Monday Presser 9-22-14: Doug Nussmeier Comment Count

Adam Schnepp

nuss 9-15

file

Coach, can you talk about the tempo of the offense? Is it where you want it to be at this point?

“Obviously we’d like it to play a little faster. Right now our focus is playing right. Execution. We’ll worry about tempo later, and I think like we’ve said before we want to control the tempo of the game on offense, whether that’s to slow the game down or speed the game up.”

 

Doug, Brady said he’ll have a decision tomorrow on the starting quarterback. What’s going into that decision?

“Well, I think there’s a lot that goes into the decision of who plays quarterback and both guys have done an outstanding job of preparing and practicing and competing. It’s what we’ve talked about all along at every position on our team; we want to have competition and we want to compete and challenge every day.”

 

Whichever one is in there, I assume the turnover message has to be reinforced.

“Definitely. I mean, you start from base premise of what we talked about fro day one that we continue to talk about every day and until we get it right we’re going to continue to struggle. It’s the turnover margin. You can’t win football games when you lose it. It’s the one telling statistic in all of football over time. You lose the turnover margin week in and week out and you’re going to struggle to have a good football team.”

 

Doug, I guess at this point not knowing who the quarterback’s going to be what positives do you see? What could you do differently if Shane Morris were your starter?

“Well, I don’t know that you say you start all over and change your offense. No. You do the things that play to Shane’s strengths and Shane’s obviously a talented guy. Got a lot of arm strength. He is a young player like a lot of our players and learning, and Devin does- they both are similar in a lot of their style. Both you can see can make plays with their feet. Both have really good arms, and we feel really good about either one of those guys.”

[Hit THE JUMP for more]

Doug, at Notre Dame Brady had said that Devin needed to ride it out and play the whole game because that was really important. Obviously the last two games you guys have taken him out later in the game. What’s the difference in the dynamic there in that decision?

“Well, I think that in the last game it was important for Devin to take a step back at that point in time after the interception and get a view from the sideline of what was going on. So we talked about, ‘Hey, take a step back.’ Sometimes it’s better when you can step back for a minute and you can see from the sideline view what’s going on and how the game’s developing, and for a quarterback sometimes when things aren’t going well and you’re being challenged for every yard like we were the other night things seem to speed up and a lot of times the picture’s not real clear. The reason to give Devin a chance to sit back and look at it and try to clear the picture for him.”

 

Doug, with Devin what is it that you focus on in terms of improving him like you would any other football player, but what with him specifically do you focus on and is there a problem in slowing the game down for him?

“Well, that’s my job and I’ve got to do a better job trying to slow the game down for him, and part of that is repetitions of the things that we’re doing and we’ve worked extremely hard at that. For Devin it’s tying his feet and his eyes to being in the right place at the right time and then making the right decisions.”

 

Doug, because maybe Morris and Gardner seem to have some different skills and I know some similar, could you look at…call it a platoon system or specialty plays for each one and not just have one set starter?

“Well, we’ve always had, since the start of the season, a plan for both guys to play. You always do. I think you’ve got to have a plan when you’ve got- when you look at a game in football you know there’s a chance your starting quarterback could get knocked out of the game, and you better have a plan for your backup and what he does well, what can he execute. Each guy- any quarterback at any level of football has plays that they like better than others so we’ve always had a plan. ‘Here are the plays. Devin, what do you like.’ And we always meet on that before the game, the night before the game. We talk through plays and [I ask], ‘What plays do you feel really good about, Devin?’ and ‘Shane, what plays do you feel really good about?’ so I have an idea going into the game where their mind is at.

Would you just want one starter or could you-

“Yeah, you want one starter.”

 

It looked like in the first half I think you guys looked Funchess’ way eight or nine times and I think only once after that. Did they take him away from you or what was the difference there?

“Well, it’s important that you look at the big picture of things and we tried to get it to Funch a little bit more and we had some things that happened to us, the sacks and those type of things and obviously we’re always looking for ways for Devin to touch the ball. He had the four touches in the first half, I think it was, for eighty-some yards and obviously we would have liked to get him more touches and that’s a focus of our offense each and every week. And yeah, we’d like to get him more touches. We had some that were called out and we just couldn’t get him the ball.”

