Reality Check - UM Football Has Been Mediocre by "Blue Blood" Standards ...for 20 Years
Preface: (a) I am prepared for the downvotes and hate messages and (b) this has little to do with the Penn State game and more to do with the now years of sweating out games with the likes of UConn / Akron and knowing a typical game versus a program like Purdue or Illinois is now a sweat it out game with a >35%+ chance of a loss.
I cannot remember the last time we had a servicable OL that did not require a superman QB to create offense. I am sure it was 2007 but it sickens me to see we have a MAC level OL - whatever the age - with an All American holding down 1 of the 5 spots, and a theoretical NFL pick at another. It sickens me that this is not a 1 year issue, or a 3 year but with the youth of 2014 will be a year 7 issue. At Michigan.
We have let the Big 10 down, and our biggest rival down. It is not just since Rich Rod got here, but aside from one special season, and a few other very nice ones, UM football has been quite "average" (I don't know the right adjective and I know the board police will attack whichever adjective I use so insert your own) not for 6 years but 20 versus our "pedigree". 5 Big 10 titles, outright or shared in 20 years. Wisconsin has more in that time.
Being a statistic geek I took a look at the top programs in all time wins, excluded the Harvard/Yales and added in Florida and we don't compare very well at all for the past 20 years. By that I mean 0, 1, or 2 loss seasons. [i.e. my ARBITRARY signal of what would indicate you have a pretty damn elite team, allowing for 1 screwup a year - it's a basic eye test, not science] We have been consistently meh (insert your adjective here) - and well below our rival OSU who both share a very average conference for about a decade now. We laugh at Notre Dame here on so many levels but frankly we have become Notre Dame North. For comparison sake, the previous 20 year period, we had 13 seasons of 2 losses or less; we had an elite program.
Since 1993, the # of years UM has lost less than 3 games: 4.
We sit here on our boards and so many are all high and mighty and mock Notre Dame. Yes they have only had 2 of less than 3 losses in 20 years. Somehow they have been even worse. But what a lame yardstick at this point. Hey we are better than Charlie Weiss and Bob Davie - yippee.
Our rival? They are making us look pathetic. OSU with 12 years of 2 losses or less.
- PSU with a "over the hill Paterno": 6
- Nebraska: 8
- Texas: 7
- Oklahoma: 7
- USC* (*cheaters): 9
- Florida: 11
- Georgia: 5
- Tennessee: 6
- Bama: 6
Aside from consistency over 20 years most of the teams above had 4-5 year periods of super elite status where they were "dominant", before cycling back down. Unfortunately while we got our 1 NC, we also have not had that sort of "consistent elite/feared for a # of years". Georgia is probably the only other one along with our friends in South Bend.
Our recruiting classes have, aside for maybe 2-3 years out of 20 been consistently top 10ish. We tsk tsk at Texas for doing less with more but the reality is many of us (myself included) are living in glass houses as we have been doing the same.... or one could argue less with the same.
I get caught up in the day to day and week to week analysis as much as anyone, but when you really sit back and look at the big picture it has been a relatively mediocre era, thankfully to a degree covered up by a supernova in 1997. Just very frustrating to analyze and compare to what Ohio is doing - we are not in the same conversation anymore. Hopefully our "cycle" comes soon (latter 2010s) but it's been a long time waiting for it.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
Maybe we're playing like crap because the upperclassmen that should be the leaders on this this team aren't very good? Ever think about that? We have 25 players that have 4 years or more in the program, how many All Big 10 players are amoung those 25 players?
Try and understand. Just 6 years ago in 2008 Michigan had 65 scholarship athletes on its roster. Then, they went 3-9, the fanbase revolted, and after another 2 miserable seasons, a change was made. I tried to explain it but you obviously cannot get it.
MICHIGAN FOOTBALL IS REBUILDING! It has a severe lack of developed talent, and the players with the most experience ARE NOT GOOD!
October 14th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
Hello MLive.
This team is still under construction. Still very young overall and inexperienced in a lot of places. Young and inexperienced teams don't usually play well. Bring your expectations in line with where the team actually is and you won't be so disappointed. Wait another year or two to pass judgment on Hoke and Borges. They still put up 34 points and put the team in position to win the game 3 or 4 times.
This place is so full of emotional overreactors. It feels like it did back in the RR days.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
Literally the only place this team in young at is the interior line. Don't spare me ''the team is young''. No, that is not true at all. QB, RB, WR, DL, LB, and Secondary all have experienced guys starting.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
read my post above. The upperclassmen aren't good!
