The Brady Hoke Style...
I received an email from a buddy of mine that I would like to share with everyone. We all know that Brady Hoke "gets it" at Michigan and this is just another example...
The following was sent to me by a fellow UM grad who lives in Seattle. I thought the group might be interested in the coaching style of a true “Michigan Man”! The first two items below have been given out in speeches to alumni groups (as has the "Strikes Policy") - so it is not secret. (1) The beginning of each team meeting: Hoke walks into the room and yells "good afternoon" ... the team is then expected to respond with great passion and enthusiasm "good afternoon." Then Hoke says "championships" ... the team is expected to respond with great passion and enthusiasm ... "42" ... the number of Big Ten championships Michigan has won. The Hoke says "Michigan" ... the team is expected to respond with great passion and enthusiasm ... "132" ... the number of years Michigan has played football. Finally, Hoke screams "beat" ... the team is expected to respond with incredible passion and enthusiasm ... "Ohio." (2) Also, when Hoke is introduced to the alumni group he says, "Don't applaud for me" and then asks any former players to stand - and has the audience applaud for them. Hoke says, "This is not about me - it is about YOU and the Michigan tradition." This all goes over big of course. +++++++ (3) One other thing -- the main emphasis in practice as far as the D goes: missed tackles. A kid who misses a tackle barely escapes with his life (figuratively of course) ... kids getting this treatment say to their friends after practice, "I will never miss another tackle again."
than Hoke?
If so, what evidence* do you have to substantiate this claim?
* Note: second-hand accounts of how impressed alumni are with Hoke do not count.
I think he had emotion, just not the right KIND of emotion. Not MICHIGAN MAN emotion.
I don't think he was saying that RR had more or less emotion than Hoke. He was saying that the PLAYERS' emotions can impact a game. What Hoke is doing is instilling a certain attitude - a pride in Michigan - in his players.
It is naive to believe that such things as school pride, excitement, an appreciation of being part of something great and overall emotion do not impact a team's performance.
If you have any doubt, you should look back at what some of the members of the 1997 NC team had to say about the season. You might also want to consider reading "If These Walls Could Talk" by our long-time equipement manager, Jon Falk.
Emotion for Michigan? Clearly.
Michigan in the same way as Hoke because Meyer has never been here before. Who would you rather have as the coach?
No, I'm pretty sure Urban gets U-M. He put U-M in his escape clause.
with someone else then. (Even though I don't know how Meyer, not ever having been at Michigan, just like RR, could somehow get it more). Mack Brown. Who would you rather have?
I'm not even going to continue with you if you can't even acknowledge or understand that Meyer could get it more than Rodriguez.
who has never been at Michigan can get it anymore than another guy who has never been at Michigan. Based on that, I guess I should be the head coach at Michigan before RR because I have followed the program for years and understand it more. Why can't RR "get it" less than Meyer? Does Meyer have some sort of access to the Internet that RR didn't have that allows him to research Michigan 24/7 and understand the history?
Or maybe those aren't the reasons RR failed. Maybe the reasons include that he made a terrible decision in hiring a defensive coordinator. Or that his retention of defensive players wasn't good enough. You know, real things, not some rah-rah crap.
Did RR grow up 60 miles south of Ann Arbor? Did RR ever coach in a U-M vs. OSU game prior to his coming to U-M? I could go on and on, but I'm not going to bother because you and are just going to agree to disagree on this one.
I should have definately been hired as the head coach instead of Rich Rodriguez.
By the way, had Jim Tressel ever coached in the M-OSU game before going to Ohio State?
LMAO at you. Yes, he had. Give it up, brother. You're making yourself look foolish now.
he was the QUARTERBACKS coach at OSU before, which is the defining reason for not only his head coaching success at OSU (he'd prlly have a losing record at OSU without that, right?) but it's also the reason for OSU beating Michigan. That and that alone, cuz he "gets" it.
You're the one that brought up Tressel without any knowledge of his prior coaching history, not me.
it still doesn't change my opinion that Tressel having been an assistant at OSU has nothing to do with success as a head coach. Had he not coached those 3 years as a QB coach at OSU, I would still expect he have the same record as he does now.
You don't get it correctly.
but I'm not having an argument about good coaching vs. knowing traditions. The two are not mutually exclusive. And as far as Mack Brown goes, I wouldn't be too excited about hiring a 60-year old man at the tail end of his coaching career to be my head coach.
about hiring a coach with a 47-50 record, right?
Gary Moeller won a total of six games during his three years at Illinois. Probably just me, but I don't put a lot of stock into coaching records from shitty schools.
... why Meyer would "get it" more than Rodriguez? Does not compute to me.
All I can suggest is that you do some research on Meyer's background.
He's from OHIO so he automatically gets it. Yep.