 

I don’t know if this is a coincidence or not, but it seemed like every time you got across midfield there was normally a play that sent you backwards and kind of slowed things down. What do you attribute that to and how do you fix that?

“You know, it’s interesting. We talked about it and it’s been a recurring thing. Consistency in performance for our offense. You can take plays, a specific protection for example, that we run in the first half and we execute to get a big play, and we come back to the same protection versus the same pressure essentially and we get sacked because, and I talked about it last week, communication and being decisive versus their pressures and those types of things. Consistency in performance is where we’ve got to improve and coaches, players, we’re all in this together. It’s all of us together getting it corrected.”

Since it’s been a re-occuring thing do you just try to be consistent with the same message over and over and get into them or do you have to change the way you approach it with those guys?

“Well, one of the things that we’ve talked about that we need to make improvement in is making sure our scout team- and it’s one of those things that doesn’t get talked about a lot, but when you have a young team like we have offensively the pictures that they see Monday through Friday preparing them for Saturday, if those pictures aren’t exactly right and they’re a little bit off, it can skew young teams. Veteran teams, they’re usually able to overcome it because they’ve seen those blitzes or they’ve seen those looks over and over, and with a young team like we have offensively we’ve got to make sure those pictures are right. We’ve got to give them the pictures and then we’ve got to execute better.”

 

Coach, of course we’re playing for the Little Brown Jug on Saturday and you’re relatively new in town-

“I got my history lesson yesterday.”

Did you? That’s what I was going to ask you. Who gave you that?

“Coach Hoke did.”

Okay. Well I’m not going to quiz you.

“Don’t quiz me. I don’t know all the facts but I believe we got the jug there to make sure the water was good. I can’t remember the year, but a lot of history in this game. Feel fortunate to be a part of it.”

 

Doug, obviously the pass protection has been spotty at times, I guess. Do you feel like Gardner has felt that pressure or maybe sometimes feels the pressure before it’s there because he has been hit a lot?

“I don’t know that you can say that. I don’t know if that’d be correct or incorrect. You have to look at this way: any time the quarterback’s effected by the pass rush we’re concerned about it, and every quarterback has a different threshold. Devin’s an extremely tough individual and I don’t think that I would say that that’s the case.”

 

You come from a really successful place. What’s missing here?

“Consistency in performance.”

So those players can do it?

“Well, you see us do it in stretches. You see us move the football and you see us create explosive plays and the things we talk about; establishing the line of scrimmage, running the football, creating explosive plays. We do it at times and then at times we struggle and, once again, new group. Hasn’t played a lot together. If you look at career starts that we’ve got together right now there’s not a lot of them, and so it’s going to be important that we just continue to play through this [and] we stay together. The kids have done a phenomenal job. I can’t say enough about how hard those kids competed the other night. You know, go sit in that locker room after that rain delay, to be behind and have 7:51 or whatever it was to go in the game. They came out and those kids fought with everything they had. I’m very, very proud of what they did.”

 

Coach, what did you tell the offense during the rain delay? You just mentioned it, but…

“The biggest thing was our execution, and it’s about us. Each and every week when you look at our schedule, and we’ve said this week in and week out, it’s going to be how we prepare and how we execute. We don’t really- you look at who you’re playing, the players that they have, where might there be advantages for us, where may there be disadvantages but the biggest thing is about how we play [and] how we execute. Just because you win a game doesn’t mean you played good. Just because you lose a game doesn’t mean you played poorly. It can be skewed and usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You’re not usually playing as bad as it looks, and you’re not usually playing as good as people think at times.”

 

With Funchess, between missing a full game and missing drives here and there, limping a lot, things like that, where is he in terms of being at 100%?

“Feels great.

Is there concern over his durability and maybe some of the positions he’s being put in across the middle of the field?

“I think there’s- you look at Funch and his competitive nature and the things he’s done. You know, he’s a tough, tough guy.”

 

This isn’t quarterback specific so it could be offensive line [or] running back. When you make personnel changes what goes into that in terms of not only what you think the person you’re inserting can do but the effect on the person you’re replacing, that sort of thing?

