Why Are People Defending Hoke?
I for the life of me don't see him staying..
From Marcus defending him and Jon Jansen defending him today on his podcast..
Is it the Carr faction grasping at straws??
On a side note did anyone listen to Marcus Ray this morning?
He basiclly called Hoke out when he was stating OSU out coached MSU..
Amazing.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
I think there's something to be said for the criticism that we don't want to go 3 or 4 and out with our coaches.
Unfortunately it's hard to endorse that in that case since the team has declined every year he's been a coach...not just in wins and losses but hey, that's just a statistic.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
They're being loyal to Hoke which is understandable. They had success and a ton of happy memories with him. But loyalty can only go so far. They have to know that beating Northwestern 10-9 in year four is completely unacceptable. Or the rivals they beat so often are now destroying us.
I'd love to hear from former players who played pre 1995. I thought it was telling when Desmond said on Gameday a few weeks back that he didn't like what he witnessed in Michigan's practices and how only a couple players seemed to be putting their best effort in.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
I mean let's go figure out what Jamie Morris, Anthony Carter, Stephen Schilling and Brandon Graham think...Someone get a feel for Jonas Mouton and Zoltan Mesko. Let the Desmond Howard and Elvis Grbac's speak out.
Find people with less of a connection to the coach in question.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
November 12th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
Not trying to argue here, but didn't Chris Spielman say something during the Indiana game, or maybe it was MSU, about seeing Michigan practice and saying they look like a national championship team during practice. It's interesting to see such a difference in opinion about it.
I guess the counter-argument would be "lol Chris Spielman."
November 13th, 2014 at 9:44 AM ^
I thought he was calling out the players, not the staff. It would fall in my "stuff people might know but can't talk about in public" category and he did it as directly as he possibly could.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
I was a Hoke supporter up until this year for most of those reasons. Also I just wanted him to work out because I didn't want us to have to go through another coaching change, nor did I think there was a better (realistic) option at the time. I'm was never a big pro-Harbaugh guy (and I really think we all need to level out our obsession with him in general), but now I'm certainly more open to him being our coach, if that's the way it works out.
After this year, it's pretty clear Hoke doesn't have what it takes to be successful at this level, and that's too bad. If he just had a little more game-day skills we would be fine. I'm not a football coach so I don't know what I'm talking about, but I just want us to be competitive. That being said, I don't want us to fire Hoke without a home run hire in hand. I will never support firing anyone just to fire them (unless there's a non-football issue at hand, of course).
(Disclaimer: I also really wanted RR to work out, so I'm probably just an overly-optimistic homer. I can live with that.)
November 12th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^
November 12th, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
although when RR was hired, I wasn't much of a fan of the "basketball on grass" style, whether I just bought the propaganda or whatever of pro style pro style pro style, I wasn't totally gung-ho for RR, and stuff like 67-65 against Illinois just strengthened that Which of course was stupid, now I'd love it if we had a competent spread (really just a competent offense) and I have grown to like RR's running and deception on offense.
Hoke couldn't have started out better here in his first season, aside from beating MSU also. He (Mattison, but still Hoke) fixed the defense. Once Denard was reined in stupidly/got hurt/graduated this offense has totally lost consistent explosiveness. That was kinda the first clue that this was going to turn out bad.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
is your comment about not a Pro-Harbaugh guy. There is not a single thing about Harbaugh that doesn't scream ELITE coach. And he is one of our own, not only a Michigan player but one of our most iconic players.
To not be a Pro-Harbaugh guy means one has to be thinking emotionally and not logically. There has a personal dislike of him, cause if you take emotions out of it and just go based on his record, there is no way any sane person wouldn't want him as their coach. He isn't getting NFL millions thrown at him out of charity.
If Harbaugh isn't on the top of your list then you are not serious about fixing this. And that is the root of our problem. The solution was easy even prior to RichRod. We had either Les Miles or Harbaugh and we are not in the situaiton that we are in today. However, agemdas and egos got in the way and we have reaped what we sowed.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:34 PM ^
You're painting with a wide brush here. I think there are plenty of Harnaugh detractors that could argue that Mullen or Patterson for example could be an equally dynamite hire, and would also be breaking from the "Michigan Man" BS that has taken over this program which would be a positive (this is devil's advocate here). You can be cool to the popular opinion and not be some football-hipster-doofus contrarian for the sake of being different.
I'm not one of those people, I'd love for Harbaugh to come coach Michigan. But all the tradition and history that comes with him is a bonus/secondary factor. He is the best option because he likely will be the best available coach who would want to come here. Rich Rod wanted to coach here, was hired and STILL didn't receive the full support he needed for stupid reasons. To walk us back to 2007 accomplishes nothing.
November 13th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^
Mullen and Patterson command the level of respect that Harbaugh does. That is not even up for debate. And if Jim Harbaugh is a Michigan Man, then give me two!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would rather a Michigan Man be here winning games, then going to Stanford and turning that program into a Top 10 program or leading his team to Superbowls in the NFL. I mean really why would we want that Michigan Man.
