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

uminks

December 30th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^

He will not interfere with Hoke. It will be up to Hoke for the next couple of seasons. After 2015 if there is not substantial improvement in the team, I think DB will make a HC change.

dragonchild

December 30th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^

I'm seeing an awful lot of screams for change for change's sake.  A thorough review is needed?  Sure, I'm all for that. But such a review, as run by grown-ups, would involve hard choices not just on what should change, but what shouldn't change.  And if at the end of the day, the best option for Michigan right now is to keep their coaching staff unchanged for another year. . . would you accept that?  Because the last time Michigan guillotined their HC, recruits fled the program in droves.  And what's our #1 problem since then?  Lack of talent!  So if we're going to hit that reset button yet again, let's think real long and hard about it.  Yes, let's have that thorough review from top to bottom.  Let's just be clear on what a review is NOT supposed to do, namely issue sentences then cross-examine later.

I honestly think this last loss starts with the seniors.  They literally had nothing left to play for.  This is not to disrespect them; this is to humanize them.  I get that they're competitive but they're also decently smart, and this time probably too smart by half.  It is an unreasonable expectation for a man with a nickel's worth of common sense to give a damn in a game with nothing at stake for him, when he's just one guy on a unit playing at HS level.  After numerous debacles it's not like there was any pride left to defend.  I know I've been frustrated as hell when I can't execute even basic team plays because everyone around me is so inexperienced.  And with so many underclassmen looking up to the seniors, emotion is contagious -- both positive and negative.  Hell, just look at the comments around here.

What I'm really curious about (Space Coyote, anyone?) is if there was any real individual progression over the course of the season.  The schemes got dumbed down but have the players improved at all?  These coaches stress fundamentals and technique while MGoBlog focuses largely on plays and schemes.  All I can see is that we just kept getting worse on both sides of the ball, at least in terms of results, when the learning curve should've been its fastest.  I don't play football, but I can tell you I sure learn the fastest when I'm getting repeatedly burned.  Did this team acquire anything over the course of this season to build on?  Because if not, then I am truly ready to throw these coaches onto a pile of fuel-soaked tires with a lighter in my hand.

Space Coyote

December 30th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^

There are people that disagree, and they can make their point and disagree, but I'm of the belief that every single player individually improved. There are other factors - mental make-up, health, scouting - that make it appear as if teams and players regress. Things like DG's confidence and health standout, but I think Kalis struggled with confidence in his ability to grasp the mental-aspect, for example; teams scouted Michigan's weaknesses and began heavily attacking them, thus exposing them more; etc.

But from a technique standpoint, while it was too often inconsistent, I saw each player individually improve throughout the season. The question to me isn't if they improved in their reads and techniques, it's if they improved enough. That's the measure, because you have to keep up with other teams improving as well.

This year, for a laundry list of reasons that have been discussed - and people disagree with what's on that list - this team did not improve enough. I tend to believe it was because their weaknesses got heavily exposed, the players - the young ones especially, but also DG for example - started struggling with the mental aspects of the game, the coaches couldn't figure out how to how to get their teaching across in an affective manner in season, and then things started snowballing. So it's on players and coaches alike, but I also don't think you can adequately judge individual progression over the course of a season when there are so many other variables. I believe there was progress, but not enough, but I'm not really comfortable proclaiming "not enough so coaches must be fired" because I am not in the position to make that judgement.

dragonchild

December 30th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

And in the end, for all those people who probably aren't reading and/or don't really care what some random fan has to say. . . I want to close out this season with one very-often overlooked and misunderstood fact:

These players are people.

That is usually translated to mean, "people are fallible/flawed/imperfect".  I'm referring to a concept far more complex.  People are social animals, and their age and situations have to be taken into perspective.

