bronxblue

August 7th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^

I don't disagree with you that RR's best situation was WVU, or that he isn't an HOF coach.  He's a good coach with flaws - like 99% of the coaches out there.  But what drives me crazy here on this board is the hive mind that breaks out - everyone was pro-RR when he started, then became anti-RR, then became anti-Hoke, then pro-Hoke, and there is no real nuance to the arguments made.  Listen, I was definitely against the Hoke hire initially because he felt like settling, and I still think the jury is out.  That said, he's a great recruiter and hired some good coordinators, and I expect him to do well here.  But when people tell me that a coach like RR is crap because he couldn't succeed in a tough situation here and thus he was always a bad coach and anyone who thinks he did anything good besides "stumble" upon Denard, that drives me crazy.

CRex

August 7th, 2012 at 9:45 AM ^

It's odd how it seems to come down to that.  RR without a doubt is a great spread mind, but he never engendered the kind of teamwide loyalty Hoke seems to have created.  Guy talks about wanting to run through a wall for Hoke, when it comes to RR most of them either quickly change the subject or have only negative things to say.  

bronxblue

August 7th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^

I don't disagree, but two points.

  1. Hoke came in without ANY of the media/external crap that RR had to deal with from day 1.  That's a huge benefit when trying to engender support both in the lockerroom and beyond.
  2. Hoke won when he first arrived.  My guess is that if that team had gone 5-7 or 3-9 instead of 11-2, you'd hear sniping.  And my guess is this year, you'll hear some kids talking about playing time and the like if they struggle.  Winning keeps everyone quiet.

CRex

August 7th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^

I have to strongly disagree with point 1.  Hoke came in with a losing record.  Many thought to be the emergency safety net after Harbaugh left Brandon at the altar.  The fan base was fractured over the fact RR was fired.  The fan base was pissed at yet another botched coaching search.  Prior to the hiring people like Brian are railing about standing at the battlements with a battle ax to behead anyone who mentions Hoke as a candidate.  

The fact Brady Hoke was our head coach had the potential to really blow up.  A guy with a losing record that we had to settle for after Brandon lost Harbaugh.  People were mad because our Athletic Department looked incomptent as hell and Michigan, a premier program, had to resort to desperation hires from the MWC, WAC, or whatever hell conference SDSU was in.  Hoke had a very good chance of being the guy we took all that anger out on.  

Hokes come in.  Tears in his eyes, slams his hand on the podium and tells that asshole from the Freep "This is Michigan fer godsakes."  He conducts his early team meetings will enough to avoid a flood of transfers.  He plucks Mattison, a man with multiple rings, out of the NFL.  People buy in.  Had Hoke not managed to achieve buyin with that first presser, I think we'd have had the knives in before he ever coached a snap.  RR at least came in as the man who built a BCS caliber team, yet he still ended up unpopular.  Hoke came in with a losing record but managed to have people saying "He sounds like the right man for the job."

Regarding your second point.  I honestly think if say our defense made it up to #60 and we went 5-7, there would be a mininum of sniping at Hoke.  A 50 place improvement of defense and us being at least competitive in our games would have kept the heat off Hoke.  I'm sure there would be MLive bitching, but that is always there as background noise.  National columnists are already pointing out that we might suffer a regression due to a lack of O-Line depth this year.  If we'd been middle of the road last year, people would have attributed it to the depth chart.  If Hoke had shit the bed and the defense continued to be terrible, then the knives definitely would have come out.    

bronxblue

August 7th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^

I will counter your points with two arguments:

1.  You mention that Hoke came into a fractured program, but the difference between RR's introduction and Hoke's was that Carr's regime was still kicking around and making noise the whole time, undermining RR's credibility along the way.  And let's not forget the differences in expectations people had after Carr's era versus RR's.  People expected UM to always win, to always be a top-20 outfit, and nothing in their past showed them to believe otherwise.  But after RR, fans wanted change as much as anything else.  Under Carr, people groused but he still won 8-9 games a year.  The expectations were lowered for Hoke before he stepped into the role simply because the guy before him left so unceremoniously.  That's a huge difference.

