Why did the Utah loss turn the world upside down?

Submitted by Cold War on

There has been growing discontent with Hoke for some time now, dating back to at least last season. But the Utah loss seems to have had a disproportionate effect. ESPN is suddenly smelling blood and televising a routine Hoke presser, and MGoBlog and Michigan fandom has lit the torches and picked up the pitchforks. I don't recognize this place.

I get the start of the season is disappointing. Even as a Hoke slappy, I'll admit whatever doubts I had have grown. And I understand how whatever oppostion Hoke had would grow with the loss.

But why have we gone over a cliff after Utah? It's not App State, Toledo, or even an Akron near miss.  They're a decent PAC team that came in and we lost a game we shouldn't have.

What am I missing? What was it about Utah?

 

MGoBoard

Reader71

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^

Be disrespectful if you want, I dont care. I didn't find that disrespectful anyways. I did find it childish. I don't think you should use that as a diversion when a guy who isn't me brings up a point you disagree with. You're a smart guy, put your thoughts into words.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Yeoman

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^

Neither of these statements is close to true.

Per FEI, the 2010 offense was the second-best offense in the country (after Newton's Auburn). It's a good defense but do you really think this defense is going to rate #2? (It's #19 right now, unadjusted for schedule, and I don't think the schedule to date was that much above average.)

Per FEI, the 2010 defense was the twelfth-worst in the country. Among power conferences only Washington St. was worse. It was worse than every MAC team except EMU, and these are schedule- and tempo-adjusted numbers. Bad as it is, this offense won't grade out that badly. (It's 47th from the bottom right now, unadjusted.)

There's a big difference between #2 and #19 in the country.

---

I'm curious about your last point: do we have any reason to think Hoke hasn't given a lot of autonomy to Nussmeier, and to Borges before him? One of the criticisms of Hoke has been that he isn't involved in the playcalling except for critical game-management decisions like fourth downs, that he doesn't even wear a headset.

I'm with you; I think he shouldn't be involved, just like I thought RR should have let Shafer do his thing. But I thought he wasn't.

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21390

IncrediblySTIFF

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^

If I remembered accurately:

BWC did not play OL for Hoke.  When did Hoke "bitch" about having Denard Robinson?  Was Hoke's undefeated regular season at BSU a fluke, brought forth only by Lynch's awesome recruiting?

Jake Ryan is nobody?  Jabrill Peppers is nobody?  Please.  Hoke has achieved the same level (if not better) in recruiting.  So, you are convinced that we are not going 11-2 next year with Hoke or anyone else?

The evidence I see on the field is a team that is making strides in places, but continues to suffer from a major lack of confidence.  That's what happens when your team loses as many games as it has won in the past 100.

The evidence I see on the field does not show me that this team is going to be really good soon.  I do see  a team full of smart kids, who (for the most part) have managed to stay out of trouble, go to class, and largely represent the university well.  This team is still incredibly young.  You can count the number of seniors on your fingers.  And that includes Anthony Capatina, a punter, and a place-kicker.  But doom and gloom!  We are not 4-0 and we did not look impressive during the first four games.

I can tell you one thing: Fire Brady Hoke this year, and we will continue to be a mediocre team for the next 3-5 years minimum.

So, TWEEDLE-BALLS, are we considering what RR left behind a fully-stocked cupboard?  I seem to remember being gashed for oodles of points on a regular basis while RR was here, and I'm also not entirely sure why we have only one senior on the OL (who doesn't even play), if RR left us with all the tools to succeed by stocking up on super stars.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

IncrediblySTIFF

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^

Yeah, he called me numbnuts, i responded with tweedle-balls.

Truthfully, I think a top 10 defvense is not mediocre.  Also, if we are not nearly as mediocre as we were, does that make us more mediocre or less mediocre?  I would rather be mediocre than less than mediocre.

Joined: 03/26/2011

MGoPoints: 7962

CalifExile

September 23rd, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^

Jake Ryan was recruited by RR.

RR didn't leave behind a fully stocked cupboard because he hadn't had time to fill it in the two full recruiting seasons he had. On offense he had Molk and Schilling and 2 frequently injured RBs. The DL and DB were solid but thin, by the next year everyone but Brandon Graham, RVB and Donovan were gone. During what should have been his third year he was undermined by Brandon but still got commitments from good players.The missing seniors are from the class Brandon destroyed. Unfortunately, guys like Jake Fisher didn't want to play for Hoke.

