The Michigan football coach has one job and one job only....selling jerseys in Ohio. He has passed with flying colors thus far.
Is the success Brady Hoke enjoying due to his skills in football or management?
would be more than sufficient
I think he's starting to turn the tide on the rivalry.
Excellent post. Couldn't agree more.
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.
Greg and Al are neither hot nor young
they are both talented, but not exactly center-fold types
I LUV OO AL!!!
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!
I don't think it's worth starting a new thread over, but maybe it is. Do tell, just how gorgeous is Al Borges, can you put it into words. I think he just dreamy... sigh
but it's only three games into the season; let's slow down a bit.
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
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.
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
boo-fucking-hoo. I am sick of people whining about how bad Rich Rod supposedly had it.
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.
Ha! Yes, he's been asked so many tricky questions. And could you clarify how RichRod put his foot in his mouth back in 08? I'm sure you have plenty of quotes from him after 3 games.
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
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.
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
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.
Actually, you are the one who implied not only that Mallet would have stayed had RichRod changed his offense, but also that RichRod wouldn't change his offense, so a link would be nice from you
Ok. Sounds good. So what made you ask section 1 for a quote? Why did you think he was quoting Mallett?
So you can question someone for a link on what you think is a quote but I can't? Yes, I am the immature one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You paint the perfect set up to a great tragedy. Makes me sad.
Perhaps the rumored train of rejections pre-RR indicate this is the case. Will be a misty read if so.
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.
Actually, If Denard left, we would have Devin Gardner as the starter. That is the joy of having more than one good QB on the team.
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...)
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
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.
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.
the early returns are very positive.
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).
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.
HOWEVER, there is no denying Hoke has done a good job so far.
Actually he came up with it himself. The point was not to illustrate how wonderful my company is (or isn't) but rather to demonstrate that Hoke appears to follow the same behavioral model. Our CEO has never uttered those words (to the best of my knowledge) to the associates, rather that's what he sees his role as. Many CEOs spend the bulk of their corporate day meeting with their respective excecutive staff and not the "rank and file". In fact, many are clueless when it comes to what's really going on in the company and depend on others to ask others to tell them about what's really going on. Somewhat like a coach who wears a headset all game to talk to other coaches and not his players.
The best businesmen I know have very little knowledge about the technicalities of the products their companies sell.
Isn't being a great manager, especially when you're a head coach, and particularly at a major program that's basically a mini-corporation. I've gone over before other examples where if you're willing to hire the right people, you don't have to be a genius at everything, or anything (other than judging talent), really. You need to be able to lead them. It'd be great if one was good at both. But not necessary to success.
Thanks Growold! Your points ring true for all general management positions. What first jumped out at me was your reference to your relative success with some experience under your belt. Indications are that Hoke learned as he went along and has become more effective as he went along as well, especially in the delegation/trust componant.
Do you think you might also add maintaining accountability to your list? I don't mean yelling/reprimanding but more reminding people of needs and expectations early and often, and having difficult, but constructive, conversations as needed.
Without question that could be added to the list. I just went by the more obvious things I'd actually witnessed Hoke do since his hire and since I don't have access to team I don't know if he does or doesn't set those accountability standards. But my guess would be he does!
At the very least the coordinators have been very accountable, Greg Mattison in particular.
The recent stories about Roh and Mattison brought the idea to mind.
Taking that a little further, it's in everybody's interest that people have the opportunity to learn and grow (as opposed to being torn down), and Hoke's sideline demeanor indicates he follows this way of thinking. It appears (emphasis on appears) there's accountability, minus fear or degradation.
"Chief Encouragement Officer" LOL damn that's cheesy :P
I think what you said about Hoke is spot on though.
I also think NOT doing these things is what did RR in. (Not hiring superior talent as far as defensive coaches, micromanaging the defense by insisting on the 3-3-5, the perception he threw his players under the bus in press conferences, etc.)
The contrast between how RR didn't do these things right, and Hoke has, is probably quite instructive for anyone in management.
