H4: The Burned Redshirts in Order of Argh Comment Count

Seth

13655851055_5b682e5335_k

I realize Strobel got one. Find a better photo then, pickers of nits.

This has to be talked about. Hoke left a roster that was in relatively good shape considering all the highly rated players who had to stick through some awful program degradation. He signed good classes, and those classes have by and large stuck around and fulfilled their academic duties. But an inordinate amount of them inexplicably didn't redshirt, and because of this there are some holes on the horizon.

I'm sure there are explanations in many of these cases that we are not party to. It's only the sheer volume of head-scratching non-redshirts under Hoke that gives us reason to call all of them into question. Like how I'm sure there are legit medical hardship waivers that occur at Alabama but [graph].

Some guys the coaches were forced to play early, and there's no need to discuss them beyond a mention as such, e.g. Jabrill Peppers. Mason Cole outcompeted a pile of guys to start at left tackle last season. That sort of thing gets a full pass. Beyond that, I've broken each Hoke class into categories of increasing argh:

  • WTF. Wasting redshirts on special teams and dime back when last year's dime back is on the bench.
  • Pick ONE. Needed bodies at this position, but not all the bodies. Battles for 2nd on the depth chart should be resolved in time for the ultimate loser to have a 5th year as consolation.
  • Need the dudes (and other things I don't blame on the coaches). Immediate starters or guys who played because Michigan sorely needed his body and his pulse at that position.

Names that should have redshirted are in red.

Class of 2011

DEs

Did you really need both, 2011? [Upchurch]

Hoke arrived to an offensive machine with two years of eligibility remaining, and a nightmare defense of guys who couldn't displace recent departures like Jonas Mouton, Ray Vinopal, Adam Patterson, Greg Banks, and James Rogers. The immediate need was obvious and Hoke rightfully set about recruiting freshmen who could fill those roles. So I'll give him a pass for some of it.

SugarBowl_Hollowell-thumb-333x221-98980
Hollowell's 2011 contribution was more than scooping up a fumbled kickoff against VT, but it was also more than Ray Taylor's. [Melanie Maxwell|AnnArbor.com]

Wtf: None.

Pick ONE

Raymon Taylor and Delonte Hollowell. The year following the Never Forget defensive backfield, Hoke recruited five likely cornerbacks: Blake Countess, Raymon Taylor, Delonte Hollowell, Tamani Carter (redshirted, transferred before 2012), and Greg Brown (early enrollee, transferred before 2011 season). The roster still had J.T. Floyd, Courtney Avery and Terrence Talbott (left program summer before 2012 season), available. In a pinch, Troy Woolfolk could have converted back when Thomas Gordon won the free safety job. At least one, and probably two true freshmen would have to play.

It immediately became apparent that one would be Countess. So to fill out the two deep they would need to burn Taylor or Hollowell's shirt. Hollowell arrived as the quintessential Cass Tech mite corner. The guy was 164 pounds, but saw some action at dime back vs. Nebraska, and recovered the fumble at the end of the first half. Taylor had two tackles and a personal foul.

Brennen Beyer and Frank Clark. Going into the season Beyer was a SAM and Clark a WDE. The difference between those positions in Michigan's 4-3 under was not very great, particularly because when Beyer was inserted it was for a 5-2 look. The WDE's depth chart was Craig Roh and Jibreel Black; SAM was Jake Ryan and Cam Gordon. The reason I say one would have played anyway is the rush end position has a lot rotation, and Black was already the starter in the nickel formation.

There wasn't much to differentiate the two in aggregate play; Beyer was the more consistent, Clark the more explosive. The coaches chose to have them compete through the year instead of preserving one. Had they done so Beyer was the obvious choice despite Clark's higher ceiling. Beyer was smaller and Michigan had Roh to be a more solid edge defender, but only Clark to be a merchant of chaos (remember the Sugar Bowl interception). On the other hand Frank had a rough history before Glenville, and could have used an adjustment season. Either way he would have been dismissed after last year's incident.

Needed dudes etc.

Blake Countess and Desmond Morgan won starting jobs on the 2011 defensive reclamation project. They also both would lose a season to injury so we have them back yay. Thomas Rawls I'm not broken up about, though he will be a pretty good MAC back this year. RBs usually have most of the "it" they ever will as freshmen, and if they do become long-term starters the toll it takes on their bodies means they're often better off moving through their careers early. A redshirt year can make a guy a better blocker, or put some distance between a good back and his heir, or let a smaller guy fill in. Matt Wile is a special pass even though they wasted his redshirt on kickoff duties (and punting during Hagerup's first suspension). I learned recently that Wile made it clear from the start he intended to graduate in four years and do engineering things.

