Brady Hoke Presser 3-23 Comment Count

Tim

IMG_2543.JPG

Notes from Brady Hoke's meeting with the media today. Photo from file.

News

Ray Vinopal is no longer with the team. "Ray decided to go back Youngstown. You know, that issue's more a family issue."

Injuries: Christian Pace is doing individual drills only. "Molk's the other guy who hasn't done anything but some individual. He'll be fine by Tuesday." - hamstring tweak. Troy Woolfolk is doing a little group work, mostly individual. JT Floyd doing less group stuff than Troy. Mike Shaw is doing alternate conditioning things. Next week, he'll do more with the cast on. "I think we're OK health-wise. I don't think we're anything of real significance yet."

"We wouldn't play a game" for the spring 'game' with the team's current injury level. Would do more situational scrimmage-type stuff. With only 11 more practice days, "I doubt if we'll play a game game. I'd like to, but we don't have enough depth."

No new position changes. There may be some later in the spring when they've had more of a chance to evaluate.

During the spring, "we'll put [a depth chart] out. Nothing's given. You're gonna have to earn it." If you end spring as a starter, you better keep working over the summer, and in fall camp, because you have to earn your job.

Wants to install 50-60% of offense and defense in spring (Al Borges would like to get 65% of the offense in). You can install more in the fall as you're gameplanning. "Once we get the power play down, then we'll go to the next phase. You know, because we're gonna run the power play." [ed: This is a very MANBALL quote.]

Individual Positions

QBs: "I think both of them have done a good job. I think you look at, the different things are a little more under center, obviously. The ball mechanics and footwork... all those technical things that go along with it. So, I think they've both done a good job, they're both very capable of being tremendous quarterbacks in this offense."

RBs: "I wouldn't wanna say any of them's any better than the other ones. Vince [Smith] has done a good job, [Stephen] Hopkins has come on, Fitz [Toussaint] had a good day in there with a couple good runs, and Michael Cox is a guy that has some outstanding ability, and we've just gotta keep progressing with him."

Fullbacks: "We don't have a lot of fullbacks." Hopkins works out well at FB "for a lot of the old 49ers stuff" with split backs. Hoke wants fullbacks to block so hard they "come in at about 6-3, and leave the program at 6-1." Wisconsin fullbacks get shorter as the years go on.

WRs: "They have to do both" block and catch. They have the most bodies there and at safety. Lots of competition, so guys they have to block well and catch well to see the field.

Lines: "We just don't have a whole lot of bodies there... That's always, up there, because you need a lot of bodies on both sides." They need to address it in future recruiting. With Molk and Pace out, Rocko Khoury is getting most snaps at center. Patrick Omameh is getting a lot of reps with limited line depth.

Defensive line: "There's some guys who have played some significant minutes and downs up there that we've gotta get 'em better when you talk about the fundamentals of playing the position." Quinton Washington ("he shows up") and Richard Ash ("has made some progress") are doing well, you expect the 2 seniors to step up. "I think Will [Campbell] had some real good plays the other day, and he's gotta have more of those than bad plays."

Kicking game: "They're doing OK. We haven't gone full-bore into it... They have their specialists but we put a little live rush on them and those kinds of things yesterday." All the different elements (snap, hold, kick) need to come together.

INTENSITY

There have been three practices so far, one in pads. "I've liked the tempo that we played with. I like how the guys are flying around to some extent. We've still got a lot that we've gotta get better at, and playing fanatical as a team."

"We're not playing as fast as we will" due to the nature of learning. Still pleased with the competition level. Guys come in wanting to improve every day.

How to cultivate a competitive atmosphere: "You do that by rewarding guys who play well, and guys who don't play as well, you maybe don't get as many snaps." In their situational drills (red zone, etc.), "There's consequences for losing." There is competition within positions and also offense v defense.

Smooth transition for Denard? "I think so." He sometimes has issues with rushing the footwork, but both QBs have handled it really well. Once in a while, Denard shows off those feet. "If you leave a little crease in there, he can go get it."

How have players responded to practice intensity? "They haven't come to see me about it. I guess it's been OK."

Etc.