Look, another meme that needs to die. RichRod didn't throw his players under the bus any more than any other coach who uses coach speak
I wouldn't say he threw his players under the bus, but he did put the blame on the players and their talent instead of himself on many occasions. Off the top of my head the "picking up a kicker on the way there" comment and the "Vince Lombardi" comment come to mind. Two things I would be shocked to hear Hoke say.
You could add the Mesko punt fiasco in 2009 ("Zoltan had a read there"), as well as the punt in the fourth quarter of last year's MSU game (in which RR claimed his assistants sent in the wrong play, even though he allowed the play to go off without calling a timeout). There was a subtle pattern of RR trying to suggest that it was external factors that were preventing him from succeeding. That generally doesn't fly very well with the public. People expect the buck to stop with the head coach.
Hoke has taken the opposite approach: "If we don't win the Big Ten, we've failed them as coaches." That's taking it to an extreme, but people want to hear that. Fans don't want their coach to be a victim of circumstance. They want him to give the impression that he is in complete control all the time.
I remember seeing a clip of Hoke in an interview where he says the team didn't execute and that's why they were playing poor. There are also plenty of times RichRod said the coaching staff didn't prepare the team. Point being that all coaches say things and explain what happens. I don't think RichRod threw his kids under the bus any more than any other coach but it was magnified because people disliked him
Exactly. I think what makes Hoke so great is that he seems so genuine about it and truley believes what he says about winning the B1G etc. I have a feeling that this is what makes him and his staff so good at recruiting as well because the kids they recruit know they arent getting any bs.
It's a lot easier to say "we're going to win the Big Ten" when you have a lineup of mostly upperclassmen and the BT offensive player of the year coming back than it is to win it with Threet-idan the first year, and a lineup of predominantly underclassmen the second and third years.
Can't the asshole contingent here EVER just support Hoke without smarmy, shitty comments re RR? I wish some of you would show as much class as Hoke has.
When did I every make a shitty comment about RR? I implied that I think Hoke is a better leader for Michigan than RR was but I dont see how that is a comment against RR.
I can't believe after all we've been through there are still people in love with RR. I wasn't happy when he was hired, wished for him to succeed, but watched a nightmare for 3 years. The glass was half full excuse doesn't fly with me. You don't run off players and the entire coaching staff of a successful program when you have no defensive plan. His worst offense was getting rid of English and the D-Staff, when that isn't even his side of the ball. It is almost like he was going through a mid-life crisis and just decided to ruin a program. We had the talent and the departures were squarely on RR's approach to the program. We were due for a down year in 2008, but 3-9 is an embarrasing.
I agree that this meme has been overblown, but it's not without basis. As another commenter pointed out below, the Vince Lombardi comment comes to mind. Also, Calvin Magee's description of Steven Threet's performance in the '08 MSU game as "inconsistent, like it always is" was pretty low. Granted, Rich Rod himself didn't say that, but Magee had been with Rich Rod since '01 and is a pretty prominent branch of his coaching tree.
Great post. I've come to believe over the last several years that the best head coaches are more CEO types than X's and O's gurus. Obviously, these skils are not mutually exclusive, but IME managment skills are far more important than technical skills when it comes to being a head coach. This is an interesting parallel between sports & business. The same reason certain head coaches can be successful even as the game changes around them (Paterno, Bowden, Holtz) is why career CEO's can bounce from compnay to company and turn them around. On the flipside you can examine X's & O's guys who climb the ranks only to fail when they reach "the top", most likely because of their lack of managment & people skills (RR & Morninwheg come to mind).
Charlie Weis is a textbook example of an X's and O's guy (or a "decided schematic advantage" guy, as it were) who failed as a head coach because he lacked mangerial and people skills. But Urban Meyer and Chip Kelly are proof that you can have both. Meyer and Kelly are both X's and O's guys who are seen as spread offense gurus, but they're wise enough to rely on their assistants and not micromanage areas that that they have no expertise in. Kelly mostly defers to his defensive coordinator Nick Aliotti at Oregon. Meyer actually kept Ron Zook's defensive coordinator (Charlie Strong) when he took over at Florida.
