Non-MGoBlog Perception of Hoke / Michigan
Reading this blog, one can get a skewed sense of how (1) more casual Michigan fans, and (2) college football fans, generally, perceive our program. Sure, we all know about the great recruiting classes brought in, the youth of the O-Line, the "empty cupboard" that both RR and Hoke inherited, but sometimes we forget that non-MGoBlog fans don't know any of this. I relate below two recent interactions that I have had in the past 24 hours:
1. The first was at a neighborhood party (live in suburban NY), at which there were a good number of college football fans, including 5-6 who root for other Big Ten teams, as well as one other Michigan fan. When the discussion drifted to college football, the comments about Hoke / Michigan were somewhat eye-opening (paraghrased below despite use of quotation marks):
"you guys got smoked again - have you guys beaten anyone good since Lloyd Carr retired"
"saw your coach on sportscenter - he looked totally lost and confused. What's his deal? Why did they hire that guy?"
"I remember when Michigan was really good - they really have sucked for a while now"
"seems like you guys get worse every year."
"can't you guys find a decent coach? Between Richrod and this buffoon, you guys pick shitty coaches."
2. At a deposition yesterday (I am a lawyer), there were four lawyers. Aside from me, there was a Va Tech fan, an ND fan and a Wisconsin fan. At lunch, we were discussing the demise of the Big Ten and the Va Tech fan was going off about how our coach comes off as clueless and over his head. ND guy, who is actually a decent guy, agreed and was saying how shocked he and his Domer friends were at how poorly Michigan played. He was saying that the consensus amongst ND fans was that given our talent, they expected more. They were particularly shocked at how minimally we used to Funch. Wisco guy agreed about Hoke, but chalked up the Michigan decline to the general decline of the conference and RichRod allowing State to raid to in-state talent in from 2008-2010.
Obviously, we here are way more informed about our team than these more casual / non-Michigan fans. But, sometimes it is easy to lose the forest for the trees. So, while all of us can probably recite the depth chart by heart, and know all of the reasons for optimism / pessimism, perhaps we are missing the 10,000 foot view of these fans, which is that Michigan is in a real decline and our coach is perceived to be way over his head.
Going forward, if we don't start to win, I think that Brandon has to take into account the real decline in the perception of Michigan in the cfb world. Even if Hoke is a great guy and the excuses are valid (I know, strong if w/r/t excuses), if we don't start to win this year, Brandon may have to consider making a change to prevent the slide in public perception of Michigan.
September 9th, 2014 at 7:42 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
Alright guys, I understand everything that has been going on the past 7-8 years. I understand the rebuilding process and how bad our depth was and what it takes to get it all back. It takes a lot of time, especially when your cupboard was almost completely empty. Takes a lot of time to rebuild. We are in only year 4, which is more like 3.5, because Hoke didn't get to recruit all of 2011.
Now think about it.. offensive line was empty. Hoke recruited the position heavily to get bodies in there. Here is the thing.. there wasn't many upperclass players for them to learn from. Which is making it even harder.
We also know every player doesn't turn into a star. Which makes a lot of the lineman we recruited irrelevant.
It will take 6-8 years to wash away what RROD did to the program. Not saying he completely fucked us, I actually liked him somewhat.
Why 6-8 years? Simply because all the players Hoke is recruited won't actually turn out. That is true for every program, but when you start with nothing it hurts more because you need players who can compete NOW. So, it will take longer than a lot of us ever thought. It also took JB awhile to get our basketball program up and going. Now he has depth of players who can compete, very unlike the football team.
Another thing holding us back is quarterback play. Yeah, I loved Denard, I love Devin, he should be the quarterback this year.
The problem is he spent too many years not learning shit. That is hurting us badly.
It was even said, the 3 years he spent behind denard that he didn't study the game of football or take it a seriously as he should have.
I think things will finally turn around in 2016. The depth chart will be packed full. Plenty of upperclass players. A quarterback who has actually had coaches who teach them better than the previous staff.
