Oregon and Oklahoma Losses -- Context for UM?
Seeing the beat-downs that both Oregon and Oklahoma suffered last night, I thought they provided some helpful context for our recent debacle in East Lansing. Even though the Oregon game ended up being close, it was a beat-down. And Oklahoma got crushed. The lesson: there are some teams that just have another team's number for a stretch of time. MSU knows how to beat Michigan, just as Stanford knows how to beat Oregon.
This does not make us equal to Oregon, although we may be closer to Oklahoma. But it does remind us that we just had a really bad game and need to move on without despair. We have things to fix and hopefully it will get better. Our offense can light up a bad defense for 700 yards and then get crushed by a great defense. It does not mean the sky is falling. It means, as Brady Hoke has said, that we need to get better. It means that we have some really good parts to our offense and a glaring weakness that we have to overcome.
It also means that we have a serious challenge before us, one that we may be embarrassed to admit but which is real anyway: We will know we have passed a milestone when we go up to State and beat them on the road, hopefully next year.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^
was that we aren't even close to competing on that level. Whether it's with the winners or the losers of those games.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
how can we learn from the Stanford model? Similar school academic wise and they are consistently now producing BCS level teams. I think Hoke is looking to do similar things but still needs a few years to implement his full load of recruits. Stanford does have the California population of athletes to draw from, but I feel this is how Michigan should model their program.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:20 AM ^
Please don't kid yourself. Stanford is in a league of its own when it comes to academics -- in regards to major athletics and more generally. They're easily better than every single Ivy league school not named Harvard, Yale or Princeton and are up there with CalTech and MIT.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
UM is a great school, but it is not similar to Stanford academically. Stanford is top 5. Michigan is top 30. And they are generally pickier with recruits.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
I actually agree with you that from an undergrad level, Stenford is better than Michigan. Taking grad schools into account, that spread narrows, although Stanford still holds an undeniable academic edge.
But his point is still valid. Stanford has been able to build a monster program running the same type of team that Hoke / Mattison and Borges want, and as you have pointed out, has done so with ever harder academic standards that we have (although they do have a recruiting advantage in terms of local population, weather, location, etc.).
When Harbaugh came in to Stanford, their football program was a joke. It took him a few years, but he turned it around to the point where now, even after he is gone, the program is continuing its domination in the same brand of football.
What people on this board need to realize is that it took Harbaugh until his 4th year to have a great season. In his first three, I believe he won 4, 5 and 8 games (I may be off by one game in one of the first two seasons - too lazy to google as the point still stands). It was not until his 4th season that he had his dominant 11 win season, featurning #1 NFL pick Andrew Luck. Also, while Harbaugh may have inherited lower-level talent, his 11 win season featured a line with three upper-classmen (full disclosure - along with a sophmore and a redshirt freshman), along with non-freshmen backups at most spots, three senior starting WRs, each over 6'1". and a 5th year senior starting TE. Big difference between that and our OL featuring 2 upperclassmen and the remainder being walk-on or freshman, a true freshman or true sophmore TE, and a WR corps that consists of Gallon (great, despite size), a converted true sophmore TE, freshman Chesson, mini-Dileo and air.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
I completely agree. Stanford is what Hoke wants to be. But I don't think he'll get there.
As for Harbuagh, his teams showed yearly progress, though. I remember watching those teams steadily improve. I don't think Hoke's teams have showed any progress, rather regress. His first year was all RR players. Each year after, more of his own are on the team, and the team looks worse. The young excuses don't float for Blue Bloods like Michigan or Ohio State, in my mind. Braxton was a true sophomore in year one of a new system last year and we went undefeated behind him. Our whole team was in a new system. Bama was the same way when Saban arrived, and by year two he had them up and running. Same for Sumlin at A&M, Stoops at Oklahoma, Pete Carroll at USC, Tress at OSU, Malzahn at Auburn, Miles at LSU, Urban at Florida (and Utah), etc. By year 3, new sytem/young excuses run out. They did for RR who had a record that improved every year.
