I've read many articles on the various changes made recently. Several things puzzle me:
(1) If having Mattison "coordinate from the middle" is such a good idea, how come he didn't do it earlier than now?
(2) If having Hoke be more involved in all position meetings is a good thing, why did it take 3 years to figure it out?
Maybe it was a case where Hoke came to Michigan and didn't anticipate the differences between coaching at a program liked Ball State or SDSU and coaching at Michigan. Maybe it took his first few seasons for Hoke to finally conclude the game has changed from his idealized view from the 90's.
The principles Hoke spoke of initially -- ball control, physical play -- transcend any particular scheme. There's no coach in the country that would argue against protecting the football, or being able to win at the line of scrimmage. But perhaps Hoke didn't realize the degree to which the game had changed.
I noticed how Mattison in his press conference spoke several times about "defending against the spread" ... so it appears there is an awareness of a change in the general landscape. Nussmeier's language -- which he imported from elsewhere -- carried with it an indication he's aware of the current landscape.
The same question can be asked of any change that stems from failure. If it was such a good idea, why didn't you do it earlier? At some point, you have to accept that the answer is that they didn't know that what they were doing was going to fail, and when it did, they went back to the drawing board to try something new. Neither Hoke nor Mattison is perfect. The best you can do is take comfort that they are changing, because change was needed, and hope it works out. Proof will be in the season.
I've read many articles on the various changes made recently. Several things puzzle me:
ReplyDelete(1) If having Mattison "coordinate from the middle" is such a good idea, how come he didn't do it earlier than now?
(2) If having Hoke be more involved in all position meetings is a good thing, why did it take 3 years to figure it out?
Maybe it was a case where Hoke came to Michigan and didn't anticipate the differences between coaching at a program liked Ball State or SDSU and coaching at Michigan. Maybe it took his first few seasons for Hoke to finally conclude the game has changed from his idealized view from the 90's.
The principles Hoke spoke of initially -- ball control, physical play -- transcend any particular scheme. There's no coach in the country that would argue against protecting the football, or being able to win at the line of scrimmage. But perhaps Hoke didn't realize the degree to which the game had changed.
I noticed how Mattison in his press conference spoke several times about "defending against the spread" ... so it appears there is an awareness of a change in the general landscape. Nussmeier's language -- which he imported from elsewhere -- carried with it an indication he's aware of the current landscape.
The same question can be asked of any change that stems from failure. If it was such a good idea, why didn't you do it earlier? At some point, you have to accept that the answer is that they didn't know that what they were doing was going to fail, and when it did, they went back to the drawing board to try something new. Neither Hoke nor Mattison is perfect. The best you can do is take comfort that they are changing, because change was needed, and hope it works out. Proof will be in the season.
Delete