get'em_griz said:
I think this is a scenario that is difficult to compare. MSU was in a sort of "rebuild" mode after they fired Ash in 2015. Choate came in, built a new foundation and new culture, and handed off a good team to Vigen. Vigen didn't have to do much, only continue keep that train moving forward.
With Montana, Stitt was like the "Rob Ash" of Montana football. Good coach but the program was stagnant. If Vigen was hired instead of Bobby in 2017, I don't think Vigen would have the large success at Montana as he currently is enjoying at MSU. The program was in a situation (like MSU was after firing Ash) where it didn't have an identity. Had Vigen been hired at Montana, he would have had to instill a new culture and identity like Choate had to do with MSU.
Now if the question is, would Vigen have been more successful at this point than Hauck has been, that too IMO is a difficult question to answer. Both coaches have different coaching styles and what works at one program might not necessarily work at another program. In this hypothetical scenario, think Vigen would have done well at Montana regardless. I do feel though that the work Hauck has done at this point is the equivalent of what Choate did at MSU - give the program it's identity again and build off of it. While I'm happy to have Hauck as our head coach, I feel that when his time at Montana is done, he will have set up Montana's next head coach to be able to hit the ground running - assuming that the next head coach continues to keep the train moving (aka the NDSU model of "next man up", don't change what's not broken, etc).
If I’m reading correctly, if we follow the trajectory, we are now at the end of the “rebuilding era.” By comparison, Choate got the Cats to the playoffs in years 3 and 4 when the Griz were in on year 2. Cats playoff results were out in second round in 2018 and Semis in 2019. If we average things out, two quarterfinals appearances and a second round exit means we have approximately similar levels of success. BUT that quarterfinal appearance was on year 4, suggesting an upward swing in momentum, rather than a faltering like at UM.
So what’s the takeaway here? Are the programs on par with one another but in different stages of the rebuilding process? Montana didn’t have as far to climb (as shown by a quarterfinal appearance in year two) but has faltered and not improved on the year two result. Improvement and rebuilding is not necessarily linear, unlike MSU’s experience. It can be frustrating, like our experience, but it can continue.
If Bobby can recover the momentum, actually be competitive for the conference title, not back-slide into the playoffs, and get the Griz into the Semis, then we can say the recovery continues. It is my hope that the team improves and that Bobby makes the changes necessary to improve. I’ve been vocal about some position coaches being replaced. I’m changing my tune somewhat and going with what I hope happens if the coaching staff stays relatively intact.
My hope 1: A renewed commitment to offensive line improvement. Per hoops, et al, Germer is a good coach that has significantly helped individual offensive linemen. If he stays, I’d like to see the commitment to developing everyone and not simply certain individuals. Forget DOLA or what ever acronym used. Get back to basics, get relentless in pass blocking, and mean in run blocking. The acronym used should be the results on the field, rather than a meaningless phrase.
My hope 2: A more diverse offense. There have been plenty of times when the offense has looked dynamic and then gone stone cold. I feel a lot of this has to do with play calling. The RPO out of the pistol is a popular offenseive scheme, but if we continue to use the same exact running action every time (RB up the middle and QB to the edge) defenses can key in. When the Griz got the ball in playmaker hands the offense came alive. The RPO opens up, and awesome things happen. The short dumps down to Roberts were nice (seriously that dude sold out for the ball so many times!!) but not dynamic and didn’t put pressure on anyone. We very seldom even tried to blow the lid off the secondary. I know that’s not Bobby’s “style” but having the downfield threat opens up so much. That we consistently went away from that is baffling to me. Safer is not always better. It seemed when games got tight, Bobby became afraid of making mistakes and the O went into a shell. If you are THAT concerned about execution errors, then you need to address how you practice.
My hope 3: The defense have more personnel grouping variations. The rigid adherence to the 3 down lineman setup cost the Griz some games. With the way the blitzing scheme works, it’s too easy to run on. Remember Choate talking about Seymore’s “no down linemen” approach? When the Griz brought more to the line, they were standing rushers mostly. Lighter linebacker types. When engaged, the lineman has the advantage simply due to leverage. The scheme is effective against the teams it is appropriate for, but Bobby needs to be flexible in how it’s implemented. If we get correct personnel groupings and formations by team or by situation, the D becomes much harder to push off the line of scrimmage. Also, actively pursuing D-ends that can get after it would help.
Just my thoughts. Does this happen? Who knows. As always, I will continue to root for the Griz come hell or high water.
