Update thoughts on Hoke - Any people change opinions?

Submitted by WindyCityBlue on

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.

 

GVBlue86

February 25th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^

Pretty much agree with what you said. I think we are headed for Michigan of the Early 2000's. Good teams (big ten contenders) with a great team (MNC contenders) sprinkled in here and there. Although I do not foresee championships.

Not a big fan of the hire, and I almost resent the fact that the media loves him so much. I think he will be solid none the less.

UMdad

February 25th, 2011 at 10:46 AM ^

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. 

Un-freaking-believable.

Maybe my definition of support is different than others.  The only opinion of mine that is changing for the worse lately is my opinion of this blog. 

CWoodson

February 25th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^

You make a lot of good, cogent points UMdad.  I still remember your steadfast support of the last coach, so it makes perfect sense to me why you attack everyone who isn't ALL HOKEAMANIA IN, even when they say they FULLY SUPPORT the guy but have reasonable doubts.

Good news though - my opinion of you wasn't very high to begin with, so it isn't dropping much.

CWoodson

February 25th, 2011 at 11:08 AM ^

You're going to have to accept that many rational people have legitimate reservations about Hoke.  They are not unreasonable.  I certainly don't think it's productive to detail them any more than they have been (and this thread is an example of how pointless it is).  But people can be optimistic, hope for the best, support the coach, and harbor those reservations.  That's not the same as disliking Hoke or not supporting the program.

maiznbob

February 25th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^

The "elitist" at Michigan was a revolving door for rr as soon as he reached out for it. The press and other idiots gave him no chance to ever becoming a "Michigan Man." Brady Hoke, who springs eternal, has not even reached second tier as a coach at this point in time. However he should have some success since the purse strings have been opened. Of course this will make db look like he knows what he is doing when really he should have stayed on the outside in his corporate world hooking the electrodes to the turning orifice.

jmblue

February 25th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^

Your final sentence is confusing.  If we are successful and Brandon "looks like he knows what he is doing," then why should he have stayed outside?  And how exactly do we differentiate "looking like he knows what he's doing" with "knows what he's doing"?  We don't know his thought processes.

wlubd

February 25th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^

How exactly is support supposed to equal outlook? A lot of readers on this blog can't seem to differentiate between the two. Hell, I usually get negged for saying I'm going to wait and see what actually happens on the field before I make an opinion on Hoke.

That doesn't mean I don't support him. I want this team to do well, and in order for that to happen, Hoke needs to do well. As such, I support him and the rest of his staff. Does it necessarily mean I think he'll succeed? Maybe, maybe not, let's see what happens. But I fully support him in his efforts to bring us back to conference/national contenders.

UMdad

February 25th, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

Outlook and support don't have to be the same.  The problem I have is that I cannot see any way you can think making a list of reasons someone could fail is supportive.  If you aren't completely sold on success, fine.  If you want to withold judgement, fine.  But when you are actively putting someone down you are not, and never will be, SUPPORTIVE.  I am just tired of people throwing it out there like that gives them a pass on their comments.  You cannot say no offense and then procede to rip into someone; you cannot offset a racist tirade by saying that your best friend is black; and you cannot degrade someone and then tell me that you support him.  If you want to dislike Hoke, fine, but do it like a man. 

wlubd

February 25th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

Meh. I think you're overcomplicating it.

I'm skeptical of the future under Hoke based on his 2 previous HC stops but I support him because ultimately I want the team to win. And I like the guy so it's not exactly a challenge to support him.

FTR, I also disagree with the OP's premise, not because of what he said, but because it's pointless to debate before a down has been played.

Salinger

February 25th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

 

when this is the topic of debate.  I'm with you, wlubd.  The jury is in deliberation until some actual football has been played.  Until then, I like Hoke as a person, he seems legitimately motivated to succeed (not saying others weren't motivated, please don't read into this), he's making the changes I would expect to see when switching from a spread offense to a pro-style offense, he's brought in a hot-shot DC and he's working toward his goals.  The proof will be what product steps into the Big House at the beginning of September.

UMdad

February 25th, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^

 Am I the only one who was not impressed? ... 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.

... I think there is very little tangible aspects to hold on to. ...I just don't see hime getting it done here.  I predict that ...the offense will regress, and we will see what we did for most of the 2000s with LC.  ... with Hoke's less than stellar coaching resume, hope is all I got. 

