Coaching Climate Survey

Submitted by chunkums on November 7th, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Hey all,

At several times this season things have gotten pretty heated, and it seemed to reach a peak after the MSU game. Personally, I am of the opinion that Hoke is an excellent coach, and that Borges is an above average OC. Regarding the blocking, I know we are very inexperienced in the middle, but I'm not enough of a coach to know what is really ailing our line. Here is where I turn to you. Lately I have noticed some people who are completely outraged about the staff, but I have a feeling that such people comprise a vocal minority. I put together a Google Form to determine how the majority of MgoBlog readers actually feel about the season and the coaching staff. Please take the time to complete this, and I'll report back with the results.

Edit: No embed.…



November 7th, 2013 at 7:37 PM ^

It might have been nice to have an option like "position coaches should be evaluated at the end of the season by the head coach and their coordinator." From the outside I don't feel anywhere close to competent to evaluate a position coach's work. We see the end result but it's the people in contact with the day-to-day work that need to make the call.


November 7th, 2013 at 7:38 PM ^

There was a random box after the blame game section in which we can input text, but no question above it. Was something supposed to go there?

Looking forward to seeing the results!


November 8th, 2013 at 7:51 AM ^

I think all the complaints everyone is making are valid. With that said, there are over 230 responses right now, and those would be lost if I changed the form. I already lost over 100 responses the first time I changed a prompt, so please just pick the response that is closest to what you feel. Also, the empty box was originally for general comments, but I got distracted while making the form, and forgot to write anything for it. Either ignore it, or use it as an opportunity to air your grievances.


I'll post the results here around 4 or 5 when I get out of work.


November 8th, 2013 at 8:30 AM ^

Hoke's definitely our man.  He's the man we want leading the program.  He's not just building a football team but a culture as well.  He's a Michigan Man.  All that being said, if things don't change, he might have to get better at coaching.  Plain and simple.


November 8th, 2013 at 9:14 AM ^

I can't get to the doc to answer questions, my work blocks all.

I like the whole coaching staff, but I am not all that impressed with Borges and his body of work. He seems like he is constantly tinkering but never ever getting a finished product. He has no consistency, he does not seem to be developiing the QB's. I just can't feel much excitement when from week to week, year to year, we have no idea what the offense will do or look like.


Blue Durham

November 8th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^

Prior to the bowl game blowout loss to Mississippi State, I was for retaining Rodriquez. After it, I was neutral as it was obvious the team would not get much better without a new, big time defensive coordinator.

I thought the Hoke hire uninspiring. That is not to say bad, but not one with a high ceiling. Hoke has had some success in the past, but not like Tressel prior to his tenure at Ohio State, or Harbaugh before he left for the 49ers.

Unlike Brian, my mind was not really changed by Hoke's first season. The team had a good offense thanks to Denard and Rodriguez, and a strong defense thanks to Hoke's hire of Mattison as his DC. The team also had a lot of good fortune during that first season.

Obviously, the further we get from Rodriquez' tenure, the more the team is going to be a reflection of Hoke. Sure, there are going to be recruiting gaps, but there have also been a few star players and the team has been relatively untouched by injuries and problems with player retention (the bane of RR's time here). Nick Sheridan has not had to play QB.

Michigan is likely to end up 8-4 this year, with, in my opinion, 7-5 a little more likely than 9-3. Is the performance and record of the team really that different than what we though before the year? Are the records the past 2 years really that different from what we thought when Hoke was hired?

I just never saw Hoke's hire as any kind of a challenge to Ohio State's supremacy in the Big Ten. It was not going to put us with the Alabama's, LSU's, Oregon's, and USC's (prior Kiffin) of the world. I think Michigan is going to be a team that will pretty much go 8-4/9-3 and be ranked 15 or lower. That's OK. Its actually good. But it isn't in line with many people's overblown expectations resulting from Hoke's first year and the tradition of Yost, Crisler and Schembechler.

Michigan should not do to Hoke what it did to Rodriguez, and not give him enough time. Regardless, Hoke's performance in no way justifies even the thought of firing. Even if he loses the rest of the games this season.

Michigan also shouldn't do to Hoke what Rodriguez did to RR's first DC, Scott Shafer, and dictate who his subordinates are (like Tony Gibson). Borges stays if Hoke wants it, and Funk stays if Borges and Hoke want him to. It should be their call.

