Update thoughts on Hoke - Any people change opinions?
Morning all! If anyone was like me, you were somewhat dumbfounded by the Hoke hire the associated process behind it. There were certainly a lot of passionate emotions expressed - some good, mostly bad. But now that we are are almost 2 months into the Hoke regime and have had some time to assess the hire more objectively and with saner minds, have any of you who thought once thought the Hoke hire was a bad now think otherwise? And why?
Me? Well, I still think this was not a great hire that was mitigated partially by a top-notch DC. Reasons are as follows:
1. The whole "turned BSU and SDSU around" meme. I still don't get this. Taking a bad a team and putting together one good season before leaving doesn't really prove that he can turn a program around. Doesn't mean he can't do it here, but doing so in the MAC and Mountain West doesn't really give me hope that he can do this in the big ten.
2. Denard. One of the best athletes in the game, but he is a very niche QB that needs a certain coach to extract that QB talent. The new staff is not it, which is fine, because I think Denard will switch positions by time he graduates, making room for someone more abt for a traditional offense. IMO, Denard's Heisman days are done.
3. Recruiting. It seems Hoke wants to concentrate on the midwest, which scares me. Save Ohio, the midwest is a good, not great nest of football talent. The vast majority of great football players come from the South and West. This is where we need to be.
4. Hoke's introductory press conference. Am I the only one who was not impressed? I love his passion, but he was very unpolished and amateur. I get the feeling he going to say some VERY bone-headed comments when under pressure during a press conference.
Overall, Hoke's intangible's are immense, but I think there is very little tangible aspects to hold on to. He is the coach of my favorite team and he has my full support, but I just don't see hime getting it done here. I predict that the defense will improve, the offense will regress, and we will see what we did for most of the 2000s with LC. He will beat OSU once and MSU twice in 5 years and out the door after 2016. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but with Hoke's less than stellar coaching resume, hope is all I got.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^
Why is it meaningless? I think that scoring means a lot in football. Hard to win if you don't score points, no? Should I look to turnovers lost (where our offense was 106 out of 120)? Red zone offense (where we were #82)? C'mon man...you can't just ignore all the stats that you don't like!
Many here have attacked Hoke's offense as "outdated" or "Lloyd (the National Championship winner) Ball", but facts show that it actually sored more points than the razzle dazzle super amazing spread option attack of wonderfulness. Even ignoring how it compared to our offense's scoring output, why not just take comfort in the fact that our new coach oversaw a pretty potent offense and that statistics back that up?
February 25th, 2011 at 5:07 PM ^
In response to why the scoring offense stat is meaningless when referring to how good an offense is...
/steps on soapbox
Because it doesn't factor in the other side of the ball, since better defense and special teams play give the offense better field position with which to, you know, score points. OTOH, Michigan was 9th in total offense last year with a tougher overall schedule than SDSU and no luxury of a 1000-yard rusher (besides the quarterback). Yes, good field position will reduce the number of yards that an offense can gain, but a diary on this board concluded that offensive efficiency (likelihood of moving the ball forward for a given team) is independent of starting field position. Thus, being able to move the ball lots with worse field position is a better metric of offensive performance, giving Michigan a better offense than SDSU's last year.
If Hoke and gang do what we'd like and coach up the defense/special teams to allow fewer points and give the offense better field position, scoring offense will improve even if offensive efficiency decreases. This would make the above analysis moot, since scoring offense is more important than offensive efficiency. However...
STOP CITING SCORING OFFENSE AS THE BE-ALL END-ALL OFFENSIVE STAT!!!!!
/gets off soapbox
Having to do this twice in a single day--in the same board post nonetheless 2 COMMENTS AWAY FROM EACHOTHER--is kinda sad. Although I must say, the second time is much easier.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I thought he was a joke of a candidate. Now, however, after talking with a few guys who played for him at Toledo and at Michigan, as well as living near Kettering, where he grew up and hearing people there talk about him, I have changed my opinion of him greatly. Obviously, we all are waiting to see how his intensity, etc. translates to game day, but I like what he has done so far. And he seems like a real likeable guy.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:35 AM ^
I'm warming up to Hoke, and am happy for him that he landed his dream job. The Lloyd-lovers who proclaimed RR a hick because he didn't quote 18th century poets certainly can't claim total victory with this hire though. I'm over the CC but I won't forget what the Lloyd-lovers did (behind the scenes) to force this "Michigan Man" hire on DB. I'm very thankful that the CC dragged on long enough to make the timing easier to hire Mattison - that will be the underlying reason for Hoke's success IMO.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
I was not crazy about the Hoke hire, but he has done everything right in the two months he has been on board. Mattison was a huge hire for him and we will see a defense this fall that will be fundamentally light years ahead of the RR defenses. Hoke is our coach and I support him 100%.....however, I too, am still disheartened by the anti-RR faction that developed. People were too quick to forget that RR was brought in to change the system of the past 30 years. Whill RR did not do himself many favors, I will always wonder what year 4 would have brought.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
I was totally pissed when he was hired. I love his love for the university, but he his credential are meh at best. If he didn't have the Michigan ties he never would have been in the conversation for the job.
