Hoke: Upon Further Review
Now that the regular season is through, I've been looking back at MGoBlog circa January 2011, "Hoke React, No Swearing". Given Brian's previous distaste for the idea of hiring Hoke, I was surprised to see that he actually projected a lot of good things would happen this upcoming season: "A completely average coach should be able to take 20 returning starters on a 7-6 team that sees the schedule ease considerably and get to 9-3....This hypothetical 9-3 will cause the media to fall all over themselves declaring Brady Hoke the polar opposite of Rich Rodriguez". This has actually all happened, except Michigan is 10-2 but in a weaker-than anticipated Big Ten, and one of those wins was miraculously stolen from Notre Dame in an incredibly improbable fashion. The BCS computers all still seem to treat us like we're 9-3 anyway, so we only did a little better than Brian predicted. So here we are, in the not-very-nightmarish situation that Brian curiously predicted at a time when he was predisposed to be pessimistic.
What Brian seemed most worried about were future years, not this next year. He said, "Michigan's just thrown in the towel on being a national power". I think Brian and a lot of MGoBlog people felt like although Hoke might have this kind of season from time to time, this was his ceiling. Do we still think this? Is Brady Hoke's tremendous first year success more the product of returning starters, experience, talent, and media support that he walked into, than any of Brady Hoke's doing?
Brady Hoke isn't an offensive guru. The offensive coordinator that he hired does not have an elite resume. However, the offense this year has still been good, and next year, it may well be one of the best in the nation, if the last two games are any indication. Hoke has inherited a tremendous amount of talent recruited by Rich Rod on the offensive side of the ball: mountain goat slot ninjas, a dilithium quarterback, a running back who is like Mike Hart but with speed, donkey-hating, freshman-headbutting offensive linemen, and a bunch of short guys from Pahokee who block like they're twice their size because they've got something to prove. Borges has figured out how to use these guys; but one wonders if the offense will ever be even close to what it was once they graduate and Hoke's recruits move in.
Anyway, I'm just wondering, what do you think Brady Hoke's ceiling is? Do you still think he represents a return to late-era Carr, going 9-3 every year and beating OSU 30% of the time, occasionally going to the Rose Bowl sometimes but invariably losing by trying to out-execute USC? How does Brady compare to Carr, and what might make him more or less successful than Carr was?
November 30th, 2011 at 6:57 AM ^
is Mattison. Who would have thought that the defense would have performed so well. We owe 3 wins to the defense, especially Nebraska.
Hoke is a recruiting machine. We are back for sure, NC is in our future.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:04 AM ^
I completely agree. But one thing we overlook here is how much of the credit do we owe Hoke himself for the defense being better? After all, he is a defensive coach. The 3rd and short D this year was absolutely amazing, and most of that is due to the defensive line, which is what Hoke admits to paying the most attention to.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:13 AM ^
We're second in the Big Ten in rushing defense this year, so there's that.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^
And the old adage is true: defense wins championships. Look at how Auburn's defense completely shut down Oregon's insane rushing attack in last year's BCS championship game. Look at both LSU and Bama this year. D-E-F-E-N-S-E! And this year's results were pretty encouraging about Hoke/Mattison's ability to produce defense.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:17 AM ^
I don't even understand how that game possibly worked. Auburn did not have a great defense that year. Maybe you can just prepare for that sort of thing if you're playing them in a bowl game?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
of more preparation, and the fact that nobody on Oregon's OL could begin to contend with Fairley (which wouldn't be the case going up against a good number of SEC teams).
November 30th, 2011 at 10:28 AM ^
Two offensive teams with average defenses MADE it to the championship game.
2. There was 900+ yards of offense in the Auburn-Oregon game, which is extremely odd for a 22-19 game. Several drives stalled in opponents territories after dumb turnovers (think some of Denard's interceptions).
