PurpleStuff

January 2nd, 2012 at 8:45 PM ^

It is all about players, no matter what year a coach is in.  Larry Coker and Charlie Weis had a ton of early success and it wasn't because those guys are awesome coaches.  Frank Beamer is a great coach whose teams stunk for years before he was able to bring in top notch talent. 

I'm sure coach Hoke is glad he took over a team with talented, experienced guys like Denard, Martin, Molk, and a long list of others.  If the guys he's bringing in are as good as those guys he will have a very long, very successful career here at Michigan.

 

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

PurpleStuff

January 2nd, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^

Three different head coaches did a great job building Team 132 and keeping it together.  That doesn't change how stupid the initial comment was.

Jim Harbaugh had a losing record through three seasons at Stanford.  David Shaw is 11-1 and winning a BCS bowl in year one right now.  That isn't because Shaw is better at adjusting to what he has, it is because any coach could adjust to Luck, Martin, DiCastro, and Co.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

Mr. Yost

January 2nd, 2012 at 9:24 PM ^

That team speed question pisses me off. I can put together a relay team of Gallon, Odoms, Robinson and Shaw/Dileo/Fitz/Grady and stay with any 4, 5, 6 or 7 Va Tech has. And if Woolfolk wasn't hurt, I'd add him.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

cigol

January 2nd, 2012 at 9:50 PM ^

Shaw took over a program that won in blowout fashion the year before in the orange bowl. Hoke took over a team that lost by nearly a combined 100 points over their previous 3 games. Take your pick: either there was no talent or god awful coaching last season, but you can't claim the talent was well recruited and not horribly coached. As shown by countess, Morgan, beyer, and Ryan, the "too young" excuse doesn't fly.

Joined: 11/21/2010

MGoPoints: 1374

PurpleStuff

January 2nd, 2012 at 10:06 PM ^

He took over a 6-6 team that lost to 7-5 Purdue by 25, lost to USC by 31 points for the third year in a row, and lost by three scores to 7-5 Oregon State in their bowl game.

A year later they were 9-2, won at Michigan, and only lost to MSU in OT and to USC on a controversial last second score.  At this point in the year they were ranked #6 in the country and headed to a BCS bowl game.

Was that because Brady Quinn and a bunch of talented young guys all got better with age/experience or should we just go ahead and give Charlie that 10 year contract extension?

 

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

cigol

January 2nd, 2012 at 11:00 PM ^

The year before he got to ND, their 7-6 involved 2 wins against top 10 teams. Before hoke arrived, our 7-6 involved multiple blowout losses and embarrassing bloodbath wars against big ten scraps. Don't focus so much on records. One 6 loss to 2 loss transformation is a lot more drastic than the other.

Joined: 11/21/2010

MGoPoints: 1374

PurpleStuff

January 3rd, 2012 at 12:20 AM ^

This doesn't have anything to do with Michigan except insofar as it is a universal fact.  The vast differences in the records of individual coaches in the same job shows without question that coaching has almost no explanatory value when it comes to team performance.  Mike DuBose went 4-7 his first year at Alabama, won the SEC two years later, then a year later he went 3-8 and got fired.  Mike Shula went 4-9 his first year at Bama, then went 10-2 two years later, then went 6-6 the next year and got fired.  Weis has already been mentioned.  Jim Caldwell had an awful record at Wake Forest, then went to the Super Bowl in his first year with the Colts, now he's 2-14 two years later.  Brady Hoke had four straight losing seasons at Ball State, then went 12-1 with Nate Davis.  Frank Beamer has been mentioned.  Bill Belichick went 41-57 as an NFL coach (5-13 with the Pats) before Bledsoe got injured and Tom Brady fell into his lap.  Then he won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years.  Do you really think those guys just coached way better in some years rather than others?

The list of supposedly good/great coaches who have had shitty seasons and the list of supposedly lousy coaches who have had great seasons is endless.  Attributing any season to season change to coaching acumen reflects a simple lack of understanding about how football works.  If Coach Hoke wins a national title in his fourth year on the job, it won't be because he's coaching way better than he is now.  If he goes 7-5, it won't be because he's coaching worse (except insofar as recruiting and building a program reflects a coach's actual worth).  This is the way of the world.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

cigol

January 3rd, 2012 at 1:28 AM ^

"Attributing any season to season change to coaching acumen reflects a simple lack of understanding about how football works."