Any spring surprises? "Not yet. I think it's way too early to make any comment, to be honest with you. We're just really scratching the surface, in my opinion." General thoughts: "I think there's a little more, I think good and bad... You want to see some guys be a little more physical and a little more sudden in some of the things they're doing. At the same time, there's some other guys who have done a good job of being physical and the things that you're looking for."

By the end of spring, "We'll never be where I want us to be. Period. I know me." It's typical here, like it was with BSU and SDSU, they know where the team is starting and where they want to be when they finish spring. "We're where I thought we'd be right now, and where we thought we'd be."

There's a learning curve "paralysis by analysis" when installing new O and D. You see it more on the defensive side of the ball (which is by nature reactive). "From an offensive standpoint you may see it when the guys up front start movement patterns." Players over-thinking new plays, technique, etc. being a little different. "They're hungry, and they wanna learn. We just gotta keep as coaches doing a good job of being teachers."

Fundamentals and techniques of positions are the critical areas. Every position needs to know proper alignments, line splits, etc. Effort and toughness do not have any wiggle room for being less than perfect. The techniques and schemes are new, but effort and toughness do not change. How big is the gap between what players are doing and it should be done? "I don't know. The Grand Canyon size, right now." Players want to be coached and do it the right way. Guys who have played a lot might be further along, but may be slower learning a different way to do things.

They have 1-on-1 padded drills, not necessarily tackling all the time. "You're only limited to a certain amount [of full-contact practices], so you've gotta cherish those dates."

Had to move practice to 5:30 in the morning [ed: !!!] on Monday because 40-some players had Monday afternoon class. "Morning is my favorite time of day, but i worry about the other end of it for the kids" from an academic perspective.

It's important to practice outside in fall, but not so much in spring. "Previous experience here has told me you may get 6 times at the most to get out in the 15 days." The new indoor facility allows full kicking game, you can throw full deep routes without hitting the ceiling.

Comments

Farnn

March 23rd, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^

What do you expect when they have to spend 20 minutes after every practice discussing that practice. Could you really say anything new and interesting about each practice from any sport you've played? Doesn't help that they get asked the same questions every day and have to worry about saying something the wrong way and sending all the fans and media into a tizzy.

ryebreadboy

March 24th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

What do you think would happen if they just straight-up made up stories?  "Today, Denard grew a pair of rockets instead of feet, and was racing up and down the field at about the speed he normally runs.  Also, all of our fullbacks inexplicably shrunk two inches.  Finally, Roy Roundtree can sprout wings and fly, so I think we'll be trying a lot of deep passes.  Thank you, no questions".

MGlobules

March 23rd, 2011 at 5:39 PM ^

makes itself felt in the transcript (thank god). I do think it's possible that we will not be a very good team, though. And now that I have had a few months to get over RR's firing and how it was handled, I haven't really gotten over it. So I am now wondering if I will ever get over it. Anyone else feel that way? I guess the out and out jock sniffers probably won't, but for people who got really excited about Michigan football again when Rich came along. . . 

maizenbluedevil

March 23rd, 2011 at 6:12 PM ^

Yep, I'm also still pissed that RR was fired.

Stupid, stupid move, for stupid, stupid reasons, fuelled by very stupid elements in the fanbase and local media.

I hope Hoke succeeds.  But I can't help but think we've, long-term, taken a step back and are settling for being Iowa now (or Michigan in the late Carr years, 2006 excepted.) when we could've been great had we kept RR, brought in a good DC with the clear understanding that he would have full control without RR micromanaging the D.  

Hopefully everyone's happy with going 8-4 most of the time, with the ocassional 10 win season.  I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling that's where we're headed.

Also, I wonder if everyone's aware that we'll *never* see another player like Denard in Maize and Blue, as long as Borges is the coordinator.  

But hey, I realize no one on here likes Denard, and everyone loves Mallett, which is good, everyone will be getting what they really want.

BRCE

March 23rd, 2011 at 6:26 PM ^

The elements that fueled RR's firing were, first and foremost, that in his third season, he could not field a team that was capable of even competing with other squads that could reasonably be called "good."

EVERYTHING else, the stupid media stuff, the stupid fanbase stuff, was a secondary factor. How this is still lost on so many people is simply amazing.

