Hoke regrets not fixing chemistry issues last year
Here's an interesting story comparing last year's leadership to the way Hoke is treating it this year. It's suggested that team chemistry and senior leadership were issues last year.
"(The leadership this year) is different," Hoke says. "You've got guys who are leaders that are older, but we've changed the model a bit. Our seniors are always going to be important, but you always worry about entitlement, so what we've done is put together a leadership representative group. It's four guys from each class, and they were all voted on by their classmates.
"That's really been effective. We've already met twice, and we'll meet here in another week. And it's interesting to listen to perspectives at different levels and different maturities."
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/04/brady_hoke_regrets_not_fixing.html
April 21st, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
True, but the biggest assholes tend to leave the biggest mess in their wake.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:14 AM ^
As if their assholish deeds being kept quiet is a good thing... Yikes.
Alternatively, your asshole moves could be quite bad but not obviously yours. Some might describe those moves as "silent but deadly".
/backs out of room, and ducks/
ZING
It is not surprising that there were challenges. One of the challenges with deferring to having seniors lead is the assumption that their experience and personalities will lead to belief in their actions matching the past chemistry in this capacity.
It is hard to flip the switch and even harder to have the rest of your team believe and follow if you have spent the rest of your years not being known as a leader. I think that there were several red flags such as not having your QB selected as a captain, having another leader known more for finger mustaches, having quiet leadership as a senior in the defensive backfield, and on and on.
The vaccum created by losing and missing out in multiple classes was not only in talent and depth, but also in chemistry and leadership.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
has really been the least likeable captain i can remember in over 30 years of football. i am glad he is gone, with his f**king moustache finger tattoo and twosie and false start and roughing penalties and off the field being a d**k issues.
i had such mixed emotions about his return and he delivered on every single concern.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
Leave the twosie out of this!
April 21st, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
a misdirection play.
I feel a little guilty making personal evaluations with limited insight, but the evidence at hand suggests he is equally well-described as a "great talent" as a "hipster meathead douche." To be fair, it can take awhile to mature in both respects and I hope he becomes a respected performer in the league and excellent representative for the school.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
I had the same thought. It appears that the problem was recognized early in the season and continued throughout. I wonder why Hoke was incapable of going through an entire season without making the requisite changes to solve the problem.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^
How do you "fix" a thing like chemistry? Seems to be a mostly structural thing, and that's not something that's easily fixable once the season is underway.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
do you remove the captain designation?
I do think that back in the day, a guy like Bo could have changed player attitudes, though.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
I'm not a Ross MBA type, but it would seem that if what you have isn't working, you use a different approach. I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that your coaching staff might have been in a position, to take over some of the roles that the seniors had assumed but hadn't been successful implementing.
In virtually all businesses, there are crises that occur that necessitate a modification of your management style. Maybe a football team is different, but I suspect not. Good managers figure out how to get the most out of the available pool of talent and are able to implement changes when a preconceived plan of action isn't working. While I appreciate that it is way easier to talk about this topic on a sports blog than to correct things, Hoke identified the problem early in the season, yet, several months later, very little had changed.
Ultimately, the blame must be shouldered by the person in charge.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
Once the season starts the coaches get pretty bogged down with game prep, interviews, and other week-to-week stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if the offseason is the only time they have to step back and take stock of the program as a whole.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
Hoke is being paid millions of dollars a year to run a program that generates a large amount of revenue, and its his job to solve problems. If he can't, then he needs to be replaced by someone who can. It was obvious by the Akron game that the team had issues, yet, even in the bowl game three and a half months later, nothing had changed.
I don't know if anyone remembers the problem that Bielma was facing with Wiscy's offrensive line play a couple of seasons back when he fired the position coach early in the season. By the end of the season, things had improved considerably, Presumably, Bielma was bogged down by the same day to day concerns that faced Michigan's coaching staff.
