I think it's the coach's responsibility to get his players to play for him, regardless of who recruited them or what system they are used to. This has been demanded of Brady Hoke, and so far he looks to be doing a good job. Only next season will tell whether he is able to accomplish this. RR did not. The attrition he experienced was ridiculous. I don't believe this can be blamed solely on the players. Sure, there are people who will say that the players love of Michigan should outweigh their allegiance to their coach, be we're talking about college kids here. I absolutely loved Michigan when I was a student there, but, as with most things, I didn't fully realize how great the place is until my time there had passed.
The bigger problem, I think, is that many of the players that parted ways with the program or "quit" on RR came to Michigan for the tradition and history that we take pride in. RR didn't seem to give a rats ass about either, and that didn't sit well with a lot of people. He didn't acknowledge the importance of the rivalries, and subsequently posted a horrendous record in rivalry games (ND excluded, as they were in worse shape than we were). RR simply didn't do his homework before he came to Michigan (captains, #1 jersey, etc.). As a result, we lost the players that wanted to be a part of the Michigan tradition (as opposed to the RR era).
I agree with you about RR's way of doing things. He didn't favor the seniors - he made them earn their positions again. I won't argue the merits or flaws of this philosophy, except to say that it did work. But, it goes hand in hand with RR's seeming disregard for anything that happened prior to his arrival in AA. I think this also correlates to his lack of success with the big time recruits he landed. You say that RR didn't play that game (with regards to the seniors), which is true. He also didn't play the game of maximizing his players' potential. I don't think it's a coincidence.
On a side note, I don't think you could honestly say that playing with heart was a characteristic of the RR teams. I'm not questioning whether the players played hard, just saying that many times the entire team looked to have given up.
However, it's also not full of the conservative play calling that bothered many people during the end of the Carr era. As was already mentioned, SDSU came out passing from deep in their own territory. They also didn't seem afraid to throw the ball downfield.
I liked the variety of offensive sets and the inclusion of the zone read, but I really liked the use of the running game to set up the pass. The play action was very effective; on a number of the pass plays, there wasn't a defender within 5 yards of the receiver. With the talent we have at WR, we could see those guys put up some gaudy numbers. We need someone to step up at RB and prove they can run between the tackles, though. It certainly helps when you have a guy who can go for 225+, as Hillman did in that game.
The defense was definitely well prepared for what Navy was going to do. They also looked disciplined and fundamentally sound - very few missed tackles.
The thing that made the biggest impression on me was that the SDSU defense shut Navy out in the second half. Effective 2nd half adjustments are something we haven't seen in a long time. Hopefully, that's something Hoke will be able to do effectively next year.
I've been a reader of the blog for a long time, but never felt the need to post until the blog as a whole did an about-face and began to do exactly what it spent the last three years condemning. Of course, there are a lot of people who have a positive attitude about the new direction of the program, which is nice. I was a RR supporter throughout his tenure, and am now a Hoke supporter. I just have a hard time with the hypocrisy, and don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.
Now, I don't think that warrants you calling me a prick. Pretty classless, don't you think?
I thought I was just seeing double because of all the booze I had to choke down to deal with the fact that Brady Hoke is the new head coach and the fact that DB completely f'd up the search process...
Wait, it was the media (and bloggers) that turned the search into a fiasco and Hoke seems to be off to a pretty good start...
Wasn't Denard the equivalent of a redshirt freshman this past year?. He's a special player, no doubt, but I think it's a stretch to think that he, and he alone, will determine the success of this team in 2011 and beyond. Gardner got his feet wet this year, as Denard did when Tate (Adios!) was the starter. I believe he's capable, especially in an offense that doesn't place as much importance on the QB's in-play read (on ruinning plays). It will be great if Denard stays and is effective in the new offensive scheme, but it also would have been great if Mallet stayed. Just as we did then, we'll find someone who can run the offense if Denard decides to leave. And Tate... is anyone really that upset that he may be transferring? He consistently demonstrated poor decision-making when he got the opportunity to play against Big Ten competition. I don't believe he would beat out Gardner for the QB position in 2011, anyway.
How can you justify the comment that you would take Denard over Hoke? Denard had a great season, but failed to shine against the the Big Ten. You think we should choose that over someone committed to returning the program to greatness? If he leaves, we can all take comfort in the fact that Denard only cares about Denard, and Denard wants to play QB, wherever. Most of us put Michigan above 1 player.