This is why I applaud Dave Brandon for this hire. I know the process wasnt looked on very favorably but Brandon knew the type of leader he wanted and made a decision that he knew was right even though it wasnt popular at the time.
I think that the reasons for Hoke's success have been outlined in a couple of different ways and this is definitely another good perspective.
now you can get rid of that signature.
Actually, he can't. Apparently some MGoBlog members can't spell "John".
Too early to judge him so far and he has had the kind "stars are aligned" entry back into the fold that we will never really know how much was him and how much due to external factors.
I mean, who could have imagined OSU would implode (with the potential of added program crippling sanctions) at the exact same as the rest of B10 decided to shit the bed 1-2 yrs after having one of the strongest conferences I've ever seen with MSU, Wisky, OSU and even Iowa having great seasons.
The B10 is incredibly weak at the moment and OSU could be down for 3-5 years - Hoke will have it easy compared to either Lloyd or RichRod.
However, huge credit for the Mattison hire and Gorgeous Al looks like he could be the real deal.
I agree completely. Also, forgive me for going there, but... while Rodriguez's football acumen is outstanding, the mismanagement, especially in a somewhat hostile environment, did him in. Rodriguez may have a coaching complement in... Cheryl Burnett? Both had unquestioned success at a smaller school in a more insular environment. Both built programs organically, over time, to great success. Both came to Michigan with great expectations, and both had careers that failed to live up to expectations (Burnett's more disastrously than Rodriguez's -- check out these pre- and post- http://www.michigandaily.com/content/introducing-cheryl-burnett , http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/womensbasketball/bigten/2007-03-06-michigan-burnett-retires_N.htm)
Rodriguez was unprepared for all the demands he faced at Michigan. Part of that is Rodriguez's fault, but I still put the blame squarely on Sailin' Bill, who could have done MUCH more to ease the transition.
I have thought much the same thing about Hoke, as head football coach is more of an executive position than anything else. And the time/energy demands of this job are such that he must delegate intellegently. I have also though that by not being directly tied up in the offense/defense play calling, it allows Hoke to see more broadly what is going on in the game. Yeah, Hoke was ready to call the final TD against ND.
But Hoke hasn't had to go through any real adversity yet, and certainly no crisis. It is easy to be magnanomous when you are winning. It is easy to look smart when your winning. Let's see how Hoke responds after a couple of losses, and how the team reacts. Do things mushroom and the team and/coaches lose confidence like the past 3 years, or do they respond?
Hoke has confidence in his coordinators and assistant coaches, they have proven they are able. I think this will make the difference between Hoke's tenure and Rodriguez'
Exactly. It's easy to not make excuses and take criticism when you're winning. So far so good, but we'll see if he can continue to impress after a tough loss or two pops up. I think he will, but that's the future.
But when i listended to his first press conference he had me at the first "This is Michigan"
Time will tell but my gut tells me we have something special brewing here.
Your gut is telling you something special is brewing? A trip to the bathroom may be in order.
he might be in love.
He's currently enjoying the same success Rich Rodriguez enjoyed in his second year. Slow down for a few weeks. Trust me, I'm with you but it's a process in which we must be realistic.
At least Hoke didn't lose to a MAC school in his first year.
I agree. I was there. Sad day.
Please don't remind me. I can only shudder and weep when I remember. I never got over the trauma, I think I never shall.
But to respond to the OP--quite. By happenstance, I had just finished reading "Lasting Lessons" when Hoke gave his first press conference. Bo always struck me as one highly effective leader, and Hoke seems to be in that mold. That trait of taking all the blame but pushing off all the glory, in particular, is brilliant and develops considerable loyalty.
