Jason Whitlock and Jonathan Chait Discussion on Brady Hoke, Gardner, Program
Here is a radio interview between the 2 men that I found interesting, specifically as Whitlock dominated the conversation and has ties to Hoke. The interview re: Hoke starts around 30:45.
For TL;DTR - Chait is of the view this is a make or break year for Hoke. He believes Hoke runs an antiquated system and is stuck in the early 90s. Big Gardner supporter, thought he was stuck on an island behind awful OL and no running game.
Whitlock has too many views to be concise but he has been confused by the lack of development of UM players that he saw from Hoke at Ball State and SDSU. He also said last year's MSU game was a punch to the face to Brady Hoke, and that perhaps Hoke got comfortable once he got to UM and thought with the talent he got other things would be easier. He disagrees with Chait on Hoke's viewpoints of stuck in old school football. Raises questions of leadership re: Gardner.
Longer version:
- Whitlock - Hoke's strength at Ball State/SDSU was player development - physically and mentally. Would take 2 stars and make them 2.5-3s, would take 3s, make them 4s. Lauds strength coach/program he had at those schools.
- Whitlock - I have not seen any of that Brady Hoke at UM.
- Whitlock - Fears Brady subconsciously lost focus on development due to talent he has been able to get to Michigan.
- Whitlock - Not a big Devin Gardner fan - doesn't handle adversity well. Small throw of Shane under the bus in throwaway comment.
- Chait - Disagree on Gardner.
- Whitlock - Due to QB situation / schedule not sure if work off the field this offseason will be reflected in increased wins but they are now doing the work necessary.
- Whitlock - After ND game last year, I texted Wojo and said they'd be lucky to win 3-4 more games next year due to both the OL and DL being horrible.
- Chait - Hoke has antiquated ideas i.e. spread vs non spread; spread makes you soft, etc. Says OSU game proved otherwise. Hoke wants to go back to early 90s.
- Whitlock - Disagree on those points, but can understand the view.
- Whitlock - Mentioned last year Lewan was not a leader. Did not get that from inside information, just from watching the team. I was proven right despite the hate at the time I received.
- Whitlock - I've surrendered my relationship with Brady Hoke to give him distance so I can do my job.
- Whitlock - Green came in very soft last year. Someone should have seen that and rectified it. I saw this kid dive at a LBs feet rather than block.
- Chait - makes negative comment on Fred Jackson as RB coach in terms of development of RBs.
- Whitlock - doesn't disagree on Jackson without explicitly saying it.
- Chait - defends Gardner more due to summer camps where gurus say he would be a star.
- Whitlock - some truth in that but cites a play vs MSU where Gardner fell 1 yard short vs MSU as a signal of things you can't do. Leaders don't do that.
- Chait - disagrees, and cites Gardner sacrificing body all year.
- Whitlock - agrees to a degree but still thinks Gardner is lacking in key areas. Whitlock compares Devin to Denard, and says he loved Denard's heart ... but had decision making issues.
- Rest of call is fluff and worshiping Beilein.
Agreed. I'm not even that upset or concerned about 7-6. It is 3-5 in Big Ten play that keep sme up at night. We shoud win a minimum of 6 Big Ten wins each year. That is why in 2012 I was happy with 8-5 because we were 6-2 in the Big Ten. Conference games are more important.
I think there is more cloudiness over the program then there really should be, and here's why: If Michigan has even a below average OL last year, they likely beat PSU, Nebraska, Iowa, and possibly OSU. And the games that were close that shouldn't have been - Akron and UConn - aren't close. It's fairly easily a 10-2 team last year going into a bowl game with just a below average OL; not even a good OL.
Now, obviously the OL is part of the program so that's still an issue, and the experience on the OL isn't suddenly getting leaps and bounds better. But the point is that every other position group is up to snuff. Better OL makes for better QB play, makes for better RB play, allows the WR to look better and get into routes, rests the defense, etc.
There are still flaws with the team, and obviously there are still things that would need to get better on both sides of the ball, including becoming a good OL, but the program as a whole is isn't that far off. Defense would still have games that weren't up to par, but the offense would be much better suited to make up for them and the "clusterfuck" perception isn't there. There are just a few bad performances that need to be corrected. It's one position group clouding the entire program into thinking the whole thing is in shambles.
There was a whole lot more wrong with the team last year than OL. Sure, it compounded the problems, but the D Line and Secondary were pretty bad too.
But they were serviceable. They were good enough to win a lot of games. Like I said, they were still things that needed to get better, but the offense picks up some more first downs by being able to create 2nd and not-death, is able to pass protect for DG even a little bit, can get some TDs in the redzone, and those problems aren't seen as nearly as disastrous while still being areas for improvement.
