Jack Kennedy (former UM QB) blog at Big House Report
So it seems Jack Kennedy, the former walk-on QB, has a weekly blog feature on the Big House Report blog. Here is the latest on the NW game and Brady Hoke.
http://thebighousereport.com/2014/11/jack-kennedy-northwestern-looking-…
Much like we got with Mr Smith's recent contributions, I feel like this gives us a look at how former players (particularly one who played for Hoke and lived through the RR-BH transition) feel about the state of the program.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
"Ask not what your football team can do for you, ask what you can do for your football team."
November 11th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
He does use the 10 man punt formation often. Don't see many other teams using it so that's innovation.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
Next level.....unfortunately the direction of that "next level" is down, not up. And maybe even "a couple of levels" down.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^
was one hellofa wishy/washy "blog feature."
it said nothing
November 11th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
Recruits aren't dropping out because people are voicing their displeasure online. They're dropping because we suck at football.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
It's called common sense.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
A recruit sees what I write about X. He either (a) thinks I'm right, which means the real problem is X, not the fact that I WROTE ABOUT X, or (b) think I'm wrong, in which case, why the hell would it matter what random internet guy says?
November 11th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 1:32 PM ^
Consult a Venn diagram. The "ifs" and "thens" correlate directly to the Coaching Sucks and inability to develop 3-4 star talent in to a competitive team. That is the only Logic at play here, not what some random fans think. All fans are the same. We just root for jerseys and helmets.
November 11th, 2014 at 2:14 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 8:47 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 2:29 PM ^
If you don't think all the CC threads and the posts by 247 and Rivals and ESPN Blogs and this blog etc. etc. about who will be Michigan's coach next year don't hurt recruiting, then you're not doing a very smart analysis. That's what Kennedy is talking about.
Football players don't need you to tell them that football at school X isn't that great. They play the game. They know what good and bad football might look like. The coaching uncertainty, largely generated by speculative media, will cause decommitments.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
I'll have to fire up my stats software to run a sensitivity analysis, but I have a hunch that "we suck at football" and "the coach is going to be fired" may be strongly correlated. Might even be a causal relationship!
November 11th, 2014 at 1:06 PM ^
Firing the coach makes the team have sucked at football.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
There has been way too many bonehead decisions by Hoke. He calls too many timeouts just because the team is disorganizated. The team plays with no urgency when down. Just those examples reflected poorly on Hoke. And all those people who talk about youth? Look at Ohio State. They are doing just fine with a young line and QB.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^
... like what you did there.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
Bo turned Michigan around in one season. Urban turned ohio around in one season. No doubt, there are other examples at other schools I do not follow so closely. Coaching changes may be hard, but they can be immediately successful if there is talent to work with. I really think we have talent to work with. But we need a coach who can do something better with it.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^
Fun fact: Michigan went 8-2 in 1968. Finished the season in the top 15. Bump handed Bo a boatload of talent. Bo sure as hell did a program turnaround from a cultural standpoint, but he did it with a team that wasn't terribly unsuccessful the year before. Shit, the infamous 50-14 game was a #4 vs #2 matchup.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
you're right, of course. I just have that OSU debacle in my head from 1968.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
Sorry, I can't let that pass.
In 1968, Michigan went 8-2 and ended the regular season ranked #12.
In 1969, Michigan went 8-2 and ended the regular season ranked #7.
Admittedly an improvement, especially with the enormous upset of Ohio State but it's hard to say he "turned the team around." Michigan was already a very good team.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
The problem is that a fan gets in his head that "Bo turned the team around in a year" without the context you have provided.
They then post it in various message boards, talk to their friends about it, complain in my section (you know who you are, clown that sits behind me) and soon enough myth becomes conventional wisdom.
The new guy (cough...Harbaugh, Miles etc.) is going to have enough to deal with let alone this ridiculous expectation level by uninformed "fans".
November 11th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
Well.... 1968 was a decent team... and Bump had success with the 64 team, but between those years...were a lot of lean years.
So when someone says "Bo turned the team around in 69"...really they mean "Bo turned the program around and in to a monster". Look at every year from 69-79 and you will see an amazing turnaround of a program that struggled for most of the 1960s.
