Jason Whitlock and Jonathan Chait Discussion on Brady Hoke, Gardner, Program
Here is a radio interview between the 2 men that I found interesting, specifically as Whitlock dominated the conversation and has ties to Hoke. The interview re: Hoke starts around 30:45.
For TL;DTR - Chait is of the view this is a make or break year for Hoke. He believes Hoke runs an antiquated system and is stuck in the early 90s. Big Gardner supporter, thought he was stuck on an island behind awful OL and no running game.
Whitlock has too many views to be concise but he has been confused by the lack of development of UM players that he saw from Hoke at Ball State and SDSU. He also said last year's MSU game was a punch to the face to Brady Hoke, and that perhaps Hoke got comfortable once he got to UM and thought with the talent he got other things would be easier. He disagrees with Chait on Hoke's viewpoints of stuck in old school football. Raises questions of leadership re: Gardner.
Longer version:
- Whitlock - Hoke's strength at Ball State/SDSU was player development - physically and mentally. Would take 2 stars and make them 2.5-3s, would take 3s, make them 4s. Lauds strength coach/program he had at those schools.
- Whitlock - I have not seen any of that Brady Hoke at UM.
- Whitlock - Fears Brady subconsciously lost focus on development due to talent he has been able to get to Michigan.
- Whitlock - Not a big Devin Gardner fan - doesn't handle adversity well. Small throw of Shane under the bus in throwaway comment.
- Chait - Disagree on Gardner.
- Whitlock - Due to QB situation / schedule not sure if work off the field this offseason will be reflected in increased wins but they are now doing the work necessary.
- Whitlock - After ND game last year, I texted Wojo and said they'd be lucky to win 3-4 more games next year due to both the OL and DL being horrible.
- Chait - Hoke has antiquated ideas i.e. spread vs non spread; spread makes you soft, etc. Says OSU game proved otherwise. Hoke wants to go back to early 90s.
- Whitlock - Disagree on those points, but can understand the view.
- Whitlock - Mentioned last year Lewan was not a leader. Did not get that from inside information, just from watching the team. I was proven right despite the hate at the time I received.
- Whitlock - I've surrendered my relationship with Brady Hoke to give him distance so I can do my job.
- Whitlock - Green came in very soft last year. Someone should have seen that and rectified it. I saw this kid dive at a LBs feet rather than block.
- Chait - makes negative comment on Fred Jackson as RB coach in terms of development of RBs.
- Whitlock - doesn't disagree on Jackson without explicitly saying it.
- Chait - defends Gardner more due to summer camps where gurus say he would be a star.
- Whitlock - some truth in that but cites a play vs MSU where Gardner fell 1 yard short vs MSU as a signal of things you can't do. Leaders don't do that.
- Chait - disagrees, and cites Gardner sacrificing body all year.
- Whitlock - agrees to a degree but still thinks Gardner is lacking in key areas. Whitlock compares Devin to Denard, and says he loved Denard's heart ... but had decision making issues.
- Rest of call is fluff and worshiping Beilein.
I don't understand all the negativity surrounding this year's schedule. Ohio State, Michigan State, and Notre Dame are all going to be tough, but all three games are winnable. Then there's another tier of games including Utah, Penn State, and Northwestern. It seems like just an average schedule to me.
All 3 are away games this year, where 2 of 3 were at home last. We haven't been very good on the road recently
We have been dreadful on the road.
isn't that coaching and not so much the schedule? i get that playing on the road is more difficult, but it shouldn't be that much more difficult for good teams.
Yes you are correct.
I think the home vs. road thing is a little overblown. The fact is that Michigan just wasn't very good last season, largely due to a poor offensive line. The offensive line was equal opportunity - poor on the road, poor at home.
But we aren't just talking about last year. We are talking about all three of Hoke's seasons as head coach.
I see Magnus's point, but Michigan's best road win under Coach Hoke was...2011 at NW?
Pretty much a toss up between 2011 NW or 2011 Illinois. Both teams went to bowl games at 6-6 I believe.
Completely agree with you here, Magnus. I know UM has now only lost two home games under Hoke but, and this is just my opinion, I think that is more due to not really playing many tough opponents at home than anything else.
How is it overblown? They were 2-4 last year, 2-4 the year before, and 3-2 the year before that. And in two of the losses last year, they needed miracles to win (UConn, N'Western). So you could really easily argue that they are getting worse on the road instead of better.
a) I think most teams are worse on the road than at home.
b) Michigan just hasn't been very good the past couple years, especially in 2013. It's not like they're juggernauts at home. They're struggling. We have an offensive line that can't block, we had a QB who couldn't throw (Denard Robinson), etc.
Maybe not juggernauts, but....Michigan is 6-8 in true road games (not counting neutral site games, which would make the record far worse). Their best year (when they were at their best so far under Hoke) was 2011, when they went 2-2.
Michigan is 19-2 in home games. That's a .904 winning percentage, which is excellent. The two games they've lost at home were by a combined five points.
