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 10:57 AM ^
The ceiling is national championship contender year-in-year-out. At a school like Michigan this is the expectation. Whether this happens or not is another story, but a reasonable person can assume we will be at or near the top the rankings. I think 9-3 is pretty darn good, but in a few years when he has a full group of HIS recruits we should be competing for national titles.
Hoke has proven he can go out and get great assistants and his assistants can certainly recruit well. On all account his motivational skills are on par with anybody out there. One year doesn't suggest he's the next Bo, or even Carr for that matter, but things are looking very good.
The thing is, the top end of the B1G is getting better. Wisky, MSU, NEB will be hovering around 9 wins, Ohio will be VERY good (10-11 wins) and if PSU gets Mullen look out.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:07 AM ^
I think Brian's "prediction" of 9-3 for a "completely average coach" was made while he was still in full hate mode for Hoke (and/or infatuation mode for RichRod). The comment wasn't so much a prediction as it was a way to cut down any future success of the team under Hoke before he even got started.
Brian also predicted the departure of Denard, terrible recruiting and mass attrition. It's probably best not to dig back into his predictions (which were really just Hoke bashing and/or RR loving). We have a top 3 recruiting class coming in. We're looking at a BCS bowl. We snapped the OSU streak. Even in our losses we were competitive. The future is bright despite any attempts to undercut the coach at the time of his hire. If I recall, even Brian recently wrote, "I was wrong".
November 30th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^
Last year, we were 7-6. We were blown out by our biggest rival. We went to a mediocre bowl and got killed. Our controversial coach was fired after three seasons, including the last where he finished the season on a three game slide of multi-score losses.
Even though most people wanted Harbaugh, Hoke stepped up and got the job done. This year, the team is 10-2. We're on the doorstep of a BCS Bowl. We beat Ohio. Our new staff is killing it in recruiting!
Hmmmm....This...this all seems....so familiar...I can't....OHHHH, now I remember.
In 2004, Notre Dame was 6-6. They were blown out by their biggest rivals. They went to a mediocre bowl and got killed. Their controversial coach got fired after three seasons, including the last where he finished the season on a three game slide of multi-score losses.
Even though most Notre Dame fans wanted Meyer, Weiss stepped up and got the job done. In 2005, his team was 9-2. They were on the doorstep of a BCS bowl. They were an illegal push away from beating their rivals USC, one of the best football teams of the decade. Their staff killed it in recruiting!
My point is this: Right now, everything looks good. This season, Hoke has done a great job. He walked in and went 10-2 when everyone expected we would be lucky to be 7-5, 8-4 (Only God knows why). But we won't really know how good of a coach he is till his 4th-5th year rolls around.
(I don't think Hoke is Weiss. I'm just saying its premature to think that after one successful season he is the ultimate coach.)
Right now, i think everyone is giddy because they expected us to be mediocre. Why did you expect this? 18-19 starters back. An experienced secondary with 2 juniors, one senior and stud freshman that wasn't playing WR/QB last year (And don't give me the recruiting stars nonsense. Iowa has trotted out our secondary this year and been just fine over the years). A second year starter at quarterback with all his weapons back. Four out of five guys on the offensive line. A 3x salary bump on our DC. The only way I thought this team wouldn't win 9-10 games was if Borges made Denard go under center 100% of the time and tried to force his will all season. If this was somewhere other than Michigan - whose media and fans are starting to resemble some form of their English soccer counterparts - people would have expected this team to be good.
As is, I'm slightly disappointed in the year as a whole. We finished strong (I said after the Iowa game we would go 3-0 and make a BCS bowl, so I wasn't one of you nancies saying "OH, I'd be SO happy with 1-2 and a win over Ohio), but given our schedule, the team we brought back and our improved defensive staff - coupled with Hoke's desire to win games rather than not lose them - we realistically could be playing in the Big Ten Championship. We could have had an outside shot at the NATIONAL championship, if only for Borges not figuring it out till Illinois.
Brady Hoke definitely gets an A for year one. But I'm sure that Weiss did too.
