Monday Presser 9-8-14: Doug Nussmeier Comment Count

Adam Schnepp

Nuss

Can you talk about some of the positives you took away after watching the film?

“Well, you know, I think when you look at the football game and you say, ‘Okay, what were the things that we can take out of this game?’ I thought we were prepare to play. I talked to our guys about [how] the preparation was right. We were prepared. You look at the first drive, we move the ball down the field the first two drives and unfortunately were unable to convert but the preparation was right. We’ve talked a lot about what we’re doing to prepare for games and right now we’ve just got to play smarter, we’ve got to play more disciplined and we’ve got to execute better.”

What does this offense need to do to regain the consistency and solidity it had against Appalachian State and what did Notre Dame do to break down what you built up in the season opener?

“Well, I wouldn’t say that anything got broke down. The same thing I talked about a week ago; we’re still in the infancy stages. We’re still learning to play consistently and I’ll continue to hit on that because, like I said before, we play well in stretches and it showed in that game. You could see where we’d get movement, we’d create things, we’d move the ball and then we’d lack that consistency and that’s going to be a growth process and it’s something that we work every day in practice on and we continue to talk about it’s about eleven guys on every play doing the right thing. You just can’t play, when you play a quality opponent like Notre Dame- if it’s ten guys doing the right thing and one guy doing the wrong thing you’re doomed so we’ve got to get eleven guys on every play doing the right thing.”

Can you talk about what you’ve seen out of Devin Funchess in the first couple of games, but beyond that the production you’re expecting from those other guys when Devin gets the attention that he inevitably will.

“Sure. Devin’s done an outstanding job. I talked about that before. We moved him around and his ability to process the information, to move into the slot, to move back out by himself, then to have the tight end with him, that’s a lot of information. People don’t realize how difficult that is and that should tell you a little bit about his mental makeup and the other side of Devin Funchess, not just the athletic side that you see. He’s done an outstanding job with that.

“That being said, you could see in the game that there are other guys on this team that can make plays. Dennis Norfleet did a nice job for us, made some plays for us. Amara Darboh, Jehu Chesson. We’re still looking at some young guys to stand up and develop. Freddy Canteen, we’re trying to get Freddy going a little bit so we’re trying to not only let Devin do what Devin does but also develop that corps around him.”

[After THE JUMP: generating explosive plays, evaluating the offense’s progress, and a bunch of Devin Gardner questions]

Doug, when you go back and look at game film with Devin Gardner what’s the message to him and what are the teaching points there? What did you say to Devin, especially when things were going wrong?

“Well, the biggest thing is when you get in a game like that, and obviously the flow of the game never got where we wanted it, we never got the consistency and the flow. We’d get some good things started but then we’d have something that would set us back to get us behind the sticks, and we spent a lot of time talking to the whole offense about that. When you play a quality opponent you can’t play from behind the sticks. You’ve got to stay on schedule and when we got hurt was when we got behind the sticks.

“Devin obviously did some things that neither of us really wanted but that happens. It’s all about the process of learning, going through reads, going through progressions, what did you see, where do your eyes and feet need to be and he’s growing. We’re growing together. It’s the second game I’ve been with him. There’s things I need to do better, for sure.”

Were you concerned that Devin became frustrated when you didn’t get any points out of the first two drives and then as the game went on seemed to become more and more frustrated?

“I wouldn’t say concerned. I think that’s always something with a quarterback playing in that type of game when things don’t go the way you like them to. Like I said, we had a hard time establishing the offensive tempo that we wanted to establish. We couldn’t do that and therefore, the quarterback- you get behind the sticks, you get put in third and long situations and obviously we didn’t play as well as we needed to play on third downs. You put pressure on a quarterback and allow teams to blitz you and do the things they’re going to do when you get behind the chains. That’s not advantageous.”

Some of the pass pro[tection] problems- were those assignment issues or part of the growth you’re talking about?