First off, people mature mentally very rapidly between 18 and 22.  Also, they are immensely susceptible to peer pressure.  If not in decision, then in mood.  When I say "this team is mostly underclassmen" I'm not just referring to the collective lack of experience.  I'm saying when these players talk to each other about their problems, their emotions, or look at each other for a sign, most of the faces they see will be other youngsters just as confused as they are.  After a while, the few guys slamming their heads into brick walls because they bought in start to look Quixotic.  This is just not something fans see day-to-day, or even by obsessively following news feeds.  To understand this season's failures I have to remember my own OMFG-how-could-I-have-been-so-irresponsible-and-stupid mistakes and immaturity when I was a college underclassman.  In particular I was an out-of-state student, so when I was lost I didn't have much in the way of comfort OR guidance.  I had to figure a lot of stuff out on my own, and it took a long time, and the last fucking thing I needed was someone who had no goddamn idea what I was going through telling me I wasn't good enough.

Second, this team lacked not only upperclassmen and leaders, but also playmakers.  Jordan Kovacs -- just to name one example -- wasn't just a tough-as-nails underdog that inspired others; other players saw a walk-on taking on very tough assignments by Mattison, embracing the responsibility and succeeding in the spotlight.  That does wonders to counter any immature jawing of nearby smart-asses -- OK, I can listen to you, I-haven't-done-shit-yet or I can emulate an undersized walk-on who's getting TV interviews and awards.  This year's seniors that didn't just make plays but made OMFG plays consistently and against the opposition's best was. . . Gallon?  Except WR was by far our most experienced unit!  Lewan was the only offensive captain but he really wasn't in a position to show the youngsters the fruits of his effort when DCs basically schemed around him.  Gardner was eager to be a leader but he spent a lot of time throwing picks and, when he got over that, getting sacked twenty times a game.  This is an environment where it's very easy for underclassmen to get frustrated and unmotivated.  You start to listen to the bad advice of your peers, and when that happens, coaching gets much tougher.

Meanwhile, as you say, other teams bullied the underclassmen mercilessly.  I don't think it was all for naught, though.  If you get burned on a play, you remember it, even if weeks later you still haven't figured out what you'd do about it.  People learn a lot by osmosis even at 20, and once they "get it" they'll take all the losses of this year and turn it into something productive.  But not all teams follow the steady improvement Michigan State enjoyed this year.  Who knows what 2014 will look like.

I really don't want anyone putting ultimatums on 2014, not to defend Hoke but because the demands for instant excellence sound nothing like fans cheering for players; they sound like spoiled investors not getting an 18% return last quarter.  These players are people, and they're the last ones who need to be told they sucked.  2013 was a very toxic rut and each player will emerge from it on their own time having gained something.  When they do they'll be better and stronger for it, but building mental toughness is a lot more complex than an exercise regimen.  It's easier to plan for a freshman to gain 20 pounds than a sudden burst of maturity, and frankly I don't see how changing coaches is going to fix that.  We can fix the schemes, we can fix the plays, we can fix technique, we can even fix the staff, but fixing young people isn't done the same way.

Sobinator

December 30th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^

This should be front paged and everyone should be forced to read this before being allowed to comment.

This team lacked leadership, and it showed by the end. It is painful to watch Michigan struggle, but this staff needs time to rebuild this program. Patience is a lost art of our society, but needs to be heeded. While Hoke may not be the end all be all coach, he understands what this program needs and if given time, will get the program righted.



dragonchild

December 31st, 2013 at 10:10 AM ^

Indeed, patience is a lost art.  Most people think it means "sitting on your ass".

Patience is not merely waiting.  The key here is knowing when to change, and when to wait.  And apparently everyone's ONLY criteria for waiting is the number of years a coach has been with the program.  It's baffling.  I'm not saying three years shouldn't be enough, but if a coach needs more, it really depends on how they're doing, hence my question to Space Coyote above.  On the flip side, I'd call for the firing of a coach in year one if I saw sufficient reason to do so.  Like, if some coach was bringing over a guy like Sandusky, I don't care if the team went undefeated in his first season or been winning for twenty -- I want that guy gone.

I am all for firing the coaches IF I think that is the best solution.  But say we fire these coaches. . . then what?  What will happen to all those 4-star commits in the fold?  What happens to Michigan's appeal as a school to coach for (or PLAY for -- think of that??) if we set a precedent for "three and you're out"?