The fact that he coached in the rivalry against U-M both as an OSU and Notre Dame coach doesn't hurt either. But, of course, you already knew that. Yep.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:56 AM ^
This is fucking ridiculous. He was at OSU for 2 years and ND for 1. That is only 3 fucking years...by this token, RichRod should have known just as much about the rivalry after this past year because he was here for 3 years so we should have kept him.
March 29th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
"RichRod should have known just as much about the rivalry after this past year because he was here for 3 years so we should have kept him.
...your strawman is fucking ridiculous. Albeit not as ridiculous as your "I am also very passionate about Michigan football. Where do I sign up to coach?" quote, but pretty fucking stupid nonetheless.
Are you trying to be this dense? Of course there is more to being a good coach than just emphasizing history/tradition. Again, nobody (but you?) is arguing this. Emphasizing schemes and history/tradition are not mutually exclusive.
As for Urban Meyer, consider this:
- Meyer grew up 40 miles from Ann Arbor
- Meyer spent the first 24 years of his life living in Ohio
- Meyer coached two years at OSU under Earle Bruce
- Meyer coached FOUR years at ND (Not one as you stated. Oops, so much for your idiotic three years argument.)
- Meyer was a head coach in the MAC for two seasons
- Meyer had a clause in his contract that said he could leave Florida without penalty to coach U-M
- Meyer has been quoted as saying that he got into coaching because of coaches like Bo Schembechler
If you can, in good conscience, argue that RR had even just an equal understanding/passion/appreciation for the U-M job coming into it that Urban Meyer would have had, well, you're an even bigger RR slappy than I imagined.
March 29th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
How Meyer succeeded at Florida? He grew up in Ohio. He never coached against Tennessee or Florida State. Never even coached in an SEC game before. He had no connection to the program that Spurrier built. He didn't even like to pass the ball that much! He brought it guys like Tebow, not traditional Florida bombers like Wuerffel or Grossman! How did someone, who so clearly has no ties to a school, "get it" so much that he was able to win TWO national championships???? TELL ME NOW!!!! IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!
March 29th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
I don't how many times I can say it, there is more to coaching than just emphasizing tradition/emotion/passion for the program. Never once have I said that it is the sole reason for a coach's success or failure.
As for why Meyer succeeded, it's simple ... he had great talent and schemes that worked on both sides of the ball.
With that said, I feel safe in saying Meyer had a far better understanding of Florida football than you are giving him credit for. Whether he believed it or not, he knew all the right things to say in order to engender support among fans, alums, players, and recruits. Like it or not, that is part of the job when you are the HC of a major program.
For example:
"People keep asking will the shadow (of Spurrier) disappear? It shouldn't and I want to make sure it doesn't. We admire people who achieve, and to be honest, he is the reason that we're there. If Florida didn't win the championships in the '90s, I am not coming to Florida (two years ago). ... Obviously the real tradition started in the '90s when they won six SEC championships."
"I saw the black granite bricks in the front [of the football facility] with all the All-Americans…I got emotional about it. Guys gave their life and their soul to make this program great and now they're permanently part of the history in the greatest stadium in all of college football…out there where everybody can see them and embrace what they've done. We're where we are today because of all the things those guys did in the past and we wanted to honor them."
"There is a reason for everything we do here. We are making our front door a tribute to the great players and teams…embracing our past but building forward to the future. Anything we do, we do to motivate recruits. Any time when 18-year-old eyes' see Jack Youngblood's name, Emmit Smith's name, Tim Tebow's name and the way we honor our great players, our great teams…their eyes are going to get wide because they know they can have a great career here and they will always be remembered."
Call me crazy, but I think that maybe, just maybe, Meyer "got it."
Get over you're emotion B.S. Yes emotion is part of football, as it is with every sport. Things like coaching, talent and schemes also play a huge part in whether the team wins or not. You're making it sound like if a team shows up and plays with emotion then automatically they are going to win.
On game day I agree that this makes little difference, but for other aspects of a coaches job, it can
<br>
<br>Recruiting - you want every edge you can get. Having an identity that sets you apart can be a useful tool. It won't sway every player, but for some, being part of that tradition will matter. If the team is bought into that tradition, it will likely male the pitch to yhode players even stronger
<br>
<br>Motivation on days other than game day. It is a long season and coaches need to use every tool they can to motivate their players. If it motivates Hoke, he can translate it better as a motivational tool. While I have not played on a college football team or been in the military, I have been parts of groups that had strong espirit de corp and those that didn't. It made a difference. Many people worked harder when they felt part of something bigger. All good coaches try to forge that identity, when you have a tool like the michigan tradition to help you forge it, it seems silly not to use it
Obviously, there will be some that love this stuff and other that think that it is total crap (as evidenced by all of the comments so far.
My take:
There IS something special about Michigan football. There are only a handful of schools that can say that their program is "special," and I love that Michigan is one of them. Obviously, tackling, passing, catching and running win games. No doubt about that. But, confidence and a certain mentality help players and teams succeed when faced with adversity.
