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 1:34 PM ^
Pre-season, I would have said A.
I chalked Akron up to a fluke.
After UConn, I would have said B.
Now, I'm afraid it might be C.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
Quite simply because we have actually regressed overall as a team from last year. I wouldn't expect them to be world beaters this year, but I definitely do not believe we should be worse. Can you imagine what our O-line would be like if Lewan had not returned? We would most likely have lost all of our close games this year. Think about how close those games were and if you remove the Lewan effect, we go down in flames to some very, very bad teams. As the season progresses, it is clear that these were not anomalies or 'off' weeks for the team. The teams that almost beat us are not better than we thought, they are that bad.
How did we get worse?
October 13th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^
Well the disasterous 2010 recruiting class is definitely an issue. The talent from 2009 and 2008 have left the program over the last two seasons and the bulk of the guys that need to replace them are from the 2012 class and still really young.
Now I don't think that excuses the level of play we've seen so far this year. Even given the above, we're severely underperforming and worst of all, don't seem to be improving as you would expect young guys do. I think the OL is the root cause of a lot of issues on offense, and really it's not a new problem. We need a change in course at coaching at that position, plain and simple.
October 18th, 2013 at 1:25 PM ^
and perhaps a change in coaching for the OL would help with player development, but what do you do with an OC that makes the OL the pinion of his game plan....for 6 games, despite terrible results and no real hope of improvement?
I mean, you can't blame rock, rock, rock, rock, rock, rock on the fingers in roshambo, right?
October 13th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
I think Hoke is a good college football coach and is one of the best fit for M football program. However, his shortcoming is obvisous, he doesn't know offense well enough to adjust in the game. He doesn't seems to be a good game manager in real-time, at least compared to elithe college coach such as meyer, saban. He adapt his scheme to his personnel too slowly, perticualerly on offense, through out the season. If you look back the past 3 seasons, he made some changes during the seasons that seems obvious from the outsiders and fans, but usually made the changes after a couple of game until fans beat the dead horse a couple of times. But the good side is at least he's willing to adapt to get the best outcome and learn their lessons.
I myself think, in the long term, we need a better OC, and a dedicate QB coach, like the old day, I am not sure TE coach is essetial, TE development in the past 3 years has not been great either. Either they cannot block, or they cannot receive, and there is no sign they are getting better. The TE development duty can probably goes to OL or WR coach such that we can save a spot for a dedicate QB coach. QB passing ability usually goe downward through out the season, and their mechanics get worse and worse throuhgh out the season. I also think Fred Jackson probably should retire, our RB corps in the last 7 years have not been good. Don't tell me the talent level of OL or RB are not there. We have better talent than 80% of the NCAA schools, including MSU. I think it's time to have a young RB coach, to kick start this group for M football.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^
Wheatley or Hart - ya they are young, so is Kingsbury at TT and that is working out pretty well so far.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^
I love Hoke, but I'm afraid this is who we are -- an up and down team -- until Jim Harbaugh decides he's ready to come back to knock Urban Meyer's dick into the dirt.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^
Harbaugh is never coming back.
October 14th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^
Never say never.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 1:45 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
Uhhh this profoundly stupid.
Gardner was the #1 Dual threat QB in his class and he's been in Brady Hoke's system for 3 years. Let's not act like RR took Devin from nowhere, made him nto a QB and Brady Hoke is stuck with him. He was an Elite 11 QB and very higly regarded and recruited coming out of HS. His shortcomings fall squarely on this staff.
Fitz was a rivals 250 guy and a top 10 RB in his class.
This excuse is BS. Wasn't the big knock on RR that he refused to adjust his offense to the talent he had? Why is it excusable for Hoke? Stop running it up the gut when you don't have the personnel to do it. Good teams play to their strengths. They don't stick to a single minded plan.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^
B. He's definitely fallen back to earth in my eyes. I still like his motivator and high level manager approach to head coaching, but he needs to be more involved in key situations. After last game, I'm not entirely sure he's hands off by choice, or if he's just not that good at game management. Given his entire body of work at Michigan so far, I still think he's the best guy for the job though.
