• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

So with 1/3 of the season done, predictions moving forward

jalopy

New Member
1,557
0
0
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Blackhawk, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
GBNN, you are judging the team on a B1G standard. The conference is bad. Very bad. Regardless of W's and L's, this program needs to be judged against the best in the country and right now that is the SEC and PAC12. Michigan isn't in the top 6 in either.
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
GBNN, you are judging the team on a B1G standard. The conference is bad. Very bad. Regardless of W's and L's, this program needs to be judged against the best in the country and right now that is the SEC and PAC12. Michigan isn't in the top 6 in either.

You do remember that it was a SEC team in South Carolina that they nearly beat in the Outback Bowl last year, right?

Outside of the Alabama game (which let's be honest Alabama the past couple of years does that to everybody, including most of the SEC) Michigan has preformed quite admirably in OOC play.
 

MAIZEandBLUE09

Well-Known, and Feared, Member
23,505
2,817
293
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Is that really what you got from my post? That I was unhappy with the team's record? I re-read my post and don't quite see where you got that from but yet you state it as if fact.

I shall put it in easier words to leave less room for interpretation.

I am embarrassed by the quality of play shown by the university's football team over the last three years under this staff. I feel it is it significantly below the level that is expected from a program that is expected to consistently be among the collegiate elite. I am UNHAPPY that the team is unable to overachieve despite all the inherent advantages built into the program by the sweat of others.

I understand where you were going, I think you're just jumping the gun. I, too, have voiced displeasure with how some things are handled but given the state of the program when Hoke took over I'm not sure we can realistically expect another transition like this to go without significant bumps.

And I think you're also forgetting that while the defense did have a brain fart of a game, it came into that game ranked in the top 25 on total defense and even with that game still remains in the top 30 and is ranked 10th in rush defense. Add on to that, that the Michigan offense set multiple conference records yesterday. That's, actually, exactly the kind of performance I expect from this offense against an opponent like Indiana. I still maintain that if Michigan goes on a hot streak and wins the remaining games that somehow you'll change your tune. You're writing off a non-finished product and assuming the worst.

I'm unhappy that Lloyd removed us from CFB's "elites" towards the end of his career and we've been struggling to get back ever since. It seems to me that you're purposefully focusing on the negatives and ignoring some very positive signs of improvement and adaptability from this staff and team; putting what they did wrong under a microscope. This staff has done a good, not great, job of transitioning from what RR left. It could be better but it's certainly not an embarrassment to the program.

Not to mention that Hoke is recruiting at a level in which no Michigan coach has ever done (within the recruiting site era). Let's give them a chance to develop these guys before we judge them based on their freshman performances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jalopy

New Member
1,557
0
0
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Blackhawk, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
You do remember that it was a SEC team in South Carolina that they nearly beat in the Outback Bowl last year, right?

Outside of the Alabama game (which let's be honest Alabama the past couple of years does that to everybody, including most of the SEC) Michigan has preformed quite admirably in OOC play.

Yeah, USC was behind 'Bama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, and A&M in terms of talent in the SEC. That would put Michigan about seventh best in the SEC. Thanks for agreeing with me.
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Yeah, USC was behind 'Bama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, and A&M in terms of talent in the SEC. That would put Michigan about seventh best in the SEC. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Not so fast my friend, would you say Ole Miss is on of the best teams in the SEC, they just beat LSU. One data point a trend does not make. You cannot take that one game and interpolate where Michigan would fall in the SEC, or how they would do against Florida, Georgia, or any other team they did not play, especially if the game was a home game for Michigan or an actual neutral site (not the pseudo-neutral the Big Ten/SEC bowl matchups are). Not saying that Michigan would be in the top, but they would have done alright.
 

jalopy

New Member
1,557
0
0
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Blackhawk, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Not so fast my friend, would you say Ole Miss is on of the best teams in the SEC, they just beat LSU. One data point a trend does not make. You cannot take that one game and interpolate where Michigan would fall in the SEC, or how they would do against Florida, Georgia, or any other team they did not play, especially if the game was a home game for Michigan or an actual neutral site (not the pseudo-neutral the Big Ten/SEC bowl matchups are). Not saying that Michigan would be in the top, but they would have done alright.

Take the time to read before commenting please. Notice I said "in terms of talent". I cited nothing about the outcome of any game. If you want to take the stance that Michigan last year was superior in talent to the teams noted above, be my guest.

I can say the same thing with regard to the SEC and PAC12 this year. Objective observers are unlikely to disagree with me. I do agree that UofM might be the second best team in the B1G this year. Yippee!
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Take the time to read before commenting please. Notice I said "in terms of talent". I cited nothing about the outcome of any game. If you want to take the stance that Michigan last year was superior in talent to the teams noted above, be my guest.

