This Week's Obsession: Ingredients for Suck Pie Comment Count

Seth

humblepie

Peter Frampton:Michigan's offense::Let's stop this analogy right now.

It's nearing Thanksgiving; which means it's time to make pie! Who likes pie? Everyone likes pie! Unless it's a "why our offense sucks so much" pie. Alas, you have all been sampling lots of "Why our offense sucks so much" pie these last few weeks, and we've identified most of the ingredients in this suck pie. What we haven't done yet is say how much any one ingredient is contributing relative to any other. This seems important.

So, I'm going to give you a list of identified ingredients in this suck pie, and you're going to tell me--pie chart like (i.e. adds up to 100%)--how much each suck factor, in your estimated opinion, has gone into our pie:

  1. Fans demand Michigan Manliness. Thus putting the previous regime on not-firm ground and necessitating another transition and talk of MANBALL for stupid political reasons. Rosenberg/Snyder go here.
  2. Rich Rod! One OL in 2010 and his own suck pie of defense that necessitated another transition. GERG goes here. Zero RS juniors goes here.
  3. The Process. Which helped doom the 2011 offensive line class. "Just two OL, both of them fliers, in two classes!" goes here. "None of our tight ends are old enough to buy beer!" goes here. "We're stuck running high school blocking schemes because interior OL are too young!" goes here.
    10766148686_1ecb64869f_b
    If you believe this is a result of Nebraska's defense having a sudden aneurism of competence (hence all the blood), please answer #10 "Universe" on your cards. [Fuller]

  4. Hoke demands MANBALL! Only if you think there's an executive order from Hoke that forced Borges to use more "big"--ie TEs and FBs instead of WRs--formations and man-blocking.
  5. Borges can't cook fusion cuisine. Incoherent playcalling and gameplanning, players constantly put in bad positions and asked to do more than their skills suggest they're good at. RPS minuses go here.
  6. Dithered on MANBALL transition for Denard. Spent 2011 and 2012 trying to be all things; decision not to sacrifice those years to transition is costing us in 2013. "Older guys can't MANBALL" goes here.
  7. Dithering in 2013. Personnel switches, gimmick offenses, acts of desperation burned practice time, retarded player development, and contributed to snowballing effect. "Tackle over" goes here.
  8. Funk/OL and execution. Offensive linemen not doing the things that should reasonably be expected of them given their talent/experience levels. "Schofield is missing slide protections" goes here.
  9. Ferrigno/Jackson and execution. Backs and tight ends who can't block or run routes (if you think this is just on them being too young, that goes elsewhere; if you think Funchess ought to be able to crack down and Toussaint get under a guy by now it goes here)
  10. Bloodymindedness of Universe. IE anything else: Spain, Monkey Rodeo, MSU broke Devin, opponents are just that good, etc.

[After the jump, the lede, buried]

the results come in…

------------------------

Ace: Hoo boy. 5-7 are kinda tough not to lump together, but here goes nothing.

------------------------

Coach Brown: Any way I can get some more percentage points?

------------------------

Altogether now…

Ingredients

Yellow shades are problems Michigan needs to address, blue are things in the past that we can only hope will improve naturally. We put about 2/3rds of the troubles are on the current staff. Clinking embliggens.

------------------------

Now we explain…

Brian: I assume most of these are straightforward with the exception of #9, which is a lot of blame to heap on 2 or 3 of the 7 or 8 blockers on a particular play. But I have just watched AJ Williams execute the worst imaginable pass protection on a Gardner sack and I'm saucy. I'm saucy because Justice Hayes saw that and aborted his attempt to block a blitzing LB, leaving that guy to run free at Gardner, so when Gardner escaped the first guy he still got hammered.

That the TEs and RBs are awful at blocking is the hidden story of the season. Funchess is one thing (and he's still really bad); Williams and Toussaint and everyone else at tailback are another. Williams has seemingly gone backwards and the inability to find anyone who can pick up a blitz until game 10 is unbelievable. How much better is this offense if Vincent Smith is still here? Think about that. And then tell Fred Jackson to stop drinking three different beverages and do something about it.

