(ESPN RUMOR) Potential Coaching Moves
Following the Wolverines' loss to Iowa on Saturday in which it was outgained 407 yards to 158 by the Hawkeyes and blew a 21-7 halftime lead, Michigan is 7-4 and Brady Hoke is approaching hot-seat territory. Some coaches I spoke with this week said, at the very least, he will likely have to part ways with offensive coordinator Al Borges. (If Michigan does open again, either this year or next, one trusted college football source suggested that LSU coach Les Miles could finally head home to his alma mater. “I’ll bet that’s where he goes and retires,” the source said.)
Mods feel free to delete if you think it's too much info from a paywalled article.
November 24th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
wonder what happens once osu comes to A2 and runs up the score in the Big House in front of a national tv audience?
November 24th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
I bet Herbstreit is behind this again?
November 24th, 2013 at 5:21 PM ^
good ole herbie
November 24th, 2013 at 5:33 PM ^
Herbie better keep his mouth shut this time or he'll be persona non grata in Ann Arbor just like he is at this point in Columbus...
November 24th, 2013 at 5:21 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 5:45 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 5:53 PM ^
Well he does pick the terrible Power ISO's that gain no yards every drive and he is the fuckin QB coach.. so the 2 area's that have regressed the most are his problem
November 24th, 2013 at 6:22 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
Everything you have said does not explain why the offense has regressed. None of these explain gaining a mere 6 years in the second half of Iowa game (ignoring the last drive). Your excuses may explain why we are not #1 through #6 in total offense in BIG, but cannot explain what we are dead last and dead last in the entire country in terms of negative yards. This whole arguments about young interior O line is getting tiring.
November 24th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 11:06 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 6:33 PM ^
The buck stops with the coaches. Period. It's pretty telling that Gardner was a far better QB after practicing as a WR for 2/3 the last season last year.
November 24th, 2013 at 6:46 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 6:54 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 7:32 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 11:55 PM ^
It became clear to me during the Akron game exactly what was wrong with Gardner and what he needed. And honestly, I think I could've done it, from my wrestling coaching experience. Gardner has all the tools to be incredibly successful. He's a freak athlete. His skills didn't change; his thoughts did.
He is weak mentally and needs to KNOW he is the best athlete on the field. What happened during Akron after the first bad drive was he was broken mentally. His game remained there for weeks. That's why he wouldn't attempt passes the rest of the game after the interception and why he didn't for the next couple games.
Gardner doesn't need someone to teach him better technique. Not primarily. He needs someone in his ear whispering, "You're a stud. You're the qb for Michigan. No one can touch you. When you walk on that field you make plays happen. No matter what just happened, you're in control of this game because you're Devin freakin' Gardner. And you CAN'T lose."
Gardner needs to be coached to win the mental game, which is the hardest competitor in every sport, and that is the game he's been losing most weeks. THAT is what a good qb coach would recognize, what some bum who knows little about football but has coached championship athletes and teams in another sport can see, and what he would do. Gardner's game could turn around if he were coached to mentally take his competition to their breaking point and never reach his. It's a paradigm shift that eliminates fear.
November 24th, 2013 at 6:55 PM ^
Succeed or GTFO
November 24th, 2013 at 7:31 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 7:34 PM ^
in obvious passing situations would be a nice start.
November 24th, 2013 at 8:50 PM ^
Al Borges gets paid to have the solution, not us.
November 24th, 2013 at 9:24 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 9:37 PM ^
Less than optimal talent/experience sure. But no talent, that is just flat out nonsense.
I am really starting to think you may be Al Borges, that is the only explanation for that level of nonsense.
November 24th, 2013 at 10:17 PM ^
How many starters are not four or five stars? Two, maybe three? I know that is not he best indicator of talent but I am sure Iowa would love to have our lack of talent.
November 24th, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^
...or maybe eleven. At Rivals:
Jibreel Black, Jake Ryan, Courtney Avery, Frank Clark, Desmond Morgan, Graham Glasgow, Devin Funchess, Drew Dileo, Jehu Chesson, Joe Kerridge, Thomas Gordon
November 24th, 2013 at 11:07 PM ^
While his numbers may be slightly off the overall argument is still valid, there are other teams that are doing more with less. Weisman was a scout team FB for Iowa at the start of the last year, for example.
November 24th, 2013 at 11:34 PM ^
When every fact adduced to your argument turns out to be wrong it's a bit embarrassing to then say the facts are irrelevant and the argument holds anyway.