Moral of my story.. Michigan was just too beat down in the dirt to come back in 3-4 years. We were more fucked up at the end of rrod than we thought. We will come back. Just not this season or maybe next. Just think about how bad that depth was.. and what it really takes to build a WHOLE program.
September 9th, 2014 at 3:56 PM ^
Here's what was in the cupboard when Hoke got here:
QB: Reigning conference player of the year Denard Robinson (with two years of eligibility remaining) plus blue-chip recruit Devin Gardner (4 years)
RB: Future 1,000 yard rusher Fitz Toussaint, now a fringe NFL guy (3 years), plus dudes like Shaw, Smith, Hopkins, etc.
WR: Junior Hemingway coming off a nearly 600 yard season despite missing three games, Roy Roundtree coming off a 900+ yard season (who would basically win us games with catches against Northwestern and ND), and future single season record holder Jeremy Gallon (3 years)
OL: Returning Rimington finalist David Molk, future two time lineman of the year and 1st round pick Taylor Lewan (3 years), future 3rd round pick Michael Schofield (3 years), future 1st team all-conference selection and current NFL starter Patrick Omameh (2 years), plus blue-chip upperclassmen like Barnum and Mealer for two years each.
DL: Martin, RVB, Heininger, Roh, BWC, Washington, Black, Beyer
LB: JMFR (4 years), Morgan (4 years), Cam Gordon (3 years), Demens (2 years), Furman (starting at Oklahoma State), Robinson (led Ferris State in tackles after transferring)
DB: Countess (4+ years), Kovacs, Gordon (3 years), Floyd (2 years), Avery (3 years), Vinopal (starting at Pitt after earning HM all-conference last year), Carvin Johnson (2nd team all-conference at Hampton after transferring)
The cupboard was fully loaded, and that is with Dave Brandon essentially sabotaging recruiting beginning a month and a half before the 2010 class signed ("No kid, I can't tell you who the coach will be, but look at all these construction photos...").
Jim Harbaugh inherited a winless team at Stanford (if you want to talk about beaten down as a program) and won the Orange Bowl in year 4. Hoke walked into Sugar Bowl champs and is driving the plane into the mountain.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
You forgot Michael Cox at RB who is also a fringe NFL guy currently on the practice squad with NYG.
I'm starting to think that Molk, Martin, RVB, and Heininger were going to win in 2011 no matter who was the coach.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:33 PM ^
This is truth...
PurpleStuff just hit the nail on the head.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:39 PM ^
Yeah, and he managed 11-2 out of that unit. It wasn't until those pieces started graduating with no one behind them that the issues cropped up.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
Did you see how much eligibility each of those guys had remaining?
Here's what Hoke has done to improve the situation he inherited:
QB: Added Bellomy to the 2011 class (his brief cameo did not go so well), didn't sign a QB in 2012, and then put all our eggs in the Shane Morris basket (we'll see how that goes, but any assumption about us being elite in the near future requires Morris to be the answer)
RB: Added Rawls to the 2011 class (he's already gone to CMU where he just posted back to back 100 yard games), signed Drake Johnson in 2012 (buried on the depth chart), and didn't sign a RB in 2014. Again all our eggs are in the Smith/Green basket going forward, assuming they don't get beat out by a guy who was 4th string at USC.
WR: Funchess is great, and they spent a year and a half trying to get him to block defensive ends. From three full classes I see maybe Canteen as the only other difference maker. Darboh and Chesson are juniors who can't get open and haven't produced much of anything, the other young guys are all projects and lower rated recruits. No one seems to have a ceiling higher than "effective possession receiver"
OL: Added Bryant in 2011 (out of football), the 2012 class has produced a guard who weighs less than 300 pounds (MANBALL!) and Ben Braden. The guy who delighted the recruiting gurus can't see the field in year three. The 2013 class all look like development projects who may or may not ever see the field. Mason Cole may be a star, but are there three guys on campus as good as Omameh, Lewan, and Schofield?