So there was a turnaround...
November 11th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^
I was just reacting to the part where he said "Bo turned the team around in one season." (emphasis added).
Bo turned the program around in many ways. He did not turn the team around in one season.
November 11th, 2014 at 10:28 PM ^
Bump may not have been consistent but he left Bo with one of his most talented teams. That squard had Dan Dierdorf, Thom Darden, Reggie Mckenzie, and Tom Curtis all of whom had outstanding NFL careers. While I'm sure some of the 1990s and 2000s teams had more NFL players I'm guessing very few had as many with significant pro careers.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
Ohio State had one season of 6 wins with an interim coach, prior to which they had 12 wins, and urban 'turned them around'? You are really reaching there as well.
November 11th, 2014 at 7:31 PM ^
Tressell was the coach for 9 years. He had a system & his players in place. Fickell was hired initially as interim & served as headcoach for 1 year. He was a blip. Urban Meyer was hired on 11/28/11. The NCAA gave Ohio State special permission to let him start recruiting while Fickell finished coaching the season, even though technically that put them 1 coach over NCAA limits.
At Michigan, it is MGOBLOG's position that Carr did not recruit well his last several years. This, and transfers, "left the cupboard bare for RR." RR ran a different system than Carr did and recruited a different style of player. The 2011 class was the hybrid Process class. Between 2009-2011, Michigan's coaching staff recruited 6 offensive linemen. There are 5 players on the Oline; because they are highly technical positions it takes recruits 4 to 5 years to become good players; and about 50% of recruits don't really pan out. [Numbers from diaries by Seth &/or the Mathlete.] PSU's 2014 team, where the Oline is feeling the effects of severe scholarship reductions, looks very similar performance-wise to Michigan's 2013 Oline, which had the last 2 seniors from RR's recruiting classes. Michigan's current coach had to restore Oline recruiting & his most senior players on the line are RS JRs from the 2011 hybrid "Process"class with modest star ratings. Objective individuals with coaching experience have indicated that the Oline has shown improvement during the season.
November 11th, 2014 at 7:59 PM ^
You're wasting your time trying to convince anyone here of anything. People have already made up their minds that Coach Hoke is incompetent because of the losses and because of his populist down-homey speech patterns.
No one on this blog is willing to consider the possibility that rebuilding an O-line from scratch with mostly underclassmen in a new blocking scheme is not the same as reloading an O-line with underclassmen who still have years of experience playing 2nd-string to one of the best O-lines in the country. So what if OSU has 4 underclassmen on its line? Each one of them was getting practice time with that dominant line OSU had last year, learning exactly what their responsibilities are, how they should communicate. It is far easier to learn a skill by doing it alongside experienced masters in an established culture of excellence than it is to learn a skill by doing it alongside other novices while that culture is being built.
To make matters worse, our most talented players and leaders have been neutralized by a string of injuries that makes AIRBHG look relatively normal by comparison. When you only have three upperclassmen on offense (Gardner, Funchess, Norfleet) and all three of them have played multiple positions in multiple offensive systems and all three of them are playing through injuries, you are not going to have a successful offense no matter what. I don't care what Urban Meyer has done with his young players at OSU, it is simply not reasonable to compare plugging young and talented players into a system that has been firing on all cylinders to building a new offense from scratch out of players that are young and/or learning a new position and/or playing through injuries.
This fanbase has completely irrational expectations and zero understanding of the magnitude of the rebuild project that this coaching staff has been presented with.
Personally, I am with Marcus Ray, who said before the season even started that the team would struggle majorly this year and that at least one more year would be needed before we start seeing the results that we expect.
November 11th, 2014 at 8:28 PM ^
It's like people have no concept of the fact that Urban Meyer basically inherited Tressel's players--including Braxton Miller. When you compare Miller statistically to, say, Terrelle Pryor, the similarities are striking. Similar completion % as upperclassmen, similar #s of TDs scored (both passing and rushing), somewhat better YPA for Pryor and better YPC for Miller--though interestingly enough Miller had been growing more similar to Pryor in all regards over the course of his career, as he developed as a passer and was not called upon to run quite as often.
