The Coaches Know Better?
Reading the TomVH post on Devin Lucien (thanks Batman) my first reaction was: WTF!, followed by: the coaches must know what they are doing - right?? The Audacity of Hoke (sorry) has made it clear that BH wants players who bleed Maize and Blue, so here's a kid who loves Michigan and is a hotly pursued 4 star recruit (with a SDSU offer) being told: "play defense or take a hike". As stated before: WTF! We have no wide receivers and precious little else in this deteriorating class yet it's "my way or the highway" to a top kid... but the coaches must know better... right?
Logic says that the coaches eat, sleep and breathe football for their entire lives so they must have more football knowledge in their big toes than I do in my whole being..... Yet Obi plays whilst Demens sits... and sits... we have signed a grand total of two defensive tackles over the last three classes.... Sheridan starts over Threet... and on and on. Perhaps the detailed micro view of the coaches needs more light from a macro point of view that is less emersed in the process and can see a bigger picture. I am not volunteering for the job, and this wonderful board already produces a wealth of incredible insights (along with much hot air and snarking), so this is not a revolution against coaching expertise but more of a caution about automatically assuming that these guys know what they are doing. It would appear that they often struggle with seeing the forest through the trees....... like most of us. GO BLUE!
January 18th, 2011 at 7:56 AM ^
I don't know what the hell is going on and it definitely seems like the coaches are dropping the ball on this one (I.e. Gallon reference no?)
January 18th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^
The hard part is that none of us were in the meeting between the coaches and the player. The player talks to Tom and he reports the one side of the story to us. With the coaches unable to talk about the situation we are all jumping to conclusions. It is sort of like getting mad at DB because the chancellor at LSU says that their coach had multiple larger offers and still chose their school. He has an agenda, wants to make his school look good, and was probably told by Miles that he had a larger offer to try to get a better negotiating position. Is it true? Maybe, or maybe not. I wouldn't assume that the coaches are smarter than you are, but they are definately looking at a bigger portion of the picture that you are and it might make perfect sense from their vantage point.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:57 AM ^
I had a very similar sentiment about the Lucien thing. Get the kid on campus and see what he can do. Maybe the player asked the coaching staff to promise that he would never have to consider defense, or something.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^
I would rather they display the same character they expect from their players and not make promises (that he would never have to consider defense) that they're not willing to keep.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
If the coaching staff promises one thing then does the opposite we would become no better than most SEC programs
January 18th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^
I have no idea how applicable this really is to coaching, but I think what you say is somewhat true in life (and in my business at least). Sometimes you need to just get out of your own way and do what makes the most sense. Metrics and analysis are not bad things, but sometimes someone just does a job better than someone else, and that's all there really is to it.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^
yes, the coaches know better than us. Are all their decisions black and white such that there's no room for fans, and even themselves as a staff, to debate those decisions? Of course not. Do the coaches make mistakes? Of course they do.
I took a shot in the gut when I read about Lucien. Initially I didn't understand it, and mostly felt bad for him. But I expect this coaching staff has goals for the number of players at any given position. The receiver goal for this staff is likely lower than the goal RR's staff had. I would expect Hoke's goal to be in the 8-10 range. If you count wide outs and slots more generically as receivers in Hoke/Borges' offense, there are 12 on the 2011 roster, three per class. We lose three to graduation after 2011. If my 8-10 assumption is correct, I expect they want 0-1 receivers in this class. If it's 1, they likely think they have a good chance at someone else who they like more than Lucien.
Is there some risk here? There always is in recruiting. Perhaps the risk they actually took was that Lucien would be okay coming to Michigan as a defensive player.
Is this one of those mistakes the coaches make? Maybe.
