Monday Presser Transcript 10-14-13: Brady Hoke Comment Count

Heiko October 14th, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Bullets:

  • Taylor Lewan will play Saturday against Indiana. He had a "hip deal" or something like that. Maybe something else too, but more the hip.
  • Hoke was pretty defensive about the coaches and the players. Attributes most of the problems on the offensive line to youth. There could be some changes this week, though. Maybe. Wouldn't really commit to anything.
  • Running Devin more is "unwise" because of the lack of quarterback depth.
  • Play-calling at the end of the game wasn't conservative, per se. Hoke went with the high-percentage strategy. Delay of game penalty was a big mistake, however, and Hoke accepted full responsibility.
  • Channing Stribling played the last drive and was told to go for interceptions. He had been doing that in practice a lot. 

---------------------

Podium

Opening remarks:

“It’s obviously disappointing to lose. You don’t play to lose. It is disappointing. Need to execute in multiple areas better. When the opportunity comes, you have to take advantage of it and you’ve got to make plays when you need to make plays. We didn’t do that throughout the game. There’s also an awful lot of good things that our football team did. I can tell you I was pleased with the physical effort that they put through. Tom Gordon played 91 plays and played a fast 91 physical plays. So did Jarrod Wilson. Both of them are key elements in our punt team. I’m just talking about those two guys, but you watch Jeremy Gallon, and you watch our team play, the physical effort was very good.

"Now let’s go back to the mental effort, because it takes both. Mentally we had some things that we need to do better from the standpoint of your targeting the line of scrimmage and blocking or finishing a little better on blocks with the angles or if you’re playing a coverage, making sure that we’re playing the coverage out. If you’re the nose tackle, you have to make sure we’re stepping with the proper foot there. We need to execute there better, and we will. I like our football team. There’s elements of it that need to produce a little more, need to have a little more urgency to how we’re playing. But I like our team and we’ve got Indiana coming in here this weekend. They’re a good football team. Kevin [Wilson’s] done a nice job offensively. They’ve got a lot of skill sets that they use. Defensively they’re more athletic than they’ve been the last couple of years.”

Can you update us on Taylor Lewan’s status?

“He’ll be fine. I think he got really two things a little bit. A little bit of a hip deal. Probably was most of it.”

You played Joey Burzynski and some other guys. Could we see a different starting lineup against Indiana? Could Schofield move inside to guard?

“Uh, probably not. The one thing – Mike Schofield in that football game I thought really, because he was asked to do a lot. When Taylor went out, with some of the unbalanced stuff, the shifting, he orchestrated all that with those guys. One time I think there were three redshirt freshmen, redshirt sophomore and Schofield in there. He did really a nice job. He played well but he also did a nice job of organizing those five guys. We had Chris Bryant come out and Burzynski come in. He did a nice job.”

Could we see a different starting lineup against Indiana though?

“We’ll go through Tuesday and Wednesday and see.”

MGoQuestion: It seems like the offensive line has had decreasing production over the last three years. The lack of depth has been well documented, but the talent does seem to be there. At what point do you start getting concerned about the coaching?

“Well the talent’s there. It’s young talent. I mean, redshirt freshmen playing, and they have a long ways to go.”

MGoFollowup: Are you concerned with the way they’re being coached at all?

“No, not at all.”

What can and has to get better now, especially with the young guys?

“I think when you look at it, they’ve been hit and miss a little bit. There’s times when they played well, and there’s times when they haven’t played as well. Now. You have to look at their preparation and talk to them about it. We had good preparation all week. We were physical, we were – watching the things we do against each other, I thought they were really good. Now we just have to keep taking them further.

Have you thought about reverting to the spread?

“Well, I think there’s times when we have still done that. The problem is Devin ran the ball I think 27 times the other day. Most of them, a lot of them were called runs. Not scramble runs. You worry about how many hits he’s taking. We’ve got to get production from the back end. The running back.”