“Well, we saw a lot of different blitzes. They did a nice job. They had a nice blitz package and I thought our guys really, we talked about it after the game, from an assignment standpoint did a really, really nice job. What you see is what you think is maybe a guy turning a guy loose. Well, that may be a shift where it’s this dangerous one or that dangerous one and he picked one or the other. Now, maybe we’d like him to pick the closest guy to the quarterback but as far as mental errors and busts there were not that many. We had a couple that we’ve got to get cleaned up but for the most part, as far as assignment-wise, it was pretty darn good. We need to be more stout, the quarterback has to be more decisive and part of that is you get into third-and-long in a game like that it makes it difficult. You’re on the road, it’s loud, you’re seeing lots of blitzes so that’s something that we can control through the process of first and second down and what we’re doing there.”

Two part question: first, against Notre Dame being your Michigan debut against a major opponent if you could reverse your role how would you grade your performance looking through the eyes of Michigan fans?

“Not very good. Obviously when you don’t score and you’re the offensive coordinator it’s not good. It’s been a lot of reflection. What could we have done differently and what should we have done differently. Obviously, we take big ownership in this and when you don’t score points it falls on everybody and you start with the offensive coordinator.”

Second part: it looked like a swing kind of over Dennis Norfleet’s head. It looked like a big play. He’s a guy who when he touches the ball can potentially score a touchdown. Are you excited about what you’re going to be able to do? Do you plan on working him more into the offense?

“Well, like I talked about we feel like we’ve got multiple guys that can do things and when you look back at the game what’s one of the things we didn’t do well, that I didn’t do well? We didn’t create enough explosive plays, plays that are a twelve yard run or a sixteen yard pass. We only had five explosives so it averaged out to about one every thirteen plays, something like that. That’s not good enough for us. When you can’t generate big plays that makes it difficult. That means you have to sustain long drives and that’s one of the things that we have to look at and how do we develop ways to get our guys in situations where they can create explosive plays.”

MGoQuestion: How would you evaluate the offense’s pre-snap communication on Saturday?

“I thought it was excellent.”

MGoWellAtLeastWeHaveThatGoingForUs

You mentioned Devin still growing. I think a lot of people have trouble embracing that because he’s a fifth year senior. What about Devin is still growing and why isn’t he more of a finished product at this point?

“Well, he’s in a new system. Second game in a new system.”

Did you ever think about Shane {Morris] at all in that game?

“I thought Shane had a great week of practice. And Shane has done an outstanding job. Said it before, we feel very comfortable with Shane playing. The way the game unfolded and the way the game played out, felt like it was the best thing to leave Devin in the game.”

You mentioned earlier that your offense was in the infancy stage right now. When do you expect that to progress? What’s the timeline there?

“I don’t think there is a timeline. We’ll go as fast as we can. You look at the big picture of things and you’re early in the season, you’re in week two and you go on the road and play a quality opponent and you find out a lot about yourself and you can some of the procedural things that we’ve got to clean up. We had the false start penalties within drives, and that’s what I talk about getting behind the sticks and those kind of things. Those are things we have to clean up.

“One of the other things we did, we went back and we looked at plays from the game and plays that we ran that were either the same exact play that we ran in one stage of the game that was successful and when we came back why wasn’t it successful the second time or what did we do differently or maybe it didn’t work the first time but it worked the second time because we executed properly. A lot of it is we’re running plays that our players, this is their second live game doing it. And we played a quality opponent.”

You talked about your need for explosive plays and your tight end Jake Butt is working his way back in and he’s one of those kind of players. Talk about where his ceiling is and what he brings when he’s fully ready to go.

“Jake, obviously, he gives you a dimension in the pass game. When you can get a tight end that can vertically stretch the field it helps the passing game tremendously. He’s coming off the ACL so obviously as he continues to get healthier and healthier we’ll continue  to implement him in our system.”

Comments

pearlw

September 9th, 2014 at 9:23 AM ^

His comments about getting Canteen more involved are interesting. Canteen's disappearance since the spring has been strange. I know Darboh wasnt playing in the spring but Canteen was running with the first team back then. There were a lot of strange comments at the end of camp about how Canteen started fall camp very slow but has come on lately...not sure what went on there. Looking forward to him getting on the field more to show what he can do.

reshp1

September 9th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

I'm really glad he mentioned Cateen unprompted. One of my post game snowflakes was we need a guy who can create separation quickly as a route technician in the Jeremy Gallon mold so Gardner can have a target before the pressure gets home. Our other receivers get seperation by being faster, which takes longer, or by being bigger, but that only gets you so far and requires a pin point throw to take advantage of.