------------------------

Seth: I've got Borges shouldering more blame than you other guys so I'll explain why. I just watched the same play as Brian and that inspired Hokepoints yesterday. That the TEs and RBs can't block is as much of a problem as the fact that the OL can't block. The difference is while you have to play five OL every play, nobody's forcing the coaches to roll out five fullbacks. You're allowed to have receivers, and Michigan has some good ones being critically under-used.

You can watch too.

Borges's answer to teams blitzing has been to get heavier: more A.J. Williams, more Joe Kerridge, and barely more Dileo than Paskorz. On Saturday they often lined up A.J. Williams as the only eligible receiver to one side, and then sometimes tried to roll away from that side while the opponent blitzed, knowing full well that the pass blocking can't hold up long enough to drag a receiver over there. Rather than have their running backs run a pattern, they put Kerridge in at RB to say "yes we're passing, but at least you can't rag doll him a la Toussaint." This is the boxing equivalent of curling up in a ball and covering your face with your hands.

Anyway, I'm less concerned that a bunch of true sophomores and younger aren't good at blocking yet (it's a skill) than I am about their coaches throwing them into the fire while leaving Dileo and Chesson on the sideline, so I gave a bunch of those points to Borges.

I've also got just 5% on Rich Rod while the rest of you think he's a quarter of the problem. It was egregious to not recruit more bodies in 2010 but they had to be useful bodies and he was doing that recruiting under a 3-9 season and the cloud of crap from the Free Press witch hunt. He also had tons of redshirt freshmen on the roster so he was selling playing time as a junior/senior. He wouldn't be the first coach to pass on bad prospects and bank on a big OL class the following year.

As for putting the program in a rut with his mishandling of the defense and getting himself fired, well, it's been three years. Of Hoke's classmates, Kevin Wilson inherited an offensive roster with great receivers and nothing else and created a passing juggernaut that makes Oregon look slow, Jerry Kill built an identity at Minnesota, and James Franklin has Vanderbilt recruiting like an SEC team. That those guys had a few months more to recruit their first classes I put on The Process. That Rich Rod had to pick from the value bin for D.C.s and didn't get a fourth year I put on Martin, and the fanbase (including Rosenberg/Snyder) who didn't give the guy much of a chance.

jerry-kill
Minnesota and Indiana's head coaches as positive examples: now there's something I never in a million years thought I'd be saying right now.

My points for Bloodyminded Universe is for Michigan State (of all people) having a pulverizing defense that gleefully beat the last vestiges of Notre Dame Devin Gardner out of him.

------------------------

Brian: You are far too kind to Rodriguez. There can be no excuse for bringing in just one offensive lineman in a year and even with Jake Fisher, his "load up" the next year consisted of Posada, who he took super early, Miller, also a really early take, Bryant, and hypothetically Fisher. Michigan is barely less screwed if RR sticks around, and recruiting super-heavy OL like Posada and Bryant a year after taking one (ONE! ONNNNNNNNNNEEEEE!) OL, that a center, is malpractice.

------------------------

Ace: Brian, is that your rationale behind pinning such a small percentage of the blame on The Process? I agree with you that the failure to recruit more than one OL in the 2010 class created an inevitable time when depth (or at least depth with any experience) would be a major issue. While taking chances with Posada and Bryant looks bad now, however, there are always going to be linemen that don't pan out, big or small (Christian Pace and perhaps Miller being examples of the latter). Even though The Process cost Michigan just one Jake Fisher, I believe one Jake Fisher would make an enormous difference in the quality of this year's line, and therefore it's a major factor in why the offense hasn't functioned well this year; much like Schofield, Fisher started his career at Oregon as a guard before shifting out to tackle.

------------------------

Brian: Maybe you're right, but if you regard Jake Fisher as the recruit who may or may not work out instead of the obviously very good player he is, then that's just a small part of the larger issue. You are probably right that I underestimated the impact since it's not just Fisher they're missing but a reasonable Fisher replacement they would have acquired if Hoke had more time.

------------------------

Seth: So since this was kinda close to that argument you had last week I thought I'd put the question to Space Coyote as well. His answers:

spacecoyote

(UPDATE 1:30 PM: Due to a bad sort I had the wrong data before. New chart now.)

