9-3
I'm the king of the RR fanclub. I just closed it's doors and went into retirement, because it is done. I want to implore everyone else to do the same. Now in Brian's post he put out 9-3 as the target next year barring unforseen circumstances. I believe this is true(which is why I couldn't understand Brian changing and wanting a coaching change but whatever).
B. Hoke does not get 3 years, I don't want to hear the word rebuilding once in the press conference. I want to kill the next person that says he needs 3 years to recruit defense. We have loads of defensive players coming back and getting better. Martin, RVB, Roh and Black are going to be one of the top d lines in the conference. If we get some fairly decent play from Demens and Woolfolk to settle down the linebackers and secondary we should be in great shape to get to the Championship game.
I'm all in for B. Hoke, leave the offense alone shore up the defense and we're rocking.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
F$#@ MSU (yes that MSU).
January 12th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
I guess I can get behind this, but...what? How is this at all relevent?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:10 AM ^
until the week before the game against Western Michigan. Too much needs to happen between now and then but have reasonable hopes.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^
"Hoke does not get 3 years."
What? Hoke definitely gets three years unless we go sub .500 each of those years. These types of statements are just ridiculous. 3 years until what? Until you're comfortable with the level of performance on the field? Until we win a MNC? Until we win a B1G championship?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Let me try and guess what he means: the RR backers believed next year, with a new DC and everyone coming back and a pretty reasonable schedule, 9-3 was a very attainable goal. I would tend to have agreed.
Like pretty much everyone else, he's sick of rebuiliding and annoyed the season before much of our team became upperclassmen, we changed course. If we have to go through rebuiliding again, when the talent is there to do better, Hoke will have underachieved.
Now, perhaps you can disagree (e.g., the talent isn't there; it doesn't matter everyone will have some experience; people are a bad fit for Hoke's master plan; whatever) - then, a 7-5 season next year makes sense. But to me, if we're going to hire a "safe" pick like Brady Hoke (who has shown zero evidence as a head coach he can win championships), since we're likely not to have the highs, we better not have the lows.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
After all, Hoke is a great coach. Everyone agrees, or rather, everyone who counts (Lloyd Carr and his former coaches and players) agree, so with some capable experienced QBs and 18 or more starters returning, we probably should be expecting 10-2 but we give Hoke some slack and expect 9-3.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:13 AM ^
most expected 7-5 last year and got it despite numerous injuries and the pre season loss of the one person we could least afford to go down. There are 19 of 22 starters returning (TWoolf for Rogers is an upgrade) and 9-3 should be the bottom end with a 5-0 start.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^
of course if that happens it will be the result of Hoke's genius and not RR's players finally getting old enough to sport hair on their faces.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^
C'mon. That's crazy talk. Everyone on offense and defense will have to learn a new playbook and a new system of practicing, lifting, etc. Anyone who expects more than 7 wins in 2011 is setting themselves up for heartache. Better to set standards lower, more realistically, and hope for better is the way to go in my opinion. High expectations going into 2010 is one of the main reasons people were so pissed.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
people who expected better than 7-5, especially after Woolfolk went down.
During the 5-0 start, expectations started to sky rocket (charts!), but then the schedule stiffened up while our depth continued to plummet.
We played 8 bowl eligible opponents, went 3-5 against them, and played in a January 1 bowl game..... If offered that as a result knowing that you are going to end the season with 6 freshmen on the two deep for the defensive backfield, you take it in a heartbeat.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
Exactly. I was a 7-5 guy but couldn't help but increase expectations after the great start and emergence of Denard. I fought it so hard but ended up expecting more (8 wins?) and was bummed watching them lose.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Regarding lifting, isn't Barwis still here? Anyone know if he is staying? I think that part would not be changed much. Especially since M basically stripped its' weight room down and bought all new Barwisized equipment.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
gone, after all, isn't Hoke's S&C coach much better than Barwis?
January 12th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
we should expect no better than last year? Why blow up a recruiting class then? To hope for the future which was gaining momentum anyway. If Hoke doesn't pick things up in recruiting this year, which is going to be very difficult IMO, we won't have much added help for 2012 when the schedule is a bit*h. With games against Bama (almost a road game), and road games against ND, Nebraska, and OSU are we still suppose to hope for 7-5 or 8-4. If that's the goal this whole process has been a joke. Just my opinion. Go Blue!
