A Brady Hoke supporter
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/brady-hoke-not-jim-harba…
January 7th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^
No, I'm actually anti-Harbaugh for his actions off the field. His comments about Michigan's academic standards to boost his own Stanford team forever villified him in my eyes. No "Michigan Man" should ever break down the program he supposedly loves if it benefits him personally. They call that cutting off his nose to spite his face.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
This "spread" vs. "pro-style" argument has become absurd. No one system is in itself better than another. There are still "power football" teams that are immensely successful. Is Alabama still stuck in the 80s? How's Wisconsin doing these days? Their doing a shit-ton better than us.
A good coach is able to run a wide variety of schemes, some spread, some not. Too many people make it seem like it's an either-or thing. Sure, with coaches like Rodriguez and Hoke, it does appear that it's either/or.
Rodriguez, for example, was completely committed to one brand of offense, which dates him, I think. Whereas Tressel, for example, is able to work around the talents of vastly different QBs.
I'm hoping we get a coach who is able to use our players in a wide variety of ways.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
I could not agree more. A good coach doesn't rely on one scheme for his offense or defense. A good coach adapts his system to his players.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
the coaches who have to do that are the ones who couldnt' get the players they wanted in the first place. I'd rather have someone who is able to fill the roster with the talent they desire and not just what they can take.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
But there are also coaches who adapt their system to their players because they get the best athletes. LIke, say, the sweatervest.
The best coaches are not locked in to one system.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
Point taken. But RichRod was brought to Michigan to install his system. It wasn't stubborness that made him do this, it was what the university wanted when he was hired. Otherwise he would not have been hired.
January 7th, 2011 at 6:17 PM ^
This is about Michigan's coach post-Rodriguez.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^
Than have a great system.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
Yikes, I can no longer edit my commment.
When you read, please replace Their with They're in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^
big an RR supporter as there are, and yet I would much prefer Hoke over many of the big-name spread offense type guys. BTW, his SDSU team this year had TWO thousand yard receivers while the RB was just under 1500yds. His team also had two other wr's that had over 300 yds and 3 and 4 TD's. His qb also threw for over 3800 yds this season. Not exactly a 3yds and a cloud of dust type guy.
I like the idea of Hoke being our HC and would support him as much as I did RR.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
Hoke is not a one trick pony as you've pointed out. Case closed.
Sick of people spouting off about Hoke like they know. At least do your homework before you talk and sound like a moron. This just perpetuates something about Hoke that is simply not true.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
No case is ever closed. Not when you're arguing against someone trained in arguing!
/teasing
January 7th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
That said, I still believe that there are MANY much more qualified coaches that would be available and I'd like to see Michigan go after them first. Its simply personal preference - every candidate consider will, I assume, have a decent-looking resume with good football stats, etc. And every resume can be dissected. I prefer that Michigan hire a coach that runs the spread because I like watching that offense, Hoke has expressly stated that he does not like that scheme, and thus I do not want to see Hoke on Michigan's sideline next year. All that said, I'm with you - I'll support him if he's hired. Hell, he might turn out to be a superstar!
January 7th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
........in the next HC is that someone who is simply looking at the job as either a boost to the next level(JH), or another notch on his belt(no one in particular but someone like Meyer would fit here). I want someone who is willing to take the job because they truly want to aspire to become UM's next great coach until they retire.
I get sick of hearing names like Peterson or Patterson or Stoops or any number of people who end up more of a "hired gun" than UM's HC. That is why I have warmed up completely to the thought of Hoke as our HC. I don't believe he takes us back to the LC days of only good but not great. I think he has the potential to take UM beyond what Alabama is doing right now, and if we are speaking of their success with the type of offense/defense they run, that isn't a bad thing at all. I believe he would bring in some very good assistants that aren't necessarily connected to UM in any way, although someone like Wheatley for RB coach would be pretty good.
Hoke isn't the sexy, splashy headline grabbing hire that everyone seems to be clamoring for but, IMO, he is the only one I've seen talked about, and that I've looked into, that will return UM to prominence and be here for a long, long time. The other names mentioned seem to be more of a 3,4 or 5 year plan with nothing beyond that. Patterson might make sense in that regard, as well, and might take on the job with everything he's got and be long-term at UM, but he is the only one other than Hoke that I can see that happening with.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
I don't really know much about the conference Hoke and SDSU is in now, but it seems like it would be hard to project that kind of production to the BIg Ten as a given. I'd say the most transferrable production, like best guess of success, etc. would be Miles because he would have a downgrade in talent, most likely, and a downgrade in competition. I'm not so worried about offense at Michigan because we have a lot of young guys who should be able to grow in any system. I'm most worried about defense, and even that might be unfounded because of the youthful proportion of defensive players with a lot of potential who haven't played much if at all, Marvin, Furman, Ash, etc. I think we'll be alright next year with an easier schedule, but Hoke is too safe of a choice for DB, I just can't see him going through all the firing and search process to get a guy whose cieling is an OSU win here or there and a Big Ten title run every now and then. He's stated that UM's football is the driving force for the school's athletics and it's his job to find and hire the best guy out there for the job. The best guy to lead Michigan forward, the guy who can bring Big Ten titles home on the regular along with a few national titles, I don't think that is a description of Hoke, and I don't think Dave Brandon thinks it is either. I have no clue who we'll have leading our Maize and Blue, but whoever it is will lead the team and school where they want to be.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^
the way people were moaning and groaning when RR got hired and continued to do so all through his coaching career at UM? If you don't want to hear that sort of stuff you had better stop reading this blog or hope BH doesn't get hired. It has already started and it won't stop until he is either no longer an option as HC or gets fired as UM head coach..