I'm guessing he still doesn't have the offense down yet. In the spring and fall scrimmages, he was struggling to line up correctly at times. The last ND interception at the end of the game looked like it was on him for not making the right adjustment on the route. There's a shot of Gardner talking to him about it on the sideline where Canteen seems to acknowledge he was in the wrong.

It's one thing to burn guys in practice with your raw talent, but another to be a dependable guy that isn't going to blow a play up catastrophically because he isn't on the same page as everyone else. Hopefully, he can get stuff straightened out quickly because we could really use him right now.

TickerTape

September 9th, 2014 at 9:25 AM ^

we’re still in the infancy stages....

 

Where have I heard that before, where have I heard that before, where have I heard that before. And Notre Dame played 19 freshman of some sort and seemed to do alright...

BornInAA

September 9th, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^

I know.

You only get these players for 3-5 years so they are always "learning" always "in the infancy stages". Elite programs don't seem to have this problem like we do.

This kind of coachspeak - blaming it on youth - really grinds me.

John Beilein doesn't have these issues, he teams are never loaded with 5 year seniors.

CompleteLunacy

September 9th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^

He has had his system in for TWO GAMES. That's the infancy part. It's not freshmen....EVERYONE is learning his system for the first time. There's a major difference.



He also took primary responsibility more than once. He said he has to do better. He said everyone has to do better, starting with the OC.

CompleteLunacy

September 9th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^

I thought about this just as posted my comment. The Giants looked like crap on offense, they were even lucky to get to 14 points honestly (aided in part by dumb Detroit penalties). 

But in a new system, it's a process that takes longer than people expect. Michigan had a very tough environment to play in for a brand new system. They did well in spurts, but Nuss has already said that's the #1 problem right now being consistency. He even mentioned the lack of big plays, which was the other major problem that Brian and others have identified. The guy's not stupid, he knows where improvements are needed. 

 

Vote_Crisler_1937

September 9th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^

The evidence points to Nuss being a great coach and I'm optimistic about what he can do for Michigan but man, ND's 19 freshmen/redshirt freshmen missing 4 key defensive players and having a coordinator in only his second game with them looked really sharp executing all those different blitzes and making a 5th year Sr QB look totally lost. Maybe D is easier to install than Nuss's offense but those youngsters on ND's D were sharp on Saturday.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

getsome

September 9th, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^

i wont doubt ND looked pretty crisp but lets face it, its not too hard to fluster gardner or his OL.  plus ND was throwing a lot of speed out there.  those younger guys are not jaylon smith 2.0 but most are pretty athletic.  in many cases it was just gardner freaking out or looking lost or eye-efffing his primary for 3-4 secs - or other cases where magnuson blew yet another assignment or helped the wrong way.  yes ND looked pretty good and i liked their timing (plus they got a very good new DC), but they were rolling, very confident and basically running the same 3-4 games much of the time - michigan helped them look totally dominant

TickerTape

September 9th, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^

I am aware of his point being his new system. His new system that is supposed to be much more simplified than the Al Borges system. The faces on the offense didnt look new to me with the exception of one or two. 

And by the way, they didn't seem to have a problem figuring out that oh so complicated system in week one did they?

 

Bread gets stale  SIGH 

reshp1

September 9th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^

People couldn't get rid of Borges fast enough, and that's fine, he probably deserved it.. but you know what happens when you fire an OC? The next one has to install a new system and the players have to learn it.

There's being sick of losing and then there's just being unreasonable. Criticising the new OC for not having his system completely installed and players executing it flawlessly after 2 games is squarely the latter.

bighouse22

September 9th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^

To me that's the problem.  The System should have been established 4 years ago by the head coach and implemented by the coordinators.  If someone leaves, you are still running the same system.  There should not be anything that has been changed so drastically that it requires a total reboot.  If that is the case, then it tells you that the Head Coach's plan was wrong from the start and that maybe he should not be in charge.

