Brady Hoke BHCC Bits
I know I could have put this down in the other thread, but I figured some of you would miss it.
I commented last night that Brady and Brandon made fun of RR last night. I want to clarify that statement as this, they didn't make fun of RR by name, but they did make references to the old regime and/or previous failures.
Example 1: Someone asked Brady if he will be bringing back the defensive huddle. Brady responded and said something like, "well I'd like to, but a lot of that is dictated by the offense, especially that up tempo spread joke offense". Now that is not verbatim, and I am trying to remember if he used the word "joke", but he made a comment that was close to that.
Example 2: Dave Brandon made a comment to the group saying how much he hated last years Illinois game. Would invite anyone to a basketball game next year if thats what they liked watching. This was in reaction to a comment by someone asking about defense and he basically said that we will be playing defense again under Hoke and our last regime didn't know how to.
Other tidbits:
1. Denard and Molk are doing very well. Denard looks comfortable taking snaps from under center because he used to do it in HS a lot. Not as big of a learning curve as some people might have expected.
2. Denard was never leaving. Hoke didn't even need to talk to him, but he did. Hoke said that Denard was talking to his Dad during the coaching change and Denards Dad told Denard, "listen, you're not leaving Michigan. End of story." Denard agreed with his Dad and told him that he wasn't even thinking about leaving anyways.
3. Coach Hoke says hello to his players during each meeting by saying these things:
Hoke: "Good Morning" or "Good Afternoon" or "Good evening"
Players: "Good Morning" or "Good Afternoon" or "Good evening"
Hoke: CHAMPIONSHIPS?
Players: 42
Hoke: YEARS?
Players: 132
Hoke: BEAT?
Players: OHIO!!!
...and then they go on with their business for the day.
4. We will have a kicker...and he will make field goals.
5. Strike policy that most of you know about is: a strike is academic primarily. If you go to class late, leave early, skip, do something stupid, etc. Then that is a strike.
1 strike = wake up at 5 am and push a 45 pound plate 100 yards 12 times without removing hands from the plate or taking a knee.
2 strikes = same thing except two days.
3 strikes = you and your position group have to do it one morning.
4 strikes = the entire side of the ball you play on has to wake up at 5 am and push plates (he said he has never had anyone make it to 4. Either the kid quits or he is held accountable by his teammates and stops making poor decisions).
Well, thats about all I can think of right now. I'll add more later if I think of anything interesting that I left out.
Bottom line is that Hoke is a pretty darn good public speaker. He makes people feel comfortable in him as a head football coach, is honest, and shows that he truly cares about the kids more than anything else. There was a lot of laughing, joking, poking fun of different audience members that I found to be hilarious and impressive because he knew so many "Michigan people".
Don I respect your posts, but I'm calling BS. I'm not saying you aor your friend are a liar, but I'll say this.....that your long time friend never liked RR, went and saw him and didn't like what he was saying then he retold it to you but with his interpretation and now you have RR bashing players.
Here is what probably happened.
Audience: What are the prospects for offense next year coach?
RR: Well I'm not going to lie it could be a little tough. We only have 1 returning starter and we're down scholarship numbers and we just don't have the speed at certain positions to get to where we want to be, but these kids are working their tales off right now. They are a great group of kids really conscientous and we'll get there, it is just going to take a little bit of time to get the players we need and we're addressing that in recruiting right now.
Don's friend: Don you are never going to believe this RR said the players are fat and slow and that Lloyd didn't recruit worth a crap. I don't like this guy Don something about him.
Don: Wow I can't believe that. RR seemed like a good guy but what a jerk.
I'm sorry, but if RR was calling out specific players than that is completely bush and he is a dick, but we would have heard about it. I'm sure of that.
"I'm not saying you aor your friend are a liar, but I'll say this..... that your long time friend never liked RR, went and saw him and didn't like what he was saying...."
And likewise, you've always been fanatical for RR and will seek to defend him at all costs whenever you think it's needed.
RR has publicly stated that the last few recruiting classes (i.e., Carr's) were subpar. He often complained about the players ("execution," etc.). So, I wouldn't be surprised if he was even more "candid" with a group of alumni.
RR is candid with a bunch of alumni and in the age of internet, twitter, camera phones etc. nothing is ever put out there? Considering how much certain people didn't like him and the frenzy the media created over every little word he said and we've heard nothing about this?
What makes more sense?
