Known Unknowns, Hoke, And Guys From West Virginia Comment Count

Brian

 rodriguez-real-sports Head coach John Beilein gives a speech prior to the Wolverine's selection at the NCAA selection ceremony held at Crisler Arena on Sunday March 15, 2009. Michigan was selected as the number 10 seed. (WILL MOELLER /Daily)

right: Will Moeller/Daily

Nine months ago Michigan fans were suspicious of both of their West Virginia coaching heists. Today one is sitting next to Billy Packer and Jason Whitlock in a suit; the other is a season away from establishing himself for the long haul. Both undertook program-changing measures after a disappointing start, but only one successfully delegated his way to success.

You know who is who. Rich Rodriguez:

  • fired Scott Shafer after one year as defensive coordinator,
  • hired retread Greg Robinson, and
  • forced him to run a 3-3-5-ish defense that incorporated the 3-4 and 4-3 with freshmen everywhere.

He got the sad firing box.

John Beilein:

  • literally fired or replaced every one of his assistants,
  • hired two up-and-comers from smaller schools, and
  • all but abandoned the 1-3-1 defense that was his trademark at West Virginia.

If he can wring the expected improvement out of his 46% freshman usage he'll have Michigan's basketball team in the Big Ten title picture for the first time since Fisher was run out of town.

Both coaches tweaked their specialty offense for different players. Rodriguez coaxed an NCAA-average performance out of true freshman Tate Forcier by relying on his scrambling ability in the pocket and using him as a decoy in the run game. (Or at least trying to—Tate had a bad habit of keeping the ball when his read said hand off.) He improved the offense further with sophomore-who-would-have-been-redshirt-freshman-if-Michigan-had-any-options Denard Robinson. Even the Robinson offense wasn't going back to the old Pat White well. Without a Slaton to put oomph in the read and with defenses far more prepared to deal with it these days, he implemented a rushing game that revolved around the quarterback instead of using him as a "gotcha" thunderbolt. He used the QB rushing staples to implement a terrifying play-action game that often saw receivers open by ten yards.

Terrible defense put Michigan in long-field situations (Michigan led the country in TD drives of more than 85 yards), there was no field goal kicking, and the inexperienced Robinson was a turnover machine. The thing was a bit rickety. It was erratic. It put too much load on Robinson's shoulders. It was also incredibly young and promised infinity when Robinson was old enough to cut out the turnovers. It finished #2 in FEI, which you know because I say it every ten seconds.

Beilein lost his only two upperclassmen from the immensely disappointing 2009 team and returned a collection of role players and youth. He had to know his best player was a point guard who couldn't shoot to save his life. He still had a perimeter four and a spread-the-court offense, but he implemented a ton of ball screens that gave defenses a choice between open threes from guys who shoot at a 38% clip or getting pick-and-rolled to death by Morris and Jordan Morgan. Morgan shot 63% as a result and Michigan vastly exceeded expectations.

This lived up to their rep. Both were regarded as innovators. "Genius" is definitely not a word you want to throw around when you're talking about coaches but their peers seemed to regard Beilein and Rodriguez as people you want to talk to. Beilein doesn't talk but gets the most votes when his peers are asked to judge solely on coaching acumen; Rodriguez does, so he pops up at Oklahoma and his coaches get snapped up two seconds after they're let go. Carr's coaching tree is Brady Hoke and Scot Loeffler, end of story. It's tough to throw a rock in college football without hitting someone inspired by or directly associated with Rodriguez.

But he's not here because he couldn't let go. Of all the numbers associated with his tenure at Michigan this is by far the most damning:

image

It's the 37 next to Syracuse in the FEI defense ratings. That is a schedule-adjusted, I-AA-ignoring measure of defensive competency featuring Scott Shafer and absolutely no talent a few spots off the defenses of Michigan State and Wisconsin. Last year (Shafer's first) they were 72nd, the year before that 80th when Greg Robinson was the head coach and functional DC.

