The Brady Hoke Style...

I basically said the same thing last week. 

Whoa I didn't realize we play the Ohio Bobcats this year.  Should be a barn-burner.

He seems to be a real plain-spoken, meat-and-potatoes, down-to-earth, uncomplicated kind of guy who puts on no airs. Whether it's because of that or in spite of that, he doesn't seem to have missed a single step in his private and public dealings with UM fans, local mainstream media, alumni, former players, and most importantly, current players. His appeals to UM tradition are unapologetically emotional, and fans in particular eat that red meat right up and bellow for more.

Unfairly or not, I would bet that the large majority of UM fans regard RR as an outsider usurper to the throne, and see Hoke as symbolic of a Restoration of the traditional Michigan monarchial line and values. Everything Hoke has said and done so far is perfectly in synch with that.

Where it will get really interesting is when the team finally takes the field. If Hoke's teams are successful at re-establishing our accustomed dominance over MSU and at the very least parity with OSU, he will be lionized in a way that Lloyd Carr never was. If the on-field performance falls beneath expectations after three years, then Hoke's appeals to Michigan tradition will be seen as pretty hollow.

While I think a case was makeable for RR getting a fourth year, I had no real expectations that he was going to succeed. Hoke was not my first choice as a replacement, but for some reason I have the feeling that he's going to be pretty successful here. Not because he himself is such a genius in the x's and o's, but because he's very smart about putting together a staff, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Just knowing that Hoke understands and appreciates the nature of Michigan football and it uniqueness among football programs is a huge positve. Those comparing his previous records to RRods in an unfavorable light really just dont understand or choose to understand the fundamental difference between the men themselves.

When we hired coach Rod I had no idea that he was a ferrari with no brakes, essentially useless on the D side of the ball as well as special teams. I don't know how many here knew this about the guy but I'm sure they assumed, as I did that he would take whatever approach was required to take care of those things ASAP. Why that did not happen I dont think we'll ever truely know but clearly it was the deathnell.

Hoke has the historical appreciation for what we have come to expect at Michigan. Strong fundamental football teams with a defense first mentality. If you allow them to score zero you cannot lose a game. From there you build the rest. I know many find this to be a dated and archaic idea and in time that may prove to be a correct analysis, thats really irrelevent at this point. What we do know is that the Michigan fanbase was not prepared to embrace the revolutionary idea of winning games by scores of 84-72 with defense being treated as an afterthought. Hoke knows this much and in that alone he's at an advantage from the standpoint of fan/alum support. All his talk is just re-emphasizing that IMHO.

Here is my problem with Hoke.  Emotion takes you only so far.  What does every single TV announcer and coach talk about going into a big game?  Emotion is worth a few plays and then then you crash & burn.  Focus, toughness, and prepareness are 99% of the game.  Were giving a guy kudos because he has a really shiny cherry and we have not seen the sundae.  Emotion and tradition is also a two edged sword.  You don't think the other team comes in and plays their best game because they are playing Michigan?

So lets look at the sundae minus the cherry that Hoke is going to construct.  For better or worse R^2 was an innovator who did not fear change.   In a field that is more conservative then religion or the army, I found it refreshing.  I personally believe that if R^2 had stayed and Dee Hart has signed to go to UM, we would have won 10 games this coming season.  Now everyone is happy with 7.  I also believe that the defense would have been improved with R^2 having his types of players on defense.

Some people allueded the arrival of Hoke to the restoration of the monarchy.  I am a UM alum and had to take some history from a world class department.  Despite being an emperor himself Napoleon also upset the establshed order in Europe.  The rest of the monarchies could not tolerate him and he was removed to retain the status quo.  Kings were restored and we had 30 some more years of rule of a system that was no longer viable.  The old base of King, Nobility and Clergy lasted a little longer until the forces of change ended it.

What does this have to do about football?  Well, Hoke says he wants to play footbal the old way.  Unfortuately, the old way no longer works.  Look what is going on in football be it college or pro.  Innovators are winning.  The old fatbut power style will only work if you have an extreme talent advantage.  That is why OSU gets creamed by the SEC.  That is why Wisconin lost to a skinny TCU team.  GB and Pitt made it to the SB because they had dynamic QB's who could operate outside of the pocket.  Yet everyone is all excited because Fred Flintstone is going to fight high tech rifles with clubs. 

