And if that was the impression I gave, it was wrong. But remember what Mike Martin said at B1G media week?
“We were all going hard, obviously,” Martin said. “(This) was our first impression on the coach.”
After the workout, Mattison pulled Martin aside and warned him: “That was terrible. That was completely terrible. You guys have to do much better.”
I'm merely suggesting that the way the last coaches did things weren't that far removed from what a bunch of other coaches (including, to an extent, these coaches) do, and that many of those coaches are successful in doing so. Some players respond to coddling, some respond to being screamed at, and some respond to having their talent/desire/cojones called into question. Hell, RR's personal style worked at WV.
Maybe it didn't work at Michigan. Maybe he misread the attitude of the team, and maybe his motivational techniques didn't work with this group of guys. But the problem was the losing (oh... the losing... so much losing...), which had a bunch of causes, many of which (I would argue) far exceeded RR's body language in terms of proximate causation.
I'm as big a Hoke/Mattison/Borges fan as anyone, and I think they are doing some really, really good stuff. But I get tired of hearing the "RR did X, but Hoke does Y. QED, Y>X," We all mocked Dantonio's countdown clocks, and then Hoke put up a bunch of them. Maybe they motivate players, and maybe they don't. But I refuse to believe that a winning season will make the use of clocks inherently better, or RR's clocklessness worse.
I'd just like to see an end to the preemptive post hoc/prompter hoc comparisons is all. Hoke Uber Alles.