Looking back, do you think the play-calling at the end of the game was too conservative?

“No. At the end of regulation we put ourselves in position to kick the 52-yard field goal with 20 seconds left. Could have just taken a knee and played for overtime. So I would say no.”

Is this team having a hard time understanding exactly what kind of team they want to be?

“Heh. If they are, then I haven’t done a good enough job of expressing what kind of team we need to be and want to be. Physical at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.”

But it seems like you’re trying to make this team be something they’re not yet. Shouldn’t you consider doing what works instead of what you want them to be?

“Yeah, and I think we do that weekly as we look at the opponents you’re going to play. We played a lot of snaps last week out of a nickel defense. And because of number one how we kind of thought we stood up to them with their passing game, I think there were some pretty good things about it. We hit the quarterback 18 times, sacked him 4, two interceptions. From an offensive perspective, point of attack blocking has to be better. I know it can be better. Our fullbacks are pretty good lead blockers when we’re in 21 [personnel]. There’s times when everything’s blocked play-side, which were blocked really well, and a guy slipping off the backside because we weren’t doing a good enough job at cutting off. I think every week you have to look at what gives your guys the best chance to win. I think we look at that and make evaluations. Now did we think we could run the ball more effectively? I don’t think there was a doubt. Did we? No. Well then you have to change a little bit, and I think Al did that over the course of the game.”

When Devin lost his helmet, did you think about taking a timeout?

“Did. Thought about it, but it was the second half. It was that kind of game. I don’t know anybody who didn’t think it would be a game that went down to the wire. I certainly did, so I didn’t want to use the timeout then. ”

Delay of game at the end of the game?

“That’s me. Totally. Totally. That’s my fault. I have to help [Devin], and I let him down.”

What’s the process? Is there someone that gives you a heads up that the clock is running down?

“Yeah … yes. Yep.”

You put the headset on sometimes. When does that help you?

“End of game. End of half. Greg [Mattison] and I talk all the time, so I don’t have to, because we’re standing next to each other. I talk to Al [Borges] before halftime about what we wanted to do at halftime. What his thoughts were. What we wanted to change a little bit. Talked in there. And talked at the end of the half, end of the game. Do you take the knee with 20 seconds and play for overtime and try to throw it down the field with the possibility of fumbling it or them intercepting it, or do you take the chance of completing it and moving forward?”

----------------------------

Roundtable

Why was Channing Stribling on the field at the end?

“Strib’s coming on. He’s come on. If there’s anybody I would want back there, I’ll be real honest, in the secondary to make the interception, it would be Strib. I would still do this day, because of his skill level and his ball skills are really realy good. I watch him every practice. He’s going to take two or three balls. We wanted to get him in the game because of exactly what we asked him to do.”

He was in position both times.

“Yeah, but there’s a lot of tough lessons in life, you know?”

Why didn’t you play him earlier in the game?

“He might. He might play more.”

Any changes going forward?

“Could. Could.”

No issues about bringing him in cold?

“Well he plays on all the special teams almost, and he’s getting experience.”

Concerns about the kicking game?

“Well, he was 23 for 23 at 40 yards coming in. He hit the ground on the first one with his toe. Obviously it was low. He pushed the other one. He nailed a 40-yarder down at the other end and 52-yarder was right there at the limit.”

No concerns about the mental aspect of his game?

“I think you could have killed the guy if I had switched kickers. I know one thing: he won the Sugar Bowl for us. Made a kick here at home to beat Michigan State. I have a lot of faith in that guy.”

With how good he’s been, does it change how you play offense in overtime?

“I don’t think so. You have all kinds of positives and negatives. I think every game, your strategy because of how the game goes has a lot to do with it. I mean, Bill Belichik called three timeouts yesterday. How they manufactured that win, at the end of the day it was guys making plays.”

What did you see from Erik Magnuson?

“I was happy enough with Magnuson for once, let’s put it that way. He did some good things in there. It was kind of up and down.”

