Hoke vs. Beilein Parallels

Submitted by Lucky Socks on

Hoops season starts soon and we're all very excited about that.  John Beilein is a genius!  We're ranked #7!  We're coming off a Final Four!  OMG Shirtless Sophomores! We have good reason to be upset about yesterday, and the overall play of our 6-2 team but I personally believe in the big picture.  "Fire Hoke" and drawing negative conclusions about his regime's trajectory is unwise at this juncture.  Allow me to describe -- using parallels to our current hoops coach who is figuratively walking on water in AA these days.  

Beilein was hired in 2007 to replace a "sexy" name who didn't get the job done.  Nobody was really excited about the hire because we struck out on Pitino [EDIT:  Pitino was 2001.  In any case, Beilein wasn't a super exciting hire with his "White Guy" reputation and preverbial "ceiling"].  Hoke, 2011, and Harbaugh and it's the same.  Beilein had to re-recruit Harris and Sims and we struggled to a 10-22 record.  His second year was charmed and we overacheived to an NCAA Tournament win.  Hoke had to re-recruit Denard and others and we overachieved to a Sugar Bowl win. At this juncture, Hoke is ahead of schedule.  Both coaches/teams fell back down to earth in the following season and fans are rightfully disappointed.  

In Beilein's following season (2010-11), we started 1-6 in Big Ten play before the light went on and we upset MSU in East Lansing.  It's been a consistent increase in production ever since. This isn't Hollywood so the parallels aren't perfect (we got smoked yesterday and Lewan didn't have an anueysm of leadership), but we're 6-2 and have some opportunities to wake up.  In any case, we're still a year ahead of schedule according to the "Blueprint to BUILDING a Program" by John Beilein.

Now, Beilein made some coaching changes (Hello:  Jordan, Meyer, and Alexander) that helped him out.  I'm not saying Hoke does or doesn't need to make a few changes, but we're still figuratively playing with a couple Novak's and Douglass' at some skill positions, but while others (like the guards) have Darius Morris talent before the transformation.  

The worst thing Hoke could have done was apparently expidite expectations with the Sugar Bowl.  Have some perspective; remember Beilein's long road.  We're recruiting better than ever.  He's united the alumni and we love how he does things the "Michigan way".  We've enjoyed some success on the field and I promise we'll get to play MSU (1-2 isn't ideal, but better than 0-3), OSU (1-1), and ND (2-1) again.  

My opinion is that we should continue to support Michigan.  We're obviously not where we want to be, but these things take some time.  Tough to coach ourselves to a win when the interior O-Line literally gets crushed within 1 second on every play.  

Should this be a diary?  Is this too long?  Are my paragraphs not up to the "MGoBlog Pulitzer standard?"  Who cares.  Step away from the cliff, anxious Michigan fans.  The last time we gathered our pitchforks coaches negative recruited the hell out of our coaching stability and we got a Josh Groban appearance we'd all like to forget.  

Lucky Socks

November 3rd, 2013 at 8:30 PM ^

We got smoked, I get it.  But I can't imagine any coach being able to do anything productive when the interior oline got demolished on every play.  We tried running -- didn't work.  We tried passing -- no time back there.  I can't put yesterday on the coaches.  The better team won.  

CompleteLunacy

November 4th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^

But let's not say that the coaches are blameless. When your players are struggling with execution and can't block anything, that's on coaching too. Youth and inexperience can explain some of it, but like the secondary of the awful 2010 defense, it does not explain all of it. There are some fundamental coaching issues with the offensive line. It doesn't take a football expert analyst to see that.



I think blaming playcalls is ridiculous, though. It's impossible to have a cohesive game playcalling when nothing works consistently because 1/2 to 3/4ths of your plays are being instantly blown up.

 

goblue16

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^

The job Beilein has done is far better than I could have hoped. The guys winning with low caliber recruits and with the improvement in recruiting Michigan will b a top program for years to come. For basketball however, a top four finish in the big ten and an NCAA tournament bid is good enough for me. Football is a different story. Michigan has the facilities, the money and the talent to win a national championship. That should be the expectation every year. Ill give hoke the five years he deserves before passing judgement. I just don't think he'll get it done in 2 years.

jmblue

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^

I think you could actually argue the opposite - that we have more of a chance to win the national title in basketball than football.  In football, the center of gravity is clearly in the South and it's become really difficult for Northern schools to compete at the highest level.  OSU in 2002 is the last Northern school to do it, and they won as a huge underdog.

