Brady Hoke says it takes 5-6 years to build a program

Submitted by Blueblood2991 on

Brady talking on his new XM show. Sorry for the Freep Link.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverine…

For those who don't want to click some notes:

Hoke says it takes 5-6 years to build a program, especially if you are changing an offensive scheme.

Hoke says he expects Michigan to surprise this year.

However, this was after he referenced how Jim Tressel left Urban Meyer with a loaded football team, so he was able to win quickly.

Hoke then said "The recruiting our staff did really fits to the style of offense and style of defense. That's something that's going to help them."-when asked if Harbaugh will have a good first year.

At first I was glad that he expects Michigan to succeed, but he only made it two sentences after being asked about Harbaugh to reference how his recruits will help Jim, when the question had nothing to do with him.

Is Brady bitter and planning to take credit for any Harbaugh success in year one?

 

BlueinOK

August 18th, 2015 at 6:14 PM ^

So we should be good this year and even better next season? Hoke brought in some talent so the team should be good, but he didn't fill in all the holes. 

Kenny Loggins

August 18th, 2015 at 6:24 PM ^

brought in talent, but didn't know anything about x's and o's besides what you see in madden...how many times were we doing okay going into half time only to get completely dominated in the second half? brady made zero in-game adjustments and couldn't counter even Jerry Kill's moves. pathetic.

Gofor2

August 19th, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^

UM has have fantastic classes 3 of the last 4 and the one wasn't terrible. The statement Hoke made may be a little longer than some, but isn't to far off. I'm not talking Jim Tressel, Urban Meyer, Saban or Carrol. Those guys are Exceptions to the rule, we have them in every field, coaching is no different. But for the average coach, with a average program, 4+ years is rather typical before the team reall comes into its own. That is if the coach is actually good and has the talent to turn a program around. I think Mark Dantonio is a great example, maybe Chip Kelly, but Kelly has benefited in recruiting from the ND brand, something Dantonio has not done at MSU, at least not until he built it up by becoming a perennial powerhouse. Point is Hoke is about right, maybe not 6 years, but 4-5 most certainly. But there will always be that handful of guys that seem to work magic.

Gofor2

August 19th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^

UM has had fantastic classes 3 of the last 4 and the one wasn't terrible. The statement Hoke made may be a little longer than some, but isn't to far off. I'm not talking Jim Tressel, Urban Meyer, Saban or Carrol. Those guys are Exceptions to the rule, we have them in every field, coaching is no different. But for the average coach, with a average program, 4+ years is rather typical before the team reall comes into its own. That is if the coach is actually good and has the talent to turn a program around. I think Mark Dantonio is a great example, maybe Chip Kelly, but Kelly has benefited in recruiting from the ND brand, something Dantonio has not done at MSU, at least not until he built it up by becoming a perennial powerhouse. Point is Hoke is about right, maybe not 6 years, but 4-5 most certainly. But there will always be that handful of guys that seem to work magic.

WolverineinSB

August 18th, 2015 at 6:14 PM ^

Any coach that got fired is connected to his former players and hopes they do well. He will be proud if they do well and feel like he should get some credit for it since he did get the kids to Michigan. That's just natural.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

UrbanLovesMacaque

August 18th, 2015 at 6:15 PM ^

He ain't exactly wrong.  RR was trying to make a drastic change and then Brady was trying to clean up after it.  Cause/effect.  I think he did leave the program in decent shape.  Just couldn't coach up what he had.

EGD

August 18th, 2015 at 6:20 PM ^

I disagree.  There was no reason for Hoke to abandon the spread offense when he was hired.  None.  All Hoke needed to do was put a defense on the field, and that took precisely one season.  If Hoke had hired a spread OC and built on Rich Rod's foundation, instead of insisting on the needless transition to manball, then Hoke would probably still be here because the offense would have been good (or at least not eye-bleedingly awful) the past two years.

westwardwolverine

August 18th, 2015 at 6:58 PM ^

Right, but Hoke could offer an OC pretty much any salary they wanted. He could have went out and gotten a spread OC. 

This is the biggest difference between the RR and Hoke failures: Had Rodriguez had the support Hoke had, he gets Casteel for an extra year of a contract and/or a couple hundred grand, Michigan probably wins a few more games each year and he keeps the job. Hoke could have offered anyone he wanted a huge sum of money and he ended up with Borges. 

westwardwolverine

August 18th, 2015 at 8:08 PM ^

Dunno. I do know it was incredibly dumb of Michigan not to match WVU's offer for him as he took one of the worst defenses in the country (Arizona) to one that finished 19th and 27th in FEI the last two years. Michigan under Mattison? 37th and 41st. 