As others have pointed out, he's also been incredibly adept at handling difficult questions and hasn't really put a foot wrong. What's amazing to me about that is that he comes off as 100% genuine, not even a shade rehearsed. If anything, he's an awkward speaker (diagramming his sentences would be a nightmare unless it's "This is Michigan!") yet he always manages to give a response that, if not, er, tremendous, is completely appropriate and does no harm.
I like it.
I hope it translates to nothing but winning seasons, and beating That School.
This team that lost to a MAC team in the coach's first year wouldn't happen to be the same team (so to say) that lost, while loaded with NFL talent (which all left prior to this coach you are referring to first year), to an FCS team the year before?
Sr. laden team, experienced and stable coaching stafff with team loaded with NFL talent loses to FCS school > or < than next year, no NFL talent, entire new coaching staff, loses to division 1 team.
Just what would you do, with a billion MGoPoints? Could you handle it? I think you could.
Warren, Graham, mouton, Martin, T Taylor, banks, Jamison, Trent, Ezeh before lack of coaching on defense.
Offense was good too short of qb. Enough talent to win more than 3 games I promise you!
that has been kind of an on-going thing). Another problem with "the cupboard" were the last two Carr recruiting classes combined with poor retention. I'm sure you noticed that there was very little in the way of Sr. leadership on the team last year.
The story of 2008 was not one of problematic defense, it was the deadly combination of inexperience, poor QB play with inexperienced, poor OL play. The offensive line was a huge problem in 2008. Lack of any wideout threat didn't help either (probably didn't matter as the QB, if the OL gave him time, a big if, wouldn't be able to get him the ball anyway).
Hoke best decision was to go after guys with questionable or lack of hair. RR went after guys with full head of hair and look what that did for him.
Brady Hoke is 3-0. Exactly like the last two seasons with this program. He's doing a good job off the field, particularly recruiting, just like the last two seasons with this program. I don't understand the prematurely rave reviews on a lot of this other stuff:
- "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. " Huh? being "not afraid" to put together a team to "challenge his football knowledge"? Have we ever had a head coach who was "afraid" of hiring certain assistants? What the hell does any of that mean?
- "Meddling"?!? Can anybody supply a clear history of meddling/non-meddling by Michigan head football coaches? What the hell does that mean?
- A winning end-of-game decision versus Notre Dame; it was nice. Just like last year, when Brady Hoke was in San Diego.
- Should head coaches wear headsets? Or not? Or some of the time? How about we go with "some of the time"? The list of head football coaches who wear or wore headsets some of the time include Bo Schembechler, Gary Moeller, Lloyd Carr, Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke. It is a list that excludes nobody, includes everybody and tells us very little.
- "Hoke has yet to be tested by tough times but based on what I've seen so far I think he'll do ok. " Well, I think that sums it all up. Nobody knows how Hoke will do up against a full year's B1G conference schedule, but he seems like a pretty good guy. And with that remarkable, earth-shattering appraisal, I agree. It is nice that he has started 3-0, including a thriller win over Notre Dame. Just like last year's team. It's really nice, that we are starting off no worse than last year.
Not that I want to get a 9,000 word diatribe out of you, but on the meddling portion: isn't it sort of accepted as canon around here that the previous head coach meddled quite a bit with the defense, leading to Shafer being fired and Gerg running a system he didn't understand?
It is an inherently loaded concept. "Meddling" automatically connotes wrongdoing of some kind on the part of the meddler.
Some folks criticized Rodriguez for not being involved in the defense; because after all, he's the head coach, and defense is part of his responsibility.
And then there are the folks who criticzed Rodriguez for "meddling," and insisting on a defense that his defensive coordinators didn't like or weren't capable of coordinating.
And worst of all, all of this is spouted off in the context of Brady Hoke, who was given a million bucks to get the defensive coordinator of his dreams (rightly so; any Michigan Head Football Coach should be able to get the DC of his dreams) and who is now being praised, apparently, for simply doing what Rodriguez did, which was to delgate the operation of the defense within some general outline that he prefers. And moreover, all of this is somehow proven by Hoke's "success," which is statistically indifferent from Rodriguez's success at this point in each of the last two seasons.
if it weren't for
Not sure what about my post so upset you other than my comment that Hoke appears to have a better handle on the niceities of managing people than RR did. If you remember, i was a staunch RR supporter and opposed violently the Hoke hire. But I have been impressed by what i've seen and I'm not letting my personal bias towards RR cloud my evaluation of Hoke.