November 8th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^
I don't disagree that the who "youth" excuse is getting old, and at some point will run out. Hoke's year 3 kind of deserves an asteriks, because in your three most coaches had had the ability to bring in 3 full recruiting classes, such that their first class is now upperclassmen. Not so for Hoke, as Michigan essentially took 2010 off from recruiting due to "the Process." Hoke took some recruits to patch holes, but he didn't really have much time to fill the class with his players.
Also, while most coaches come in to teams that are in transition, I am not sure that many inherit a program that recruited a grant total of 4 offensive linemen over the two prior year's classes. It is pretty much unheard of for a major program to do so, so between RR's unbelievable failure to recruit OL over 2 years, the retention issues surrounding RR's recruiting classes and the Process, there is a multi-year hole where the OL recruiting should have been in our program. Same goes for TE and a few other positions.
Re: Hoke's first year, the reason that he was winning was that the make-up of that team was more heavily upperclassmen, including a top-level college center, along with a multi-year superstar QB (who, while not always appreciated because of his turnovers, may have papered over some serious problems in the team due to his Denardiness). Many of the upperclassmen on that roster were the remains of Carr's final recruiting class and the excitement surrounding RR's hire initially.
As to progress, I think that our defense is still improving, even if it took a small step back this year due to youth. Look at the D roster. So many positions are filled with freshmen and sophmores who are holding their own. We will return just about the entire D next year, as older, stronger, more accustomed to the college game verions of their current selves. I am very excited for the defense.
Finally, as to your point that "[OSU's] whole team was in a new system. Bama was the same way when Saban arrived, and by year two he had them up and running. Same for Sumlin at A&M, Stoops at Oklahoma, Pete Carroll at USC, Tress at OSU, Malzahn at Auburn, Miles at LSU, Urban at Florida (and Utah), etc."
This is true, but look at the talent that Tress left for Meyer? Look at the talent on the roster when Saban took over? All of the schools that you mentioned have one thing in common - before the new coach came in, the team was recruiting very well such that the new coach walked into a decently to amazingly stocked cupboard. For Hoke, this is just not so. Hoke inherited a decimeted team, and it just takes a few years to build that up.
November 8th, 2013 at 5:55 PM ^
In Harbaugh's third year the Cardinal still lost 5 games. They had Toby Gerhart with over 1,500 rushing yards and 25 TDs (winning tons of awards) and Andrew Luck a RS frosh who had 2500 yds passing (55%, 140+ QB rating) and was top in the Pac-12. They still lost 5 games (although Luck did not play in the bowl-game loss.) In 2010, the Cardinal went 12-1 (lost to OU) with Luck who was projected to be the first pick in the NFL draft but returned for a third year while Harbaugh went to the NFL. Impact players like that make a great coach even better. So, while I am making a comparison, perhaps the disadvantage goes in the other direction.
I do expect us to be better than we are. Four games this year were excruciating to watch, and I'd like to see more game-to-game improvement, but it's my opinion that Hoke needs to have 5 years. He has a 6-year contract, so wasn't that the expectation going in? We were spoiled his first year. I think we can easily go 9-4 or even 10-3 this year. That would be an improvement over last year. We have to be patient. Go Blue!
UM '79. Stanford '88, '92 (grad)
November 8th, 2013 at 6:41 PM ^
As a grad of both UM ('79) and Stanford (88 MS, 92 PhD) I can actually compare them first hand. The Michigan experience was different, larger student body, but offered academic opportunities that may not equal that of Stanford were very similar in many ways. UM was, and continues to be, a great research university. Stanford is a different (non-public) school and I really enjoyed my time there, but UM also offered me a unique experience. Go Blue!
November 8th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
Stanford might own Oregon now, but dont forget the Ducks waxed the last 2 Andrew Luck teams. This is how a real rivalry works. Back and forth..............
November 8th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^
It's my hope that OSU is ranked at least #2 coming into Ann Arbor and a solid "lock" for the Big Ten Championship and spot in the NC game. We'll be a prohibitive underdog in our own stadium (especially if we lose another game or two) and virtually nobody will give us a chance to even be competitive with the Buckeyes. It's inevitable that over-confidence will permeate the Ohio State roster, and their focus is going to be on running up the score and style points. Those are classic conditions for an upset, and Brady Hoke will have to take advantage of his underdog situation and leverage it for all it's worth.