I watched that game thinking both teams looked fairly rusty, which one could expect after a 30+ wait from their last game.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
"Defense wins championships" is not always true. Many great offensive teams have won it all. I just think a great defense is usually a little more consistent and bankable than a great offense.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:37 PM ^
especially in the NFL...the last STRONG defense to carry its team to a title was...baltimore? Since then its been Brady, Mannings, Brees, Rodgers..I guess you could count the Steelers D too..
November 30th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^
When the Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2005, they had the 4th ranked defense and shutdown a murder's row of offenses in the post season (Bengals, Colts, Denver, Seattle.)
In 2008 when the Steelers won the Super Bowl, they had the highest ranked defense in the league.
So yeah, you should probably go ahead and count them.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
But the Pack still had Woodson and all. And they were playing the Steelers (though certainly in the NFL you need a QB to be good nowadays).
Before that the Saints actually played pretty good defense, for them, in the playoffs, but no power.
Then you have the Steelers, the Giants (who beat an offensive machine Patriots team), the Colts who only got there because of the begining of the defensive collapse of the Pats, and beat a Bears team with NO offense that got there on defense.
Then the Steelers, The Pats back when they played defense first, the Bucs (Pats again vs. the high flying Rams) and then the Ravens.
You could keep going back, but the old NFC dominance was all on defense. So no matter how many rules the NFL puts in to make offense even easier, it's still the defensive teams like the Jets and Ravens who are upsetting the all offense teams like the Pats who get all the regular season hype.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:10 PM ^
I think Hoke would tell all of you, you are missing the point. Line play, offense and defense, "that's where the game is played", is what Hoke would tell ya.
December 1st, 2011 at 12:21 AM ^
First, "Mannings"? I think you tried to sneak Eli in with Payton. If so, shame on you. You know the Giants won their Super Bowl with defense, particularly the defensive line.
Second, you totally ignored the Buccaneers, whose defense was solely responsible for their win, parhaps to the degree that Baltimore's was. 1st in defense, 18th in offense. Quarterbacked by Brad Johnson, not anyone on your list.
Also, you are not remembering the old Patriots teams. I can't believe how many people do this, but it is tragic.
The 2001 Pats team was 6th in offense, 6th in defense.
The 2003 Pats team was 12 in offense, 1st in defense.
The 2004 Pats team was 4th in offense, 2nd in defense.
So, yes, they had Brady. But they won primarily because of defense. You can actually use the Pats to support the other claim, that defense wins championships. Ever since Brady became Brady (4000 yards and 50 TDs a year) they haven't won squat. It's not Brady's fault -- they have bad defenses.
This research took me all of 5 minutes. It is more accurate than memory. Use it before making claims. The Bucs won it only 2 years after the Ravens, and you didn't even mention them, despite having a defense with 4 likely Hall of Famers on it and Brad Johnson passing.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
Just like Rich was totally focused on offense, and placed most of his effort there, Brady has been on defense (and especially the line). There have been so many comments this season from the d-line on how much attention they are getting. So, I would say while the defensive play calling has been Mattison, the skills behind that have Hoke and Mattison signatures on them.ye
November 30th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
Short-yardage, to this layperson, is all about technique...pad level and leverage. Having 3 D-line coaches and a great scheme for attacking in short-yardage situations made us successful. I think Hoke gets credit for it, first, for making sure the players are learning the technique, and second, for bringing in Mattison and letting him coach. I think Hoke is the exact-right fit for this team, and I see good things in the future.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:51 PM ^
Hoke deserves all the credit. He isn't trying to do more than he can, and the thing he gets 1000% more than Rod did is that being head coach means hiring people who specialize in things that you may not. I was down on Hoke at first, but he has surrounded himself with people who get the job done. I still tak a wait and see approach to the future.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
Why do you credit the defense for the Nebraska win? The offense scored 45 point. Special Teams created a couple of turnovers and converted a fake field goal into a first down (and ultimately a TD). That was a team win all the way....not just the defense.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:34 AM ^
Mattison was the wild card that made the difference and he didnt come into the picture until well past Hoke's hire.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^
Special Teams is better, the preparation and adjustments are better, the mentality and mental and physical toughness of the team is better, the confidence is better, the chemistry is better, the team has more synergy - these are all things Brady Hoke has affected. He's a head coach and a great leader/manager of the entire team.