 

 

AlwaysBlue

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^

I don't understand it either.  The most perplexing part is that these same folks will throw Carr, former players, former assistants, administration, etc. under the bus all the while blaming everyone else for not being true fans.  Like I said, I don't understand it, I never have and I couldn't be happier that all of it is over.

maizenbluedevil

March 23rd, 2011 at 6:49 PM ^

"in his third season, he could not field a team that was capable of even competing with other squads that could reasonably be called "good.""

This is such blind revisionism I'm not even gonna make a serious attempt at addressing it.

I'll say this, though...  At the beginning of the year, no one expected us to beat OSU or Wisc.

As for MSU and Iowa, we were in those games in the 4th qtr....  to say we weren't competitive in those games is preposterous.

M-Wolverine

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^

Iowa could be debated all day, but in a game you lose by 17 points, we weren't in the game in the 4th quarter vs. MSU. Maybe had a shot at the beginning with some "if or buts", but we got our asses kicked. Man up and deal with it.

WolvinLA2

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^

Yeah, come on man, RR just didn't win enough.  I liked RR a whole lot too, but in the end he just didn't win enough games.  All of those stupid reasons you listed wouldn't make a difference if we would have gone 9-3 or better this past season, but we didn't.  We won 7 games, got pasted a few times, didn't really almost win the games you mention, but almost lost to ND, Indiana, Illinois and kinda Purdue (and also kinda UMass).  We lost handily more times than we won handily, and we lost to PSU who really wasn't that good.  Our most impressive win was against a ND team that  had their QB out for most of the game, and even that was a nail-biter.

I loved RR and wanted him to succeed.  But at the end of the day, it was his third season and he didn't win very many football games.  It's as simple as that.

jaws4141

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:50 PM ^

We only averaged 16 points a game against the top 25.  The average margin of defeat was 26 points per game against the top 25.  I hated to see RR fail, but in year three if you aren't even competitive with top 25 teams then you should be fired.  MSU and Iowa were overated anyways.  Just saying!

Ziff72

March 23rd, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^

Sincerely, 

Mark Dantonio 11-1 Big Ten Champs in year 4

 

Anybody who makes blanket statements is just idiotic. " If you can't compete in year 3 than you have to go"  is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

If you wanted him fired you need better reasoning than that.  You have to look inside the program.   Sure in a bubble 7-5 in year 3 isn't great, but 20 returning starters and playing a backfield of freshmen isn't exactly normal either.  He should have got year 4 to show what he could do with an actual team even if some of it was his fault.  The offense showed too much promise to change.

 

 

jaws4141

March 24th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^

The Dantonio example is true, but I'm willing to bet that most hall of fame coaches had their programs in better shape by year three than RR did.  Remember Dave Brandon didn't hire RR and had almost all of the famous alumni pressuring him to make a move.  Michigan was extremely lucky to win seven games in year three.  I will give you some examples to support my theory on this matter.

Jim Tressel 14-0 year two

Lloyd Carr 12-0 year three

Nick Saban 14-0 year three 

Les Miles 12-2 year three

Bo Schembechler 11-1 year three

Pete Carroll 12-1 year three

Lou Holtz 10-2 at AR year three, 12-0 at ND year 3

Joe PA 11-0 year three

Chip Kelly 12-1 year two

Gene Chizic 14-0 year two

Brian Kelly 9-4 year three Central MI,  11-3 UC

Almost all successful coaches have their programs turned around by year three.  There are some exceptions.  However, the law of averages supports the firing of RR.  Michigan was A legitimate top 25 program with all the bells and whistles in place when he became head coach.  We will never know if RR would of turned the program around if given more time.  All indications by performance on the field and history suggest that he wouldn't of. 

I would love to see some expamples of coaches in college football that had a record comparable to RR's first three years at Michigan, but were able to turn it around and build a powerhouse of a program.  Feel free to share.

 

 

 

  

AFWolverine

March 24th, 2011 at 10:25 AM ^

I agree with everything you said in your post. However, when you got to the end and started saying "we will never know if RR would of", and "performance on the field and history suggest that he wouldn't of" is killing me. I hate bad grammar, and the use of the word "of" after "would" or "wouldn't" is atrocious. "Would have" or "wouldn't have" is correct grammar. Thank you.

Butterfield

March 24th, 2011 at 10:08 AM ^

The Spartans were a heck of a lot more competitive in the losses in 2009 (Dantonio year 3) than Michigan was in 2010.  In '09, the Spartans were routed by PSU but all other losses were by 10 points or less.

