Brady Hoke and Pat Shurmer Hirings Beg Question: Do Hype And Resume Matter?

As a University of Michigan alum and longtime Cleveland Browns backer, I've had a lot to digest of late.  My college and pro football teams each hired their new coach this week, and both moves have been fairly controversial due to the relatively thin track records of the men who will be taking over. 

After much consternation in Ann Arbor, Michigan Athletic Director Dave Brandon announced the hiring of San Diego State's Brady Hoke as the 19th coach in the history of Michigan football.  Whether Brandon "settled" for Hoke or was after him all along is still up for debate.  For what it's worth, Brandon says he never offered the job to anyone besides Hoke, who was mentioned as a candidate from the beginning.  But Hoke was widely perceived as a clear third choice behind Stanford's Jim Harbaugh and LSU's Les Miles, and it's not hard to understand why.

Harbaugh, who was a successful QB at Michigan in the mid-80's, is coming off a season where he led a Stanford program that hadn't been ranked in a decade to a 12-1 record, a top five national ranking and a decisive 40-12 victory over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl.  Plus, he's got coaching in his blood; just ask his brother John Harbaugh when he's done leading his Baltimore Ravens deep into the NFL playoffs (perhaps sibling rivalry can explain Jim's decision to bolt Stanford for the San Francisco 49ers).

While Miles has come under significant criticism for some dubious in-game decisions, particularly with clock management, he has an easy response to those who question his coaching ability: "Kiss my (2007 BCS national championship) ring."  When you combine Miles' championship credentials with his ties to Michigan—he played under famed coach Bo Schembechler and also served as an assistant coach for the Wolverines—it's not surprising that Miles was also hyped as a candidate in Ann Arbor. 

But in the end, it was Hoke.  He of the 47-50 career record at perennial non-contenders Ball State and San Diego State.  Of course, Hoke did turn both of those programs around, ultimately leading Ball State to a 12-1 season and San Diego State to its first 9-win season since 1971, culminating in a 35-14 thrashing of Navy in this year's Poinsettia Bowl.  Hoke coached at Michigan under Lloyd Carr, but didn't play for the Wolverines (he played at Ball State). 

While Wolverines fans hope that the Rich Rodriguez years prove to be nothing more than a horrible anomaly, Cleveland Browns fans have now suffered through over a decade of bad football since they returned to the league.  But the nature of these two coaching searches are actually quite similar.

Just as many journalists and Wolverines fans were clamoring for Harbaugh and Miles, the buzz in Cleveland was that Browns President Mike Holmgren would replace Eric Mangini with a coach who has been to a Super Bowl: Jon Gruden, John Fox...or Holmgren himself.  Even Bill Cowher was mentioned, despite the incredibly long odds that Cowher would ever choose to lead the Steelers' longtime rivals. But Holmgren indicated early in the process that he wasn't considering himself for the position and that he could get excited about developing the next great young coach in the NFL.  And he stuck to those words. 

Enter Pat Shurmer, offensive coordinator the last two years for a St. Louis Rams team that finished near the bottom of the league in total offense.  The Rams were also frequently criticized in St. Louis for running too conservative an offensive game plan, particularly in their 16-6 Week 17 loss to Seattle that cost them a playoff spot. Shurmer also just so happens to have the same agent as Holmgren and two other prominent Browns executives (GM Tom Heckert and Executive Vice President Bryan Wiedmeier).

To be sure, Shurmer has plenty of accomplishments to point to, such as helping guide Sam Bradford to the second most passing yards ever for a rookie QB, trailing only Peyton Manning.  And before coming to St. Louis, Shurmer spent years as an offensive coach for the Philadelphia Eagles, where he mentored QBs like Donovan McNabb, Jeff Garcia and Kevin Kolb, and learned to master the West Coast offense that Holmgren wants to run with young QB Colt McCoy.

But in the end, both the Michigan and Cleveland hires are notable for not being particularly notable.  Whether or not by choice, both teams ended up picking unproven commodities instead of big name coaches who had been linked to their openings. 

Both hires have received surprisingly good press so far, Hoke cast as the "Michigan Man" who can return the program to the values and physical style of play that defined their success under Schembechler and Carr; Shurmer as the up-and-coming quarterback guru who can successfully implement the West Coast offense and develop McCoy.  It also hasn't hurt that both Hoke and Shurmer have received plenty of praise from many of the players that they have coached over the years. 

I can certainly relate to the desire among fans to land a big fish as their coach (and I don't mean Bill Parcells specifically, although he'd certainly qualify as an example).  A proven winner just feels like a safer bet when your team is facing organizational uncertainty.  And the media is often less than imaginative in the coaches they choose to hype. 

But in the end, many of the most successful coaches have been completely unheralded when they came on board.  Michigan fans don't need to look far to find examples in the college ranks: There's Ohio State's Jim Tressel, who previously coached Youngstown State, and Schembechler himself, whose only head coaching experience prior to joining the Wolverines was at Miami of Ohio.  Browns fans can just look at the coaches who have led their teams to the playoffs this year: Only two (Bill Belichick and Pete Carroll) had previously served as NFL head coaches before joining their current teams. 

What it really comes down to is picking the "right guy," the right system, and the right players .  There are plenty of ways to quantify what makes a successful coach, but it's far from an exact science.  One thing that is clear is that "hype" shouldn't be one of the factors to consider. 

The new coaches in Ann Arbor and Cleveland may not be exciting choices, but only time will tell if they are good ones.