Mike Lantry, 1972
Wide receiver gets even more frightening next year:
Michigan junior receiver Je'Ron Stokes is no longer with the program, athletic department officials confirmed today.
Stokes was a touted recruit out of Philadelphia who decommitted from Tennessee in favor of Michigan after Phil Fulmer got axed, but he hardly played in his tenure. He would have been a senior next year.
Speaking of next year, here's the WR depth chart:
Actually, that's not too bad. Michigan was probably going to grab two wide receivers in this class anyway but now they absolutely have to.
Meanwhile, remember those concerns Michigan might have to push some guys out after the season to make room for the horde of new recruits? Yeah… never mind. Michigan's at 23 open slots right now with a few fifth years who are obvious candidates not to return. At this point 27 or 28 is more likely than 26.
It's really clever for Brian to phrase this in such a way as to give the impression he wasn't the main individual at MGoBlog who was pushing those "concerns" in the first place.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't. It came up over the weekend when the 26 member class was brought up by the coaching staff, and plenty of people commented on it before Brian mentioned it. And Brian merely said it was something to keep an eye on going forward, not to worry about when signing day was 6 months away,
That was Tim, not Brian. While Brian was on his honeymoon Tim wrote something implying Brian's reaction would be even stronger than his. It wasn't true.
Two weeks of frequent sex and foie gras will do that to a man.
Especially when they are coupled.
sex and andouillette, you say?
Nice try, but no. This is Brian's post from August 1:
"Pace and Teric Jones got sent to St. Saban Memorial."
This was an attempt to insinuate that Hoke is engaging in the same underhanded roster practices that Saban and the rest of the SEC do.
It didn't take some anti-Hoke conspiracy to look at 14 seniors, 2 left over scholarships, and maybe 4 5th year seniors to be not invited back and then look at plans to sign 26 and go "ummmm?" Especially in light of this site's crusade against over-signing.
But sure, take one statement presented in a toung-and-cheek manner out of a whole post that said "meh, probably not a big deal," and turn that into Brian creating the concerns.
right below your quote, Brian says "3 of the 4 [departures] are obviously legit," and "Teric Jones's departure is one you can question given his place on the depth chart, but since there's an entire football season between now and crunch time it's probably legit."
I think it's clear Brian wasn't seriously bashing Hoke for Saban-like activities.
This disappearing act is sure to draw the ire of Brian, the resident oversigning watchdog (that post is his "final" word on the topic... from more than three years ago). The point is that when signing a big class - or in this case, aiming to sign one - you're actively hoping some guys currently on your roster will not make it through their four years. That puts you in a sketchy-feeling gray area at best.
Of course, there have been hints going back to Rodriguez that Christian Pace's injuries could be career-threatening (and Teric Jones's knee injury did indeed look terrible, etc.), so maybe we're confusing the cause and effect in Hoke's statements about signing a full class? Pace, at the very least, seemed like he would be a contributor if healthy, so there's far less motive to push him out.
Fairly or not, it still gives off the feeling that Michigan is striding away from its moral high ground on the issue. Brian is certain to feel much more strongly about this, so brace yourselves for his wrath when he returns.
if Don is right.......nobody cares.
...where, exactly, is the implication that stokes is in any way related to the entire medical hardship / scholarship issue?
if not, the "st saban memorial" reference isn't relevant.
I've been reading Brian since the Season of the Horror, and after the first year or saw read comments from veterans that Brian does have peaks and valleys to his emotions, and that if you just wait long enough for the facts to come out, Rational Brian will correct Irrational Brian eventually. And my impression is that Brian's writing wouldn't be entertaining at all if irrational Brian didn't exist. And so it goes with all of us.
I thought Tim brought it up, but even if not it was definitely still a concern. I remember when Hoke started to bring in the two-a-week recruits that people started to wonder what the future held considering the likely number of spots left.
Best of luck to him in future endeavors. But we'll be ok, we have enough slot ninjas as is. Time to get some size at wideout.
I'm pretty sure Stokes was bringing up the average height of our Wide Recievers. He was one of the true outside guys instead of a slot ninja.
Stokes is over 6 foot and was supposed to be fast enough to stretch defenses. Really bummed about him. I thought he would be coming off the bench frequently this year with a possible starting position next year.