(I love Hoke, I'm just trying to provide some realistic counter arguments to this orgasm of a thread that thinks we achieved so much with so little!!!! this year. I'm guessing Hoke feels like he lost out on an opportunity for a Big Ten title as well.)
November 30th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
while Hoke has a significant number of years of head coaching experience. You point to all the returning players, I point to the fact that those returning players were from the worst defense in Div 1 football.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^
a lot of them weren't. I don't see James Rogers, Cullen Christian or Ray Vinopal out there.
What I did see was RS Jr. JT Floyd (About when you would expect a 3-star recruit to turn into a decent BT starter), RS Sr. Troy Woolfolk and Jr Jordan Kovacs out there with Blake Countess...who was a 4* across the board. Like I said, sounds like a successful Iowa secondary to me.
If highly rated recruits are your thing, our defensive line was starting 3 4-star guys in Van Bergen, Martin and Roh.
Once again, this was the first time in a while that talent and experience came together for the defense. Adding Mattison pushed the improvement to all new heights.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
They really under performed but a horrible offense did not help out!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:35 AM ^
...Let's not forget that those returning players have repeatedly commented on the massive difference made by the new coaching staff. If the players can see it and admit it, I'm not sure why the RR admirers cannot.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
I'm not really sure why you're bringing up Rodriguez since this is actually about Hoke, but once again, you've revealed yourself as a RR obsessor. Let it go.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
Let it go? The OP is about what RR would have done vs. what Hoke did. Further, aren't you the one complaining about insufficient DC pay under RR?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
and that is the one you are replying too.
Like I said. Let it go. And I already answered your question below, which you would see doesn't need to be asked because it wasn't the point.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
>>Why did you expect this?
Uh, because the defense was historically bad and NO ONE predicted that the defense would go from letting up 34 points a game to 17.
>>A 3x salary bump on our DC
Coaching pay implies success? Weiss should have won several NC's by that logic.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:32 AM ^
Yes. When you pay someone 2-3 times more than the last guy, it is generally because you think he will do a better job. Especially when you are looking to fix a situation.
And once again, you expected the team to be bad because you didn't even look at who we were returning. I'm guessing you thought we would be really good in 2008 too. Don't worry so did I. The difference is, I learned to actually base my expectations on our roster, rather than whatever theme the media was playing in the preseason.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^
I'm not sure if this is the angle you're taking with the "DC salary" discussion, but many here have argued that "if we only paid enough money, we would have had a top DC under RR".
The reality, of course, is that RR (not Martin, Rosenberg, Carr or Coleman) directed that the dollars flow to Mike Barwais. Just as he ignored defense on the field, it was RR himself who could have lobbied for a high paid DC and instead chose a different route. Given that, maybe it's time to drop the line about underpaying DCs.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^
My point is that this DC has received more money than the last and thus I would expect him to be better.
The post is about expecations for the season.
Once again, you've revealed where your mindset really is. I bet during the Ohio game you were yelling "TAKE THAT DICKROD!!!" at your TV.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
It seems you neither know me nor a good argument. Do you think that DC pay is set somewhere is space? Of course not. "This DC" received more money because "this coach" put an emphasis on defense rather than S&C. You can't talk about all the players Hoke inherited, what would have happened and past staff without it being a comparison.
By the way, I'm neither a facepainter nor someone who ever said "Dickrod". I did call him a failure though.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
I will go slow:
I would expect a DC who gets Mattison's money, to be better than one who get's GERG money.
This assertion has nothing to do with who the head coach is, it just seems like a simple fact that you would pay more for a better talent.
And yes, I can. I just did. The whole point of the post was that A. this season wasn't some miracle pulled out of nowhere and B. We don't know just how good of a coach Hoke is until further down the road.
If I'd said "I think Rich Rodriguez would have went 12-0 and had us in the Big Ten Championship game if only Dave Brandon had ponied up $2.2 million for Rob Ryan and Hoke underachived massively by comparison!" then your rather foolish responses would have a point.
As is, your whole attitude toward Rodriguez has been one of the "DickRod" mindset. Once again, I think you should just let it go and enjoy Michigan football.
