I'm A Bitter Man, I Know, But Listen Honey You're No Fun Comment Count

Brian

12/28/2013 – Michigan 14, Kansas State 31 – 7-6, 3-5 Big Ten, season mercifully over

11623692184_a34ba130a1_z[1]

we are desperate lonely and underpaid [Adam Glanzman]

If you were disinterested in a December bowl game that kicked off at 10:15 PM, don't feel bad about it. You are far from alone. Frank Clark:

"I think a lot of guys lost the will to play as a family. That's one thing you can't do in football. In football, you've got to stick in there and stay together as a family.

James Ross:

"It was our mindset from the jump, we weren't totally into it I would say. We didn't come out with a lot of energy."

For their part, the coaches didn't bother to go into the hurry-up down 18 points with 8 minutes left. As far as unconvincing attempts to look interested go, the fan is on level footing with the rest of the program.

The coaches did go up-tempo once it was 31-6, mysteriously. You've already given up. No one is going to feel better about losing by three scores to a 7-5 Big 12 team instead of four. I guess you have to send the message that You Never Give Up despite having already given up. That's the kind of program this is. We Never Give Up (we gave up).

That's as indicative of the current state of the Michigan football program as anything. Fail to live up to expectations, try to make it look good with meaningless hand-waving after things are decided. Michigan is just six… eight… sixteen… okay, thirty-five plays away from a really good season, you know, and Lloyd Carr's seniors are about to ride to the rescue.

--------------------------------------

I guess it's good that Michigan conceded from the drop that they could not run the ball whatsoever, because they were right about that. Eight tailback carries on the night, and three of those were option pitches. Michigan did not repeat their mistakes from the Penn State game.

Unfortunately, while they've learned what they cannot do they have not learned to do anything. Kansas State gave up 301 rushing yards to Oklahoma on the second to last weekend of the regular season; Michigan stared that front seven down and said "no thanks, we like end-arounds."

The most frustrating thing about this season is that any hint of progress is quickly stomped out. Michigan has a human run game against Northwestern, then gets obliterated by Iowa; they are once again human against Ohio State, then correctly assume they are helpless against Kansas State.

Meanwhile, the defense is so incompetent against a modern packaged offense that Kansas State essentially ends the game by the second quarter. Michigan had zero answers for a play that Rich Rodriguez pioneered at this very university. Here we are, talking a big game about how This Is Michigan and playing football like it's 1989, the last time This Is Michigan actually meant This Is A Consistently Elite Football Program.

Bo hovers over the program with speeches about the team the team the team, but his penchant for running quarterbacks and option football and running the damn ball has been discarded in favor of notions about a "pro style" offense that reflects the modern-day NFL in no way whatsoever. Chip Kelly's taking a team that was 4-12 last year to the playoffs with Nick Foles as his quarterback. QED.

At the beginning of the year I wondered aloud if Michigan was going to end up on the wrong side of history here, what with their failed attempt to move to the spread traumatizing them so much that they'd mutter something about Denard Robinson holding the offense back from its true form, which is apparently lots and lots of end arounds with two tackles next to each other. And sacks. Michigan's base play this year was a tackle for loss. This was our innovation.

I like the thing where the quarterback pulls up to throw late better.

------------------------------------

It'll get better. I mean, you'd think so. I know that's what everyone said about the offensive line this year. But we've detailed the various ways in which the previous coaching staff decimated this roster on both lines and the fact that Hoke has collected and retained a lot of guys who will be maturing over the next couple years. Michigan won't be ripping the redshirt off an offensive lineman midseason again.

But at some point I realized that the only thing that resembled what football used to be—fun—came when Dennis Norfleet grabbed the ball on kick returns and once when he took an end-around. He juked a guy and got nine yards and I felt a little flutter. Then the grim trudge resumed.

Maybe the reason I hold onto Denard so hard is because he's about 90% of the fun that Michigan football has provided since Bo died. As this season descended into a lifeless backwards march, I kept thinking about my uncle's exclamation during the 2008 Fandom Endurance III Northwestern game: "We do this for fun!" We did even then. There was a perverse joy in our abject stupidity. Five years on, all the diamonds have been sifted from that ash. We do this out of momentum now.

Awards

brady-hoke-epic-double-point_thumb_31[2]Brady Hoke Epic Double Point Of The Week. Obviously no one on the defense can acquire this, as the defense was completely disassembled. The offense… barely scraped over 200 yards thanks to a Shane Morris QB draw that went for 40. Jesus. Uh.

Well, Jeremy Gallon did break the single-season receiving record and is a cool dude, so Jeremy Gallon.

Honorable mention: Shane Morris?

Epic Double Point Standings.

