Maybe it's time to wonder if Hoke is really the answer.

Coach Hoke is fine, he is the best thing to happen to the Football program since Charles Woodson. End of story.

He should get 5 years minimum and then only be in trouble if the team is worse then than it is now which I do not expect.

'shoes

I think the biggest problem is Gardner doing his best Denard Robinson impression the last two weeks.

wshoes wrote:

He should get 5 years minimum and then only be in trouble if the team is worse then than it is now which I do not expect.

'shoes

True that, shoes.....I honestly wasn't sure when they announced the hire, I'll admit I wanted Les Miles (now glad he stayed), but that "not sure" didn't last long....I am not in a panic because of the last two games...of the two, the UCONN game concerns me more due to what happened the week before, BUT, we ARE 4-0 heading into B1G play!! Now, if he can hang onto/add to the verbals and leans over the next two years, look out....but, DAMN!!!!!!!! LOL

Go Blue!!

I hope some of the on-the-fence recruits don't look at the lack of progress., or even regression, of the O-line and start to wonder if maybe the coaching at Michigan won't be the greatest in developing their talents. I am not saying the coaching is that way, I am just saying maybe some of these studs with aspirations will start thinking like that.

EJinGA wrote:

I think the biggest problem is Gardner doing his best Denard Robinson impression the last two weeks.

His Denard Robinson impression looked pretty good in the ND game.

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

EJinGA wrote:

I think the biggest problem is Gardner doing his best Denard Robinson impression the last two weeks.

His Denard Robinson impression looked pretty good in the ND game.

'shoes

Well, Denard does own Notre Dame...

dwoody wrote:

I hope some of the on-the-fence recruits don't look at the lack of progress., or even regression, of the O-line and start to wonder if maybe the coaching at Michigan won't be the greatest in developing their talents. I am not saying the coaching is that way, I am just saying maybe some of these studs with aspirations will start thinking like that.

By "on the fence recruits" do you mean guys committed or guys that are being recruited.

I will say this, of the guys that are committed (both 2014 and 2015) there are no "on the fence" kids. they are solid IMO.

The two guys we have left for the 2014 class (McDowell and Hand) are locks, book it.

The 15 or so, what I like to call major targets, for the 2015 class don't concern me either. I think we end up next year in the same position this year, wishing we had more spots to add guys. IMO there will be no problem filling the next few classes with the kids we want and need. In summation, I don't see these last two weeks, or a few losses this year, affecting recruiting. I know that's a bold statement but I firmly believe it.

Would now be a good time to discuss the lack of a QB coach? Seems like it would be nice to have one considering our current issue.

Borges is the QB coach.

http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/al_borges_741213.html

Maybe he has the title but many do not recognize him as a QB coach. At least that is the impression I get.

The reason why "many do not recognize him as a QB coach" is that he's the offensive coordinator. What position does a QB play? Oh yea, offense...

MgoBlue wrote:

Would now be a good time to discuss the lack of a QB coach?  Seems like it would be nice to have one considering our current issue.

I think is a valid question. Sure AB is technically our QB coach but I wonder how much time he got to work with just the QBs this offseason.

dwoody wrote:

I hope some of the on-the-fence recruits don't look at the lack of progress., or even regression, of the O-line and start to wonder if maybe the coaching at Michigan won't be the greatest in developing their talents. I am not saying the coaching is that way, I am just saying maybe some of these studs with aspirations will start thinking like that.

I don't think recruits follow college football nearly enough to evaluate regression/progression of the offensive line.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

dwoody wrote:

I hope some of the on-the-fence recruits don't look at the lack of progress., or even regression, of the O-line and start to wonder if maybe the coaching at Michigan won't be the greatest in developing their talents. I am not saying the coaching is that way, I am just saying maybe some of these studs with aspirations will start thinking like that.

I don't think recruits follow college football nearly enough to evaluate regression/progression of the offensive line.  