Edit: Just to further prove your obsession, at no point did I mention the past staff other than in reference to the "controversial coaches" (which is true). You could make an argument that mentioning the pay bump was a mention, but it was just a generalization for all coaches, not just present and former Michigan ones.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
Oh boy...
your whole attitude toward Rodriguez has been one of the "DickRod" mindset.
No. Again, you don't know me. I was happy with the RR hire (especially after one of my employees, a WVU alum, filled me in on the greatness to be expected) but the reality of his performance changed my mind. So, I think that's more of a "performance" mindset than "dickrod". But, maybe you just like to type "dickrod" as you continue to bring it up.
If you want to continue to complain that we didn't pay our assistants enough money, then you should direct your ire at those previous staffs who did not lobby for their assistants to get "proper" pay. Clearly, at least one previous coach felt strongly enough to lobby for his S&C coach...so we know it can be done and it's certainly a tired and baseless excuse for any previous defensive failures.
I can, however, agree with you on one point - We won't know just how good Hoke will be until further down the road. That's part of the whole "performance" mindset. In the meantime, B1G Coach of the Year is a pretty nice starting point.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
But you still don't get the point.
The money wasn't the biggest factor in my post, it was just an illustration to show that we had improved the DC position. Who, in an open market would you pay more: The failed HC of Syracuse or the guy whose recent resume includes a NC with Florida and many Top Ten defenses with Baltimore? Right. It was simply an example of one of the reasons why I believed our team would be better than the 7-5, 8-4 many people predicted.
But, because 97% of your posts on this site are simply to argue or bash Rodriguez, you turned it into an issue it wasn't. My post was about having higher expectations for this team than most people and my reasons why. You, because your mindset in all your posts is "anti-Rodriguez" even when people are just discussing a positive Michigan trait, took it in the wrong direction due to your obsession with hating Rodriguez. Don't deny it: you just invented that I was making a pro-Rodriguez, anti-Hoke post so you could argue over something that wasn't even broached.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:08 PM ^
It's gotta be sweet sitting on a high horse after repeatedly tossing out "DickRod". How is that a "positive Michigan trait" again? Did you forget to lob a "GTFO"?
As far as your "point", it seems summed up by your statement that you are "slightly disappointed in the year as a whole". If 10-2 and a top recruiting class is "disappointing" to you, then where was your voice of discontent in the previous three years? It's pretty amazing that those who could defend 3-9 can find even an ounce of problem with 10-2.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:35 PM ^
I don't even know what your first paragraph means. What are you even saying? I think you've lost your mind, but I will answer your second paragraph in hopes that you can somehow comprehend it. Judging that your entire mindset is based solely on wanting one man to lose his job (which he did, so I'm not even really sure why you bring him up?), I doubt it, but here it goes.
Do you want to know why?
Do you see the reasons on why I thought this season would be successful?
Okay...now...very slowly...go back and look at those reasons and compare them to the last three years.
You will find that they do not exist in tandem with each other for any of the years.
8-9 starters in 2008, with just ONE on offense. A terrible fit at QB in a transition year. First year quarterback starter in all three years. Vastly inexperienced secondary in 2010. GERG in 2009-10.
Before 2008 - as I already said above, which you failed to read - I thought "Oh! We're Michigan! We'll be at least 8-4!" without even understanding the talent at hand. After that, I swore to judge expectations based on who we faced and what we had AND to look at the season afterwards and judge whether the expectations were fair.
In 2009, I thought we would go 7-5. We underperformed, but we didn't have anything close to a complete team. In 2010, I thought the same. First year Denard and a secondary that should have contained Warren and Woolfolk that did not led me to believe this. We did, but it was a weak 7-5 that turned into 7-6. We also faced three 11 win teams that season and in our bowl game faced a Mississippi State team that probably would have trounced everyone but OSU and Wisconsin in the Big Ten...and probably would have played them close at that.
But this year? Everyone was back. We improved our DC. Our secondary would have 3 upperclassmen. Denard was in his second year and everything else I already mentioned.
Then the schedule: No Wisconsin. Weaker OSU at home. I honestly thought before the season started we would go 10-2 - and said that on this site - with losses to Notre Dame and Nebraska.