January 12th, 2011 at 9:15 AM ^
I agree that 9-3 is reasonable. We have a schedule set up for it and it is very plausible. But you know, if by some miracle we go 12-0 and win the MNC I won't be too disappointed.../s
January 12th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^
Hoke was 9-4 at SDSU...all 4 loses were close.
| Sat, Sep 4 | Nicholls | W 47-0 | -- | |
| Sat, Sep 11 | at New Mexico State | W 41-21 | -- | |
| Sat, Sep 18 | at Missouri | L 24-27 | -- | |
| Sat, Sep 25 | Utah State | W 41-7 | -- | |
| Sat, Oct 9 | at Brigham Young | L 21-24 | -- | |
| Sat, Oct 16 | (23) Air Force | W 27-25 | -- | |
| Sat, Oct 23 | at New Mexico | W 30-20 | -- | |
| Sat, Oct 30 | at Wyoming | W 48-38 | -- | |
| Sat, Nov 6 | Colorado State | W 24-19 | -- | |
| Sat, Nov 13 | at (3) TCU | L 35-40 | -- | |
| Sat, Nov 20 | (25) Utah | L 34-38 | -- | |
| Sat, Nov 27 | UNLV | W 48-14 | -- |
January 12th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
Is a close loss any more valuable than a blow out? I would argue that it isn't.
To prove my point, who lost the 1994 SEC championship game?
A loss is a loss.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:30 AM ^
i would say a 5 point loss to TCU is better than a 5 point loss to some Eastern Michigan.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
Who lost to "some" Eastern Michigan?
Who lost to Ohio State in 2005 by 5 points or less. Quick.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
are you serious....all im saying is I'm glad we got a coach that when he was coaching at SDSU, a team that isnt able to recruit as well as say a 'B1G' team, that they still played some good teams and kept it close.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
Yes I am serious. How does "keeping it close" when getting beaten become a qualification for Michigan Head Football Coach?
That's great and all, but I would greatly prefer a coach who won championships or even conference titles somewhere in his coaching career. It would be nice. That's all I am saying. You can talk yourself into it by accentuating the (I would kindly call them "mild") positives all day, but that doesn't take away from the overall sentiment that Brady Hoke has not been a successful head football coach in his career thus far. The pros vs. cons are heavily in favor of the cons and if a pro is "he kept it close" then WTF are we doing here? I get trying to act like this is ok, but in reality it just isn't. The facts are heavily in favor of this being severe cronyism. Again, not to fault Brady Hoke. I would imagine I would like the guy, but his hire was a mistake at this time. Maybe after next seaosn it wouldn't be, but we will never know that and we very well could have had we waited.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:31 AM ^
Step one: Pull head out of ass
Step two: Ask that question to Rich Rod and see what he says
January 12th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
If you mean "A close loss is still a loss, we will not be happy with a lot of near-wins" then I can almost understand it. However, if we're judging the potential of our new head coach, which we are, then we would definitely prefer that his teams played quality opponents tough rather than got blown out.
A close loss to a team like TCU is much more impressive than a blow out loss and it's not close.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
When judging his potential, how do you feel about SDSU's close wins against Wyoming and Colorado State, who both finished 3-9?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:35 AM ^
It's all about pride, man. Boiled down to the bullshit societal essence of it all, football is probably the best physical metaphor we have. War by proxy.
If you get in a fight and hold your own, you can walk away with your head held high. Maybe some can even argue you could win the next fight.
Getting pummeled, dominated, tossed around like a little girl and just wanting it to stop is, you know, rather embarrassing for the average guy.
So yeah, I would argue that a close loss is much better than getting blown out and embarrassed.
Bo was always very proud of the fact that his Michigan team almost never got blown out. Bo's teams got blown out less times in 21 years than RR's teams got blown out this year alone.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:41 AM ^
I completely disagree. What side of the win loss column does a loss go on? A 2 point loss goes on the left. A 50 point loss also goes on the left.
Also, honestly Bo is gone. Bo said a lot of really great things. Obviously he was a great man and a great coach, but these are different times. We have a team who just won the national championship with a Heisman winner who was more than likely paid and the NCAA said it was fine because they found the loophole in the system; pay the kids parents. This isn't a great time to be bringing up the lessons of Bo. This is 2011, not 1976. It just isn't the same. I think we will figure that out sooner rather than later unfortunately.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
Winning margin is a predictor of future success. This is true for all sports, even though as fans, we prefer an ugly, fluky win (see Miles, Les 2010) to a game where we play great football, but lose to a superior opponent. We care about Hoke's future success, not his past success, so better for us if he has close losses than fluky wins on his resume.
His team played TCU (on the road in a late season game), Utah and Missouri close, that's good. Wisconsin lost to TCU, we were blown out by Wisconsin. I'm not saying "therefore SDSU would beat Michigan", just that Hoke's SDSU team wasn't competing at a different level from us.
If they had won close games against mediocre competition and were blown out by good teams, then we could discard the 9-4 season as an anomoly (play that season out 20 times and 9-4 is an outlier). As it stands, 9-4 with some blow out wins, a few close wins and a few close losses to good teams was probably around the mean.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if 7-5 is the best we can do without find loopholes for paying our players, then I'll be happy with 7-5 every year.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
I am with you. I didn't mean it like that. Integrity above all in my book.