Am I happy that Lucien is not committing to Michigan? I'm actually very bummed out about it. But I'm confident the coaches know better than me.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:26 AM ^
Good point about the receiver numbers which I considered but discounted because so many of our returning wideouts are ninjas. However the main disconnect was that this guy has the attitude that Hoke keeps preaching as being essential to success; great desire to play for Michigan.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^
Or we could just play him at WR since we'll have a couple seniors at the position. Seems like we also have a need at the position, also he'd have time to RS then play the year after. Man, i really liked this kid.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:14 AM ^
when you tell a 4* "no, only for defense", and then end up with only 12-16 recruits for the class, when you had scholarships to hand out??? I'm utterly confused by this one? It will be a shame if we don't land another DB, because then we will have lost out on a DB & WR.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:49 AM ^
Whatever we don't use now, there will be that many more spots in the coming years. To a significant extent, this class will be a sunk cost. Maybe the coaches are thinking that if you're not going to bring someone into a position of greatest need, then you can afford to wait and properly recruit an equivalent next year.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
I thought the B10 limited incoming classes to 25 schollies
January 18th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
You can spread out the extra scholarships over a couple years. If this class stays small I'd expect two full classes coming the next two years. I think RR had full classes his first two years because he was low on scholarship players, and that is why this class was going to be a bit smaller.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^
The NCAA limits you to 25 per year. There is some room to play around with that if you have an early entry student, such as Greg Brown. An EE can be counted against the prior year's limit if you were under the limit in that prior year and also were under the overall limit of 85 scholarships.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
So if this class is say, 20, then if you got 5 EE's to come next year, that class could technically be 30?
January 18th, 2011 at 4:09 PM ^
You could sign 30 but 5 would be attributed to this class, so technically, the class would be 25. (I'm assuming there is no problem with the 85).
January 18th, 2011 at 9:07 AM ^
coaches are not always as smart as the vox populi. Many of us knew that it was ridiculous to potentially burn Devin's redshirt for a few meaningless plays; many of us knew it was ill advised to play Ezeh over Demens; and many knew that Gallon was incapable of making plays as a punt and KO returner....and yet....
In this case, if Hoke is anot absolutely certain we are going to get 18-20 recruits and IF in fact Lucien wants to be Blue, then it is obvious Hoke needs to offer.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
I disagree, especially in regard to Ezeh/Demens and Lucien. Most of us knew that Obi struggled and wasn't playing well but few (if any) were sure that Demens would be better. I disagree about Lucien whole-heartedly. I like Lucien and hoped he would be Blue, but if Hoke/the offensive staff doesn't see Lucien as a WR in this offense, he needs to not offer him, at least at WR. Why would you offer someone you don't think will be successful, it is a waste of a scholarship and everyone's time.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
Demens had legal problems related to paying his rent.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:15 AM ^
I don't understand why the same philosophy can't used? Get him on campus, let him try out WR, then try to convince him on defense if it doesn't work out.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
The devil's advocate would say that Cam lost a year of development to trying WR, a year that might have served him well when he was thrown in as a starter the next season. I do get your point though.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:28 AM ^
I don't understand this one either. Seems to me that you could red shirt him and then roll him out with Gardner in a couple of years after DR is gone. However, I'm not too concerned about it, knowing that we have pretty good depth at that position.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:29 AM ^
I thought the kid was a beast in his senior films, and i agree 100% with all of you guys in why we wouldn't just try to get him on campus. BUT aren't we targeting 2 new DB's? that mcclure (horrible spelling) and raven? why not just try to get lucien on campus? This also throws up a huge red flag when it comes to Frost! If the coaches are going to go and tell a kid that was never mentioned as a DB that he can only play defense what do you think they are going to tell Frost? even if auburn turns him away, i'm worried the coaches won't just please him for a week to let him do his WR thing and then fall rightfully into his expected LB role. A little worried..
January 18th, 2011 at 8:31 AM ^
Maybe Frost is the WR they want.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^
That's a possibility. Frost could come in as WR and move to LB as everyone thinks he is better at LB anyway. Either way, I hope Frost comes to Michigan.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:45 AM ^
You want a fork-tongued, manipulative creep for a coach? You don't get it, man
January 18th, 2011 at 8:34 AM ^
I suspect they have a maniacal focus on recruiting defense right now - and rightly so. Guess we'll see after signing day how many mistakes were made.
January 18th, 2011 at 8:38 AM ^
I assume that Hoke has decided that slot WR is not a need since we have a lot of talented slot WRs on the roster, and his offense doesn't use the slot WR as much as the spread does.
