Good, Bad and ??

Submitted by SF Wolverine on November 24th, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Good news:  So far, Hoke & Co. have made Michigan a tough beat at the Big House.  RR years were a disaster in this regard, but we were even tailing off at home at the end of the Carr Era, losing 6 at home in his last three years.

More good news:  With a defensive-minded HC and a highly talented DC, we have again become a very effective defense.  And that was largely with RR recruits.  We have real talent on that side of the ball in the younder classes; no reason to believe that our defense will not trend up, perhaps significantly.

Bad news:  Serious offensive inconsistency, and real problems perfoming against good teams and on the road.  This team went without a touchdown in 25% of its games this year, something that had not happened at Michigan for nearly 50 years. 

???:  What to do about the bad news.  Part of me says Borges did what could be done with the hand he was dealt (Denard, slot ninjas, OL retooling, etc.).  What is troubling is what seems like obvious game-day/game plan mistakes, and a pretty strong tendancy to pound square pegs into round holes.   While Borges will have largely "his" guys next year, it's hard to make the argument that next year's offense will be better than this year's.   

To be fair to Borges, the offense seems to be largely on him; Hoke is a defensive guy by training, and that is where he seems to place the most emphasis.   I hope that Hoke and Borges can figure this out and perform more consistently.  Bowl game should tell us something about how much progress they might make next year.  

Comments

Lac55

November 24th, 2012 at 7:24 PM ^

We can't even say lets get em next week. Borges played not to lose and it got us burned. Its going to be a long month plus until the bowl game and a long year until the next time we play Ohio.

Muttley

November 24th, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^

or a pretty strong tendency to pound 5'6" pegs into absent holes

To be fair to Borges, he called a good first half.  But in the 2nd, he went brain-dead/passive.

OK, world, this is a run.  OK, world, this is a pass, but I'm going to play-action to Smith/Rawls.  OK, world, I'm going to attempt to surprise you by throwing the change-up/run-up-the-middle for the umpteenth time. (Dang, that didn't work.  Again.)

wolves5umd

November 24th, 2012 at 7:28 PM ^

I thought the problem with Borges is the strange playcalling at important times.  Why keep trying to run up the middle after it was stopped all second half.  Not to mention every play to the outside in the first half was effective.  Where was the bootleg that we have seen the last few games that seems to work for short yardage.

Also, if anyone watched the O-Line this year, you could see the interior was beat on 75% of the plays.

O-Line is the hardest position group to grow depth and ours is in need of it!  Lets hope it comes sooner than later.

 

PepperHicks

November 24th, 2012 at 7:29 PM ^

Part of the problem has been the lack of overall talent with the offense.  The line minus Lewan is mediocre, and there is no real vertical WR threat.  For that matter, we havein't had a consistent guy at RB all season.  Without the two dynamic QBs, I can't imagine where this offense would be.

Leonhall

November 24th, 2012 at 7:40 PM ^

Is weak, even lewandowski was beat a couple of times today, Gardner will get better, and that is scary, the bad thing is I have no faith in Borges going into any big game from now on. Why we stopped running the edge today and also did not bootleg Gardner more is absolutely assinine. The better team lost today.

Leonhall

November 24th, 2012 at 7:41 PM ^

Is weak, even lewan was beat a couple of times today, Gardner will get better, and that is scary, the bad thing is I have no faith in Borges going into any big game from now on. Why we stopped running the edge today and also did not bootleg Gardner more is absolutely assinine. The better team lost today.

blueheron

November 24th, 2012 at 7:42 PM ^

It has been a long time since UM has had an a$$-kicking O-line (meaning, specifically, mature NFL talent at more than one position). 2000, to be exact. Assuming the recent recruits come close to living up to their ratings, that might be the second-most pleasant part of the Hoke years.

The most pleasant part? A staff that puts real emphasis on the D-line. Hasn't consistently occurred in my lifetime ...

Jinxed

November 24th, 2012 at 7:43 PM ^

The way every player in our OL regressed badly is ugly as hell. Don't try telling me it's a talent issue because other teams in the conference have squeezed more out of their RBs with a lot less talent on their OL.

Blarvey

November 24th, 2012 at 8:53 PM ^

In the four losses, we turned the ball over an average of four times each game. By virtue of having an easier OOC schedule next year, I think we improve there if only slightly. While he hasn't played a full season and all that, I trust DG to have fewer turnovers than Denard, but also fewer chances for big scoring plays.

What I really want to see happen and think we should be able to do is create more turnovers on defense. While the D was good to decent in almost all games and great in the red zone, we only had 7 INTs and 15 sacks. I think the DL improves next year and with depth at LB we get better at causing bad throws and stripping the ball, resulting in a better TO margin.