Contrast that to Michigan.  Losing by 35 to Ohio State in 2008 and by 30 in 2010 didn't give me any confidence whatsoever that RR had things on track to compete in the Big 10.  Not to mention that the team GOT WORSE as the season progressed, not better. 

 

Ziff72

March 24th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^

Dude seriously.    Look at the teams MSU lost to.  CMU and Minnesota?!?!   This is why it is impossible to discuss this topic.   You guys list a lot of data with teams turning around in year 2 or 3 and RR made some mistakes, I'm not saying he didn't, but if you look back at those teams you have listed how many had 6 freshmen playing in their secondary.  How many were playing a true freshmen at qb in year 2?    You prove my point again.  You have to look at  each circumstance differently. 

Butterfield

March 24th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^

Look at 2010 Michigan's narrow victories against powerhouses Indiana, UMass, and Illinois - each one of those could (and in the case of Illinois and Indiana) probably should have been losses if not for flukey breaks.   Look at MSUs 2009 loss to CMU (fluky on-side kick and long FG with no time remaining).  Now look at the results against good competition.  MSU played good teams close in 2009.  Michigan played good teams, well.......not so close to put it nicely.  Point being, results DO matter. 

I'm also tired of the freshman-heavy secondary argument.  RR had three recruiting classes to bring in players.  Even if you dont' count his first class, why weren't there any sophomores in there?  How doesn't RR deserve all of the blame for fielding that young mess of something that sort of resembled a defense. 

Everyone needs to accept that RR was a failed experiment at Michigan.  Will he be successful at his next stop?  Potentially, if he finds the right situation in the right conference.  No Big 10 team will ever hire him as a head coach, that much I am pretty certain of.

BRCE

March 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 PM ^

"I'll say this, though...  At the beginning of the year, no one expected us to beat OSU or Wisc."

Yeah and no one expected us to go even go the NIT this year. That didn't stop the boys from getting to the NCAA tournament, blowing a team out in it, and coming within a good look miss of overtime with Duke.

Those still making arguments on behalf of RR define the phrase "loser's mentality."

ryebreadboy

March 24th, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^

In all fairness, I much preferred Mike Hart to Brady.  I just think it's way more exciting to watch someone cut through holes and scramble than watch someone stand in the pocket for an hour and then launch a four yard pass when we need 12 (yes, this happened constantly under Lloyd).  With Denard, you get the mobility of an RB and the passing of a QB.  LOVE.

almostkorean

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:25 PM ^

What DC in his right mind would have come to Michigan with RR as head coach and basically one season to prove his worth (I'm assuming that RR would be fired if we didn't see signifcant improvements)?  Also, what makes you think RR is capable of hiring a good DC, let alone one that would have come to Michigan in this situation?

Also, I can't believe you are still that pissed about RR being fired

ryebreadboy

March 24th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^

I think if Jeff Casteel had come with RR to UM, things would've probably been a lot different.  And please, RR wouldn't have needed to recruit a DC if Brandon would've been willing to open the checkbook for him like he did for Hoke.  Flash enough cash, and they will come.  Also, I'm still pissed that RR was fired.  I think a lot of people are.  Doesn't mean I'm anti-Hoke.

M-Wolverine

March 24th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^

When Rich came over. And none of his other staff objected to the pay (completely your speculation on why Casteel didn't come initially...maybe he just doesn't like Rich...just as idle, but no less valid conjecture). And not willing to break the bank on a 3rd try? Not exactly a bad decision.

ryebreadboy

March 24th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^

Of course they will.  If he can't give them the success that they think they deserve, Hoke's head will be on the chopping block next.  He knows that.  Thus, the countdown clocks to MSU and OSU.  If he can't beat one of them in the next 2-3 years, bye bye.

Butterfield

March 23rd, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^

This post captures the murky depths that our fan base has sunken to more than any I've seen.  I love Denard, but quite frankly, I love winning more.  Michigan is bigger than any one player, Shoelace included.  I just can't understand how some (not all) supporters of RR can value excitement over winning, players over team.  I'm all in favor of any moves Hoke and his staff can make to alienate those people even further since there is no situation where they would be a positive influence on a program.   