What about Jake Ryan in his first game?

“I thought he got around pretty well. I don’t think there were any ill effects. I think he ended up playing 31 or 32 plays. It was great to have him out there. I think he brings something to our team.”

Did it help you get into the backfield more?

“I think it was a combination of guys. Chris Wormley and Jibreel [Black]. We hit the quarterback five times. Frank [Clark] did some good things. I think Cam Gordon at times was good. It was just good to have Jake back out on the field.”

How many plays could Jake play against Indiana? How do you use all three SAM linebackers?

“Well, the tempo this week will be as high as it’s going to be all year, between them and Northwestern. We’re going to need bodies to come in and out. I think that’s fine. And then when you get in sub groups, it changes a little bit. But the more depth, the better you’re going to be. And you can see that. You can see Chris Wormley is a better player than he was four weeks ago because he’s been playing football. I could go through that whole group of redshirt freshmen. Willie Henry’s better than he was four weeks ago. And I think that’s part of it because we’ve had some depth.”

Now that Jake is back on the field, can you share the history of his recovery? How hard did he work?

“Well, since the day he had surgery and came back to Schembechler Hall, he’s worked tirelessly with the rehab specialist, the docs, the trainers, the strength staff. I don’t think there was any doubt in my mind that he would be back about this time. Just because, John, what he’s done – he gets voted captain on a football team by his peers because they’ve watched him and what he’s done from that leadership standpoint and example standpoint.”

You traveled with Kyle Bosch but he didn’t play. Is he up for that spot?

“Well I think the left guard spot, yeah. Does Bosch have a chance? Sure he does. We traveled him for a reason, and it wasn’t to feed him.”

You mentioned running back production. Is it blocking? Vision?

“We never got the running backs started. We never got him started. He had a 13 yard run? 12? Early in the game. Guess what? We got him started at the line of scrimmage. I mean, they had 11 tackles for loss. That’s not getting him started at the line of scrimmage.”

How do you fix that?

“Number one as a coach, you have to look and see, ‘Am I coaching it the way we should coach it?’ We are. What are we doing in practice to make sure we’re giving them the looks that they need? Am I motivating them to knock somebody off the football?”

You talked about the progress of your young defensive linemen and how quickly they’ve moved along. Do offensive linemen just take longer?

“It’s definitely a more encompassing position from a mental standpoint than defensive line. Defensive linemen, you’ve got certain things, there’s always fundamental parts of it. But there’s not the checks at the line of scrimmage as much. Do we have that? Yes. But not as much defensively. And protections. We’ve cut down on protections, believe me, because of the youth. And the different schemes you want to run, the different fronts you’re going to see and the movement of the defense and how that affects you. Does it take a little longer? I believe that does.”

To the outside observer, it appeared like you were scared to let Devin make a play with his arm. Was there any fear about turnovers? If so, is that a lack of confidence in your quarterback?

“Not at all. We wanted them to have to use their three timeouts. I think we started the drive six minutes and seven seconds. We take the drive all the way down to 52 seconds left on the clock, right? We have one penalty in there that hurts us a little bit because it stops the clock. Took all their timeouts, called a quarterback draw. We never took the ball completely out of his hands. I would expect our defense [to make the stop] if we had to make somebody go 80 yards in 52 seconds to make the stop. ”

If your best playmaker is your quarterback, shouldn’t you put him in positions to make plays instead of milking the clock?

“I think again, you have to look at the percentages. You have to look at what is the benefit of the team and the benefit of what the percentages are. How much time are you going to give them and where are you going to give them the ball? If I had no confidence in our quarterback, with the interceptions that we’ve had, he wouldn’t be our quarterback. I have all the confidence in the world in Devin Gardner. I have confidence in our offensive line getting better.”

So he’s not a short leash?

“No.”

You talked about the power plays and managing the hits Devin takes. How do you balance QB runs and RB runs? Should Devin get more carries?