Poaching Mattison was huge. Beyond anything I could have imagined. Given his reputation and recruiting prowess, this was an unreal pick up. Our defense could be SEC worthy withing a couple of years, and by that I mean huge lineman that can run, along with big corners and safeties that can press cover and hit.
As an ambassador of the university, Hoke is clearly in over his head, like when Tommy Callahan (Tommy Boy) had to take over his father's company. Hopefully he can grow into the role as successfully as what took place in a fictional Hollywood movie.
The team will definitely get better on the defensive side, and go back to traditional big ten man ball, but we won't progress to national elite status. Lloyd circa 2000 is what I expect as well. Competitive in the Big Ten, but not an annual threat at a national title like Bama, Texas, OSU, Florida, etc.
Prediction: A bunch of 8-4 and 9-3 seasons, sprinkled in with the occasional 11-1 or 6-6 affair. Harbaugh fails miserably with the 49ers over the next 4 years, and after Hoke's worst season in Ann Arbor (one where he has a bunch of young players on the field like one Richard Rodriguez) the prodigal son returns home to build a college empire.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
As an ambassador of the university, Hoke is clearly in over his head, like when Tommy Callahan (Tommy Boy) had to take over his father's company. Hopefully he can grow into the role as successfully as what took place in a fictional Hollywood movie.
I don't quite get this comment. How is he in over his head. He seems to be making the right moves so far. Of course, there is no football record yet to be looked at.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
that RR was a hillbilly and didn't sound smart when he talked. Some people want a person properly schooled in how to give a speech. I want a football coach.
February 25th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
How is Brady Hoke "in over his head" as an ambassador for the University of Michigan?
February 25th, 2011 at 10:40 AM ^
1) you can't argue with the progress he made at both BSU and SDSU. Those are 2 vastly different places that are historically difficult to win at. Imagine taking EMU to 11-0 in 3-4 years.
2) Denard is a QB. that is all
3) there is plenty of MW talent. he will continue to recuit nationally. where he gets talent from is not a concern, so long as he can start competing with OSU and ND for top players.
4) who gives a shit about PCs? it's just rhetoric that doesn't hold any meaning compared to results on the field and recruiting. i do kind of wish he'd stop with the "TSIO" crap, it just bugs me.
5) i'd love for you to explain how you measured his intangibles to be immense.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
To Number 1 all I can say is that he took a .500 team and had losing seasons for 5 years before he finally had a 7-6 team. How is that turning a team around?
The verdict is still out on his Michigan tenure obviously but lets not act like this guy is a savior of wayward programs, that is pure fantasy.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^
February 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^
I wasn't (and still am not) awed by Hoke's record prior to Michigan. After learning a bit more, seeing the opinions of others who know more than I (players, coaches, administrators), I began to like him. After the press conference, I really liked the guy. As far as wins against teams with winning records...I'm not sure that the RR supporters want to go there (given that he was 0 for all-of-them against Big Ten opponents).
February 25th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
(given that he was 0 for all-of-them against Big Ten opponents)
but it's false. just letting you know.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:54 AM ^
February 25th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
Pretty sure you are wrong. Rodriguez had exactly 5 wins over teams with winning records while in Ann Arbor:
- 2010 UConn
- 2010 Notre Dame
- 2010 Illinois
- 2008 Wisconsin
- 2008 Minnesota
Going back to '08, Hoke had the following wins over teams with winning records:
- 2010 Air Force
- 2010 Navy
- 2008 Navy
- 2008 Central Michigan
- 2008 Western Michigan
I didn't go back further than that.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:14 PM ^
2010 Illinois was 4-4 (not a winning record)
2008 Wisconsin was 3-5 (not a winning record)
2008 Minnesota was 3-5 (again, not a winning record)
UConn and Notre Dame are not Big Ten teams.