“Well, I think that’s the environment we’re creating and that’s the compete and challenging every day. We want to have competition at every position and just because you’re not the starter or you don’t start that specific game doesn’t mean that you’re not going to start the next game, [or] whether or not you’re going to get an opportunity the following game. It doesn’t work like that. Getting the best players we can here at Michigan, having them compete each and every day because that raises your level of play. Players play better, and coach Hoke’s talked about that from day one and that’s what we want and we feel like we’re getting better at that.”

 

Doug, you’ve had the chance to coach at a lot of different places that were in a lot of different situations when you got there. Have there been obstacles [or] challenges that have been different here than anywhere else that you can think of?

“Each situation you’re in as a player or a coach is unique, and that’s why each and every day- the great thing about athletics is you’re judged on what you do today, not what you did yesterday and ultimately each and every day when you go out on that field you’ve got to go play so every place that you go you’ve got unique circumstances. Positives, negatives, may not be exactly the way you want things, [things] may be better than you expected maybe, so our biggest goal is focusing on improving each and every day.”

 

After the Notre Dame game you said the offense was in its infancy stages. Where have you seen growth since?

“Well, there’s been a lot of growth, and I think you can look at the production of certain individuals and certain players in certain situations. Now, can you say consistently as a group we’ve come a long way? I wouldn’t say that. I thought that the other night we took a little bit of a step back so it’s important that, once again, we refocus, get into the game plan, work on our techniques, work on our fundamentals, and we go out and play better.”

Comments

Sten Carlson

September 23rd, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^

 

As is did earlier with GMat's comment, I've tried to cut through the coach speak and get to THE ISSUE that is the main culprit in Michigan's struggles.

Here it is:

"If you look at career starts that we’ve got together right now there’s not a lot of them, and so it’s going to be important that we just continue to play through this [and] we stay together."

I know people want to say, "but this is year 4 ..." "we're not young ..." and "other teams do ok with young players ... " well, right from the horses mouth -- Michigan is young.  I've gone over this in here more times than I would like to remember, but this what happens when you have poor recruiting/retention (in 2010 & 2011) and 3 different OC's in the last 5 year.  

It's really not hard to figure out -- as long as one is actually objective about it and not overly emotional.  When you couple the "pipeline" issues with a relatively unstable message, it's not surprising that things aren't going as swimmingly as we'd all like at this point.

I am sure people in here are going to assault me over this but facts are facts, and despite my frustration, the more I read the more I am again leaning toward what the program needs now is to consistency and continuity, not more changes.  Yes, I blame Brandon for botching the 2011 class due to his "Process" but, that is over and nothing can be done about now.  What needs to happen NOW is to maintain stabililty and continuity, at least IMO.

Sten Carlson

September 23rd, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^

Youth leads to inconsitency and inconsistency is why Michigan's offense has struggled.  Not hard to figure out. 

So many people want to deny the real issues, they want blood and come up with every reason that things aren't the way we all want except the ones that the coaches keep telling us are the reasons.  You obvioulsy are a passionate fan, and you seem to have a good knowledge of the game.  Why is it, in your mind, impossible that the team is young, and that all the factors that cause programs to have issues (2 HC's, 3 OC's, and poor recruiting/retention in recent classes) ARE NOT at play at Michigan?  Why are you certain that it's because Hoke & Co. suck? 

As I said in another thread, Michigan fans seem delusionally incapable of gathering a true understanding of the state of the program (roster) and seem so quick to heads to roll.  Is it a backlash from the years of near total inculcation under Bo/Mo/Carr?  Carr gave us 1997, and 2006, and some B10C's, but he left it worse than he found it, and that is very telling.  IMO, RR didn't leave it worse than he found it, but that isn't saying much because he found it in near shambles.  Everything is relative.  Like when people say RR got better and Hoke has gotten worse over time.  Well, RR went 3-9 in year one and Hoke went 11-2.  One is almost always going to go up, and the other is almost always going to go down.

If people would just admit that Michigan was still deep in a trough when Hoke took over I think people would be giving Hoke a lot more slack.  Listen to what Nuss and GMat, and even Hoke himself, have said.  You have to parse their words, but the kernels of truth are in there.  Remember Nuss saying he was shocked when against App. St. the team went nuts with a TE (can't remember who) caught his first pass?  He said it again today, as did GMat in his presser (which I detailed). 

