How much influence does Hoke have on the OC?
Some comments on the locker room issues thread got me thinking. Or datamining, anyway, I don't know how much thinking was involved.
RockinLoud and Johnvand suggested Hoke might be forcing Nussmeier to play a style he didn't necessarily want to play, the offensive problems now being "eerily reminiscent" of the defense under RR.
Of course with RR we had clear evidence that this was happening because they were running a 3-3-5 that neither of the coordinators ever ran before or since. I didn't see anything similar happening now but Gobgoblue pointed out that Alabama had more of a vertical passing game last year than Michigan has now.
Well, that's something that might leave a tangible mark in the box score, so I pulled some stats from Nussmeier's offenses since he became an OC: the percentage of play calls that are runs (sacks are included here of course but they don't impact the percentages all that much), and yards per completion, which might serve as a measure of route depth. Anything over 13 is a pretty big number; over 15 is mad-bomber territory unless you're running a triple option and only throwing a few times per game.
| run % | ypc | |
| 2008 Fresno St. | 56.3% | 12.1 |
| 2009 Washington | 49.6% | 12.3 |
| 2010 Washington | 56.1% | 12.1 |
| 2011 Washington | 52.7% | 12.4 |
| 2012 Alabama | 63.5% | 13.9 |
| 2013 Alabama | 55.8% | 13.2 |
| 2014 Michigan | 56.8% | 11.3 |
The run/pass mix hasn't changed, but yards per completion are definitely down.
The problem is, YPC only measures the ones you catch. Are we not throwing the ball downfield, or are we just not completing the downfield balls we throw? That's impossible to tell from the box scores, we'd need charts of Alabama's offense to know.
The next chart's more interesting. Here's Al Borges's career:
| run % | ypc | |
| 1995 Oregon | 49.6% | 12.1 |
| 1996 UCLA | 56.4% | 14.0 |
| 1997 UCLA | 60.7% | 16.6 |
| 1998 UCLA | 57.6% | 16.7 |
| 1999 UCLA | 52.8% | 13.4 |
| 2000 UCLA | 53.9% | 14.8 |
| 2001 California | 47.8% | 12.4 |
| 2002 Indiana | 49.3% | 13.2 |
| 2003 Indiana | 62.7% | 11.5 |
| 2004 Auburn | 64.2% | 14.6 |
| 2005 Auburn | 58.7% | 13.3 |
| 2006 Auburn | 62.5% | 13.1 |
| 2007 Auburn | 60.4% | 11.4 |
| 2009 SDSU | 42.3% | 12.9 |
| 2010 SDSU | 50.8% | 15.7 |
| 2011 Michigan | 66.4% | 15.3 |
| 2012 Michigan | 61.2% | 15.3 |
| 2013 Michigan | 55.8% | 13.6 |
When Borges and Hoke first hooked up, Al passed more than he ever had before. Even the second year when they had Ronnie Hillman running rampant the run/pass mix was still at the low end of Borges's career numbers.
And then they came to Michigan and it turned upside down.
Yes. Denard. True. But in 2013 when Denard was gone and the run game had collapsed they were still running the ball more than they had with Hillman.
Something happened between 2010 and 2011 and it wasn't Brady Hoke because, thankfully, the experiment was constructed so that variable was held constant.
What changed was the move from San Diego to Ann Arbor, not the coaches. And my unfounded suspicion is that a decision was taken to rebrand Michigan football.
We can change coaches all we want. As long as the brand is more important than the product, this isn't going to get fixed.
Continuity, establishing an identity, that I understand. These 180-degree turnarounds in philosophy are damaging; you want the players you recruit to get to play in a system that works for them. But if the managing of public perceptions starts influencing coaching decisions, it's a problem.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
Interesting. Well done.
So, it's Brandon?
September 28th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
But what we know is this: when the coaches get together to do their film work, the man in the room that's highest on the organizational chart is not Brady Hoke.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:26 AM ^
Hoke lets his coordinators do what they want. Mostly because he doesn't really know the x's and o's beyond anything to do with the defensive line. Although he probably provides guidelines, such as 'keep Gardner from injury' etc.