What you ignore is that this is Hoke's 4th year. He inherited a sound team and has had three full classes to supplement the players he inherited and replace the ones who have moved on. It is Hoke's failures that have put Michigan in this position. Normal development of players would have seen a fully stocked OL this year. By RR's third year he was starting Lewan and Omameh, his recruits, and had coached Molk to a point where he was all-conference and would go on to AA and the Rimington award. (You don't think it was Hoke and Funk who got him to that level, do you?) 

The team improved every year under RR. Under Hoke it, and individual players, have regressed.

Joined: 03/02/2010

MGoPoints: 12625

CompleteLunacy

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^

"My evidence is a team went 11-2.  That is pretty concrete.  It happened with a coach who has a shitty record throughout his career and has lost at least 5 games every season since (this will make three years in a row). "

I'm having trouble figuring out how a bad coach can win the Sugar Bowl. 

I mean, sure, Hoke might not be elite, he might not be good enough for Michigan. I've been thinking that after the Utah game too. And sure, the 2011 team was comprised of RR players (and some seniors from Carr, don't forget).

But for fuck's sake, can we give the current staff a little fucking credit for that year? I mean, that 100+ spot turnaround on defense wasn't some happy accident. Do people really forget how abysmal the defense was in 2010?

 

Joined: 11/13/2010

MGoPoints: 12910

Skapanza

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^

I agree that RR could have gone 11-2 with that team as well, maybe even 11-1 in the regular season with a big ? for the bowl game since the Iowa game would have featured Denard-to-pro-style QB.

 

The other big beef I have with the Hoke vs. RR comparison (besides RR improving each year, though of course he started at the bottom of an immense hole he helped dig) is that Hoke got basically a blank check for assistants while RR had to make due with whatever scrubs they could afford. Yes, he stubbornly clung to the 3-3-5 without Jeff Casteel to run it, but if he had some institutional support it could have been a different story.

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 2591

aiglick

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:28 PM ^

I agree with you a lot but RichRod doesn't deserve all the credit for 2011. It can't have entirely been a fluke. The coaching staff did something right even if that something was "well Denard and Hemingway make something happen".

I'm tried of transitions and really want the team to be good. I wouldn't care if it's Mickey as head coach with Donald and Goofy as coordinators. As long as the team is winning games.

I agree with accountability for millionaires but am afraid if we do sack this staff, which I believe has some good coordinators, we will have yet another transition period. I'm not sure our program can withstand yet another transition but we may find out soo enough.

Joined: 11/27/2010

MGoPoints: 21521

PurpleStuff

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

I don't think we lose to Iowa unless Borges is here trying to run the ball out of the I, because you know we need to practice our power running scheme (that we don't even use any more) so we can play MANBALL in the future (with linemen who aren't here any more).

But keep patting yourself on the back and just see what happens in RR's 4th year and beyond at Arizona.  And remind me again who predicted we'd win at least 10 games in 2011 no matter who the coach was well before the season started?  A lot of dumbasses argued with me then and negged my comments.  Then they backtracked and praised Hoke for the "turnaround".  Now they don't have a fucking leg to stand on.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

los barcos

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^

So now we're crediting RR with a 12-1 season that year.  

I said this in another thread about people like you: but if you hate Michigan so much, why the fuck do you even watch?  And not just watch, but you get so bothered that you feel the need to post 12,257 (give or take) times on a Michigan blog?  If you love RR, just root for Arizona.

Joined: 03/27/2009

MGoPoints: 10842

CooperLily21

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^

That's it!  You tell him!  Discount his Michigan fanhood because he's posting negative comments.  You stay classy, San Diego.  Newsflash:  There's a chance he attends more games and donates more money to the AD than most and thus has infinitely more standing to comment than most.  Get to know someone before you insult them, internet tough guy.

Joined: 03/05/2013

MGoPoints: 2262

los barcos

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:03 PM ^

I am such an internet tough guy.  

 

And I guess I missed the memo that stipulated the amount of "standing one has to comment" on a program is directly related to the amount of money donated.  We should note that on the blog so I can make sure in the future to avoid any comments made by the proletariat.  

Joined: 03/27/2009

MGoPoints: 10842

PurpleStuff

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

I had an opinion about what was best for Michigan.  Dave Brandon didn't listen to me and made what is looking like a collosal blunder at this point, after everything I predicted would happen came to pass.  I am unhappy about the decision and where we find ourselves as a program as the result of that decision.