I had high hopes for Stokes. Wish him well. I wonder where he was at on the depth chart?
Any reason why...? Voluntary or 'Get the heck outta here ya bum!'
Sometimes people just make life-changing decisions that are nobody's business but theirs and their family.
One of the last WR candidates that I would have expected to transfer.
The change of offensive style/receiving focus may have something to do with his success or joy in playing beyond size or slot vs. wide. In the DetNews article about the receiving corps (where Je'Ron is name is already absent) Borges is quoted as saying:
This really just results in us being able to pull in another Top 20 guy this year with a high ceiling that is excited for the opportunity to play for Michigan. While Stokes is able to pursue his dream of the NFL at a school that will give him a shot. All win in this scenario.
I thought we'd see a lot of Je'Ron this year. He seemed to have a decent spring game and appeared frequently in the practice videos.
I kept hearing his name.
I am guessing he passed Stokes on the dept chart.
Not tight butthole. Not tight butthole at all.
So many transfers. Not necessarily a bad thing for us, but I hate to see kids leave the program like this.
Does the (new) APR become a concern at some point?
AFAIK they'd need to leave while ineligible to play to take a toll at the APR
I think it's still a hit if they leave while in good academic standing, but it's especially damaging if they haven't made appropriate progress toward degree.
Its like if he and Stonum had swapped schollies, I'd rather have Stonum than Stokes next year, but he really (really) needs to keep his head straight this year (please God!)
Goodbye and good luck Je'Ron, jeez, saying goodbye is hard
Soooooooo that whole "no attrition" for Hoke (blessed be thy name) thing is now a complete bullshit meme right? Ok, just so we're all clear.
Was that a thing in the first place? I mean, fewer guys jumped ship right away, but did anyone expect there to be no attrition? Just curious.
Also we're not losing starts or heirs apparent (Mallet). We've been losing guys who were buried on the depth chart under RR and look to be buried under the new regime. I figure getting a new regime made people rethink their spot on the depth chart and go "Hey wait I've been warming the bench for one or more years and that trend does not appear to be changing...time to bail".
It sucks Stokes didn't pan out, good ranking, good height, it seemed like he had the tools.
To be fair, didn't Mallet have one foot out of the door before Lloyd left?
out the door before Lloyd left.
No it was only one foot. But he had his weed stuffed in the shoe on that foot, so there wasn't any doubt he'd follow that foot.
We'll never know exactly what went down, but Mallett did not transfer until about a month after the coaching change (and about six weeks after Carr announced his retirement). I don't read that as him being completely sold on transferring all along.
There was definitely some talk around Spring practice that no one had transferred because the new staff had energy and enthusiasm and was handling the process better than the old staff had.
Can't remember specifically if people were talking about it here, but they definitely were on the Rivals site, for example.
Was it Hoke or that Stokes wasn't going to get playing time? Sounds like the latter.
Are you more concerned about being right or seeing Michigan football succeed? If it's the former, you're going to be completely unbearable over these next few years.
I find all of the talk about how this staff "gets it" and "understands Michigan" etc. completely unbearable too, but people only ever get mad at His Dudeness.
I have no problem whatsoever with dissent and honest questioning. It's the "I told you so" every time anything mildly negative happens that doesn't offer anything constructive.
If you want to do some analysis that shows that Michigan's attrition this year is much higher than what's typical for coaching changes, then that's interesting, relevant stuff. Waiting until bad things happen (losses, transfers, decommitments, etc.) just so you can rub it in is childish and unhelpful.
I just never thought it made sense to assume that it would be lower than typical for a coaching change, and I do think there were people saying that.
I mean, yeah, I think His Dudeness has been abrasive lately, but I do understand where he's coming from. Every time there's a coaching change, people tend to adopt the "this coaching staff gets it in ways that the previous, unsuccessful staff never did!" narrative, which can get a little annoying.
what do you mean every time there's a coaching change? coaching changes happen infrequently at michigan and when coaches leave pretty much all of them have had some form of success. the reason why there's so much "hoke gets it" stuff is because the last coaching staff did not have the success that previous coaches did so people are hopeful that the new staff will bring back the successes of the past. is it really that incomprehensible that people feel that this staff will have more success than the previous one?