Did Jim Boccher scare Brady away from the spread punt?

Submitted by iawolve on

I may have the tin foil hat on here, but I struggle when people don't do things that are obvious based on overwhelming evidence and the answer not to do them is "just because". There is always a reason for the behavior. It is possible that there is a deeply held belief system that is interfering with rational action or a past negative experience that simply cannot be overcome to take a different action.

My theory involves a negative experience resulting from Jim Boccher who was on the Michigan staff in 2001 and 2002 before Lloyd promoted him from graduate assistant to special teams coach in 2003, the year Brady left for Ball State. Boccher was early in adopting the spread punt, but to a disasterous effect where in a three game span the results were:

  • Close loss to Oregon who blocked and returned a punt for a TD
  • Win against Indiana who 1 blocked a punt
  • Close loss to Iowa who blocked and returned a punt for a TD

Boccher then left the team for personal reasons the next week in the middle of an absolute fan sh*tstorm and I don't think he ever coached again. I am pretty sure we ended the spread that next week or shortly thereafter. That was the only midseason coaching change I remember Lloyd ever making so I am sure the decision did not come easy. Brady would have been on the staff with Jim in 2001 and 2002, I know he had to be following what was happening in 2003 to UM and his mentor that helped get him a HC job.

I don't know, just something crazy you think about when you have too much time on the plane and trying to make any sense out of this.

 

MGoBoard
Football

DonAZ

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:20 PM ^

But wouldnt a coach be data driven in the end?

You know how some people are analytical and some are intuitive?  I think Hoke prides himself on being more of an intuitive coach.  Data is okay to a point, but gut feel rules in the end.

Good man but stubborn

Yep ... and unless he comes to his senses on some key points -- and quickly -- it will be his undoing.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

Casanova

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:35 PM ^

Intuitive and analytical are not mutually exclusive.
Ones "intuitive" nature is based solely on data in the form of experience. 

In short, we are all analytical. Some of us choose to disregard new information that, on its surface, doesn't fit our previously held beliefs. 

Hoke chooses beliefs over critically thinking. 

Joined: 09/23/2014

MGoPoints: 2836

reshp1

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:07 PM ^

In terms of punt formation, I think the stubborn tag is apt, but in general, I'm not sure if that shoe actually fits. I understand why people think that, Hoke certainly has been talking a big talk about a certain identity he wants in his team. But if you look at the actual product on the field, I think he's actually shown a remarkable flexibility. We've run two different defenses and various variations on those themes. We ran a hybrid spread/pro style with Denard, unsuccessfully and grudgingly at times maybe, but it was a lot more accomodating than, say RR was with the guys he had (that's not a knock on RR btw, I think that's the norm for most coaches). If you look at his prior stops, you'd see even more flexibility, pretty much leaving it up to his coordinators to decide.

I also don't think he's averse to analytics and statistics. He's reference them in pressers at times and his game theory decisions (going for it on 4th, going for two, etc) have overwhemingly been correct based on the stats. All this makes the punt thing even more of a head scratcher, and I think OP might be on to something with his theory that Hoke's initial impression of the shield punt was so bad it gave him a lasting bias against it.

Joined: 10/31/2011

MGoPoints: 34177

sum1valiant

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:18 PM ^

If Hoke is making decisions based on what happened in a 3 game span over a decade ago, you've explained a lot more than you probably realize. Sadly, I'm not comfortable completely dismissing this notion.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 13025

BlueGoM

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:19 PM ^

Ah, yes... I nearly forgot about that guy.   Maybe he did poison Hoke against the spread formation, but OTOH, if damn near everyone else is using it, you might reconsider your position...

 

Joined: 08/25/2009

MGoPoints: 7997

GoBLUinTX

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:27 PM ^

I'd forgotten it was that long ago.

Could somebody explain how not running the "spread" punt formation caused the punt to have little hang time and for them to have only 10 men on the field?  Seems to me 10 men on the field is a greater problem than type of formation.

Joined: 12/02/2013

MGoPoints: 5895

DonAZ

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:26 PM ^

Might another possibility be special teams coach Dan Ferrigno?  I don't know much about him -- we hear almost nothing about him -- but I wonder if he's got something against the spread punt and Hoke -- being Hoke -- is displaying loyalty to one of his staff.