Also, I think we sometimes forget that the blogosphere represents a relatively small number of fans.  Brian bitches and moans about Hoke, but point to me a MSM article that ripped the Hoke firing beyond the usual "he's a guy with a losing record but with UM ties."  The bigger issue had to do with missing Harbaugh, but I never felt people held that against Hoke.  And even with Harbaugh, the guy went to the NFL, so while some people felt he turned his back on UM I think the general consensus was that his personality wasn't going to be a great fit and he might as well take a chance at the top position in his industry.  With RR, UM was being rebuffed by the likes of Miles, Schiano (if you believe some reports), etc.  Other college coaches at programs no better than UM's.  That stung people, and then the whole issue with leaving WVU (perpetrated by some disgruntled WVU faithful that was largely beyond the control of RR - imagine if SDSU had popped off about Hoke when he left) popped up and further stacked the deck against him.  Then the Rosenberg's of the world chimed in, oftentimes out of personal vendettas than actual facts.

I do agree that Hoke handled the introductions better and kept more kids around, but by all accounts that was as much a result of the team leaders telling guys to stay, to hold rank and give the new guy a chance, something the team definitely lacked when RR showed up.  They saw what had happened before, and they made a concerted effort to not see that happen again.  I'm sure Hoke had something to do with that, but let's not undercut the efforts made by RVB, Martin, Kouvacs, Molk, Denard, etc.  And again, RR wasn't around to meddle when Hoke arrived, nor did he say "I'll sign your transfer papers" like Carr apparently did.  Again, that's huge.

As for Mattison, yeah Hoke brought him in, but he able to do that because Brandon opened up the checkbook.  UM is finally paying coaches the way it should, which wasn't the reality under RR.  I still hold to the belief that if Casteel had some to A2 with RR, that defense would have been better on Day 1 and who knows what would have happened.

As for point 2, I don't disagree, but the busts of Hoke in the HOF that some have already put an order in for certainly benefitted from an amazing season.  People will talk this year if they lose to MSU or OSU, and then we'll see how well everyone handles it.

Lionsfan

August 7th, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^

Regarding the Hoke press conference, how much of that was based on RR? Rich came in, had an introductory presser, and immediately the sniping started. Dave Brandon didn't want that to happen with his new hire, and no doubt gave pointers/tips to Hoke, probaby encouraging him to go over the top a little with his presser. For all the jokes we make about Dave Brandon marketing/social outreach, this really is his field to excel at. When Hoke gives the "Fergodsakes" answer, you see him answer the initial question, and give props to the school, typical standard stuff. And there's a little pause, and then he adds in "fergodsakes", to take it over the top, and to try and quash any doubt's about him not being right for the job. From there the writers took the approach of, "Well Hoke may suck, but we'll let the results run first before we talk".

Also, was that a Freep question? I heard it was Rothstein or Meinke, but I'm not really sure on it, just curious if anyone knows or not.

And finally, I disagree with you about the 5-7 bit. If we had gone 5-7, losing to MSU and OSU, the cannons would be in full force on everything. "This is Michigan fergodsakes" would be a joke for everyone else, and everyone would be pressing Brandon, "Why didn't you offer Harbaugh in November?" "Why not up the ante for LSU and Les Miles?" "Why did we get a coach with no BCS conference experience and a losing record?"

Your scenario, I think would have applied if we had won 7-9 games, and stayed close, like one possession close, in any losses. Otherwise it would have been, "Why did we fire RR to get the same result?"

MGoShoe

August 7th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^

...asked the Big Ten championship vs. national championship question which earned him a death stare and a reminder that you can't win the latter without achieving the former. I don't know who asked the question about whether or not Michigan was still an elite program.

mGrowOld

August 7th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^

In all due respect shoe - the failures of RR, especially on defense, were on display  for all to see from the U Mass game in 2010 through the Mississippi State bowl game debacle.  And the team's performance last year under Mattison's & Hoke's leadership, using obsentively the same core players, was proof-positive that it was coaching, not talent, that led this team's defensive into the abyss.

Troy is just confirming what we already knew.  We witnessed it first hand.

