In support of Brady Hoke - three years and a positive direction
With the tide of negativity right now about Hoke and the program, hopefully we can allow a thread with the alternative point of view - the first three years of the Hoke era have been a success.
Hoke inherited a program that was fractured. Many alums, former coaches and players, boosters, high school coaches, and others felt alienated. In short order, Hoke restored many of these relationships.
The team was a wreck. In the last three games of the 2010 season, we had been embarrassed by Wisconsin, OSU, and Mississippi State by a combined score of 137-49.
Immediately, the program on the field was transformed into something we could take pride in by Hoke. The team went 11-2 with a win over OSU and a BCS bowl victory. We were praising the very coaches many demonize now. Hoke's first full recruiting class was top drawer - a trend that has continued throughout his tenure.
But Hoke's initial success depended largely on the recruits of Lloyd Carr still populating the upper classes. As those players graduated and the remnants of Rich Rod's classes moved into the upper ranks, there was a growing void of talent at the top - exactly where the strength of the team should be in terms of quality and quantity. In this regard, we bottomed out in the 2013 season. The very upper classes were from the RichRod era. We can argue the merits of RichRod as a coach, but what's left in those classes clearly wasn't what we need to compete at the highest levels. In fact, given the void in the upper half of our roster, being competitive and bowl eligible is an accomplishment of sorts.
Depth takes time to build, and the elite classes we continue to bring in will provide that. The trend now will be upward, as the depleted classes graduate and are back filled with new players of the quality and type we need. Replacing the staff now would likely derail the direction toward the type of team to which we are accustomed.
December 30th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 9:11 AM ^
I always feel like recruits are probably reading all the BS attacks on the coaching staff that appear on this board and thinking, "why would I want to be a part of that?"
I just think we do way more damage here than many of us realize.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:52 AM ^
But what we say on mgoblog - this is the key. If we just kept if positive, man would this team be awesome.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^
Tired of watching Michigan get beat up at the line of scrimmage, on both sides of the ball, game after game. It is a good thing Taylor continuously states, "we're Michigan" because watching them I could have sworn it was Delaware. Losing is one thing.. Getting beat up is another.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:41 AM ^
Agreed
December 30th, 2013 at 9:15 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 9:20 AM ^
...stripping away emotion, I'd have to say Hoke has reached his ceiling. He isn't the most articulate coach and I have to question his ability to inspire and lead. I think he has displayed a tendency to defer to position coaches a bit too much -- especially during the games.
The win-loss trend line isn't positive, either. This will detrimentally affect recruiting (and already has).
I'm thinking one more season, then...
December 30th, 2013 at 9:22 AM ^
Sorry, I don't buy it. If Gus Malzahn can take over a program that went 3-9 with zero conference wins and get them to the NCG in his first year, then there's no reason we should be making so many excuses for Hoke.
I don't think Hoke should be fired now, but next year is definitely make-or-break for him. I'm looking for a B1G title or bust, with wins over at least one of MSU and OSU. I no longer give a shit that the schedule is difficult. Hoke needs to find a way to get it done.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 9:44 AM ^
I don't think anyone believes Michigan should have been playing in the NCG this year, but some amount of improvement over last season wouldn't have been too much to expect. Instead, Michigan regressed even more than its record indicated. Last year, Michigan lost to the #1, #3, #4, #8, and #25 teams in the country, all on the road. This year, Michigan struggled to beat two of the worst teams in college football, rushed for negative yardage against a team that allowed Wyoming to rush for 200+, and was consistently manhandled in the trenches. That's not what a well-coached football team does.
Auburn's interior O-line is just as young and inexperienced as Michigan's, yet they found a way gameplan around their weaknesses. They also improved every week. That's what a well-coached football team does.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:52 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:03 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 2:24 PM ^
I'm not sure the 11-2 or 7-6 season is more indicative of his coaching.
That's exactly the issue here. I give Hoke credit for 2011 because he turned around the defense in a way that Rich Rod wouldn't have been capable of doing while maintaining the productivity level of Rich Rod's offense. But the regression is what bothers me. Everything was set up nicely for a B1G title run this year with a favorable schedule and a QB that was a better fit for Borges' preferred offense. Yet Michigan went out and shit the bed, and showed zero improvement week over week (with the exception of the Ohio State game).