I think my theory is a little more believable than RR saying boy that Perry Dorrenstein is a waste I can't believe Lloyd recruited him.
Obviously you are a RR hater so you interpreted his comments as such.
RR never said the previous recruiting classes were subpar.
He always blamed execution errors on youth and he blurted out the same coachspeak garbage every time. Kids are working hard and they are going to get there, but they are young.......
I was just pointing out how you breezily assumed that this fellow who had a criticism of RR must have always been a "hater". For otherwise, how could this guy possibly think that RR was fallible and could have said something he shouldn't have.
Your stance is just the flipside of MSM.
I put that in there because without it I would just be calling Don a liar. Don is a repected poster so I'm not going to say he's a liar. I was giving a plausible reason why the story is the way it is. Ok so the guy had no opinion of RR and just heard it wrong.
You still have to give me the more plausible scenario.
While Lloyd Carr might have made a pretty good effort in his last years as a recruiter, Michigan had some gaping holes when Rich Rodriguez had to put teams on the field in 2009 and 2010. That's a fact.
I think you have substantially misquoted Rodriguez; overstating the extent to which he may have criticized Lloyd Carr personally. I am aware of no such personal criticism. I dare you to prove, with a quote, such a criticism.
And by the way, you don't need to waste your time accusing me of "defending Rodriguez." Of course I am defending Rodriguez. I think David Brandon made a very big mistake in letting him go. I think Michigan made a colossal mistake in never getting Jeff Casteel as a DC. I think Brady Hoke, while probably a nice guy and probably a good coach, is a poor substitute for Rich Rodriguez. I think that the general treatment of Rich Rodriguez by some elements of the Michigan community, and by the print and broadcast media in Detroit, was despicable.
There; I've saved you from making all of those accusations. I'll sign the notarized written confession for you.
So not getting Casteel was Michigan's fault? Give me a fucking break. Prove to me that this was Michigan's fault.
RR made colossal mistakes on the defensive side from day one. Or actually, he didn't make the mistakes, since he was barely even aware of what was going on on that side of the ball. The DC hires always served as a handy scapegoat.
I think Section 1's point is that, before Mattison, Michigan was never known to pay assistant coaches much of anything. Had we opened up the checkbook a little and brought Casteel in, who knows how things may have turned out.
I think Section 1's point is that, before Mattison, Michigan was never known to pay assistant coaches much of anything. Had we opened up the checkbook a little and brought Casteel in, who knows how things may have turned out.
you.
While we will never have the transcript of what RR said, the player turnover and the repeated comments about the transition time necessary to bring in a new system (and players) support what Don has posted. RR treatment of the Carr era players is one of the main reasons for his failure. Oh yeah, and the fact that he doesn't care too much for D.
to quote him.
And if Braylon Edwards is typical of the "Carr-era players" (I feel certain that Braylon could not possibly be representative -- he's much too big of an asshole), then fuck them.
You started this. List for us the particulars of all of the Carr-era players who were mistreated by RR. Describe exactly how they were mistreated. You might not want to start with Larry Foote.
Are you saying I pretended to quote RR?
Also, can you produce evidence and particular instances (by way of some kind of magic time-machine video) of RR being really nice to Carr-era players? If so, please describe each instance with precision.
It's kind of hard coming up with such evidence, isn't it. We are solidly in the realm of THEORY.
I am saying "Blue Mind and Heart" pretended to quote Rodriguez:
While we will never have the transcript of what RR said, the player turnover and the repeated comments about the transition time necessary to bring in a new system (and players) support what Don has posted. RR treatment of the Carr era players is one of the main reasons for his failure. Oh yeah, and the fact that he doesn't care too much for D.
I'm confused: Where does he ever pretend to quote Rodriguez? You realize saying something about is different from quoting, right?
would be why RR failed?
besides the MGOBLOG stand-bys of
1) the freep
2) the lack of support for RR on internet and talk radio
3) and the new hot topic, Michigan was too cheap with assistants
what could it be?
Wait, now I see the reason for your fanatical devotion, with those impossible road blocks, only the offensive genius of RR could allow Michigan to outperform and win any football games.
You don't really want a list/thread. Nor do you want answers. You want to provoke, and to trashtalk Coach Rodriguez, don't you? And you really aren't worth the fucking time. If you are so fucking pleased that Rich Rodriguez is gone, you should just revel in the new Hoke era. Because you can do that, or not, as you wish, and I won't give two shits about it. You're the message-board version of those jerkoffs on the radio.