I can say the same thing with regard to the SEC and PAC12 this year. Objective observers are unlikely to disagree with me. I do agree that UofM might be the second best team in the B1G this year. Yippee!

One, then it sounds like you are moving the goal posts a bit. Yes the first couple of years under Hoke there was a lack of talent (something he is quickly correcting) so what he achieved record with the talent he had is the definition of over-achievement. Rome wasn't built it in a day you know.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort when comparing talent on those teams. But to even guess how they would have ended up if they had an SEC schedule last year is a crap shoot at best. So your guess that they would have been 7th is just as worthless as if I were to say they would have won it. We don't know because they don't play in the SEC!

As for your preception of the Big Ten, is about as big as an under estimate as lot of people would have you believe. Against the SEC last year, they did quite admirably overall, and did you know since the BCS started in 1998, the Big Ten is batting just under .500 against the SEC in bowls (and that's with ~90% of the bowls in Florida, right in the heart of SEC territory). And are you really going to suggest that a team like Mizzou (who is undefeated so far) has dramatically more talent than Michigan?

It's really starting to sound like you are a bandwagon fan contemplating jumping off.
 

MAIZEandBLUE09

Well-Known, and Feared, Member
23,505
2,817
293
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Take the time to read before commenting please. Notice I said "in terms of talent". I cited nothing about the outcome of any game. If you want to take the stance that Michigan last year was superior in talent to the teams noted above, be my guest.

I can say the same thing with regard to the SEC and PAC12 this year. Objective observers are unlikely to disagree with me. I do agree that UofM might be the second best team in the B1G this year. Yippee!

I guess I'm just not understanding who you're mad at exactly or who you're trying to blame? Hoke had like 3 weeks to complete his first recruiting class and has since brought in two top 5 classes. But one can't reasonably expect those to erase everything that happened before it. Most of the elite SEC teams aren't relying on Freshman and Sophomores to make up their starting lineup. Hoke is, in fact, taking the, "advantages built into the program by the sweat of others", and using that to recruit top classes.

"in terms of talent" I'd argue that our freshman and sophomore classes are as good as any team in the SEC - the difference is that we only have 2 classes and they've been recruiting like that for 10 years. We're being forced to start these players where as they're going to sit the bench at Alabama for another year or two. Nothing heals this problem but time and recruiting.

The last time I remember Michigan being able to compete with the nations elite was the Rose Bowl where we faced Texas; and we still lost. Our talent level has declined ever since then. Even with the 2006/2007 teams - there ended up being more of a talent issue than we knew of and we, again, got beat in the Rose Bowl by USC and followed up the next year with getting dominated by Oregon and losing to App State. So this isn't a new problem.
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I guess I'm just not understanding who you're mad at exactly or who you're trying to blame? Hoke had like 3 weeks to complete his first recruiting class and has since brought in two top 5 classes. But one can't reasonably expect those to erase everything that happened before it. Most of the elite SEC teams aren't relying on Freshman and Sophomores to make up their starting lineup. Hoke is, in fact, taking the, "advantages built into the program by the sweat of others", and using that to recruit top classes.

"in terms of talent" I'd argue that our freshman and sophomore classes are as good as any team in the SEC - the difference is that we only have 2 classes and they've been recruiting like that for 10 years. We're being forced to start these players where as they're going to sit the bench at Alabama for another year or two. Nothing heals this problem but time and recruiting.

The last time I remember Michigan being able to compete with the nations elite was the Rose Bowl where we faced Texas; and we still lost. Our talent level has declined ever since then. Even with the 2006/2007 teams - there ended up being more of a talent issue than we knew of and we, again, got beat in the Rose Bowl by USC and followed up the next year with getting dominated by Oregon and losing to App State. So this isn't a new problem.

I would even say that the 2007 team had plenty of talent, remember they did beat Florida that year in the CapitalOne Bowl, and had actually quite the dominating preformance. And had Rich Rod been more willing to adapt to pro personal, he would have had Ryan Mallet at QB throwing to Arrington and Maningham his first year.
 

MAIZEandBLUE09

Well-Known, and Feared, Member
23,505
2,817
293
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I would even say that the 2007 team had plenty of talent, remember they did beat Florida that year in the CapitalOne Bowl, and had actually quite the dominating preformance. And had Rich Rod been more willing to adapt to pro personal, he would have had Ryan Mallet at QB throwing to Arrington and Maningham his first year.

