I was wondering where are all the 3* mafia types? During RR recruiting there was sooo much complaining about him not getting 4-5* types, even during his first year of recruiting. No I wonder WHY the complaining has stopped. Not trying to start anything just wondering.
Where are all the 3* Mafia types?
Because just filling the class will be job in itself
Lemming and all the scouts were saying that if he could get 10 of the commits to stay committed and add 5 or 6 new player then Hoke would of done a hell of a job. Well i believe he is well on his way! Plus Hoke has 1/2 the time to recruit as RR did!
...that no one wants the kids that were current commits so he didn't have to worry about them too much. He's been very uncomplementary towards the commits Hoke inherited. He wears the douchebag hat very well.
I have never seen or heard a quote from lemming like that. Do you have an actual link?
"He's got to come in and try to save the guys that's real important in the 12, and that's about six or seven of them," Lemming said. "Those other guys they don't have to worry about -- no one wants them.
I don't know how to send a link to the print version, but if someone could tell me how, I can post it. I feel dirty linking to their pages with ads.
So he was nice about six or seven of the guys and a total dick to the rest of them. Either way, it was a real asinine thing to say about some kids.
Not quite what I was expecting, he's not necessarily incorrect but could have certainly worded it better.
Its keeps giving me this error when i try to link it....Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
I dont know what i am doing wrong. Either way it is in The Detroit Free Press from Jan 13 and it titled "Lemming: Good '11 recruiting class "impossible" for U-M" check it out and help me so i understand why i cant link it.
My thoughts exactly. Changing coaches this late in the process, I'll gladly take anyone who wants to be here and who the coaches see fit to be here.
...that Hoke's 3-stars are way better than RR's 3-stars.
Really? i disagree.
That was probably sarcasm. I would bet that some of the upvotes were ironic though.
I think you replied before you read his next response to Firstbase's doublepost. Both of his responses were equally sarcastic.
...that Hoke's 3-stars are way better than RR's 3-stars.
Well, if you say so.
Or does someone not understand when sarcam's being used? Confused.
This reminds me of that MadTV skit, "Lowered Expectations."
With a very low expectation that you get blown up.
lowering the expectations. Isn't it?
You can now volunteer as official flag bearer for the Three Star Mafia.
Ya, cuz the Iowa and Wisconsin recruiting classes consist of all 4/5 star kids, right? Geez....
How would you go about doing that when you're hired with three weeks left until signing day?
He might have a suggestion or two.
Jack Tabb didn't commit because he had no prior relationship with Hoke and co. which is exactly the point that I'm getting at.
Relationship or not, it's not a good idea to not call back a player at a position of need when they're about to make a decision.
How come Miami is pulling guys from Michigan with a new coaching staff? Those kids weren't familiar with Golden. Did you hear anyone say we beat out Temple for those guys? No.
Tennessee pulled a top recruiting class last year with Derek Dooley and he had a similar amount of time. And Dooley was not an internal hire or a "Tennessee Man". The Tabb thing was a mistake on our side. Even if we didn't want him or wanted him at a different position, then we should have called him back and told him so.
Tabb didn't leave a message or try to get in contact again. I doubt that was the difference maker. Crawford and Goudis grew up Miami fans. Basically the same reason we got Raymon Taylor. Tennessee had room for a 27 player class, which we never had room for. Along with a few four stars, Dooley had a number of two and three star guys that he had to sign in order to fill out the class. Credit to him on some of the guys he did get, but there were a number of guys that would never have been considered talented enough for Tennessee under better circumstances.
We still have chances at McClure, Raven, Flowers and Willingham, who are coveted recruits.
One of them being Tanner McEvoy, a 6'5 QB/TE/WR former Michigan recruit. Sheldon Royster, a 4* safety prospect, also committed to them. The SEC gets away with murder.
kills people, every conference oversigns.
Dooley recruited 13 guys for Tennessee's class, including (credit where it's due) a five-star and 5 four-stars. That's a great job by Dooley, no doubt.
He also recruited 3 3-stars and 4 2-stars.
That's an average of 3.23 stars per athlete. So far, we've got 3 3-stars and a 4-star. It's actually pretty much the same. We had a 5-star primadonna de-commit - and a near miss with a 5-star who we still may have a shot with.
