Michigan players that progressed under Hoke
I'm sick of the myopic negativity on this board this offseason in regards to player progression under Hoke. I've been lurking here for years but only recently joined to counter to abysmal attitude that permeates what had been constructive dialogue. Many are focusing on the small sample size of one year. They fail to acknowledge his player development at Ball State and SDSU. I don't remember any of these complaints after the 2011 season.
Instead of blindly repeating sound bites from your local radio station, consider the actual development of players at Michigan under Hoke's reign. Please realize that a historically young team took the field last year. And it was young in the areas that talent can't make up for experience. You have only one senior on offense this year. While this causes hesitation for the coming year, it conversely bodes well for the future when dozens of upperclassmen will fill the depth charts.
So after a long introduction, for my first post, I will list players that have shown progression under Hoke. I'm sure if he had long sleeves and a headset, they would all have been All-Americans.
- Mike Martin
- Craig Roh
- Will Heininger
- Ryan Van Bergen
- Blake Countess
- Raymon Taylor
- Jordan Kovacs
- Quinton Washington
- Will Cambell
- Jibreel Black
- Frank Clark
- Junior Hemingway
- Jeremy Gallon
- Brendan Gibbons
- Devin Gardner
- Patrick Omameh
- Cam Gordon
- Brendan Beyer
- Kenny Demens
- Taylor Lewan
- David Molk
- Michael Schofield
- Devin Funchess
- James Ross
- Jake Butt
- Joe Bolden
- Jourdan Lewis
- Jehu Chesson
- Willie Henry
- Graham Glasgow
I'm sure there are more. But you will notice, most of them are upperclassmen. That is no coincidence. It is also something this current team lacks. It is also something that the 2015 and 2016 team will be full of. This isn't hope or wishes or dreams. Just a clear reading of the depth chart.
So in the future, if you want to talk about how this staff can't develop players, please refer to this list and explain how they regressed. I also apologize for my ironic negativity toward the negativity on this board. I'm just tired of it and hopefully two negatives somehow make a positive.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^
You should just put "entire defense from 2011".
That jump from 2010 to 2011 is still amazing.
And Denard made a big jump from 2010 to 2011 too. Then Borges started meddling up the offense.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:21 PM ^
His QB rating was better in 2010. Not to mention his stats regressed even further in 2012 (lower completion %, worse INT/TD ratio, etc.), though to be fair some of that was probally due to his elbow injury.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:19 AM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^
April 13th, 2014 at 11:14 PM ^
April 13th, 2014 at 11:22 PM ^
April 13th, 2014 at 11:32 PM ^
If you think he came in here as a walk-on with the ability to play just about every position on the line and play it pretty darn well then your on something. This is called developing a player, Joey Burzynski is another guy who has been developed enough to be able to come in a do spot duty at least when someone gets hurt, which is pretty good for a guy who is 6' 1" and not overly athletic
that lightly thought of guys in the recruiting process progress under Hoke and highly regarded players don't. We better change our recruiting tactics.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:39 PM ^
April 13th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
I guess you've never seen Major League... You're missing out.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:30 AM ^
I've seen Major League, and I wouldn't say he is missing out...
April 14th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
Blasphemy!
He posts like crazy, and upvotes are worth +2 while downvotes are -1. So right now, at +6 and -7, he is still up 5 points.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:22 PM ^
It's late, so I'm going to cherry pick a little here.
David Molk was first team All Big Ten in 2010.
Mike Martin was second team All Big Ten in 2010.
Funchess and Butt were great finds, but the jury's still out on a large part of that list.
And that list of players that "improved" on a mid-level MAC team and after two short years at SDSU is probably pretty short, don't you think?
When Hoke arrived the 85-man roster had 20 three-stars. Everyone else was two-star or lower at Rivals. There's a perception that he inherited a roster loaded with talent, but if that's true it was talent that the recruiting world completely whiffed on.
Ryan Lindley was a three-star, the #34 QB in his class, with offers from SDSU and Idaho. His stats over his career at SDSU:
Year/ YPA/ QB Rating
- 2008 / 6.2 / 117.0
- 2009 / 7.0 / 123.4
- 2010 / 9.1 / 149.4
- 2011 / 7.1 / 125.7
Hoke was there for the the middle two years. Sure looks like progress to me...either that or a great scheme, because nothing in his later career has lived up to that second year under Hoke/Borges and nothing before had ever suggested it was particularly likely. Despite the regression after Hoke left, he was the 9th QB taken in the draft, which is a few steps up from #34.