Cage match?
Ziff, since I wasn't there, I cannot say for certain what exactly RR (or whomever) said. I did not mean to give the impression that specific players were called out; my impression from my client's comments was that the observations about the team were of a more general nature.
While my client is a football fan, I will admit that their familiarity with the team is pretty restricted to mass-media sorts of stuff, and in fact I was always defending RR when the topic came up.
It's entirely possible that my friend has mis-interpreted comments in the fashion you suggest, although it would be an unusal lapse of judgement.
I will say this, though: there were many, many people from the beginning of RR's tenure who were ascribing the on-the-field difficulties entirely to the "Lloyd left the cupboard bare" theory, and plenty of callers on the radio and in print and on the internet were taking it one step further and denigrating Carr as a coach. It is inconceivable to me that RR would have been unaware of these criticisms leveled at Carr in public forums, and I think RR made a huge PR mistake in not quickly and publicly distancing himself from them. It would have been the right thing to do, even if RR privately thought that Carr screwed the pooch badly in recruiting. A guy in RR's shoes simply was not going to benefit in any way from being even remotely associated with the criticisms of Carr. I was always irritated that Carr was not more forthcoming in support of RR, and I've wondered if he was ticked that RR's supporters seemed to be blaming him (Carr) for the troubles on the field, and that RR never said anything to the contrary.
Whatever, the Battle of Rodriguez Hill is over. The reason he's gone is because his teams weren't good enough quickly enough, for a wide variety of reasons. I think a fourth year would have been the right and fair thing to do, but when I walked out of the stadium after the Wisconsin game I figured he was a goner unless some miracle happened. So far, I think Hoke hasn't made a misstep in his public relations, and he's got a remarkably eager-to-please local media environment to work with, which helps hugely. What I'll be interested to see is what the reaction will be when we lose an important game, especially if we get beaten by teams running the joke that is the spread.
I think you're pretty spot on here Don. I never quite got what was going on with Lloyd and RR. I defended both so hard for the last 6-7 years(yes Lloyd was getting slammed hard at the end if you forgot) it was sad that publicly they didn't seem to get along.
I think people who blame Lloyd are silly and people who didn't see Rich was put in a tough spot with this roster were blind. It was the perfect storm of bad breaks and some poor decisions, but people had to blame someone and people were forced to choose sides. I never got it and never will.
Not sure what happened with Rich and Lloyd but it looks like both made some mistakes.
What RR really needed was Brandon or Lloyd or Mo or maybe he got good advice and didn't listen, but he needed to be on the same tour as Hoke and just keep saying toughness, tradition, beat Ohio over and over again and he would have survived for his 4th year.
You are surprised by Brandon's comments?
The same David Brandon, who as CEO of Domino's Pizza, openly admitted his product sucked, and was trying to make it better?
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
how he starts his meetings. Just that extra little reminder of what it means to play football Michigan and gives that extra little motivation to push that much harder in practice.
As for the strike policy, I don't have a super huge problem with it, but I think one skip = 1 strike is a little too much. Sometimes skipping a class you don't really need to be in a time or two to finish work/study for a big exam help a lot more than being physically present in a class that you aren't paying much attention to anyways and isn't particularly helpful. Especially since these kids have to put in a lot more time just playing football, rather than being able to spend it doing all their work. And then there's just generic waking up in time for class. I know they get scheduling priority, which might help get rid of early classes, but I don't know that they get that Winter semester or if they practice early enough to neccesitate early classes regardless, or if some classes just aren't offered later in the day. And I would think that getting enough sleep is pretty important for athletes who need to be physically, as well as mentally, ready for the day. I don't think the strike policy is a bad idea at all, I'd just like to see a tad more leniency. And maybe there is and I don't know about it and if it's working for Hoke and works for Hoke then that's great.
Also does anybody know how often the strikes reset? I'd assume every semester?
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^
When I was in college, I spent an awful lot of time in my easy classes with my books and notes out for my difficult classes obviously not paying a lick of attention. My professors did not care.
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
He really didn't go into specifics last night, so I can't really clarify any of your questions.
It did sound like he was strict about the policy and even minor offenses of skipping class or leaving early would count as a strike. I'm not sure if he was playing it up to us because of his academic "push", but thats how I interpreted it.
