Akron Postgame Presser: Brady Hoke
Don't mind me I'm just here in the back corner minding my own business
You stress turnovers so much. Was this a good game to remind your team what can happen if you lose the turnover battle?
“Well, I think it is in a lot of ways. Number one, give Akron a lot of credit. Their kids came in here like most Mid-American Conference schools, they come in here to win the football game and played to win the football game. They coached it that way, they played it that way. You know, they did a nice job. I told Terry [Bowden] that, and I told Chuck Motta that. They did some things defensively that were a little different, but things that we should be able to overcome to a certain extent, but we didn’t. What was your question?”
Was this a good reminder for what could happen --
“Oh, turnovers? The upset is always in the mind of the favorites. Any time you don’t take care of the football, and I don’t care if we’re playing Saline High School. Or you know, the Super Bowl champions, whoever that was, you can’t turn the ball over. That is number one. Turnover margins will kill you as a football team. The other thing? Penalties. Fitz [Toussaint] got 50 yards of rushing wiped out because we fundamentally didn’t block properly and we held guys. That can’t happen because, you know, that’s 50 yards of rushing. That’s the rhythm of the game. That and then we had a couple balls thrown over our head. I think two of them were defended decently well, and you have to give people credit. It was a good ball, it’s where it needed to be, it was a good catch, but still there’s still too many of those that hit the post and two-deep, and we should have been in better shape but we weren’t. From the coaches first, and me first, we have to do a better job. I mean, you can’t win championships with those mistakes.”
Taylor Lewan mentioned that something was wrong with preparation this week. Did you notice anything?
“I think it’s like anything else. You take finals, tests, and everything in college. You have to study and how much you study usually affects how you’re going to do. Maybe the effort wasn’t there totally. I thought Tuesday, I think I told you Wednesday, I didn’t like practice as much, but I did like Wednesday and Thursday.”
What changes next week?
“Well you know, the one thing that’s interesting is I’m not going to play a down, but we’re going to coach our butts off during the week. Not that we didn’t coach our butts off last week, but obviously we need to do some things a little better.”
Devin was able to shake off his mistake last week, but it took him longer this week. What was different?
“You know what, I don’t know. It’s a really good question, one that I’ll be thinking about all night. Why he made a couple of the decisions that he made. I know he’s beat up a little bit. Was coming in -- ”
Physically?
“Yeah just a little. Nothing terrible. It’s football. We’ve got to get to the bottom of playing more consistently and how we do that.”
A lot of run for Jourdan Lewis today. Was that by design?
“Yeah, we’ve liked how he’s progressed. We think him, [Channing] Stribling, and Delonte [Hollowell], really those three, all get about the same amount of reps. We like how Jourdan’s responded.”
This is the second game in a row the opponent has converted more than half of their third downs. How much of a concern is that, and what’s the problem?
“The problem is not tight enough in coverage, not fitting the run well enough, and no pass rush. That’d be it.”
About the pass rush, what can you do to improve?
“Well, you know, I think the way we’ve worked at it, it’s kind of surprising it hasn’t been as good to a certain degree. I think what hurt us today and if you go back and watch it, is how many times we let him out of the pocket. When we had good push in the middle from whoever it might have been, how many times on the outside -- and that’s one thing going into the game, [we said] whatever we’re going to do, we’re going to do in the cavity up the middle. Push them to the guys on the outside. Well there’s a couple times in there, four times that I remember, he got out, extended plays, made some good throws. But you have to cup better than that.”
Do you believe in wakeup calls?
“I get one sometimes in a hotel. But no, I think number one, we have five goals we have as a team and we go over them on Sundays. Number one is to win, so it’s good to win. It’s a heck of a lot better to win. But time of possession, we were horrific. You’re horrific when you turn the ball over four times. Turnovers. Did they have one? One pick? Two. They had two. So they won that battle. Kicking game … I thought our coverage was really good on kickoff. I thought those guys did a nice job. Obviously our punt game needs to go under the microscope in a lot of areas. That’s one thing we want to pride ourselves on. Was it embarrassing? I think there’s a lot of embarrassing things that happened when you don’t do what you’re supposed to do. I say that from [the perspective] of everybody has a job, from the equipment people, the trainers, the doctors, the coaches, the players. We all have to perform every week, every test at our highest level, and obviously we didn’t do that.”
