Hoke regrets not fixing chemistry issues last year

Submitted by UMgradMSUdad on

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

UMxWolverines

April 21st, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I remember quite a few people including myself on here saying there was a lack of chemistry and people went "NO COLONEL SANDERS YOU'RE WRONG MAMMA IS RIGHT! THE TEAM IS JUST YOUNG!!!!!!!!!"

Reader71

April 21st, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^

The young team had something like 4 seniors. If they had more seniors (thus being an older team), they would have a larger pool from which to get their senior leadership.

The issues go hand in hand. I really cant understand your point, other than to disparage those of us that think having more older players is better than having fewer. And that's a weird stance to take, anyways.

alum96

April 21st, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^

Taylor Lewan is not my favorite UM football player nor human being but I am a bit concerned about threads like this that seem to be pinning almost all of last year's ills on 1 player.  There were probably 10-15 reasons for last year's downfaill and Lewan was just one.   This seems like a lot of recreationist commentary to make everyone feel better that now that we got rid of said "cancer" all will be well.

I know it had nothing to do with character but Beilein faced a far greater "crisis" mid year with Mitch going down, and rejiggered the whole team around the loss of the best big man and just chugged along.  So if there was an issue with leadership last year it is on the head coach to recognize it early and start thinking of ways to fix it, not come out 5 months later and just throw people under the bus via "between the lines".

The coaches did not do a good job last year - no matter the "leadership" nonsense.  Bad play calling, bad secondary coaching, ineffective defensive line, horrid interior OL - that was on coaches, not leadership.  Not having your team ready to play a bowl game after 5 weeks of prep - that's Lewan's fault?  Bullshit.

Everyone rah rah'd Taylor's comments after the Akron game on these same boards - if they had reeled off a 8-2 run after that he would have been pointed to as the turning point.  Some of this hate has gotten egregious and speaks of trying to find a simple solution to a host of complex problems.

Downvote away.

AlwaysBlue

April 21st, 2014 at 1:38 PM ^

of guys he recruited, guys motivated by what he was selling, guys whose imaginations were inspired by his vision. Hoke and company did pretty well with the tail end of Carr's recruits. I realize many things contributed to that but I wouldn't dismiss that Hoke spoke the language of Carr when it came to the program. Things like that are what leaders use to rally the troops. Leaders rely on shared values to motivate.

I see many are discounting the role of leadership. I couldn't disagree more. Every successful organization has strong leadership. The source and styles may differ but it isn't absent.

TheNema

April 21st, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^

Hoke kept saying "I like this team" after spring and before the season last year, in a way many took as something more telling than coach-speak. Now he's saying there were always chemistry issues and they've fixed them.

Hard to know what to believe.

 

One Inch Woody…

April 21st, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

Um. Leadership is definitely the problem if that happens. The coaches can only get so much time with the team especially during the summer - it's up to the players to put their own time in to get better. You think players at schools like Alabama are sitting around drinking during their summers? No.. they're working as hard as they can to get stronger, tougher, and know their playbooks. If there is no team leadership from within, the younger players won't know how much work they need to put in to get better. It doesn't matter if the O-line spends the 5 or so hours a week alotted with Funk if they aren't putting in the time outside of practice to implement suggestions and learn schemes.

jericho

April 21st, 2014 at 12:12 PM ^

Chemistry is a fickle thing on teams.  You never know what might break it either.  For me, I look at the team that played against Notre Dame and the team that took the field the next week against Akron.  They were completely different.  I wonder what happened that week.  I thought at first that it was just a let down from a huge game and a huge rivalry, but as the weeks went on, it didn't get any better.  By the time we got to the bowl game you could tell there was 0 chemistry left on that team.  I think something happened that week after Notre Dame and it wasn't pretty.

Bodogblog

April 21st, 2014 at 12:17 PM ^

The mob has turned on Lewan now.  It's not his fault - it's the head coach's fault, then the OC's, then the OL's.  It was clear after he called out the team vs. Akron that Lewan couldn't will his position group to perform.  Maybe in fact he wasn't a great leader, but I don't see one article as evidence of that.  Regardless... it's the job of the coaches to correct.

ScruffyTheJanitor

April 21st, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^

Remmeber, Hoke is crediting a change in leadership STRUCTURE, not the leaders themselves. It seems like he's saying that he felt like Freshman and Sophmores (who played a number of important roles) didn't have enough input, and he's changing that. I don't think he's saying "Lewan is an asshat", I think he's simply saying "If young guys are going to start, we need to have more imput from them and their classmates." 