Also, I'm sure the strikes do reset, I just don't know the timetable.
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
I'm not trying to say that everyone who transfers is a quitter but after reading those articles about Denard's family last Fall I had a feeling he wasn't going anywhere if/when RR got fired.
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^
How Hoke could or would have called the spread offense a joke 9other than pandering to the crowd). Oregon, Florida, Auburn, etc, etc.
The spread offense is no joke, and I'm sure Hoke will understand that as the Michigan coach.
I wonder how the coaches know whether a player has skipped a class. I thought professors who take attendance just take points off their overall grade rather than report it to the coaches.
I don't know if this happens at Michigan, or at any University presently, but students used to check in on student athletes in the past. A radio host for ESPN 710 in so cal said when he went to UCLA he was actually paid by the athletic department to see if football players went to class.
Huh. Sounds like a waste of resources. It would probably be easier to get the athletes to have something signed by their profs or TAs every week saying they went to class.
Thanks for the info.
I recall an article a little while back about one school using retirees instead of students, but the retirees were not up on technology and missed classes because of missed emails etc. It was an interesting read. Maybe someone else can recall the article and post it here.
The school in question is Kansas, and yes, they were recently in the news for enlisting the help of senior citizens to help ensure that their men's basketball players actually go to classes.
That is really disappointing if Hoke used the word "joke" or made any disparaging comments about RR, last year's offense or anything regarding the previous regime. If I were him, I would be grateful for the talented QB he is inheriting from RR and I also might keep my mouth shut if my career win/loss record was a "joke" compared to RR's.
Dave Brandon is just a douchebag and he should start thinking twice before bad mouthing people. A lot of alums like me don't care for the way he has handled anything since he has arrived and it really sets a bad example to trash RR, yet Brandon seems to do it with impugnity. He is an absolute disgrace.
True story, over the last 5 years, Hoke and Rodriguez have the same record. One was at West Virginia and Michigan in that timeframe. The other was at Ball State and San Diego State. Which 37-26 record is more impressive?
Interesting. The stat gurus on here missed that one.
...and imo, the spread offense is the best offense in the game. It's the best to run, hardest to defend.
I've coached in Ga. Tech style option offense, wing t offense, pro-style offense, and had to defend the full-house T offense most successfully run by East Kentwood/Zeeland East John Shillito.
Again, in my opinion, the hardest offenses to defend (on a purely schematic basis) are, in order:
- Spread (with option)
- Airraid (unless weather is shitty)
- Flexbone option (Ga. Tech/Paul Johnson)
- Full T (EK/Shillito)
- Pistol
- Wing T
- Pro
That said, the hardest offenses to defend are those with good-to-great players at QB, RB, and WR--if an offense can be lethal both running and throwing, they're going to score a lot of points, period. Nothing you can do defensively will stop them.
So spread is best, pro is nowhere near as good. Unless the pro players are better than the spread players. In which case, pro is the best one.
<br>
<br>Got it.
Lets assume equally talented players.
Quick question;
If the pro offense is so easy to defend why come the pros run it?
I realize that this comment was made in jest, but that's not going to stop me from addressing it. Weeeeeeeee!
I think that in the pro game, the ultimate goal of a franchise (or at least, the majority of franchises) is to secure an "elite" quarterback (Duh). In securing an elite QB a team will ultimately have to shell out upwards of $70 million (or in the case of a few top QBs $100 million). Now, that's an awful lot of cash to be investing in one player, so it is reasonable to assume most organizations would prefer to minimize risk of injury to said investment.
When running a spread offense (with a read-option, mind you) a team is effectively conceding the fact that the quarterback is going to be hit, and hit often, because one of the functions of that offense is the QB carrying the ball.
When running a pro style offense, a team makes no such concession (or, the very least is unwilling to make that concession), as pro style offenses generally revolve around the concept of the quarterback remaining "untouched" during a play.
It is therefore easy to see how NFL organizations, paying QBs exhorbant amounts of money, tend to shy away from forms of offense that guarantee their $70-$100 million investment will be running headlong into opposing defenses.
While Brian's data has shown that the number of hits QBs take in spread offenses and pro style offenses are similar, the perception is that the pro style offense minimilizes risk of injury, while the spread offense intentionally puts a QB is harm's way.
There is also the old hat argument about defenders being "bigger, faster, stronger and smarter," but following that logic, one could say the same applies to players on the offensive side of the ball.