3.0: Jeremy Gallon (ND, Indiana, K-State)
2.0: Devin Gardner(ND, OSU)
1.0: Desmond Morgan(UConn), Devin Funchess(Minnesota), Frank Clark(PSU), Matt Wile (Nebraska), James Ross (Northwestern)
0.5: Cam Gordon (CMU), Brennen Beyer (CMU)

Brady Hoke Epic Double Fist-Pump Of The Week. Nope.

Epic Double Fist-Pumps Past.

8/31/2013: Dymonte Thomas introduces himself by blocking a punt.
9/7/2013: Jeremy Gallon spins through four Notre Dame defenders for a 61-yard touchdown.
9/14/2013: Michigan does not lose to Akron. Thanks, Thomas Gordon.
9/21/2013: Desmond Morgan's leaping one-handed spear INT saves Michigan's bacon against UConn.
10/5/2013: Fitzgerald Toussaint runs for ten yards, gets touchdown rather easily.
10/12/2013: Devin Funchess shoots up the middle of the field to catch a 40 yard touchdown, staking Michigan to a ten-point lead they wouldn't relinquish. (Right?)
10/19/2013: Thomas Gordon picks off an Indiana pass to end the Hoosiers' last drive that could have taken the lead.
11/2/2013: Clock expires.
11/9/2013: Nebraska muffs a punt through no action of Michigan's.
11/16/2013: Michigan executes a clock-running last-second field goal to get the game to OT.
11/23/2013: 404 file not found
11/30/2013: Michigan forces a Hyde fumble to get back in the game.

imageMARCUS HALL EPIC DOUBLE BIRD OF THE WEEK. Michigan, down 31-12 with two minutes or so left, runs a two-point conversion that features Jeremy Gallon taking an end around and throwing the ball to a wide open dude for the score.

First of all, you gave up already. Screw you and your two point conversion. Second, every Ohio State fan on twitter instantly said something along the lines of "oh wow that totally would have worked against us." I don't think it's possible to be more disgusted with a successful two point conversion.

[AFTER THE JUMP: stuff.]

Offense

11623319895_3cac34e55f_z[1]

Glanzman

Welp. There's not much you can do when your QB is a freshman who is liable to put the ball in a defender's chest twice consecutively when you finally do have to open things up far, far too late and your tailbacks rush eight times for 16 yards. Borges did the things he could do, implementing a screen and edge-rush attack that saw Michigan mount actual drives on their first two possessions.

Unfortunately, you can only run constraints for so long before they start getting obliterated, and once the scripted fancy new stuff was over so was the offense. The game was over once Michigan could not punch the ball in on either of their first two possessions and then punted once; down 21-6 without a prayer of a non-gimmicky offense, it was over. Gameplan took Michigan their first 120 yards, and then they had no more. On an individual game level, you can't expect much more from your offensive coordinator.

That Michigan went into this bowl game utterly convinced they could not run the ball conventionally against a not particularly good run defense is a huge failing that you can spread out to at least three different people: Rodriguez, Funk, and Borges. Rodriguez for the roster, Funk for being the position coach, and Borges for treating this rag-tag assemblage of walk-ons and freshmen like they're the Denver Broncos and expecting they could handle every run concept ever expressed by man as they were being bounced around like gas molecules.

Statistical complaint #341. It's inane that those touch passes forward that are essentially handoffs get filed as passes. Jeremy Gallon's probably happy that is the case since without those he probably does not pass Braylon Edwards for the single-season receiving record; everybody else should be shaking their fist at the NCAA scorer in the sky in a futile attempt to get stats that make sense. Scorers should be able to judge whether a play is a run or pass and credit accordingly.

One step forward, one step back. Michigan's approach to this game was mentioned above, but to reiterate: despite being forced to start a freshman quarterback Michigan assumed they were totally incapable of moving the ball on the ground. And they were.

I have no idea how this line improves enough next year for Michigan to be able to do anything after losing both tackles, who are going to be on NFL rosters next year. They can be better, but like the radioactive situation Rodriguez walked into the reclamation project here is a two-year job. (Yes, thanks in large part to Rodriguez.) Next year's line has no seniors and one junior.

God willing, Michigan goes into spring practice focused on getting this unit competent at one base running play instead of three and does not try a blizzard of different combinations during the season. That might be enough to make their running game bad. Anything more is in the realm of the fantastical.

Morris eval. Could have been worse. Hosing hoser hoses, which mitigates some freshman issues since he can rifle the ball late and not get punished because the thing gets there so fast. Has accuracy issues caused by firing every ball a hundred miles an hour and predictably put two balls in K-State defenders' chests late when Michigan was forced to try to go downfield; overall an encouraging debut. Morris's wheels are a surprising asset, as well. He is not Gardner; neither is he Navarre. He could be a Connor Shaw type QB who takes the occasional carry to mess with defenses. (Hypothetically.)

