Michigan State Postgame Presser Transcript: Brady Hoke Comment Count

Heiko

"You should have used a different game plan."

Your rushing offense –

“A lot of negative yardage plays. I thought there were some pretty good runs once in a while in there, but you snap the ball for a 20 yard loss, you get sacked I don’t know how many times, so your yardage part of it isn’t very good. You put yourself behind the 8-ball a little bit not executing, and then you’re forced into doing some things you don’t want to do the whole time.”

What does the offensive line need to do to protect Devin better and avoid sacks?

“It’s not just the line. There’s backs involved, there’s routes involved, there’s timing, all those issues are part of it. We have to get better.”

Did all the shuffling on the offensive line have something to do with it?

“Nope.”

What’s Devin’s status? He sat out the last series.

“Yeah, he got pounded a little bit. He was a warrior out there that last drive before the interception at the end. He did a nice job getting us down the field, had taken a lot of shots early in the game. He just was a little bit worn out.”

Does he have an injury?

“No. I wouldn’t say he has an injury. I would say beat up. If that’s an injury, then that’s an injury.”

In the history of this game, the team that rushes for more yards wins. How critical was the rushing game today?

“Well it’s always critical.”

Why do you think there were so many negative yardage plays?

“We didn’t execute as well as they did.”

That’s it?

“Pretty much.”

Taylor Lewan’s personal foul?

“I didn’t see that. I think that’s his frustration more than anything.”

You had a couple trips to the red zone in the first half. Did you think about taking a shot in the end zone at all?

“I think if we wanted to take a shot, we would have.”

There’s a lot of talk before the game about the toughness gap between the two teams.

“By … you guys?”

Yeah.

“From two years ago.”

Right. Did it disappoint you that the gap seems to have widened?

“I don’t think so. I think our kids played hard. I don’t think we executed very well. There’s eight to six plays in a game like this that make a difference. And if you go back and watch it again, you’ll see there’s eight to six plays that made a difference in the game from a standpoint of momentum, standpoint of confidence, and what you want to do. That’s part of it.”

How big was it to give up that touchdown before the half?

“That was a disappointing drive there at the end of the half. It drives you crazy. You give up points right at the end of the half, and it’s disappointing.”

How do you not allow a game like this to beat you next week?

“Well hopefully you do a great job as a group of leaders. Talk about coaches, senior captains, all those guys. Understanding where we are and what we need to do. I know they signed up for a guaranteed 12 games.”

With so much emphasis on a Big Ten title, what does this team have to play for?

“Still. It’s not in our hands. But you never know unless you’re forecasting for us now. Who knows?”

Does it surprise you that there was a lack of execution with the two weeks off?

“No. I think there’s more made out of that than anything else. Does it surprise me? Yeah. It surprises me. It has nothing to do with two weeks.”

Did you think you’d be further along?

“Well I was hoping.”

Is it coaching that you have to go back and look at?

“You always do.”

MGoQuestion: Going along with that, were you satisfied with the preparation and game plan?

“Yes. We wouldn’t have run the plays we ran unless we were satisfied.”

MGoFollowup: But considering the result …

“Hindsight’s always 20/20, right?”

What did you make of Michigan State’s defensive line and Shillique Calhoun?

“I think he’s a good football player. We’ve had a lot of respect for their defense all week going into this game, and I grabbed Max Bullough afterwards because he’s one of the guys I like watching play football. We have a lot of respect for them.”

Do you think the identity of this team is that it needs to get better in the trenches?

“That’s part of it. We haven’t played the way we like to every game.”

When Devin did have time, how did you think he played?

“I don’t know. Pretty good. But it would be nice to give him more time.”

What do you tell your fan base and alumni about dropping five of the last six games to Michigan State?

“Well, they’ve won five of the last six. Something like that. Well, we gotta keep working.”

Five of six is pretty significant. Do you think there’s that big of a gap?

“I don’t think there is a gap. I think they played awfully well, executed awfully well. I don’t think we did.”

Comments

MGoBlueChip

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^

So how do you execute better since that always seems to be the problem?

How do you get better since that is always the answer?