“I don’t think that’s wise to have Devin take more hits.”

Even if that’s the only thing that’s working?

“Who’s going to play quarterback if he takes all those hits?”

Shane Morris?

“You have to be conscious enough about the team. And he’s had 10 starts, right? 10 starts. He has improved every week. Even though we had two turnovers the other day. The fumble? That’s not his fault. It’s a blindside deal. One bad throw. He had no turnovers the week before. There is no short leash.”

Will Taylor Lewan play on Saturday?

“Yeah. He’ll play.”

Has the offensive line improved?

“I think it’s a bit of hit or miss. Graham, a week ago, played pretty daggone well. Not as well this week. So I think it’s a little bit of hit or miss. If you don’t have consistency, you’re not going to win. We have to be more consistent.”

Are Glasgow and Miller still competing?

“Yeah they’re still doing that.”

Do you plan to spend more time looking at the offensive line?

“I don’t need to do that. I’ve got a great offensive line coach. I’ve got a great coordinator. I’m with them enough because we go so much against each other. I don’t need to do that. That’s some coach trying to think he’s a hero. That's not me. I'm not a hero.”

Comments

OneFootIn

October 14th, 2013 at 5:21 PM ^

Heiko, great job. Hoke loves to get vague but when you lose you don't get to hide quite so much behind the generalities - he had to acknowledge a lot more today than he usually does.

I'm still butthurt about that game, but my son and I worked out the probabilities on that last regulation drive by Penn State - each of those catches is like a 1 in 100 thing - all told the odds were definitely in our favor, even after fucking up the clock on our drive. Most days the defense pulls our bacon out of the fire. Not saying I would have been perfectly happy with the god awful offensive play calling regardless, but it wasn't as bad as it felt at the time.

But I expect more losses imminently, if not next week, and the questions will undoubtedly get even tougher, as they should.

gwkrlghl

October 14th, 2013 at 5:21 PM ^

MGoQuestion: It seems like the offensive line has had decreasing production over the last three years. The lack of depth has been well documented, but the talent does seem to be there. At what point do you start getting concerned about the coaching?

“Well the talent’s there. It’s young talent. I mean, redshirt freshmen playing, and they have a long ways to go.”

MGoFollowup: Are you concerned with the way they’re being coached at all?

“No, not at all.”

Can't be much more direct than that. Go Heiko go

uofmdds96

October 14th, 2013 at 7:55 PM ^

Can take Borges to task and ask a 2 minute long question, like a Congressional hearing, in which he states all of the number crunching and factual analysis that has been put on here about running on first down and the historical significance of having the worst yard per carry of ANY RB IN THE HISTORY OF M FOOTBALL! And maybe have a longer run on sentence than that one. Coaches don't owe us any answers, but the questions need to be asked.

reshp1

October 14th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^

The context definitely makes Hoke look better than in the teaser thread where we just get the couple quotes.

On conservative play calling, he might just be playing dumb but I think he interpreted the question as "end of regulation" being after PSU tied it up.

On the more time with offensive line, he follows it up with he's already there because of the Offense vs Defensive line drills, which is easier to swallow beyond just saying he's going to keep letting Al and Funk run the show with complete autonomy.

 

gbdub

October 14th, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

That's the thing though, it's the OT where we're really concerned about the conservatism. I see milking the clock at the end of regulation, but in OT there's no clock to milk. That's where it looked like they didn't trust Devin to make a play - not at all in the first OT, and not on 3rd and 1 in the 3rd OT.

gwkrlghl

October 14th, 2013 at 5:24 PM ^

I feel kind of bad for Hoke getting grilled but it's gotten to the point that all these directs questions "Have you thought of reverting to the spread" need to be asked. Looking bad each week and then saying "Yadda yadda toughness yadda yadda physicality" is getting old

gwkrlghl

October 14th, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^

I think that is unfortunately part of the "archaic" nature of the staff that grinds people periodically. Not understanding spread punting, refusing to do anymore spread than they have to. Which is all kind of strange considering Hoke's fairly liberal decisions for going-for-it on 4th down.

no joke its hoke

October 14th, 2013 at 5:24 PM ^

what a difference. if RR would have been about Gerg and he gave this response people would have lost their minds. this staff is starting to hang on because of their recruiting, but I think with that they will pull thru and get this figured out.

