2013 Michigan Wolverines Football: Strugglin'
- Thread starter sachmoney
- Start date
You think? If there's not a delay of game penalty at the 30 yard-line with a minute left, the game is over.
Call attention to what ever detail or specific player performance you want. Is anyone really happy with the trend? Things are bad, and I hold the coaching staff responsible far more than some young o linemen or a young qb who has shown in a number of games that he does have some talents.
WayBackVazquez said:
Maybe, but assuming you still take a 2 yard loss on the next play, no guarantees on a 48 or so yard FG to ice things. There were about 5 straight p[lays there for Mighigan that went very bad
Delay
2 yard loss
Punt in end zone
(nice catch by PSU)
pray for a miracle heave went right through Michigan defender hands
Pray for a miracle heave where Michigan defender mistimes his jump.
UGH, Now they play for a FG in OT and get it blocked. I hate the play for a FG scenario
This.
The decline since nd is almost indescribable.
My faith in the coaching staff, in case it's not obvious, has fallen off a cliff
At this point, move 98 to wr and get Morris some snaps. Season is already a shit sandwich.
This game made me physically ill. Badly coached, badly executed, gutless performance.
And while I get that Gardner was hardly the sole reason we lost today, I don't want to watch him quarterback this team for another year and a half. He's really really bad; probably the worst Michigan QB of my lifetime, and the difference between the way PSU got to play in the OTs was striking. Our staff is understandably afraid to put DG in a position to make mistakes, and that's one of the (many) things that cost us.
And while I get that Gardner was hardly the sole reason we lost today, I don't want to watch him quarterback this team for another year and a half. He's really really bad; probably the worst Michigan QB of my lifetime, and the difference between the way PSU got to play in the OTs was striking. Our staff is understandably afraid to put DG in a position to make mistakes, and that's one of the (many) things that cost us.
I know this is a really dumb reason, but I have never been able to totally get behind Hoke due to him not wearing a headset. Is there another coach of a major program who doesn't?
1. Gardner isn't the worst Michigan QB of the last 5 years.WayBackVazquez said:
2. Michigan was allowed to play well in OT as well. The coaching staff instead chose not to. It wasn't a decision foisted on them. It was a decision they made, a decision they've made a commitment to, and it's a decision that's going to haunt this team until they realize it's a mistake. Personally, I think they'll be fired before they realize it.
It will be very interesting to see how this develops.
On one hand:
- Brandon's coaching search was methodical, and I don't see him making a rash move relative to the staff
- hoke has brought a lot back to the program as it relates to its tradition and pride. Above all, recruiting has been strong
- the defensive turnaround under Mattison is pretty damn impressive
Yet on the other hand:
- we're in year 3 and this team is a top 40(?) team likely to win 7 or 8 games. Year 2 was so so to boot. OSU, under an undeniably elite coach, is the far better program right now in spite of recent sanctions
- the team doesn't "look" well coached in offense. Hideously bad upfront
- our OC seems intent on imposing his (out if date?) system vs using the talent he has
- Hoke himself (ahem, no headset) has not managed tough games well, especially on the road. He does not seem like a guy who can steal a game by outsmarting his opponent
I can't see how this is allowed to continue. Is Hoke forced to make changes to his staff, and, if so, what does that do to his stature as a coach? Would he even abide?
Very depressing. Really want hoke to succeed - seems like a great guy.
On one hand:
- Brandon's coaching search was methodical, and I don't see him making a rash move relative to the staff
- hoke has brought a lot back to the program as it relates to its tradition and pride. Above all, recruiting has been strong
- the defensive turnaround under Mattison is pretty damn impressive
Yet on the other hand:
- we're in year 3 and this team is a top 40(?) team likely to win 7 or 8 games. Year 2 was so so to boot. OSU, under an undeniably elite coach, is the far better program right now in spite of recent sanctions
- the team doesn't "look" well coached in offense. Hideously bad upfront
- our OC seems intent on imposing his (out if date?) system vs using the talent he has
- Hoke himself (ahem, no headset) has not managed tough games well, especially on the road. He does not seem like a guy who can steal a game by outsmarting his opponent
I can't see how this is allowed to continue. Is Hoke forced to make changes to his staff, and, if so, what does that do to his stature as a coach? Would he even abide?