As far as changes go. I think Funk needs to go. He's had so many options and whiffed on just about everyone. We can't get two guys next to each other to make a hole without putting our tackles next to each other and even then it's not that great. There is absolutely no coherence to what the line as a unit is doing. Last year, he didn't have many options but this year it's clear the guys sitting behind the starters are even worse. That's just not acceptable.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 1:51 PM ^
the Hoke slappies here forget how his first season was with virtually all of RR's players and the dynamic Denard.
We have also won a number of games under Hoke that were simply lucky.
Road games under Hoke are just hard to watch.
Hoke was supposed to be the true "Michigan man" to lead us out of the wilderness.
Since then, despite supposedly great recruiting, we have went backwards.
The line play is some of the worst in Michigan history. The running game is perhaps the worst in 30 years (especially if you take out the QB runs).
The coaching is just horrific. I did not like the Hoke hire when it happened.
Nice guy? Sure he is. Good coach? No. Good staff? Not even close.
Anyone that really believes that we can beat Nebraska...MSU...Ohio...is nuts.
Last nights game was hands down the worst coaching i have seen in a Michigan game in many many years.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
you are most certainly a slappie. Still blaming RR for our current mess on the OL???
Thats pathetic.
Just get it through your head. Hoke is not an elite coach. There is no freaking way he is going to lead this team to a championship of any sort.
Sadly....the best coach in the league is in Columbus. And until he goes away, they will continue to dominate.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:21 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^
Speaking specifically to your first point, which has been made numerous times in this thread, what exactly is the point of stating that Hoke won in his first year with a majority of RR players?
To me it seems like such a nebulous and throw-away statement. Are we giving Hoke MOAR credit because he won without "his guys?' Are we giving RR more credit because he provided A BIT of development with some of his players? Are we sayint that the offense was clearly one of the most dynamic in the country? We know -- everyone knows -- that RR is a pretty darn good offensive mind, but what about the defense and the special teams? Isn't this the same thing we have been arguing about for the entirety of Hoke's tenure? One side of the ball being good to great with the other side of the ball either sputtering (in Hoke's case, I would argue) or just plain incomprehensibly bad (in RR's case, I would argue).
Didn't intend to rant, but I just simply DO NOT understand this argument from people. On the other hand, maybe I'm just crazy.... I don't know.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:26 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^
Want to proclaim this from the mountaintops. Cosign.
October 13th, 2013 at 1:52 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^
the amount of run plays run coupled with the utter lack of productivity out of the running game just screams insanity.
nfm
October 13th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
than scapegoating. And it's hardly Hoke's fault, let alone Borges's, that Gibbons missed two field goal tries that were within regular reach, through 16 made FGs in a row, last night. He makes those and we are here breathing another sigh of relief.
What I DO blame Hoke for is the time management (the pooch kick either works or it doesn't; it's a 50/50 call that happened NOT to pan out--no blame there). He's got to get word in to Devin to watch that clock like a hawk and milk it correctly.
And here's where my view of Hoke is a bit more CONFIRMED than changed as of last night. He's a pretty easy-going guy, and not a tenacious intellect. And that may be what the ideal coach IS. Instead we have a game manager, a Bobby Bowden-type who is quite lovable but is not contributing everything he could on the sideline.
He's got a decidedly old-school philosophy, imported from the MAC schools. And the jury is very, very out. MORE out after last night, where an aggressive spread was clearly catching us flatfooted from time to time.
My hunch is that we're stuck in the perennial also-ran position with this approach. But there's no guarantee you succeed with basketball on wheels, as RR showed. BOTH experiments may fail, given our fairly big demands; there may be no adequate solution to the dilemmas M faces, and there are certainly no guarantees.
Looking back, however, you have to wish A) that RR had been given money for a serious defensive hire; B) that the Freep hadn't screwed him, C) that the alumni and former players hadn't screwed him; and D) that he hadn't screwed himself. The experiment might well be over by now, anyway, and a clear failure. But we would have had a clearer view of the relative value of the approaches.