If you don't like the Malzahn example, here's one closer to home: in 2011, Michigan State started its B1G season with a patchwork offensive line after a nightmarish string of misfortunes sidelined starters and promising backups. MSU sports writers had hit the panic button. The result? 11 wins, a berth in the conference championship game, and a bowl victory over an SEC team. Good coaches find ways to overcome their personnel issues and win.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:08 AM ^
If you include 5 classes (to account for redshirt seniors):
Malzahn has been with his players 4 years; Hoke 3 years
Auburn's recruiting classes ranked (per Rivals) on average: 10 (range 4-19); Michigan's averaged 12 (range 5--21)
factually, "loaded" recruiting classes at Auburn were only marginally better than Michigan's
But, of course, you will argue that RichRod's classes were over-ranked and not balanced---because it is always RichRod's fault--and it fits your meme.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:36 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
Right now the two weakest areas, IMO, are the O and D lines. Until those two areas become strengths, this cannot be a great team.
I am and have been in support of Hoke throughout this bad season but 2014 has to be a year that shows improvement and trending in the right direction.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:35 AM ^
I've really lost confidence in Hoke. Does anyone really think we're going to be better next year? I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it. I seem to remember reading the interview with the OSU blogger who basically said that if Borges was at OSU he would have been canned immediately after the season if not earlier. Hoke's support for an OC who has brought us so low is inexplicable. I am definitely not optimistic.
December 30th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
I really do think Michigan will be better next year . Unless you consider Hoke's first two seasons as Michigan HC flukes, I see no reason not to expect the team to be better next year.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^
I really do think Michigan will be better next year. Unless you consider Hoke's first two seasons as flukes, I see no reason not to expect the team to be better next year.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
I'm one of those who's in Hoke's Corner. I really want him to get two more years minimum, and feel the same way about most of his staff.
This year has been very painful, but I continue to believe the team is heading in the right direction.
I have a lot more confidence in the recruiting, the state of the physical facilities, and most of the coaching staff.
Ideally, the whole staff stays, with the caveat that obviously, DB & Hoke would see some things internally that I don't have a clue about. Perhaps a few of the position coaches change, but not most of them.
December 30th, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^
But I don't see anything here except hope. You want the whole staff to stay intact? Ideally? Based on what? What did you see in the past two years that gives you any confidence or belief in Hoke or this staff?
Maybe you've covered this in many other posts and don't feel the necessity to repeat yourself. I'm just saying that looking at what you posted here, I don't see a lot to go on. I have lost a lot of confidence. The staff, just based on appearances, looks befuddled on gameday. And the team, based on what is evident to the naked eye, looks like crap. Linemen still don't know who to block, the running back system was mystifying all season long, young, highly touted guys (with the exception of Butt) don't seem to get integrated into the system and are we get almost no instant contributors (while other programs seem to have multiple first year players that can somehow perform competently on the field), the defense looks confused and out of position and regularly displays terrible technique.
I get that the team is young, but shouldn't a young team at least have shown some signs of getting it by season's end? Looking at the offense, the Ohio State game seems to be an aberration against a defense with a profoundly lousy secondary.
I just want to understand why this adds up to your belief that we are heading in the right direction.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^
Although this isn't Thanksgiving season, one of the things I am thankful for is mgoblog, and the mgoblog community. It and they feed the addiction that is Michigan football.
That said, the issue isn't whether Richrod should have been given another year, or whether Brady shoudl be canned. Brady should be indeed given another year for a multitude of reasons that others have stated ad nauseum. What the concern should be, is ARE WE GETTING BETTER? Anyone that answers yes to that question is delusional. The concern is that Brady will suffer the same affliction that plagued a predecessor, namely Carr-itis. Carr-itis is manifested by hiring assistant coaches who aren't up to the task of producing top shelf teams. And hanging onto them like grim death in the face of mountaints of evidence they should be replaced. Face it folks. Its ALL about coaching, and while coaching includes many components, not the least of which is recruiting, even a casual observer needs to wonder if Brady and crew are up to the task after this past season. ManBall? Please! Running game=Sucks. Special teams, other than a run by Gibbons=Sucks. Ability of defense when it NEEDS to make a stop=Sucks.
This year the excuses were inexperienced offensive line. Candidate for next year's excuses.............Inexperienced Off Tackles.......if Shane is QB, inexperienced QB, inexperienced wide receivers.........inexperienced DLine.........and God forbid the injury bug bites us hard. Of course, there is the old reliable 'Execution'.