It's a long couple weeks, man.
"there is some folks you just can't reach"
flowing into today, my F5 key is getting a work out. At this point Hoke will have this class filled by Tuesday, then watch the bitchin start. "But theres no room for anybody else"
As long as these are guys we should be offering. I'm not all into the whole star thing so I just want players we can develop because we don't have a lot of positions of immediate need now.
And there is not really a point in arguing this anymore. Hoke (I still think this is/ will end up being a bad hire) is the coach and if we start bitching about all of the points anti-RR people did we will come off as whiney posters.
People will complain about it if it happens next year. It's irrational to expect 4-5* guys with the situation that has been presented. Hoke's already surpassed the expectations of the recruiting sites, fwiw.
Yes, Hoke has already shown his powers. It looks like he'll continue to reel guys in until NSD. It's amazing what leadership will do! (That is not meant as a jab at RR, just saying...)
if he holds onto Countess and pulls in a couple of guys like McClure and Willingham.
I think his strategy of filling the class with bodies is the right one, but I'm not going to get too impressed or excited about getting a guy like Taylor who has been a lifelong Michigan fan, or stealing guys from Minnesota and Vandy. Again, it's the right thing to do, but I'd still like to see him pull someone out of nowhere to have more confidence in his recruiting going into the next cycle.
I realize that your thoughts might not be appreciated by some and by expressing them you make yourself vulnerable to "negging", but would you mind explaining why it is you feel Hoke is a bad hire? I wasn't very excited myself initially, but have been favorably impressed by what he has accomplished so far. Just wondering if I am missing something.
so I'll take this:
Brady Hoke has a career 47-50 record coaching in the MAC and the MWC. Despite claims that he turned programs around, Ball State went 6-6 the year before he got there, and didn't have a winning record again until his 4th year with the program. He had lots of success with SDSU last year, but his team had the 91st toughest strength of schedule despite playing Missouri, Utah, Air Force and TCU.
The argument against Hoke is that his track record doesn't really suggest that he's an excellent coach, and he's 53, so it's not like he's a young up and comer. The argument against him is also that much of the argument for him is based on stuff that's pretty meaningless (Michigan Man, loves the school, hates Ohio State etc.)
The point isn't that Brady Hoke is necessarily destined to fail. There's too much uncertainty in all of this to ever say that. It's that, if you run a ton of trials with a guy with Hoke's resume, you probably won't be happy with the results. My view is that Michigan needs to get somewhat lucky for the hire to work out well. That can definitely happen, but I'd rather not rely on it.
Brady Hoke has a career 47-50 record coaching in the MAC and the MWC.
Brady Hoke has a 34-29 record in the MAC and MWC.
Before Brady got to BSU, the Cardinals beat the following teams in 2002: Eastern, Western, Central, Buffalo, UConn, Indiana State. They lost every other game by double-digit scores and some of them were clearly blow outs. That isn't to say he shouldn't have beaten those teams the next few years, but it's ridiculous to claim that BSU was some Nehlen-like entity as West Virginia was before Rodriguez got there.
BUT HE'S A MICHIGAN MAN!!! AARON SHEA TOOK A DAY OFF WORK TO CHEER FOR HIM!!! THOSE GUYS HAVE MORE FOOTBALL KNOWLEDGE IN THEIR LITTLE FINGER THAN YOU HAVE IN YOUR PANCREAS!!!
It *is* pretty simple. If Hoke were a recruit he'd be a low 3-star like the DE/TE UMich got earlier today. (Rodriguez probably would have been considered a 4-star ... in 2007. Now? Maybe a 2-star.) More often than not, an experiment of this type will not be a smashing success.
So far, though, I couldn't ask for any more out of Hoke. AFAICS he's doing a great job.
Rodriguez probably would have been considered a five star in '07, but one that definitely did not fit the system. It's too bad that he was a bust here.
I think you are missing one ingredient in your argument.
Ball State and San Diego State were both in the MAC and MWC respectively the years before Hoke got there, and they still sucked within their own spheres. They were the proverbial small fish in small ponds. Hoke was quite successful in turning each into THE big fish in their respective small ponds. Each of those successes needs to be compared with the lengthy failures of THAT school year over year to really see how good a job he did. The fallacy is trying to place the teams he built in the general pool of talented teams.
