January 7th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

Read the article if you're going to comment about it.

Whitlock can be an ass, but he never BS's and he does know football.

This was a compelling article IMO, I feel much better about the prospects of him being our coach if that's what it comes down to.

Hoke has a lot of support from people who understand football and know him on a personal level. That should mean something. I've been having trouble understanding Brian's passionate dislike for the man...would I rather JH? Yes, but not by much giving the baggage that he brings to the job...


January 7th, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

A player with two years left of eligibility is more important than a coaching hire. God, if I have to read ONE more of these I'm going to start throwing haymakers.

PRO teams that kowtow to a star's individual needs often end up regretting it. Never can say I've heard of a college program doing it. Get real. Your "absolute necessity" has a lot to do with personal sentiment for a very nice young man who is a very exciting player. It is not rooted in sound thinking at all.


January 7th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^

If it has to be Hoke, then we need a Hoke Mitigation Strategy:

Spend the $5+ Million we would have spent on Harbaugh.  We won't need to spend it all on Hoke, he makes less than a million.

Instead, pay Hoke the ~$2 Million going rate, and spend the rest on a killer team of Assistants.  Bring in the best of the best . . . Loeffler, Soup Campbell, a killer OC and a killer DC, even *gasp* a Special Teams coach.

So who do you like?  If we had about $3 Million to spend plus the regular kitty of Assistant Coach money, who would you try to bring in to "sex up" the Hoke regime? 


January 7th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

I'm going to start negging you onsite once we are able to again.

Nothing to do with your content, that avatar has to go. I'll go into Bolivia if necessary.

This is coming from a man who has a fairly troubling avatar himself.


January 7th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

I can think of one person that Hoke is definitely better than. You just named that person.


Ooo! Almost forgot!

Some jackass on a MICH message board says Hoke is great. I guess he should be our next corch.

See what I did there?


January 7th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^

I was on the fence, too, until seeing those comments about the spread.  Seemingly uninterested in working with the kind of talent that is currently on the roster, and probably not a big enough "splash" in terms of name recognition to get big time recruits for his system right away... doesn't sound like a good combination.


January 7th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

So that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Defensively, he's been extremely adaptable to his talent running different schemes on a yearly basis pending the talent he has on the roster. I imagine he'd see the light given the current roster makeup.

Don't think it's fair to assume otherwise...quite frankly, nobody could be more stubborn when it comes to scheme that our good friend RR...


January 7th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^

maybe that's because Rich Rodriguez is the inventor of the read option and many spread concepts, he's like the father of the modern day spread, Hoke, on the other hand, does not have anything comparable to that to lure guys in. No 4/5 star stud pro style QB is going to come to Michigan for Hoke, he'd come for Michigan, Denard came for RR's offense and UM.


January 7th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

I'm not sure recruits care all that much about which coach invented what. They care about the here and now.

If Hoke improves the team, with a pro-style offense, he'll land top QBs. Why wouldn't he? Plus, he'll just tell potential recruits two words: "Tom Brady."


January 7th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^

You were anti-Rodriguez.  Am I right?  (If I am wrong, many apologies)

For all of his faults, Rodriguez brought Michigan football out of the 1980s and into the mainstream with the spread option.  Hiring Hoke would simply put Michigan right back.  Is that where it belongs?  I say no, but maybe it does.


January 7th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

I was a supporter or RR until after the bowl game.

So losing games, but running the spread option is better, in your opinion, because it's the updated version? Losing is the new winning I guess...

And again, what offense does Hoke run at SDSU? Have you watched any of their games? I've watched 5 this year...


January 7th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^

It was a stab in the dark.  My bad.

I've seen enough games and read enough about Hoke to know that he's not going to run the spread option.  Obviously, losing games sucked and I'd rather see Michigan win.  But I'd also rather see Michigan make a play for a spread coach (even a smaller name) than Hoke.  In my opinion, Hoke is a smaller name than a lot of coaches out there and his only "endearing" quality is that his Michigan ties will appease some of the alumni/boosters.  There are a lot of coaches that can/did win at mid-majors (if Miami(OH) and SDSU can even be properly classified as a "mid-major").


January 7th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^

I never said it was a sufficient condition for coaching UM. Is it a plus? I think so! If you'd rather have a money chasing coach like Saban, then be my guest, but I have a little more pride in my alma matter than that.

Hoke started his head coaching gig at Ball State. Maybe it took him a few years to get in the groove? Saban had his fair share of mediocre seasons early on as a head coach too. So does that mean he isn't a good coach? Everyone wants to go after the "what have you done for me lately" meme, but not when it doesn't fit their story. Lately, Hoke has done very well.

Again, everyone who knows him and has been coached by him (that I've heard) has nothing but good things to say about him as a coach and person.