Very depressing. Really want hoke to succeed - seems like a great guy.
He's turned the ball over 13 times in six games against the 100th ranked schedule in the country, leading to 41 opponent points. He is the other team's best offensive weapon in nearly every game. He makes Forcier look as conservative as Reagan on cleats.bowiac said:
He's turned the ball over 13 times in six games against the 100th ranked schedule in the country, leading to 41 opponent points. He is the other team's best offensive weapon in nearly every game. He makes Forcier look as conservative as Reagan on cleats.
Yet his athleticism is the only thing that gets us any yards. The offensive line is beyond terrible.
Yet his athleticism is the only thing that gets us any yards. The offensive line is beyond terrible.
That's horseshit. The pass protection has been perfectly adequate. Meanwhile his pocket presence and footwork are atrocious. Each and every time, as the pocket develops, he fails to step up, and instead moves to the outside where the pressure is coming from, often turning his back and risking a 20+-yard loss. He doesn't know how to play the position.
The thing about the argument you make (his athleticism is the only good thing we have going) is that it seems colorable EVERY time you have a QB who can run, but is fucking up the passing game. And that's BECAUSE he's fucking up the passing game. The OL isn't making him miss wide open receivers or fail to make a second read, or move to the pressure instead of away from it. When the QB can't play the passing position, it permits the opposition to load for run, and make the QB beat them, which in turn, makes it look like the running game sucks, and so poor Devin. But there was no problem with the OL against Central Michigan, and DG was still turning the ball over.
The "but he can get us yards with his athleticism" refrain is basically the wife who says her husband is so good to her except when he's beating her.
The thing about the argument you make (his athleticism is the only good thing we have going) is that it seems colorable EVERY time you have a QB who can run, but is fucking up the passing game. And that's BECAUSE he's fucking up the passing game. The OL isn't making him miss wide open receivers or fail to make a second read, or move to the pressure instead of away from it. When the QB can't play the passing position, it permits the opposition to load for run, and make the QB beat them, which in turn, makes it look like the running game sucks, and so poor Devin. But there was no problem with the OL against Central Michigan, and DG was still turning the ball over.
The "but he can get us yards with his athleticism" refrain is basically the wife who says her husband is so good to her except when he's beating her.
That's horseshit. The pass protection has been perfectly adequate. Meanwhile his pocket presence and footwork are atrocious. Each and every time, as the pocket develops, he fails to step up, and instead moves to the outside where the pressure is coming from, often turning his back and risking a 20+-yard loss. He doesn't know how to play the position.
The thing about the argument you make (his athleticism is the only good thing we have going) is that it seems colorable EVERY time you have a QB who can run, but is fucking up the passing game. And that's BECAUSE he's fucking up the passing game. The OL isn't making him miss wide open receivers or fail to make a second read, or move to the pressure instead of away from it. When the QB can't play the passing position, it permits the opposition to load for run, and make the QB beat them, which in turn, makes it look like the running game sucks, and so poor Devin. But there was no problem with the OL against Central Michigan, and DG was still turning the ball over.
The "but he can get us yards with his athleticism" refrain is basically the wife who says her husband is so good to her except when he's beating her.
I'm not saying he throws well, but we have zero ability to run the ball. None. Gardner is relied upon to provide the whole offense, so while I agree that he makes way too many mistakes, he's also all we have.
Regardless, it comes back to coaching bc if you think gardner's deficiencies as a passer are causing the other team to load up for the run, how do you defend the coaching staff for going back to the run-it-up-the-middle well over and over?
There is no doubt in my mind that there are a good number of offensive coordinators out there who could do a better job with this group of players.
The thing about the argument you make (his athleticism is the only good thing we have going) is that it seems colorable EVERY time you have a QB who can run, but is fucking up the passing game. And that's BECAUSE he's fucking up the passing game. The OL isn't making him miss wide open receivers or fail to make a second read, or move to the pressure instead of away from it. When the QB can't play the passing position, it permits the opposition to load for run, and make the QB beat them, which in turn, makes it look like the running game sucks, and so poor Devin. But there was no problem with the OL against Central Michigan, and DG was still turning the ball over.