Now Hoke has moved to THE big pond and is tasked with turning a middle size fish back into THE big fish in its respective pond. So, yeah Michigan's pond is much bigger than the MAC and MWC ponds, but the available food (resources, exposure, recruiting power, etc.) is also much greater so there is just as much potential for him to be similarly successful at this level.
I guess what I'm saying is, considering what he had to work with and the boundaries within which he's had to work, he's done a helluva job so let's give him some credit and allow him prove otherwise before bagging on the success he has had.
I think RR should have been allowed a 4th year, but that's a moot point. Hoke has never been in charge of a major program and other than one really great year at Ball State lacks not just a stellar résumé, but even a good one.
I know he has turned programs 'around' but there is nothing in his background that makes me want to say, 'zomg Hoke is our savior.'
I want him to succeed and the team to do well, but I just see M under Hoke as a program with a low ceiling overall.
Other than him using the key phrases that the M faithful know, love and have missed over the past three seasons during his presser, which we all lapped up, what is he really bringing in that is all that different? Yes, I know there is a new DC (we all know GERG was gone) but he probably would have come if RR was still here.
There are players on this team that have/ would have had the chance to be special over the next few seasons and switching back to a pro-style now is damning IME.
What is it other than bringing in a few average ranked recruits thus far that has knocked your socks off?
Yes, I know there is a new DC (we all know GERG was gone) but he probably would have come if RR was still here.
Who, Mattison? You mean the guy that said, "I wouldn't have come for anyone but Brady Hoke." That guy?
DB claiming that Hoke was always the first choice, right?
Thank you for the well thought out reply.
The things that have impressed me thus far in his very short time at Michigan are the hire of Greg Mattison (I disagree that he was probably coming here if not for Hoke based on his most recent interview on Mgoblue.com), the retention of key players (Denard, Mike Martin) and the manner in which he represents the university. I am not sure what more we could ask of him in the time he has been here.
That there are quite a few 4 star targets still, but so far three 3 stars (one a great kicker), and 1 4 star...still a good ratio. Plus, per the other comments, recruiting for depth as well..
replied to wrong post :(
remember will campbell was 5 star, while mike hart was 3, its a good measuring stick, but its not everything, as long as they are the kind of players hoke likes and he feels he can devolope them, im happy. that being said, are there any 4 or 5 star players out there still concidering mich, not the kids visiting this weekend or next, but maybe some sleepers hoke might reel in on signing day
It's too bad we can't get one of those non-existent 5 star kickers who can hit a field goal from the other side of Crisler.
he gets a bye on 4/5 stars this year, wait till next year broski
Its called depth. While these 3* recruits might not be the desired 5* ready to play recruits, with the right coaching they can be as good or better than the 5*'s. We have some excellent coaches and while in due time they will get the ready to play recruits, its crunch time!
Same way for pics, gifs, etc?
well that was dumb of me...(broken imagelink above)
Here's the format:<img src="Address URL here" />
And if you're looking at the post by iPhone: open tag img src="Address URL here" close tag
That didn't work..
I think most of these recruits are not on the same level as a Rodriguez level class, but Hoke was put in a very poor position by Brandon and the process and Hoke is doing a fine job just getting bodies in this class. Hopefully he won't be jusdged by this poor first class as RR was with his first. Well we all know that wont be the case. Hoke has about 1,000 miles more rope than RR ever dreamed of having.
Perhaps a smaller class than usual, but all if these kids are good gets, in my opinion..
These guys can develop players!
Disagree. RR's D recruiting was mediocre at best. His highest-rated recruits were Justin Turner, Demar Dorsey, and Will Campbell.
Then throw in two more departed 4-stars: Lalota and Emilien.
Roh, Cullen, Bell, and Demens are still here, at least. But if you subtract the first five guys from RR's batting-average, it's ugly.
That's not completely fair. Tate was a highly-regarded QB, Denard was a top-100 recruit nationally (as an ATH/DB, but definitely regarded as a good player), and Devin Gardner was rated as the #1 "spread" QB in the nation. Also, Marvin Robinson had some positive buzz as well.