Can you talk about those last two plays?
“The ones at the end of the game? Well I could have told you before what the last call was going to be, because I know Greg Mattison. It was “cable zero train,” and it was executed very well.”
Aside from the win, what good can you see from this game?
“I think we’ll learn a lot I think we’ll learn a lot about our team. I think you always do. We’ll learn a lot as coaches, we’ll learn a lot as players, and then we’ll go back and correct those things and respond to them.”
What’s your level of concern with the offensive line?
“There were some good holes in there at times. Fitz made a couple good cuts out of it. Is it consistent enough? No. I think watching it like we will, there’s going to be a lot of learning, and there will be a lot of teaching going on.”
Taylor Lewan said the leadership failed. Did you feel that way?
“You know what, I think those guys have taken a lot of pride, and they’ve worked very hard in that part of it. As a coach sometimes you put a little pressure on your leadership and maybe that’s what he’s responding to.”
September 15th, 2013 at 11:42 PM ^
September 16th, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 3:25 PM ^
Many commenters are talking about how the players didn't get up for this game, but I think the offensive coaching staff didn't get up for it either. It was hard to tell from the tight camera angles on BTN; maybe just no one was open or the routes were poorly run. But it seemed like going deep just wasn't part of the game plan. I know they would like to have another deep option, and that having Darboh out for the season hurts. But it didn't seem like they were even trying it in this game. (And given the way Akron played, the deep ball is exactly the thing they did need.) I agree it seems strange that they didn't seem to be practicing deep throws, especially when players like Chesson really do need the experience. But it seemed like coming into this game, they had other priorities.
Also, look at the running plays, especially in the first half. They tried a bunch of option-type looks that they haven't shown yet this year (none of which worked), rather than just lining up and running plays that have worked in the past. When these plays didn't work, suddenly you're 3-and-out, and you end up not running very many plays. And when you don't run many plays, it's hard to get into the rest of your offensive gameplan.
I think the offensive coaches thought this game would be a pushover too, so they decided to treat it like a live practice. Remember when all the crazy diamond and "Fritz" stuff first appeared against a badly overmatched Minnesota team two years ago? I think they had the same idea coming into this one: use the tomato can game to work the kinks out of the fancy new plays you want to add to the offense. Except in that game, the Fritz stuff was successful, and kept the offense in rhythm. In this game, the run game wrinkles they started with all failed, and suddenly the offense is out of sync.
Only after halftime did they start running read options, midline veers, and other running plays that have been bread and butter for this team for two years -- and those plays were pretty successful yesterday too. Seemed like the offensive playcalling was both more aggressive in the second half, and played more to the known strengths of the team, because they suddenly realized they had to actually try to win the game.
You never really know how much Hoke is just being Hoke -- he talks about "we need to do a better job as coaches" pretty much all the time anyway -- but in this one I think he really does mean it: the offensive coaches also expected a blow-out, and game-planned for one. When it didn't happpen, they had to adjust too.
As far as the defensive coaching... seems like we saw more of the bend-but-don't-break stuff we saw against ND, and that seems to me like it's done in part to protect a secondary they still don't really trust yet. I'm starting to think our defensive calls this year might be somewhat opponent-independent, and more about trying to hide our weaknesses than attacking the weaknesses of our opponents.
September 15th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
That I was able to sell my tickets at face value.
That was an ugly game, but we all have ugly days now and then. What stuck out was that no one Wolverine seemed to have a good day.
How did Funchess disappear after such an encouraging start? Devin is looking to Gallon way too much. We need to get other receivers involved.
September 15th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
Don't forget, playing ugly games and winning marginally put ND in the national championshitp last year. So... we got that going for us.
September 15th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 3:28 PM ^
The answer to that, apparently, is "just barely." So I guess we have that going for us. Which is nice.
