Hoke: NOT an Excuse Maker

[Michchamp]

Link:http://www.freep.com/article/20110814/SPORTS06/110814012/Hoke-media-day-No-excuses-not-winning-U-M
<blockquote>"At today

 

[hungry]

Sounds good so far, let's hear what he says after his first loss. Hopefully we don't have to see that reaction for quite a while.

 

[rumseyhouse77]

That is the attitude that we need to bring Michigan back. Prepare and expect to win every game. None of that 'We don't have the players that are needed to run my system' crap.

 

[bamf16]

While doing some work today I listened to Brady Hoke's first press conference on youtube. The way he talks about the university and the tradition is quite refreshing. I still wouldn't have minded him pulling a Kevin Wilson on Drew Sharp during his questions and attempts to get the best of Coach Hoke. Hoke won over the room and the fanbase that day with an incredibly impressive performance!

Bottom line is that no coach will ever be able to provide an explanation to a real or perceived failure without that word "excuse" hanging over their head. Hell, even Lloyd Carr mentioned it on the field after the win over Florida in the Capital One Bowl when he mentioned the health of the team that day being a welcomed change from the injuries all season and said, "...not an excuse; it's the truth." Though those injuries could hardly be cited as reasons for the App State loss and the 32-7 halftime deficit to Oregon, as the season progressed, injuries were IMO the primary factor in not running the Big 10 schedule and beating Wisconsin and Ohio State. I don't ever recall someone calling Carr an "excuse maker." (Though applying the same standard to him that was applied to the previous coach, it's ultimately on Coach Carr that Hart averaged less than 2.5 YPC and Chad Henne completed less than a third of his passes against OSU. And at Wisconsin, no Chad Henne for most of the game and no Mike Hart at all is no "excuse" for losing at Camp Randall.)

It's easy to say "I take full responsibility" when no one blames him for the shortcoming. Looking at this year's roster, I see a defense that will be better for no other reason than a scheme is in place that puts the players in the best position to succeed (which is the primary job of a coach.) No more 255 pound Craig Roh at DE in a 3 man front. No more 3-3-5 with a reluctance to blitz. No more asking freshmen corners to consistently cover receivers for 4+ seconds because no pass rush was pressuring a QB to throw the ball. But I don't see a team that will disappoint by winning 8 games and failing to get to Indianapolis on December 3rd. Let's face it, if Michigan doesn't win the Big 10 this year, few people are going to blame Brady Hoke. If Michigan doesn't win the Big 10 in 2012, few people are going to blame Brady Hoke. It's easy for him to say this now (and quite frankly, necessary given the remarks by RR that people saw as whiny excuse making) but I won't call him an "excuse maker" if at some point this season he defends players by asking for patience in the learning of a new system or getting game experience. Coaching doesn't fix everything.

 

[dubbsco]

Agree, but no thanks to pulling a Kevin Wilson. I don't need a coach who can't handle a couple of media guys who made a few, quite minor, comments.

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

Agree, but no thanks to pulling a Kevin Wilson. I don't need a coach who can't handle a couple of media guys who made a few, quite minor, comments.

Agreed. Wilson weakened himself with that stunt. Hoke needs to put Sharp in his place from a position of strength.

"This is Michigan! If you think we're content to settle for 8 or 9 wins a year you don't understand what Michigan is all about. We're not the winningest program in the country because we settle. We don't have the most Big Ten championships because we settle. Stick around and you'll find out what Michigan is all about!"

 

[Guest]

@ bamf16 -- It has been my position for a year or so now that the Rich Rod "experiment" was necessary to shake the Michigan fanbase awake and to force the discomfort of having to start over.

As much as some posters would advance the idea that a Mike DeBord would have stepped right in and coached UM to a 7-5 mark, keeping the bowl streak alive, etc, I think what you describe -- the relief of pressure OFF the head coach, is crucial in re-building Michigan in its New Old School image.

I'm not saying that we had to hire Rich Rod or try to completely abandon the previous pro style for the spread-n-shread, but having done so ....having really shaken the fans up, now opens the door for more appropriate and realistic expectations.

And, not too long from now, when Hoke is 9-3 ....he will be treated differently than Carr going 8-3 or the like --- and early season OOC loss to a Pac-10 team/ND followed by a run in the BigTen until Wisky or Ohio*

You know, back to losing three games the MICHIGAN WAY!! Heh

 

[Michchamp]

And, not too long from now, when Hoke is 9-3 ....he will be treated differently than Carr going 8-3 or the like --- and early season OOC loss to a Pac-10 team/ND followed by a run in the BigTen until Wisky or Ohio*

You know, back to losing three games the MICHIGAN WAY!! Heh

I think SOME of the people who had unreasonable, unrealistic expectations prior to Rodriguez might have seen the light... in addition, they may have done even better, and also gone back and read Bo's book and started to understand what's going on.

