CC: Questions about Hoke.

Submitted by James Burrill Angell on January 4th, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I have no idea whats going to happen BUT we have to at least consider the possiblity that Hoke could be hired. I must admit, though I'm aware he was a former Lloyd assistant, had a good year with Ball State, and had a good year beating up on bad competiton at San Diego State, I haven't had a chance to watch his teams play.

What kind of offense does he run??

Comments

cadmus2166

January 4th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^

And even though he is a Michigan man, I seriously hope he is not the #2 choice. If a coach is going to be grabbed from one of the mid-majors, I'd much rather see Gary Patterson or Chris Peterson get the nod.

DetroitBlue

January 4th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^

There's no question that Patterson and Peterson have better resumes than Hoke at this point, but realistically (and as much as it pains me to say it), there's absolutely no reason why they'd come to Michigan at this point.  They have no connection with the university and they just watched another (previously) highly succesfull coach get chewed up and spit out. 

macdaddy

January 4th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^

to suggest that either of them would come. Patterson might be playing for a NC next year after TCU joins the Big East and Peterson has never shown any interest in leaving Boise St. Whoever takes the Michigan job will know that he was not the first choice. Having to win over a very disgruntled and disappointed fanbase makes it a much less attractive job.

Swazi

January 4th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

First of all, he lost to TCU, Mizzou, and Utah, all by 5 points or less.  And he beat a ranked Air Force team, and beat up a Navy squad that beat the crap out of Notre Dame.  So to say he just beat bad competition is disagreeable.

WolvinLA2

January 4th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^

I agree with this, Air Force and Navy were good teams this year.  Also, SDSU sucked really bad before Hoke got there, so he's not working with a program that's rolling like Mizzou, Utah or TCU.  If he decided to stay there SDSU would be one of the top non-BCS teams, no doubt. 

PurpleStuff

January 4th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^

Chuck Long inherited a team that hadn't been to a bowl game in nearly a decade, recruited well and upped the local profile of SDSU but got canned after only three seasons.  Hoke got a quarterback in Ryan Lindley (a three star recruit ranked right around Kellen Moore and Nick Foles) who had already started as a freshman and now is thriving as a junior.  He also has two senior thousand yard receivers and I'm guessing the bulk of the line and defense are not guys from Hoke's first full recruiting class.  To Hoke's credit, he did bring in Ronnie Hillman who, after sitting out a year, put up huge numbers as a RS freshman. 

This doesn't mean the guy can't coach, but the program was on the road to improvement before he took over.  Long just never got the shot to see it come to fruition.

LatinForLiar

January 4th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

No offense, but this resume' does not scream Michigan candidate to me. It screams Connecticut candidate, probably not Pittsburgh candidate. I mean has everyone gone completely crazy...I could stomach losing Denard if it was for JH because everyone wanted him so bad, but there is no way I lose Denard for this also-ran.

NateVolk

January 4th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^

I saw them against Navy and it looked like a hybrid, but base pro style. Most times pro set, at times they spread you out.  Reminded me somewhat of what we saw with Stanford last night.  I was really impressed with SDSU's receivers.  Really physical in the trenches on both sides of the ball but disciplined. They defended that funky running game of Navy really well.

One thing the tv analysts mentioned was that Hoke also acts as defensive line coach and when he puts that hat on, he behaves totally in that role. In other words, he takes his marching orders on d line matters from the defensive coordinator.  The announcers said it kept with his reputation of being a lifer football coach, almost devoid of ego, but also a voracious student of the game.

I'd like to see him simmer in the oven a little longer, but if this is what Brandon thinks is best I'll support it. One thing is if it worked to the fan's satisfaction, the guy would be like a Schembechler 2.0 in terms of the years of service. He loves the University of Michigan.

bluenyc

January 4th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^

Hoke's brand looks like smash mouth football.  A couple of things I like about him is what you said about his ego.  He didn't seem to have a problem coaching the d line and taking some orders from the DC.  Second, this guy loves Michigan and wants to be here.  He may not eb teh best candidate, but I don't think he should be ruled out completely.  I would like to see RR back, but I am not sure if that can work with everythign that has gone on in the last couple of months. 