Vincent Brown was a 2-star (though he did have offers from Arizona and UTEP) who had averaged about 40 yards/game over his first two seasons. Under Hoke he averaged 100 yards/game, caught 16 TDs, was a third-round pick.
Ronnie Hillman was a 3-star with only WAC and MWC offers. He redshirted Hoke's first year, then ran for 1500 and 1700 and got drafted in the third round.
This all happened behind a line full of 2-stars and the occasional 3.
The anti-Borges argument regarding those teams here was always that he had exceptional talent, much better than their MWC competition. If that's true, it was unheralded talent.
Somebody was doing something right there, some combination of player development, scheme, and/or a fantastic eye for talent on the part of Chuck Long's staff in the prior years. If people thought it was primarily the latter I suspect he wouldn't have wound up as a high school WR coach or a BTN announcer, but who knows....
April 13th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^
However, some of the names on your list are a huge stretch and make it seem like you're reaching. Several of those guys you named have yet to really prove much on the field.
Not to mention somebody like Martin was already good player before Hoke and company got here. The only difference is he wasn't stuck in a bad scheme anymore. He was a second team All-Big Ten in 2010.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:27 PM ^
No one is saying that he doesn't develop players at all (ok, maybe a small minority does), the majority of people are saying that there is a lack of development. Many other coaching staffs have far less talent (and yes, younger squads) that show far more progression, especially during the season. I don't think we saw much of that in any of his years here.
And it's not just progression of technique, it's also progression of mentality, which I also think is lacking. All told, this leads to an extremely sloppy form of football, which Hoke has exhibited all 3 years at Michigan.
As for ball st and sdsu, I don't think there is enough evidence to prove your point one way or another.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:11 AM ^
really---that's a call you get to make? I'd suggest you are not.
Just curious - do you have a list of players that made large leaps at Ball State? I don't see Hoke's history at Ball State as very impressive. I am sure in year 6 there had to be some since they had a great year... but years 1-4 were very bad, and 5 was just above .500.
Yes its a MAC school but some of the best coaches have gone to MAC schools and turned things around much faster or put out a better product. I say this because Hoke did not build a system at Ball State - he built a team. The program promptly collapsed immediately after he left - I believe 2-10 the next year. If you are a "developer of talent" when you leave your team may stumble some but it doesn't go from 12-1 to 2-10 in a matter of 12 months.
Utah didnt collapse after Urban left, Stanford didnt collapse after Harbaugh left, Cincinnati didn't collapse when Kelly left, etc. That tells me those staffs left a foundation for the next staff in terms of talented players who should at least get the next staff to .500+...
Hoke's record at SDSU was better but he did get some pretty high end players handed to him and the first year was not good - 2nd year was 9-4, 5-3 in conference. Decent. How much his staff developed them is hard to tell though - I am not saying I have an idea, it is a small amount of time. This is what makes me wonder about 2011. Mattison basically took a bunch of players that were developed with RR staff and gave them a basic outline of a scheme that you know...works, and we lucked into a few wins such as the Sugar and played a very bad OSU team, etc. The schedule was quite easy that year - other than Nebraska and MSU there were no good teams that year on it... ND was 8-5, OSU was 6-7, Northwestern was 6-7, Illinois was 7-6, Iowa was 7-6 (a L).
So was SDSU's 2nd year a lot like Hoke's first at UM? I don't know - just has some parallels.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:35 AM ^
So we're going to hold Hoke accountable for what his successor at Ball State failed to accomplish...
...but we're not going to give him credit for Rocky Long's three straight bowl games at SDSU after Hoke left.
Either the successor matters or he doesn't, but you can't have it both ways.
April 14th, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^
Sure, you can have it both ways. Accept it and point it out when it favors you, and ignore it and try to bury it when it doesn't. Easy.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:27 PM ^
There are a bevy of names pointing to roster development from this staff and no one gives them credit. The only position on the roster in which I have not seen much development is Tight End. AJ Williams came in as a huge guy who couldn't block and he still is a huge guy that can't block. Funchess came in as a Big, Catchy TE who can't inline block and he is still very much that. I have no idea how Dan Ferrigno escapes all criticism
April 14th, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^
Jake Butt was pretty good as a freshman.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:29 PM ^
at this late hour, where to find that "applause" gif I've seen so frequently around here. You deserve it, Texigander,for calling out (with attitude) the negative nellie-ness that too often permeates so many threads.
And no, I'm not going to say that Coach Hoke and his staff should be immune to criticism. While there is definitely room for improvement, in some areas more than others, to paint Hoke and his staff as a bunch of incompetents in player development is to ignore the many, many successes they have had in coaxing improvement from so many.