PurpleStuff

August 7th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^

Guys like Blake Countess, Jake Ryan, Will Heininger, and Troy Woolfolk weren't on the field in 2010 and made a significant impact in 2011.  Add in a completely healthy Mike Martin and a few guys getting better with age/experience (while losing just Mouton) and you have a much more talented team as your disposal.

MGoShoe

August 7th, 2012 at 9:47 AM ^

...completely. Almost all of us came to the realization at some point in the 2010 season that the defense was never going to approach adequacy. Some sooner than others, of course.

My point is that the comments of the players make it clear that his approach lacked important elements and it's amazing to me that there are still some out there who continue to wear a hairshirt for RichRod. He may be an offensive genius, but at Michigan, he was not a good head coach and all the excuses we hear for that are simply that, excuses.

mGrowOld

August 7th, 2012 at 10:06 AM ^

You're speaking to a former "hairshirt" wearer.  I posted a plea to Brandon after the Purdue game in 10  to give him an extension.  I posted a plea after the Mississippi State game for one more year cause we were SO close to greatness.  And i blasted Brandon for the stupidity of hiring Hoke and our almost certain unravelling of the team.  

I started taking off the shirt after watching Hoke handle the media before the season and i took it off completely after watching the season unfold.   

bronxblue

August 7th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^

I agree that the coaching staff under RR failed on the defensive front to a great extent, but last year showed what a more experienced defense WITH a good coach can do, not simply that the 2010 team was full of untapped potential.  And as others have noted, RR's teams had horrible luck with recovering turnovers while Hoke's had an equally-amazing recovery rate.  There were a couple of times last year (NW and Va Tech jump out) where some great timing turned possible scores into change of possessions. 

The defense played much better last year, but it also had two seniors on the line and some freshmen who played a bit above their head.  Let's see what happens this year with more new faces before we christen the coaching staff the greatest of all time.

maizenbluenc

August 7th, 2012 at 9:40 AM ^

It really gave us a feel for what was going on in the players minds. Many never bought in, despite the "all-in" window dressing. I always thought the late season, and late game unravelings were a sign that Rodriguez had lost the team. Here is yet another piece of the puzzle.

And yeah, Hoke wasn't a proven commodity in 2007, and it seems Martin didn't have the license or connections to hire a Mattison, so Troy's alternate universe was unlikely.

But still ...

Perhaps we needed the catharsis to get our act together.

 

JeepinBen

August 7th, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^

And I think 3 and Out hits this on the head. When RR came in, many players bolted for the NFL, anyone who could leave did, and the leadership of the team didn't trust him, and he didn't earn their trust.

Compare that to when Hoke came in and Martin, Molk, and RVB declared that this team wouldn't fall apart.

2 way street is a great way to put it.

reshp1

August 7th, 2012 at 9:56 AM ^

"there was just this towel on a mat.  And at the beginning there're two people holding it, and one person had to eventually take it from the other person"

That's just awesome. Can you imagine being the guy going against Martin?

mgobleu

August 7th, 2012 at 10:19 AM ^

Full disclosure, I laid bleeding atop Rodriguez hill, while cursing the hire of Brady Hoke. Yet with whatever blinders I had on, I could never figure out why RR was such a great offensive mind and could so deftly confound a defense, (in many cases, not all) yet he couldn't translate that knowledge to his defensive coaches to figure out how to stop an offense. Maybe that is his gift and his curse. He confounds defenses no matter what side of the field they stand on.

bronxblue

August 7th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^

The thing is, RR did have a defensive coach who could shut down offenses - Casteel.  And it's not like Hoke would be really useful from an offensive gameplan standpoint - he brought Borges along for that.  Head coaches can only do so much, and to expect them to be able to run an entire team on both sides of the ball isn't realistic anymore (if ever).

BluCheese

August 7th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^

The thing that irritates me about the Castell angle is everyone keeps saying that "if only he had brought Casteel" everything would have been fine.  Ok, he didn't have Casteel, but Casteel is not the only 3-3-5 defensive coach.  If that's what he wanted to run and what his assistants were familiar with why didn't he hire a 3-3-5 guy?