I've said it before. If the assistant coaches were working in the private sector, heads would be rolling. Instead, its bunker mentality and business as usual. That can be tolerated one more year, and then some hard decisions will have to be made, and at a minimum, a least a few heads have to roll.
December 30th, 2013 at 11:45 AM ^
I think everyone, myself in particular, is going to benefit from some time off from Michigan football. It's been an exceedingly frustrating season that I am happy to see past into history.
That being said, however, I urge all my fellow Michigan Men and Women to try to take a look back at where Michigan football was just a few years ago, understand that transitions are difficult, and try to realize that maybe, just maybe, the distance that Michigan had to "make up" was more significant than what the fanbase believed.
I say this because I believe with every ounce of my Maize and Blue soul that Michigan's football program was an absolute SHELL of it's former even BEFORE the RR years. Although RR did some good things -- Denard, DG, Ryan, Lewan, etc. -- his tenure didn't advance the program much, and with regards to OL recruiting in particular, probably set it back rather significantly. If we thought that the hole was only 20 ft. deep when we starting trying to climb out of it, but then realized that it was 200 ft. deep, we're bound to be frustrated.
I know many of you don't believe that the hole is 200 ft. deep, that Hoke & Co. are in over their collective heads, and that Michigan will never "come back" with them at the helm. Although nobody can say for certain what will happen, I think the long-term success of the program DEMANDS stability at this point, even if it does turn out that Hoke & Co. are not the guys to lead us back completely. Coaching changes are very traumatic, and although I don't have the stats to back this up, my hunch is that coaching changes are just as likely to produce failure as they are success.
Just chill, let things shake out. I believe in coach Hoke, and I believe that 2013 was ALWAYS going to be the trough in which the personnel issues festering behind the scenes (i.e., the recruiting cycle) came to a head and bit Michigan in the ass. It WILL get better my friends. These young kids won't be young next year and going forward. CFB is repleat with examples of teams that make HUGE leaps from year to year. Give the coaches an opportunity to do what they know how to do. Save yourselves the heartache and just be patient and observe. If they don't work out, so be it, but at least they'll be passing on a "normal" roster, not one with a 25 scholarship deficit to the next coaching staff.
Happy New Year, and as always, GO BLUE!
December 30th, 2013 at 11:53 AM ^
I was one who strongly felt that RR deserved to be fired (despite being happy with his hire) and was also very happy with Hoke's hire (after his initial press conference). So, here's my two cents...
Hoke's teams have disappointed me, but mostly in that they've failed to run the type of offense that they promised. Why did Green only get 1 carry in the bowl game? Why was Hayes suddenly starting? Why did...eh, you get the point. I don't think, however, that means Hoke is the problem. A month ago, I wouldn't have even said Borges was the/a problem, but...yeah, dude needs to go.
As to the difference between RR and Hoke...RR's defense got worse each season, his recruiting was tanking and his own players/commits fled the program. When you don't have enough lineman to play a game; you've got a problem (that no coach would be able to avoid). Hoke's offense similarly got worse, and as the skipper, that's his fault (something he accepts, unlike his predecessor). So then we get to development. Lots of complaints about how players didn't develop...
Normally, we'd be talking about juniors and seniors developing, but we don't really have many of those. Did the O-line develop? How many times was Shane sacked? He seemed nicely protected to me (though a traditional running attack would have be nice to at least TRY). Did Devin develop? Well, he threw 10 picks in his first 6 games and then just 1 pick in his last 6 (when we faced stronger defenses). Is that not improvement?
I'm eager to see how the team does next season though I hope we do it without Borges. I want to see a power offense and attacking D. As the lines grow/mature, I expect to see it, but I'm only down on Hoke to the extent that he isn't even running the offense he promised.
December 30th, 2013 at 5:10 PM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^
"Three years and a positive direction"?
I do not think that means what you think it means.
All Brady Hoke has proven in three years at Michigan is that he can win with Rich Rodriguez's recruits...and get all the credit for doing so from the AD.
The only difference that matters between RichRod's third year and Hoke's third year is that at 7-6, RichRod's teams were showing improvement (albeit slower than most of us would have hoped), while at 7-6 Hoke's teams are the epitome of diminishing returns...the more Hoke has to rely on "his" players, the worse the results are on the field. The Bill Parcells adage "You are what your record says you are" is the ultimate evidence of exactly what we are.
