Oh yea? Well, will Brady wear a headset? Cuz that's what's really important.
Oh yea? Well, will Brady wear a headset? Cuz that's what's really important.
...that is what is important. Whether he wears a headset or not doesn't bother me as long as he wins games.
Perhaps you should have Putin the /s.
I could have, but Soviet.
Tsar what, you could have edited it.
I didn't want to Russian to it.
I guess we can Chekov puns from our to-do list.
These puns are Sochi-zee
I'm not done nyet.
I haven't even red them all yet.
I laughed and would love to continue, but I moscow now.
And read them all
the ban-hammer, I am sickle of these russian references.....
I didn't want to Russia him, but I thought he was Satlin
You were negged for a typo. . . You wouldn't normally have been negged, but the above puns were so awesome that it was deemed you are worse.
/blame the geniuses above you for this neg!
You forgot the /s.
He needs to be more involved with the offense.
By more involved, I just mean any involvement whatsoever.
Really? So someone who doesn't know much about being an OC should be more involved with the offense because your idea of a head coach is involved in the offense?
It doesn't mean I want him calling plays or teaching or any of that.
But he, as head coach, has input on the offense. He is also the only person that can tell the OC what to do when it comes to play calling.
I think if Hoke had a better idea of what to do on offense he would've been able to say "Hey Al...we're out of sync, maybe we should try no huddle." Or "Hey Al, that zone stretch isn't working...let's run something else." Or "Al, we've been killing them all day with the misdirection...don't stop until they make you stop."
As it was last year, he usually just waited until the defense was on the field again.
I don't expect him to have ANY kind of expertise. But you're still responsible for it.
Someone gave the analogy of a company (below).
I'd respond with no...the CEO shouldn't mess with those other departments...but he/she should at least know the basics.
As a supervisor, I never allow any of my guys to be indispensible. I may not be able to do what they can do as good as they can. They may be experts at it. But if shit breaks...I can at least come up with an idea or two to fix it. I can at least locate the problem even if I can't fix it.
So if we can't run, I'm not expect Hoke to draw up plays to make the run game work. But I do expect him to say "Hey Al, we can't run...let's try some short passes so we can keep the ball." Hoke may not know what short passes to call, but that's not the point. The point is Borges isn't up there with no one to answer to (you know what I mean).
Yeah, we need the former college linebacker telling the former NFL quarterback how to move the ball!
What I said was more involved.
All I meant was know when to go no huddle when not to...when not allow the OC to call the some off tackle/zone stretch play over and over that loses the game.
Simple things that are the head coaches responsibility.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Name calling is always fun, isn't it?
Do you really think Brady Hoke is so involved with coaching the defensive tackles that he's incapable of telling the offensive coordinator whether to run more power, run less power, throw the ball more, throw a screen, etc.? Really? You must really think Brady Hoke is an imbecile.
It was a dick comment and I called you out for it. So what.
And no, many times Hoke just stood on the sidelines with his arms folded and a look of disgust. Then the defense took the field and he'd clap over and over to give encouragement and then go to working with Mattison on the defense.
Regardless, what you said is not what I said nor what I meant.
I think it would be good for Hoke to be involved in a limited capacity. He doesn't need to be an expert or call plays or any of that. He doesn't even need to wear a headset (for all those that insist he must).
But he's got to be able to add input and generate positive results. Borges had some of the worst playcalling any of us have EVER seen. There were also a number of times where we should've gone no huddle to get a rhythm or to SCORE cause we were down and there was nothing.
Things like this can come from the head coach, even if he's not the expert. Borges isn't the only one to play for the offensive struggles last year. If he was, then call him co-head coach and give him equal money.
There are plenty of applications where Hoke could be more involved/understanding with the offense without actually calling plays or even close.
Many reported that a reason Nuss left Bama was because Saban was TOO involved. I'm not suggesting Hoke be that. But he's got to be more than he has been in the past. If not, hire a co-head coach and we'll just role with two guys at the top.
Your entire post assumes that you know exactly what's going on the sideline, and it assumes that Hoke's suggestions would have improved the offense.
You don't, and there's no proof that it would.
So I'm going to disregard your post.
Commence the calling of names.
No, we need the guy that earns over 4 million dollars a year to be a head coach, and if that means he doesn't know how to coach the offense then he shouldn't run the show. Flame me, see how much I care.
So your post is dumb.
Are you kidding me????? Nick Saban runs his offense EXACTLY the way he wants it, he doesnt ask. So know what your talking about. You think Hoke does that, pffffffffffff.
That's why the coordinators make around $1,000,000 a year. He's hired to be the CEO, face of the program, etc. The coordinators are hired to piece together the offense and defense. If you really want the head coach to micromanage the entire offense and the entire defense, you're going to have a very difficult time finding someone who can successfully do both. Good luck.