 

Ripping my self before you get the chance -

See what I did there, using the FREEP method of skipping all of the parts that don't fit my argument :)

 

My point is that there WERE a lot of negatives used

dennisblundon

February 25th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

Outlook: If Hoke fails we will be viewed nationally as damaged goods. Say Hoke's tenure lasts under 4 years, the next coach hired will make Hoke look like Harbaugh. Remember all of the debate this time around whether Michigan was still an elite job? Multiply that by 100 the next time around if he fails.

Support: We better as a fan base all hold hands and sing "We are the World" because failure is not an option. DB brought out the big guns for a reason, by this I mean Mattison and the PR campaign. We must succeed and do so now because 2012 is either going to show case us as a team back in the national spot light or expose us to all of our short comings. So be skeptical but cheer and that is all any fan should be asked to do.

umchicago

February 25th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

when you go to the booth and vote, you agree with everything that politician stands for?  i'm sure you support that person and hope for success.  but does that mean you cannot be critical of that person's views or decisions?

that seems like blind support to me.

GVBlue86

February 25th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^

This is my favorite team and he is the coach I will support. By support, I mean I really want him to do well and will give him my own (meaningless) encouragement from afar. Does not mean I think he is automatically the best thing since slice bread.

I don't understand why you have to think the current coach is, by default, the one to bring them to the promised land? How is blind faith a pre-requisite for fandom?

GVBlue86

February 25th, 2011 at 11:09 AM ^

I guess my point has already been cleared up by you a little bit. I see your point about not putting someone down who you "support." I personally don't think I am doing that. I don't think he is the best option, but doesn't mean I do not support him and wish him the best.

I think that is fair.

UMdad

February 25th, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^

My point is obviously being missed, so I will leave it at this.  I didn't suggest that he should have made a post shouting from the mountaintops that Hoke was going to win a NC next year.  I just had a problem with calling him calling himself supportive and then taking the time to start a thread listing all of the reasons he thinks the guy will fail. 

Edit Add: my comments weren't directed at you

steviebrownfor…

February 25th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^

it's about support.  

You and the other blue hairs refused to support the past coach based on your personal biases against him.  Many, in fact, wished for him to fail.  Yet, again based on personal biases, you blindly follow, or "like", Hoke despite that you most likely have never met him or Rodriguez.

Myself and many other rational fans supported (and liked) Rodriguez.  Some of us don't like the Hoke hire, yet will continue to support him and hope he does well.  This is where the hypocrisy comes in.  Can you see it? 

If not, your wife must be smart as hell cos I have no idea how your gene pool got into UM.

UMdad

February 25th, 2011 at 12:26 PM ^

1. My wife is smart as hell

2. My gene pool is 6,4,2, and 5 months and have not gotten into Michigan

3. I got into MIchigan, and not as long ago as you might think

4. Maybe you should pay more attention to the opinions of the "blue hairs" as they are living the life you would like to some day live, and have seen everything you have seen from Michigan football plus a few decades more,

AeonBlue

February 25th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

"Many, in fact, wished for him to fail"

What Michigan fan wanted to watch the team lose on an overly consistent basis? Who is sitting at home on saturday afternoon going "Boy, I hope Michigan is terrible today so, at the end of the season, we can fire him without remorse?" Is that really how you view the fan base? "Unless we have a Bo diciple at the helm the football team can go to hell?"

I understand RR was probably under more scrutiny because he was an "outsider" but wishing for him to fail? I don't think anyone was rooting for that, or at least nobody that calls themselves a fan of the program.

Soulfire21

February 27th, 2011 at 7:02 PM ^

You might be slightly sheltered.  I can't speak to the fact that "many" people were wishing him to fail.  I can only say this:

After the Wisconsin loss, I was listening to the radio.  The host of the program was very anti-RR and didn't really have anything good to say about him, including, but not limited to, he's not a Michigan man, Bo would be disappointed, the spread is a gimmick and doesn't work, etc.

Well, someone called in.  He says "I've been a Michigan fan the whole of my 52 year life, but I hope we get destroyed by Ohio State and suck in our bowl game so we can get Rich Rod out of Ann Arbor".

Some fan.