DL: Other than Clark and maybe Willie Henry, who has actually impressed on the field? Compare the non-contribution from a guy like Pipkins (5-stars so Hokester knows how to recruit) and say Leonard Williams at USC (less heralded player from the same class who has been a beast since his true freshman season).
LB: No one who has really displaced or proven a substantial upgrade over Morgan and Ryan. Ross didn't even see the field against ND and he is a junior.
DB: Taylor is solid. Wilson is solid. Everybody else is recruiting rankings and practice hype that turns into PI penalties on game day.
Does this look like a juggernaut going forward? Or would you rather have the talent and depth I listed up above and a time machine?
September 9th, 2014 at 5:16 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^
The key ones that ran out of eligibility were all the interior OL. Yeah, we had two NFL tackles until last year, but as we've gone over numerous times already, OL isn't the average of the 5, it's only as good as the weakest link.
Don't you think 2 games into 2014 is a bit premature to pass judgement on the majority of the 2013 class and OL guys from the 2012 class considering OL are expected to redshirt?
QB - I'm not crazy about not taking a QB in 2012, but they didn't have room and had more pressing issues. You had Denard and Gardner through 2012, and then Morris and Bellomy backing up Gardner in 2013. they didn't really know Bellomy would not be viable until Nebraska 2012 so it was pretty late to pick a guy up. Even so, not a terrible position. Morris filled in admirably for Gardner, as well as a back-up could do.
RB - Smith/Green is a pretty good basket to put your eggs into. Both were highly sought after guys and even considering Green showed up 40lbs overweight, they still contributed, displacing the "fringe NFL guy," in their freshman years. Again, OL performance obscures whether this is a strength or weakness. Rawls was better than people give him credit for, it was a good pick-up than people give credit for in a transition year, as he's showing at CMU. Again, OL issues mitigate. In hindsight we probably could have used a 2012 stud, but again, class size and priority. We had Fitz for one more year, with Hayes and Rawls backing up.
WR - This is probably the one area that wasn't recruited well, on either side, but not from lack of trying. We struck out on a lot of guys for one reason or another, many that are producing elsewhere. Chesson may not be a big contributer in yardage, but he does a lot of stuff that doesn't show up on the stat sheet that are really positive. Darboh was out for a full year and only had a freshman season and 2 games this year.
OL - I don't know how these guys could have done any better without the benefit of hindsight. I'm also of the opinion that Funk, and to a lesser extent Al, stunted growth here. Also, all are too early to write off. Of the guys you are comparing to, only Lewan showed his stuff at this stage in his career, and Cole may just be as good.
I dunno man, there are lots of reasons to criticise this staff, but recruiting really hasn't been the problem. Of the misses they had, they weren't even close to being the only ones that got it wrong (not just the recruiting sites, but based on offer lists).
September 9th, 2014 at 5:40 PM ^
I see zero reasons why you think Michigan will be a powerhouse team this year or in the near future. If last year's team had RS freshman versions of guys like Lewan/Schofield or Martin/DeCastro (the guys Harbaugh brought in at Stanford), we would have been just fine on the offensive line (save for Borges' nonsense). If the 2013 class had gone just as well we'd have a solid group of four guys this year with lots of hope for the future. USC is playing three 2012 kids and two true freshmen. We've had just as much time to recruit a line and skill position talent like Agholor, Davis, Allen (late 2011 add), Rogers, Smith, etc. as they have.
Instead we have 31-0.
September 9th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^
Hoke failed to retain the 2010 class. That is why guys like Vinopal (starting at Pitt), Furman (starting at Oklahoma State), Robinson (led Ferris State in tackles), Johnson (2nd team all-conference at Hampton) all left after his arrival.
