Did We Just Watch the Turning Point Game of the Hoke Era?
In retrospect turning points are always easy to see. Looking back through history we can clearly mark the 1969 Ohio State game as the turning point in Bo's career and that victory as the marker that the Michigan program was changing for the better under his leadership. But I don't know that too many people back in 1969 could predict just how good things would go over the next 20 years with Bo.
Rich Rod also had a turning point game and the similarities to yesterday's debacle are striking IMO. Year three of his tenure and on October 30th, 2010, Michigan went to Penn State with two weeks to prepare and got beat soundly on national TV. It was the game that virtually everyone points to as "the beginning of the end" of the RR regime as it became painfully obvious that we had a defense incapable of stopping anyone (even a true Freshman QB like Matt McGloin). As everyone remembers, that season sputtered to a 7-6 finish despite our 5-0 start with the wheels coming completely off the wagon at the end.
Brady Hoke, in year three of his tenure, with two weeks to prepare, took his team to East Lansing yesterday and got drilled just like we did in Happy Valley in 2010 - albeit with a different side of the ball falling apart completely. This team also started 5-0 but can anyone look at the remaining schedule and not say that a 7-6 finish this for this team is possible if not probable? And would a steadily declining W-L record over three years be considered acceptable by the fan base or Dave Brandon?
To be clear I am NOT calling for Hoke to be fired here. But I wonder, again with the benefit of hindsight, what would've happened in 2010 if Rich had fired Tony Gibson immediately after the PSU game and told Brandon the next day he needed to get a new Defensive Coordinator in next year? Because that IS what I believe should happen with this year's team - Funk should be let go immediately and Hoke should tell Brandon today to start the search process for a new OC. But because I don't forsee either of those events occurring I wonder if we'll look back at yesterday's game sometime in the future as the "beginning of the end" of the Hoke era.
November 3rd, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^
Our last three games have been an embarrassing loss to an undermanned PSU team with a pure freshman QB at the helm, an RR-style shootout at home against Indiana in which they ran up 572 yards in offense, and the all-phases beatdown in EL yesterday.
Yet you think that's "playing significantly better." Huh.
November 3rd, 2013 at 3:32 PM ^
To me, playing significantly better means you recognize your issues, rethink your gameplans and adjust to the current strengths of your team. For all of the physicality talk week in week out, yesterday looked like from beginning to end that Michigan was unprepared to play in the "streetfight" they were all talking about.
The line play was atrocious, missed blocks, confused looks, Fitz playing his best bull-fighting recreations with linebackers and Devin looking too worried to step into almost any throw or make a quick decision and going confidently with his reads. PA into definite blitzes with no respect for the run game was beyond stupid.
I would kill to see the same level of agressivenes on defense that MSU actually displayed yesterday. It is one thing to lose, another to look dazed and confused and basically broken by the 4th qtr like yesterday.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
I do think we're going to end with a record about what I expected. But, I think our opponents have generally been worse than expected too. UConn wasn't supposed to be a complete tire fire. Notre Dame has taken a bigger step back, especially on defense, than most expected coming into the season. Penn State got drubbed by Indiana and needed OT to beat Illinois. Nebraska and Nortwestern have been far below expectations.
Coming into the season I thought we were mediocre, bordering on good. Now I think it's clear that we're medicore bordering on bad. If you can't look at this season so far and see that we're not living up to even reasonable expectations, then you probably just don't want to see it.
November 3rd, 2013 at 1:16 PM ^
Unless you're Oregon, Alabama, Florida State, Miami or BYU, basically everyone has been pretty underwhelming this year. The whole of the NCAA this year is pretty subpar.
November 3rd, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^
Well, I think we are also a little freaked out about bad wins over Akron, CT, and Indiana. So, while I agree with your point that this season is largely what we collectively predicted, the part about how we are getting there is what is unnerving.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^
And why is that? Why shouldn't Michigan be just as attractive for coaches as it is for recruits? Look at the insane budget at your disposal here.
The answer is simple: People have seen what a political clusterfuck Michigan is from the outside and they don't want to be castrated by the clans here.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
I will ultimately judge Hoke's team by how they perform against OSU.
This season has always been about beating them.
If anyone should know about upset wins against their hated rivals it is Michigan.
It will take a monumental effort, but it is at home, and there is 3 games to get ready.
Go Blue!
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:36 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:40 AM ^
A season is always about beating OSU when we can take for granted that we will beat MSU. That reality has been gone for at leat 6 years now. Its time to join us in the present.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
As for Hoke, IMO any good coach/manager will never be successful without surrounding themselves with competent staff. No coach is an expert at all aspects of the game and hires that expertise to fill the need at each position. My opinion of Hoke's future success at UM hinges on the hard decisions he needs to make about his coaching staff.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:43 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:36 AM ^
You win the biggest idiot of the thread (full of idiots)!!!