I'm stoked to have Brady Hoke!!
November 30th, 2011 at 6:49 AM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 6:51 AM ^
If he keeps on this track and continues to have quality coordinators around him such as Mattison and Borges, then the ceiling is a bloody National Championship, in my estimation.
For a man who can help engineer a Michigan-esque season in his first year when few thought such a thing would arise at first, and with a coordinator who took a defense from bottom quartile to top quartile in one season, I am willing to let this play out over time.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:44 AM ^
I think the guy with the sharp answers for Heiko lost us the MSU and Iowa games. With a full year in system, we'll see if we think Al is the guy. (My view, the only way to build a top spread team, or and SEC "speed" team is to put points on the board aggressively (like we did the past two weeks, and in the 4th quarter against ND, and for that matter in the Cap One Bowl against Florida).
[Edit: My point is: the articles I have read on Borges being an offensive genius may be true, but I want to see how he adapts going into year two (along with Denard).]
November 30th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
I agree about Iowa (although other parties including the refs helped out). Not going to blame him for the Sparty loss, even though the play calling could have been better.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:26 AM ^
in the trash tornado.
(Damn that wind ...)
November 30th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
(My view, the only way to beat [not build] a top spread team, or and SEC "speed" team is to put points on the board aggressively (like we did the past two weeks, and in the 4th quarter against ND, and for that matter in the Cap One Bowl against Florida).
November 30th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
you mentioned coordinators because the OP doesn't seem to think the time Borges spent at UCLA and Auburn to be that impressive. I disagee. Having said that I think that Mattison, and Hoke to a lesser extent, made a phenominal impact on the defense. UM used to be about having great defense and a good running game. Manball. They got a little lost in the spread offense forest for a while but they're following the bread crumbs back out. The reason I think that Hoke does not represent a return to a Carr level mediocrity is that he seems to be recruiting as well or better (thanks Gmatt) and he's shown that he's willing to take risks and make adjustments on the fly. Carr got good talent but was too vanilla to use it the right way. Will he win a host of NC's? Probably not but he may have one or two in him.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:51 AM ^
The recruiting is one thing, but I think what Brian(and many others) were most concerned about was Hoke playing it safe with 4th down decisions and other Big Ten caveman stereotypes that epitomized people's frustrations with Lloyd. When Hole showed aggressive tendencies people got happy. The defense being MUCH better also helps.
November 30th, 2011 at 6:53 AM ^
In addition to his recruiting, Hoke is really good at putting people in a position to succeed. THAT is what it means to be a good head coach. In today's college landscape many headcoaches want to be a one-man show. Hoke knows that he can't succeed here if he calls all the plays, runs all the press conferences, does all the recruting visits, and hires an offensive coordinator to run some scheme he is unfamiliar with. He is a great delegator.
Hoke may not have been a great coach anywhere else, but his ceiling here is higher as any coach we've had the past 20 years.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:42 AM ^
In reality, it seems like Hoke has been a great coach everywhere he's gone. Given time, he's won at all 3 of his head coaching gigs, but more importantly, he projects confidence in his team, he makes confident, aggressive decisions, and he doesn't let riff-raff subsume his mission.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
But became one. This is one of the things I really like about Hoke and one of the things that people who focused on Hoke's 47-50 record discounted. When he started at Ball State, he was just learning to be a head coach, but if you discount the early years and focus on the end of his tenure at Ball State, his short stint at San Diego and his innaugual season at Michigan, it's hard not to fel like he learned his lessons from those first few years at Ball State and he's turned into quite a coach
November 30th, 2011 at 8:01 AM ^
I have to disagree with your last sentence. I've become a believe in Hoke, but I still think Gary Moeller was the best possible coach Michigan has had in the last 20 years. I really hate how he went out, and would have loved to see what he could have done with a nice 10-15 year run at the top. His recruiting classes were insane, he ran a beast of a defense, and he loved putting up points. I find it very unlikely that he would be the Carr type of coach with a losing record in games entering the 4th quarter with a lead.