September 15th, 2013 at 3:52 PM ^
on my deathbed.
September 15th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^
Route runner or not, Chesson's a 6-3 track star who looked pretty damn competent when he housed his only catch yesterday. 3 times a game you gotta send him on a streak and air the mutha out. Don't give Gardner a "progression." Just tell him to chuck it long. Take the thinking out of it sometimes.
September 15th, 2013 at 1:37 PM ^
I agree 100%....sometimes they ask too much of these guys. Make it a little simpler and let's see what we can do.
September 15th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
Michigan won.
No significant injuries.
Do I have the confidence that I did last week that Michigan would go to the Rose Bowl? Well, no.
But somewhere around 2009 I decided that life was just too short not to enjoy a Michigan win.
Hail to the Victors #906
September 15th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^
"Someone with more knowledge might understand better, but why do we take our best run stoppers (Washington and Pipkins) off the field for what seems like 75% of the snaps?"
I noticed in the 4th quarter they were doing a lot of DL stunts to try to bring pressure without a blitz. QWash and Pipkins probably aren't quick enough to run those plays; it means they switch with the DE but they lack the speed to play the outside or contain the QB.
The problem is that -- for the second straight game -- whatever goals Mattison had in mind with the nickel package, he didn't gain anything by taking his tanks off the field. I didn't see the stunts doing anything effective, the DEs kept losing contain ANYWAY, and that was against Akron's undersized line. All he did was compromise the run defense. . . and still fail to pressure the QB.
It's not so much the nickel D-line is bad overall (NO package was working when the players didn't have their damned heads in the game) so much as they're a downgrade against the run and NOT an upgrade against the pass. As long as we're getting results like these, I'd stop trying to be fancy with the sub packages.
But to reiterate, the scheme wasn't the issue. Almost nobody showed up to play.
September 15th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
Michigan still gets the official W. Yes, this is a young team prone to mistakes. I think a lot of the negative feeling stems from the fact that the performance seemed to confirm some of the worst trends about prior performance, and showed that problems forseen before the season started, festered.
There is one thing the coaching staff can do in games like these besides simply go with the flow, and that is try to force the issue, if in no other part of the game, how about special teams?
I mean Michigan could have tried an onside kick, a punt block, a fake punt, just to get momentum turned around and the team feeling better about itself. Yeah, I know, that stuff shouldn't be necessary. This is Michigan, fergodsakes, against Akron. Which is the point; you are hamstrung by your prevailing outlook regardless of the circumstances.
Because you are playing a weaker team, there is the idea that you can't use tricks to beat it when your qb is obviously reeling from a confidence standpoint. Michigan leads 21-10 in the second half, and you get the feeling the team is about re-gather itself and push the envelope. And he gives Akron a gift score.
Three blown scoring opportunities in the first half all negated by turnovers and penaltiesand one turnover that led directly to a score is how you get beat by bad teams, especially when you compound that by allowing them two huge pass plays. OK, a freshman got beat on the first one. But Taylor got beat worse on the second, and that cannot happen late in a game like that, ever.
That is what is fanning the fears about this team.
Look, if Michigan can't get pressure and is giving up both the deep middle and the deep sideline because its lbs can't get depth and the corners can't stay with their guys, then Gardner is going to have to be Johnny Manziel, and not a turnover machine.
If Michigan had lost yesterday, it would have been worse than Toledo and App State combined. Toledo and App State had certain credentials coming in. This team had doormat imprinted on it. It's always OK for the fan base to feel complacent about opponents, and as much as it might be human nature, for the team to think that, it can't operate with that mindset ever. Every opponent can take you out.
I mean Hoke noted in his press conference a principle that Bo made a hallmark of his coaching, the idea of an upset always being in the mind of the favorite. It is why he made that statement because he knew the source. That is why you prepare more dilligently to beat inferior teams because you don't want that fear to overrride your performance, which Michigan did yesterday, even though it saved itself at the end.
September 15th, 2013 at 12:57 PM ^
Sounds a lot like the Lions and looks a lot like the Lions. Folks, I have watched this quality of football in Detroit for over 50 years. Expect the same level of success and you won't be disappointed and probably not surprised.