Maybe that wasn't possible here what with Never Forget

never-forget-updated

…and all that. But we do know Shafer, a very good MAC coordinator who Harbaugh picked up and then made Syracuse better than anyone thought possible very quickly, is a good coach. And we know he was undermined and pushed out. Evidence suggests Greg Robinson is a terrible coach but he was undermined, too, and instead of a vaguely worse defense than two BCS teams coupled with Denard Robinson—good for 8-4 at least—we got something that was literally the worst ever in various categories.

Beilein had already scrapped the 1-3-1 before the total program reboot and was rewarded with an uptick in his Kenpom numbers from 67th to 53rd. It's a lot harder to tell who's responsible for what, but Beilein seemingly felt everything was insufficient and blew it all to hell. He still teaches the 1-3-1 but only uses it on occasion; he's left the defense mostly to his assistants. His reward: 35th nationally this year. That's better than his previous three years at Michigan. It's better than he ever did at West Virginia, because he knew what he didn't know.

Rodriguez's problem was never his selection of defensive coordinators, it was his refusal to trust them to do their jobs. The thing about Hoke is this: he does. At SDSU he hired Rocky Long to run a 3-3-5; Rocky Long ran a 3-3-5, and it was pretty good, and now he's the head coach. He hired Al Borges to run a passing-oriented West Coast offense; Borges ran a passing-oriented West Coast offense that wasn't quite as good as Michigan's in FEI's eyes but was still top 20. If he "gets" anything it's that he's a former defensive lineman with a narrowly defined set of assets that does not include being a genius of any variety—he's never been a coordinator. So he's hired two guys with very long, very successful resumes to do that stuff for him. That's an upgrade over Rodriguez, who had one—himself. It's an upgrade over Carr, who had zero*.

When I am trying to be cheerful in the face of Hoke's indifferent record I think about the vagaries of MAC budgets and what Hoke did the instant he escaped them. Mattison is the third excellent hire Hoke's made. That's a trend, one that suggests he, too, knows what he doesn't know. Since I'm a Michigan fan I'm bracing for a fatal flaw, but at least it won't be the same one that sunk Rich Rodriguez.

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

*[Ron English masterminded The Horror and does not count. Before his elevation at Michigan he had never been a coordinator. After he left he led the weak unit on the last Kragthorpe Louisville team and has started the slow process of dying at EMU. The only thing he's proven is that he can yell at several future NFL stars effectively.]

Title disclaimer: hate on Donald Rumsfeld all you want—just not here—but the bit about known knowns and known unknowns and unknown unknowns is a useful bit of language. Not intended to endorse or unendorse anything about Rumsfeld. Disclaimers uber alles.

Comments

M-Wolverine

April 4th, 2011 at 6:20 PM ^

That's the main difference between the two, why one is gone, and one is still going. Beilein has shown the flexibility to change to his environment (Big Ten, not Michigan), and alter his system to what works with who he has and who he goes up against. Rich believed his system on offense and defense would work no matter what. Credit Beilein not just for the defensive changes, but the offensive one's he's made too (Pick and roll for high percentage over jacking 3's?).

Your favorite cherry picked stat (the best statistical rankings are always the ones that agree with you...) FEI's link sends you to a Michigan Daily Beilein article.

This however-

 

Rodriguez does, so he pops up at Oklahoma and his coaches get snapped up two seconds after they're let go. Carr's coaching tree is Brady Hoke and Scot Loeffler, end of story.

Is just plain dumb. Sorry, you say things that are disagreeable, but it's rare that you write something so ignorant. Every coach gets snapped up in two seconds. It's called coaching network and fraternity. No one got picked up for some amazing job over their current position. Stupid coaches on Rich's staff are still just as stupid because they have another job. I mean, even DeBord worked again. They all got picked up just as fast.  And for every failure, there's one that can be equally found on anyone's staff. Isn't the coach that West Virginia is going to push out a Rich Rod assistant...?  Somehow the "genius" didn't get passed along to him.  We'll see if any of the his assistant really obtain any greatness.