EDIT: Worth pointing out, as Brian often has, that Hoke has made a LOT of gutty and non-conservative calls down the stretch in Michigan games the last several years, gaining a lot of wins that were by no means assured. Again, to me this suggests that the passivity was the issue last night. Shawn Windsor has a nice parsing of the late-game decisions at the Freep right now; I don't agree with all, but--yes--with much of it.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:57 PM ^
What is "MAC-style playcalling?" Urban Meyer started out in the MAC, too, so is he a MAC-style coach?
October 13th, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^
The job of the staff is to put the players in a postion to win, rather than not to lose. Unfortunately our current staff is not doing this which is why we suffer these gut crushing losses. This is becoming a Michigan tradition that goes back at least to Lloyd and possibly to Bo himself.
Being stubborn is not a strategy, at least not a strategy for success. If what you are doing isn't working, CHANGE IT. This shouldn't be a foreign concept. This failure to adapt has cost us many close games since I was a freshman in 1971, especially in bowl games and against major rivals.
I'm not suggesting we convert to a spread with the read-option being our staple play but throwing short passes and the occasional deep ball in order to set up the run would seem to be a rational strategy given our deficiencies on the offensive line. Splitting four receivers out will prevent teams from loading up in the box. That is what Tressel did in 2006 with excellent results. This year, Northwestern and Indiana (fer godssake) have more dynamic offenses than we do and Sparty seems to have found an offense as well. Last nights' game and last years OSU game and too many others to list have been lost partially because of our approach to the game. Something has to change-either our strategy or our staff- if Michigan is to be a consistent winner.. I am willing to give them time to develop their own recruits but the results should be very obvious and very soon.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:13 PM ^
Mattison is doing dumb things like rushing 3, yet he does what is necesscary when the game is on the line. They are young and getting better, yet I'd like to see the coaches actually teach our ends and LBs to, you know, rip and swim inside so their aggressive rush doesn't take them right out of the play. This is the best unit on our squad.
Borges...sigh. An inside screen to Devin Funchess? Like really? Even my girlfriend was like, why is there such a large man getting the ball so close to all the other large men? A QB rollout would be nice? You know, to offset out struggling OL and take advantage of Devin's speed ability to improvise with his WR/TEs. Borges sucks, plain and simple. Needs to go.
Special Teams have not gotten any better since Hoke has been here. I don't think we've had a kick or punt return for a TD since he's been here. We keep saying Norfleet is going to break one...he has the ability...he does not have the blocking or the coaching to learn how to follow them.Coverage has left a lot to be desired. Kicking? Gibbons reverted back to the RichRod struggles. Also he is now 240 pounds. That blocked kick on us was just a complete lack of effort on the line thinking the game was done. I don't think Ferrigno is doing anything.
Gardner is also not good, but I believe it is Borges destroying him with stupid playcalls and personnel on the field. Also, he needs to look at the god damn playclock.
Hoke needs to make a change, and if he doesn't? I don't even want to go there. Just do it.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:27 PM ^
Special Teams have not gotten any better since Hoke has been here.Really? I remember us going 4-15 on field goals in 2010. Last night aside, Gibbons has been money under Hoke.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:37 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^
I do think Funk has to go, and I think we need a QB coach. Otherwise, we just need to give a young team time.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:27 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 2:32 PM ^
B- flirting with a C+ I know that we are young but it does not seem like our players have been progressing for a while. Blaming our problems on RR players can only go so far. I'm not ready to cash it in just yet though but the state game is really worrying me now.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:34 PM ^
B-. I am positive that Borges will limit this team for as long as he is here. Game management and overall player development bodes very unwell for Hoke too. I am being kept from voting a C only by optimism and Hoke's stellar recruiting.
October 13th, 2013 at 2:42 PM ^
the slappies.
So EVERY coach that is good and not named Hoke is a cheater???
Wow.
October 13th, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^
October 13th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
Seriously get over this 'cheating' bullshit. It's not like selling your championship ring or getting a 500 dollar handshake makes you a better football player. It's not like they're roiding and taking PEDs and Michigan is not.
You can say they shouldn't be playing in the game -- fine, nice moral victory, win on a technicalty.
Line em up and those teams just flat out have better players and coaches who get them and ready to play.
October 13th, 2013 at 4:00 PM ^