Informal poll: did this game change your opinion of Hoke?
I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of this board would have answered "yes" to the question is Brady Hoke the best coach for Michigan before this game, with various caveats and quibbles (Funk, Borges) aside.
I am interested to hear how the board would respond to that question now. I'll offer some options:
A- Yes he is, that game sucked and game management was poor, but we can move on.
B- He is provided he makes changes to offensive coaching after the season
C- My faith in Hoke was seriously shaken and I am no longer sure he is the best coach for M.
D- He is not the best coach for M. This game confirmed my fears.
So, if you want to play, please answer both with the letter that best captures your thought, and also is that a change from what you would have answered before?
To start, I will say B. And yes last night changed my mind.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:28 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:28 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
I agree that the last 4 games have been concerning. However, how/if we change our ideology following this game will certainly influence my grade.
In 2011, after the Iowa loss, we stopped trying to force manball and let Denard be Denard.
In 2012, we immediately moved our WR to QB to improve the position after Bellomy struggled.
In both cases, I felt as though it represent a needed, but likely philosophically uncomfortable change by the staff.
I am cautiously optimistic that we'll see a similar type of change after last night and we'll stop regressing as a team.
Go Blue.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
I would prefer the coaches be proactive, not reactive with their ideology.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:28 PM ^
Come on, all coaches are going to find out things during the season that they couldn't have known in advance. Some guys are not going to play as well during the season as they looked in fall camp - that's just reality. The good coaches find ways to adapt as the year goes on.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:33 PM ^
My problem with making changes during the year is the fact that the coaches knew the running game was an issue coming into the game, why had they not yet made changes. They still ran the running backs 30 times for less then 30 yards. Can't good coaches make adjustments after bad wins (Akron, UConn) or during the game, and not always have to wait until after terrible losses. Changes will always be made during the year, but I don't believe they always have to after things have already spun out of control.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
I started the night at A. As such, I cannot jump further than B based on one game. Put me down as a change from A to B.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:32 AM ^
Ring me up for B. Really, I would just like to see Funk axed, and possibly Borges. I still have to believe that this coach is the same one who rescued Ball State from years of irrelevancy to an 11 win season and brought SDSU to prominence, a school that had no history of success ever before he got there. Funk has to go though...this O-line is putrid, and has the talent and experience to not be. Honestly, this O-line reminds me of some of the RichRod D-lines; a few players that are able to excel due to unbelievable work ethic, talent, and intelligence (Graham, Martin), and then a bunch of no-ones that the coaches are completely unable to coach up.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^
no history of success? granted never a power, but marshall faulk had some good years there.
October 13th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
Faulk played almost 20 years before Hoke arrived there. When he got there, they hadn't had a winning season in a decade. He got them to 9-4 in year two.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
Yep. My biggest knock on Hoke from day one has been that he brought Borges with him.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:35 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
I don't think that's fair. He's been a head coach at three schools and all three improved under his watch. A guy who isn't good at his job can't pull that off. Moreover, since his departure, BSU and SDSU have returned to mediocrity.
Exactly how good he is at his job is a fairer question.
October 13th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
Have we really improved? Are we much better than 2010 Michigan right now? The way we've played the last four games, we're lucky to be 5-1. 7-5 is still a possibility and would not be the least bit surprising.
October 13th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
I don't know exactly how much better we are than 2010, but I do think we are better overall. The 2010 team was all O; its D and special teams were literally among the worst in the country. The team went 7-6 and the losses were mostly lopsided while the wins were close.
We are obviously better in two of the three phases of the game and while we're not as good offensively, we are capable of being potent (we're averaging 38 ppg); it's not a total disaster like the 2010 D was. I think Borges needs to move to a more pass-first offense going forward and get Funchess more targets. If he does, I think our O can still be pretty good despite the awful rush attack.
I think this year may represent the nadir of this program going forward. 61 of our 85 scholarship players are underclassmen and the 2012 and 2013 classes are the most talented, according to the gurus. Whether the staff is coaching them up to their potential is a fair question (on the OL I really wonder) but we will get to a point, as a program where we've got far more talent than our opposition most weeks.
October 13th, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
Other than a 2013 version of Gibbons being better than the 2010 version, and I don't know how much of that can be attributed to coaching, are we really any better this year on special teams?