RR was a good recruiter, especially given that he basically had 2 full classes to work with. As I've said before, there were a number of legit issues about the RR era to complain about, but this revisionist history crap about how he couldn't recruit at an elite level just wasn't true.
Whenever I hear "Rodriguez couldn't recruit", I know I'm talking to someone who never wanted him here in the first place. Did he get jawdropping classes? No. But he certainly did OK, recruiting wise (at least on signing day).
I do think it's fair to criticize the Dorsey signing, or even in-state recruiting if you want to go there, I guess, but exactly, there are plenty of other legit issues to complain about without saying that Rodriguez couldn't recruit.
He said D recruiting. Our best D recruits from the Rodriguez era now consist of:
- Cullen Christian
- Craig Roh
- Richard Ash
- Jibreel Black
- Josh Furman
- Ken Wilkins
- Will Campbell/Quinton Washington
Suffice to say, it's way too early to say he did or did not recruit quality defensive players.
Who recruited Denard Robinson? (I assure you that his name will be embedded in the Michigan record book long after RR and Hoke are forgotten.) I think Devin Gardner is going to turn out to be a pretty decent recruit as well.
Whatever. Waiting to see the "adjusted" WCO. And waiting for the first smart alec to liken our coaching staff to the cast of Cocoon. (I don't mind the old, balding guys, but someone is going to say it at some point, right?)
(bronxblue beat me to the punch)
Obviously any recruiting class that undergoes a coaching changeover is going to suffer; given the circumstances faced Michigan did very well.
That is a direct quote from Brian on his wrap-up of the 2008 recruiting class. We get that he wasn't given a lot of leeway in the press, but RR was treated pretty well by this particular blog. Not only that, but this blog has been harder on Hoke than many other media outlets. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - it's just what it is.
Seems to me that the criticisms you're dishing out are being wasted on the wrong audience.
Hoke may not deserve flaming from the 3 star mafia, but Brandon still does. Where are those criticisms???
Nobody on this blog ever criticizes Dave Brandon!
I'd pull up some quotes, but I don't want to find out of these comment boxes have a character limit.
I enjoyed your snarky bitching a lot more.
Hopefully he won't be jusdged by this poor first class as RR was with his first
People criticized RR for the 2008 recruiting class? I don't remember that at all.
I'm still here
i think hoke has already been pretty successful in his short recruiting stint, especially if he gets another 4 star guy or two. what has been disappointing is that we used to dominate home grown talent, while we got justice hayes(not initially) and brennen beyer, we failed on the top lb(msu), the top wr(tenn), the top k(nd), and the top lineman(psu) with jacob fisher also on the fence and showers in florida. next years talent is supposed to be better and if hoke can bring it home, he will definately be loved
But you can search the history on MgoBlog -- the Michigan % make-up of RR's classes were identical to Lloyd's, We also would have gotten Fisher (may Still) and Zettel if RR would have been retained. - It sucks because we never lost top in-state talent before.../s...RoJo would like to speak to you.
The only recruit we "lost" due to RR was Arnett and that was due to the offensive play-style, not the coach himself.
You can really learn a lot of facts if you read this blog instead of the MSM.
never mentioned rr as being to blame about losing them or percentages on home grown talent, i simply stated that hoke has done a good job working with a short deck. i dont care why we lost them or who the coaches were, just that i wish we could have got them on board. you can really learn a lot of facts if you shut the hell up and read carefully, i hope that was enough in-depth for you
...Zettel's comments on Michigan started going soft well before the burner on RR turned from "uncomfortable" to "Blazing hot" (around the time of the Iowa game was when Zettel started down playing Michigan, while the "Fire RR" movement didn't reach critical mass until after the Wisconsin game). So I question whether it was just the coaching change.
I agree with you that there was a lot of criticism about RR getting 3 star prospects and at some point if we want to win the big ten we will need a lot more 4 and 5 star kids but this is different Hoke only had 3 weeks to recruit. Just getting the 21 spots they have open filled will be a challenge in RR first year he had a month and a half to recruit
Considering the circumstances Hoke and his staff have done a hell of a job! Its not easy keeping guys you didnt recruit (on top of having a completely different philosophy) and then trying to get news guys in a 3 week period. The fact that he has even been able to do what he has at this point is remarkable!
of 5 stars turn into great players than 3 stars.