But then I actually saw the Big Ten teams play. Literally everyone was worse that I expected, except for MSU. After we squeaked by Notre Dame and Nebraska got trounced by Wisconsin a few weaks later I thought we had a shot at an undefeated regular season. Why? Because we had a good team and no one else was really any better.
We should have finished at least 11-1. We should have beaten Iowa and given ourselves a chance at the Big Ten Championship game. We could have beaten MSU and had a shot at the National Title.
Of course I'm happy we got to 10 wins, beat OSU and Notre Dame and are going to a BCS bowl. But I think Brady Hoke would feel the way I do: Good season, left something on the table.
My point is, expectations change based on the situation. To me, it seems like you had much too high of expecations for three teams with huge flaws and very low expectations for a team that had made up a lot of those flaws. Hopefully, you learned something from all this.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
I don't usually agree with coastal blue, but he nailed this one.
It doesn't really matter what your point was in the end. The overwhelming majority of your posts are flamebait-esque insults towards Rich Rodriguez, which is why I consider you little more than a troll.
You didn't disappoint here, either, as you clearly invented an argument just so you could oppose it with yet another Rodriguez-hating post.
November 30th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
Insults? Feel free to name one insult (and don't forget that pointing out his record isn't an "insult", it's just a fact of his performance). And if CoastBlue "nailed it", I guess you're disappointed with 10-2 as well. Seems the bar has been raised pretty high in A2 since...when, mid-January?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
With a dash of troll.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
exactly how much money did RR direct to Barwis rather than the DC? And you know that how?
Lets see... under RR, DC's got around a quarter of a million; under Hoke, three quarters of a million... so RR was funneling a half a million a year to Barwis? No wonder Barwis stayed in the area after being let go from the team.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
but I think that you are a little off on the DC salary thing. I think that the tripling of the DC's salary was a clear admission that the coordinators were grossly underpaid in the past, and played an important part in the RR era failures. Michigan tried to save a few thousand and ended up not getting WVU DC Casteel, as clear of a case of penny wise but pound foolish as I have ever seen. We now have two excellent coordinators and, surpise, surpise, success on the field.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
But I think that on the open market, you'd receive more for one metric Mattison than you would a metric GERG!
November 30th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^
the underpaying of coaches/coordinators at Michigan goes back (at least) to Bo, who as I recall did not even have a contract. It was considered "an honor" to be at Michigan, and coaching here would open up doors elsewhere. That continued through RR, but obviously didn't work out. Fortunately, Brandon realized what a detriment this was, how it put us at a great disadvantage, and abandoned that outdated "tradition" and brought our coordinator salaries more in line with what others get at comperabale programs.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
Hiring Mattison was Brady Hoke's offseason masterstroke. In the small window between the Hoke hire and the Mattison hire, there were a lot of mixed feelings in what we were getting (I'm sure that some of the people claiming to be all in from the beginning really mean from the second Mattison was hired). I know that that relieved a lot of my concerns before I could even have them.
Hoke took the biggest negative on the team and turned it into a massive positive.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
I think that given the success that Borges and Mattison have had under Hoke (as well as David Brandon's demonstrated willingness to pay top dollar for coaching talent), Hoke will have no trouble hiring another top shelf coordinator when either of them move on.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^
help to draw top coordinators, but I also suspect that Hoke's "hands off" approach to his coordinators would be even more appealing. At least it would for me.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
November 30th, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
I was extremely skeptical of the Hoke hire, but the way the team played this season, and particularly the way they finished the season after the Iowa loss, convinced me that Hoke was the right choice and that he will have a very high ceiling at Michigan. Obviously Mattison/Borges and the rest of the coaching staff, the returning talent, and the relatively soft schedule all played a big role in this year's success. But when you listen to the players talking about Hoke after the OSU game, and listen to what the recruiting commits say about him, it's clear that Hoke has some intangible quality that makes players want to go through walls to play well for him.