Why do we have these pressers if you never answer our questions???

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

I get the sense that you guys that are always wanting more from Hoke in his pressers have never been a leader of anything.  Do you expect him to come out and say, "well, our OL really sucks...with the expection of Lewan and Schofield, everyone else wouldn't be playing at Michigan if it weren't for the horrible recruiting of the previous regime...either that, or they're ridiculously young and don't know their asshole from their elbow yet." 

RR kinda did some "calling out" and people went INSANE.  Hoke knows what the issues are, fer fok sake, he LIVES them every damn day!  But, he also knows that the only cure for the problem is TIME. 

dragonchild

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:00 PM ^

He's had time, and frankly not even your hypothetical answers are enough.  I don't think anyone wants him to jam up the bus' gears with his players' entrails; that's a straw man.  We need transparency into how the program is fundamentally run.

The 1997 O-line featured two converted defensive tackles, one a redshirt freshman (some guy named Hutchinson).  Now when I say that team did rather well (win our only national championship in my lifetime), we all know that was a defense-first team.  But the one thing they did NOT do was set records for futility like this team.  And that O-line had combined for one total start among the starting five in preseason.  What's Hoke's excuse?

You can blame youth and lack of depth for a lot of things, and by that I mean it's understandable that we have a below-average O-line.  But this is something else.  You don't get minus-fortysomething yards rushing against a key rival; I don't care how godamn young or depleted your line is.  That's coaches in the hot seat level.  These guys were getting pushed around by Connecticut FFS.

As if this is the only football team in history with a thin O-line!  I was expecting this program to take at least three years to turn around, and 5-6 to really get going.  But this is firmly going backwards.  No Michigan team has done what this team has done.  I'm still bullish on Hoke long-term but he really has no right to be playing Ft. Schembechler at this time because his O-line is re-writing the record books for failure this season.

Don

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^

I'm not disagreeing with your larger point about our offensive line woes, but your assertion about the game experience of our OL going into the '97 season is incorrect.

According to the UM football stats archive, Zach Adami had twelve starts in both the '95 and '96 seasons, and Jon Jansen had 13 in '95 and 12 in '96. That makes a total of 49 starts between the two guys.

http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1995fbt.htm

Huma

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:53 PM ^

That game yesterday was a punch to the soul dong, but we are 6-2 and just lost to probably the best MSU team of the last 20 years. The sky has not fallen. Our O line stinks, but everyone knew it would be our weakest link at the start of the season. Unfortunately the O line is just really, really bad -- and so is Fitz, frankly. Most of us predicted 9-3 or 8-4 this year and we are on pace for that. We should win at least 2 of the next 3 and have a shot at 9-3 or 8-4 depending on the OSU game.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 4th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^

but blind optimism is something else entirely.

I want to start by saying I know very little about the finer points of football. We didn't have the sport at my school or I would have played but we didn't. so I'm just a fan with limited knowldge. That limited knowldge, however, still allows me to look at what I have seen thus far and question what the hell is going on beneath the surface.

Sure, we're 6-2, but have you watched the games? First, look at the two losses, then look at the two wins against Akron and UCONN. That is 4 games where we looked horrible. There is more to analysing a team than siply the win loss record and there's a lot to look at here. 

To me the record, while the most important statistic at the end of the year, is the least important when trying to gauge future performance and that is why people are a little anxious right now. I honestly can't imagine what is going to transpire in AA when OSu comes to town. If we get above 10 points it will be an absolute shock and they will put up at least 40 on us. Things just aren't looking good.

Reader71

November 4th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^

Really great answer. People have every right to be anxious. They have every right to be downright angry. If they think the team is not improving, or they don't see a brighter future, they should voice their displeasure. But guys are emotional, and they are letting this loss get to them to such an extent that MOST people are calling a 25-9 head coach stupid. This is dumb. They want him to be fired. But 25-9 coaches are not fired unless they do something stupid off the field. I agree that the future does not look as good as it did a month ago. I think Hoke will be our coach for our next championship. Other don't, and that's fine. But 25-9 will not get him fired. And while the future looks bleak to some of us, we still have 5 games to play. We'll see.