Check the comments in a few minutes for his reasons. I guess that puts the disagreement in context: he argues Borges shouldn't be expected to be able to do very much with these guys because the positional coaches are failing; the argument is over how you divide up what is, at most, a third of the problem.

------------------------

BiSB: Putting that much blame on The Process assumes Michigan would have done materially better with an extra month, but I'm not sure if I see it. They landed three offensive linemen, they just happened to land on a guy who can't stay healthy (Bryant), a guy who probably didn't want to play football (Posada), and a guy who still needs two eat two or three more sandwiches (Miller). They also landed two quality-looking TE's: Chris Barnett and Frank Clark (hence the General Bloodymindedness of the Universe). Maybe they land Jake Fisher if Hoke had been hired after the Ohio State Blerg, but Fisher didn't even commit to Oregon until February, so I sort of doubt it. Besides, assuming one quality guard would make a significant difference in the lineup ignores the lessons we should have learned from the Kyle Kalis Is Neo With A Mean Streak episode.

8646501226_936f70e3fc_o
*Hugs Christ Bryant* It's not your fault.
[Upchurch]

There seems to be a split on the Dithering in 2013. For my part, I look at where the team was in the first few weeks versus where they are now, and you never see this kind of regression without serious injuries (and Michigan has been fairly healthy). Notre Dame isn't great, but they have a competent run defense, and Fitz was able to rush for 3.2 YPC with that god-forsaken stretch. They brought a flawed but functional offense into September. They're dragged the lifeless corpse of an offense into Kinnick. Michigan put up 41 against Notre Dame. They put up 6, 13, and 9 points in the first 60 minutes of their last three games, two of which were against very bad defenses.

I don't know if the "spend two years gearing toward power, then go to the stretch, then go to tackle over, then go back to iso and inside zone" thing messed with skill development or messed with players' heads or what. But either Michigan's scheme is so simple even a Nebraska can solve it (which would be a Fusion Cuisine problem) or the coaches tinkered and broke the thing (which would be a dithering problem). Add in the eight different starters on interior line, and yeah.

------------------------

Mathlete: One point of clarification for me, my large RichRod percentage is because of his massive failure at recruiting linemen. Beyond the obvious no o-linemen is bad, I think the continuity gap is a major untold side effect.

DD1242
If I didn't have to guess, I'd gladly confess to anything I might've tried, if I was with her too long.

A typical team will have 3-5 guys per class, providing a chance for those guys to bond and a big group of guys within a class that they can learn from and assimilate quickly with. When you essentially have a two year gap, that continuity is gone and that's pretty uncharted territory for an o-line. The opportunities for mentorship, learning from guys similar in age, all of those team building things that are some times overstated, but are by most accounts highly critical for the offensive line are totally missing. That flow of players, leadership and training within teammates is absent. Right now, Michigan is in the process of rebuilding but that lead class are redshirt freshmen.

------------------------

Seth: I probably am being too nice to Rich Rod—sorry Section 1 and His Dudeness, you can have the back-pats back. But I think we're very wrong to look at it and say "if they only had Jake Fisher," or whatever. I keep going back to linemen like stability and things outside of RR's control caused Michigan to not have that. Anyway, had he brought in a couple of low 3-stars for his system who's to say they wouldn't have transferred anyway once Hoke arrived with MANBALL? Actually, scratch that: Burzynski is tiny and they were all about playing him. Anyway if Rodriguez had taken a moment away from FREE SAFETY PANIC to grab some OL fliers in 2010, we're probably talking about how spread dudes suck at MANBALL right now instead of how freshmen suck at it.

Comments

C Tron

November 20th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^

The comment still makes sense in the context of this post.  By stating that the offense would be fine under coach Rod, he's placing most of the blame on the current staff.  I assume he means most of the blame is on Funk and Borges for not formulating a gameplan around their players. It's a valid point.  Your comment (unless I'm reading it incorrectly and in which case, I apologize) is just trolling.