If not taking Lucien allows us to take one more DT or FS in this class or the next class, the decision makes some sense.
If Lucien is a good college slot WR, Hoke probably made the right call. If Lucien is a game breaking superstar at the college level, Hoke made the wrong call. Time will tell.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:11 AM ^
At 6'1" and 190 he is a good sized wideout and shows great leaping ability on film. Also this is not a matter of numbers as many are talking about not even having enough quality recruits to fill the 20 - 22 openings that we have. So there are plenty of open spots available to fill the gaping depth hole at DT..... plus QB, and TE....... but time is not on our side.... tick tock..
January 18th, 2011 at 9:22 AM ^
The current projections I've seen are 17-19 openings. And recruiting is always about numbers. It's about your current roster, and next year's class, etc. It may be they don't want a WR because they want multiple DT, QB, TE. Numbers, numbers, numbers.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:33 AM ^
Watson and Mike Williams will not get 5th years making 64 scholarship players. Add one more if needed for McColgan who is a walk on and not guaranteed. On top of that there will likely be some attrition, particularly among the redundant slots, so it is hard to make a case Lucien was cut loose to make room for a position of greater need (DT!).
January 18th, 2011 at 8:58 AM ^
As we discovered the last 3 years, coaches don't always make the right decisions in recruiting. See, e.g., dorsey, feagin, white, kinard, etc. etc. Those are all wasted scholarships.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:03 AM ^
My wish, although it will never happen, is that we could debate these types of decisions without jumping to "The coaches don't know what they're doing, fire them!"
There has to be SOME reason why they didn't offer Lucien as a WR. I'd rather have our discussions focus on what those reasons might be and how much sense they make rather than how this makes the coaching staff look.
Everyone here knows the discussions on the board are infinitely more fun and informative when we stay objective, but we still can't seem to have a single decent discussion about this type of thing.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
I did not see much discussion of firing the coaches - mostly dismay and confusion at this recruiting move. That said, the OP was meant to stimulate a general skepticism for our natural reliance on the logical fallback position embodied in: "there must be SOME reason why they didn't offer Lucien". That was my first reaction (after WTF!), but perhaps we give them too much credit and overlook their apparent tendency to get lost in the details and miss the big picture. This kid wants to play for Michigan = the Hoke mantra, so why are they not following the script - with a hot 4 star that they recruited at SDSU? Quien sabe?
January 18th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^
Saving room for d arnett
January 18th, 2011 at 9:38 AM ^
If you have 85 scholarship players on the roster, at best 25 percent of them will be stars, another 25 percent will be useful starters and role players, and the rest will be just fill-ins, special-teamers, and so forth.
And of course, there is stuff you don’t see. It’s entirely possible that Nick Sheridan actually did have better practices than Steven Threet, leading up to the 2008 season opener. I am not prepared to call that a coaching error, unless someone who actually attended the practices tells me otherwise.
If you are going to fault the coaches for poor talent evaluation, you need to look at a lot more than 2 or 3 instances where you think they got it wrong.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
The OP questioning a coach on his recruiting.
Man, we read these recruiting reports, watch three minutes of "highlight film" and just start spouting "He is great!"
2, 3, 4 or 5 star--if the coaches don't want a guy or (GASP!) think they can get someone else or hold the position for a defensive player--or EVEN hold it to get a full compliment of 28 players in next year's class--why should that spark thoughts of skepticism? Especially since Hoke has coached about zero games at UM so far.
Hoke is not a neophyte. He's 52, has been around, including (as we all know) a stint at UM in the late 90's. I think he is qualified to take a pass on Lucien, Tom VH notwithstanding.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
When you can only get 10 scholarship players (for now) because nobody wants to play for your program, banking on 28 next year seems a bit presumptuous.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^
it's true though!
It's only ~10 now, because Hoke has been the coach for 6 days, and there is no DC. He's just starting visiting recruits and has another 2 weeks to sign a class. Even if he gets to ~15, signing >25 next year is entirely possible and likely, given his full year of recruiting (as opposed to 2 weeks).
