What Went Wrong: Michigan State (from Maize n Brew)
In the spirit of trying to figure out just how much Borges, Gardner, or the OL screwed the pooch in Saturday's game, I went through a few plays in the first half and pulled some pictures to show the breakdowns that it looked like were the biggest reasons Michigan struggled.
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2013/11/5/5068640/michigan-state-what-went-wrong
It is by no means scientific or complete, but I think it sheds a little more light on some of Michigan's offensive issues in this game and overall this season.
(Big credit to Space Coyote for talking me through a lot of these things, as well as Brian for years of UFRs)
November 5th, 2013 at 9:32 PM ^
Also, what is your solution? I know you don't actually have one but can you at least make one up? I'm willing to deal with transitional pains because I believe the payoff will be worth it. If we Fire Borges we are likely to experience more transitional pains with a new OC.
November 5th, 2013 at 9:47 PM ^
If he thinks Al's really got it figured out, fine. If not, make a change. His choice. Not the fans or the AD. Give him his five years with full support and full control and then see where we are. At that point judge him according to the other top coaches around the country who got the same time to build a program, and judge him in comparison to the strength of those respective programs in year 4 and 5.
We made the bed, now it's just time to lie down and take whatever's coming.
November 5th, 2013 at 9:50 PM ^
I didn't ask that. I asked what is PurpleStuff's solution. That is a rather mild stance to have for all the bombastic rhetoric you've been throwing out.
November 5th, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^
I do not own a time machine. If I could go back in time and tell Dave Brandon what I suggested above, I certainly would. I'm pretty sure he could still have hired Brady Hoke in 2013 if it all really did go to shit.
November 6th, 2013 at 12:06 AM ^
I know you're "witty" and intentionally vague so that people can't hold you to any specific stance and therefore you can argue against their interpretations because "technically" you didn't say it. But are you implying that you would have preferred that Brandon kept Rich Rodriguez? If so, I will play along.
Let's go back to that near undefeated season you previously referenced. Perhaps had Rich Rodriguez been around we would have won the game against Iowa. I'll give you that. However, that is assuming he would have been able to hire a DC as good as Mattison. Anyway, Rich Rod's 2010 outfit only put up a meager 17 points against MSU (your response: "3 MOAR THAN BORGES!!!") which is barely better than the 14 put up in 2011. That same 2010 team only put up 7 points on Ohio State, 33 less than the 2011 team. Although Tressell was no longer coach in 2011, Fickell was the DC under Tressell in 2010. The 2010 team also capped off that banner year by only scoring 14 points in their bowl game to finish the season 7-6. The 2011 team scored 23 points in their bowl game, finishing 11-2. Additionally, the 2011 offense averaged slightly more than a half a point more/game than the 2010 offense (33.31 in 13 games to 32.77 in the same number of games).
If you compare Rich Rod's three years vs. Hoke's three years, the offense has averaged over six more points/game under Hoke (33.65 to 27.51). This years offense is averaging more points/game than any previous year under Hoke or Rodriguez at 37.88 over eight games. Even with the Indiana game removed (34.29 in seven games) the statement still stands. For comparison, Rich Rod's 2010 offense averaged 32.77 points/game. This doesn't even take into account the defensive side of the ball.
Under Rodriguez Michigan's defenses gave up on average 30.55 points/game. Under Hoke Michigan has only surrendered 21.41 points/game. In 2011, with Rodriguez's guys, "Hoke & Co" only gave up 17.38 points/game. Those same group of guys gave up 35.23 points/game in 2010. This year's defense is the "worst" under Hoke when it comes to scoring giving up 27 points in eight games. That is still a half a point better than Rodriguez's best unit in 2009.
What's the point? It seems as though you think the previous guy could have done a better job than Hoke and Borges. It seems as though you think we should have stuck it out during his transitional period. Perhaps you think Michigan needed a new DC, not a new head coach. I think the numbers speak for themselves. Hoke has been definitively more successful during his transitional period and in the midst of his worst season yet has this team on pace to make a bowl and feasibly win 8 games. Not to mention they are averaging more points/game than any previous Hoke or Rodriguez outfit. In other words, barring a major collapse, Hoke's worst year has been better than Rodriguez's best. If this is the type of production that this coaching staff can get from players they didn't recruit and young talent that they did recruit, I am confident that they will be successful with a depth chart full of veterans that they hand picked themselves.
November 6th, 2013 at 1:06 AM ^
I know you're "witty" and intentionally vague so that people can't hold you to any specific stance and therefore you can argue against their interpretations because "technically" you didn't say it.This is why I've learned not to go down the PurpleStuff rabbit hole. I think he is a smart guy, and we've shared a lot of the same opinions in the past, but arguing with him is futile. It inevitably turns into a meta discussion about the discussion itself. Within 3 posts he will be telling you how when he said green is purple what he actually meant is that it's orange.
November 5th, 2013 at 6:36 PM ^
Keep on twisting!!!
Don't worry, you'll get there.!You're just at the first picture for now!
WEEEEEEE!!!!!
November 5th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
And probably 5-6 pop passes. A lot of other short routes, like slants and hitches, will be covered up all day by MSU's defensive scheme.
November 5th, 2013 at 5:34 PM ^
all I am saying is that if the answer is that our quarterback can't throw a wide receiver screen or a quick hitch, have we not found a signficant source of the problem.
For the record, I didn't say Gardner can't ... I asked if perhaps that was a contributing factor.
I tend to ask questions here because (a) I like to stir up discussion and (b) I don't for a moment think I have the answers.