Blue X2

November 3rd, 2013 at 7:29 PM ^

No excuse for this ineptitude.  Can anyone really say that our young O-line shouldn't be able to block Akron, or Uconn?  this is coaching.  We have all seen teams in business and sports that had lots of talent and underachieved.  It is almost always a leadership issue.  I am not sure if the leadership problem is on the team or on the sidelines but there is no other way to explain this ineptitude.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 7:54 PM ^

"No excuse for this ineptitude.  Can anyone really say that our young O-line shouldn't be able to block Akron, or Uconn?  this is coaching."

What do you mean when you say, "this is coaching," speficially. 

You're incredulity about not being able to block Akron and UConn blies your anti-coaching argument.  Hear me out.

You're aghast that the OL struggled against the weakest teams on the schedule -- and rightly so.  I think we'd all agree that it should only take the most basic level of competency and execution to effectively block teams like Akron and UConn, right?  So, your argument is that the OL coaching is so deficient, so negligent, so down right crappy, that they cannot get the players to that most basic level of execution.  With all the collective experience of the coaching staff, you're trying to tell me that they are simply so god awful that they cannot get the players to even the most basic level?  I find that a stretch, to say the least.  As such, the only other conclusion that one can come to is that the players, specifically those in the middle, just aren't up to the talent level to compete with even the weakest teams on the schedule, let alone the elite defenses like MSU's.

So, if we're to believe the "it's coaching" argument, we need to know specifically what they're NOT teaching the players that is keeping them from executing.

Any thoughts?

Blue in Yarmouth

November 4th, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^

If it was simply the players, you don't think there would be at least one person they could try that would be "up to the task"? If you take Lewan and Schofield out of the equation and then point to one o-lineman that has made steady improvement in the three years this staff has been here. This is coaching and if you can't come to terms with that, I don't know what can be done for you. 

 

Reader71

November 4th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^

Outside of Lewan and Schofield are 2 sophomores and a ton of freshmen. We don't know if they've improved because they had never played a snap before this season. For the record, I think Funk should be fired. I don't think another guy could do much better with this crew, but historically bad output gets you fired. That's the breaks. I think coaching has been a problem. I just think, on the blame scale, about 75% falls on the players. Borges has tried every running scheme out of lots of formations. Our line is good at none of them. Not one. And, contrary to what Brian has told us, pass protection has been no better.

Reader71

November 4th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^

Well, no. He has failed as a coach. I consider the Funk situation to be very similar to the Coach Rod situation. His product is undoubtedly bad, but the lack of bodies isn't his fault and the keys to improvement are either young or on the way. He might deserve more time, or he maybe should get more time to see what he can do with the youngsters. But the fact remains that the product is bad. So he must be fired. Those are the breaks. I don't get it. I've always been really coldly detached and rational on here. I don't think anything I've ever typed and pressed "send" on has been LOL-worthy. This seems like a very reasonable stance. We've gone through this before, on this very blog, 3 years ago. My stance is the same now as it was then. What's so funny?

uncleFred

November 4th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^

If he is producing the best product possible from the available resources, then it would be utterly stupid to fire him.

It is almost certain that both coaching and the inexperience of the offensive linemen contribute to the problems of the offensive line. The question that MUST be resolved is the share of the problem. Now it's possible that even within the coaching staff, there is unsufficient information to accurately weigh the relative contributions. It is a virtual certainty that if that information exists, it's only available to the coaching staff. 

The people with coaching and playing experience who comment here and elsewhere generally fall into the group that leans to giving Funk more time. I suspect that is in part because they recognize the difficulty of the task, and are aware that they lack enough information to assess whether this is primarily coaching or not.

This then comes down to Hoke, who is not only in the best position to determine the quality of Funk's coaching, but also whether or not progress is being made. We won't know Hoke opinion about this until the off season. He's not going to fire Funk mid-season, nor is he going to undercut Funk in public. If Hoke thinks that Funk's performance has earned another season he'll get one, if not he won't. 