From whence we've come, that is the issue, and so many refuse to accept where that was, and want to insert their own assessment -- which is often times significantly out of touch with reality.  If you start with an unrealistic assessment of the problem, you're very likely to come out with an unrealistic assessment of the solution to the problem.

LordGrantham

September 23rd, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^

You might have a point if a) we were still very young and b) we weren't setting records for futility.  We have a five-star prospect at RB, a 5th-year senior QB, an elite WR in Funchess, and 4 star recruits all the way across the OL, several of whom are in their 3rd year in the program, and we can't even get near the endzone against young defenses with mediocre talent.  Notre Dame played 19 freshman and RS freshman against us and and a brand new DC, yet beat us 31-0. How do you explain that?

If we were seeing some improvement in the team or any development among the young players, people would give Hoke more slack.  But we're not.  Among our five-star players since Hoke arrived, one is a backup safety, one is a backup DT, one is a backup OG, one is a backup C, and one is a backup QB to a guy who has thrown 5 picks against power conference opponents. You can count on one hand the number of guys who have gotten significantly better since Hoke arrived. 

I simply cannot believe that after -48 yards rushing, the 2012 Nebraska debacle, 2013 at Penn State, being shutout for the first time in 30 years, not finding the red zone against Utah, getting blown out by State twice, a 4-8 record in the last 12 games, being dead last in turnover margin, continuing to use the shield punt while having 10 guys on the field, being near the bottom in TFLs two years in a row, 97th in total offense last year, giving up huge points to every competent offense we face, huddling down multiple score late in the game, 0-5 against rivals on the road, the Tackle Over fiasco, Akron, etc, people still even think about keeping this guy around. It truly boggles the mind, and if people like you manage to exert just enough influence to keep this staff around, it will continue to hurt the program. I'm going to do everything I can to not let that happen.

DonAZ

September 23rd, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^

Correct ... the argument holds water only if we assume Utah represents the bottom and we see game-over-game improvement from here.

Can we expect those game-over-game improvements to materialize?

I think the general consensus is "no" ... or at a minimum people are very doubtful and need to be convinced otherwise.

Sten Carlson

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^

"It truly boggles the mind, and if people like you manage to exert just enough influence to keep this staff around, it will continue to hurt the program. I'm going to do everything I can to not let that happen."

Good luck with that! 

I've rebutted much of what you wrote in other posts so I'll not write it again.  Let me just say this, you seem heavily influenced by "star rating" and I think that is a trap.  5 star guys fail to develop all the time, and some take longer than is assumed they would.  Secondly, these are issues that develop in depleted depth environment that is continually changing. 

All one has to do is look at the development on the defensive side of the ball.  Hoke & Co. came in and a quickly as they could rebuilt the depth on defense, and it is now paying off.  Yes, there are 4 and 5 star guys on the OL, some of whom are in the 3rd year in the program.  The problem is, 3rd year is the time when most OLinemen begin to challenge for the starting positions.  If they're better than the 4th and 5th year guys, they make it in, if not, they play back-up roles and wait their turn.  There is very little "waiting your turn" on Michigan these days -- we've got a TRUE FRESHMAN starting LT for fok sake!

Pipeline, pipeline, pineline my Lord -- especially on the OL.

LordGrantham

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:16 PM ^

Fine. Dozens of other teams around the country are vastly outperforming us with just as much youth, just as much turnover, and far less talent, but yep, I'm sure just a few more years and we'll be right there.  Just a few more!

MichAero

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^

Can you provide the examples of which teams you are referring to?

According to Phil Steele, we are ranked 75th in total experience (out of 128). http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2014/JUNE14/DBJune16.html

This number is being greatly increased because of our returning defense (79% of total tackles returning), and is actually being increased based on offense slightly (68% of total yards). We also are returning 69% of our two deep.

Where we are getting dinged is with our seniors. Our 5 starting seniors and 1 more on the two deep (according to Steele) is the 4th worst in the nation. Complicating things is our OL experience, returning only 37 total starts across the entire line. That is 21st worth in the nation. Schools around us are fairing similarly with OL troubles: Penn State, OSU, Utah, Oklahoma State. They return 20, 21, 46, 38 starters, respectively, and are ranked 90, 76, 121, 96, respectively in TFL allowed. Michigan is at 84th right now, for perspective. http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/696/p2

It's fair to want and expect to be better on offense, but the youth argument is a legitimate excuse.