All that being said, I think Hoke is going to be a coach who follows in Moeller's footsteps. His most important decision is going to come when Borges either retires or gets lured off to be a HC somewhere else. Hopefully that doesn't come for quite awhile though.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
It's like you read my mind.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
I really don't think Borges wants to be a head coach. He's been around for awhile and hasn't gone that route. I think he likes to sit in Pizza House with a deep dish and imagine up ridiculous offensive schemes and scenarios. He doesn't strike me as a guy who wants all the other stuff that comes with being a head coach. I think he is what RR should have been. Just an offensive guru that sticks to scheming.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
I had written something similar about Mo not that long ago.
http://mgoblog.com/content/three-and-out-takes-carr-rodriguez-martin
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/interesting-and-apparently-obscure-interview-bo-schembechler
Had Mo remained, Bo's legacy would have been extended out several more years unbroken. We might have had 10 years of Mo then 11 years of Carr taking us all the way out to 2011 where Hoke could have stepped in to continue the legacy for another 10 years. We may never have had the RR era had things played out differently with Mo. I agree that I see more of Mo in Hoke than Carr.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:10 AM ^
To be fair, some of Hoke's success in recruiting can be attributed to the coaching transition in Ohio. It will be hard to have as much success recruiting Ohio with Urban there and without NCAA sanctions hanging over everything. Obviously, credit goes to him for doing an amazing job of capitalizing on that, but I wouldn't expect to beat Urban out for too much of the Ohio talent.
Obviously, going for it on fourth down is not an issue for the guy. He also appears to be an expert on fake field goals. He gets Romer, because he's used to playing with a MAC defense backing him up. He wants to go up by 21, not 17, dammit. His game management skills are impeccable and far superior to Carr's.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^
Is it a function of the coaching change or a function of the players no longer being exposed to as much undue influence by Ohio's coaching staff and boosters. I bet the visits to Columbus for recruits this year werent as fun as years past with less spending money and more public scrutiny. This atmosphere of having to follow the rules will not die overnight. The local press got a taste of Ohio fans being willing to enjoy dirty little articles about their own team...this wont go away soon.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
is it simply a matter of emphasis on the type of player you can get out of Ohio? When you are not bringing in 2 or 3 little slot receivers every year from Florida, and you are focused on the OL and DL, and hit Ohio hard, Michigan has shown in the past it can have success. Tressel had developed relationships with lots of Ohio HS coaches over the years, which was a part of his success in "building a fence" around the state. That's gone, Hoke is focused on Ohio recruiting, and his success and the adulation he is getting from the press and his players can only help with it.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
I think Urban is going to be looking, to some extent, for a different type of player than Hoke will. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the offensive skill players that fit his system are a little different than Hoke/Borges'. There may be more battles over the same defensive players, but having Mattison and Hoke, I think, gives us an advantage there. If I was a 5* D player, I think I'd feel more confident that I'd learn more, and be more next-level-ready, playing for UM than TSDS. Anybody know what sort of O Lineman Urban recruits? Are they the lighter, reach-blocking type that RR recruited, or the more MANBALL blow-you-off-the-line type that Hoke covets?