January 7th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
then people like you are hurting the program (I presume you were moaning and groaning). End. Of. Story.
Not saying this is everyone, but I wish some people would forumulate their own opinions about coaches, etc. and not blindly follow what Brian spouts off.
What happens if Hoke is hired and wins 10+ games a year? Will people finally shut the F up? So sick of it.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^
What happens if Hoke is hired to appease a portion of the fan base and he loses 10+ games a year? I think you see the err of your ways. If not, no sense wasting any more finger energy.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
I'm saying accept the next coach. Suck it up and see what happens. Can't we see that RR was hurt by all the bullshit happening in Ann Arbor? I mean, come on..
January 7th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
I take that as a general assumption (that we need to support the next coach) and go forward in voicing my opinion in the desperate hope that it somehow affects the search and decision.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
Gene Chizik was booed at the airport when he arrived at Auburn. OMG WORST HIRE EVER!!!
Something tells me Auburn fans have changed their minds now.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
...I guess. I have watched zero SDSU games this year. I will be upset if Brady Hoke is the coach. But I will be upset because I think he gives the program less of a chance of being successful in the long run than some of the other coaches being discussed (and Rodriguez, for that matter). I am leery of people who call the spread "basketball on grass." I don't really give a fuck what previous ties to the University someone has (and think that it would be a huge mistake to base decisions on this "Michigan Man" kind of stuff, or onunderstanding the Michigan culture or something). And, well, once you strip down the Michigan man crap, then you have a coach has been moderately successful at two small programs and who by all accounts knows football well. That's just not enough for me. I don't know how anyone has much of an idea how he'll be as a recruiter at a major program [insert anecdotal objection re: Tom Brady].
Will I shut the fuck up if he wins 10+ games a season at Michigan? You bet. I just don't think it will happen. I have nothing against Hoke. I just don't think he should be seriously considered as a coach for Michigan based on what we know about him now. Its possible he would do well. Its also possible there are a bunch of no-name 1-AA coaches or HS coaches that would do well. That possibilty doesn't mean I don't get to be upset if they are being discussed as candidates.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
I think the "basketball on grass" comment is a non issue. If you watch some SDSU film, Hoke uses some 4 wide, shotgun sets that would be considered spread. His teams are power run game first, but Hoke has shown he can deploy many different formations depending on the competition. I disagree with Brian's assumption that the transition with Hoke will be difficult because he solely runs a pro set. SDSU seems very versatile on offense.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^
...troubles me not because I think it suggests what type of system he runs or would run, but because it reflects one of those stubborn, old-school, resistant-to-change kind of attitudes I would strongly prefer the coach not have (regardless of how many 1,000 yard receivers he coached this year).
And I don't care too much about the tough transition thing. Selfishly and myopically I'd love to get a guy that keeps Denard around and uses him well, but that shouldn't be driving the decisionmaking. The new coach should be the guy that will make Michigan *good* in 3-4 years, not less bad next next year. I'm fine with any system the new coach wants to run (assuming its effective), I just don't really want a guy who thinks zone blocking is for pussies.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
......that "stubborn, old-school" type of offense, yet I challenge anyone to declare his recent teams not successful, or even championship caliber. Yes, I get that he oversigns and gets great players, and doesn't recruit "honorably", and that that is a big reason for his team's success, but the type of offense he runs can be very, very good.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^
"stubborn" and "old school." I called the attitude reflected by that quote stubborn and old school. Please read the post. I also said I had no problem with any system; I'm not trying to say pro-style is better or worse than read-option-based spread or anything else. If a coach wants to run pro-style, or passing-based spread, or anything else because he thinks that best fits the team, or because he knows and believes in it, great. I'm all for it. I just don't want someone who resists certain styles of football because they aren't "real football" or something. That attitude is troubling to me. The quote by Hoke I referenced suggests he might be among the people who think that, and that makes me wary of him.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^
When you disparage the Oregon offense as "basketball on grass" that ain't proper football and can't work just days before Oregon plays for a feckin' national title against another spread team then you are, my friends, a certifiable oaf.