January 18th, 2011 at 1:10 PM ^
"banking" on 28 for next year. It's what we call a "hypothetical" You know, instead of the usual "Hoke and Brandon are stupid assholes! I know more than them!" posts, I'm kind of tossing around the idea they know how to run a college football program.
And isn't saying "nobody wants to play for your program" a bit presumptuous?
January 18th, 2011 at 3:18 PM ^
When Michigan has suffered from 4 decommitments - and zero commitments - in the past couple weeks, an obvious exaggeration like "Nobody wants to play for your program" isn't that big of a deal.
I didn't say that Hoke and Brandon don't know what they're doing. I'm saying banking on 28 commitments next year - when you can only get 10 right now - is a bit presumptuous. The NCAA allows teams to give scholarships to 85 kids and, in fact, requires teams to give out those 85 scholarships. If Michigan only uses 75 scholarships on "scholarship worthy" guys, those other 10 scholarships will be given to walk-ons who - through no fault of their own - probably aren't worthy of football scholarships. When you're a floundering program, you probably shouldn't be counting on droves of players wanting to come to your school in one year.
There's a saying that "Beggars can't be choosers." That might apply here.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:52 AM ^
On a couple levels.
First, Lucien would be a DB...that implies that we are not having success recruiting DBs too? It seems that is the one place we are having success right now, actually. So why recruit him for that spot?
Second, unless you have someone locked in (say Flowers or Frost at WR), doesn't make sense to turn away a solid 4* WR. Especially at a position of relative need.
Either way, the logic seems slightly flawed.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
So, wait. Rodriguez isnt the only coach who wants to make sure its his program in place and take a my way, or the highway approach?
I can assume all the people butthurt over Rodriguez's attitude have now all turned coat on Hoke, lol.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Lucien isn't even a "system" guy or "tiny RR recruit" or whatever. He's 6'1" and can be great in any system. He also sported an offer from SDSU as a WR. We have 0 WRs in the class. We have lots and lots of young DBs. Our class is exceptionally small at the moment. Guy is from CA, a place where we would hope Hoke is establishing new and strengthened ties due to his time on the west coast.
So, it's far worse than "Hoke turns down Michigan loving highly-rated RR system guy." It's "Hoke turns down highly-rated WR that loved Michigan with great size and ability at a position of need in a tiny class that he previously recruited to play at WR from a state we would like to have more recruiting success in."
There's no way to spin this as a positive. It's a terrible decision. I have no idea if Lucien's school produces other D1 talent, but I can't imagine UM having a good reputation there after this. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:38 AM ^
Yeah, not trying to spin it positively.
Just pointing out that every coach is about establishing his program first and foremost, something that a lot of RR detractors hated him for since Day One. Since most of those folks love Hoke, I assume they love him less now. But judging from some comments in the thread, that's not the case. Quelle Surprise.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^
Yeah, that's not the case, especially since Rodriguez's blueprint worked so exceedingly well.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:06 AM ^
I was thinking the exact same thing.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
playing at SDSU but couldn't hack it in the Big Ten. Considering one of the complaints on this board was that so many of RRod's recruits weren't "Big Ten caliber" players I can't understand why so many people are upset about Lucien, if we assume that Hoke knows what it takes to play in the Big Ten anyway.
Lucien wasn't ever really high on my list of WR's for this class personally. It sucks that he wanted to come here so badly and they yanked his ship however, I feel for the kid. From what I've read of him though, I probably would agree with Hoke's evaluation.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
They are only taking 1 since they have a logjam of scholarships at the position whether all of them are actually useful now or not. Hakeem Flowers had the first crack, so I guess them basically dropping Lucien in the slightly shitty way that they did would tell us what they think their chances of landing Flowers are.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
When RR was still here, he made a lot of dumb mistakes and dropped a lot of balls in terms of players playing out of position, recruiting, and game planning. The reaction from all of us was either "WTF RR you're doing it wrong!" or "Relax, the coaches know more than you do."
I usually called out RR for the blatant stupidity in some of his decisions over the past year. Hoke, IMO, has honestly made more stupid decisions in his short tenure than RR made all of this past year.