Here's the link. Interesting read. Confirms what many on here thought: just tired of Saban's My Way approach.
Mike Lantry, 1972
Here's the link. Interesting read. Confirms what many on here thought: just tired of Saban's My Way approach.
Good read. I never really understood why people were so concerned about why he left. He's the same coach either way.
I never really understood either. The article suggests it might just be rivals trying to get into the heads of High Schoolers. If I'm at Ohio or MSU right now, I'm trying to come up with arguments for why a top offensive recruit wouldn't want to go to UM. Anything to dampen the excitement, I guess.
Can you blame them? What other card can they play? This is really bad news for them, plain and simple.
Ohio and little brother trolls, along with media people whose feelings somehow got hurt.
Well lets be honest, they can play the "we actually win football games and compete for/win B1G Championships" card. I wouldn't mind having that card in our hand. Rather than the "look who we hired, look who we recruited" card.
Uh, not to be a Debbie Downer, but -48 yards and -21 yards rushing in back-to-back weeks and the line doesn't appear to be getting much stronger. That ain't all on Borges.
I was waiting for your opinion, because there sure hasn't been a lot of discussion about Borges lately.
The line doesn't appear to be much stronger... for 2014, when none of these potential recruits will see the field or be on a college campus. Once those top OL classes that Hoke signed when he got here mature, the line SHOULD be one of the best in the nation. Combine that with Nussmeier. That's what we should be selling recruits.
Yet a few weeks ago you were all about firing Borges...now it's not about him. Just then, but now it's different?
The fact that we were not successful running the ball was not all on Borges, but the fact that he continually tried to establish the run was all on him.
This guy just comes here to troll.
Of course he's the same coach either way, but the circumstances provide some indication (though small) of how good he'll likely be. By your logic, you wouldn't be more excited about a recruit if he was given 5 stars by rivals than if he was given 3 stars, because he's still the same player. True, but the 5-star ranking indicates that he's likely to be a good player more than the 3-star ranking does. Same logic applies here.
Hah, nice analogy.
Except that we have hard data on Nussmeier's ability to lead successful offenses at the college level, and we have zero data on the ability of high school prospects to contribute to a college team. Your analogy is poor.
I disagree. We have lots of other more-direct data on a high schooler's ability -- recruiting videos, stats, etc. But still, the opinion of a credible source (Rivals), helps tell us how likely he is to be successful. Thus, when we see the Rivals stamp of approval, we consider it more likley that the player is actually good.
Same thing here. We have data that Nuss is a good coordinator -- stats, games won, etc. But the opinion of a credible source (Nick Saban) also gives us information.
We have no data on a high-schoolers ability to play at the college level. We have data of high school performance that we use to project how they might do in college. There are about a hundred different variables that we have no information on, such as how they'll handle a college weight program, how their bodies will naturally deveop, how they adapt to college-level instruction, academics, how quickly they can pick up advanced techniques, etc. This makes the opinion of the evalutor much more significant, and it's not like prospects are downgraded on a whim anyways.
With Nussmeier, he's being asked to do the exact same job that he's done many times in the past with great success. There are far fewer variables and in my opinion the data is much more relevant. If Nick Saban wants to get rid of a guy whose offense was FEI top ten both years he was there in favor of a guy whose offenses have been mediocre since 2005, I would give that very little weight.
I absolutely agree that Saban's opinion matters much, much less than Nuss's track record--that's why I said "though small" in my first post. I was only objecting to your original statement that Saban's opinion is irrelevant--when it's actually not.
Fair enough, though I'd say it's one very small step above irrelevant.
It's one of the most relevant data points we have. The better analogy is valuing a stock. You can pore over financials all you want and analyze the revenue and profits of a company but you're only scratching the surface of the whole story.
Some of the best indicators of a company's future growth come from knowing the management team, being inside the board room, really understanding what the factors for success have been. This is why the best hedge funds and biggest mutual funds want access to the board room (and sometimes cross into the illegal side of information gathering).
There are also many different sucess factors for an offensive coordinator: how good are his position coaches, how much success is due to coaching vs. talent, what are the instiutional advantages he's had. We can look at a guys offensive performance but no one knows better than his coach how much he had to do with that success and how replaceable he is.
You wouldn't want to buy a stock if the CEO was dumping his shares, even if the company has been profitable and growing.
I think Nuss was a solid hire and tend to be right in line with the Mathlete's analysis. But you'd much rather the HC fight tooth and nail to keep a guy than think, eh, he's replaceable. That's why people care.
except Nuss did it at the college level, in a tough conference. High school highlights are of high school kids playing high school football against high school coaches whose experience MIGHT include playing high school football l.
Yeah, I agree, Nuss's track record is a better predictor of Nuss's success than Nick Saban's opinion. But that doesn't make Saban's opinion irrelevant; it still gives us information.