Recently I went back and looked at what Brandon said during the presser on this very point when he introduced Hoke as the new coach:
"I'm a former player. It's a long time ago but I still remember, and I think one of the most important things in judging a coach is, Do players want to play for him? And yeah, he [Hoke] kinda scoffed at my 'players' coach' comment, but I'm here to tell ya, you want a team that's going to perform at a high level, it's a team that wants the coach to be successful, 'cause they know it isn't about the coach, it's about the team. And what impressed me about Brady is, first of all, I think he said he told me he wanted this job and it was his dream in life in the first four seconds that we were together. And the second thing is I got more and more into how he coached, and he brought all of the materials he used; we had a long discussion about how he approaches his job. It became very apparent to me that this is not a guy who 'it's all about me.' It's a guy who is all about the team. And he's a guy that players want to play for. And our current football players have only spent a grand total of a couple hours around this guy, but you have no idea how many of them have come up to me and made comments about their immediate reaction to the attitude that this guy brings to coaching football. And I think that's exactly what we need here at Michigan."
I think that's been a key element in the performance of this year's team (along with the improved fundamentals, particularly on D), and will continue to be as long as Hoke is the coach at UM.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^
He was actually kinda pissed that Brandon seemed to be rubbing it in the fan's faces by saying the program was about the players. But he misunderstood. It's what Brady has said all season. The program IS about the players. Making it the best time of their lives.
Yes, you have to win too. Or you're out. It's that simple. Even Bo said if he lost to OSU 3 years in a row, he'd be out. But, at least at Michigan, along with that, you have to ask yourself "would I want to play for this guy?", or more importantly "Would I want my son to play for this guy?" With Brady, I think the answer is easily "yes". And there are a lot of successful, Saban like coaches out there that I wouldn't say the same thing about.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
I like the Hoke hire. The out of conference schedule next year isn't easy. If we don't don't start out strong, there is a chance we could be 2-2 heading into the Big10. I'm curious to see how many people will lose some faith in Hoke if that does occur. They shouldn't, but some will.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
We undervalue the intangible in this equation. Leadership.
Within a short time of meeting someone you can ask yourself the question "Would I follow this guy out of the trench and into the path of enemy fire". Hoke's personality, charisma & whatever else contributes to it say yes, I indeed would.
The same could be said for Woody, Bo, Bear, Lombardi, and others. For most people its almost like a 1st impression type of thing. You listen to them, you watch them and something inside you either clicks or it does not. I've seen this many times in my professional life as well. A great, educated, qualified and well pedigreed businessman takes over the day to day operations of a company so that the entrepeneur who founded it can step away. Even though the new guy is better qualified on paper and should be able to take the company to the next level, he sputters because he just doesnt do the most important thing of all. Inspire the best in others.
Les Miles strikes me as a strong and inspirational leader of men, as does Harbaugh however RR did not. He was a smart man, a good man, a well pedigreed coach with success in his resume, these things cannot be debated, however I never felt the type of inspiring quality that the others I've mentioned seemed to exude. This is a personal thing and everyone is a little different as far as what type of people can inspire and motivate them but I think the ability to do these things is the single most valuable asset a coach or leader can possess.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
Hoke has shown he can recruit and he hired Mattison. Those two things mean he should be able to compete for national titles and there is no ceiling.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
I felt the same way back in January (though maybe not to the same extent as Brian). It's true that the schedule was much easier this year and it's true that the B1G is much weaker than expected. But the manner in which we won or lost this year versus last year indicates a stark difference in the quality of coaching and gives plenty of reasons for optimism for the future. Throughout the RichRod era, we collapsed once the Big Ten season started. This year, we seemed to actually improve as the season went on. The demolition of a pretty good Nebraska team was probably the signature win of the season for this staff. All of RichRod's signature wins came early in the season, and mostly against Notre Dame.
Continuous improvement over the course of the season is an indication of a well-coached team. Coupled with Hoke's soon-to-be-legendary first full recruiting class and the flat out mind-boggling defensive turnaround he and Mattison have orchestrated, the solid late season performances have eliminated any doubt in my mind that Hoke is capable of achieving the highest levels of success at Michigan.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
I think that Hoke has done a good enough job that it's forced me to re-evaluate what makes a head coach "good." During the search, I was hoping we'd land another Rich Rodriguez/Urban Meyes "genius" coach who creatively innovates and has the potential to bring teams to the top. Hoke, by his own admission is not that coach, but he hired two coordinators whohave unleashed some truly creative playcalls and assembled a staff that by all appearances has really great cohesion. He himself makes intelligent decisions in-game and seems to manage his coordinators successfully without micromanaging them.
