Norfleet Interview

Submitted by Shop Smart Sho… on

Saw this pop up on twitter:

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/09/dennis_norfleet_passi…

 

While I think it is great that the players support Hoke, I am very surprised that the program is allowing them to talk to the media.

If given the chance, I'm sure we would all like to reassure the kids that we aren't criticizing their play or effort.  And maybe ask them to talk to someone like Devin who was here when RR got canned.  I'm sure Devin thought RR was a great guy who supported him, and all of the players.  That doesn't mean he was the right coach, at the right time, for Michigan.

Yeoman

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:30 PM ^

Yes, it's very important that the players talk to someone who can help them understand that their head coach isn't the right man for the job.

GoBLUinTX

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:36 PM ^

Now what are they going to do about?  Relying on emotion and passion to get them through games isn't going to cut it.  It might against Minnesota, and maybe Northwestern, but not for the balance of the remaining schedule.  

acnumber1

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:36 PM ^

Could this be the spark?  

I sincerely hope so, b/c I would rather run the table, win in Indy, and win Roses than deal with another flight tracking rebuilding program embrassing...

UMfanKT

September 24th, 2014 at 9:12 AM ^

Why does everyone assume getting a new coach mean you have to start back at square one and rebuild?  Uncle Urban took a 6-6 team and went 24-2 in the next 2 years...so it is possible that the correct hire can come in and make an average team (admit it...that's what we are right now) into a B1G powerhouse.

MWolverine7

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^

I really don't have an issue with this - expect a player to support his coach.  There is a part of me that thinks Brandon is handing a script to players but that's BRANDON PARANOIA on my part.  I'm more concerned with all the pre-season / pre-game talking that never seems to materialize on the field.  I remember a time when this team let their play on the field do the talking. 

Coldwater

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:37 PM ^

The reason we rip on Hoke and the other coaches is because we, as fans, aren't allowed to rip on 18-22 year old student athletes. It's frowned upon to rail on the players. It's not socially acceptable.

jsquigg

September 23rd, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^

And also because, you know, the coaches are the ones responsible for teaching those players and setting up the strategy, game plan, etc.

If the coaching was good and we as a team weren't good enough, it wouldn't be ideal, but I think we'd all be ok with it.  The problem is that this team has talent and the coaches are fucking it up.  Football is about adapting or death and the Michigan staff is trying to revive an era and style of football that has been passed over for good reasons.  The players deserve better.

reshp1

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:03 PM ^

This idea that Hoke is stuck in the past is way way overblown. I mean what are we talking about here? Spread punt? Ok, but other people still use it. What else? Are you telling me inside zone is outdated? Under center? Doesn't seem to stop Alabama or LSU or Stanford, etc, etc.

For whatever reason, our guys aren't executing (and yes, as much as we ridicule that idea, it does, you know, actually matter). Whether that's a coaching thing or not is a valid question, and yes there have been some straight up coaching errors, but some of the caricatures of Hoke are getting pretty divorced from reality.

J.Madrox

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:12 PM ^

I am not saying Hoke is a slave to this past ideal of what Michigan is supposed to be, but there are some curious things going on that makes me think he is somewhat stuck.

You mentioned the spread punt, and its not so much the fact that he runs it as the fact that he can offer no compelling reason for it other than his punter feels more comfortable. Admittedly if he was winning it wouldn't be an issue.

In addition there is Michigan's almost absolute refusal to move with any kind of tempo on offense. No hurry in the second half down multiple scores, no chance to get up to the line and diagnose anything the defense is trying to do. I don't know who to blame for that, but Hoke is the head coach, so at some point he needs to deal with it.

Hoke has had a wide array of offenses across his time at Ball State and SDSU, and yet he seems stuck in this idea of what kind of offense Michigan is supposed to run. Sure it can work and work well, but when you have talented QB's like Denard and Devin maybe you should try something else.

I don't believe Hoke being stuck in the past is the biggest issue affecting Michigan right now, but the more the losses pile up, the more you have to question a lot of the things that go on with the team.

reshp1

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:34 PM ^

Nuss talked about the tempo thing. He wants to go faster, but wants the offense to stop fucking things up first and foremost before adding more to the plate. I really doubt it's something Hoke dictates, he even said time of possession is overrated. Even Borges had a "NASCAR" hurry up package, the fact that we don't even have that yet seems to point to Nuss being correct that this is a transitional thing that will be addressed when they get the basics.

This is the first year that we haven't run our QBs. We didn't do it as much as say RR did maybe, but the inverted veer and zone read was still an integral part of the offense. Even this year we ran it some until Miami. Oh, and by the way, both our QBs didn't make it through the season in consecutive years. I'm not convinced Gardner is not hurt right now (maybe why we stopped running him after ND), I mean he certainly hasn't looked very dynamic running the bal recently.