 

Reader71

November 4th, 2013 at 10:10 PM ^

I agree, to a certain extent. For the record, I have played college football. Played on the line. I know more than most the challenges Funk faces. This is why I've been on here for about a year predicting that this line would be worse than last years, explaining why, explaining how they will improve, and explaining the handicap that this is to Borges as a coordinator. I'm OK with Funk staying or going. I've said 1000 times that I don't think any coach could make this line good. And, as I said in this post, the problems are not all of his doing. And still, I think that the coach who presides over the worst line in M history must be fired. Just as I believed that Coach Rod, despite being a good guy and a good offensive coach, had to be fired. You don't get to go 3-9 at Michigan, and you don't get to have this bad of a line. Is it unfair? Yes. This is why I said, "that's the breaks." I realize this might be confusing or contradictory. Its just how I feel, man.

DetroitBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^

Serious question and I don't want to start another long argument, but I'm curious . . . Did you want rich rod fired or did you think he should've had another season or 2?

If you're wondering, i didn't and I still don't want hoke fired this year, but I'm losing confidence in him each game it seems

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^

First, let me say that I was a staunch defender of Coach Carr when SackCarr.com came about -- until 2007.  In 2008 I becamse aware of the depth/talent deficiencies that were festering under the facade beginning in 2005.

Then, I was a staunch supporter of RR because I believed that he was handed a shit storm of a program, and people weren't understanding this fact and it were too impatient.  However, I lost my support for RR when I realized that he was not doing enough to rebuild the depth chart, and was totally neglecting the defensive side of the game.

Moving forward to today, I think the issues that RR failed to rectify (or at least begin to rectify) are still plaguing Michian today.  Further, if Hoke is not given time to do so (and he's already made a HUGE start with his first two full classes), Michigan will remain in this position perpetually no matter who comes in.

WM-wolverine

November 3rd, 2013 at 8:15 PM ^

Your previous comment stated that the only logical conclusion to our current OL situation is a lack of talent because the coaches could not possibly be at fault.

Now you praise the talent brought in over the last two years.

So which is it?

Perhaps I dont understand "experience" but if that is the issue then shouldn't it be less of an issue after each game? 

DetroitBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^

There's no arguing that Hoke is bringing in talent, but we still have to develop talented kids into great college football players. I'm starting to doubt that this staff can, at least offensively. I know you don't want Hoke fired, but what about Borges, and/or funk? If one of your reasons for not rocking the boat is recruiting, Borges should be expendable since he doesn't recruit.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 9:46 PM ^

It's too early to evaluate whether or not the staff can develop the talent they've brought in because the first real class of recruits are RS F/So. As far as Borges goes, I could go either way. I'd like to see what he can do with DG for the rest of this year and next, and Shane going forward.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 4th, 2013 at 8:53 AM ^

You seem like a pretty level-headed guy and I'm not trying to pick on you at all, but I have to say I disagree with you here as well. I mean, they have had two years to develop their first class and this is the third for the hybrid class. That is plenty of time to show some improvement. We aren't asking Borges and Funk to show us where the 5 all americans are, we just want to see where the steady improvemnt is that you'd expect to see from such talented recruits. To date we haven't seen any.

Look right now 9and last year) at he Heisman race. It is literally littered with underclassmen. We aren't asking our line to be on the Heisman watch list, but improvement would be nice and we haven't even seen that. It isn't too early to expect to see improvement three years into a coaching change.

DetroitBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 9:41 PM ^

I pretty much agree with all of that; the situation had become toxic under RR. What about now though? Do you think a change needs to be made? I'm basically ready to clean house with the offensive staff. I realize that's not going to happen, but I feel like something needs to happen, even if only to send a message. These historically bad offensive performances need to stop.

Dilithium Wings

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:43 PM ^

Hoke is turning into a joke. He has shown he's not capable of game planning for an opponent. He's already shown he can't manage a game (look no further than PSU or Msu). He looks clueless out there. It's his third year at Michigan and the offense has gotten worst, the QB play has gotten worst, the running game has gotten worst, the offensive line has gotten worst and he seems to have no answers. This is fault as the leader of the team and I don't see any accountability. I think it was 28 rushes for -45 yards and he's satisfied with the play calls? How in the world can you say that?