That means I hate Michigan. 

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

SirJack II

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^

I know you'll have a litany of excuses at the ready, but you realize RichRod fielded the worst defenses in the history of Michigan football year after year. And special teams were just as laughable under RR as they are now under Hoke. 

The defensive turnaround in 2011 is the biggest indictment of the Rodriguez era.

Joined: 11/15/2011

MGoPoints: 3066

MileHighWolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^

Maybe if he could have given Casteel the same money we gave to either Borges (who was 3rd highest paid OC in country) or Mattison (which was significantly more than anything we gave to any DC before him) he could have fielded better defenses?

But he wasn't allowed to pay anything resembling market value for the DC position at a top program so we got shitty coaches and commensurate results.

 

Joined: 09/02/2008

MGoPoints: 7749

JFW

September 23rd, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^

Our vaunted team lost to Iowa the year before running the read option...

Whatever. 

THis isn't about scheme. Its about chemistry and the ability to make things work. Marrying our team to one scheme because its 'modern' makes about as much sense as saying our next coach has to be 'a Michigan man!'. 

 

RR is doing well. He has good chemistry where he is. I'm happy for him. I wish it had worked out better. But I think that maybe his 2011 team would have won 8 games tops because the defense wouldn't have had the turnaround.

His 2010 team had a combined 24 points on MSU and OSU. His defense got tagged for 38 points by Iowa at home. He gave up 41 points to PSU at PSU. He gave up 48 points to a 'old fashioned' 'man ball' Wisconsin. He lost 5 of his last 7!!!!!! Mostly because his defense was horrible. 

As for statistic:

 

Category National Rank Actual National Leader Actual Conference Rank Big Ten Conference Leader Actual
Rushing Offense 13 238.54 Georgia Tech 323.31 3 Illinois 246.08
Passing Offense 36 250.15 Hawaii 394.29 2 Indiana 287.17
Total Offense 8 488.69 Oregon 530.69 1 Michigan 488.6

They were 8th nationally in total offense. 25th in scoring offense. "old fasioned, Manball" Wisci was first in Scoring offense in the B1G. 

 

The next year we were 26th in scoring offense. It went down, but it wasn't a catastrophe. And the Defense rose from 110th to 17th. 

 

Again, in retrospect, It would have been better, if only for stability, to get RR one more year. But to say that he'd have done as well is pure speculation. Hoke may well not be a good fit just like RR. But don't make out that RR was *the guy*. 

Joined: 10/20/2010

MGoPoints: 15285

Bergs

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^

Ugh..."The team that would have been Rodriguez's 4th year went 11-2." With Brady Hoke as head coach and Greg Mattison as DC. You honestly think that that team would've gone 11-2 under Rodriguez and whichever DC was next up and willing to run the 3-3-5? Give it up man.

A very close friend of mine is best friends with a player who got PT under both Rodriguez and Hoke and this player spoke on more than one occasion about how much the team disliked Rodriguez. That team needed something to rejuvenate them and Hoke/Mattison provided that. I agree with you that Hoke clearly isn't getting it done, but I don't think Michigan goes 11-2 under Rodriguez in his 4th year, especially given his track record with DCs.

Joined: 09/09/2011

MGoPoints: 2867

JFW

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^

largely because the defense went from being like 110th to 20th or something. THe offense still scored. What evidence do you have that this would have happened under RR. The previous 3 years of defensive floundering?

There is as much evidence that RR would have gone 11-2 in year four by having his O be able to perform against big teams (I remember something like 14 massive points being scored against OSU) and his D come back from the dead as there is for Hoke going 11-2 next year because the offense magically clicks. 

I'd say there's more hope for Hoke (though I don't hold out much) because the defense has done well against good offenses; whereas our RR offense was... okay against good defenses (OSU, MSU, Mississippi State).  Further, in RR's fifth year, had he rated one, he'd still have huge problems on the O line due to his own recruiting issues. 

I'm not slamming RR. I'm not saying Hoke is the guy. But you're inserting a ton of assumptions into your prediction for success for RR in his fourth year.

He's done a lot better at Arizona. I'm happy for the guy. He always seemed like a good guy, and he did get a going over here. In hindsight it would have been better for him to get a fourth year if only for stability. And maybe if he'd come here with Casteel things would have been radically different from the get go. 

But as they were he wasn't working out any better than Hoke; and its folly to go back and say he absolutely would have blossomed into a monster coach. 