Rich Rodriguez brought in four NFL caliber offensive linemen in the 2009 class and the back end of the 2008 class (Lewan, Schofield, Omameh, and BWC who was drafted). Bitching about recruiting after that, when the AD was telling kids he had no clue who their coach would be and after he no longer had a job is fucking ridiculous.
Again, if you want to bet a dollar that Michigan is at least better than Arizona this year, or the year after that, I'll gladly take your bet. Until then rest easy knowing you are rationalizing one of the dumbest decisions ever made by an athletic director.
31-0 sure as shit isn't "competent" or "competitive".
September 9th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
September 11th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^
If Hoke could just have held onto those guys we could have been competing for a national championship.
In D2.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
If your argument is "well, Rawls is only good because he has a decent OL," then you're making Purple Stuff's argument for him. His first recruits are seniors and redshirt juniors, and our OL is worse than CMU's and pretty much every other team in Division I.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:32 PM ^
I do mean Rawls is a pretty decent RB that couldn't show his stuff because of our OL. That's not purple stuff's point, his point is that Hoke didn't recruit anyone worth a damn.
I'm not sure it's real fair to call 2011 Hoke's class. Yeah, he pulled some guys late, but it's really hard to judge him on what was a complete scramble job. His 2012 class are Juniors and RS SO, which I expect to be serviceable by the end of the season. We're two weeks in.
There are also mitigating circumstances like Funk and Borges (which I'm sure you of all people can agree with). Another OC change also is a set back. And let's not pretend Central has a world beating OL. They've beaten Chattanooga and Purdue, and only just in the case of Chattanooga. We pounded a similar quality opponent by 28 points and had two, hundred yard rushers.
September 10th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
That's not purple stuff's point, his point is that Hoke didn't recruit anyone worth a damn.It is difficult to separate the following 3 things: recruiting, player development, and implementing a system (along with play calling) that takes advantage of the qualities of the players you have. The problem is if Hoke is a "recruiting monster" then, based on the results on the field, he is completely failing in at least one of the other 2 aspects, if not both. Again, the further away this team gets from Rodriguez, the worse it is. But strangely there is a faction on this blog that insist that the further away the team gets from Rodriguez, the more blame he deserves for leaving the cupboard bear. Makes no sense.
September 10th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
That is what he's saying. He's contrasting RR guys with Hoke guys and saying the RR guys were better and there's no reason to believe the Hoke guys can be successful going forward.
As far as people still talking about RR, he didn't leave the cupboard bare. I don't see many opinions of that, in fact most people here attribute 2011, at least offensively, to him finally having the pieces in place for success. Hoke and Mattison fixed the defense and away we went.
But, there's a hole in the program when shit went downhill for RR in 2010 and during the transition into 2011. That's just a fact. Being a sport that depends on long term development of players, that sort of hole tends to loom for a while, usually having the biggest impact right around when that hole should be the heart of the team as seniors. That was, drumroll please, 2013.
I'm sorry still talking about RR bothers you, but yes, in fact the impact of the hole (not necessarily RR's fault) does actually increase as we move farther away from the transition, until it passes through the pipeline as it were. As we move on through 2014, I expect Hoke's guys to step up to fill that gap, but we're pretty early into that process and with the Borges/Funk stuff last year and the OC transition, there are going to be some bumps.
September 10th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
September 10th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
Some of them became good players as upperclassmen, and a bunch of them became adequate role players, as upperclassmen are wont to do. Many of the better ones developed well under Hoke's staff (Lewan, Schofield, Hemingway, Gallon, Morgan, etc, all developed by Hoke's staff).
Now Hoke has recruited some guys that are perceived to be good because other programs wanted them and they were highly rated. For the most part, they are still underclassmen. OL was front heavy from Rich Rod with a huge gap behind it, one that is still attempting to be filled. But now, because there was a huge gap, we can list a bunch of role players at this point that are still underclassmen. I mean, if Hopkins and Floyd can be listed as "the cupboard was stocked" then Lewis and Johnson are equally or better cases for Hoke already. But this guy lead Ferris St in tackles, so he should be an All-Star if Hoke was any good, right?