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:35 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:51 AM ^
You've been posting a lot of these type of GIF's for past day or so. Is there a reason?
And given the nature of our debate post OSU game I am curious as to what you think now? Has your opinion of our coaching staff changed any or are you as strongly in their camp as you were last week?
Not a snarky question - I do respect your opinion although I dont usually agree with it.
November 3rd, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
At a certain point words fail me, so I resort to pictures.
My opinion on the coaching staff hasn't changed.
All of the things I've thought were true of this team seem to remain as such.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^
The pain isn't over for this sseason. Buckle up and pace the butt-hurt, gang.
it's gonna be a bumpy ride...
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:43 AM ^
I'd say that this whole season will be viewed as a turning point.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
November 4th, 2013 at 7:35 AM ^
A small rebuttal: I completely agree with this sentiment, but at the same time, this makes me think that the coaching staff (at least in regards to the offensive line) may be doing a worse job than the defensive (especially the secondary) coaching staff in 2010. For the most part, outside the front 4, we were dealing with first and second year players who were right in the three star range. This year's offensive line has a lot of young players to choose from, but they have a significant talent advantage over that secondary, yet are performing just a poorly. So yes, they will be better in time, but do we have the coaching that will help them reach their full potential?
November 4th, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^
It takes longer to develop offensive linemen; very very few are able to play before their third year in a program. Pull up depth charts on good teams--you'll find a number of young defensive backs contributing, you'll find very few young offensive linemen, especially on the interior.
Why is that so hard to understand?
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
to hire a new OC who is an offensive genius if we offer him head coach after Hoke retires. We definetly need a new offensive line coach and I am the most die hard fan I or any of my friends can think of
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:57 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:56 AM ^
Is that this team is soft. Say what you will about youth, RR O-line recruiting, etc. But the whole mantra and all the rhetoric around Hoke when he took the job was that we would be a physical team - Manball! This is the 3rd year and both the offensive and defensive lines look worse. Interior O-line is a mess (blame it on youth and MSU being a nasty D, but we should never get blown up by Akron or Uconn) And for all the bravado and big talk about "earning the right to rush four" our D-line is average at best.
So basically you have a coach who is an amazing advocate of the program who can recruit lights out. As for schematics, tactics, coordinating and game day coaching this staff is is lack luster. And what had previously been an incomplete on player development is now trending towards bad.
Recruiting: A
Game Coaching: C-
Player Development: C-
This will not a top 10 program make.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:31 AM ^
They look worse because the juniors and seniors are know from RichRods recruiting classes. That's pretty easy to see.
November 3rd, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^
that won a BCS bowl.
November 4th, 2013 at 8:35 AM ^
The problem isn't so much that they are RR's recruiting classes, it's that there are so few of them, especially in certain position groups, like the interior Oline. Then there are other positions that RR didn't really use or depend upon but Hoke does, like fullbacks and TEs.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:02 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:02 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
Two questions:
1. What have you seen in our three road games that makes you confident we'll beat both Northwestern & Iowa? I agree that Nebraska is prolly going to be a toss-up but I see no reason to have much confidence that the team and staff will suddenly "see the light" and perform better than they have to date when away from Michigan.
2. Were you not also "fairly confident" we'd win yesterday?
November 3rd, 2013 at 11:03 PM ^
1.) While I agree that the road struggles are worrisome, I don't really see anything in Nebraska, Northwestern, or Iowa that scares me. Nebraska has a poor defense, a schizophrenic offense, massive questions at qb and in the coaching staff, and in their last two games they lost to Minnesota and beat Northwestern on a miracle Hail Mary play. Northwestern is a shell of a team, they have the most injuries of anyone in the conference and are down to something like their 6th string running back. They also lost to Minnesota. Iowa has a decent defense and a below average offense. I haven't watched them much this year, but nothing jumps out at me about them being dangerous. Of the next three games, I think that is the most likely loss. Basically, we looked like crap on Saturday, but we are better than all three of our next opponents.
2.) No, I thought we would lose to State, though I did not anticipate by how much. If you go to The_Knowledge's prediction thread you'll find that I predicted a close loss (15-12 or something like that).
November 4th, 2013 at 7:37 AM ^
Was there anything in Penn State or UConn that scared you? Just curious.
November 4th, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
Yesterday was a terrible if not the worst defeat in the UM/MSU history in living memory (that is selfishly in my living memory of 50 some years). It was worse than the infamous clock game. After the first quarter, it was clear which team was better in ALL phases of the game and it was the team in green and white.