I'm not saying "don't fire the coaches".  I'm asking, "Are we sure that's the best thing for the team right now?"  IF we fire the coaches, the replacement can't just be a new face.  The benefits have to overcome all the costs of doing so, from the exodus of recruits to the PR hit (big-time coaches who can get jobs anywhere aren't quick to jump to politically toxic programs).  One very big weakness identified in the program was stability.  You can't fire coaches every three years AND have stability.  When you factor in all those, it doesn't look like such an automatic genius move.

So I'm asking questions instead.  I'm trying to understand.  If we need to fire the coaches then let's do it.  If Hoke needs a fourth or even fifth year, he should have it if that's what's best for the program.  The ONE argument I won't accept is, "He's been here X years."  That is the absolutely stupidest possible argument one can make for firing a coach because there isn't a shred of analysis to it.

robpollard

December 30th, 2013 at 11:43 PM ^

Is Michigan some sort of wasteland where 5 years (or more) are necessary to even start competing for B1G titles (not to mention nat'l titles, which an "elite" program should aim for)?

I was with your comment until "really don't want anyone putting ultimatums on 2014, not to defend Hoke but because the demands for instant excellence..."  2014 is year FOUR! By defintion, "his" players will be upperclassmen next year. He's had time to put his plan in place (at least most of it). That's not "instant."

Can someone point me to a coach at a major program, in the last 25 years, who got until his fifth year or later to finally start competing for titles, let alone winning them? Outside of Mike Belotti (who really only had two great years), I can't think of an example. I'm sure there are 1 or 2 other names, but that's the point - it's really rare. Meanwhile, the list of coaches who performed at a high (and even elite) level three to four years in is long - Saban, Meyer, Harbaugh, Malzahn, Carroll, Brown, Fisher, Stoops etc. I mean, Ferentz and Dantonio were able to win B1G titles in their fourth year. And heck, Brian Kelly (who I detest) had ND competing for a national championship in year 3. I'm not saying it's easy -- but it's definitely doable.

I hope Hoke is successful long-term, b/c that means UM is successful. But if Hoke puts up another 7 or 8 wins next year, unless we are hit by an unprecedented injury bug, he should be fired. That's not "spoiled" impatience - that's an "investor" looking at his stock and realizing it is quite unlikely that you picked a winner. Meanwhile, others who were smarter and more aggressive have passed you by.

Reader71

December 31st, 2013 at 2:01 AM ^

When Brady Hoke got here, Michigan was a toxic wasteland. Awful defense, poor recruiting, awful player retention, split in the alumni base, had just run a coach out of town, had been turned down by Schiano a few years before, etc. This program was in complete shambles. If it is not a wasteland now, it is because of Brady Hoke. We're now just a scuffling, underachieving college football team. There used to be a crater where the Michigan program used to be. As for the 5-year thing, you've got a point. But Mark Dantonio is one example of an AD sticking with a coach he believed in despite underwhelming results. There are probably a few more examples, although 5 years is at the upper limit of patience. The fact is that Hoke will probably get the 5 because of 2011 and the context of that season -- the aforementioned program-sized crater that he inherited.

robpollard

December 31st, 2013 at 8:26 AM ^

Mark Dantonio won a B1G championship in year 4 (there was no need for 5 years or more of patience). Yet, somehow, taking over at the annual clown college that was MSU is easier than Hoke being given a blank checkbook at UM to hire any asst coaches he wants and inheriting a 7 win team with an experienced QB? Same thing with Ferentz. And go look at what Bob Stoops took over. Again, there are more than two handfuls of examples of people taking over situation that were no better than Michigan in terms or resources and talent on-hand.

And turning Michigan into a "scuffling, underachieving" team is no real accomplishment. Leaders and Best, and all that.

 

dragonchild

December 31st, 2013 at 9:48 AM ^

"That's not "spoiled" impatience - that's an "investor" looking at his stock and realizing it is quite unlikely that you picked a winner. "

I write a lengthy post about how Michigan's teams are people, not stocks, and you go right back to treating it a stock.