Five offensive starters weren't four stars. Two of the starting linemen were on the scout team last year and one was in high school, as was the tight end that's getting most of the playing time now that Funchess has moved to receiver. And as was the running back that's now getting most of the carries even if he isn't the nominal starter.
Wisconsin's fourth- and fifth-year three-stars are better than our four-star freshmen. As were our fifth-year three- and two-stars last year. That's the way it works, it's a rare player that's ready to go at FBS level straight out of high school--you could put an all-star team of the best 22 high school players on the field and they'd get their clocks cleaned by even a poor college team.
We had two years of abysmal recruiting, though it didn't show up so much in the recruiting rankings because those are based on average star-level. The assumption, I suppose, is that everyone wil use up all their scholarships and will have the sense to make sure they've got sufficient numbers in every position group.
We didn't. And now we don't. Barring a lot of transfers, which Michigan has never made easy, there's no quick fix. It's like Navarre's freshman year, or Sheridan/Threet, except at several positions at once.
November 25th, 2013 at 12:13 AM ^
Exactly. Winning in college football really comes down to superior talent and/or schematic advantage. In most games we have a talent advantage and a schematic disadvantage. Baylor doesn’t have superior talent, but wins because of their scheme. Alabama wins because of their superior talent.
November 25th, 2013 at 12:24 AM ^
I was referencing the offensive players, but you are making my point for me. Compare the talent of our defense and offense and then view their respective results.
So the answer is three including a fullback (not may FBs are four stars), four if we trot out that new fangled three wide receiver set with Dileo? Funchess was a 247 composite four star.
November 25th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
The 2008 offense, which was so rightfully pilloried for a lack of talent:
5-stars:
- Kevin Grady
- Stephen Schilling
4-stars:
- David Moosman
- Cory Zirbel
- Brandon Minor
- Carlos Brown
- Greg Mathews
- Toney Clemons
- Steven Threet
3-stars:
- Carson Butler
- Tim McAvoy
- Junior Hemingway
- Vince Helmuth
- Mark Ortmann
Better receivers if you go by recruiting rankings, and in quantity. Three quality running backs, all experienced. The only issues were at TE and FB, which weren't going to matter much in RR's offense anyway, and there's two three-stars on the line instead of a walkon, which is probably a wash.
That's pretty good. Iowa would kill for that kind of talent.
Why did we go 3-9 again?
(Mostly because of inexperience, obviously.)
November 25th, 2013 at 8:19 AM ^
November 25th, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
That was the right choice on Rich's part. He was a successful coach because he'd designed a very successful offensive scheme. He's one of the greatest offensive innovators ever, right up there with the guys that designed the wishbone and the T and the single wing. Bringing him on and telling him "we have to win NOW so you have to scrap all that" would have been insane, given the youth on the team. It was time to make the transition right then, when you're breaking in a lot of new guys anyway.
And it worked. Two years later that offense was a thing of beauty and if it hadn't been for all the other catastrophes--the defensive meddling, the awful recruiting--no one would have cared any more about '08.
November 25th, 2013 at 9:49 AM ^
November 25th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
That was Hoke/Borges's strategy--they ran spread stuff for Denard and made the transition slowly, putting a lot of it off for a couple of years. That too was probably a rational choice; they could see on the depth chart that it was the third year that they'd be breaking in all the new guys so that was a good year to target for implementation.
And I guess it's sort of worked--it's been ugly at times but we've somehow gotten through it \without a single losing season.
As far as RR's concerned, I don't think he thought he could make any players work in his system. I'm sure he knew that first year was going to be rough. But his players had to learn it sometime and there was no point in putting it off.
November 25th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
November 25th, 2013 at 12:20 AM ^
No talent? Strange you say that considering gallon will break Braylon Edwards season record for all time yards at WR...
Gallon and Funchess will also break the combined receiving yards ever by 2 WR at michigan as well.. but they are worthless right?
November 25th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^
fucking idiot who has no clue what he is talking about
November 24th, 2013 at 6:58 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 7:32 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^
Because it seems your logic is a team's performance 100% correlates with the players ability only and the coaching is not a factor one bit.
And you want direct solutions. I'll give you one. Not doing play-action on 3rd and long.
November 24th, 2013 at 7:58 PM ^
Just curious, what is your relationship to Al Borges?
November 24th, 2013 at 8:51 PM ^
He is Al Borges, the 248 is his weight.
November 24th, 2013 at 9:25 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 8:18 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^
November 24th, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^
Borges is also the QB coach fyi...