/Off topic

As far as have my feelings changed?  Yes - they have.  At first, I was very upset, it looked like we missed on Harbaugh and also Miles.  It looked like we got our 3rd choice (or 4th, 5th perhaps) and this shouldn't be how it is, especially after Brandon says just days earlier that we were going to pay top dollar for top talent.

However, with the way he salvaged the recruiting class (ended ranked 3rd in the B1G and in the top 30 nationally), his hires (especially Mattison), his keeping Denard here, etc. have all helped me warm up to the man.  He seems a bit more oriented to head coaching than Lloyd Carr did -- Carr always struck me as more of an assistant-type man and never really comfortable running the show, but Hoke is a bit more of a hard ass (for lack of better words) and it seems to me that he won't tolerate mediocrity.

He has also said the right things all the way through his hire to this point, so that certainly helps.  He was cordial with Rodriguez during the awkward interview and he thinks anything short of a Big Ten championship is failure.  Perhaps we will slip into Michigan of the 2000s (well, 2000-2007), but then again, perhaps not.

HAIL 2 VICTORS

February 25th, 2011 at 10:16 AM ^

Hope has as much coming into the job as the Vest did at the time of his hire.  Sometimes you have to trust that a guy like David Brandon has some insight that we are not privy too.  You have hope I have faith.

Shakespeare

February 25th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^

The comparison between Hoke and Tressel is completely unwaranted. One was consistently winning championships at a lower level while the other was slowing doing the bare minimum to upgrade his job every three years. College football head coach hiring is incredibly fickle. Look at the fact that Rich Rod was offered the Alabama and Michigan jobs in the span of two years and is now destined to coach a sub-par Big East team in the near future. Your stock as a coach falls incredibly quickly and all it takes to push you into a favorable light is ONE winning/ exceeding expectations season. The one great season Hoke had at Ball State was all he needed to upgrade his job. His one season exceeding expectations at SDSU was all it took for him to upgrade once again to Michigan. I think this was an emotional hire, not a smart hire. But to be fair, that's what the whole hiring climate is turning into.

PRod

February 25th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

You rip on Hoke for winning in the MAC and Mountain West, but the Vest's record at a lower division is better indicator that he would win in the Big Ten?  Way to talk out of both sides of your mouth.  The Vest was not OSU's first choice, Bo Ryan was hired at Wisconsin and all the fans wanted the big name in Rick Majerus, Iowa hired Ferentz and everyone said who, Michigan St. fans were not jumping for joy when Izzo was promoted and most of them thought it was status quo of the Jud regime, etc., etc.

WindyCityBlue

February 25th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^

...look at Vest's record and accolades at YSU and edit your reply (if you can).  What the Vest did before OSU is FAR FAR FAR more impressive with what Hoke has done.  I understand that it was D2, but many of us know from first hand experience (cough cough, ASU), that the top D2 schools are better than many of the bottom D1 schools.

Shakespeare

February 25th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^

The Vest won consistently. Hoke has had two good seasons in his entire head coaching career. That's the difference. I would rather have a coach who has won at every level than a guy who is the hot candidate this year because of the current season his team had. That type of thinking says that nothing but the present matters. What one has accomplished or not accomplished in the past is unimportant.

Salinger

February 25th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

When he took over Ball State they were a perrenailly horrible team.  When he took over at SDSU they had been lounging in mediocrity for years.  His tenure at Michigan at least starts with some killer athletes (Denard et al) and a program with a name recognition that can bring in top level recruits with a little help from an easy schedule next year and a seemingly winning record (OSU and Nebraska aside).

 

Hoke is not the Vest, agree there.  But to say that he can't make it happen because he's only had 2 winning seasons is just not right.  Building programs take time.  That is what he has done (though he wasn't at SDSU very long, I'll conceed that obvious point.) 

PRod

February 25th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^

It seems to me that Rich Rod won at every level and had a better resume than any current Big Ten coach.  Hindsight is 20/20 and nobody thought a coach from Youngstown St. would do what the Vest has done at OSU.

GoBlueInNYC

February 25th, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^

It's not the same thing as Tressel, who was extremely dominant at YSU before going to OSU (multiple national championships, breaking records for most wins at the I-AA level).  Yes he was coaching at a lower tier, but he had a sustained, very successful program there.

Not saying Hoke is a bad hire (I'm withholding judgment until the season), but Tressel was a less risky hire, in my opinion.