How long until we hear about possible coaching changes for Michigan?

Submitted by Benvom on December 30th, 2013 at 5:51 PM

How long is it before we hear about possible coaching changes within the Michigan football coaching staff? As stated by Mangus in this article: http://touchthebanner.blogspot.com/2013/12/kansas-state-31-michigan-14.html#comment-form there have been rumors of Mallory looking for a coaching job at a smaller school, and Jackson possibly retiring. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Mallory and Jackson go. Al Borges, Dan Ferrigno, and Darrell Funk have also got to be on the hot seat. How long do you think it will be before we hear any news about possible coaching changes?

Comments

lazyfoot10

December 30th, 2013 at 6:36 PM ^

Okay he likes Funk, but what about the other 4 non NFL prospects on the line?

Plus, you can't make anything from these quotes. They aren't allowed to say anything even close to negative.

Too bad Lewan, Funk's line did not produce. He should get canned.

bacon1431

December 30th, 2013 at 5:58 PM ^

There needs to be some changes of some sort. If none are made, it's just a sign that we are complacent with the results this season. If the players see some of their coaches depart, that will be a wake up call for them too IMO. I'm on the fence on Funk, Borges should go but he won't IMO. Jackson needs to retire IMO, move Manning over to RB coach and hire a Qb coach. JMO

lazyfoot10

December 30th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^

Never, because even though the offense was abysmal, there will be no changes.

"The players just need to execute", or some other bullshit reason will be given.

Reader71

December 30th, 2013 at 8:50 PM ^

Is that really bullshit? If Chip Kelly was our HC and Mike Leach was our OC, but Funchess dropped a ball or Kalis whiffed a block, would execution not be a problem?

Execution is the one 100% non-bullshit coaching platitude. Without execution, you're just drawing up plays on a chalkboard.

Oregon has a great offense. I would autofellate myself to have such an offense here. But they lost to Stanford and Arizona. Did they lose because their offense actually sucked all along? They lost because they did not execute their assignments to a degree that would have allowed them to won the game.

Memes are fun, but not as fun as thinking.

Reader71

December 31st, 2013 at 1:21 AM ^

I'm not comparing Michigan to Oregon or even the respective coaching staffs. I just use Oregon as they have a hell of an offense (we can agree on that), but even they don't execute occasionally. And they lose. We do it much more often and, thus, we lose more frequently. This does not mean that "execution" is bullshit.

lazyfoot10

December 30th, 2013 at 9:47 PM ^

Yes it is a bullshit reason as they are doing terrible jobs.

The oline is getting worse. The offense is getting worse. We aren't winning as many games. We're going the wrong way. Coaches make their players better. Our players are not getting better.

Where do you put the blame for that? The coaches for not doing their jobs? Or the players for not executing? I blame the coaches.

Reader71

December 31st, 2013 at 1:29 AM ^

Like most things in life, it is more complicated than the either/or you posit. I blame both. Frankly, execution is more important than scheme. We weren't outschemed by Iowa. We weren't outachemed by Nebraska. We weren't outschemed by Ohio. We were outplayed (read: they executed better).

But, and this is something that is very controversial for some reason, the coaches also share some responsibility for the execution of the players. Heck can't actually catch the ball for Funchess, so in my estimation the split would be something like 95-5 favoring the player.
Otherwise all players of a certain position group would be similarly capable of playing football. But that's not how it goes. Players and their abilities are what make football plays

Don

December 31st, 2013 at 1:56 AM ^

That's obviously true. However, every year at every level of organized football, a team or program that had formerly been a sad sack of ineptitude gets a new coach, and within a short period of time starts playing noticeably better, and not long after that becomes truly competitive with good teams it used to routinely lose to, and not long after that wins championships.

And it's not infrequent that many of the same players on the formerly sad sack team are playing for the newly competitive team. The reason is superior coaching, and it's the superior coaching that gets its players to execute better, among other things.

In many ways coaching a sports team at the amateur level is fundamentally all about teaching, and all of us know from personal experience how important having a good teacher is.

Reader71

December 31st, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^

Absolutely. I guess my 95-5 number was player ability vs scheme. Good players will be able to make good plays in any scheme, so long as he has the athletic ability as well as a good understanding of what the scheme asks of him. And this is where coaching is huge: getting that player to understand technique and instilling it into him so that it becomes second nature.

Here's an example of what I mean. Who is a better QB, Denard or Henne? The answer is probably that they are roughly equal in their respective schemes. Is either scheme better? I'd argue that they are roughly equal with each of the respective QB at the helm. So, scheme matters less than having the good players.

Mattavious

December 31st, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

So who is responsible for our 2011 11-win season?  In 2010 Michigan wins just 7 games and  in the next year Hoke and company come in, Michigan goes 11-2.  Did Hoke and his staff show that they are great coaches by taking that "sad sack" team to 11 wins including a Sugar Bowl victory?  If so, what do the past 2 seasons tell us?  I think we are trying too hard to simplify something that is more complex than we want to admit.  It IS the coaching, it IS the players, it IS Rich Rod's recruiting, it IS THE PROCESS, etc.  This all is of course just my opinion but I think there are way too many factors still in play just to boil it down to one of these.  I am frustrated with the last two seasons and I am frustrated with some of the playcalling(not that I'm ever 100% satisfied) but I think it would cause more harm than good to oust the coaches right now and I think it's too soon to point the finger in their direction.

Ron Utah

December 31st, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^

What's interesting is that Hoke's 2011 squad did exactly what you're describing.

Remember Gene Chizik?   And now it's Gus Malzahn?

Year one doesn't mean much.  Sustained success is the hallmark of great coaching, and, I believe, year four is the first year you can start to fully judge a coach's performance (good or bad).

Dantonio was 6-7 in '09 and vaulted to 11 regular season wins in '10.  He is currently 63-29 at MSU, but only won 22 games in his first three seasons.  Hoke has won 26.

Because of our late-season collapse, year four has become make-or-break for Hoke.  If he had one another game and competed in the bowl, he'd probably have another year to develop his team.  But because of the complete failure at the end of '13, he must win, and win big, to keep his job after 2014.

The 2014 schedule is no cakewalk.  We'll see how good Hoke is very soon.

denardogasm

December 30th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^

If someone knew, chances are it would be on the board. What is the point of speculating regarding a timeline? It's an even more pointless endeavor than speculating about the actual changes themselves.

Mattavious

December 31st, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^

I think the point is that we are all starving for answers to way too many questions right now and we're willing to try and satisfy our hunger by listening to the opinions every tom, dick, and harry until the real meal is handed to us by people who actually know what they're talking about...or at least that's why I'm here.