Maybe not but if you're a top running back and you see gaping holes opened by the Alabama O-line or the OSU line and then you watch Mich to see defenders ready to tackle the back shortly after he gets the ball, do you ponder that?

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

dwoody wrote:

I hope some of the on-the-fence recruits don't look at the lack of progress., or even regression, of the O-line and start to wonder if maybe the coaching at Michigan won't be the greatest in developing their talents. I am not saying the coaching is that way, I am just saying maybe some of these studs with aspirations will start thinking like that.

I don't think recruits follow college football nearly enough to evaluate regression/progression of the offensive line.  

Maybe not but if you're a top running back and you see gaping holes opened by the Alabama O-line or the OSU line and then you watch Mich to see defenders ready to tackle the back shortly after he gets the ball, do you ponder that?

'shoes

If I'd have to guess, they would probably get on their phone and text one of their O-Line recruits for that class and say "they need you on that line bro!".

Yeah, but a top back can come in and be productive his first year, and O-line takes time. I think it's an issue.

'shoes

wshoes wrote:

Yeah, but a top back can come in and be productive his first year, and O-line takes time. I think it's an issue.

'shoes

Of course it is. These guys have four years to prove themselves for the next level.

I'm really starting to think that they are having the same problem that they had with Robinson. A square peg, in a round hole. Gardner isnt much more of a pocket passer than Denard.

Michigan isnt going to be what they want to be till Morris is under center.

I was hoping this will be a special year, but now I think it will be 3 years from now when that OL is experienced, and they have a pocket passer under center with experience.

If we can't take advantage of Gardner's talents- size, spec, arm- then that is on the coaches and I'm looking directly at the OC.

'shoes

Another thing- so now Morris is the answer?- have you seen his HS stats? He seems to have all the physical tools and be mobile enough, but most great college passers were lights out accurate in HS.

'shoes

I agree with shoes, I was really high on Morris starting out and I know mono hurt his senior year but his accuracy is a huge question mark to me.

wshoes wrote:

If we can't take advantage of Gardner's talents- size, spec, arm- then that is on the coaches and I'm looking directly at the OC.

'shoes

Totally agree!!! If you look at what NFL teams are doing with Wilson, Kappernick and RG III that is what we should be doing. Gardner has the arm strength. No question. He's big and strong and mobile. If Gardner could cut down on turn overs NFL teams will be drooling over him. If we can't win with him then we have other issues. Personally, I would like to always have a QB with some scrambling ability. It frustrates a defense having to keep contain vs. blitzing on every down.

wshoes wrote:

Another thing- so now Morris is the answer?- have you seen his HS stats? He seems to have all the physical tools and be mobile enough, but most great college passers were lights out accurate in HS.

'shoes

Only as far as how the offense is designed. I think they really want to move forward with the pro-style offense, and they're finding out that they can't. Reason being, Gardner just isnt a good fit, and the OL is inexperienced.

Whether Morris is going to be good or not, who knows. Speight May be better.

wshoes wrote:

Yeah, but a top back can come in and be productive his first year, and O-line takes time. I think it's an issue.

'shoes

We think and we know it's an issue. Recruits don't read too much into it.

I don't think DG is that big of a problem until you combine him with the lack-luster O-line. Against inferior opponents last year DG lit it up (of course that was with a predominantly read-option experienced offense). With the inexperienced O-line DG is running like a chicken with his head cut off, he doesn't know what to do. The coaches are telling him to sit back in the pocket, something which he could do except he has no time. Without a solid back-up DG also knows that it's him or bust, he doesn't run for that reason.

Morris will be good, but I think (hope) Speight will be better.

He had quite a bit of time against UConn. He misses receivers and panicked when he thought there wasn't time.

I thought that the G's and Center (basically the new guys) were not as solid as (of course) Lewan & Scholfield.  I saw DG get pressured early and often against UConn.  You can't argue that he has had less time than last year.  That's no excuse, but it is what it is.

Either way, he needs to stop spinning backwards away from the LOS every time there is some pressure.

Some pressure or an impending-sack?