Reader71

November 20th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^

You read it right. Not trolling. Maybe being a bit of an asshole. I don't think his comment fits in the context of this post. It would like putting up a big taupe pie and labeling it "Firing Coach Rod". It might be 100% true, but it deals with something other than what's being discussed.

MI Expat NY

November 20th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^

While I might agree with some of your points and do assume that the line would be better under Rodriguez, where does that "blame" go for his low recruiting numbers and the substance of the O-Line recruits he did bring in?  I think the panel is right that depth at the OL would still be an issue for a Rich Rodriguez coached 2013 Michigan football team and that transitioning from pro-style to spread to pro-style is part of the reason that we're bad.  Where does that blame get placed if not with Rich Rodriguez?  Which is not to say that he's at fault for not anticipating his firing and not chosing to set up the subsequent staff with players they would like.  

UMaD

November 20th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^

Yes, Rodriguez is to be blamed for part of the current situation, but it was very far from incompetance or malpractice to not set Hoke up for success running pro-style.

Rodriguez recruited QB and OL well...that's about it, but credit where it's deserved.

I screamed bloody murder at the time of the Pace class, but I had no idea that Schofield and Lewan were as good as they were.  Rodriguez did.  His OL was locked in for the next 3 years and plenty of time to fill the 4th (2013).

If you have to point blame here it should be to Hoke.  He saw the numbers after the Fisher defection and should have gone after more than 4 guys in 2012, knowing that 3 would likely need to start (esp with Lewan potentially leaving).  They should have taken 6.  They tried to take 5 (Caleb Stacey, Alex Kozan).  They took 4.  They took 2 guys fewer than they should have, opting for LBs and DL and FBs instead.  Everyone's argument against Rodriguez was that he took too few in 2010 but after the massive 2008 class and the rock solid 2009 class, there wasn't really a need.  For Hoke in 2012 there was, and said need was not met.  Asking for 75% success rate out of OL recruits is not smart if you haven't proven you can do it.

The substance of the OL recruits under Rodriguez was fantastic.  He can hardly be blamed for Miller being too small to run a different system.  The guys he brought in (Omameh, Barnum, Schofield, Lewan, Washington) contributed early and developed in multi-year starters unless they were hurt.  I won't argue that Posada was going to be anything other than a bust, but a)who knows and b) that just means Rodriguez wasn't perfect. 

It's a hypothetical of course, but I really don't think OL depth would be an issue for Rodriguez this year if he was still here.  He'd have two 5th year seniors, a 4th year junior at center, and at least one 3rd year sophomore (Fisher) starting.  The last spot could be filled by 2 recruiting classes.

 

CalifExile

November 20th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^

Because you don't know what Posada would have accomplished if he had remained motivated and in football your comment is nonsense. He was well regarded in high school and would fit in well in Manball.

But, of course, you're on record as saying that the loss of Jake Fisher is no big deal either.

IF HE IS NOT A MICHIGAN MAN WE DO NOT WANT HIM.

M-Wolverine

November 21st, 2013 at 4:26 PM ^

He was so motivated that he isn't in football anymore. What motivation did he have? You can't motivate someone to want to play a game they don't want to play. Boren was a dick, but he could motivate himself at least.  This may be one of the dumbest things ever to appear on these boards. "If he stayed motivated..." where do you come up with this stuff...?

UMaD

November 20th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^

In my mind, the OL depth blame falls this way:  2010 is Rodriguez's decisions, 2011 is process, and 2012 is Hoke.

Rodriguez's decisions in 2010 were justificable, but affect our team negatively, nonetheless.

Process in 2011 is what it is.

But in 2012, Hoke knew what he had and didn't have.  The fact that he didn't recognize center and interior OL as huge gaping needs is mistake, to me.  Only taking 4 guys total, with 2 of them tackles (if not 3, counting Kalis) and none of them a potential center...

In my view, the blame being allocated to Rodriguez should be a lot smaller.  The explanations for said blame (in the OP) reinforce that view.  I find blaming RR for the 2011 class, when he didn't even sign those guys, to be ridiculous.

MGoManBall

November 20th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^

I don't know why "Offense without Denard" isn't also part of the puzzle. The few years before this season, if Michigan was struggling to get anything going they knew they always had the Denard run in their back pocket (a la UTL I). 