LordGrantham

September 24th, 2014 at 1:29 AM ^

Points scored:

Utah: 7th

OSU:  30th 

Oklahoma State:  38th 

Penn State: 85th

So yes, when you combine inexperience with crippling sanctions and an underclassmen quarterback, you can get close (but not quite) to Michigan's level of incompetence.

MichAero

September 24th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^

Look at who those teams have played though.

Utah has played 2 cupcakes and us and scored big on the cupcakes.

OSU has played Navy, VT, and Kent State. They put up 66 on Kent State. 34 on Navy (only 3 more than Rutgers). 21 on VT (less than ECU and Georgia Tech).

Oklahoma State has played FSU, UTSA, and Missouri State. They have, admittedly, done quite well, scoring 31, 40, and 43.

We are currently 91th while playing 2 teams with a pulse, and two without. We've looked terrible against those with a pulse, yes, but that is primarily due to the inconsistencies, which come with youth. Mix that with poor QB play by our only returning senior on offense, and you are going to be in a bad place. The inconsistencies should come with time, hopefully this year, and Nuss has a track record of making QBs better.

Brimley

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:44 PM ^

Can you name a few lines that have zero 5th year seniors, one 4th year senior (Joey B in our case), playing the only two redshirt juniors they have, and are vastly outperforming Michigan's line?You cited ND earlier; go back and take a look at their line.

Cliche, yes, but for crissakes, if the last couple years don't show the need to "win the trenches", what does?

MichAero

September 24th, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^

To add on to what you are saying about ND, and tying this to my post above, ND returned 54 starts on the OL (82nd most experienced, 46th worst for consistency) and is allowing the 96th most TFL as well. That is pretty poor for the experience level.

The average starts was 67 and the median was 63, for more perspective.

Also interesting is that App State has the most experienced line in the nation, returning 145 starts. Miami (OH) was the 32nd most experienced line as well.

Sten Carlson

September 24th, 2014 at 9:51 AM ^

Thanks for providing those stats Aero! Interesting that LordG just ignored them and basically said, "yeah but ..." When does a cause become and excuse and visa versa? It's a fact that Michigan has no upperclassmen on its OL, it's also a fact that historically OLinemen aren't generally considered to be competing for starting jobs until their 3rd year in the program. Problem is, Michigan doesn't have competition between 3rd, 4th, and 5th year guys -- it has competition between 1st (OMG), 2nd, and 3rd year guys. That's not an excuse, that's a fact! So, if Michigan's OL had "historic depth" do you think Cole (no matter how good he is) would be the starting LT? BC beat USC. Go look up BC's starting OL's -- IIRC they start 5 5th year guys! Michigan has no 5th and 1 4th year guy. I'm so tired of fans saying, "doesn't matter, everyone else does fine with inexperience issue ..." that is patently false. Add to that a new OC and scheme, and struggles aren't too surprising. But my informed opinion is what is holding Michigan back, ok sure LordG. Go ahead and exert your influence, get everyone fired and fuck up recruiting and retention so that the next guy, 2-3 years down the road has to deal with ANOTHER gaping hole in OL experience -- brilliant fucking strategy!

DonAZ

September 23rd, 2014 at 4:16 PM ^

What needs to happen NOW is to maintain stabililty and continuity, at least IMO.

I admire the tone and reason of your post.

Would you agree that the argument for a 5th year is contingent upon signs of game-to-game improvement in key phases of the game?  What metrics would you use for that?

That's a dead serious question.

Imagine this team goes 6-6 to finish the season, but by season's end the gears are meshing and the machine is running much better.  We lose to MSU but play better.  By OSU time we're hitting on most cylinders and we beat them.  Then what?  And more to my point ... what specific measures of improvement would you look for as a good sign the machine keeps operating into 2015?

Sten Carlson

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^

Simple answer, yes, 5th year requires improvement.  The difficulties lies in defining the metric, as  you put it.