If that's a thin reed to rest my hopes on, so be it. It's all I've got right now.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
Ya IDK. I mean you could say that with a JT coached team but Urban is another animal and his team is mostly junior and senior laden.
November 8th, 2013 at 5:25 PM ^
All you need Chesson stretching out a 'la Mercury Hayes. It's nice to have "somewhat" recent history to look back on.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:22 AM ^
M is not all that good of course, that hasn't changed.
M did not have one bad game; M has had several bad games and has looked weak on both sides of the ball (especially on offense of course). Beyond that, we've been outcoached on the offensive side of the ball throughout the season, and this reached its zenith with Sparty.
If you're content that in year 3 of the Hoke era Michigan State(!) is now the milestone in football for Michigan, then hats off to you I guess.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^
Well, part of overcoming reality is facing reality. Much as my pride wants to say otherwise, the reality is that next year's game at East Lansing is the most important milestone for Team 135. It will gauge whether or not we are strong enough on the front lines to be a manball power team. It feels good to mock little brother, but at a certain point bravado becomes braggadocio. That time has come.
For several years now, State has succeeded in dominating our offense by taking an ultra-aggressive defensive approach. While it has worked generally, they have made it work especially against us. Next year's team must be prepared to overcome this.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^
One more thing -- acknowledging truth does not signal contentment. I am far from contented with this situation. But to change it we must admit it.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
since 2008-2009. That 2010 class has grown up nicely for them.
I'm anxious to see Barry Sanders Jr. break the tailback lineup there, but they've got a good stable of young backs as it is.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
Close to Oklahoma? Are you kidding me? If this staff can get us near where Bob Stoops has been with Oklahoma I'll be thrilled.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
Baylor wasn't exactly the #1 defense in the nation, and OU scored 11 whole points on offense. Not to mention OU laid an egg against Texas earlier this year. Their two marquee wins this year are ND and Texas Tech. TT is probably a better win than Minnesota, but not by as much as you would think (TT hadn't played anyone good until the OU game, and Minny is actually respectable this year).
And their QB is a first year starter too.
The gap between OU and Michigan may not be as wide as you think.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
OU would beat UM by 14+. UM lost to Penn State and almost lost to Akron and UConn. Whatever OU is, they aren't that down.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^
I'm sorry...no.
You cannot look at Michigan's worst performances this year and conclude that is who they are. The Michigan team that fielded against PSU, Akron, and Uconn would definitely have lost to OU....
And ND. And Minnesota. And perhaps even Indiana.
That Michigan team would barely be 3-5 right now. If that's who they were in all games.
But instead, Michigan is 6-2.
So, no, I don't agree with you at all.
OU would definitely be favored to win, and I very much think OU would win...but you are underselling Michigan if you think they couldn't keep it a close game. OU is not nearly as good as you think...
November 8th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^
Forget the whole "they have our number" argument. It's just not the case. We are still transitioning into the program we will ultimately become under Hoke. We are a Manball team. That is the underlying philosophy and once we get some contiunuity going and the kids are in the program for 2 or 3 years you wil see the difference on the field. The big take away from last night is that Stanford' s version of Manball (i.e. controlling the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball and imposing shear physicality) worked very well against an explsoive and nationally heralded spread offense. Going into this game Oregon had probably staked its claim as the #1 offense in the country. Standford showed everyone what good O-Lines and D-Lines can do against the elite spread teams.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
as the only thing standing in the way of Ohio in the NC would be a Sparty victory in the B1G and them going to the Rose Bowl for the first time in forever. Both are nauseating.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:01 PM ^
November 8th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
Both have to face real competition, unlike what Ohio faces prior to Sparty
November 8th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
LSU's defense isn't close to its usual standards this year and Bama gets them at home. Then they get Auburn who has a nice record but is nothing special, and a banged-up SEC East team in the championship game. A loss in any of those games would be the upset of the year.
FSU gets 3 cupcakes and then Florida's inept offense, before another overmatched ACC team in the championship.