I don't think that Michigan has that "go-to" play that they can use when all else fails this year.. and that's hurting them. 

BradP

November 20th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^

Denard should be counted as a factor in determining why the last two offenses were somewhat capable, rather than a factor in determining why this offense is a tire fire.

To say "offense without Denard" is a cause of this year's struggles is like saying "defense without Woodson" explains some of RichRod's failure.

mGrowOld

November 20th, 2013 at 11:54 AM ^

You know what's funny about that?  It never works anywhere either.  Not for Michigan teams of the past, not for other college teams and not for the pros.  Yet OC after OC have it in their running playbook as a freaking staple and for the life of me I cant get why.

Zone stretch sucks, has sucked and will always suck.  To me it's the offensive equal to the prevent defense.  Never works and is frequently used cause that's just how its done boys.

Michigan4Life

November 20th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^

college or pro. It's a staple for a reason and it's pretty effective. Look at offense under Mike Shannahan. Zone stretch is a staple of his offense and his RBs routinely gets 1000 rushing yards regardless of where they're drafted. Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, Tatum Bell, Mike Anderson, Alfred Morris, etc.  Peyton Manning's offense has zone stretch as their staple and had effective backs like Edge and stable of RBs rotating with the Colts. It's pretty effective with the Broncos.

Why it's effective, it allows the OL to combo block then get to the 2nd level. RBs have multiple holes to choose from and just make one cut and run upfield.  The key is the initial block and being able to get off cleanly to get into 2nd level.  RB's shoulder has to stay square/parallel to the LOS.  It's also great for a quick PA or bootleg when defense overcommit against the zone stretch.

Reader71

November 20th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^

Many teams have success with the stretch. Almost all spread teams run it to some degree or another. Some really good teams in the pros run/ran it successfully. The Shanahan Broncos are a famous example with Terrell Davis. I don't care for it on the basis of it being one of only 2 true running plays in a pure zone blocking team, but as play qua play its fine.

Reader71

November 20th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^

I get your point. I don't particularly like the stretch either. But I'm not the base-an-argument-on-outliers type either. I just used them because they were famous and that's when the zone first made a splash in the NFL. Shanahan has had a lot of success with it, making 1000 yard rushers out of nobodies. Even last year, the 2nd leading rusher in the NFL was Alfred Morris, a Shanahan back. And more to the point, and one I mad that you skipped over: the spread is all over college football, and all spread teams run the stretch to some degree or another. RRs teams used it quite a bit, and the read option off of it. And prevent defense works quite often. We just remember when it doesn't because having someone score late on your defense sucks.

mGrowOld

November 20th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

Actually I do agree with you on the stretch play coming with a zone read option.  That does work and can be quite effective.

 My issue is that we're running it out of the I formation from under center which absolutely telegraphs the defense where the play is headed unless we run the waggle off it as that seems to be our only real counter we've employed to date.

Reader71

November 20th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^

Yep. I think Hoke/Borges envision the old stretch-fake boot that our old QBs used to such success in the 90s. Paradoxically, because we now have a running threat at QB, the boot is less effective because teams drill their backside ends on keeping contain. Guys like Collins, Griese, and Brady seemed to always be under no pressure when deciding to throw to Riemersma, Shea, Joppru, et al.

Michigan4Life

November 20th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

is if they shuffle the FB to the direction of the run which they tend to do.

If you had said that you don't like Borges zone stretch instead of you hating all zone stretch in college and pro, you'd have a point, but your point doesn't hold ground when you apply it to all of it in college/pro level.

Still, you can't just find one hole to stop the zone stretch. It forces the defense to widen thus opening multiple holes for RBs to run through or cut back if they overslanted especially from the backside.  Best way to stop it is to have DL penatrate quickly which it happens frequently for Michigan.

Indiana Blue

November 20th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^

The fact is this team, with as many flaws as there are should be by all rights, 9-1.  I pin the PSU and Nebraska losses directly on Borges and his play calling.  27 for 27 and 29 for 22, or something very close to that.  PLUS take the situations that existed when it was make or break for the VICTORY.  Borges chumped out.

