Sometimes Things Are Bad, And That's Okay
either it will work or it will not work [Eric Upchurch]
Hey guys! As you may have noticed, the theme of this week on the blog is "nah." When I thought to myself "I should start a Michigan blog" back in 2004 I did not anticipate that about every three years things would descend into a melee of recriminations and stupidity. Insofar as it's possible I am opting out of this edition.
I could point out various reasons that things aren't going well again, but what's the point? I've already said the things, and people willing to listen have already read them. What's the point in arguing with this guy who's all up in my inbox?
Brian, your mattress story ,while creative in another genre, makes michigan football fans look like a bunch of smoked out , entitled, arrogant assholes. How so? It puts an emphasis on quirky,smarter than the rest of football fan bases,and takes away from the team of mostly working class players whom have little in common with you or most of your followers.
Its time to end this little money making with little to no sweat, blood,or tears called mgoblog while profitting off the Michigan athletes and get a real job...oh wait, that is not in your genetic makeup.
There isn't one. Nor is there a point in arguing with people who don't think Brady Hoke and his #37 and #20 2014-15 recruiting classes don't still have an impact on Michigan's performance. While assaulting previous regimes for failures has been somewhere between plausible and a holy quest, to do so after this start from Harbaugh...
In Harbaugh’s first season, Michigan doubled its win total from five to 10 and improved from 48th in S&P+ to fifth. The Wolverines won seven games by at least 21 points and lost to only three opponents (Utah, Michigan State, Ohio State) that combined to go 34-7. Against Utah, they lost because of a pick six. Against Michigan State, well, you remember that one. Not a bad debut.
In 2016, Michigan came within a spot of the Big Ten East title. If officials mark J.T. Barrett’s fourth-down conversion attempt slightly differently, the Wolverines go to the Big Ten title game and likely go to the College Football Playoff. As it stands, they merely backed up the previous season with another 10-3 record, another top-five S&P+ finish, and losses by a combined three points against Ohio State and Florida State teams that won 21 games. All this despite a late-season shoulder injury to quarterback Wilton Speight.
...given Harbaugh's track record is asinine. To do so after Michigan returned the fewest starters of any Power 5 team and lost their top quarterback, left tackle, and wide receiver to injury is brain dead. Yes, I thought things would be going better, but my preseason prediction didn't bake in injuries to Speight and Black; without those the chances that Michigan is headed towards 9-3 at worst are what, 90%? Have we already forgotten what a truly bad team looks like?
I get it if you're a rival and you're getting your yucks in. If you're a Michigan fan and your reaction isn't along the lines of "well, this is very disappointing but lets see what happens next year" I don't want to talk to you. Because what good would it do?
October 24th, 2017 at 1:56 PM ^
You see where I put its not as bad right? Like, that's a thing that's in there.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:52 PM ^
Your definition of "not as bad" is pretty flexible, then. 40 points vs. 7 is a pretty substantial difference. Plus, that 2013 team obliterated teams like Minnesota and Central (they scored almost 300 points in their first 7 games in 2013; this year's team is around 170 give or take a pick-6), which Michigan never did this season. But Michigan has also given up about half as many points in those first 7 games. It's almost like they are largely two different teams and only with the broadest of brushes can one attempt to draw meaningful connections.
My point is that "they both lost one close game and got blown out in another" is about the only similiarties between the two teams, which sure, that's interesting. You'd honestly have a better argument referencing 2012, where they got destroyed by Alabama, lost a close game against ND due to a massive number of turnovers, and then suffered a lose of their starting QB. But that doesn't quite seem as fun because it wasn't in year 3.
October 24th, 2017 at 3:16 PM ^
Whoa, so we couldn't say that both RR and Hoke failed because they failed differently?
So we can't say this year is disappointing, maybe not as bad as Hoke's year three with a similar record, but disappointing nonetheless because they are disappointing in different ways?
Coaches are judged on timelines. In year three, Urban Meyer won a NC with a young team and a third string QB after losing his 1st string QB before the season. That's an exception, but Harbaugh is an exceptional coach.
Maybe I was just hoping we'd trend more that way than the Hoke way. Again, I'm not a crazy person frothing at the mouth for Harbaugh to be fired, I just think this team has underachieved thus far and that part of that goes beyond young guys and injuries.