OSU will likely have a harder time with the Sparty D that Bama or FSU will with anyone they have left.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
I think the sleeper for FSU is the Miami rematch in the ACC championship. It is hard to beat the same team twice in the same year.
For Alabama it is Auburn. Auburn is out for blood. Alabama has really pounded them since 2008 with the exception of giving back the 2010 game when they were up by three touchdowns and Cam Newton lead a comeback.
Not saying Alabama loses that game but that is the one I see having the best chance of an upset.
November 8th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
We still suck and we will be 7-5.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
That a really good team that has been near the top of college football the past 7 years, Oregon, has trouble with Stanford because of their style and they are also a really good team. That a meh team and historic powerhouse, Oklahoma, got beat down by an upstart and Oklahoma's program is growing increasingly stagnant under Stoops ala Michigan under Carr and Texas under Brown. Besides debating fanbase expectations, neither really has any relevance to the happening in Ann Arbor which people like to classify in the "rebuilding" category.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
and exactly how they needed to play in order to win but it wasn't a beat down.
Oregon missed a wide open TD on their opening drive and shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in the redzone. If they had scored 7 or 14 in the first half I think they win quite comfortably and they had plenty of opportunities to do so.
Either way, I'd gladly take the run that Stanford and Oregon have both been on for the past several years out of Michigan.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
Well, if Stanford doesn't get a FG blocked and returned for a TD and then fail to recover an onside kick, the final score is 29-7.
Regardless of what the point total was, the game felt like a beatdown because Stanford controlled the ball and physically dominated Oregon. I don't personally care for the manball approach, but last night's game was a good argument in favor of it.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
Stanford's beatdown on Oregon was fun for me. MANBALL.
November 8th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
we know that already from 2006 experience.
And then there is the "sympathy" aspect if Ohio goes unbeaten for a second straight year, and the mouth-breather response that follows:
"What, you're gonna deny us the opportunity twice?! We did all that was asked of us! Where's the justice!??" yadda yadda.
Alabama has to beat LSU and @Auburn. Not easy.
FSU is going to road-grade the rest of their schedule and they'll beat Miami in the title game decisively I think.
I'm hoping Ohio gets bit by Michigan or MSU, but they'll probably finish 13-0 because they have a great offense and a decent enough defense.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
My hope is that one of Bama or FL ST loses and Baylor passes OSU in the BCS standings; shutting out OSU.
Of course, won't matter if we win The Game.
November 8th, 2013 at 1:09 PM ^
I would have to think that Hoke would love the Wolverines to play exactly like Stanford; run, run, run, physical, suffocating defense.
November 8th, 2013 at 3:52 PM ^
to OU than ppl think.
November 8th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^
These losses just give us all the more reason to beat Ohio.
November 8th, 2013 at 4:25 PM ^
Honestly people like you are why this damn program is in the condition that it is. You accept mediocre performance. Early Lloyd years we were dominating them, even late year we were. 6 of 7 years or something of that sort. They were close games, but if you win for that long over them, that means you are dominating them. Wake up you just be expecting better from your program. This is why OSU has been dominating us cuz you think it is okay to be on the same level as MSU/Iowa/Wisconsins of the world instead of albama and LSU of the world.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:02 PM ^
I see. So you're saying the fans are to blame for the two losses we suffered this year. Gotcha.
If memory serves, I was simply watching games at the stadium and on TV, and neither playing nor coaching in them. I don't actually recall recruiting players, hiring coaches, etc., either.
So it's odd that I can have that kind of influence! Mary Sue Coleman and the Regents forgot to call me to ask my opinion on whether they should have an inexperienced rookie AD like Dave Brandon take over the athletic department. I'm still pissed about that. And of all things, Dave didn't ask for my advice on who to hire. I'd have told him to get Harbaugh.
However, I'm glad you mentioned this. I'm certainly going to hold the team to a higher standard and see if my doing so affects their level of play.
I'll bet the players plan to call me any moment now to seek my guidance on how they should play. I'm waiting by the phone.
By the way, when the AD called you to ask about who you wanted as a coach, and when they were interviewing AD candidates, what advice did you give them?
November 8th, 2013 at 5:35 PM ^