MGoNukeE

October 14th, 2013 at 7:57 PM ^

to contribute to a losing coach's bad baggage but not okay to add bad baggage to a winning coach? That only assists in the failure of a coach whose recruiting image is strongly tied to their success at the school, whether it's Hoke or Rodriguez. You sound like one of the people that hoped Rodriguez would fail spectacularly so we'd fire him sooner.

Personally, I'd prefer if we not use past results to hold a grudge against the head coach, and look towards how the coach can/will succeed or fail in the future. Bo Schembechler agrees with me.

reshp1

October 14th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^

You traveled with Kyle Bosch but he didn’t play. Is he up for that spot?

“Well I think the left guard spot, yeah. Does Bosch have a chance? Sure he does. We traveled him for a reason, and it wasn’t to feed him.”

I know everyone is pissy the last couple days, but that's a pretty funny Hokeism.

Brimley

October 14th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^

And he also specifically called out left guard as being in such a state that a true freshman might be taking over.  That's interesting.  I'm just a schmuck on the couch and would be interested to hear the take of  guys who really know the game and the nature v. nurture (young players v. bad coaching) argument.

gwkrlghl

October 14th, 2013 at 5:46 PM ^

We've entered crazyville when we start looking for a better D coordinator. Unless you think Pat Narduzzi is walking through that door, I don't know who else is going to get more out of our guys than Mattison. All those sexy recruiting classes are still no better than sophmores

bluebyyou

October 14th, 2013 at 7:20 PM ^

Because to get creative coaches they wouldn't be Michigan Men trained in the Carr tradition of playing not to lose.

We got RichRod....half way there, but the half that was missing killed us. So now it is back to manball.

Every player on this team who has been around for a couple of years has spent the majority of his time in an offense that is largely not being run.  Things can get ugly in a hurry on Saturday if it is another day of manball with poor results.

Danwillhor

October 14th, 2013 at 5:31 PM ^

and got very little. None outside of the DOG penalty. On the boards there is a "grade Hoke" thread and I gave an "A-". Consider it now a solid B.....and I'm not a ledge walker. Those are the answers that I didn't want to hear and it worries me quite a bit.

SalvatoreQuattro

October 14th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^

Home field advantage means a lot  in college football, especially for young teams. 

 

The fact is that UM was in control of that game before the UM's coaching staff decided to take a siesta.  This despite three turnovers by Gardner.  This is what makes the loss all the more frustrating. This wasn't PSU leading from start to finish, but Michigan literally giving Penn State the game.

SalvatoreQuattro

October 14th, 2013 at 6:26 PM ^

You cannot cherry pick what games you want to reference and those you do not. Yes, UM played horribly versus UConn and Akron. They also played well versus Minnesota and okay versus PSU in the second half before the late game meltdown.

 

I agree that UM cannot keep coughing up the ball three or more times. That is obviously a concern. But portraying IU as something it is not(a good team) is a hysterical overreaction to UM's recent struggles.

 

Could UM lose? Hell yes they could, especially if they turn the ball over 4 times and Mattison's troops don't come prepared to play. But based on Hoke's past here(save for UConn) I'm willing to bet that UM will come to play Saturday.

 

If not, well then Hoke's seat will begin to warm. Dave Brandon cannot afford for this team to slide into mediocrity not with the ticket prices. Hoke won't be fired if this team collapses(which an IU victory would certainly signify) but it will make a 2014 very interesting.

aiglick

October 14th, 2013 at 7:46 PM ^

The thing that really concerns me about Hoke is that he thinks we need to keep working on the run. Maybe that's true but continuing to emphasize your biggest weakness, the run game, is insanity.