The bottom line is we have a head coach who has lost more games then he has won and never left a legacy.  Any bets on how many games SDSU will win this year.  Hoke is not an innovator and adds nothing special.  He is not meat & potatoe,  I call it ham & eggs.  Every nook & crany of west coast has been explored and coaches know how to scheme to stop it.  Our only hope is our Dcoordinator, who will have a huge shortage of defensive players because were changing our defense again.  After this year were going to have a killer schedule.   If a single Dlinemen does not develop, it will be a very very long 2012 season.

And for all those who blame R^2 for the bad defense, watch how many players on our defense get drafted.  If the NFL combine can find a divIII nobody and project him as a NFL capable player, then "mismanaged" UM players will still get drafted.  I guarantee you the reason why some of our duds on defens played bad is they were bad football players.  And the guy who is responsible for them being there is the person Hoke wants to emmulate.

hfhmilkman

Rod was indeed an innovator, in like 2003. His schtick is now old hat, and especially his(from what I saw at Michigan). Our playbook was so blatantly predictable, well we dont even need to address that. Just watch the state game again and see what happens when they figure it out.

You claim every nook & cranny of west coast has been explored, yet do you not see the same thing with read option/spread?? If not now, when?? I see its time as being passed on the top of the heap, sure there will still be success had with that system but as with any, it gets figured out and contained.

How'd ol Fred Flinstone & his 2 tight ends do out there in Stanford the past couple years?? Using lesser talent(see how many players go to the NFL from that group) they were able to win. Imagine what a school with Michigans recruiting power could do with that same scheme?? Oh yeah, we've kinda seen that in a 30 yr bowl streak etc.

I'm not a proponent of any particular scheme, only a coach that is adaptable to the changing conditions and can win games. I believe that starts with defense every single time, including Oregon & Auburn, they turned the ball over like it was rugby with their "high powered" spread offenses and the winner had a grand total of what 19 points?? Winning is all about the D.

So, I then ask was it wise to hire a coach(Rod) who was all about the O?? One who, for all intensive purposes was content to completely ignore the most important ingredient for winning??

I'm glad you believe we'd have won 10 games, shows faith. I think we'd have won a maximum of 7, because I believe that Denard being used in the manner that RichRod used his QB's would have had him injured & out of service by the mid point of the season . There is plenty of evidence to support this(Pat White, Juice, Tyrod, Masoli) all of them spent an inordinate amount of time either out with injuries or playing with nagging injuries at less than 100%. Why would you encourage building a team so completely around such a specialized player and then exposing that player to extra abuse every game?? Just doesnt make sense to me.

As far as our lack of NFL talent on D, how many guys from that TCU team you admire so much are going to the NFL?? So which is it?? Do you need NFL guys on D to win or not?

I do not have inlines and a lot of stuff here.  So will hit each topic:

Why do I believe UM would win 10 games?  The missing piece in UM's offense last year in my opinion was a RB.  The zone read gives the QB the option to run or hand off.  Unfortuately, last years RB's were not equal to the task.  Vincent Smith was still a year away removed from an ACL injury, Shaw was injury prone, and Hopkins kept fumbling which freshmen often do.  When the read was run, our RB's were not nearly as productive as DR.  How many times was Vincent Smith ankle tackled a half step away from breaking a big one?  Dee Hart was the missing piece.  You combine that with everyone a year older and stopping all the silly mistake that young players make and the offense would have been better.  Even without Hart, Smith is a half step faster, you hope Shaw stays healthy, and Hopkins holds on to the ball.  How many interceptions did DR throw after a succesful play came back because of a silly holding penalty by Lewan?  With a solid RB, the number of runs DR has to make per came drop off a cliff.

Why do I say that GB and Pittsburg are innovators?  Yes they are innovators on defense but also offense.  Agreed the NFL is too physical for a run only QB.  However, both QB's thrive outside of the pocket.  Both offenses can thrive even if the running game fails.  The defenses are just as innovative.  They are 3-4's that do different things within a 3-4 context that no other teams do.  Regarding the Jets, Rex Ryan is one of the ultra genius's of football.  Perhaps his genius is on the defensive side of the ball.  He had to be conservative on offense because there are limits to what his young QB can do.  That limitation is what did the Jets in.  The Bears, they will be lucky to win half their games.  Everything fell into place.  I view them as the 2009 Hawkeyes.  An old team did not have any injuries and every call went their way.  Other then Mattison, I have little confidence in Hoke's staff being innovators.  Bourges had Campbell, R Brown, and C Williams in the same backfield.  When he did not, he got dumped.  The fact he was mired in a 2nd tier conference in what should be his coaching prime tells you what the rest of college football thought of him.  Look at whom SDSU beat last year.  Every team was either one dimensional or horrible.  I will also ask what did Ball State do the year Hoke left.  I will also ask you predict how many games SDSU will win this year.  If they mysteriously stink the year after, is the coach that good or were they peaking?  I would hope a good coach could leave a legacy.