QB controversy? No. The training wheels were obvious and once taken off the punishment was immediate. Given what we've heard about practice he has Gardner's INT issues except worse, and as long as both guys improve at the same rate Gardner will still be well ahead.

Defense

11624126596_c057b470d8_z[1]

Glanzman

That was a total disaster. The season as a whole was a macrocosm of the defense in each game: pretty good for most of it, gives up one WTF touchdown midway through (Indiana), and then collapses in a heap at the end. Kansas State has an underrated offense but even so, this drive chart…

  1. 75 yard TD
  2. 60 yard TD
  3. 59 yard TD
  4. 59 yard FG miss
  5. 33 yard drive ending in fumble one play after Tyler Lockett dropped a touchdown
  6. 60 yard FG drive
  7. 39 yards, punt
  8. 7 yard TD drive
  9. EOG

…is a total and comprehensive failure. Michigan did not force a punt until there were 7 minutes left in the game and things were over. This follows a game in which Michigan gave up 393 rushing yards to OSU.

Now instead of having one solid unit that can expect to take another step forward as they age, Michigan has question marks everywhere. Mattison's reputation as salvager and hero took enormous hits over these last two games. Hooray.

Exposed. Tyler Lockett is an incredible player who was checked by essentially nobody this year; it seems like KSU decided they were going with Waters late mostly because he takes best advantage of a guy who is probably the best WR in the country. Any ideas that Blake Countess is in that league as a defensive back are now bleeding out in the gutter after Lockett ghosted in and out of Michigan's defensive backfield all night, knives at the ready.

While Raymon Taylor struggled equally, Taylor had been targeted all year and we had some grasp of how good he was already: decent, but not Lockett good. Countess had largely been avoided and made a lot of interceptions when not avoided; this was a comedown in hype and expectation level on par with that Mattison suffered.

Spread and shred. The most brutal event of the night was K-State busting a fullback up the seam for 40 yards on a version of QB Oh Noes that put Desmond Morgan in a bind: defend the QB draw or cover the fullback. With Waters not a huge threat on the ground, the answer was "cover the fullback fergodsakes"; either way the Wildcats were about to get a good chunk of yards. Morgan acted like it was a run and Kansas State was on their way to their third touchdown.

In the aftermath…

…that was my exact thought, too. K-State just looked hard to defend in ways that Michigan is not. A lot of people were griping about Michigan's decision not to double Lockett, but when you're going up against a defense that uses the QB's legs in a way that demands attention you find yourself with limited options unless you can win certain one on one battles. Michigan could not, and as in the Ohio State game once that was the case it was over. There is no hiding weak spots against these spread to run attacks, and against Tyler Lockett every member of the secondary is a weak spot.

About that line. Dominated again. Zero pass rush and after some nice stops on the first drive, K-State had a quality day on the ground. Michigan spent much of the day stunting defensive ends into double teams, and those ended up with Clark and Ojemudia and Beyer on their back as dudes darted by.

I will never understand the insane deployment of Quinton Washington this year; we're now deep into Announce Everyone Was Injured All Year time and there hasn't been a peep about Washington, who was a quality starter all last year and spent most of this one on the bench. Without him and Pipkins, this outfit was just too light to hope to hold up. Other than Willie Henry, who is a freshman who needs some technique work badly, the rest of the line is Black, Beyer, and Clark: defensive ends all.

Things should get better next year, at least, with great piles of returning players and Pipkins hopefully coming back from his ACL tear. Much rests on him. I mean, much rests on him for a team that projects to finish third in their division.

Here

Inside The Boxscore:

* Spielman said something about how he asked Mattison who his best defender was this year, and the first thing out of Mattison's mouth was "Frank Clark." Against Ohio State, Frank Clark had one tackle. Against Kansas State, Frank Clark had one tackle. When your best defender is averaging 1 tackle per game in his last two, something is wrong.

* As Ace pointed out, our two leading rushers were our QB and Tight End. Our running backs should be made to watch how K-State's little Hubert ran. I get it that the offensive line generated zero push, but eventually someone has to break a tackle or make someone miss. Our 4 RBs combined for 8 carries and 13 yards. Our offense was slightly better in not giving up so many TFLs, but that's because we rarely had the ball. K-State had 5 TFLs for a total of 13 yards lost. Hey, I'm looking for positives, no matter how small.

