Just a thought on Hoke's situation.

[TheVictors]

I guess I never really considered the Stanford teams under Jim to be offensive juggernauts. Andrew Luck is a generational type QB and pretty damn amazing but I think the approach both Harbaughs take is a balanced attack with strong defense.

 

[Michlady]

I don't want to see the phrase lost forever, but a hiatus would be good if it helped flush out all the misuse of the term.

This

Even Mitch album wrote this is misused

By the way today is hoke's birthday

Booster club thought he might get another year as what coach would come not knowing ad,,,,,unless Jim h called and said he'd come now

 

[Michchamp]

I guess I never really considered the Stanford teams under Jim to be offensive juggernauts. Andrew Luck is a generational type QB and pretty damn amazing but I think the approach both Harbaughs take is a balanced attack with strong defense.

They were impressive; he only coached Luck two seasons ('09 & '10), but their offenses were solid both years. I watched a couple of their games in '10, in which they steamrolled over ND @ ND, and demolished VaTech in the Orange Bowl. they seemed flexible, wore their opponents down, and made adjustments to attack weak points. And he was doing that after 2 years of recruiting @ Stanford, starting as he did without much of a reputation for success.

'09 they went 8-5, but was the year he beat USC @ USC 55-something, and Luck didn't play in the Bowl due to a broken finger

 

[Michchamp]

This

Even Mitch album wrote this is misused

By the way today is hoke's birthday

Booster club thought he might get another year as what coach would come not knowing ad,,,,,unless Jim h called and said he'd come now

Happy bday to Brady! Hope he's having a better week.

sounds like his fate may come down to how quickly they can hire an AD.

 

[tinselwolverine]

That was the year that the old gray haired cheater got all bent out of shape right? Because Harbaugh did a Woody Hayes style "because I couldn't go for three" kind of thing?

Two years earlier Stanford shock the world by upsetting SC at SC. It actually took a little of the national spotlight away from Michigan loss to Appalacia State.

 

[lostleader]

Ok another thought on Hoke and the players.

I didn't see the game, because I am still to cheap to pay for satellite. However, everyone here seems to be excited about Johnson. I don't know what his recruiting ranking was, but Smith was a high 4* and Green was the number one back in his class.

So being the money hungry guy DB was, is it possible for him to tell Hoke who he needs to play. Kind of like a over powering GM in baseball. Put the "supposed" best players on the field, cause that is what the fans want to see, instead of putting the best players in. This, for a short period of time, puts butts in the seats to see the 5* RB's and the great talent UM recruited, even if its not the best they have.

Just a thought, I am only trying to justify Hoke staying next year. In my mind he has a 40%-50% shot.

 

[thewolverines24]

Ok another thought on Hoke and the players.

I didn't see the game, because I am still to cheap to pay for satellite. However, everyone here seems to be excited about Johnson. I don't know what his recruiting ranking was, but Smith was a high 4* and Green was the number one back in his class.

So being the money hungry guy DB was, is it possible for him to tell Hoke who he needs to play. Kind of like a over powering GM in baseball. Put the "supposed" best players on the field, cause that is what the fans want to see, instead of putting the best players in. This, for a short period of time, puts butts in the seats to see the 5* RB's and the great talent UM recruited, even if its not the best they have.

Just a thought, I am only trying to justify Hoke staying next year. In my mind he has a 40%-50% shot.

Ondre Pipkins would actually still be playing snaps if that were the case.

 

[Michchamp]

That was the year that the old gray haired cheater got all bent out of shape right? Because Harbaugh did a Woody Hayes style "because I couldn't go for three" kind of thing?

Two years earlier Stanford shock the world by upsetting SC at SC. It actually took a little of the national spotlight away from Michigan loss to Appalacia State.

yep. '09 was the Pete Carroll "What's your deal?" game.

I think Pete left in '10, and so went 1-2 against Harbaugh in the PAC12

 

[Michchamp]

Ok another thought on Hoke and the players.

I didn't see the game, because I am still to cheap to pay for satellite. However, everyone here seems to be excited about Johnson. I don't know what his recruiting ranking was, but Smith was a high 4* and Green was the number one back in his class.