October 24th, 2017 at 3:29 PM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 4:08 PM ^
You always want to project onto others how they feel (especially after you get called out for being factually hypocritical!). I'm not bothered, I'm just stating my opinions. I'll admit I'm a bit confused as to how people seem to think it was far-fetched that a Harbaugh led team would win 10 games in 2015 or that a team returning everyone and having a million seniors in 2016 (plus adding Don Brown) shouldn't be expected to have a special season, but to each their own.
I also am not saying that this is Brady Hoke all over again. I've said that numerous times. For that to occur, I would have to think that Harbaugh would not turn things around. I would imagine that next year's team would be back in the 10 win range rather than 5-7. It's even possible that this team turns it around! However, at the moment, the record, the excuses of a young team, the convulated offensive scheme, the rumblings about the offensive staff...I have heard all that before. I think its possible its more legit this time, I also think its disappointing because our staff is better than the time before.
October 24th, 2017 at 11:25 PM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 11:08 PM ^
this defense is better than any defense Hoke ever had.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:17 PM ^
Year one I expected 10 wins. Achieved that.I call bullshit.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:32 PM ^
Nah, its true. If you believe that Harbaugh is superior to Hoke and that Michigan probably should have won 7-8 games in 2014, it wasn't that hard to figure on 10 wins in 2015. I expected us to be 10-2 in the regular season tbh.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:36 PM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 1:50 PM ^
Why? Michigan returned lots of starters in 2015. Had Hoke been a better coach with a better staff, they probably beat Rutgers, Maryland and Minnesota in 2014. If you assume that, how is going from 8 to 10 that crazy? I thought one of the reasons Hoke lost his job was because he lost to teams he shouldn't have, like the above?
October 24th, 2017 at 6:49 PM ^
The only reason we won 10 games is because Harbaugh got Ruddock to transfer. You're saying a Shane Morris-led team would have won 10 games that year?
October 24th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^
Hoke, an inferior coach, went 11-2 his first season here with players that were recruited for a complete opposite scheme than what he wanted to run. Is it that crazy to have expected Harbaugh to pull out 10?
October 24th, 2017 at 2:25 PM ^
Right? Seems crazy to me that so many people doubted Harbaugh that much.
October 24th, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^
Hoke also carried a horseshoe in his ass. I really enjoyed the ride, but the ball bounced our way an awful lot that year.
October 24th, 2017 at 5:54 PM ^
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, so +1 to you, sir.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^
Michigan should NOT have won 7-8 games in 2014. Their 2nd order wins were 5.6, so the 2014 team was slightly unlucky, but their win total for the season about matched their play.
So, to respond to your statement, if you believe the 2014 team should have won 7-8 games, you are making an error that renders your expectations invalid.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:55 PM ^
I mean, sure, that's true if Brady Hoke is the coach.
Does that factor in the 2015 staff coaching the 2014 team?
October 24th, 2017 at 2:05 PM ^
if you think brady hoke would have gone 10-3 the last two years, you're not only a troll, you're an imbecile.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:07 PM ^
Not sure where I said anything about Hoke coaching the last two years.
October 24th, 2017 at 5:57 PM ^
That team wasn't unlucky, it was just bad.
A poor was understandable due to the roster turnover, an hitting the trough of RR recruiting. The 2014 team should have been much better, but was worse, than 2013.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:07 PM ^
Totally agree. Almost nobody was predicting a 10 win season. Bullshit indeed.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:14 PM ^
How many games would the Harbaugh staff have won in 2014 with those players? 7/8 right?
Why is it far-fetched to think that when those players became upperclassmen and having played together for a few years that they would win 10 games in 2015 with a superior staff?
October 24th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
Why is it far-fetched to think that when you have a team not comprised of many upperclassmen and that hasn't played together for a few years that 10 wins might be tough to achieve?
October 24th, 2017 at 5:41 PM ^
I never said I expected 10 wins this year. I just didn't expect us to be looking at what we're looking at 7 games into the season.
October 25th, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^
Pretty common consensus was that 8-9 wins was the reasonable expectation for this season. That means 3-4 losses, which we're on pace for.
