a similar regression at Michigan: 27th in 2011, 58th in 2012. (I expect the Iowa and Ohio State games to lower our averages this year as well.) We are putting up 100 yards fewer per game. Our yards per play have regressed each year: 6.8 in 2010 (under RR); 6.2 in 2011; 6.1 in 2012; 5.6 in 2013 so far.
People who know more about football than I do can argue whether he makes the right calls, but the players keep messing things up; whether his offense would work in a perfect world, but recruiting or youth or something else is to blame; whether as someone in the field, he must be given five years at a stop to try to make things work, etc. I simply would like people to know his actual background. Just like when people say Hoke inherited a cratering program at Ball State and turned it around, when in truth, Ball State had gone 6-6 the prior two years under Bill Lynch, and Hoke spent four years trying to get back to .500, and went 7-6 in his fifth year.
Anyway, typing out these statistics is my form of running Touissant up the middle 27 times. Doubt it is having much effect, but feel compelled to do it anyway.
[Note: I see that you are saying he is not working out at Michigan, so I am not arguing with you; I would simply like more people to know more about his record.]
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Bill Stewart||
After RR left WVU, they went with a non-Xs and Os guy who really loved the school and the state and their tradition (and was reportedly a good guy). A man who wouldn't need a map to the campus. Amazingly, his three year record will likely match or eclipse Hoke's. Yes, Bill Stewart went 9-4 each of his seasons as WVU's head coach. Note, he even shared a conference title, something our coach never has.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||Ball State turnaround||
2000 5-6 (Coached by Bill Lynch)
2001 6-6 (Coached by Bill Lynch)
2002 6-6 (Coached by Bill Lynch)
2003 4-8 (Coached by Brady Hoke)
2004 2-9 (Coached by Brady Hoke)
2005 4-7 (Coached by Brady Hoke)
2006 5-7 (Coached by Brady Hoke)
2007 7-6 (Coached by Brady Hoke)
He inherited a .500 team from Bill Lynch. For the next four years, Hoke could not get them to .500. In his fifth year, he went 7-6. He had one fluke season in his sixth year.
If, after the 7 win 2010 Michigan season under RR, Hoke had gone 4-8, 2-10, 4-8, 5-7, and 8-5 in five seasons at Michigan, would you consider that a "turnaround"? I do not think that the term "turnaround" can apply to what happened at Ball State under Hoke.
|3 weeks 3 days ago||"Look at Auburn for example"||
Auburn brought it one of the best modern offensive minds (Malzahn) and a new OL coach, etc. Dave Brandon and Hoke have consistently taken the position that such offenses lead to weaker defenses. The coaches that could bring us into modern era college football might also need a "map to Ann Arbor," another huge strike for Brandon. Probably better to simply watch Auburn football if you want to see offensive competency. Watching the Brandon/Hoke/Borges/Funk/Wellman ensemble put together an offense is kind of like watching your relatives in an awful community theatre play. It's painful, they apparently don't realize how bad they are, and there are much better forms of entertainment out there, but because of familial ties, this is how you will be spending your Saturday. Our Town for the win.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||"And is better"||
Like those new annoying commercials "And is better," it sure would have been nice to have excellent offensive coaches AND excellent defensive coaches.
With Mattison, we immediately became a top 20 defense, and have consistently stayed there (or close thereto). No mention of needing some new recruits, no blaming RR's lack of recruiting on defense, no issues of "youth/inexperience," etc. Excellent coaching, immediate and consistent results. Those results were also consistent with Mattison's sustained excellence and success at high level positions, and the demand for him in coaching circles.
On offense, after jumping 50 spots from 2008 to 2009, and then jumping another 50 spots to a top ten offense in 2010, we regressed to a top 50 offense in Borges' first year, and regressed further in his subsequent years. Again, this is consistent with his one year stint at California (everyone fired), his two year stint at Indiana with Gerry DiNardo (3-9 first year, 2-10 second year), his four year stint at Auburn (consistent regression, until fired before bowl game). He did have a good year in the Mountain West in 2010, where SDSU played all of one game against a BCS automatic qualifying (i.e., major conference) team.