[Save your anger for after the jump.]

Class of 2012

burnin shirts

Because eff you 2016!

The moment we realized Hoke is a serial redshirt burner was the kickoff against Alabama; so much of the expected to redshirt portion of the Class of 2012 was on the field that karmic irony took the opportunity to strike down Blake Countess. We're looking at the list of 2015 seniors right now and some of them it feels like they should just be entering the prime, not the end, of their careers. In most of these cases we are correct.

Wtf

IMG_7020
I give them a pass for Wilson since they did it after Mike Williams's career was lost to injury. [Upchurch]

Mario Ojemudia was 225 pounds soaking wet, though dude was so slippery the water didn't add much. He got a fair amount of run anyway despite Clark and Beyer being ahead of him. Maybe when minor injuries pocked the depth chart they would have been forced to use him, but that shirt was gone from the kickoff against Alabama, despite Mattison admitting the following spring that it's unfair to play a defensive end at 230.

From there it gets even less explicable. Sione Houma was wasted entirely on special teams, making 1.5 tackles.

Royce Jenkins-Stone was recruited for the SAM and was a raw obvious redshirt, yet there he is at the far left of the photo above, burning it against Alabama. Last year he began to look ready and the fist-shaking resumed in earnest. They'll still be shaking next year when he's gone.

Pick ONE

The linebackers. The starters from 2011 all returned; behind them Michigan still had Cam Gordon and the other guys who played WLB before Morgan locked down the job, but you knew right away that the backup middle linebacker spot would need one of the freshmen. The smart pick was Joe Bolden because he arrived in spring and seized the #2 role, so we figured James Ross would get the luxury of a redshirt. When they got on the field Ross was the one who looked way more instinctual, but he was also too small to take on blocks and it showed. He needed the year, and next year when there are no linebackers I'll again be pretty upset he didn't, despite the utility of his 2012 snaps.

Needed dudes etc.

Because Rich Rod didn't care to recruit tight ends until it was too late, and Hoke whiffed on the position in 2011, Michigan had to play both A.J. Williams and Devin Funchess. Funchess the #19 edition wasn't any kind of blocker, but made five starts and various freshman All America lists, and anyway was off to the NFL after three seasons. Williams wasn't any kind of good, but with Moore injured and an offensive coordinator who preferred heavy sets, there was no way A.J. could be brought along slowly. Terry Richardson went in when Countess went down and they made it up to him with a redshirt in 2013.

One either/or they did right was Chesson/Amara Darboh—that was the year they were playing Gardner at receiver and after Gallon/Roundtree was Dileo and a pile of Rodriguez recruiting whiffs. Darboh didn't play much but after Nebraska Michigan was out Jerald Robinson and Gardner was at quarterback and Jeremy Jackson wasn't going to be more than he was, so it's more impressive they resisted burning Chesson's.

So much of Dennis Norfleet's career was his coaches not understanding how to use him, but one thing they were correct to do was use him as a returner in 2012. I wish they'd gotten a shirt on him in 2013, but you have to admit in all Borges's years of trolling Brian Cook, making Norfleet the backup to an unused Drew Dileo was a master stroke.

Jarrod Wilson is a guy you redshirt if you can but it was obvious they needed to groom somebody for safety of the future since M-Rob and Furman were the extant backups; they did redshirt Jeremy Clark.

Ondre Pipkins deserves a medshirt he won't get because his injury occurred just after the cutoff. As a freshman though he was doing things:

That's Pee Wee in his first collegiate game, blowing up All-of-America Barrett Jones in what would have been a TFL if Jake Ryan had been a bit more aggressive.

Pipkins

Q.E.D.

Class of 2013

9491838604_85deea9f0c_z

Fuller

Wtf

The anger about some of these is coming out now because these guys are upperclassmen and thus running out of time when it feels like they shouldn't have been expected to contribute until this season anyway.

We'll start with Dymonte Thomas because there was no explanation then or now or any moment in between. Unless he was promised early playing time it makes no sense that they burned him on special teams, since depth at safety was established with the previous class and he was a skinny linebacker in high school who needed to learn the position. Instead of a 5th year from Dymonte we got a blocked punt against Western Michigan /waves tiny flag.

Delano Hill was perhaps an even bigger waste since he rotated with Dymonte on special teams, appearing in just seven games and once as a linebacker in clock kill time. Because both safeties were wasted this way, Michigan will have only its 2015 recruit at a position that requires a lot of experience come 2017 unless Jabrill is sticking around for what would be his redshirt junior season.