Danwillhor

August 18th, 2015 at 10:32 PM ^

I swore I was done with RR a while back but I had to agree here. Apparently the issue was over a hundred thousand or two. He said he was comfortable but he'd have come if the RR had just quietly told UM to quietly take the difference out of his pay. I'm stunned he didn't do it as every 4-3 guy failed miserably. You'd think after a solid coach like Shafer walked instead of converting he'd have had enough and begged Jeff to come. He isn't just some random 3-3-5 guy but quite possibly THE best at running that system. Another "who knows" scenario in the clusterfuuu that's been UM football the last decade. As for Hoke, this time he sounds a bit less salty than that first interview but still a bit sour. Yet, this time he has some solid points wrt transition, Urban's inherited talent that knew spread concepts and the absolute rarity it is to win immediately because that's so rare to inherit a ready made situation. Saban, with all his loopholes, oversigning, cutting guys that stubbed their toe as Freshman and his choice of instant JUCO players still went 6-6 his first year at Bama. They didn't wildly change systems, etc. They just didn't have HIS level of talent. Heck, he lost to Louisiana Tech....or Monroe or one of those lowly Louisiana schools. I'll never forget how pissed he was but those were the kids he had. Players rarely transform over 8 months. You have who you have, preseason talk or not. It's very similar to what Jim walked into, IMO. We have who we have. I don't think this will be quick.

switch26

August 19th, 2015 at 10:03 AM ^

Harbaugh inherited the number 5 and 7 recruiting classes in the country that are soph and juniors now.. And the small class that included peppers I believe.

Saban didn't have the same level of talent. There is no excuse that he cannot win 8 or 9 games this year. It should be quick to start winning for harbaugh this isn't some drastic transition and I'm sick of people acting like it is..

westwardwolverine

August 19th, 2015 at 8:20 AM ^

Well, they don't suck, they are above average. Which is pretty remarkable at Arizona. 

And look at the money Durkin and Drevno are making (without nearly the pedigree I might add) in comparison to what it would have taken to get Casteel. RR shouldn't have had to pay him out of his own pocket (though I agree he should have. He probably didn't realize how important he was to his success). 

But the overall point holds: If RR had actually had the support Hoke enjoyed at Michigan from day one, Michigan would have been much more successful. And I don't see how anyone can argue against that. 

The Mad Hatter

August 19th, 2015 at 8:56 AM ^

Coaching salaries have exploded over the past few years.  Head coaches (and assistants) weren't making anywhere near what they do today a decade ago.  Michigan assistants were paid middle of the pack P5 salaries in 08.  Too low?  Yes.  But that's because of the "Michigan Discount".  Assistants would take far less pay here because of the program prestige and the chance to work under a great HC.

The fact that RR can only win with Casteel as his DC is the thing that makes him a good coach instead of a great coach.  A great coach sees assistants and coordinators leave all the time.  What does RR's coaching tree look like?

Finally, RR would have had a lot more support if he had just won a few more games in year one.  A 3 win season at Michigan?  Completely unacceptable under any circumstances.  

Ronnie Kaye

August 19th, 2015 at 1:03 PM ^

Butch Jones is in his coaching tree. That alone puts it above Lloyd's.

You're quite a peach. Going so far in your Rich Rod hate campaign that you think he should have been the first head coach in college football history to pay a defensive coordinator several hundred thousand dollars out of his own pocket. If you remember correctly, RR's salary was already cut into with his portion of the WVU buyout (the one Mary Sue and Martin had him fall on the sword in public for). He's running a charity here? Give me a break.

Ronnie Kaye

August 19th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^

Harbaugh paid Vic Fangio hundreds of thousands of dollars a year out of his own pocket at Stanford? Google search yields nothing on that.  

And even if Harbaugh did do that (link it or I'll assume you are flat out lying), he was an NFL quarterback for 15 seasons. He has a LOT more personal money than RR does.

 

Ronnie Kaye

August 19th, 2015 at 3:22 PM ^

There is a big difference between paying out of pocket and taking less money SUPPOSEDLY for higher-paid assistants (I personally think Harbaugh did not want to be the highest-paid coach until he wins a title). And as covered, JH is in a different economic stratosphere than RR and doesn't have buyout debt.

This really doesn't compute? No wonder you don't have a job.

Ronnie Kaye

August 19th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^

Hahaha. Sure you are. I've never seen a more obviously unemployed person on any message board and that is saying something. Get a life, dude.

Won't give you the satisfaction on Casteel. You lack critical thinking skills and will stretch to enormously moronic arguments to dig your heels in further.

MileHighWolverine

August 19th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^

What about Casteel? He can without him or do you think Casteel was his DC at every single stop along the way EXCEPT for Michigan? Because if you look at RR's track record, it was pretty good everywhere EXECPT for Michigan.

