ESPN article about Michigan Football and Nussmeier Hire

Submitted by 502sezGoBlue on April 4th, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Interesting ESPN article touching on the state of Michigan football and how Nussmeier hire was the right move. Definitely highlights our O-line, leadership, and inconsistency concerns for next year. All I'm saying is bring me that Michigan Football season, we'll be great.





April 4th, 2014 at 8:56 PM ^

It seemed almost quaint two years ago when Brady Hoke labeled the 2011 season -- one that included 11 wins and a Sugar Bowl title -- as “a failure” because the team didn’t capture a Big Ten championship. Since then, Hoke has flirted with actual failure, going just 15-11 in his second and third seasons as head coach. 

I think this is an underrated component to why people are so depressed and things appear to be worse than they probably are. Hoke didn't have great success in his coaching career, he came to a program that had been an underachiever the previous decade, and he talked big and bold. That can set you up to look like a badass or a buffoon.

After 2011, people were a little too giddy with our newfound swagger. I remember people claiming the Hoke hire was a "home run" right then and there without even considering it premature. We talked about swatting Sparty away like a fly and at least going tit-for-tat with OSU as if it was our obvious destiny. The fanbase looks as foolish as anyone right now.





April 4th, 2014 at 9:23 PM ^

We haven't been going tit for tat with OSU?

We lost by a point last year. We lost by 5 in 2012.

Would you rather go back to Rich and lose to them by 30 points, 11 points, and 35 points?

Michigan State is another story. However still better thsn the previous regime.

Mike Kenn

April 4th, 2014 at 9:53 PM ^

Thats debatable. While it is definitely true that losing sucks, I must admit that I enjoyed watching last years Ohio State game. It was entertaining and a good game. Hoke gave us a rush and almost delivered a win. Losing by 30.....thats just depressing. 


And yeah, the Michigan State game blew....


April 4th, 2014 at 11:15 PM ^

One two point conversion from winning?  I hardly agree with that..  Sure we could of got the 2 pt conversion, but Wile completely sucked at kicking off in that game... 


So say we score and take the lead, the previous kickoff Wile booted it out of bounds and OSU scored in what 30 seconds?  They would of had 47 seconds or whatever it was to march within field goal range..


The way our pathetic secondary covered guys all Miller had to do was throw it up and let someone catch it in field goal range or give it to hyde 3 plays and he would have had 50 yards


April 5th, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^

I think you guys are overlooking the wonder of "UofM" (one word) - twice - and "Chokecolumbus" in your evaluations.  Personally I was shocked he left "Urban Liar" on the cutting room floor.  Seems like that would've been an absolute given in the post.

It's a verible tapestry of neologism.


April 5th, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^

I'm starting to wonder if this is just a cleverly masked parody post created by Seth or Brian.  There are so many things wrong with it on so many levels it's breathtaking.  And the more we dig into it the more it offers in terms of wrongness (I had also missed "fourth").

This might be the Da Vinci code of posts.  


April 5th, 2014 at 1:54 PM ^

I'm 45 and when I was growing up back and forth meant if OSU or UM won 2 in a row in the series it was huge.  Bo's 3 game winning streak in the late 70's was the longest by either side that I recall seeing until Cooper arrived.


April 5th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^

The discussion was about Hoke.....not the past 10 years.  Michigan has won by six (2011), lost by five (2012) and lost by one (2013).....and that ended with a failed two point convsersion with :32 to go.

Given those results over the past three years, and the fact that you can't tie in college football, it's pretty much impossible for Brady Hoke to be more "tit for tat" with Ohio State.



April 4th, 2014 at 9:22 PM ^

“Last year, we lacked an identity,” senior defensive end Frank Clark said. “This year, the main talk around here has been to develop an identity, as a defense especially."

It's been discussed several times across several threads, but to hear a player say it is very interesting. It seems like we were all over the place philosophically, moreso on offense, and I think this is why players talking about how quick it has been to learn the basics of Nussmeier's offense has been encouraging. The identity comes from having some base plays that you can build from, and it seems that's where we're going. 