As much as we like to pump up that win, it came against a Florida team that finished like 8-5. The team had talent, but it wasn't among the nations elite. They were very similar to this team in that they had some talent but they had some holes and certain teams exposed those holes along the way.
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
As much as we like to pump up that win, it came against a Florida team that finished like 8-5. The team had talent, but it wasn't among the nations elite. They were very similar to this team in that they had some talent but they had some holes and certain teams exposed those holes along the way.

True, but it was the team that was sandwiched between Meyer's two national titles while he was at Florida, and it was the year Tebow won the Heisman. May not have been the most talented team, but definetly top tier.
 

MAIZEandBLUE09

Well-Known, and Feared, Member
23,505
2,817
293
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
True, but it was the team that was sandwiched between Meyer's two national titles while he was at Florida, and it was the year Tebow won the Heisman. May not have been the most talented team, but definetly top tier.

But I don't think you'd call them elite that year. And Jalopy is correct in saying that we aren't performing at that level, my point was that we haven't been performing at that level for quite some time now. You have to probably go back to the early 2000's to find a Michigan team capable of hanging with the nation's elite. Even the 2006 team got blown out in the Rose Bowl by USC. We have a ways to go to get back to that level, but I don't think - unlike Jalopy seems to think - we can blame it on Hoke at this point. We've been sliding talent wise for some time and have only started recruiting at an elite level very recently. It's going to take at least 4 consecutive top 15 or so classes to bring our depth back to an elite level.
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
But I don't think you'd call them elite that year. And Jalopy is correct in saying that we aren't performing at that level, my point was that we haven't been performing at that level for quite some time now. You have to probably go back to the early 2000's to find a Michigan team capable of hanging with the nation's elite. Even the 2006 team got blown out in the Rose Bowl by USC. We have a ways to go to get back to that level, but I don't think - unlike Jalopy seems to think - we can blame it on Hoke at this point. We've been sliding talent wise for some time and have only started recruiting at an elite level very recently. It's going to take at least 4 consecutive top 15 or so classes to bring our depth back to an elite level.

I think "blown out" is too strong a statement. We had the talent to hang with that USC team, they just played flat and uninspired. That and the predictable play calling of Lloyd in the second half didn't do them any favors.

But back on topic, I think you and I are in agreement. Until Hoke arrived and had his first full class there were several years where Michigan was void of the talent needed, and that isn't a problem you can fix in one or two years.
 

jalopy

New Member
1,557
0
0
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Blackhawk, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think "blown out" is too strong a statement. We had the talent to hang with that USC team, they just played flat and uninspired. That and the predictable play calling of Lloyd in the second half didn't do them any favors.

But back on topic, I think you and I are in agreement. Until Hoke arrived and had his first full class there were several years where Michigan was void of the talent needed, and that isn't a problem you can fix in one or two years.

If more fans would have given the previous staff the same latitude 3 years ago, we would be top 5 in the country right now. Problem with the current direction is we don't have one elite playmaker at the skill position recruited by Hoke. He has gotten by with the leftovers (DR, DG). Green is the highest rated skill position player recruited by Hoke and he is well on his way to being a bust. At the very least, he will need the OL to excel just to save face.

I've heard this argument so many times and it never pans out. Coaches that aren't successful in year 3 won't suddenly become successful in Year 5. Either you can coach and motivate or you can't. Look back at the the records of all the great coaches and show me who needed to wait 4-5 years until his players were in the system.
 

jalopy

New Member
1,557
0
0
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Blackhawk, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
It's really starting to sound like you are a bandwagon fan contemplating jumping off.

In order to jump off, I would have to be on board first. As a former student-athlete and alum, I am a fan of the university. I root for the football team to the extent that it represents the university. I used to be a significant contributor to the football program but had ethical contradictions with the HC about 10 years ago and shifted the contributions to be exclusively educational. I think the current HC is doing things the right way but I just don't think he has ability to get the program up to the level required in today's environment. Hope I'm wrong.
 

GoBlueNavyNuke

Well-Known Member
26,393
2,080
173
Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
If more fans would have given the previous staff the same latitude 3 years ago, we would be top 5 in the country right now. Problem with the current direction is we don't have one elite playmaker at the skill position recruited by Hoke. He has gotten by with the leftovers (DR, DG). Green is the highest rated skill position player recruited by Hoke and he is well on his way to being a bust. At the very least, he will need the OL to excel just to save face.

I've heard this argument so many times and it never pans out. Coaches that aren't successful in year 3 won't suddenly become successful in Year 5. Either you can coach and motivate or you can't. Look back at the the records of all the great coaches and show me who needed to wait 4-5 years until his players were in the system.