September 15th, 2013 at 1:20 PM ^
Secondary has been good and he still rose up to take some PT. He's going to be a good one too
September 15th, 2013 at 2:33 PM ^
But he looked young too. I would have liked more Hollowell. Think he's showed better so far this season. Looked tighter in coverage and a more sure tackler in open space.
September 15th, 2013 at 4:04 PM ^
At least in this game. Maybe I watched him on the wrong plays, but he sure seemed to just put a shoulder into guys a lot, hoping to knock them over rather than bringing his feet and wrapping up. I wasn't happy with what I saw from him yesterday, guess I'll watch again. Yay.
September 16th, 2013 at 8:55 AM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 1:21 PM ^
on here. they definitely were shading gallon's side. I agree that Funches needs to use the seam route more, it seems like we take advantage of funchess 1 time per game and then we go away from him...why? i also think we should send chesson deep and have devin throw it his way, i kept calling for that yesterday, this would be easier if we could get some run blocking and then play action off it. overall, this game is over, i am confident with the coaches, they will watch a lot of film this week, make some tweaks, and we'll see some improvements next week.
September 15th, 2013 at 4:17 PM ^
We threw a few passes Funchess's way yesterday, but he dropped at least two of them (one of which turned into an INT).
September 15th, 2013 at 5:44 PM ^
for coaching types: was that INT on Gardner, on Funchess, or just bad luck? On first viewing, that looked like a terrible decision by Gardner to throw that ball, but the backfield angle replay made it seem like the throw was accurate and would have pretty much hit Funchess in the neck, i.e. he should have been able to catch it. Bad read, bad hands, or just unlucky?
September 15th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
We were down by three with 4:05 to play, marched down the field to score in 1:15, which unfortunately was too soon. We came from behind a couple of times and won the game.
The team made the big plays when it counted. A win is okay. I am not embarrassed or pissed off or any of that nonsense. That's why they play the game.
Akron had some very good coaching in Tommy Bowden and Chuck Amato and will win more than three games this year if they continue to play like they did yesterday.
September 15th, 2013 at 2:01 PM ^
I'm not sure if any fan has the right to say they can be embarrassed, but many of the player's said they were embarrassed, so that pretty much says it all.
September 15th, 2013 at 3:05 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
would post more often.
September 15th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
Was how much Akron's LBs struggled in coverage. Like really, really struggled. Michigan attacked it a little early, went away from it, and then tried to come back. The problem is, after the first couple drives, Gardner's confidence and timing went to hell. The biggest problem all game was DG throwing out of rhythm, which over the middle will always end terribly.
He also needs to do a better job pressing the pocket. The interior isn't holding up as well as you would like, but the pass rush off the edge is getting very wide and deep to try to keep Devin in the pocket and prevent him getting around the edge (the spin move). Pressing the pocket will help his OL, give him more time, and allow him to step into some deeper passes.
September 15th, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^
the thing that scares me the most is how much tunnel vision dg has for Gallon. He threw to him when he was completely covered way too often.
September 15th, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^
of the offense is simple to describe TURNOVERS. What did we have ... 2 red zone tunovers and then Devin throws a pick 6 ... again. That is carelessness. Also I think we had 20 rushing yards in the 1st half ... or something pathetically close to that. This is a MAC school ... line up, zone block and go straight at them. They came with 7 - 8 defensive people almost every rush - so they will filling the gaps - so all the OL stunts were negated.
The bigger issue to me is the defense and for the first time, I really question why GM wasn't sending the house at Akron's QB ?? As someone else mentioned, they often had 9 in the box against us and their corner was hitting Gallon right at the line of scrimmage ... BTW the holding call on Gallon was the worst call I've seen this year. Their DB tried to lock up Gallon an every route and that all that happened - ref blew the call. When we showed an obvious blitz at the line their QB NEVER hit a big play ... NEVER. And guess what .... you give any D1 QB enough time and they will pick our secondary apart ... 4 man rush and soft zone coverage will never succeed if the QB has time.
