Spielman on Hoke and players development
Accroding to Chris Spielman, Hoke and his staff should do a better job of developing the talents that they recruit. A point that I completely agree with. UM players are not getting materially better.
Edit: Spielman did not say "poor job" as initially posted.
December 23rd, 2013 at 11:56 PM ^
Well I would disagree. Look how much better the secondary got immediately, see how much better the LBs are now, and of course there's the Heininger Certainty Principle.
Offense is another story but Funchess has certainly emerged. Hard to even judge O-line performance given that we're still recovering from past recruiting disasters
December 23rd, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^
Poop.
December 23rd, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^
They get 4 or 5 star kids every year, they've got to start playing like 4 or 5 star kids every year. They gotta get those kids to play and that's the coaches' job.That's kind of true but completely ignores how much attrition we have and how we actually didn't recruit that great in Richrod's years. If you ignore all that though, his point is totally right on the money
December 24th, 2013 at 12:10 AM ^
Exactly that would ignore the fact that the senior class is not very big and didn't get a lot of very good players. The biggest thing that is hurting Michigan is the lack of upperclassmen, especially the lack of upperclassmen with the talent and star rating of the underclassmen. Yes, in 2015 if you haven't seen these young guys developed, then there's a really big problem. But, the defense actually has some guys who have progressed extremely well and guys like Green are looking good now that he's in shape.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:32 AM ^
24 out of 47 recruits between 2010 and 2011 (would be 4th and 5th year players next year) are no longer with the team. It's hard to really judge a coach when this is the case.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:05 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 12:06 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 12:07 AM ^
I'm actually surprised the OP hasn't been negged way more so far. Anyways, yes they need to continue developing them. A lot of young guys are playing and it takes time to develop guys. They looked pretty good against OSU, a top 10 team in the country.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:08 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 12:10 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 2:01 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 12:11 AM ^
So let's look at non freshmen this staff has touched so we don't really know anything about their career arc:
Have gotten better:
Schofield, Morgan, Taylor, Wilson, Gordon(2), Clark, Ross, Ryan, Van Bergan, Roh, FLOYD, Cambell, Gallon, Lewan (destined),
Have not gotten better:
Toussaint (First he's a RB who often are what they are when they come in and two, system), Denard (system), Kovacs (how much better could he actually get?) Roundtree, Miller, Bryant(injury)
So I went into making that list pretty open minded but I can't find guys that were inexplicably not better. I mean, the guys that didn't get better individually were largely on offense and that had as much to do with system as anything. Now, I question what the offensive line will develop like but I'm not going to jump on a bunch of freshmen. If you look at a guy like Schofield, he got better so I won't bail on them just yet.
The OP is disingenuous which is why I negged it. Spielman didn't really say what the OP claimed he said. He said something very basic and very true. He didn't say Hoke did a poor job of anything.
December 24th, 2013 at 9:53 AM ^
I'd say Kovacs got better.
Development on the defensive side of the ball hasn't been a problem.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:18 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 12:29 AM ^
Yeah because if a player isn't an all American by his sophomore year he's automatically poorly coached and a total bust.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:55 AM ^
You guys are just naming names of guys who play. I'm not sure if we have anybody besides Lewan that would be a key player on a top 15 team.
The point is that we have stables of 4 star talent every year and are in no way playing close to their equally recruited counterparts at other schools. Does it really take all 4/5 stars to be in their 4th and 5th years to not have the most under achieving offensive line in the history of football? UCLA would certainly say no.
Does it take all 4/5 stars to be in their 4th and 5th years to be able to get penetration on a decent OL? Other schools would say no.
Same applies for RBs, WRs, and DBs. Gross under achievement all around. Youth makes things less than optimal. Youth does not mean playing Akron / UConn as tough as OSU. That's just horrendous coaching.
December 24th, 2013 at 1:21 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 1:32 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 7:25 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^
This would be my take as well, that they stabilized the offense and figured out who they were. I wouldn't call them a "good" offense.
December 24th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
Maybe a little specificity would advance the argument?
Here's a list of all the four- and five-stars (Rivals ratings because that's whose website I have open) signed in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 classes. Let us know who you think has underachieved, and why,
2009:
- Justin Turner
- Tate Forcier
- William Campbell
- Craig Roh
- Firzgerald Toussaint
- Quinton Washington
- Jeremy Gallon
- Anthony LaLota
- Denard Robinson
- Vlad Emilien
- Taylor Lewan
- Michael Schofield
- Cam Gordon
2010:
- Devin Gardner
- Cullen Christian
- Demar Dorsey
- Ken Wilkins
- Marvin Robinson
- Richard Ash
2011:
- Justice Hayes
- Blake Countess
- Raymon Taylor
- Chris Barnett
- Chris Bryant
December 25th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
December 25th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
| Scout | 4*, #7 DT, #65 overall |
|---|---|
| Rivals | 5*, #3 DT, #2 MO, #14 overall |
| ESPN | 4*, #16 DT, #5 MO |
| 24/7 | 4*, #6 DT, #2 MO, #51 overall |
December 24th, 2013 at 12:56 AM ^
spielman for espousing such a ridiculously uninsightful comment, or mlive for publishing an entire article solely off of spielman's hollow comment.