In basketball, the Big Ten can legitimately claim to be the best conference in the country (or at least in the top 3), whereas it never can in football anymore.  If you're a contender in the Big Ten, you have Final Four potential.

 

goblue16

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^

I disagree cause OSU has a legit chance to go to a national championship this season and years to come. If they can do it in football why can't we. You don't have to win it at least contend. Other than 06 Michigan hasn't contended for a national championship in a long time

jmblue

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^

Their only chance to reach the title game is if two of Alabama/Oregon/FSU lose, because no voter respects the Big Ten (and rightly so).  If they do somehow sneak in there, I wouldn't like their chances against any of those teams.  There is far more football talent in the South than the North, and to top it off, teams there oversign like crazy.  So when a Northern team faces one in the championship, it usually means a humiliation like Alabama-ND, or Florida-OSU.  OSU might have a shot against Oregon, but I doubt it - they don't play much defense, while Oregon does.

Basketball is another story.  Big Ten teams legitimately are prepared for the tournament by the gauntlet of conference play.  It's not a coincidence that there is a Big Ten team in the Final Four virtually every year.  We were there last year, and were a couple of plays away from winning it all.   Don't be surprised if Beilein takes us back to the FF sometime in the next five years.

 

 

snarling wolverine

November 4th, 2013 at 6:29 AM ^

Yes, but going forward, why would we expect less from basketball than football?   You can build a national championship contender in basketball just with guys from the Midwest.  It's almost impossible to do that in football.  

What's our trump card over the Southern schools in football?  Larger stadium?  Cooler helmets?  Okay, but that alone can only go so far.  All the power programs in the South have great facilities too.  

M-Wolverine

November 4th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^

The stadium was upgraded only a few years ago, and they're only redoing the football building right now.  The indoor practice facility is relatively new too.  The ony top notch thing about Michigan Football facilitites has been the name until recently.

jmblue

November 4th, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^

Many programs have top-end facilities.  Oklahoma State may well have nicer facilities than us, given T. Boone Pickens's largess.  That alone isn't enough to make a program elite.

I think we can and should be a Big Ten title contender, but being a national-title contender is very difficult.  We have one national title in the last 65 years.  That's not just bad luck.  Winning it all is really hard, and getting even harder for Northern schools.  

Basketball is another story.  If Burke doesn't get called for a foul on that clean block, we might well be defending national champions.

State Street

November 3rd, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^

This is a poor comparison.  I understand what you're getting at, but you're leaving out a lot of the relevant stuff.

Beilein was an outsider.  Hoke was not.

Beilein was absolutely known for his innovative playing style and his experience with doing more with less.  He was unique.  Hoke is innately ordinary.  There is nothing special about him.  His preferred style of play is about as exciting as Swan Lake.

Beilein had a lot more time to get his stuff together because the program had been a dumpster fire for so long.  Hoke's leash is a bit shorter.  M football is held to a higher standard than basketball.

UMMAN83

November 3rd, 2013 at 7:08 PM ^

Fitz alone trying to block a DE ... Lewan looking for someone ot block.  That was pitiful.  Borges reminds me of the days Fred Jackson was the OC. 

tybert

November 3rd, 2013 at 8:19 PM ^

Ah yes, the days of 5-0 wins over a horrendous Purdon't team, followed the next year with William Carr at FB for no apparent reason getting the ball in a goal line situation and fumbling in the mind-numbing 9-3 loss to Purdue.

Jackson was SO bad he made DeBord look like Don Coryell.