I support the University of Michigan and all the institution represents. It hasn't represented mediocrity in the athletic field (certainly not on the football field) since I was in diapers, but that it what it has been allowed to become, and I really don't see Coach Hoke as being The One to reverse that trend. I don't deny that he's a nice guy who loves Michigan. Hell, I'M a nice guy who loves Michigan, but I don't see that as being the ultimate qualifier as to why I should be its head football coach anymore than it was with Hoke.
Brian was correct in his original assessment; Hoke was a crony hire with ties to the program from its "glory days" of the Lllloyd Carr era that the AD knew could be had for less than market rates. He may have been, in the correct era, a good hire. His integrity is unquestioned, his loyalty second to none, and his ability to attract first tier talent are all qualities that were admired in Carr. But Hoke isn't a 21st Century coach any more than Carr was, and we're paying the price for that.
I agree with the previous user post saying that we're in danger of becoming Notre Dame if we fall into the trap of keeping the wrong coach for too long in order to make up for firing the previous coach too soon...that is all that firing Hoke at this point would accomplish, so in that regard I suppose you could say that I "support" him...but unless we show a quantum leap in 2014 from what we've seen trending from the second half of the Ohio State game in 2012 to now, I have to hope that AD Brandin' has learned from his mistakes and has a plan to hire "the best coach" and not "the coach who loves Michigan the most". Because we won't need to see what Hoke can offer for a fifth year if his fourth year results in a record within a game of this year's...a game better is 2012, and a game worse means that we couldn't take advantage of a schedule that most of the MGoFaithful on this board perceive as being equal to or weaker than what was played in 2013.
Bottom line...if three years of steady improvement resulting from the complete rebuilding of the program was sufficient to let one coach go, four years of decreasing results leading to stagnation should be sufficient to let another one go. And I really hope the mistakes made from 2008 to now are not repeated...the older I get, the less I have emotionally invested in sports of any kind, but it's sure a helluva lot nicer knowing that Saturday afternoons can be looked forward to with expectations that can be realized rather than wishes we know damn well aren't anywhere closer to being fulfilled than they were since App. State in 2007.
December 30th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
I respect what you've written above. However, I think it should be pointed out that "improvement" is relative and has a significant age bias. Meaning, the improvement that young players show doesn't translate to on-field performance as dramatically as older players, yet that doesn't mean they're not improving. That is the issue with having a very young team, which Michigan most certainly does. Typically, huge jumps are made between a player's first year starting (or getting significant playing time) and their second year doing so. We had a lot of very young and inexperienced guys playing this year. It's stands to reason that 2014 will see significant jumps from players all over the field.
This meme of, "RR's teams were improving" I think is revisionist history. Similarly, the idea that Hoke's teams are regressing is spurious as well. The overall record is one measure, and perhaps the only measure that matters, but there are so many other factors to look at. The problem with RR, as I said above, is that although he did some good things, he made some very important things WORSE. I agree that we've not seen as much improvement as we'd all like in some areas, but I don't think there is any area where things have gotten WORSE. Sure, point at the OL, but that is 100% expected and related to the recruiting cycle that broken down under RR.
Improvement will come.
December 30th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
given the near complete absence of recruiting across the O-line and the complete lack of focus on the defensive side of the ball.... Whether RR was given appropriate support has been debated a little bit around here, but it really doesn't matter. He wasn't taking us where we want to go, then Groban happened and the deal was sealed as it were.
Hoke's teams will be good. The O-line will eventually form holes through which good backs will run and will protect Gardner or Morris or Speight. They will throw good balls to Darboh or Harris or Funchess or Butt. The defense, led by juniors and seniors across the front 7 will apply pressure to quarterbacks sans blitzing. The lineman will command double teams allowing LBs to run unimpeded to ball carriers. We will then be able to stop offenses when games are on the line.
We had a shitty year after high hopes following the ND game. Other good coaches have had shitty years. Now is the time for patience and to appreciate that the season is over..
December 30th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
If I want the ridiculous expectation of winning all games by 50 points, going undefeated and signing a top 5 class yearly I'll play NCAA 14 and well I have been. It's fun. I agree this isn't what we're happy with but I think we all should have expected massive OL issues. OMG we went 11-2 so lets think the fact we have no elite linemen on either side of the ball, or experienced game ready, upper classman players doesn't matter. Wait, it still does.