The "but he can get us yards with his athleticism" refrain is basically the wife who says her husband is so good to her except when he's beating her.
I'm not saying he throws well, but we have zero ability to run the ball. None. Gardner is relied upon to provide the whole offense, so while I agree that he makes way too many mistakes, he's also all we have.
Regardless, it comes back to coaching bc if you think gardner's deficiencies as a passer are causing the other team to load up for the run, how do you defend the coaching staff for going back to the run-it-up-the-middle well over and over?
There is no doubt in my mind that there are a good number of offensive coordinators out there who could do a better job with this group of players.
The offense is non-existent without Gardner's athleticism. Fitz had 27 carries for 27 yards yesterday, with half of those coming on one carry. He gives up the ball a lot, but he's also responsible for basically 100% of the offense we do have.
We'd be 3-3 or 2-4 with Sheridan or Forcier back there.
We'd be 3-3 or 2-4 with Sheridan or Forcier back there.
Because when they try to call simple, high school level pass plays for the QB, he turns them into an adventure. The play calling has become more and more conservative as DG has demonstrated he can't execute them. The unfortunate line of thinking is that they'd rather see if FItz and the blocking can out-talent the opposition, and break a run once in a while, or wait for the defense to make a play. Which is better than the alternative, ie Gardner throwing a pick six.twibnotes said:
Gardner will not be the starting QB by the end of this season, and the team will be much better off for it.
Definition of insanity yada yada. You're not going to win any games handing it off when your o-line is pushed 5 yards off the line of scrimmage consistently.
At least the adventures of Gardner gives you a chance of putting up some points. A better coaching staff would leverage what he does well and minimize what he does poorly. We're getting the worst of both worlds. The third quarter looked like Borges' "a-ha" moment, but when the game was on the line, back to manball, which clearly doesn't work. All this is tolerable if you have a coach who is integrally involved with in-game strategy and can get on the headset and tell the OC, "we need to get back to what we were doing in the 3rd. No more fitz-up-the-gut"
You guys act like they're trying to run some Stephen Hawking/Bobby Fischer adaptation of a west coast offense with Gardner. You're absolutely right that he's a square peg in a round hole, but the round hole just needs a peg that's capable of throwing a 7-yard pass without giving up a pick six. And by the way, he was touted as a pass-first QB; he wants to be a pass-first QB; it just turns out he sucks at it.
The suggestion that Forcier or any other replacement level FBS QB would be 2-4 is just laughable. DG has had basically three games that were net positive: ND, Central Mich, and Minny. CMU and minnesota were going down at home to us with bowiac at QB. While DG played well at home against Notre Dame, you can't say Forcier couldn't have done the same. Pretty sure I recall him playing a decent game against them once.
More likely is that the two near-losses to FCS-level teams would have been comfortable wins if it not for our embarrassing QB play. And much more likely that if our QB didn't give up 3 turnovers leading directly to 14 points for PSU (and likely costing us another 6 points from his ineptitude at around the PSU 30 yard-line in the 1st and 4th quarters), we win that game in regulation.
The suggestion that Forcier or any other replacement level FBS QB would be 2-4 is just laughable. DG has had basically three games that were net positive: ND, Central Mich, and Minny. CMU and minnesota were going down at home to us with bowiac at QB. While DG played well at home against Notre Dame, you can't say Forcier couldn't have done the same. Pretty sure I recall him playing a decent game against them once.
More likely is that the two near-losses to FCS-level teams would have been comfortable wins if it not for our embarrassing QB play. And much more likely that if our QB didn't give up 3 turnovers leading directly to 14 points for PSU (and likely costing us another 6 points from his ineptitude at around the PSU 30 yard-line in the 1st and 4th quarters), we win that game in regulation.
I think the key to the debate is the answer to this question: how much of gardner's poor performance is attributable to coaching?
We could probably go around and around debating that. My bias when it comes to college football is that coaching has a massive impact on player performance. Seeing what bill O'Brien did with mcgloin and that psu offense last year is highly instructive IMO.