Lloyd had lots of coaches on his staff that went on to do bigger things than their current position. If you mean that he wasn't able/willing to bring in big name coaches as coordinators, sure. But the same Mattison you love first became a coordinator under Lloyd, before doing the same at ND and Florida. He's had multiple Super Bowl ring winners  (the NFL is a better job upgrade than any of the Rich guys got), including one guy who was a coordinator in the NFL (and it's not just Mattison...), other guys who have taken head coaching positions at smaller schools, and current D-1 coordinators.  Obviously Urban Meyer thinks more of Lloyd's assistant talent than you.

Rich has been coaching a long time as a HC. He's had ample opportunity to have the "new hottness" take over somewhere. It hasn't happened to him, either. But to just say because Pitt hired up half his staff (and they've shown to be making such good coaching decisions lately, no?) and they all got jobs (yes, show me all those unemployed Lloyd staff members after they left) is either really trying to look at things in a slanted way, ignoring how the coaching carousel works, or just plain stupid.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

April 4th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^

No, not every coach gets snapped up in two seconds.  Yes, it's a fraternity, which means there's a huge network of people to pick from, not that any one person is guaranteed a job.  GERG hasn't exactly been snapped up.  Mike Groh went from OC at UVA (well beyond his level of incompetence) to graduate assistant at Alabama, several months after being broomed.  Being offered a job weeks (or less) after being fired is actually a pretty good indicator of coaching competence.

M-Wolverine

April 4th, 2011 at 8:09 PM ^

I thought they were all hired before they had even left Schembechler after being fired?
<br>
<br>Yes, every single coach in the world is not rehired because if that was the case the only way anyone could become a coach is if someone dies. The point is, getting hired back up means you know someone, not that you're a great coach. Whether you're DeBord or Gibson. And none of Rich's assistants walked into a promotion, either. You generally get another job doing the same thing someplace else.

The Nicker

April 5th, 2011 at 7:43 AM ^

While I agree with your overall point, I don't know if Rich Rod sucked because he lacked "the flexibility to change to his environment (Big Ten)." Rich Rod had a good D Coordinator at West Virginia. He did a bad job with the defense when he came to Michigan. Now, granted, the Big East is a much worse conference than the Big 10, but do you really think Rich Rod wasn't "suited" to coach in the Big 10 as is?

 

The offense was shown to work in this conference last season. I think Wisconsin might agree that a 3-3-5 base works just fine if executed properly (See 2011 Rose Bowl). Rich Rod's fired because his defense was awful; awful for any league, not because he didn't "adjust to the conference," whatever that means.

M-Wolverine

April 5th, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^

He insisted on using players, coaches, and things he had already, suited to the Big Ten, in ways and schemes they were not suited for. Whether that's wasting Martin taking on 2 blockers, or having two different coordinators run defenses they've never run.

Any system can work. If you have the parts and people to run it. He didn't, and whereas Beilein changed his style slightly to be more effective, Rich wouldn't.  I only really added the Big Ten style/tools to prevent the reflexive "What are you saying, he's too big a hillbilly to coach at MICHGAN?!?!", when no, if he had won, no one would have cared how he acted.

M-Wolverine

April 4th, 2011 at 8:20 PM ^

I thought at first it was because the site was being repaired taking up time (points working, posts being labeled new, etc), but since everything's still in the same state, I'm not sure what's going on.
<br>
<br>There could be so much more...film breakdown of San Diego State, analyzing what may or may not be incorporated, guessing what we may see at the Spring Game....rather than, well, we'll all see what we see at the Spring Game. Hope it doesn't rain.

M-Wolverine

April 4th, 2011 at 9:29 PM ^

You've hit on a major factor on why all these charts and analysis are nice, but a bit silly too. Because there's a whole emotional content that comes into sports, and football in particular, that are really hard to quantify. Which is why all the charts in the world couldn't predict Rich's failure, and are probably equally useless to predict Brady's success or failure.

GoBlueInNYC

April 5th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^

 I wouldn't call the data analysis "silly." I think you're asking too much from the metrics and analysis. They're not going to tell you the whole picture. The charts and statistics are absolutely helpful in understanding what's going on, they're just never going to tell you 100%.