I think your paragraph is valid. When things don't go well, every little thing is a potential problem.

J.Madrox

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:58 PM ^

The tempo thing is the most curious thing of all to me. I just can't believe that Hoke has any real say on the tempo the team plays at, especially how hands off he seems with the offense. But man, they move at a snails pace, which is even more galling when the quick snap on 4th down has got a couple easy conversions.

Nuss's answers seem reasonable and logical, but I don't always put a lot of faith in press conference answers. I don't care if they move at an Oregon pace, I would just like Devin or Shane or whoever to be able to have a chance to ID the blitz.

As for QB injuries, I think Denard got beat up some because he was on the smallish side. I don't think DG got beat up/injured because they ran him to much, I think he got beat up because the offensive line was a sieve. Not Hoke's fault directly, but I would still like them to use Gardners legs more.

Again, I have no idea what is Hoke and what was Borges or Nuss's fault now, but at some point it all falls on the leaders head. Either way, I appreciate the response, just frustrated and looking for answers like everyone, knowing there are very few to be found.

Yeoman

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:16 PM ^

Did you watch any of SDSU in 2010? They ran plenty of no-huddle--it wasn't Oregon by any means, it may even have been slower than an average team because they tended to spend a lot of time at the LOS, but they didn't always huddle and when they did they weren't tardy coming out of it. I don't have numbers but the tempo seemed quite a bit quicker than Alabama's under Saban/Nussmeier.

That changed when Hoke and Borges got here. I thought it was probably something personnel-related, initially, maybe they were having communication problems when they tried it in practice and they decided not to risk it in games. But here we are three years later, with different personnel.

Other than personnel, what would have changed between San Diego and Ann Arbor? I still don't get it. I'm not as attached to high-tempo as a lot of you; I don't really care one way or the other as long as they can speed it up successfully when it's needed late in the half. But it would be interesting to know why they changed it when they came here.

J.Madrox

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:27 PM ^

That is what boggles my mind. Hoke has shown a propensity to mix things up offensively in the past, yet once he got here things slowed to a halt and it has had more of a "power football" team. I don't need them to snap it with 25 seconds on the play clock, but I would like some time at the line of scrimmage to figure out what the defense is doing.

I don't believe Hoke owes the fans anything in the way of direct answers to these questions, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know.

glewe

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:48 PM ^

This thread has inspired me to not-so-conspiratorial thinking:



It's Brandon. We know he's all about branding. Hoke is trying to establish an identity, a brand, to "Michigan football." That is smash-mouth, power running, "manball," up-the-middle trucking.



It's all Brandon. It's all marketing. Hoke has his hands tied.



And that's why he seems so calm in pressers. He's not in any real danger of being fired because he knows Brandon is not expecting immediate results because Brandon is the one pressuring the rebranding as a power "manball" team.



Maybe I'm crazy. But it makes just a little too much sense. Brandon thinks of himself as a marketing guy.

Yeoman

September 23rd, 2014 at 11:37 PM ^

...and I was going to say it again replying to J. Madrox, but I forgot:

The talk about power football was very much a re-branding effort, distancing Michigan football from RR's spread and reattaching it to Bo/Mo/Llo. The product on the field was always less "manball" than the talk, and given Borges's history and his preferred scheme there was never any reason to expect otherwise. I don't think there's an OC in the country that likes to throw deep balls more than Al Borges. He's been near the top of the country in YPA (which seems a useful measure of route-depth) every year he's ever coached, and he's never had a run-dominated offense. Once he's got you stretched vertically he likes to run the ball, but he's never been Wisconsin.

To what extent Brandon drove that talk, I don't know. Whether he's ever tried to push actual game-planning in that direction, I don't know. (If he wasn't sitting in on film sessions it would never even occur to me an AD might do something like this, but there you go....)

But that's scheme, not tempo. Not even I can imagine Brandon, or anyone, saying "we need to spend more time in the huddle, slow the game down" as a marketing ploy. There are a lot of reasons you might want to slow a game down--maybe your roster is thinner than the other teams and you need to shorten the game (you can tell I watch a lot of D3), maybe your team makes errors when you try to speed them up. But marketing extreme slowness? That makes no sense to me.

aiglick

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^

"Every little thing is a potential problem." There's nothing wrong with until people start making ad hominem attacks. I'd like to think we're better than that as a fanbase.

If we're not told anything of substance from the Fort we must draw our own conclusions.

As has been echoed by others it is admirable that Norfleet supports the coaches this much. If I thought the coaches have lost the players I'd say Hoke would need to go now. Thankfully, looks like that's not the case. Now, they have to back this up and start winning. I mean I've said earlier I'd support this staff at 8-4 potentially depending on how the bowl game and games at MSU and OSU go. Considering how Hoke's tenure has gone I think that's more than fair.