So, unless someone can find a BigTen team with a winning conference record that we beat at any time during the RR era, then I'll stick with my factual statement - RR did not beat a single Big Ten team with a winning conference record.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
This is not your original post. You said 0-for-all against teams with winning records; THIS is what they're disproving.
Edit: Big Ten teams. Point still stands.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
Once again...get over it. My point was imprecise (but evident) the first time I said it. It couldn't have been more clear in subsequent statements. You, on the other hand, have made up things, created assumed data points and posted super weak photos. Feel free to state why it's acceptable for a coach to go three years without beating a single BigTen team with a winning in-conference record. Of course, your boy was awesome against FCS UMass (oh wait, he wasn't), BGSU and Delaware St!
February 25th, 2011 at 5:48 PM ^
February 25th, 2011 at 8:16 PM ^
And I suppose under this metric, SDSU and BSU = Michigan, right? Because they are totally the same situation, with the same talent, resources, etc. How else would you do a direct comparison between the two coaches using averages? Actually, why are you using averages in the first place?
February 25th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^
Because RR coached at UM for 3 years and Brady Hoke has coached for 8 years. If you would like, I can use Hoke's first 3 years at Ball State if you'd like (since that is the only place he has ever coached for at least 3 years).
February 25th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't believe RR beat any Big Ten teams with winning (in conference) records. That would be 0-for-all. If I'm wrong...my bad...but let me know which winning team he did beat.
February 25th, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^
You didn't specify winning in-conference records when mentioning the 0-for-all stat.
On a side note, this argument by itself is very weak since it doesn't set a standard for how many Big Ten teams RR should have beat that ended the season with winning in-conference records. Your next step is to find other Big Ten teams that finished with 7 wins or less in the last 3 years and find their records against Big Ten teams with winning in-conference records. (why 7? This was the predicted win level for RR in the last 3 years every year, with 2008 being waay overoptimistic and the last 2 years being just about right.) This will tell the RR supporters how many wins RR should have gotten against the OSUs, the 2010 MSUs, the IUs, and the PSUs in the last 3 years. Until you set this standard, allow me to give you my blanket response:
February 25th, 2011 at 6:34 PM ^
Dude...what gives? Dumb photos, made up data? I don't get it.
I wasn't clear in my initial comment, but the points were there:
As far as wins against teams with winning records...I'm not sure that the RR supporters want to go there (given that he was 0 for all-of-them against Big Ten opponents).
"Teams with winning records" and "0 for all-of-them against Big Ten opponents". I was more precise in subsequent comments which you still found fault with. So, no need to tell me what I should "start with". Maybe you should start with finding a BigTen coach for a top half program (Michigan, OSU, Wisc, PSU, Iowa) that kept a coach who failed to beat a single IN-CONFERENCE WINNING TEAM (sorry, I know how you need clarity) over three seasons. Not one win. Zero.
February 27th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
To be continued next week, when another Hoke vs RR board topic explodes and the same old topics get rehashed once again.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
Gary Moeller had a total of three conference victories over the three seasons he coached at Illinois.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^
I think you make some interesting points. All the points are wait and see, and would love to see you bring this up after the first season is over and we all can re-assess.
Point 1 may take a couple of years. Point 2 should come this year, which will be interesting. Point 3 is one I disagree with you on. I think he has to say things to make people happy initially. He has to solidify his base. I think we have seen lots of offers for Cali guys. I just hope we can keep on recruiting Florida, love that about RR. This is a banner year for the midwest in terms of recruits.
Point 4 is where I sort of disagree. He isn't an amateur. He has been around coaching for a long time and head coach for the last 7 years or so. I think he knows what he needs to do. I know a lot of people who like to talk simply and seem not as sophisticated. But being not sophisticated, doesn't mean you don't know what to do. I think he loves to be underestimated and the underdog, which is why he is attacking Ohio in recruiting and offering all the top players. Hiring Borges and Mattison were not amateur moves.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^
Too early for any conclusions on Hoke and new staff. How about sometime in September after we play a few games to see how things go? All speculation right now that can only be based on how you care to characterize Hoke's previous experience as a head coach. A little patience until spring practice at least.....
February 25th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^
We can all debate if it was a good hire or not, but the calender says February and they have not even played a game yet. Also, it sounds like Windycityblue and others wanted a combination of Bill Cowher as head coach, Jon Gruden as OC and Rex Ryan as DC. Then they would be happy!
First tell me any current coach in the Big Ten right now, that had some great resume before they were hired that would tell you that he is going to be a success? Also, taking a program that did not have winning season since 1998 and taking them to nine wins in 2 years does not impress you?