M-Wolverine

April 5th, 2011 at 12:57 AM ^

But maybe I should have said a "bit" silly too. I think they're helpful. But some (and I don't even really include Brian in this) think it's the tell all and be all. And forget that it's 19 year old hormonal kids running around playing a game. It's a bit of a stat joke, but it's 50% hard analyzable data, and 50% chaos theory. So everything you say is correct. It's just those that make set in stone predictions on that less than 100%....

GoBlueInNYC

April 5th, 2011 at 9:58 AM ^

I think all the analysis is good for trying to get a handle on what happened. But maybe not so much for predicting specific future events. Kind of like analyzing the stock market. A lot of good information to draw from what's happened previously, but there isn't necessarily a whole lot of predictive power there.

Section 1

April 4th, 2011 at 6:58 PM ^

  • Rich Rodriguez couldn't pick a quality DC.  Well, no; he picked Jeff Casteel.  Michigan couldn't get Casteel signed.  Twice.  Or more.  Bill Martin, apparently, was not offering Mattison-type dollars.
  • Rich Rodriguez failed to trust the DC's he did hire.  Brian usually likes data.  I like data.  Where's the data on this?  Personally, I suspect a couple of things.  One is that yeah, maybe it is true that Rich Rodriguez didn't trust his second, third or fourth-pick guys as DC's, and he really did want a certain kind of defense.  Two is that neither Shafer nor Robinson think that Rodriguez interference or scheme-orientation had anything to do with the bad defenses.  There were just some really bad, really unfortunate holes in those defenses.
  • Judging Rich Rodriguez by anything that Brady Hoke is now doing or not doing.  That's pointless.  It is like suggesting, "Dude, if only RichRod hired Greg Mattison!"  It doesn't work that way.

In reply to by Section 1

jmblue

April 5th, 2011 at 2:17 AM ^

There were rumblings (from generally credible people) that part of the reason RR was so insistent on the 3-3-5 was because that's what his longtime D assistants were most comfortable running.  

dayooper63

April 4th, 2011 at 7:07 PM ^

I agree with 1 and 3.  2 I have to disagree with.  He did not allow his DC's to do their job.  He forced Shafer into a 3-3-5 at the debacle against Purdue in '08.  They should have shut that team down, but they looked lost (because they were running something they haven't practiced all year).  He let Gerg have his way somewhat in '09, but '10 was pure 3-3-5.  The 3-3-5 was something that Gerg never ran before that year.  Are trying to tell me that Gerg, fighting for his job, wanted to, on his own accord, switch to something he's never coached before?  Take into account the Purdue disaster in '08, it seems he was forcing the 3-3-5 on the DC's.

M-Wolverine

April 4th, 2011 at 8:16 PM ^

Do you have the data that Casteel didn't come here because we didn't offer enough money? I mean, it's possible he just didn't like working for the dude. Or his family didn't want to leave. Or he thought the head job could become available sooner at WV. Or any list of things I could just make up that we "knew" as well.
<br>
<br>And if you DON'T think Schafer thinks he was meddled with, why not ask him sometime what he meant by his sarcastic "yeah, the whole 2008 season was MY fault" line...

Yooper

April 4th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^

can talk about Hoke and/or Michigan football without some reference to Rodriquez.  Move on please. How about some analysis about what's going on at spring practice? What does it mean for next year? Etc. 

justingoblue

April 4th, 2011 at 6:44 PM ^

Well I think it's a little like breaking up with a girlfriend/boyfriend. RR got dumped but we haven't gone on a date with Hoke yet.

When we start having a relationship with Hoke, and we're not just daydreaming about it, people will talk about Hoke and eventually forget RR.

Gruesome analogy, but it's the best one I can think of.

FrankMurphy

April 4th, 2011 at 6:40 PM ^

I think it remains to be seen whether Rodriguez will have learned his lesson by the time he lands his next head coaching job. In the first interview he gave after the firing, he seemed to be in denial that his poor showing was in any way the result of his own mistakes or flaws in his own coaching philosophy. 