So I'd say its pretty fair to say that Michigan struggles mightily on the road and that makes next year's schedule look pretty ugly with three games one would almost have to automatically put in the loss column.
Magnus, it is average. We avoid both Nebraska and Wisconsin in our crossovers. The problem is much of the fan base (at this point for good reason) believes we almost have 2 guaranteed losses since we don't win on the road against good teams and have to go to OSU and MSU. So it's like .... well we are 0-2 no matter what, now let's look at the rest of the schedule. And if you believe ND is "good" than it's 0-3. Notre Dame is very beatable - as long as our staff figures out a way to beat anyone of value on the road.
Combine that with the fact that "easy wins" against Akron and UConn were anything but... you look at a game like Utah which was a cellar dweller in the Pac 12 and normally you think "comfortable win" and you say instead "comfortable win?". So you quickly run out of "comfortable wins" that you can count on versus teams of the past you could say "well we have 6 guaranteed wins, now let's see if we can go 5-2 with everyone else."
You more-or-less explained where I'm coming from. I think Michigan is likely to pretty much take care of business at home, but my assumption is that the trips to OSU, MSU, ND will result in a record of 0-3. Throw in a stumble against Utah (who beat Stanford last year), NW (surely the football gods will give them a win against Michigan at some point), PSU, or Minnesota, and you're at 8-4.
5-6 loss season as horrible and baffling as that sounds.
I'm hoping for 8-4. If we are 6-6 or 7-5 will Hoke survive?
It will be difficult to win more than 8 games. Overall a young team with talent. That is why Hoke will be back in 2015. Firing Borges and hiring Nuss will give Hoke at least one more season. I'm more interested in seeing if the team can make steady good improvement through the season. If we go 7-5 but have a kick ass team by the end of the season I will be excited about 2015. If we have another season where both the offense and defense play worse at the end of the season then the beginning of the season then I think Hoke was not meant to be Michigan's coach. All in all, if we see good improvement in the team by the end of the season, then Hoke and his coaches will be back with 6 or more wins.
If Michigan is 7-5 next year, it'll take a win over OSU to justify keeping Hoke around.
The only road game on our schedule (ND, Rutgers, MSU, NW, OSU) I see as winnable is Rutgers. And given what happened with UConn and Akron last year, I don't even feel good about that one.
So none of the others are even winnable? Not even possibly one? Man this place is suffering from a massive case of collective pessimism. Could things go wrong? Of course. Should we maybe, you know, see how we look in at least one game this season before we completely give up on the team? Believe it or not, it is possible for things to improve from one season to another. There is not an absolute law that says that last season's win total is as high as we can get, and that any movement can only be in a downward direction.
If you don't think that this team, through coaching, hard work, team chemistry, and maybe a little luck, can win any of those games, then perhaps you should just step back and take a year off from following football. If we succeed you can pretend that all of this negativity never happened, and if we fail then you can say "I told you so" and skip all of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments for every time that anything negative happened during the season. Why follow if you have no faith in (or even hope for) the team that you love?
This is my outlook. Prove me wrong this year please.
Whitlock wrote a column a while back, and most of his views in this discussion seem to regurgitate that. It was talked about extensively on the board. Chait's are new, but both are national guys who don't have in-depth knowlege of what's going on at Michigan. Their overly simplistic views reflect that.
Sometimes knowing all the facts bungles your perception. And let's face it - as fans, how much do we actually know about the program? All we know is what we hear.
is a columnist and not a sports beat reporter. But if you know anything about him, you know he follows Michigan very closely and has contacts with many sources in-the-know. Certainly more than most people on this Board.
I though it was interesting. Whitlock previously was a complete Brady Hoke homer! I remember him writing a couple of pieces and doing some interviews on Brady after the hire that gave me some reassurance that he was the right man for the job. The interesting part is that now Whitlock by his own admission, has distanced himself from Hoke and said explicitly that the positive coaching traits seen at SDSU/Ball State, just aren't present. Player development, team leadership, strength and conditioning all seem to be lacking since 2011. Whitlock is basing this on the same thing we are, the eyeball test.
I have and will continue to love and support the Michigan football program until the day I die. But many of us, even if we don't say it publicly have to have some serious reservations on whether or not Brady will be able to field a team with continued success on the field and fitting of the Michigan football tradition that we all love. It's a wait and see scenario I suppose considering the dynamics of the program right now. But I think expectations are at a all time low in my recollection, and I've been a fan for 35 years! I'll admit it... I'm sad. Go Blue!
What's our excuse next year? No Devin Gardener? We (and Brady) have no more time for excuses.
The 2015 schedule is probably the best UM will have for a few decades (read: easiest) No Neb, no Wisc, both rivals at home, Notre Dame replaced by BYU. @Minn and @PSU are the only 2 teams with a pulse they play on the road. (Sorry, UM should beat Indiana 9 out of 10 years)
They bring back every single player on offense not named Devin. Most of these OL guys will be in year 3+ in the program. The defense will lose Taylor, JMFR, Morgan, Beyer, and Clark and bring everyone else back of note - JMFR being the one game changer of that group. There will be 4 stars and 5 stars everywhere on that team... all Hoke's guys. If the 2015 team is not competing for a Big 10 Championship and is not in the top 10 poll by then, there are massive program issues.