While theoretical losses don't carry any emotional impact, real ones do. Those 3-4 losses weren't going to happen without hurting.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:33 PM ^
Hoke's 2014 team included those same "draft picks" and went 5-7. Maybe Harbaugh should get some credit for taking all of those players, most of whom were not getting drafted under Brady Hoke, and turning them into draft picks?
Hoke went 11-2, 8-5, 7-6 and 5-7. Harbaugh is 10-3, 10-3 and 4-2 so far (projecting to 8-4 or 9-3). How is that not "mitigating talent deficiencies" better than Hoke? Michigan's switch between styles (twice) and bad coaching hires racked up a talent deficiency that was going to have to be paid for eventually. They're paying for it this year, and doing it while still winning 8+ games. If things don't get better from here, then maybe the comparison to Hoke is okay, but for now it's not even close.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^
Those draft picks, a year younger.
Its also why I thought the 2011 team would be a 10 win team once they grew up a bit and Hoke hired Mattison to coach the defense. Probably could have been even better had he hired a great OC.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^
don't get it. If Hoke had coached until 2016, none of those players except Jabril would have been drafted. Going into the 2015 season, we had zero all B1G players and the preseason lists said Peppers was the 38th best player in the conference, and there was a dropoff after him. Harbaugh developed those players, they were not just NFL players regardless of coach..if you think they were you don't know a thing about football.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^
Well, the talent was clearly there to be NFL players. Harbaugh and co. definitely made more of it than Hoke and co. would have, but I don't think its 100% right to pretend like Hoke didn't recruit pretty well on the defensive side of the ball.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:28 PM ^
Jake Rudock. Anyone who thinks a Hoke lead team with Shane Morris under center would have sniffed 10 wins in 2015 is delusional.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:39 PM ^
So...this is all people not meeting your expectations, nothing really steeped in fact or logical expectations.
Read the Connelly article to see how Harbaugh took a bad team and made them near-elite without many struggles. The fact there is an expected downturn in year 3 given the talent issues should be expected; the fact that caught some people by surprise is their own damn fault.
Hoke's third year the team went 7-6; Michigan is already 5-2 and are just now entering the easy part of their conference schedule. Rutgers, Maryland, and Minnesota are a far cry from 2013 9-4 Nebraska, 8-5 @Iowa, and @CHAOS Indiana.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:47 PM ^
FIrst couple paragraphs are opinions. Its fine, we disagree. I happened to think that improving the staff and lots of returning starters would mean 10 wins in 2015. You didn't. I happened to think that returning everyone in 2016 + Don Brown would mean a Big Ten title in 2016 (coupled with OSU losing quite a bit). You didn't I guess? I don't really see how that was that unreasonable, but okay.
Last paragraph ignores reality. Hoke was 6-2 with similar losses. I already said I don't think its as bad, but its similar enough that its disappointing. And as I said initially, Ron Utah put together a pretty convincing case that its not just all Hoke and recruiting.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^
5 to 10 wins doesn't usually happen even with a staff turnover, but as you said that's an opinion. Same with winning a big 10 title, which I'd argue was unlikely given the fact (we assumed at the time) Michigan would have to play top-ranked teams like MSU and OSU on the road. But again, opinion, I guess.
You fixate on the losses but ignore context. Michigan didn't have their starting QB for both those games, and while I don't see that mattering against PSU, it 100% mattered against MSU. And that 2013 team also returned 13 starters from the year before; Michigan charitably returned 5 this year. And this year's "scuttling" wins were by close to 40 points, not the 7 in 2013. So this year's team is noticeably younger than the 2013 team and their worst wins are significantly better than the ones in 2013.
This is ultimately going to be a debate over opinions so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I just think a lot is lost with the blanket "they have the same record as 2013, hence they are approximately the same".
October 24th, 2017 at 3:11 PM ^
We went from 7 to 11 when we went from RR to Hoke. So 4.
But expecting Harbaugh to take an underachieving team returning everyone led by Hoke from 5 to 10 is...farfetched I guess?
I mean, you ignore context too. Wilton Speight was looking terrible up until the moment he got hurt, but he was automatically winning the MSU game? I could easily say we lose the Purdue game if he doesn't get hurt because of how bad he looked beforehand. We'll never know.