October 14th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
QB = First year starter, followed by true freshman, followed by...?
RB = Experienced starter, followed by true freshman, followed by guys with little meaningful game experience.
WR = Experienced starter (Gallon), redshirt freshman, little-used, experienced catcher (Dileo), not very good players.
TE = Sophomores and freshmen.
SDE = First time starters or freshmen
WDE = Inconsistent player or freshmen
Interior DL = Experienced starters, followed by...?
LBs = Somewhat experienced, but good players
Corners = Somewhat experienced, followed by freshmen
Safeties = Experienced starter (Gordon), first year starter (Wilson), followed by...?
That's a lot of inexperienced players and freshmen in the two deep.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
and 61 players on scholarship with over a dozen of those are former walk ons. And we almost lost to the 2 worst teams in the FBS.
Please spare me the inexperience and/or talent arguments
October 14th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^
Why? What are the 3 most common complaints with this team? From what I've read, it's:
- Too many turnovers from Gardner.
- Not enough push up front from the OL.
- Not enough organic pash rush from the DL.
That just so happens to coincide with the youngest/most inexperienced parts of the team:
- First year-starter QB. Inexperienced players make mistakes. It happens.
- Offensive line is a tough position to play, which is why you see most offensive linemen get redshirted.
- Good pass rushes come from the ends. Clark/Ojemudia are either not very experienced or have a track record of mediocrity. Godin/Heitzmann/Wormley/everyone else at SDE are young and don't have much experience.
This is still a young and inexperienced team. You have to give the coaches time to develop players. It doesn't happen overnight. A coach needs at least 4 years to develop his team...which we should know by now.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^
You are 100% correct regarding the lack of talent/expereince, but I think it is a relative lack of experience, and it does not adequately explain the situation we are in. Using our Oline/Running Backs as an example, Mathlete's front page post shows just how god-awful we are in that aspect of the game. I do not struggle with the question, "Why aren't we a great running team?" You point out a number of legitimate reasons. I struggle with the question, "Why are we a terrible running team?" I think your rationale conceivably explains our lack of dominance. I am not so sure it completely explains our totally inept pass rush and o line play, because I have to believe that there are far less talented teams and equally inexperienced teams that are faring much better than us in at least those two aspects of the game.
October 14th, 2013 at 10:50 PM ^
Well put. That things are bad at times this season is not a shock. That things are as bad as they have been as often as they have been this season is what is so concerning.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
Good post, Moleskyn. I honestly wonder if other fanbases freak out this way after a loss.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^
Many people need to look into a good therapist. Weirdos. I love the "fire everyone" mentality, yet there is no talk of a sucessor. Let's jump on a coaching carousel, because that will end well. OH, wait, LANE KIFFIN! He's totally available. I avoided the blog all weekend, thinking it would be more normal on Monday, but we're not there yet. Maybe Tuesday or next May.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
I never loved Carr as our coach. He coached exactly like Borges and Brady did on Saturday. They all coached afraid to lose and let teams with inferior talent keep the game close enough to pull out the upset. Carr's teams did this almost every year except for 97 when he had a helacious defense that was capable of closing out every close game.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
vs. Indiana next weekend, because, you know " this is Michigan" for godssake. At Michigan we out-tough our opponents, because that's how games are won. Look at Stanford!...uh, no don't look at Stanford.
Never mind the mental aspect of the game. Being tougher is all that matters man. Look out Indiana, with your fancy air raid playbook and "basketball on grass" business. You're going be in big trouble.
What a bunch of horseshit.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:18 PM ^
LOL. I'm still perfectly happy to look at Stanford
2010: 12-1
2011: 11-2
2012: 12-2
And they're 5-1 this year. Pretty terrible I guess.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:00 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
Anyone calling for Hoke's job needs to rethink their stance. It takes a little while for players to become good. This staff wants a power offense with a super offensive line, which we didn't have with RR. Well, that takes time. Look for the line to get better next year and especially beyond.
Also, who the hell will they get if they foolishly fire Hoke? Harbaugh isn't coming here.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
You don't get it. When your team loses a game it should win, you must always do the following:
- Find someone to pin the blame on.
- Blame that person profusely, realizing that all of the team's problems stem from that person.
- Find stats that back up your position. Repeat them ad nauseum.*
- Demand that the person from step 1 be fired. Do not make any good suggestions for a successor. That's for the administration to figure out.
- Expect successor to be better.**
*If no such stats exist, make some up.
**These steps should be repeated for every successor each time the team loses a game it should win.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
Michigan should be vying for the Big10 title this year.
Or he should be fired, right?