This going back to watching the team every game and paying attention much more closely every day to this team. There was lots to improve on, but every team at every position has a lot to improve on. Michigan had areas where they needed to improve more than other teams, including those you spoke of, but an even slightly improved OL makes them areas for improvement instead of "were pretty bad too". Those need to improve for Michigan to compete for National Titles, no doubt, but the OL is the difference between the program being perceived as in trouble rather than still building in the right direction.
But there were a few problem areas and one giant smoking crater. The crater will usually garner the most blame, and usually for good reason.
Fans screaming for the OL to grow up and asking how long that "excuse " will last forget that it takes three years for freshmen to become upperclassmen. Rebuilding takes patience. I agree with you that we were one catastrophically bad position group away from a fairly good season. It just happened to be one of the two most important groups. And the other, our DL, wasn't big enough to handle B1G football...yet.
I don't think people realize how close we were to having a decent/good OL last year. If Christian Pace doesn't medical and he is say a Glasgow level player (not fantastic but still pretty good) and he starts in 2012, then in 2012 we have a groomed Center to replace Molk and our biggest problem of line calls from an OL stand point is much less so. Skip to 2013 and we have 3 returning starters at OL not 2 and Glasgow at LG where he belongs and Kalis at RG. While Kalis would still struggle, there are some things you can do to hide one struggling lineman but not 2 which is what we had. Then this year our entire interior would return and we would just have to replace the tackles. You give me that and I think we win atleast 1 or 2 more games in 2012 in the regular season and we win handily against Akron, UConn and Penn State because we can actually run the ball. That puts us at 8-4 on the season, if we win the tunover battle like we did against Iowa with Pace we win that game too. That's 9-3, and that would be Hoke's worst regular season as a coach without even getting into the lack of evev a decent game plan against Nebraska or the Ohio game that could have gone either way even without Pace. What is really killing this team is the fact that we got an aggregate 2 OL from RR tenure. If he could have given us one more servicable on the interior I think we would be set, but alas here we are. I'm holding out hope for this season but if Nuss gets even a middling OL out of this young group he should be up for national coach of the year honors. Personally I'm not expecting that, 2015 is clearly the year and if we don't win then, Hoke is out of excuses.
This is a Dennis Norfleet quote from an article($) on another site. You can go there to read the whole thing if you like. This says it all for me about what had become of Borges and the offense.
https://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1627524
"Coach Nussmeier is a very open guy, a good coach. He's very different/ he is always hyper, and he has a lot of energy. I have never seen him come in when he is not happy and excited to be here. That is a big change. Things are going good."
On the surface I know it seems obvious but Borges still had an obligation to perform and act like he gave a crap.
3. Both 1 and 2 above.
Nussmeier's energy comes through the TV/computer screen. It's very easy to imagine him as an HC when you put that together with his track record.
An OC who is not under vicious, continuous, personal attack on a dailiy basis by the most vocal parts of the fan base and who is not the beneficiary of a firexxx.com website, and whose every public statement and allusion is not publically picked apart for evey possible hateful misinterpretation is able to come to work every day full of happy energy and that his players notice a better atmosphere. Wow that is a surprise huh? Personally I am astonished.
he got paid a lot of money here. and his stubborness and arrogance seemed to come through in spades on and off the field. good coaches take responsibility for failures. he always seemed to deflect it. oh, it's execution or youth.
hostile to and skeptical of the spread when he came along. And while comfortable may not be the right word, STOLID might be, a guy so impressed with the institution, Brandon, his surroundings that he may have forgotten to lead. It's just not any kind of leap to think that Brandon forced him to sack Borges, or that he might be on a short leash.
There have been comparisons to other caretaker-type coach-leaders made with Hoke, but people forget that guys like Bowden were great coaches in their prime, won big, THEN settled into those less active/hands-on roles.
I still think it could work, and that the family atmosphere can be appealing to kids and that a great OC and DC can make Michigan a winner, but the clock is ticking.
is ridiculous. The performance of the 2013 offensive line and running game was ridiculously bad. Like bad-MAC-team level bad. Whether that was due to talent, scheme, coaching, or all of the above, it meant that we had a three-man offense, Gardner-Gallon-Funchess. You are always going to have issues in that situation. We kept running play-action when our running game was averaging about 0.8 ypc. Tell me why any defense in America would bite on that?
if Gardner broke all-time offensive production records in several games behind that line, how the H do you criticize him? People have no sense of proportion.
the more I realize that we ran play action because Borges didn't trust the OL to protect Devin for a standard 5 or 7 step drop, it was the only way we could throw any deep balls. That is the state of this program right now...