Chadillac Grillz

April 4th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^

ends up at Clemson ( I think he will by 2012) he will win.

1. It's the ACC, they suck overall and they don't have the defenses that the Big Ten does...2. RR would get a Denard /Pat White/ Shaun King type quickly and already has Spread players, so no major transition. 3. Clemson has a fantastic recruting base, and especially fantastic for hitting Florida and speed. 4. Considering the style vs. competition/weather/recruiting base/acedemic standards/expectations on the field etc. RR would be a perfect fit there and they want him BAD. My prediction is: Rich Rod goes to Clemson after Swinney gets fired this year and competes for ACC championships regularly with some very 'sexy', exciting teams that don't play very good defense.

NateVolk

April 4th, 2011 at 7:06 PM ^

It is good to hear Brian start to say good things about Hoke and express a little optimism. I figure he is currently in traction from the pain from not having used those muscles when writing about football for quite some time.  

In seriousness, when he starts talking football and not sour grapes over positive press coverage for the coach or  "the process", there is no one better online IMO. This is an example. Not midseason form, but still great.

Rodriguez was a cautionary tale in self-sabotage. A great offensive mind that was always a step slow adapting to a new job. The biggest sin being that he never understood the need to adapt in the first place.  We all agree he will be back and do well somewhere else.

The Impaler

April 4th, 2011 at 7:12 PM ^

Brian why are you still so bitter and negative about Hoke?

 

If he "gets" anything it's that he's a former defensive lineman with a narrowly defined set of assets that does not include being a genius of any variety—he's never been a coordinator. So he's hired two guys with very long, very successful resumes to do that stuff for him.

 

You obviously don't understand football from the inside.  It's not about being a genius.  It is about motivating young people to do things that they didn't think they could do before.  It is about teaching them to love each other, to play for each other and to win for each other.  This team will win games based on scheme, but they will win championships once they become a team.  Hoke understands this.  That is why he is the coach of the Michigan football team.  Get over it.

Waveman

April 4th, 2011 at 7:27 PM ^

Brian didn't say anything about Hoke's ability to motivate or form a team. He said that Brady Hoke is not one an Offensive or Defensive genius. I would argue that there is a bit of genius in identifying those offensive and defensive gurus and delegating, as well as motivating, but I don't think your argument does anything to address what Brian said about Hoke.  I'm probably more on board with Hokeamania than Brian is, but this seemed like a positive step on his part.

GoBlueInNYC

April 4th, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^

I actually read this totally differently. It was the first thing I've read from Brian that was overtly critical of Rodriguez, acknowledging his firing was arguably justified, while also giving Hoke a lot of credit.* I don't think he was bitter or negative about Hoke at all, he goes out of his way to say Hoke knows his strengths and weaknesses, and has shown himself to be a coach who knows how to delegate responsibilities to mitigate those weaknesses.

My take on this article: Belien is awesome; Rodriguez is super smart at some things, but stupid about others; Hoke's not super smart about anything in particular, but knows how to hire assistants who are.

*I could easily wrong that this combination of things has previously appeared in a post, in which case, consider this a bit of hyperbole meant to make a point that it is rare.

03 Blue 07

April 4th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^

To add to that, the ability to hire the right people and put them in a place to succeed IS a skill; it's a massively important skill. I know we use the "coach as CEO" comparison sometimes, and it has some merit, but sometimes is overblown as well. However, I recall Jack Welch, the former chairman of GE who by most measures was one of the most succesful CEO's in modern American history said that he felt the most important thing a CEO can do is hire people who are smarter than he is and figure out where to put people in an organization so they can succeed. This "HR" aspect can certainly be a major key to success. It seems that Hoke has those qualities, and that's what Brian is talking about.