Not that it even warrants a response, but Brady, Henson, Griese, Grbac, Braylon, Avant, Marquise Walker, Terrell, A-Train, Wheatley, Jon Vaughn, and on and on.......pretty exciting players ON WINNING TEAMS. 

jmblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^

Why are you so convinced that a man who went 15-22 overall, and 6-18 in conference play, was going to morph into an all-time great coach?  Three years at Michigan demonstrated convincingly that RR was in way over his head on the defensive side of the ball.  On D, he was the worst of both worlds: indifferent (by his own admission, he spent very limited time working there) and meddling (he insisted on his own guys as position coaches and wanted to run the 3-3-5).  You really think ace defensive coordinators were falling over themselves to work with RR?  

 

Butterfield

March 24th, 2011 at 12:30 AM ^

Although you didn't ask me, I'll answer:   Because past records at other instiutions are not a good predictor of success.  For an example of a head coach who came to Michigan with an awful record, look no further than Gary Moeller.  How'd he do here?  On the opposite end of the spectrum, how did RR do here with his gaudy resume?  Or Spurrier at S. Carolina? Wins and losses at previous jobs is influenced by so many factors that it can't solely be used to justify or not justify a hire. 

 

jmblue

March 24th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^

Where did I say I was " convinced"  Hoke will be a great coach?  I don't know how he'll do.  He could fail.  I do think he's assembled a quality staff, which gives me some hope, but I can't make any predictions.  

What I don't understand is how some here seem genuinely more interested in protecting the reputation of a fired coach than actually seeing his successor succeed here.  

 

BRCE

March 23rd, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^

people who got really excited about Michigan football again when Rich came along. . .

It's not that can't get over Rodriguez. It's that you can't over the IDEA of Rodriguez or as some others have called it, the "promise" of Rodriguez.

That idea, that promise, excited me as much as anyone back in December 2007. But for every reason imagineable that can pop up in a three-year span, it became clear to me that this promise was not going to be fulfilled.

The Freep and Michigan Mafia stuff was horrible, but in the end Rich was simply not a person who was wired to handle the pressures of a program like Michigan. The multiple public crying episodes were evidence of that.

 

 

maizenbluedevil

March 23rd, 2011 at 6:46 PM ^

Re. your last paragraph.....  Dude seriously??  

Every time I remember RR crying it was in the context of caring for his players or about the success of the program or something similar. 

Funny, Hoke cried in his first presser for very similar reasons.  Yet, you're not gonna interpret that negatively.  You're just as bad as the media that crucified RR no matter what yet fawns over hoke now.

BRCE

March 23rd, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^

When did RR cry over the success of the program? There was no real success worth crying over.

The man was under emotional durress. That's what the crying at the banquet was about. That's also was his crying on ESPN was about regarding the hatred from WVU fans.

There is nothing wrong with crying. I'm not criticizing. But if you react emotionally in that way, you aren't always cut out for certain positions. There's no shame in that.

legalblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^

FBs?  Under center (should that be hyphenated?)? Defense? these are not concepts I am familiar with.  I think we need some kind of informative post: this is what MANBALL is.

Seriously though, I get the feeling that my expectations should be lowered a notch perhaps two notches.  Why can't we just get a coach to come in and say:  After 3 solid days of amazingly good practice during which no one so much as stubbed a toe we've determined we are going to be kind of a big deal this year.  Our players picked up the offense in much the same way you'd expect a baby killer whale gets used to being wet.  We've installed basically 90 percent of our offense and honestly I don't plan on worrying about the rest as I mentioned before i really think we're going to be kind of a big deal.

I'm nervous about this whole thing but we're only three days in, and will give this a shot...  because its not like I have another option. 

legalblue

March 23rd, 2011 at 6:12 PM ^

I know its unreasonable and potentially unhealthy for the team for a coach to say anything like this, but I get so fed up with coach speak crap that I felt the need to vent.

Message board seemed like the appropriate venty type place.

garyd99

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^

With Brady's we STINK to the returning players only points out that he is a shill for the main loser Lloyd. If this doesn't confirm that Lloyd was the snake in the grass what does?

But we know that both Lloyd and Brady are Michigan men that only accept past Michigan players and therefore were willing to take down the program for the past couple of years.