I just got done responding in another thread and could basically cut and paste what I wrote over there.

Michigan issues, as I see it, is that the improvement that we need come from its youngest position as well as its oldest -- the OL and the QB. 

I've detailed the issues with the OL stemming back to the 2010 and 2011 classes repeatedly.  Everyone agrees that projecting OL talent is very difficult -- there are always going to be "busts."  Michigan's OL is definitely improving, but the real question is, "from where?"  One's grades are improving if they go from getting F's to getting D's, but it's nothing that is going to get them into an school like Michigan.  They're improving, daily and game-to-game, but unfortunately, it's not fast enough to be what the fanbase expects.  Personally, I think the expectations are unrealistic, which is why I am willing to stay patient.

Further, QB play (as discussed a great deal recently) is severely underwhelming, and in serious need of improvement.  The problem is, it's not clear that DG is going to improve much more.  He's wounded both physically and mentally (at least IMO) and he's having to deal with yet another schematic change -- him being a 5th year guy is relatively meaningless as a result. 

So, going back to your question about what metric to use.

This is where we fans have a very hard time dealing with what the coaches are saying.  They say, "we keep competing and working to get better..." or the like, and we don't see it on the field and assume that that must mean the coaches are inept and that we need someone else.  Personally, I feel like it means that (in the areas detailed above) we're expecting figurative toddlers to do things that usually only older children can do proficiently, and an figurative elderly person to be able to adapt to even more change.

Does that make sense?  I was trying to come up with a good way to put it, and I am not sure I got it right.

If Michigan had an OL like the ones Michigan had historically, even with the lackluster QB play, I think we'd be fine.  Similarly, if Michigan had the same OL (but due to injuries instead of necessity) but a 5th year QB that had always played QB and had been in the same system from day 1 -- especially given the quality of the defense -- I think things would be ok.

As it is, unfortunately, the two most important position on the field are what they are.  It sucks, but it won't be like this forever.

DonAZ

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^

Well, you didn't really get to the matter of the metric.

I've got a few metrics in mind as it relates to the offense specifically:

  1. First down yards gained
  2. Third downs faced per scoring drive average
  3. Third down conversion rate by distance
  4. Completion % coupled with YPP and YAC
  5. QB sacks and hurries
  6. Offensive penalty yards per game
  7. Offensive penalty yards that result in 3rd and longer than 8
  8. And of course, turnovers committed by offense

#1, #2 and #3 get to the way the OL, RB and QB are operating. 

We are not doing very well right now with yards gained on first down (#1)

#2 is a rough measure of 'explosiveness' ... teams like Oregon don't face many 3rd downs because it's usually 1st down, 2nd down or touchdown for them.

#3 is a measure of the team's ability to get yards when they have to.  3rd and short is a measure of RB+OL production; 3rd and long is a measure of QB+OL production.

#4 and #5 are related ... #5 a measure of the OL; #4 a measure of the effectiveness of the QB either (a) when he has time, and (b) under pressure.  The YPP is a measure of aggressiveness (which is a measure of overall confidence) and YAC is a measure of WR effectiveness.

#6 and #7 are measures of maturity.  #7 in particular is a number that should get lower and lower as coaching takes hold ... drive killing penalties should not occur with a team that is improving.

#8 is the obvious one.

There are others ... and variations on these ... but this is what comes to my mind.

Bottom line -- show me those metrics are improving game to game and talk of a 5th year becomes palatable.  Show me a graph where those lines go sideways or wrong-ways ... nope.

jackw8542

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:02 PM ^

As a fan base, we need to exhibit a little more patience. Right now, the defense is good enough but the offense is not. If you look at the offense, the OL has zero 5th year seniors, zero 4th year seniors and a true freshman at left tackle. It has had a few injury problems to boot, both on offense and defense. When Funchess is back to 100% and Butt is back to 100%, then the offense should start to get close to where it can be this year, and the OL and the other WRs should improve as the players gain experience and cohesion during the course of the year. That may be the most we can hope for. Even if the OL improves, unless either Gardner gets better or Morris replaces him and does better, the offense will remain one dimensional. It's hard to score a lot when the other team dares you to throw and you can't do it. Next year, Hoke will have HIS veterans on both sides of the line of scrimmage, and if he cannot get it done then, maybe it will be time for a change. But for now, I am firmly with M-Dog and the other posters urging patience and believe we need to see what happens the rest of this year AND in 2015. It has gotten to the point where the constant sniping on this site and in social media is undermining both the coaching staff and, to an extent, the players. That is not helpful. Go Blue!