They need to pass a lot more which has been fairly successful so far this year. The big caveat is that Devin needs to throw it away if it's not there since of he goes down from injury it really probably is doom.

Reader71

October 14th, 2013 at 7:58 PM ^

Gardner's propensity to turn the ball over almost cost us losses to Akron and UConn, put the Notre Dame game in doubt, and contributed to our loss against PSU. A more pass-happy attack seems great compared to the shitshow that is our running game, but it could be just as bad.

More to the point, we have to block on pass plays, too. We've been shitty in that regard.

And if we can turn our weakness into a strength, we'd have a damn good offense. I don't see it happening, but its certainly worth trying.

MGoRob

October 14th, 2013 at 5:33 PM ^

Surprised no one asked what the logic was behind running the ball 27 times when they were averaging 1 YPC.  Clearly by the 4th quarter, that should have been abandoned.  Especially on first down.

IPFW_Wolverines

October 14th, 2013 at 7:01 PM ^

The pass blocking has not been nearly as bad as the run blocking. Therefore, you pass the ball rather than run 27 times when averaging one yard per carry.  Borges could have had Gardner simply stand up and throw to Gallon quite a bit due to the DB's playing 10 yards off of him. The five or so yards per play doing that would have made up for the run game.

Of course, that would have required the ability to adjust a gameplan which Borges has consistently shown he is unable to do with any regularity.

Reader71

October 14th, 2013 at 7:28 PM ^

Pass blocking has been just as bad. But still, you have a point.

Although your point assumes that Gardner can throw the ball to Gallon without DE Anthony Zettel #98 intercepting the ball. After seeing it earlier in this game, I am not so sure its the right call.

Look man, no one wants to see us run 27 times for a yard a pop, but this isn't all play calling. What the hell can one call with a terrible line and a QB who throws picks all the time? I guess we could keep tossing hitches, and it looks like a great option when the corner is playing off, but defenses cover all zones, so if the CB isn't in the flat, someone will be. I'm not saying Borges is right and you're wrong, I'm saying with this line, almost everything is wrong.

Indiana Blue

October 14th, 2013 at 8:24 PM ^

my goodness.  Get a tape of this game and re-watch the last drive and the OTs.  Penn State was in man coverage and giving 10 12 yards to EVERY WIDEOUT on this team.  Gallon, Funchess ALL OF THEM.  Snap it and throw it and you have 5 - 7 yards every play - and ZERO risk of an interception when they're 10 -12 yards off the man.  Gallon might also just juke the CB and go the distance ... but no we ran it and ran it and ran it.  

I was there and every Michigan fan near me all knew that we could throw it at any time and that just a FG wins the game in regulation and that's what the coaches did ... played for a FG.

And a old football adage states - a team that settles for FG's rather than going for TD's loses.  The adage is still true today.  

Go Blue in MN

October 14th, 2013 at 9:43 PM ^

I love Heiko's question, but there were plenty of other questions with embedded criticism.  "Was the playcalling too conservative?"  "But it seems like you're trying to make this team into something they're not yet.  Shouldn't you consider doing what works instead of what you want them to be?"  "If your best player is your quarterback, shouldn't you put him in positions to make plays instead of milking the clock?"  [Shouldn't you call more QB runs "if that's the only thing that's working?"

ryebreadboy

October 14th, 2013 at 8:35 PM ^

Good Lord, this. I really want to hear an answer to "You ran the ball 27 times for 27 yards. What did you possibly think was going to change after the tenth or eleventh negative run?"

Definition of insanity being doing the same thing and expecting a different result, and all that...

Jeff09

October 14th, 2013 at 5:34 PM ^

I wanted to see, why do you keep doing the same thing over and over again even after ample evidence that it's not working?  Less about coaching and technique, what about the play calling?