Speaking of the SEC and OSU, they just broke their ten game losing streak.  OSU, the best team talent wise in the Big10 barely beat maybe the fourt or fith best SEC team.  Auburn and Alabama would have surely cleaned OSU's clock.   LSU, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and SC are about the same. 

Lastly regarding UM's returning defensive talent.  We will see who from TCU gets drafted.   So for Mwolverine, are Ebez, Mike Wiliams, Sagasesse, and Evans R^2's players or Carr's players.  If you pay attention to the authors of this site they have gone into incredible depth about how beginning in 05 the quality of the defensive recruits has dropped.  With an exception of a few players, R^2 recruits were 1st and 2nd year players.  I love Carr and what he contributed to Michigan.  But his staff did a terrible job recruiting defensive players from 05-07.  My theory is that Herrman was the only coach capable of evluating LB'er talent.  When he left, UM stopped finding great LB'ers.  It seems similar to the departure of Bedford and all the saftey issues UM has had for the past decade.  I am of the opinion that with some of R^2 players entering their 2nd and 3rd years, the mistakes on defense would have been cut down.   I do not like to name names as I don't like dissing players who probably did the best they could.  But I was called out.  No amount of coaching were going to make the above individuals better.  They were just not DIV1 players.  Yet someone on Carr's staff insisted they were. 

Back to TCU, there are four players on TCU's defense that in my opinion has a shot at being drafted.  We will have to wait until the draft itelf.  Are we agreed that the only defensive player graduating with a remote chance to play at the next level is Mouton?  The consensous is he will be a 7th round pick if at all. That alone tells you the state of Michigan football.  The talent on defense is so crummy, we might not have a single defensive player drafted.  That tells you something about the bust rate of Carr's last few classes. 

I could say that you just don't want to see how mediore a coach UM has hired and just want to see everything through Polyana classes.   I stated that good coaches leave a program in place.  In 2009 after Hoke left Ball State went 2-10, and 4-8.  Compare to Bowling Green & Utah with Urban Meyer.  Bowling Green went 9-3, 11-2, and 9-3.  Utah went 7-5, 8-4, 9-4.  Again, I will state I believe SDSU will be lucky to win 4 games.  R^2 at least left a team that has been going to bowl games.  If you wanted to make a case a program collapsing after a hire profile coach leaving your better using Brian Kelly.  Though CMU did very well the last couple years.  At the very least, R^2, Kelly, and Meyer all have winning records.  So there is expectation that they could succeed later on and were not rising to their level of incompentence.  Bottom line is a Hoke led team loses more then it wins so far.

Regarding Mattison, I have no qualms with him.  In my opinion he is UM's only hope.

Regarding Bourges, I think it is a mistake in the college game not to use a mobile QB.  Campbell never ran at Aurburn and the QB at SDSU certainly did not run.  I think everyone would agree that 25 carries for a QB is too much and I already enumerated why.  Someone being a threat to run 10 times a game means one more thing to game plan.  I think it is pretty reasonable for a spread RB not to commit to UM when there is doubt the spread coach's job is in jeapordy.  Vincent Smith was never the fastest player.  However, an ACL tear takes two years to fully recover from.  A half step is all he would need.  Between Smith, Hopkins learning to hold on to the ball, and/or Shaw not being hurt the entire year, I will take my chances.

Regarding OSU, 2 wins does not mean you have a data point unless your cluess VP.  Prior to that, they lost several BCS games in a row. 

Now in terms of who of R^2's defensive recruits get drafted, unless you are 5 stars, projecting NFL on 1st and 2nd year players is unrealistic.  R^2 had only 2 full classes.  The 08 class was mostly Carr's.  Just like the 11 class is mostly R^2's.   We have no idea who will projec t to the NFL.  What we know do is minus Mike Martin, most of Carr's defensive recruits in the 05-08 classes were duds.  Over  and over when I look at UM defensive players I see "unathletic" as the first liability adjective used.  I already made my case what I thought happened after Herrman left.

Look, I would love to be wrong.  I am not going to sit there and root against UM so I can be right.  I would gladly take my beat down, eat my socks, drink borbon from a hockey players left skate after a 3 OT game if UM goes 13-0 or heck just has a string of great years.  However, there is a lot of circmstancial evidence pointing to the next few years being shakey.  I am just calling it as I see it.  I don't have anything more against Hoke then what his body of work as a coach has shown.