What would be the chat on MGoBlog, if we were 9-1 right now?  Yeah MSU is a better football team than us right now, BUT PENN STATE and NEBRASKA are NOT.  

I'm also not forgetting about Northwestern either ... 1st down at the 10 yard line?   We have offensive weapons ... how do you explain CMU, ND and IU.  We overwhelmed Minnesota, who subsequently beat Nebraska.  The problem is that Borges doesn't understand where are strengths and weaknesses lie ... how else can ANYONE rationalize the ridiculous play calling when the game is on the line?  ARGHHHHH

Go Blue!

BiSB

November 20th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^

If we're talking what SHOULD have happened, it's really hard to still count the Northwestern win, isn't it? I mean, if you're saying Michigan SHOULD have beaten Penn State because of the game situations and the hilarious combination of bad luck, bad decisions, a bloody fate (I would agree, btw), then the same should be said about last weekend's game.  

Indiana Blue

November 20th, 2013 at 12:28 PM ^

That was essentially a "hail Mary" at the end to tie the game.  In the 4th quarter - we took possession at their 10 yard line (1 yd loss & 3 pts), then drove to the 4 yard line with 3rd and 1 (1 yd loss and failed 4th down conversion).  This is against Northwestern - who sorry to point this out really has at best an average defense.  That's twice at or inside their 10 yard line and we score a grand total of 3 pts.  

Everyone, I mean everyone knows we can't run the football (see MSU and Neb. negative rushing yards back to back - gotta be the first time ever in Michigan history).  Look how teams have blitzed us since PSU ... has Borges called anything to punish a team for blitzing ?  NOPE - he simply adds more blockers .... MORONIC.   Run Hayes or the FB through the blitz and hit him over the middle where the LB's vacated.  No, Borges still thinks they'll bite on the PA when its 2nd and 12 - and everyone KNOWS we can't run the football. ARGGHHH

Go Blue!

umchicago

November 20th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

almost half the blame is going to RR (when you incl the process and Denard).  i'm not buying this at all.  look at the other side of the ball.  the same issues exist there.  the D has youth/inexperience everywhere, yet that is a competent unit.   the O's problems are much more on the coaches not being able to coach linemen, backs and TEs how to block.  and not knowing where your strengths/weaknesses are and calling plays accordingly.

reshp1

November 20th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^

The change from spread to manball is much more severe than the change from 3-3-5 or whatever the hell GERG was trying to do to 4-3 under. Not only are the techniques totally different, even the athletes' innate physical traits have to be different. That requires a ton of time to reach stability after a change. Also, RR and the process took a toll on recruiting as a whole, but no position was so glaringly effected by it as OL.

Reader71

November 20th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^

I'd venture to say that everyone outside of Lewan and Schofield have gotten better. Lewan has likely plateaued. He would have been a high draft pick last year, so he might not get much better. A point in your favor is that Schofield seems to have gotten worse, although its possible that he has just strung 2-3 of his worst games together. He was OK early in the year. There is no basis for judging improvement in any of the other guys. Outside of Miller, I don't think anyone else had ever taken a snap for Michigan. Still, common sense would say that they have all improved to one degree or another just from being in college. Weight training, conditioning, college level coaching, etc. I agree that they aren't good enough, and I agree that they haven't improved to a degree I'd like. But to claim that no one has improved is a bit silly.

uncleFred

November 20th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^

Unless you are Dave Brandon posting under an alias I rather doubt that you are in the position to give the coaching staff an ultimatum.

Besides it's pretty clear from your accumulated comments over the last few weeks that no level of improvement that remains possible would alter your opinion. 

Fortunately since it is unlikely that you are in fact Dave Brandon, the coaching staff has at least one, probably two, more season(s) to right the program.

 

 

Tom Pickle

November 20th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^

Obviously we have no data at this point, but I think we all have our assumptions on how the offense will look. How does the math change if there is only modest improvement (no games with negative rushing yards, coherent schemes, but still outmanned by some defenses)? If next year it seems like everything is moving forward and the coaches seem to be doing an adequate job does it become some sort of 50/50 split that whatever struggles we encounter is caused by Rich Rod and The Process?

