I don't think Hoke is that good of a coach. I look at Nuss and Mattison. I listen to Nuss's, or Mattison's interviews. They're composed - they know what they're talking about - they've fielded competent units on the field. If you do the same with Hoke, you say his teams have underperformed in a weak big 10, and he sounds like an idiot when he talks.
A good coach should be able to look at any part of the team, and know what's good and what needs some improvement. He needs to be able to know what to talk about with the position coaches. He needs to have an idea of what to talk about with the coordinators for how they're going to coordinate.
Hoke went from a DL coach to a head coach. He has no coordinator experience. He doesn't seem extremely knowledgeable about the game of football. Even watching our DL the past few years - they don't look dominant. They barely look above average. Hoke has been spending his time with the DL, and they aren't anything special. Red flag? For me it is.
A head coach should oversee every position group. Last year the offense was grossly over-matched in a lot of our games. There's no way the OL looked 100% competent in practice to just fail in games - that doesn't happen. Hoke should have been able to see that happening, and tried to have Borges do something else. Simplify blocking schemes. Change up the play calling. Something.
I believe Nuss is a more competent coach than Borges was. Nuss is on track to be a head coach somewhere soon... maybe even at Michigan. As opposed to Borges, who has coached at the high school level within the past 10 years because he was fired from a collegiate job.
I'm definitely rambling, but my point is this: Having never been to one of our practices, so I'm only judging based off gameday, Hoke doesn't seem like the best fit for Michigan, and listening to his interviews just reminds me of that.
Then the burden is on you to explain how two competent coaches (Mattison and Nussmeier) would allow themselves to serve under the leadership of a someone inferior (by your claim) as Hoke. Neither would do so if they thought their efforts would be negated by poor leadership from the head coach.
I think Hoke is likely a better coach than you give him credit for. I think his particular skills lies in generating and maintaining a sense of common commitment to tradition and hard work. What he has not yet shown -- and 2014 truly is the test for this -- is whether he can take the next step and translate that common commitment into execution on the field and victories on the schedule. My guess is he will. But only time will tell.
Anonymous: I think a lot of what you're saying is ignoring the forest for the trees. Mattison has fielded decent/good units...part of the time under Hoke. How is Hoke going to earn any credit from you if you're going to chalk up all of the success to the coordinator? Furthermore, Hoke and Borges DID do other things - they started running more zone plays, less power, and more tackle over stuff. Again, if you ignore the different stuff they try, then they certainly don't try anything new.
Personally, I don't care how Hoke sounds in interviews as long as he's not sticking his foot in his mouth, which he doesn't. And perhaps that's his grand plan. He likes to keep everything close to the vest, and I have a hunch that he sounds a whole lot more knowledgeable behind closed doors, on the field, etc. than he does in interviews with the media. The fact is that media members will spill the beans on anything new and intricate, and a lot of them won't understand the intricacies of what actually goes on during a football game.
I'm not sold on Hoke being the greatest coach ever, but he did have an 11-2 season, he's been dealt a raw hand when it comes to personnel (the senior classes have been tiny, the OL was woefully understocked), etc., so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer, at least through 2014.
"I have a hunch that he sounds a whole lot more knowledgeable behind closed doors, on the field, etc. than he does in interviews with the media."
I agree 100% with this. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he knows full well what he's doing in front of the camera and microphone, and in fact it is *designed* to distract the media. They think they're getting a plate full of meaty steak, but after they get home they realized what Hoke served up is a bowl of oatmeal.
I don't think Hoke is that good of a coach. I look at Nuss and Mattison. I listen to Nuss's, or Mattison's interviews. They're composed - they know what they're talking about - they've fielded competent units on the field. If you do the same with Hoke, you say his teams have underperformed in a weak big 10, and he sounds like an idiot when he talks.
ReplyDeleteA good coach should be able to look at any part of the team, and know what's good and what needs some improvement. He needs to be able to know what to talk about with the position coaches. He needs to have an idea of what to talk about with the coordinators for how they're going to coordinate.
Hoke went from a DL coach to a head coach. He has no coordinator experience. He doesn't seem extremely knowledgeable about the game of football. Even watching our DL the past few years - they don't look dominant. They barely look above average. Hoke has been spending his time with the DL, and they aren't anything special. Red flag? For me it is.
A head coach should oversee every position group. Last year the offense was grossly over-matched in a lot of our games. There's no way the OL looked 100% competent in practice to just fail in games - that doesn't happen. Hoke should have been able to see that happening, and tried to have Borges do something else. Simplify blocking schemes. Change up the play calling. Something.
I believe Nuss is a more competent coach than Borges was. Nuss is on track to be a head coach somewhere soon... maybe even at Michigan. As opposed to Borges, who has coached at the high school level within the past 10 years because he was fired from a collegiate job.
I'm definitely rambling, but my point is this: Having never been to one of our practices, so I'm only judging based off gameday, Hoke doesn't seem like the best fit for Michigan, and listening to his interviews just reminds me of that.
Then the burden is on you to explain how two competent coaches (Mattison and Nussmeier) would allow themselves to serve under the leadership of a someone inferior (by your claim) as Hoke. Neither would do so if they thought their efforts would be negated by poor leadership from the head coach.
DeleteI think Hoke is likely a better coach than you give him credit for. I think his particular skills lies in generating and maintaining a sense of common commitment to tradition and hard work. What he has not yet shown -- and 2014 truly is the test for this -- is whether he can take the next step and translate that common commitment into execution on the field and victories on the schedule. My guess is he will. But only time will tell.
Anonymous: I think a lot of what you're saying is ignoring the forest for the trees. Mattison has fielded decent/good units...part of the time under Hoke. How is Hoke going to earn any credit from you if you're going to chalk up all of the success to the coordinator? Furthermore, Hoke and Borges DID do other things - they started running more zone plays, less power, and more tackle over stuff. Again, if you ignore the different stuff they try, then they certainly don't try anything new.
DeletePersonally, I don't care how Hoke sounds in interviews as long as he's not sticking his foot in his mouth, which he doesn't. And perhaps that's his grand plan. He likes to keep everything close to the vest, and I have a hunch that he sounds a whole lot more knowledgeable behind closed doors, on the field, etc. than he does in interviews with the media. The fact is that media members will spill the beans on anything new and intricate, and a lot of them won't understand the intricacies of what actually goes on during a football game.
I'm not sold on Hoke being the greatest coach ever, but he did have an 11-2 season, he's been dealt a raw hand when it comes to personnel (the senior classes have been tiny, the OL was woefully understocked), etc., so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer, at least through 2014.
"I have a hunch that he sounds a whole lot more knowledgeable behind closed doors, on the field, etc. than he does in interviews with the media."
DeleteI agree 100% with this. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he knows full well what he's doing in front of the camera and microphone, and in fact it is *designed* to distract the media. They think they're getting a plate full of meaty steak, but after they get home they realized what Hoke served up is a bowl of oatmeal.