Again, I appreciate that sometimes, in spite of your best efforts, but looking at results as the yardstick to measure improvement, not much changed.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
There could be a hundred differences between these two situations, so without knowing all the the details you can't really compare the two.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
Wiscy had a veteran OL that had long been coached by a great and well respected OL coach that knew the system inside and out and taught to that system. That coach went elsewhere (Pitt, with the OC), and they brought in a new guy. That new guy tried to do things his own way, tried to change techniques and terminology and approach, etc. That clashed not only with the coaching staff, but with the veteran members of the team and the OL that not only liked the old way of doing things, but were very successful doing things that way.
So the coaching staff fired him and hired the grad assistant (who previously played for the previous guy) to go back to the techniques, terminology, and approach of the previous OL coach that had been successful. The players bought in, did what they were comfortable doing, and had a successful season.
But that is by far the outlier, and typically not the best approach to doing things (and is a much higher risk/reward type situation for a somewhat risk averse profession). But the situations are completely different, other than they both deal with an offensive line in football.
April 21st, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
Whether the analogy works or not isn't the question, which is why over the course of the season, a situation, admittedly clearly identified early in the year, wasn't fixed.
From my perspective, football teams, in the course of a couple of seasons, are never better than the people who coach them. Some programs do incredibly well with talent well below what Michigan had for the '13-14 season. I know all the arguments about our O-line, youth movement, etc. but to go 7-6 with our schedule, and barely beat Akron and UConn, I find simply unacceptable. For me, it starts and ends at those two games. Actually, it started the year before when Denard spent the second half largely sitting on the bench and we ended up losing to a less than stellar OSU tean. If Hoke couldn't see the problems that Borges brought to the table by manner in which he ran the offense, suggested a problem with the head coach.
I have nothing personal against Hoke. I supported him until last year when I started questioning whether he was up to the job. This latest piece about leadership suggests that perhaps he is not the right person to be the head coach.
April 21st, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
And it's not at all about the Borges part (though a "less than stellar OSU team" that was undefeated playing at home... followed by what looked like a strong performance on offense against South Carolina after Michigan was actually able to implement more of an offense for DG).
I dislike the "I supported him until last year" because we're just going in another cycle. The lack of support is obvious around here, it's payoff, unless Hoke can circle the wagons and have the players take it as a chip on the shoulder and perform better because of it, is a possibility of another dead-coach walking. Meaning recruiting drops off, meaning the leadership suffers, meaning we're in this same position again 5 years from now because we can't be patient at all.
I get it. I know "this is Michigan" and that comes directly from the head coach. I know people are tired of all the excuses, and the losing. I know people always unrealistically expect more. And I hate that this unrealistic, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, now-now-now attitude is what fandom has come to though, because it not only doesn't help, it hurts. I know we all hope Michigan does well this up coming season, I hope Hoke turns it around this year and improves in '15. I think the win-loss record and some of the other things are an outlier in what this program will become. That is my belief and hope, and I understand others see it differently. But I don't want to be in this position 5 years from now doing it again, and I'm afraid that's where the fans are taking it whether it's the natural path or not. Like with Rich Rod, it's getting forced in that direction.
Than the Space Coyote. Nor would I try. Lets not forget that ND is still in transition I would dare to say from the Lou Holtz era, I'm talking the early 90's. Talk about perpetual transition! I can only hope thats not what we are in for because of "in fighting" I won't live that long. I need to see this team turned around and beating our rival Ohio not like ten out of eleven like the "good ole days" or the "Cooper Era" but at least every other year like the "Ten Year War" between Bo and Woody. Then I can die.... Go Blue!!!
This expresses my view of the current state of sports fandom extraordinarily well.
The only additional thing I will say is that it seems that sports talk radio has become the model for being a fan. Having a "strong take" and "calling people out" has replaced any sort of enjoyable, fact based discussion of sports.
-----
But I don't want to be in this position 5 years from now doing it again, and I'm afraid that's where the fans are taking it whether it's the natural path or not. Like with Rich Rod, it's getting forced in that direction.