BTW, the post wasn't intended to be inflamitory, just pointing out that at this point, when you are talking who are considered the elite coaches, Harbaugh is high up on the list, other guys we would consider wouldn't be nearly as high. So why not go for the best avialable
November 12th, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
and I think we have come to the point in this program where we have to take emotions and personal biases out of it, otherwsie we run the risk of having 20 more years of this.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^
He is a worldy soul. A man of many talents.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^
he's a father of 115 sons
November 12th, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^
As always; aware, but not fully aware...
November 12th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 12th, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^
Mark Dantonio won 11 games and a Big Ten championship in his fourth season whilst inheriting less talent than Hoke did
Your attempt at comparing Hoke to Harbaugh fails as Hoke inherited much more talent than Harbaugh did at Stanford. Additionally, Harbaugh's records got better each season, not worse like Hoke's.
There is no logical defense for Hoke. His teams have gotten worse as his players have cycled into starting positions and/or significant playing time.He can't win on the road. His offenses are an absolute mess. His defenses do not generate many turnovers and routinely flop against good opponents. There is no basis for keeping the man beyond the deluded hope that things will get better with time. How a partisan of this argument cannot answer. It just will.
These players are harming the program by continuing a man who wasn't qualified for the job to begin with and who has since lived up to the 47-50 record he came to Michigan with. These players are a detriment to Michigan football right now because they insist on the earth being flat when the data says it is an oblate.
November 12th, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 12th, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
Please find me an elite coach who went from 11 wins in his first year to 5 or 6 in his 4th year and continued to coach at said program for many years. I will wait.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^
Of course there's no one with exactly the same career pattern. But some are somewhat similar, and the difference is usually that they weren't quite as successful. How about taking over a thriving program that had gone 10-1 the prior year and starting a career with:
- 8-3
- 7-4
- 8-3
- 6-5
- 4-7
Admittedly, that particular coach made his career elsewhere, but you can be damn sure this school wishes he'd stayed.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
Okay I'll play. Who is this particular coach?
November 12th, 2014 at 5:01 PM ^
Bobby Bowden.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:19 PM ^
Glad we're basing why we should keep Hoke on Bobby Bowden's record at West Virginia 40 years ago.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:23 PM ^
Glad we are basing why we should fire him based on how he is not winning how you like right now.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:36 PM ^
Did I say we should keep Hoke? Did I say we shouldn't? All I did was give an answer to your rhetorical question--it's got fuck-all to do with Brady Hoke.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:08 PM ^
I don't think anyone should use the 11 wins first season as to what the trajectory for his career at Michigan. You are correct I will not be able to give you the person that has done the same thing. Please look at Dan Mullen's first 5 years at Miss St and how his record was up and down. Miss State stayed with him and now they are number one in the country. You put those records with him at Michigan and they would be calling for his head before this year.
So again my point is look beyond the record. I am not sure if they should keep Hoke or not. Many people say this and I agree if you let him go you better have a fail proof coach waiting.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^
Comparing Michigan and Mississippi State is ridiculous. One has won exactly one SEC title in history and more often than not has a losing record. The other has a history of 9 wins being a bad year. Plus any one of Mullen's teams would have destroyed this current Michigan team.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:21 PM ^
I am not comparing tradition, I am looking at coaches as you asked. So thanks for bringing up the point also that Mullen has never won an SEC title just like Hoke has never won a B1G title. So why is it ridiculous to compare?
So now you are saying his past records shouldn't matter because they could beat this team, come on that is ridiculous.
November 12th, 2014 at 9:55 PM ^
Michigan's had nine or fewer wins in 24 of the last 36 seasons. That's a lot of bad years.
Don't get me wrong, few schools have done better. Michigan's 8th, nationally, in wins over that stretch. Nobody has a long-term history of "9 wins is a bad year."
November 12th, 2014 at 5:23 PM ^
...is that the parameters are so narrow it's a given, going in, that no one will fit them.
Here's a list of all the coaches in the history of the B1G that won eleven games in their first year with a school:
- Fielding Yost, Michigan, 1901
- Earle Bruce, Ohio State, 1979
- Bret Bielema, Wisconsin, 2006 (he'd be a match except his 7-6 came in his third year, not his fourth)
- Brady Hoke, Michigan, 2011
- Urban Meyer, Ohio State, 2012
That's it, just five.
Checking a few other elite programs turns up these:
- Howard Jones, USC, 1925
- John Robinson, USC, 1976
- Fred Akers, Texas, 1977 (That's close: 7-5 his fourth year, #2 in the country in year 5)
- Dennis Erickson, Miami, 1989
- Larry Coker, Miami, 2001
- Les Miles, LSU, 2005
- Nobody at Alabama, Florida St., Nebraska, Oklahoma or Notre Dame.
Maybe there are a couple more out there somewhere but I'm not sure who to check.
When you start with a universe of only a dozen or so, it's not so surprising you can't find many with a particular record in a particular year.
November 12th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
And that list proves that winning games early doesn't mean jack.