If the Head Coach did not have a system that was already tried and true, why the hell was he hired in the first place.  They have been recruiting for the original system for the last 4 years????

reshp1

September 9th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

There are plenty of defensive minded HC that do just fine letting their OC install and run their system. Nick Saban, for example. For guys like Chip Kelly and Rich Rod who have unique offensive systems they personally designed, the opposite is true, they rely on their DCs to implement the defensive scheme.

getsome

September 9th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^

hoke is not a coordinator (which is my biggest gripe with his hire/performance bc i dont think he ever could be big time coordinator)  so he does not have a system.  does not work as youre stating unless the head coach also happens to be OC or really offensive minded.  otherwise, new coordinators will always run through installs of fresh systems upon being hired...might not be drastically different but still just the way things work

teldar

September 9th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^

Usually there is someone on the team who has learned the system and is able to help the freshmen out. There is someone with some training. 

We're in a, basically, completely new system with all new reads and different techniques. You want someone to blame for this game? Blame Gorgeous Al and his different offense every week game planning. You can probably also blame him for a lot of the zombie speed too. If the guys were used to one system and good at it, there would not be so damn many problems. 

 

bighouse22

September 9th, 2014 at 12:03 PM ^

If the system that Brady Hoke brought in was so ill-conceived from the start that he needs to implement something so dramatically different that there is going to be an undetermined period to learn said system, doesn't that speak to having hired the wrong guy 4 years ago.  Why is he still in charge.  

Does he get to change back to a spread next time it doesn't work and claim they are just going through a learning curve, give me more time?  What a truely amazing strategy to use for complete and utter failure.

With that strategy he may be able to retire from Michigan as the Head Coach!

Ben v2

September 9th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

Nuss has the additional complexity of installing an offense new to the position coaches.  OC's typically bring one or more position coaches with them to ease the transition.  Borges had Funk, Calvin Magee had Rod Smith, and even Mike Debord had Terry Malone.  Nuss is forced to install his system by himself.  We should have allowed Nuss to bring in one of his own guys.

getsome

September 9th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^

100% agree (though wouldve had to come from somewhere other than bama bc of saban etc).  i know nuss brought along a grad assistant / off quality control asst or whatever theyre calling him but that doesnt count.  they shouldve allowed him to bring in few guys, wouldve made things bit easier.  but thats an issue with hoke, he seems loyal to a fault and likely always force his boss' hand rather than at his own discretion.  

i know many of the coaches on staff are legit and know the game and how to relay it to kids in charasmatic yet effective manner.  but most guys hoke brought from SDSU have been with for years and followed his rather unimpressive trajectory to UM.  you dont have to learn the game at bama or usc or nfl to be great coach and small school guys are successful all the time but 20 years at illinois states or whatever before UM starts to look silly after 2-3 coach resumes and 2-3 seasons of technique/scheme disasters.  

those comments this offseason about willie carr finally being the first coach (and hes not even an official assistant)  to teach legit pass rush techniques 1 vs 1 were stunning to me (i think clark said that stuff).  but thats loyalty for ya

reshp1

September 9th, 2014 at 9:53 AM ^

This is probably the part I hate the most about this place after a loss, incessant sniping at the presser comments. I get it, people are upset, but there's no need to twist every comment so that it fits your narrative that the coaches are incompetent. There's literally nothing they can say that is going to make people feel better about what happened. I mean, what do you want? "We really sucked it up all week and I'm surprised we didn't get pounded harder," or  "This team isn't half the team I had at Alabama?" How would that make anything better?

 

The coaches are trying to preserve the team's confidence and have them keep doing what they need to do week in and week out to get better. It's not like they don't know the team needs to get better. He spends a whole paragraph talking about how the team is in it's infancy. Why focus on the one line that implies the coaches think everything is A OK?

Everyone Murders

September 9th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^

The reason I picked out that line is I've seen the other coaches use very similar language, and it's manifestly false.  While I think the result on Saturday is mostly due to Golson playing great against a hurt backfield, Michigan did not look well-prepared to my eyes.  And given that the other coaches were using the same (false) line, it sure looked like a talking point to me.  Does that unknot your knickers?

I want my school's coaches to be positive and build the players up.  And it is still a young team that I believe is on the upswing.  But why on earth say the team was well-prepared when it wasn't? 