November 30th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
It's pretty simple. The stronger Michigan is, the easier it will be for them to pull recruits out of Ohio. Ohio monopolized the top in-state talent because of Tressel's recruiting strategy, but mostly because of his on-field success; his teams were consistently better than Carr's/RR's, so naturally this influenced recruiting. A strong Michigan has always lured talent out of Ohio. And it's doing so now. Plus, some Ohio kids -- ones like Dunn and Kalis -- will be better suited for M's pro-style offense than Ohio's spread.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
While Ohio will be tougher to recruit in future years, I still think we can pull talent out. Tressel had deep connections with high school coaches, Meyer does not. Hoke appears to be well liked by a bunch of Ohio coaches, something RR and even Lloyd to some degree, never had.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:11 AM ^
I found this to be fairly ridiculous. Just because people say something and it actually comes true does not mean they weren't out of their minds to begin with (After getting rolled 3 games to end the season, RR saying that we're about to turn the corner and would be exponentially better). Under normal circumstances, I agree that this many returns should expect immense improvement. But when 5 of our 7 wins were nail biters (even against complete doormats), and 5 of our 6 losses involved us getting physically manhandled (even by some middle of the pack teams), I found it very odd that predictions one year ago were simply assuming wins over Illinois, Purdue, SDSU, Northwestern, etc. How many losses did we have last year that could have easily swung the other way?? Maybe Iowa. How many wins did we have last year that could have swung the other way? 5?
Also, how is Borges' resume not elite? The guy has run multiple styles of offenses and every school....and his offenses have been great at nearly every stop. Being able to have a great offense no matter what your pieces are is way more impressive to me than someone who requires a perfect formula of players to pull off his system. Despite the transition, we scored more Big 10 points in this transition year and actually IMPROVED as our season got tougher. We haven't been able to say that since...well....2007.
I think once he gets his pocket passing rocket arm with a monster offensive line and a sweet RB, we're going to see a better-than-wisconsin offense, but combined with more creativity and a Greg Mattison defense.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:29 AM ^
On the 9-3 claim, I'm not quoting Rich Rod, or even my own thoughts, I'm quoting Brian.
Borges has done an elite job at Michigan, and that's what matters, but he did get fired from Auburn after the offense gradually declined to a point where Auburn was winning games 6-3. In retrospect, the offense got even worse after he left, however. You don't go from the SEC to the Mountain West unless at least somebody thinks you did a poor job.
Also, I don't know if 2007 the offense got a lot better as the year went on. We only scored 3 points against Ohio State that year. I guess the offense did get a lot better in the bowl game, if that's what you're thinking of.
Borges has done great though. The offense against Ohio State was absolutely spectacular. Thank God we don't have to play us.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:48 AM ^
People get fired. Almost every coach leaves his job via the firing route. That's just the nature of the profession. Getting fired from an SEC team is no pock mark because those people in the SEC West are certifiably nuts. And look what happened to Tuberville at Auburn once he fired Borges.
Borges has been a major college offensive coordinator since I was in high school. He's elite. You cannot argue the point with any credibility.
He just shredded Ohio State for (let's be honest) 44 points, added five ppg to Michigan's conference scoring average from 2010 to 2011 (an average that wasn't padded by 21 points in a triple overtime game with no defense played), and had two 1,000 yard rushers at MICH for the first time since the 1970s, all in YEAR ONE of a coaching transition, and you're trying to claim he's not elite. Come on.
November 30th, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
Borges' average was padded by Gopherquest :).
Your point is well-taken, though. Borges has accomplished tremendous things this year.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:08 AM ^
You mean that Minnesota team that beat Iowa & Northwestern, and nearly beat Michigan State, right?
The Gophers may not be a powerhouse, but they certainly are better than UMass and Bowling Green. Also, we put up a sick number of points on team that otherwise had stalwart defenses who didn't give up a whole lot of points to other folks (Nebraska, Ohio, etc). I'd say Borges did a darn fine job this year.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
Minny beat Illinois not Northwestern.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:13 AM ^
Every good team has their Gopherquests. RR had Delaware State. The Illinois game was truly padding because of the overtime format.
November 30th, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^
Your points are true of course, but I think if you are the offensive coordinator at San Diego State it's hard to argue with the point that other head coaches don't think you are elite. Elite coaches that get fired often get hired by other major level schools.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:05 AM ^
Like Michigan, right?