For what it's worth, I really liked forcier as a passer. Unfortunately, he was just not a guy who wanted to be a student athlete.
It's the line.
They are physically weak and cannot move mediocre DLs off the spot. At all.
Pass pro is occasionally all right because they are yielding ground. DG has actually done much better stepping up and through the pocket in the last two weeks rather than running and spinning backwards.
DG is a turnover machine, but Bowiac is right... He is 100% of the offense right now. Morris would get absolutely destroyed if he was inserted now.
Fitz and Green are tentative, because there are ZERO holes to run through.
Also, WBV, I'm guessing you are too young to remember Demetrius Brown, a rocket-armed lefty who had one of the strongest arms you'll ever see. Unfortunately, he locked in on receivers and was not particularly accurate, and once famously threw 7 (yep, SEVEN) interceptions against Michigan State in a 1987 game that somehow Michigan had a chance to win before succumbing 17-11 in E. Lansing.
That game and Brown's performance almost single-handedly put Bo in his grave...
They are physically weak and cannot move mediocre DLs off the spot. At all.
Pass pro is occasionally all right because they are yielding ground. DG has actually done much better stepping up and through the pocket in the last two weeks rather than running and spinning backwards.
DG is a turnover machine, but Bowiac is right... He is 100% of the offense right now. Morris would get absolutely destroyed if he was inserted now.
Fitz and Green are tentative, because there are ZERO holes to run through.
Also, WBV, I'm guessing you are too young to remember Demetrius Brown, a rocket-armed lefty who had one of the strongest arms you'll ever see. Unfortunately, he locked in on receivers and was not particularly accurate, and once famously threw 7 (yep, SEVEN) interceptions against Michigan State in a 1987 game that somehow Michigan had a chance to win before succumbing 17-11 in E. Lansing.
That game and Brown's performance almost single-handedly put Bo in his grave...
The pass protection is not "adequate" FWIW. It just seems that way because Gardner's athleticism allows him to dodge the 1-2 free rushers they allow on most plays. We take it for granted because he does it so successfully and consistently, but you replace him with someone marginally less agile, and those are just sacks. Shane Morris would be applying for a medical redshirt if he were back there. It's the same guys getting crushed on run blocking and pass blocking. It's crazy to think the same linemen who can't maintain a block well enough for us to average more than 1 yard per carry with a gut run are all of a sudden adequate in pass protection.
Gardner will be the QB for as long as he's healthy this year, and I'd bet he's the QB for all of next year too, simply because as dumb/retrograde as Al Borges is, he's not dumb enough to think Gardner causes more problems than he solves.
Gardner will be the QB for as long as he's healthy this year, and I'd bet he's the QB for all of next year too, simply because as dumb/retrograde as Al Borges is, he's not dumb enough to think Gardner causes more problems than he solves.
Bonus: If they somehow lose to Indiana next week, then bowl eligibility is seriously in doubt. They will be pick-em or underdogs in every game after that (you know, unless they make schematic changes, in which case I think they can still challenge OSU).
It's the same guys getting crushed on run blocking and pass blocking. It's crazy to think the same linemen who can't maintain a block well enough for us to average more than 1 yard per carry with a gut run are all of a sudden adequate in pass protection.
I'm sure it does seem crazy to you, since you never played the game and have only been following football for about 4 years, but run blocking and pass blocking are distinct skills, and it's fairly common for a unit to be good at one and flawed at the other. The pass blocking has been fine; certainly about ten times better than the qb decision making.
I'm sure it does seem crazy to you, since you never played the game and have only been following football for about 4 years, but run blocking and pass blocking are distinct skills, and it's fairly common for a unit to be good at one and flawed at the other. The pass blocking has been fine; certainly about ten times better than the qb decision making.