FWIW, I remain optimistic about this season and Michigan's chances.  I like Nussmeier and the other coaches. 

reshp1

September 9th, 2014 at 10:10 AM ^

Of course it wasn't good enough, we lost 31-0. But there's a difference between thinking you did a good job the week leading up to the game and the results. I didn't have any problem with the game plan. It wasn't the problem. We moved the ball just fine for large parts of the game, we just made mistakes that killed drives, and obviously the turnovers just sealed it. (shameless plug for my diary, "289 yards for 0 points")

The team simply isn't good enough right now, that's not necessarily a week to week preparation thing. You can see from his other comments that this is a season long growing process. It's possible and reasonable that they had a good week of practice but still got destroyed.

 

Regardless, my original point stands... so many people read these pressers specifically looking for things to be upset about.

teldar

September 9th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^

is an excellent comment and rebuttal to someone looking for an argument. The team was terrible. But it doesn't mean they aren't trying  and learning and doing well in practice. It just means that sometimes, when you have a completely new offense, because, you know, you have ONE offense, it may take some time to learn. I think the concerning thing is that if this offense was able to put up points against the defense on a regular basis, the defense may be a disaster. However, I'm sure they're disheartened by the lack of the offense being able to do anything right in games. For the last 4 years. 

 

EGD

September 9th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^

As Nussmeier said, M started the game off with two sustained drives that bogged down in Irish territory and ended with missed FGs. So, I don't find it manifestly impossible that the team was well-prepared. It seemed to me that the team didn't respond well to adversity-- i.e. their performance decreased markedly after the missed FGs, PI flags, ND's conversion on 4th down, etc. The players could have had a great week of practice and "prepared" well, but then come unglued as they started to get behind on the scoreboard.

CompleteLunacy

September 9th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^

Just because you say it doesn't make it fact.



Preparation is one thing. You can prepare perfectly, but that doesn't guarantee success. Maybe they thought practices went great. That's preparation. Unraveling in game doesn't necessarily indicate lack of preparation.



Nuss is a good coach and I'm a bit shocked at how few people are willing to give him benefit of the doubt at this point, two games in at Michigan.

Everyone Murders

September 9th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^

A lot of this depends upon how you define "well-prepared".  By my lights you need to prepare to implement your game plan (which the coaches and team probably did well) but you also have to prepare for when things don't go as planned.  It's that latter part of preparedness that seemed to be lacking on Saturday night.

As far as the "nobody's giving Nuss the benefit of a doubt" I've definitely been in the other camp on that point.  I think he will turn this offense around, and that we are still primed for a good season.  I am glad Michigan hired him, and think we need to give him time with the team before passing any judgments on whether he was a good hire for the program. 

But if you thought that Michigan was prepared for a come-from-behind effort on Saturday night (faster tempo, utilizing Funchess deep, checking down, adjusting at the line, two minute drill, clock management, etc.) you were watching a different game than I was.  They'll get there (i.e., a well-prepared team), but they're not there yet.

Finally, the genesis of my original comment was that I believe each of Hoke, Mattison and Nussmeier proclaimed without being asked that the team was well-prepared.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But when that happens after a loss, it sounds a hell of a lot like a talking point to me.

KBLOW

September 9th, 2014 at 9:38 AM ^

So no one asked specifically about why we didn't take more shots down field to Funchess and/or run three step drops more often?  Incredible...

dragonchild

September 9th, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^

Of the coaches, Nuss is more Hoke in his non-answers than Mattison's candid delivery so I'm not sure asking would've done much.  Though I do like how MGoBlog uses questions to deliver messages so it would've been nice to see.

Anyway, while I'm not Space Coyote I don't think three-step drops are just something you do.  The blocking and routes are all executed at a very timed sequence since there's literally no time to progress through reads.  The QB basically throws to a spot, sometimes even blind, and the wideout has to get there at the exact right moment, with the OC counting on a reactive defense not able to jump the spot.  You can do that with even an inexperienced team if that's what they are, but it takes a ton of reps that this team is probably spending on mastering inside zone.  Second, I don't think Gardner is a three-step-drop QB.  Three step drops require pinpoint accuracy on short passes and Gardner has always been inconsistent.  An erratic QB with a young receiver corps in a new system trying timed routes against Kelly's defense?  Four turnovers would've been a good day.  I think they did pretty well given what they had.