What's the point of this? The point is that the systems are quite similar in what they want to do and the type of player required to do that, not only at the QB position but very importantly on the O-line as well. And, importantly, that place had become an absolute factory, recruiting talented guys, developing them in the surroundings of that system, and finally deploying them as experienced upperlcassmen, taking the place of the now-graduated stud with very little drop off.
Michigan can do the same thing under Brady Hoke, but it will need time to build a stable cycle. If you look at Tressel's first four years, you see 7-5, 14-0, 11-2, 8-4. Aside from one year, that is *very* similar. Now please consider the situation Hoke inherited from RR and compare that to what Tressel inherited from Cooper--who had 10+ wins in 5 out of his 8 last seasons.
I will leave you with one small anecdote which I think will help to drive my point home. I have been competing at the game Super Smash Brothers for 7 years. I have become very, very good at this game but it has taken me 7 years to reach the point I am at. My favorite and most skilled training partner does not often beat me, but he is still quite good at the game. He has only been playing for 2 years. So, why has he been able to nearly accomplish in 2 years what has taken me 7? Because when I started playing 7 years ago, I only had complete scrub novices to play with, whereas my training partner was trained by me from scratch 2 years ago... he was competing with the very best in our area from day one! If you think about developing our O-line in these terms, you will truly start to understand the magnitude of the task before Hoke and Funk (who, by the way, did some pretty remarkable things with a middling recruit named Schofield...)
November 11th, 2014 at 10:57 PM ^
I know that there's no convincing anyone. But I get tired of all of the lazy/revisionist comments. I really should lose my password.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
I'm so sick of the "we know everything, fans know nothing" argument. It's like he completely forgets what he wrote about in the first half of his blog.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
"...and go go bed"
November 11th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^
If you're seeing go go beds, you're definitely drinking too much!
November 11th, 2014 at 11:35 PM ^
not once did Kennedy mention money, nor did he tell you to shut up. he is a graduated player that sacrificed his time and his body for the good of the team, and he knows more about Michigan athletics than even you, WD. you should try rereading what he had to say with the perspective that he is not your enemy but an informed person with many of the same concerns you have and some inside perspetive that we all lack.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
I read it differently. He wasn't putting fans down at all...and he acknowledged his personal biases, and also said he understands why fans are upset and they have every right to be.
Honestly, I'm sick of people constantly putting down the opinions of former players as if they're meaningless. Jack Kennedy wrote by all accounts a respectful argument about why he thinks Hoke should (or at least, could) be here next year. Disagree all you want, but don't just dismiss it offhand because you don't like what he says.
November 11th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
That's an exaggeration of the claim. The position is that those inside the program know more, a lot more, than we do. And that is 100% true.
November 13th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
Sometimes people inside an organization lose perspective. In my opinion, anyone who thinks Hoke has had acceptable performance over the last four years has flawed perspective. Anyone who thinks that the regression Michigan has suffered since RR left could be corrected by Hoke next year has trouble dealing with reality. There is no basis for concluding that Hoke will turn things around. His failure to attend to details, like getting 11 players on the field for punts, and foolish strategic decisions, like moving DG to WR so there was no qualified backup QB against Nebraska or the decision to redshirt Kalis when it was obvious there would be a need for new OGs in 2013, combined with incomprehensible game decisions like the punting formation he insists on, tell us that Hoke will continue to fail at Michigan if he remains as coach.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:44 PM ^
completely understand his pleas for positivity, but said it himself, even he can't explain the downward slide of the program. The main job of the coach is to graduate his players and win games. The latter is the main reason they get paid so much. No one is paying Nick Saban to graduate players.....Sometimes you have to call something exactly what it is, and this was not the right pick at the right time. Maybe after another stop or two where he learns to develop players and win with an attitude, Hoke could have been successful at a program like Michigan, but not...now.....Anything else is lipstick on a pig...it's still a pig.
November 11th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 6:26 PM ^
allow their pigs to use lipstick? Next thing you know, body piercings and tats. Dangerous downhill slope...
November 11th, 2014 at 9:24 PM ^
or the cows, or the sheep, chickens, turkeys, goats and whatever else you might find on the farm. and no tats either, but we could brand the occasional cow.
November 11th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
November 11th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^