"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."
Just how in the heck are we, as Michigan fans, supposed to type Brady in a post on this forum and think of that as a FIRST name? Clearly, either Hoke or Tom Brady are going to have to change their names.
I can see a light. Although small and flickering I can still see it. Let it be understood I have no control over this gleam but i do have faith that is still there. For the past three years I wanted to control the feeling that the winds of change would turn us into something different and fool proof from the perceived shortcomings of years past. Though I have contributed to many of conversations and listened to many more. Im done with the C-Span town hall debates. The light that I see is celebrating for our next victory, our next recruit and an awesome offensive package for Denard. I cant wait to celebrate with my friends and high five strangers on my way to the next tailgate. I want to pose like Hulk Hogan at Spartan Stadium when victory is ours and zeroes on the time clock. I fear no Buckeye who has too much to say and i fear no Badger who has had too much to drink. Though it may appear Im resembling 'Mayhem' from your Allstate commercials and leading you onto Stadium and Main this is not the case. Im humbly stating the only control that I can provide is support. Hopefully in 8 short months we can find our gleam once again. Go Blue!
I'd like to throw another log on the 'let's please give the guy a chance, even if he doesn't fit into my Excel VBA' bonfire.
Look, data is data. It doesn't mean anything outside of being analyzed. It doesn't coach.
People enjoy MGoBlog because it offers an intensely analytical perspective of football that the MSM doesn't provide.
But we tend to fall in love with the data, because it's a solid way to justify our positions. As rational observers, we align our expectations with the data we have available.
Here's the thing though; we can be immensely wrong the interpreations we make with the data. Many of us were wrong about Rodriguez. Whether or not he got a fair shake is irrelevant, it's over now.
Based on the data available, would you have predicted Tressel's immense success coming from Youngstown to OSU? Hell no.
The only thing that matters is execution, and the preparation that goes into it. So to get sullen about our future prospects because a prior teams' offense/defense had a mediocre ranking isn't worth it.
All the matters at this point is that the coaches put in the necessary work to get this team better.
H/T to EDSBS, but I think this beats the Hokeamania stuff. However, I do realize that we are dealing with a professional here and the rest of us can only aspire (actually I can't even aspire I can't Photoshop or get a damn picture to show in the box).
I have seen a variety of arguments against Hoke being the best possible coach for the job, etcetera, and I wanted to take just a minute to go over a few that stood out to me and see what you all thought as well.
1) Dave Brandon's choosing of Hoke was specifically related to him being a "Michigan Man" and not to whom was the best coach for the job.
We do not know what Brandon’s method for choosing was. How can one imply that “Michigan Man” was of vital importance when Brandon specifically said he was referred to Hoke by MANY people, inside and outside the program?
2) Michigan is an arrogant program for choosing from their past, assuming that will work out best for their future.
Again, the impression that this is an arrogant program assumes that Brady Hoke was hired PRIMARILY for his experience at Michigan, rather than that being, as Brian said he thought/hoped, a relevant bullet point. Keep in mind, if recent performance is much more important than past, as Brian said specifically, then Brady’s recent, excellent outcome years at Ball State and SDSU should have much more relevance on his selection than past years. Likewise, Rodriguez recent failure years should have much more impact than his past major successes.
3) The hiring of Hoke to take Michigan football back to being "Michigan football" means a return to the Carr era way of things.
Because he was an assistant under Carr does not mean he does everything the way Carr does. He has been stated several times seems to have a variety of flexibility Carr never did.
4) Hoke will attempt to out execute without out recruiting.
The premise that Hoke will not recruit well enough to compete with the major programs is ridiculous. What is the basis for that? His recruiting at Ball State and SDSU? Not relevant. Recruiting at those institutions is difficult because of the lower tier of the schools themselves. Because he’s not a big name? As I recall, Jim Tressel fresh out of YSU recruited VERY well.
5) Michigan's goals are returning to the Carr area orientation.
You have a short memory. Michigan had other coaches before Lloyd Carr and getting back to Michigan football does NOT mean raising the ghost of Carr.
These are some of the primary arguments I've seen against Hoke, and they all seem to be full of holes and assumptions. Hiring Brady Hoke does NOT mean rehiring Lloyd Carr. He's not the same guy, even if he did work under him.
One thing I'd definitely like to keep from the RR era of UM football is for the players to continue to directly hand the ball to the officials. In my opinion, after having watched decades of games, this is one of the most classiest moves a player can make on the field and reflects very well on the University itself.
Too many times you see kids dancing around and acting with overblown memememememe type antics, that RR's players handing the ball to the refs is refreshing.
Anything else to keep? Or scrap everything?