December 29th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 5:46 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 2:50 AM ^
She is a KSU fan. She predicted a 45-17 win, which was close. She knew KSU would win easily since she told me our team is not that good, at this time.
The defense disappointed me the most. Though the offense looked flat. Shane did a great job. Good velocity throws and a quick release.
December 29th, 2013 at 3:18 AM ^
especially the S&C staff.
December 29th, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 3:47 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 8:00 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 8:00 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 5:54 AM ^
time to gotobed i wish the rest of you would too. You might feel just a little better after some sleep and less booze
December 29th, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^
When Hoke was hired I vowed to quit paying money to support this charade. He was 47 and 50 when hired, went 11-2 with Carr/Rich Rod recruits, and has backed up since. There is plenty of talent on both sides of the ball but unlike an Iowa, K State or yes, MSU the team simply doesn't improve from start to finish and that is coaching.
All the marketing and branding in the world doesn't sell an obsolete product and thankfully, I haven't spent one cent of disposable income since Hoke was hired. I have never seen a coaching staff do less with more!
December 29th, 2013 at 8:35 AM ^
Think about the next season. Is anybody excited? This is the first time I can remember feeling absolutely nothing towards the next football season. No intrigue, no anticipation, no excitement. I feel about as uninspired as Brady Hoke looks coaching a football game.
Changes will be made, sure. Borges will be gone. Perhaps some of the other staff too. But does anybody feel any sort of positive with Brady Hoke in charge?
This man is not a BCS level coach.
He is not a Michigan caliber coach.
During the hiring process, Brandon spent too much time vetting his Michigan ties and not enough time vetting his football philosophy or credentials.
And now, we pay the price.
Let's enjoy mediocrity.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:50 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:22 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:28 AM ^
Time to start cutting the fat (Borges and Mallory, for starters), but I'm afraid the problems are systemic.
December 29th, 2013 at 9:35 AM ^
and the problems include S&C.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:40 AM ^
Why Mallory? Did our cornerbacks not have 10 picks this year? They were beaten by a kid who's an All-America-caliber player last night. They certainly could/should have done better, but the secondary was not really the problem for most of the year. The most glaring problem was the lack of penetration and pass rush up front.
December 29th, 2013 at 8:03 PM ^
Well, if we're going to fire the guys responsible for pass rush and penetration, that means Hoke and Mattison have to go. Then who's left to coach the team?
Seriously, though, I think that the secondary has been poorly coached all season. Blowing assignments, playing soft coverage, NOT TURNING THEIR HEADS EVER ON LONG PASSES, and all sorts of other deficiencies.
But I guess you could pick a grab-bag defensive coach to can, and I wouldn't complain.
December 29th, 2013 at 8:46 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^
Play calling, schemes, personnel, aside...
Has Hoke and Co. in their recruiting of "Michigan Men" lost sight of recruiting tough, hard nosed players?!? Every game the past past 3 years (and I've watched every single one, trust me) Michigan has looked tentative, scared, passive, and it's blindingly obvious. Physically we have no presence. The toughness Hoke talks about is a FIGMENT of his imagination!
I hear guys like Marcus Ray, Woodson, Marlin Jackson, etc. talk on radio and these guys have attitudes and pride! They played angry and with an intent to physically dominate their opponent. When the guy across from them completed a pass or ran for a first down they took it personally and got even! They played angry and made opponents fear coming to the Big House. These days teams LOVE playing Michigan...we're over-hyped, over-rated and always under-performing.
Nothing I have seen this year indicates things turning around. See you all next year when we get shoved around by Sparty, Ohio, and another bowl opponent.
December 29th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:42 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:51 AM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
Roy Manning is 32. Curt Mallory is 44. Jeff Hecklinski is 39.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^
December 29th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^
It's so hard to judge a coach based on just games. There's so much more to the job. Yeah it's all about wins and loses, but there's still so much more. Hoke took over a mess from RR so chill out.
December 29th, 2013 at 6:13 PM ^
He inherited Denard, who has been the best offensive threat Michigan has had for the last 4 years. The defense was at its best during the first year, and since then has been trending downward with Hoke. Next year, there can be no Rodriguez excuses, it's purely Hoke/Mattison/Borges. If you want to worship at the alter of the past, you may do so at your own risk. Time to move on!
December 29th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^
It's been discussed ad nauseum on this blog. The style/philosophy changes (from pro-set to spread and now back to pro), the disastrous 2010 class which saw 1 OL taken (and not for the right system) and nearly everyone leave class, having only a couple weeks to finish up the 2011 class, etc.
And Hoke utilized Denard with quite a bit of success, the 11-2 Sugar Bowl season and the 8-5 season last year which saw Michigan lose to the #1, #2, #3 teams in the country (all away from Michigan Stadium) and a very good SC team, and if Denard doesn't go down against Nebraska we had a good chance to win that and be 7-1 in-conference.
Even last year Michigan was still 6-2 and a contender in the conference.
Ultimately, I agree that next year is very much make-or-break. There's no excuse we shouldn't get to 10 wins with our two losses being to two of OSU, MSU, and ND. It technically wouldn't be a coaches full team until 6 years in but I think you're correct that next year it is enough of Hoke's team that the Rodriguez factor should be negligible, if there at all.
This year had more of the makings of a year one than it did year 3, in my opinion.
December 29th, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^
I think we should definitely be looking at a new S&C coach. We look weaker than virtually every team we play.
December 30th, 2013 at 6:00 PM ^
Why not bring back Mike Barwis, who has his own S&C camp less than 15 miles away, and his work contributed significantly to the 11-2 record during Hoke's first year, IMHO.
January 1st, 2014 at 8:01 PM ^
For most of the season I felt that as long as Borges went, the coaching staff would be good enough to bring Michigan back to being a consistently good, occasionally great team.
I'm now not feeling so sure if anyone on the staff (save Mattison) is a BCS level coach. Here's a list of Michigan's position coaches and the biggest school they've coached at prior to Michigan. I've split the list between people that were with Hoke at SDSU, and those that weren't.
With Hoke at SDSU
Funk (OL Coach) - Colorado State
Mark Smith (LB) - Indiana State
Roy Manning (LB) - Cincinnati
Dan Ferringo (TE) - USC
Jeff Hecklinski (WR) - Arizona for one year, before that Central Missouri state
Not with Hoke at SDSU
Fred Jackson (RB) Michigan for forever
Curt Mallory (DB) - Illinois
So, what this information shows.
1) For half of the position coaches this is their first BCS level program they've coached for. For almost everyone, this is by far the biggest job they have ever had, and it seem possible they received it because of their affiliation with Hoke, not merit.
2) Including Mattison and Borges, 66% of the staff has ties with Hoke at SDSU.
What this suggests is the spreading idea that the staff is in over their heads is quite possibly true. Also, the lack of accountability and coaching changes amongst coordinators and position coaches is likely linked to their long-standing relationships with Hoke. It doesn't sound like a recipe for a successful program.