What's your point?
This was covered in another thread today but the fact is that a 5-star athlete is more than 40x more likely to make the NFL than a 3-star. The exceptions prove the rule.
The excuse some were using for RR was that the star ratings are primarily based on pro-potential, an area most slot-ninjas, running QBs, and waterbug RBs don't rank highly.
People can complain next year, but with 3 weeks I'll take whomever he can nab. I think he'll have a decent class and, hopefully, can use most of returning talent and nab a top-20 class next year. So yeah, I'm not going to overreact about this year's class save for the fact that I'm not completely sure how the coaching staff is approaching the next few weeks in terms of priorities - are they going to recruit the best available talent or are they already looking for players that fit in their systems.
Hoke is doing just fine with the amount of time he has, and if the class fills out then great, but in the end it still will be bitter sweet. 1.Frost(5*) 2.Hart(5*) 3.Zettel(4*) 4.Crawford(4*) were all suppose to be here, not to mention Walls(4*) Lyons(4*) and now Fisher(4*) could be added to that list. Is the glass full or half empty?
2 never committee here, and the thirdbouncee around so much, it's hard to take him as a serious commitment. Frost said he liked Auburn, his parents liked Michigan...and when Auburn said sorry, we don't have room, he waited for them rather than turn to us. Zettel didn't even wait for Rich to get fired to commit to PSU, and has remained steadfast. If he really wanted us if Rich was here, he couldn't wait a week to see if Rich was even going to be the coach? And Dee, God bless him, flip-flopped and rumored so much, I have a hard time seeing him end up here. He got cold feet because we were going 7-6 instead of 9-4 or something respectable. When his other too choices were winning the national championship and winning by 40 in the bowl game, he wasn't going to risk coming to play for a lame duck coach. All these "sure fire big recruits" didn't leave because we changed our coach. They had already decided to go elsewhere because our football program has stunk.
ORLY? Check out Griggs' post right above. We had some pretty good guys coming in that were lost BECAUSE we got rid of RR, not b/c we were keeping him.
Your level of ignorance on this subject is truly amazing.
Yep. Agree 100%, OP.
Lots of people on this board are taking crazy pills, all up on Hoke's jock as if he's Mack Brown, when in reality he's assembling a MAC level (not a Mack level, maybe they got confused) recruiting class full of recruits no one's ever heard of. (Guess what, there's a reason no one's heard of the guys Hoke is bringing in.)
There are people in this class I'm excited about.... Jones, Hayes, etc.... but these were RR's recruits.
Hoke comes in, brings in a few people who are low 3 stars and unranked, and people line up to fellate him. Unbelievable.
(And just FYI, yes, I'm still pissed off that RR didn't work out.
What really bothers me though is that people are all on Hoke's jock, singing his praises for no reason whatsoever when RR wasn't even given the benefit of the doubt, ever.
If RR was given even half the support Hoke is getting for no reason other than the fact he was a Lloyd assistant, things would've ended up much differently, RR would still be here, and we'd be competing for National Champiionships in the next couple years, with an exciting offense.
Now we have 9-3/8-4 to look forward to, with a boring pro-style offense, and competing for Big 10 championships.
I really, really hope Hoke isn't Lloyd v.2.0 but I really just can't shake the hunch that's what it'll be. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. End rant, resume normal discussion.)
The amount of support Rodriguez got from the media and fans has next to nothing to do with his record. If Hoke continues to be resented by a vocal minority of our fanbase and loses 22 games in three years, it will have nothing to do with them either. It will have everything to do with coaching.
I know the lack of support he got has little to do with his record.
But it has a lot to do with the fact he was shown the door, when, we were a year or two of experience and a few better defensive coaches away from National Championship contention.
From the time he got here, he was fighting an uphill battle. That has an effect on things. But even in spite of that, look at the trajectory.... RR improved at a rate of 2 wins per year.
It's reasonable to think we would've won 9 games this year, and had an exciting offense.