If he can't be flexible in creating a staff what's he going to do in the future when/if Magee and Casteel get head coaching jobs.  His track record doesn't suggest he can hire outside of his comfort zone.

bronxblue

August 7th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^

That's a fair point, but I do think it is easier when you start at a new place to have as much of the core around you and then deal with defections and changes down the line.  True, there are other 3-3-5 guys out there who could have run his defense, but it also sounded like RR had relatively few options for DC given the available finances, and Schafer was the one he took a chance on.  And in the beginning, that defense played okay and RR stayed out of it until the unit simply broke down and they were getting torched week in and week out. 

I think what we've already learned from the RR era is that (a) RR had profound trouble transitioning to the pressure at UM and failed to get the people into positions to succeed at times, and (b) the talent on those first couple of teams was REALLY sub-standard for a program like UM. 

Aequitas

August 7th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^

Thanks for the interview, Magnus, Andrew.

Tore me up that Troy couldn't stay healthy here.  I think he's a great kid.  Grew up watching his dad, such a class act, and was really pulling for his son to have a great career.

Best of luck to him.

As far as the coaches, I don't think Troy was necessarily taking a shot at Rodriguez as much as he was lauding Hoke and just telling it like it was.  No coach will have success without strong backing from everyone associated with the program, buy-in from the players and a solid staff on both sides of the ball.  Couple that with some dumb mistakes, high expectations, and major holes through departures or lack of talent, and the result is a very painful experience for everyone involved.

All of that said, Hoke deserves to be embraced and I'm grateful that he's our coach.

Blazefire

August 7th, 2012 at 11:03 AM ^

Between John Bacon, players and some other writers (such as the great "other side of the story" in this year's HTTV), we get a lot of mixed notes on the Rodriguez era. I think that's telling all on its own. We do not get mixed messages about Hoke. We didn't get mixed messages about Carr until his last year or so, when he was already halfway out the door. I think when that many different people have that many different things to say about the same person, it shows that that person is not showing everybody all of himself. That he's putting on different faces for different people. In business, that's good. In coaching, I don't think it works. Conversely, there's Hoke:

"The main difference between the coaching staffs is that Coach Hoke stresses physicality.  We would do drills that had nothing to do with football, but just to see the toughness in the player.  We'd do this one drill where there was just this towel on a mat.  And at the beginning there're two people holding it, and one person had to eventually take it from the other person.  It gets really rough down there; people get bloody noses and stuff.  It teaches you into becoming a man and how to hold yours"

Everyone says the same thing about Hoke. Everyone. Honest. Forthright. Intense. Believes in FOOTBAW! I don't know whether that's the best path, but it's a consistent one, which I think is key.

Section 1

August 7th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^

Between John Bacon, players and some other writers (such as the great "other side of the story" in this year's HTTV), we get a lot of mixed notes on the Rodriguez era. 

I have suggested to Brian Cook that we do an open question session with Craig Ross, much like the several "submit your questions to the author" segments that John U. Bacon did.

Section 1

August 7th, 2012 at 4:27 PM ^

And if you are Lloyd Carr, that can be, "None of them."

I don't really see it as a whole lot of hostility.  The overwhleming thing to me is how hard anybody has to work, to find things on which to disagree with John U. Bacon.  Craig Ross had very little disagreement.  What there is, didn't seem like much a big deal, and/or didn't seem very clear to me.

Actually, I suggested to Brian (rightly, I think) that if we could spur some sales of HTTV the way that Three and Out climbed the bestseller lists, it could be good for everybody.  I just like good questions, and good answers and more information.

Aequitas

August 7th, 2012 at 1:28 PM ^

"I think when that many different people have that many different things to say about the same person, it shows that that person is not showing everybody all of himself. "

If you could get into the minds of every Michigan fan before the Hoke hire and contrast what was there vs what's there now, you'd see a wide range of opinions, yet he's the same guy now as he was then.

Varied opinions on the same person are just that, varied opinions.  Opinions do not make, or have any bearing on, who a person is.

energyblue1

August 7th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^

When total change comes nobody is really happy save the ones that were disgruntled before.  Nobody was disgruntled othern then Lloyd got complacent...they didn't want whole sale change they just wanted it updated and mondernized and back to a winner at the Michigan level.

