Is the success Brady Hoke enjoying due to his skills in football or management?

Submitted by mGrowOld on

Speaking from the experience of 30 plus years of managing people both relatively successfully (current model) and unsuccessfully (younger version) I can say that Brady Hoke is running a virtual management clinic on the football team.  He may or may not know as much about schemes and formations as other coaches but I defy anyone to look at his work as a manager since he was hired and not be impressed. To summarize some of the major things every textbook on management recommends and I've noticed he's done to date:

1. Surround yourself with superior talent - Clearly the hiring of Mattison was the big win for the staff but his remaining subordinates have excellent resumes themselves.  Hoke was not afraid to put together a team that would challenge his football knowledge and direction.

2. Delegate authority - Once your staff is in place it is the excellent manager allows them the autonomy to make decisions without interference.  I get no sense of Hoke "meddling" with either Borges or Mattison on player personnel decisions or play calling.  He lets his coaches coach.

3. Be willing to make the "Big Decision" quickly and decisively - At the end of the Notre Dame game Hoke made the call to go for the win but gave the play calling decision back to Borges.  By all reports Hoke made the call to run the play very quickly, thereby giving Borges time to decide on the right play without the added pressure of time winding down.

4. Motivate the troops and stay connected to your employees - At my company we call the CEO the "Chief Encouragement Officer" and he acts as such.  Much has been made of Hoke not wearing a headset but I like it because wearing a headset puts you in contact with your coaching staff but blocks out the players.  Hoke can talk to his coaches anytime he chooses in a moment's notice but by remaining headset free he's able to walk among the team, motivate, challenge and encourage as necessary.  A great manager never loses connection to the people doing the job.

5. Accept criticism but deflect praise - While criticism has been sparse to date thanks to our quick start, whenever questions are raised at press conferences that are critical to the team's performance Hoke takes the blame fully and without reservation.  Conversely, when praised, Hoke is quick to push the credit down to either his coaches or his players.  Again a hallmark of an excellent and confident manager of people.

Hoke has yet to be tested by tough times but based on what I've seen so far I think he'll do ok.  I am very impressed by Hoke's managerial skills and think they will serve him (and the team) well as the season progresses.

 

CRex

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

I really think on regards to #1, Hoke is going to retire from Michigan as a successful HC known for bring a lot of talented coordinators in.  The downside to this of course if we'll have a constant stream of hot young assistant coaches being hired away by other schools to be coordinators and HCs.  On the other hand, when it comes time to hire a replacement after Hoke retires, we'll have options.  

As it stands Hoke already appears to have a decent history of getting other coaches careers going.  So we're going to be a destination for young coaching talent, which in turn keeps the program going.  

Hail-Storm

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^

but that's because he is always going to be compared the the previous coordinators hair, which really isn't fair.

And Borges doesn't rhyme with gorgeous just to be ironical.  That man has never taken a bad picture (see any presser photo). Please retract your statement!

BigBlue02

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^

He has coached 3 total games for Michigan in which he has received very little criticism and hasn't had to answer many tough questions. So to answer your question, I have no idea as it is nearly impossible to know so early in his career

mGrowOld

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^

Rhetorical question obviously.  I just know he's doing all the right things a manager should do so far and that is very encouraging.  As much as I supported RR he did not follow some of the points above and paid for those decisions dearly.

BigBlue02

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^

Actually, I didn't want to compare the two because the main difference, and one of the only differences up to this point, is that Hoke isn't dealing with bad reports and fans hating him because of the messy divorce from his prior school. If we are comparing up to this point, Hoke has had a walk in the park compared to Richrod

FrankMurphy

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

True, but he's had tons of interviews and press conferences in the eight months he's been on the job, and he has been asked a number of tricky questions and handled them flawlessly. By this time in '08, Rodriguez had stuck his foot in his mouth several times. Rodriguez did face a hostile and skeptical media climate, but he didn't do himself any favors with the way he handled it. 

BigBlue02

September 23rd, 2011 at 3:14 PM ^

That's him putting his foot in his mouth?

And what do we reference this to in regards to Hoke? All the tough questions he's had to answer about not losing a game or winning in the final seconds against Notre Dame or how tough it is to coach a team returning 20 starters, including the Big 10 offensive player of the year? That's why I didn't really want to compare the two because they aren't being asked nearly the same questions. Hoke has done a great job of answering some pretty easy questions. That is a good thing. I like that there is no drama. But that doesn't mean every time a topic comes up about Hoke we have to shit on our old coach.