Or does he get a free pass because he was a once Michigan DL coach 16 years ago?
This is such horseshit man.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
He should have vied for a B1G title in year 1 and should be contending for a MNC by year 3. This is because I DEMAND RESULTS NOW.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
Last time I checked, they can still win the conference this year.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^
there is also ample room to criticize him and Borges for failing to correct the obvious offensive deficiencies.
I'd have no problem canning Borges, however, if things don't improve this season.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:10 PM ^
I agree we can criticize the coaches, but some people are saying "fire them all" or some of them and that is ridiculous.
Sure! Let's fire the coach and then start over again. That will really help with recruiting and staying competitive with Ohio. Fire the coach and we're not going to be Ohio for years, let alone win the conference.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^
I think the fans are:
A) Tired of excuses for this coaching staff
B) Still crispy from all the mistakes RR made with his staff
On the two above:
Part A
- The first year with Hoke & Co. was great. 11-2 and a Sugar Bowl. No complaints there.
- Then last year, we took a step back. Borges began to try to fit Denard (square) into a round hole. 'He's not an Al Borges' QB excuse runs rampant (what a crock of shit). We lost the ND game because of his play calling / Denard's decision making. Then we lost the Nebraska game because they put Devin at WR and trusted Bellomy. Ohio State was a loss mainly because Borges couldn't figure out how to use Denard / Devin on the field together in the second half. The ONLY game that the coaching staff looked good in, and we lost, was the SCar game (loss because JT Floyd got high / Wilson got burnt).
- This year sort of explains itself. Continue to let Al install his scheme and watch it all turn to shit. We just averaged 1 YPC against a team certainly averaging much more than that. We have a QB that turns it over as often as he scores (but is still our best player somehow). What is the excuse this year? Youth? Come on, that's a load of shit.
Part B
Darrell Funk is the new Tony Gibson. If Hoke's going to keep my respect, he has to can this clown before it gets any worse. Borges gets evaluated at the end of the season, too.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
- The first year with Hoke & Co. was great. 11-2 and a Sugar Bowl. No complaints there.
That was going to be a good year no matter who was the coach. It was a soft schedule and all of the big games were at home. If RR had been given one more year (which would have been 2011), I guarantee he'd still be coaching, because he would have won at least 10 games.
2011 was the perfect year to bring in a new coach.
- Then last year, we took a step back.
It only appears that way because 2011 was a mirage. All of the big games we had at home in 2011 were on the road in 2012. It only feels like it was a step back because the expectations were so high (which was a mistake) after 2011.
- This year sort of explains itself.
This year is just further proof that this team is still a work in progress with holes to fill. The pieces are starting to fill in, thanks to great recruiting, but it takes time for guys to develop.
- Darrell Funk is the new Tony Gibson.
What is the evidence for this? That 3 freshman or first-time-starting linemen are struggling?
October 14th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^
Re: Your last point, I think "struggling" is putting it mildly.
One of those three starting linemen was a consensus five star with a year in the system already. Then you have a top ~15 NFL draft pick and a consensus All-B1G Right Tackle... There is no way / shape / form this line should be one of the 5 worst in the country. Open your eyes.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
Open my eyes to what? I realize the offensive line play has not been good. I feel the frustration as much as anyone. But does that fall on Funk (who's more responsible for the development of the players) or Borges (who's more responsible for utilizing the players)? You seem to say it's on Funk. If that's the case, that means Borges can't be faulted because he's using the guys he has to the best of their abilities.
I think it really boils down to two questions:
- Are they being under-utilized or misused (meaning, if they were being used a different way, would they be struggling as much as they are)? How would be able to tell this?
- Are they lacking in development (meaning they're not as far along as they should be)?
October 14th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
Couldn't it be both?! Couldn't the O-line be lacking development because of Funk? And, couldn't Borges be at fault for mis-using the players because he clearly sees that doing the same thing over-and-over-and-over-and-(you get the point) doesn't work?
It seems like Funk just fundamentally does not do a good job growing the talent he has...and it seems Borges thinks doing the same thing everytime will somehow produce different results.
Hoke needs to take a cue from Belein and fire the OC and O-Line coaches and hire coaches with more recent, relevant success, including success in player development. Specifically, if Hoke insists on running MANBALL, hire Mike Bloomgren from Stanford (who was also Stanford's O-line coach for years and did an AMAZING job with sub-par rercuits that are now in the NFL). Moreover, hire T.J. Woods or Bart Miller to coach the O-Line. Both are young and have impressive pedigrees.