Ben Gedeon at least looked ready to play his position if Michigan needed him to, but with Ross and Bolden and Morgan rolling for snaps in 2013 there was no need to waste a season of Gedeon. When all the linebackers graduate after 2015 we'll have one year of Gedeon left.

15089061395_dc24b67cea_z
Or maybe they could have got a medshirt for him instead of reinserting him on special teams later in the year? It was probably after the cutoff. [Fuller]

Da'Mario Jones I don't know. Does anybody know? He played special teams but didn't even get one snap to practice his blocking at receiver in 2013. Perhaps as soon as he was made a slot receiver the coaches wanted him through as quickly as possible.

Taco Charlton didn't get that many snaps but he also arrived college-ready so this one is more about the depth Michigan had that year in Clark, Ojemudia, and (once Jake Ryan came back) Beyer. On a team with strict redshirting they maybe make him wait rather than appear in eight games and scattered special teams. On a team that burns redshirts on the slightest pretense he plays because he can, and that's what I think happened here.

Pick ONE

Cornerback needed a freshman for nickel duties and played with both Channing Stribling and Jourdan Lewis. I would have liked them to choose one and redshirt the other. Lewis only separated himself dramatically last season, when Stribling was a seldom-used backup. But Chan was 6'2"/160 as a freshman so either of those years it makes sense to redshirt him.

Needed the dudes, etc.

With Toussaint and Hayes the only other scholarship backs on the roster, it was no surprise that Derrick Green and De'veon Smith played early. Green was a 5-star, and Smith was Michigan's most effective back by the end of the year. Jake Butt had to play because the tight end situation was still very much unresolved after Williams and Funchess's freshman year.

Shane Morris is a special situation; Michigan didn't recruit a quarterback the year ahead of him because Hoke preferred to pick a QB of the future and have that guy recruit his class. Morris needed a redshirt badly after a senior season wracked by mono, and he was pretty raw to boot. But Morris was also immediately the No. 2 quarterback, and Russ Bellomy's ACL made Morris the only other scholarship quarterback in a year when Michigan's best pass blocker was Gardner's ribs.

Kyle Bosch was redshirting until the OL disaster, when he was inserted as a see-what-sticks option; with a lot of OL in his class that was fine.

Class of 2014

Needed the dudes, etc:

Jabrill Peppers would have played on any Michigan roster since 2009, when Peppers was 13. Mason Cole started at left tackle over Erik Magnusson, the guy we pegged as a lock in the previews.

Bryan Mone was a legitimate Alan Branch-as-a-freshman level contributor who had to play because Pipkins was still coming back from his ill-timed ACL early last year; Mone even started the Penn State game, FWIW.

Freddy Canteen is on the border. He left spring ahead of the other young receivers and expectations of Manningham 2005 production; alas he proved too small and wasn't used very much. They could have redshirted him but I understand why they didn't.

According to the spring roster they got shirts on Mo Ways and Brandon Watson that weren't listed last year; I thought I saw Watson against Penn State but I couldn't read jerseys that well on the blue unis so maybe it was Jourdan Lewis. So I guess they learned finally.

Comments

bluebyyou

March 10th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

Hoke was a good guy and all that, but in several instances having long term implications, his decison making was piss poor. This inability to redshirt was just another instance of Hoke not being up to the demands of the job.

Lanknows

March 10th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^

In order to get a payoff for a red-shirt you have to return the guy for his 5th year season.  For a 2011 red-shirt (let's use Taylor as an example), he'd be back for 2015.  You have to consider that at the time, no one knew if Hollowell or Taylor would be better.  The coaches could have just picked one, but they might have picked wrong. If they chose Taylor they invite him back, if they choose Hollowell they might not. 

If you do invite a guy back it means one less kid in the 2015 class. One less shot at the next Mike Hart.  Who are you cutting from 2015 to get Taylor back? Alternatively, you can look at how we got Lyons essentially to replace Taylor and likely wouldn't have if Taylor was back. 

My point is, it's not something for nothing.  It's one less scholarship year when you spend 5 scholarship-years on a guy instead of 4.

12 guys over 4 years isn't bad at all.  I think this problem tends to get overstated.

No time now, but I think I need to expand my "how I stopped worrying and learned to love the burned red-shirt" into a more coherent and convincing argument at some point this off season.

Seth

March 10th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^

You don't get Mike Harts for free. Michigan is looking at either Blake Countess as a press corner (we didn't like that very much last time for REASONS) or possibly their 5th year grad transfer. If they had Taylor they probably don't take Wayne Lyons. Maybe Lyons is good, but Taylor knows this system, knows the program, and after years of studying exactly that question we determined he IS good.