Tater

November 3rd, 2013 at 9:46 PM ^

This is one of the more balanced opinions I have seen here since Saturday.  I wish Brian would jump this relative newbie at posting up to 5,000 points or so.

fukkyt

November 4th, 2013 at 2:27 AM ^

The biggest difference between Beilein and Hoke is that Beilein managed to recruit talent (Burke, Hardaway, GR III and McGary) who are likely to be NBA first rounder.  At this point, I still do not know which of Hoke's recruit is likely to be NFL first/second rounder.  We can't really judge Mattison/Borges' ability to coach yet.  There is always a limit to what a coach can do.  But my feeling is that we haven't gotten that great recruit (could be just due to bad luck).  Alot of the football recruits we had are good but not great variety.  Our current crop of five stars, such as Morris, Kalis, Pipkin and Green have only shown glimpses of potential (if any) but far from the stud players we expected them to be.  This is very different to the ones we were accustomed to like Henne and Hart who started their freshman year and went on to have great careers.  The biggest concern remain on both sides of the lines which were not a priority under Rich Rod and thus our depth remains alarmingly thin.  While I fully support Hoke & Co, my fear is that in the current day and age, if the past two seasons of OL/DL recruits do not pan out, the recruiting effort will stall and the rebuilding cycle will begin once again.

Lucky Socks

November 4th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^

I agree with the above comment that it's easier to contribute earlier in basketball. I also want to point out that you listed recruits that Beilein pulled in during this 3rd year or more recently than that. He didn't waltz in and get top talent. We had Douglass, Novak, Cronin, and Gibson talent coming in at first. LLP, Smotrycz and Brundidge were talent that didn't meet the hype.



You can't possibly criticize Hoke's lack of NFL talent because literally none of his guys are eligible to even enter the draft.

Starko

November 4th, 2013 at 4:17 AM ^

Well, I hope you're right. 

But I just can't help being frustrated.  Where was this kind of defense of Rodriguez in year three?  Anyone remember how we started that season 5-0 and beat Notre Dame?  

CompleteLunacy

November 4th, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^

MSU or OSU at all yet (Hoke has), didn't even make a bowl game to that point let alone win a BCS bowl (Hoke has), and was not undefeated at home (Hoke still is). 

And I remember back then, there were plenty of levelheaded people around here who had  similar "wait and see" approach to RR. But year 3 was THE do-or-die year because of the failures of his first 2 seasons. This is not a do-or-die year for Hoke, but if he finishes with 5 losses his seat will become very warm next year for sure. But like I thought in 2010, let's wait and see what happens. Hoke has already earned his next two years in my opinion. 

Gustavo Fring

November 4th, 2013 at 10:46 AM ^

Hoke beat the worst OSU team in a long time (barely, I might add).  MSU last year wasn't very good either (again, we needed a last-second FG to win that, even at home). 

Zero points in the second half against OSU last year.  6 points against MSU all game this year, 12 last year. 

jmblue

November 4th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^

MSU went 9-4, 6-7 and 11-2 in RR's three years.  In Hoke's three years they've gone 11-3, 7-6 and 8-1.  How are they worse now?

OSU, yes, they had the one bad team in 2011 (although if they'd been at full strength all year, they'd have won more games), but in 2012 and '13 they certainly haven't been too shabby.

Regarding the offense, we scored a combined total of 24 points in three games against OSU under RR - and that was supposed to be the good side of the ball in his tenure.  The high-octane 2010 offense managed seven points against them.

 

Gustavo Fring

November 4th, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^

When Rich Rod was here. 

Hoke has beaten MSU once and O$U once.  MSU last year:Michigan barely won at home against a very meh 7-6 team with no quarterback. 

O$U 2011: 6-6 team with a freshman (albeit talented) quarterback and a poor defense.  Coached my Luke Fickell.

And that's it. The O$U and MSU teams that Hoke managed to beat were worse than any MSU or O$U outfits Rich Rod had to face.  Other than that, Hoke has lost all the other games to those two teams.

 

I Wrote a 4 Wo…

November 4th, 2013 at 9:29 AM ^

"True loyalty is that quality of service that grows under adversity and expands in defeat. Any street urchin can shout applause in victory, but it takes character to stand fast in defeat. One is noise—the other, loyalty." -Yost.



Let's keep cheering.

Jgrasty

November 4th, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^

I don't know if I can stomach watching this Michigan team anymore. Borges is incompetent. Mattison seems to be regressing. And the team seems like it quit on Hoke. Yes, we're 6-2. But I can't see us finishing the year with less than 4 losses, and 5 (or more) seems much more likely. (We'll have to be extremely lucky to go 2-1 over the next 3 games -- Nebraska, @Iowa, @Northwestern -- and we have no shot against OSU. And then, of course there’s a bowl game against an SEC team.) 