April 4th, 2014 at 9:37 PM ^

I found the James Ross III comment more interesting / disconcerting as it mirrors some of what Frank Clark said after the bowl game.  Maybe it is them just trying to explain away a miserable season but quotes like that are troubling and I don't blame it all on lack of senior leadership.  The coaches set the tone and if it was not a good one last year that starts at the top.  It shouldn't take getting punched in the mouth and to finish 8th place in a lousy conference for a wake up call.  The eye test said something was amiss last year and these comments say as much:

“A lot of guys getting on each other, but it’s positive. Last year, I don’t think we had that as much. We’re holding each other accountable now, and I think we let a lot of things slide last year.”

Mr. Yost

April 4th, 2014 at 10:19 PM ^

When you think about it...Hoke always put an emphasis on captains and on the seniors...

Our defensive captain wasn't a senior and missed half the year. Q is improving his speech by the day, but doesn't talk. Black was never the overly vocal type. Everyone else in the back 7 returns except Thomas Gordon...and he wasn't vocal. He also wasn't on the field at the end of the year.

So when you put so much emphasis on guys who aren't leaders, comfortable leading, vocal leaders or in positions to lead...this is what you get.

Now look at the team. On the DL you have Clark who is the clear leader of the DL. Also probably the best player.

You have Ryan who is the clear leader of the LB. Also your best player.

You have Countess who is the clear leader of the DBs. Also your best player.

Hoke also mentioned he is taking some of the emphasis off of the senior class. Which I always thought was funny..."seniors are our leaders...but we're inexperience and young and we're going to play youth."

It's a different sport...but if you're going to have a senior leader that isn't one of your best players. He better be Jordan Morgan or Zack Novak. Anyone remember who was the captain of the Fab Five team? Freddie Hunter. You really think ol Freddy was the leader of that team over a freshman Jalen Rose? Not a shot in hell. Difference is, that's a different sport where it really doesn't matter and those were 5 of the best basketball players in the history of Michigan basketball...even as freshman. Can't say that about Taco Charlton, Ben Gedeon and Channing freshman (or even sophomores).


April 5th, 2014 at 10:49 AM ^

I too found the Ross quote disconcertng, because it's not the first time we've read something along those lines from last year's team. If the leaders and other players aren't doing it, it's the job of the coaches to make people accountable. The atmosphere of accountability starts at the top.


April 4th, 2014 at 10:13 PM ^

empirical evidence, I'm just a Michigan guy, but I think this year we get things heading in the right direction for years to come, including wins over Sparty and Ohio. Things will finally come together.


April 4th, 2014 at 10:17 PM ^

So much of our season comes down to those two games. There are two stories of equal billing going on here: One of not winning enough overall and the other of rivalry torment. A win (or two) in either venue would be massive. Lose both and you will be hearing a lot about Hoke's hot seat going into Year 5 no matter what happens in the other games.




April 4th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^

that a season resembling anything like last year mixed with an average "Michigan" candidate out there gets Hoke fired. My Harbaugh theory may have been wrong when we hired Hoke ( I truly thought he was outright told *yes, told* he was hired to get the program/talent back to the UM mold and a chance to keep it only if he had immediate success) as I no longer think he was a stop gap to Jim or John. Yet, I still believe DB may have always viewed him that way privately. It was Jim or bust, offer or not because if never offered (0% chance, imo) it was only because he made it VERY clear he was NFL bound. No Jim and I think DB took the mentality of Hoke being a stop gap at worst. Another year like last or remotely like it and he's gone. I'd almost guarantee it.