Based on the last 6 years or so, it is obvious that we have become a middle of the pack Big Ten team. We are looking up at OSU, MSU, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Teams don't fear us anymore. I knew that we were going to lose to MSU last year when the UM coaches and players spent all week talking about how physical the game was going to be. To me, that is admitting that the other team is tougher. Other teams should be talking about how physical the UM game is going to be, not the other way around.
Hoke now has his players in the system. No excuses. He needs to show that he can strengthen and develope the players on the same level as Beilein.
I only opened the thread hoping to find the new version of Section 1. Chait is one of his bat signals.
I bet he's cleverly named Section 2.
Wait, what? Section 1 got caved? What did he do? He was always consistent in his dislike for the Freep/Rosenberg and about the students showing up on time for the game. This site needs people like him. He is our Judge Smails.
There was a tirade a couple weeks ago where he started calling everyone a "motherf***er" and that seemed to be the final straw.
Thanks for the reply, Magnus. By the way, I always check out your site as well, but I have never commented over there.
Unfortunately (for me), the commenting system is much better here than on my site.
Eh. I object to some of the stuff but I feel like it's been discussed endlessly.
Hindsight is 20/20?
Whitlock - Fears Brady subconsciously lost focus on development due to talent he has been able to get to Michigan.I get a déjà vu feeling seeing this. IF this is true, there is an earlier similar. When Hoke came here in '11, part of his narrative was the lesson he learned from the first two losses of the '98 season to the returning '97 1/2 MNC team. He said this was on him, because he had taken the '97 success for granted, and neglected DL basics. From what I think is a more recent source ( LINK), in his own words:
"I didn't coach them hard enough," Hoke said. "Didn't coach them. They assumed they knew how to play the game of football."This story is nothing new; he made no bones about it when he came here in '11. The disarming honesty was a part of his charm. I'm no hater; if his UM team kicks ass in 2014, none will be happier than I. In Hoke we Hope; In Nuss we Trus'.
Even now, 14 years later, neither Feazell nor Renes said Hoke changed how he coached from 1997 to 1998. They instead pointed to losing key defensive leaders like Charles Woodson and Glen Steele and facing two extremely talented teams.So who knows what to believe.
steele and woodsen are still the best players at their position i have ever seen at UM.
I've spent most of life hating the guy, but Whitlock almost makes sense sometimes during this interview. I agree 100% with Chait on most things, so the the fact Jason W does on some things is perplexing.
Winning some games would shut these types of idiots up with their flash-card analysis. Thats all it would take, especially related to Whitlock.
Whitlock is talking out his ass.
If Hoke was a development wizard at Ball State, why didn't he get that team back up to their normal speed until Year 4 and didn't have a year that made anyone take notice until Year 6?
at Ball State. Hoke took over a program that didn't have a winning record since 1996 and they won 12 games in 2008. Granted that was his 6th year and they played basically nobody but come on, its Ball state. Then he went to San Diego St. and took at team that hadn't had a winning season since 1998 and in 3 years took them to 9-4 and gave Rose Bowl winning TCU a run for its money losing 40-35. You can talk about his time here all you want but you can't hate on what he did at his previous stops.
This is one of the most biased posts I have ever seen on here.
When you are justifying getting the MICHIGAN job based on close losses, you know you have reached a new stratosphere for apologists.
Ball State under Bill Lynch (last 3 years):
2000: 5-6
2001: 5-6
2002: 6-6
Ball State under Brady Hoke (first 4 years):
2003: 4-8
2004: 2-9
2005: 4-7
2006: 5-7
In other words, each of Hoke's first four years at Ball State was worse than each of the last three years of his predecessor, Bill Lynch. (Lynch also got a shot at a Big Ten job and has most recently coached DePauw.) This is not a turnaround. I presume the poster meant that not equalling 6-6 or 5-6 for the first four years was not achieving the "normal speed" that Ball State had achieved under Lynch. No one denies that he had one very good year at Ball State (out of six).
While he may love Michigan, be a good uniter of the program (which it needed), etc., some of us are not impressed with what he did at his previous stops.
is one of those irritating memes that gets repeated so many times by so many people that it takes on a life of its own, in spite of the fact that the facts show it's complete bullshit. Brady had one good season at Ball State. That's it.
I think what he did in two years at SDSU is more impressive.
Whitlock works backwards from a conclusion "Brady Hoke is my friend and therefore awesome" to make up idiotic bullshit about individual players. Especially Gardner.