 

Rich, didn't handle media well, didn't handle players well and didn't handle the alumni/fanbase well.  Ohio st isn't just another game on the schedule and lip service later means nothing to a fanbase when you say, it's still just another game on the schedule. 

The reality is Rich lost the job when he hired 4 defensive backs coaches to run his defense, lost all of the remaining offensive talent to nfl or transfer that could have helped him win in year one and made that even more devastating by firing his defensive coordinator to bring in someone else to work with a disgruntled defensive staff rather then let the dc he had get a staff he would work with. 

Rich is a good coach, nobody can deny that.  He made many wrong and bad decisions here and the naysayers were there every step of the way to point them out.  But the fact remains is Rich had he succeeded would have been loved and revered, instead he was ran out unceremoniously. 

mpbear14

August 7th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^

People are still making excuses for Rich Rod?

Hilarious.  I'll say it again, we are the only fan base that defends a former coach that was fired because he couldn't get it done.

And to anyone who thinks RR is a "Good Guy" you've never seen him in action on the practice field or heard stories behind the scenes.  Guy is a scum bag through and through. (hate on that statement all you want)

And he WAS a good offensive coach.  We ran a total of 8 plays his last year here at the helm.  8!!!  That's no offensive genius.

Thank God Hoke is here. 

Magnus

August 7th, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^

This is a funny comment.

We ran 8 plays in 2008?  First of all, I doubt that's true.  Second, we still had an explosive offense.  Why fix it if it ain't broke?  Third - and I'll probably get flamebaited to Hell - Denard Robinson isn't a good passing quarterback.  If you give him too much to do, he'll turn the ball over and throw the ball into the ground.  If you don't believe me, go back and check out the first half of the 2011 season.

Sometimes the genius move is to run a few plays and run them well, rather than running a ton of plays but being crappy at most of them.

I guess whoever invented the triple option (that various teams like Nebraska and Georgia Tech have run extremely well) wasn't a genius, either.  Triple options teams don't run many plays.  Why?  Because there's no need.

mpbear14

August 7th, 2012 at 12:39 PM ^

We still had an explosive offense?  Against who?  Indiana?

The assumption that we had an explosive offense under RR has been debunked time and time again.  We were explosive against lesser competition.  Non-existent when it mattered. 

And we ran a base of 8 plays in 2010 with an occaisonal wrinkle... It was the most vanilla playbook I've ever seen. 

How many former players have to come out and tell it how things really went down before people wake up and realize RR was an all around disaster?

On a side note, I do enjoy touchthebanner.  Some excellent reads.

mpbear14

August 7th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^

Not that I think this debate should go any further, but next time you use quotations, actually quote what I say.  I never said "we only played well against Indiana."

We ran a base of 8 plays is certainly true and factual.   We may have ran 10 or 12 different plays in a game, but for the most part, RR stuck to 8 plays in 2010.  Maybe it was because it was Denard's first year and he wanted it as simple as possible, but it was what it was. 

 

mpbear14

August 7th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^

I actually know Rich Rodriquez, and you're wrong.  He is a scum bag.  Just because a man smiles and says thank you doesn't make up for how he treated players and former staff when the general public wasn't looking.

Integrity is the last word that comes to mind when Rich Rod is brought up.  Hence, Troy's comment on not trusting RR and his staff.

Amazing, Hoke comes in and is immediately trusted.  There's a reason for that.

 

TdK71

August 7th, 2012 at 2:33 PM ^

down at Dan's Downtown tavern, sitting on Rich Rod's lap.

Why is a married football coach at the bar with an umarried woman on his lap?

Answer:  Because he is a scumbag, I'll bet he told Rita that he was watching film to get ready for the upcoming game. 

BigBlue02

August 7th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^

I actually laughed out loud on this one. I mean, I guess it is completely reasonable to think he is a shitty individual from seeing one waitress sitting on his lap at a bar. Wow...I bet RichRod is just as happy getting out of Ann Arbor as we are to have him on Arizona.