April 5th, 2014 at 2:51 AM ^

is if he fails to win 6 games. I expect the team to improve this season but we have tough road games at ND, MSU and OSU. Plus you know we will probably suffer an upset. The team is young and really good things probably will not happen until 2015. I still think 8-4 will be a good season for us. Though, I do worry about 6-6 and 7-5 as possible records. I'm holding out hope that we will win one of the big 3 road games and finish 9-3. This will show recruits that Michigan is improving and I think top recruits will begin to come in droves. If we finish 7-5 or 6-6 then Hoke will be on the hot seat in 2015 and the only thing that could save him is winning the B1G east in 2015.


April 5th, 2014 at 7:25 AM ^

and your right to one. When hired (even before the first season bcs win) I thought he'd get all 5 years unless a candidate was willing to come that was too good to pass up OR he has years like we had last year. I actually think 2012 was not as bad as it seemed. We lost to, what, 4 of the final top 5 teams in the country? Even then, we were VERY in every one of those games outside of Bama. I think we had more turnovers vs nd then points they beat us by at home (lol), osu beat us by 5 in a game where we played offense for only one half, SC was a last second loss, etc. However, last year was an abomination. Period. IMHO, another year even close to that and we're actively looking for a new coach. Only way he stays in that scenario is if there isn't a viable candidate. Then again, if we get going I don't think he needs a playoff spot but, imo, 6 wins won't do it. Again, politely agree to disagree.

I Like Burgers

April 5th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^

If Hoke turns in another 7-6 or 8-5 type season, there will be a loud portion of the alumni calling for his head.  It'll be three subpar seasons in a row, which is deemed unacceptable here.  And from that point on the "Hoke can't get it done" mantra will be loud almost regardless of what they do in 2015.  They pretty much have to win a Big Ten championship in 2015 or the "Hoke can't get it done" chant will grow even louder.  Couple that with the fact his contract is up in 2016, you'll be facing a season with a lame duck coach.

So the program is going to have to take some serious steps forward this year or it may be best to cut tie with Hoke and give the next coach a boost with that 2015 roster going forward.


April 5th, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^

but I (and many others) don't buy it for a second. DB may have an ego or "my way or highway" personality but his main interest is cash. Winning = Cash. Heck, even being mediocre at a place like UM = Cash. Yet, winning big at a place like UM is a gold mine b/c when UM is good the entire country buys UM merch, donations go higher than the already high level when mediocre, etc. Respect your opinion/belief/what you heard so no offense but there is (IMO) no way DB "didn't want" Harbaugh. I may buy the "never officially offered" story but that's only if, again, it was made very clear to Dave that Jim was going to the NFL. Even then I think he likely offered, even if in knowing he kind of had to. IMO, almost an offer for the future of maybe the NFL not working out and letting him know he is wanted. I dunno, just my opinion that Brandon wouldn't have told him "no" if Jim wanted it because if that leaked and UM fans heard we hired Hoke over So, no offense but I choose to believe what I've heard and common sense tells me. That being that Hoke (as much as I didn't mind the hire) was in no way our first choice. We needed a "Michigan Man" after RR and the pickings are slim after those we've banished, are too early into their career, too late in their career or flat out not interested. However, I've heard the Dave wanting to have a puppet coach thing as well. I don't totally dismiss it but I think he'd have not only hired but dropped the bank on Jim.

Mr. Yost

April 4th, 2014 at 10:35 PM ^

It was a Hoke suggestion for this year...but you're right, poor wording.

I'm not as worried about it. Both are great coaches IMO, I expect our secondary to be extremely well coached this season.

I'm not as worried about the defense except for the DL unless Hoke and Mattison are still helping out. Coach Smith has something to prove IMO.

Offensively, obviously Funk has a lot to prove, I think Ferrigno does just as much because our special teams are below average in the return game and our TEs can't block to save their lives. Jackson is the other one, love him as a coach and a man, but I just think it's time to get some youth at that spot to energize the offense the way Manning does the defense.

If we fail to meet expectations again this year...I'm looking at these four position coaches and the Hoke is next. Hopefully we have a great year and everyone looks like a HOF coach.