FWIW, I'm not taking the coaches off the hook. They were never off the hook.  If they need to be fired, then they should be fired.  But if we ARE going to take a good long hard look at this year's failings, and I do think that should be done, that starts with being grown-ups and grown-ups do not issue ultimatums.  That Michigan is a big-time program means the coaches should understand there's pressure to succeed, but it is in no way shape or form permission for you to be a jackass.

What I AM trying to find out is why the team collapsed so badly, and if you are IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT INTERESTED in seeing this team succeed, do please be a goddamn grown-up and look beyond "fire the coach durrr".  Because we already tried that once with RichRod and look where it got us.  I'm not saying don't fire the coach, but let's put the horse before the cart here.

robpollard

December 31st, 2013 at 12:02 PM ^

I don't consider myself an "investor" - I was just extending your metaphor. So disregard that, I don't care. I'm an alum who cares about the football team, that's all.

And I'm not "fire the coach durr" -- Hoke should absolutely get a fourth year (which not every coach gets). 

But I'm tired of people acting like Hoke came into a job that was so difficult that it is unreasonable to expect him to compete -- not even win, seriously COMPETE throughout the whole season -- for B1G championships within four years. Yet people like yourself seem to say, "Well, let's wait until 2015 to assess b/c things are so tough/impossible for a UM coach, post RR." 

Hoke needs to start, as of now, competing for B1G championships, and then hopefully build from there. He has the resources--both in money and facilities--and in your fourth year, he's had the time. I hope he does it. But if, god forbid, we go 7-6 or 8-5 next year, it's time to move on. As I pointed out, plenty of other coaches showed they could get it done in four years (or less) and history shows if you can't get it done by then, it's very likely you won't get it done ever.

uncleFred

December 31st, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^

One of the seeds of these discussions is the notion that a serious evaluation about retaining the coaching staff is not made every season. Assuming the evaluation at the end of 2011 was an automatic pass, I'd be very surprised if such an evaluation wasn't made at the end of the 2012 season and won't be made now. The issue is what is the criteria for retention at each season and how does it change year to year. It is also a safe bet that minimum performance metrics are established for the next season. I think that the won loss record is but one metric used in setting those goals.

Resources also include the roster. The coach at Michigan can't simply go shopping for experienced talent to shore up holes in the roster. He has to recruit them out of high school and coach them up  and as we've seen this season that may or may not be possible in a red shirted season. Hence the coaching vs youth debate.

It is reasonable to expect that line play will improve on both sides of the ball in 2014. The question is how much improvement is reasonable and should we expect that to be enough to get beyond 8-5. Suppose they drop four regular season games but win the last three including beating Ohio and then lose a very well played bowl game on a flagrantly bad call in the last 30 seconds. Do you dump the coaching staff after a season that showed growth across the team despite only a slight improvement in the record and disrupt the program yet again because of some random historical measure? 

What if there is no better option for head coach at the end of 2014? It's nice to think that there is a large list of top coaching talent waiting for Michigan to come hire them, but is that realistic? Yes Bo was pulled from obscurity so the exact definition of "top talent" is a bit fuzzy, but how likely is the AD to find another Bo? The decision to keep or release a coaching staff after any marginal year has to be made taking all of the various factors that apply at that time into consideration. 

Lastly, it's easy to say that no program should require 5 years to turn around and state that other have done it quicker elsewhere. It doesn't matter what other coaches did elsewhere, what matters is what was the judgement of the AD and the administration about how long was reasonable to turn around the program that Brady took over in 2011. Given the duration of Brady's contract it seems likely that judgement was at least five years, but none of us really know.

mgobaran

December 30th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^

I was really proud of Shane. Needs to be able to go from rocket arm to touch pass more frequently. But I think he can figure that out as things progress. In no way does he pass DG on the depth chart.

