Goodbye: Je'Ron Stokes

Submitted by Beavis on

Per Chris Balas of Rivals.

93Grad

August 23rd, 2011 at 11:40 AM ^

So far the other departures under Hoke have either been at deep positions or by kids who weren't going to play. Stokes could have been in the 2 deep next year.

Blue in Yarmouth

August 23rd, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^

and supported him al the way (and continue to wish him well now), but my only three problems with the guy were: He couldn't attract a decent DC, he wouldn't let the DC do his own thing, and he made some very odd decisions when it came to redshirting (or not redshirting in this case) players.

I look at guys like Stokes, Gardner, Campbell, M Robinson (and the list goes on) and wonder how the hell they weren't redshirted in their freshman year. That and the D are my only real problems with RR. 

jmblue

August 23rd, 2011 at 7:52 PM ^

I hate to say it, but I think Gardner's redshirt is gone.  It just doesn't make sense that he'd have to wait until after his senior year to find out.  I've never heard of that happening to a player.  I think the staff may be tip-toeing around the issue out of respect for the former staff. 

raleighwood

August 23rd, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^

How about Special Teams?  Fake Punts?  Turnover Margin?  Fourth Down Conversions?

In RR's defense (can "RR" and "defense" be used in the same sentence?) I really think that he had to put some bodies on the field.  Obviously not Gardner, but the others may have been needed at the time.  Remember, he didn't have a lot of depth on the roster....particularly at WR and DB.  Most players would be better off with a RS season but RR didn't really have that luxury.  I think that Hoke may be in a better position as he moves forward.

 

Blue in Yarmouth

August 23rd, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

a discussion on a guy who hasn't coached the wolverines for over 8 months. If you can't get over those things that's your problem, but I won't be draggeed into another pointless debate, thanks just the same.

Sorry, I replied without reading anything past your first sentence and then thought I should at least read it and saw that you were quite rational in the second paragraph. I agree he had some tough choices (and notice I didn't mention guys like Avery in my post) given the depth, but there are some very questionable choices he made in this regard (those I mentioned and a few others). This is just my opinion though.

Blue in Seattle

August 23rd, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^

...he really was impacted by the demand for immediate success and zero tolerance for changing to a new system that required very different players.  There really is no way that he was immune to all those pressures and circumstances.  That said, I think he would still be the head coach if he had let Scott Shafer run the defense.

Now I always try to squash speculation in my mind, but I'm human and can't help but wonder the reason Jeff Casteel did NOT follow Rich Rodriguez was because of their working relationship.  And thus the history is written, and we move on to a new chapter.

 

ILMichFan70

August 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 AM ^

You're the first in the 4 threads that were created on this topic...haha

Sad to see Je'Ron leave.  Wasn't he suppose to be getting some serious playing time this fall, especially given no Stonum? This sucks!

PurpleStuff

August 23rd, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^

You forgot Craig Roh.  And Cam Gordon.  And Mike Shaw.  And Fitzgerald Toussaint.  And Ricky Barnum.  And Patrick Omameh (blue-chip player if not a blue-chip recruit).  And Roy Roundtree. 

Plus guys like BWC, Washington, Odoms, Smith, and Schofield who will certainly play a big role this year and/or going forward. 

Not bad for less than 1.5 recruiting classes (especially when you throw in the returning All American at QB and the future All American at left tackle).  Not to mention that we've only seen these guys play as freshmen and sophomores (aside from Shaw last year).

Factor in the other guys in that 2008 class (who all signed their LOI to play for Rich Rodriguez) like Demens, Martin, Stonum, and Koger, and you have the makings of what will be a very fucking awesome team this year and next.

Blue in Yarmouth

August 24th, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^

So it is fine for posters to bring up RR when trashing him for everything short of the black plague, but when someone offers and rebuttle based on the real facts of his tenure they have to drop it. I think are getting a little f*#king backwards at this point. 

I try to stay well out of any of these conversations, but in almost every instance the debate starts with some douchebag trashing on a guy who hasn't been UM's coach for more than 8 months. Perhaps it is them that should let it go.

Blue in Yarmouth

August 24th, 2011 at 9:53 AM ^

I didn't agree that the cupboard was really BARE when Lloyd left but there certainly wasn't a great deal in it. Hoke is in a much better situation with what he has though and to dismiss that is ignoring reality. One of the biggest bonuses is that we have a real QB (no offense NS). It is far easier to take a dual threat QB and turn him into a pocket passer than to take a guy who can't run and turn him into a dual threat QB running the read option. Also, it is hard to take a qb who can't run or pass and do anything with them. That was the situation during the last transisition, and I thinkk we can all agree we are in a better place this time.

profitgoblue

August 23rd, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^

It seems a bit strange to me that two players would leave the team so late in the summer, so soon before the season starts.  Any reason to be nervous/confused?

 

wlubd

August 23rd, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^

I think that taking 2 WR's was going to be a given anyway. From a future depth standpoint, losing Stokes, who would be a senior next year is nowhere near as bad as losing say Jerald Robinson who will be a senior in 2014. Didn't sound like he'd be a contributor this year but it'll hurt us next season. Not counting 2012 recruits, there's only 4 schollie WR's 6'0 or taller for next year.