The cupboard wasn't bare from Rich Rod. There was just a huge gaping hole behind the front of it (similar to what Rich Rod received in 2008, though that was more front heavy). That front line has come and gone because it's year 4 for Hoke and now his players are just starting to become upperclassmen, some are becoming good players for Michigan, some are role players for Michigan, and some of those role players will turn into better ones as they continue to grow in the system.
That's all there is to take from his posts.
September 11th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
It's just sad that you're trying to defend Hoke by saying "Central Michigan isn't really all that much better than we are."
EDIT: For clarification, this is a response to Reshp1.
September 9th, 2014 at 5:34 PM ^
Let me get this straight, you list a bunch of guys who didn't do much while Rich Rod was here (except Molk, Roundtree and Robinson) and compare how they played as juniors and seniors, post Rich Rod to how Hoke's sophomore and freshmen recruits played last year, and against Notre Dame on Saturday. I'm not sure this is a valid comparision, of course juniors and seniors will have better numbers than sophomores and freshmen.
September 9th, 2014 at 5:43 PM ^
DL: You keep saying "other than" trying to eliminate the parts that don't fit your narrative. Even besides those two, Pipkins lived up to the hype, contributing in year 1 and rounding into a star in year 2 prior to injury. Wormley is going to be good this year, probably was going to be earlier before losing a year to injury.
LB: Bolden and Ross both played as freshman. Bolden is getting much better and is starter quality right now. Ross is just fine, he didn't see the field because we were in nickel against a passing spread all night, not because of his ability. Mattison specifically said one of his regrets was not getting Ross on the field.
DB: Again with the "other than." Countess is just fine as a zone guy, he's being forced to do something he's not good at due to injury elsewhere, it happens. Lewis is as good of a man coverage guy as we have, he is just a little raw right now. To dismiss is ability because of a couple of PIs is ridiculous. And I mean, you have to see the potential of Peppers right?
September 9th, 2014 at 5:54 PM ^
Obviously you disagree and I'm not going to keep typing. I've made my case and it is the same case I made 4 years ago.
I said Brady Hoke (or whoever UM hired) would win immediately, be immediately embraced and beloved, and then by year 4 or 5 things would have fallen back into the world of mediocrity. I thought Brady Hoke would be our Charlie Weis and the evidence is piling up every day that he's closer to 7-8 wins than the 11 we saw out of the gate.
If you disagree, I'll happily wager $1 that we don't win 10 games or a conference title or a BCS bowl or whatever standard for elite success you want to pick at any point in Hoke's tenure going forward. I'd add that I think Arizona will continue to build a better program than we have here (they are 18-10 since Rodriguez got there, Michigan is 16-12 in the same stretch). If you want to up the stakes to 2 smackaroos that is...
I'll let you guys continue to debate the why when it all happens just as I said it would.
September 9th, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 6:27 PM ^
@PurpleStuff...just responding to say I absolutely remember you saying that almost word for word. And I remember you saying we would improve under RRod year to year simply because we were a young team that had no where to go but up.
Is that no longer true with Hoke?
September 9th, 2014 at 6:56 PM ^
The fact is we weren't all that young on offense last year and we aren't young on defense this year. We lost 4 high quality starters off the offense and are replacing them with Green/Smith who still haven't shown much, Darboh/Chesson who you could say the same about, and Cole/Braden who may never end up being as good as the guys they replaced through no fault of their own (high draft picks at OT aren't super common, much less two in the same recruiting class). Next year we lose Clark, Ryan, Taylor, and Morgan off the defense, and maybe Funchess off the offense.
I just don't see where dramatic improvement comes from that also makes up for those losses. There was no Denard Robinson or Taylor Lewan or Patrick Omameh on last year's team (meaning the versions of them we saw as young players in 2010). There may not be any young guys like that on this year's team either (Cole looks promising, but I haven't seen anything from the skill position guys to get excited about).
