In Hoke I Trust

Submitted by Webber's Pimp on

We are still transitioning into the program we will ultimately become under Hoke. We are a Manball team. That is the underlying philosophy and once we get some contiunuity going and the kids are in the program for 2 or 3 years you wil see a big difference on the field. The big take away from last night is that Stanford' s version of Manball (i.e. controlling the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball and imposing shear physicality) worked very well against an explsoive and nationally heralded spread offense. Going into this game Oregon had probably staked its claim as the #1 offense in the country. Standford showed everyone what good a O-Line and D-Line can do against the elite spread teams. 

Yeoman

November 9th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^

It wasn't a good roster. But at least it was full. There weren't any recruiting classes without offensive linemen.

We'd love to have a couple of not-very-good third- or fourth-year guards now. An Omameh would work wonders here, no matter how unsuited he was to a power offense.

Harbaugh never had to deal with this particular problem.

jabberwock

November 8th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^

who hates Brady Hoke?



Harbaugh transformed an abysmal Stanford program into a powehouse.



Did the Stanford football program at the time have more resources, reputation, and built in advantages that Michigan's had?  No way.



But Brady Hoke's year 3 (in context and looking at trajectory) looks nothing like Harbaugh's Stanford in his year 3.



I also realize it's not entirely fair to compare both coaches anyway, but my original statement about the attitudes of fans on this blog is true.



Not everyone trusts him as a program savior.

OldSchoolWolverine

November 8th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^

Did anyone see OL Eric Fisher play?  Im curious if he is playing and how he looks, because Sam Webb once mentioned that him not coming to Michigan was probably the biggest setback to our OL.

Also, I'm I the only one who wishes that Poggi decides to play OG for us? Supposedly thats exactly where Saban recruited him to play.

FrankMurphy

November 8th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^

I watched that game and I was in total awe of Stanford's O-line. If that's what our O-line will look like when Hoke's O-line classes from 2012 and 2013 come of age, then I'm willing to lock away the pitchforks.

ClearEyesFullHart

November 8th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^

So long as that holds, it would be a crime not to give him his 5 years to see where he can take the program.  He did win more games his first year than his predecessor did in his first two, so he's got that going for him.  If he were to have back to back <8 win seasons a decision would have to be made...But barring a <6 winner that decision would probably be to give him his fifth year and see what he can do.

MGoStrength

November 8th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^

TVH mentioned Harris is being rumored to be back interested in MSU.  Any hear if there is any truth to this?

jsquigg

November 8th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

I trusted Hoke until the team consistently choked in road games and has overseen an offense that falls well below expectations.  Stanford and Michigan aren't even in the same ball park.

1)  The Big 10 is awful and this will be the third straight year Hoke doesn't win it.

2) Michigan is awful on the road, although I think this has to do with level of competition.

3) Certain position groups have performed worse as time has gone on.

I will be as happy as anyone if Hoke gets this turned into a top 10, hell a top 15 program, but my heart can't defend what my eyes are telling my brain, and that the data is backing up.  M just isn't a good football team right now.

I Have A Gnarly Face

November 8th, 2013 at 12:53 PM ^

It takes time. I know none of us want to hear that, especially seeing what that asshole, "Urbz," is doing in Columbus, but we had pretty bad recruiting during the RR years and most of RR's recruits are still here. Not saying that they're all garbage because there are some really good players, but it will take at least another full season, likely two, to really get this program where it needs to be.

Amutnal

November 8th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^

I lost trust when the HC who doesn't wear a headset didn't have the awareness to avoid not one but TWO delay of game penalties vs PSU that potentially played a role in us losing that game. On top of the numerous other play calling blunders made by Borges, under Hoke we basically played to a draw with Akron and UConn.

Rebuilding is one thing. Being HISTORICALLY TERRIBLE is another. Where does everyone's faith in Borges come from? Whatever product we have right now isn't working on a number of levels and there is nothing aside from wishful thinking that suggests it will get better. Other teams with fewer resources, recruiting prowess, and harder schedules have done way more. What is our coaching staffs tactical advantage vs crapping the bed ratio? Pretty shitty.

Sten Carlson

November 8th, 2013 at 6:27 PM ^

"Rebuilding is one thing. Being HISTORICALLY TERRIBLE is another."