Ouch. This is starting to sound eerily like RR and his involvement on the defensive side...
At least RR played defense in college.
But apparently is not Vince Lombardi.
RR was involved on defense. That was part of the problem. The 3-3-5 was not Shafer or GERG's idea. If RR had allowed Shafer the freedom to run his own defense, he might still be our coach.
Maybe this isn't a perfect analogy, but if you have a company where the CFO (a guy with a primarily, if not strictly, financial background) becomes the CEO, how often do you want him meddling with what the VP of Marketing is doing? Or R&D?
Typically, in any organization, the guy in charge has strenghts and weaknesses like anyone else. The best leaders are the ones who are able to identify their weaknesses, admit them, and find the best people to handle those areas. Hoke has always done the first two, and when he wasn't able to do the third, hired Nussmeier. This is what we want.
I don't expect Hoke to get THAT involved. But in your organization...those people have to answer to their boss. And just because their boss can't do what they can do, doesn't mean he/she isn't responsible for it and shouldn't have a working knowledge of what they do and how they do it.
I don't want Hoke calling plays. But I would've loved to have seen him tell Al during the PSU game to stop running the stretch play that was losing yards. I would've liked to see him say "this isn't working, maybe we should try something else."
He doesn't have to pick specifcally what that "something else" is...but just to have the insight and knowledge and understanding to know what we need to be doing is enough.
So no, he doesn't need to call plays. However, he needs to be more involved where he can at least go "stay with that" or "stop that" (I'm being short because I've responded to this twice now).
Just like if Rich Rod were to ever say "hey, we're giving them too much cushion...let's try walking the CBs up some this possession" I wouldn't mind. Not if we were losing by 20+ because our DBs are 15 yards off the line.
It's just the simple checks and balances of a team that I'm talking about.
Some (not you) have taken it way out of proportion.
I think Hoke is about as involved with the offense as you're suggesting he should be. You said in your first paragraph that those people (the assistants) need to answer to their boss. I'm willing to bet Hoke had discussions with Borges before he fired him. Hoke clearly new Borges wasn't getting the job done, and I can't imagine he kept that to himself until Borges was let go.
...but in game is what I'm talking about. I don't care about what they talked about after the loss.
What I'm saying is the head coach should have a reasonable pulse in everything. He doesn't have to be an expert, he doesn't even have to do it or have a DAY of experience doing it. But you need to at least have an idea.
The general assumption with Hoke has always been "well, Borges knows more than me about offense so I'm not going to get involved."
That is very true, but it doesn't mean you can't get involved in a limited capacity. There is a middle ground. Hell, there's even a LITTLE ground that Hoke can stand out without before completely absent (unless it's the end of the game).
Nussmeier just left Alabama in part because Saban was TOO controlling. I'm not suggesting Hoke be that. I'm saying, you can ask question, give input, and make certain demands without stepping on toes or taking over the job.
There is no reason the play calling should've been as bad as it was last year. As head coach, Hoke has to at least be able to say "stop this, it isn't working...why don't we try that." Even if it's a learning process and he's just asking questions. ANYTHING.
Instead he just stood there over and over with his arms folded and then clapped as the punt team ran onto the field.
So did Hoke fire himself or did Mattison let him go?
But I thought Dave Brandon ran the team?
There's a clause in Hoke's contract that fires him from coaching the defensive tackles if certain season ticket holders don't renew.
I equally liked Magnus's jab at you and your response. Well done both of you.
The two comments in this thread are Magnus's finest work on mgoblog.
I LOLed at both. Well done.
So does that make me Jason Terry?
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Perfectly played both ways. I loled.
Is pure evil
I think it was Jim Tressel who fired him...After all he's the one with all the power, not the university presidents or AD's.
Hope it works out !!
I'm honestly stunned by this development. I wonder now what this is going to do to our D-line play, because if they improve significantly, then what was Hoke doing trying to micromanage this part of the team.
"because if they improve significantly, then what was Hoke doing trying to micromanage this part of the team."
Clearly, he was trying to sabotage the program. Duh.
I'm honestly want to see now how much of a difference this makes on the D-line play because I've always thought that a HC's job is to oversee all of the position coaches and not Role-Play as one. I think it will be better having one coach who will specifically coach the D-line rather than manage the whole team and then coach the D-line.
Ferentz works solely with the OL.
The Snark is strong with this one.
>> because if they improve significantly, then what was Hoke doing trying to micromanage this part of the team.
Let's assume the D-Line play does improve. Some thoughts come to mind:
Hoke said he did the position coach thing to "stay grounded" or something like that. Maybe he's come to the realization it's just better for the team for him to step back and let others manage that level of the system.
But the DL could improve simply because of the players. Maybe returning so much talent on the ends will make the job of the DTs that much easier? Maybe returning all starting LBs (and having JMFR full-go) will make teams game plan differently? Maybe an improved secondary will have a similar effect?