And, lo, here is Coach Hoke proudly sporting his Oaf Badge. Being dumber than a bad of rocks ought to be enough to disqualify him from further consideration for the UM job. Sadly, the reverse seems to be true for some.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
I'm watching ESPN and Chris Mortensen is reporting its down to the 49ers or Stanford for Harbaugh with Stanford being the favorite. A decision is coming tonight is what the scrolling news at the bottom says.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
I don't really pay any attention to Whitlock. He seems like a contrarian who says/writes things just to spark controversy and get attention.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
I believe he was the one who called for Brian Kelly to be fired because of the situation with the student videographer who died a few months ago.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^
I tend to agree that Whitlock should generally be disregarded, but your example isn't the reason why. A decision made by Kelly indirectly resulted in a kid's death. Even Tressel had the sense to bring practice inside that day because of heavy wind. I don't really know how you could argue with someone who thinks he should've been fired for that.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
Was this a news article or was it a letter of recommendation sent on Hoke's behalf? It does contain tidbits of information, but half of it is spent describing how much Whitlock actually loves Hoke.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^
Case fucking closed.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
I can't stand Whitlock....his support for Hoke does nothing for me.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
A friend of mine whose father is a prominent business owner in the area has informed me that he has heard through a business connection that John Gruden is putting a down payment down on a house in Ann Arbor... No jokes here... I would like to keep businesses and names anonymous.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
Would also explain why flighttracker was in AZ where Gruden is doing the national championship game on radio.
I want to believe!
January 7th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
...and I jizzed in my pants.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
Really? Because I just threw up in my mouth.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
I dont think it would happen at all, but if it did I can't imagine a better hire (now that it has become pretty apparent that Harbaugh is using Michigan as a bargaining chip and does not appear to have any serious interest in coaching here).
The guy knows football, the guy is a winner, and is one of the more charismatic people in football. Recruiting classes would be ridiculously good with Gruden, probably better than with any other candidate given the current state of our program.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
I would be all for Gruden to be the next HC at Michigan. I love how he acts and loves the game of football. I would be super happy to see him on the sidelines for us.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^
Ok, serious question here. What has Gruden done to prove he can be a successful college coach? I know he had professional success, but I'm in the camp that it takes a special person to be good at both professional and college, and they are not that common. I really have no idea what Gruden's resume is in college and am too lazy to look it up, so I'm asking you cause you seem high on Gruden.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
pretty much nothing, Jim.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
Successful NFL head coaches just don't go to college so there aren't cases. Even scrubs with NFL pedigree (Weis, Wannstache, etc.) had no trouble recruiting and Chucky is way more charismatic. X's and O's are if anything probably easier in college.
As for college resume, Gruden was a grad assistant at Tennessee for two years, coached QB's at Southeast Missouri State for a year, then receivers at Pacific for a year, then jumped to the NFL for a year, then coached WR's at Pitt for a year, then back to the pros to stay.
He's been around two decent college programs and I don't think he'd have any trouble adjusting. He had high level success at two different NFL jobs (one of which is almost impossible to succeed in), was on Holmgren's staff in Green Bay and was an OC with the Eagles (where they went to the playoffs two of three seasons).
Gruden is the truth. If for no other reason than he won with the freaking Raiders, you have to like the hire. I can't think of another college team ever that landed a Super Bowl winning coach.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^
I can't think of another college team ever that landed a Super Bowl winning coach.
That would be Stanford. (Bill Walsh)
January 7th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
Though he had already been there and was 60 years old when they hired him the second time. Gruden is 47.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
Very true. It was just something that popped into mind immediately when I read your post.
Not against Gruden here, btw. There's a reason his name comes up for nearly every NFL and top-tier college job opening every time they happen. One wonders (assuming he'd want to coach again) which job he's waiting for??
January 7th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^
He went to Oregon and spent a lot of time there just to learn about the spread offense. He is really a football genius, and would recruit probably better than Michigan has ever recruited (that's saying a lot, but a Super Bowl winning coach would do that). He knows how to put people in positions that they fit best (I watched his teams closely in Tampa and Oakland). I have no doubts he would be extremely successful at any level.
He is passionate, he is smart, he has a way above average resume. Gruden was my guy I had in mind when he was (only slightly) rumored for the first coaching change, it has been said that his dream job was to coach either Michigan, OSU, or ND at some point in his life (really don't have any source on that, but it's what I've heard), which means he understands the midwest. I think Gruden would be far and away the best we could get (even better than JH, who I also think would be phenomenal).
That being said, I don't think Michigan landed Gruden
January 7th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
- Dayton alum 1984. Played football there as a backup QB.
- Held college positions coach at various colleges 1984-1989.
- Went to pros, coached under Walsh at SF, learned WC offense,
- Worked way up ranks, GB, Philly, etc.
- Became Oakland HC in 1998.
- The rest we know.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
jack-shit in college.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^
Pete Carroll hadn't done anything in college either. The fact is that successful NFL coaches rarely if ever decide to coach a college team, despite the pipe dreams of fans. It ain't that fucking hard. Unless you think he can't recruit (which is dumb considering how many blue-chips Weis got) there is zero reason to pass on what would be a ridciulously good hire from a football and a PR perspective.