But Michigan's offense is NOT "historically terrible."  Yes, the running game has been awful, but somehow this OC (whom people seem to hate intensely) is finding a way to put up points.  In fact, IIRC, Devin Garder is LEADING the Big 10 in total offense, or was until the MSU game. [EDIT: DG was leading the Big 10 before the MSU, now he is second].  Gardner is 2nd in Passing yards w/1999 yrds (34th in FBS, and only 35 yards from leading the B10), and is leading the Big 10 in Yard/Attempt w/9.8 ypa (a full yard more than #2).  Gallon is 2nd in Receiving Yards w/898 yrds (12th in FBS), and Funchess is 5th w/557 yrds.  Funchess' 19.2 ypc is 3rd in the conference (17th in FBS) and Gallon's 18.0 ypc is 4th (38th in FBS).  Gallon's 7 TD's put him in 2nd for B10 Receiving TD's (T22 in FBS).

In terms of Total Rushing Yards, despite how bad it's been Fitz is 11th in B10 and Gardner is 13th.  Fitz 11 Rushing TD's puts him 1st in the B10 (T13th in FBS), and Gardner's 9 Rushing TD's puts him 5th in B10 (T29th in FBS).

Am I saying that the offense is a thing of beauty, heck no!  But, you guys are acting like the offense is on par with GERG's 2010 defense.

Currently, Michigan offense is:

  • 78th in Total Offense w/ 411.6 ypg (nothing to write home about, but not totally terrible without even a semblance of a running game).
  • 24th in Scoring Offense w/ 37.9 ppg
  • 79th in Rushing Offense w/154.9 ypg
  • 44th in Passing Offense w/256.8 ypg
  • 5th in Yards/Completion w/16.3 ypc
  • T61 in Red Zone Offense @ 83.3% (as an aside, the best team in the nation in Red Zone Offense is FSU, scoring 97.8% of the time it enters the Red Zone.  The Big 10 is well represented in the high end of this cateorgy with NWU being #2 @ 97.1%, Minnesota is #3 (REALLY?!?) @ 96.7%, and OSU is #9 @ 93.5%.  Michigan has 36 Red Zone attempts in 8 games, while NW has 35 in 9 games, Minn has 30 in 9 games, and OSU has 46 in 9 games)

Interestingly, when you look at the Rushing TD's, Michigan's 23 TD is right up there with the best rushing teams in the nation.  So despite the horrible OL performance, and the seeming inability to run the ball effectively against even the supposed cupcakes on the schedule, Michigan is scoring rushing TD's on par with the best teams in the nation. 

Thoughts?

Amutnal

November 8th, 2013 at 7:47 PM ^

Thanks for putting together those statistics.  I guess I wasn't really implying we were historically bad from a statistical standpoint, aside from the 27 for 27 performance and -48 total rushing yards vs MSU.  I was basing the BADNESS of our play vs bottom dwellers of the NCAA, namely Akron and UConn, without really any (from my eyes) subsequent improvement or reason for optimism going forward based on what I've seen.  It is more of the overall gestalt of this offense and it's vagabond identity that has drained most all hope I had, the most in the 15 years I've been watching M football.  

I at least had HOPE of victory watching this team during the last couple Lloyd years, the last two RR years, and the last two Hoke years.  After the PSU game, I lost hope in our coaching providing us any sort of tactical advantage vs average to above average opponent coaches.  So the stats may show that our offense isn't dead last, but I don't think they paint the whole picture (as I'm sure you know).  

The fact that our OC gameplans us into 1 or 2 losses every year is also very disheartening (OSU 2012, MSU 2011, ND 2012, PSU 2013 and several others I can't list right now).  I expected a loss to MSU, but not in that fashion.  Seemingly obvious play-call blunders on a consistent basis in crucial situations that people just write off to "he's the coach so he must be right" is deflating.  Like Brian pointed out, our PA isn't based off any actual running play!  Coach Hoke gets frazzled in tense game situations and doesn't seem to be in control hence the 2 delay of game penalties and calling a timeout after our WR went out of bounds.  In my mind, the PSU loss was inexcusable due to the number of times we pissed the game away and the atrocious offensive game plan.  If Borges thought he did what was best, then the model he is using to gameplan has a major systematic flaw.

Some of the play can be blamed on player youth, but if this is truly an elite coaching staff, they would be doing more with what they have just as other elite coaching staffs have done this year and in years past.  Bo and Lloyd-type out-execute 'em, force square-peg into round hole football is not enough to compete with OSU let alone AlaBama in this day and age, and apparently MSU.  Sorry for the lack of direction in some parts, but I'll end with this, you don't have to be a chef to know the food sucks.