Fred Akers was fired from Texas for not winning at their standard as was Coker at Miami.
November 12th, 2014 at 6:29 PM ^
Fred Akers was fired because he was hated by people close to Darrel Royal, who didn't want him hired in the first place. There were many comments early in that final season that made it clear that Akers was gone "even if he wins a national championship." And this was a man who'd been to a bowl in every one of his nine seasons, who'd had three near-misses at national championships, who had the second-best winning percentage not just in the history of the school but in the history of their conference.
He had four top-ten seasons; after he was fired they went 15 years before it happened again.
http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/119907-FIRE-FRED-a-littl…
November 12th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^
Look at his record outside those three seasons.
9-3
9-3
7-5
9-3
7-4
8-4
5-6
His teams were not consistent winners. That was why people were pissed at him. He only won the southwest conference twice in ten years.
November 12th, 2014 at 7:43 PM ^
5-6 hadn't happened yet, at the time of the quotes in the article I linked. He was, at that time, the second best coach in the history of the school and of his conference, and he'd been to nine straight bowl games.
If you read contemporary accounts it's absolutely clear why he was fired and that 5-6, while it made it easier, wasn't the reason because it was coming regardless.
And how'd they do in the decade-and-a-half following?
He's exhibit B in my "if you let the fans drive your hiring/firing choices you're on the road to football hell" brief.
November 12th, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^
So according to you schools should settle for 9-3 and 8-4 because it's possible that something worse might happen in the future?
''Let's not try and be the best. If we screw up a coaching search in the future things could be worse so we'd better not do it.''
That's why I don't get the ''I long for the Lloyd Carr years''. Really? I don't . I don't like what is going on right now but I sure don't want to go back to the Carr years either. I would like to see a coach take Michigan to similar heights of OSU in the last decade.
November 12th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
If after you strip out all a coach's best seasons you're still left with 9-3 and 8-4, yeah, that's as good as there's any reason to expect. There isn't a school in the country where 9-3 is the floor--every single school has had a season worse than that in the last decade.
Firing every coach that loses four or five games in a season is a good way to kill a program, and no athletic director operates that way.
November 12th, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
Really? Because I'm pretty sure Jim Tressel only had 2 seasons with less than 10 wins in ten seasons.
Bob Stoops has only had 3 in 16 years.
Those guys are elite. We need someone elite.
November 12th, 2014 at 10:48 PM ^
...of people whose sure-fire method of beating the stock market is to always buy the stock that's about to go up.
Do you have some way of identifying a Tressel in advance? If Michigan made a similar FCS hire now--hired Beau Baldwin, say--would you be in favor?
This hindsight stuff is BS. You can't call Retroactive Brokers to place your trade three years ago--you've got to make a decision based on information available now. And selling every stock you have that shows red is just a way to feed your broker with transaction costs.
November 13th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
November 13th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^
Curious coincidence: Stoops also has a "failure to monitor" on his record at Oklahoma.
I know there's a portion of the fanbase that doesn't care about that stuff and just wants to win, regardless--I console myself with the suspicion that that particular faction won't have any pull with Schlissel and is unlikely to have much pull with any AD Schlissel would hire.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^
" So because he is not improving W-L at the rate the fans want does not mean it's not getting better. "
This is completely illogical. You measure development by the performance on the field. That is how you measure it. Hoke has failed because his teams have gotten worse each season.
Four years is enough time at a school with the resources of Michigan.
Saban won a national title by his fourth season at Bama as did Miles at LSU. So did Meyer at UF. All took over for dismissed coaches.
November 12th, 2014 at 4:21 PM ^
Yep, by year 4 at 'Bama Saban had won a national title, but "Many don't remember that Alabama finished fourth in its division during Nick Saban's fourth year with the Crimson Tide."
Boom! Brandoned!
November 12th, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
What is not debatable is the the massive hole he inherited on the oline. Which might have just a little to do with the offensive struggles the past 2 years
November 12th, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
the OL to have developed enough to be solid. Look at OSU's line. Young and good. Why isn't UM's good?
The answer is because Hoke hired a horrid OL coach whose units have for the most part not been good. Outside of the 11' edition Funk's lines have been subpar.
November 12th, 2014 at 7:28 PM ^
Seth did some analysis on when Oline players can be expected to be good, looking at UM 1993-2011. [http://mgoblog.com/content/hokepoints-when-will-o-line-be-ready] Answer: only 1/3rd will be solid+ by their 4th year.
UM's 2014 O-Line:
LT: Cole, FR
LG: G. Glasgow, RS JR (and former walk-on)
C: Miller, RS JR
RG: Kalis, RS SO
RT: Braden, RS SO
November 12th, 2014 at 4:32 PM ^
How does it affect us this year in any way? Besides Cole the entire rest of the offensive line has been here 2 or 3 years.
November 12th, 2014 at 5:47 PM ^
That Talent was good enough to win the Sugar Bowl so that really isn't in debate. Our Oline struggles certainly can be debated when you see OSU plug 4 new guys into their line and demolish MSU.