Not only has the offense gotten worst but the team in general has gotten worst. I'll take last years team over this years team any day. There's no passion from this team. There's no excitement during the game. There's just a feeling of hopelessness.

Hoke appears to be willing to live and die with Borges as our OC. A man who really has only had a couple good years as an OC. His play calls are atrocious. He can't gameplan for an opponent nor can he manage a game. This is the most horrendous offense in years.

If hoke is serious about his intentions for this program he needs to take a hard look and himself and his staff. Borges is not the answer as we all know. Funk has yet to show his worth and really needs to resign. Mattisons conservative game plan isn't helping our offense at all. Hoke can recruit and say the right things in the offseason but when it comes down to it he's simply not stepping up as a good coach.

pokoranger

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^

Well, considering that our deficiency in the OL was something we knew for almost the entirety of this season, I sure hoped he "game planned" accordingly, especially with an extra week of preparation.  In other words, the weakness in the OL was something we all knew prior to the game.  There's no way to deflect the accountability of the coaching staff after this game, especially after all those negative yardages (ie, sacks, call it whatever the heck you want to call it)

I kept my optimism leveled down going into this game, so I didn't fully expect a win.  I just wanted a solid fight, which unfortunately, I did not witness.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^

Again, how does one "game plan accordingly" for an OL that is woefully deficient?  Add to this fact the fact that MSU's defense is the best in the nation.  You guys seem to think that there is something that the coaches aren't telling these guys, or that they're not aware of schematically or technically, that would make the suddenly improve.  Everyone saying, "coaching accountability" is off base.  Hoke is holding himself and the other coaches accountable.  But, at the end of the day if the players simply aren't getting what they're saying, or cannot take it from State St. to Main St., what is a coach to do?  I would hazzard to guess that only the best Michigan OL's in history would have been able to stand up against the onslaught that MSU unleashed on them yesterday. 

pokoranger

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:18 PM ^

Dilithium Wings below gave an answer that is much more cogent than the one I was thinking, so I'll lazily rely on referencing his quote.

Also, I'm not trying to say the loss was solely on the coaching staff.  It goes toward the entire team, player execution, coaching play calling, a complex mixture of many things.  I'm not trying to call out coach Hoke or blame everything on him, but he is to some extent part of the reason.

Do you at least see why many are losing confidence in this coaching staff this season, especially with the in-game coaching/adjustments?  (I still want to believe he is the right man for Michigan.)  If not, I'll stop this discussion, since it'll be entirely fruitless.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:31 PM ^

Of course I see why people are losing confidence, and I don't want that as I know what kind of clusterfuck a program can become when confidence in the coaches is lost.  Personally, I think that many of the same depth issues that plagued RR are still, to this day, plauging Michigan under Hoke.  It is my sincerest hope that in trying to illuminate these issues, the fanbase will continue to support Hoke and give him the time he needs to make Michigan whole depth wise.  Because, IMO, if we don't, if we get out the torches and pitch forks so soon, we're going to remain in this horrible place.

He might not be the guy, but is the head coach NOW, and he's recruiting well.  Keep that going for a full cycle, and THEN if he's not performing, cut him loose.

Blue in Yarmouth

November 4th, 2013 at 9:02 AM ^

but we are in agreement that I don't want Hoke fired either. Personally, I would get rid of the offensive staff completely, save the WR coach who has seemed to developed the talent there pretty darn well, but Hoke and the defensive staff have my support for now. I would like to see him stay longterm as I find him to be a pretty solid guy, but sooner or later he is going to have to show that he can put a good offense on the field.

So I'm with you in supporting Hoke, the defensive staff too, but at the seasons end I feel the offensive staff needs a shakeup.

DelhiGoBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^

if the players aren't taking it from State St. to Main St. that implies a systemic coaching problem.  One player not getting "it" is a player thing, but when failure is observed throughout a unit, that is a coaching thing.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:53 PM ^

Elaborate please.  I hear a lot this "it's coaching" being proffered as the reason, but very few actual explanations of how this actually plays out.  Personally, I think the players just aren't very good, and with the exception of Lewan, wouldn't ever have been given a scholarship at Michigan historically.  But please, tell me what aspects of OLine (or anyt other position) play you think that the coaches aren't teaching the players.

DelhiGoBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^

Fine by me.  Explain why he allowed a DE to go free to the backfield while he did his own best impression of Devin Funchess blocking at TE?   He's very capable of blocking, but somewhere along the line it hasn't been pointed out to him that if the DE is positioned to fly into the backfield, he might want to put his token block into him instead of the guy Bosch is already handling.  Same crap happened against SC. 

Staying with Lewan, what does it say about the coaching staff when a 5th year Senior co-captain hurts his team with personal fouls?  Now we aren't talking about an over zealous heat of the moment late hit.  No, we're talking about after the play is well over yanking on facemasks.  A personal trait of Lewan that he's displayed every game he's played at Michigan.  This being his third season as a starter for this coaching regime, perhaps they quietly condone such acts. 

 

Reader71

November 4th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^

One misses assignment (which we don't know if it even belongs to Lewan or not) is not an indictment, man. Its a bad play. Tom Brady has those. Steve Hutchinson had those, and he is the best football player I have ever seen, mostly because he had so few of those. We're all mad. There are serious concerns. Using one play to highlight the narrative you're forming, or forming a narrative around one play is silly. Its not a real thing. It works for Brian because most of his readership doesn't know much about football. But if you want to talk real actual football, this doesn't cut it.

Dilithium Wings

November 3rd, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^

First you stop running when every carry is going for negative plays. Secondly, you don't play action on obvious pass down nor on a defense that is pinning their ears back because they know what you're doing. Third, you spread out the defense to allow easier reads by your lineman and QB. Fourth, why dont you be more creative with your play calls? It's the same four dumb formations that Borges calls every week.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:43 PM ^

Maybe those are the only plays/formations that the players execute in practice well enough to bring into the game?  Ever think of that?  On of the issues with the OL is that it's a very complex and mentally demanding position to play.  Add to that the brute physical nature of the position, and it takes a very unique skill set to be elite -- and one that takes time to develop in even the most "college ready" recruit.  As such, an inexperienced OL not only limits what you can do physicall (push, protection) it limits what you can do formationally and schematically.  The coaches are calling plays that the team can exectute in practice.  Maybe the "creative" formations and plays are too much for them right now.

DelhiGoBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^

to point out the youth and inexperience of the offensive line, but you can be the first to explain why the 1997 line, with about as much youth and much less experience, was the foundation of the Michigan offense and rarely looked young and inexperienced.

Huma

November 3rd, 2013 at 6:57 PM ^

I think having two first round NFL draft picks, one of which could be the best guard in NFL history, may have something to do with the 1997 line being solid. Plus, in 1997 we started young players at OL because those guys beat out the guys with more experience. This year we are starting young guys because there is no alternative.

Sten Carlson

November 3rd, 2013 at 7:06 PM ^

Whammy!  Right out of the park.  I'd add that the '97 offense was nothing to write home about statistically.  Also, it was lead by a 5th year Sr. game manager type QB, with lots of experienced skill players, and oh yeah, the Heisman winner, and one of the greatest defenses of ALL TIME!  Michigan didn't take chances, they ran the ball, dropped it over the top with play action, and were content to punt and let the defense do it's thing.  Apples to oranges.

DelhiGoBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 8:14 PM ^

wouldn't be running naked bootlegs with this year's offensive line, he'd be smothered before he could turn to his right.  Greise and company were able to do what they did because of the offensive line, not inspite of it.

DelhiGoBlue

November 3rd, 2013 at 8:11 PM ^

you didn't explain how they got there.  For instance Hutchinson and Bakus were drafted following the 2000 season, not the 1997 season.  In other words they were raw talent in 1997.  It is possible that a couple of this year's linemen could, some years down the road, be drafted in the 1st round, we can't know until such time as they are drafted or not. So what do you think, did Hutchinson and Bakus, and Jansen for that matter, sprout from the ground as ready made offensive linemen, or were they recipients of good coaching?