TheJuiceman

April 21st, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^

Shocking read /s. Hate to say I told you so..but I told you so. This guy is clueless.#Obvi

 

PS...Hoke played Christmas songs DURING practices last year leading up to the Bowl Game. This is the bowl game we got embarrassed in, where our players looked like they didn't want to be there. Wtf

Magnus

April 22nd, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^

Exactly. The criticism of the Rodriguez/Groban thing smacks of the "MEN DON'T CRY OR HAVE FEELINGS!!!!" attitude. Maybe it didn't strike quite the correct chord, but Rodriguez was trying to show that he cared for the players. Good for him.

Full disclosure: I hate Josh Groban's music.

Sten Carlson

April 21st, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^

Every post you excrete on this board lowers the collective intellegence of all who read it like a massive dose of toxic chemicals straight into our brains.  Please stop posting.  You know nothing about anything.  He's clueless?  Pot meet kettle!

bronxblue

April 21st, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

I read this as more of a structural change that crapping on the seniors (both now and in the past), especially given how few seniors are on this team.  But I'm starting to get sick of this staff's reliance on excuses when things aren't going great.

They certainly seemed to have everything working when the team went 11-2, but then it was Borges saying the offense wouldn't work with Denard as well.  Then he got Devin in, and then it was issues with the offensive line not blocking properly and everyone not being on the same page.  Defensively, it's been all about not having the right pieces at certain positons while yo-yoing with the lineup.  I absolutely understand that there have been issues beyond Hoke's control with regards to recruiting, attrition, and injuries, but at some point you'd hope all of these veiled shots at guys who departed would end and the coaching staff would stop finding reasons or "needs for change" and just start performing up to expectations.

Bodogblog

April 21st, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^

  • 2011: Glorious
  • 2012: I'll buy the reasons: Alabama outclasses our personnel, ND turnover nightmare, Denard goes down against Nebraska, we lose a close game in Columbus and nearly beat a Top 10 SEC team in the bowl game.  Fair enough.
  • 2013: tire fire

2013 is the one that's not like the others in that scenario, in terms of coaching performance.  Hoke made some significant changes, including the OC and the defensive scheme and personnel (4-3 under to over, move Ryan and Ross, more aggressive coverage).  I'm OK with this.  2014 begins with the pendulum dead in the middle, though I admit I'm a big fan of Hoke's character.  But Brian's right, this is the year.  M's coaches have to be better than the opponents.

alum96

April 21st, 2014 at 2:07 PM ^

Re: 2011 = glorious.

Let me preface this by saying I am going to take 2011 and run with it since it was the only thing near glorious we've had since 2006.   But a closer inspection shows a lot of things went right - a lot of "Carr's players" (as everyone says now) were seniors... and a lot of opponents sucked that year.  And I still have no idea how we stole the bowl game. 

2011 ND was 8-5, 2011 OSU was 6-7, Illinois was 7-6, Purdue was 7-6, and Northwestern was 6-7.  We beat a lot of .500 teams that year and our top rival had its worst year in 12+.

The one team that sort of played up to its normal standards that we beat was Nebraska at 9-4.

So I think it was a good year and we beat who we SHOULD have beat which is something a lot of Carr teams failed to do (a lot of 8-4 seasons should have been 10-2).  But upon closer inspection, Mattison installed something called defense, we had a bunch of upperclassmen, Denard played great and we beat a lot of .500 teams.  So the record was great but now that we have 3 years to really inspect what is going on, a bit of this was circumstance.  Just like I think 2015 - with or without Hoke - should work out really well with major rivals at home, a bunch of juniors finally coming of age, an offense that returns everything but the QB etc.  Some years are just laid out for success and 2011 in retrospect was.  Didn't mean we could not have went 9-4 just as easily as 11-2 but it was a bit of an outlier.

Sten Carlson

April 21st, 2014 at 3:43 PM ^

I saw it as a knock against last year's senior, and I think they deserved to be knocked.  As I said below, some of the issue is that Michigan has had very few seniors (and 5th year players) of late.  If they failed to step up as leaders, why is it so wrong to say so -- it's their team.  Hoke, like a good leader, blamed himself as much (if not more) than he blamed anyone else. 

Sten Carlson

April 21st, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^

"...you'd hope ... the coaching staff would ... just start performing up to expectations."

Whose expectations Bronx?  That's really important to identify because they may, or may not, be rational expectations.  I tend to feel like those of the fanbase in here are exceedingly irrational given the depths the program sunk to in the not so distant past.  Leadership issues revolve around the number, quality and character of a program upperclassmen.  When there are few if most aren't good leaders you have what we saw last year.  Again, these are lingering issues that only time will solve.  In a few year Michigan will have HUGE senior classes.