GoBlueInNYC

April 5th, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^

Oh no, not that he hasn't been openly critical of Rodriguez (I can't imagine anyone going through the past three years and not being critical of him at least a few things - or any football fan being critical of their coach no matter how successful, for that matter). I meant specifically comparing Rodriguez to Hoke in a way that was critical of Rodriguez and positive about Hoke.

exmtroj

April 4th, 2011 at 7:58 PM ^

Being a leader at the very top means delegating lots of things, it's why the President has a cabinet, and a University Dean has Department Heads.  The strength of these leaders comes from forming a strong image/message at the top, and identifying the best subordinates to run the down and dirty stuff.  Brian is acknowledging this, and I took the whole thing pretty much as a compliment to Hoke.  And while I still don't have both feet in the Hoke boat yet, I will admit that he does seem to be delegating properly and setting everything up pretty well.

gbdub

April 4th, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^

Over time, we've seen numerous species of posters on the board - the Three Star Mafia, the In-Rod-We-Trusteds, the Moustached Beckmanns, and the Bolivians.

With Brian's less-than-thrilled-but-warming-to-the-guy response to Hoke, a new breed has emerged, best exemplified on this very thread by The Impaler, Yooper, and the patriarch of the line, Nate Volk (who at least acknowledges effort on Brian's part, and has some good if sarcastic insight from time to time).

This type of poster reads every post by post-Process Brian in the most negative of lights, seeing in every reference to Hoke a dripping sarcasm and scathing criticism and in every mention of Rich Rod a desperate longing for a return to the days of Spread'n'Shred and GERG's glorious stuffed beaver. Most of this, of course, isn't really in the posts at all, and hasn't been for a couple months - as we see here, where Brian essentially says Hoke isn't an x's and o's guy, but is a potentially brilliant personnel manager, a statement Hoke himself would probably take as high praise, and that Rich Rod foolishly squandered a potentially brilliant offense with truly negligent handling of the defense.

But never mind the content, these posters revel in the chance to stick it to Brian (and anyone else who dares question Hoke as the True Second Coming of Schembechler), which not only serves as a handy vent for residual RR frustration, but also has the lovely patina of speaking Truth to "the man" (or at least, the blog proprietor). In Brian they see the very essence of the skeptical bandwagon fan who doesn't know how to set aside reason for the good of the Team, the Team, the Team.

There is a certain entertainment value in these Brian-bashers, even though they've been a bit one note. What they lack is a name for their faction, hopefully one that they can wear proudly while their opponents can say it with sarcasm.

I suggest "Hoke's Angels" - but everyone is invited to suggest a better one.

3rdGenerationBlue

April 4th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^

as long as we agree Brian is late to the party noticing that Hoke is making good decisions. The bulk of his post has been discussed in the threads over the past few months and the negative data that he mentioned about RR has been on the books for a long time. He doesn't deserve credit for finally acknowledging the obvious. If you go back and review the bile he spilled before, during and after Hoke was hired you will question his current motives.

gbdub

April 5th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^

His current motives are that he, like most everyone here, is a Michigan fan who wants to see Michigan win lots of games. His opinion is that he's not certain that Hoke is anything more than a mediocre coach who loves Michigan - which guarantees exactly zero wins. He finds the unearned press praise, driven by performance behind the podium rather than on the field, off-putting. Now, you may disagree with this opinion, but the idea that it's unreasonable, or that it's not a legitimate topic for discussion in these days and months before Hoke coaches a game, is misguided and frankly obnoxious.

This is what separates the Hokemaniacs from the Hoke's Angels, in my reckoning: the Hokemaniac is simply excited by the optimism inherent in a new coach, a new season, talk of Michigan tradition, and a favorable press. But the Hoke's Angel takes that to the next level with reactionary bile-spewing against anyone who even suggests that Hoke hasn't proven anything yet, or that Rich Rod might not have actually been Jim Tressel in a disguise.

The only reason Brian was late to the party was because the party started as soon as Hoke was announced and said "toughness" and "that school in Ohio" a lot. People who were openly negative toward Hoke, or knew nothing about him at all, were suddenly his biggest fans because Dave Brandon told them to be and he seemed to know what teams he's supposed to beat.

When Hoke actually started you know, making decisions, Brian's reactions have ranged from "okay, given the situation" (recruiting) to "awesome hire" (Mattison). This seems reasonable, if debatable.