SirJack II

November 8th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

I couldn't help thinking of this quote from the last Michigan Monday from the Ozone.

"At this point, it's almost reaching 'Just wait until RichRod gets his players here' levels."

alum96

November 8th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^

Interesting stuff out of the DC at Cass Tech on twitter.  (let me say I think the Cass Tech pipeline is overstated - most players that have come to UM have been ok - not world beaters, with a few exceptions... that said with how little top end talent there is in Michigan every year it's one of the few schools that constantly pushes out D1 talent)

7 Nov

Coach Dantonio is one of the coaches who is good for Football! Stands behind what he says! Recruiting at Cass is changing.

4h

In regards to things changing around Cass! No head coach has ever visited for as long as Dantonio was there yeasterday. Schools are working!

4h

Yes I am the living example of why some folks shouldn't have access to social media. I'm a Michigan fan speaking my mind.

4h

I'm not happy about Michigan losing nor am I a Spartan fan. I grew up a Michigan fan and don't believe in jumping ship. I only spoke my mind

1h

I'm just as much a fan as you. I think that if other Rivals are increasing there effort Michigan has to as well.

State Street

November 8th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

I have close to zero amount of trust in a man who as head coach not only delegates half of the game of football to somebody else, but delegates that half to Al motherfucking Borges.

EnoughAlready

November 8th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^

Because you're second-guessing one of his most important decisions -- who should be the offensive coordinator.  Hoke sees in him something you don't.  If you think Borges is bad, then you don't trust Hoke's judgment.

QED

Gob Wilson

November 8th, 2013 at 1:14 PM ^

Stanford = MANBALL. They have honed their Oline play for years and their OC Bloomgren has been very effective the last three years (another guy with NFL coaching experience) and showed great effectiveness during his tenure.

But.... we forget... Harbaugh was the coach at Stanford and rebuilt that program and... he lost 5,7 and 8 games each of his first three years at Stanford (and David Shaw was his coordinator there). It wasn't until year FOUR that Stanford looked good. The program improved but he still lost 5 games his third year there. Shaw took over a great program after being OC for Harbaugh.

While we are not even close to what is expected in the MANBALL or Manball sense, Hoke and his staff (with or without changes) get another few years to get us there.

Go Blue!!!

UM Class of '79 (BS), Stanford Class of 1988 (MS), Class of 1992 (PhD).

alum96

November 8th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^

#1 impressive list of credentials there

#2 Harbaugh inherited a 1-11 team, not a flawed bowl team.  Huge difference.

#3 You wrote "It wasn't until year FOUR that Stanford looked good."  Disagree.  Stanford showed flashes in Harbaugh's 3rd year.  They beat top 5-10 ranked USC and Oregon.  Do you see UM in year 3 beating top 5-10 ranked teams?  We'll see in a few weeks but evidence would point to the contrary.

#4 Do you see UM going 12-1 next year?

Face it Harbaugh is a superior coach, no harm in admitting it.  UM always gets higher rated classes than Stanford.  They have more to work with.  He started with less from the previous regime than Hoke, and got less via recruiting than Hoke is getting in his classes.  And did more with it.  That doesnt mean Hoke can't work here because frankly you dont need to be a Harbaugh level coach to generate 3 loss seasons at UM.  But Harbaugh pulled off an incredible turnaround and comparing them is pointless as there are far more benefits to the UM program in terms of what Hoke inherited than a bad Stanford program that Harbaugh waltzed into.

Gob Wilson

November 8th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^

All your points are extremely valid.

I was all for us trying to get Harbaugh (it would have taken more than Mack Brown's salary at the time, about $5.6M per year) and I don't think we were going to pay that because we expected that good coaches would come here automatically due to our legacy.