I mean that everyone like to bring up Bo. I like his lasting lessons, but many of them simply are from a different era. Michigan no longer sells itself. Bo was from a time when college ball was in many ways superior to the NFL from the player and coaching perspective. Now? Many of these kids just want to get paid, which duh, but I think you get my point. Bo and his lessons are great, but some don't work anymore. It's a different game.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^
Us losing to all the good teams by more than 20 points or SDSU, a team with much lower talent losing to the number 2 team in the country by 5 points?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
In RRs first season we lost to the #2 team in the country by... wait for it... 2 points.
I take it you don't remember that?
BECAUSE IT WAS A LOSS.
/drops the mic
January 12th, 2011 at 9:29 AM ^
Yes he did this at SDSU, but the lst time they went to a bowl was 1998! 12 years ago. In the 7 years before he got there they were always between 3 and 5 wins and won just 2 games the year before he got there. To get them to 9-4 with a bowl win in just two years is nothing short of remarkable especially when competing with the likes of Missouri and TCU.
That program was worse than horrendous until he got there.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
If you point out the close losses to respectable teams, you should probably also point out the close wins against bad teams.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^
sdsu was up 14-0 over tcu and had to rally after going down 14-37. just saying.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:44 PM ^
came against teams a combined 46 games under 500 or a little worse than 3-9 on average. We don't play a schedule anywhere near that. Two wins against teams with winning records and both where academies, AF and Navy which are basically one dimensional as they only throw the ball about 12 times a game, and we don't play them either. Close losses against teams looking past you don't count for much in my book and BYU was not a good football team.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:18 AM ^
9-3 is a reasonable projection because of the experience and talent we have coming back. But realistically it comes down to who Hoke hires as assistants. I have faith in Hoke now, not before yesterday but people's minds change, but it will come down to how Hoke uses our offense to his advantage and if he can make our defense somewhat relevant in the B1G.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:21 AM ^
Al Borges.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^
I know about him, I am saying who else he hires and how they can incorporate our strengths into what they want to do.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
Our strength was our spread offense and mobilie QB.
Al Borges does not run a spread offense.
I don't think his O-Line coach is going to change his mind on that, but I guess I can hold out hope with you.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
We can all hope that they adapt a little bit to make it all work in the end.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
Hoke does need to do a great job on hiring assistants.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^
lazy I guess. Thanks for the post.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
would ONLY be possible with an overhaul of the defensive staff. There is no way in hell M was going to go 9-3 next year with GERG and Co.
We were blown OUT in 6 games this year.
We barely beat ND, UMass (!), Indiana, and Illinois.
We probably SHOULD HAVE lost 2 of those 4 nailbiters.
That would have put us at 5-7 in year 3. A moribund Miss St program just went 9-4 in the SEC in YEAR 2 and handed us our ass in the Gator Bowl.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
that you are discrediting Miss State for their 4 losses in a thread where people are arguing that SDSU's 4 losses were close and against quality opponents.
Do yourself a favor and go look at the teams Miss State lost to and how those teams finished the season.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
9-3 would have been a reasonable expectation for Rodriguez coming back with a new defensive coordinator and the schedule that we have. With the change in coaching staff, I'm expexting a few growing pains. 7-5 seems like an emminently fair target. Anything less than that will be a big disappointment, however.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:28 AM ^
9-3 or GTFO! lol
I'm going to let him hire assistants, see who transfers and judge how willing he is to adapt his system to personnel before I make any predictions.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:29 AM ^
How does 9-3 get us to the championship game?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
9-3? With a move to a pro style offense i don't see this happening. If he slowly works in a pro style we might go 9-3 eventually, but we hardly had a run game outside of denard. We will look like msu's offense when they went 6-7 unless we get a back to be a great every down back for us. Passing will be so predictable otherwise, but we will have to wait and see.
Hoke's offense at SDSU looked like it had some spread type speed.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
His RB ran for over 1500 yards last year and he is listed as 5'10" 175 lbs which is about the same build as Fitz Toussaint, Justice Hayes and Mike Shaw, none of which are every down type guys. SDSU's reciever production indicates a lot of multi WR looks, something we are built for as we return all of our recievers. The RB will probably be a speedy shifty type guy who complements the passing and can catch the ball out of the backfield (Hayes sounds like a good fit). I also think when he wants to go more smashmouth guys like Mike Cox and Hopkins will find a nice niche too.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:12 PM ^
5 of the 22 worst rush Ds (giving up more than 195/g) in the country were in the MWC including the two worst. Throw in FCS Nicholls and those rushing stats don't mean much. 13 carries for 54 yards against TCU. Hillman did have a huge game against Missouri (roughly 150/game) thanks to two runs for 168 total yards. His other 21 carries netted 60 yards.
Fitz is closer to 200 lbs. Justice Hayes is not a Big Ten RB (sorry to say) and wasn't having a very good season before getting hurt. The junior that took his place rushed for over a 1,000 and was the better back IMO.