Wendyk5

April 21st, 2014 at 6:11 PM ^

I think  - no, i hope there is a general expectation that Michigan is a dominant football program that earns respect from its peers and its fans for its play, the manner in which it conducts itself and its record and accomplishments, all equally. It seems like there are many who have lowered expectations, relying too heavily on the one we have mostly accomplished - the manner in which we conduct ourselves as a team and program. Hoke seems like a really great guy of high character. I personally want more. Maybe a lot of people here don't agree with me, but I want more. 

SoullessHack

April 21st, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

... a new defensive coordinator saying he plans to make the team "more aggressive."  It's only one half step away from meaninglessness coach-speak like "toughness" and "physicalness" and such.  "Chemistry issues" have little to do with why last season was so disappointing.  The biggest reason, by far, that last year was so dismal was plainly shown by the scouting report on Taylor Lewan that Brian linked to on the blog last week -- the one that quickly moved from a scouting report on Lewan to an evisceration of Michigan's overall offensive scheme.  Coach Hoke has already made the only move he can to attempt to address that problem.  Everything else is just window dressing.   

 

Granted, window dressing is all we have during the off season.  I don't mean to denigrate overanalysis in general, but only on this particular point.

Wendyk5

April 21st, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^

Hoke seems to be more passive than assertive which can't bode well for the future. Anyone who is comfortable delegating as much as he did while things were not going well makes me nervous. (He admitted to this in a recent article as well) If I was Brandon, I would want a spitfire at the helm. And I know it would be easy for him to say no one is ever happy.....which is true.....but when things are getting progressively worse from year to year and you're publicly admitting you were too passive and need to do better..,..I just don't know if that's the guy who's going to get you to the promised land.

Texagander

April 21st, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^

The amount of despair and angst on this board is unbearable.



And this is coming from a life long Astros fan. They are more optimistic than the posters here with less reason to be so.

Mocha Cub

April 21st, 2014 at 2:06 PM ^

One of the interviews from a guy on the line (Mags or Kalis maybe? sorry don't remember) where they were talking about learning from each other so far this offseason as opposed to the seniors on the line during the 2013 season made me wonder. I kind of got the impression that they were saying that Lewan was hard to play with/learn from. It did make me wonder why the line never looked cohesive. I know there are other factors that went into it, but if there isn't chemistry on the line, that's a big problem. Judging from some of his off-the-field problems, it wouldn't shock me if Lewan acted like a total prick if someone fucked up in practice or in the game. He was a hell of a player, but guys like that can cause real problems for team morale, which spills over into performance. Hopefully this year the line will gel early and we'll see great improvement. It's 2014, fergodsakes!

uncleFred

April 21st, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^

leadership. Plain and simple. 

Back in early 2011 right after Hoke got the job there was a lot of discussion about his formalized program for building leadership within the team. He mentioned that usually he and the coaches worked with the seniors who then worked with the rest of the team to pass the skills on and after a few years the process simply worked, but that for the first year the coaches had to work with all the team members because the players, especially the seniors, hadn't been exposed to the program for their underclass years. That approach had been successful with prior Hoke coached teams and given the fact that the 2011 seniors had all made a personal commitment to each other not to let the team fall apart during the coaching transistion there were plenty of seniors commited to providing leadership. Between the direct action of the coaching staff and that of the senior class there were many different "styles" of leadership available to motivate the team and generate strong positive chemistry.

By 2013 there were comparatively few seniors left to implement the program and fewer "styles" of leadership to operate. I'm sure that the seniors and the captains did their very best to provide leadership and build team chemistry, but apparently the structure of the leadership program did not allow for enough leaders to emerge. 

In 2014 Hoke is again faced with a shortage of seniors so he has come up with a new structure so that he will have no fewer than sixteen leaders for the team each selected by the members of their class. (As an aside I find myself wondering how red shirts fit this model.) Also Hoke and the rest of the coaches will again (as in 2011) be working on leadership with members from each class not just the seniors and relying on them to pass the lessons on. Rather than coaches intervening to address a problem, they will be part of the process from the very beginnings of this team. 

It is reasonable to expect that last season Hoke would have foreseen possible leadership issues from the dearth of seniors. Perhaps he did but not to the extent that emerged, or perhaps he felt that with notice the seniors and captains could manage and was proven wrong. Perhaps he felt that his program refined and proven over several years would stil produce the desired results even under adverse circumstances. In any event, by his own admission, his program (not the seniors of 2013) failed to produce the desired results and in the offseason he analyzed why and has made structural changes to address the failure. 

Other than getting into a time machine to go back and fix this last season what more can we reasonably expect him to do at this point?

Blue Bennie

April 21st, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^

Not saying that Lewan doesn't share the blame, and I am in no way defending him, but did any of the captains show any leadship?

Story time: late in the OSU game when we were driving, the coaches were getting all the defensive players up to push the offense (most were already up on their own).  Ryan and Morgan were the only two sitting on the bench, and I could see Ryan say "I'm not standing" to Morgan.  It made me kind of sick. (FYI - my seat was in the 1st row behind the defence).