But I'm pretty sure the "Fire Lloyd Carr" faction is already getting the "Fire Brady Hoke" routine ready... their numbers may be diminished, but they're still out there... just waiting for that inevitable 28-24 OT loss @ Iowa, or 17-10 loss to ND to come out and complain that we need a "big name coach" who will "use Denard the right way" or "will really open things up"...

 

[tinselwolverine]

But I'm pretty sure the "Fire Lloyd Carr" faction is already getting the "Fire Brady Hoke" routine ready... their numbers may be diminished, but they're still out there... just waiting for that inevitable 28-24 OT loss @ Iowa, or 17-10 loss to ND to come out and complain that we need a "big name coach" who will "use Denard the right way" or "will really open things up"...

Well, M just had that coach...Robinson set NCAA records with a opened up offense, etc., and the coach was certainly a big name...and in his 3rd season, certainly by then with "his players" for "his system..." the team went 3-5 in conference, and finished tied for 7th...tied with freaking Northwestern, for Pete's sake...

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

But I'm pretty sure the "Fire Lloyd Carr" faction is already getting the "Fire Brady Hoke" routine ready... their numbers may be diminished, but they're still out there... just waiting for that inevitable 28-24 OT loss @ Iowa, or 17-10 loss to ND to come out and complain that we need a "big name coach" who will "use Denard the right way" or "will really open things up"...

Well, M just had that coach...Robinson set NCAA records with a opened up offense, etc., and the coach was certainly a big name...and in his 3rd season, certainly by then with "his players" for "his system..." the team went 3-5 in conference, and finished tied for 7th...tied with freaking Northwestern, for Pete's sake...

that was my point. that some people still didn't learn.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Rich Rod was a goof. But the mistake was him getting hired in the first place. Not easy going from one system to another in college ball. But they should have gradually went from one to the other. And I don't think RR was "necessary".

 

[pavlovsdog]

I'm a Nebraska fan (on these boards primarily to follow the Lions), but I really identified with some of TheVictors11's comments. I don't know that I would use the word "necessary" regarding a failed coach. But I think the Bill Callahan years for Nebraska (while very, very painful) did serve a useful purpose in helping gain a new perspective. When Bo Pelini was hired and turned things around, it was a lot easier to see the positives in a 9 or 10 win season rather than focusing on the losses and the entire process of building the program back into a consistent winner.

With that said, I also agree with some of the comments about expecting success. Programs like Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc, may have some down years at times, but with a coach that focuses less on scheme and more on players being fundamentally sound in their techniques I think winning can, in large part, take care of itself. The traditional power teams usually have quite a bit of talent, even in the worst of seasons. So there's every reason to expect early success (maybe not national championship success, but contending for conference and/or division championships should be realistic). Its not as if Hoke (or Pelini at NU when he took over) has to build a program from scratch.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to watching my Huskers play Michigan this fall and expect that it will be a great game. We have one hell of a schedule to face this year, but it will make for some compelling football and an exciting first season in the Big Ten. I will only get to see one game in person (NU vs OSU), but if I can't get my service provider to offer the BTN, I may just switch to DirectTV and catch the rest on TV.

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

I'm a Nebraska fan (on these boards primarily to follow the Lions), but I really identified with some of TheVictors11's comments. I don't know that I would use the word "necessary" regarding a failed coach. But I think the Bill Callahan years for Nebraska (while very, very painful) did serve a useful purpose in helping gain a new perspective. When Bo Pelini was hired and turned things around, it was a lot easier to see the positives in a 9 or 10 win season rather than focusing on the losses and the entire process of building the program back into a consistent winner.

With that said, I also agree with some of the comments about expecting success. Programs like Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc, may have some down years at times, but with a coach that focuses less on scheme and more on players being fundamentally sound in their techniques I think winning can, in large part, take care of itself. The traditional power teams usually have quite a bit of talent, even in the worst of seasons. So there's every reason to expect early success (maybe not national championship success, but contending for conference and/or division championships should be realistic). Its not as if Hoke (or Pelini at NU when he took over) has to build a program from scratch.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to watching my Huskers play Michigan this fall and expect that it will be a great game. We have one hell of a schedule to face this year, but it will make for some compelling football and an exciting first season in the Big Ten. I will only get to see one game in person (NU vs OSU), but if I can't get my service provider to offer the BTN, I may just switch to DirectTV and catch the rest on TV.

Welcome, dog. (In my best Randy Jackson.)

BTN has a new product they just came out with. I don't know much other than the name, BTN2Go. Perhaps you can subscribe and get the games on mobile devices.

I go to ESPN3 pretty often to watch out-of-region games. There are very affordable devices available to connect your laptop to the tv, unless, of course, you have HDMI on your tv, then all you need is the cable.

 

[Guest]

In business and elsewhere it sometimes requires a substantial and painful overhaul to move ahead. The "Fire Lloyd Carr" crowd got what it wanted [in spades] and those begging for a different system definitely got what they wanted ....and everybody learned (or should have) that results on the field don't come from just "being Michigan" or that running a system that on paper -- or played on a video game console is perfect -- translates into wins against actual talent.