Besides the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to how long I've been following football, it's also not fairly common for a unit to be apoplectically awful at one part of the game and adequate at the other, no.WayBackVazquez said:
I'm inclined to bet Michigan honestly, simply because I think Hoke will be embarrassed enough by this to nudge Borges into letting Gardner actually use his skillset. I'm expecting a surprisingly easy Michigan win next week, just in time for a bye week to practice power running against Michigan State.Dgilpin said:
Your consistency across subject matters is refreshing. Whether it's judicial philosophy, gambling, or running football offenses, I appreciate that you do a little reading (Barnwell's blog, Sagarin's ratings, Posner's books), adopt a smarter person's stance as your own, and then run with it, no matter how little you actually know about the subject. I expect a bowiac-led offense would have "a decided schematic advantage," just as any law school would be lucky to have you teach law and economics, credentials be damned.bowiac said:
That said, it is common, Coach Lombardi, for a line to be good at one aspect and not the other. Take a look at the FO or FF rankings for OLs by run and pass and each year, you'll find teams that are in the top 10 in one, bottom 10 in the other. Last year's Browns and Bengals (I'm sure you'll explain away the Broncos) come to mind. Then put that big OL brain of yours to the question of whether such a diff entail might be even more pronounced at the college level. Consider the 2004 Wolverines. I know you hadn't adopted Michigan yet then, but that unit was very good at run blocking and piss poor at pass protection (Long as the notable exception). Our freshman QB mostly flourished despite getting beaten up. Because he didn't throw it to the other team three times every game.
Also, I do not think "apoplectically" means what you think it means.
Ignoring your little screed against the wisdom of considering the opinions of other people, substantively, a couple points:
1. The Michigan line gives up free rushers with regularity. You're just not noticing them because Gardner so effectively eludes them, and your hatred of all things Devin Gardner apparently blinds you to this. This isn't an offensive line that looks good in pass blocking that I'm saying can't be because they're so ineffective run blocking. They look to be bad pass blocking. Plus they're bad at run blocking. I'm suggesting that perhaps those two things aren't unrelated. You're welcome to continue on about the "adequacy" of the pass blocking, free rushers be damned.
2. The Football Outsiders numbers do not support your claim. The correlation between their run blocking numbers and their pass blocking numbers is extremely high (0.907 last year) - i.e. you can predict the vast vast majority of a line's efficacy in run blocking or pass blocking (per FO at least) by looking at the counterpart ranking. Now I think FO is overstating it (they find almost no difference between run blocking and pass blocking), but I don't see what you're talking about there.
I don't subscribe to Pro Football Focus, so I can't evaluate their pass blocking vs. run blocking numbers.
1. The Michigan line gives up free rushers with regularity. You're just not noticing them because Gardner so effectively eludes them, and your hatred of all things Devin Gardner apparently blinds you to this. This isn't an offensive line that looks good in pass blocking that I'm saying can't be because they're so ineffective run blocking. They look to be bad pass blocking. Plus they're bad at run blocking. I'm suggesting that perhaps those two things aren't unrelated. You're welcome to continue on about the "adequacy" of the pass blocking, free rushers be damned.
2. The Football Outsiders numbers do not support your claim. The correlation between their run blocking numbers and their pass blocking numbers is extremely high (0.907 last year) - i.e. you can predict the vast vast majority of a line's efficacy in run blocking or pass blocking (per FO at least) by looking at the counterpart ranking. Now I think FO is overstating it (they find almost no difference between run blocking and pass blocking), but I don't see what you're talking about there.
I don't subscribe to Pro Football Focus, so I can't evaluate their pass blocking vs. run blocking numbers.
"Considering" does not means blindly adopting. I'm reminded of your best bet of the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. Barnwell says safeties never happen, I'm all over that!" Never mind that the statistics he cited were off by about 50%, and you didn't bother to check.
As to the other points, you're wrong, as usual. You decided sometime in the last year or two years (after reading a blog post, apparently) that a) Gardner was a very good QB, and b) that Hoke was "on the wrong side of history" because he doesn't prefer to run the spread. Since then, it's nonstop confirmation bias, and you use offensive line and coaching--notoriously difficult to evaluate statistically--as your favorite tools. But there are three games we're talking about with this team: Akron, Uconn, and PSU; Gardner has turned the ball over 10 times against that suck. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and throws nothing but ducks, it may just be that your QB is a duck.