October 13th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
Under RichRod, returning punts was an utter disaster and led to numerous turnovers. Aside from one fluky play in the UConn game, that doesn't happen under Hoke.
And I do think there is a coaching aspect to kicking. RichRod publicly threw his kickers under the bus, talking about how he was on the verge of campus-wide tryouts and "joking" about picking up a new kicker when visitng PSU, and so on. Hoke has always been positive regarding his kickers and has shown confidence in Gibbons from day one. If Gibbons had made that third GW attempt last night, you know the headlines would have been "Hoke's Confidence in Gibbons Rewarded" or some such.
October 13th, 2013 at 5:35 PM ^
We've had 3 or 4 "muffed" punts this year and have been lucky to only lose one. We've essentially foregone returns as a result. Combine that with our atrocious return coverage and I really don't see much difference aside from Gibbons being better, though less than stellar this year.
October 13th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
Fuck this tradition non-sense. Michigan tradition is winning. Anything else is icing on the cake. If an autistic monkey who botched The Victors consistently could beat Ohio on a regular basis and compete for (and win one) NCs then I'm happy.
Hoke is a defensive version of RR who doesn't have as many gaffes. His ceiling is Lloyd Carr without a shared NC and without the luxury of a Jim Cooper in Columbus.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^
Who is this Jim Cooper of whom you speak?
October 13th, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^
John's evil twin brother who secretly sabotaged him at every opportunity
October 13th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 4:34 PM ^
Have really lost faith in this staff.Now I know why Borges has hopped around for 40 years.He and Funk must go..
October 13th, 2013 at 11:36 AM ^
Because this is specifically polling the board (curious to see the summary data, if the OP is collecting this for use somehow), I suppose we can let this stand as something that isn't snowflake-ish, if you will.
If the question is about Hoke specifically, then he is probably the best head coach for that team at this juncture, so "A" on that - it would be difficult to top the culture he has created and it is paying dividends for the future. If you are talking more about the staff in general, then I would have to say "B" given the options presented - I would be at least curious to see someone's proposal for alternatives. How's this for a management-style answer?
October 13th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
VERY well said!
October 13th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
Brady Hoke is a good coach, but not a great coach. I felt right from the start that going from Rodriguez to Hoke was a largely lateral move. Hoke has smoothed out the highs and lows of the Rodriguez teams, but the average is about the same.
I don't really think Hoke should be fired, as I don't think there's an obviously better replacement available. I'm just resigned to Michigan being an 8-4 or 9-3 team each year, with an occasonal shot at a conference championship.
October 13th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
B is my answer. But your last paragraph hits it right on the head. The Rich Rod years were way too scary for too many Michigan fans and higher ups. I think DB and the donors would rather have a safe, conservative, 8 or 9 win team rather than take the risk of being a nationally dominant program.
I've had this opinion since like 2009 and the John U. Bacon book and this season have only confirmed it.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
I'm between A and B depending on how the season finishes. If there is no improvement on the OL, I think he has to seriously consider letting Funk go. If Gardner doesn't become more consistent as the year goes on (he's now started 11 games), he has to think about whether Borges is the guy as QB coach. (Whether Borges is the guy as OC, I'm not sure. Hard to tell how much of the playcalliing is limited by personnel.)
October 13th, 2013 at 11:56 AM ^
If the playcalling doesn't get more realistic, I'd like to see a new OC.
October 13th, 2013 at 12:56 PM ^
This^^^
27 1-yard runs up the middle? At what point was 10 not enough information for you to figure out that THIS WAS JUST NOT GOING TO WORK TONIGHT?
The reason Borges must have gone bald is because he likes to keep beating his head against a wall.
The only way this team is going to win any games in November is to pass to set up the run, Devin's yips and all. Doesn't matter what you'd like to do, it's what you have to do.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^
Fitz had a long run of 12 yards. Plus Green's 3 rushes for 1 yard, In reality, take out the long run and from the RB position, we had 29 rushes for 16 yards. 29 Quarterback sneaks would have been more productive then our RB running game against PSU. Man, just reading that fact makes me sick to my stomach.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
To be fair, a large number of those came when we were trying to kill the clock on that long drive in the 4th quarter or when we were setting up FG attempts in OT. (You can argue, of course, that we shouldn't have put it on Gibbons's shoulders, but we've done this a few times and he's never missed a clutch kick before.)