Edit: I also love how he says something positive about the team and tries to give hope by saying, "all is not lost, we have a lot of football left." Whereas if he would have said something more negative, he would have been accused of putting his foot in his mouth because he didn't have enough faith in his team. He couldn't win

FrankMurphy

September 23rd, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^

I'll try to cut through the snark and address the substance of your comment, however minimal it may be.

Hoke has repeatedly been asked, directly or indirectly, about Rodriguez and how he screwed up (ex: "What aspect of the program did you think was most in need of fixing when you got here?"). These kinds of questions are meant to bait him into criticizing Rodriguez and generating juicy soundbites. Hoke has avoided the trap each time, keeping the focus on the players and the future of the program. He wisely avoids contrasting his style with that of Rodriguez or talking about the need to revamp the program to suit his style. Rodriguez, on the other hand, used words like "ugly" and "expected the worst" in describing his first spring practice after taking over. He also talked about "molding" the program and the process of "rebuilding" it, as if it was in a shambles when he took over.

I'm not saying that Rodriguez didn't face a negative climate from the day he got here or that a lot of the scrutiny he faced wasn't unfair, but he didn't do himself any favors in the way he handled it.   

BigBlue02

September 23rd, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^

I never meant to suggest RicRod was good with the press, because I don't think he was. But if you are brought in to rebuild the program and that's what you are told and it's pretty obvious that is why you were brought in, it isn't that earth shattering a comment. And the reason Hoke has had an easy time answering those questions is 1) he had actual good PR coaching from everyone around him, which I'm guessing RichRod never got from Martin or anyone for that matter and 2) he didn't inherit the same thing RichRod did. What was Hoke supposed to say.....it is going to be tough taking over one of the best offenses in the B10 and a team that returns 95% of it's contributors?

Also, I have heard Hoke and Mattison say numerous times that the defense isn't where they want it to be and they work on basics and fundamentals because that is what they need. I by no means take that as a shot at RichRod because I don't think that was their intention, but i could easily spin that to say Hoke was saying RichRod didn't know anything about defensive technique, even though he played defense in college. See the big difference? If you dislike Hoke, you think that is awful and he shouldn't be saying those things. If you like him, he's just telling the truth about the team. It's all about your perception if him, in which Hoke is getting the benefit of the doubt and RichRod definitely didn't. That isn't a bad thing, I like the Hoke lovefest, but that doesn't mean the negative feelings towards RichRod weren't already in place before his on field performance could actually speak for itself

Oaktown Wolverine

September 23rd, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^

The whole rebuild the program meme is incorrect. The program did not need rebuilding, we had not missed a bowl in 33 years. The idea that we needed rebuilding was introduced by Rich Rod when he criticized our weigh room facilities and discredited our players at the time. We were coming off a 9-4 season, and the year before we narrowly missed a chance to play in the National Championship game. Yes Chad Henne graduated, but this was not the first time in the history of Michigan football that we had a graduating starting Quarterback. Mallett should have stayed, and perhaps he would have had Rich Rod been willing to adapt his offense to fit the taletn at hand. Hoke managed to keep Denard, and that is part of effective managing. 

Section 1

September 23rd, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^

Or maybe, "Ask Mallett."

The changeover was massive -- from decades of Bo and Bo successors to a completely new line.  Really, anybody who blames, as a personal matter, Rich Rodriguez for the early departures of Mallett, Boren, Clemons, or Manningham needs some re-eduaction.  They are, to be sure, all very individual cases.  But they are not to be collectively blamed on Rodriguez.

Cope

September 24th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^

Despite apparent disapproval in this thread, this is a comment most Michigan fans would agree with. Of course there are ebbs and flows at different positions, and not denying that, we were not in need of being rebuilt as a team until we were rebuilt much too quickly into a team we were not able to become that quickly.

And it is true that "perhaps" Mallet would have stayed, though we don't know. Denard "perhaps" may have left had he not been courted. This board has discussed comments indicating Mallet was gone already and comments indicating he was everything but shown the door.

For the sake of discussion, that's unfair to judge, because we never can know what really went down. But for the sake of the program, that's huge in assessing the team condition. Imagine where we would now be had Denard left. So the truth behind Mallet (and others), though we can't know it for sure, really is consequential to saying we were in a rebuilding state or not, which I think is quite a stretch.

(in response to Oaktown's rebuild the program comment)

Edit: I am not collectively blaming RR for any individual cases. I actually have no reason to blame him. I don't want to rehash anything negative about a former Michigan coach; I respect him. However, I find nothing wrong with the above comment, and I think revisionist history causes people to say we needed rebuilding.

justingoblue

September 24th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

However, I find nothing wrong with the above comment, and I think revisionist history causes people to say we needed rebuilding.