Unfortunately, it looks it is going to take Michigan longer to learn from history this time around, and it will be a shame if by the time we bring in excellent offensive coaches we don't have Mattison around anymore. And is better.
|4 weeks 22 hours ago||Coaching||
Hard to tell why no one has pointed out a big difference between 2012 Auburn and 2013 Auburn, and the significant improvement they have made: they brought in excellent offensive coaches (Malzahn and his OL coach) in 2013. Unfortunately, it looks like we will be saddled with Borges at a minimum for next year, and probably Funk and Wellman as well. Anyone who is familiar with Borges' history, frankly, cannot be optimistic about that fact. (E.g., his best year at Auburn was his first, when he inherited senior, first round NFL talents that others had developed for years. As time progressed, his offenses regressed.) In fact, the trajectory of his Auburn offenses over time and his Michigan offenses over time is more similar than we would like to admit.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||What they inherited||
Meyer inherited a 2-9 Bowling Green team (2000). His first year, Bowling Green went 8-3 (2001), and the next year they went 9-3 (2002).
He then inherited a 5-6 Utah team (2002). His first year, Utah went 10-2 (2003), and the next year they went 12-0 (2004).
Three times in six years in the SEC (admittedly the toughest conference right now), his team went 13-1. He won two national championships.
He has won his first 20 games for OSU, and the comparison of how OSU and UM dealt with Penn State speaks volumes.
Hoke inherited a Ball State team that had gone 5-6 the previous two years (2000 and 2001). It took six years before Hoke had a team break .500 at Ball State (7-6 in 2007).
He had 4 win and 9 win seasons at SDSU. (His successor has had 8 win and 9 win seasons.)
He has never won a conference championship.
He is undoubtedly a great recruiter. (If you go back and read clippings from his hiring, this is what his brother points to as his greatest strength.) He is neither an offensive nor defensive genius, which he is the first to admit. He (and Brandon's willingness to open the purse strings) brought in a top-notch DC. He also attached himself to Borges and Funk. As a delegator, his success will rise and fall with the quality of the coaching staff he brings in.
To attribute the relative success of the two coaches to one snapshot of recruiting ranks or a "culture of success" seams a stretch. Other coaches are having more success with less talent. Furthermore, to the extent that we want to attribute success to a "culture," there is an argument that Meyer, as someone with the highest level of success previously (conference championships and national championship), can foster that culture, while Hoke, who has never experienced even a conference championship, cannot.
All of this is a long way of saying that while Hoke may be the right person for the job (great character, reunited the fanbase and the factions within the program, priorities aligned with Michigan values), he really isn't on the same level as Meyer as a coach. For the success of the program, I hope he has some metric that he is using to evaluate his coaching staff, and that he does not put loyalty to them or a softness on personnel issues (nobody with a heart likes to fire someone who is loyal, but simply not talented or good enough for the job) above the welfare of the program. E.g., how bad does the line need to be (with multiple NFL-level seniors, 5 star redshirt freshmen, etc.) before Funk is replaced? How many 27 for 27 games against opponents that OSU decimates (by taking what the defense is giving) need to occur before Hoke decides that Borges is limiting the upside of this program? I'm not saying I know the answers, but if there are not metrics in place, we might as well say that coaching does not matter and that whoever Hoke hired at his first stop should be with the program forever. That seems extremely narrow-minded.
|5 weeks 5 days ago||Head coaching record||
"A record is a reflection of one's coaching acumen."
This is Hoke's 11th year as a head coach, and RR's 20th year. RR has a better win percentage over his much longer tenure. RR has 8 conference championships; Hoke has none.
Brandon paid more for a quality DC (Mattison) than he paid the DC and OC combined under RR. Almost immediately, UM went from one of the worst defenses in the country to a steadily good defense ever since (even in the first year, without "Hoke's guys").
On the other hand, our offense has steadily regressed from the heights of 2010.
If, after watching the Akron, UConn, and PSU games this year, you think we have built an incredibly sturdy base of a program, especially on offense, that is your right. Others, who have seen what Borges has done throughout his journeyman career, or the lack of OL development under Funk, see things differently.