I agree with everything you say but lets get through 2014 first. The expectation of the program is to win the Big Ten championship every year.
Just to be a bit argumentative, I think this is the problem with Michigan fandom. I under no circumstances expect that we will win the B10 next year. I aspire to it--I think that is the goal, no doubt. But if we don't, I won't think it's a failed year. Expectations should be based on reality, not blind hope (not saying that's what you were saying).
I just always find the "We're Michigan, fergodaskes, we should win every year" to be a hollow claim. There are a lot of other good teams out there and all of them are trying as hard as Michigan is to win. So then the difference is Jimmies, Joes, X's, O's, and luck. I think our Jimmies and Joes are young in many spots (OL!), and it remains to be seen whether our X's and O's are on par with Meyer's (on offense), Narduzzi's (on defense), and other coaches'. I also think we got a bit lucky in 2011 (recovered fumble %) and a bit unlucky in 2012 (Denard's elbow, etc.).
I think it is more about the team's mentality and goals than the fan's expectations. If the team takes the approach that 2015 is really the year for us to make a big push then why work for 2014.
Plus Brady Hoke laid it all out on Day 1 that a season in which we don't win the Big Ten championship is a failed season. Personally I expect 8-4 next season based on returning players and the schedule. I doubt that will be good enough for a Big Ten Championship.
Fans are outside the program. Internal program expectations will be higher than realistic fan expectations.
The team needs to set a goal of making the Big Ten championship game first. Then worry about winning it once you're there. Since they haven't really come close to making that game in its existance (remember when we were all worried about a repeat of The Game?), might want to focus on winning your division in the Big Ten first, and then add extra goals on top of that.
we have been close Hoke's first 2 years. In 2011, win at State and your in the title game, 2012 Denard doesn't get hurt and we win at Nebraska then we're in. The only year that has been really bad was last year and while it was a train wreck at times, you could see some good things and you can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I think Hoke has done enough to deserve to coach the team he built for 2015 barring an abosolute dumpster fire of a season (no bowl game). If we don't win in 2015, fire every body and start fresh.
2013 was a clusterfu#* of a season. Ther was something off and felt weird the entire time and I'm not sure they ever clicked as a team.
Was it the OC?
Was it Lewann/Gibson?
It was definitely Gibson's fault
I know what you guys are talking about but 33 yards FTW in 3OT at Penn State will never leave my mind.
I had the exact same feeling throughout the entire season. Something was just . . . broken, for lack of a better word, with this team. I have some thoughts on this, all being total speculation:
1. Complete lack of senior leadership.
Lewan was a great football player, and made a totally selfless decision by coming back. That said, his actions throughout this season have been anything but those of a senior captain or a leader. The OL was perhaps the worst of the clusterfuck, and some of that has to be on the leaders of the line.
2. Poor offensive coaching
I don't want to pile on the Borges hate here - in fact, I was probably one of his most vocal defenders on this site until the day that he was fired, but hearing some of the quotes out of practice this year, it is obvious that Borges tried to do too much with a relatively young group of players. Nuss' simplified approach may be just what this team needs.
3. Empty cupboard at key spots
2011 was a good year largely because what was left of RR's early decent recruiting classes were upperclassmen. As those players transitioned off the team the poor 2009, 2010 and 2011 recruiting and attrition left us with holes at key spots, most notably on OL. The holes in the line-up really killed us on offense, and certainly didn't help in a few defensive spots.
4. Talented youth
Aside from a few notable exceptions, the remaining RR players on the roster - the upperclassmen - were lower ceiling, lower talent players. Great program guys, sure, but not excatly the stuff that championship teams need. The Hoke players, at least according to the recruiting services, are far more talented and higher ceiling types, but they are still young and inexperience. This make-up forced us to play many more young kids at key spots, instead of working them in slowly. youth is never a recipe for success in football.
Fortunately, for us, issue #2 has been rectified and Nuss looks like he could fix our troubled offense. #3 and #4 are also taking care of themselves. We may still see one more season of youth on the line, but less so than last season, and none in 2015. As to #1, the players that Hoke has been bringing in all fit the Pattern (TM), so I expect that over the next year, any leadership void will quickly be filled.
I think your number 1 and 2 points are both extremely valid.
-They seemed to play like there was no leadership within themselves, basically they looked like they were going through the motions most of the time.
-As far as Borges, I believe he had some arrogance in that he pushed things on to the offense and sat back with arms folded and said, "There ya go, sink or swim". At least that the vibe he gave off.
But I think the main evidence for that defective season was the fact they didn't show up against Kansas State and Hoke's post game speech was basically, "Alright, let's go home".
No excuses. Just win. I don't see him going anywhere even in an average year. However, a repeat of last year will NOT acceptable. That was below average not looking at wins/losses.