This thread is not 200 long yet; continue arguing here

Submitted by M-Wolverine on
Every thread not matter the subject ends up being the same thing. At least you don't have to scroll through miles to get through this one.

Come on...you know you want to.

I'll start: Glen Steele likes Brady Hoke more than you do-

"Coach Hoke has a defensive mind-set, he's a defensive guy, and he loves to coach — he loves what he's doing and being around the guys," said Glen Steele, a defensive end on Carr's 1997 national championship team, which had Hoke as its defensive line coach.
"I'm a huge supporter of Coach Hoke. When you're looking for someone to come in and address where this team is and where it could be, I don't think there's any better guy."

"It's hard to characterize him because he's such an overall good guy," Steele said. "But he knows when to kick it up, and he also knows when to say to a player: 'Hey, we've got to re-focus and get this done.'
"With coaches, there's always a point where screaming and yelling and getting guys fired up is important, and then there's the time when you say: 'Hey, we're all in this together and we've gotta pick it up.' With a coach like him, you don't have to throw fuel on the fire. Players wantto play for him."

(From the dreaded Henning article that Brian linked from the DetNews)

Don't feel you have to talk about Hoke. Open CC/Brandon/everything ever other thread is.

Anyone subjecting themselves to the GoDaddy.com Bowl with (nt)Miami and MTS?

M-Wolverine

January 6th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^

Into winners when he was coaching them? Because he's never been fired? Because people who actually know something about football disagree? You can say he's not good enough for the Michigan job. But to say he's not a good coach isn't really in evidence.

AAB

January 6th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

When he took over Ball State he went 4-8, 2-9, 4-7, 5-7, 7-6 in his first 5 years. How is that turning a program around? Ball State was 6-6 the year before Hoke took over!  The program was worse in his first 5 years than it was the year before he got there. 

And then he had one bad year at SDSU, and then one decent year where he beat a bunch of 3-9 teams, Air Force and Navy. 

To say he is a good coach is to hang your hat entirely one season out of 8.

M-Wolverine

January 6th, 2011 at 10:20 PM ^

When the previous one said "we don't even know if he's a GOOD coach". But wisely edited.
<br>
<br>Which I needed to do to change "dicky" back to "sucky". (autocorrect liked "duchy" this time)

M-Wolverine

January 6th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

In the time it took to post it, like 7 others popped up in between it. The last one just happen to be yours, so it looked like I had replied to that (a different post) because they're all in one column after bring pushed over in the App.

FreddieMercuryHayes

January 6th, 2011 at 10:13 PM ^

I would say the worry is his quoted inflexability on offense.  I know RR got a lot of heat for not being flexible with the change, but he had one returning starter when he took over.  The new coach will be inhearting 10 returning starters if you count the presumed Hygue/Dorrenstein takeover at tackle.  And when one of the returners in the Big Ten offensive player of the year, inflexability with these skills will spell disaster.

dennisblundon

January 6th, 2011 at 10:07 PM ^

Exactly. That is why it is go big or go home. We need a big name coach who can come in here and catch the recruits eye. Perception is everything and we need to look like a program that is on the up and up. The Hoke hire to me screams status quo and will not win many recruits over even if it gives a couple of 70 year old men a boner because we hired a true Michigan man.

sarto1g

January 6th, 2011 at 10:02 PM ^

fuck no.  i dont care who the coach is as long as denard stays on board and i feel hoke would be the guy to let him slip through his fingers.  then, when we're 6-6 and 7-5, people crucify hoke and DB for letting denard go.  Plus he thinks the spread is "counter-productive".  FUCK THAT SHIT.

/michiganfanonjan6

NOLA Wolverine

January 6th, 2011 at 9:55 PM ^

Not that I watched College Football Live today or anything.... but I really want our defense to be based around Mike Martin. This years scheme used him as a crutch, trying to force double teams on him in hopes of compensating for lack of play makers. I would rather make him a huge factor by getting him one on one. I really think that after a year our corners can hold up a lot better by being moved near the line and in theory less time chasing the receivers. I think we can generate a good pass rush with Roh off the edge and Martin one on one, and that would go a long way towards getting Robinson settled in at the deep safety and helping our corners mature. Who can do that? I have no idea, this thread was just vague enough to throw that in there. 

Pea-Tear Gryphon

January 6th, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^

This would allow MM to get more single blocking. They just need a space-eating 1-tech DT to absorb some C/G combos. MM would have the other guard, with the tackles having to deal with Roh and RVB on the edges. I can see MM having a Suh-like impact in the middle. This would help our LB's not eat OG's and our secondary by getting pressure on the QB.

Now, where's that 300lb space-eating 1-tech DT...

AMazinBlue

January 6th, 2011 at 9:56 PM ^

big boy football teams, his record is OK.  His record the last couple of years reminds one of RR in that he has been impressive the last two years, but against weak competition.  I fear a repeat of the last three years and we end up here again.  And this, there are rumors he wants to hire his brother as a coordinator or at least an assistant.  That is a deal breaker and epic fail.  That is equivalent to RR and Tony Gibson.   RR would never fire him because of their friendship.  Hoke would never fire his own brother.  SCARY.

Taking JH out of the mix, leaves me ...empty.  MIles is crazy, Patterson would never leave TCU now that he is in a AQ conference, Peterson would do the post-Boise fail.  I just can't look, wake me when Spring practice starts.

AAB

January 6th, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^

and SDSU went 9-4 with its most impressive win over Air Force.

At WVU, in a conference that was still probably stronger top to bottom than the MWC was this year, RR went 9-4, 8-5, 8-4, 11-1, 11-2 and 10-2 with wins over Georgia, Va Tech, Oklahoma, and ranked Pitt, Louisville, Georgia Tech and Rutgers teams. 

Eye of the Tiger

January 6th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^

For not fetishizing recent success in a wobbly conference.  

Rodriguez looked like a great hire back in 2007.  But we know now that a good portion of the credit for WVU's success goes to Jeff Casteel, and some to the weakness of the Big East.  So we should learn from that and not give the head coach candidates all the credit when a good portion probably should go to the coordinator on the other side of the ball, or think that just because so-and-so did a great job there, he'll do one here too.

I think we should prioritize someone who can build the right staff to use what we have and improve what we don't.  

AAB

January 6th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^

he didn't just look like a good hire.  He was probably the best hire Michigan could have made at that point in time given who was available.

And it didn't work out.  Which sucks.  Shit happens, and a coaching hire isn't a guarantee, it's just a probability of future success. 

Eye of the Tiger

January 7th, 2011 at 6:07 AM ^

Bit semantic there. My point was, like yours, that you never know who's going to work out because you don't know the variables yet. He was an exciting and reasonable hire, but great?

His record suggested he'd have the same success at Michigan as at WVU, but he couldn't build a defense in 3 years (even an average one), whereas WVU had above-average defenses. That suggests his success at WVU had as much to do with Casteel as RR's offenses. Hindsight is 20-20 and we now know, without Casteel (who almost came, for the record), he wasn't the guy to produce 10 wins in the 3rd year.

Yes there were lots of things out of his control, but he also only won 5 games/season. The guy before him won 9+. So, in retrospect, he wasn't a great hire. A great hire would have won more. Simple as.