Patience Needed with whole team and coaching staff
It isn't fun to see your team lose. Results are the only thing that matter, in a sense. And yet, from my perspective, we have seen tremendous results. Michigan was in both the MSU and Iowa games. We simply don't have across the board skill on our team right now, and it won't happen overnight. We aren't strong enough, big enough, skilled enough, fast enough, and experienced enough to regularly win games like these. At least we know Michigan isn't going to go 3 - 9 in Hoke's first year. Coaching will allow us to steal some games, but not all.
As painful as it is, I think we need to be patient with Hoke, with Borges, with Mattison, with Denard. There comes a time when paitence no longer cuts it. We are not at that time, not this year, and not next year.
I feel so confident that by 2013, we will see a vastly improved team. Hoke has the support of the AD and the University. He has a crack recruiter in Mattison. We already have the best football recruiting class in many years.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^
The only thing that pisses me off is we had 10 of 11 players returning from a top 10 offense and the OC can't seem to figure out how to use them.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^
There's a thread for that.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:34 PM ^
Damn it, thought there was only an app...
November 5th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^
Failing against technically sound and physical defenses. The problem is that UM does not have a quarterback who can run this offense. Borgas is making things worse by not installing more screens to help Denard get into a rhythm. Michigan really needs a QB who can run a pro style and throw consistently well whether on the run or from the pocket. Denard is an option quarterback. Nothing more, nothing less.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
Except you'd have a quarterback with another year in the system, instead it's like Denard is a first year starter again. Instead of spending tons of time learning a new system, he could have been perfecting the old system and learning ways to beat the fundamentally sound defenses.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^
There's no reason that, with a passable gameplan, we should not have been able to put up 30-35 points today. Last year's offense combined with this year's defense (impossible, I know) would have won this game going away.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:11 PM ^
Denard's tendency to throw off his back foot and issues with accuracy would be there, the BIg Ten would have a year of data to use to defend Denard in the spread, and would have FItz elevated his game in the spread offense? I'd like to think so, but we will never know. There are too many variables for me to accept your assumption of the offense improving enough to beat MSU or Iowa.
<br>
<br>
November 5th, 2011 at 11:27 PM ^
That is not a vaguely technically sound defense. Unless you think IU and Minny have great offenses?
November 6th, 2011 at 1:44 AM ^
Minny just put up 24 on the best defense in the conference
November 6th, 2011 at 1:00 AM ^
What would have happened if Gray had been healthy against us? The big problem for Michigan is we have no big play threat any more. Denard is not a big play threat now. Teams have figured out how to stop him. The fact that he cannot complete a pass means every team we play for the rest of season will put 8 or 9 men in the box and dare Robinson to pass. With performances like has been having, especially against Iowa, that's a recipe for losses. We might beat Illinois, though I doubt it, but Nebraska and OSU should shut this offense down quickly.
Remember Posey comes back for OSU against us and he will make Miller look like an all-american. We don't have a fast enough, or big enough DB to stay with him. I don't want to be negative, but realistically I think we're looking at 7-5 again or maybe 8-4 if we get lucky.
If the play calling and the execution don't improve dramatically, next season might be a losing record with the schedule.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^
November 6th, 2011 at 12:19 AM ^
November 5th, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^
that was NOT a top 10 offense! we sucked against any defense with a pulse. they won 0 games against ranked teams or event decent teams...mostly getting exposed as frauds when it mattered most...and collecting yards in garbage time.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^
Minnesota put up more points against both Iowa and MSU then we did. What ranked team have we beat this year? Have we even beat a decent team this year or are you counting ND who we got extremely lucky against as our punt passes couldn't be found by ND DBs.
We lost by two TDs against State and didn't move the ball hardly at all (not much different score wise, but much less yardage). It took a miracle and five ND turnovers to beat a team we had beaten the last two years.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
You forget that it took an almost miracle to beat ND last year too.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^
The only thing that pisses me off is we had 10 of 11 players returning from a top 10 offense
This is only true if you count Stonum as a returning starter. It also overlooks the serious depth issues we have at QB, OL and TE. Last year we had more depth at all three of those positions. We could lose Denard and plug in Forcier. We could lose Koger and plug in Webb. We basically had three starting OTs last year. And so on. This year, the left side of our line is banged up, we have only one functional TE, and we have to hope and pray Denard never gets hurt because there's a colossal dropoff to Gardner.