Lewan wasn't the only problem.  Did any captain actually stand up and lead?

Sten Carlson

April 21st, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^

It's just like the fucked up markets in here -- the new normal says good news is bad news.

Fer fuck sake guys!  The leader of the Michigan football program comes out and makes a positive change to the way that player leadership is dealt with within the program, and the doubters STILL use that change a log to throw on their simmering fire -- it's pathetic.

Why didn't he do anything about this last year?  How do you know he didn't?  As someone else said, "team chemistry" isn't something that can just be "fixed" by a coach.  Hoke, appropriately, puts much of that on the players and the upperclassmen.  If they fail, or if they are a negative influence (as seems to have been the case with Lewan), there is only so much that a coach can do. 

Even the most effective leaders make mistakes.  But, when mistakes are made, they own up to them, and make changes that they deem appropriate to rectify the problem(s).  Hoke is doing, he is in the trenches every day running the football program.  He makes the decisions, and then lives with the consequences of those decisions.  What do you guys do?  You sit back and nit pick every shread of news, every comment, every rumor, and wring your trembling hands and spin it to suit your doubter's mindset.  Doing isn't easy, and neither is trying to solve problems within a dynamic and every changing system.

I am so sick of listening to you guys bitch about something you know NOTHING about.

MinWhisky

April 21st, 2014 at 3:08 PM ^

If RR had pulled this, most MGoBloggers would be up in arms about his lack of respect for "tradition".  But when BC does it, it's OK.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

The 2011 seniors, who were coached by RR for three years, didn't seem to have any leadership issues.  Guess that means RR did a better job of teaching that than HC. 

 

 

Space Coyote

April 21st, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

You shouldn't label a group when you clearly are unfamiliar with the popular stance of that group at the time. MGoBlog was heavily in favor of Rich Rod. And Rich Rod did change tradition with respect to how captains were picked for each game, I don't recall many on here being upset about it. So not only is your angry rant misplaced, but you're also insinuating posters (many of who have been very negative about the current staff recently) should be more negative because the last coach was treated unfairly and wrongly so that should continue to happen; after all, posters correcting what was previously a highly flawed approach to handling a coach is akin to, oh, I don't know, a coach correcting an approach that was previously flawed: both should be insulted for the hypocrites they are. And who the hell are "BC" and "HC"?

Anyway, word of advice, don't call people hypocrites when speaking out of your ass about things you don't know about.

MinWhisky

April 21st, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^

I don't comment often but I read the board practically every day.  If you can't recall all of the people calling for RR's head because he didn't respect the "tradition" at UofM, then that's your problem, not mine.  When Hoke changes a "tradition", however, those commentators are no where to be found. 

You don't know me from adam, yet you can use a personally insulting phrase to address me.  I think that says alot about you and your character.  

Space Coyote

April 21st, 2014 at 4:06 PM ^

Post-PSU in 2010. Before then, people would be heavily lambasted for even insinuating such a move on MGoBlog, negged into oblivion, and consulted to seek the Free Press or MLive for their Michigan football needs (and like-wise burn in a hellish fire with them). MGoBlog was like a bastion for those that were willing to change tradition if it meant progress. It was the epitome of optimism with regards to what Rich Rod's revamped offense meant for Michigan's future: from McGuffie, to Minor Rage, to Tate and then Denard. With every successful tweak of the offense, this blog and the commentors on this blog salevated over the possibilities that Rich Rod presented for Michigan football.

Then PSU in 2010 happened with DBs running downfield with wide open WRs catching deep outs with no one within 10 yards of them. Then people started second guessing. It wasn't until pre-bowl game to his ultimate firing that people became more open to questioning what Rich Rod had done to Michigan. Yeah, there were people that didn't like a CB getting handed the #1 jersey, stuff like that, but on here they didn't use that as ammo to get rid of him, they basically said "I wish he wouldn't do that because this gives the idiots that want him out easy ammo".

So you can make this some how about the previous coach that was doomed by many that certainly weren't on this blog, and you can try to use that to doom this coach for some reason. In my opinion, that shows you don't have the best interest of the team in mind, but instead, have your own interests and misplaced blame to try to justify.

There is no better or clearer evidence that you are wrong than Rich Rod changing his approach to leadership and how captains were decided by a board that was perfectly fine with it.

Who the hell is Adam? BC, HC, Adam, you keep throwing up names and initials like they mean something. You called this board full of hypocrites for something that frankly is very untrue. It's revisionist at best. I called you out for inaccurately calling out many on the board, if you want to poorly try to debate that by then trying to slandar my character, you're barking up the wrong tree with that middle school logic.