Regardless of the change, positive or negative, it will be hard to say how much, if anything, is do to this rather small shake up.
>> But the DL could improve simply because of the players.
I almost had that as one of the bullets -- "Players one year more improved." Let's cross our fingers and hope for a healthy and improved Pipkins.
>> it will be hard to say how much, if anything, is do to this rather small shake up.
Someone needs to work up some before and after charts. :-)
Whatever the cause, I'd sure love to see some improvement on the DL interior. I'm no expert, but I've heard some say that it all starts on the inside. If the inside gets push, then the rest of the defense's job gets easier. Therefore, if we could get better on the inside due to Hoke wearing polka-dot underwear ... then I'd argue for polka-dot underwear.
Hoke was pretty good at the nuts and bolts in '97.
if they improve on DL then hoke did his job as head coach, he found a way to improve the team overall. stepping back and overseeing the entire program on daily basis could be what he feels he needs...maybe wants to get better feel for his team by focusing on all groups rather than just checking in with other position coaches and coordinators after DL sessions. or maybe he just wants to free himself up to oversee installation of nussmeiers O as well as helping to mold his young OL, along with all other executive type tasks. i always thought it was strange the way they had the D staff structured anyway (not criticizing, just curious allignment of responsibilities)- the DC and HC handling the DL groups while 2 assistants handle the ILB and OLB....just very odd, not sure ive ever heard of similar setup. itd be great if the DL improves and they may marginally do so just due to natural progression and maturation of younger kids....but they also do not have enough talent yet to truly make a difference. i think theyll be better and more sound on back end and might be better against the run after another year but i dont ensivion any drastic improvement in 2014 given the absence of pass rushers to win 1on1s (unless charlton or someone skyrockets up with 9-10 sacks and the DTs chip in along with clarks likely 4-5 sacks - yes people frank clark will never be the all american or first team all leauger some continue to predict each offseason, he is what he is and thats a pretty decent ball player). encouraging though to see hoke realizes changes needed to be made and a small shuffle on D hopefully freshens things up along with nussmeier on O
If he's wearing Beats by Dr. Dre?
Having a HC also be a position coach is not unheard of, is it? (I think Saban is also secondary coach, if I'm not mistaken). Still, if that distracts Hoke from his broader responsibilities, then on the whole this is a good sign, I think.
You're right, it's not uncommon. It's quite common for the HC to have a very big role in either a position group or an entire side of the ball, e.g. as the play caller.
Since this isn't a huge change, I doubt we can say it was a good thing or a bad thing, even if the positions involved perform a little better or worse. Though I think it's a good thing in the "let's shake things up" point of view.
He's pissed because the coaches wouldn't let him wear Adidas.
You had your Wheaties this morning, did you? You seem particularly feisty today. :-)
No, but I did just have a couple handfuls of raisins.
Raisins, huh? Lots of good fiber in raisins. Having trouble staying digestively "regular" are we?
Nah. I think raisins taste like candy.
Make sure it can't get to them, they're toxic to dogs.
At a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I personally like it just from a resource management point. Having a whole coach for just one OLB position (Manning) was pretty much a waste. I just hope Smith is good at coaching DL as well. Maybe it was me, but I also didn't like having the DL coached as such a fractured unit. Like with Montgomery, GMatt had the WDE, Hoke had the NT, and Montgomery had the rest. I suppose it means more one on one time with a coach, but I feel like the DL needs to be coached more as a unit by one guy to develop the unit cohesiveness. Maybe this is 'feelings-ball' though.
Having a guy like Roy Manning coach just one position isn't a waste because his biggest roles on the team are, youth, recruiting, and motivation. He's also a good coach, so having him coach these positions isn't a bad thing either, but lots of teams have a guy who is a position coach for things other than his ability to coach a certain position.
both times he went to linebacker camp. At least some of the leverage drills they teach the ILBs they also teach in the D-Line camp. Coach Smith seems like a detailed technique instructor / teaching kind of coach. He has a good presence, and is great at getting the reasons why behind the details across to young minds.
So my sense is the drills may differ, but the instruction skills are there.
I may have missed something. . . . . Who's going to coach DE's? I guess their production has been so great the last six years that they really do not need any guidance.
I would guess that stays with GMAT.
Maybe by increasing Smith's and Manning's duties, this is a way to keep either or both from being poached by another school (like whomever we lost to OK last year).
Maybe for Manning since he is much younger.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to the man, but no one is going to come calling for Mark Smith.
I think I like the move. I doubt this will diminish Hoke's involvement in the defense as a whole and it gives Roy more responsibility which I like as well. I would like to see them start grooming him to be GMAT's successor personally.