We have seen some staff changes (the greatest of them, of course, being the change in Offensive Coordinators) in the off-season; I'm eager to see (and optimistic!) some real improvement in several areas.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:40 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:20 AM ^
I agree negativity is running rampant on the blog right now, but when you have a fanbase stepped in winning tradition that is somewhat to be expected. I do not agree with all the negative points, but some are very resonating with me.
2011 success was really due to two factors, defense actually playing defense...and Denard.
I think the thing that causes me the most worry is a caoch that absolutely preaches smashmouth football, and that dominate lines are the two most important things on the field, along with the ability to run the ball. Funny these are the 3 things that we have been the worst at since 2011. I will give you that we were hampered by past recruiting screw ups, but eventually the excuses have to stop. There are plenty of sophmore OL men that have experienced success in the past at michigan and at other schools.
He (or brandon) fired Borges, which I honestly believe will make a huge difference in the play of the OL...if not, I really dont know what to believe will help things, one more year I suppose.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^
Blind homers are just as bad as negative nancies.
Possibly, but they're alot more fun to be around.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^
The issue here is not that nobody has gotten better, which is an impossibility for any coaching staff. The relevant argument is how well Hoke and company have developed players in relation to other team's. That is hard to hard to quantify, however the W/L record the last two years is not a great sign that the development is as good as it needs to be. I think a 3-5 record in a bad Big Ten can not be 100% chalked up to the OC or a lack of experience.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:45 PM ^
I would exclude Cam Gordon and QWash from the list.
April 14th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^
Gordon went from starter at safety/linebacker to backup linebacker, so I can sort of see your point there (though injuries and the presence of Jake Ryan may have had more to do with it).
But Washington absolutely deserves to be on the list. His 2012 season was better than anybody could have expected following his first few seasons here. I'm not sure what happened in 2013 (was he injured?), but he still developed.
April 13th, 2014 at 11:47 PM ^
April 13th, 2014 at 11:52 PM ^
You are seriously more concerned with the "anti-UM agenda" than you are with the actual state of the football team? Really? Really?
April 14th, 2014 at 12:05 AM ^
By concerned, I mean that the agenda is more of a contributing factor to the negativity around the program now than what some internet tough guys have to say about player development. Obviously the latter has more of an impact on the finished product. My rant went off on several tangents.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:03 AM ^
Man we've put together one elite season since 97. It's going on almost 20 years and you have ONE season where you can say our team was truly elite (realistic contenders for a national title).
I would not have been singing a different tune had we converted against Ohio State (yes, Ohio State, not Ohio) because I still sat through and watched Akron, UConn, MSU, PSU, etc. The pessimism is not unwarranted. Even if we fix our problems, what's our ceiling?
April 14th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
I feel like you could go either way with this.
I think the 2003 team was elite (the two regular season losses were both incredibly flukish). Certainly we weren't too far off from the USC, Oklahoma, LSU group that were contending for the national championship.
In 1999, we had a team that finished 10-2 and #5 in the country, with a 3 point loss and a 6 point loss (though the 3 point loss to MSU came after we were down quite a bit in the 4th quarter).
So in some ways, I'd say we had 3 elite seasons in the last 20 years (still not very good?).
At the same time, all three of our elite teams underperformed in some way. The 1999 didn't win a Big Ten title. The 2003 team lost two games to inferior teams that they outplayed. The 2006 team didn't win the Big Ten and the defense (the strength of the team) got badly exposed in the last two games.
All in all, I'm not sure if Michigan has had the talent + coaching + experience + luck to really put together an elite title contender in the last 20 years.
That's why they're elite. Those teams were very good though. I think the talent was there up until the 2006 team.
Who knows how the 1998 and 1999 teams would have fared if Lloyd would have gone with Brady from the start and not played the 2 QB dance. The 2000 team was three fourth quarter collapses away from an undefeated regular season. And what is Henson stays for the 2001 season? So yes, I think the talent was there.
He did get some playing time against Notre Dame and Syracuse, but only after those games got out of hand.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^
Yeah, well, we're going on quite a long time that we've had problems that haven't been solved.
AND MSU's team last year was better than any team Michigan has put on the field since 1997. That doesn't have you concerned? It sure as shit has me concerned.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:29 AM ^
April 14th, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
Michigan State won the conference championship and a Rose Bowl. The 2006 Michigan team did neither. I'd take the former other the latter, irrespective of who is truly "better". Michigan has not had a season as good as 2013 Michigan State since 1997.