Wasn't Denard the equivalent of a redshirt freshman this past year?. He's a special player, no doubt, but I think it's a stretch to think that he, and he alone, will determine the success of this team in 2011 and beyond. Gardner got his feet wet this year, as Denard did when Tate (Adios!) was the starter. I believe he's capable, especially in an offense that doesn't place as much importance on the QB's in-play read (on ruinning plays). It will be great if Denard stays and is effective in the new offensive scheme, but it also would have been great if Mallet stayed. Just as we did then, we'll find someone who can run the offense if Denard decides to leave. And Tate... is anyone really that upset that he may be transferring? He consistently demonstrated poor decision-making when he got the opportunity to play against Big Ten competition. I don't believe he would beat out Gardner for the QB position in 2011, anyway.
How can you justify the comment that you would take Denard over Hoke? Denard had a great season, but failed to shine against the the Big Ten. You think we should choose that over someone committed to returning the program to greatness? If he leaves, we can all take comfort in the fact that Denard only cares about Denard, and Denard wants to play QB, wherever. Most of us put Michigan above 1 player.
for starting a thread where those of us that are excited to have Brady Hoke as our head coach can voice our support. I find it disgusting that so many people who, a short while ago, criticized the portion of the Michigan fan base that did not support RR from the get go are talking about how this was a terrible hire and that Brady Hoke is not qualified to be the head coach at Michigan.
To these people, you are doing exactly what you criticized others for during the past three years. If you truly support the program, as you claimed during the RR era, man up and support Brady Hoke. Like it or not, he's our coach. Sound familiar???
Moreover, we have a damned good coach - by all accounts. And there's nowhere else he'd rather be. Frankly, that makes him a better choice than Harbaugh and Miles. Many on this blog have professed, "Give him time" for the last 3 years. Well now the tables have turned. The other side (which I was not on, for the record) emplores you to give Brady Hoke a chance.
Recent Comments
if he's playing a Les Paul
I think it's the coach's responsibility to get his players to play for him, regardless of who recruited them or what system they are used to. This has been demanded of Brady Hoke, and so far he looks to be doing a good job. Only next season will tell whether he is able to accomplish this. RR did not. The attrition he experienced was ridiculous. I don't believe this can be blamed solely on the players. Sure, there are people who will say that the players love of Michigan should outweigh their allegiance to their coach, be we're talking about college kids here. I absolutely loved Michigan when I was a student there, but, as with most things, I didn't fully realize how great the place is until my time there had passed.
The bigger problem, I think, is that many of the players that parted ways with the program or "quit" on RR came to Michigan for the tradition and history that we take pride in. RR didn't seem to give a rats ass about either, and that didn't sit well with a lot of people. He didn't acknowledge the importance of the rivalries, and subsequently posted a horrendous record in rivalry games (ND excluded, as they were in worse shape than we were). RR simply didn't do his homework before he came to Michigan (captains, #1 jersey, etc.). As a result, we lost the players that wanted to be a part of the Michigan tradition (as opposed to the RR era).
I agree with you about RR's way of doing things. He didn't favor the seniors - he made them earn their positions again. I won't argue the merits or flaws of this philosophy, except to say that it did work. But, it goes hand in hand with RR's seeming disregard for anything that happened prior to his arrival in AA. I think this also correlates to his lack of success with the big time recruits he landed. You say that RR didn't play that game (with regards to the seniors), which is true. He also didn't play the game of maximizing his players' potential. I don't think it's a coincidence.
On a side note, I don't think you could honestly say that playing with heart was a characteristic of the RR teams. I'm not questioning whether the players played hard, just saying that many times the entire team looked to have given up.
However, it's also not full of the conservative play calling that bothered many people during the end of the Carr era. As was already mentioned, SDSU came out passing from deep in their own territory. They also didn't seem afraid to throw the ball downfield.
I liked the variety of offensive sets and the inclusion of the zone read, but I really liked the use of the running game to set up the pass. The play action was very effective; on a number of the pass plays, there wasn't a defender within 5 yards of the receiver. With the talent we have at WR, we could see those guys put up some gaudy numbers. We need someone to step up at RB and prove they can run between the tackles, though. It certainly helps when you have a guy who can go for 225+, as Hillman did in that game.