Lanknows

March 10th, 2015 at 2:47 PM ^

I don't dispute that Taylor would be an asset.  But we only know that through hindsight - knowledge we didn't have 4 years ago.  The easy counter example is Hollowell.  Michigan could have red-shirted him just as easily as it could have red-shirted Taylor.  In doing so they would have lost his freshman seasons production and gained nothing. 

They made a decision not to red-shirt both CBs. In one case it hurt, in the other it did not. The extent to which it 'hurt' is heavily mitigated by Lyons in this specific example. In other examples it's mitigated by getting more players through the program. 

In a way, red-shirting players is systemic undersigning. If everyone red-shirts and sticks around for 5 years, you get 20% more players than if everyone plays 4 years.  This ignores flexibility (you can let people like Bellomy and Bielfeldt walkaway).  But when that happens your red-shirt season immediately becomes suboptimal.  In other words, the payoff on red-shirt decisions is unknown and distant.  More often than not the guys that get it won't end up being the 5th year starters that we remember.  A fact that is increasingly relevant in the age of post-grad transfers.  I'd rather be a recipient of these than a provider of them.

So, on one hand you have to weigh the marginal benefit of having Taylor instead of Lyons alongside the possibility that Michigan brings somebody like Hollowell back as a security blanket instead of grabbing a lottery ticket like Keith Washington.

...And I haven't even touched on the benefits Taylor and Hollowell had in player development by getting some playing time as freshman.

In reply to by Lanknows

Seth

March 11th, 2015 at 12:17 AM ^

But the basis on which I said to redshirt Taylor was that he wasn't going to play as the sixth cornerback, meanwhile he had a frame that could add weight and could project as a possibly good 5th year senior.

It's a value prop. Ray Taylor playing behind Hollowell in 2011 provides an insignificant value to the team, since he didn't get any valuable experience and didn't contribute beyond replacement. Freshman Ray Taylor was right in front of the coaches so they should have been able to recognize his value to the 2011 team. By playing him then we got close to zero value for him in 2011 and zero value for him in 2015. By choice they could have made it zero value from him in 2011, and the potential for signficantly higher value in 2015, with the option to replace him if he wouldn't provide it. There is a chance he may transfer or get injured or not be good so lop off percentages in making the decision, but minor percentages that don't really move the needle. Most likely you'll still have the guy after his 4th year, at which point you can make a decision on him.

All else is irrelevant to a decision made in 2011. 

gbdub

March 10th, 2015 at 2:06 PM ^

It still doesn't make sense to trade a potential 5th year, if the guy gets good, for a few unnecessary snaps as a freshman.

And if the guy doesn't work out enough to be a viable 5th year, there's the firm handshake / grad transfer route. So what if he reduces the 2015 class size by one - the 2016 class will be one larger, and a fifth year senior is almost always a better bet than random frosh.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Lanknows

March 10th, 2015 at 3:35 PM ^

But deferring a scholarship (otherwise known as 'banking') is actually giving up around 1/4 of a player.  Do it 4 times and you've willfully reduced your scholarship by 1.  Do that a few times and you're approaching self-imposed sanctions. 

This type of math is on the margins but if you make it systemic is starts to take a toll.  This is the kind of thing that contributes to Alabama and Ohio State taking X% more players than MSU and Wisconsin.

Obviously a 5th year senior starter is better than a garden-variety freshman.  The point is it's not so simple unless you are talking about a grad school transfer like Lyons. 

The 'unnecessary snaps' are a bit of a judgement call.  Taylor, Hollowell, Thomas -- these guys all made some contributions.  Contributions that probably did not change the seasons outcomes, but then again they may have saved a starter from an injury.  Those hypothetical scholarship also may have cost the addition of an end-of-the-class guy like Norfleet.  Maybe we would have taken someone else in the class later down the road, but no Norfleet is still a shame.

They also ignore player development.  Sure, most of that is happening in practice, but we can't say what impact those snaps had on getting the guy up to speed faster.

Gulogulo37

March 10th, 2015 at 10:54 PM ^

Are you saying osu and bama are better because they're taking more places due to less redshirts? They're better because the recruits are just better. Yes for better teams, there should be less redshirting because recruits are readier to play and often don't stick around for 4 years. But Wisconsin and MSU are a testament to the value of redshirting. MSU and Wisky have been almost as good as Osu in recent years with a lot less talent because of redshirting.

jmdblue

March 10th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^

attrition of RRs classes.  Could the burned redshirts have been a strategic decision having to do with stabilizing class sizes going forward?  Given that a certain portion of highly rated recruits are never going to pan out anyway, maybe Hoke was just sacrificing a year of play for these guys in exchange for finding out whether they were good with the knowledge that at least he'd open up the scholarship again.  Not saying this was a good idea, but at least it's an explanation.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2015 at 1:43 PM ^

I think it is fairly standard roster management. Hoke needed to improve the defense and he needed to improve it quickly. The experience wasn't very good (outside of DL) in 2011, and the defense was really young and unknown in 2012. He was going to play guys and try to balance out the roster so that he could do what he eventually did in the 2014 class (when he was happy with his depth for the most part).