People talk about this offense like it's unusually stacked with talent. I don't think it is. If anything, I'd say it's less talented than a typical Michigan offense over the past 30 years. How many sure-fire future NFL guys do we have? Lewan, probably. A few other guys have a shot (Molk, Koger, maybe Hemingway, maybe Denard at WR) but are hardly can't-miss.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:47 AM ^
There is no way you can say a team from the 80s would stand a chance against this year's team. The athletes from then are not even close to what we have today. Even the early 90s teams would have a difficult time against average teams from this era.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:24 AM ^
yeah...that Lawrence Taylor, Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith, Jim Harbaugh, Anthony Carter, Mike Messner, blah blah blah etch etc etch x 100000000000 players...
yeah none of those guys could compete vs. todays players.. yeah right.
and in the 90s when we had RBs all on the same team: Biakabatuka, Wheatley, Rickey Powers, Bunch...on the heels of Boles, Hoard, even John Vaughn...etc...yeah those guys couldnt play today either... uh huh...riiiiiiggggght.....really buying that argument. not.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:49 AM ^
Mike Hart? Chad Henne? Chris Perry? Braylon Edwards? Great Michigan players, but not so much in the pros. I don't care about NFL guys. I care about what they do at Michigan. Where have all these sure fire NFLers been the last couple years that should have been here from two staffs ago? There was exactly one and he was a product of Mike Barwis and his own desire because under LC he was just an overweight going nowhere type.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:28 AM ^
oohh yeah....that "Fat" True Sophomore Brandon Graham who had 8.5 sacks under Carr...(after dropping 30lbs from his fresh year under GITTLESON, see below) yeah he totally sucked without the Incredible Barwis
(still rolling my eyes at the revisionist spin thrown down here)
Lloyd Carr era
Graham arrived at Michigan measuring 295 pounds (134 kg) and 6 feet 2 inches (1.88 m).[33] Graham was initially listed as a linebacker at Michigan,[34] but before the 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season started for the 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team he switched to defensive end.[35] Graham was (along with Greg Matthews, Carlos Brown, Brandon Minor and Stevie Brown) one of five true freshmen to play in the season opening game.[36] Graham was the backup for 2006 Lombardi Award and 2006 Ted Hendricks Award winner LaMarr Woodley.[33] Graham also performed as a reserve defensive tackle during the season.[37] Graham made his first tackle for Michigan on October 28 against Northwestern and recorded his first sack and forced fumble on November 11 against Indiana.[1]
As the 2007 Michigan Wolverines football team prepared for the 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season, Graham got some unusual news off the field when he found out that he had been given a perfect 99 rating in the NCAA 2008 EA Sports even though his star teammates Chad Henne, Jake Long and Mike Hart had not.[38] Also, off the field, Graham was issued a ticket playing loud music in a vehicle on July 24 and missed the September 18 court date after pleading not guilty. This caused a judge to issue an arrest warrant for failing to appear in court on a disorderly conduct charge.[39] The charges were dropped under the belief that he had been misidentified.[40] At the start of training camp, he weighed 262 pounds (119 kg) and was the projected starter at defensive end.[33][41] Although projected to as the starter, Graham played sparingly in the opening game loss to two-time defending FCS champions Appalachian State Mountaineers on September 1. Head coach Lloyd Carr noted his disfavor with Graham at the start of the season: "Brandon, he needs to get focused," Carr said, "and do the things that he's capable of doing."[42] He was disappointed in Graham's efforts in practice.[43] In the third game, on September 15 against Notre Dame Graham recorded 3.5 sacks in the rivalry game to help lead Michigan to its first win of the season.[44] The following week he had 1.5 sacks, a forced fumble and a fumble recovery in a victory against Penn State.[45] Over the course of the season, he started six games at defensive end.[46] He led the team in sacks with 8.5 and was second in forced fumbles with 3.[1] He ranked seventh in the Big Ten for both statistics.[47] He was a mid-season Ted Hendricks Award watch list candidate.[48]
November 6th, 2011 at 10:18 AM ^
That's been true since Lloyd's last year as a coach. Henne, Long, Super Mario, etc.
That was the last class we sent to the NFL. Every class since then has been nowhere near as talented.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^
Do you mean the "top ten offense" that had all those problems once the Big Ten season started? You mean that offense?
November 6th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^
November 5th, 2011 at 10:24 PM ^
We can't complain, coaches have been awesome. But, man was the play calling frustrating today.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:24 PM ^
I resent the fact that anyone even feels the need to post this type of thing after the last three years.
November 6th, 2011 at 8:45 AM ^
what? we had almost no one in fold the last three years that wasn't an underclassman.
After three years of rebuilding, with that many returning starters on both sides of the ball and mostly UPPERclassmen on the field, we have every right to be pissed off.