Space Coyote

November 8th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^

But you have to take into account situation and circumstance with him as well. I thought he did a good job at his previous stops and I still think he has the potential to be great at Michigan. It's hard to tell with various degrees of success at previous stops. For instance, Boise St coaches have been great there and terrible elsewhere. Why? I doubt they changed much. At the same time, Mo was awful at Illinois and I think was a guy that could have won a national title at Michigan. Why?

So I don't think, as far as being great at previous stops, it's all that easy. Outside of a Nick Saban, so many things change from place to place. Rebuilding changes, culture changes, position coaches change, other requirements change, the coach probably changes to a degree... there is so much other things. It's not really that the coach forgot or learned how to coach in that time, it's that, in reality, circumstance and luck (and not just luck like the bounce of a football, luck all around) have a lot to do with things too.

Blue Durham

November 8th, 2013 at 6:49 PM ^

I agree that circumstances play a big role. Luck as well. Hoke has done well (but I don't think great) at all of his stops. Rodriguez as well - except for Michigan.

Regarding Gary Moeller, he was poor at Illinois, and Bo thought he was prematurely fired. But they were bad teams.

In Moeller's second tenure as a coach (now with some experience, which is important) he went 9-3 (6-2), 10-2(8-0), 9-0-3 (6-0-2), 8-4 (5-3), 8-4 (5-3) from 1990-1994 in that order (Big Ten record in parentheses). There is a trend there, and when he no longer had Bo's guys, he had his worse records. Not be snarky, but at Illinois, he also didn't have Bo's players. Neither did Moeller's successor, Mike White. But White had a lot of success at Illinois, but yeah, there was a bit of a dark cloud over the program.

And while at Michigan, Moeller's teams got progressively worse at Bo's tackling and blocking fundamentals. The last 2 were particularly bad at this. But the trend was there, both quantitatively (record) as well as qualitatively (eye test on the field), the team was trending downward.

Regarding the Boise State coaches success there but nowhere else, clearly the only possible explanation is that the blue field has has some kind of weird hypnotic powers that the home team has developed an immunity to.

I am in agreement with Brian that I find little enjoyment watching the team play. Rodriguez' teams were interesting and exciting to watch, but all too often train-wreck exciting. But you were always at the edge of your seat watching those games, that's for sure. But I am also with MGrowOld, under Hoke, the team has become less and less fun to watch. But that is and should be our problem. Hoke's job is not to entertain us but win games and run a clean program.

Hoke might surprise me and be better than the 8-4/9-3 that I think he will be (Moeller and Carr were essentially the same winning percentage of 75%, or 9-3). I think he is a decent man who will do right by the program and right by the players, and thus, if he levels out at 9-3 or even 8-4 (competition much tougher now than 20-30 years ago), that certainly entitles him an indefinite stay as head coach.

But I really do not think that Hoke will be "great" and consistently be the 11-2 BCS bowl-winning coach people were crowing about after his first year.

Always appreciate your input and perspective.


November 8th, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^

The coaching on the O-Line appears to be a ,major issue. If it is not the coaching and we recruited the wrong players...well who did the GD recruiting? Same guy or guys. The players seem lost in any semblence of ccordinated action and this could be partially the fault of the lack of a real center. Thank god they didn't throw Kugler into this mess. Is he a potential center for 2014? I only see them getting better but what do we do about the Tackles next year with Schofield and Lewan gone? is it another built in excuse to really suck.

I give Gardner a partial pass because, in reality, he is 8 games into his college QB career. The absurd switch to WR last year set him back a full year so I hardly count the 5 games last year. Compund that with the terror of throwing another INT and a bum rush up the middle directly out of The Longest Yard and you get what you saw last Saturday. 

Speaking of soft center...why do we make every O-Line look like they have 3 NFL prospects from guard to guard? If we had some push in this area the defense would be on the very of very good to great in the near future. This is where Hoke's coaching could be called into question and are we missing Mongomery that much? I think not but it certainly needs to be addressed as it is the fastest way to improve pressure is up the middle. I think we need McDowell more than Hand. 

I think we will handle Nebraska at home but lets hope for a beeter road presence at NW.