Regardless of outcome, we have played teams worse than to be expected this year. Again, its not as bad as 2013, but its still disappointing.
October 24th, 2017 at 4:16 PM ^
The three-year trend from RR was 3 to 5 to 7 wins; going to 11 was the same general direction. The Hoke trend was 11 to 8 to 5, so going to 10 means you bucked a trend.
Speight played about 6 plays I think against Purdue; before that point, he had still played better than O'Korn save for the Purdue game. Better ypa, more TDs, fewer INTs, virtually the same completion percentage, higher QB rating. So yeah, if we are going to argue opinions, I'm going to assume Speight still wins that Purdue game (because Purdue sure couldn't move the ball much that second half), and then he's probably not throwing 3 picks in that MSU game. Or at the very least, the staff doesn't need to waste part of their bye week getting the backup integrated into the offense.
And finally, because this is just going in circles, you keep saying a lot in absolutes about this team disappointing. They are literally on par with the expectations of most rational analysis for the team coming into the year, save maybe losing to MSU. They'll probably win 8 games this year, give or take a bowl win. If you expected 10+ wins, then sure, you're disappointed. But if you expected 6-6 (which was also thrown around a bit), then you're excited.
October 24th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^
Yes, the trend of a clearly inferior coach and staff....I mean is this that hard to fathom?
Is it hard to grasp the idea that a better staff probably doesn't win 5 games in 2014? That the reason that staff was fired was because they only won 5 games? And that those players + a superior staff means that a 10 win season isn't really that unlikely? You know, when you're hiring one of the best coaches in football?
And on Speight: Sure! Maybe you're right! But maybe you're wrong! He was looking worse each week. Maybe we score two touchdowns against Sparty, but Speight throws a pick six, because he does that and we lose anyway!
And you say "literally" then caveat it immediately by mentioning the game that most people are questioning (and no one thought Michigan would lose before the year). In fact, most people seemed to think Michigan should be 6-0 going into Penn State and that we would probably lose that game. Which would have been fine! But the MSU (and I like how we are pretending like MSU didn't have their own roster issues) loss and the manner of the PSU loss mean that through 7 games Michigan is underachieving if you're actually being honest about most people's predictions. I mean yeah, our starting (regressing) QB is hurt...but people also thought Florida would be better than they are (which is why anyone thought we would be 5-1). Shit changes.
You are your record.
October 24th, 2017 at 5:11 PM ^
So wait, then following your logic, then going from RR to Hoke was a major upgrade in overall staff, but then that staff got progressively worse? Because as you noted, 7 to 11. So then I guess it goes RR < Hoke < Harbaugh, but as you said "you are your record", so thus far it would be RR < Harbaugh < Hoke at their peaks? I know what you're trying to argue, but as you can see, it's based on some inconsistent absolutes.
Also, Speight wasn't looking worse each week. He hadn't thrown a pick since the Florida game, was completed about 60% of his passes, and was playing perfectly fine behind a bad offensive line and with receivers who couldn't get open and who dropped the balls he did throw.
Yes, MSU was a bit of a surprise based on preseason talk; beating Florida as handily as Michigan did was also a bit of a surprise. So it's kind of a wash. Also, I didn't gloss over MSU's issues, but most of those occurred months ago and the team, as they were, had dealt with them; Michigan lost their starting QB midway through the first quarter of the previous game; bye week or not, that's a major transition for a young team. And then MSU needed 5 TOs and a crazy rain storm to barely win.
So Michigan is their record - 5-2 with a nice stretch of winnable games. You seem disappointed in that, I am not. But you aren't convincing me to join your ranks and I'm not going to convince you. So as I said, if this is not a ride you want to be on, there are other things to do on a Saturday than watch Michigan.
October 24th, 2017 at 6:01 PM ^
Yes, adjusted for competition Speight was looking worse each week. That's what his adjusted QBR showed. That's what the UFR showed (again if you take into account competition). It ended with him going three and out three times in a row and missing wide open receivers. Again, maybe he beats MSU. But pretending like it was a sure thing is laughable.
Hoke's 2011 team was a veteran team. As was his 2012 team (which was an unlucky squad. They were better than their 8 wins). Couple that with an improved defensive coordinator, you can see why the results improved. Similarly, you can see where the drop-off came from in 2013 when we replaced quite a bit.