His answers in press conferences should make that clear.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
Dave Brandon is a meddling fool. I have never, ever heard of an AD sitting in on coaches meetings and it would not suprise me to learn that Brandon has far more influence on the day to day of Michigan football than anyone should feel comfortable with..
September 28th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
Haha, "meddling fool"
Ugh, that's so completely hit the nail on the head!
If I made shirts of that, do you think people would buy them?
I believe in taking a pro-active stance towards political action!
Power 2 The People!!!!! (Fresh Prince of Bel-Air quote)
September 28th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
"Call whatever plays you like," but in a context of "we're an uncer-center team" and "we don't play hurry-up," etc. And he makes the roster and staff decisions.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
starting Morris Saturday was Nussmeiers idea, or even worse Brandon.
September 28th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
This is more what I was getting at. That Michigan can't be a shot-gun first team that deploys no-huddle, let alone hurry-up, as a base, regardless of how successful we are when running it. Run/pass ratio doesn't really matter, I just want us to do what works and gives us the biggest chance of success. Like others have noted, seems like there is some kind of larger ideological box that Nuss is being forced into. But then again we were mostly from the gun in the ND game, so idk man. Our pace/tempo/incessive need to always huddle just kills me, so this may all just stem from my own bias.
September 28th, 2014 at 3:23 PM ^
September 28th, 2014 at 11:52 AM ^
That's Brady Hoke's primary strength as a coach, right? He's a good boss, he doesn't meddle, good people want to work for him. Mattison comes here because he knows Hoke has his back but won't get in the way of him doing his work. Nussmeier comes here to get away from that meddling Saban.
And then they get here and what do they find?
The AD is sitting in on their meetings.
September 28th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^
"The AD is sitting in on their meetings".....
that is the craziest thing about this entire mess. How can this be true? Does he not have anything else to do? Who would allow that as a coach?
September 28th, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^
I'm not sure the coach has any say in the matter. I suppose he could threaten to resign over it.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
Count me on the "Hoke is stifling Nussmeier" boat. That's why I don't think he should be cast out with Hoke just yet. Although who knows how much meddling he also has to deal with from Brandon, too, so I do agree with you there.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
...the problem isn't the OC, or isn't primarily the OC.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
And I fear we're about to experience the same revelation concerning the HC.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
this was discussed many times on The OLD ESPN-Board. For the Borges period.
Hoke bascially has given his OCs free-run. There are no doubt Some Limitations, somewhere.
But from what Ive seen, these limitations are Few And Far Between.
The Mix Of It All, is part of being an HC . . .
September 28th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
for me is it creates in 3 head coaches, one the offensive players listen to, one the defensive players listen to and the head coach who may not have the same message as the other two.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
If he has any influence, that is probably too much influence.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 28th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
September 28th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 28th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
but I just don't care. I only care about coaches who coach for Michigan
September 28th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
this is the Murkey World of the HC-OC Dynamic.
RRod-- for eg, was one of those rare HC-OC Combos. FULL-OC control, for an HC. And would routinely run DRob 20-25 times a game.
Hoke can say, Hey-- its not ME calling the plays.
This type of approach is kind-of Defensive In Nature . . . and clever
September 28th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
but in the final analysis it is the execution that matters and coaching is an intregal part of execution. All offensives plays are designed to be touchdowns whether run or pass. Coaching refines the talent of the players to maximize the probablitity of getting the touchdown.
It would not matter if Michigan exhumed Bill Walsh as the OC as long as Hoke is the head coach there will be no improvement. The passion, commitment and focus just isn't there. As the TV announcer said yesterday ,Michigan plays like it is in a fog. Players have no concept where to go what to do and appear lost.
September 28th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^
September 28th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^
Well done. We need to face up to a truth: there was more than a little "ideology" behind the hiring of Brady Hoke. I don't mean a political ideology, but a football ideology.