EDIT: also, serious question, why do you root for this team? You've never had a coach you liked at the helm of it, nor from what I can tell, liked a team overall. Why do you let two recent years you spent in Ann Arbor force you to root for such a shit show? There are so many ZOMG spread teams you have nearly as long a history with.
As to the other points, you're wrong, as usual. You decided sometime in the last year or two years (after reading a blog post, apparently) that a) Gardner was a very good QB, and b) that Hoke was "on the wrong side of history" because he doesn't prefer to run the spread. Since then, it's nonstop confirmation bias, and you use offensive line and coaching--notoriously difficult to evaluate statistically--as your favorite tools. But there are three games we're talking about with this team: Akron, Uconn, and PSU; Gardner has turned the ball over 10 times against that suck. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and throws nothing but ducks, it may just be that your QB is a duck.
EDIT: also, serious question, why do you root for this team? You've never had a coach you liked at the helm of it, nor from what I can tell, liked a team overall. Why do you let two recent years you spent in Ann Arbor force you to root for such a shit show? There are so many ZOMG spread teams you have nearly as long a history with.
I decided that Gardner was competent based on watching him play. So did a lot of other people. You're the only one I know of who thinks he's worse than Nick Sheridan.WayBackVazquez said:
I evaluated offensive line play using my eyes - I never cited to statistics - I cited to free rushers. You're the one who suggested looking at FO and PFF data to evaluate it. You've gone round the bend here.
I don't like Hoke's stated preferred offensive philosophy because it causes Michigan to lose games, because the reasoning behind the spread is strong, and because the numbers strongly support its overall efficacy. I don't know what else to tell you. The blog post you reference is encapsulation of that point, not the genesis of it. I've been a spread fan a lot longer than this year. Not that it would matter if that blog post was the genesis - it doesn't address the substance of the points.
As for your continued attempts to belittle my Michigan fandom, I dunno what to tell you. I like the team because I spend a couple years going to school there, and I've been a fan since then. I didn't know 3 years enrolled at UM was the minimum amount of time required to be a fan. I don't know how to root for another team - my fandom doesn't work that way. I could just as easily ask why you root for Michigan with Gardner as the QB.
No, I haven't gone round the bend, that's the point. Despite all statistical evidence that demonstrates that Gardner has been a mess, you cite to "your eyes" to prove that it's actually the OL's fault. My eyes tell me otherwise. You then asked how could the OL could be adequate at pass-blocking, when the RUN GAME was bad. A pretty stupid thing to say, really.bowiac said:
You can root for whom you like. It was a question. I root for this team even though DG is QB because I know he won't be around forever. But sorry to break it to you, Brady Hoke is going to be around as long as he likes. And FWIW, I started following Michigan because of a family connection a couple of decades before I went to law school there. It was one factor in my choosing the place; surely not as big a reason as the increased likelihood of you ascending to the Supreme Court, but a reason nonetheless.
Like I said, I'd certainly be interesting in something to indicate that the skills that make you good at run blocking are unrelated to the skills that make you good as pass blocking. They're obviously not the same thing, but there's also a relationship.WayBackVazquez said:
Statistically, Gardner's been fine. He ranks 46th in Passer Rating, 36th in total QBR, 54th in adjusted QBR. That's not good, but that's not worse than Nick Sheridan. I think his talent is better than that - he's playing pretty close to the floor of his abilities because of schematic issues. He's not good, but he's the best thing the offense has going for it.
And yeah, sadly you're probably right. Hoke's leash is pretty long. I think the ship will ultimately be righted, and they'll routinely be in the mix for being the 2nd best team in the conference. That's probably too good to get fired. Sort of a poor man's Lloyd Carr.
Furthermore, we saw Gardner play some good football last year. Whether that was a function of the line, the playcalling or both, it demonstrates how wrong it is to pin this team's failures on him alone.
I really think the bellomy injury is killing this team. Borges and Hoke have referenced their concern about running Gardner bc he has no backup. Morris isn't ready, and they know he'd get murdered behind the garbage o-line.
That "poor man's Lloyd Carr" comment is a gut punch. If that's who he is, the leash shouldn't be long...otherwise spare me the "this is michigan" stuff bc accepting that kind of situation is not consistent with trying of build a championship caliber team.