Come on...you made some good points, but having that strong of a thesis just makes that post sound foolish.

Your examples show personel changes over the course of time....which is not what I'm talking about.  If you want to see coaching impact, this Michigan season is a perfect example since there were so many returning players.  I know there is physical growth of 5-10 pounds and some experience, but that does not account for our team transitioning from having a pure laughing stock defense to a nationally recognized one.  Hell, take JT Floyd as an example.  He didnt get any faster, maybe put on 3-4 pounds, and went from god awful, to a very solid player.   The same Illinois team that we smothered this year put up 65 last season.  Please acknowledge that coaching acument played a role in at least this last example.

These changes are the result of complete changes in scheme and mindset of the players.  Do you really think RR had the pulse of this team like Hoke does now? Not a chance in hell.  

Joined: 11/21/2010

MGoPoints: 1374

PurpleStuff

January 3rd, 2012 at 2:23 AM ^

Do you think the current staff would trade this year's defensive roster for last year's?  Or the offensive roster for that matter, with Fitz healthy and no freshmen counted on to contribute.

JT Floyd this year had 2 picks, 8 PBU, and forced a fumble, in 12 games.  Last year he had 1 pick, 4 PBU, a forced fumble, and 2 TFL in just 9 games.  He didn't play against Illinois last year or in any game after that the rest of the season after getting injured in practice.  The game prior to that he made 7 tackles and broke up 2 passes (still a career high) against Penn State.  He didn't go from "god awful" to "very solid".  He was somewhere in between at both points.  He got a little better this year, as should be expected of any player as his career progresses, especially if he is fending off actual competition for his position.  He still had plenty of struggles as well (tackling against MSU, covering Marvin McNutt, etc.).

Against Illinois a year ago, our secondary consisted of:

Jordan Kovacs, sophomore returning starter (though he had walked straight from South Quad into the starting lineup the year before)

Ray Vinopal, true freshman (beating out two other freshmen to secure the job)

James Rogers, senior (though he had never played before this season and did not have to beat out any other upperclassmen to enter the starting lineup, since none existed on the roster)

Courtney Avery, true freshman (who beat out two other true freshmen for the job)

The other players who saw the field in the back four were true freshman Talbott, walk-on Tony Anderson, RS freshman Thomas Gordon, and walk-on Floyd Simmons.

This year against Illinois our secondary consisted of:

Jordan Kovacs (junior, two year returning starter), JT Floyd (junior, returning starter), Troy Woolfolk (senior, returning starter), and Blake Countess (freshman who beat out Avery, Talbott, and a number of other freshmen to win the job).  Avery and Thomas Gordon (both sophomores) also saw the field fending off challenges from the guys Countess beat out along with blue-chip recruits in their second season like Marvin Robinson and Josh Furman.

If that is the same personnel, then I guess we have to disagree on the definition of a person.

This year's defense has better talent, depth, and experience at every single position on the field (save Jonas Mouton's OLB spot, and that is where we've seen the most struggle, not surprisingly).  That is a recipe for getting a lot better very quickly no matter who the coach is.  In the same vein, losing Graham, Brown, Warren, and Woolfolk off an already thin defense was a recipe for getting worse a season ago.

Is Greg Mattison a better defensive coordinator than Greg Robinson?  Almost certainly (I'm sure there is a reason he's making 4 times as much money).  Is he the reason we made a giant improvement on defense?  I think having better players at every spot has a lot more to do with it.  Call me crazy (or just pretend the rosters are the same if that is convenient).  Then explain why Florida's 2007 defense was so much worse than the 2006 or 2008 versions (the latter of course was coordinated without Mattison and yet "the same players" magically made a dramatic improvement and led the Gators to a national title).

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

85Lee

January 2nd, 2012 at 10:13 PM ^

to enjoy coach speak as much as i do when Hoke talks.  He gives slightly arrogant answers to stupid questions and never gives up ant actual info.

Joined: 12/07/2011

MGoPoints: 178