As for Denard, you must of been one of the same people last year that said they should move him to a slot guy after one season. The kid has started one year! I repeat one year! Borges has stated that he is going to use his talents and I would hope Denard would improve on his passing, etc. The program is bigger than one guy.
As for Hoke's press conference, what did you want? Maybe they should have just hired Bill Clinton who could B.S. all day long. The press conference was great and so was Hoke's passion for Michigan.
With recruiting, they are plenty of great players in the Midwest, how is Ohio St. doing these days with mostly players from Ohio? I think Hoke knows that he needs to reach out to other states for players and did so by getting 2 guys from Texas at the last second.
Last thought, go root for another team! I am so tired of these so-called fans that if they don't hire Vince Lombardi, they rip on the new coach before he has even coached a game. Maybe you should coach, you seem like your smarter than Hoke and know more about football them him.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:53 AM ^
What are we judging him on at this point, a press conference? This is the same kind of knee jerk reaction by our fan base that was the demise of RR. Support the team and lets see some results on the field before we rate Hoke. If you can't wait until the season, at least wait until spring ball.
Hoke was a good hire for one reason, he brings stability to the program. RR was recruiting for 3 years with one hand tied behind his back. The media and fan base were calling for his head from day one which allowed other programs to paint RR in a bad light. In short we were negatively recruiting against ourselves. At least Hoke can look a recruit in the eye and say he will be there to see him graduate. That in itself is priceless.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
At least this blog serves as a rest home for the terminally heartbroken! Get over it. You even rip Hoke's press conference skills?!?!?!? And how was RR to you with all that ("even Lombardi couldn't win with this team", "at least we're fun to watch", etc.)??? We're never had such a flub prone speaker before. I love your last line, "Hope is all I've got". Really...? And what kept you believing that RR was going to turn that corner? Oh yeah, hope.
It's time to stop being upset that RR is gone. It's time to stop being upset that Hoke is the new coach. If you want to reserve judgement...that's totally fair, but enough of the dumping on Hoke. Let's look at what's he's done so far:
-Salvaged a top-25 recruiting class (when the haters said he wouldn't even get 12 commits)
-Successfully re-recruited the entire team (when the haters said we'd lose our best talent)
-Hired a top notch DC regarded as the best recruiter in the nation (Urban Meyer standard).
-Is offering top level talent rather than digging for diamonds in the rough.
-United most (Mgoblog excluded) of the Michigan family.
-Immediately brought a positive light back to the program.
In the end, he'll be judged on his record (just as was RR). In the meantime, I'm not sure how anyone can be bothered with his performance thus far. So, if you're still hiding in a bunker thinking the war isn't over...come on out...it's a new era.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
Like the way you supported RR early on? It is time to move on, but you aren't qualified to make that statement.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
Oops...I actually was very excited by the RR hire. Then, his performance got in the way of my optimism. Sorry to burst your MGoBubble, but you've got the facts wrong. I don't blame you though, the "everyone hated RR from day one" thing is a common inaccuracy here.
February 25th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
I have a memory like an elephant for trolls, you might have given him a few months before you set it on him, but that's about it.
February 25th, 2011 at 2:52 PM ^
I'll sidestep your weak word play and direct your attention to my "Joined" date. While I read this blog well ahead of that time, I didn't post until that time. As such, it would be impossible for you to know my feeling of RR upon his hire. You don't know me and your attempts to make any statement to that effect only serve to highlight the complete lack of merit to your argument. Why is it that RR defenders so quickly revert to name calling?
Have a good one.
February 25th, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^
I hope Hoke has great success in his first 1.5 years, so that you aren't forced to start demonizing him. Why did you so quickly revert to name calling?
February 25th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
February 25th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
Oh boy...please drop it. Who cares what he did in Score-O? His performance was his demise. The other stuff is just fluff for his loyalists to lose sleep over. If he beat OSU/MSU, he'd still be here. If he were even competitive, he might still be here. He wasn't. Period.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^
February 25th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^
You said "RR was judged by his record and record alone," yet you also said "He might still be here if he was even competitive in his bad performances." That implies RR may have been judged by the WAY he lost, rather than simply by his record (in other words, going 15-22 with close losses against OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, etc is okay so long as it isn't 15-22 with blown-out losses against OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, etc). So...