I expected this Harbaugh team to better weather the inevitable drop off from losing so many starters in 2016. And I believe they have better than a Hoke team would have! But I also thought we might see overachievement since I believe Harbaugh to be a truly great coach. At best, one can say we are right where we were supposed to be this year. I believe this is not true as I don't think anyone had losing 42-13 to Penn State pegged or losing to an MSU team that lost a bunch of people they didn't expect in the offseason, didn't play LJ Scott (!) and has looked wildly mediocre before and after.
October 24th, 2017 at 1:59 PM ^
might be a little high for year 3. You can't just expect us to win everything becasue Harbaugh is our coach. He is faced with rebuilding a team that lost a ton of talent and everyone should've seen this coming this season. We were faced with some rebuilding and any casual observer should know it was not going to be a championship year.Yes this is due to some poor recruiting in Hoke's last two seasons, players who should be upper classman right now and leading this team. Because we don't have that we are stuck playing younger guys that are probably 1-2 years away from being able to play at the caliber we come to expect at UM
No one is happy about being blown out by PSU, but they are showing to be a very good team that has some execptional skill players carrying them. We should expect to get a few more wins this year but honestly anything better then 8-4 is just gravy this season.
Next year we should be much improved and definitely by 2019 we should be competiting for an NC. If not then it's time to be upset with what is going on with this team and coaching. But Harbaugh has done a damn good job up till now and we just need to be patient and let him finish building this team and get it back to the top. You have to look at the whole picture to understand why we have struggled some this year.
October 24th, 2017 at 2:13 PM ^
I don't see what's so crazy about thinking we should beat a bad MSU team and hang a little tougher against Penn State. Or what's crazy about pointing out that we were 6-2 with similar losses in 2013, while also maintaining I don't think its as bad as 2013.
October 24th, 2017 at 3:02 PM ^
But MSU is 6-1 this year with their lone loss coming against a pretty good Notre Dame team. They'll likely lose to Penn State and OSU but they're hardly a bad team.
October 24th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^
And skirted by Minnesota and Indiana. They are a bad team propped up by other bad teams.
October 24th, 2017 at 3:31 PM ^
Easy to look at their schedule and see three wins and losses to PSU and OSU. So will they be a "bad" 9-3 team if that happens? Just because MSU probably isn't a Top 10-15 team doesn't mean they are bad. It's hard to take you seriously if you can't accept that Michigan State is a merely decent team with a good coach that plays above their expected level against Michigan.
October 24th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^
No, sometimes teams with good records are bad. Nebraska last year was 7-0 with close wins and wins over bad teams. Once the schedule got difficult they wen't 2-4 the rest of the way.
Michigan in 2013 was 6-1. Were they a good team or a bad team?
October 24th, 2017 at 6:08 PM ^
Well, you know what they say, "you are your record. "
October 24th, 2017 at 7:11 PM ^
Ugh, yeah I was actually going to point out how Brian says that sometimes with another paragraph and that by that logic one could conclude we're right where Hoke was, but I disagree, etc. and then forgot to delete it. Now its stuck there.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:32 PM ^
You're not just having your say. You are seeking to make yours the dominant voice and responding to all of your critics (and there is much to criticize) with dozens of redundant posts. WE GET your overall take. You don't need to say the same thing over and over. You're not the smartest guy in the room. You're not going to influence anything at Schembechler Hall. if you don't like this board, its staff and contributors, no one is forcing you to stay.
October 25th, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^
Yes, but people are misconstruing things I've said. I respond. What's wrong with that?'
Or people bring up a new point (usually incorrectly, but hey, whatever) and I respond. What's wrong with that?
For instance bronxblue says Speight did not regress this season as it went along. Yet there's plenty of evidence that he did. Why shouldn't I say that? Why shouldn't I point out that his theory that the MSU game is in the bag if Speight plays isn't necessarily true?
Where did I said I didn't like the board, staff or contributors?
Why is it that people get so upset about debate on internet message boards as if that isn't the purpose of internet message boards?
Why do you want to silence minority opinions? What are you some sort of majority supremacist?
October 25th, 2017 at 11:32 AM ^
in addition to straw men
Comments