As for not throwing downfield, I suspect Gardner's hiding an injury but it could also just be that Nuss schemed it that way. He's never going to say so but I doubt Nuss expected the pass pro to hold up as well as they did.  He probably budgeted 2-3 seconds for Gardner to get the ball out, with no time to look downfield.  I think he was extremely careful to avoid negative yardage plays, so Nuss likely prepared a simplistic scheme that (in hindsight) made the ND defense's job easy.  For the most part he did, but that basically limited Michian to short yardage plays that they couldn't consistently execute.  This made the drives more prone to sputtering.

Overall I feel Nuss was conservative on avoiding negative plays and aggressive on short yardage to get the offense into a rhythm.  I would've preferred they adjust in the second half with more downfield throws to Funchess but unleashing the dragon inherently carries the risk of drive-killing picks which. . . happened anyway, but if the picks happened downfield it's not like Nuss would've looked much better -- we'd still have gotten shut out.  He gambled, got unlucky and it backfired in the worst possible way.  The result was a decent amount of yards and zero points, but despite the result I think I understand what he was trying to do.  I just think Kelly quickly figured it out.

The thing about this new offense is that it doesn't have a deep well of tricks like Borges'.  Borges' offense was fundamentally unsound but at any point it could unleash a WTF play that gets someone strolling into the end zone untouched.  Nuss is more of a constraint-oriented offense that promises long-term consistency -- remember, that's what we demanded -- but early on it means a coach like Kelly can reverse-engineer the scheme and bottle it up.  By my estimation it took all of two drives.  Nuss did a good job keeping Kelly from overplaying anything but the simplicity allowed Kelly to just contain it and force the inexperienced line to execute consistently -- the one thing they can't yet do.  It was the perfect riposte to Nuss' gameplan.  Game, set, match.

If the offense continues to improve, doing that won't be so easy.

teldar

September 9th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^

about the proliferation of trickeration by Borges and the necessarily more contained plan by Nuss. And I would agree that people just wanted something consistent and not the soul crushing yard loss generator Al was employing. But Al did like the big play. And that is something that probably won't reappear until the OL and the offense in general are all on the same page. Unfortunately, I think you can basically say last year was a complete waste as far as growth and improvement was concerned. 

 

Space Coyote

September 9th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^

But I think it's a difference in philosophy between the two OCs. I honestly think Borges was playing to have success now (I know people are thinking "what the hell are you talking about", but hear me out), where as Nussmeier is looking to build something.

So you have Borges, who is running a lot of different schemes, is trying to mitigate execution issues by out-scheming opponents. That's why you get wildly different outcomes game-to-game. You catch a defense off guard and you execute it, and it's huge results. You don't catch them off-guard and you don't execute it, and it looks like MSU/Nebraska back-to-back. But it's trying to scheme out the offensive-deficiencies to give the offense theoretically at least a chance in every game, but something with awful results.

Nussmeier, on the other hand, is trying to build something. That means it will take time to build to where it needs to be to compete against teams like ND. It also probably means it will tend to be more successful against teams that are simply not up to Michigan's talent level. But in the meantime, it will look bad against the better defenses. The idea basically: we'll score enough points against teams we should score on; but we will almost certainly need help from our defense in some other games. As we saw Saturday, it moved well enough early to potentially generate points, but it's going to run its course a bit. But the goal is that eventually it gets to a point where it's consistent game-to-game regardless of opponent.

For a program, I prefer the approach Nussmeier is taking. For a staff that is a bit under pressure with today's what have you done for me lately attitude, it may backfire though. Fans need patience with the offense, they really do. Nussmeier could pull out the same philosophy as Borges and we'd see similar results. But he wants to build something, not "let's wait until next year to really start building something", because he doesn't believe that's best for the program and team. It's hard to say which approach is right for this staff and therefore this team, but I'd tend to prefer the latter, if I didn't have so much contempt for the "win now" culture.

I know people are tired of being patient, I am too, because we've been patient for 6 years. But it is a new offense that he wants to build, similar to Rich Rod's belief of implementing his spread immediately. But the difference is that this is Hoke's 4th year, not first.