And yes Stanford really sucked in 2006. Harbaugh took over a demoralized program and built it back up followed by all we know about him now, he is a very elite coach. Finally, I also would expect better performance from our (young) O line. That said, Stanford played two sophmore OTs last night, so in comparison we should be better. But (it is only my opinion) that we need to give Hoke 5 years because anything less will make recruiting future coaches very difficult. If we dump him now, do you think we will be 12-1 next year?

alum96

November 8th, 2013 at 7:36 PM ^

We won't be 12-1 with or without Hoke.  He seems like the CEO type of delegator so it is imperative he has big time coordinators and position coaches.  As much as Borges drives some of us up the wall (2nd half OSU 2012, late PSU, spending 2 weeks of prep for MSU for 1 successful drive) the disaster of an OL doesnt allow us to judge.  I am a lot more worried about the position coaches incl Fred Jackson who hasnt apparently found anyone he can develop in 6-7 years.  Despite all being like Barry Sanders but more shifty and AP but more fast and strong.  And angry (Rawls).  At this point we are stuck, and have to see what happens I guess, no other choice - can't blow this place up every 3 years or no coach will come here.  But I am looking every year to see who the next coach will be until I see signs that there is tangible individual player improvement outside of 4-6 players a year.

hfhmilkman

November 8th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^

For starters I am getting sick of the R^2 recruiting excuses.  Are we going to complaining that R^2 is also at fault for high taxes and health care reform much less turmoil in the Middle East?  R^2 had to deal with as many youngsters and derth of talent on defense as Hoke does on the Oline.  Unlike Hoke, R^2 had no starting QB his first year and had to compete when the Big10 was much tougher.  The Big10 of 2013 is a tire fire that will only be extinguished by its cesspool of ineptitude, in which case it still stinks.  The R^2 haters complained he was trying to force spread on a power team and being inflexible.  Yet it is perfectly ok for Hoke to get his six years to get his players despite ramming power down the teams throats.  Is there really much difference between 2007 ND and 2013 Michigan except Devin Gardner and the fat guy is in the box?  The savior golden boy with the hotshot coaching staff wows the alum with big time recruiting and proclimations of skematic advantages.  End of rant.

The reality is great coaches take advantage of the opportunities given to them.  Everyone talks about Harbaugh manball.  But Harbaugh was savy enough to implement read option packages when it was advantageous.   Seattle has the nastiest beast in Lynch outside of Peterson.  Yet they gladly run read option and jet sweeps if that is what the defense gives them.  Even man baller Jim Tressel went spread when he realized he had a mobile QB and four great receivers.  A good coach is not a fanatic riven to his orthodoxy.  A spread team can be as tough as nails as any power team and a power team can be as subtle as any spread(Denver 1998)

I would rather have a coach who is not beholden to any scheme.  I would rather that coach be opportunistic and maximize the talent of what you have.  Got a mobile QB and 4 speedy receivers, run spread.   Stumble into a few fast undersized DT's run a 3-4.  Have a power back and some oversized but physical road graders, run power.

EGD

November 8th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^

It's not unrealistic to expect coaches to tweak their schemes to fit personnel.  But in college football, unlike the NFL examples you gave above, teams need to recruit, and if you don't settle on a particular type of offense and recruit players who fit that system, you're always going to be in the kind of hybrid limbo that Michigan has been in for 2+ seasons now.

I personally thought Hoke should have hired a spread OC and kept the core of Rich Rod's offense intact.  He didn't, and now we are suffering through the transition cost that occurs when you have veteran players who don't fit your scheme (2012) and young players who fit the scheme but aren't ready for prime time (2013).  We probably have to just have to accept the situation for what it is and wait it out.

 

Sten Carlson

November 8th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^

"...and if you don't settle on a particular type of offense and recruit players who fit that system, you're always going to be in the kind of hybrid limbo that Michigan has been in for 2+ seasons now."

I agree with this 100%!

I said this in another thread, and I think you encapsulated the thought.

Hoke is trying establishing (or reestablishing) Michigan's identity.  Michigan's identity development was delayed (rightly) because of Denard.  I think Michigan's OL stuggles are a combination of younth/inexperience, and the fact that Michigan is in the process of changing its identity.  If Hoke doesn't do it now, when is he going to do it?  Remember something very important, there is only so much pracitice time.  The staff cannot run one scheme for games, and then get the group of younger OLinemen practicing the scheme that they'll be running when THEY are starting.

I think what we're seeing today from this OL is the fact that they've not been completely one scheme since they've been at Michigan.  Look at Wisconsin, Standford, Bama, any team that has had long-term continuity.  A kid who comes in is in the SAME scheme from day 1 of his development until the day he finally breaks into the starting line up.  It makes a HUGE difference.

Yeoman

November 9th, 2013 at 2:21 PM ^

I think two very different things are being rolled into one ball here.

On one hand you have transition costs. It wasn't Lloyd Carr's fault he didn't leave Rodriguez a running QB and a lot of handy slot receivers. It's not Rodriguez's fault he didn't recruit tight ends, or linemen built to run a power game.

