Where are all the 3* Mafia types?
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:40 PM ^
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
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
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.
/sarcasm
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
he gets a bye on 4/5 stars this year, wait till next year broski
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:43 PM ^
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!
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:51 PM ^
Same way for pics, gifs, etc?
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^
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
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^
That didn't work..
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:46 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:53 PM ^
Perhaps a smaller class than usual, but all if these kids are good gets, in my opinion..
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
These guys can develop players!
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:00 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:07 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:02 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^
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)
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:05 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:56 PM ^
Hoke may not deserve flaming from the 3 star mafia, but Brandon still does. Where are those criticisms???
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:22 PM ^
I enjoyed your snarky bitching a lot more.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:00 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:46 PM ^
I'm still here
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:53 PM ^
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
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:44 PM ^
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
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:57 AM ^
...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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:59 PM ^
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
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
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!
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:03 PM ^
David Harris ak hawk Javier arenas nick fairley Ryan Kerrigan Greg jones are all 3*
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^
of 5 stars turn into great players than 3 stars.
What's your point?
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:22 PM ^
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?
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:44 PM ^
It's about bodies now. Hoke would have to be a full-on miracle worker to pull more than one 4/5* on such short notice. If he just gets McClure, I'll be ecstatic.
RR totally deserved criticism for his whodat recruiting. It's like he never upped his ambition going from WVU to Michigan and wanted to take the same caliber of kids.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:59 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:13 PM ^
Your level of ignorance on this subject is truly amazing.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^
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.
Yay.
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.)
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:37 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
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.
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:43 PM ^
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
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.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^
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.
<br>
<br>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...
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^
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?
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^
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.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:45 PM ^
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.
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
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,).