I used to cringe at the Callahan analogy drawn by cornfans, but it's a fairly accurate one in many ways.

 

[Michchamp]

In business and elsewhere it sometimes requires a substantial and painful overhaul to move ahead. The "Fire Lloyd Carr" crowd got what it wanted [in spades] and those begging for a different system definitely got what they wanted ....and everybody learned (or should have) that results on the field don't come from just "being Michigan" or that running a system that on paper -- or played on a video game console is perfect -- translates into wins against actual talent.

I used to cringe at the Callahan analogy drawn by cornfans, but it's a fairly accurate one in many ways.

Bo's "MICHIGAN MAN" quote, and the "we're MICHIGAN" theme are often misunderstood. A MICHIGAN MAN isn't just from Michigan, or a player, or a coach... hard work, honesty, and talent are all included in that definition. If you do things the right way, you are a Michigan Man.

RR never got it, and a lot of people in the media don't either.

they consider making the term "Michigan" synonymous with "Honor" to be arrogance or elitism, and maybe it is to some extent. But Bo knew what he was doing when he made that the standard to live up to, and for me at least, that's why I've always been such a die-hard fan.

Saying we SHOULD win games just because we are Michigan is the same thing as saying we SHOULD win games because we worked harder than anyone else and came together as honorable men.

 

[KAWDUP]

I will very rarely announce my exalts. But MC02 you made me proud to "exalt" you. One thing is for sure. YOU GET IT!!!

 

[bamf16]

In business and elsewhere it sometimes requires a substantial and painful overhaul to move ahead. The "Fire Lloyd Carr" crowd got what it wanted [in spades] and those begging for a different system definitely got what they wanted ....and everybody learned (or should have) that results on the field don't come from just "being Michigan" or that running a system that on paper -- or played on a video game console is perfect -- translates into wins against actual talent.

I used to cringe at the Callahan analogy drawn by cornfans, but it's a fairly accurate one in many ways.

Bo's "MICHIGAN MAN" quote, and the "we're MICHIGAN" theme are often misunderstood. A MICHIGAN MAN isn't just from Michigan, or a player, or a coach... hard work, honesty, and talent are all included in that definition. If you do things the right way, you are a Michigan Man.

RR never got it, and a lot of people in the media don't either.

they consider making the term "Michigan" synonymous with "Honor" to be arrogance or elitism, and maybe it is to some extent. But Bo knew what he was doing when he made that the standard to live up to, and for me at least, that's why I've always been such a die-hard fan.

Saying we SHOULD win games just because we are Michigan is the same thing as saying we SHOULD win games because we worked harder than anyone else and came together as honorable men.

Holy shit. The Mayans were off by a year. The world is ending in 2011, not 2012. I 100% agree with Champ on something.

 

[wheels002]

One of the main differences between RR and Hoke is in responsibility. RR never took responsibility for the product he put on the field and his list of excuses were long. Hoke on the other hand is taking responsibility now for what we will see on the field. Instead of placing the blame on the players and having them answer questions it will be on the head coach where it should be. If you dont have the players to run your system then you adapt to what your players can do. If your scheme isnt working you change it. If your game plan is getting torn apart you change it and if you cant then its on you. RR still hasnt taken responsibility for what happened at U of M he still says he needed 1-2 more years and he still thinks it was more because his players werent the right players or they were to young. Hoke is refreshing because he has a the buck stops here mentality if he doesnt win here it wont be because he didnt work hard and push himself and the players as hard as he can. I do believe he can and will win although I am not expecting much more than 7-8 wins this year.

 

[RABID]

Nice post Champ. You nailed it. :-*

To an extent, the RR era could have become something special rather than infamous if only HE would have gotten it. :-[ The Spread and Shred would have worked if RR understood what a big10 Defense was. The Denard offense under RR would have worked if the Defense had been led responsibly.

RR would still be living in AA if we were winning 42-10 rather than losing 51-42.

" title="" border="0"/>

 

[pavlovsdog]

I used to cringe at the Callahan analogy drawn by cornfans, but it's a fairly accurate one in many ways.

While there are plenty of differences in the circumstances of the Callahan hire at Nebraska to the RR hire at Michigan, I've always felt there was a pretty strong parallel between the two situations. Particularly in that both coaches received quite a bit of hype coming in by the national media. Both coaches did a poor job of embracing the culture and traditions of the programs. They both installed dramatically different offensive systems upon their arrival which caused early growing pains. Both made poor choices for their defensive coordinator which undermined what offensive success they did eventually have.

I think you'd have a hard time saying which of the two guys did worse. I think RichRod is probably a better head coach overall and while there were some NCAA issues I don't think he ever lost his team. Callahan seems to be a fine offensive coordinator but doesn't have the leadership skills to be an effective head coach.

At any rate, I think many Nebraska fans can empathize with their Michigan counterparts. Fortunately, while Hoke wasn't a big flashy hire, but it seems like he's on the path to success.