Best And Worst:

Worst:  The Coordinators

I’ll admit to being a bigger fan of Greg Mattison than Al Borges, so up front I want to make it clear that Al Borges called a pretty good first half of football and Mattison seemed absolutely lost in stopping a team whose passing offense was “throw to #16” and “throw to guy wide open in the middle of the field.”  Borges has no functional running game, in part, because nobody seems able to block defenders, and so he went about trying ever-ludicrous methods to move the ball on the ground and the air without putting too much pressure on Shane Morris.  These were all plays fans have seen before, but he wove in screens, end-arounds, sweeps, and easy middle-distance throws into a coherent gameplan that let UM move the ball pretty effectively on their first couple of drives.  At the very least, he came out punching despite having one hand behind his back, and for that he deserves kudos.  And in particular during that first foray into the redzone, a PI on either of Morris’s two passes to Gallon and Funchess probably would have allowed UM to score a TD and kept the game closer.  The fact the offense sputtered in the 2nd half isn’t that surprising, as WR runs and delayed screens only work so often when your base offense is churning up less than a yard a carry and your WRs are being blanketed when they aren’t dropping passes from your amped-up QB.  Borges has shown an ability to adapt somewhat these past couple of games, and next year it is going to need to be flexible because I have a hard time believing it will suddenly start running the ball under center for 4 ypc while airing the ball out with aplomb.

On the other side of the ball, this “bending” defense clearly broke in the first half, as KSU had no trouble moving up and down the field despite holding penalties putting them in some poor down-and-distances.  Taylor and Countess couldn’t keep Lockett even remotely contained, and it seemed virtually impossible for the team to bring pressure while also maintain their assignments, leading to long conversions after acres of open field just appeared.  The defense tightened up somewhat in the 2nd half, but this defense needs to make a massive step forward next year for this team to improve on their record, and it’s now been two games in a row where the defense seems flat-footed and ill-prepared against good offenses.  That needs to change, and given the youth out there (Gedeon, Thomas, and Henry seemed to get significant run) along with some improving older players like Clark and a healthy Ryan, I expect that to happen.

bronxblue brings up the 2013 == death meme, and takes issue with it since the basketball team did make the NCAA final. I would like to point out that my particular version of 2013 == death is based on the Old Yeller premise, in which our once-loved dog contracts rabies, and is therefore 100% accurate except in this version of Old Yeller the dog is a cyborg with shotgun arms and continues blasting us long after our corpse has cooled.

Comments

bronxblue

December 30th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^

I'm not arguing with the general premise, but I think the benefits of a spread attack is that it lowers the competency bar you need to at least matriculate the ball down the field compared to a more traditional rushing style.  I agree that any system works - hell, MSU had a pretty good rushing attack because they seemed to execute with average talent.  But it is so reliant on having a skilled line with solid technique (which usually comes from experienced players maturing in your program) that it is more succeptible to dips in talent or ability.  Hoke and co. seem to be building toward that type of performance, but it has been so laborious, and with so many failings, that it is hard to see through the rubble.

But regardless of the type of offense, my bigger issue is with the tempo in which it is called.  Everything is so plodding, so constrained and methodical, that things like misdirection and catching one's opponent off-guard are virtually impossible.  Part of the reason offenses like IU, Arizona, and OSU work is because they get to the line quickly, have the play in mind, then run it.  The defense has to react quickly, and if the point is to expose holes in the defense you'll see them way easier if guys are still rushing to positions.  I'd be fine if Borges doesn't change a thing about this offense except they try to run a play 5-10 seconds faster.  I think you'd see more holes open, probably simplify blocking somewhat because the defense wouldn't always be set, and your skill players will have more freedom and ability to get open and get the ball in their hands quickly.

PurpleStuff

December 30th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^

When they had a really good offense (2009-2011, since they've been carried by the defense) they did in fact have gobs of talent.  Andrew Luck was the #1 pick in the NFL draft.  David DeCastro (OG) went #24 overall.  Jonathan Martin (OT) and Coby Fleener (TE) went in the first half of the 2nd round.  Toby Gerhart was a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a Heisman finalist.  Zach Ertz (TE) was a 3rd round pick this year.  Stepfan Taylor (RB), Levine Toilolo (TE), Owen Marecic (FB), Ryan Whalen (WR), Erik Lorig (FB), and Jim Dray (TE) were all late round picks.

DeCastro, Martin, and Luck were all-conference players as RS freshmen.  The problem isn't system related, but rather that Brady Hoke (despite the hype) is not recruiting at anywhere near the level that Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford.  Without that, we just aren't going to be as good as they were (i.e. an elite team going to BCS bowls).

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^

But they weren't recruited as a dominate group of players. They were coached up. The point I was making is that it isn't about needing to get 5-star super talents at every position to be good with a non-spread team, it's about getting players and coaching them to your system and style of play, and teaching them great technique.