Maybe this is a stupid question because if the current coaching staff is doing the best with what they have then it's unlikely many people will be unhappy with the product on the field. Instead, everyone will be looking towards the future when Michigan will once again be able to grind teams into a fine paste.

markusr2007

November 20th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^

I think Michigan's defense is getting better, but the offense continues to suck.

Nice defense work against Nebraska and Northwestern, and they hung in as best they could against an otherwise anemic MSU offense that is clearly improving on the year.

On paper Iowa looks like Northwestern in offensive performance (scoring, ypg, etc.)

Defensively they're pretty much Ohio, except way better at pass defense and a little shittier at run defense.

Then of course Iowa's mojo is always up vs. Michigan in Kinnick. Plus it's Iowa's final home game for their seniors, so there's that.

A win in Iowa City would be huge for Michigan. It's possible, because Iowa is a vulnerable football team, just not in the areas where Michigan can be strong (passing).

I think Michigan shocks Iowa on Saturday as initially Ferentz refuses to Ferentz , but then, against his better judgement, Ferentzes anyway.

 

Bodogblog

November 20th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^

The Process: I still roll my eyes at this.  Fisher spent summers (or something like that) in Oregon, he had a connection there, and they way they were winning coupled with stable staff and great facilities, meant he was going there after RR was fired.  He wasn't going to commit to Hoke, a guy no had ever heard of, with that connection and that team being his second choice. 

Taking the time to interview a variety of candidates for the most important position in the university's athletics is not a problem, it is an absolute requirement.  To interview someone before RR had been fired would be unfair, to hire Hoke without interviewing anyone else would be lunacy.

Bodogblog

November 20th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^

There is a lot of talk specifically on the magic elixir of Fisher above

My larger point, and maybe I didn't make this clear, has always been about the flaying of the process.  Five weeks is in fact an incredibly short window for due dilligence for a position this important to the university's athletics.  You need to talk to people, and you need to interview people.  It's a must.

Brian et al excuse themselves from that reality by saying "Brandon was going to hire Hoke all along."  But 1) they don't know at all if that's true, and 2) it doesn't seem likely.  A preferred candidate, probably.  But Harbaugh was in play during that time, and if he wanted to come I believe Brandon would have hired him.  Imagine the meltdown if Harbaugh went to SF and said, "hey, wanted to go to Michigan but they hired Hoke before my season was done." 

Beyond the specifics, again I fall back to due dilligence: even if you have a guy in mind, you have to talk to people.  That takes time.

MI Expat NY

November 20th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^

I think only Ace explicitly makes that Fisher makes a big difference, and the others poo-poo it to varying degrees. 

As to your larger point, pretty much every other program that fires and hires a coach manages to do so within a week or two of the end of the regular season.  I don't see why we would be different.  Brandon knew he was going to fire RR, probably as early as the Penn St. game in the beginning of November.  He could have, should have, and probably did perform due dilligence at that point.  Fact is, the vast majority of ADs have a file in their desk of a short list for football and basketball coaches in case they ever needed to find a replacement whether due to firing, retirement, illness, or Petrinoness.  An AD that has to start a search from scratch the moment the job becomes available isn't doing his or her job.

The process was mishandled.  There was no reason to keep RR through the bowl game.  Whether that really has much to do with the current state of things is obviously up for debate.  

Bodogblog

November 20th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^

You think the process was mishandled, because you're ascribing characteristics to it that you can't possibly know or verify, and you're using hindsight to bolster your points.

I'm quite certain the flag-carriers of "The Process" meme would disagree with several of your assumptions, as I would.  There was plenty of reason to keep RR after the PSU game, and even through the bowl game.  There was even debate in many corners (some of whom persist today) that he should have been retained despite the bowl debacle.  I'm almost sure Brian, the orginator of The Process meme, agreed with keeping RR through the bowl game.

And sure, you have a short list of candidates, and I'm sure Brandon did (and that Hoke and Harbaugh were probably on it).  No, you don't go flying around the country with your head coach in limbo and start interviewing people behind everyone's back.  That would be lol ridiculous, and anyone with integrity would chuckle at the idea of it.