I can't help but think going from RR to Hoke was very short-sighted, a decision based on all the wrong criteria ("Hoke knows the words to The Victors and doesn't need a map to learn his way around Ann Arbor" <- Those were actual words spoken by our AD about why Hoke was a good hire. And that is fucked up.) and in the long run taking a big step backwards from where we would've been with a little patience, and a little more of the "I'll support him because he's Michigan's coach!" that RR never got yet Hoke has in spades.
Maybe, maybe not. It's a matter of opinion if we will be better under Hoke next year versus under Rodriguez. I really wanted Rodriguez to succeed, but despite all my "wanting," the team just couldn't execute. Offensively, defensively, special teams, we looked lost the second half of the season. There is absolutely no guarantee Hoke's team will execute and/or play with some semblance of fundamentals. I would guess they will. I'm sure others will say they won't. We'll see.
Keep in mind we still had a lot of young players in key roles.... esp. on D but even on O, keep in mind Denard was a first year, soph. starter.
Execution improves with experience, and the D probably could've seen additional improvement with better defensive coaches.
And as for special teams, it's not RR's fault that Gibbons can't kick from off the ground.
My beef is that improvements were happening.... and there was good reason to believe those improvements would've continued.... and RR was still fired.
In 2009 everyone's beef was that we didn't win some of the games we should have won (Illinois, Purdue)
This year, we didn't beat OSU and MSU, but, we at least won all the games we should have. That's improvement, yet, people latched onto the fact that we didn't beat MSU and OSU (who were legitimately better teams this year) and bitched about it anyway.
Anyhow, at this point it's a moot point. I just find the whole thing extremely frustrating. I think others do too and some of them have tried to soothe that frustration with optimism about Hoke but I just can't shake the feeling that the optimism is unfounded and we're setting ourselves up for huge disappointment... Not only in terms of wins and losses long-term, but, I got news for everyone, Denard is probably not going to be the same player in Borges' offense as the one we saw last year.
Under Rodriguez, I always had optimism that things were getting better. And as much as people complained, they actually were getting better under Rodriguez every year.
I no longer have that optimism.
But you completely lost me at " we were a year or two of experience and a few better defensive coaches away from National Championship contention."
Yeah...from worst defense of all time to National Championship level in 2 years. I'll have what you're having tonight.
We had freshman all over the 2 deep this year and horrible defensive coaching.
With defensive coaching switches, and more experience, it's perfectly reasonable to think that in 2 years the D would've been good enough to relieve some pressure from the offense and get us more wins.
We didn't need a top 10 D, just an average, respectable one. Is it really that outlandish to think we could've had that in 2 years by changing D coaches, rather than blowing up the whole thing? No, not at all.
Problem is we didn't stop there, we went beyond that, fired RR, and in all likelihood ruined an offensive juggernaut in the process.
We've had two failures when it comes to defensive staff hires, and zero successes. And you don't even have any evidence that we WERE going to make a change. Just a hope/wish that it was going to happen, that then Rich would be able to find the right guy, and then be able to get him to come to coach with a potential lame duck coach. Good lick with wishful thinking.
The National Championship game showed given a month even the best offenses can be slowed down by defense. We showed no ability in a bowl game to improve on defense...we got worse. And spent a month getting more predictable on offense (at least if Mississippi State is to be believed). That doesn't sound a couple of quick fixes away from winning the big one. Unless you think Roh is becoming a top 5 draft pick over the next two years...
But it has a lot to do with the fact he was shown the door, when, we were a year or two of experience and a few better defensive coaches away from National Championship contention
Are we talking about the same Michigan team that lost its last three games by a combined 88 points?
Look at isolated statistics if you want, I'd rather look at the big picture:
Year 1: 3-9
Year 2: 5-7
Year 3: 7-5
That's steady improvement of 2 wins per year.
Yes, changes needed to be made on the defense.
But firing RR and the offensive staff was an incredibly stupid, short-sighted move. Especially for Hoke, whose track record is nowhere near as good as RR's.
