Why did the Utah loss turn the world upside down?
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?
September 23rd, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^
September 23rd, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
"I am a believer in Hoke because not doing so makes me a crappy Michigan fan."
That should be your sig line.
September 23rd, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
Um, because they were successful by year 4. They went 11-2 with players who were predominantly recruited and coached by RR.
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.
September 23rd, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
But Hoke IS restocking... if we can put even a little faith in recruiting class rankings. We are told we keep getting great recruits. Why don't they seem to be turning into great college players?
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.
September 23rd, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
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.
September 23rd, 2014 at 3:15 PM ^
yeah, the context is so important. I was ready to downvote you for tweedle-balls, but that seems like an appropriate response to numbnuts.
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.
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?
September 23rd, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
Larry Coker won a national title in year one. Charlie Weis went to two straight BCS bowls. Dave Shaw is probably a better coach than Harbaugh because his record is way better.
Need I go on?
September 23rd, 2014 at 1:09 PM ^
The only season we can reasonably use to assess Rich Rodriguez's performance at Michigan is the one that happened after he left.
I don't even know why that's open for discussion.
September 23rd, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^
Mattison does deserve some credit. But part of it was Woolfolk and Martin returning from injuries and Ryan, Countess and Morgan playing as Freshmen.
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.
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.