I love Hoke's passion about Michigan.  I can't rip on the guy for that.  He cares and wants to be here.  Can't say that for everyone.  JH is a great coach and think he would do great here, but he might not be coming. 

Wolverine96

January 4th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

He ran a spread-option type offense.  I think his preference would be to run a pro-style type offense, but he'll try to maximize the talents at his disposal.

markusr2007

January 4th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^

Borges was the OC at Auburn 2004-2007 under Tommy Tuberville, including some of the best Auburn teams in memory. He has had an impressive track record at UCLA, Oregon, Cal and even Boise State (1993-1994).

Offensively, Auburn under Borges was pretty much run-oriented, physical I-formation offensive - nothing really exciting.  He is a "quarterbacks coach", and had a lot of great QBs to work with at all of those schools.

markusr2007

January 4th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

Borges was the OC at Auburn 2004-2007 under Tommy Tuberville, including some of the best Auburn teams in memory. He has had an impressive track record at UCLA, Oregon, Cal and even Boise State (1993-1994).

Offensively, Auburn under Borges was pretty much run-oriented, physical I-formation offensive - nothing really exciting.  He is a "quarterbacks coach", and had a lot of great QBs to work with at all of those schools.

markusr2007

January 4th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

Borges was the OC at Auburn 2004-2007 under Tommy Tuberville, including some of the best Auburn teams in memory. He has had an impressive track record at UCLA, Oregon, Cal and even Boise State (1993-1994).

Offensively, Auburn under Borges was pretty much run-oriented, physical I-formation offensive - nothing really exciting.  He is a "quarterbacks coach", and had a lot of great QBs to work with at all of those schools.

markusr2007

January 4th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^

Borges was the OC at Auburn 2004-2007 under Tommy Tuberville, including some of the best Auburn teams in memory. He has had an impressive track record at UCLA, Oregon, Cal and even Boise State (1993-1994).

Offensively, Auburn under Borges was pretty much run-oriented, physical I-formation offensive - nothing really exciting.  He is a "quarterbacks coach", and had a lot of great QBs to work with at all of those schools.

MCGamechanger

January 4th, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^

Hoke was the associate head coach under Carr, so he must have had Carr's trust in help to run the program. Also, Hoke knows the midwest recruiting landscape and may be able to utilize the talent-rich midwest instead of competing with the SEC in Florida. The other positivie surrounding Hoke would be his ability to bring in top assistant coaches that also have Michigan ties. This would help to unite the UM fanbase/alumni since RR's hire.

Sobinator

January 4th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^

I would say, as purely a guess, that based on all the talk about Hoke going on right now, that he will be named coach.

WTKA, Brian, Greg at MVictors, etc. most of the talk is moving to Hoke, good or bad.

Smoke / Fire?

Don't shoot the messenger (guesser) please.

EDIT: Consider the Harbaugh stuff regarding Stanford or the Pro's. Leads me to believe M job may be filed already and is just a way to act like he is not interested anymore.

travelingblue

January 4th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^

and the play reminded me of Carr-era Michigan. Just like back then for Michigan, people (read: TV analysts) called the offense "pro-style" or "smash-mouth", but actually it racked up yards through the air. Though both offenses really struggled passing when the running backs couldn't get it going. The QB (Lindley) is a big kid that throws it all over the field (to multiple receivers) but can be a bit inaccurate/error-prone. The ground game is dominated by Hillman (not a power back -- think Shaw not Hopkins) who blew up in the Navy game but was also huge against Mizzou (a game I saw).

Hoke is definitely a defense-guy, so it makes sense that we over-react and go that way given our putrid performance the past few years. One thing that struck me about watching their D is that they seemed to play faster than their talent would have allowed, and they didn't seem to be nearly as prone to giving up huge plays as our D was. (Though if memory serves they gave up a big pass in the 4th qtr against Mizzou).

Overall, Hoke would definitely not be my top choice as Michigan's coach; he comes off as so...blah. Especially juxtaposed against a fiery character like Harbaugh. Though I grew up in Miami as a Hurricane fan, so I'm a sucker for flashy and trash-talking. I was really excited about the South Florida-direction RRod was taking the program, but it just doesn't seem like it was destined to work out.