For instance, according to Rivals, Stanford had zero 5-star and three 4-star players from 2004-2006 class, which was their upperclassman.

The players that were listed became good players, just like players in spread system become good players. It's no different. They are both coached up to play in their scheme. And looking at NFL draft success isn't always best either, as many of the pro-style players are being taught techniques more often utilized by pro teams. The common complaint about a lot of spread-based college teams is that they haven't been taught the right base (it's really just a different base) and NFL teams must wait for them to get up to speed a lot of the times.

PurpleStuff

December 30th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^

Luck, Martin, and DeCastro weren't "coached up".  They were fantastic players pretty much right out of the gate.  As I said, all three were all-conference honorees as RS freshmen on a very good offense (that 2009 Stanford team struggled mightily on D, hence the mediocre record).

Either way it is a major indictment of this staff if their RS freshmen linemen were paving the way for a Heisman Trophy finalist while our "talented" youngsters aren't trusted to execute a simple handoff to the RB.

Don

December 30th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^

FWIW, according to Scout, Luck was a 5-star, DeCastro a 4-star, and Martin a 3-star.

Luck, Martin, and Decastro all redshirted in 2008.

The fact that they excelled as redshirt freshmen certainly is a result of their talent, but I don't understand why you seem to think that they didn't get the benefit of excellent coaching as well. Clearly, Harbaugh is an elite-level coach, and great coaches tend to have a great eye for assistant coaches as well.

PurpleStuff

December 30th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether it is scouting or coaching/development.  What matters is the result.  And other teams have gotten positive results with players as young as ours are.  The fact is, we don't have a bunch of RS freshmen who are as good as those guys were at Stanford.  Maybe guys were hurt who otherwise would have helped.  Maybe the coaching really is the problem (though it looks like nothing is going to change there).  But expecting us to be at Stanford's level in year 4 and beyond (and if we're not, I think any coaching staff we have needs to go) just seems like wishful thinking to me at this point. 

Don

December 30th, 2013 at 4:21 PM ^

In terms of results, you're 100% right.

I'm not convinced it's because our guys are so much less talented than theirs are, though. The problem is, we won't know that unless and until we get a new OL coach, for example. And I suspect that's not going to happen.

uncleFred

December 30th, 2013 at 8:09 PM ^

Your assumption that Funk is the problem may be, perhaps will be, confirmed or debunked next season. 

There are so many factors involved in bringing talent to fruition. The change in offensive philosophy, probably made this season the most disruptive for the offense, especially the offensive line. Our RS freshmen may be more talented, but were asked to climb a much steeper learning curve. I freely admit that I don't know, but I submit that neither do you. 

Assuming that Funk is retained, I think it is safe to say that his job probably depends on the line demonstrating substantial progress in the 2014 season.

People, whether coaches or players, are not static. The notion that what you've seen this season defines a set of limits on next season is premature. 

MI Expat NY

December 30th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^

You said they didn't have gobs of talent and ran a pro-style system well.  Pretty clearly the NFL thought they did have lots of talent, with those teams producing 5 first day NFL draft picks and a handful of second day NFL draft picks.  That's talent, even if Rivals didn't recognize it.  To me it's immaterial if they were recruited as a dominant group.  They had a bunch of guys that came in and performed like the same 5-star types that Alabama recruits.  It's no surprise that with less of that NFL talent (especially at QB) they've taken a step backwards the last couple years offensively.  

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^

A team that had a good offense had good players. Alright, well how is that different than any other team? How are we measuring talent then? How is that really that different from successful spread outfits? And don't say "look at the NFL draft" because they are looking, for the most part, for very different things.

Look at the college all-conference teams, the units that are successful have players on those teams. It doesn't matter what scheme they run.

Good college offenses have good good offensive players. The point was that Stanford didn't just sit there and simply out-recruit everyone else and that's the reason their offense was successful. You look at the rest of their offense and they developed players , including the three other OL, a WR, a FB, and a TE that were all at least HM or better. That's not a whole lot different than Oregon, or Urban Meyer teams, they are good offenses because the coaches coach. And it's not just recruiting rankings, it's just that it isn't any different than what spread offenses do. A pro-style coach can coach up a 3-star that fits his scheme just as well as a spread-style coach can. A pro-style coach can coach talented college players that fit their scheme just as well as a spread-coach can.

And yes, it is no surprise that they lost Luck and took a step backward. It was no surprise when Urban Meyer lost Tim Tebow that Florida took a step backwards.