Right now the offense has got to approach mediocrity as the year progresses otherwise why should this be any different next year?

I do believe in the wing walking theory and a change should only be made if it is reasonable to expect significant improvement in the team's performance.

Shop Smart Sho…

September 23rd, 2014 at 10:51 PM ^

I think this is my biggest issue.  How is it possible that players that are admitted to the university of Michigan aren't capable of learning a new system between the date Nuss was hired and now?  Every year we see teams with much less mental and physical talent change schemes and then proceed to score points.  I don't think anyone expected the offense to be a juggernaught of perfection this year, but the fact that they won't speed up because the guys keep screwing up little things makes no sense.

It is that point that makes me believe it is the fault of the head coach, because Brady kept blaming execution and "little" things when Borges was in charge.  I just don't think he is capable of running a major program at a high level.  He had limited success as a HC at lower levels, but I think it is safe to assume that he didn't have the same demands on his time at those positions as he does at Michigan.  He is obviously a very position coach when it comes the DL, but I wonder if he simply can't step back enough to allow his subordinates to do their job.

reshp1

September 24th, 2014 at 9:56 AM ^

I appreciate that point. If not for the last 3 years, no one would question Nuss's decision to slow down during the installation process. I still think it stands to reason that Hoke is not dictating tempo and the last 3 years were a Borges preference and we're slow for a different reason right now.

It looks by the eye test that our tempo isn't deliberate one way or the other right now and more of a function of just making sure all the boxes are checked. Borges seemed to get calls in late a lot and we'd break the huddle late. But, at the same time, we did have some tempo packages we'd trot out when needed.

I guess we'll find out as the season unfolds. Even so, my qualitative feel is that we actually have been better at getting to the line faster. The plays that go right down to the last second are either audibles (hooray!) or big shifts and motions (like on the 4th and 1 delay of game).

Reader71

September 24th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^

I think Hoke certainly should have been on Borges to get the play into the fucking huddle. But if you're suggesting that Hoke should have tried to actually ramp up tempo so as to get more plays run and pressure the defense, I would only suggest that that would have led to more negative plays. We couldn't block last season. More missed blocks would not be good.

That said, I think part of the reason we've been faster to the line this season is because Nuss is on the sidelines. He himself can signal the play in or directly tell whoever the signaler is. There's one less middle man passing along info with him on the field instead of in the box.

pescadero

September 24th, 2014 at 2:12 PM ^

  But if you're suggesting that Hoke should have tried to actually ramp up tempo so as to get more plays run and pressure the defense, I would only suggest that that would have led to more negative plays. We couldn't block last season. More missed blocks would not be good.

 

It likely would have led to more negative plays, as well as more positive plays.

 

The team was also very slow in the two years BEFORE last year.

Yeoman

September 24th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^

If the tempo were simply a "Borges preference", why did he run a faster tempo everywhere else? Why did he run a faster tempo when he was coaching elsewhere under Hoke?

It's probably literally true to say it was Borges's choice; it also seems to miss the point because it implies that it's something inherent in his approach to football when it isn't. Why did he and Hoke decide to do something here--play "glacially"--that they hadn't done in the past?

turd ferguson

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:18 PM ^

I agree for the most part, though there's one huge problem that I think is mostly on Hoke.  We've done a terrible job of developing QBs.  There was a time when Gardner developing into something Vince Young-like seemed totally possible, and believe me that if Gardner were Vince Young we'd have won a lot more games over the past two years (though he'd be in the NFL now).  The list of QB missteps is long: not hiring a QB coach (at least while Borges was here), moving Gardner to WR, not taking a 2012 QB after only taking Bellomy in 2011, etc.  

And honestly, unlike some other trouble spots on our roster, I'm not convinced yet that the QB problems are about to be solved.  Morris still looks extremely raw to me, Speight was a little too "trust Borges" for my tastes, and Malzone is still playing high school football.  Fortunately, we have Nussmeier around now, but I think QBs often make or break coaches and Hoke hasn't really seemed to understand that.

I'm wandering a bit off topic, though.  I agree with you that many of the Hoke critiques feel a little detached from reality -- or at least seem like issues that people would be fine with if we were winning.

turd ferguson

September 23rd, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^

My view on this is that QB is so important - so much more important than every other position - that I'm willing to sacrifice elsewhere even if it means we're overloaded on QB coaching.  I'd be totally fine with using one of our coaching positions now on a QB coach even though that's Nussmeier's primary area of expertise and there could be considerable overlap there.  I do feel more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Nussmeier than Borges, but I'd imagine that Nussmeier would hire a very good QB coach (since he'd know how to screen candidates, know many of the guys out there, etc.).