An aside: Right now there is an ongoing debate about the value of the humanities. The College of LSA and other programs around the country are facing a hard question about the value of studying art history (outside of being an art historian) and other humanties subjects when kids end up with tens if not hundred thousand dollars in debt. Here is where the LSA college may help us with this analysis. In history, there are broadly two viewpoints. One takes the position that the course of history was shaped by the action of individual people and emphasizes the importance of specific so-called key decisions or decisive battles. The other takes the postion that while amazing and unusual individuals (e.g. Napoleon) do have a strong influence, they are a product of larger social forces (e.g. growing desire of people in France to have individual freedom, growing wealth of the middle class). If a Napoleon didn't occur the environment of post-revolutionary France would have still lead them into conflict with the surrounding royal governments.
So what does that have to do with UM football?
If you believe in the first concept, then Rich Rod had some point or points in his timeline when he might have been able to alter his fate by making a substantially different decision or he was in a situation that so bad from the outset that he was doomed from the start. Then his only way to avoid his fate was not to have taken the Michigan job at all. If you subscribe to this line of thought, the game where he might have changed his course was the MSU game in his second year when Tate Forcier led a beleagured UM team back to tie the game. The weather was bad, and the team was barely hanging on and yet they clawed their way back - it was then that Rich Rod had to make a decision. Go for the PAT and send the game into OT or go for two - there was literally just seconds to play. The ball is on the 2 - your offense is the best part of the team and Forcier was suddenly hot. All or nothing on one play. I was surprised that an offensive coach like him didn't put it all on the line. Had he won that game, one can speculate it would have won over some of the alumni and die hard supporters - as it was, he never did beat any of the major Big Ten rivals. He is a risk taker (don't worry about points being score on you, but get more points) so it was fatal decision out of his football character.
What about the current situation? It is easy and often convenient to blame one person for the collective failure of many. Yes, I was disappointed by how some players didn't play up to their talk, but most of all I felt bad for them. They went out there and did as they were told - ran plans which asked them to hold blocks way too long than they were capable of. They went out there and faced the fury of the Spartans and took their lumps. They faced a far better prepared team and kept the game close for a long time. The defense (not arguing the strategy of bend versus attack) hung in there and only that last run when it was clear the game was hopeless did they finally got run over.
Yes, the buck does stop at the top, but there are a lot of reasons why things go bad. As many of the posts here note it goes round and round. I don't believe changing one person will lead to the type of turnaround we hope for. The troubling thing isn't the loss which hurts deeply but the failure to adjust and compensate as the season progressed. Flat against Akron. Flat against UConn, Showed a lot of vulnerability to Minn and Indiana. Didn't put away a scrappy but inferior PSU team. The nature of modern college ball means one can't simply overhaul a team during the season. The base concepts installed in training camp are the ones the team has to live with. Errors and mistakes make people worried about making more which makes some hesitant and ironically more mistake prone. Great players who make plays can make schemes look magically. Some schemes can hide deficiencies and so compensate for lesser talent. Some coaches can really get their players up for that one game (see Akron, UConn). Sometimes simple is better than complex. So I don't think dumping one coach or one coordinator will lead to a lasting change. The real issue is that while the UM is a magical place, to get better, even the great HS players which come here have to work and prepare and the coaches have to accept the notion that no one 'fears' the Wolverines and the days of just running out and squashing opponents (classic Big 2 Little 8 days) are long gone.
Since I'm rambling, tired, frustrated and sad (for the players), I'll end.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^
Your post should be required reading for all MGBlog posters. Thanks for the perspective.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
and have been following and a booster to the team since 1976. I hate this post but it is a necessary evil because after that game I am wondering what I love so much. All the original reasons I have been a fan for so long seem to be gone. The recruiting is the only thing left and if the recruits start jumping ship I am not sure if there is anything left to love. I have been so proud of this university as a whole to represent the state of Michigan nationally over the years and have enjoyed UM football with a passion. Today seems to be a turning point for me I am not sure about Hoke except that it is way too soon to pull the trigger on him (I know thats not what this post is asking but it is what it will surely turn in to) with the great talent he seems to be able to bring in year after year.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^
I don't see any of the big names jumping ship even if we fall flat this month. A lot of these guys still want to START early at a big name school. Same reason Charlie Weis could get guys even after a 3-9 season at ND.
I also remember when RR was twisting in the wind, a fellow named Dee Hart was supposed to be the savior at RB. He went to Bama instead and collects dust on their bench. I'm worried the same will happen with Kalis at OL, hyped but never make a difference.