So being the money hungry guy DB was, is it possible for him to tell Hoke who he needs to play. Kind of like a over powering GM in baseball. Put the "supposed" best players on the field, cause that is what the fans want to see, instead of putting the best players in. This, for a short period of time, puts butts in the seats to see the 5* RB's and the great talent UM recruited, even if its not the best they have.

Just a thought, I am only trying to justify Hoke staying next year. In my mind he has a 40%-50% shot.

there are a lot of things the AD could do to screw up a coach's ability to win, and not many he can do to help, other than making sure the facilities are nice enough, and keeping out of the way.

as of now, there are nothing more than the rumors (or were they substantiated?) that Brandon liked to sit in on film sessions. that by itself isn't enough to really effect the on field performance.

but you figure a guy like Brandon wasn't limiting himself to sitting in on film sessions; I could see him actively undermining Hoke's authority among his players and staff, undermining the confidence of the staff in their ability & job security.

also... maybe foisting Nussmeier on the staff and "enabling" him to run the O his way. The same O that has gotten worse this season in a lot of ways.

Given Brandon's noted pushiness and stupid "if it ain't broke, break it" corporate marketing slogan ethos... it would probably suck to work for him.

 

[dubbsco]

But with all that being said, Hoke wouldn't be working here if it wasn't for Dave Brandon. Brandon needed a guy that he could control.

 

[Michchamp]

But with all that being said, Hoke wouldn't be working here if it wasn't for Dave Brandon. Brandon needed a guy that he could control.

so what?

it all comes down to how we finish the season... if we go 2-1 or 3-0 (which would be crazy) and win a bowl, or at least play competitively in one? in that case, I don't agree that it's worth firing Hoke for just anybody, unless Jim Harbaugh is on his way.

if we finish 1-2 or 0-3... 5-7 or 4-8 overall... I don't see much to salvage by retaining Hoke. In that case, I think we start looking at the second tier type candidates if Harbaugh is out of the question.

 

[hungry]

I think Hoke's done

Let's be realistic here. This team got blown out by ND and MSU. They aren't going to look good against OSU unless there is some miracle.

While I hope they beat Maryland and NW, i don't think there is any way this team hangs with OSU at OSU.

I think they got rid of Brandon first, so that he wouldn't be there to hire a successor. The first step in getting rid of Hoke and getting in someone new, was to force Brandon to resign.

Hoke being gone has got to be a done deal. I don't see any realistic scenario where he keeps his job.

There will be a new AD and a new coach at Michigan.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm more than 50% confident that Jim Harbaugh and Shlissel have it in motion for Jim Harbaugh to come to Michigan next season.

Things just seem to be lining up that way.

 

[dubbsco]

If Hoke wins games against Maryland, Northwestern, and a 6-6 team in a bowl game, that still shouldn't be enough to save his job.

Against his biggest competition, he has yet to get it done. He hasn't beaten a ranked team on the road. There's no point in keeping him around anymore. He had his 4 years, and the team has continued to regress, to the point where the stadium looks half empty.

Even if it's not Les Miles or the Harbaughs, coaches thrive in new situations. Dantonio was .500 at Cincy. Look at how he is doing now. Who is to say that if Fitzgerald came here, that he wouldn't thrive? If he falls on his face, how's it different than what is happening now?? The unknown is much more appealing that the known, which is failure.

Did the win against Indiana change a lot of people's minds on this board?

 

[Michlady]

As I said in other thread jim h if he calls gets it

Some might want to see who AD is

I too think hoke us gone

 

[zyxt9]

dubbs, I think it is more a question of cost/benefit. a new coach will require ANOTHER rebuilding of the program. unless the coach brought in fits the program already being built by Hoke. in that case, how is getting rid of Hoke in favor of a middling coach from a middling school going to be worth the investment?

bringing in top tier coach is a different story obviously. that investment is worth the cost. if no top tier coach is available this year, then waiting a year to see IF Hoke can actually get things turned around when his players are going to be more experienced and on offense have a year of grasping what Nuss is trying to accomplish.

much of the ineptitude has been due to Nuss, IMO. if the offense actually can begin to click and the team wins out, then there would be zero reason to fire Hoke or even Nuss...much as it pains me to say that.

