Can a non "guru" coach succeed?

In college football, I think there are four distinct personality types that characterize most coaches. All coaches display mixtures of these traits, but each coach has a dominant characteristic.

A. Demanding taskmaster—aggressive, military-style, devoted to extremely rigorous work regimen, details and execution, but not necessarily innovators; frequently an asshole; doesn't give a shit if you like them, but demands that you respect them. Knows exactly who they are and what they want, and will not let anybody stand in their way; frequently hired to revive foundering program; generally place supreme emphasis on stout defense; Woody Hayes, Fielding Yost, Bear Bryant, Darrel Royal, Tom Coughlin (coached at BC), Nick Saban, Jim Harbaugh, Barry Alvarez, Mark Dantonio

B. Innovator—thinking, cerebral, or creative in developing offensive, or less-frequently, defensive schemes; doesn't give a shit if you like them, but demands that you be a thinker too. Does not tolerate dullards or the mistake-prone. Generally an outside hire; Fritz Crisler, early Rich Rodriguez, Urban Meyer, Mike Leach, Brian Kelly, Chip Kelly, Paul Brown, early Steve Spurrier, early Bob Stoops, Bill Walsh, Emory Bellard; (maybe even Frank Beamer if you include special teams); sometimes reputation for genius is entirely undeserved (Charlie Weis) or is at best ill-suited to the college game

C. Program manager—Frequent inside hires as replacement for iconic coaches; bureaucratic stewardship; generally bland, unassuming public demeanor in contrast to predecessors; always says "the right things" in public; not generally innovators but can be very successful in the right conditions and with good instincts in choosing assistants; very attentive to program reputation and tradition; normally very loyal to assistants and players; Tom Osborne, Frank Solich, Earle Bruce, Fred Akers, Kirk Ferentz, Bret Bielema, Bob Davie, John Robinson

D. Player's coach—Prizes relationships with players and enjoys being seen as one of them; frequently inspirational, sometimes innovative, strong recruiter; occasionally tolerant if not encouraging of player misbehavior on and off the field; Barry Switzer, Jimmy Johnson, Pete Carroll, Les Miles

........................

Bo Schembechler's legendarily fiery, aggressive and combative personality (Bo could be a real dick if you weren't on his side) was coupled with extremely high standards for production and a tremendous grasp of fundamental details, and the result was what came to define Michigan football for the vast majority of us growing up. Bo was major part A

Gary Moeller was fundamentally different in personality from Bo (at least outwardly) but he was a thinking offensive innovator who put together some high-powered offenses that were among the nation's best, and got a Heisman for one his guys in the bargain. Combination of B and C.

RR was an offensive innovator with much of the same fire and intensity as Bo, but unfortunately he almost completely lacked Bo's ability to discern and hire great assistant coaches, especially on the defensive side. That was crippling, since RR also played surprisingly little role in the defensive side of the game himself, another huge contrast to Bo. Combination of B and A

Lloyd Carr was thoughtful, reflective, and cautious—frequently maddeningly so—but he was extremely intense nonetheless, and when his back was to the wall, was able to throw his natural caution to the wind and let the dogs out, so to speak. That's why most of the great comebacks in Michigan football history happened under his watch, and also why he was able to break with tradition and give a significant offensive role to his best defensive player, leading to another Heisman and a national title. Extremely devoted to the tradition and reputation of Michigan. Strong part C

Which brings us to Hoke in terms of football personality. Fiery, aggressive, or combative demanding asshole taskmaster chewing players or assistants out either in practice or on the sidelines? Nope. Cerebral offensive or defensive innovator whose ideas and theories are copied by other coaches? Nope. 

Bland, unassuming public demeanor, always saying "the right things" in public, very attentive to program reputation and tradition, very loyal to assistants and players? Bingo.

I think Hoke is a mixture of heavy C with the best elements of D. The big question is whether Hoke is able to assemble a top-notch staff. If he can, he can be very successful. If he doesn't, he won't last.