I disagree that balancing the roster was the main priority of playing guys, I think he played guys because he wanted to improve quickly and get to where he wanted the program quickly before further stabalizing it. But acting like playing guys to balance the roster is some grand, unheard of strategy is giving it far too much credit. It was likely part of the equation.

Lanknows

March 10th, 2015 at 1:27 PM ^

Isn't an end goal of any value in and of itself.  What you're really talking about is getting more people through the program.  Each scholarship as a lottery ticket.  Hoping the next 3/4 star guy is a Mike Hart.

But yeah, there is value in this approach of eschewing red-shirts to get people contributing quickly and essentially getting more players through your program -- it's something Urban Meyer has formalized. 

An argument can be made that red-shirting is sub-optimal on many fronts.

Seth

March 10th, 2015 at 2:01 PM ^

On class normalization: Schools sometimes take fliers they play right away to fill an immediate gap but that's not the same as, say, taking Da'Mario Jones then burning his redshirt so he won't steal a scholarship in 2017. For the same cost you can redshirt him then if he doesn't pan out you don't renew his 5th, which is standard practice.

The ultimate effect of Hoke's burned redshirts is we now have 27 guys on the roster whose elibility is up after 2016. When you add even a smidgeon of normal attrition Michigan would need to take THIRTY guys in the 2017 class to just hit 82 scholarships. If his plan was to normalize class sizes, he would have played everyone from the 2011 class and redshirted every man possible from 2012. He did not that.

On wasting a 5th year to know NOW: They have five days of practice for every game they play, plus fall practice plus spring practice. And the game situations they used them in were not very telling. You do that if you need to play a guy next year and he's already #2 on the depth chart, e.g. Wilson. But ensuring you'll have no upperclassman safeties in 2017 to get seven snaps worth of data points on which safety will be #2 perhaps in 2014 is a massive waste.

Lanknows

March 10th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^

Sometimes it's the program's choice and other times it is the players.

In the case of Justice Hayes, he was invited back and had a valuable (underrated IMO) role as a 3rd down back.  Michigan invested a red-shirt season in Hayes (getting zero production from his scholarship that season) in the hopes for an eventual payoff that never came.  Stanford did the same for Lyons.

Seth

March 11th, 2015 at 12:37 AM ^

So add that into the factors. It's a small chance of that happening. Anyway Hayes left in part because they fired Hoke; if you're Hoke in 2011 deciding what to do with a really skinny Justice Hayes who's behind a bevy of other options, you don't say "well if I get fired he might grad year transfer elsewhere so I'd better make sure he doesn't have that option."

Your point is valid only in that attrition of all kinds diminishes the projected value of a 5th year guy. It's the old bond gambit:

Say I offer you an MGoBond that is worth $5 if you turn it in to me right now. However you can also wait 4 years and turn it into me, and I'll give you $25. However there's a 30% chance I will have forgotten and tell you to eff off. Mathematically you should see this as on one hand you get $5.00 and on the other you get $25 minus 30% = $17.50--no contest. But your brain is wired to fool you into believing that you need your $5 now.

There's more to it because 82 scholarship limits and variable values, but in both cases you are looking at a substantially higher value in the future.

The 82 sholarshipo limit is irrelevant to this because you have an option not to renew a 5th year--he will be using up a scholarship for the first four years either way, and using one the 5th year only if he's worth it to you.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^

2011

Agree that one of Hollowell and Taylor should have redshirted. Excuse for not doing was pretty obvious at the time though: the defensive backfield was a mess, didn't have size, and in some instances didn't have speed. They needed competition and bodies.

Disagree on Beyer. SAM and WDE were similar but not the same. Jake Ryan was a RS FR recruited as a 3-3-5 kamikaze OLB and not a true SAM, and they really didn't know what they had at the position. Likewise with WDE and any potential rush end, which didn't exist in their previous system. RSing one of the two is hindsight in the fact that they eventually went to similar positions and Jake Ryan became JMFR. Cam was a position switch from FS.