This whole schtick, to me, seems aimed at getting the players to understand that they aren't playing for just any team - they are playing for the winningest, and one of the most storied - program of all time. It is instilling a certain degree of pride in these kids.
Will this translate into wins? Maybe yes. I want our players to have that pride in Michigan, and to realize that they aren't just playing for another B10 team. I want them to understand and appreciate just how lucky they are to be a part of Michigan football, as opposed to (for example) MSU, Indiana or PSU. I want our players to have the love of Michigan that so many former players had.
Now, of course, for some this will turn into a debate about RR.
My take on how this relates to RR:
It doesn't. Right or wrong, RR was fired because of his record. I do think that RR is a great coach. I also think that having not come out of a school as wrapped up in tradition, or a school that really had any reason to "understand" what makes Michigan, ND and a select few other schools "different," he couldn't instill that feeling in his teams. This has nothing to do with being a Michigan Man - the same requirement to "get it" likely exists at ND and Texas - but RR has no greater appreciation for Michigan than he would have had for Miami, Pitt or any other job. That's not his fault, and people shouldn't blame him. It is unfair to expect someone to come in and from day 1 appreciate all of the nuances of Michigan football.
#3 is what matters to me in that email. We cut down on the missed tackles and I will be one happy man.
I don't give a crap if he gets "it". Win baby, win.
hit somebody in the mouth and win. that is all
I don't think you're allowed to do that anymore.
They uh... they don't let you use that no more.
...The Barwis Effect for his perseverence on this thread. It's not easy to take on several posters with different viewpoints than your own and continue it for as long as he has. Also, for the most part this whole thing was carried out in a civil manner by all parties.
Agreed. This has been a good thread/discussion. The kind of good that completely destroys all semblance of productivity at work today.
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm going to call myself out. I started to get frustrated when people started comparing Meyer or Tressel's prior understanding of U-M to Rodriguez's prior understanding of U-M. As a result, I made a few snarky responses and for that, I apologize.
I'm looking forward IMMENSELY to the season ahead.
Go Blue!
that first celtic woman playing the violin is pretty hot. Just saying.
I thought this was an upgrade. For those reasons.
Well, I don't think emphasizing schemes and history/tradition are mutually exclusive like some posters apprently do.
Hoke is reuniting a fanbase -- maybe you think it's stupid that he emphasizes our 132-year, 42 Big Ten championship history -- but it is aiding to mend the fanbase, and I think we can (or should) agree that there is no negative side effects to be had from mending our fractured base.
Amen
Tradition is something you can't bottle. You can't buy it at the corner store. But it is there to sustain you when you need it most. I've called upon it time and time again. And so have countless other Michigan athletes and coaches. There is nothing like it. I hope it never dies. -Fritz Crisler
One of the most common mistakes new leaders make—and I just can't for the life of me understand this one—is to ignore the history of the organization they just took over, or even to disrespect it. That, to me, is the mark of a weak leader—and one who's probably not going to last very long. The history of your organization is one of your greatest strengths, and if you're new to the organization, it's your job to learn it, to respect it and to teach it to the people coming up in your company. When I coached at Ohio State and even at Miami, we had really good facilities. When I got here, I was shocked. Our locker room was on the second floor of Yost Field House. We sat in rusty, folding chairs and hung our clothes on nails hammered into a two-by-four bolted into the wall. Those were our "lockers"! My coaches started complaining. "What the hell is this?" they said. "We had better stuff at Miami." I cut that off right away. "No, we didn't," I said. "See this chair? Fielding Yost sat in this chair. See this nail? Fielding Yost hung his hat on this nail. And you're telling me we had better stuff at Miami? No, men, we didn't. We have tradition here, Michigan tradition, and that's something no one else has!" -Bo SchembechlerX's and O'x matter. As do the Jimmies and the Joes. But Tradition matters too. And those that think it doesn't, never had it in the first place to understand it. In the debate, what does this have to do with Rich Rod? Almost nothing. Sure, he may not have utilized the tradition he had to it's greatest usage, but it didn't really hamper him as much as everything else did. He failed due to the problems with his scheme (read: defense, mostly) that people are so worried about Hoke being able to do, and the Jims and Joes. If he had won more, it wouldn't have mattered. You don't need tradition when you're winning; you're creating it. So, no, saying Hoke was good at it doesn't make him better than Rich. But it does show he has an understanding of an added component he has at Michigan to utilize, that other coaches have used to carry them through the tough times, when the scheme failed, or the personnel wasn't up to snuff, when things go wrong. There's a reason that so many "bad seasons" didn't deteriorate into disasters (and "disaster" was redefined as 7-5 or 6-6), where so many other programs blow some games, have nothing left to play for, and tank it and crash and burn. Tradition. As the man said, I hope it never dies.
I think we can safely lock the thread after that Fritz Crisler quote.