EDIT: Just looked back at some their games and maybe they were more prone to giving up big plays then I thought. Against Utah they gave up three huge TDs. Also, another similarity to Carr-era Michigan; almost their games against non-terrible opponents are close -- win or lose. (Which doesn't sound nearly as bad as it did four years ago!)

Ben from SF

January 4th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^

Hoke represented Lloyd in many university functions in the early 2000s when he was the DL coach.  I had met him several times, seemed like a very sincere individual popular among the players, coaches, and faculty.  However, he was not a good public speaker and appeared stunned by many questions.  Hopefully his tenure at Ball State and SDSU have changed that, but neither schools are known for having a vocal alumni network or a large, hostile, main stream press.  From a public relations perspective, he is closer to RR than JH, except with more reverence and less cynicism.

Hoke's real strength is finding quality assistants.  Al Borges was at Auburn who was run out of town because his system did not utilize the dual-threat quarterbacks Auburn had.  Rocky Long was fired from his alma mater, New Mexico, after an AD change.  Both guys have terrific West Coast connections, and Hoke benefited from their recruiting.   However, I do not think either will accompany him to Michigan as both men are in their late 50s and would have little desire to move.

The guy Hoke absolutely needs to bring with him is Jeff Hecklinski, who was a QB at Indiana in the mid-90s, and serves as Hoke's recruiting coordinator at SDSU.  His recruits turned Ball State around when Hoke was floundering after 3 years, and his departure is one of the main reasons why Stan Parrish failed.

Unfortunately, it appears that Hoke's candidacy is largely a result of Lloyd's lobbying with Brandon, and he may be hamstrung in who he can bring in as assistants.  The return of Debord / Loeffler / Terry Malone / Andy Moeller is not going to inspire a lot of confidence among current players or alums.  Ultimately, that's my #1 complaint against Hoke's candidacy:  are we looking to advance the program beyond the 2008 to 2010 debacle?  or are we simply looking to return to the 2007 season because that was the last time we were a national player?

MGoBlue96

January 4th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

point for those that despise the 3-3-5, is that Hoke and SDSU DC Rocky Long utilize a 3-3-5. I agree with the general sentiment on the board regarding Hoke, the guy is a good coach, but he has not done enough to warrant becoming UM's coach. At best, he seems like a lateral move to  me, and it took him 4 years to produce a winning season at BSU. If he wasn't on the staff previously, I don't think he would be considered for the job at this point, purely based on his resume.

Wolverine In Exile

January 4th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^

At Ball St, he brought Stan Parrish with him and ran a Colt McCoy / Sr Pat White type of spread offense which had a lot of QB runs, but a lot of passing trees reminiscent of Oklahoma type passing, just not as many actual throws. He had Nathan Davis who you could call a taller Colt McCoy or slightly slower Terrell Pryor type of runner-- not blazing fast, but fast enough with a long stride.

At SDSU, he hired Borges from Auburn and played more of a classic late 90's Michigan style of offense.. lots of man blocking (vice zone blocking) run plays and a Mike Holmgren type passing game (plenty of west coast style short balls but not afraid to dial up deep passes or only resort to deep balls on play action exclusively).

Defense is more interesting. At Ball St he played a lot of 4 man front 4-3 style with a cover 2 scheme behind. At SDSU, he actually got Rocky Long to be the DC and Long is like the grandfather of the 3-3-5 he popularized at New Mexico (back when New Mexico could win games). Makes sense since the conference he played in had a lot of spread or true option teams where you needed a faster mobile front.

Again, I'm not a Hoke supporter, but it seems to me that a positive you can draw from his limited two stops was that he's flexible enough to change schemes to suit his players on offense, and leans defensively on a style that fits that conference. I would expect that if he came to Michigan, you'd see a spread-O OC from the Chuck Long / Gary Pinkel variety and a "traditional" Big Ten D-coordinator (read 4 man fronts with a lot of combo coverages) like a Iowa or Mich St package.