Ferrigno's resume has some stuff on it -- Oregon State, California, USC, a four year stint as receivers coach at Oregon from 2001 to 2005, then two years at California again as a receivers coach.  Then a very odd step down to high school HC for one year, then up to Hoke at SDSU.

Joined: 12/05/2011

MGoPoints: 16679

Wolverine Devotee

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:48 PM ^

The idiotic pro style punt formation isn't even on the NCAA video game. The closest thing is the max protection punt. 

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 31528

Blue Mike

September 23rd, 2014 at 7:45 PM ^

So what you're saying is that maybe if Minnesota and Rutgers return punts for touchdowns with only ten Wolverines on the field, we might switch back to the spread punt?  Now I have something to look for on Saturday.

Joined: 12/12/2012

MGoPoints: 2379

maybaum

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^

The most logical explanation, to me, is that they have had too many other things to fix, in a limited amount of available time, and that the punt formation did not make it high enough on the priority list to get addressed.

What puzzles me is, if that were true, why not just say it?

Joined: 09/26/2010

MGoPoints: 271

g_reaper3

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^

I remember watching that Iowa game and thinking wtf are they doing lined up like that. I have to believe whatever M did in 2003 wasn't really the correct way to run the spread punt.. Poor Carr, tries to be cutting edge for once and it backfired.

Joined: 10/03/2010

MGoPoints: 2654

The Geek

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:22 PM ^

I remember those punts very well. They were epic fails.

Boccher was an innovator; Utah executed the spread punt very well (they do have one hell of a kicker).

Tough break, I hope he went on to great success elsewhere.

Joined: 09/08/2009

MGoPoints: 24837

Champ Kind

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:35 PM ^

He lived in the area for a while after that (very close to the stadium at first), but eventually moved with his family to Florida. He never went back to coaching. Supposedly, he was a pretty good recruiter too. Young, energetic guy at the time.

For what it's worth, he seemed pretty happy the times I saw him at social gatherings (which was years after his coaching). I don't know him very well at all, but we have some friends in common, so there's been small talk at barbecues and stuff. Never about football though. 

 

Joined: 01/02/2009

MGoPoints: 1829

Reader71

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^

I've been bringing this up a lot. Its the only thing I can think of for why Hoke would run the spread not the shield. For the people that are saying Hoke is data-averse, the only thing to say is that you are wrong. For all of his macho talk, he always has the numbers handy in the pressers we pore over. I've heard him mention many times the percentage of teams who won when losing the turnover battle. He seems to know the game theory aspect of punting v. going for it. He's brought out numbers for teams that lose when scoring a defensive touchdown, etc. Hoke's demeanor says one thing, but he has shown a familiarity with data that shows that he's hip to it, and he's also shown some tendencies that are pretty modern. Which of course makes the punt thing more strange and hard to understand.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

CoachBP6

September 24th, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^

Brian never played / coached football.  Why in gods name would I ask him?  Hoke is terrible @ all of the small things and he will never, ever, ever win a big ten title here no matter how good, bad, young, or old the players are.  I really thought he would do something, but it was all talk.  All he does is talk, point, and pat asses. 

Joined: 12/18/2013

MGoPoints: 7967

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 1:49 PM ^

I figured you'd trust Brian's word because you're on his blog. I played college football, and have a B1G championship ring. Do you trust my judgment now? Hoke has played, coached, and won championships. Do you trust him? Your comment is asinine.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Callahan

September 24th, 2014 at 8:03 AM ^

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the move to the spread (sorry, Indiana Blue, S.H.I.E.L.D.) punt formation was in the Iowa game in response to problems in the earlier games. And they looked like they installed it in the pregame walkthrough and never practiced against live competition.

 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 3447

iawolve

September 24th, 2014 at 10:27 AM ^

than Iowa which started the mess. We definitely had that formation at Iowa since I was at that game and the experience is seared in my brain. I would need some help from Wolverine Historian to validate the Oregon/Indiana games. I could have been mistaken as to the actual start of the usage, getting too old.

Joined: 11/03/2008

MGoPoints: 7915