As cheesy as it sounds, Hoke's very love for Michigan seems to be the single greatest asset, as I think that more than anything is creating a lot of positive energy around the program that excites the current players, future recruits, and all of the fans. It will take three or four years to see what Hoke's true legacy as a Michigan coach will be, but at this point I'm really hoping he is able to fill the icon void left by Bo, and don't see any reason why that's not possible if things keep going on the upward trajectory they appear to be.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
I've always said that the most important thing a college head coach does is motivate.
Look at Bo. Not an innovator. Practically averse to innovation.
Look at JoePa. I know a guy who played for him from 02-05, and JoePa didn't coach a thing. And that was half a decade ago.
Bobby Bowden. Those are just the most obvious cases.
Head coaches are there to create their atmosphere. Recruit their guys, instill their beliefs, oversee the direction of the coordinators they hire, and give their speeches. That's what a head coach does. That's why I knew Hoke would be a great hire. That's why I always suspected Rich would fail. Most importantly, that is why Bo won us a shitload of games and turned Michigan into Michigan, fergodssake.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
I would rather win with a great defense than a great offense. I feel better winning 17-3 than I do 67-65 any day.
I think Hoke can bring in big time offensive players, but i understand what you are saying. There is no guarantee that he will do any better than Carr in that regard. I think the difference comes in the coaching style. Borges is a better coordinator than the guys Carr had, and Hoke is certainly more aggressive in his coaching style...works for Les Miles. A fake fg or 4th and 1 conversion could be the difference between 9 wins and 11.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
Though Brian's January predictions have proven true, his total 180 on his opinion of the future stems around one main thing: in January, Brian thought Hoke was going to be simply another Carr, with his conservative play calling and stoic, boring media appearances. In a couple recent posts, he has flat out stated that he was wrong. Hoke is not Carr. In comparison with Carr, he is a gambler; not in the vein of a Myles who's got two nines and calls, but like a person who seems like he reads the Mathlete and makes educated, smart "gambles". On this Blog, those are called "statistics" and "expected points." Where Carr would punt on 4th and 2 from the 40, Hoke keeps Denard's helmet on. Where Carr would kick a field goal, Hoke pulls a guard and a tackle and has a skinny, white holder run off tackle for the first down to the one. Carr's gambles were running the standard, once-a-year-for-twenty-years-from-the-same-formation trans-continentals to Navarre. Hoke's is points look better than 20 yards in field position. Mattison and Borges have a lot to do with that (and Brandon getting the $$ to secure them). Without a defense, going for it isn't as many expected points. Without an offense, there's no confidence to get the first down.
But equaly important is the coordinator's (and Hoke's) press conferences that consistently endear them to the football technicality lovers on this blog. I LOVE to read the transcripts of the coaches explaining what happened and using football terms to matter-of-factly explain why something didn't work. And the "bubble screens?" retort from Borges was amazing. If Rodriguez and his coordinators would have had press conferences like these, where even when they're not coaching a team to victories they're winning over fans with their simple desire to talk football, he may have still been around.
After this season, I'm glad he's not.*
*I read Three and Out and felt bad for the guy. I feel like he still could have been succesful if given a fair shot, but I'm glad that chapter (or book...ha) is behind us.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
Hoke is certainly more Moeller if you want to compare him to a former Michigan coach.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^
At first I did not want DB to pick Hoke, I thought Hoke was just his friend and he would pick him over better qualified coaches.
I really wanted JH or LM and thought we would end up with one of them. Then I started reading articles about Hoke saying Michigan was his dream job and that he would work here for free. I think once he said he would walk to from San Deigo to Ann Arbor just to coach here. Wow, I was really starting to feel bad that Hoke probably would not get the job here even though this was his dream job.