The thing is, you build a program from the trenches. A great offensive line can make an average RB look good or a good QB look elite. Just look at Alabama, the core of their dominance the past couple of years has been their lines.

And while I will admit that Rich Rod should have gotten one more year, I highly doubt he would have had Michigan as a top 5 program. He was just a bad fit for Michigan and the Big Ten.

You want a coach that took a while, the aformentioned Bill McCartney of Colorado
Year 1: 2-8-1
Year 2: 4-7
Year 3: 1-10
Year 4: 7-5
Year 5: 6-6
Year 6: 7-4
Year 7: 8-4
Year 8: 11-1 (Big 12 champs)
Year 9: 11-1-1 (National champs)
Year 10: 8-3-1 (Big 12 champs)
Year 11: 9-2-1
Year 12: 8-3-1
Year 13: 11-1
Retires

So Bill McCartney (a HOF coach) had three bad years, then three average years, then the program took off.
 

jalopy

New Member
1,557
0
0
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Location
Blackhawk, CA
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I was expecting a Jimbo Fisher rebuttal. McC had the burden of building a program virtually from scratch.
 

MAIZEandBLUE09

Well-Known, and Feared, Member
23,505
2,817
293
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
If more fans would have given the previous staff the same latitude 3 years ago, we would be top 5 in the country right now. Problem with the current direction is we don't have one elite playmaker at the skill position recruited by Hoke. He has gotten by with the leftovers (DR, DG). Green is the highest rated skill position player recruited by Hoke and he is well on his way to being a bust. At the very least, he will need the OL to excel just to save face.

I've heard this argument so many times and it never pans out. Coaches that aren't successful in year 3 won't suddenly become successful in Year 5. Either you can coach and motivate or you can't. Look back at the the records of all the great coaches and show me who needed to wait 4-5 years until his players were in the system.

I'm not sure that's ever going to be true. RR's downfall was his defense and the fact that going into the Big Ten slate, his "spread offense" essentially boiled down to rushing Denard. I actually find it quite ironic that Borges seems more capable of running the offense from the spread than RR ever did.

It's far, and I mean far, too early to say anything about Green. We've seen him in very limited circumstances and with a line that's not opening holes.

I've heard this argument so many times and it never pans out. Coaches that aren't successful in year 3 won't suddenly become successful in Year 5.

What's so confusing about this is you start your statement off by saying that RR would have had a top 5 team by now, given his 5th and 6th season, and then you say the exact opposite - that coaches shouldn't need that time. It was very clear from years 1-3 that RR was not going to succeed here. Hoke on the other hand came in and did something no other first year coach in Michigan history has ever done; win 11 games.

Hoke came in and addressed defense and lines. He did that and we ended up with two of the best line classes in consecutive years. Then we needed offensive talent. Hoke grabbed the nations #1 RB and a five star QB. WR is now a recruiting need and Hoke went out and grabbed two four star WRs. And to top it all off, already committed in the 2015 class - we have a five star WR and RB; not to mention our potential at grabbing the nations #1 and #2 prospect this year. I literally can't see the angle you're trying to get at here? Hoke is recruiting better than any Michigan coach in the recruiting era - fact.

I don't like everything Hoke has done, the OL struggles are perplexing, but you can't argue that his bringing in the talent necessary to be an elite team once again; something RR never did and something Lloyd stopped doing. Unless Hoke going 7-5 this year or worse - your criticisms just simply go too far and are unwarranted. It's not about getting "his" players in this case, it's about getting elite talent; something that is just very sparse on this team right now.
 

MAIZEandBLUE09

Well-Known, and Feared, Member
23,505
2,817
293
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
In order to jump off, I would have to be on board first. As a former student-athlete and alum, I am a fan of the university. I root for the football team to the extent that it represents the university. I used to be a significant contributor to the football program but had ethical contradictions with the HC about 10 years ago and shifted the contributions to be exclusively educational. I think the current HC is doing things the right way but I just don't think he has ability to get the program up to the level required in today's environment. Hope I'm wrong.


Maybe you're right, but I don't think we can judge that just yet. It's just far too early to say. What I do think Hoke does is make us a consistent team. At minimum, the talent he's bringing in should assure us that should Hoke not work out - the next guy will have something to work with; which is why the first years with RR and these first years with Hoke have been less than optimal. When Lloyd took over, he had a fully healthy program, the same can be said of Moeller. Hoke has a history of turning programs around. Maybe he isn't the elite coach we need to win a national title; but I do think he's the coach that will stabilize the football program and at least allow us to get our footing again.
 
Top