New QB coach is Uncle Rico
Sugar Shane is gonna to be able to throw it over dem mountains over there now.
we need to stop having D linemen in for 1-2 plays then sprint on and off the field. I used to be young, inshape and I'm big(lighter then dlinemen) but all that sprinting is wasting energy and you can see it sometimes especially against faster moving offenses they look tired before the snap getting in there stance from running back in the field. It's my biggest and only issues with Mattison, love the guy but leave guys who are having a great game in longer.
In my post-liveblog text conversation with Brandon Williams he was talking up Roy. Ever since they were in school together there's been a belief by his teammates that Manning would end up a successful college coach. That's just his friends' opinion and that's pretty much what we have so far except we didn't get much pass rush out of the guys he's coaching.
What bothers me a little is if they're moving Smith down to defensive line, and on this staff that seems like a demotion, why didn't they just find Smith a cushy job elsewhere and jump at Larry Johnson Sr. when he became available? I think Johnson would have preferred Michigan to Ohio State, and that's the kind of coup that only comes around once in a lifetime. I understood that we weren't able to jump on it because Hoke coaches the DL. Now...
Yeah, in retrospect this makes not taking a run at Johnson, well, very bad? Not to say it's downright terrible, and the Nuss hire was quite the coup itself, but man....Not even taking the chance to sweep in on Johnson seems like management to me. They had to have known the Smith move was coming, and putting an LB coach on the DL, all the while a universally well thought of, and experienced, DL coach landed at your rival? Ugh.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't there a limit on the number of coaches anyway? Wouldn't they have had to let someone go in order to bring Johnson in?
The reason OSU could bring in Johnson is because Vrabel bailed for the NFL.
I agree with this sentiment very much. I wonder if we didn't pursue Larry Johnson or another big-name DL coach but were spurned. I mean, it's hard to attract top talent to what is perceived by many to be a coaching staff on the hot seat. Urban Meyer is much more stable in Columbus right now than Hoke is in Ann Arbor, and Hoke and staff would probably admit that off the record.
Surprises the hell out of me that we got Nussmeier, all things considered.
Nuss was being encouraged to look around at Alabama since Saban wanted to bring in Kiffin. That rumor was going around a few days before the Nussmeier hire. Michigan wound up being a perfect landing spot for him. If he turns around Michigan's offense and Michigan starts winning 10+ games a season, then he's as hot as of a head coaching candidate as there is.
And if things go awry at Michigan and he and the rest of the staff are out of a job in a year or two, he'd still be able to land a good OC position elsewhere as the failures at Michigan would be seen as Hoke's fault and not his.
And there were subsequent articles that rendered the validity of those rumors questionable...
Maybe Smith and Manning both wanted bigger roles in the defense. I personally thought two LB coaches was a little overkill.
Inside and oustside linebacker are very different animals. Particularly the SAM in Michigan's defense.
and fire one of the coaches? Michigan is already at the max for coaches
I actually thought Hoke did a good job coaching the interior line last year. Sure the defensive ends sucked and didn't get any pressure, but Will Henry showed a lot of improvement and Hoke converted undersized Black into a solid interior line presence.
Is Roy has earned the extra responsibility. Hoke will still be involved with the line.
I really see this as a good thing at this point.
Where did this blog get it's info? I didn't see a source.
Call by Hoke! Hoping for the best next year!
I like this move. It frees Coach Hoke up to see and work wherever he thinks he'll be most effective. Molk said he learned a lot from Hoke.
In a thread on coaching shakeups, nobody chimed in with the ubiquitous suggestion of swapping Fred Jackson for Mike Hart/Ty Wheatley?
Sheesh...This board is getting soft.
Well, you kinda did...
and thought being outside the 50 comment attention threshold (and during Friday Happy Hour) might allow it to slip in unnoticed. Damn you, Timmmaay and your bloodhound-like senses.
"Coaching changes are never fun, but in the situation, I think it should be welcomed. You keep your head coach, get a different perspective of how to coach the young kids, and give your university's football team a shot at improve dramatically. "
I will say that I like these moves as they seem a good use of resources and indeed, getting different eyes on some of our vulnerabilities will hopefully produce some good results. Some others have mentioned it, but I also like the idea of Hoke getting that much more time to be something of a supervisor and watch what goes on at each position.
Am I right? Or am I right?
I always thought it a little strange that a staff with the resources of a Michigan would have the head coach take responsibility for a particular unit, regardless of background.
Brady's biggest role (and strength, in my opinion) is acting as CEO over the staff. We wondered if loyalty and inflexibility would prevent him from making needed changes. This off-season, we're getting the answers we wanted.
I know Hoke and Mattisson are very passionate of DLine positions. But with these moves, it gives one prominent voice in these position groups that is needed with young talent. Learn one way with no confusion or worries of miscommunication. Also, it gives more time for Hoke and Matti more time to evaluate not only other positions, but game plans, and ensuring all are on the same page. I completely agree with this move(s).