Joined: 10/20/2010

MGoPoints: 15285

I Love Lamp

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^

The lack of development, encountering the same issues over and over and over again, lack of urgency, he appears to be clueless and have zero answers, there is only so much one can take.  And the final straw has to be plucked somewhere, and this Utah game happened to be it.

Wish him well, seems to be a great guy, but he has to go.

Joined: 07/15/2014

MGoPoints: 8306

ijohnb

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^

needs to figure out how to get people to spend any part of their Saturday watching Michigan v. Minnesota this weekend.  That is all that is.  Mike and Mike are doing a 5 minute snippet on Michigan every morning.  They really don't care, and it really is a non-story, but that is the game they have scheduled and they need a narrative to make it interesting.

What you are seeing here is not due to ESPN reporting, it is because we had fricking 10 guys on the field for a punt return TD against Utah.  There is no "clever" take here to say that Utah wasn't as bad or that people are overreacting.  It was that bad and people are appropriately reacting.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

ThWard

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^

Tons of "recruiting" talent on the field. 5th yr senior QB. Upgraded OC.

And loses 57-10 to ND and Utah, never reaching the end zone (or sniffing the red zone) on O.

 

No, losing to Utah isn't the same as losing to Toledo. But the latter was in RichRod's first year with a Threet/Sheridan at QB, and holes everywhere. And the expectations for that season were pretty damn low. This is year 4 with Hoke, following 11-2, 8-5, 7-6.

 

The team looks lost for long stretches of games (even Miami OH).

 

I like Brady Hoke. Seems like a nice dude. But in year 4, if you don't expect much, much better, than I don't know what to tell you.

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 5169

rainking

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^

is letting games get away from them (ND, Utah). Close(ish) at the half but then they turn into what looks in headlines like blowouts. Whether they are or not, lopsided scores are something we are not used to necessarily. One doesn't hear to much bitching about the OSU loss last year because the team went down swinging and then some. ND and Utah, not so much. My 2 cents

Joined: 09/08/2008

MGoPoints: 3606

maize-blue

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^

In my personal opinion Utah is an OK team but I don't think they are all world. They are not even ranked, I don't think. I have the same opinion as ND, but we'll see at the end of the season how those two teams end up. So far in two games against teams with a pulse the defense has outscored the offense 7-3. If they can't beat Utah there isn't a single game left on the schedule that I or anyone else can say with 100% confidence that this team will win.

Joined: 01/10/2013

MGoPoints: 44662

Drew_Silver

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^

how many times did the Utes take shots against UofM?  I felt like they were chippy and UofM just took it

It wasn't a good game at all

BUT -

THE SEASON STARTS THIS WEEKEND

GO BLUE AND KEEP THE JUG!

Joined: 09/22/2014

MGoPoints: 964

Toasted Yosties

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^

can I get a verification that Michigan's offense failed to make it into the redzone during the game? That would be the second straight game. Considering we just hired a new OC to correct our offensive woes, I think that explains all the torches and pitchforks.

Joined: 06/05/2013

MGoPoints: 9261

Yeoman

September 23rd, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^

  • 50 yards to the U25, stalled (two incompletions after 2nd-and-8)
  • 43 yards to the U33, Magnuson holding stalled drive
  • 3 and out
  • 31 yards to the U44, stalled
  • 1st play moved to the U46, 1st down sack stalled drive
  • 4 plays, 27 yards to the U24, interception
  • 36 yards to the U39, 1st down sack stalled drive
  • 45 yards to the U40, stopped a yard short on 4th down
  • Gardner interception
  • Morris interception
  • Morris fumble
  • 4-and-out from own 3

Crossed midfield 7 times, crossed the 40 4 times, crossed the 25 twice, but never in the red zone.

In a way it's the exact opposite of last year. We got what we wanted, the three-and-outs are gone. Michigan is 9th in the country in the percentage of drives that get at least one first down (85%); last year we were 92nd.

We got rid of the variance, which will be great if and when we're simply better than the opposition. But we're not, and maybe we miss the rabbit.

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21390

westwardwolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 2:59 PM ^

The problem right now is the difference between Devin Gardner last year (on his good days) and Devin Gardner this year. 

Right now, he's basically been the guy from the first half of the UConn game the last three weeks. If he played anywhere close to the way he played against Notre Dame last year, where he was making NFL throws all game long and had draft gurus putting him in the first round, we score more than enough points to beat Notre Dame and Utah. 