Shane could of been the reason we lost. But he did nothing of the sort. I was calling for Borges to open it up a little more though. Not saying this game is a reason Borges should be fired, or that he was even wrong for being careful, but the only way to get the offense going once the constraints went bye bye, would have been to take the top off the defense. Maybe, just maybe, that would have opened up some of the running game enough to take pressure off the kid, and he could start throwing downfield even more without thinking he had to carry the team on his shoulders. 

The "wave the white flag" moment for me was when we didn't go for it on 4th down at the end of the 1st half. What do you have to lose at that point? It was a managable down/distance, close to mid field. A score on that drive may have carried the momentum into the 2nd half. If we could have parlayed that into an opening score in the 2nd half, M is back in the game and may be able to put up a fight at that point. 

FrankMurphy

December 30th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^

I don't know about 1989 being the last time Michigan played like an elite program. Personally, I think 1995-2000 Lloyd Carr was the best coach Michigan ever had (in the modern era, anyway). Bo never won a national championship, coached a Heisman trophy winner, or won four consecutive bowl games.

But I get your point and agree with it wholeheartedly.

 

MGlobules

December 30th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^

that Lloyd doesn't have a lot of great successors can necessarily be held against him. I'm in the minority here, but I admired that guy, despite his ego/some of his skullduggery regarding RR, etc. I always said that his average of 9.5 wins a year (second in NCAA ball behind Phil Fulmer for a long while there), which people complained so vociferously about, would look very good in the long run. 

One Inch Woody…

December 30th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^

So now you're complaining about *not* running the ball. Great. There's one grand reason why they think they can't run the ball and it's the media with their constant negativity and intent to break apart anything that doesn't fit their own ideology.

In all seriousness, it appeared like the offense was running pretty efficiently but the same execution/mental mistakes things kept popping up - dropped balls, AJ Williams getting smacked, Morris not knowing which way the play was supposed to go. I would be interested to see what the TOP-adjusted efficiency was because I feel like if we had 2 or 3 more drives, we could have definitely put up more yards. 

 

ESNY

December 30th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^

START QTR POSS. YARD PLAYS YARDS RESULT
07:19 1 03:47 MICH 37 9 58 Field Goal Good
00:43 1 08:34 MICH 23 15 68 Field Goal Good
04:30 2 03:35 MICH 25 6 20 Punt
15:00 3 02:17 MICH 25 5 15 Punt
05:43 3 02:21 MICH 23 5 7 Punt
00:45 3 01:13 MICH 25 3 -5 Punt
08:09 4 00:52 MICH 22 3 4 Punt
04:20 4 01:07 MICH 20 4 22 Interception
02:25 4 01:10 MICH 18 5 82 Rushing Touchdown

Look at that drive chart.  After the first two possessions, when our "wrinkles" were adjusted to we had zero answer.  Kept trying it

bronxblue

December 30th, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^

 

Michigan's base play this year was a tackle for loss.

Oh gawd, why does it hurt when I laugh so much!?!

I guess I'm not going to read too much into this game.  The team showed some heart against OSU and played reasonably well, but that was as much a mirage as this game looking like a beating.  The offense would have been different with Gardner back there, and while the inability to run the ball in any classical way is due to the coaches and players to a large degree, it was still pretty much a meaningless exhibition game played 3+ weeks after UM last stepped onto the field.  It was a fitting coda to a crappy year, but this team can be better next year without a returning to elite status.  Maybe I'm just a beaten puppy, but I'll take that.

MI Expat NY

December 30th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^

It does seem that this type of performance says more about the coaching than the talent level.  I can only think of one other Michigan bowl performance where we looked so lackadaisical and lethargic (Miss. St. Gator Bowl) and that was when the team was obvioulsy playing out the string on a doomed coaching staff.  There have been other bowl beat downs such as Tennessee in the Citrus Bowl and Washington in the Rose Bowl, but my memory is that those were cases of getting beaten by better teams playing well, not a lack of effort.  

bronxblue

December 30th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^

Maybe against Washington, but that Tennessee beating was both due to talent as well as desire.  It felt like UM kind of knew they were going to get waxed and made it easy.  I'd also add that Oregon game after App St. looked like a team that had no desire to play another football game that year.