That means after a first year where everything broke perfectly, Hoke will have back-to-back 5+ loss seasons. He'll also be 4-5 against OSU, ND and MSU. (In fact, Borges’s offense has never scored more than 14 points against MSU -- in that instance 7 came in garbage time – and, aside from that garbage time TD, has not reached the end zone since the first possession of the 2011 game.) What’s more, in 3 years he will have never beaten a quality opponent in their house. Every negative thing I said/wrote about the Hoke/Borges hires seems to be coming to fruition.

I keep telling myself that they are another year or two away. That the next recruiting class will be the one that turns the tide. And maybe it will, at least from a talent standpoint. But I feel like no matter our talent level, I’ll never be able to trust Hoke and Borges (particularly the latter) in a big game. (Shockingly, Mattison seems to be moving in that direction as well, though I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.) We don’t seem to know how to utilize our talent on offense, don’t manage the game well, can’t handle teams who go up-tempo and consistently get out game-planned. (At halftime Saturday, Hoke said MSU did a bunch of things they weren’t expecting. How does that happen after a bye week, in a rivalry game? That statement alone is enough to make me lose faith in the staff. Sadly, this was not an isolated incident of incompetence.) 

All of this begs the question, what is the upside under this coaching staff? Prior to this season, I looked at our depth chart by class and future schedules and predicted that we’d be playing in the 2015-16 national championship game. Now, I feel like no matter who is on our team we are always going to have 1-2 games per year where we get severely out-coached. If those games coincide with match-ups against teams with decent talent (which they almost certainly will), it means no matter how well we recruit we’ll never be an elite program. That is a horrible feeling. 

I know there is no chance Brandon gets rid of Hoke. And, after only giving RichRod 3 years, I feel like you have to give Hoke more time if for no other reason than continuity and stability. But either Hoke or Brandon has to come to their sense and realize Borges has to go. We have no chance as long as he’s running the offense.

Soulfire21

November 4th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^

At halftime Saturday, Hoke said MSU did a bunch of things they weren’t expecting. How does that happen after a bye week, in a rivalry game?

Because MSU keeps things hidden intentionally for the Michigan game.

I think we should've learned our lesson about running coaches out of town after 3 years, lest we take a Notre Dame-esque wander through college football wilderness for 15+ years.  We have regressed in the W/L column only.  Did anyone look at our roster and think better than 9-3 would be likely this year?  The only way I figured we would do better than that was if we got favorable bounces in some key games, which we really haven't.

Hoke's oldest recruits are sophomores and RS freshmen.

That said, I'm 100% open to exploring a new OL coach and I'm getting there on Borges I suppose.

Gustavo Fring

November 4th, 2013 at 10:41 AM ^

Brady Hoke is a good defensive coach.  Hiring Mattison has been good and on that side of the ball he saved a tire fire.

But he possesses many backward ideas.  Rich Rod may have been too much of a shock to the Michigan culture, but this program does need to adapt (if more gradually) to the 21st century.  You don't win playing Woody-ball anymore.

The no-huddle offense is a thing.  Knowing how to execute and throw a defense off-balance is key.  If a defense has you completely figured out (sound familiar) you need something to give yourselves a jolt (and until that pick, the no-huddle was the first sign of life Michigan's offense had shown all day). 

Innovative offense is a thing. Whether it's Stanford, Oregon, Texas A&M or even Alabama, the best teams in the country rely on both talent and scheme.  And in the case of Stanford, Oregon, and Alabama, their defenses are even better for it. 

To gain my faith, Hoke needs to show that he realizes Michigan needs to adapt.  If you want manball, hire a manball guy in the mold of Greg Roman or Jim Harbaugh.  Someone who knows how to mess with a defense's keys and have a constantly changing, unpredictable formation.  If you want to go spread, that's an option too.

But appreciate that innovative offense is important and hire someone innovative.

Bob The Wonder Dog

November 4th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

Let's compare Hoke and Dantonio.

Regular

Season           Hoke                       Dantonio

1st                      10-2                         7-5

2nd                       8-4                         9-3

3rd                       6-2*                         6-7