We don't know everything about the guy, and Saban's evaluation of him says says a lot, so if he had been forced out that would indeed be saying something.
That's like saying "I don't care that Rivals downgraded him from a 5 star to a 3 star, and that his scholarship offers were revoked everywhere else; he's the same player."
I care far more about his track record coordinating offenses than I do about Nick Saban's decision on whether or not to keep him or push him out the door in favor of Lane Kiffin.
thinks hiring Lane Kiffin is a good idea. Toxic is spelled K I F F I N.
qualified. The results spoke for themselves. The question was whether a micromanager named Saban forced him out for having his own opinion. We found out now it didn't happen. It doesn't change what AJ McCarron or Alabama's offense did during the year either way.
1. Generates excitement in the offense going into off-season for potential recruits and the program
2. Has similar offensive philosophy so it does not create challenges in personnel needed to execute the gameplans
3. Appears to be a much more active recruiter
4. Everyone is a year older that was in the rotation or the wings on the line
5. May be intelligent enough to stop/adjust to doing dumb things during games
Yeah. For some reason fans like to act like scarred dogs when it comes to positive changes. Like, UM couldn't just get a top-notch OC from a program that he is unhappy at, and that all sides are fine with it.
Either way, I am glad he is here.
When the hot girl in Accounting agrees to go out with you, you don't care if she broke up with her previous rich, athletic, good-looking boyfriend, or he broke up with her.
She's yours now.
If the reason she broke up with him is because he didn't tell her he had herpes.
National Championship or bust!
Can't blame him for wanting to run his offense without having to run everything by Saban first. He can definitely do that here.
The whole "Hoke does not wear a headset" thing that we all bitched about and our rivals made fun of . . . seems to have actually worked in our favor.
Brady Hoke indeed poops gold.
I hope he puts in as many hours here as he did at Alabama.
Having worked for a guy who literally stated he wanted the longest meetings of all his peers, I can say that long hours does not equal better quality work.
From my own experience in both types of environments if I'm going to be held accountable then allow me to create, strategize, implement and execute. If it's meant to be its up to me and I'm all in for all the hours.
But if it's your plan and I'm working myself to death and I don't necessarily think it's the best plan than it makes long hours longer especially in an environment that maybe less than tolerable.
He's going to do what he needs to in order to succeed.
I know this move may have been questioned by some, but this article seems to give a big reason why he moved to Michigan.
- Money is probably equal to what he could get at Alabama
- prestige is similar, or slightly better now at Alabama
but, he gets to run the offense. I think this is big for a young coordinator who may be interested in running his own program. It also probably helps him see two potential successful operations in how they are run.
Also, as the article mentions, family time may have played a part. I know that Al Borges was very appriciative of Hoke's family atmosphere and policies that encouraged coaches to have time with their own and have balance.
It also helps explain away the whole "If Alabama really wanted to keep him, they would have just matched the money Michigan offered him."
It's not just about the money. Given that the money is similar enough, he actually preferred Michigan over Alabama, not the other way around.
I can easily see the appeal of the Michgian job even though some may see it as a step down. He can be his own man, he will make good money, and even though he already has an NC ring, he is in an environment where he can compete for another.
Here he essentially gets to completely run the offense and take a large majority of the credit if it succeeds. At Alabama, he's basically just a Saban underling. Basically you are seeing the difference between a CEO (Hoke) and a dictator (Saban). Dictators can be very successful, but being under them isn't very much fun.
I also read that Saban would be very demanding even during games on certain offensive play calls. I just question how Saban and Kiffin can co-exist if what is said about Saban is true.
I do like the idea of poaching Saban's OC.
Money quote for me: "it was a lateral move. I can't say what exactly reason the was, but Nick is very, very, very, very demanding, not that Brady Hoke is not."
If you've ever worked for a micro-manager like Saban you know just how un-fun that can be. Especially if you have talent and don't necessarily agree with the direction the micro-manager wants to go. On the other hand it would appear that Brady gives his coordinators the freedom to make in-season and in-game decisions but obviously, holds them accountable for the results. This is the part of Hoke that yours truly was quite happily wrong about.
I think I'd like working for Hoke.
Imagine it's a cold dark gloomy early Monday morning. You are headed into work after a long commute. You are still tired from the weekend and dearly wish it was Friday, not Monday.
Who would you rather have greet you at the door as your boss - Saban or Hoke?
can go suck an egg.
and, thanks for the link.
This was the money quote:
I guarantee, Nick Saban doesn't do anything that will in any way embarrass him or anybody on his staff," he said. "If Lane Kiffin had been brought in in an undercover role to pick out a desk before [Nussmeier] left, nobody would have known Lane Kiffin was in town."
That's a new one.
Unless you were alive in the 80s, nerf herder.