I really would prefer to see a very aggressive Defensive appoach that was the trademark of the great Michigan teams. MSU would have blitz Akron 90% of the time and the game would have been a blowout. To not let our athletes be aggressive, just doesn't use our strengths.
Unfortunately - this was a poor game offensively, defensively and by the coaches. Perhaps they all were still a little heady from UTL2. Whatever - it is still a win and yes I do think it was a wake up call.
Go Blue!
September 15th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
"TURNOVERS."
This x 1000!
Think about the circumstances of the turnovers. The first two INT, IIRC, were committed when Michigan was driving and likely would have scored. The last INT, being a pick 6, makes the INT's between 13-21 point swing.
Gardner got sloppy in trying to make the Akron defense pay for loading up the box and blitzing. If he is sharp, it's a easy win.
No matter who you are, nor who you play, you CANNOT turn the ball over 4 times and expect to win the game.
September 15th, 2013 at 8:41 PM ^
September 15th, 2013 at 9:01 PM ^
Just barely, just barely.
Think back to UTL1. Rees turned the ball over and kept an otherwise beaten Michigan team in the game, and it ended up costing them the game. Heck, UTL2 was could have easily been lost due to INT's.
Ball security has been an issue that has plagued Michigan perhaps more than any other since 2008 when we could barely field a punt. I think if you ask any coach they'd say that the largest contributing factor in turning the ball is youth. Now, Gardner is not young, but he is inexperienced. He'll learn, and I am very pleased that he has another year to grow into the QB that we saw for 99% of the ND game.
September 15th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
Dude's done nothing.
September 15th, 2013 at 9:56 PM ^
September 16th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^
That one bad game, can completely change the tide of one's thoughts on Brady Hoke and the advances we've made as a team.
During the 2nd half, I kept thinking "How the heck is Brady (and myself), going to live this one down?," "If we lose this, it's a painful reminder, that Michigan is still rebuilding"
It's really amazing, and I guess part of the culture, that the media really treats Michigan like they lost that game. Either television, or radio, when discussing the BIg Ten losing multiple games over the weekend, they mention Michigan in the same sentence. I can't say I blame them, as I still feel as though we lost that game, and it's Monday Morning.
I know we'll respond well, next Saturday.
September 16th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
Is anyone else feeling like there's a lack of "Bo" in the locker room and on the field? I think Hoke is a good coach, great recruiter and a true Michigan Man, but this team is missing a foot up its a-- and I don't think Hoke, Mattison or Borges are the type of coaches to dish out some "Bo" fire & discipline.
The Akron game was actually worse than the Appalachian State game because UofM was arguably falling behind the times in 2007, but now this program is supposed to be on the rise, two-years tops from regularly competing for NCs.
Ok, shouldn't panic over 1 game but at the same time, 3 games in... really 3-years in Hoke's system, and we should be seeing a championship mentality permeate all aspects of this program, a determination and nastiness from UofM football that says every game we dominate, dominate, dominate!! I'm seeing entitled and lackadaisical and that's on the coaches.
September 16th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
September 16th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
You may be right about Hoke but you assume too much. I have attended several practices and he doesn't display that "Bo" I'm talking about in public, at least from what I observed and what I gathered from those I spoke with. Maybe in private meetings.
As far as the 2007 team, you seem to have revisionist history on your side. Have you completly forgotten that team started 0-2, losing both games to spread offenses? That gave rise to one of the biggest complaints against Carr, that UofM didn't have the elite athletes to compete with national powers, let alone D-1-AA teams that ran the spread. So yes, UofM was falling behind the times in 2007 because the talent level was slipping as a result of the lack of elite 4-5 star players/athletes... not to mention complacency. This complaint was echoed by RR once he took over and subsequently did nothing about.
Enter Hoke and with out question he has shown the ability to bring in elite 4-5 star talent, bring respectability back to the UofM defense and have fans excited that the future does in fact envision legitimate runs at NCs. With the kind of foundation Hoke has laid, and on the back of impressive wins against CMU and ND, there was no reason for the poor showing against Akron other than perhaps something deeper this team, this program is missing. That's why I raised the question.