This was simply my "shot-in-the-dark" attempt of understanding why the read-option spread has never made the leap to the NFL (obviously, the spread offense already has). Granted, it's used in small doses (see; "The Wildcat") but there is probably a reason teams employ a tailback to run the read-option, rather than their starting quarterback.
This is everything I've ever heard, FWIW I think you're spot on.
The spread probably wouldn't win in the pros, or someone would be doing it.
You mean like the New England Patriots passing spread? Yeah, thats not winning at all.
Was to win. If you could save money with a non-elite running QB, spend the money on other positions, and win more, why wouldn't they all be doing it?? They've tried wildcat offenses, but it hasn't caught on. The offensive players are bigger, faster, sure...but they're the ones getting hit, not hitting anyone.
The spread, with a mobile QB, may be the hardest to defend, but I don't know if I agree that it's the best to run. The paradox is that the very thing that makes it hard to defend - the threat of a running QB - can be its undoing when said QB takes a physical pounding. Unless you have a 250-pound bull playing QB, your QB is probably going to get knocked out of games now and then when you're running this offense. The problem with that is, in college football, one loss can knock you out of the title hunt, so that handful of injuries can be devastating.
If Pat White could have stayed healthy in 2007, WVU may well have won the national title. But the very offense they ran led to him taking a ton of hits and it perhaps should not have been surprising that a smallish guy like him got knocked out of two games (both of which they lost). Likewise, it should not have surprised too many people that our 193-pound QB got hurt frequently last season. The big question is, what is the maximum number of carries Denard can record per game without getting injured?
March 24th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
As someone intimately familiar with the Z-west program and Shillito himself, I can say without a doubt that the best offense is the one that adapts to what the defense is doing, regardless of which name it goes by.
Watch Shillitos teams, they score on almost EVERY first drive, most 2nd drives and progressively fade as the defense adapts to the motion & reads the fakes. Look at their first half scoring vs. 2nd half. The thing is they usually have such a lead by that point that they win by eating clock in the 2nd half.
Spread/read option are the exact same thing(IMO). They catch teams offguard early in games & exploit defensive mistakes for big plays. If they are facing a capable D-coordinator with even remotely decent players they will adapt. Look at Denards production numbers against teams with capable D's. Once they had the D-end start ignoring the back, going straight upfield leaving the back to the LB's or S, the whole house of cards falls apart. Then is a matter of what the offense does to adapt. IMO RR did a shitty job of this(as is evidence by his 3rd and 9's repeating the exact same plays series after series).
I guess my point is, any system is as good or bad as it athletes, however the "trickier" systems do allow a "lesser" athletic team to potentially exploit an athletically superior defense, expecially early in games, whereas the more "basic" or "traditional" schemes its more like you either have the guys or you don't.
That was my problem with RR's offense, he came in with a game plan that might have been great, however once it stumbled even slightly he was done. He appeared to have very little in terms of contingencies to adapt and overcome with.
PS, I do love watching Shillito's teams, they run that thing like its 2nd nature and it can be hilarious to watch teams scramble to adapt. Sometimes I feel sorry for their poor MLB.
(not the good kind) and I can't shake it. It's one thing to prefer a scheme over the other, but you must respect all schemes...especially those that have the propensity to win national championships left and right.
This, taken together with the "basketball on grass" comment re: zone blocking do not fill me with confidence. Any fucking scheme can work with the right personnel and coaching - yes, even the 3-3-5 in the BIG MEATY BIG TEN.
I wonder how he'll react to the "gimmicky spread offense" the first time we get positively shredded by a team running that scheme. It's bound to happen. I'm finding comparisons to Bielema here that I don't even want to think about.
What comparison to Bielema is offensive at this point? You wouldn't find a 49-16 record and a Rose Bowl appearance acceptable for Hoke's first five years?
Denard looks comfortable taking snaps from under center because he used to do it in HS a lot. Not as big of a learning curve as some people might have expected.
This does not surprise me. I think it's harder to go from playing under center to playing in the gun than vice versa. In the shotgun, you have to take your eyes off the defense for a moment to watch the snap, and you have to count the seconds in your head while receivers are running routes. Under center, you have your eyes on the D at all times and the timing of the routes is linked to how many steps you drop back. It's more of an automatic process.
The Illinois game was one of my favorites to watch. From an offensive standpoint, at least. What a payoff at the end.