I'm sure he could win if he grabbed Tony Gibson or another 3-3-5 D coordinator.

Satisfied?

EGD

August 18th, 2015 at 7:06 PM ^

Asking a coach to implement the 3-3-5 in the middle of the freaking season is insane.  But if a different system better fits your personnel, and you have time to properly learn that system and teach it to your players, then refusing to do so because it's unfamiliar is basically an excuse for failure.

 

sdogg1m

August 18th, 2015 at 7:19 PM ^

This is part of the reason I believe Bo was such a great coach.

How many different offenses did he run while he was at Michigan? Moeller changed it up to.

RichRod is a system guy. Hoke had his desired way of running things. Bo tried to implement the best system on offense for his team to succeed and he never had a losing season.

ESNY

August 18th, 2015 at 8:39 PM ^

He said numerous times he stayed away from offense, so it stems from not being able to identify talented OCs or manage them effectively.  If 4 years in, your offense has been reduced to shit and gotten worse every year, I'm pretty sure year 5 wouldn't be some magical turnaround.   Maybe for a coach making a complete transition you may need 5-6 years, but you would expect to see incremental changes for the better which was completely lacking with whatever the hell he was doing here.

MGoCarolinaBlue

August 19th, 2015 at 7:56 AM ^

"but you would expect to see incremental changes for the better which was completely lacking with whatever the hell he was doing here."



uh, did you see the so-called senior class last season?



I definitely think Hoke should have just hired a spread OC to work with the personnel he had, but I think you guys are leaving out one major part of the equation.



I would not be surprised to see JH do very well with Hoke's upperclassmen, just as I wasn't surprised when Hoke did very well with RR's upperclassmen.

JonnyHintz

August 18th, 2015 at 7:34 PM ^

Rich Rod didn't need to abandon the pro-style offense. Rich Rod went full out read-option from Day 1, being a main reason for early departures and transfers. Rich Rod also hired two quality 4-3 DCs in Scott Schafer and Greg Robinson, and decided to have the team run a 3-3-5 (in a power run dominated conference mind you).

Hoke, in case you forgot, ran a hybrid style offense his first two seasons with Denard. I don't know how many man-ball pro-style offenses feature a QB running the ball 15 times per game.

Not a huge Hoke fan or anything, but a huge reason he was more successful than a Rich Rod was the fact that he tailored his schemes to his players. If you watched any of Michigan's games in Hoke's first or second season, they were A LOT closer to spread than manball.

BigBlue02

August 18th, 2015 at 7:51 PM ^

Can we please stop the "RichRod didn't adapt to his personnel" narrative. It is just pure bullshit. RichRod inheriting 1 returning starter (a sophomore(?) offensive lineman) on offense and losing a 4 year starter at QB and a 4 year starter at RB is why his offense wasn't good. No offense he ran that year would have worked with 4 new offensive lineman, a new QB who was either a sophomore or a walk-on, and a new running back to go along with new wide receivers because we had the entire offense drafted into the NFL and no talent behind them. Hoke inherited more talent and more returning starters. That combined with Mattison is the reason he succeeded. Also, having a record breaking QB that can make plays by himself will make an offensive transition easy for even horrible coaches

Champeen

August 19th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^

Rich Rods wins per season from 1st on was an upward slope year after year after completely gutting the team.

Hokes wins per season from 1st on was a downward slope year after year.  He inherited a slew of upperclass veteran players return from RR and made a BCS win with RRs structure.

RR had no support.  Hoke had full support.

Its a billion percent clear to me who the better coach is.  I was in the minority that thought RR should have received 1 more year.  He would have won that BCS bowl and the team would not have transitioned/gutted yet again and there would have been continuity - strongly believe he would still be here.

But maybe it was a blessing, because im not sure RR would have got us a mNC - and i think Harbaugh can get us a couple.

Ronnie Kaye

August 19th, 2015 at 1:24 PM ^

Michigan ran the 3-3-5 in exactly ONE game with Scott Shafer (Purdue '08). In Greg Robinson's first season, they ran the 3-3-5 in, again, exactly one game (Ohio State '09). 2010 was the only season with a full 3-3-5, which they weren't going to employ with Brandon Graham around. I dunno, that sounds like "adapting to your talent" to me. 

Brodie

August 19th, 2015 at 9:05 AM ^

And when Brady did coach up his teams, typically for the OSU game, they performed WAY above their average form. There wasn't a single Ohio State game in 4 years where we weren't in it late, which is incredible considering how they completely shitcanned us during the RR era. Losing by two touchdowns, Brady's absolute worst performance against the best team on our schedule annually, would have represented an incredible improvement from the RR era by itself let alone 1 win and 2 single score losses.