We're losing really good veteran players and I don't see the number of super promising young players we'll need to replace them going forward. And this is from a team that stunk last year and looks potentially worse this year.
I hoped I was wrong but 31-0 in year four should make things loud and clear to everyone.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:41 PM ^
I've missed you Purple Stuff. Glad to have your voice of reason and logic back on the board.
Even if it does make some people unhappy.
Oh hell....especially if it does make some people unhappy.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 10th, 2014 at 10:33 AM ^
Right on the money. Except now that there is no offense against good teams, we have a defensive line that could not pressure Homer Simpson if he were playing quarterback.
September 10th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
The key here is to provide no context and to give the coaching staff no credit for player development
QB - Ryan Mallett (5-star, All-SEC, 3rd Rd Pick, 3 years), Threet (4-star, future ASU Starter, 4 years)
RB - Minor (4 star, had already had 100 yard rushing game, 2 years), Brown(4 star, had already had 100 yard rushing game, 2 years), Grady (5-star)
WR - Mathews (39 Rec for nearly 400 yards, 2 years), Clemons (7th rd draft pick, 4 years), Hemingway (already said by Purple stuff, 4 years), Stonum (4 years, went on to start at Baylor)
OL - Molk (previously said), Schilling (6th rd pick, 2 years), Boren (All-B1G, 2 years), and high rated guys like Moosman, Mealer, O'Neill, Barnum,
TE - Butler (moved to DE?), Webb (still on NFL teams, 3 years), Koger (HM-All B1G, 4 years)
DL - Martin (4 years), RVB (4 years), Graham (2 years), Heinenger (4 years), Taylor (1 year)
DB - Warren (3 years), Woolf (3 years), S. Brown (current NFL starter, moved to LB, 2 years)
So was that cupboard fully stocked as well? I tend to not think so. I tend to believe there were holes in it. But according to Purple Stuff, it was fully loaded and ready to go. For some reason I imagine his feelings for the Hoke staff don't match his feeling for the previous staff, despite evidence being awfully similar. Your call I guess. But the important thing is to rid this argument of any context.
September 10th, 2014 at 8:31 PM ^
You've been on a roll lately.
September 9th, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
If it's 2017 and people are STILL blaming Rodriguez for shit, I'm going to start clubbing little furry animals indiscriminately. That's goddamn insane. We had problems under Rodriguez. He was also only here THREE YEARS. It doesn't take fucking double that amount of time to recover.
This post is feelingsball and completely divorced from reality. If our record ends up reflecting this "6-8 years" bullshit, it won't be because of the weird stuff you claim in your post.
September 9th, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^
September 10th, 2014 at 9:10 PM ^
Some on here loved to shit on Rich Rodriguez when he answered a question about his time at Michigan and opine "let it go" or "it's time for him to move on". However it's completely legitmate to use him as the scapegoat four offseasons later and bring him up time and time again. Talk about not letting it go. So many Michigan fans grasp a straws to cover up for mediocrity its maddening. Everything from RichRod to the "it took Dantonio seven years!!!" meme is just dumb. Newsflash, MSU was in far worse spot than Michigan when Dantonio took over there versus Hoke taking over at Michigan so the comparison is just stupid.
Perhaps in five weeks we all may have a better perspective.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:06 PM ^
You're really willing to maintain the path of irrelevance we've been on for almost 10 years now??? Seriously...what has this man done to provide any shred of evidence he can make us into something more than an "average" football program? Say what you want about Rich Rod...the record the last 2 years, when he has been able to bring his own players in, speaks for itself. 3-7 in the last 10 games (NW win pretty much a miracle which wouldn't have happened if the referees would have done their jobs) speaks for itself.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 4:37 PM ^
well if you are going to cherry-pick history like that, you can rationalize any coaches record.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
Harbaugh walked into a complete tire fire at Stanford and had them going 12-1 and winning the Orange bowl in year 4.