As it turned JH went to the NFL and LM may have wanted too much $ to leave LSU or was not really considered for the HC job.
Overall, I was glad coach Hoke got the Michigan job, his dream job, and I think his passion for our program will make him successful over the long run. He hired a great coaching staff. Al didn't scrap the spread and played towards the the strength of the skilled players on offense. Greg has done a great job coaching up the talent we have on defense.
This season I thought we would go 8-4. The B1G was a bit weaker but the defense improved due to the coaching than I thought was possible. 10-2 was well earned by the players and coaches this season.
The schedule gets tougher next season, so we may not get 10 wins next season but I think we will be in the run to win the Legends division. I hope we can beat MSU at home. It may be difficult to beat NE on the road. We may go 8-4 or 9-3 next season.
As long as coaching and recruiting remains great over the next few years, I'm sure we will be one of the top 10 teams in the country. It will be tough to go undefeated in the B1G conference but I'm sure we'll win some titles over the next decade. There's a chance for a BCS bowl championship appearance as well.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
My thought was that RichRod would have gone 9-4 this year. The combination of easier schedule and an extra year of experience for almost everybody would translate into two more wins in 2011. For as terrible as we were at times in 2010, we managed to somehow win 7 games despite playing three BCS teams, an 11-win team on top of that, and four more bowl teams on top of that. And I think that people bought too much into the meme that our offense didn't do anything against good defenses last year. We compiled about 160 rushing yards in the first half against OSU and we moved the ball almost at will on a lot of teams with at least decent defenses. Last year's problems on offense (turnovers mainly) are inherently fixable in relatively short order. An offense that just sucks at moving the ball, however, takes a long time to improve.
If Hoke won as many games as RichRod in his hypothetical fourth year, I would consider that to be success. He won ten, which surpassed my expecations. What's just as impressive to me as the recrod is the margin of victory. Out of 10 wins, only two have been by less than 7 points. This isn't like previous years where we were also just a few plays away from losing a few more games. Our average MOV was 22.6 points. We were the legitimately better team nine times this year, and we were usually lots better. OSU was a lot closer than I would have liked, but even that game was closer to being a multi-score victory than a defeat.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:18 PM ^
I think that in rivalry games, the score and the records go out the window. I'm honestly not surprised that OSU played their best game of the season offensively. I'm just glad we scored more points than they did.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
Brian was wrong about Michigan throwing in the towel. Epically.
And this, because he was trapped in the idea that the spread is the way of the future and anything else is a joke. But good coaches (Hoke, et al) want to win, and because it took the spread to do it, he did it. And won. Ironically, this was my #1 complaint about RR in year one; he didn't care to adjust to his personnel. People said that is just something coaches say, they never do it. Bullshit. Look at what Hoke did. (Don't wanna start a RR flame war. I hate him. Others like him. I get it. I just wanted to point that out.)
I hate to say "I told you so" (because I didn't, because I didn't post back then), but I told you so in my mind.
The idea that Michigan needs a big-name head coach is where his line of reasoning was broken. Who the hell knew Bo Schembechler when we hired him? Who the hell knew Moeller when he was appointed? Who the hell knew Carr when he was named permanent successor? All of those guys won a ton of games, and Lloyd won a national championship.
Big name coaches are important to have, NOT to hire. The good coaches make their names at your program.
And, as a cherry on top, Hoke is an ace recruiter. That should never have been hard to predict: he's selling the kids on coming to the very place he would have walked from San Diego to get to!
As he said on day 1, "This is Michigan, for God's sake". I think Brian had forgotten that. I think a lot of us had, post RR, post Horror. But it's true.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
I totally agree that Hoke/Borges offense adaptdability is also where Brian was wrong. RR treated the spread like Carr treated 3 yards and a cloud of dust (2008 Capital One Bowl aside); they stuck with it even if it wasn't working well. Ironically, Hoke is different where Carr and RR were similar; he allows his coordinators to adapt to the personell. After all, he's just a Defensive Line coach...
November 30th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^
Carr never really dealt with a transition, so he didn't have to adapt to his personnel. He brought in the proper personnel for his desired system.