Does Hoke have some Beilein in him?

Hey baby, do you have any German in you? You want some?

Nobody would have made the connection if not for your first sentence.

As for your question, I'm not sure. We won't necessarily find out because of how great our classes are, but I think the "diamond in the rough" players we have/will have are more due to fantastic coaching than anything else. Beilein is a good talent developer and amazing talent identifier. I'd say Hoke (et all) is at least good at identifying talent, but just about as good as it gets at developing it. I'm not convinced a guy like Desmond Morgan would be a great player elsewhere, but he fits our mold and is coached well enough to be good. A guy like Zach Novak or Trey Burke on the other hand would probably be just about as good if they played elsewhere.

Mods please delete, since I answered.

Good god, only 9 days remain.  So torturous. 

I think it is not just Hoke, but the entire staff and same goes for Beilein and his staff.

Clearly they all know what kind of players they are looking for.  I'm not sure if this was the case under RR when we had a 4-3 guy at DC surrounded by 3-3-5 guys. 

*threadjack* high school football on fox sports Detroit alternative @ 7:30. Massillon vs Akron Buchtel. A good chance to check out 2013 commit CB Gareon Conley.

but the one player you used as an example was a RR recruit. I'm particularly interested in seeing what his sleeper pickups like Houma, J. Clark and Stribling do.

i dont know how much Hoke is involved in evaluation relative to other HCs, but no matter what its way less than Belein just because 85>>>12(or however many they get in hoops)

But its a lot easier to get ahead of the game scouting when you wrap up your classes in May, and he's definitely a big part of the reason we've been able to do that

itchy trigger finger

If I'm not mistaken Desmond Morgan commited under RR.

*edit According to Rivals he committed 12/13/2010. I think the coaching staff has down a great job with him I just don't think we can give Hoke credit for being the one to "find" him.

I think it's hard to say that when you keep reeling in 4* players across the board. On average, those kinds of guys do pretty well wherever they end up.

the coaches look for their type of playa and are confident in their coaching ability. Meaning they believe they can mold someone rather than having all measurebles but being the premadonna type. Not unlike Rich Rod who loved him a smaller player that 'loved' the game and would do anything to get better.

I contradict when I want!

"Do you think Hoke has that same vision? I do." - Blazefire

I think that any good, thorough coach with an equally astute staff will not leave very many unexplored routes when it comes to the recruiting trail, and this is true in most sports, I think. It may take more time and money, but it behooves any team to prioritize their needs at every position, prioritize their needs and then do their research, especially in a time when information is available on virtually any  potential recruit, whether they are a headline name or not. I think both the football and basketball teams are very good at "doing their homework" on players, if you will. 

The upside to that, if you do it right, is that you do get players that can potentially perform sooner rather than later, who are smart and can learn the system quickly and will commit themselves to the training as well as the academics. If you incorporate all this into your recruiting searches, you'll get all-around winners more often than not, I believe. 

It sure would be great if our coaches really practiced watching film to gauge the talent levels of potential incoming recruits. We could do that with our opponents also to gain a competitive advantage!

Then I saw the downvotes. Thank you fellow posters.

I like this comparison, and I agree about the potential for Bielin-levels of talent evaluation. However, there are many miles to walk before we can tell about that or Hoke's talent development.

I also think I might agree for different reasons. First, I don't know if early playing time is a great indicator--some kids are just more physically ready than others. I would evaluate it by recruiting hype v. performance over the usual trajectory for a particular position. So, if Kalis takes two years to be a road-grading terror, I have no problem with that (early playing time be damned). Second, my view of talent evaluation is based on 'overlooked kids.' I think Hoke's Trey Burke is something like Channing Stribling or Csont'e York. The reason I say it's 'too early to tell' is because Stribling and York--and other potential diamonds in the rough--haven't seen the field yet. 

That goes double for talent development. It's really hard to tell how improved kids are with so little time having passed since Hoke's hiring.