Sarasota13

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^

In the Kiffin thread. The offense is a year behind the defense. Most of the offensive players are red shirt sophomores or less. A year of experience will make a huge difference.

We will get better. We will be a good football team. From an alumni point of view, I support the focus of the team.

Go Blue!

AlwaysBlue

September 23rd, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^

facts are the facts. GM said it in so many words...the program was in the dumpster when Hoke arrived. We are paying for Carr's last few years and Rodriguez. I am patient but then I have tried to build a company that was littered with holdovers that didn't fit. It was a slow process.

ST3

September 23rd, 2014 at 5:41 PM ^

who writes a weekly diary about boxscores. Been doing it for four years. Go read them and see if I'm the kind of guy who just looks for anything bad to say. I defended Borges long after it was no longer popular to do so. Nuss indirectly blamed the scout team for not showing the offense the right looks. Go ahead, Nuss with your ~million dollar contract and blame a bunch of freshmen and walkons for your failure as a coordinator to get our team into the endzone.

WolverBean

September 24th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^

Or maybe he's blaming the coaches for not getting the scout team set up in the right looks?

This would actually be consistent with the "attention to detail" narrative that's grown popular on this blog of late. Remember, Hoke runs the scout teams. One possible reading (I'm not taking a stand on whether it's the correct reading) is that Nuss is actually criticizing his boss, though necessarily being very oblique in doing so.

Another possible reading is that getting poor reads from the scout team is actually also a reflection on depth. If there aren't that many older guys on offense in general, then there are especially few older guys on the scout team, meaning maybe the scout team doesn't have the experience to give the starters good looks, and the starters don't have the experience to recognize or compensate for this. Could even be that Nuss is just realizing even as he's saying it that maybe this is part of the problem, and that he and the other coaches will have to be more cognizant of it going forward.

In any case, it's not actually crystal clear that Nussmeier is blaming the scout team for the poor performance of the offense. The level of rage around here has commenters pouncing on every single thing the coaches say or do. Not saying we shouldn't be critical -- we should. But there's a difference between getting fired up because of what they're saying, and picking on what they're saying because we're already fired up. I don't find the latter to be terribly helpful to understanding what's really going on.

CompleteLunacy

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:34 PM ^

I don't know if it's throwing them under the bus, but regardless it is a telling quote. If he's pointing out the scout team needing to get the pictures right because young offenses depend on them more than veteran offense...well, one can then infer that they, in fact, got the pictures wrong throughout the week. Of course, it's up to Nuss (or another offensive coach) to verify the pictures for correctness. Still...very interesting. Don't know what to make of it, really. 

Kfojames

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:26 PM ^

Is all we need and yearn for. We have to as outsiders see forms of progress. I really feel that the staff is going to go with Morris. I can't say that I would totally disagree with that decision. Gardner has had ample opportunities to show himself approved and it hasn't happened. I also can't judge Morris's ability in a half filled with shitty weather. I think Nuss might spread the field a bit more and get Funch, Gardner, Chesson, darboh, canteen, norfleet, and Butt into the game more. I also wouldn't think that getting Hayes into the mix in earlier downs might not be a bad idea. He has a little more explosion than Green or smith. Maybe when smith is up for his carries they could look to Hayes a little more instead. I know it doesn't solve the O line issues but they're young. The thing I'd like to see out of them is a little more intensity/aggression in getting off the ball. And getting push and getting a little more nasty. I also know that comes with experience but man we just look so slow and weak out there on O. I believe Morris has a better arm than Gardner and if he can hone that in and get some short/quick completions he could be pretty solid.

The D is there. They have been very steady while the offense still puts them in shitty short field situations.

The special teams. God help us. Someone said in another post maybe ferigno could be the next to get the guillotine.

I think we win 8 games this season. Call me nuts but it might happen. Let's see if PROGRESS happens.