December 30th, 2013 at 6:59 PM ^
December 30th, 2013 at 8:32 PM ^
"...there's really no indication that this [improvement] will be the case based on the body of evidence on hand so far."
This is the #1 spurious argument presented in here, and it is presented by people who have the LEAST capacity to make such an assessment. So much of what goes on in the improvement in players goes totally unseen by fans. HUGE leaps happen every year, but when you ask the coaches who facilitate those leaps they almost always say their not surprised, that they saw it coming on, it was just a matter of time before it showed up in games.
December 30th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^
depressing...
He gets 1 more year to prove something, anything, whatever but then he is gone if we lose 4 games.
December 30th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
Glad you're not making the decisions.
December 31st, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
I agree, that was a dumb comment by me..I am just pissed at all this like we all are, but you have to agree dont you?
I feel like its 9-3 or better to keep his job, no?
December 31st, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^
I understand the frustration of 2013, but fans just get too caught up in having to win x number of games, have to beat certain teams, etc. But I think it is fair to expect us to start trending up again.
December 30th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
It was set up. It would have taken the ball off of Gardner's broken toe, it would have provided more than one option, and it was set up perfectly. Except we decided to run a precision route with pro qb timing required inside the five. Oomph. I would feel much different about the staff had this happened.
December 30th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^
It was his last "Hahah, FU fans, I'll still be around next year and you'll forget how badly we were owned a few years from now when you look at the score" moment for 2013. He's got a few more lined for 2014, stay tuned!
December 30th, 2013 at 9:01 PM ^
Im not a Hoke fan, never have been. I believe he has one final year to prove himself (not much faith in that though) and if we have another year with 7 or less wins then the door needs to hit him in the ass all the way back to the west coast.
I find humor in the fact that Rich Rod had 7 wins in his third year and was fired. RR had maybe the worst team in Michigan history his first year...Nick Sheridan was our starting quarterback for Gods sakes. Anyway, lets just right the ship already.
December 30th, 2013 at 9:20 PM ^
It's maybe worth remembering that Nick Sheridan was the starter by choice, not because he was the only option available. RR chose the walk-on over a four-star because he felt the walk-on had a better understanding of the offense he wanted to implement. (There was also the option of trying to retain an experienced five-star at the position, but there were issues there we don't need to rehash and it's quite possible that wouldn't have been a viable option under any circumstances.)
I'm not necessarily saying that was the wrong choice, but it was a transition cost more than it was a direct sign of lack of available talent. Without the change in offensive philosophy, Sheridan would never have been considered an option as a starter.
December 31st, 2013 at 11:13 AM ^
D. Brandon not mesh well with RRod? I thought that played a big part in his departure.
January 1st, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
As I recall the main criteria used in firing RR was that he wasn't winning enough against our rivals. With that in mind Hoke is not doing much better.
Against Notre Dame, MSU and OSU:
RR: 2-7
Hoke: 4-5
Fact is RR had a shorter leash due to not being DB's hire, NCAA penalties and divided support. Hoke does not have the first 2 going against him and for the most part has support of the fan base and full support of the AD. All that being the case he does deserve more time to show what he can do.
For the good of the program I don't think it's a good idea to fire Hoke (of course) or Borges. Being a premier program they cannot afford to look like they fire coaches quickly or it will lead to uneasiness with recruits and a reputation for changing coaches quickly will develop. We want to be known as a place where recruits can come and expect to play most of or all of their college career under the same coach, it's program stability.
IMO, give Borges another year and Hoke another 2 years. If any changes can be made this year let it be with position coaches. I'd also be hesitant to fire Funk as stability for that position group is needed as well. If he truly is a bad coach then yes let him go. If not give him another year as well to see if these young guys can progress.
January 1st, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^
The difference being RichRod inherited a solid program, decimated it, and now Hoke is rebuilding it.
January 2nd, 2014 at 12:27 AM ^
I agree with you that Hoke deserves one more year, but thats it! What I worry about is the fact that this offense is full of weapons but needs the Oline to hold up to be able to execute. The key to next season is if Hoke's recruits, who are getting older, start filly the roles we need. I, like most people, loved the coaching staff after the first season, but the thing that troubles me is that at times it seemed like Hoke and his staff lost control of the team this season. Like in the Iowa game when they didnt show up for the second half, or how the defense just folded like a cheap tent against OSU, Penn state, and Kstate.