MI Expat NY

December 30th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^

I'm not really the one with an argument here.  All I said was your statement that Stanford didn't have gobs of talent was silly.  And it was.  You trying to somehow neuter that statement with things like "look at the rivals rankings" and "NFL are looking for different things" just makes it sillier.  You felt it was relevant to your point that Stanford was successful without lots of talent.  You were supporting your argument with something that was not true.   That was my only point

I agree with your overall point that good coaches can coach good talent to success in any system.  You're not stepping out on a limb with that statement.  What I happen to believe, though you probably disagree, is that its harder to achieve success in your prototypical pro-style systems with lesser talent.  Pro-style systems seem much more dependent on winning individual battles and having talent at key positions such as QB.  However, that shouldn't really matter at a school like Michigan that should never have lesser talent.

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^

Stanford had good talent, but Luck was still a FR, they had some other good players, but only 4 offensive players were first or second team All Pac Ten, so it's not like they were just crushing people with superior talent in 2009.

And I was only using recruiting ranking as a means to baseline talent, which is a traditional way of looking at. I was just trying to get ahead of the curve of someone claiming "look at team X and where their players got drafted" by pointing out that's not really how it works, that all-conference teams are probably a better indicator and in that case the difference between Stanford and other teams with similar talent (read: not gobs of it) performed. I felt it relevant to point out Stanford because they are known for running a pro-style team and they aren't getting talent like Bama does (and they certainly weren't at that time). That's what makes them relavent to the idea that you don't need a team that is absolutely loaded with experienced, pro-ready talent for a pro-style system to work.

And it was directly referenced that you don't need gobs of talent and Rich Rod's WVU was used as an example, despite that from 2006-2008 WVU had 4 different All-Americans on offense, and 6 different all-conference first or second teamers, which is just as much, if not more than Stanford had.

And yes, there are elements of the pro-style systems that tend to be more difficult to pick up, because they tend to be more complex. But the emphasis on things just differs. The run game and working on making run reads puts more emphasis with spread-to-run teams, where as many pro-style teams put more emphasis on passing reads. Some spread schemes utilize only zone blocking, but Meyer and OSU probably used a more varied run blocking scheme this year than Michigan. So, again, it gets back to coaching, which was my point, and not that pro-style teams flat out need superior talent to be superior to their counterparts while spread teams can get back regardless.

Don

December 30th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^

But here are Scout's rankings for the respective Hoke and Harbaugh recruiting classes:

2007, Harbaugh: 43

2008, Harbaugh: 43

2009, Harbaugh: 15

2010, Harbaugh: 24 (perhaps affected by his departure for SF)

 

2011, Hoke: 29 (gets a late start due to "The Process")

2012, Hoke: 4

2013, Hoke: 2

I don't know whether the above undermines the value of recruiting class rankings in general, or your assertion that Hoke hasn't recruited at anywhere near the level of Harbaugh, or whether it's another indictment of the poor coaching on Hoke's staff.

Or maybe a combo of all three...

 

Gob Wilson

December 30th, 2013 at 10:00 PM ^

Good coaching is more important the good recruiting... and the Stanford Story supports that idea. If in doubt about how Standord improved over Harbaugh's reign you can read the book "Rags to Roses: The Rise of Stanford Football" by  Beyda, Chen and Fisher. Harbaugh is depicted as an "in your face" coach who motivated and challenged his players. I can only wonder what happens at UM under Hoke... maybe Bacon will write about it after Hoke is gone. 

DoubleB

December 30th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^

"But he argues the spread to run works better"

Works better how? If you've got great skill talent like Ohio State, sure it works fine. They could also run the flexbone and be 12-1 (which would better protect that average defense of theirs).

And FWIW, Michigan is running a lot of gun, spread, 1-back concepts. We saw them two nights ago. 

bronxblue

December 30th, 2013 at 1:32 PM ^

Oh lord, #1 needs to die in a fire.  Saint bo wasn't a Michigan Man, and that apparently cured cancer and won mutliple MNCs here.  

The goal should always be like a draft: take the best available coach who fits what you want to do.  Sure, maybe don't hire Mike Leach because there are cultural issues, but don't be afraid of picking a guy and running with his scheme even if it isn't a "perfect" guy.  Too often, you see teams ping-pong between "offensive genius" and "defense-first coach" because they feel burned by the last guy, not because there is any factual reason for that shift.  RR's offense was really freaking good at UM; give him Mattison on defense and I think that team is a juggernaut by now.  The goal should always be to maximize both sides of the ball, and if that means running a particular offense or defense that doesn't necessarily mesh with history that is the case.

