Early Games Open Thread

Submitted by jcgold on September 28th, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Timeslot Highlights:

Ok St at WVU - ESPN

SCar at UCF - ABC

Northern Ill at Purdue - ESPN2

Miami (NTM) at Illinois - BTN

Full listings: http://lsufootball.net/tvschedule.htm

First relaxing Saturday since CMU for me. Discuss and enjoy

Comments

KBLOW

September 28th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

Great day in Oregon to sit inside and watch football carefree of Michigan winning or losing.  I've got a cold and it's supposed to rain 4 inches by this evening, but those WVA unis are keeping me warm.

Wolvercane

September 28th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^

U-C-F Knights! Down with the SEC! They took the first drive right down the cock's throats for a 7-0 lead. Storm Johnson (transfer from Miami (YTM)) is the real deal at running back for them.

TakeTheField

September 28th, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^

Like, a good offense. Their O-line blocks, their running backs run, their receivers get open and their QB hits them. If I hadn't heard I here, I wouldn't have known that you needed 5 years of development of top 10 recruiting classes before you could make scoring look easy against a weak MAC team.

SalvatoreQuattro

September 28th, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^

Who said that UM need "5 years of development of top 10 recruiting classes before you could make scoring look easy against a weak MAC team."?   Michigan scored 59 versus CMU. Yes, they struggled against Akron. We all know that. But we also know that UM has put up plenty of points versus weak MAC teams under Hoke.

 

45 vs EMU, 34 in a storm-shortened game versus WMU, 63 versus UMASS, 59 versus CMU, and 28 versus Akron. Akron is clearly an outlier here.

 

TakeTheField

September 28th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^

To characterize the Hoke/ Borges apologists here. Sorry you didn't get that.

And Akron might be considered an "outlier", even as bad as they are, if we hadn't repeated the same abysmally bad offensive performance the very next week. No team that can be considered remotely good (and a lot that can't be) has had two such embarrassing showings on offense this year.

Until they prove otherwise, the last two games have to be considered a trend and not an anomaly.

SalvatoreQuattro

September 28th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^

You dismiss 41 pts versus a top 20 opponent while at the same trumpeting two poor performances versus inferior opponents. Sorry, but that argument does not fly.You cannot ignore one game to make an argument. You have to give all data available equal weight if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

I don't know why UM is performing so poorly on offense right now. The first two games tell me this offense is much, much, much better than what it is now. But the last two games were so bad that it causes me to wonder what is going on.

Is is youth? That could be a cause. Young teams have shown a tendency to perform in a wildly inconsistent manner. But whatever it is it needs to be corrected.

 

 

Ron Utah

September 29th, 2013 at 1:52 AM ^

We moved the ball almost at will against Akron, we just gave it to them before we scored.  Now, turnovers are part of the game, but our offensive moved the ball extremely well against them (actually averaged more yards/play than we did against CMU).

That said, I agree that this team has shown some serious weaknesses, and not just on offense.  Our defense got carved-up by Akron and then let UConn score TDs everytime they were in the red zone.

I agree that the last two games are more than an anomaly.  But it's not just the offense, and Mattison isn't above criticism.  The Akron game was terrible, then against UConn he made some very questionable calls on big downs and lost the battle in the red zone (something he always talks about winning).

No one on Michigan deserves a pass right now; Jeremy Gallon is the closest, but we need more plays out of our WRs too.

SalvatoreQuattro

September 28th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^

Great clean hit called a penalty.I appreciate and condon the targeting rules, but this is ridiculous. Player A shoulder hits Player B's shoulder and is penalized for targeting. Ugh. These calls need to be reviewed.

Bocheezu

September 28th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^

29-0 with 7 mins to go in the first half.  They did a swinging gate 2-pt conversion and then followed that up with an onside kick.  Why they pull out all the chicanery against the Redhawks, I have no idea.

JHendo

September 28th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

Illinois is putting on a clinic right now. 5 touchdown passes for Scheelhaase and there is 5 minutes left in the 1st half! Bill Cubit knows what he's doing with that offense.

JHendo

September 28th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^

Honestly, as unlikely as that would be, I wouldn't be dissapointed with that hire. I've always liked what Cubit does as an OC. That said, while his offense can be fun to watch, not only is it a little too gimmicky at times, I dare say the spread offense ship has already sailed away from Ann Arbor...and isn't welcome back.

SalvatoreQuattro

September 28th, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^

Big Ten teams and it was hit and miss versus MAC teams. WMU did not compete seriously for MAC titles for most of his tenure as HC/OC.  This despite having quality talent  on offense.

Bill Cubit is a decent OC, but his past isn't as filled with success as Borges'. I have seen his teams play. I'm not overly impressed. Beating up on a terrible Miami team with a senior QB is not supposed to impress us. But for some odd reason it is impressing some on here.

JHendo

September 28th, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^

I went to WMU during the beginning of his tenure there and got to watch what he was able to do with Greg Jennings and Tony Scheffler. So my opinions of him are little more biased. His offense is undeniably fun to watch when it's clicking, but is definitely geared towards the MAC (I don't think he had much success as an OC in the Big East, Pac 10 or Big 12). We'll just have to see how Illinois does with their offense come conference play before we go off and start labeling him too much one way or another.

newtopos

September 28th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^

I think reasonable minds can disagree on that.  (Supporters will point to his inaugural year at Auburn, in which he had a senior Jason Campbell and two first round RBs.  Detractors will point to various other stops, and the regression his offenses experienced at every stop, including Michigan so far.)

newtopos

September 28th, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^

If Borges' big success this decade is his second year in the Mountain West, let's consider his second year at Michigan:

2010 (last year pre-Borges): 488 yds/game (Nat'l rank: 8)

2011 (first year): 404 yds/game (Nat'l rank: 42)

2012 (second year): 383 yds/game (Nat'l rank: 79)

To me, this is regression.  (And this is putting aside 2013.)  As I said, reasonable minds can disagree about Borges.  Some people may think he is a very good OC.  When I look at this career, including his times at Cal, Indiana, Auburn, and Michigan, I reach a different conclusion.  Given that Hoke is an excellent recruiter, Mattison is a very good DC, and Brandon loves Hoke, it's likely we will have Borges (and maybe even Funk) for many years, with good (but not elite) teams and mediocre to good offenses at best.  In other words, a very clean program (with likeable coaches) that has a lot of 9-4 years.  This may remind you of another period in our history.    

SalvatoreQuattro

September 28th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^

A poorly-conceived  offense would not be able to do that. You also forget how young the starting QB is in terms of playing experience. Gardner has 9 games experience as a starting QB. Now add in a young interior OL and it should not surprise us that they are up-and-down.

 

Your two examples have ran the same offenses for a decade or more. In no way is UM, which is still transitioning to manball, comparable to either Oregon or Wisconsin. It's easy to produce when every starter has been recruited and trained specifically for that offense. Both of those teams are also more experience than UM is on offense.