 

[dubbsco]

Zyxt, what exactly needs to be "rebuilt?" I would understand what you mean by rebuilding if the team lost a coach that was winning 9-10 games a year and needed to go through an overhaul.

This team is already broken. How much worse can it truly get? There's no reason to rebuild a Pinto, the thing is already a piece of shit. If you can't get your dream coach, what harm is there in getting someone who may end up working out? We already know Hoke can't win here, it's been proven after 4 years. There's absolutely zero reason to keep on with this show. He wasn't a very successful coach prior to Michigan. He came here, it didn't work out. Time to move on. And if Greg Schiano ends up being the coach, that's a much better option than what is currently being trotted out every Saturday.

 

[zyxt9]

there is projected talent on the team, so if the new coach is someone capable of using that existing talent to the maximum then you go with them. that would be a top tier coach. a middling coach will not necessarily get more out of these guys than Hoke has or will.

then there is the potential the new coach will not have a playbook that fits the current roster. then UM is back to bringing in frosh and waiting 3 years to begin seeing what that new coach will become. why would we continue the roundabout circle jerk? that only is beneficial if the new coach coming in is top tier; otherwise the cost of rebuilding would not be worth it IF Hoke was able to run the table.

your argument is that no matter what Hoke needs to go. others are saying IF the new prospective coach is middle tier and Hoke runs the table from here out, then the cost of rebuilding AGAIN is not worth it.

IF the team loses again (high probability) then this scenario changes. then the cost of rebuilding becomes less expensive in time and money.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Runs the table?

Does anybody seriously think Michigan has better than a chance in a hundred of beating Ohio State?

 

[bamf_16]

there is projected talent on the team, so if the new coach is someone capable of using that existing talent to the maximum then you go with them. that would be a top tier coach. a middling coach will not necessarily get more out of these guys than Hoke has or will.

then there is the potential the new coach will not have a playbook that fits the current roster. then UM is back to bringing in frosh and waiting 3 years to begin seeing what that new coach will become. why would we continue the roundabout circle jerk? that only is beneficial if the new coach coming in is top tier; otherwise the cost of rebuilding would not be worth it IF Hoke was able to run the table.

your argument is that no matter what Hoke needs to go. others are saying IF the new prospective coach is middle tier and Hoke runs the table from here out, then the cost of rebuilding AGAIN is not worth it.

IF the team loses again (high probability) then this scenario changes. then the cost of rebuilding becomes less expensive in time and money.

Highly doubt Michigan goes with some radical spread guy (RR's spread is pretty far out there. Other spreads are more moderate), even if they do go with someone with spread tendencies, Morris has the feet to be a running threat like a Forcier, and Speight would be more of a spread passing attack.

There are enough highly ranked guys on the OL they should be able to find 5 guys who can run whatever offense is brought in. Maybe that's wishful thinking. But if they go more of an inside zone, I think the 5 they have now will continue to improve. If they want to go with more spread tendencies with more mobile OL, I think Glasgow find himself replaced first.

At wideout, Darboh, Canteen definitely back, Chesson as well. No reason they can't make whatever adaptation necessary. That stuff actually gets easier for wideouts as patterns seem to be more simplistic the more radical the spread attack.

Defensively, if UM does bring in a 3-3-5 defensive guy, they've got the hogs up front with Mone, Pipkins, Glasgow, Wormley and Henry. They've got the prototypical MLB prospects in Gedeon, Ferns, and/or Morgan. Outside, McCray, Furbush, Jenkins-Stone, Ross, etc. And guys to play that "spur" position include bigger guys like Wangler & Furbush, and secondary guys like Jarrod Wilson, Dymonte Thomas, etc. 4-2-5, same thing. If they go 3-4, same thing with the big guys up front, with plenty of LB talent to piece together the 4 they need. The biggest problem would be that in a shift to a 3-3-5, guys like Charlton, Poggi, Marshall, and Ojemudia become likely transfers unless the new coach convinces them that there are extensive 4 man front packages in which they can play end. But one of the benefits of the 3-3-5 is that you can run it against just about any offensive front. A 3-4 requires those 4 man sub packages in passing situations or against spread teams.

Point being, I think the transition to RR has perhaps prejudiced us into thinking that all coaching changes are just that dramatic. It's not necessarily true. Fear of a 3 year rebuilding process may be overstated.