2012

Agree: One of Ross, RJS, Bolden

Disagree: Mario, Houma, both Ross and RJS

Michigan was still desperate for a rush end, and Mario presented a good potential option in that he had the potential to fit a role. He played a bit in that role, and didn't do much else. He didn't become a great option in that role, but you have to look at what they wanted in their defense, not what hindsight provides.

Houma was one of only two FBs on the team, the other a RS FR walk-on. Houma provided more athletic upside to do some of the things Borges potentially wanted to do with his offense that season and was at least #2 on the depth chart.

RJS, Ross, and Bolden were all recruited as ILB from my recollection. Ross and Bolden were both #2 on the depth chart behind Morgan and Demens and were very likely to play significant minutes the next year. Those two needed to play and get experience, even in smaller roles.

RJS should have redshirted as he quickly fell behind the other two.

2013

Agree: Hill, Jones, Stribling

Disagree: Thomas, Gedeon, Taco

Thomas was the leadgoing into Fall camp to start at NB. He was raw for the position and learning, but all signs pointed to him filling a very real need at a position the Michigan coaching staff really wanted to be filled. If Thomas would have redshirted, Michigan fans would have screamed "WTF", because at the time it wouldn't have made sense. He didn't progress at the NB spot as expected, he didn't learn at the curve that was expected. But not redshirting him is a complete hindsight look at things. And he was consistently on special teams.

Because RJS didn't redshirt, Gedeon was probably needed to get time. Ryan was out, Gedeon was ahead of RJS (and it's uncommon to redshirt after the FR year), and that essentially moved Gedeon into the two-deep. The philosphy of the staff is that you don't redshirt the two-deep. By the end of the year, Gedeon was fitting into the rotation more.

Taco was another example of putting more bullets into the "find a rush end" chamber. They still didn't find it, but again, it was a role that they really wanted filled froma  guy that had college ready size.

Hill really wasn't needed outside some ST duty. Jones I'm guessing they just didn't want a cluster at WR or they saw some othe role, but is confusing. Stribling I get from the fact that they were desperate for a third CB and Hollowell wasn't appearing ready, and Lewis and Stribling both moved ahead of him (into the two-deep). Still, with how small both were as true FR, one should have RS.

Lt. Pete Mitchell

March 10th, 2015 at 1:57 PM ^

Appreciate your take, it's easy to forget situational details.  Things didn't turn out great, but Hoke/Mattison aren't idiots (we still have Mattison - so I hope not).

I can't help but also think that they expected success to lead to recruiting players who could play immidiatley and eleviate these concerns - reload talent and next man up.  We saw a bit of this before classes fell apart.

Seth

March 10th, 2015 at 2:24 PM ^

I think the point is I painstakingly went back through our records of situational details, as well as being on anybody's short lists of people who obsessed over them at the time.

That's why you're on MGoBlog: we are crazy about the situational details. This whole article was a "remember the situational details before we judge" study.

/throws up hands.

Cool avatar.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2015 at 3:10 PM ^

And for the most part, I think you have arguments to make in basically all cases. I have a different feel, as did Hoke, and I guess my point is that the "redshirt debate" is often seen in hindsight rather than what it was at the time.

These are difficult decisions that must be made for the coaches and include a ton of factors, including ones we don't know about. I really think in many of these cases they had solid justifications, given their standards for not redshirting (which are not really all that uncommon), for doing what they did.

I guess I'm trying to turn this conversation from a "blame the former coaches because they sucked at everything" to a "they made some mistakes, but many of those mistakes inexplicalbe, particularly at the time". I think you do that a bit by giving them categories (WTF, choose-one, etc), but I guess I just see more reason for why he did what he did and am trying to explain that viewpoint.

But let it be known that I have no doubt that you put a good deal of work into this post. I know you did. You don't come through with the support and information you did without it. I merely have a different perspective of it and am no way trying to insinuate you didn't do due diligence to formulate your perspective. 

Reader71

March 11th, 2015 at 12:12 AM ^

I disagree with you both on Stribling. Like you said, hindsight is a concern. This is the perfect illustrative case.

Stribling looked every bit as good as Lewis when they were freshmen. Lewis has so far developed better, so no one questions his redshirt, but him and Stribling were neck-and-neck that first season. So how can we now say one is was an obvious redshirt and the other was obviously not?

Seth

March 11th, 2015 at 12:53 AM ^

I can't (and hope I didn't) say one was an obvious choice over the other. I picked an "either-or" in those but the point of the category was the coaches should have made a decision to choose one or the other (and I highlighted the one that was from a fan perspective the more likely).