Yes, a win is a win but if this program is truly headed for B10/NCs, then now is the time to question/address lapses like this to make sure it's not a sign of things to come.
btw, try leaving the personal, snide remarks aside, it makes for a better discussion. But thank you for your concern, however my "insides" are fine.
September 16th, 2013 at 6:45 PM ^
September 17th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
I'm not a Bo apologist. He was a great coach who came up short in too many big games, especially RB games, but there's no doubt Bo set a tone of toughness, grittiness and excellence that led UofM to many successes.
The point I made was that this current team seems to lack discipline, focus and fire which led me to question whether Hoke, Mattison & Borges have it in them to really bring the wrath and set the fear of G-- in these players. It just seems that Hoke's approach is too laid back sometimes and teams generally reflect the personality of their coach. As an example, Saban is determined, driven, always hungry to prove he's the best coach with the best team and his team reflects that personality, win or lose.
September 17th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^
And did Bo's tone of toughness, grittiness, and excellence help with these games?
1970: Michigan 14, 2-9 Texas A&M 10
1971: Michigan 20, 3-7 Purdue 17
1972: Michigan 7, 2-9 Northwestern 0
1973: Michigan 14, 4-7 Navy 0
1975: Michigan 14, 3-6-2 Baylor 14
1975: Michigan 21, 5-6 Illinois 15
1976: 5-6 Purdue 16, Michigan 14
1977: Michigan 14, 5-6 Navy 7
1980: Michigan 17, 0-11 Northwestern 10
That 1980 Northwestern team was in the middle of its 34-game losing streak and wouldn't win another game until 1982.
HT: befuggled http://mgoblog.com/comment/reply/81436/2169133
And that's not even counting the top ranked teams that actually lost to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, and others. Saban may be the best coach of all time, and his determination, drive, and hunger didn't prevent him from losing to Louisiana-Monroe with Alabama.
These catch phrase sound good, but all sorts of tactics and personalities have success coaching. And more importantly, have failures along the way.
September 17th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^
I think you're too caught up in just wanting to argue.
I simply posed a question because the Akron game pointed to a concern based on what I've witnessed from this coaching staff over 3-years. With the elite talent Hoke is bringing in and UofM rising to a national power again, does this coaching staff have what it takes to instill a championship mentality/culture at UofM that has UofM regularly competing for a NC? It's a fair question based on what we've seen over 3-years and what we hope the future entails, not an overreaction to a poorly played game.
You bring up the ND game but "discipline, focus, or fire" are usually easier to lack when a team is overconfident rather than when a team is getting up for a big game like ND. Championship teams/programs maintain that "discipline, focus and fire" more consistently than not and teams trying to achieve that level of consistency usually have a coach who embodies the drive to get there such as Saban, Jackson or Krzyzewski.
btw, it's not about perfection, which explains the Bulls 72-10 season or some out-of-the-blue loss to Louisiana-Monroe. It's about direction, which explains Alabama's 3 NC's in 4-years.
Congrats! on the research. You can use it in your next argument. Remember, being a fan doesn't preclude you from making assessments of your team or being critical of your team. I want UofM back on top and I hope Hoke is the coach who can put & keep them there. Go Blue!
September 17th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
If it's based on some fact and not nebulous concepts. You've given nothing to show concern about the direction of the program except a game we won (while discounting losses from guys who have that "X-Factor" you like), and "observations" over 3 years. And you now name three completely different coaches and coaching styles. I mean, Phil Jackson, fire? Have you ever seen him explode on a player? The guy is a counterexample to your argument; the way to win big through zen coaching.And comparing a win at all costs guy with Coach K seems kind of off base too.
Alabama's 3 NC's in 4 years has more to do with a great coach who will do anything to win including throw his players under the bus supported by a fanbase that will do anything ($$$) to get there. If that's what you're looking for, using Bo as your first example is an even bigger mistake, as a guy who never won the NC and wouldn't stoop to the levels some of these guys will just to get there.
Comments