But given your original statement regarding coaching acumen, you may want to tone down your comments on RR and Hoke. (Or, at least until Hoke catches up in the win column, wins a few conference titles, etc.)
|7 weeks 1 day ago||Indiana||
You offer a lot of great analysis, which I am not taking issue with, but there is at least one thing that is worth pointing out about Indiana. They have our old OL coach. In the wake of the past four games, a number of people have tried to excuse our OL performance because we (a) are too young/inexperienced, and/or (b) don't have enough talent. Indiana/Coach Frey had to start two true freshmen last year - one at LT and one at G. Both were three star recruits, and combined they had one non-Indiana Big Ten offer offer among them (to Illinois). Given what Indiana is accomplishing with young, inexperienced, and relatively lightly regarded recruits, this idea that Funk and Borges need 4 years of coaching up 4 and 5 star talents before we can expect competent line play is crazy, in my opinion. (Not saying you are arguing that, but a lot of Borges/Funk apologists appear to be.)
|7 weeks 2 days ago||Our old OL coach was very good||
Greg Frey is an excellent OL coach. He took two true freshman 3 star recruits at Indiana last year (only one other Big Ten offer among both of them - to Illinois), and started them at LT and G. Both earned Freshmen All-American honors. Imagine what a good OL coach could do with guys like Kalis (RS Freshman 5 star). Our problem is not youth, inexperience, or talent, because a lot of teams are doing a lot more with a lot less.
|7 weeks 3 days ago||Coach of the year||
I believe his teams would rather win a conference title than have Hoke win an award -- something they have never done in any of his stops in any conference. (For the record, I am fine keeping Hoke, but as a cheerleader/CEO/recruiter type, he needs to surround himself with great assistants. Borges and Funk are not great assistants. Given enough regression, and Borges' history is a repeated story of regression, the great recruiting will suffer.)
|7 weeks 3 days ago||"Great O-line coach"||
If Hoke honestly believes that he has a great o-line coach, it is far more likely that we will go through another full purge in 3-4 years after the bloom of the 2011 season and the "This is Michigan" speeches wear off. Hoke is admittedly a CEO, great recruiter, face of the program type coach. If he cannot surround himself with quality coordinaters and position coaches, we are doomed. Hopefully he is just saying this to keep the public and his team calm, but if he and Brandon cannot see that they have a Greg Robinson/Tony Gibson level problem on one side of the ball, we should expect 2010 type results going forward (with a slight adjustment for better recruiting, until those recruits realize they will be wasted if they are being coached by Borges and Funk).
|7 weeks 3 days ago||A good coach can do much more||
You want examples? Just look at the team we are playing this week, which has our old O-line coach. Last year he was forced to start a true freshman at LT and a true freshman at guard. And they weren't blue-chip, 5 star recruits. No, he had two 3 star guys -- one with one other Big Ten offer (Illinois), the other with only MAC offers. Both earned freshmen All-American honors. The LT allowed two sacks all year, the other true freshman none. Indiana was second in the Big Ten in total offense. This idea that coaching does not matter, and that only teams with upperclassmen four and five star talent can show any competence is crazy. Most teams in the country cannot fathom the talent we have to work with. What this offensive staff (especially Funk, but throw in Borges and the S&C guys) does with that talent is awful.
|7 weeks 5 days ago||Let Dave Brandon know||
Let him know how what we cares out ($ to Michigan) will be affected by the product on the field put out by Borges and Funk. (Don't even think about the possibility of Hoke going anywhere.) His email address is dabran (at) umich (dot) edu. I just re-read my email exchange with him from 2010 when rumors on Hoke started to surface. You'll be surprised -- you are likely to receive a response.
|8 weeks 1 hour ago||Points per game||
Arizona was 15th in the country last year in points per game. Michigan was 57th. But if you think Al Borges and Daryl Funk have had better success and are better offensive coaches that RR, you are entitled to that opinion. I disagree. As I said, I am not defending his defenses, which were awful. The criticisms I was responding to were about his offenses.
|8 weeks 1 hour ago||I'm not defending his defenses||
I understand that his defenses here were awful, and maybe they will always be awful. Criticisms on the board here tonight were about his offense. Say what you will about his defenses, his recruiting, his sideline demeanor, etc., but to think his offenses do not work, are only relevant "in 2003," etc., is wrong, in my opinion. I still wish we could couple Mattison's defense with an excellent modern offensive mind, with recent sustained success at the college level (run focused spread or pass focused spread). And I have my doubts that we will have the sustained elite recruiting (Alabama now, or USC a few years ago) needed to rely on simply beating opponents based on talent and size advantages on offense.