-----
This times about a billion. I realized all the difficulties Rodriguez was having, and realized all the roadblocks that were in his way (most put there by others, a few by himself), and I hated the idea of firing him. I ended up supporting that after the disastrous end of 2010, despite my belief that Rodriguez is an excellent football coach. Even after Hoke did such a good job in 2011, I was still questioning if firing Rodriguez was the right move. Not because of any shortcomings of Hoke, but because firing capable coaches and starting over is just damn hard.
I think the same about Hoke and his staff. There are some difficulties here. Some are inherent in the situation, some are a bit of his own making. I have a fair amount of confidence that this will get fixed, and Michigan is headed to having a superb football program. Let's not make that process harder.
Hopefully it's clear this is not the old "RRod vs Hoke" thing. It's about what's good for Michigan football. Firing/Calling for firing coaches whenever things get rough is not good for Michigan football, IMO.
Rob
I dislike the "I supported him until last year" because we're just going in another cycle.
“Patience is a virtue, right? Too much patience is stupidity.” Lou Piniella
Too little patience leads to ineffectual churn. Too much patience breeds mediocrity.
April 22nd, 2014 at 12:46 AM ^
Coach Hoke and his staff are making big bucks! I don't expect 10 wins but I want to see his team improve this season. Even if we win just 6 games this season I want to see improvement and player development. I'm sure Hoke will get through 2015 to prove himself, unless this year turns into a disaster we lose 7 games! I'm fearful that impatients will place Hoke on the hot seat in 2015 if he does not win more than 8 games. But I will be happy with Hoke's coaching abilities if his team is playing much better at the end of the season even with 4 or 5 losses. I don't want to turn into a ND with a new coach every 3 or 4 years! Our program needs stability and I hope Hoke is the guy to deliver!
April 21st, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^
eliminate the good year before he lost the majority of the experienced players. Can you provide examples of teams with so few juniors and seniors who did vastly better?
I'm not saying Hoke is without blame. I think it's premature to judge him a failure before he has HIS team as upperclass men.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
they tried a ton of different stuff to fix it, hell that was probably half the problem is we tried something new like every week. tackle over, simplfying protection schemes, they tried just about every trick in borges book
(and no snark intended) but have you ever played or more particularly coached---at any level? Because chemistry problems are almost impossible to fix during a season. The trouble-makers are often your better players (and/or dominant personalities, see Richie Igcognito) and benching them usually exacerbates the schism. Doing nothing is an equally inadequate solution. It is simply a hard fix. You see this in professional sports and even in youth teams.
Being paid millions of dollars a year hopefully means you are a good enough coach to minimize or have fewer internal issues, but it doesn't mean you have a short-term fix if they occur.
And projecting how Bo would handle it is just that--rank speculation.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
Remember the O-line shuffling?
But I think we're all in agreement that many things in 2013 could've been handled much better by everyone involved.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
I'm not sure what should have been done, obviously none of us have the details.
But once Akron happened and Lewan called out the line, and in the following game and rest of season things got worse or stayed the same, Hoke should have known there was a problem. When a guy guarantees it and things don't improve, he either can't do it or needs help.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^
April 21st, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
I think the way Hoke reacted on the sidelines and in the media was largely him trying to not make matters worse with regards to young players making mistakes. Even Brian Kelly was easier on Golson than he was on the more veteran Rees. Hoke is a bit more level-headed than Kelly, and I think his approach last year was one of "alright, let's go back out there and execute and do what we know we can do" in a hope to instill confidence and not have the players get even more down on themselves.
As someone who personally had confidence issues in basketball at a point in my high school career, being cussed out or yanked from the game wasn't something that made me better. It's not that the coaching staff should coddle the players, and I don't think they did, but I don't think the approach was to be more urgent and choatic with many of the problems, especially on offense (and that's partially why you saw a little different approach with some of the defensive mistakes, though not all: see Nebraska game with the young CBs).
April 21st, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^
WAS the leadership and chemistry issue. He did not involve the young line and support them. Instead, he bullied. The Incognito of Michigan. There. I said it.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^
That's odd, because he was voted as a team captain.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
Sometimes people are voted into positions of leadership because it is expected. Lewan was supposed to anchor the line. He came back to school to do so. He's always has discipline issues. Maybe his teammates voted him captain because it was the expected thing to do, and then he just wasn't up to the challenge?