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^

Michigan probably ran just as much if not more plays from the shotgun (note: not ran the ball more out of shotgun, just ran more shotgun plays). For PSU through Nebraska, Michigan ran 48% of it's plays from shotgun (and another 9% from pistol). I'm fairly certain Michigan was a majority shotgun team against OSU, and I think it was pretty even against Iowa. So statistically it's at worst fairly close. Still, the point was to say that Michigan didn't just line up in I-form and run it straight ahead the vast majority of the time.

Now, I agree it's not where Borges wants to end up entirely, but he certainly will run more than his fair share of plays from shotgun (like he did at SDSU). This number is a little higher due to DG's running ability. But you'll still likely see greater than 1/3 of plays from shotgun for this team. 

aiglick

December 30th, 2013 at 2:33 PM ^

It didn't work because we didn't give him a bloody shot. It is rediculous. We are going to lose the younger fans since we are at best an average program. What then Brandon? Ever heard of lifetime customer value? The brand equity is going down the toilet. I just want some sign from Schembechler Hall that they know how desperation of the situation. I will say this: Hoke has mostly been competitive in losses though Saturday night really wasn't encouraging. It is fine if fans are not that enthused about a bowl named after a restaurant that doesn't even care about its shitty bowl. The players on the other hand are here to care. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes and for that I am extremely disappointed.

MonkeyMan

December 30th, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^

its amazing how often these threads veer into the Michigan Man idea or some debate about how good, RR, Lyoyd or Bo really was. Michigan football resembles one of those novels about some faded glory Belle in the South living on daddy's plantation talking about how things were in the old days and the need for real men of the old south to re-emerge. Why is this fanbase so focused on the past? The same issues and sore spots keep coming up over and over- its like reading the Bell Jar. Is Ann Arbor a plantation?

Reader71

December 30th, 2013 at 7:56 PM ^

The reason we look to the past is because the past is why we believe we should be good. This is why we hated Lloyd, Coach Rod, and now Hoke. They did not meet, or are not meeting, our historical expectations. If not for our illustrious past, 7-6 could be a good thing. Kansas would kill to be this bad. We want more. This is because we are used to it.

mGrowOld

December 30th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^

Not all the "good old boys" support what's going on right now.  As a matter of fact the people I'm connected with (all old guard alums - all fairly heavy finanical contributors) are as disgusted and upset with the state of the team as I am.

Remember, our memory of Michigan football is when we were good....very good....and losss were the exception, not the rule.  I think you'll find that most of us are more pissed off than you think.  

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 1:01 PM ^

In the end, it doesn't really matter if it's a Michigan man or not, it matters that you win and what the DB thinks is best for the program. If this staff doesn't start getting it done, they will be out the door sooner rather than later. Whoever is coaching for Michigan, I (and I think most) don't really care where they are from, I think they care about it being the right man for the job.

The "Good old boys" that you talk to, frankly, I don't think were behind Hoke because he was a Michigan man. I think they were behind Hoke because they believed in how he coached, what he stood for, and where they believed he could take the program based on first-hand knowledge. It wasn't even more than a little bit because he once coached at Michigan.

Erik_in_Dayton

December 30th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^

It sure seems that people liked the way Hoke talked about things and they way he said he was going to do things because they were so familiar, not because they exceded what RR offered in any remotely objective way (though I grant that one can perhaps not be objective about values).  Maybe I missed some ugly stuff re: RR, but from the outside it very much seemed that early* objections to him were based on running the spead, using the word "ain't", talking about nacho dip, etc...My single biggest fear about the Michigan football program is that it will never accept an outsider, thereby dooming it to the sort of collapse seen by royals families throughout the world who married their relatives until their offspring were incapable of walking or even speaking clearly.  

 

*Not to be confused with later objections based on win-loss record. 

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^

But I also think he brought a lot of it on himself, mostly by not winning right away (and, in fact, losing a lot right away). He did some other things differently that rubbed people the wrong way, but ultimately if he had won more games and not had an awful defense (and Michigan does expect to field a good defense) then things would have been very different for him.

Essentially, like with many things, as soon as people made up their mind that they didn't like Rich Rod, they searched for other things to add to the fire. They twisted things to fit their agenda. The fact that he wasn't a Michigan man quickly became one of those things because it was low hanging fruit.

Gulogulo37

December 30th, 2013 at 11:01 PM ^

I know he brought a lot of things on himself, and it annoys me how people don't acknowledge the hole RR put us in now because of his OL recruiting, but there's certainly an argument to be made that he would have won more games if others around the program weren't actively undermining him. I'm sure recruiting is easier when you don't have the things to worry about that he did. People were on him before he coached a game for Michigan. It wasn't like the talk all started midway through the first season.