I still love going to the Big House, if nothing else knowing I was there in those same seats for Mercury Hayes vs. Virginia, Tim's 313 yds vs. OSU, Woodson's PR, 2003 and 2011 OSU games, game winning FGs vs. Iowa, Washington, MSU, etc.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^
I keep thinking about the opportunities at hand in the next few years with Gardner, Morris, Campbell, Harris, Peppers and hopefully Hand. We have a shot at a once in a lifetime combination of skill players on offense and absolute monsters on defense. I'm worried it is going to be wasted because players won't be developed properly or gameplans won't be fundamentally sound.
This is Michigan fergodsakes. There is no reason that even with a depleted offensive line, we shouldn't be able to outplay teams in other areas and win games. Especially against inferior programs like MSU. Borges has been bad, but you're not going to tell me that MSU hasn't had problems on offense too. And Narduzzi is great, but we have Mattison. So I'm wondering - when does the payoff come?
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^
Perhaps the following will be enlightening.
Event 2010 2013
Season opening blowout UConn CMU
raises fan expectations
Exciting win over ND Yes Yes
Followup disappointing UMass Akron,
closer than expected win UConn
against heavy underdog.
Exciting victory over
Indiana in a showcase Check Check
of offenses. Fans excuse
this since "Indiana is
pretty good this year"
After 5 wins to open
the season, M loses MSU, Penn State
to a B10 team in a Denard's OL,
manner fans find bad passing* playcalling**
surprising.
Big Ten record four 1-3 2-2
games in.
Final Big Ten record 3-5 TBD
*Up to the MSU game, Denard Robinson had been a very efficient passer. Brian identified Denard as the primary culprit for the loss: "We'll see about Denard. I think he'll bounce back but there's a chance it was the early bits that were false. The preponderance of the evidence is still in favor of accuracy, however." How things have changed - here's a line from the offensive review: "Heroes? The interior OL controlled the MSU DL for the most part"
** Everyone knew the OL was not very good, but fan expectations were that Penn State was not up to controlling the line of scrimmage.
There were plenty of differences as well, of course - I don't want to overstate this aspect. Essentially we have two mid-tier B10 teams in 2010 and 2013 Michigan. These are teams that should beat the conference's worst, and don't have much of a shot at the conference's best. The reasons for mediocrity seem partly due to the lack of material the last coaching staff left, as well as problems the current coaching staff has developing and using players. Fans of the 2010 and 2013 teams entered the season with real concerns but also hope. The most insidious snare for a sports fan is to let some early season positive signs inflate one's expectations... but that's what happens to hopeful, emotionally invested people. When those expectations fall back to earth... ANGAAR!
At last I am getting to my key point. I thought firing RR was a bad long-term move for the program: firing almost any college football coach three years in is damaging. I thought hiring Brady Hoke was a step back in every sense. He's not a great coach, as everything about his resume indicated, but he's not a bad coach, either, and like just about everybody, he'll do his job better if he's not up to his neck in boiling water. Hot-seating the guy now is just about as damaging as firing him, and that's on the fanbase and the AD, not on the coach.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
RR started out with hype but went 3-9 and then 5-7 (after a 4-0 start). He was a cat with 8 of his 9 lives gone entering 2010. Yes, I think he's a good coach, but stubborn on D, insisting on using 3-3-5. Scott Shafer is NOT a head coach (witness 2013 Syracuse) but would have been successful if RR had hired him and let him run his own system (and hire a few Def coaches).
Even Texas is playing better defense under GERG, which says RR's firing had to do with his failure to give up control over defense.
I'm happy for RR at Zona. No pressure, BCS conference, and he can get some meaningful wins but won't win a PAC 12 title. Even with his former DC from WVU, his D's still stink.
As for Hoke, I believe his hot seat won't start for real till next year. Brandon will deflect things because this was HIS guy, if we are to truly believe Hoke was his #1 choice (I think Harbaugh was really the #1 guy but wanted NFL instead). Fixing the O-Line during the off-season and finding a way to get D-line pressure would do this team wonders. Can Hoke do it? Not sure. He exceeded my expectations in 2011, missed them by a bit last year and way below this year.
One thing (so far) in Hoke's favor is 18-0 at home. RR was 11-11. Hoke almost lost to Akron, but RR did lose to a 4-8 Toledo team that fired its coach after the season.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^
November 3rd, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
That's so wackily hilarious that I wouldn't neg you even if I could.
November 3rd, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
I hope this game is a turning point, but not in the way the OP is thinking. I'm counting on this being the lowest and worst Michigan will play, not just for the rest of the season, but from here on out. No team on the schedule has a defense as stout as State's (nor a coaching staff who plans for this one game all year). My best guess is that Michigan goes 2-2 the rest of the way in the B1G, which puts us right in the range where most of us predicted they would be before the season started. And next year, and the year after that will be better still.