There was only Toussaint carry that really irritated me and that was the 3rd and inches in the third OT. You just knew that wasn't going to work. A Gardner bootleg there probably gets the first and then some.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
Because 1) he deserves to graduate a class of players he recruited, and 2) if he keeps up his excellent recruiting it probably won't matter if Funk or Borges are bad, since the Big Ten is truly that bad aside from OSU.
Though I will say Funk should get axed, but only because after 3 years Michigan is still terrible at power running.
October 13th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
The most frustrating thing to see as a college football fan is when talented athletes underachieve due to what appears to be either bad coaching, bad scheme, or bad gameplan / game theory. Yet talented players matter more for wins than coaching, and when we can recruit at a level similar to the mid-90s making a coaching change could both
1) reduce the caliber of recruits Michigan is gaining, and
2) lead to Rodriguez-level attrition.
Neither of the above are guarantees with a coaching change, but taking them for granted was a huge mistake with the last coaching hire. Borges still grades out as incomplete IMO since he has shown about as many excellent gameplans (Nebraska + OSU 2011, Notre Dame 2013, Outback Bowl) as bad gameplans (MSU + Iowa 2011, ND +OSU 2012, PSU 2013) in his tenure here.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^
The headset meme is just about the worst.
October 13th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^
I also go with A for the points you listed.
Look, we knew going from Pro (Lloyd Ball) to Spread (RR) was going to take 2-3 years to fully implement. We all know how those 3 years went. No need to go in full detail there.
Now, we are in year 3 of transitioning from Spread back to Pro style with a handful of upper classmen recruited for the zone read/spread scheme. Thankfully, the transition back to Pro has not been nearly as rough as the transition to Spread. Quite honestly, that first year - 2011 - has probably gotten many of us too high too quickly. Instead of hitting the bottom, like we did in 2008, the team way over-performed in 2011 and took a step back in the win column in 2012 and could do the same in 2013 (although I'm resigned to 8-4).
The talent on this team that was recruited to do the things Hoke wants to do are still young. We are talking red-shirt Sophomores and younger with limited playing time.
i believe Hoke was the right hire for Michigan and I will continue to rate him A through the remainder of this year. However, 2014 season starts a new year and a new evaluation scale. Anything short of 10-wins and a legit shot at the B1G title in 2014 and my evaluation will get tougher.
By 2015, the seat starts getting warm and patience draws thin.
{edit for spelling error}
October 13th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 11:40 AM ^
October 14th, 2013 at 1:33 PM ^
^^ This. Nearly ever team in the country has similar questions / issues to that of UM. However, at least in the B1G, some of those teams actually seem to be addressing and resolving those issues. While it pains me to say this, MSU looks to have improved their offense. They look reasonably competent now. Somehow, their coaching staff was able to address the issues they were experiencing and game plan to win! For whatever reason, we cannot, and I fundamentally don't understand why.
You asked who I would replace them with: OC - Mike Bloomgren at Stanford. He was the OL coach under Harbaugh and has done an AMAZING job instituting a MANBALL-like system at Stanford and succeeding in a spread-and-shred conference.
O-Line: Bart Miller or T.J. Woods. Both were trained under Bielema at UW and are young, agressive. I think they would do a great job developing the talent we have and addressing gaps that arise mid-season (as they did at UW).
October 14th, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^
He's an OC in a program that's further along, and probably presents him with more head coaching opportunities. You could say money, but Stanford is private and can pay whatever they want to keep someone.
And it is kind of a funny choice considering they scored 21 points this week in a loss to Utah. He's probably taking heat from his home fans. If Stanford fans even care. Doesn't mean he's not good, just means he's in the same situation we are, losing his first game of the season on the road to a team they shouldn't have lost to.
October 15th, 2013 at 9:20 PM ^
"He's probably taking heat from his home fans. If Stanford fans even care."
Answered your own question. Part of the appeal of HC jobs at schools like Texas, Alabama, and Michigan is definitely the passionate and knowledgable fanbases.
IMO.
October 16th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
With the same pay, upward mobility, and more success because of how interested the fans are?