As far as your specific objections to my post i do not believe RR wanted any opposition to his plans, especially on defense. A weak manager, and unfortunately it seems to me that RR was a weak manager, insists on HIS plan regardless of the wishes of his subordinates. You will NEVER convince me that Gerg woke up last year and said to RR "hey...let's run that defense I've never coached before...might be fun to learn as I go."
The rest of your objections are nothing more than taking a contrarian position on anything I supported (headsets, ND game, my guess for how he'll handle adversity) for the sake of being a board contrarian. Nothing more...nothing less.
That (a) Brady Hoke seems like a nice guy, delegating to a capable OC and a capable DC that he trusts, and (b) we really don't know how any of this is going to turn out in terms of hard results for 2011.
And I agreed with you on that.
My only other point was that all of the other Hoke-worship and implied Rodriguez-comparison was weak. Because, as you say, we really don't know, yet.
He hasn't really had success here. I bet if you asked him, this is what he'd say. Not a success until we win the Big 10.
Now, has he done everything right so far? Pretty much. It's hard to find something to complain about. And that makes the future look bright. But we'll see soon enough.
At this point (3 games into the job), Hoke's success hasn't been about Management or Football Skills. His success has been in MARKETING.
It's too early to give his Football Skills or his Management abilities a grade because his job is still in its infancy. The one thing that cannot be deined right now is the work he's putting in restoring the Michigan brand.
I'm not saying that Hoke isn't good with football, but he is a master of good management. He let's his staff coach, and doesn't meddle. Hoke has great coordinators on both sides, good position staff, he manages the PR and media, he spends time with players and parents, he's positive, humble, decisive, joyful, gets everyone on the bus. To my way of thinking, he is a casebook study of what a good head coach is. Of course, in the final analysis, it's about wins, isn't it, so we'll have to wait awhile to make real judgement. But right now, I think Hoke is great at managing well.
6. When prostyle QB is lacking for your pro style set, go back to the Denardian Well and thank RichRod for all your offensive gains.
In other words, he's willing to adapt to the personnel he has at hand.
It's Michigan for gods sake.
does anyone think that Hoke is turning the tide of the rivalry? tshirts?
I don't know. I wish I knew eat the hell people believed.
Is the team hasn't really proved anything yet and he has the whole country drinking the juice! If they can start off 7-0 wait to see and hear all the talk!
This is a very thoughtful post about Hoke as a manager. Thanks, mgrowold. Lots of good points. However, I'm tired of hearing about how Hoke is supposedly deficient in his knowledge of football and schemes. How did that idea come about? We really have nothing on which to base it.
My only supposition is that it's the collective compromise to the "we didn't really want Hoke" mindset that originally predominated the board. He said and did (and hired) all the right things after, so we decided he wasn't the greatest at coaching football, to support our original ideas, but he's a master at delegation so we love him and he'll be successful. The other rational I can come up with is his overall head coaching record of 47-50 before Michigan, which may be due to taking years to turn around truly horrible programs.
I think it's quite possible he actually is extremely talented at coaching football and he's wise enough to know to surround himself with the best and trust them to do their jobs. Certainly, he could be both. Again, time will tell all. But I think the idea that he's not a great football mind should die until otherwise brought to life.
I'm very interested to see how he handles the aging of his veteran coordinators. I don't see Mattison coaching more than another 5 or 6 years and I'm very interested to see of we can restart another good coaching tree so transitions are less gut wrenching.
Always something for us faithful fans to worry about and discuss for the future!
I expect this is a coach that can groom or select good choices. He comes off as kind-hearted and genuine brawn, but I'm convinced at this point he's quite the brain, as well.