December 24th, 2013 at 1:58 AM ^
But then what do the players do? And what about the referees? And how come Patsy Cline don't make no more records?
December 24th, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 5:56 AM ^
Spielman:
"They get 4 or 5 star kids every year, they've got to start playing like 4 or 5 star kids every year. They gotta get those kids to play and that's the coaches' job."
I'd expect better from him. He's in Jason Whitlock territory there. The same idiocy was used against Rodriguez.
MLive:
"Of course, the remaining members 2012 class is currently on the roster as either true sophomores or redshirt freshmen and the 2013 players are currently true freshmen."
Ah, better.
Let's give Hoke some time with those classes.
December 24th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^
...the 2013 players are true freshmen
Only an experienced and insightful analyst could have rooted this out, especially given the fact that Hoke doesn't volunteer much.
December 24th, 2013 at 6:22 AM ^
Dantonio had a worse record through 3 years than Hoke has.
December 24th, 2013 at 9:23 AM ^
That's true, but he coaches for MSU, not Michigan. What's passable at State is not passable at here.
December 24th, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
We'll have to disagree on that one...
3 year recruiting average before each coach took over -
Michigan: #12.7
MSU: #27.7
Total Athletic Department Revenue 2006-2011:
#5 Michigan - $122,739,052
#19 MSU - $84,510,199
December 24th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
I wonder what the adjusted rankings would be if you accounted for the exodus of RR recruits during and after his tenure?
December 24th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
M definitely has advantages over MSU. But in terms of football-playing talent, there was no appreciable difference in the respective teams. The recruiting ranks were higher at M, but we know the 2010 class had already been cut in half through attrition. That class happens to be killing us right now.
December 29th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
What Carr left for RichRod and what Saban left for Williams(?) aren't exactly the same thing either.
December 24th, 2013 at 6:34 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
True, but it has to be said that the goal is not someday to match MSU. The expectation for a Michigan coach is to have a clear edge in that rivalry. Our coaches from RR to the present have been failing that expectation. But don't get me wrong: I think Hoke should get another two years.
December 24th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^
MSU has had three 11-win seasons and two B1G championships in the last four years. I'd love to match that over the next four years. That's a really good stretch for anyone, not just for MSU.
December 24th, 2013 at 9:28 AM ^
2014, IMO, will be the telling year in Hoke's career here.
December 24th, 2013 at 10:48 AM ^
needs more exclamation marks!!!!?
December 24th, 2013 at 6:42 AM ^
"Of course, the remaining members 2012 class is currently on the roster as either true sophomores or redshirt freshmen and the 2013 players are currently true freshmen."
I tend to believe that some people around here lose sight of the fact above sometimes. Throughout the season, people went on and off, as it were, about player development and seemed to forget that this staff was still in the early stages of doing just that with the players in the two classes that were exclusively theirs (2011 was an effort to save a class, plus some additions). As others have said, Spielman essentially states the obvious when he puts this development on the coaches, but he also seems to hint at the other obvious thing - you will need more time with this team and this staff to see if that is happening.
December 24th, 2013 at 7:23 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 6:50 AM ^
According to Rivals Hoke's only pulled in 3, 5 star guys and guess what - they're all playing, and none of them are upper classmen: (not counting Peppers yet because he hasn't even played a down).
Pipkins, Kalis, Green.
When those three are juniors or seniors and not playing well, then you can tell me about player development.
December 24th, 2013 at 7:23 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 7:55 AM ^
The OP is right, if Hoke recruits a kid who, prior to arriving in A2, isn't drafted in the first two rounds of the NFL draft, then Hoke is terrible at development. There's no difference between a freshman and a fifth year senior in my book. If they touch the field, then Hoke should have developed them better. Also too, Hoke doesn't wear a headset. And then, I think it's bullshit that Nick Stauskas has such a one-dimension game. He needs to become more than just a shooter.
December 24th, 2013 at 8:26 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 8:25 AM ^
December 24th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^
If you look at any individual player as developed or not developed it will be anecdotal. For every Will Heineger there is a Richard Ash. For every Desmond Morgan there is a Kaleb Ringer. Michigan will always be at a disadvantage in the "player development" argument because Wisconsin and MSU are two of the top 3 teams in the B1G and they are recruiting majority 3* kids. So when these teams win with 3* kids they say those coaching staffs must be better at "player development". They don't attribute a thing to scheme, play calling, practice management, or in game coaching decisions. Michigan by recruiting majority 4* players is always expected to be "better" than the 3* teams. Rambling I know, but if Michigan were to win the B1G would everyone say that Hoke and Co were "developing players" better than MSU/Wisconsin. The answer would be no, they would say that Michigan has a talent advantage.
The grass is always greener and recruit rankings don't mean a thing once a kid gets to campus.
December 24th, 2013 at 8:41 AM ^
He's got to start rotating in the newer coats and parkas, maybe wear a different one each series during BW3 so they can be ready for the Spring Game.