BTW, the "willed sense of truth" is the notion that, by saying enough times that RR was judged solely by his record, it is true despite that there is no evidence of this AT ALL of this. The only way to even prove this was the case for RR--and is the case for Hoke--is to ask Dave Brandon, who will almost certainly never admit this. FWIW, if you were to tell me "the only reason Hoke was hired was because he was a Michigan Man", I would have the same reaction.
Edit: I realize that "record" may not mean "win/loss record" but be an overall term for RR's "performance", read as "how well RR did his job," which is so broad and inclusive that it's a no-brainer that RR was solely judged by how well he performed the job of Michigan head coach. You probably mean somewhere in between win-loss record and overall performance, so I'll let you fill in those details.
February 25th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. I said Hoke will be judged on "his record" as was RR. You (maybe to help make a strained argument and add a lame photo that stretches the frame) shifted this all to RR and added "and on his record alone". A very convincing thing I didn't say, no?
I do use "record" as in "performance". I dismiss the notion that RR lost his job because he wasn't a "Michigan Man", because "Carr didn't like him", "no one gave him a chance" or because the "media hated him". His performance was poor and that's why he was fired. Win-loss is part of (a very large part of) his performance. The fact that he was not competitive is part of his record. His trouble retaining players was part of his performance. His city of birth is not party of his performance. What a writer for the Free Press thinks is not part of his performance. I assume you get the point.
The guy isn't the coach and you went beyond misquoting me. So, is it a "willed sense of truth" that you thought I wrote something even though I didn't? I'll let you "fill in those details".
Next...
February 25th, 2011 at 7:54 PM ^
This is funny. You still haven't answered:
If being a Michigan Man had nothing to do with RR being fired and Hoke being hired, why did Brandon mention the map to Ann Arbor and knowing the words to the fight song?
February 25th, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^
Why do you care? Does it really matter what Brandon says to you? Are you so attached to Rodriguez that you can't disconnect Brandon, Hoke, and the school from him?
We have a coach that knows the words to Hail to the Victors. He knows what #1 means. He knows what Mike Hart, Chris Perry, and Touchdown Tim mean. Whether that means anything to you or me as a coach (it really doesn't for me) is not as important as what the media creates out of the story. Here is the low-hanging fruit for them: Hoke understands Michigan, Rodriguez doesn't. There is the story. It may be 100% inaccurate, it may be 100% accurate. But after three disastrous years, Brandon had Harbuagh or Hoke to bring home the Michigan connection and end the negative publicity.
If you want to bitch about that for Hoke's entire tenure, fine. But don't expect people to not call you out on it.
February 25th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^
Who the fuck are you and why the fuck do you care about my conversation with dahblue?
Dahblue has said numerous times that RR being fired had nothing to do with him not being a "Michigan Man." I said it did. That is why Brandon said those things. If you think public perception had nothing to do with RR's firing than you are as blind as dahblue. That was my point. It's great that Hoke knows everything about Michigan. So do I. That means I can coach the team.
I'm not attached to Rodriguez but I don't like when people throw shit on top of him that he doesn't deserve. I am fully in support of this team but that doesn't mean I have to give a big middle finger to the man who just spent 3 years coaching the Wolverines like a lot of the bullshit posters on this thread.
February 25th, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^
Look here, kid...I try to ignore you as you like to make things up and pretend I said them (remember your constant, "You said RR didn't get the rivalries!!!" and now your "not a Michigan Man"). Anywho...RR getting fired for his performance and Hoke knowing how to cross the diag have nothing to do with each other. I'm not so sure why you can't see that (or why you care so much...or why you were so rude to the poster above).
It's great that our new coach can sing The Victors. It's great that this is his dream job. In the end, however, he'll be judged based on performance...just like RR.
February 26th, 2011 at 1:47 AM ^
You are a tool. See, I can bold words and ignore your post too. All you do is say the same shit over and over and ignore anything that goes against your biased opinion. This is why you are ignorant.
Tell me why Brandon said those things. You know why you can't? Because you know just like everyone else that he wasn't just judged on his performance alone or our AD wouldn't have to toot the Michigan Man horn in his introductory press conference. I also love how you ignored the fact that a story came out saying exactly the opposite of what you think. I didn't see you comment on that thread. Funny the story that said people didn't like RichRod because he played Score-O has been ignored by one of the only people who think RichRod was loved until he lost games.
February 27th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
To be continued next week, when an MGoBoard topic about Hoke vs RR explodes into the same old nonsense.
February 25th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^
I posted my version of what he's done so far before I read your comment. My apologies for repeating what you'd already said very well.--J. Swift
February 25th, 2011 at 4:11 PM ^
Your handle wasn't evidence enough.