October 14th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
How can you make that blanket statement about Funk though? Does he get no credit for Lewan and Schofield (the only upperclass linemen on the two-deep)? I don't deny that Funk could be the cause of the problems, but I just don't think any of us know for sure. I don't understand how anyone can make a judgment call on someone when the first full recruiting class under this new regime is in year 2.
Your reaction, and many others on here, suggests an emotional reaction to a bad loss, trying to find someone to place blame. Sure, the OL production has been really disappointing, but how much of that is due to youth and inexperience, and how much due to coaching? And how do you know one versus the other?
October 14th, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^
With all due respect, what evidence do you need before answering your questions? I am looking at:
- The overall output of the offense: yards, PPG, etc.
- Trend data over the course of multiple seasons and multiple games this season: Are we regressing? Are we improving?
- Are we competitive with our rivals? Are we winning when we should win? Are we looking competent when we may not be expected to win?
- What is the talent we are fielding? How experienced are they?
- What is the relative talent we are fielding? How talented are they compared to the competition?
- Are we leveraging our strengths and positioning our players to be successful?
To me, whether emotional or fact-based, the conculsions I am arriving at to these questions are not positive. Granted, there's not much we can do about the young(ish) talent we have; however, nearly every college football team in the country is constantly replacing starters on the line...every year! So, I guess I don't buy that excuse too much since it's not something remotely unique to our team. Moreover, what is unique about our team is we have two senior bookends to the line, and one of those seniors is an All-American (and even he appears to be - at best - plateauing this year).
Finally, layering on the "eye test," I am arriving at (1) Funk is not great at developing talent; and, (2) Borges does not position his players to succeed, nor does he play to win (he plays not to lose).
October 14th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
Yeah, I'd give him credit for the fact that both have regressed since he got here.
October 14th, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^
October 15th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
Lewan started 9 games, and was a Freshman All-American before Hoke was hired.
Schofield played in all 13 games the year before Hoke got here, special teams mostly.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
Darrell Funk is the new Tony Gibson.
What is the evidence for this? That 3 freshman or first-time-starting linemen are struggling?
Normally I agree with your posts but I have to differ with you on this one Moleskyn and side with Rager. Those freshman (excluding our All-American of course) and first-time starting lineman are getting crushed by walk-ons, no-stars and a collection of players that never got invited to a camp at Michigan much less got a scholly offer.
I have brought up the Funk=Gipson analogy in many threads and believe it to be true as well. Coach B smoked his entire assistant staff a few years ago because he didnt think they were getting the job done so he put his job ahead of his loyality to his friends. Rich did not and it cost us and it cost him.
I don't know what Hoke will do with Funk but to claim he doesnt know what he SHOULD do is incorrect IMO. The evidence is right in front of him.
October 14th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
Those freshman (excluding our All-American of course) and first-time starting lineman are getting crushed by walk-ons, no-stars and a collection of players that never got invited to a camp at Michigan much less got a scholly offer.
That's a good point, but how can you know for sure that the blame for that falls on Funk? How can you know that it falls on Borges? Because it must fall on one of the two, no? Either Funk is failing at developing, or Borges is failing at utilizing . Given the amount of time the interior OL has played, have we seen enough to definitively say that either Funk or Borges is failing? If this can be proven, I'll advocate just as strongly as anyone for a coaching change. I just don't think we have a big enough sample size. If the interior linemen were all upperclassmen, had been in the system for multiple years, had multiple years of game experience, and were making the same mistakes we're seeing now, then I'd definitely say we've got a coaching problem. I'm just not convinced. I also don't know who the alternatives are, and why anyone thinks a new coach would make much of a difference.
What annoys me the most about all this ruckus is that nobody is presenting a rational argument. It stops at "Borges and Funk suck! We should be better! We're Michigan!" OK, so we can Borges and Funk, what next? Who replaces them, and what leads you to believe the replacement would make a difference?
October 14th, 2013 at 5:36 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^
I refuse to use that logic. So what if they were away? We still had a great chance to win the Notre Dame and OSU games but terrible playcalling f'd us. Just like we had a chance to win Saturday but terrible playcalling and playing not to lose f'd us. Playing on the road had very little to do with it.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
I personally dont think anyone on staff deserves to feel heat until we face Ohio at this point. If they beat us then the heat needs to be felt. Its big business and if Ohio continues to have a far better product than UofM we need to make changes. Its too early. The only thing we need to change is trying to run power until we develop the player a little more. Read option will help losen up the defenses we face. If we can finish like we didi in 2011 no one will complain.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^
once again. I never thought I'd say that, but I'm totally serious you guyz.