In each case I said redshirt the guy behind unless there was a specific circumstance. Like in 2011 Michigan had nobody to generate extreme, drive-ending plays from DE except Clark, whereas they had a developed version of Beyer in Roh, so even if Beyer was ahead of Clark in his reads and responsibility, Clark brought greater value to the 2011 team and was thus the choice to play early.

With Lewis and Stribling, Jourdan was the more developed and played earlier. Stribling is a taller guy but weighed nearly the same as Lewis. They were neck and neck, but the coaches could have seen that Stribling at the time had more ceiling and Lewis had a higher 2011 floor. If they'd chosen Lewis instead of Stribling I'd have been fine with that. With any of the either/or's really. The point was they didn't need to play both if there was PT enough for one backup.

Lt. Pete Mitchell

March 10th, 2015 at 3:45 PM ^

You all do great work, but it's always good to see an informed counterpoint.  Mostly, I want a slice of validation that our staff wasn't a band of complete idiots.  Especially since most of these were on defense, where we had decent success and have Matty still on staff.  Hindsight is a bitch, especially for the fall guy. 

Seth

March 10th, 2015 at 2:18 PM ^

I tried to check all of these for hindsight by re-reading the relevant HTTV (post-spring) articles and Brian's pre-season (post-fall) articles to remember exactly where the position battles stood at the opening of those years.

For example Jake Ryan in 2011 was starting out as the backup to Cam Gordon, but flashed ability in a standout spring in which he demolished his helmet. Gordon played Spur the second half of 2010--not a hugely different position. Either brought more to the position than Beyer, who was being used as a rush end from the start. Clark and Beyer were always in a pile together, just as Ross and Bolden were.

There is a certain type of coachderp that guys like me complain about consistently because coaches can't give us the straight answer that explains it. I suspect in a lot of these cases Hoke make recruiting promises, or like in the case of Ross and Raymon if the guy who should have redshirted was outplaying the other guy, and the other guy had a better case to not redshirt. Since I don't have access to those conversations I have to point at the decisions that damaged the team. Before we indict Hoke for all of them, however, I recognize that he might have had some good reasons that he can't publicize.

Carr had plenty of head-scratching non-shirts too. One I'm familiar with is Braylon, because I semi-know him (he owns a restaurant in LA with a friend of mine) and got the story (apparently this was known already: he told Carr he wanted the #1 jersey and Carr said earn it and he said I can't if you have me on the bench and Carr gave him a list of things he had to do to get off the bench).

Lanknows

March 10th, 2015 at 2:56 PM ^

This is a great point that often gets lost in these conversations -- a red-shirt is a mutual decision.  Kids have to want it too.  Sure, a coach can just decide to bench a kid but then the guy whose butt you've been kissing for a year and a half on the recruiting trail hates you and calls you a liar and good luck recruiting that school when the next time they have a 4-star recruit you need-want-musthave.

It seems like the RJS situation may be an example of this.  His comments as a recruit indicate he expected to play right away and might be leaving for the NFL after 3 seasons.  It's a coaches job to dispel such delusions after a certain point, but it may take more than a few weeks of summer practice.

FreddieMercuryHayes

March 10th, 2015 at 2:43 PM ^

I guess when I'm evaluating Hoke's coaching tenure and these redshirts, I can't agree with your line of thinking regarding players like Ojemudia, Taco and D.Thomas.  I don't think one can say "well the coaches needed someone to play X, and they tried this player who just turned out to be unprepared, so that's not on the coaches."  It's the coaches job to identifiy who is ready during practice so they don't unneccsarily use players in games for which they are unprepared.  Saying 'the coaches put Thomas at NB from the time he enrolled early and were expecting him to play so they didn't bother redshirting him' is a huge indictment of the caoches' ability to actually do their jobs correctly.  The coaches have to keep an eye out for the long term future of the program.  They had Thomas since spring.  They have to be able to objectively evaluate him during all that practice time and say 'nope, he's not ready, but he could be a force 4 years from now, so let's RS him'.  Sure, coaches don't always get that right, but elite coaches in elite programs get it right most of the time.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2015 at 2:59 PM ^

I think it works much more in favor of an argument for Taco, marginally better for Mario, and not for Thomas. Thomas clearly had the athletic skill, to the point that he was the leader at the position leaving spring practice. He was in the two deep, he was fitting a role the coaches did need filled (they needed a dynamic NB for which Thomas was supposed to fit), but Thomas's ability to learn and improve stagnated. Now, that can very easily be on the coaches for not being able to get him to where he needed to be, but I fundamentally disagree that they should have had the foresight to redshirt a guy that was the projected starter as early as the first game of the season when they started Fall camp. You have to make some projection, you have to take a guys physical ability and potential immediately into account. At the time a decision had to be made for Thomas, it was clear that he should have been on the field in some capacity and was likely to play.