Rich Rodriguez failed. The real problem moving forward, though, is that everybody had (and still has) a theory about why he failed. Let's not discuss that, but let's instead discuss the fallout that is still resulting from that failure, and let's remember all of the theories from 4 seasons ago.
Mr. Hoke was brought here as a representative of a few of those football ideologies: that the "spread"-type offenses were doomed to failure (and possibly immoral--communist football, as it were). That a certain kind of football can be called "smash mouth," that it is a good thing to play that kind of football, and that Mr. Hoke's kind of football is "smash mouth" and Mr. Rodriguez's kind is not. Whether any of these criticisms make any sense at all, they were some of the basis of his getting the job, and Mr. Hoke has felt pressure from above and from the media as well to be some sort of anti-Rodriguez.
I think Mr. Hoke and his staff have been hamstrung by an ideology, and are trying to force their team into this ideological box.
September 28th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
The data that the OP presented seems to point to this a bit, that there is a preconception to which people are being asked to conform. While the game-to-game statistics on pass / rush mix vary by as much as 20% or so in the case of last year, it's interesting to think of those performances in the framework of "was an entire team just asked to be the square peg in the round whole?". Even after the Penn State game, it seemed like the attempt to build identity had led to a situation where there was no identity, and while Hoke confined this remark to the offense after that game, it was part of a larger problem, I think.
Actually, one of the more morbid fears that I have had recently, as a matter of fact, is that it seems sometimes like this program is being driven by metrics which are not of the staff's choosing necessarily and that the nebulous statements and buzzwords which litter perssers lately are an attempt to simply reinforce an image that in the minds of many is a sad shell of what had once been around here.
September 28th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
Damn this sounds like the "we want fireworks on the field" from WCF. Both wanted fireworks and ran (run) a pathetic product.
September 28th, 2014 at 12:19 PM ^
Perhaps our WR getting some seperation would give either QB some help. Minny blanketed our guys while our DBs were 5+ yards from thier coverages. Let's start here (w Peppers) as with any virus a cure needs to be implemented berfore the patient gets recovered.
September 28th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
All of the influences.
September 28th, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
This board has Got To Be Kidding with this-- Absolutely ABSURD. You take the @-NDm O-drives into midfield for the game, and then the collapses-- and afterward Hoke asks Nuss
so, what happened ?? Well, they went with DB-LB Fires, and I was looking at different O-calls.
Hoke responds-- well what if these D-calls become Routine, for additional games ?? And Hoke continues--
-- I TOLD you about the @-MSU game Last Year.
Nuss nods-- yeah yeah. Its just that I thought . . .
September 28th, 2014 at 7:18 PM ^
September 28th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
i don't think it's hoke, i don't think it's brandon. it's the entire institution, and everything around it. now those two may be the message bearers, but i don't think they're entirely responsible for the whole "welcome to michigan, son. you'll see that we do things a certain way here, and as long as everyone buys in, we'll get along just fine." that goes along with taking a job there.
September 28th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^
Brady Hoke may be the face of the program, but it is David Brandon who is making the major decisions. Brandon is still in the early 1970's, where there is no internet, there are 110 schollies, and Michigan has a personnel advantage over 90% of the teams they play.
For someone who is fairly astute at business, Brandon seems to be clueless about how the information age has narrowed the talent gap between teams. A team full of three stars can beat a team full of four stars on any given day. If one team uses a 21st century playbook while another is saddled with MANBALL, the team with the 21st century playbook is usually going to win.
Brady Hoke's detractors from EL and Columbus often call him "Fred Flintstone." Unfortunately, the insult is appropriate, but not for the reason they think. Brady Hoke is being sent into every game with an offense that might as well have come from the Flintstones. That is solely on David Brandon's shoulders.
And Brady Hoke will soon be taking the fall for David Brandon's decisions. I hope he has saved his money and gets a nice settlement.