I kept my previous reply very short because it takes me too long to type on my phone, but what would be included in RR getting what he deserved would have been a little extra cash to hire Jeff Casteel who could actually run a 3-3-5. I'd bet a good amount of money that RR's still our coach if he could have brought Casteel with him.

BluCheese

December 31st, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^

This is the biggest myth of the RR experience.  If only he could have brought Casteel.  If you want to run the 3-3-5 and you're a head coach you should have every coach in America on speed dial who runs that scheme.  An awful lot of them would have come to Michigan for that money.  Probably including Rocky Long, who is to the 3-3-5 as RR is to the zone read.  He practically invented it. 

Ron Utah

December 30th, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^

Rich Rod never got the support he should have, but he also didn't do what he needed to in order to earn that support.

It wasn't just the losing, it was a completely inept defense that he didn't make it a big enough priority to fix.  He's an amazing coach and I wish he had succeeded at Michigan, but his downfall was that he simply did handle the defense well.

Also, while Bacon's work suggests RR did take the time to learn and embrace the Michigan traditions, he did not show well in front of the press (before or after he got fired).  The "Fort Schembechler" policy may be obnoxious to fans and the press, but it's good for the program, and RR was too emotional in front of the mic.

Additionally, the whole "stretch-gate" saga could have been handled better.  That Brian was the one leading the charge about countable and non-countable hours instead of the Athletic Department is an indictment of both Martin and RR.

All that said, I agree that the Michigan family failed to embrace RR, and that did make his job tougher.

[email protected]

January 1st, 2014 at 9:18 AM ^

is the new #1 about what scares me about the future. 

 

My #2 is player development. 

 

I could give a damn about scheme. 

 

But one of Hoke's biggest attributes was winning the guys over and forging a team. He was brilliant, IMHO, that first year. 

 

But if he's losing that, if he's lost this team, its just done. 

matty blue

December 30th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^

there were a couple of times this year where we'd see some appalling rushing stat, and i'd wonder why some end-around was apparently not being included...finally i realized that those were being counted as passes.  i'm quick like that.

my question - why ARE they tossed forward?  wouldn't it be easier for the end to just take a handoff?  if it's a toss he has to look away from the defense to catch it, right?

wait, nevermind, i forgot - i don't really give a shit about football at the moment.  this team just completely stomped it all out of me.

Kilgore Trout

December 30th, 2013 at 12:23 PM ^

The only thing I can think is that if it's bobbled, it's an incompletion instead of a fumble. But, it seems less likely to be bobbled if you just hand it to him, so that makes little sense.

Another downside of doing that is that the runner can no longer throw the ball (can't have two forward passes in one play) so the defense can take off after the runner.

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 12:42 PM ^

It's essentially one less thing to teach them. You'll notice inexperienced ball carriers tend to reach out and grab the football (watch Denard last season when he played RB). This is a very dangerous way to get the football, as you tend to not grab it cleanly especially when looking at the defense.

So in the end, it's so that a drop is incomplete and not a fumble and so the receivers don't have to learn another technique.

Mpfnfu Ford

December 30th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^

On those jet sweep deals, the runner typically has to slow down a bit at the mesh point to make sure he doesn't screw up the handoff exchange. With the Mine Sweep (Damnit, that name should really take off, the play was invented at Colorado School of Mines and the name rules so damnit), the guy can take the ball at full sprint without worrying about an exchange.

gwkrlghl

December 30th, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^

I actually made out ok on my predictions:

 

-Shane throws 2 INTs, one is returned for 6 in crippling fashion.
-The offense is stupendously awful. Welcoming us into another tumultuous off-season full of hand wringing
-Nobody outside of KState or Michigan supporters even flirts with watching this game

Kansas State 37-16

The run game was indeed awful again and now we begin hand-wringing and Bdubs couldn't even find it interesting enough to play it in Bdubs.

True Blue in CO

December 30th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^

A Deep Evaluation of the Michigan Football Program is needed from top to bottom.  I still believe in the philosophies of Coach Hoke but I think he needs to take a closer look at his staff and the leadership of this team.  Jake Ryan, Frank Clark, and Blake Countess need to act like the upper classmen that they are and get their respective teammates focused this off season. While Devin has demonstrated great leadership on the field by playing his hardest, the offense needs some leadership to bring renewed focus this off-season.

There has to be some type of coaching staff change to send a message that the results of the 2013 season were not acceptable.  If the O-Line had played in the Copper Bowl like they did against OSU, then I would support giving coach Funk another year.  After Saturday night, I say find a new O-Line coach now.  Do not hesitate.

I am certain that the appropriate alumni will pressure Brandon and Brandon will pressure Hoke to make some changes.  We have enough talent, now is the time for the program leadership to execute a better plan to get us back to playing consistent football.