I'd like to remind that Nathan Brink was the back-up SDE in 2012. Beyer was a half-SAM/half-WDE that wasn't a playmaker. Mario was expected to fit a role as a pass rusher, which is what he was asked to be.

Taco I think you have a case for.

pdgoblue25

March 10th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^

To play and understood they would be giving up a redshirt year?  I'm just trying to understand, are we blaming Hoke for taking advantage of that mindset?

Isn't it possible that if given the chance the players would make the exact same decision to play no matter what they had to do?

I Like Burgers

March 10th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^

You might be right that the kids wanted to play right away and Hoke obliged.  But that's also one of the core issues with Hoke that we've heard about.  He was such a players coach that it was detrimental to the health and success of the program.  As head coach you're supposed to know what's best for the players and team and sometimes that means you piss people off, but at the end of the day, the offended parties realize it was for the best.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^

Maybe he thought what was best for the program was to offer guys the opportunity at early playing time if they managed to work their way in the two-deep. Maybe he thought that was the best balance of getting in good talent and playing the best players.

He may be wrong in that respect, but it isn't that much different from the way many other programs that recruit at a similar level handle the situation. Just because he didn't take the Wisconsin/MSU model, doesn't mean it was all that different from other models and wasn't just a preference thing.

I Like Burgers

March 10th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^

Its fine to offer a recruit the opportunity at early playing time, but its another thing to grant them that playing time.  I think pretty much all coaches tell recruits they can come in and compete for early playing time.  But throwing a freshman out on the field on special teams in a season-opener (against Alabama of all schools) just reeks of mismangement, poor development, and poor planning.

I'm fine with playing a freshman if they are clearly deserving of being on a two-deep, but playing them just to play them is foolish.  I mean, if your best option on special teams is a true freshman, what does that say about your ability to develop talent?  You can't coach up a walk-on or upperclassmen from previous years to play ST and have to rely on the dude straight out of HS with almost no college coaching?

As for the MSU/Wisconsin model, you mean the model that's proven most successful at having stable high-performing teams?  There aren't many (any?) programs out there that can continually roll out 3 and 4-star true freshman and have success doing so.

Space Coyote

March 10th, 2015 at 2:18 PM ^

Were on the two-deep or were projected to fit specific roles that the coaches really wanted to fill. They were recruited to do that. In anything but rare cases did they play guys that weren't in the two-deep or didn't have a clearly defined role on the team.

And you tend to want to play athletic guys on special teams. Unfortunately for Hoke, due to the crazy amounts of attrition, he recruited 26, 25, and 27 man classes just to fill out the roster finally. For the most part, guys that were on the two-deep or were projected to fit a role played on special teams over walk-ons. It was rare that redshirts were burned for the sole purpose of playing FR on special teams, it just so happened that the FR that already had their RS burned were typically better special teams players.

And on your last point, no. Wisconsin/MSU are a model that some schools that "recruit at a lower level" (read: recruit a lot of projects) use to be competitive. It's a successful model that I think they should be using. But you poke around the teams that are consistently in the top 25 for recruiting classes and they are much closer to what Hoke did at Michigan (and Carr for that matter) than what Wisconsin/MSU do. Hoke was moving closer to that model over time, when he got comfortable with the depth on the team, but not before then because there are requirements (which he failed to meet) that he win and win now.

NRK

March 10th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^

All players may want to play, but the coaches job is to balance those desires, along with the overall performance of his program and determine whether playing or redshirting is best for the player and the team. 

Yes, there are exceptions, but player "decisions" to play are one of many factors, and a good coach should be able to manage player desires, not bend over to them.  I don't believe that occured here, but if it did that would be a bigger indictment of Hoke than the redshirt bonfire.

MGlobules

March 10th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^

that we're just not aware of. And before I get out my weary torch and pitchfork one more time, I would also say that a comparison to other programs to get some sense of how outlandish this is might be in order. (How many badly burnt redshirts can we say is par for the corpse?)

But I've also got to repeat what a few of us said almost from jump: yeah, Hoke was a good guy. But he just didn't inspire intellectual confidence. We had a MAC-level coach, and he really did a MAC-level job.

In part, you can chalk this up to Brandon hubris, and a pretty reductive/stupid calculation on his part. The idea was that Michigan was the sh*t, was going to recruit the best players, and could thump everyone else over time. Brandon would manage Hoke, and Hoke would be a kind of overpaid team manager.

Didn't. Freakin'. Work.