MI Expat NY

December 30th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^

My memory of the UT game is obviously a little fuzzy at this point, and I do think they may have quit at the end, but I seem to recall UT's defensive line just absolutely dominating and just generally being a much better team overall.  If you don't play your best and emotionally pack it in, it's a little easier to take after you start to get your ass kicked by an excellent team, rather than not even showing up and getting your ass kicked by a mediocre outfit like KSU.  

uminks

December 30th, 2013 at 2:22 PM ^

against in NU in '05. But they were use to New Years Day bowls and had to play in a smaller bowl game.

This team should have been jacked for even getting to play in a bowl game. This concerns me that the coaches are lacking leadership and are unable to motivate their players.

mushroomX3

December 30th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^

Clock management by this coaching staff drives me nuts. 

Also, I just can't get over why we waste those drives where we have 1 to 1.5 mins left to try to score before half-time. 

Crime Reporter

December 30th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^

Drove all day so I didn't get to see it. The final score doesn't surprise me. My disappointment comes from visiting the blog today and not finding news of a staff firing. Despite Hoke saying all would return I find it impossible to believe heads won't roll. Something needs to change.

mgobaran

December 30th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^

Maybe it was the comotosed state I was in after being drunk for 30 straight hours heading into that game, but I never watched it and thought anyone should be fired because of the bowl loss/effort.

I don't get why the defense didn't show up. (I don't get the whole "didn't play as a family" thing. How does that happen? I would think even if the coaches had that attitude, these players seem like brothers who would battle for each other. Guess I was wrong.) But IMO Coach Mattison should be the coach furthest away from a hot seat on this staff. I don't think that side of the ball regressed throughout the season, as much as the talent holes have finally started to be exposed.

Hoke didn't wear sleeves or a headset (except that one time). Borges didn't screw up the game by ramming our RBs into a wall. He just played the hand delt to him from the DG injury. (let me remind you Gardner was 75% of the offense this season)

TL;DR: Heads won't roll b/cuz of this game. People should have been gone because of the season. But why would they wait till after the bowl for that again? 

Ron Utah

December 30th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^

I've taken issue with some of Brian's meltdowns this year, but this post is spot on.  The team looked lethargic, disinterested, and inept.  The body language (especially on defense) was simply unacceptable.  This was a monumental collapse, a bad team playing even worse then they have most of the year.

Shane Morris deserves props for maintaining poise and confidence in a difficult situation.  Jeremy Gallon should be praised for one of the best seasons in Michigan history (and he did it without the threat of a running game).  Al Borges gets some credit for trying to gimmick the offense into a victory.  Taylor Lewan deserves a medal of honor for sticking it out this year and never quitting--that tackle after the pick is why he'll be a great NFL player (that and his ridiculously athletic 310 lb. body).

EDIT: It's worth noting that the offense managed a respectable 4.92 yds/play.  They just couldn't convert in the red zone, and weren't given enough chances by their defense.

But aside from a few unsparkling gems, there wasn't much good about this game.  The defense just looked awful and the offense just couldn't muster any points.

2014 has become a huge, HUGE year for this program.  If things don't get better, and fast, heads should roll.

nappa18

December 30th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^

I was at the 2008 NW game and spent halftime huddled in a mens room standing shoulder to shoulder with the shivering masses under a malfunctioning heating fan. Fun. I was at the Purdue game in '95 that had to be one of the fandom endurance games. What were the others? Next time I will look for a pretzel oven. Last word about this game, Snyder could have laid more points on us in the second half. This was the first Hoke era game reminding me of the Miss.State, OSU, and Wiscy blowouts in the RR timeframe. Not a good thing.

Erik_in_Dayton

December 30th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^

I'm often annoyed by references to "making plays," because that seems so simple-minded, but JMFR was the one guy who Michigan could count on last year to do that.  Everyone else just sort of did their jobs.  I suppose it's no surprise that his injury was a massive blow to the defense this year.  We hoped Frank Clark could be our play-maker, but he mostly wasn't.  Countess had his interceptions, but he had his flaws too.