I watched the offensive snaps again today...its bad. Sure, there are several occasions where the line breaks down, including one where he has no shot to do anything. But even when he has all the time in the world, he's missing wide open receivers because he's locked onto Devin Funchess or he's throwing behind guys or putting the ball up so that if someone does catch it they are going to be crushed. 

I'll say this: If its Nussmeier who thinks its a good idea running so much under center playaction, I'm extremely disappointed. Because that is just adding one more layer of complication to Gardner's job and it only seems to exist to give him no time to avoid a pass rusher. 

Joined: 11/26/2013

MGoPoints: 9007

westwardwolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^

For me it confirmed the pattern we had seen from the previous two weeks. The team doesn't look right. 

A lot of people scoffed last week that Miami was "never really in the game". Beside the fact that it would have only taken one or two terrible plays (a la Akron last year) to get them back in the game, that wasn't really the point of the people who were concerned about last week's performance. The real worry was that, again, we looked sloppy and underprepared against a team with less talent (which, lets make no bones about it, is every team we've faced thus far this year). And once you're not facing the Miamis of the world, you aren't going to get to go into the third quarter up 24-10. 

Joined: 11/26/2013

MGoPoints: 9007

ccdevi

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^

I don't know what to tell you, you must not be paying attention.  Frankly anyone who actually admits in public to being a "Hoke slappy", well...I just don't know what to tell you.

Joined: 08/08/2010

MGoPoints: 801

UMfanKT

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^

It's 4-8 in the last 12.  It's the general direction of the team and program.  It's consistantly getting out coached and out played by lesser talented teams.  It's not making adjustments that work.  It's not giving these players the best opportunity to be successful.  It's not developing the 4* and 5* talent that we are under the impression we have.  It's what Dantonio has done at MSU vs. what Hokeamania has done here.

Joined: 09/08/2014

MGoPoints: 371

HipsterCat

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^

After notre dame there was a hope that notre dame could have been a good team and we just didnt have the bounces go our way. Chalked it up to the "last meeting" and playing in south bend. We rebounded nicely to beat Miami and most of us expected to be able to win AT HOME against Utah, an average team with some decent talent but someone historically we should have no trouble with. 

And then we couldnt do anything, the offense sputtered and sputtered while the defense was a freakin rock. It was exactly like the ND game. No offensive TDs, only one field goal. It reveals that ND wasnt a fluke and we aren't on the upswing many expected, at least not as dramatically as many had hoped. There is certainly improvement from the running backs and Oline but Gardner appears to have the "david carr" syndrome after last season's beatdowns. Recievers outside Funchess haven't flashed much, norfleet seems to have the speed but DG rarely finds him, Darboh seems to be solid but doesnt get much separation from what I have seen. 

Maybe by the end of the season we are average on offense and everybody is comfortable in Nuss's offense but right now it hasnt clicked and we are losing to teams we probably shouldn't.

Saturday killed what little hope remained. Maybe we can still be 8-4 in this awful B1G but I wouldnt be suprised to lose on any given saturday now. 

Joined: 06/28/2011

MGoPoints: 2088

westwardwolverine

September 23rd, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

Here's the thing: We didn't rebound nicely to beat Miami. We were only up two scores going into the fourth quarter. It was tied late in the second quarter. That was a huge red flag for a lot of people, but for others, they just brushed it off as a a bunch of flukes. Obviously, we know today who was right and who was wrong. 

By comparison, after OSU suffered a humiliating loss to Virginia Tech, they came out and led Kent State 45-0 at the end of the first half. That's rebounding nicely against a bad team. 

Joined: 11/26/2013

MGoPoints: 9007

Crazy w Cheese Whiz

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^

don't lose to teams that you shouldn't lose to (based on the assumption that Michigan was going to improve this year, and damnit we are "Michigan").  If Michigan beat Utah, but lost to Minnesota, Rutgers, Indiana, Maryland, or Northwestern (maybe Penn State), we would be having the same issues.  But the fact that this happened two weeks after getting blanked by Notre Dame, is probably your answer.

Joined: 05/21/2013

MGoPoints: 326

nappa18

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

We live in the age of instantaneous feedback. And most people think their opinion is valuable somehow. One s thoughts, intelligent or not, are just a click or swipe away using your phones, I pads, eyeglasses, and soon, watches. Everything is a communications tool, instantly. Just sayin, not hatin'.

Joined: 07/08/2011

MGoPoints: 2762