The defense was definitely well prepared for what Navy was going to do. They also looked disciplined and fundamentally sound - very few missed tackles.
The thing that made the biggest impression on me was that the SDSU defense shut Navy out in the second half. Effective 2nd half adjustments are something we haven't seen in a long time. Hopefully, that's something Hoke will be able to do effectively next year.
I've been a reader of the blog for a long time, but never felt the need to post until the blog as a whole did an about-face and began to do exactly what it spent the last three years condemning. Of course, there are a lot of people who have a positive attitude about the new direction of the program, which is nice. I was a RR supporter throughout his tenure, and am now a Hoke supporter. I just have a hard time with the hypocrisy, and don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.
Now, I don't think that warrants you calling me a prick. Pretty classless, don't you think?
1. I'm sure a QB vacancy, even as a back-up, would fill itself rather quickly.
2. One game doesn't make up for the rest of the season.
3. Denard's staying, so untwist your panties.
I thought I was just seeing double because of all the booze I had to choke down to deal with the fact that Brady Hoke is the new head coach and the fact that DB completely f'd up the search process...
Wait, it was the media (and bloggers) that turned the search into a fiasco and Hoke seems to be off to a pretty good start...
Plus, we had more injuries last year than I can ever remember. Maybe there was a little over-training going on under Barwis.
Wasn't Denard the equivalent of a redshirt freshman this past year?. He's a special player, no doubt, but I think it's a stretch to think that he, and he alone, will determine the success of this team in 2011 and beyond. Gardner got his feet wet this year, as Denard did when Tate (Adios!) was the starter. I believe he's capable, especially in an offense that doesn't place as much importance on the QB's in-play read (on ruinning plays). It will be great if Denard stays and is effective in the new offensive scheme, but it also would have been great if Mallet stayed. Just as we did then, we'll find someone who can run the offense if Denard decides to leave. And Tate... is anyone really that upset that he may be transferring? He consistently demonstrated poor decision-making when he got the opportunity to play against Big Ten competition. I don't believe he would beat out Gardner for the QB position in 2011, anyway.
How can you justify the comment that you would take Denard over Hoke? Denard had a great season, but failed to shine against the the Big Ten. You think we should choose that over someone committed to returning the program to greatness? If he leaves, we can all take comfort in the fact that Denard only cares about Denard, and Denard wants to play QB, wherever. Most of us put Michigan above 1 player.
See "The Team"
Wasn't Denard the equivalent of a redshirt freshman this past year?. He's a special player, no doubt, but I think it's a stretch to think that he, and he alone, will determine the success of this team in 2011 and beyond. Gardner got his feet wet this year, as Denard did when Tate (Adios!) was the starter. I believe he's capable, especially in an offense that doesn't place as much importance on the QB's in-play read (on ruinning plays). It will be great if Denard stays and is effective in the new offensive scheme, but it also would have been great if Mallet stayed. Just as we did then, we'll find someone who can run the offense if Denard decides to leave. And Tate... is anyone really that upset that he may be transferring? He consistently demonstrated poor decision-making when he got the opportunity to play against Big Ten competition. I don't believe he would beat out Gardner for the QB position in 2011, anyway.
How can you justify the comment that you would take Denard over Hoke? Denard had a great season, but failed to shine against the the Big Ten. You think we should choose that over someone committed to returning the program to greatness? If he leaves, we can all take comfort in the fact that Denard only cares about Denard, and Denard wants to play QB, wherever. Most of us put Michigan above 1 player.
See "The Team"
for starting a thread where those of us that are excited to have Brady Hoke as our head coach can voice our support. I find it disgusting that so many people who, a short while ago, criticized the portion of the Michigan fan base that did not support RR from the get go are talking about how this was a terrible hire and that Brady Hoke is not qualified to be the head coach at Michigan.
To these people, you are doing exactly what you criticized others for during the past three years. If you truly support the program, as you claimed during the RR era, man up and support Brady Hoke. Like it or not, he's our coach. Sound familiar???
Moreover, we have a damned good coach - by all accounts. And there's nowhere else he'd rather be. Frankly, that makes him a better choice than Harbaugh and Miles. Many on this blog have professed, "Give him time" for the last 3 years. Well now the tables have turned. The other side (which I was not on, for the record) emplores you to give Brady Hoke a chance.
Welcome back, Coach Hoke. Go Blue