April 21st, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
Perhaps.
And maybe he was up to the challenge but the team still wasn't very good.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
You can try and defend Lewan all you want, but for all the quotes from Hoke and the offensive linemen coming out of spring, all signs point to him being a big part of the problem.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
I'm not disagreeing entirely. I just think people are latching onto some weird stuff. There were more seniors on the team than just Lewan (like the 6'6", 304 lb. guy on the opposite end of the line), and blaming a complete lack of team leadership on one dude suggests that there were some other dudes who weren't quite capable of being leaders, either.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
Yeah, it was probably not the best overall group of leaders from that senior class. And if the majority of them passed on being any sort of leader, the impact of a vocal guy like Lewan would certainly carry more weight for better or worse. And it would have taken one hell of a leader to stand up to someone as imposing at Taylor.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:23 AM ^
Is this a hangover side-effect of the charges filed in March? I don't hang around the board much but my general impression was that there was nothing but love for Lewan around here.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
You are mostly correct. There was nothing for love on here for the previous four years. Everyone loved his play on the field (except for those penalties at the beginning of his career), his finger mustache tattoo, his twosie, his pet pig, etc.
Then this year, there were the charges against him, his dirty play against MSU, and rumors about him intimidating people during the Gibbons investigation. Now it seems everybody hates him.
I think if the team had done well this year, people would be singing a different tune. But who knows?
April 21st, 2014 at 10:49 AM ^
With that being said, off the field he seems kind of like a dick.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
There was a lot of talk last year about Lewan's character, or lack thereof. It really started with the Gibbons rumors, picked up some steam with the game in EL when Gholston first started playing really dirty (two years ago, and Lewan continued it last year). I've been pretty indifferent towards him, but now that all of the dust has settled, I don't miss him. I'm sure I'll miss his blocking, but not him.
April 21st, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
The whole team voted on the captains right? (correct me if I am wrong) The offensive line alone did not vote him to be captain, Therefore 3/4 of the team who voted were not around TL every practice. A returning all-big ten-american guy is going to be voted by his team to be captain regardless of how much of a tool he was. He did not allow the young lineman to feel comfortable, instead he pressured them. You can clearly see this. It was Taylor Lewan's line and he failed as a leader. (Hoke failed by not taking control of this situation)
April 21st, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
"He did not allow the young lineman to feel comfortable, instead he pressured them."
He pressured people?!?!?! How dare he! Nobody in big-time sports is ever pressured. Those poor, defenseless babies felt...*gulp*...pressure? Where's Dr. Phil when you need him?
April 21st, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^
See what I mean? Negative pressure makes people not perform to their full potential.
April 21st, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
Coaches and captains pressure their charges all the time. Not all players want/need to feel "comfortable."
April 21st, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
And I agree that the coaches and captains at least consistently applied pressure. More likely, it's the approach of applying pressure that was the issue. Players shouldn't feel comfortable last year, what with the performance, but you don't want them getting pressured in such a way as to make matters worse (leading to overthinking, freezing up, lack of confidence, lack of drive). I think that approach at times last year probably wasn't helpful from some of the player leadership, and that's what is looking to be changed.
My feeling coming into last year was that Lewan wasn't necessarily a natural leader, or at least not a natural vocal leader of an entire unit. That doesn't mean he couldn't be effective or improve in that capacity, and optimally that would be what happens as he was one of if not the best player on the team, but it didn't seem to.
I think Lewan is best served as someone that leads by example with his play and less as a disciplinarian, vocal, and approachable leader. While I certainly wasn't in a position to have a great view of everything, Lewan's body language, the way he spoke, etc, never seemed to me a guy that would be natural as an outspoke leader, and his method of leadership seemed to be "get more angry", which is only part of the job. He seemed more natural in the non-verbal role with Molk being the harder driver (and I understand this is easy to say in hind-sight). Sometimes it's just a natural thing that can't be learned, and people have to play their roles. Issue last year was there weren't many other options to assume that role.