Where is Hoke in year 4?
September 9th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^
Harbaugh's first class featured Andrew Luck, Jonathan Martin, and David DeCastro. All three were honorable mention all-conference as RS freshmen and absolute terrors in year four.
Rich Rodriguez's first full class at Michigan featured Denard Robinson, Fitz Toussaint, Jeremy Gallon, Taylor Lewan, and Michael Schofield. In what would have been his fourth year on the job, the team was not shutout. Not once. Those guys helped. That's in addition to guys like Roundtree and Omameh who were added late in the 2008 class.
Hoke's first full class featured Funchess, no QB or RB who is making an impact, and two starting linemen who were certainly not all-conference honorees last year and probably won't be this year. There is no help from his portion of the 2011 class on offense.
Compare like with like, and you see why things are getting worse rather than better, even after ditching his OC.
September 9th, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
How was Harbaugh able to recruiting a bevy of world beating all stars to sad-sack Stanford right away when Hoke couldn't get anyone to come to Michigan?
Or is it more likely that once Harbaugh got guys with some sort of talent on campus he was able to actually get something out of them? Because he was, you know, coaching them?
September 9th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
Lewan, Molk, and others had no problem playing at a high level under this staff. I value talent evaluation way more than any theory of "development".
At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter. Either this staff can't develop guys and they should go or they can't evaluate talent and they should go so the new guy can get a headstart in reshaping the roster. In year 4 and beyond, the results are just the results.
September 9th, 2014 at 6:20 PM ^
Stanford degree + Palo Alto/Northern Calfornia in general is a pretty good way to get talent to campus.
September 10th, 2014 at 3:38 AM ^
Alex Smith probably should name his first-born son after Harbaugh after what he did for him when Harbaugh got the job for the 49'ers. He was pretty reviled before that and now he's got a big fat contract from the Chiefs.
All I'm saying is that Harbaugh can coach and teach.
September 9th, 2014 at 5:26 PM ^
1-1
So, there is still a chance that Hoke could duplicate the astounding feat that Harbaugh pulled off at Stanford.
Just sayin'.
September 9th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
He seems to be the anti-Harbaugh in terms of w/l trajectory.
September 9th, 2014 at 5:14 PM ^
Let's continue to blame RichRod for our current troubles. How about we hate on Lewan some more also.
Unbelievable.
This is Hoke's program now for good or for ill.
September 9th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 9th, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^
I get the whole "but they're all gonna laugh at you!" meme.
I think it should be embraced. They're not wrong. All college football programs wind up in the toilet eventually (see Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Miami, Texas, Penn State and Michigan). No one is immune. It's just that Michigan football has been circling the drain a little longer than others. It should not surprise that nobody outside our UM circle of trust understands why. The fact that the University of Michigan is comparatively so goddamned well off makes this even more confusing to people.
If the University of Michigan is serious about this college football business, and genuinely cares about championships in college football, then adjustments WILL be made to achieve that objective. Right now, there's just not enough pain or pressure on UM management to change anything at all, because people have been so busy praising the image in the program's rear view mirror to care about the present, and for fear about what more change will do, "what if change fails?", etc., etc.
Somehow the decision to hire a 47-50 MAC coach one winning season, no coordinating experience, and prior ties as a former UM position coach was considered wise. Even Bo "Bo who?" Schembechler arrived at Michigan with a 40-17-3 record.
Michigan hasn't won a Big Ten title in 10 years (2004 shared) and no outright title for 11 (2003).
This doesn't make sense to us, and it makes no sense to anyone else outside.
I think Mgoblog is more real and not as conformist as most college sports fan communities. There's plenty of self-flagellation and critique to be found here over the last 9 years as we've tried to contemplate the meaning of life and just what the fuck is wrong with our football program.
September 9th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
But when Michigan was looking for a new coach, I don't recall there being many available or interested candidates. Maybe the selection was one of necessity rather than wisdom.