October 14th, 2013 at 11:55 AM ^
I'm holding out hope that we open up the offense like we did in 2011, because frankly that's our best chance to move the ball at this point.
2014 is going to be the final exam for this coaching staff. Hoke's recruits will finally be upperclassman, and we should have the most talented team we've had since 2007.
October 14th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
Not the Final Exam, but maybe the Mid Term.
The 2011 class (Hoke's 1st) will be Srs./RS Jr's., and there are 18 of them on the roster still. Of those 18 there are some good contributors (Countess, Morgan, Clark, Beyer) but it's been a bit of a "lost class" as Hoke didn't have much time to put it together.
The 2012 class (Hoke true 1st) will be Jrs/RS So., and this is where one can see a big jump in not only the numbers, but the talent. There are 27 of them, and many were highly rated, especially on the OL. Remember though, when you have a veteran OL, a RS So. is usually about the first time an OLineman starts.
Then the 2013 class will be So/RS Fr. There are 35 of them.
I agree 2014 should tell us more about how Hoke & Co. are doing, but it won't be until 2015 that Hoke's first true class are Sr.'s/RS Jr's.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^
I don't think 2014 will be judgement day. The 2014 defense should be better (slightly) although we lose what our now are 2 best DL - Black and Washington. And both Cams. (p.s. nice game at safety Mr. Wilson - nice to see). But the rest of the back 7 is coming back and these freshman getting playing time in secondary have some experience. Maybe Peppers adds to it although I think expectations for a true freshman are off the chart ... the DL still is a concern for me in 2014.
The offense? I am afraid. Very afraid. You lose both tackles. Kalis and Glasgow are your 2 most experienced linemen - with all of 1 year experience each. You bring in 2 new starters MINIMUM an most likely 3. And the 2 vets are not senior tackles.
WRs? You bring Funchess back if he makes the position switch and than Chesson is your 2nd most experienced WR. Darboh is next. Then you hope Drake Harris is the truth or one of the freshman from this year make an impact. But there is no experience out there (plenty of depth) - you essentially trade Gallon and Dileo for Funchess and Chesson and than look around and start pointing at guys who have no real game experience.
TEs will improve, so ok there.
QB is QB.
RB you lose Fitz. Green will be the main back with D. Smith who has little experience and then I guess Drake Harris.
Seriously it might be the youngest offense we have seen in Michigan in the modern era. With the most important cog (OL) in worse shape than this year. Unless you tell me Braden + Magnuson as RS sophomores with limited playing time are better than Lewan and Schofield.
October 14th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^
Are you willing to trade offensive coordinators with us?
October 14th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
Have you stopped watching your own games?
October 14th, 2013 at 2:59 PM ^
And that concludes the most depressing post of my life
October 14th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
"Since 1993, the # of years UM has lost less than 3 games: 4"
Yeah, that's true, but I would point out - for what it is worth (which might not be much) - that the average Michigan in terms of overall record (perhaps not a great measure, but a nice 30,000 view) has not degraded a whole lot if you think about the most recent 20 year span versus the 20 years before that, but it has become more varied, if you will.
Over the most recent 20 year window, the average win total is 8.6 wins to 3.7 for losses, and the standard deviation is about 2 games for each. In the previous 20 year span, which covers virtually all of Schembechler's time, it would be an average of 9.3 wins to 2.4 losses, and a standard deviation of about 1 game for each.
There are numerous factors which contribute to the more recent numbers (like two losing seasons) but I have the feeling that the deviations from that typical performance are what we're discussing in this thread. That being said, I have the suspicion that our typical performance has - in recent history - being the typical ceiling for other teams in the conferene, so if it is being posited that we're average in comparison to the rest of the Big Ten, I suspect this might not be the case...at least by the record. On more precise metrics, it could be different.
October 14th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
Also in Bo's days we usually only played 12 games including the bowl game, and in Lloyd's era most years there were 13.
October 14th, 2013 at 2:19 PM ^
Yep, 1 more opportunity for "loss" in the way I analyzed it once you get to the 90s. But my comparison group also had 1 more game on their schedule. I was not necessarily comparing Michigan eras - anyone with open eyes sees we were much more dominant in the 70s/80s - and frankly a lot of built in advantages with scholarships and such were available back then. I was comparing apples to apples - "blue blood programs" in the same era of the past 20 years. Those peers played just as many games as UM did, and hence had as many chances to lose as we did. Other than OSU and PSU I was not comparing the rest of the Big 10* to UM.
*Nebraska was late comer to conference.