I think that was the best weekend of football we've seen from Michigan all season. Really impressed with what the team did.
Also, AJ Williams suspended for Beat Sparty. OWI.
Also, AJ Williams suspended for Beat Sparty. OWI.
Been watching this game off and on, along with the other games. How many times has Gardner been sacked today? Good Lord, every time I turn to it, he's getting sacked and/or facing 3rd and a mile
Coaching is a problem.
The oline is terrible but the coaches are partially responsible for that. Further, Borges et al had two weeks to prepare and clearly did a horrendous job. How many times do you have to see toussaint turnstiling guys into Gardner before you change the protection scheme?
Dave Brandon is jacking up the ticket prices and at times even disrespecting tradition (eg, alt unis), yet this team is mediocre. Natives are about to get extremely restless.
The oline is terrible but the coaches are partially responsible for that. Further, Borges et al had two weeks to prepare and clearly did a horrendous job. How many times do you have to see toussaint turnstiling guys into Gardner before you change the protection scheme?
Dave Brandon is jacking up the ticket prices and at times even disrespecting tradition (eg, alt unis), yet this team is mediocre. Natives are about to get extremely restless.
Agree. Definition of insanity.
Worst OL in at least 30 years. No noticeable improvement there since week 1.
Not a tough team at all. In Bruins terms, a very low compete level.
Just a wretched performance in virtually all phases. Especially disappointing coming off a bye.
Silver lining: for the pounding he took, Gardner protected the ball. He was pulverized out there.
Worst OL in at least 30 years. No noticeable improvement there since week 1.
Not a tough team at all. In Bruins terms, a very low compete level.
Just a wretched performance in virtually all phases. Especially disappointing coming off a bye.
Silver lining: for the pounding he took, Gardner protected the ball. He was pulverized out there.
Program needs to be reevaluated at this point. I'm not calling for Hoke's head, but I think some changes are necessary. Hoke promised a tough, physical team, and this team is a far way off from being that. The offensive line especially. That's all I'll say. I don't want to waste time writing 1,000 words on this team.
The o-line is the fundamental problem with this team (shocking insight, I know). That being said, I keep vacillating between the "they're young" and "poorly coached" explanations. In reality, it's likely both. But, I keep coming back to the fact that this line couldn't really handle UConn or Akron, forget about real B1G d-lines. And that points to coaching/scheme as bigger issues than youth. Michigan has one of the worst offensive lines in the country...in all of FBS football. If we're to believe that player recruit rankings have any merit (I believe they do), the line should not be performing this poorly. I've heard elsewhere that having experienced interior linemen can compensate for young tackles, whereas the converse clearly isn't the case (see: every game this year). Is that an accurate statement? If it's not, this team will not be better next year and Hoke will really be on the hotseat.
However, I think it's very important to give almost any coach (and certainly one at a major football program) 4-5 years to establish themselves. Hoke didn't get a full recruiting class his first year, so I lean towards 5 (although next year's results will impact that analysis). It is certainly disheartening to see Michigan so overmatched like this, but I think the alternatives are much worse. Moreover, Hoke's recruiting has been terrific and if he keeps getting excellent classes, it wouldn't be the worst outcome to let him fill in the pipeline for another year or 2 before getting a different Xs and Os guy in there to coach them up and win ballgames. Nevertheless, the coaching staff's inability to correct the curent team's problems, specifically the o-line, is concerning and will not be forgotten down the road (if the staff actually make that far).
However, I think it's very important to give almost any coach (and certainly one at a major football program) 4-5 years to establish themselves. Hoke didn't get a full recruiting class his first year, so I lean towards 5 (although next year's results will impact that analysis). It is certainly disheartening to see Michigan so overmatched like this, but I think the alternatives are much worse. Moreover, Hoke's recruiting has been terrific and if he keeps getting excellent classes, it wouldn't be the worst outcome to let him fill in the pipeline for another year or 2 before getting a different Xs and Os guy in there to coach them up and win ballgames. Nevertheless, the coaching staff's inability to correct the curent team's problems, specifically the o-line, is concerning and will not be forgotten down the road (if the staff actually make that far).