Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
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.
I think we should use Hokus Pocus as the new snake oil term. Whenever Hoke can work his magic to bring a certain recruit who was committed elsewhere, we can say it was Hokus Pocus!
While none of us know exactly what happened in meetings or conversations between RR and Mallett and between Hoke and Denard, my sense is that it was something like this.
RR - Ryan Mallett you are one of the top pro-style quarterbacks in the country. I don't really see how you will fit in the offense I intend to run, even though I have no one else available to me that can run it. I hope you stick around, but if you decide to leave I will understand.
Hoke - Denard Robinson you are one of the top dual-threat quarterbacks in the country and have dilithium speed. I would be a fool not to find a way to take advantage of your skill set and experience, even though I have Devin Gardner (and nobody else) to work with. If you leave Michigan you would have to sit out a year and you would not get the value of a Michigan degree. The team needs you, I need you, please give me a chance to find a way for us to be successful together.
There has been a lot of talk lately regarding if and how Brady Hoke and Al Borges will incorporate spread concepts into the offense. What I want to know is just how practical is this, and how much of it can we expect? Obviously it would be foolish not to adjust at all, but if the coaches are (at least to my knowledge) unfamiliar with the spread, just how much adjusting should be done? Should we incorporate more 3 wide and one back sets, or even run a significant portion of the offense out of the shotgun, or would it be better to run more power sets, simply because that it what the coaches know how to teach?
An attempt to diffuse the hostility - a short summary of the feelings of those underwhelmed by the Hoke hire
Brady Hoke is the head football coach at the University of Michigan. All Michigan fans wish him and the team (or should) nothing but the greatest success. However, several of us are not convinced that he will deliver on that hope. We're not rooting for him to fail; we're not trying to undermine him; we're not saying he shouldn't have taken the job; and we're not criticizing him as an individual. We're expressing disappointment and will ultimately move on.
At his press conference Hoke was asked whether Michigan was still an elite job, still an elite program. He expressed incredulity at the notion that a sane minded person could consider Michigan anything else. And we all feel that way about Michigan. For that reason, we expected the university to hire a football coach whose track record indicates with a high degree of certainty that he would succeed at Michigan.
Let's take a step back to the moment before Hoke was hired and consider whether Bob Stoops would have been a good hire. He has won a national championship, recruited nationally at a place that doesn't produce a lot of talent regionally, continually produces teams that win conference championships and contend for national championships and has done so while avoiding NCAA violations. In short, there's no reason to believe that if he coached at Michigan that he couldn't maintain that level of success. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that but for some unforeseen circumstances, the probability of his success at Michigan would have been high.
Let's next consider Tim Brewster. Brewster failed to recruit at Minnesota, he produced consistently poor teams and his coaching performance prior to Minnesota contains no evidence that he would have been a success had he been hired by Michigan.
In short, most all candidates fall somewhere on the scale between Brewster and Stoops. They all come with a certain amount of evidence that increases or decreases the likelihood that they could win at Michigan.
If we believe that Michigan is an elite job, we should also believe that Michigan is capable of hiring a coach who comes with lots of evidence that he could win at Michigan. Brady Hoke has some - he has the support of the administration and former players, he produced two great turnarounds and SDSU and Ball St. - but Bob Stoops has more.
I'm not asking for Bob Stoops; that's not the point of this diary. Rather I'm saying that for those of us disappointed in the hire, we had an idea as to the quantum of evidence we wanted to see that forecasted with high probability that the new coach would be a success, and we believe that Hoke is below that line, or that at a minimum, his resume contains less evidence than those of other potential candidates. For that reason, we are disappointed.
Say you really want to go to Harvard, and apply to there and Yale and only get into Yale. You go to Yale. You try to make the best of the situation. But that doesn't mean you don't have some disappointment that you didn't get into Harvard. As it is with Hoke. We'll make the best of the situation and support Michigan Football. But it's ok to express some disappointment.
As many have noted, prior success is not always indicative of future performance. Brady Hoke will have every opportunity to prove that whatever his resume, he has what it takes to win at Michigan. And those of us skeptical that he can do so will cheer for him with the same vigor as those most convinced that his resume is outstanding.
Brady Hoke believes football is won in the trenches with bruising OL and DL play.
Under Rodriguez there were a couple of notable position switches, and I'm wondering whether they will stick under Hoke:
DT Will Campbell-73 from DT to OL (OT)
OG/OT Quinton Washington-76 from OL to DT.
CB Teric Jones to RB
The defensive line loses Banks, but looks to be in the best shape since 2008:
Jibreel Black, Mike Martin, Ryan Van Bergen and Craig Roh make a nice front four. Then there's DT Richard Ash and 5-start Will Campbell, if he were switched back to DT.
As for Quinton Washington's move to defense, I'm not opposed to this. The added depth doesn't hurt.
As for Teric Jones to RB last year, I did not understand this move. He had 3 carries for 7 yards. With James Rogers graduating, but J.T. Floyd and Woolfolk likely returning at CB, I would think a switch back to defense for Teric (RS So elig.) would make sense.
What do people think?