Most expected improvement, not regression. We got it on D, not so much on O.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:24 PM ^
I hate perspective. But you are right. I just how to see denard improve for next year.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
* hope
November 5th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
I would just like one big wr who will come get the ball instead of waiting on it.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:17 AM ^
November 5th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
Patience is fine. But I think it is entirely reasonable to be pissed at this point when our playcalling on offense continually seems to go out of it's way to place our weaknesses on a pedestal. Why? How many bombs do you need to see out of Denard before you realize he can't make that throw? How many times do we need Devin to trot out there until we realize that he is not nearly the threat Denard is? Someone on another board posted something to the effect of Borges taking the B1G offensive POY and turning him into a liability.
I don't think anyone is overreacting by being pretty angry about our offensive incompetence. It isn't on the players; we have seen what they can do (see: 2010).
November 5th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
Chew up inferior opponents, struggle mightily vs inferior teams. It is the same pattern last year, but cut in a different fashion.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:04 PM ^
Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and Penn State last year. 4 touchdowns would have won the game today....10 returning starters. We are regressing on that side of the ball. I miss the spread.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:34 PM ^
You are judging last year's offense like it was a finished product, when this year it probably would have been improved upon.
That is the difference.
It is doing the same thing and that is the problem.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^
Oh you mean like those gems they produced against msu, wisconsin, iowa and osu?
What I wanted to see this year was a team that fought hard and gave itself a chance to win every game. So far thats what I have seen. Also, the defense makes plays. No longer do I fear a 3 and 22.
I am willing to bet that Michigan will win 2 of the next 3. And no matter what they will not get curb stomped by osu.
Chill people the coaching staff is building something.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:42 PM ^
I will take that bet six times a week and twice on Sundays.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:47 PM ^
You're overreacting. I'd give us at least a 50% chance in each of our last three games. We're about to play a Zook-coached team in its usual late-season swoon. This is followed by a one-dimensional Nebraska team that just lost at home to Northwestern, and then by an OSU team starting a true freshman quarterback.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:06 PM ^
not sure what your point is about Nebraska losing to Northwestern
November 6th, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^
no i think you are underreacting..
We will make Nathan SHCEUALUSE look like the next heisman throwing to Jenkins all day, and denard will be a turnover machine again, and take over as the leader in the FBS in interceptions..
November 6th, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^
What I wanted to see this year was a team that fought hard
That is what disappointed me the most today, they didn't play hard. UM didn't look like they were ready to play today, from Iowa's first series (TD) and UM's first series (dropped passes). Both sides of the ball lacked focus and energy.
This did not look like a team that was out to show everybody that they wouldn't fold like previous years. This was a very winable game and they didn't get after it.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
But they were in those games last year and year before too. Need to actually win a game vs a decent opponent at some point.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:39 PM ^
which games were we "in" last year?
We were always playing from multiple scores back at or after halftime.
| Sat, Oct 9 |
|
|
5-1 (1-1) |
| Sat, Oct 16 |
|
|
5-2 (1-2) |
| Sat, Oct 30 |
|
|
5-3 (1-3) |
| Sat, Nov 6 |
|
6-3 (2-3) | |
| Sat, Nov 13 |
|
|
7-3 (3-3) |
| Sat, Nov 20 |
|
|
7-4 (3-4) |
| Sat, Nov 27 |
|
|
7-5 (3-5) |
| PROGRESSIVE GATOR BOWL | |||
| Sat, Jan 1 |
|
|
7-6 (3-5) |
November 5th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
November 5th, 2011 at 11:00 PM ^
The largest deficit UM faced today was 11.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^
would brought home a victory. This offense is regressing.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
One, that 28 was earned in garbage time. Two, the defense would have been worse. Rich's inability to hire a decent DC kills the speculation because while the offense may have been better the defense would surely have been worse.
November 5th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^
In last year's Iowa game, we scored seven points with Denard playing QB. People forget that. Iowa held him in check. It was Tate Forcier who came off the bench at the end of the third quarter and gave the offense a lift. Denard didn't play any worse against Iowa this year than last year; we just no longer had Forcier around to step in.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:31 AM ^
Yeah and if our receiver could catch a simple pass in the red zone... and not get it bounced off his pads for an easy INT or drop others... then we would have had 28 easy....
Its about execution.
November 5th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^
Consistency will come with experience in the system. I feel as though we see both the level of play and consistency come in the next couple of years. Our Wolverines are a team on the upswing.
Tim
November 6th, 2011 at 12:59 AM ^
What do you not understand about this offense? Bill Walsh originated it and said it takes 3-4 years to perfect. Why in the hell would you want to use it at a college where your best players stay three maybe four years. It's a finesse offense (not MANBALL) that requires the QB and WRs to be on the same page and read the same thing or you get pick 6's like against State. It also requires an extremely accurate QB. Just about the stupidest style of offense that could have been brought here at this time given our personel.