Those are real problems, you have to deal with them with any change of system. But you can't lay them at the feet of the prior coach--it's not his job to recruit for his successor's style.

But it's not that our third- and fourth-year linemen were recruitied and trained for another offense. Our third- and fourth-year linemen weren't recruited for anything. They don't exist.

That's a different kind of problem entirely, and it's a problem we'd be stuck with even if we'd kept the same offense. The rules require you to put a minimum of five linemen on the field for every snap no matter what scheme you run.

marco dane

November 8th, 2013 at 3:51 PM ^

TX has contiune to slide. First they're power I,then they went spread,only to transition back to power I. However,2 college seasons later and hiring new offensive and defensive cordinators things still aren't clicking. Changing schemes can take time until you've gotten personnel (players) in place.

LeftCoastBuck

November 8th, 2013 at 3:02 PM ^

FWIW, I think that a lot of TTUN fans feel like we did during the Cooper years. We wanted to believe the story, but the pile of losses to you guys and just about anyone that we played in a bowl game made us bipolar as a fan base. Fire Cooper! Keep Cooper forever!I think it is going to take Brandon awhile to sort Hoke out for you guys...and I'm not gonna lie....that makes us happy. With that said, you guys have all the talent you need to compete and Hoke's view that it is all about "better execution" is wrong IMO and that of many other (rational) Buckeyes. It points the finger at the kids and not where it belongs: at the coaches

Hello_Heisman

November 8th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^

Did you just create an account to come over here and watch us wallow in our own misery?  I'm impressed - I thought chatting among a huge group of Michigan fans would be too much schadenfreude for you to handle at one time.  Welcome aboard and remember, the Hoke Fat Jokes don't go over quite as well around here as they do on 11W.

 

 

LeftCoastBuck

November 9th, 2013 at 1:58 AM ^

Actually, I could get all the schadenfreude that I need by lurking here. Since you are an existence proof that a rival can add persepective to a  fan site, I figured that I would give it a shot over here. I am sure that I will feel as much love here as you do at 11W

Ryno2317

November 8th, 2013 at 5:35 PM ^

Hoke is not Cooper.  There is nothing to "sort out" regrarding Hoke at this point.  Cooper's issue was that he could not win a title even though he didn't have to worry about academic standards, police reports and/or date rape.  In short, he couldn't win even though OSU is purely a football factory -- not a school that has football program.  Michigan and OSU are apples and oranges.  That's why -- despite your recent record agasint us -- OSU can't stand Michigan. 

BlueHills

November 8th, 2013 at 6:25 PM ^

You're right.

You know, they're not bad coaches. But they're not elite coaches like your team's coach. Maybe they'll get better. Because we know our AD who made the hire will give them time. They won't get fired for a season like the one they're having.

One advantage OSU has over UM right now is an athletic director with lots of prior experience. We have a rookie who thinks being an AD is about hiring a skywriter to write "Go Blue" in the air over Spartan Stadium. 

I wrote on this blog a long time ago that UM's athletic directors since Canham have been obsessed with the same thing our university is into: raising money and erecting new buildings.

UM is a great university for research, for learning, and for the important things. But sometimes I think our athletic department has its collective head up its collective ass.

LeftCoastBuck

November 9th, 2013 at 2:14 AM ^

That is a fair argument and as many have pointed out, timing is everything. One year plus or minus and we wouldn't have gotten Meyer. Would we have gotten the next Tressel or the next RRod instead? Hiring is always a crapshoot in any business. I am not a Gene Smith fan because I believe he was culpable in the tat 4 case and I think JT took one for Smith, the team and OSU.. That is a view that many OSU alumni share. UM is a top flight academic institution and nothing will change that, but to think that either of our football teams is well represented in their respective colleges of engineering, serious pre-professional school programs or in STEM majors is simply untrue.

Ryno2317

November 8th, 2013 at 5:28 PM ^

By reading all these posts, you wouldn't know that:  (1) Hoke has a 75% winning percentage; (2) is 2-0 vs. N.D.; (3) is 1-1 against OSU; and (4) finished in the top 12 in his first year.  You would think that we are not 6-2.  Get a life.  Especially the OSU jerkoff.  Hoke is not Cooper as Hoke beat Va Tech in the Sugar Bowl and was one minute from beating S.C last year.  Tied of the OSU worship.