I think this is more complicated than people are admitting. Were things in 2007 better than 2008? Sure, we won more games. We also lost games in an embarrassing fashion in 2007 (not saying we didn't in 2008 obviously) and had a terrible stretch going against OSU, not to mention the 2007 Rose Bowl the year before. As far as the rebuilding goes, I think Martin might take the most blame for putting us in such a bad spot in 2008. Did the program need ground-up rebuilding? Possibly. It's also possible that all we needed was another junior/senior class like we had in 2006 with some upgraded playcalling and we'd be right back to late 90's M football. I'd venture to say none of us know for certain.

One of the things I'd love to hear in this book was the process undertaken to replace Carr throughout the 2007 season. Was Martin looking for a complete rebuild, or was he sitting in his office through 2007 pretending that Carr wasn't leaving and got caught with his pants down? Brian read the book and says he believes the latter, which is truly tragic.

Cope

September 24th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^

may be the significant criticism Carr took that year. If Martin truly didn't expect Carr to retire, might it be possible that the App St uproar is what pushed him out?

I know we'd all been complaining about conservatism for years, and I thought Carr was all but pushed out by the admin with the early disappointments of 2007. It's possible those early losses were enough for Carr personally.

I thought, as I've heard others say, that Martin's hire was reactionary to the "cloud of dust" era (which admittedly is harsh- I appreciated it), and bringing RR was the solution. Perhaps that's not the case. If we're down wind of a Martin-with-a-sheepish-grin-pants-down scenario, that adds to a blurred line between rebuild and scramble to hold the pieces together.

I agree, in a relativistic sense, there may have been a greater perspective of rebuild necessary to reach the national championship level, or as you say, perhaps a couple junior/senior pieces would have done the trick. On that scope, it certainly is a more complex question.

justingoblue

September 24th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^

That's what I'm hoping Bacon answers, because it allows everyone to evaluate things more correctly. If RR was hired in a premeditated fashion to rebuild, that says something completely different about the situation than if he reached out to Martin after seeing our fiasco on ESPN and Martin saw Alabama job offers and BCS bowls and didn't think much beyond that.

I'm really starting to brace for the latter, which just makes me feel bad for everyone involved.

justingoblue

September 24th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^

From the class of '08 to the fans to RR himself, the hire wasn't fair to anyone if Martin didn't think it through and get prepared to stand behind it. If Martin wanted one thing and RR didn't deliver, I can understand that (though I sorely wanted RR to succeed, in a lot of ways), although I would want to hear exactly what those expectations were. Either way, I think Bacon's story will be important in order to discover the actual truth.

Cope

September 24th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

And I'm very interested to see Devin in action. But how quickly would he be ready to lead the team? Could he pull out the Notre Dame win and others down the line?

Unanswered questions that hint at what I can't wait to see: Devin eventually stepping into Denard's shoes (however laced...)

BigBlue02

September 24th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^

That's also the good thing about returning 10 starters and not returning 1 redshirt sophomore lineman. Denard leaving wouldn't have nearly the impact that Mallett leaving did

FrankMurphy

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^

Agree 100%. And I've always thought that Al Borges' resume is every bit as impressive as Mattison's, so I think he's hired two of the best coordinators in football.

I would add that the way he handles thorny questions from the media (compared to Rodriguez or even Lloyd) indicates that he knows how to deal with the press and keep potential distractions at bay wthout being a jerk about it. In fact, that part of the job seems to come very natural to him. In a field where every word you say and every decison you make are subject to intense public scrutiny, that's very important. 

bryemye

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^

Especially because the management part of the game was perhaps RR's greatest weakness, Hoke has been very impressive. I love that he doesn't wear a headset for large swaths of the game. I like his demeanor. I like his handling of the press. I love the coordinators prominence with their press conferences.

It will be most interesting to me to see how he handles adversity, of course.

Suavdaddy

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

I was watching my DVR of the EMU Michigan Replay and was listening to him and found myself wondering, is this guy a great football mind, and I just couldn't tell.  But that is not his job.  He lets the geniuses do there work and he does his, which is be the team leader.  By all accounts, he is doing a great job.  I couldn't agree more that he is a managerial wizard.  Its just surprising coming from such a tremendous meathead (takes one to know one). 

NorthSideBlueFan

September 23rd, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

I wonder how much your organization paid a consulting firm for that bit of brilliance? That kind of hokey corporate-ese jargon stuff I have always found to be rather insulting to employee's intelligence.
<br>HOWEVER, there is no denying Hoke has done a good job so far.