7-6. And if you look at losses, it's 9, 7, 6. So instead of national champs (which I'm not sure you can do in two years at just 11 wins at that rate of progress, but whatever) has us at a rate of 5.5 losses next year. (have another triple OT win?). But that's ignoring that the progress against good teams has been nil, and the bad teams means we won coin flip games with the like of ND, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue that could bounce the other way. Even if we beat the like teams all again, I'm not sure what two teams we lost to that we beat legitimately, because we weren't close to any of them. Maybe pick up a victory by schedule change, but that's not improvement, that's luck.
A. Rich Rod made bad decisions, and didn't adequately gage the mindset of certain key recruits. His foilables made the program what it is today, not a failure of fan support. Any claims that we'd be contending for national championships under him is laughable at best.
B. WIth the exception of Carter (who was committed to Stanford under Jim H), most of the recruits now have offers from at least 2 other B1G programs. Further, we are looking to be in a good position with Willingham, a Rivals 4 * LB and still in good position with Chris Bryant. We also got a kicker to replace the kicker who decommitted (who wouldn't have stayed if RR was the coach, he committed in the expectation that Jim H would be our new coach). So we'll have a good shot at about 18 commits, among them around 6-7 4 *. That's not bad considering that about 80% of the blog was all DOOOOOMED (following the lead of Brian,).
I assume your taking about me since i said exactly that. I do agree that things can change, but at this point Hoke seems to be doing better than expected. I'll again refer to Lemming who was in the Jan. 13 Free Press and negged the class basically as no chance to be salvaged.
It seems as if Hoke is definitely inspiring kids to want to play for Michigan. As far as I see it Hoke has done very good in the limited time he has been given at this point. To call it anything other than a success is crazy. What more do you think Hoke could be doing at this point? Do you really think that Michigan's class could be crippled this late in the game? I dont.
stop star gazing and start system gazing. it's not about the stars of a player, but about the system they are in and a good system has good coaches who can develop those players and make them better and prepare them for the NFL.
"The will to a system is a lack of integrity." --F. Nietzsche
If in 2012 the 4 and 5 star kids don't come the complaining will commence.
It's obvious why in 2 weeks any shoring up of the class is good, and the 3*'s won't fly come next year. The better question is why all the people who would defend every Rich Rod 3* to the ends of the earth "(do you know more than the coach?? Rankings don't mean anything!!") seem to be the same people who are saying "why is everyone getting excited over a few 3* recruits!?". But then we already know the answer to that one...
"The better question is why all the people who would defend every Rich Rod 3* to the ends of the earth "(do you know more than the coach?? Rankings don't mean anything!!") seem to be the same people who are saying "why is everyone getting excited over a few 3* recruits!?""
Really? Who's actually doing this? I'm genuinely curious, since you state it as if you have specific posters in mind. And if you don't then your post is nothing more than a straw man argument.
From the last two years, particularly in the secondary. Every 3 star recruit we've accepted has had the whole "BUT RECRUITS READ THIS STUFF" cries (which have gone silent as Brian has endorsed digs on our new coaching staff...I guess turning off recruits doesn't matter when you need to be right), or the meme's I mentioned above. And it's Rich's biggest supporters who are bring snarky about the recruiting class. If you're trying to make me believe they were throwing Rich to the wolves for his recruiting before, that's laughable. Except the logic isn't on their side. Because a 3* in Rich's third year isn't as valuable as a desperation one in the current situation. Everyone likes to "blame" Lloyd for anything that goes wrong with the 2008 class, but now want to blame Hoke for a class he's had a month less to secure, and was left with a lot less talent already committed than Rich inherited. To say do what you can for this class, and then next year loads of 3*'s become worrisome is a lot less hypocritical.
It's asking too much for him to recruit the 5* players in three weeks. RR had the entire year to get out there with the 5* guys and did a terrible job, while other coaches got their claws deep into them. Hoke's job in these 3 weeks is simple; Keep the recruits we have, sway some fence sitters, and pick up anything you can.
Give this guy a full recruiting year and I guarantee we're an instant top 10 recruiting class again.
people get so wrapped up in stars...not to hate but willie campbell was the 26th best player in the NATION and i dont care what anyone says he hasnt made the impact everyone thought..you got kids who dominate HS football and get over hyped and when they play against real competion or cant dominate like they used too ..morale of the story no one knows what any kid can do until they hit campus and the field.
Rich is gone. Done in by his own results.